|
|
Post by gerard on May 3, 2012 4:57:28 GMT -6
But aren't you doing the same, by presuming that you know "what the text actually says/means"?
Can you give some examples where you see such twisting on their part?
I tend to think they are talking about the text in an associative manner, listing what comes up in their mind as they consider the text. I don’t think I am doing the same thing because I don’t pretend to know what a text means, I just compare translations. But I think you are probably right in assuming that they might be talking about texts in an associative manner, saying what comes up in their mind. But we (in the West) do not consider that making a translation, they can say what they believe and put that in a commentary not into the translation. In a commentary you can write whatever you want of course. But it is more than just a difference of opinion on how to make a translation, if you compare closely entire texts you will see that they try to twist the text to suit their belief. But I can only give some random examples otherwise this reply will become too much like real work. You can just compare any swami-translation of the Gita or the Upanishads with the Edgerton or the Hume translations. Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.10 The one God who covers himself Like a spider, with threads Produced from Primary Matter ( pradhana) according to his own nature ( svabhavatas)— May He grant us entrance in Brahma! Robert Hume translation As a spider spreads a net with the threads drawn from its own navel and sports remaining within that, likewise the Blissful Lord through His Own Yogamaya, Essential Potency creates His Trancendental Abode or Sportive-lands and Paraphernalia and delightfully sports without any encumberance. His such Transcendental Leela is beyond the comprehension of our knowledge. Therefore, may He out of His Own Prerogative grant us Divine Wisdom for entering into that plane of Divinity in rendering unalloyed devotional Service to Him. Yati Maharaja, Gaudiya Math translation Bhagavad-gita 12.2 The Blessed One said: Fixing the thought-organ on Me, those who Me Revere with constant discipline, Pervaded with supreme faith, Them I hold to be the most disciplined. Edgerton translation Sri Bhagavan said: Those yogis, who with transcendental faith, fix their mind on My Syamasundara form, and constantly worship Me with ananya bhakti, are the best among those who know yoga. This is My opinion. Narayana Maharaja translation One who holds onto Tranquility tranquilizing the mind through the practice of Kriyas and one who practices Yonimudra - both are good. One who remains attuned longer is better. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri translation Bhagavad-gita 10.2 The throngs of gods know not My Origin, nor yet the great seers. For I am the starting-point of the gods, And of the great seers, altogether. Edgerton translation Those who are still practicing Kriyas do not realize Me ( Kutastha). For example, great seers like Marichi, Atri, Angirasa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Pracheta, Vasistha, Bhrigu and Narada do not know Me. All these great seers are the worshipers of the ultimate Self ( Brahma). Therefore, I ( Kutastha) am the First. All the gods are the worshipers of the ultimate Self ( Brahma). Therefore, I am the Prime Lord. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri translation |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 3, 2012 8:36:09 GMT -6
But aren't you doing the same, by presuming that you know "what the text actually says/means"?
Can you give some examples where you see such twisting on their part?
I tend to think they are talking about the text in an associative manner, listing what comes up in their mind as they consider the text. I don’t think I am doing the same thing because I don’t pretend to know what a text means, I just compare translations. But I think you are probably right in assuming that they might be talking about texts in an associative manner, saying what comes up in their mind. But we (in the West) do not consider that making a translation, they can say what they believe and put that in a commentary not into the translation. In a commentary you can write whatever you want of course. But it is more than just a difference of opinion on how to make a translation, if you compare closely entire texts you will see that they try to twist the text to suit their belief. But I can only give some random examples otherwise this reply will become too much like real work. You can just compare any swami-translation of the Gita or the Upanishads with the Edgerton or the Hume translations. Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.10 The one God who covers himself Like a spider, with threads Produced from Primary Matter ( pradhana) according to his own nature ( svabhavatas)— May He grant us entrance in Brahma! Robert Hume translation As a spider spreads a net with the threads drawn from its own navel and sports remaining within that, likewise the Blissful Lord through His Own Yogamaya, Essential Potency creates His Trancendental Abode or Sportive-lands and Paraphernalia and delightfully sports without any encumberance. His such Transcendental Leela is beyond the comprehension of our knowledge. Therefore, may He out of His Own Prerogative grant us Divine Wisdom for entering into that plane of Divinity in rendering unalloyed devotional Service to Him. Yati Maharaja, Gaudiya Math translation Bhagavad-gita 12.2 The Blessed One said: Fixing the thought-organ on Me, those who Me Revere with constant discipline, Pervaded with supreme faith, Them I hold to be the most disciplined. Edgerton translation Sri Bhagavan said: Those yogis, who with transcendental faith, fix their mind on My Syamasundara form, and constantly worship Me with ananya bhakti, are the best among those who know yoga. This is My opinion. Narayana Maharaja translation One who holds onto Tranquility tranquilizing the mind through the practice of Kriyas and one who practices Yonimudra - both are good. One who remains attuned longer is better. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri translation Bhagavad-gita 10.2 The throngs of gods know not My Origin, nor yet the great seers. For I am the starting-point of the gods, And of the great seers, altogether. Edgerton translation Those who are still practicing Kriyas do not realize Me ( Kutastha). For example, great seers like Marichi, Atri, Angirasa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Pracheta, Vasistha, Bhrigu and Narada do not know Me. All these great seers are the worshipers of the ultimate Self ( Brahma). Therefore, I ( Kutastha) am the First. All the gods are the worshipers of the ultimate Self ( Brahma). Therefore, I am the Prime Lord. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri translation Excellent examples, gerardji. I would definitely call these mistranslations. There are dozens in Bhaktivedanta's version of the Gita, too. And just imagine. He called it "As It Is!" I also think that it is fine to present such views, but in a commentary or purport or something. Not as a translation. As a translator I am very sensitive to this. I try to stick as closely as I can to the grammar and vocabulary of the text itself. That is usually not too hard, though sometimes, especially with the Bhagavata that can be difficult. The meanings are obscure because the verses are sometimes laconic and use (or mis-use) ancient Vedic vocabulary. One almost needs a commentary for it and often Sridhara's explanation is suspicious. Would you call such translations fraudulent? I sure would. I think they fit the definition of vipralipsA (the desire to cheat, one of the four faults of the means of knowledge) perfectly. But I also believe that someone who passes on something that is fraudulent even though he or she does not know it is fraudulent is a fraud, too, but in a broader sense. They empower the frauds. Those who create the frauds like in this case Bhaktisiddhanta and those who know of the frauds but do not correct them and instead act to continue or reinforce them are proper frauds. Those who unknowingly contribute should be held responsible for not examining their "merchandise" carefully enough. Ash does not believe that there are frauds in the world. Oh if only I had a ponzi scheme for her! |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 3, 2012 9:02:14 GMT -6
Disagree all you want, but you must admit that fear is a dampener for love. And that one can never get over fear if one thinks of someone as a god. But as it is, currently, are you associating with Krsna as your friend? Do you two hang out together? Do the two of you have lunch together, play sports, go mountainhiking, go to galleries, to parties, etc. etc., do everything friends do? Well, of course not. But that is the way I want to relate to him. So far he has turned down all my invitations. But I will keep making them. He is a busy guy, they say. I certainly don't want to grovel at his feet like you lot. Do you think that is pleasant for him? Is his ego so weak that it needs constant reassurances that he is great? Especially from the likes of us who haven't a clue of his real greatness? Is it good for us, this groveling? I think not. It is the opposite of good. I know you don't like to think about things. And your Buddhists tell you not to. Has it ever occurred to you that such texts say such things in order to gain control over you? A pliant and unthinking following is a benefit for them. Every religion is the same, even our CV, in this regard at least. This does not arise out of compassion for you or a concern for your well-being. That is likely the last thing on the minds of those who issue such directives. They want a submissive following who will do what they are told, when they are told, and do not ask any questions. They want to use you for their own exaltation and enrichment, nothing more. But I think CV can be different if we take the madhurya and raga teachings seriously. IGM has tried to misrepresent and misdirect these teachings. Like the mistranslations gerardji has so nicely pointed out, IGM has mistranslated the teachings on madhurya and raga. Only a careful reading of the texts reveals the lie they have tried to promulgate. But who does that? |
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 3, 2012 9:06:34 GMT -6
I don’t think I am doing the same thing because I don’t pretend to know what a text means, I just compare translations. But I think you are probably right in assuming that they might be talking about texts in an associative manner, saying what comes up in their mind. But we (in the West) do not consider that making a translation, they can say what they believe and put that in a commentary not into the translation. In a commentary you can write whatever you want of course. But it is more than just a difference of opinion on how to make a translation, if you compare closely entire texts you will see that they try to twist the text to suit their belief. Thank you for the examples! Every translation is necessarily also an interpretation. And an interpretation requires a belief system. And people have different belief systems, given they have different spiritual attainment. Differences are also due to specific considerations of whom the translation was intended for, in what circumstances. I speak several languages (although not Sanskrit) and know from personal experience the troubles of translation. So I sort of naturally empathize with translations, translators, and people having trouble with them. I heard that in Tibetan Budhdism, they have a teaching on the Six Confusions. Namely, that when we see things in terms of the six confusions, we suffer - when we see something as 1. drudgery, 2. war, 3. addiction, 4. entertainment, 5. inconvenience, 6. a problem - that is when we suffer. And I think this can be applied esp. in how we approach work, communication, and also spiritual pursuits. I think we're bound to experience discomfort, if not serious stress, if, for example, we see two swamis as in war against eachother, or as ourselves in war against some other person or their spiritual pursuits. Of course, the six confusions are not easy to overcome ... but they do make us think of some very common sources of stress, and stress that is unnecessary. |
