In a comment to my last post I quoted from Bhaktivinoda’s Jaiva Dharma, but something about the translation by Narayana Maharaja irked me, it didn’t seem like something Bhaktivinoda would say. So I searched online for the original Bengali version, which I couldn’t find. I could only find one other English translation, and the part that irked me was confirmed by what appears to me to be exactly what Bhaktivinoda would have written. I hesitate to blame Narayana Maharaja because he translated the original Bengali into Hindi, then it was translated into English by his disciples.
As I’ve shown before, his English translators aren’t very faithful to his actual words and writings, famously his online Gita translation of 9.32, the verse that so much ill will was created over between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja. Narayana Maharaja had claimed Prabhupada’s Gita made a mistake in grammar which changed the meaning of the verse. In Prabhupada’s Gita we find:
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth–women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]–can approach the supreme destination.
The grammar makes it seem that Krishna is lumping together women, vaisyas, and sudras as low-born or papa-yoni. Narayana Maharaja said that was a mistake, and he was right. Krishna is saying the low-born (papa-yoni), and women, and vaisyas, and sudras. That is the grammatically correct translation, and how the verse has traditionally been translated by everyone but Prabhupada. Saying women, vaisyas, and sudras are papa-yoni makes no sense considering that papa-yoni explicitly referred to people who weren’t born following vedic birth samskaras (rituals). Papa-yoni means a sinful womb, it’s a dysphemism (opposite of euphemism), which is an intentionally harsh substitute word. It was commonly used to refer to people who weren’t born into Vedic culture. For example, all of us who weren’t born from practicing Hindu or Vaishnava backgrounds, would be considered papa-yoni.
After all the ill will created by that “offense” by Narayana Maharaja towards Prabhupada, you would expect to see that verse correctly translated in his Gita translation. And it is, in the Hindi edition, which he wrote. But in the English translation, which his followers translated from his Hindi, we get the same mistaken grammar found in Prabhupada’s Gita. See the link in the previous paragraph for an image of that verse in Narayana Maharaja’s English Gita. I’ve been told that has been corrected in the printed version, but the version online which is widely available to everyone, has the mistake.
My point is I can’t blame Narayana Maharaja for the mistake in the English edition of Jaiva Dharma without seeing the original Hindi version, I looked online, and all I could find was a short truncated version. So I don’t know. Anyways, here is the part of Jaiva Dharma, chapter 9, I had a problem with since it’s such a big problem due to it being a sensitive and important teaching:
There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency.” This means that sakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance. Sakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will. You have said that sakti is the embodiment of consciousness, that it possesses will, and that it is beyond the influence of the three qualities of material nature. This is correct, but only insofar as sakti operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity, and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity. Desire and consciousness depend on the Supreme Being. Desire cannot exist in sakti; rather, sakti acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being. You have the power to move, and when you desire to move, that power will act. To say “the power is moving” is merely a figure of speech; it actually means that the person who possesses that power is moving.
The part in bold type is what I have a problem with, the idea that we have no inherent ability to desire seems wrong, as I’ve said many times before it’s desire which is the only thing, besides emotion, which we inherently possess as personal characteristics. To me it seemed the word desire should have been the word will instead, i.e we posses no independent will power, not that we don’t have independent desires.
So I searched online and I couldn’t find the original Bengali version, all I could find was one other translation into English. And in it we find this:
When it is said that the potency has pure consciousness, that means that because the potency and the master of potencies are not different, therefore, like the master of potencies, the potency also has a form of spiritual consciousness, has desires that are at once fulfilled, and is beyond the touch of the three modes. It is not a mistake to say these things. Will and consciousness are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By itself, the potency does not possess will, but rather it carries out the will of the Supreme. For example, you have power, and by Your will, your potencies act. If you say, ‘the power acted’, then that means that the possessor of the power was actually behind the action.
