Please introduce yourself to the group

[Nitaidas]

Dec 26, 2010 9:48:51 GMT -6 malatimanjari said:

But the understanding of gunas is essential for understanding the workings of material nature, and they are even more than just psychological concepts. They are metaphysical categories which are the very basis and substance of prakriti. I am convinced that with a proper understanding even the post modern scientific mind can be satisfied.

Do you have any evidence for this? I think they are just the products of the imaginations of a pre-scientific literati. There is nothing like them in nature apart from the idea of density that I suggested in discussing guNa as threads. Even if string theory is proven, the comparison between the guNa and strings is not all that strong. GuNology works only so long as you don't or can't look any deeper or think about it more acutely and robustly. What is worse is that they were used to support the caste system which was one of the most egregious forms of institutionalized racism ever invented. That is another strike against the guNas. Both guNas and varnas should be recognized as the historical curiosities they were, the products of mankind's ignorant and self-deluded childhood, and documented in a museum. There is nothing of scientific or philosophical worth about them.

[malatimanjari]

You take a very strong stand here, and ultimately I guess it is a matter of perspective. Since you don't accept Sankhya (or think it is nonsense) there is not much to argue about, since these are metaphysical concepts which explain all the evolutes of prakriti. If you equate scientific with empirical evidence, of course you won't find it, but nontheless it is scientic within its own parameters. And I don't accept that these are inferior to modern empiric science. It just depends on one's own epistemological conditioning. Without the concept of the gunas even yoga cannot be explained since it is also based on Sankhya. If you also don't accept that guna and varna come from Krsna then naturally it will all look unscientific.

Thanks for elaborating on your translation techniques. Obviously you have invested a lot of buddhi in that, but the suggesion was not to avoid a translation or explanation at all, but to give it once in the beginning and then leave the Sanskrit. Because even for your translation you need a purport as to why these words come closet to the intended meaning and one still needs to perform the mental act of relating a word like "thread" or "translucent" etc. into the much broader concept of gunas. Reading all these thread-compounds in the text itself is what I found irritating, much more so than the Sanskrit. But maybe I'll just slip back into slumber ...

[gerard]

There is nothing of scientific or philosophical worth about them [the guNas]

Well, that put a rather dramatic end to this discussion.

I think my translation of guNa as threads succeeds in making sense out of the nonsense of Sankhya theory

Another smug dagger in the back of this discussion. Why would we discuss nonsense?

Anyway, the function of a translator is not to make sense out of nonsense. If there is nonsense in the source text he/she is supposed to transfer that nonsense to the translation. You are not to “improve” upon a text.


BTW, ‘thread’ or ‘strand’ has been used as a translation for guNa by several translators for quite a while now. Edgerton’s 1944 Gita translation for instance:

For this is My divine strand-composed
Trick-of-illusion, hard to get past;

With little success I think, but ‘strand’ is at least a bit better than ‘thread’ because a thread is made of strands. “The third strand makes the rope.” -- Dutch proverb.

[Nitaidas]

Dec 27, 2010 17:13:10 GMT -6 gerard said:

There is nothing of scientific or philosophical worth about them [the guNas]

Well, that put a rather dramatic end to this discussion.

I think my translation of guNa as threads succeeds in making sense out of the nonsense of Sankhya theory

Another smug dagger in the back of this discussion. Why would we discuss nonsense?

Anyway, the function of a translator is not to make sense out of nonsense. If there is nonsense in the source text he/she is supposed to transfer that nonsense to the translation. You are not to “improve” upon a text.


BTW, ‘thread’ or ‘strand’ has been used as a translation for guNa by several translators for quite a while now. Edgerton’s 1944 Gita translation for instance:

For this is My divine strand-composed
Trick-of-illusion, hard to get past;

With little success I think, but ‘strand’ is at least a bit better than ‘thread’ because a thread is made of strands. “The third strand makes the rope.” -- Dutch proverb.

Sorry to be so imperialistic and judgmental in my last post in this thread, gerardji. I didn't mean to squash the discussion. Of course, you could have carried on with arguments for your position. Why bow to my view? I sometimes don't respond to criticism well, especially in matters that I have given a great deal of thought to. Of course the three guNa theory is not nonsense. That was sheer hyperbole on my part. It is sensible, otherwise people would not have embraced it so enthusiastically and for so long. Even a Veda or a guru has to make some sense. They cannot rely entirely on their authority to impose their views. The maneuver of saying "don't worry if it makes little sense to you now, you will realize its truth later" only works for a while. Eventually, there should be some benefit to adopting the view. I am curious to know what you think that benefit is.

For me, I see the triguNa theory as in the same category as the five element theory (earth, fire, water, air, and ether) or the four class theory (priest, warrior, farmer, laborer). They are not exactly wrong, but they do not take you very far. One can see how they would be useful for people who do want to look any deeper or who do not have the time to do so. They are economical and adequate for day-to-day living. But, they certainly are not capable of getting us to where we are today technologically and scientifically. For that we had to pay more attention to the "irreducible and stubborn facts" (William James).

Thanks for reminding me of Edgerton's translation. I had forgotten about it. It may be one of the best (most faithful) translations of the Gita ever done. And it is probable that I had that operating in my subconsciousness when I was struggling to translate this text in more meaningful way. I don't know what you judge as success, but I think his translation has really set the standard for fidelity. And his commentary is quite illuminating too. He addresses among other things the misunderstanding surrounding the use of the word yoga in the Gita. Is there any better translation of the Gita?

I don't think there is any real difference between strand and thread. Strands are just thin threads and strand is not used much any more.

[Nitaidas]

Dec 27, 2010 9:20:04 GMT -6 malatimanjari said:

You take a very strong stand here, and ultimately I guess it is a matter of perspective. Since you don't accept Sankhya (or think it is nonsense) there is not much to argue about, since these are metaphysical concepts which explain all the evolutes of prakriti. If you equate scientific with empirical evidence, of course you won't find it, but nontheless it is scientic within its own parameters. And I don't accept that these are inferior to modern empiric science. It just depends on one's own epistemological conditioning. Without the concept of the gunas even yoga cannot be explained since it is also based on Sankhya. If you also don't accept that guna and varna come from Krsna then naturally it will all look unscientific.

Thanks for elaborating on your translation techniques. Obviously you have invested a lot of buddhi in that, but the suggesion was not to avoid a translation or explanation at all, but to give it once in the beginning and then leave the Sanskrit. Because even for your translation you need a purport as to why these words come closet to the intended meaning and one still needs to perform the mental act of relating a word like "thread" or "translucent" etc. into the much broader concept of gunas. Reading all these thread-compounds in the text itself is what I found irritating, much more so than the Sanskrit. But maybe I'll just slip back into slumber ...

I don't think it is really a matter of perspective. That is kind of a cop-out. Our perspectives are not all that different. We both demand evidence to support the theories we entertain. You apparently think it is enough if something is discussed in an old text. I am fine with that, too, but I also want to ask on the basis of what does the author of that text discuss that theory. The fact that it is also discussed in the Gita and in the Bhagavata does not help much, in my view. The question remains how do the authors of those texts know this to be true? Gerardji will probably say that they are mystics and that therefore they gained their knowledge through mystical experience. Right, Ji? I don't know if I buy this. Mystical experience is a slippery creature. Who knows who has it and whether it has been properly described? Not something one can depend on.

And think about what you are saying. Yes, of course, I equate scientific with empirical evidence. If the guNas exist they will be experienced empirically. Everything depends on the empirical. You are reading this posting with your empirical eyes from your empirical computer screen. Nothing bypasses the empirical. Even sabda, the "holy grail" of Vaisnava theology, is empirical. It is sabda, sound, and must be accessed through the senses. And if the senses are fallible so is sabda. The idea that you can learn something apart from your senses is simply wrong. Everything you have said here you have learned through your senses. And you have communicated it through your senses. Even the highest goal that CV envisions for its members is a vision of R and K. It all starts from and returns to the senses.

Don't go back to sleep. Stay awake. Use your senses to discover the truth about things.

[fiorafemere]

So in the end, gunas are real and not just childish imagination of ancient writers. If you have not experienced them, that does not mean others have not. You mentioned sabda in your reply above to malatimanjari. Sabda is experienced, but you know all too well from your experience as a professor that qualification is essential on part of both, the guru and a disciple.

[gerard]

My computer crashed totally last week, "blue screen of death" and all that, so I have to keep it short now.
Glad to see you don't want to end this discussion, I'll get back to it, if I have something to add.

With the relative success of Edgerton I meant with his translation of guNa with ''strand". His translation is indeed one of the finest and most faithful around. When I'm at home I'll check my collection to see whether I have an even better one, but I doubt it.


(We can forget about publishing Hayeshvar's translation of the KK. His widow is disciple of Narayana Maharaja and they want to re-publish his books and translations themselves.)

[Nitaidas]

Jan 8, 2011 10:02:37 GMT -6 gerard said:

My computer crashed totally last week, "blue screen of death" and all that, so I have to keep it short now.
Glad to see you don't want to end this discussion, I'll get back to it, if I have something to add.

Sorry to hear this. I know how frustrating that can be. I hope you are able to get it fixed or replaced without too much trouble.

With the relative success of Edgerton I meant with his translation of guNa with ''strand". His translation is indeed one of the finest and most faithful around. When I'm at home I'll check my collection to see whether I have an even better one, but I doubt it.

Yes, his translation is amazingly faithful even to the point of keeping the Sanskrit word order, which, of course, makes the English sound a bit odd sometimes. Still it is like having built in word-for-words. Students of the text can look back and forth between the English and the Sanskrit and see precisely what each word means and how the sentence is constructed. It is a great place to start if you want to get as close to the meaning of the original as you can.

(We can forget about publishing Hayeshvar's translation of the KK. His widow is disciple of Narayana Maharaja and they want to re-publish his books and translations themselves.)

Tant pis! I guess we will have to do our own. Maybe we can get our resident versifier, madanmohanji, to try his hand at it. I had Hayeshvar's all typeset and ready to for proofing. I was considering adding a translation of B B Majumdar's commentary to the text. His commentary is much more insightful and well researched.

[Nitaidas]

Jan 7, 2011 19:07:25 GMT -6 fiorafemere said:

So in the end, gunas are real and not just childish imagination of ancient writers. If you have not experienced them, that does not mean others have not. You mentioned sabda in your reply above to malatimanjari. Sabda is experienced, but you know all too well from your experience as a professor that qualification is essential on part of both, the guru and a disciple.

No, I don't think the guNa are real. There is no empirical evidence for them as far as I know. But, I don't think they are completely unreal either. I think they are metaphors that have perhaps proven useful in interpreting the nature of the world we live in. For instance, if I invoke my imagination as I sit here at my desk and imagine the world before me a tapestry woven together of different kinds of threads, one of the things one notices is the different abilities of these threads to let light pass through them. Near me is a window through which light is streaming at the moment and just in front of me is a wall through which no light passes. Thus we have a spectrum of objects some of which let light through easily and some of which block it completely. In between me and the wall is what looks like empty space, but we know that it is filled with air which allows light to pass more or less easily between the wall and me. If I were smoking that space would be filled with smoke and would be more impervious to light reflected off the wall. It would be partially obscured from me. So I think the guNas are registers of the various levels of lucidity in things, that is, the various levels of ease light has in passing through things. I don't think they really exist per se, but are ways of talking about lucidity. Light also is a symbol for consciousness and thus guNas are also metaphors useful for talking about the different ways or levels at which consciousness shines through things. In some things or persons it is easily perceived and in other things and people it is not easily perceived.

