So there is an incorrect translation I found in the Isopanishad, which was translated by Srila Prabhupadaji.
Verse 6, Sri Isopanishad:
yas tu sarvāṇi bhūtāny
ātmany evānupaśyati
sarva-bhūteṣu cātmānaṁ
tato na vijugupsate
His translation: He who systematically sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord, who sees all living entities as His parts and parcels, and who sees the Supreme Lord within everything never hates anything or any being.
Where is "parts and parcels" mentioned in the shloka? This cannot be ignored because it changes the entire meaning of the verse and spreads wrong knowledge as the actual translation says:
"But one who sees all living beings in oneself and oneself in all beings, therefore, does not despise anyone."
and also he did not mention "parts and parcels" in the word-to-word translation but it was added in the main verse.
Prabhupadaji's word-to-word translation:
yaḥ — he who; tu — but; sarvāṇi — all; bhūtāni — living entities; ātmani — in relation to the Supreme Lord; eva — only; anupaśyati — observes in a systematic way; sarva-bhūteṣu — in every living being; ca — and; ātmānam — the Supersoul; tataḥ — thereafter; na — not; vijugupsate — hates anyone.
Considering this, can I really trust the authenticity of Iskcon's books?
Please Clarify this. Hare Krishna 🙏🙏
Replies
The err in things...
This might be a small thing, but t is BIG!
Non ISKCON books say even other scolars or new age sort of cults often use this part to say that if you are on the 'higher state of spirit' YOU AR GOD aka I AM! Becasue this explicit line oneself in all beings, sugest that the deathly combo of fact that God is in everything... geuss what; new age weirdo's will claim; "See I AM so we ARE GOD!"
Prabhupada had a specific reason to not translate it this way. In Purana's you read over and over (if able to read inbetween the lines) Prabhupada's translation. Must be because Prabhupada was in line with the parampara.
My assumption of the difference is , that Sri Isopanisad used this to enforce the ahimsa movement after the many kalpa's animalsacrifice was bonifide. While in the last book of Skanda Purana (and many other passages) even offer in janya/fire only grains over 3 year old must be used, due the fact they are not potent anymore to 'live on'.
So If pov of Sri Isopanisad; 'oneself in all beings' you are able to mentally sway like;'O wait if I put a animal or other living entities as offer in fire, I trow myself in fire'. which is very understandible even for a child.
So in short, we are NOT GOD, but to prevent to judge other living enitties less than humans Sri Isopanisad uses this. While all other scriptures point out;"His parts and parcels".
That is what I see here. (I is illusion/false ego, but still. Change my mind)
Hare Krishna!
Hare Krsna
'Ekala Isvara Krsna ara sab bhrtya'
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
Translation:
There is only one Supreme Lord Krsna, everyone else is His servant (inluding Lord Siva and Lord Brahma).
Somewhere the word 'servant' is used and somewhere 'part and parcel'. But they have been used consistently throughout the literature. This clearly shows that you have hardly read the literature. The philosophy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is acintya bheda-abheda tattva. Simultaneous and inconceivable oneness and difference. It is neither advaita, dvaita, sunyavadi or mayavadi philosophy in the books. Therefore, it is not the books but your mind that cannot be trusted. Please be careful!
Hari Bol
Hare Krsna
The philosophy of "acintya bheda-abheda tattva" propounded by Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the ideal preacher of the Bhagavad Gita is absolutely perfect. Acintya means inconceivable, bheda means difference and abheda means oneness. It means that we are: "simultaneously and inconceivably one and different from the Supreme Lord." A person who is conversant with this philosophy knows fully well that Krsna is the whole and that he is a part and parcel of Krsna. Such knowledge is perfect because it is qualitatively and quantitatively correct. For example a drop of the ocean has the same quality as the ocean but in quantity it is different.
The concept of 'only' oneness with Krsna is incorrect because the part cannot be equal to the whole. Knowledge that one is one in quality yet different in quantity is correct transcendental knowledge leading one to become full in himself, having nothing to aspire to or lament over. There is no duality in his mind because whatever he does, he does for Krsna. Being thus freed from the platform of dualities, he is liberated- even in this material world.
Hari Bol
Srila Prabhupada quite often puts comments into verses. The point is that his main audience are devotees and the general public, not academicians.
