This is a reply to Mayesvara’s comments on the Reality Check post:
Mayesvara, in your comment you said:
So you are saying that Krishna’s words should be understood like this: “Though they be of lower birth, or vaisyas, or sudras or women…” In other words, lower birth is one category of people whilst women are another category – not that women, vaisyas and sudras are all in the category of papa yoni. Is that correct?
I think I remember Hridayananda Maharaja give a similar translation to the one you are suggesting. That makes sense to me because Krishna says that people are placed in the varnasrama system according to guna and karma, not according to birth – why should it be any different for women? One is sinful because of their actions not because of their birth. Of course one could argue that the sinful activities in the previous life were the cause of having to take birth in a womans body but that sounds like the same kind of argument employed by the caste brahmanas – that one is a brahmana by birth and not by qualification. To say that one is sinful by dint of their gender in this life and not by their actions is unjust.
I’m still curious though, to get a scholarly breakdown of the sanskrit to show exactly why the verse should be translated as you suggest and how the translation in the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is is wrong. Can you show that? Have you had any exchange with the sanskrit scholars in Iskcon about this? I would be curious to know what they say.
The following translation is from Sripad Narayana Maharaja’s Bhagavad Gita which I downloaded a few weeks ago. What’s ironic about this translation is that there was a big stink on the web not so long ago after it came to light that Sripad Narayana Maharaja had claimed that the editors of Prabhupada’s Gita made a mistake on this verse. He said that devotees were complaining that the mistake ended up causing people to lose faith in Krishna because it seems to be a misogynist teaching. Narayana Maharaja said that this sloka doesn’t say that women are papa-yoni. He said that the grammar is incorrect in Prabhupada’s Gita. He said that the incorrect grammar changes the true meaning of Krishna’s words and makes it appear that He is saying that women, vaisyas, and sudras are all papa-yoni. Narayana Maharaja claimed that Prabhupada would never say such an untrue thing. In the Reality Check post I show that Prabhupada often claimed that women were papa-yoni in many lectures and talks. Most likely Prabhupada’s translation in his Gita with the grammar making it seem that Krishna says women are papa-yoni, was done on purpose because that is what Prabhupada believed.
But guess what appears in Sripad Narayana Maharaja’s Bhagavad Gita!
mam hi partha vyapasritya / ye pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras / te pi yanti param gatimpartha – O son of Pritha; vyapasritya – by taking shelter; mam – of
Me; hi – certainly; api – even; te – those; ye – who; syuh – may be;
papa-yonayah – born of sinful parentage; striyah – women;
vaisyah – merchants; tatha – and; api – even; sudrah – manual
labourers; yanti – attain; param – the supreme; gatim – destination.O Partha, by taking shelter of Me, even the lowborn,
such as women, merchants, sudras, or whoever,
are certain to attain the supreme destination.
His word for word is correct, but then in the verse we see “such as” which isn’t in the sanskrit nor the word for word and which changes the verse into the exact same thing as Prabhupada’s Gita!
From Purebhakti.com
This profound translation of Srimad Bhagavad-Gita by Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja is sure to inspire sincere students of bhakti in their practices. It is considered complimentary to the authoritative and popular Bhagavad-Gita As It Is by Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja. This present edition contains the Bhavanuvada of the Sarartha-Varsini-Tika (a shower of the essential meanings) of the illustrious Rasacarya, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, which was originally penned in Sanskrit, now in English for the first time. His commentary has been further illuminated by Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja’s Sarartha-Varsini Prakasika-vrtti, which guides the reader into profound aspects of the siddhanta. Consequently, the innermost intentions of the Gita are revealed to the modern audience. Some of the brilliant Rasika-ranjana commentaries by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, have been included within this Prakasika-vrtti. Over 1,121 pages including comprehensive glossary and sloka index
Snapshot of Sripad Narayana Maharaja's Bhagavad Gita
Unbelievable! This is a major thing after the huge point Narayana Maharaja made about the translation in Prabhupada’s Gita being wrong. Thanks for bringing it to light.
Srila Narayana Maharaja’s Gita was translated and edited by western devottees who are not thoroughly learned in Sanskrit and who came from an ISKCON background, in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they even had an AS IT IS right next to them as they were doing their translation, editing work.
