Demigod, semigod, or God

[Bharat Chandra Dasa]

Dear Scholars,

Pranam,

Recently, there was a comment on the use of the word "Demigod" and based on that conversation, Sri Nityananda Misraji also made a YouTube video published very recently, referring to the conversation in BVP.

Let us be careful not to be an offender at the lotus feet of Paramapujya A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who is one of the greatest Acharyas of our times.

The word demi would only mean simply a subordinate. Nothing more than that. It was used by the Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur who was in British India, one of the greatest scholars in Sanskrit as well as English. For want a better English word, this was used. The same was used by his disciples in all the Gaudiya Matha publications. His disciple, Srila Prabhupada also used the same terminology.

The question of English non-translatable has recently come to the limelight and certainly better work needs to be done in this area. I greatly appreciate the work being done in this area and have followed those discussions in my own works.

The importance of the matter is that the hierarchy or "Tāratamya" has to be understood in discussing about the Deities. This is the aspect of the sampradaya followed in Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

Srila Prabhupada has written enough on how offending subordinate Gods (demigods) who are devotees of the one Supreme Lord, Visnu, is a great offence (śivasya śrī viṣṇor iha guṇa nāmādi sakalam dhiyā bhinnam paśyed sa khalu harināma ahita karaḥ).

Nothing more to say on this,

Pranam,

dasānudāsa

[Yasoda Jivan dasa]

In the mahabharat Vishnu sahasra nama it is said that daivatam devatanam ca. " lord Vishnu is supreme amongst all gods " therefore other personalities may be called as god but they don't possess power like supreme god.  Therefore we call them Demi + god " half god". 

Lord Brahma is not supreme god.  Therfore lord Krishna says in bhagvad Gita - aabrahma bhuvanallokat punaravartino'rjuna " after attaining the topmost planet Brahma Loka one falls down.  " in next line lord Krishna says - mama prapyeva kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate - " after attaining me no one again comes in material world " these shows the inferiority of Brahma Deva in comparison to Krishna. although Brahma is god or in higher position in material world Therfore we call him Demi god " half god" .

Thanks to all 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM3U_xFVJTdV88Vn_sM94HubaN7UJQVBtwH8wiDcHd3%3DdZMJJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

प्रणाम भरतमहोदय

I can't help but notice that the Sanskrit text you mentioned towards the end mismatches with your translation.

> Srila Prabhupada has written enough on how offending subordinate Gods (demigods) who are devotees of the one Supreme Lord, Visnu, is a great offence (śivasya śrī viṣṇor iha guṇa nāmādi sakalam dhiyā bhinnam paśyed sa khalu harināma ahita karaḥ).

According to me, the Sanskrit text  means -

Here (इह), one who differentiates (धिया भिन्नं पश्येद्) between श्रीविष्णु (Sri Vishnu) and भगवान् शिव (Bhagavan Shiva) based on name, qualities, etc. (गुणनामादिसकलं) he (स) does wrong (अहितकरः) to हरिनाम (name of Hari). 

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

I think characterizing all non-Vishnu entities as 'demi-gods' would be restricted to the scriptural texts that are accepted by those who use such names.  Beyond those texts like the Bhagavatam, there are a number of other texts, Puranas, even Mahabharata, the Veda and the Upanishads, that hold Shiva/Rudra as the Supreme Brahman, the cause of creation, the creator of Brahma and even the Trimurti-s.  Those texts are held by Shaivas as teaching the supremacy of Shiva over all other gods.  Hence the position is only relative and not absolute. Thus the debate/quarrel over who is superior/supreme is never ending to the satisfaction of both parties. 

regards

subbu  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BxhfB%2BJ6iUYVhQ463JduYB2fLJmAqOvDPGe7urkNmyCkqQoVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bharat Chandra Dasa]

Thank you very much for your message. Without going into it's variations of meanings - Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma are gunāvatāras of Lord Viṣṇu and "demigods" as expansions of Lord Viṣṇu. They should not be considered as independent of Lord Viṣṇu and worshipped separately without connection to the Supreme.

>> According to me, the Sanskrit text  means -

>> Here (इह), one who differentiates (धिया भिन्नं पश्येद्) between श्रीविष्णु (Sri Vishnu) and भगवान् शिव (Bhagavan Shiva) based on name, qualities, etc. (गुणनामादिसकलं) he (स) does wrong (अहितकरः) to हरिनाम (name of Hari). 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/24cc1862-1b34-4719-864f-fb77c3ecde7fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Narayan Prasad]

What is the meaning of "एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति - ऋग वेद (1:164:46)" ?

Is it relevant to the current topic?

Regards

Narayan Prasad

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 7:36:35 AM UTC+5:30 Bharat Chandra Dasa wrote:

Dear Scholars,

Pranam,

Recently, there was a comment on the use of the word "Demigod" and based on that conversation, Sri Nityananda Misraji also made a YouTube video published very recently, referring to the conversation in BVP.

Let us be careful not to be an offender at the lotus feet of Paramapujya A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who is one of the greatest Acharyas of our times.

Posting the same comment that I have posted on another thread.

Not only Nityanand Misra, but Satyanarayan Das Babaji too has a video on the same topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmZ7eIsUgfI) .

Both these individuals are not contemporaries of ISKCON's founder. Satyanarayan Das Babaji does not work with the same constraints that Srila Prabhupada worked with. In order to polish his translations, he has a team of editors who do the job for him. He takes help from Bruce Martin (Navadvip Das) and Dr. Jan Brzezinski (Jagadananda Das) in his English translations and editing.

Previously, when Satyanarayan Das Babaji translated the Tattva-sandarbha for the first time in English, he too used the term "demigods" in it in Anuccheda 10 commentary:

Was Satyanarayan Das Babaji not informed enough at that time to understand that this term is not a translation of the Sanskrit term "devatā"? He might have removed this term from his revised edition now, because he is still alive. I hope he lives long, but if by misfortune he would've left this world after producing this first edition of Tattva-sandarbha, there would be individuals who would've loved to cast pebbles of sarcasm at him for using this term.

Coming back to my main point, neither Satyanarayan Das Babaji nor Nityanand Misra are contemporaries of Srila Prabhupada. Their gurus are Shri Haridas Shastri and Swami Rambhadracharya respectively. The gurus of these two individuals can be said to be contemporaries of Srila Prabhupada. Both these gurus have not authored a single translation in the English language. Can these individuals show a single English translation by their gurus that we can use as a reference point for comparison?

Let me amuse you by specifying something from the official website of Swami Rambhadracharya. Since Swami Rambhadracharya has no English translations of his own, at least we can check some of the English phrases on his official website. Here is an extract from the webpage of his site where the biography of Goswami Tulsidas has been specified:

As you can see, Śiva, Hanumān and Rāma have been turned into "Lords". The historic meanings of the term "Lord" are — (1) A Supreme Deity in Abrahamic Religions ; (2) A title bestowed upon a nobleman by the imperial rulers. So does it mean that Śiva, Hanumān and Rāma are abrahamic Lords or noblemen from the imperial world? Does the title "Lord" have any resemblance in meaning to the six aiśvaryas of the term "bhagavān"?