Now that makes sense to me. It’s taught in ISKCON that the jiva possesses free will; as I have shown the shastra says that we do not possess free will. Since Narayana Maharaja’s English translators are likely ex-ISKCON, it makes sense that they wouldn’t accept Bhaktivinoda saying we have no free will. That second translation, paradoxically is from Kusakratha Das, a Prabhupada disciple. The thing about him is that while he was a member of ISKCON, he was a bit of an independent, which is why his books weren’t supported by ISKCON’S BBT. He did what he wanted, so it makes sense that he wouldn’t toe the party line when it came to his translations. The idea that we have free will but no free desire, is self-contradictory. You have to have free desire in order to have free will, but you don’t necessarily have free will if you have free desire. Will is the ability to carry out your desire, the shastra teaches how to change your desires, but they make it clear you have no free will.
It can seem that if you don’t have free will then you can’t have free desire. For example: if I desire to go to the market tomorrow, and then I go, wasn’t that my free will since it was based upon by freedom of desire?
Because desire and will are closely related, so much of what we do is because of a desire to do it. When I say we have freedom of desire, I mean when it comes to desires that aren’t specific to the moment. For example: if you desire to go out to dinner tonite, that is paramatma giving you that desire. Your liking going out to dinner in general, is the bigger picture, that’s your own inherent desire. General “big picture” desires are usually your own inherent desires, more detailed common everyday desires are paramatma directing you. Generally, desires which are not moving you to do something, are your own. You desire to eat and enjoy food, that is your own inherent desire. But if you desire to eat right now, and have some tacos, that is paramatma.
I don’t know which word Bhaktivinoda used, but there are Sanskrit words that can mean either will or desire. For example from the Sanskrit dictionary we find the common word iccha:
इच्छा icchA f. want
इच्छा icchA f. will
इच्छा icchA f. wish
इच्छा icchA f. willingness
इच्छा icchA f. desire
Also in Hindi it means the same thing, from the Hindi dictionary:
इच्छा icchā noun
bent (f)
will (f)
wish (f)
yearning (f)
accord (f)
appetite (f)
care (f)
notion (f)
readiness (f)
willing (f)
wishfulness (f)
wishing (f)
volition (f)
stomach (f)
desire (f)
It’s likely the word used in the Jaiva Dharma is iccha, if not another common word meaning both will or desire is abhilasa in Hindi and abhilasita in Sanskrit. In Bengali iccha also means will or desire. There are more words that mean desire or will, irādā in Bengali, for instance.
I know this may all seem very pedantic, but it’s such an important point to understand for the development of self-realization. The fact that ISKCON has very aggressively promoted the idea of free will, and possibly Narayana Maharaja’s sangha as well, needs to be exposed for the apasiddhanta it is. As I’ve shown in my previous posts, there is nothing in shastra which backs up the idea of free will, and much to refute it. You cannot become self-realized as long as you think we have free will, we need to understand our ontological relationship with Radha Krishna in order to enter into complete and full direct realization:
Bhagavad Gita:
- 9.10
mayadhyakshena prakritih / suyate sa-caracaram
hetunanena kaunteya / jagad viparivarttate
Prakriti (comprises everything in the universe/sub-atomic energy) works under my supervision, mayadhyakshena prakritih, completely controlling all of creation, suyate sa-caracaram. This is how the universe works son of Kunti, hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivarttate.
13.30
prakrityaiva ca karmani / kriyamanani sarvasah
yah pasyati tathatmanam / akarttaram sa pasyati
All activities taking place, in all respects, are performed by prakriti, prakrtyaiva ca karmani kriyamanani sarvasah. Who sees, yah pasyati, that the atma (human soul) is not the doer, atmanam akarttaram, he sees, sah pasyati.
18.59-61:
yad ahankaram asritya / na yotsya iti manyase
mithyaiva vyavasayas te / prakritis tvam niyokshyati
You were thinking that you will not fight, na yotsya iti manyase. But that is due to your misconception of your self and reality, yad ahankaram asritya . That resolution was in vain, mithyaiva vyavasayas te, prakriti will engage you (make you fight), prakritis tvam niyokshyati.
svabhava-jena kaunteya / nibaddhah svena karmana
kartum necchasi yan mohat / karishyasy avaso ‘pi tat
Your will not to act is illusory, kartum necchasi yan mohat. Bound by actions, nibaddhah svena karmana, born of your nature son of Kunti, svabhava-jena kaunteya, helpless, you will act karishyasy avaso ‘pi tat.
isvarah sarva-bhutanam / hrid-dese ‘rjuna tishthati
bhramayan sarva-bhutani / yantrarudhani mayaya
The supreme controller is at the heart of all beings Arjuna, isvarah sarva-bhutanam hrid-dese ‘rjuna tishthati, driving the movements of all living beings, bhramayan sarva-bhutani, who are mounted on the machine of his universal potency, yantrarudhani mayaya.