Re trusting his books, that you should decide by your own study, comparing his commentaries with those by other acaryas.
Hari Hari
ys J.
Hare Krsna Prabhu,
PAMHO.
Maybe you start with Srila Prabhupada lilamrta. Study the life of the founder acharya of ISKCON, and then decide whether you want to put your faith in him or not. It should not be blind faith, it should be based on facts and what the heart says after getting to know the facts.
If it was as simple as translating from Sanskrit to English, then chat GPT can do, why acharyas are required?
Acharyas have given commentaries for our benefit, after realising/ seeing the truth. This realisation has come after lifetime of purity and sadhana.
Choice is yours, whether you want to spit at the sun or understand that there is a lot to learn.
And yes, please base your faith on facts and emotions, after knowing facts.
Haribol,
Your servant,
Radha Rasamayi DD
Hare Krsna
There is an incorrect translation I found in the Isopanishad, which was translated by Srila Prabhupadaji
I respectfully disagree with the above statement.
Where is "parts and parcels" mentioned in the shloka?
It is not explicitly mentioned in the shloka.
Srila Prabhupada did not mention "parts and parcels" in the word-to-word translation but it was added in the main verse.
Yes, and there a strong reason for this.
It changes the entire meaning of the verse and spreads wrong knowledge
No it does not change the meaning of the shloka. It prevents the misinterpretation / misunderstanding of the shloka
the actual translation says: "But one who sees all living beings in oneself and oneself in all beings, therefore, does not despise anyone."
Since the above line has been presented as the "actual" translation , Question to author of this thread - Which word in the above translation corresponds to the word anu mentioned in the shloka ?
Considering this, can I really trust the authenticity of Iskcon's books?
Faith in the words of an acarya is the greatest asset of a learner, and there is a great deficit of faith in today's world.
Hare Krsna
What is the strong reason behind mentioning "parts and parcels" when there is no such mention?
I've read the commentary of Sri Madhavacharya also. he explained that the realization of the Supreme Self as the pervasive and supportive reality leads to fearlessness and a lack of aversion, as the individual recognizes the ultimate source of power and control in the Lord. But the translation was direct and there were no such additions like "parts and parcels" in the verse.
What I am trying to say is, that different scholars interpret them in different ways but none of them made such additions to the verse instead they explained the verse in their commentary section but Prabhupada ji made such additions to the verse itself. I feel it's not the correct thing do to.
Hare Krishna
Hare Krsna
Different scholars interpret them in different ways but none of them made such additions to the verse
I fully agree with the above statement. With all due respects to all the scholars, Srila Prabhupada is not just a scholar. Srila Prabhupada's goal in translating Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam and other literature is to take the conditioned living entities out of this dark and miserable material world directly to the spiritual world. Srila Prabhupada took this as his personal responsibility out of his compassion seeing the living beings suffering in the world. An ordinary sanskrit scholar is more interested in interpreting the meaning of shlokas than transforming their own life, what to speak of transforming the lives of others.
Sri Madhavacharya explained - the realization of the Supreme Self as the pervasive and supportive reality leads to fearlessness and a lack of aversion, as the individual recognizes the ultimate source of power and control in the Lord.
There is nothing wrong with such an understanding. But what Srila Prabhupada is trying to give is a much higher understanding of the shloka. Take for example this translation provided by author.
But one who sees all living beings in oneself and oneself in all beings, therefore does not despise anyone.
This translation could be understood in several ways. One of which is given by Sri Madhvacarya.
But there is a possibility of misinterpreting this translation. Someone may think if - If I see all beings in myself , and myself in all beings, then I am them and they are me. We are one and the same. The distinction between me and them is superficial and ultimately all is one. Thus someone may misunderstand the seeing of oneness to the actual oneness of the identity of different jivatmas and more importantly the difference between jivatma and paramatma may get negated. This type of misunderstanding should be prevented.
Sri Madhvacarya (or his followers) in his commentary to this shloka clearly says that oneness in identity is not intended or implied in this shloka, but only oneness in perspective.
What is the strong reason behind mentioning "parts and parcels" when there is no such mention ?
