[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Dueling Translations (Was Re: Siva as yogi?)



Hello,

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".

In that light, read on!  :-)

On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:25:32 +0000, H. Krishna Susarla wrote:

>Ken Stuart writes:
>
>>On 8 Dec 1995 20:19:58 GMT, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote in
>>soc.religion.hindu:

>>The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in everyone's heart.
>
>Yes, but He is not only residing there.

Agreed.

> The fact that the Lord resides in the hearts of all living beings
> is not an indication that He is dependent on them.

Agreed.

>>Gita 18.20 says:
>>
>>"That knowlege by which one sees 
>>One imperishable being in all beings,
>>Undivided in the divided;
>>Know that knowledge to be sattvic."
>
>Very good. At least you are trying to quote saastra, rather than making up
>your own opinions. Most people on this group seem to have more faith in
>their speculations than in the Gita.

I've posted countless times in other newsgroups against the modern
concept of allowing one's ego to create one's own religion.

>This verse that you quoted is better translated as follows:
>
>sarva-bhuutes'u yenaikam' 
> bhaavam avyayam iiks.ate
>avibhaktam' vibhaktes.u
> taj jn~aanam' viddhi saatvikam
>
>sarva-bhuutes.u - in all living entities; yena - by which; ekam - one;
>bhaavam - situation; avyayam - imperishable; iiks.ate -- one sees;
>avibhaktam - undivided; vibhaktes.u - in the numberless divided; tat - that;
>jn~aanam - knowledge; viddhi - know; saatvikam - in the mode of goodness
>
>The key difference between your translation and this one is the word
>bhaavam. It does not indicate one imperishable being of which everyone and
>everything is a part, but rather one spiritual nature. In other words, it
>means that one must see the spirit souls in all other living entities, even
>animals and plants. It means that everything must be seen in relation to
>Lord Krishna's energies. As confirmed in chapter 7, nothing exists that is
>not of the Lord's energies. 
>
>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.

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."

This is still the same reply to Arjuna, and so the "destruction"
he is talking about, is still Arjuna killing relatives in battle.

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)!"

>>Gita 18.61 says:
>>
>>                        isvarah sarva-bhutanam
>>                        hrd-dese 'rjuna tisthati
>>                        bhramayan sarva-bhutani
>>                          yantrarudhani mayaya
>>
>>isvarah--the Supreme Lord; sarva-bhutanam--of all living entities;
>>hrt-dese--in the location of the heart; arjuna--O Arjuna;
>>tisthati--resides; bhramayan--causing to travel; sarva-bhutani--all
>>living entities; yantra--on a machine; arudhani--being placed;
>>mayaya--under the spell of material energy.
>> 
>>                              TRANSLATION
>>
>>     The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and
>>is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as
>>on a machine, made of the material energy.
>>
>[deleted]
>
>I have already dealt with this point earlier. The Paramaatmaa is only one
>feature of the Absolute Truth, but it is not the complete realization. Srila
>Prabhupada has also clearly stated in his Bhagavatam purports that realizing
>the Supreme Personality of Godhead as Bhagavaan is complete realization,
>while the other two are incomplete.
>
>>
>>Anyone who says "I will become God" is sadly mistaken, because God is
>>already attained.  He is the very center of one's being.  
>>
>
>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?

>>What is taught by the "Bhagawans" so despised by a few Vaishnavites in
>>this newsgroup, is that everyone is God in exactly the sense described
>>above.   However, they also teach that we are ignorant of this fact,
>>and that we need exactly the spiritual practices described in the Gita
>>(karma yoga, bhakti yoga, jnana yoga, dhyana yoga) to banish the
>>samskaras (habitual tendencies that follow us from lifetime to
>>lifetime) that keep us from living in 24 hour communion with the
>>Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in our heart.
>
>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 !

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").

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.

>>
>>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.

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."

>The members of the authentic sampradayas are all Vaishnavas. 

But what about the Catholic Church?

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?


Cheers,

Ken

kstuart@snowcrest.net
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html