Vrajabhumi said:
I need to clarify what I wrote in the post about desire and free will. I’m going to add this to the above:
It can seem that if you don’t have free will then you can’t have free desire. For example: if I desire to go to the market tomorrow, and then I go, wasn’t that my free will since it was based upon by freedom of desire?
Because desire and will are closely related, so much of what we do is because of a desire to do it. When I say we have freedom of desire, I mean when it comes to things that you do that aren’t specific to the moment. For example: if you desire to go out to dinner tonite, that is paramatma giving you that desire. Your liking going out to dinner in general, is the bigger picture, that’s your own inherent desire. General “big picture” desires are usually your own inherent desires, more detailed common everyday desires are paramatma directing you. Generally, desires which are not moving you to do something, are your own. You desire to eat and enjoy food, that is your own inherent desire. But if you desire to eat right now, and have some tacos, that is paramatma.
Married to Uncertainty said:
Vrajabhumi,
Your understanding of spiritual topics is very interesting, hopefully it will add richness and clarity to my understanding of these topics. You categorize some “general” desires as “our won inherant desire”. What do you exactly mean by “own”?
Because desires of the pure spiritual self are free from ignorance and are directed only towards serving Shri Krishna. The example you gave like going to the market. One can go to the market for variety of reasons. But mostly it could be due to changing flux of gunas( prakriti) and has nothing to do with the actual self.
In the Jnana Yoga section of the Uddhava Gita, Uddhava asks some excellent questions on the nature of material existence, and Shri Krishna gives very interesting answers. I haven’t completely figured out Shri Krishna’s answers, but He says something like : the desires which we feel are our own, which seem so real, are based on illusion and misunderstanding.
Here is one such verse
SB 11.28.36: Whatever apparent duality is perceived in the self is simply the confusion of the mind. Indeed, such supposed duality has no basis to rest upon apart from one’s own soul.
All these desires are produced by some complex interaction of the gunas( or the kleshas), the karmashaya(stock of karma), the samskaras and the vasanas( or mental impressions) ,the environment and the overseer of all this process is the Parmatama.
I don’t think you meant that material desires( desires based on ignorance) are part of the soul. The reason why I don’t like this theory that material desire is part of the soul is as follows.
The envy-vada theory is very popular in ISKCON, and I completely disagree with it. Some say that the soul was envious of Shri Krishna and hence has left Vaikuntha. That is nonsense because how can any ignorance based desire(material desire) enter the soul. And if one says that envy is part of the soul, then it would be natural for the soul to be envious, and if that is the case why practice spirituality to reduce negative emotions like envy.
So this idea, that I am bad, I have left God and I am envious of Him, is a misconception and it only increases guilt and makes people judgemental “Oh the sense enjoyer ( or the mayavadi ) is envious of God.” And hence they conclude that this world a place of suffering because it is a place of rectification for ” rebellious souls”.
The correct understanding is that when one finds out that these desires one feels are not a part of oneself and that realty is actually very different.
So in one sense there isn’t really any freedom of desire when one is conditioned, Because things that produce that desire are complex and moreover they are based on illusion. Only self realized beings, have the freedom to express their true desires. And maybe there is a grey area in between these two states, for sadhakas.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
Vrajabhumi said:
Married to Uncertainty
The idea that the self-realized soul only has the desire to “serve Krishna” is not accurate, at least according to Gaudiya siddhanta. The Gaudiya theory is that the highest level of self-realized bhava (relationship) and rasa (the emotion being tasted or enjoyed) is exemplified in the participants of Krishna’s Vraja lila. Gaudiya acharyas wrote a number of books where they attempt to showcase those types of bhavas and rasas. Among those bhavas and rasas, one is considered the highest, that’s the madhurya-bhava or sringara rasa, the erotic bhava or rasa, as exemplified by the sakhis or gopis. In those writings we don’t see the sakhis having the sole desire of service to Krishna, their mood is very human-like, they don’t treat Krishna like a God.