He did not go over the entire text in English before it was printed.
This is the problem with translations and why I always advice westerners to learn some Sanskrit.
It will have to be pointed out and revised for any future new publications of the same.
Still, it will not be a substitute for reading it in the original text.
Stri
Why do they claim that Narayana Maharaja translated it on his website?
http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-a-magazines-mainmenu-63/doc_details/32-srimad-bhagavad-gita.html
SNM translates from Sanskrit and Bengali into Hindi. His English speaking disciples then translate from Hindi into English.
That is the procedure for all the English books.
Stri wrote:
“Srila Narayana Maharaja’s Gita was translated and edited by western devottees who are not thoroughly learned in Sanskrit and who came from an ISKCON background, in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they even had an AS IT IS right next to them as they were doing their translation, editing work.”
That is what is known as plagiarism.
And in The Hare Krishna Explosion, pp.210-211, Hayagriva wrote:
“Swamiji finally tires of my consulting him about Bhagavad-gita verses. “Just copy the verses from some other translation,” he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. “The verses aren’t important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It’s my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports. There are so many nonsense purports like Radhakrishnan’s and Gandhi’s, and Nikhilananda’s. What is lacking are these Vaishnava purports in the preaching line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That is what is lacking in English. That is what is lacking in the world.”
“I can’t just copy others,” I say.
“There is no harm.”
“But that’s plagiarism.”
“How’s that? They are Krishna’s words.”"
Dictionary.com defines plagiarism as “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work,” and American Heritage defines it as “literary theft” and states, “Plagiarism occurs when a writer duplicates another writer’s language or ideas and then calls the work his or her own. Copyright laws protect writers’ words as their legal property. To avoid the charge of plagiarism, writers take care to credit those from whom they borrow and quote.”
But, surprisingly, it would appear that plagiarism is the tradition in our branch of GV. No credit is given in Prabhupada’s Gita to “those from whom he borrowed and quoted.” Is the same true for Narayana Maharaja’s?
This seems, to me, to be a classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma for Narayana Maharaja.
Did he translate the referenced Gita verse in the exact same sexist way that he emphatically stated was “wrong” in Prabhupada’s Gita and then went on to base an entire lecture on all the reasons why it was wrong?
Or was Prabhupada’s Gita blatantly plagiarized by Narayana Maharaja’s followers (thus accounting for the identical translation) and Narayana Maharaja falsely credited as the “author,” as Stri suggests here?
Which is it?
So we can assume all his english books are essentially useless when it comes to being accurate representations of what Narayana Maharaja actually wrote.
I will have to check the Hindi edition when I get my hands on one. I don’t have one presently with me. When I do, I can post how the sloka was translated into Hindi from Sanskrit for you all.
Regarding plagarism, no, I would not think that they plagarized. SNM’s Gita is delightfully different from the BBTs.
However, as is the case when translating and editing books, other books are referenced, and I am just assuming that since most of the English translators and editors of SNM’s books have come from Iskcon backgrounds of some sort, I would not be surprised if they had a BBT Gita next to them during their work. But maybe they didn’t and just chose to word it incorrectly anyway. (Another reason to learn Indian languages, folks).
Nevertheless, of all the English Gitas I’ve come across, SNM’s is the best and most thorough so far, in my opinion.
Still, there is no substitute for reading works in their originals.
No substitute.
(Vrajabhumi, another comment of mine is awaiting moderation but you can delete that as I have just picked up my Gita right now and found the following;)
I have the English version of SNM’s Gita with me now in hard copy format.
The verse is translated as;
O Partha, by taking shelter of me, even the low-born, as well as women, merchants, sudras, or whoever, are certain to attain the supreme destination.
QUESTION FOR VRAJABHUMI;
Can you please provide the link to the above quoted verse which you originally posted?
It appears that what is being qouted is the BBT translation, but it is being ascribed to SNM, so I’m curious as to exactly which url you got that from.
Furthermore, in the commentaries included for this sloka, the only time “women” are mentioned is in the Prakasika-vrtti wherein it is written;
“Now, in the present sloka, Bhagavan is explaining that those who take shelter of Him by engaging in ananya-bhakti, even if born in sinful chandala or mleccha families, in low-class sudra families, or even women such as prostitutes, who are naturally engaged in illicit activities, all very quickly attain the supreme destination by the influence of bhakti to Sri Krishna which is rare even for yogis.”
