New Translation of the Gita

[Nitaidas]

Here is a link to a new translation of the Gita, done by yours truly. It is very much a work in progress. I have decided to include notes from the earliest fully surviving commentary on the Gita, the commentary by Sankara. I have been adding to the text off and on and the most recent version is at

www.bhajankutir.net/bhagavad-gita/trans-only-master.pdf

Please peruse it for it shall be the basis much of the following discussion and commentary.

[Deleted]

Hello Nitai-ji,

Thanks so much for sharing this beautiful translation of BG by Sankara, and surely thanks for once again conciliate his proposition that Vishnu is the source of Krishna, by footnote the Caitanyite Vaishnava version.




Jay Ram!

[Nitaidas]

Harisaran Ji,

I am hoping to demonstrate with Sankara's commentary that he was not the bad guy many Caitanya Vaisnavas think he was. Most of those who criticize him I would wager have never read him. I have been reading his commentary on the Gita now for over a year and I have not found anything that makes me believe that he was a mayavadin. For the most part he sounds like a Vaisnava, an ancient Vaisnava who wrote before the Bhagavata was written and before the Alvars (8-10th centuries CE). So far I don't see any evidence in his commentary on the Gita that he thought that Brahman was higher than Bhagavan. He seems to see them as equal or equivalent. Like I say there is still much more to read, so that might change, but somehow I don't think so.

[nrisingha]

Is there any way to get a real nice Sridhar Swami commentary translated and/or presented here, i.e. made available?

[Nitaidas]

You are right, Madanmohan Dasji. Just because Sankara doesn't cite the Bhagavata doesn't mean that it was written after him. Since its is so philosophically close to his way of thinking, I still find it rather odd that he never cites it. Sridhara is quite at home with the Bhagavata and the Visnu Purana. As for the Visnu Purana, I see that as an earlier text that the author of the Bhagavata was very familiar with, as he was with the Harivamsa and the Mahabharata. I guess this is the opposite of the way you see it.

Anyway, I see much more of an affiliation between the Caitanya tradition and Sankara than I do between CV and the Madhva tradition or CV and Ramanuja. I first noticed that when I read Mahanamabrata's dissertation, Vaisnava Vedanta. He compares Sankara and Ramanuja with the philosophy of Sri Jiva and Sri Jiva comes down more on Sankara's side than Ramanuja's.

[Deleted]

admin said:

Harisaran Ji,

So far I don't see any evidence in his commentary on the Gita that he thought that Brahman was higher than Bhagavan. He seems to see them as equal or equivalent. Like I say there is still much more to read, so that might change, but somehow I don't think so.

Thanks Nitai-ji!

Chapter 2
The Yoga of the
Reason-Method

Sankara’s Commentary:

Therefore, sorrow and delusion are the seeds
of worldly existence. The cessation of those two comes from nothing
other than knowledge of the self caused by giving up all karma
[rites and actions done for results]. Wishing to teach that, Lord
Vasudeva targets Arjuna in order to give his favor to other people
and says: “You lament for things that are not lamentable ...”

I agree with your point. Here Sankara calls Krishna as Vasudeva, which means "all pervading", it sounds like he looks at Lord Krishna as the supreme Brahman, as well as, the supreme Person, just like Caitanya said. In other words, Sankara-ji speaks like a real Vaishnava!

BTW, was really Lord Caitanya the originator of the "Achintya-Bheda-Abheda" doctrine?

[Deleted]

I like that Mohan-ji: VAsudeva signifies unalloyed existence or 'suddha sattva'.

"All pervading" was the immediately meaning that came into my mind, thus as there are more meanings for the Name, more nectar are extracted.

