11th canto bhagavat

[vkaul1]

This was the section I was always confused because it does write about parallels between dream like illusion and material illusion. How do we understand this according to gaudiya conclusion? I have highlighted some of the things in bold.



SB 11.28.3: Just as the embodied spirit soul loses external consciousness when his senses are overcome by the illusion of dreaming or the deathlike state of deep sleep, so a person experiencing material duality must encounter illusion and death.

SB 11.28.4: That which is expressed by material words or meditated upon by the material mind is not ultimate truth. What, therefore, is actually good or bad within this insubstantial world of duality, and how can the extent of such good and bad be measured?

SB 11.28.5: Although shadows, echoes and mirages are only illusory reflections of real things, such reflections do cause a semblance of meaningful or comprehensible perception. In the same way, although the identification of the conditioned soul with the material body, mind and ego is illusory, this identification generates fear within him even up to the moment of death.

SB 11.28.6-7: The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.

SB 11.28.8: One who has properly understood the process of becoming firmly fixed in theoretical and realized knowledge, as described herein by Me, does not indulge in material criticism or praise. Like the sun, he wanders freely throughout this world.

SB 11.28.22: Although thus not existing in reality, this manifestation of transformations created from the mode of passion appears real because the self-manifested, self-luminous Absolute Truth exhibits Himself in the form of the material variety of the senses, the sense objects, the mind and the elements of physical nature.

[Nitaidas]

Aug 30, 2011 15:13:13 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

This was the section I was always confused because it does write about parallels between dream like illusion and material illusion. How do we understand this according to gaudiya conclusion? I have highlighted some of the things in bold.

I have been meaning to comment on this, but time has not allowed. I will take a few moments now. I think we have to be careful of the translations of the Bhagavata or indeed of any Sanskrit or Bengali text that we use. IGM translations are notoriously crappy and misleading. If we really want to understand the Bhagavata we have to start with a good translation. I recommend the Gita Press translation which does not cover the monistic aspects of the text, aspects that are really there. Beyond that there are the Ramkrishna Mission translation and the five volume translation by G V Tagare. None of these translations are perfect but they all beat the heck out any IGM translation I have ever seen.

Look at the nonsense that are in these lines, for instance: "embodied spirit soul" "illusion of dreaming" "material duality" etc.

None of these things are in the text. They are all imported from the presuppositions of the translator and thus cloud the meaning of the text.

SB 11.28.3: Just as the embodied spirit soul loses external consciousness when his senses are overcome by the illusion of dreaming or the deathlike state of deep sleep, so a person experiencing material duality must encounter illusion and death.

Here is the translation from Tagare:

When the sense organs which are the product of the Taijasa type of ego (caused by rajas) are overpowered by sleep, the individual soul (jiva) remaining confined in the body, strays in the realm of illusions (maya) and witnesses dreams (which are unreal), and if the mind is still overcome with torpidity, loses consciousness of the body, sinks into death-like deep sleep. Similarly, the person who perceives the outward differences only (and fails to grasp the underlying oneness---the Reality) is distracted by illusory objects of the senses and is ultimately sunk in utter darkness.

This is admittedly more wordy, but the parts that are not directly stated in the text are in parentheses or square brackets. It also does not draw a line between matter and spirit which the first one does and which is not in the text as far as I can tell.

Here is my translation:

When the bright senses are overcome by sleep, the one in the body, its consciousness lost, attains illusion or even death. So does someone who sees many objects.


Tagare's translation is a little clunky and blends in many things from the commentaries, especially Sridhara. The verse, however, is almost like a sutra and does require some serious unpacking. But I think that should be done in a footnote with the sources of the comments clearly marked.

Anyway, the verse clearly favors a non-dual vision of reality and compares pluralism with dreaming. The IGM version tries to defuse the non-dualism by introducing a new level of duality (spirit/matter). In other words I think it hides what is really being said in the verse.

[vkaul1]

I had sometime back seen the commentary of VCT or Jiva Goswami and VCT's tikas can be pretty vitrolic against non-devotees and "mayavadis", so I don't know if it would be correct to completely put the blame on IGM but a doctrine problem in every math. I get the same feeling with the translations of Satyanaryana ji for instance.