Stri
I have posted a snapshot of the page on the original post above.
I downloaded the Gita from
http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-a-magazines-mainmenu-63/doc_details/32-srimad-bhagavad-gita.html
and from here
http://www.bvml.org/SBNM/books/index.html
It is widely available on various free hosting sites all over the web:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=This+profound+translation+of+Srimad+Bhagavad-Gita+by+Srila+Bhaktivedanta+Narayana+Maharaja&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Thanks Vraja.
I seem to remember that there was some need to revise the English Gita some years back. This obviously would have been one of the reasons.
I guess purebhakti still has the old version on their site.
The snapshot is of page 591. Page 591 of the edition I am holding in my lap is Chapter 10, sloka 10, under the heading “Vibhuti Yoga”.
Stri
I don’t doubt that Narayana Maharaja doesn’t teach what the English translation of his E-Gita teaches since he has spoken against that conception. I wonder what type of oversight he has over his organization if such a thing can happen? Clearly he is not reading his English books. How can we be assured that any of his books which have been translated by his followers are accurate? How much of his Gita or other books not in Hindi are really his teachings? This incident should be very disturbing to his disciples, it questions the integrity of all of his English books that aren’t simply copies of his English lectures. There needs to be a team of devotees with the requisite language skills who go over every book very carefully to make sure they match his Hindi writings. Obviously that is not the case at present when it comes to his E-books, and maybe his printed books as well.
Actually, the skills have improved considerably and some Indian vaishnavas also contribute.
I think that most of the publications are pretty reflective of the author’s intent. When misunderstandings or questions come up then the author can be approached directly for clarification. I remember once this happened in regards to Raga Vartma Chandrika and consequently the next set of publications of the same were revised with regards the particular issue; that being whether or not gopis are cognizant of Krishna’s bhagavataa.
There are always issues with translating books across languages, cultures and centuries.
The best thing is if the English readers become increasingly more familiar with Sanskrit, Bangla and Hindi, which should happen from the beginning anyway if you are going to take up a religion that is based in Sanskrit and Bangla.
Know a language, know a culture.
The English translations of Narayana Maharaja’s original Hindi books and lectures are a mixed bag. The two devotees who first started translating them in the early 1990s were both highly qualified and professional in their approach. Sadly, for different reasons neither of them were able to continue with their work beyond 1997 and thus the translation work that emerged subsequently was of poor quality.
The books by Narayana Maharaja that are so poorly translated and edited that they are rendered unreliable are the English editions of Jaiva-dharma, Bhagavad-gita and Raga-vartma-candrika. The disorganisation and managerial dysfunction current in Narayana Maharaja’s scene has prevented these titles from being revised and corrected. It’s a terrible shame and, yes, it does reflect poorly on Narayana Maharaja and his literary legacy.
Appearantly both the Gita and Ragavartmachandrika have been revised, an example of revision of the Gita given in the above exchange here, but I agree with you that perhaps they have not been revised enough. The beauty of it all is that with even minimal Sanskrit skills we can glean much insight from any text and the deeper your sadhan, even more can be gleaned. Accurate translations are important no doubt, but also important is our own understanding of siddhanta that can pick up on important points being made or points missed in iffy translations. Even with BBT books a pretty clear understanding of Krishna Bhakti can be gleaned by persons with past life impressions, good intuition and a penchant for understanding these topics. What to speak if someone is doing sincere sadhana, then Krishna will give inspiration from within. The guru and other vaishnavas can also be approached for further clarification.
Unless one is either born in West Bengal having Bengali has their first language and learning Sanskrit later, or unless one learns both Bengali and Sanskrit as a non-native speaker, then one has to rely on translations and there is always something lost in that process somewhere along the lines.
Stalk it up to lack of sukriti. However it can be made up for by learning those languages.
