[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dueling Translations (Was Re: Siva as yogi?)
Before I begin, I would like to request that anyone who wants me to see
their reply CC the message to me at
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu. Time constraints prevent me from
regularly reading SRH, so I may no longer do so.
>As with many theological issues, some of the ones in this thread have
>come down to whose translation is correct.
>
>Since the scriptures come down to us *as* Sanskrit, there is no
>further universal/celestial authority as to precisely what the
>Sanskrit words mean in our vernacular (although, of course, within
>each group, there are authorities acknowledged within the group).
>
>As is usual in these discussions, each side insists that certain words
>and phrases *must* be taken literally, whereas other ones can't
>possibly be taken literally, because that is "clearly absurd" since we
>*know* that God is such-and-such.
>
>So one side says "sentence A must be taken literally, and we must
>interpret sentence B in light of blah blah" and the *other* side says
>"sentence A must be interpreted, and sentence A must be taken
>literally".
One side insists on deciding for themselves what is to be taken literally,
and the other side insists on consulting a bona fide spiritual master in
paramparaa from the Lord. I am on this latter side, and I do not believe it
is for myself or Ken or any other netter to decide what something means or
should mean. The meaning should be taken from a genuine acharya, and if he
happens to know English, then his translations can also be considered
authoritative. I have insisted on this time and time again, but it is
conveniently ignored by the other side.
This is the chief difference between our respective positions. Ken and
Ramakrishna have found a philosophy that they happen to like, and then they
proceed to reinterpret everything in terms of that philosophy. While this
may be very nice for them, it is hardly honest or even respectful wrt to
such scriptures as the Bhagavad-Gita. The Gita says, "evam'
paramparaa-praaptam imam' raajarSay viduH." Lord Krishna explains how He
taught the spiritual science, and how it was received in disciplic
succession. This is exactly how one should receive the knowledge: in
disciplic succession from the Supreme Lord. When I quote from scripture, I
only use translations and interpretations that have come in disciplic
succession. I am not interested in the interpretations of some mere mortal,
but in the understanding taught by God Himself. If you want that
understanding, you have to find a genuine guru who comes in a disciplic line
originating with the Lord. Such persons are recognized as authentic by other
gurus in different disciplic successions, and furthermore they only teach an
understanding that is consistent with scripture.
On the other hand, both Ken and Ramakrishna conveniently quote verses (often
out of context) which seemingly support their position, and ignore all
others which do not. Since neither of these persons can justify their
selective quoting through the discriminative lens of an authentic spiritual
master, one has to wonder what authority deems it appropriate that they
should ignore certain portions of scripture. Actually, Ken and R. are very
generous; they say that all interpretations of scripture are okay. How
convenient for them, since that is the only way they can insist that we take
their opinions as seriously as the opinions given by the acaryas. I find it
ever so amusing that the people who insist that all interpretations be
considered valid are the same ones who do not come in any of the authentic
disciplic successions mentioned in the Padma Purana.
>>The translation you quoted implies that everything is ultimately one
>>spiritual being. But this is not possible, because earlier in the Gita Lord
>>Krishna refuted that idea:
>>
>>na tv evaaham' jaatu naasam'
>> na tvam' neme janaadhipaah.
>>na caiva na bhavis'yaamah.
>> sarve vayam atah. param
>>
>>"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings;
>>nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." (Gita 2.12)
>>
>>The verse clearly indicates that our individuality has always been so and
>>always will be so.
>
>But that interpretation takes the verse out of context.
>
>We know that the body perishes. We know that "the Kings" will not be
>Kings in a future lifetime.
>
>Thus he is addressing Arjuna's concern that he will be doing some sort
>of grievous harm by killing enemies who are his relatives.
>
>Thus he is telling them that they won't really "cease to be". This
>doesn't necessarily mean that their "individuality" is eternal - it
>makes just as much sense if their eternal part is common to all.
Actually it is you who have taken the verse out of context. What you are
implying is that the plurality mentioned in this verse is in reference to
the body as opposed to the soul. However, this cannot be, since Lord Krishna
had condemned such a bodily conception in the previous verse.
The plurality mentioned here refers to the soul, and in support of such an
understanding, Srila Prabhupada quotes Katha Upanisad 2.2.13: nityo
nityaanaam' cetanas' cetanaanaam etc which clearly indicates that the
Supreme Lord is eternal and distinct from the many (plural) living entities.