The example I gave of going to market was simply to highlight the difference between an immediate desire to do something vs. broader desires we have, e.g. the desire to enjoy food is an inherent desire we possess, the desire to enjoy is an inherent desire, the desire to be in a loving relationship is an inherent desire, the desire to be comfortable is an inherent desire, etc. What we desire in the moment, or which causes us to do something, that’s paramatma guiding us to fulfill our destiny. Gunas (varieties of emotional influences, e.g. being drunk, or being angry, or being compassionate, etc.) are not independent influences:
You quoted this sloka:
That translation is off. It’s self-contradictory. First it says there is no duality in the jivatma, then it says there is. The first use of atma in the verse refers to paramatma, the second use refers to jivatma. We know this because of the context of the previous and following verses:
35. The Supreme lord is self-luminous, unborn and immeasurable. He is pure transcendental consciousness and perceives everything. One without a second, He is realized only after ordinary words cease. By Him the power of speech and the life airs are set into motion.
37. The duality of the five material elements is perceived only in terms of names and forms. Those who say this duality is real are pseudoscholars vainly proposing fanciful theories without basis in fact.
The sloka you quoted should have read more like this:
First Krishna describes himself, then in the next verse he says there is no duality in him, that the only duality is the difference between the jiva and him. In the next verse he points out that the duality we perceive in the material world of different forms and names is an illusion, it’s not real. The point being it’s all him, but the jiva.
You also wrote:
Krishna inspires our desires, but we do have desires. That’s the difference from will, which we simply do not possess at all. That was my point. We have desires, however much they are guided by Krishna, we still have them; but we don’t have will, however much we are deluded into thinking we do.
Married to Uncertainty said:
Vrajabhumi,
I shouldn’t have used the word service. I thought the word service would encompass even the madhurya bhava, but I guess service is not a good word for that.
You say that the desire to enjoy is an inherent desire. Well I would use the phrase “desire for happiness and joy” is an inherent desire. However because of identification with the mind, what comes out is something different. In self realized souls, these desires are free from ignorance. But in conditioned souls because of ignorance , one sees duality. ” This is my profit and this is my loss; I like this and I dislike this; This is comfortable and that is uncomfortable”
or as Shri Krishna puts it
SB 11.10.20: Death is not at all pleasing, and since everyone is exactly like a condemned man being led to the place of execution, what possible happiness can people derive from material objects or the gratification they provide?
The gopis/sakhas desire to enjoy with Shri Krishna, but that is different from the enjoyment we find in this world. There is rivalry among the gopis also, but that is not out of ignorance of the real nature of the self. That is not due to mis-identification of the purusha with the prakriti. But the rivalry we see here in this world is due to combination of purusha and prakriti, caused by ignorance.
So yes, we have desires, but the desires we see in this world cannot be called our own.
As for the translation, the word that is used is “atman” which is typically understood to be self. Even then, there is no duality in the soul, because the soul is not a combination of the prakriti and purusha it is categorically different from prakriti. Although they have been glued together. The nature of the soul is one.
Thanks.
Vrajabhumi said:
Married to Uncertainty
The word atma is commonly used to refer to paramatma or jivatma in shastra, e.g.
http://vedabase.net/sb/2/9/1/
http://vedabase.net/sb/2/10/9/
http://vedabase.net/sb/3/9/22/
http://vedabase.net/sb/3/15/39/
http://vedabase.net/sb/3/28/41/
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/85/24/
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/86/44/
http://vedabase.net/sb/11/3/5/
And countless others. The entire basis of Advaita Vedanta philosophy is due to their interpretation of atma always meaning both the jivatma and paramatma, instead of sometimes one and sometimes the other. For example the famous first verse of the Aitareya Upanishad:
The translation of the Bhagavatam verse in question is contradictory, the BBT version (by Hridayananada or Gopiparanadhana) has the verse saying the jiva is without duality, and then saying except for the jiva? Makes no sense.
