Tags

, , , ,

This post is in reference to a comment I made to Raghu Mishra Dasa on the It Won’t Be Long post. He had posted a poem which seemed to me to be at least in part a quote from Prabhupada. So I did a search and I found that the bottom half of his poem was a quote from a purport to a Bhagavad Gita verse. I then responded to Raghu Mishra telling him that I thought his combining of the words from Prabhupada’s purport, out of context, and adding them to some other stream of thought, caused the point of Prabhupada’s words to be lost or misrepresented.

He responded, and included in what he said was this:

in a way you make a distinction between the means and the end result in your above reply and I respect your decision to do so however you must know I am a bit of a simpleton focusing on whatever one plus one is actually contributing to maintaining a sense of how it is the method of Krsna consciousness in discussion of course the method goes on regardless

I’m glad he brought this all up, it showcases a problem I see in Prabhupada’s books, and not just in the purports. As many of you know, Prabhupada’s purports (commentaries to each verse) were written by using the commentaries of previous gurus or acharyas in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, translating them into English and adding what he wanted from that, and then adding his own words. The problem, from my perspective, is that it’s common for Prabhupada’s English translation to lack in clarity when it’s about something deeply philosophical or ontological. If it’s about some history, or story about a sage or king, then those are easier to translate. But when it comes to other topics, often the result is something that goes over most people’s heads because the translations are too cryptic.

The poem by Raghu Mishra Dasa is a good example of not knowing that what he did changed the purpose of what Prabhupada was trying to say. The part of Prabhupada’s purport he quotes is from the following, the part in bold is what he included in his poem:

This material veil can be removed at once by Krsna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake of Krsna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the result are–all combined together–Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual quality. Krsna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully absorbed in Krsna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate gain–everything–becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of Krsna consciousness.

I would bet that most people who read that wouldn’t know what Prabhupada is talking about, especially if they read the translation of the verse he’s commenting on, which is so far off it’s really an interpretation, not a translation. Look at some other translations of the same verse in comparison to Prabhupada’s Gita:

brahmarpanam brahma havir
brahmagnau brahmana hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyam
brahma-karma-samadhina

Prabhupada’s Gita
A person who is fully absorbed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature.

Ramanand Prasad
Brahman is the oblation. Brahman is the clarified butter. The oblation is poured by Brahman into the fire of Brahman. Brahman shall be realized by the one who considers everything as (a manifestation or) an act of Brahman.

Eknath Easwaran
The process of offering is Brahman; that which is offered is Brahman. Brahman offers the sacrifice in the fire of Brahman. Brahman is attained by those who see Brahman in every action.

Dr. S Sankaranarayan
The Brahman-oblation that is to be offered to the Brahman, is poured into the Brahman-fire by the Brahman; it is nothing but the Brahman that is to be attained by him whose deep contemplation is the said Brahman-action.

Swami Adidevananda
Brahman is the instrument to offer with; Brahman is the oblation. By Brahman is the oblation offered into the fire of Brahman; Brahman alone is to be reached by him who meditates on Him in his works.

Swami Sivananda
Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.

Edwin Arnold
The sacrifice is Brahm, the ghee and grain
Are Brahm, the fire is Brahm, the flesh it eats
Is Brahm, and unto Brahm attaineth he
Who, in such office, meditates on Brahm.

Narayana Maharaja
Brahma can be attained by one who performs yajna
in which the sacrificial instruments, the ghee, the
fire, the offerings and the priest (agent) are all
brahma. Such a person is qualified to attain brahma
because he is fully absorbed in karma which is of
the same nature as brahma.

As you can see Narayana Maharaja changes it quite significantly, the other translations are all more or less correct, except Prabhupada’s Gita, which is an interpretation rather than translation. Eknath Easwaran’s is the most literal, and the best. The point Krishna is making is trying to see that God is everything, not just in the substance of everything, but by the controlling of everything. Prabhupada’s and Narayana Maharaja’s translations miss the point of Krishna using the word samadhina. They both translated samadhina to mean something other than a meditative act, they translate it as absorption in something, but if that was what Krishna meant he would have used a word that wasn’t so related to meditation. You can see that almost in every other instance Prabhupada translated samadhina differently, almost exclusively having to do with trance or meditative state. These are the final two lines of the verse:

brahmaiva tena gantavyam
brahma: brahman; eva: truly, really; tena: on that account , for that reason; gantavyam: to be gone to, attained

brahma-karma-samadhina
brahma: brahman; karma: actions; samadhina: absorbed in contemplation

brahmaiva tena gantavyam: Brahman can really truly be attained by
brahma-karma-samadhina: being absorbed in meditating on Brahman in actions

The word samadhina, which is from samadhi, tells us that we are to meditate on seeing Brahman (God) in all actions—by that samadhi, Brahman is really and truly attained.

Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja translate those words as Krishna saying that by Brahman actions, spiritual actions, one can attain Brahman. Why would Krishna say “Brahman actions” if he meant spiritual actions? Wouldn’t a different more precise word, a word that actually makes sense, like yajna, have been used if he meant that? This verse is about the nature of Brahman realization, of meditating on seeing Brahman in everything, of being aware of God’s presence at every moment in everything you experience, it’s not about only seeing Brahman in directly related spiritual activities.

Krishna is first saying: “The sacrificial substance is Brahman, the instrument doing the offering is Brahman, Brahman is offering the sacrifice into the fire that is Brahman.” It would make no sense in that context to then say that by spiritual actions you attain Brahman—considering that was what he said in the previous verse. This one is a culmination of that line of thought, in this verse he’s telling us the nature of attaining Brahman—that when self-realized you will see that everything you experience is in truth all Brahman, that you can really truly attain Brahman by meditating on all actions being Brahman, i.e. understand and meditate on God being present and controlling everything and everyone, including yourself—by that you attain Brahman. That vision is the nature of God consciousness.

In the purport quoted above, you can see Prabhupada try to explain that concept, but unless you know what he’s trying to say there’s a good chance you won’t understand, especially seeing how the verse is translated.

Advertisement