Indeed, the purport of this and other Upanisadic verses is that the Supreme
Lord is the maintainer of innumerable living entities. That is part of His
excellence. If you say that all the living entities are the same, then you
are inadvertently providing a limiting definition of God, by saying that He
only maintains one other living entity.
Furthermore, the followers of the four sampradayas mentioned in P.P. all
except the plurality of the soul. These include such distinguished
personalities as Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Nimbarka, Visnuswami, and many
others. So, the odds are against you.
It makes no sense to suppose that the eternal part is common to all. Have
you ever thought this through? If we are all the same being, then if one
person gets liberation all of us should get liberation.
However, if you remain unconvinced of Lord Krishna's position and insist
that we are all the same living entity, then I dare you to put your money
where your mouth is. Since you and I are the same (according to you), why
don't you give me all your money? After all, you are only giving it to
yourself, right?
>
>Further justification of the latter point of view comes just a few
>verses later in verses 17 & 18:
>
>"Know that that by which all this universe
>Is pervaded is indeed indestructible.
>No one is able to accomplish
>The destruction of this imperishable."
>
avinaas'i tu tad viddhi
yena sarvam idam' tatam
vinaas'am avyayasyaasya
na kas'cit kartum arhati
"That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible.
No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul." (2.17)
The soul pervades the whole body, not the whole universe. Srila Prabhupada
quotes the s'vetaas'vatara (5.9) and the muNDaka upaniSads (3.1.9) which
give exact descriptions of the soul. Therein, the soul is said to be a
particle situated in the heart of the living entity, NOT some all-pervasive
stuff that is spread all over the universe like ether.
Again, it is clear from context that your translation is a mistranslation.
>This is still the same reply to Arjuna, and so the "destruction"
>he is talking about, is still Arjuna killing relatives in battle.
No, Krishna is telling Arjuna that he can only destroy the bodies of these
jiivaatmas, but never the jiivaatmas themselves, who are eternal spirit
souls transmigrating through various species of life.
>
>And we are clearly talking about one imperishable, not many individual
>imperishables. This is further confirmed in the next verse (18):
>
>"These bodies inhabited by the eternal,
>The indestructible, the immeasurable embodied one,
>Are said to come to an end.
>Therefore fight, Descendant of Bharata (Arjuna)!"
>
Whew! That really is a horrible translation. Here's why:
antavanta ime dehaa
nityasyoktaaH s'ariiriNaH
anaas'ino 'prameyasya
tasmaad yudhyasva bhaarata
anta-vantaH - perishable; ime - all these; dehaaH - material bodies;
nityasya - eternal in existence; uktaaH - are said; s'ariiriNaH - of the
emobided soul; anaas'inaH - never to be destroyed ; aprameyasya -
immeasureable; tasmaat - therefore; yudhyasva - fight; bhaarata - O
descendant of Bharata.
"The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living
entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata."
Nowhere in the Sanskrit of this verse does it speak of an "immeasurable,
embodied ONE" that pervades all bodies. What it is saying is that the soul
is eternal and cannot be killed, therefore Arjuna should fight, knowing that
he can only destroy the bodies.
Now, you would say that this is simply a question of dueling translations.
You would try to justify your Gita translation by saying that neither can be
considered more authoritative than the other. But even if I were totally
ignorant of sampradaaya and paramparaa, I would still note the following
differences in our Gitas:
1) Srila Prabhupada provides the exact Sanskrit in his Gita, followed by a
word-for-word translation so you can see where his teachings are coming from.
2) In your Gita, no Sanskrit and no word-for-word is provided.
Now, if I am a layman, guess which Gita is going to look more scholarly and
authentic to me?
The mere existence of another translation is not in itself evidence of a
valid dissenting opinion. One has to examine the credentials of the
translator. Srila Prabhupada is accepted by other Vaishnavas (yes, even
those outside his "sect") as genuine, and his place in history as a
Vaishnava acarya is secure. Therefore, he can be trusted to give
authoritative commentaries on the Vedaanta, and he rejects the singularity
of the souls which you propound. Furthermore, in addition to providing a
word-for-word translation, he quotes from other Vedic scriptures to support
his translations.