Also noteworthy are the inconsistencies in spelling out Rāma. It is sometimes written as Rama, sometimes as Raam. Also do not miss the capitalization of the pronoun "Himself" for Goswami Tulsidas, turning him into a revered abrahamic deity. How easy it will be for me to sit down and throw muck at this level of English. My channel will perhaps gain a lot of réclame for the same.

Let's move to the Hindi publications of Swami Rambhadracharya. They too are not stellar examples of proof-reading and correctness. For example, one can see this extract from the Rāsapañcādhyāyīvimarśaḥ, where "रा" is incorrectly broken down as "र-अ" instead of "र-आ".

Another example from the same book where the phrase "तन्नः" is incorrectly printed as "तन्न".

More serious is him throwing muck at all previous Sanskrit commentators of the Śrīmadbhāgavata. He says that all of these commentators are responsible for the great insult of Sanātana Dharma:

 

It is one thing to disagree with the previous commentators, but to throw muck at all of them combined is a new trend that him and his followers are religiously following.

It should come as no surprise when other sādhus speak against the aśāstrīya aspects of Swami Rambhadracharya's teachings. In his book — "उत्तरकाण्ड प्रसङ्ग एवं संन्यासाधिकार विमर्श" ( https://archive.org/details/uttara-kanda/ ), Bhagavatanand Guru has refuted many claims of Swami Rambhadracharya, and many learned Sanskrit vidvāns have given their support in the beginning of the book. However, he says in the book that he was threatened with an FIR after writing against philosophical positions of Swami Rambhadracharya. One should have a look into this book in order to understand how Akhāḍā Politics works in India. 

I do not expect much from the followers of Swami Rambhadracharya. They are yet to get a first-hand experience of how to run an institution after the disappearance of the founder (especially when the founder himself has made many controversial statements against contemporary and previous ācāryas). Unkindness towards anyone who disagrees with them and lodging FIRs against dissenting authors is like a ritual for them, and hence I am not surprised.

What surprises me is that if this tendency of passing loose comments on other institutions does not stop, then Bharatiya Vidvat Parishat may itself turn into a ground for the same Akhāḍā level politics and bickering that has plagued Sanātana Dharma for so long.

I have stated facts with proofs in my message. Hope the admins of the group take notice and put some ground rules in place to avoid conflicts amongst institutions and individuals of different mindsets. There are sufficient number of followers of ISKCON in this group, and they are usually asking innocent questions from the other members. If the other members think that this gives them a free pass to throw muck at ISKCON, then please note that there are followers of ISKCON who know how to pay back in the same currency.

There are many ISKCON YouTube channels that are aching to take up material against these fault-finders and turn them into profitable videos. I am keeping quiet and not supplying them with fodder due to my non-confrontational disposition. If nothing else, the members of this esteemed forum should at least understand that the sheer number of people that have been turned into followers of / made favorable towards Sanātana Dharma by Srila Prabhupāda is far greater than most individuals present in this forum. If this basic acknowledgement is missing, we cannot have a dialogue. Armchair philosophers may get technicalities correct, but perhaps these armchair philosophers should once try reclaiming Hindus from tribal areas in the north-east that has been taken over by zealous Christian Missionaries. ISKCON is already on the ground and reclaiming entire villages in favor of Sanātana Dharma.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

Being in the US, I take interest in the translations as they may be understood by our children.

With my huge appreciation to Srila Prabhupda and the ISKCON movement, I must say that the

translated texts as produced need heavy editing and rewriting.  This is also true for most of

the translations of scriptural writings that are shelved in the libraries.  This is a massive task,

bilingual scholars in Sanskrit and English are scarce.  I request scholars in BVP who have

good proficiency in English language to take up the challenge and help create new texts.  Simple

criticisms won't help, there are fundamental conceptual obstacles that need to be remedied.

It may take the next hundred years.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

India Discovery Center, US

[Bharat Chandra Dasa]

Pranam. Srimad Bhagavata's commentaries can be studied for this. Verse (1.2.11) - vadanti tat tattva vidas tattvam yajjñānamadvayam brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavāneti śabdyate

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/d1a6444e-2fa1-448b-b100-95941cf2d668n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday 6 April, 2024 at 7:36:35 am UTC+5:30 Bharat Chandra Dasa wrote:

Dear Scholars,

Pranam,

Recently, there was a comment on the use of the word "Demigod" and based on that conversation, Sri Nityananda Misraji also made a YouTube video published very recently, referring to the conversation in BVP.

Let us be careful not to be an offender at the lotus feet of Paramapujya A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who is one of the greatest Acharyas of our times.

Dear Bharat Chandra Dasa Ji

Can you please explain how critiquing a translation or a term is an offence to the translator or the person who uses the term? 

Most, if not all, translations of Sanskrit texts have mistakes: good ones have few and bad ones have many. Even in the excellent Hindi translation of the Mahābhārata by Rāṃanārāyaṇa Datta Śāstrī Pāṇḍeya Rāma, I have found a few mistakes. It only shows that the translation is human. If a mistake is pointed out in a translation, how does it become an offence to the translator? If somebody points out a mistake in my translations or commentaries, I look at it objectively and if I am convinced there is indeed a mistake, I mark it to be fixed in the next edition. That is how things usually work.

As an example, let us take an example of the translation of the Bhagavad-Gītā by Bhaktivedāṇta Svāmī (often called Prabhupāda, but this honorific is not unique to him). Did the translation not have mistakes? Yes, it did. As an example, let us look at the word-for-word meanings of verse 4.12 in the first edition (Collier Books 1972, third print 1973): https://archive.org/details/bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-srila-prabhupada-original-1972-macmillan-edition/page/233/mode/1up

siddhiḥ bhavati = becomes successful
karmajā = of fruitive worker

Anybody with basic Sanskrit knowledge would agree that both translations are erroneous. The phrase siddhiḥ bhavati does not mean “becomes successful”, for siddhiḥ is an abstract noun. It is rather siddho/siddhā/siddhaṃ bhavati which means “becomes successful”. The word karmajā does not mean “of fruitive worker”. Firstly, karmajā does not mean  “fruitive worker” and further, the word being in the nominative case, the word “of” in the translation is wrong. So Bhaktivedāṇta Svāmī’s translation did have mistakes. The fact that these mistakes have been rectified in the current online edition makes it clear that these were mistakes. The current word-for-word translation fo the verse (https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/4/12/) reads:

siddhiḥ = success
bhavati = comes
karmajā = from fruitive work

So somebody did apply their mind and fixed the erroneous translations, though the last one still leaves something to be desired. Now let us look at the word-for-word translation of the same verse by Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī in his wonderful translation of the Bhagavad-Gītā

siddhiḥ = success

bhavati = comes 

karmajā = born of actions

I must say that “born of actions” is a much more accurate translation of karmajā than “from fruitive work”. 