My main question is if appearances in the world are like a dream and a person can realize that, how does he function in the world of dream. For example, in the case of the dream when it ends, you get out of it completely to the "real world". But in the case of the world, you continue to stay as jivan mukta even if your dream is broken, right? Perhaps, the use of terms like "unreal" etc does not do justice to this. Maybe it is more like allegory of the cave where you don't see the actual unity of the things and mistake the shadows for the substance. This non-dual idea is there even in 3.29.
SB 3.29.26: As the blazing fire of death, I cause great fear to whoever makes the least discrimination between himself and other living entities because of a differential outlook.


Also will you be translating the SB? Do you think that VCT and Jiva Goswami;s commentary will not do the same mistake of superimposing their own understanding on the verses? Even Madhvas tend to do the same. And the advaitins also many times have to superimpose many of the concepts on the text.

One scholar I am touch with said the following about the SB, which I feel is accurate. What do you think Nitai ji?

In BhP verse 8.7.31, the phrase nirasta-bhedam is used, meaning
that there is no distinction that can be made between the various divinities and
divine manifestations. And at one level that cannot; yet at another level a
distinction can be made. In our western minds, we need the typical Kantian
categories, which strictly compartmentalize. In the Indian system, although
later Indian philosophers do establish metaphysical categories, in reality,
the original texts such as the Bhagavata describe or express a kind of fluidity
between beings and stages of being that is not always accounted for in later
doctrinal traditions. It it never an absolute oneness, but never an absolute
dualism either.

[Nitaidas]

Sept 10, 2011 18:22:52 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

I had sometime back seen the commentary of VCT or Jiva Goswami and VCT's tikas can be pretty vitrolic against non-devotees and "mayavadis", so I don't know if it would be correct to completely put the blame on IGM but a doctrine problem in every math. I get the same feeling with the translations of Satyanaryana ji for instance.

I guess I would be much more hesitant to compare an IGM bumpkin to Visvanatha or Sri Jiva. IGM bumpkins are really ignorant fools. VC and JG were well educated and vastly studied. IGM bumpkins barely even know Sanskrit grammar, forget about having studied logic, mimamsa, vedanta, alankara, etc as VC and JG did. They had the best educations of their times. In what form did you see their tikas? Was it the result of some IGM butchered translation? It made me sick to see how Gopiparanadhana had butched poor Sanatana's commentary on the Brhad-bhagavtamrta. It made him sound like Bhakta Bob at the local temple, just shaved his head yesterday. He took one of the most learned men of his generation and made him sound like an idiot.

Now I am not saying that VC and JG did not have sectarian biases and did not try to draw a more amenable interpretation out of the more blatantly non-dualist passages of the Bhagavata. But they were not obscene about it. They often left the door open for alternative understandings. This is especially true of Sanatana. I think one has to be aware of their biases and point them out when one can. And one should make it clear that there is a difference between what the verse says and what they say. Then one can in good conscience chose one or the other.

My main question is if appearances in the world are like a dream and a person can realize that, how does he function in the world of dream. For example, in the case of the dream when it ends, you get out of it completely to the "real world". But in the case of the world, you continue to stay as jivan mukta even if your dream is broken, right? Perhaps, the use of terms like "unreal" etc does not do justice to this. Maybe it is more like allegory of the cave where you don't see the actual unity of the things and mistake the shadows for the substance. This non-dual idea is there even in 3.29.
SB 3.29.26: As the blazing fire of death, I cause great fear to whoever makes the least discrimination between himself and other living entities because of a differential outlook.

Yes, it is a simile. A pluralistic vision is like a dream. It does not mean that it is a dream. There are some points of similarity and some points of difference. If I say you sing like a bird, it does not mean that you are a bird. The fundamental point is to highlight the unity of things. This is why I think that of the two options, multiplicity and non-duality. The latter is the more fundamental truth. Duality or difference rests on non-difference, not the other way around. The plurality we can see, the unity we have to cultivate our understandings to grasp.