Also, SNM’s Jaiva Dharma is a huge improvement over the other English translation available, that being another Gaudiya Math translation done back in the 1970’s I think. That one was sweet and charming in it’s presentation but lacked sufficient sanskrit terminology. SNM’s includes sanskrit terminology for various concepts, with the English wording of such concepts provided in the same sentence, which is helpful. I’m not aware of any problems or issues with SNM’s English version of Jaiva Dharma. What are they?
I don’t think the titles that you mentioned have any major problems (that I’ve read in them or heard about, anyway), but what I recently discovered is that the Slokamrita and Slokamrita Bindu uses some BBT translations for it’s slokas which means only one thing; there is not any western devottee in that sanga who knows enough sanskrit to translate slokas, or if there is, they don’t want to do that seva and the people who put together those books feel that the BBT translations are adequate translations for the slokas that they do not have any other translation for, such as an explanation direct from SNM.
“The books by Narayana Maharaja that are so poorly translated and edited that they are rendered unreliable are the English editions of Jaiva-dharma, Bhagavad-gita and Raga-vartma-candrika. ”
Could you give five examples from each of the books mentioned as to the poor translations and editing? You would have to compare them to the hindi versions in order to do that so I’m assuming that you have them available and can read hindi, otherwise how did you come to such a conclusion?
Both the Gita and RVC have been revised and I’m not aware of any major issues with Jaiva Dharma. What are they?
“The books by Narayana Maharaja that are so poorly translated and edited that they are rendered unreliable are the English editions of Jaiva-dharma, Bhagavad-gita and Raga-vartma-candrika. The disorganisation and managerial dysfunction current in Narayana Maharaja’s scene has prevented these titles from being revised and corrected. It’s a terrible shame and, yes, it does reflect poorly on Narayana Maharaja and his literary legacy.”
Whose opinion is this, yours JBN?
There are some reliable sources, individuals knowledgeable in translating Bengali to English, as well as knowledgeable in all of Bhaktivinoda’s writings, who think exactly the opposite of what you say here, that is, that Jaiva-Dharma was very well done into English by NM’s group. And Bhagavad-gita as well.
Stri,
Its rather unrealistic to expect that anyone interested in this philosophy must necessarily know Bengali and Sanskrit to enter into its essence. Something is sort of wrong with this idea, to be sure.
Sundari, indeed that would be *my* opinion. It would seem an absurd waste of time and energy to present opinions other than my own on this forum. I know that some very good translation work has been done for Narayana Maharaja but I found the original editions of the three titles I mentioned to fall well short of professional publication standards.
tavakathamritam, from what you are saying, it sounds that the three titles I mentioned are now available in recently revised editions. I based my thoughts on having read the original editions of them soon after they were published. I’ll have to acquire these new editions and give them a read when time allows. One problem with some of the books emerging from Narayana Maharaja’s group is that there seems to be numerous updated versions of certain titles and it is sometimes hard to determine which may be the “definitive” editions and how they differ from previous ones. That’s a lack of professionalism in publishing that can leave a readership feeling confused.
The original English edition of Narayana Maharaja’s Jaiva-dharma was so overloaded with superfluous Sanskrit terms that it made for cumbersome reading. It also had not been professionally proofread. The original English edition of Bhagavad-gita suffered from the same problems, leading to this book in particular not being well received by the Vaisnava community at large. The original English edition of Raga-vartma-candrika carried so many mistakes of practically every variety that I lost confidence that it had been prepared by devotees qualified for the job.
Raga Vartma Chandrika commentary by SNM was transcribed from classes he gave that were recorded. Unless you are talking about the Sanskrit text translation being mistake ridden (which could very well be the case but you would have to be able to read Sanskrit to determine that), then I know of only a few mistakes that were in the commentary text and one can see hear directly why the misunderstandings arose if you listen to the original classes which have been available for free online for years now.
There is not misinformation given in that book and it’s a nice and easy read.
The English reading vaishnavas wanted lots of sanskrit terms to be included in the English texts of Gita and Jaiva Dharma. They could have been eliminated and soley just English terms for the same used, as is the case in many English publications of Vaishnava literature around the world, but then you don’t get a clear conception of siddhanta that way. Just read that 70s version of Gaudiya Math’s Jaiva Dharma or the BBT’s “Nectar of Devotion” and see where they get you.