In short the strong reason is to prevent a mayavada interpretation of this shloka. Mayavada interpretation is to directly or indirectly equate the jivatma to paramatma or bhagavan
So Srila prabhupada wants to make it clear that jivatma is distinct from paramatma. For this, he has translated the word - atmani which literally means self, as a composite of soul and supersoul, by translating it to in relation to the supreme lord. By using the words in relation Srila Prabhupada has inevitably implied that self does not mean just one soul(jivatma) , because one soul alone cannot have relation. Relation means at least 2 entities. Which are the 2 entities ? - Soul and super soul or jivatma and paramatma.
Someone may challenge this, but the word atma has different meanings depending upon the level of spiritual enlightenment one has. Atma for someone in bodily conception of life can mean gross body, for someone else it can mean mind, for some scholar it may mean his intelligence, for some other person it may mean their ego, for someone it may include their car also.
The understanding of self as the spiritual soul distinct (from gross & subtle matter and other souls) and subservient to the supreme soul is the highest and truest understanding of the selfor atma. So what srila prabhupada has used here for atmani is jivatma and paramatma. This distinction is very much in-line with Bhagavad Gita and Other writings of Madhvacarya (Dwaitavada).
This same elaboration is given by Srila Prabhupada in the translation.
yas tu sarvāṇi bhūtāny - ātmany evānupaśyati -
He who systematically sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord meaning who sees all living entities as His parts and parcels
Seeing all living entities as parts and parcels of Sri Krsna is higher than seeing all living entities at the same level as themselves. Because
To summarise by using the words - parts and parcels in the translation Srila Prabhupada has done three things
Hare Krsna
What is wrong with saying that jivatma and Paramatma are the same? They are ultimately one. The distinction between the jivatma and Paramatma is present only from the empirical point of view, but not from the absolute level, as there is only Brahman that truly exists. How is the wave different from the ocean? How is space inside a jar different from space outside the jar?
I don't see anything wrong with the Advaita interpretation of reality. It is not Shankara who gave the philosophy:
SB 3.26.3 says:
anādir ātmā puruṣo
nirguṇaḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ
pratyag-dhāmā svayaṁ-jyotir
viśvaṁ yena samanvitam
Translation:
"The self is without beginning, beyond material nature, without attributes, transcendental,
the abode of the inner consciousness, self-illuminating, and by whom the universe is pervaded."
SB 3.26.4:
sa eṣa prakṛtiṁ sūkṣmāṁ
daivīṁ guṇa-mayīṁ vibhuḥ
yadṛcchayaivopagatām
abhyapadyata līlayā
"He, the Almighty, by His own will, indeed assumed this subtle and divine nature consisting of the modes of material nature as if in sport."
Atma-bodha upanishad of rig veda:
II-1-10. The Maya has gone away from me, I am the pure vision; my ego has gone down, and so has the difference between world, god and soul. I am the inner-self, without positive and negative rules; I am the expansive Bliss; I am the witness, independent, exerting in my greatness; without old age and decay, opposing sides, pure knowledge, the ocean of liberation; I am subtle without any attributes.
Skhanda Upanishad :
1-5 He who discerns the consciousness as distinct from the inert is the unswerving mass of knowledge. Only he is Shiva, Hari, luminary of luminaries, the supreme god, the Brahman - I am that Brahman surely.
6-7. Jiva is Shiva and Shiva is Jiva; when bound by husk it is paddy, unbound of is rice. Thus the bound one is Jiva, released from karma he is eternal Shiva. Bound by ropes, he is Jiva, unbound, Shiva.
Vasudeva Upanishad of sama veda:
"....All existence is the Brahman of the Upanishads.
May I never deny Brahman, nor Brahman deny me....."
Adhyatma Upanishad of yajur veda:
"2. Knowing oneself to be the subject, the witness of intellect and its operations, reject the idea of the Self being other than the subject, identifying the 'I' with that (the subject)."
:"7. Dissolve the self in the supreme Self as the pot-space is dissolved in infinite space; then, as the Infinite be silent for ever, O sage!"
"10. Knowing 'I am that Brahman' in which this world appearance (exists) like a city reflected in a mirror, find fulfillment, O sinless one!"
Considering all these verse, which are not related to mayavadi and shankara in any way, How can we reject ablsolute advaita?
Hare Krsna
What is wrong with saying that jivatma and Paramatma are the same ?