I have been reading the works of Stcherbatsky on Buddhism lately. They are really great. I highly recommend them. I will talk about them in more detail later. The point here is that the meaning of the verse we are talking about represents precisely the same sort of view Mahayana developed contra the older pluralistic form of Buddhism called Hinayana. I failed to realize how dramatic a change Mahayana made in the Buddhist tradition. Stcherbatsky calls it a whole new "church." And that whole new church has a great deal in common with the worldview of the Bhagavata and Sankara.

Also will you be translating the SB? Do you think that VCT and Jiva Goswami;s commentary will not do the same mistake of superimposing their own understanding on the verses? Even Madhvas tend to do the same. And the advaitins also many times have to superimpose many of the concepts on the text.

As I say it is a good idea to keep things separate so that we can see the different levels of interpretation and how they influence each other. I don't think the Advaitins need to do much superimposing. The non-dualism is already there in the Bhagavata. But then so is the dualism and more importantly that moment called love when the dualism discovers its dualism.

One scholar I am touch with said the following about the SB, which I feel is accurate. What do you think Nitai ji?

In BhP verse 8.7.31, the phrase nirasta-bhedam is used, meaning
that there is no distinction that can be made between the various divinities and
divine manifestations. And at one level that cannot; yet at another level a
distinction can be made. In our western minds, we need the typical Kantian
categories, which strictly compartmentalize. In the Indian system, although
later Indian philosophers do establish metaphysical categories, in reality,
the original texts such as the Bhagavata describe or express a kind of fluidity
between beings and stages of being that is not always accounted for in later
doctrinal traditions. It it never an absolute oneness, but never an absolute
dualism either.

I would largely agree. But I still think there is more of a favoring of oneness over dualism. Even the most radical of dualists, Sri Madhva, recognizes that dualism depends on monism. The differentiated beings are not independent, but depend on the one supreme. In the absence of that independence what you have is not really a dualism, but a monism with ruffles.

[vkaul1]

No I saw some of the negative comments of VCT about pranayama and his criticism of "advaitins" in some BG verses. In addition, I read his madhurya kadimbini through ananta das babaji's commentary. Another person is prabhodananda saraswati whose sectarian views are too obvious. Similarly in CC, there are sectarian elements (the bengali is too simple for any person to miss and trying to put some other interpretation would be forced) These were things I had confirmed from Jagat. Baladeva Vidyabhusana is even more vitrolic. Have you read Satyanaryana ji's works? He is so trained in Sanskrit. So is Jagat. But even in their translations, you don't find that the sectarian agenda has been suppressed.
As an aside, if we have to cut the tongue of anyone who offends a vaisnava (sounds like Islamic law entering vaisnavas) and the entire focus of a vaisnava is to defend one's own guru rather than know the truth, do you think it is of any use Nitai ji? If two gurus abuse each other, both guru's followers should just cut the tongues of each other . A far cry from trying to see unity behind multiplicity.

Now like you pointed out, there are 3 things
1) Original text itself and what it intends to say.
2) How the text is interpreted by commentators to actually defend their pre-defined philosophy even for verses that seem to counter their view.
3) Modern insights that challenge both view 1 and 2.

So it would have easy if we just had to choose between 1 and 2, which is what you suggested above. Alas, 3 makes things much more complicated for better or worse and traditional CV or any other sect is hardly able to deal with it and vaisnava sects are much further behind the curve because they are more attached to the rigid structure of their beliefs and there is less fluidity. For example, I see traditionalists from all sects speculating on whether each cell in the body has an individual soul or not. If not, why does bacteria (unicellular organism) have a soul and cell does not ? And how are the atomic souls in grass distributed? All the conception of the souls whether from concept 1 or 2 cannot adequately address the modern idea of consciousness. It is just too hard to fit those descriptions and make sense of modern ideas. Anyway, thanks for taking time to answer because no one even discusses these issues.