Now, let's look at your translation. No Sanskrit and no word-for-word are
provided. It almost seems like the author is trying to hide something. Now
that I mention it, we still have no idea whose translation you are quoting
from. And you expect me to take your Gita as seriously as this one? Not a
chance, friend.
>>
>>I don't think you really know what you are saying here. Yes, God is seated
>>in the hearts of all living entities, but He is there WITH the conditioned
>>living entity. It seems to me that you are using the various references to
>>the Supersoul to prove that the soul in the heart is the Supersoul. This is
>>not correct. In the Bhagavatam and the Upanishads, the Supersoul and the
>>ordinary soul in the heart are compared to two birds sitting on the same
>>tree. One bird is busy trying to enjoy the fruits of the tree, while the
>>other simply watches. If the first bird merely turns to the second, then he
>>can be relieved of the dualities of pain and pleasure in exploiting the
>>material nature. The same is said of the jivatma and Paramatma.
>>
>>The point is, they are not the same soul.
>
>Only a couple of hours after I read this remark, I heard a lecture
>which quotes the same scripture, the Mundaka Upanishad, about the two
>birds in the tree -- only in the lecture, the Upanishad is translated
>as "ego" and "atman", not "jivatma" and "paramatma".
>
>IE not two eternal souls, but ego (ahamkara) and atman (soul), where
>ahamkara survives the death of the physical body, but continues
>throughout this cycle of creation (until the next dissolution).
>
>Do you have Sanskrit scripture of this "two birds" quote?
This is in Mundaka, Chapter 3 (these translations come from Gaudiya Math):
dvaa suparnaa sajuyaa sakhaayaa samaanam vriksham parisasvajaate/
tayoranyah pippalam svadvatyanashnannanyo abhichaakashiti//
"Two birds ever in close friendship dwell together in the same tree-like
body. One of them enjoys the fruits of the tree while the other one remains
as an on-looker without any affliction of karma."
Note that this verse by itself refutes your ahamkara/atman theory, since
each bird is clearly compared to a sentient being, each with the choice of
whether or not to the enjoy the "fruits of the tree."
samaane vrikshe purusho nimagnoanishayaa shochati muhyamaanah/
justam yadaa pashyatyanyamishamasya mahimaa namiti vitashokah//
"Although both of them dwell in the same tree-like body, the jiva-attmaa due
to his nescience grieves on account of his helplessness but by dint of some
unknown spiritual virtue when he gainst cognition of his self he turns
towards the Other, the Lord knowing Him as the Sole Resort and through
practise of devotion when he realizes His Transcendental Glorious Pastimes
he becomes free from sorrows and sufferings."
This verse clearly states that one bird must turn to the other in order to
be happy. Obviously, it is not about atma/ahamkara but atma/paramatma. That
is the way our teachers have presented it, and it is confirmed here.
>>What the Bhagavans are teaching is not what is taught by the verse you just
>>quoted. The unscrupulous "Bhagavans" are teaching that the jivatama and
>>Paramatma are one and the same. This idea has no basis in the Gita or the
>>Vedic literatures.
>
>Actually, it is the jivatma and paramatma that have no basis in the
>Gita. Why? Because those words don't occur in the Sanskrit Gita !
You may be correct in saying that those specific words are not present, but
nevertheless the distinction is there, and it is obviously referring to
jiivaatmaa and paramaatmaa. The point is, never in the Gita are the jiiva
and Supersoul held to be equal. You would be hard pressed to find any such
verse.
>
>Jivatma never occurs in the Gita, and Paramatma only occurs once, in
>Chapter 6, Verse 7, where it doesn't refer to "Supreme Soul" but
>rather refers to "highest self" (or "highest mind") in parallel to the
>preceding line which refers to "jitatmanah", ie "conquered self" (or
>"conquered mind").
What gave you that cockamaime idea? That verse is saying that the Supersoul
is attained by one who has conquered the mind. There is no basis for saying
that the Paramatma described therein refers to anything else.
>
>So, the "Bhagavans" don't teach that jivatma and Paramatma are the
>same, because they don't use those terms at all.
>
>All I have heard them teach about is atman and Brahman, and those are
>the words used in the Gita.
Well, you just brought up the word Paramaatmaa, and now you say it never
occurs in the Gita. okay, right....
