I have tried to move this blog forward several times but have removed each of those posts. As a result of being unsuccessful in those approaches I have now decided on the approach of selecting random verses from Bhagavad-gita and seeing where they go.
The first random verse is Chapter 10, Verse 24. Kreeshna is speaking. Charles Wilkins’s translation is:
“Amongst teachers know that I am their chief Vreehaspatee; amongst warriors I am Skanda; and amongst floods I am the ocean.”
In Chapter 10 Kreeshna describes his “divine distinctions” to Arjoon. This chapter brings up an aspect of Bhagavad-gita that put me off when I first briefly examined a translation, and led to my soon placing it back on the display table I had picked it up from. The chapter contains many unfamiliar names and terms that had no meaning for me then. Vreehaspatee is a good example of one. In Bhagvat-Geeta Charles Wilkins does provide an end note which explains that Vreehaspatee is “the preceptor of the Devs or Dews, the planet Jupiter and Dies Jovis.” Though this does provide some additional information, it still does not explain much. In the following I will attempt to provide some context for these names and terms to aid understanding.
Wilkins titles Chapter 10 (Lecture 10, as he calls it), “Of the Diversity of the Divine Nature.” Kreeshna is responding to Arjoon’s questions. Arjoon has just said (verses 12-15):
"All the Reeshees, the Devarshees, and the prophet Narad, call thee the supreme Brahm; the supreme abode; the most holy; the most high God; the eternal Poorosh, the divine being before all other Gods, without birth, the mighty Lord! Thus say Aseeta, Devala, Vyas, and thou thyself hast told me so; and I firmly believe, O Kesava, all thou tellest me. Neither the Dews nor the Danoos are acquainted, O Lord, with thy appearance. Thou alone, O first of men! knowest thy own spirit; thou, who art the production of all nature, the ruler of all things, the God of Gods, and the universal Lord!"
Now Arjoon is asking Kreeshna to describe “those divine portions of thyself, by which thou possessest and dwellest in this world.” So Kreeshna is delineating “the chief of [his] divine distinctions” for Arjoon. Kreeshna is saying he “dwellest in this world” as Vreehaspatee and Skanda and the ocean, among many other things. And each of these is distinguished by being the greatest of its category. Vreephaspatee is the greatest of teachers, Skanda is the greatest of generals, and the ocean is the greatest of “floods” [or “lakes” (Miller), “water-floods” (Arnold), or “bodies of water” (Prabhupada)]. Arjoon has asked, “How shall I, although I constantly think of thee, be able to know thee? In what particular natures art thou to be found? Tell me again in full what is thy connection, and what thy distinction.” So Kreeshna is giving Arjoon ways to think of him that are related to the world Arjoon knows, so he can have a better conception of who Kreeshna is. In Arjoon’s words Kreeshna is “the production [bhavana, i.e., causation (Monier-Williams), origin (Prabhupada)] of all nature, the ruler of all things, the God of Gods, and the universal Lord.” But Arjoon wants to know “in what particular natures art thou to be found?” in order to have a more tangible understanding of who Kreeshna is.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Chapter 5, verse 7, provides a better example of issues of meaning. The third line of the Sanskrit reads: sarva-bhuta-atma-bhuta-atma. Sarva-bhuta is defined in the Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary (revised edition, published 1899) as meaning “all beings.” Atma-bhuta is defined in Monier-Williams as meaning “become another’s self”; “attached to, faithful.” Or, to break it down word by word: every, living being, self, living being, self (sarva, bhuta, atma, bhuta, atma).
Wilkins translates this line as “whose soul is the universal soul.” Barbara Stoler Miller translates it as “unites himself with the self of all creatures.” Sir Edwin Arnold translates it as “lost in the common life of all which lives.” Expanding to the complete verse, and including the preceding verse, can give more perspective to the situation.
Wilkins translates these two verses, 6 and 7, as: “To be a Sannyasee, or recluse, without application, is to obtain pain and trouble; whilst the Moonee, who is employed in the practice of his duty, presently obtaineth Brahm, the Almighty. The man who, employed in the practice of works, is of a purified soul, a subdued spirit, and restrained passions, and whose soul is the universal soul, is not affected by so being.” “Not affected by so being” means “not affected by being in the practice of works.” In other words, a person who is acting or working in some way is not adversely affected by their actions if their soul is pure, their spirit is controlled, their passions are restrained, and they act in a way which respects the view that, just as they have a self or soul, so too do all living beings have a self or soul.
I really want this blog to be focused primarily on applying Bhagavad-gita in daily life, and not on slicing and dicing translation issues. But until more content has been developed, there isn’t a lot to work with in that regard. So I’ll go ahead and post this, and try to move things forward more next time.
Wilkins translates this line as “whose soul is the universal soul.” Barbara Stoler Miller translates it as “unites himself with the self of all creatures.” Sir Edwin Arnold translates it as “lost in the common life of all which lives.” Expanding to the complete verse, and including the preceding verse, can give more perspective to the situation.