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 3, 2012 15:29:37 GMT -6
Well, of course not. But that is the way I want to relate to him. So far he has turned down all my invitations. But I will keep making them. He is a busy guy, they say. I certainly don't want to grovel at his feet like you lot. Do you think that is pleasant for him? Is his ego so weak that it needs constant reassurances that he is great? Especially from the likes of us who haven't a clue of his real greatness? Is it good for us, this groveling? I think not. It is the opposite of good. I know you don't like to think about things. And your Buddhists tell you not to. Has it ever occurred to you that such texts say such things in order to gain control over you? A pliant and unthinking following is a benefit for them. Every religion is the same, even our CV, in this regard at least. This does not arise out of compassion for you or a concern for your well-being. That is likely the last thing on the minds of those who issue such directives. They want a submissive following who will do what they are told, when they are told, and do not ask any questions. They want to use you for their own exaltation and enrichment, nothing more. It seems to me that you have not yet found a viable solution to the problem of theodicy. |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on May 3, 2012 16:08:28 GMT -6
Every translation is necessarily also an interpretation.
And an interpretation requires a belief system. And people have different belief systems, given they have different spiritual attainment. Differences are also due to specific considerations of whom the translation was intended for, in what circumstances. I agree with what you’re saying, of course a translation is to a certain extent an interpretation, but I don’t know why a translator has to have considerations for the reader. That is the job of the original author. There is a very wide-spread misunderstanding of translating. Knowing two languages doesn’t make you a translator. It is a profession that has to be learned. You learn to make a grammatical and semantical analysis (referential and connotative) of the text. You learn how to transfer the results of the analysis from language A to language B. You learn the history and culture of both the source language and the target language. You learn that as a rule of thumb you only translate into your native language. And you train under the supervision of a teacher. Bhaktivedanta Swami was a sales rep in chemicals with a poor fund of knowledge of the English language and Narayana Maharaja was a policeman. Are people like that qualified to translate? |
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 3, 2012 23:14:26 GMT -6
I agree with what you’re saying, of course a translation is to a certain extent an interpretation, but I don’t know why a translator has to have considerations for the reader. That is the job of the original author.The fact is that translators, just like authors, have considerations for the readers, whether they are aware of that or not. Every bit of text that anyone communicates, either as the original author or as a mediator, is communicated with a particular audience in mind, for a particular purpose. This is why, for example, there are so many versions of the Bible, and why children are given to read Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespeare" and not the actual tragedies and comedies. Especially in earlier times, it was common that there were "abriged" versions or picture-book versions of foreign, long or difficult texts, and were intended for the not so sophisticated reader. So the idea that a text is communicated with an audience in mind was more present than in modern culture (which has a tendency toward text-for-text's sake). Another phenomenon that I have observed, and also read about, is that people tend to be more analytical when they speak in a language that is not their native language. So their sentences are grammatically simpler and they give more explanations, especially if the original text they are translating is highly synthetic (such as a text in Sanskrit). The translations you have provided that were made by Hindus seem to be an example of that. This is how it is done in modern academia, yes. On the other hand, is an academic who does not have the beliefs related to the text he translates, qualified to translate that text? But all in all, I don't think that the problem here are translators and translations. Rather, I think it is about our underlying beliefs, assumptions and expectations about spirituality in all its aspects. (Which is why I mentioned the problem of theodicy earlier.) I myself engage in these discussions in an effort to work out my own arguments in order to find peace of mind about my bad experiences with spirituality and people who are into spirituality. I find that someone can seem as a monster, or an angel, or anything inbetween, simply depending on the attitude I approach them with. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 5, 2012 12:12:24 GMT -6