All the above comments are made dispassionately. If somebody sees any offence here to anybody, they are mistaken. 

You said that “The importance of the matter is that the hierarchy or tāratamya has to be understood in discussing about the Deities. This is the aspect of the sampradaya followed in Gaudiya Vaisnavism”. I hope you will appreciate the fact that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not confined to ISKCON. Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī is also in the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage, and his translation of the Bhagavad-Gītā does not use the word demigod for deva or sura. 

I look forward to your comments and a focussed constructive discussion. 

Thanks, Nityānanda

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday 6 April, 2024 at 2:57:40 pm UTC+5:30 Hari Parshad Das wrote:

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 7:36:35 AM UTC+5:30 Bharat Chandra Dasa wrote:

Dear Scholars,

Pranam,

Recently, there was a comment on the use of the word "Demigod" and based on that conversation, Sri Nityananda Misraji also made a YouTube video published very recently, referring to the conversation in BVP.

Let us be careful not to be an offender at the lotus feet of Paramapujya A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who is one of the greatest Acharyas of our times.

Dear Hari Parshad Das Ji

Your email has gone on a complete tangent, covering far-off topics that have no relation or relevance to the topic of translations. I will restrict my response to portions relevant to translations.  

 

Previously, when Satyanarayan Das Babaji translated the Tattva-sandarbha for the first time in English, he too used the term "demigods" in it in Anuccheda 10 commentary:

Was Satyanarayan Das Babaji not informed enough at that time to understand that this term is not a translation of the Sanskrit term "devatā"? He might have removed this term from his revised edition now, because he is still alive.

From the quoted extract, it is not clear if he has used the word demigods for devas for devatās. He is certainly not translating a term or phrase here, “sarva-puruṣa” is translated as “all persons” (fair enough), but the rest is explanation and the phrase with demigods explains superhuman beings. There is a possibility he means upadevas, and Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī is the only person who can clarify. Do you know what the revised edition reads? That would be helpful.

 

I hope he lives long, but if by misfortune he would've left this world after producing this first edition of Tattva-sandarbha, there would be individuals who would've loved to cast pebbles of sarcasm at him for using this term.

As you can see, Śiva, Hanumān and Rāma have been turned into "Lords". The historic meanings of the term "Lord" are — (1) A Supreme Deity in Abrahamic Religions ; (2) A title bestowed upon a nobleman by the imperial rulers. So does it mean that Śiva, Hanumān and Rāma are abrahamic Lords or noblemen from the imperial world? Does the title "Lord" have any resemblance in meaning to the six aiśvaryas of the term "bhagavān"?

The word “lord” has several more meanings, including “a master or ruler”, “a name for God or Christ”, etc. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī has also used this word hundreds or thousands of times for Śiva, Rāma, etc, in his writings. One finds many usages like “Lord Caitanya”, “Lord Kṛṣṇa”, “Lord Rāma”, “O Lord of all demigods”, “Lord Śiva”, “Lord Brahmā”, “Lord Śiva”, “Lord Vīṣṇu”, “Supreme Lord”, “Lord Buddha”, etc.. in his works. In a letter written on June 14, 1972, Bhaktivedānta Svāmī used this word for even the Islamic prophet Muhammad, whom he called a “śaktyāveśa avatāra”: “Lord Mohammed is accepted by us as Saktyavesa Avatar, but we do not recognize the Bahai faith” (source: https://vanisource.org/w/index.php?title=720614_-_Letter_to_Surasrestha_written_from_Los_Angeles). The use of the word “lord” in Indian English for deities is common and not confined to a specific group. This is not the case with “demigod”, whose use to translate deva is scarcely seen outside writings from individuals associated with ISKCON, hence the problem when they communicate using ISKCON termilogies with non-ISKCON individuals and groups. 

Kind regards, Nityānanda Miśra

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 7:57:24 PM UTC+5:30 Nityanand Misra wrote:

On Saturday 6 April, 2024 at 2:57:40 pm UTC+5:30 Hari Parshad Das wrote:

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 7:36:35 AM UTC+5:30 Bharat Chandra Dasa wrote:

Dear Scholars,

Pranam,

Recently, there was a comment on the use of the word "Demigod" and based on that conversation, Sri Nityananda Misraji also made a YouTube video published very recently, referring to the conversation in BVP.

Let us be careful not to be an offender at the lotus feet of Paramapujya A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who is one of the greatest Acharyas of our times.

Dear Hari Parshad Das Ji

Your email has gone on a complete tangent, covering far-off topics that have no relation or relevance to the topic of translations. I will restrict my response to portions relevant to translations.

Dear Nityanand Misra ji,

Your response is your freedom. You could've chosen to write privately to the BBT.

However, you did not take that route first and chose to make a public video about it. Satyanarayan Das Babaji too made a video about the same topic.

At least his video did not selectively highlight ISKCON. Somehow you felt the urgent need to target only a single organization. That is your freedom.

However, the responses that you get will not be decided by you. 

Nigrahacharya Bhagavatanand Guru has the freedom to decide what he wants to speak against Swami Rambhadracharya. Believe me, he too has good intentions to point out the truth. Your intentions with critiquing Srila Prabhupada are as pure and honest as Bhagavatananda Guru's intentions in critiquing Swami Rambhadracharya. Believe me, this is the truth.

 

Previously, when Satyanarayan Das Babaji translated the Tattva-sandarbha for the first time in English, he too used the term "demigods" in it in Anuccheda 10 commentary:

Was Satyanarayan Das Babaji not informed enough at that time to understand that this term is not a translation of the Sanskrit term "devatā"? He might have removed this term from his revised edition now, because he is still alive.

From the quoted extract, it is not clear if he has used the word demigods for devas for devatās. He is certainly not translating a term or phrase here, “sarva-puruṣa” is translated as “all persons” (fair enough), but the rest is explanation and the phrase with demigods explains superhuman beings. There is a possibility he means upadevas, and Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī is the only person who can clarify. Do you know what the revised edition reads? That would be helpful.

The Sanskrit commentary by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana on this sections says — sarva-paramparāsu brahmotpanneṣu deva-mānavādiṣu sarveṣu vaṁśeṣu. He has clearly mentioned "deva". So most likely, Satyanarayan Das Babaji is translating the term "deva" as demigod. In the first edition of his book "In Vaikuntha, Not even the Leaves Fall" he has used the term "demigod" on several occasions. But you will conveniently skip targeting him in your videos, because you've hobnobbed with Babaji and don't wish to spoil your relationship. You also don't care to check if the Gaudiya Math (the predecessor organization of ISKCON) used the term demigod in any of their publications. You wish to selectively target ISKCON, and then why complain when Swami Rambhadracharya's grave errors in his publications and writings are pointed out to you with the most honest, dispassionate intentions? Honesty and dispassion are not exclusive to your character, are they?

 

 

I hope he lives long, but if by misfortune he would've left this world after producing this first edition of Tattva-sandarbha, there would be individuals who would've loved to cast pebbles of sarcasm at him for using this term.