What most Hindu groups teach is some form of advaita, which holds that jiva
and paramaatmaa are the same. Now, Ken, understand that they may not use
these *specific* words, but nevertheless that is what they are saying.
Basically, they are saying that all of us are the same as God, which is
absurd. Because you are favorably disposed to such people, you are trying to
reinterpret what they say to suit yourself.
>>>Gita 10.20:
>>>
>>>"I am the atman, Arjuna,
>>>Abiding in the hearts of all beings;
>>>And I am the beginning and the middle
>>>of beings, and the end as well."
>>>
>>This is referring to the Supersoul, not the individual jivaatma. Try again.
>
>You are just translating atman according to the viewpoint of your
>particular group. Saying that it is translated thusly doesn't prove
>anything.
First of all, I am not saying anything. Srila Prabhupada says it refers to
the Supersoul. He is an authority on the Gita and you are not.
Furthermore, I already delt with this point a long time ago on alt.hindu.
Even if it did refer to the jiivaatmaa, it would still not prove your point.
This whole chapter contains metaphors describing the various representations
of the Lord. These metaphors come in the format "among x, I am y (the best
of x)." It does NOT mean that Krishna and y are in all respects identical.
If it did, then consider Gita 10.37: "Among PaaNDavas I am Arjuna." If
Arjuna and Krishna were in all respects the same (i.e. - Arjuna is also
God), then how could Arjuna have been bewildered in the first place? If
Arjuna was also Krishna, then there would be no possibility of him being
confused about his duty and requiring clarification from the Lord. Because
Arjuna is the best warrior among the PaaNDavas, he is a representation of
Krishna. All of the statments in Ch. 10 must be understood as metaphor. Some
are clearly literal identifications, such as "Among Adityas, I am ViSNu...
Among archers I am Raama," etc, but it is not logical to say that they are
all statements of identity.
Anyway, you are the one who is trying to argue that there is one,
all-pervasive being, as opposed to many individual eternal beings. So, if
your theory was correct, then why does Krishna only say, "Among PaaNDavas, I
am Arjuna?" If you were correct, then Krishna would say, "Among PaaNDavas, I
am all the PaaNDavas." However, He never says anything like that. What He
does say is that among all things, He is best of each of those things. So
these verses are simply giving the glorious representations of the Lord in
various things. They do not support your one, universal being theory.
>
>Elsewhere in the thread, you state:
>
>>I did not misunderstand. The classification is confirmed by the
>>acharyas of the four sampradayas, the same sampradayas which
>>the Padma Purana legitimates as genuine. Since the Padma Purana
>>has stated that these sampradayas are geniune, their teachings
>>must be considered to be authoritative.
>
>But who says whether the Padma Purana is a legitimate scripture?
>According to who? If those people who legitimize it are Vaishnavas,
>then it is circular reasoning: "According to the scriptures of the
>Vaishnavas, only the Vaishnava sampradayas are authentic."
Ultimately, you have to start somewhere. There are over 500 translations of
the Bhagavad-Gita, but of those, only Srila Prabhupada's was successful in
encouraging people of all races, sects, and creeds to give up gross
materialism, accept vegetarianism, give up illicit sex, gambling and
intoxication. The proof is in the pudding. When I see chicken-eating
sannyasis from other Hindu movements telling me that their "interpretations"
are just as good as those of the Vaishnavas, I have to be naturally skeptical.
When Srila Prabhupada came to New York, he met with some sannyasis from the
Ramakrishna mission there. The Ramakrishna fellows urged Prabhupada to give
up his "Indian" customs. They told him that in order to survive in the U.S.,
he would have to wear Western clothes, learn to eat with spoon and fork, eat
meat, and drink liquor. But Prabhupada ignored them. He wasn't here to learn
our ways; he was here to teach Lord Krishna's ways. And ultimately he
prevailed, and taught us that we don't need to adopt such vices for
survival. He did more for the cause of teaching morality and religion than
all these other groups, many of which take an ambivalent stance on such
issues ("oh yes, it would be good if you could be vegetarian, but if you
can't, that is okay, too").