Well, of course not. But that is the way I want to relate to him. So far he has turned down all my invitations. But I will keep making them. He is a busy guy, they say. I certainly don't want to grovel at his feet like you lot. Do you think that is pleasant for him? Is his ego so weak that it needs constant reassurances that he is great? Especially from the likes of us who haven't a clue of his real greatness? Is it good for us, this groveling? I think not. It is the opposite of good. I know you don't like to think about things. And your Buddhists tell you not to. Has it ever occurred to you that such texts say such things in order to gain control over you? A pliant and unthinking following is a benefit for them. Every religion is the same, even our CV, in this regard at least. This does not arise out of compassion for you or a concern for your well-being. That is likely the last thing on the minds of those who issue such directives. They want a submissive following who will do what they are told, when they are told, and do not ask any questions. They want to use you for their own exaltation and enrichment, nothing more. It seems to me that you have not yet found a viable solution to the problem of theodicy. The only viable solution to the problem of theodicy is to conclude that God is either evil because he/she created a world full of suffering and does not want to change it or that he/she is incompetent and impotent because he/she created a flawed world and cannot change it. A third option for the problem of theodicy is to conclude that there is no god. Some consider it the best argument there is against the existence of a god. It is also called the "problem of evil." |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 5, 2012 13:15:44 GMT -6
Actually, I think this is a poor way to approach the issue. There is a Buddhist sutta that basically says that if all one can do is to speculate about a matter (especially if it is a heavy metaphysical matter), then one should drop the whole speculation altogether and go do something else. I agree with that. Some problems simply are outside of one's scope to solve, and it only makes sense to put those problems aside. I think that a verificationist approach (ie. by asking "Can this possibly be true?" and trying to answer that) is a hopeless endeavor. This is an excellent example of how religions have tried to hold human beings back for centuries. It was just this kind of "speculation" that has led to every great scientific discovery for the last 400 years. Believing this kind of bs is precisely why India never developed any kind of scientific method or scientific understanding of the world. There are plenty of examples from Hinduism, too. Why did Europe go a different route, in spite of the centuries of Christian ignorance heaped on it in the name of "reason?" The rediscovery of the ancient Greeks and a new found respect for the facts. The fact that there are so many of them suggests that they all must be wrong. They certainly can't all be right. If one is right, which one is it? In this wrongness they are certainly all equal. The goal is the same: wish-fulfillment. It is just that the wishes are different because religions have different histories and grew up different cultures. Religions are a kind of collective fantasy creation and the goals imagined in those fantasies can never be tested or confirmed. People die and disappear and we haven't a clue whether they achieved their goals. But we can pretend we know and try to reinforce our own fantasies in the process. It gives us peace of mind to think that so-and-so entered eternal-sport and is now playing the kartals for R and K. It is more for the benefit of the living than recording the truth about the dead that we do these things. And, yes, so you don't have to say it: this is my opinion. You state the obvious. And your evidence against this is ... ? |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on May 5, 2012 15:08:14 GMT -6
It seems to me that you have not yet found a viable solution to the problem of theodicy. The only viable solution to the problem of theodicy is to conclude that God is either evil because he/she created a world full of suffering and does not want to change it or that he/she is incompetent and impotent because he/she created a flawed world and cannot change it. A third option for the problem of theodicy is to conclude that there is no god. Some consider it the best argument there is against the existence of a god. It is also called the "problem of evil." The fourth option is the old standard reply that there is a creation of people with a free will who can exercise their will at their heart's content and then get the karmic reaction. Even the Christians come up with that one, but without the karma, so they still have to answer the question why one person is born healthy and another disabled. The fifth option is the strict dualist reply, the Manichean for instance, that the world has always been - without a beginning - a world of Good and Evil. And that the struggle between good and bad is fought in Man's Soul as a battlefield for ever and ever. |
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 5, 2012 22:48:23 GMT -6
The only viable solution to the problem of theodicy is to conclude that God is either evil because he/she created a world full of suffering and does not want to change it or that he/she is incompetent and impotent because he/she created a flawed world and cannot change it. A third option for the problem of theodicy is to conclude that there is no god. Some consider it the best argument there is against the existence of a god. It is also called the "problem of evil." To be clear: And this God (who is either evil, incompetent/impotent, or non-existent) is the one you wish to be friends with? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 5, 2012 23:11:38 GMT -6