[Nitaidas]

Sept 11, 2011 20:59:04 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

No I saw some of the negative comments of VCT about pranayama and his criticism of "advaitins" in some BG verses. In addition, I read his madhurya kadimbini through ananta das babaji's commentary. Another person is prabhodananda saraswati whose sectarian views are too obvious. Similarly in CC, there are sectarian elements (the bengali is too simple for any person to miss and trying to put some other interpretation would be forced) These were things I had confirmed from Jagat. Baladeva Vidyabhusana is even more vitrolic. Have you read Satyanaryana ji's works? He is so trained in Sanskrit. So is Jagat. But even in their translations, you don't find that the sectarian agenda has been suppressed.
As an aside, if we have to cut the tongue of anyone who offends a vaisnava (sounds like Islamic law entering vaisnavas) and the entire focus of a vaisnava is to defend one's own guru rather than know the truth, do you think it is of any use Nitai ji? If two gurus abuse each other, both guru's followers should just cut the tongues of each other . A far cry from trying to see unity behind multiplicity.

Now like you pointed out, there are 3 things
1) Original text itself and what it intends to say.
2) How the text is interpreted by commentators to actually defend their pre-defined philosophy even for verses that seem to counter their view.
3) Modern insights that challenge both view 1 and 2.

So it would have easy if we just had to choose between 1 and 2, which is what you suggested above. Alas, 3 makes things much more complicated for better or worse and traditional CV or any other sect is hardly able to deal with it and vaisnava sects are much further behind the curve because they are more attached to the rigid structure of their beliefs and there is less fluidity. For example, I see traditionalists from all sects speculating on whether each cell in the body has an individual soul or not. If not, why does bacteria (unicellular organism) have a soul and cell does not ? And how are the atomic souls in grass distributed? All the conception of the souls whether from concept 1 or 2 cannot adequately address the modern idea of consciousness. It is just too hard to fit those descriptions and make sense of modern ideas. Anyway, thanks for taking time to answer because no one even discusses these issues.

Well, let's not be vague. Can you find those verses and comments. I have all those works. Let's look them up and see what they really say. Now, if you are expecting them not to be sectarian, then you are going to be disappointed. It is like expecting men of the 16th century not to be patriarchal or ethnocentric or something like that. There is no point in criticizing them as if they could have been better. They were the children of their times, just as we are. A hundred years from now we will look awfully foolish to students of history of that time.

Neither Jagat or SN is up to the standard. Nor am I. We have not studied all those sastras deeply either, which means we don't really understand the texts we study. Still, at least in Jagat's, SN's, and my cases we have studied the grammar and have dipped into those sastras to some degree and used our knowledge to read the texts as best we can. I am sure we miss a lot because we do not have the knowledge the authors of the texts we read expected us to.

My own tendency is to take everything I read with a grain of salt, remembering that these Goswami authors were limited in what they could know. They were misled about Sankara, for instance, by Vidayanya who for political reasons and his own wish-fulfillment turned Sankara into a Saivite. There is no evidence of his Saivism before Vidyaranya's makeover of Sankara in the 15th century. How could the Gosvamins or VC or KDK have known that? As far as they were concerned all those erroneously attributed books were actually by Sankara. They also all thought that Krsna really did speak the Gita and the Bhagavata really was written by Vyasa 5000 years ago. So yes, we have to keep our feet firmly planted on the ground and not get carried away by someone's misunderstanding, even if that someone is Rupa Goswami or Sri Jiva. But once we subtract all this mistaken understanding and sectarian bias, there is still much valuable insight in their writings. That is what we want to extract and leave behind the rest as odd historical curiosities. This is the third level reading the Bhagavata you are talking about.

There is no reason to challenge views 1 and 2. They represent certain levels of thinking that are valuable. We cannot really understand the history of a book like the Bhagavata without understanding those views. They are true in the sense that people really believed them at certain points in history and not stupid people either. They had their reasons. But their reasons are no longer our reasons. So some of what they believed we can no longer accept as true. But that does not completely invalidate their views. Some of what they thought was based on shear insight and could help us to understand today.

Anyway, let's agree that if you really want to talk about sastra, let's toss out any IGM translations you might have and start with good ones. For the Bhagavata I recommend either Gita Press, Ramkrishna Mission, or Tagare's.