Srila Prabhupada never forced anyone into anything, but he never compromised
on the principles he expected others to follow. These days, when I see so
many Hindu teenagers eating meat, getting drunk, getting involved in
premarital sex (and all that despite the fact that they go to X or Y Hindu
mission, or come from otherwise pious families), I have to wonder why they
feel no guilt about their actions. If only these other Hindu groups would
come out strongly and say, "yes, you should be vegetarian! You should
abstain from sensual pleasures! You should wait until marriage!" But they
won't do that, because they don't want to lose followers. They don't openly
sanction illicit activities; they just try not to speak out too strongly
against them (as far as I am concerned, it is the same as sanctioning them).
Thus, they appeal to both the pious Hindu and the materialistic Hindu. And
as long as the materialistic Hindus are not made to feel guilty, they will
keep giving money to keep the mission alive. And thus, in a crazy world
where religions are chosen for how well they appeal to our ego, the circle
of cheaters and the cheated is maintained.
At least in Srila Prabhupada's movement (which some puffed-up Hindus like to
make fun of), I have always been impressed that the regulative principles of
spiritual life are stressed. Even if a person is unable to stick with
Krishna-consciousness due to materialistic attraction, you can't find fault
with the philosophy or the founder since every effort has been made to
honestly present what is expected of a follower.
On the other hand, many of these other Hindu movements have set the
precedent (which you no doubt agree with) that the scripture can be
interpreted in innumerable ways, and that one need not take the meaning of
scripture literally. Kids aren't stupid, Ken. When they see their own elders
talking like this about scripture, then they decide that they, too can
interpret according to their whim. And thus, we have Hindu kids who get
involved with all kinds of nonsense and become poor representatives of our
Vedic culture. Although they will pay lip service to the Gita, they have no
real respect for it; this becomes apparent when you show how the Gita
condemns a particular vice which they practice. And they see absolutely no
reason why they should listen to anyone who tells them to be virtuous. Hey,
it's just your interpretation, they will say, and then they will go back to
skirt-chasing and partying.
>
>>The members of the authentic sampradayas are all Vaishnavas.
>
>But what about the Catholic Church?
Who cares about the Catholic Church? I'm talking about the Vedic tradition.
This is soc.religion.hindu.
>
>You can find in most encyclopedias, the authentic sampradaya
>succession of Popes going straight back to Jesus Christ.
>
>They have their saastra, The Bible, which says that Jesus Christ is
>God.
>
>So, what is it that says that your scriptures and sampradaya is the
>Truth and that their scriptures and sampradaya is not the Truth?
Ken, in order to make such statements, you need to be quoting from a Bible
that is considered authentic from within their tradition. Because this is
soc.religion.hindu, and because I am not well read on Christianity, I am not
going to indulge you in a debate on the relative authenticity of one
Christian sect vs another. I will say the following and leave it at that:
1) the mere fact that there are many mutually exclusive sects of their
religion suggests that not all of them are authentic.
2) No Christian believes that we are all one, universal being. They have the
common sense to understand themselves to be distinct from God, and thus
their beliefs are more compatible with those of the Gita than they are with
yours.
3) In the writings of one particular Episcopal Priest and scholar (Alan P.
Hart), the following points about Christian scripture have been articulated:
a) The Bible does not specifically say that Jesus is God. This is a
modern-day interpretation. The Bible clearly says that he is the good son.
b) Meat-eating and alcohol-drinking are not sanctioned by the New
Testament. Many of the original Greek words that are translated as "meat"
actually mean "food" in the broadest sense. Also, the word for "wine" refers
to an unfermented juice derived from grapes which was nonintoxicating. There
are clear prohibitions against alcohol (in Proverbs, I believe).
c) There are verses in the Bible which suggest that there was much
knowledge which Jesus did not reveal to his disciples. This fits in well
with our understanding that the Vedic literatures are the only complete
source of transcendental knowledge, while other religions are, at best,
abridged understandings revealed according to time, place, and circumstance.
d) Rev. Hart also made it clear that the Christian tradition had been
tainted by interpretations of politicians. Around the 5th century BC, there
were multiple versions of the Bible going around, and the Council of Nicea
was formed to select an authentic one. But the selection was naturally
biased by the people involved, none of whom were qualified to distinguish
the real Bible from the bogus ones. So quotes from any Bible are not
relevant here, since it is dubious if any Bible we have today is the same as
that spoken by Jesus Christ.
Cheerio...
-- HKS
Follow-Ups:
