A query regarding variant interpretations of a verse.

[madanmohandas]

I wonder if the meaning of this verse can be clarified by the learned lore masters here. hehehe

ŚB 3.15.1
मैत्रेय उवाच
प्रजापत्यं तु तत्तेज: परतेजोहनं दिति: ।
दधार वर्षाणि शतं शङ्कमाना सुरार्दनात् ॥ १ ॥
maitreya uvāca
prājāpatyaṁ tu tat tejaḥ
para-tejo-hanaṁ ditiḥ
dadhāra varṣāṇi śataṁ
śaṅkamānā surārdanāt
Synonyms
maitreyaḥ uvāca — the sage Maitreya said; prājāpatyam — of the great Prajāpati; tu — but; tat tejaḥ — his powerful semen; para-tejaḥ — others’ prowess; hanam — troubling; ditiḥ — Diti (Kaśyapa’s wife); dadhāra — bore; varṣāṇi — years; śatam — hundred; śaṅkamānā — being doubtful; sura-ardanāt — disturbing to the demigods.

BBT Translation
Śrī Maitreya said: My dear Vidura, Diti, the wife of the sage Kaśyapa, could understand that the sons within her womb would be a cause of disturbance to the demigods. As such, she continuously bore the powerful semen of Kaśyapa Muni, which was meant to give trouble to others, for one hundred years.

Gita Press
Apprehending trouble to the gods (at the hands of her expected sons), Diti retained (in her womb) for a hundred years the aforesaid seed of Kasyapa (a lord of created beings), which was powerful enough to put down the enemy's strength.

Debroy's
Diti was anxious about the energy of others and suspected that the gods might cause suffering. Therefore, she bore Prajapati's seed for one hundred years.

I suppose it has something to do with how 'sankamaanaa suraardanaat' is being read as either trouble to or from the gods. But just thinking about it, it would seem that Debroy's is correct in so far as she would obviously have more care for the contents of her womb than her nephews, ie. the gods. And would therefore more likely apprehend trouble from them than to them, the gods that is. Or on the other hand as is the other reading, she was concerned about the safety of the gods indeed, knowing the future predictions that her sons would be a menace to the gods.

[Nitaidas]

Apr 22, 2021 6:54:46 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

I wonder if the meaning of this verse can be clarified by the learned lore masters here. hehehe

ŚB 3.15.1
मैत्रेय उवाच
प्रजापत्यं तु तत्तेज: परतेजोहनं दिति: ।
दधार वर्षाणि शतं शङ्कमाना सुरार्दनात् ॥ १ ॥
maitreya uvāca
prājāpatyaṁ tu tat tejaḥ
para-tejo-hanaṁ ditiḥ
dadhāra varṣāṇi śataṁ
śaṅkamānā surārdanāt
Synonyms
maitreyaḥ uvāca — the sage Maitreya said; prājāpatyam — of the great Prajāpati; tu — but; tat tejaḥ — his powerful semen; para-tejaḥ — others’ prowess; hanam — troubling; ditiḥ — Diti (Kaśyapa’s wife); dadhāra — bore; varṣāṇi — years; śatam — hundred; śaṅkamānā — being doubtful; sura-ardanāt — disturbing to the demigods.

BBT Translation
Śrī Maitreya said: My dear Vidura, Diti, the wife of the sage Kaśyapa, could understand that the sons within her womb would be a cause of disturbance to the demigods. As such, she continuously bore the powerful semen of Kaśyapa Muni, which was meant to give trouble to others, for one hundred years.

Gita Press
Apprehending trouble to the gods (at the hands of her expected sons), Diti retained (in her womb) for a hundred years the aforesaid seed of Kasyapa (a lord of created beings), which was powerful enough to put down the enemy's strength.

Debroy's
Diti was anxious about the energy of others and suspected that the gods might cause suffering. Therefore, she bore Prajapati's seed for one hundred years.

I suppose it has something to do with how 'sankamaanaa suraardanaat' is being read as either trouble to or from the gods. But just thinking about it, it would seem that Debroy's is correct in so far as she would obviously have more care for the contents of her womb than her nephews, ie. the gods. And would therefore more likely apprehend trouble from them than to them, the gods that is. Or on the other hand as is the other reading, she was concerned about the safety of the gods indeed, knowing the future predictions that her sons would be a menace to the gods.

So I looked up Sridhara's commentary on this verse and here is what he says:

स्वपुत्राभ्यां करिष्यते यत्सुराणामर्दनं पीडनं तस्माच्छंकमाना

That the gods will be tormented by her two sons, because of that she is anxious.

So according to Sridhara Diti is worried about her powerful sons causing pain to the suras, the gods. This makes a certain amount of sense since they are the products of the incredibly powerful seed of Kasyapa which destroys the power of others. I think Debroy's translation gets the para-tejo-hanam wrong. It clearly modifies tat-tejaH, his seed, Kasyapa's seed, which destroys the power of others. In other words, her husband's seed, that is her two sons, destroys the power of others, not the other way around. It is her sons who are the greater threat to others, not the other way around.

Still, the Tagare translations goes:

Being afraid of the destruction of her sons by Hari Diti bore (in her womb) the luster (semen) of Prajapati Kasyapa for a hundred years--the luster that subdued the luster of others.

This does not fit with the elation Diti feels at the end of the last chapter after hearing that her sons would be killed by Hari which means that they will reach a good end (sadgati, being liberated and going to Vaikuntha).

Just some thoughts.

I looked at a southern reading of the text, one prevalent in the Madhva tradition. The word surArdanAt is taken to be asurArdanAt, Diti worries about the torment (killing) of asuras (i.e., her sons) at the hands of Hari.

[madanmohandas]

Interesting. Thanks.
I still think that her anxiety was more likely due to what the gods might do. As mentioned, Diti's elation at the prospect of her sons being killed by Hari might even strengthen that view, in so far as she would like to avoid any other god or brahmana killing them before that. Again from Indra's conduct in subsequent events it can be seen that it would not be out of character for him to attempt to thwart the pregnancy, as he did do later in the case of Prahlada and the Maruts.
As it seems both readings are subscribed to I wonder what the author's intention was. Did he have one or the other or both in mind.

[Nitaidas]

It appears that Visvanatha Cakravartin accepts both readings surArdanAt and asurArdanAt.

[madanmohandas]

Ah. Later on in Canto XVII, after Brahma has related to the gods the cause of spreading gloom in the foregoing Canto there is another mention of same idea. I have been engaged in video reading sessions with three others, and while they read the BBT edition, due to prejudicate affections, I have been using the Gita Press edition, and what seems quite evident to me is that the BBT translation has relied very heavily on it, just altering the diction, but many passages are repeated verbatim. The Gita Press edition was first published in 1971.

ŚB 3.17.2
दितिस्तु भर्तुरादेशादपत्यपरिशङ्किनी ।
पूर्णे वर्षशते साध्वी पुत्रौ प्रसुषुवे यमौ ॥ २ ॥
ditis tu bhartur ādeśād
apatya-pariśaṅkinī
pūrṇe varṣa-śate sādhvī
putrau prasuṣuve yamau

Synonyms
ditiḥ — Diti; tu — but; bhartuḥ — of her husband; ādeśāt — by the order; apatya — from her children; pariśaṅkinī — being apprehensive of trouble; pūrṇe — full; varṣa-śate — after one hundred years; sādhvī — the virtuous lady; putrau — two sons; prasuṣuve — begot; yamau — twins.

But Diti was with apprehension stirred,
When she her husband's prediction had heard;
And when a full one hundred years had passed,
The pious dame brought forth male twins at last.

BBT Translation
The virtuous lady Diti had been very apprehensive of trouble to the gods from the children in her womb, and her husband predicted the same. She brought forth twin sons after a full one hundred years of pregnancy. (pasted from BV Vedabase)

Gita Press is more or less the same.

Motilal has,

On account of her husband's prediction, Diti was apprehensive of troubles (to be caused) by her pregnancy. At the end of hundred years she gave birth to male twins.

In a foot note, which I think you alluded to above Nitai, for that we have, 'apatya-parisankini' Afraid of harm to her children by Hari. Vijayadhvaja.

And Debroy has,

Because of what her husband had foretold, Diti was scared. After a full one hundred years were over, the virtuous one gave birth to twin sons.

The omission I see there is in the Motilal. 'saadhvi' the virtuous one, the pious dame.

Again Visvanatha allows either reading, either she was scared that her sons would be a menace, or that Vishnu would kill them, although she had previously expressed joy at the idea of Vishnu killing them. She was probably no less concerned of what measures her nephews might adopt to destroy her sons. Anyway, better not conjecture too much. hahahahaha I like Debroy's as he leaves it open, which seems to me more like how the original is expressed, whereas the others allow only one reading by stating explicitly one interpretation.

I also noticed that in the Bhagavat, when Krishna appears in Kamsa's prison, Devaki is afraid of Kamsa on Krishna's account, and the danger to him, whereas in the Vishnu she seems more afraid for herself, and the retribution that might be meted out to her, and that is why she urged Krishna to conceal his godhead. Which may indicate that both sentiments were experienced, that is to say, sometimes Diti was anxious for the gods and sometimes for her sons, alternating, as various ideas occurred to her of what might be; either way she was 'scared', of what? that seems left to the readers judgement. And the same might be said in the case of Devaki in regard to varying moods of apprehension and the alternating vicissitudes of anxiety.
I think the original author/s had a flare for mystic ambiguity, which is obviously a challenge to the translator who wants to be clear and unambiguous. But things are often clarified by the general context which can be overlooked when minutely examining one verse or foot of a verse, it would seem.

[Nitaidas]

Good discussion of that verse, Madanmohandasji. Please do more like this with various translations and some of your own reflections. The Bhagavata needs that kind of attention and treament.

My only question is what is "mystic ambiguity?" The ambiguity here seems quite human and relatable. A parent's concern for the welfare of her children opposed or challenged by her concern for how her children will affect the world. That is just good poetry. And maybe a little wonder about whether her husband was really foreseeing the future or just talking out of his butt! That is just good skepticism.

[madanmohandas]

Mystic ambiguity. Its hard to tell, hahahahaha, like the term, 'yadrrchayaa'. It's something I picked up recently and spurt out when occasion allows. Allied to the idea of 'paroksa-priya' which I have noticed in the Bhagavata and some Upanishad, where it is implied that the gods or the God are very fond of indirect or allegorical allusion. But that was indeed a digression and not really in relation to the text.

[Nitaidas]

I will put in my two cents whenever I have some. The multivolume, multicommentary edition of the Bhagavata is available on archive.org. It has all the major commentaries on the text.

[Nitaidas]

Do you know what the funniest part of this discussion is, Madanmohandasji? We discussed at length the differing reasons Diti had for delaying her delivery of her sons for a hundred years and never once mentioned or even recognized the absurdity and impossibility of any woman's being able to hold two sons in her womb for a hundred years!

[madanmohandas]

Hahahaha. Well, they are supposed to be higher beings, and such capabilities are attributed to them. But I must admit, it did not occur to me.
What is becoming more evident to me while engaged in a group reading where the other participants are reading the BBT edition while I follow along with the Gita Press and others, is that The BBT edition is merely an edited version of the Gita Press one. I don't say anything to avoid ill feelings, but it is a shame.
Btw, the edition translated by J M Sanyal is often overlooked.

[Nitaidas]

Apr 28, 2021 2:28:14 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

Hahahaha. Well, they are supposed to be higher beings, and such capabilities are attributed to them. But I must admit, it did not occur to me.
What is becoming more evident to me while engaged in a group reading where the other participants are reading the BBT edition while I follow along with the Gita Press and others, is that The BBT edition is merely an edited version of the Gita Press one. I don't say anything to avoid ill feelings, but it is a shame.
Btw, the edition translated by J M Sanyal is often overlooked.

Your comment on the BBT and its relationship to the Gita Press version is interesting. It is likely that Bhaktivedanta took his translations from other sources. A mere two years of Sanskrit in college would not be enough to undertake the translation of a difficult text like the Bhagavata. I don't recall seeing the GP edition among his books when I went to collect the tapes he made each morning bearing his translations, but they could have been there. I believe he sometimes used the GM edition/translation for certain Skandhas (4th-5th?). That translation is in Bengali which he turned into English easily enough. One has to admire his chutzpah in undertaking such a difficult text. It is no wonder that he looked to other texts for help. It never occurred to any of us, his "editors" to look to other translations for his sources. He had us hoodwinked. That was his siddhi.

There is another possibility here that I should mention. I read somewhere, perhaps on their website, that the Gita Press edition had been updated over the years drawing from other available translations. So the current GP translation might be taken from the BBT one, not the other way around. I don't have a copy of the older version to check.

The lack of engagement with the Sanyal translation may be because he tells the truth about the difference between the CV view and that of both Sridhara and the Bhagavata itself in his discussions on commentators on the Bhagavata.

[madanmohandas]

I'm pretty sure the BBT edition has drawn on the Gita Press, there are certain tell tale signs, and I can hardly imagine they would look to the BBT edition for improvements. I am coming across an average of two glaring mistakes every day. Today the terms 'bhinna-drg-bhaava' , 'prthag-bhaava, (twice)' and 'bhinna-dasrsina' were seen in SB III.XXIX, invariably translated as 'separatist'.

[madanmohandas]

Here is another verse that threw us off a bit.

ŚB 3.29.45 also SB. 4.11.19
सोऽनन्तोऽन्तकर: कालोऽनादिरादिकृदव्यय: ।
जनं जनेन जनयन्मारयन्मृत्युनान्तकम् ॥ ४५ ॥
so ’nanto ’nta-karaḥ kālo
’nādir ādi-kṛd avyayaḥ
janaṁ janena janayan
mārayan mṛtyunāntakam
Synonyms
saḥ — that; anantaḥ — endless; anta-karaḥ — destroyer; kālaḥ — time; anādiḥ — without beginning; ādi-kṛt — the creator; avyayaḥ — not liable to change; janam — persons; janena — by persons; janayan — creating; mārayan — destroying; mṛtyunā — by death; antakam — the lord of death.

Translation
The eternal time factor has no beginning and no end. It is the representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the maker of the criminal (?) world. It brings about the end of the phenomenal world, it carries on the work of creation by bringing one individual into existence from another, and likewise it dissolves the universe by destroying even the lord of death, Yamarāja.
(BV Vedabase)

Gita Press,

That imperishable Time-spirit, who though beginningless, is the first maker (of the universe) and who, though endless, brings about the end of the phenomenal world, carries on the work of creation by bringing into existence one individual (a son) through another (his father) and likewise dissolves the universe by destroying even Yama (the lord of death) through himself ( the destroyer even of death).

Motilal,

He is endless but puts an end (to all). Time is beginningless but makes the beginning of all. He causes beings to be born of parents and causes the end of antaka (god of death) by means of death.

Debroy,

He is without end, but brings about the end. He is time. He is without beginning, but he is the undecaying one who created the beginning. He causes people to be born through their fathers and mothers. He is the one who kills. He is death, the one who brings about the end.

Here I do my best to squeeze the anustubh into a pair of heroic couplets, and perhaps miss some elements of the original,

Time brings about the end but is endless;
The author and destroyer, limitless;
Creatures to create creatures he employs,
And as the death of death again destroys.

[Ldd]

There is an ongoing notion that Prabhupada learned sanskrit in college two years, but did he actually go to college ? when? he got married at 20 and started a large family. I fear he did not. - He took a chance and came on a ship and people did all the work for him, there was enough people interested in the subject with means and talent. ( I dont think not going to college is a bad thing) but the claims of him finishing Scottish college may be a make believe invention, and tearing up the diploma etc. There were no class mates to confirm it, what did he study. Did he have the integrity of one who studied under a teacher?

[service to Radha's feet]

I read in an old Gaudiya Discussions threat a quote from a book by Hayagriva Das, one of Bhaktivedanta Swami's first students along with Kirtananda Das. It would be helpful to get the exact book text. Hayagriva was editing the Bhagavad Gita As It Is and was having trouble with the English of a verse. Bhaktivedanta Swami suggested to use the Bhagavad Gita, Gita Press edition (I believe it was that one). Hayagriva told him that that is considered plagiarism. Bhaktivedanta Swami's reply was it is Krishna's Bhagavad Gita, not Gita Press'.

I do not doubt the Scottish Churches College attendance, though true, it may not be verifiable. Supposedly, in support of Gandhi he did not graduate.

According to his biography, he worked in a pharmaceutical company due to his chemistry background he learnt in college. I suppose the Sanskrit he learned was like studying something like a foreign language for some college credits. What he did come out with from there was British English writing and speaking, though his accent was a bit heavy at times as from what I have heard from his taped lectures.