[vkaul1]

Thanks I will get hold of those verses. Also I will get hold of the Gita press edition.

[Nitaidas]

If I had any in stock, I would send you a set. But I am out. They are on order and will probably not arrive until November or December.

It looks like several of the volumes of Tagare's translation are available through Abebooks (www.abebooks.com). It is worth having them. If you want the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu there is David Haberman's translation. For the Gita there are many choices and all of them better than Bhaktivedanta's. I prefer Edgerton's but there are many good choices. For the Tattva-sandarbha I favor Elkman's over SN's.

[vkaul1]

Thanks. Gita, I use one from the Gita press (in hindi) and also one that contains Ramanuja's commentary. I also have Graham Schweig's free word Gita translation given that he did spend decent amount of time with Sanskrit and Jagat and Edwin Bryant praised his "Dance of Divine Love" to me personally. Again, I appreciate your help.

[Nitaidas]

Naah, I'd chuck Schweig. He's a dumb ass. You should hear some of his idiotic claims about the Gita. Since you have his Gita maybe you have. The jerk doesn't know anything about Sanskrit grammar and that's how he manages to make such shit up. It is exactly as the Jesus and Mo cartoon said it about theologians. They just make shit up. Even Edwin's translation of the 10th Skandha is iffy in many places. People think that they can study two years of Sanskrit at some college somewhere and that entitles them to translate something like the Bhagavata or the Gita. Just imagine what you get in two years of Sanskrit at an American college in which you meet three times a week for an hour? When I studied with Sastriji (J. Prabhakara Sastri, not Haridas) we met six days a week for 6 or seven hours. We did it for a year, well nine months. And even then we barely scratched the surface. I need another three years of that kind of intense study to really get somewhere. These idiots think that they can do more with less.

Sorry. I wish I could be more positive about someone in IGM. I mean, I could, if I just wanted to lie and make nice. But that is not in my nature, I'm afraid. I prefer saying what I think to be true even if it is not very pleasant..

[vkaul1]

Certainly, I was uncomfortable with many of his claims. However, he studied Sanskrit for at least 15 years in U Chicago and Harvard and Jagat says that he knows it decently well and he is almost on par with Bryant with the language. Now, the question is how he uses his knowledge and that no one has control over that. Otherwise, I have met many sanskrit scholars from dvaitin and advaitin tradition who are so locked in the traditional world view that it is very hard for me to get much from them. So it is a challenge to spend time mastering the language while huge treasures in modern science also need to be excavated, which also require a huge amount of time. So we need a combined effort from people like you (who are aware of the conflict of modern/traditional views and knows Sanskrit well). Unfortunately, such people are the scarcest in Gaudiya and Vaisnava traditions. They are so caught in the literal interpretation of scripture for the fear of impersonalism that there is no way out.

[Nitaidas]

Sept 12, 2011 12:34:09 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

Certainly, I was uncomfortable with many of his claims. However, he studied Sanskrit for at least 15 years in U Chicago and Harvard and Jagat says that he knows it decently well and he is almost on par with Bryant with the language. Now, the question is how he uses his knowledge and that no one has control over that. Otherwise, I have met many sanskrit scholars from dvaitin and advaitin tradition who are so locked in the traditional world view that it is very hard for me to get much from them. So it is a challenge to spend time mastering the language while huge treasures in modern science also need to be excavated, which also require a huge amount of time. So we need a combined effort from people like you (who are aware of the conflict of modern/traditional views and knows Sanskrit well). Unfortunately, such people are the scarcest in Gaudiya and Vaisnava traditions. They are so caught in the literal interpretation of scripture for the fear of impersonalism that there is no way out.

15 years?!!! What a liar! You cannot count the whole time you were in grad school as years that you studied Sanskrit. Based on his clear ignorance of Sanskrit grammar I would give him three or less years of actual study. One or two years of classes like I have described (three times a week for one hour) and then a year of reading classes. It is his inability to understand the grammar of a text that makes him come up with those ridiculous claims about the Gita. The problem with the field of Sanskirt is that no one checks to see if someone has done a good job. Someone comes out with a translation and no one checks it against the original text to see if it is faithful or even feasible. That is the way scoundrels like Schweig get away with being hailed as scholars. Why they even hailed Bhaktivedanta as a scholar. No one ever really looked to see how crappy his translations were. I am willing to bet that neither Jagat nor Bryant has really checked to see how faithful Schweig's translations are. There is simply no quality control in this field.