As you can see, Śiva, Hanumān and Rāma have been turned into "Lords". The historic meanings of the term "Lord" are — (1) A Supreme Deity in Abrahamic Religions ; (2) A title bestowed upon a nobleman by the imperial rulers. So does it mean that Śiva, Hanumān and Rāma are abrahamic Lords or noblemen from the imperial world? Does the title "Lord" have any resemblance in meaning to the six aiśvaryas of the term "bhagavān"?

The word “lord” has several more meanings, including “a master or ruler”, “a name for God or Christ”, etc. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī has also used this word hundreds or thousands of times for Śiva, Rāma, etc, in his writings. One finds many usages like “Lord Caitanya”, “Lord Kṛṣṇa”, “Lord Rāma”, “O Lord of all demigods”, “Lord Śiva”, “Lord Brahmā”, “Lord Śiva”, “Lord Vīṣṇu”, “Supreme Lord”, “Lord Buddha”, etc.. in his works. In a letter written on June 14, 1972, Bhaktivedānta Svāmī used this word for even the Islamic prophet Muhammad, whom he called a “śaktyāveśa avatāra”: “Lord Mohammed is accepted by us as Saktyavesa Avatar, but we do not recognize the Bahai faith” (source: https://vanisource.org/w/index.php?title=720614_-_Letter_to_Surasrestha_written_from_Los_Angeles). The use of the word “lord” in Indian English for deities is common and not confined to a specific group. This is not the case with “demigod”, whose use to translate deva is scarcely seen outside writings from individuals associated with ISKCON, hence the problem when they communicate using ISKCON termilogies with non-ISKCON individuals and groups. 

Once again, parts of my message that were inconvenient to you have been skipped by you. The term "Lord" has its origins in Abrahamic religions. You are saying that it is found in the writings of Srila Prabhupada, but my question is — "How did it get applied to Śiva, Brahmā and Hanumān on the official website of Swami Rambhadracharya? Are Śiva, Brahmā and Hanumān Lords of abrahamic religions? Or are they noblemen in the Imperial British Empire?"

Also you skipped answering why capitalized pronoun "Himself" was used for Goswami Tulsidas. Is he a biblical deity? Then I also showed so many print errors in the Hindi books. Isn't all of this ironic for someone who claims that all the printed editions of Rāmacaritamānasa from respectable publishers viz. Gita Press, Chowkhamba etc. contain thousands of print mistakes?

You point out that ISKCON individuals use the term demigod for other devas. In the Collins dictionary, the classical British meaning of this term has been mentioned. Srila Prabhupada's own education in English was in the British era. The Collins dictionary says that in British English, this term refers to a lesser deity:

 

Now, according to the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam itself, deities such as Brahmā, Śiva etc. are lesser in stature — यस्य ब्रह्मादयो देवा वेदा लोकाश्चराचराः नामरूपविभेदेन फल्ग्व्या च कलया कृताः (Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 8.3.22) etc. So what is the harm if he has made a classical British English usage of the term demigod in relation to them? Just as you are now making efforts to justify the mention of "Lord" on Swami Rambhadracharya's website, you could've made a small attempt in this direction too, but your claims of good intentions don't match with your actions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Therefore I doubt if any follower of ISKCON will take your word when you claim honesty of intentions.

I will end by pointing out how the YouTube thumbnail of the Sanskrit Non Translatables video has a grave error in in the term Śraddhā. It has been incorrectly written as Shraddah (only Bhagavān knows what this term means). Individuals who cannot type diacritics properly are pointing out errors in other people's books. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, eh? Lets begin by fixing these grave print errors in the writings of Swami Rambhadracharya and in the YouTube Thumbnails of Sanskrit Non Translatables. Let's teach by example, shall we?

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday 6 April, 2024 at 9:30:24 pm UTC+5:30 Hari Parshad Das wrote:

Dear Nityanand Misra ji,

Dear Hari Parshad Das Ji,

Once again, your email digressed and covered a whole gamut of topics like freedom, intentions, hobnobbing, my relations with Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī (for the record, I have never even met him), honesty, trust, etc., which I believe are not relevant at all. A separate thread may be started on these, but I have neither the time nor the appetite for discussions on these topics. So I will stick to translations again. 

 

Was Satyanarayan Das Babaji not informed enough at that time to understand that this term is not a translation of the Sanskrit term "devatā"? He might have removed this term from his revised edition now, because he is still alive.

From the quoted extract, it is not clear if he has used the word demigods for devas for devatās. He is certainly not translating a term or phrase here, “sarva-puruṣa” is translated as “all persons” (fair enough), but the rest is explanation and the phrase with demigods explains superhuman beings. There is a possibility he means upadevas, and Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī is the only person who can clarify. Do you know what the revised edition reads? That would be helpful.

The Sanskrit commentary by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana on this sections says — sarva-paramparāsu brahmotpanneṣu deva-mānavādiṣu sarveṣu vaṁśeṣu. He has clearly mentioned "deva". So most likely, Satyanarayan Das Babaji is translating the term "deva" as demigod. In the first edition of his book "In Vaikuntha, Not even the Leaves Fall" he has used the term "demigod" on several occasions.

I will let Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī comment on this. He may have used “demigod” for deva here. If that is the case, I will say it once more: “demigod” is not the correct translation for deva irrespective of who uses it. The fact that Bābājī has used “gods” to translate sura, deva, etc., in his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gītā published in 2015 indicates that he may have changed his usage with time. This is not unusual. Many writers and scholars evolve, in both style and thinking, with time and so do many commentators and translators. Even my translations have evolved with time: I used to translate Sanskrit tapas as “penance” once but after reading some feedback and thinking deeply about it, I now use the word “askesis” for tapas. Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī's earlier usage may have been influenced by the heavy use of the term in BBT publications or ISKCON followers, but this is only a conjecture. 

 

 

 

Once again, parts of my message that were inconvenient to you have been skipped by you. The term "Lord" has its origins in Abrahamic religions. You are saying that it is found in the writings of Srila Prabhupada, but my question is — "How did it get applied to Śiva, Brahmā and Hanumān on the official website of Swami Rambhadracharya? Are Śiva, Brahmā and Hanumān Lords of abrahamic religions? Or are they noblemen in the Imperial British Empire?"

It seems you missed my explanation that the word ‘lord’ also means “a master or ruler” and “a name for God or Christ”. The original sense of the word lord was indeed master or ruler (see here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/lord), this sense is preserved in many words like druglord, landlord, overlord, warlord, etc. The word, in its capitalised form, has been used for a long time with Indic deities, the sense is of God or master but it may have begun as a substitution/translation of Shri. Nevertheless, as the usage is not specific to a group, there is no point arguing over why it is used on a specific website or in a specific book.

 

You point out that ISKCON individuals use the term demigod for other devas. In the Collins dictionary, the classical British meaning of this term has been mentioned. Srila Prabhupada's own education in English was in the British era. The Collins dictionary says that in British English, this term refers to a lesser deity:

So far so good. 