Come to think of it the version of the (hardcopy) Gita that I have may be the first edition because I’ve had it for years. That adds to the mystery of the BBT used translation for the sloka used in the online version discussed above by Vrajabhumi.
The biggest drawback I see to SNM’s books these days in the presence of BBT translated slokas. I don’t know who introduced that but like I said – Slokamrita is full of it.
Sundari, although while it is obvious that one does not need to know Sanskrit or Bengali in order to progress in bhakti, still, knowing something of both these languages can only contribute to one’s understanding of siddhanta and relish of the culture.
“The biggest drawback I see to SNM’s books these days in the presence of BBT translated slokas. I don’t know who introduced that but like I said – Slokamrita is full of it. ”
I haven’t seen this Slokamrita book that you mention but the use of BBT translations just adds to the further ISKCONisation of Narayana Maharaja’s scene. It’s remarkable how profound previous conditioning – and institutional indoctrination in particular – can be. Instead of having the inner vision to create an innovative alternative to ISKCON and all its inherent dysfunction, certain people simply want to create a carbon copy of it. I can only assume something familiar grants them a feeling of security.
I would just like to share the translation of the verse in question (Bg. 9.32) from ‘Srimad Bhagavad Gita with the Gloss of Sridhara Swami’ translated by Swami Vireswarananda.
Even they who are of sinful birth, women, Vaishyas, as also Sudras, taking refuge in Me, verily attain the highest goal.
Sridhara Swami’s commentary: What is there to wonder at that devotion to Me purifies one who is lax in conduct, when it liberates from transmigratory existence even the low-born and unqualified persons. This is being stated: Even they etc. Even they who are of sinful birth, of low birth, i.e., the outcastes, etc., and they who are Vaishyas, engaged merely in agriculture, etc., and women, Sudras and the rest, who are devoid of (Vedic) study, etc. – even they, taking refuge in Me, worshipping Me, verily, undoubtedly, attain the highest goal.
This seems to confirm what Vrajabhumi says about women in this verse – that they were busy with their household duties and as such had no time to study Vedic scriptures. There is no mention of their low birth either in the verse or in the commentary.
Thanks braja
That is the Sridhar Swami from way back some 700 years ago, who wrote the commentary on the Bhagavatam which was accepted by Sri Chaitanya as the best one. I’ve never read his Gita commentary, is it available online in English?
This is the post you refer to where I write about that sloka from the Gita
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/krishnas-truth/
I have only found one at http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/intro.html but it doesn’t seem very accurate. Since you know Sanskrit well, I would recommend to consult directly the original Sanskrit commentary, available for example at http://www.granthamandira.com.
Thanks braja, as for your email question: You can post any type of text you like, there is no rule here.
I checked the Gita you linked to and here is the commentary to 9.32 from Sridhar Swami they have there, it certainly is different than your translation, did they add a bunch of stuff that isn’t in the sanskrit or did you not provide the whole thing in your translation? At first glance it seems like a typical commentary from Narayana Maharaja or some other Gaudiya writer with all the embellishment they typically like to add.
The link which I have left referred to the only English translation of Sridhara Swami’s commentary that I found online – I just googled it as you were curious whether there was anything of that sort on the Internet. As said, it obviously does not reflect exactly the Sanskrit original and has got nothing to do with the translation which I offered before and which comes from the printed Bhagavad-gita translated by Swami Vireswarananda.
For those who understand Sanskrit here goes the original:
mAM hi pArtha vyapAzritya ye ‘pi syuH pApayonayaH |
striyo vaizyAs tathA zUdrAs te ‘pi yAnti parAM gatim ||32||
zrIdharaH – svAcAra-bhraSTaM mad-bhaktiH pavitrIkarotIti kim atra citram ? yato mad-bhaktir duSkulAn apy anadhikAriNo’pi saMsArAn mocayatIty Aha mAM hIti | ye’pi pApa-yonayaH syur nikRSTa-janmAno’ntyajAdayo bhaveyuH | ye’pi vaizyAH kevalaM kRSyAdi-niratAH | striyaH zUdrAZ cApy adhyayanAdi-rahitAH | te’pi mAM vyApAzritya saMsevya parAM gatiM yAnti | hi nizcitam ||32||
braja
centering html tags don’t work on this software.