I was at the U of Chicago when Schweig arrived. I think that if he did not have a rich father he would not have been accepted into the graduate program. Money speaks. The rest of us had to work hard for our grants and scholarships. Then after two years he switched to Harvard possibly because I was at U of C and had some credibility. So off he skulked and again daddy bought him a spot. Eventually daddy bought him a degree.

This makes me wonder a bit about your motives. You complain about the sectarianism of VC and JG and yet you let this sectarian turd pass? What gives?

[vkaul1]

See Nitai ji, I did not know this about him. Jagat and Edwin Bryant gave me good feedback, so I took their word. I am not a Sanskrit scholar to know about the quality check, though I did find some of his claims on the Gita not feasible. I only spoke about the sectarianism is some translations of VCT and Prabhodananda Saraswati. It does not mean that I gave Schweig a pass. His translation is not accurate like you pointed out, but it is not so sectarian like Bhaktivedanta Swami. That is the only point I wanted to make.
I am purchasing the translations you have recommended above. In general, internally I also strive to see some kind of unity (the theme of the Bhagavata), in spite of differences I may have with other people. Therefore, sometimes I tend to be generous in my assessments. In this case, I relied on Jagat and Bryant's positive feedback. Nitai ji, we also make decisions on partial information available to us, so I don't how you can blame me on this point. I agree I am wrong and mistaken most probably, but I will learn with time. So here I am trying to learn on this forum and deepen my understanding.

[Nitaidas]

Sept 13, 2011 10:25:21 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

See Nitai ji, I did not know this about him. Jagat and Edwin Bryant gave me good feedback, so I took their word. I am not a Sanskrit scholar to know about the quality check, though I did find some of his claims on the Gita not feasible. I only spoke about the sectarianism is some translations of VCT and Prabhodananda Saraswati. It does not mean that I gave Schweig a pass. His translation is not accurate like you pointed out, but it is not so sectarian like Bhaktivedanta Swami. That is the only point I wanted to make.
I am purchasing the translations you have recommended above. In general, internally I also strive to see some kind of unity (the theme of the Bhagavata), in spite of differences I may have with other people. Therefore, sometimes I tend to be generous in my assessments. In this case, I relied on Jagat and Bryant's positive feedback. Nitai ji, we also make decisions on partial information available to us, so I don't how you can blame me on this point. I agree I am wrong and mistaken most probably, but I will learn with time. So here I am trying to learn on this forum and deepen my understanding.

Sorry. I didn't mean to come down so hard on you. I know you are seriously and sincerely searching for understanding. Cultivating a vision of the unity underlying the multiplicity we are confronted with is a good thing and it is a fundamental message of the Bhagavata which can be applied to our lives even today. There are many routes that appear to take us to a vision of the unity, but not all of them are genuine. Sometimes we can only know which is which by trying them out and discovering their value for ourselves. We all make mistakes and blunders and probably will continue to do so. If only we can keep learning as we do, everything will turn out well. So keep on asking questions. Your inquisitive mind well guide you through with maybe a little help from the caittya-guru.

Part of my publishing plan is always to include the original text with any translation that I do. Then, if I have made a mistake or misinterpreted a verse or passage, the text is right there and someone who knows can spot it immediately. That way our knowledge and understanding of these texts is sure to grow. If someone makes a wrong turn and the text is not there and no one corrects him, how much time will we waste going down that wrong path before we realize that we are lost? Some mistakes may never get set right. Anyway, I think the field of CV studies is rife with mistakes and misconceptions and the only way to correct them is to apply careful scholarship with critical thinking. But even these efforts will fail if we do not start with a good representation of what the texts actually say. IGM has been known to alter the texts themselves to eliminate passages that disagree with it. This I think is unconscionable. And I don't think there is any evidence of VC or JG ever doing that.