 

Now, according to the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam itself, deities such as Brahmā, Śiva etc. are lesser in stature — यस्य ब्रह्मादयो देवा वेदा लोकाश्चराचराः नामरूपविभेदेन फल्ग्व्या च कलया कृताः (Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 8.3.22) etc. So what is the harm if he has made a classical British English usage of the term demigod in relation to them?

Here is where it gets problematic: this verse per se does not change the meaning of the term deva. A viewpoint does not change the meanings of words. A translation tinged with viewpoints becomes parochial. 

Before I end the discussion, a hypothetical question. As per Śaiva or Śākta sources, Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu is a lesser deity. But I am not aware of Śaiva or Śākta groups/publications using this term demigod to translate deva or to refer to Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. Would it not be problematic if a Śaiva or Śākta follower calls Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu a demigod in a forum with some Vaiṣṇava or ISKCON followers? Similarly, while it may be perfectly fine for ISKCON followers to use term demigod for Brahmā, Śiva, etc., among themselves, it becomes a problem, as the wise Dr. Paturi pointed out, when the term is used by an ISKCON follower while interacting with somebody outside their world. This was the message at the end of my video and this was also the message by the wise Dr. Paturi, who said "To base a question on such a notion and ask for answer to that from those who do not belong to that group which uses words like demi gods in reference to a member of trimurti like Brahma, may not be useful in getting any answer or guidance."

I have nothing else to add to this discussion. My best wishes and kind regards to you.

Nityānanda Miśra

[Ramesh Rao]

Thank you all for this interesting but sometimes testy exchange/debate.

In this context, Dr. Balagangadhara’s three-part essay in Swarajya Magazine on the problematic use of the English word/term “consecration “ to describe/define “prana pratishta” and its consequences might be of interest to those who have engaged in this debate here.

Warm regards,

Ramesh Rao

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/501e1302-e945-4274-b0ff-2db65db4af3fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

https://swarajyamag.com/commentary/what-happened-in-ayodhya-a-pran-prathistha-a-consecration-something-else

Ramesh Rao

[Bharat Chandra Dasa]

Pranam. As I have mentioned in my earlier message, "we have to be careful". In the name of critiquing, a disservice might have been committed. Sarcasm, generalizations and veiled comments shall occur and are part of sadhu-nindā. A sadācārī should avoid it. Not good for one's health. And dangerous for spiritual health. And dangerous to public because then a culture of sadhu-nindā is set and they all gather to make one as their leader. And the leader has to prove again and again and request for more subscriptions. Thus the māyā devi keeps a soul entrapped. 

I have also already clarified how the usage is historical to Paramapūjya A.C.Bhaktivedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda. The Sanskrit Non-translatables is a very good discussion and more recent. We are all more or less upstarts in this. Let us exercise caution, patience and mutual cooperation to refine, redefine, rework and constructively help each other across sampradayas to reach out to English and other languages. Sanskrit's perspective is not the only perspective we need to see and show to the public. Darshanas have to be. There are more sensitivities to a single thing.

No one is forcing any idea upon anyone. Let us exercise maturity to factor things out. It is understood and allowed. More so in the group such as BVP. And let what happens in BVP be not taken to public unnecessarily because public might not understand the context nor sensitivities. It will confuse them.

I fall at the feet of the vidvajjanas,

dāsānudāsa

[लोकेश]

> Without going into it's variations of meanings - Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma are gunāvatāras of Lord Viṣṇu and "demigods" as expansions of Lord Viṣṇu. They should not be considered as independent of Lord Viṣṇu and worshipped separately without connection to the Supreme.

Thank you for your reply Prabhu ji. 

I still don't see how the Sanskrit text translates to the above. Bhagavan Brahma is not mentioned in the original Sanskrit, nor the words "gunavatara", "expansion" and the main idea that you mentioned seems to be absent there. I would appreciate if you could do a word to word translation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/9GhrY-7OqmM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM3U_xEkCDELQxyfJkxfd8e9FcCZihscnTooHuyTt3W0S46soQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bharat Chandra Dasa]

śivasya śrī viṣṇor iha guṇa nāmādi sakalam dhiyā bhinnam paśyed sa khalu harināma ahita karaḥ

Pranam. Thank you for your message. Just sharing for a quick reference - Śrīla Sanātana Goswāmi in Dig Darśini Ṭīkā for Hari Bhakti Vilāsa - (Context - Śivarātri vrata by Vaiśnavas) 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BksRZcqMbJeeEzzEDRqVk0A5Q70ajOChLH_-k_VLMNDca11Gw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dhiraj Hegde]

Hare Krishna ! 

Namaste to everyone, 

Vaishnava philosophies including Gaudiya Vaishnava identifies a hierarchy of deities, with Vishnu being at the top of the hierarchy. And Vishnu is the only one with all the good qualities to the fullest extent and any other entity possessing these good qualities only to a partial extent. This theory may not be acceptable to many and may find this belittling their favorite deity, but that is how the Vaishnava Siddhanta is. 

Now if this had to be said in English, where God means the almighty, the one without a second. Calling the Devas also as God and the Parama-devata also as God, creates confusion that the Vaishnava Siddhanta also implies the existence of multiple entities who are all Supreme. Now translating devatas as demi-gods in the sense that they don't have the qualities of God to the fullest extent, but only to a partial extent makes sense. Devatas are also regarded as bhinna-amsha of Vishnu, Amasha also indicates partial, so the word "demi" is not wrong here. 

If I were to translate devatas also as God and Vishnu also as God, would that not create ambiguity ? If I were to translate devatas as God and Vishnu as God of the Gods, would that not be contradictory because God already means one without a second.   

The primary problem here is like people have earlier discussed there is no English equivalent to the word Deva, Given this limitation, I think this makes sense while speaking to an English speaking audience or even to someone who has predominantly picked up his philosophy from non-Sanskrit texts.   IMO, this controversy is unnecessary.

 If ISKCONites are careful while adjusting the usage of these words in-context with the audience, it should be fine.

 Also, ISKCONites should not expect the same degree of reverence and acceptance of authority of their Sampradaya-acharyas, as much as they revere, from others while arguing their case. 

Pranam,

 Vaishnava-dasanudasa,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM3U_xFVJTdV88Vn_sM94HubaN7UJQVBtwH8wiDcHd3%3DdZMJJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

> Vaishnava philosophies including Gaudiya Vaishnava identifies a hierarchy of deities, with Vishnu being at the top of the hierarchy.

Just to clarify there still is a part of Vaishnavas (as in विष्णुभक्त not as a cult) like me who don't identify with the hierarchy of dieties with Vishnu at the top. We think that one can pray to any form of Bhagavan and still be a Vaishnava. We treat every form of Bhagavan as equally divine.

वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये

जे पीड परायी जाणे रे ।

पर दुःखे उपकार करे तो ये

मन अभिमान न आणे रे ॥

BTW this trend of identifying oneself with Vaishnava, Shaivite, Shaktism, Brahmanism, Anti-Brahmanism etc. is a new one which I personally dispise. Me including my ancestors equally celebrated all forms of the divine with equal adoration. We never labelled ourselves or others in this manner. This way we feel more connected with each other and see the unity which pervades us all and not the differences which divide us.