According to A. Govindacarya Svamin, M.R.A.S.:

3. This science is also known as the MUla-Veda or Root Science (or Root knowledge), inasmuch as VAsudeva is at the Root of all Knowledge, as the following verse explicitly says -

Mahato Veda-vrksasya mUla-bhUto mahAn ayam |
Skandha-bhUtA Rg-AdyAs te sAkhA-bhUtAs' ca yoginah ||
Jagan-mUlasya Vedasya VAsudevasya mukhyatah |
PratipAdakatA siddhA MUla-VEdAkhyatA dvijAh ||
Adyam BhAgavatam dharmam Adi-bhUte krte yuge |
MAnavA yogya-bhUtAs te anutisthanti nityas'ah ||
(Id. 1, 24-26)

i.e. "This (Science) is the root of the Veda-Tree; the Rg and others are its trunk and branches. The (science) is called by the name MUla-Veda (=Root-Veda), because it is an expositin of VAsudeva, the Root of the Universe. This is the original BhAgavata-Dharma which the krta age worthly men observed always"

4. That this Ancient Science is Ancient, and not originated by VAsudeva, the Son of Vasudeva = Kr*shna, is evident from the word VAsudeva, meaning "He who permeates all", though, grammatically it is also a patronymic, viz, "Son of Vasudeva." For firstly, the word VAsudeva occurs in the Taittiriya Upanisad passage known as the Visnu-GAyatri, Secondly, we have in the PAdma-Tantra -

www.srivaishnava.org/scholars/agovind/panca.htm

[Nitaidas]

Interesting discussion here. Sorry I have not been participating of late. I have been on the road and it is hard for me to gain access to a good computer. The one I am on now keeps freezing up. Hopefully, I will get done with this comment before it does so.

Madanmohanji, please check the citation you gave from the third canto of the Bhagavata. I don't find it there in mine. At home I have a complete verse index but I only have the first nine cantos with me. Something odd about that verse that I want to check. There is something wrong with the grammar there as you cited it, I think. Anyway I would like to check it out.

Harisaran das ji, thanks for the quote from the Padma-tantra. As for your question about the source of the acintya-bhedAbheda. I believe it is original with the followers of Caitanya, though there were earlier bhedAbhedins. They did not appeal to acintya which means that they favored one or the other of the two positions (bheda or abheda). I personally think ABA was the invention of Sri Jiva. One can almost see him coming to that conclusion in his Sarva-samvadini as he cites and comments on an important passage of the Visnu Purana. As for whether it was also the view of Sri Caitanya, I am not sure. I see Mahaprabhu as an experience man. The theorizing that supports his experiences is the work of the Gosvamins. In this way, I feel that the Caitanya-caritamrta is misleading in presenting all of the teachings of the Gosvamins as coming directly from Mahaprabhu. I think it was done in that way to gain respect for the works of the Gosvamins among the Bengali bhaktas who looked upon the Gosvamins as late-comers and possibly spurious presenters of the theology of Sri Caitanya. More on that later.

[chandan]

To allude to the possibility that Shankara was a Vaishnava is nothing but biased Gaudiya sectarian conjecture, the Sri Vaishnavas and followers of Madhava have dealt exhaustively with this issue.

cheers

[Nitaidas]

No, not at all. I did not say that he was a Gaudiya Vaisnava, but an ancient Vaisnava, probably one who thought that Krsna was an incarnation Visnu. It is based on my own reading of his works in the original language. I trust my own reading over the claims of anyone from the Sri or Madhva sampradayas. In addition, I find my own reading in agreement with the best of modern scholarship on Sankara. The work of Paul Hacker, Hajime Nakamura, and Mayeda all support this view. Sankara was a member of the Nambudiri brahmana community of South India, a community that was and is predominantly Vaisnava. He never praises Siva or Brahman over Visnu and the idea of nirguna and saguna is entirely foreign to the works that are authentically his. Nor was he a vivarta-vadin. That is an idea that was first presented by one of his contemporaries and opponents, Mandana Misra. It was blended into mainstream Advaita philosophy two centuries after Sankara by Vacaspati Misra. The Sri and Madhva Vaisnavas were attacking a set of doctrines that had nothing to do with the real ideas and teachings of Sankara. Unfortunately, Krsnadas Kaviraj also falls into that trap and imputes to Sankara positions that were simply not his.