Saying Jivatma and Paramatma are same would at best be incomplete and at worst be incorrect depending on how other aspects are understood. That is what is wrong with this.
They are ultimately one
No, they are not. They are one only in quality, but not in quantity. Jivatma is limited in both conditioned and liberated states. Paramatma is always unlimited both in material realm and of course in the spiritual realm.
The distinction between the jivatma and Paramatma is present only from the empirical point of view, but not from the absolute level
The above understanding is not supported by lord Sri Krsna in Bhagavad Gita
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. (BG 2.12).
In this shloka lord Sri Krsna clearly says that the individuality of living entity is eternal. Further more the following shloka from upanishads also supports the eternal distinction between jivatma and paramatma.
nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān
tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti dhīrās
teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām
Among all the eternal, conscious beings, there is one who supplies the needs of everyone else. The wise souls who worship Him in His abode attain everlasting peace. Others cannot. (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13)
there is Brahman that truly exists.
Yes, Brahman truly exists. But there are three manifestations of the Supreme Brahman as given in Srimad Bhagavatam
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān. (SB 1.2.11).
Bhagavan is the most complete realization of the Supreme Brahman and it includes the other two aspects namely Brahman and Parmatma. Lord Sri Krsna states the following in Bhagavad Gita
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. ( BG 14.27)
How is the wave different from the ocean? How is space inside a jar different from space outside the jar?
There are at least three aspects of difference -
1.The scale or the quantity or the vastness.
2.The independence and
3. The ability to support various life forms through its energies and resources.
It is not Shankara who gave the philosophy Sb 3.26.3 The self is without beginning,beyond material nature, without attributes, transcendental,.
This translation, irrespective of the origin, is not complete nor correct. There is a word puruṣaḥ mentioned by Sri Kapila in the shloka. This word has been ignored in the translation. This word makes a world of difference. The word atma has been inaccurately translated as the self implying jivatma. The words ātmā puruṣaḥ refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is evident from the first word the next shloka saḥ . If the word ātmā was referring to the self then usage of the word saḥ would be contradictory.
Considering all these verse, which are not related to mayavadi and shankara in any way
Mayavada is not coming from any separate scripture. It is due to the misinterpretation of the same eternal scriptures. It is not that whatever Sri Adi Shankaracarya has given is termed as mayavada. The interpretation which equates the jivatma with paramatma absolutely without acknowledging the distinctions between the two is incorrect/incomplete. The interpretation which states that the Supreme Brahman (Paramatma or bhagavan ) is bound/controlled by prakriti is highly misleading and never acceptable.
As per SB 3.26.4
sa eṣa prakṛtiṁ sūkṣmāṁ
daivīṁ guṇa-mayīṁ vibhuḥ
yadṛcchayaivopagatām
abhyapadyata līlayā
As His pastime, that Supreme Personality of Godhead, the greatest of the great, accepted the subtle material energy, which is invested with three material modes of nature and which is related with Viṣṇu.
This the Supreme Lord does without being limited or controlled or affected by the three modes of the material natures. The words vibhuḥ clearly indicates the Supreme Lord is the greatest and is not overpowered by the modes of material nature. The supreme Lord does this through His energies which are called daivīm.
The appearance, pastimes of the Supreme Lord in His personal form within the material world is not the same as the birth of a conditioned jivatma in the material world. Even in the liberated state the jivatma is always subordinate and distinct from the Supreme Brahman.
How can we reject ablsolute advaita ?
The aspects in the advaita siddhanta about the distinction between the Brahman and the prakriti is acceptable. The aspects of the temporariness of the prakriti, karma etc are acceptable. The constitutional position/nature of jivatma as qualitatively sat-cit-ananda is acceptable. This is also the nature of the Supreme Brahman. But the brahman is always unlimited, infinite and blissful. But the jivatma is always finite, can be overcome by the material energy of the supreme brahman.
The absoluteness of jivatma andparamatma is only in quality and not in the quantity or entirety. The advaita philisophy can be rejected due to its incompleteness of not accept the variagated spiritual energies of the Supreme Brahman and due to incorrectness of equating the jivatma and paramatma in its entirity, whereas in reality the oneness is only in quality and not its quantity.
Hare Krsna
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next