इति शिवम्

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/9GhrY-7OqmM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADDR-n1RjHvppPk0rPqTRH8p3Xe6o7ENNaT5xbd1j%3DYxq3NZjA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jay Nityananda Das]

|| Hare Krsna ||

Respected Scholars,

Namo Namah.

>> Would it not be problematic if a Śaiva or Śākta follower calls Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu a demigod in a forum with some Vaiṣṇava or ISKCON followers? 

It does become "problematic" provided the discussion is on ISKCON groups, not on BVP where scholars from diverse backgrounds participate.

 

I humbly request all concerned to kindly take the essence of the quention, and address only that part instead of analysing each and every word here unless and until there is some uncultured and /or abusive usage, for calling "devas" as "demigods" (in the sense of "lesser deities") is not just an ISKCON understanding but a SHASTRA based understanding shared by many other traditional sampradayas as well. What is wrong if ISKCON followers use such terminology? Do we object to other MATAs in this way in this forum? There are discussions on the BVP platform from diverse backgrounds, and therefore to expect the same understanding of various terms from different groups is unwarranted.

 

That said, there is scope of such in-depth analysis of various terms, and that should / must be encouraged  but in a separate thread.  

Once a Sadhu told me, and I repeat it here:

"संशय से निष्कर्ष की यात्रा बहुत सावधानी से तय करनी चाहिए |   इतिहास साक्षी है-- इसमें की गई शीघ्रता विनाश का कारण बन सकती है |" 

शुभं भवतु |  

  

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa

("Nandagrama" Varnasrama Community Project)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAM3U_xHLG8PC-UOKU8npjLqSUXzwaSXx0sz2E6fvqLLA1Tq3Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 11:19:26 PM UTC+5:30 Nityanand Misra wrote:

On Saturday 6 April, 2024 at 9:30:24 pm UTC+5:30 Hari Parshad Das wrote:

Dear Nityanand Misra ji,

Dear Hari Parshad Das Ji,

Once again, your email digressed and covered a whole gamut of topics like freedom, intentions, hobnobbing, my relations with Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī (for the record, I have never even met him), honesty, trust, etc., which I believe are not relevant at all. A separate thread may be started on these, but I have neither the time nor the appetite for discussions on these topics. So I will stick to translations again. 

Dear Nityanand Misra ji,

It seems your time and appetite get severely restricted when you are presented with unpalatable discussions. You yourself have claimed dispassion in your approach, and I am claiming the same. I am not the one who made the initial claim.

 

 

Was Satyanarayan Das Babaji not informed enough at that time to understand that this term is not a translation of the Sanskrit term "devatā"? He might have removed this term from his revised edition now, because he is still alive.

From the quoted extract, it is not clear if he has used the word demigods for devas for devatās. He is certainly not translating a term or phrase here, “sarva-puruṣa” is translated as “all persons” (fair enough), but the rest is explanation and the phrase with demigods explains superhuman beings. There is a possibility he means upadevas, and Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī is the only person who can clarify. Do you know what the revised edition reads? That would be helpful.

The Sanskrit commentary by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana on this sections says — sarva-paramparāsu brahmotpanneṣu deva-mānavādiṣu sarveṣu vaṁśeṣu. He has clearly mentioned "deva". So most likely, Satyanarayan Das Babaji is translating the term "deva" as demigod. In the first edition of his book "In Vaikuntha, Not even the Leaves Fall" he has used the term "demigod" on several occasions.

I will let Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī comment on this. He may have used “demigod” for deva here. If that is the case, I will say it once more: “demigod” is not the correct translation for deva irrespective of who uses it. The fact that Bābājī has used “gods” to translate sura, deva, etc., in his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gītā published in 2015 indicates that he may have changed his usage with time. This is not unusual. Many writers and scholars evolve, in both style and thinking, with time and so do many commentators and translators. Even my translations have evolved with time: I used to translate Sanskrit tapas as “penance” once but after reading some feedback and thinking deeply about it, I now use the word “askesis” for tapas. Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī's earlier usage may have been influenced by the heavy use of the term in BBT publications or ISKCON followers, but this is only a conjecture. 

I have said earlier that both of you are not contemporaries of Srila Prabhupada. You both still have the freedom to revise your translations.

In a hundred years, the English language will change drastically. Many of the terms you see as accurate translations today may undergo a change of meaning.

It is thoroughly incorrect to critique the translations of an author posthumously. There is already a lot of discussion on the ethics of posthumous publishing ( https://theconversation.com/from-tolkien-to-burgess-the-ethics-of-posthumous-publication-102420 ) . Sadly there is little discussion on how it is poor ethics to critique the writings of an individual who has left this world according to the standards that we see as fit in our day and age.

 

 

 

 

Once again, parts of my message that were inconvenient to you have been skipped by you. The term "Lord" has its origins in Abrahamic religions. You are saying that it is found in the writings of Srila Prabhupada, but my question is — "How did it get applied to Śiva, Brahmā and Hanumān on the official website of Swami Rambhadracharya? Are Śiva, Brahmā and Hanumān Lords of abrahamic religions? Or are they noblemen in the Imperial British Empire?"

It seems you missed my explanation that the word ‘lord’ also means “a master or ruler” and “a name for God or Christ”. The original sense of the word lord was indeed master or ruler (see here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/lord), this sense is preserved in many words like druglord, landlord, overlord, warlord, etc. The word, in its capitalised form, has been used for a long time with Indic deities, the sense is of God or master but it may have begun as a substitution/translation of Shri. Nevertheless, as the usage is not specific to a group, there is no point arguing over why it is used on a specific website or in a specific book.'''

It is relevant because it will help you understand what are the challenges of English translations, and this website is fairly recent. You can only imagine the struggles of English translations back in the 1950s and 60s. Srila Prabhupada put in his entire expertise of language that he had learnt in his times to render the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam in English. Śrīla Prabhupāda's own guru had such an amazing expertise in English that even those who were born in the west found it difficult to understand some of the terms he used. Here is an excerpt from Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī's article named 'Pūtanā'. In this article, he uses the term 'church' to denote any religious institution:

The church that has the best chance of survival in this damned world is that of atheism under the convenient guise of theism. The churches have always proved the staunchest upholders of the grossest form of worldliness from which even the worst of non-ecclesiastical criminals are found to recoil.  It is not from any deliberate opposition to the ordained clergy that these observations are made. The original purpose of the established churches of the world may not always be objectionable. But no stable religious arrangement for instructing the masses has yet been successful. The Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in pursuance of the teachings of the scriptures enjoins all absence of conventionalism for the teachers of the eternal religion. It does not follow that the mechanical adoption of the unconventional life by any person will make him a fit teacher of religion. Regulation is necessary for controlling the inherent worldliness of conditional souls.  But no mechanical regulation has any value, even for such a purpose. The bona-fide teacher of religion is neither any product of nor the favorer of, any mechanical system. In his hands no system has likewise, the chance of degenerating into a lifeless arrangement. The mere pursuit of fixed doctrines and fixed liturgies cannot hold a person to the true spirit of doctrine or liturgy.  The idea of an organized church in an intelligible form, indeed, marks the close of the living spiritual movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and the dams to retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They, indeed, indicate a desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual movement for their own purpose. They also unmistakably indicate the end of the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona-fide spiritual teacher. The people of this world understand preventive systems, they have no idea at all of the unprevented, positive, eternal life. 