So I don't think that the guNa are real, but that they were part of a strategy for looking at the world that had a certain amount of success for a while. The idea that the world is woven like a fabric is a common metaphor found in the Upanisads. Those who were used to seeing the world like that described the different levels of lucidity in terms of threads. It filled a need for a while, but now we have much better ways of seeing the world.

[gerard]

Jan 8, 2011 11:58:15 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Yes, his translation is amazingly faithful even to the point of keeping the Sanskrit word order, which, of course, makes the English sound a bit odd sometimes. Still it is like having built in word-for-words. Students of the text can look back and forth between the English and the Sanskrit and see precisely what each word means and how the sentence is constructed. It is a great place to start if you want to get as close to the meaning of the original as you can.

For English-language students of the Gita two other books are very useful, I think.

Winthrop Sargeant
The Bhagavad Gita
SUNY Albany 1984

As example above-quoted 7.13;

By these three guna-made states of being
All this universe is deluded.
It does not recognize Me,
who am higher than these, and eternal.

He remains close to Edgerton but does not improve upon it. But he adds an interlinear translation to the nagari text and a word-for-word translation with the grammatical analysis:

tribhir gunamayair bhavai
by the three guna-made states of being
etc

tribhis (m. inst. pl.), by three, by the three
gunamayais (m. inst. pl.) by guna made, by guna produced, by guna formed
bhavais (m.inst. pl.) by states of being, by modes of behavior
etc


And added to this, the excellent

Bhagavad-Gita, An Exegetical Commentary
Robert N. Minor
Heritage Publishers, New Delhi 1982.


which does not contain a translation; the commentary compares different (Indian traditional) commentaries and gives a comprehensive overview of the academic Gita publications.

[Nitaidas]

Yes. Good choices, gerardji. Those are both exemplary Gita translations. I was actually at one point engaged in trying to reprint Minor's book. I have a portion of it done. That project fell through and never get very far. I was working on behalf of another press at the time. I wonder if he is interested in having it redone (or even if he is still alive). Anyway, I am impressed that you have a copy.

[openmind]

OFF:
Hello All,

Some of you may know me from the old GD forum, my friend Nitai has invited me here.
ON:

Now back to the guNa debate!

[Nitaidas]

Thanks for joining us, openmindji. It is great to have you here.

I have said my little piece on the guNa. A debate means someone has to disagree with me. What do you think the guNa are? Real, metaphorical, both, neither. This genesis of this discussion was my translation of the first chapter of Sri Kanupriya's short book on sadhu-sanga. That is posted in another part of the forum (Modern Vaisnava Literature). Gerardji and Malatimanjari were not very happy with my translation of the guNa as "threads." They preferred the usual translation "quality" or for the word to be left as it is. That led to a hyper-defensive response from me and then maybe to a more reasonable and considered response. Anyway, have a look at the translation when you get time and share your thoughts on the matter.

The big question is how seriously should we take the proto-scientific views enshrined in the texts we take as authoritative?

Also look around at some of the other threads. We have a nice one on Sri Krishna Prem and madanmohanji has posted the complete Caleb verse translation of the Gita in another. Our member sita is doing us the honor of posting another fine translation in yet a third thread.

[openmind]

I never studied Sanskrt, so my opinion may not have much value. However, the only thing that comes to mind is the famous expression "nirguna". Would you translate it as "threadless"? I never had any problem with "guna" as "quality", what I do find a bit funny when people translate it as "the mode of material nature".

[subala]

I'm currently reading Edwin Bryants's tanslation and commentaries to the Yoga Sutras, and in his introduction he writes:

"....are the three gunas, literally, strands or qualities, that are inherent in prakriti." This should keep both sides happy. ;D

Two lines later:

"These gunas are sometimes compared to threads of a rope; just as a rope is a combination of threads, so all manifest reality consists of a combination of the gunas" This should make Nitai happy... ;D