That is not to say that the real Sankara did not disagree with the later Sri and Madhva Vaisnavas. In his Gita commentary some of which is available in the translation above, he clearly disagrees with the position later adopted by Ramanuja, the idea that mukti is achieved by a combination of works and knowledge. For Sankara, only knowledge brings mukti. We as CVs really are closer to Sankara's position than we are to either Ramanuja or Madhva. Bhakti plays the role in CV that jnana plays in Sankara Advaita. Caitanya Vaisnavism owes more to Sankara and the later infusion of bhakti into to it through the Bhagavata and Sridhara, than it does to any of the preceding Vaisnava communities. Jiva Goswami provides the best evidence of that. He cites with approval Sankara more than any of the previous Vaisnava acaryas.

[chandan]

I trust my own reading over the claims of anyone from the Sri or Madhva sampradayas.

I don't and I feel it's a bit presumptuous on your part to make such claims, almost ludicrous in fact. Hacker was a drunk Catholic and Gaudapada not Vaishnava for sure.

cheers

[chandan]

the idea of nirguna and saguna is entirely foreign to the works that are authentically his.

Shankara says in the sUtra bhAshhya (1.2.14)

nirguNamapi sadbrahma naamaruupagataiH guNaiH saguNaM upasanaarthaM
tatra tatra upadishyate

cheers

[chandan]

Hacker was interested in the "Hindu-Christian dialogue" of his day. This being the case, it can be difficult, at times, to separate clearly Hacker's purely historical and Indological concerns from his theological ones.

Hacker himself believed that the aim of "pure" objectivity was an abstraction. Nonetheless, in his studies, Hacker was able to identify some important differences between the classical Indian tradition and certain modern expressions of Hinduism, and he managed to reveal the essentially rhetorical elements of the latter in the process. Thus, from an Indological point of view, his categories of "Neo-Hinduism" and "Neo-Vedanta" make for useful historical descriptions.

Still a drunk ;D

[Nitaidas]

Humm. It is not at that place (3.3.23) in my edition. I have:

daivAdIneSu kAmeSu ...

I will look it up when I get home.

Anyway you gave

sattvaM vizuddhaM the second time instead of sattve vizuddham.

That was one of the problems.

More on that later.

[Nitaidas]

chandan said:

I trust my own reading over the claims of anyone from the Sri or Madhva sampradayas.

I don't and I feel it's a bit presumptuous on your part to make such claims, almost ludicrous in fact. Hacker was a drunk Catholic and Gaudapada not Vaishnava for sure.

cheers

What is ludicrous is for you to appeal to a logical fallacy like ad hominem in Hacker's case. Whether he was a Catholic or a drunk has absolutely no bearing on the validity or lack thereof of his argument. Only a careful analysis of his argument can do that.

As for my presumption in thinking that I can judge for myself whether Sankara was a Vaisnava or not, well I guess I am guilty. I see no reason to bow to the representations or misrepresentations of others when I can access the texts themselves. Those old Sri and Madhva Vaisnavas had no way of distinguishing what was genuinely by Sankara and what was not, thus their refutations of him are practically worthless. I think the methods of distinguishing between what is genuinely Sankara's and what is not developed by Hacker and others put us at a distinct advantage over those old writers and that Sankara should be re-evaluated on the basis of that. Since those old writers are all dead and I am still alive, it looks like it is up to me or someone like me to do it.

As I have said in other posts, I am not finished with my reading of Sankara. But so far I am very impressed with what I have read and I have not come across any of the positions usually attributed to him. That may change, but so far I feel more enriched by seeing the Gita through his eyes than I have with any other writer ancient or modern.

So cheers back at you.