The only viable solution to the problem of theodicy is to conclude that God is either evil because he/she created a world full of suffering and does not want to change it or that he/she is incompetent and impotent because he/she created a flawed world and cannot change it. A third option for the problem of theodicy is to conclude that there is no god. Some consider it the best argument there is against the existence of a god. It is also called the "problem of evil." To be clear: And this God (who is either evil, incompetent/impotent, or non-existent) is the one you wish to be friends with? No, remember, I am an a-theist. It is you who wants a god. So those are your choices. Bon chance! |
|
ash
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by ash on May 6, 2012 3:45:21 GMT -6
To be clear: And this God (who is either evil, incompetent/impotent, or non-existent) is the one you wish to be friends with? No, remember, I am an a-theist. It is you who wants a god. So those are your choices. Bon chance! So what was that - Krsna does not want us to love him as a god, but as a friend. But as it is, currently, are you associating with Krsna as your friend? Do you two hang out together? Do the two of you have lunch together, play sports, go mountainhiking, go to galleries, to parties, etc. etc., do everything friends do? Well, of course not. But that is the way I want to relate to him. So far he has turned down all my invitations. But I will keep making them. He is a busy guy, they say. - about? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 6, 2012 14:08:10 GMT -6
Well, ash, I am a recovering theist. Theism is a horrible mental disease worse than any drug addiction. It literally turns good people into monsters and smart people into zombies. But one can recover from it, though it is a slow process. So sometimes I still confuse Krsna with God. My bad. Krsna is not a god. The world has no need of a god. It is quite capable of creating itself through the laws of nature. If we were to try to identify a creator it would have to be gravity. That is all that is needed to drive the big bang and the inflation that followed soon afterwards. But gravity is not a god but a force. No gods are needed, not even invisible ones (sorry gerardji). So since we don't really need a god, Krsna can be our friend. We do need friends, especially friends who are not as inconstant or as demanding as friends usually are. Since he is not a god I don't need to be constantly asking him for things. How obnoxious is that: to have people constantly asking you for things? I have everything I need through the world and he has everything he needs because he is full. We can just be friends with no strings attached. He's an attractive guy and I'm an attractive guy. I don't need anything from him and he doesn't need anything from me. We are just free to be friends. Nothing need come between us. Nothing there but causeless love.
Now you might ask, why be friends with Krsna instead of you or gerardji. Well, we are friends, I hope, at least not enemies and that is a delight. Your attitude towards me will change and mine towards you will as well. Our friendship will not last. But mine with Krsna and yours with Krsna can. Again, not because he is a god or anything like that, but because he either stands above the world or he is the world in its totality. If he stands above the world, he will have to face someday the death of our friendship with my death. If he is the world, my death will mean our ultimate and irreversible (re)union. Nothing to shed tears about. Like a wave I will have rejoined the ocean of Krsna.
I am afraid I have no room in my philosophy for any of that supernatural crap. I am quite happy to be without it. None of it makes any sense and it smacks of wishful thinking on the part of selfish little egotistical human beings. I'll have none of it. I am happy to be here now and later on I won't have an opinion. The world will move on without me or rather it will move on with me in some dispersed form, my atoms mixed with the atoms of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 6, 2012 14:32:33 GMT -6
The only viable solution to the problem of theodicy is to conclude that God is either evil because he/she created a world full of suffering and does not want to change it or that he/she is incompetent and impotent because he/she created a flawed world and cannot change it. A third option for the problem of theodicy is to conclude that there is no god. Some consider it the best argument there is against the existence of a god. It is also called the "problem of evil." The fourth option is the old standard reply that there is a creation of people with a free will who can exercise their will at their heart's content and then get the karmic reaction. Well, I said "only" viable option and already we have four options. So I lied. There are many options. This one strikes me as particularly silly. Free will? Who has that? And that does not help the problem of theodicy much. In fact it may worsen it. What kind of a God would stand by while a child prepares to put its hand in a fire? Well it was exercising its own free will. Such a being would not be a god but an unkind and unjust monster. Mostly this fourth option is theirs. I don't really find it in India. If some Indian uses it he or she has probably borrowed it. Isn't there a demiurge involved, a flawed creator of the world? If so, isn't this a species of the second option? Or is that just Gnosticism? |
|