 

 

You point out that ISKCON individuals use the term demigod for other devas. In the Collins dictionary, the classical British meaning of this term has been mentioned. Srila Prabhupada's own education in English was in the British era. The Collins dictionary says that in British English, this term refers to a lesser deity:

So far so good. 

 

Now, according to the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam itself, deities such as Brahmā, Śiva etc. are lesser in stature — यस्य ब्रह्मादयो देवा वेदा लोकाश्चराचराः नामरूपविभेदेन फल्ग्व्या च कलया कृताः (Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 8.3.22) etc. So what is the harm if he has made a classical British English usage of the term demigod in relation to them?

Here is where it gets problematic: this verse per se does not change the meaning of the term deva. A viewpoint does not change the meanings of words. A translation tinged with viewpoints becomes parochial. 

It has already been pointed out by other members of ISKCON on this forum that the term 'deva' is usually translated as 'God' (with a capital G), and in the English language, there are no terms that can denote the hierarchies of Gods that are present in the Vedic pantheon. Therefore, you may say that 'Deva' refers to all Vedic Gods, but that cannot do justice to a vaiṣṇava system of hermeneutics which does not agree to the proposition that all devas are on the same platform.

 

Before I end the discussion, a hypothetical question. As per Śaiva or Śākta sources, Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu is a lesser deity. But I am not aware of Śaiva or Śākta groups/publications using this term demigod to translate deva or to refer to Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. Would it not be problematic if a Śaiva or Śākta follower calls Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu a demigod in a forum with some Vaiṣṇava or ISKCON followers?

I can show you dictionaries where Balarāma and Paraśurāma have been termed as demigods. I am not on a crusade against the followers of other Purāṇas. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī says (at the end of his Rādhākṛṣṇārcanadīpikā):

उमामहेश्वरौ केचित् लक्ष्मीनारायणौ परे ।
ते भजन्तां भजामस्तु राधादामोदरौ वयम् ॥

As long as other individuals do not target specific organizations or individuals, and as long as they have śāstric justification for their terminologies, it wouldn't harm me if some translations of other Purāṇas show other Vedic deities as the supreme. If I find a particular translation not according to my taste, I can always leave it and take another translation (or read directly from the original Sanskrit). Nothing will change the fact that the Śrīmadbhāgavata is the final contribution of Vyāsadeva and it is the most widely accepted/commented upon/narrated Purāṇa in the world and it clearly portrays a Kṛṣṇa-centric view of the absolute truth.

 

Similarly, while it may be perfectly fine for ISKCON followers to use term demigod for Brahmā, Śiva, etc., among themselves, it becomes a problem, as the wise Dr. Paturi pointed out, when the term is used by an ISKCON follower while interacting with somebody outside their world. This was the message at the end of my video and this was also the message by the wise Dr. Paturi, who said "To base a question on such a notion and ask for answer to that from those who do not belong to that group which uses words like demi gods in reference to a member of trimurti like Brahma, may not be useful in getting any answer or guidance."

Nothing objectionable in what he said. What is objectionable is to make a video and target a single organization. What is also objectionable is to make videos about other sampradāyas and their mantras without asking the vidvāns of that particular sampradāya. For example — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwkV_CyuDgM , where an unfounded claim is made that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu reversed the mantra (no proof was supplied for the same, just some hearsay). Then the denial of śakti-tattva in the mantra has also been done without consulting the traditional vidvāns of the sampradāya. I will definitely make a video stating the position of the sampradāya and clarifying how śakti-tattva is seen in the mantra. 

I do not understand — on one hand, in the Mahāvīrī Vyākhyā, the term "श्री-गुरु-चरन" is interpreted exclusively in relation to Sītādevī, and a claim is made that only a guru belonging to the Śrī-Sampradāya can purify the mind. Also, claims of "correct edition" of Hanuman Chalisa are published actively on social media. Then attempts are also being made to say that Śrī Rāmānujācārya is not worthy of the title of statue of equality ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIQ_HEu3UYM ). 

After having such a high level of exclusivism, calling out other groups for their peculiarities in translations seems to be extremely inconsistent on your part. Only Bhagavān knows when you will start addressing these issues. I think its time for a little house cleaning. My best wishes.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo'bhiāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa.

 

[Bharat Chandra Dasa]

>> Just to clarify there still is a part of Vaishnavas (as in विष्णुभक्त not as a cult) like me who don't identify with the hierarchy of dieties with Vishnu at the top. We think that one can pray to any form of Bhagavan and still be a Vaishnava. We treat every form of Bhagavan as equally divine.

Pranam. स वै पुंसाम् परो धर्मो यतो भक्तिरधोक्षजे अहैतुकी अप्रतिहता ययात्मा सुप्रसीदति । Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.2.6 will be most interesting in this context to define the para dharma. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BksRZemt8DrQLdXGi4%2BxJwysx0kZ3iQUeR7NFAkO%2B4ZZBN08A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rakesh Joshi]

Dear vidvamsaas,

     Following is my response to the video on demigods. My request is to have a sastric approach and not go by sentiment.

https://youtu.be/Te0jZXEOXsY

Regards,

Rama Aprameya dasa 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday 7 April, 2024 at 6:58:17 pm UTC+5:30 Hari Parshad Das wrote:

On Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 11:19:26 PM UTC+5:30 Nityanand Misra wrote:

On Saturday 6 April, 2024 at 9:30:24 pm UTC+5:30 Hari Parshad Das wrote:

Dear Nityanand Misra ji,

Dear Hari Parshad Das Ji,

Once again, your email digressed and covered a whole gamut of topics like freedom, intentions, hobnobbing, my relations with Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa Bābājī (for the record, I have never even met him), honesty, trust, etc., which I believe are not relevant at all. A separate thread may be started on these, but I have neither the time nor the appetite for discussions on these topics. So I will stick to translations again. 

Dear Nityanand Misra ji,

It seems your time and appetite get severely restricted when you are presented with unpalatable discussions. You yourself have claimed dispassion in your approach, and I am claiming the same. I am not the one who made the initial claim.

 

Dear Hari Parshad Das Ji

None of what you discussed was unpalatable (at least to me), I consider your points debatable but not unpalatable. Even if you call them unpalatable, I can assure you that it is not unpalatable discussions that bother me, but unfocused (=digressing far from the topic of the thread) and irrelevant (=with no relevance to the topic of the thread) discussions on uninteresting (=not as appealing as Sanskrit/Hindu texts, translations, commentaries etc.) topics that I avoid.