Satya devi dasi said:
Hare Krishna,
Advaita das at madangopal.blogspot.com had a series of blogs about Brhad Bhagavtamrta and the translation problems of the English editions. He might be a good resource for an original Bengali text.
Vrajabhumi said:
Satya
I don’t think he respects Bhaktivinoda as a teacher, he has said he considers him to have deviated to some degree or another from the original teachings and the previous acharyas. So I don’t know if he buys his books.
Satya devi dasi said:
You are referring to Advaita Das? He reviewed Gopiparanadana’s translations on his blog, so he does have the books. He would have the Bengali, too.
Vrajabhumi said:
Satya
Yes, the same person, it’s Bhaktivinoda he has a problem with, I imagine his critique of Gopiparanadhana’s translation was about some other author (the Bhagavatam maybe?) so I don’t know if he would care to have his books. Even so, I think he’s in India right now, so probably doesn’t have his books with him I would imagine. Whatever the case, we can be confident in assuming that the Bengali word used can mean will or desire, since one of the English translators chose will and the other desire.
Satya devi dasi said:
Oh, my mistake. Please delete my comments. Sorry.
Vrajabhumi said:
Satya
Nothing to be sorry about, I’m leaving the comments in case anyone has the same type of questions.
bhavaprema said:
Always a comic strip over on dandavats.com
http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10113
Seeker said:
Hi Vrajabhumi,
You might have already seen this news –
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/19/uproar-at-call-in-russia-to-ban-gita-idINDEE7BI0D120111219
I wonder what will be the outcome behind this plan of Krishna and what precedent that this might set for the rest of the countries, even if not immediately, at least in future. While there might be some local religious or political conflicts behind this case, one curious thing to note is that it says, “The case filed by state prosecutors in the Siberian city of Tomsk says a translation of the Bhagavad Gita is extremist because it insults non-believers, local media in Russia say.”
There is no dearth of insults strewn across Prabhupada’s purports and if we add some overzealous followers who might have indulged in so-called heavy preaching without being sensitive to local religion or culture, then it opens up the possibility for such issues. His translation and purports are already considered and projected as synonymous for Gita for the purposes of this case and so, if someone comes up with Prabhupada’s quotes on women, jews, blacks, etc.., then this case might look justified even in the eyes of public.
Vrajabhumi said:
Seeker
It’s not surprising to see that happening in Russia, ISKCON has had trouble there in the past with the Orthodox Christian Church, which since the break-up of the USSR has tried to reassert it’s dominance. In Russia and the other Eastern European ex-soviet states, like Ukraine, ISKCON has a much bigger presence then in the rest of the western world, which can lead to situations we now see. I’ve warned in some of my writing here that these types of attacks on Prabhupada are inevitable, and probably going to get worse. Right now it seems they just have a problem with the stuff in Prabhupada’s books, and it may just be at the instigation of the Orthodox Church which sees ISKCON as competition; or maybe some family member of a devotee is behind it; or maybe it’s just the liberal values of a college town (I hear Tomsk is a college town) incited by Prabhupada’s unabashed sexism, misogyny, classism, denigration of those who don’t follow his 4 regulative principles, etc. Wait till they read the other stuff he said.
Pingback: It Won’t Be Long « Hare Krishna Women
Gita 9.32 said:
I have Srila Narayana Maharaja’s English Gita, first edition 2000 in front of me, which came out BEFORE any website carried an online version, and here is what it says:
“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.”
That means that whoever LATER made an online version available, was the person who put up the faulty translation and that does not at all surprise me considering that, like you said, “Since Narayana Maharaja’s English translators are likely ex-ISKCON, it makes sense that they wouldn’t accept Bhaktivinoda saying we have no free will.”
Several of Narayana Maharaja’s direct disciples have expressed discontent with what they call the “Iskconization” of their sanga and a number of his first Western disciples shy away from it.