Wilkins translates these two verses, 6 and 7, as: “To be a Sannyasee, or recluse, without application, is to obtain pain and trouble; whilst the Moonee, who is employed in the practice of his duty, presently obtaineth Brahm, the Almighty. The man who, employed in the practice of works, is of a purified soul, a subdued spirit, and restrained passions, and whose soul is the universal soul, is not affected by so being.” “Not affected by so being” means “not affected by being in the practice of works.” In other words, a person who is acting or working in some way is not adversely affected by their actions if their soul is pure, their spirit is controlled, their passions are restrained, and they act in a way which respects the view that, just as they have a self or soul, so too do all living beings have a self or soul.
I really want this blog to be focused primarily on applying Bhagavad-gita in daily life, and not on slicing and dicing translation issues. But until more content has been developed, there isn’t a lot to work with in that regard. So I’ll go ahead and post this, and try to move things forward more next time.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The First English Translation of the Gita
In this blog I will refer primarily to Charles Wilkins’s translation of the Bhagavad-gita, published in 1785 and titled The Bhagvat-Geeta. His was the first English translation, and he is said to have been the first English speaking person to master the Sanskrit language. According to Wikipedia, Wilkins studied Sanskrit at Varanasi under a Brahmin pandit named Kalinatha. Perhaps Kalinatha is the pandit whom Wilkins, writing in his introduction, states he consulted in translating Bhagvat-Geeta.
Also in his introduction, Wilkins requests the reader to “have the liberality to excuse the obscurity of many passages, and the confusion of sentiments which runs through the whole, in its present form.” Wilkins’s translation overall is actually very good. For the work of one pioneering the translation of Sanskrit into English it is remarkably well conceived and communicated. Of course, as he acknowledges, he did consult others. The final result is his, though, and he renders it as a work of meaning, rather than as an academic exercise.
This is not to say, however, that there are no areas where his struggle to make meaning comes up short. There are some. To give a simple example that is readily at hand, Wilkins translates verse 22 in chapter 5 as: “The enjoyments which proceed from the feelings are as the wombs of future pain. The wise man, who is acquainted with the beginning and the end of things, delighteth not in these.” The Sanskrit includes words for “beginning” and “end,” and, as in all translation, the translator has to decide how to fit the words together in the new language. Wilkins presents the beginning and the end as subjects of knowledge of the wise man. Several later translations I have consulted all agree that the words refer not to the person’s knowledge, but to the temporality of enjoyments, which have a beginning and an end. The overall meaning is not much changed by this variance, however, as the message remains that one who is wise does not delight in sensuous enjoyments.
There are other passages that, in fact, are much more obscure, and I may have occasion in the future to locate and refer to them. Still, Wilkins’s translation stands as a solid presentation that has inspired many thinkers from the late 18th century well into the 19th century and beyond. As Henry David Thoreau, who took a copy of Wilkins’s translation of Bhagvat-Geeta with him to Walden Pond, wrote (in A Week on the Merrimack and Concord Rivers): “The reader is nowhere raised into and sustained in a higher, purer, or rarer region of thought than in the Bhagvat-Geeta.” Of course Thoreau was referring to the content of Krishna’s words, but it was through the medium of Wilkins’s translation that he received them.
Also in his introduction, Wilkins requests the reader to “have the liberality to excuse the obscurity of many passages, and the confusion of sentiments which runs through the whole, in its present form.” Wilkins’s translation overall is actually very good. For the work of one pioneering the translation of Sanskrit into English it is remarkably well conceived and communicated. Of course, as he acknowledges, he did consult others. The final result is his, though, and he renders it as a work of meaning, rather than as an academic exercise.
This is not to say, however, that there are no areas where his struggle to make meaning comes up short. There are some. To give a simple example that is readily at hand, Wilkins translates verse 22 in chapter 5 as: “The enjoyments which proceed from the feelings are as the wombs of future pain. The wise man, who is acquainted with the beginning and the end of things, delighteth not in these.” The Sanskrit includes words for “beginning” and “end,” and, as in all translation, the translator has to decide how to fit the words together in the new language. Wilkins presents the beginning and the end as subjects of knowledge of the wise man. Several later translations I have consulted all agree that the words refer not to the person’s knowledge, but to the temporality of enjoyments, which have a beginning and an end. The overall meaning is not much changed by this variance, however, as the message remains that one who is wise does not delight in sensuous enjoyments.
There are other passages that, in fact, are much more obscure, and I may have occasion in the future to locate and refer to them. Still, Wilkins’s translation stands as a solid presentation that has inspired many thinkers from the late 18th century well into the 19th century and beyond. As Henry David Thoreau, who took a copy of Wilkins’s translation of Bhagvat-Geeta with him to Walden Pond, wrote (in A Week on the Merrimack and Concord Rivers): “The reader is nowhere raised into and sustained in a higher, purer, or rarer region of thought than in the Bhagvat-Geeta.” Of course Thoreau was referring to the content of Krishna’s words, but it was through the medium of Wilkins’s translation that he received them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