To give you an example, you raised the point of politics in sadhu-akhadas (totally irrelevant to the original discussion as I am not associated with any akhada in any way). Yes, there is no denying that politics is present in akhadas of sadhus, even though there is a lot more than just politics in akhadas. I have covered akhadas in detail in the fourth chapter of my book Kumbha (2019, Bloomsbury, ISBN 978-9-3884-140-4, also available in Hindi) and the interested reader may refer to the same. I have covered the unfortunate armed battles between akhadas in the 18th century (e.g., in 1760 and 1790) in which many sadhus were killed and also the examples of cordial relations between akhadas in modern times, signified by the historical Chaitra Purnima bath in Haridwar in 2010 which united all thirteen akhadas. However, akhada politics is not the only example of politics in Indic religious organisations. ISKCON politics is also an example of this. You would be aware of the fratricidal strife between different branches of ISKCON over initiation methods, control of temples, use of trademark, and even small things like a dilapidated old bus. A decades-long legal battle between ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore is now in the Supreme Court. This battle has seen its fair share of dirty politics, e.g., in 2023 the Supreme Court of India pulled up ISKCON Kolkata officials for filing a false and frivolous criminal case against ISKCON Bangalore officials and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on the ISKCON Kolkata officials (see here). Writing about the internal strife in ISKCON in 2022, Outlook wrote in an article “ISKCON’s image is in the dumps, the scrap over Bangalore centre’s assets is one more nail” and ended the article with “In this war of faith, the one left bemused is the ordinary ISKCON devotee” (see here). While the views in the article may be biased, but the facts presented (image attached) are more sad than shocking. Though this controversy is not as scandalous as the ISKCON child abuse scandal (a lot can be discussed about this also, see here for a journal article from an ex-ISKCON member, ISKCON eventually settled the USD 400 million child abuse lawsuit for USD 9.5 million: see here, here, and here), it is still quite serious. Now I am not in the least implying that such unfortunate events are unique to ISKCON, they happen in many religious organisations, establishments and ashrams of all hues. All I am saying is that ISKCON is not immune to politics. You are welcome to start discussions on all such debatable topics such as politics, scandals, child abuse, sexual abuse, legal battles, etc. in religious/dharmic organisations. But is BVP the right forum for such discussions? I do not think so. The moderators may even lock or delete such threads. Even if such discussions are allowed and take place on BVP, I am not interested in them simply because I have better things to do (and I am sure so do you).

Yes, if you wish to continue discussions on translations, I will be happy to contribute and engage with you.

With best wishes,

Nityānanda

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I request all the members to stop the discussion on this thread and start a new thread for any topic that has scholarly relevance. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1e087503-462d-4790-98cf-ab64c573ccdfn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Dean, IndicA

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[Kushagra]

Dear Dr. Bijoy Misra Ji and Scholars,

I agree with you that much of the translation work done by ISKCON is wanting in rigour. For example, please see the translation of the Bhagavad-Gita 4.24 by Prabhupada Ji. The great departure from the original verse is apparent to any educated reader. The lines between “Synonyms”, “Translation” and “Purport” are blurred. 

I am glad that there is greater sensitivity regarding translations and greater accessibility of Sanskrit knowledge via online resources. Many scholars (including some on this list) are working tirelessly to produce better translations.

It has been our tradition to critique and improve upon the work of past Aacharyas and scholars. If Prabhupada Ji’s translations are scrutinized and improved, it would be a welcome move.

Regards,

Kushagra 

On Apr 6, 2024, at 8:03 AM, Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjVDD0KOL0n10snPp-06WGw%3DrYBW4cswtT8y9e78gk-m8A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jay Nityananda Das]

Dear Kushagra ji,

Namo Namah.

I deeply appreciate your concerns, however, there are some insights that I would like to share with your good self for your kind deliberation.

(1) There are many scholars, despite knowing the technical realities of "literal" translations or what we might like to call "faithful" translations, have praised the Bhagavad-gita as It Is translations as appealing both to scholars as well as laymen. Kindly see: Academic Reviews of Bhagavad-gita As It Is | Krishna.com

It is not unlikely to have differences among scholars, particularly on upanishadic texts like Bhagavad-Gita, and thus, any interpretation that does not go against the will of original speaker of Bhagavad-Gita, The Supreme Personality, Lord Krsna should be accepted/accommodated by all honest people.  

(2) As per "Sambandha-catustaya" (adhikara, sambandha, abhidheya, prayojana), the adhikaris for any grantha has been mentioned right in the beginning of the grantha. And regarding Bhagavad-gita as It Is, please see:

An excerpt from Bhagavad-gita as It Is, Preface (emphasis mine):

quote

"Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is teaching the whole world this central point, and because we are not polluting the theme of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, anyone seriously interested in deriving benefit by studying the Bhagavad-gītā must take help from the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement for practical understanding of Bhagavad-gītā under the direct guidance of the Lord. We hope, therefore, that people will derive the greatest benefit by studying Bhagavad-gītā As It Is as we have presented it here, and if even one man becomes a pure devotee of the Lord, we shall consider our attempt a success."

unquote

Kindly note the words "anyone seriously interested". So, Bhagavad-gita as It Is is not primarily written for "scholars" (as traditionally it used to be) but for anyone seriously interested, that means "all human beings". And therefore, to avoid any ambiguity, there is a need to render the translations in their simplest form. (Even Arjuna got confused over instructions of Lord Krsna regarding Nishkama-karma-yoga and jnana-yoga. if that is the case with Arjuna, then what to speak of laymen of Kaliyuga, who hardly understand anything about Shastra jargon).

(2) Gaudiya Acharyas (Vaishvanatha, Baladeva, Bhaktivinoda and so on) have provided translations based on the most immediate context of the texts as you can see below:

Srimad Bhagavad-gita (purebhakti.com) In contrast, despite having knowledge of those translations, Srila Prabhupada's translations follow the ultimate context of the Bhagavad-gita, that is "Bhakti" or "Sharanagati", and thus, provide the most practical application of Bhagavad-gita in the modern context, for any other yoga i.e. karma-yoga, Jnana-yoga, Ashtanga-yoga demands shastrokta-karmas and so on that are simply impractical in this degraded time to the largest extent (Even Arjuna rejected Ashtanga-yoga for its being impractical Bhagavad-Gita (6.33). Kindly note the following from an excerpt from Bhagavad-gita as It Is, Preface (emphasis mine): 

quote

"To interpret Bhagavad-gītā without any reference to the will of Kṛṣṇa is the greatest offense. In order to save oneself from this offense, one has to understand the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as He was directly understood by Arjuna, Lord Kṛṣṇa's first disciple. Such understanding of Bhagavad-gītā is really profitable and authorized for the welfare of human society in fulfilling the mission of life."

"A living entity is happily the part and parcel of the Lord, and thus his natural function is to render immediate service to the Lord. By the spell of illusion one tries to be happy by serving his personal sense gratification in different forms which will never make him happy. Instead of satisfying his own personal material senses, he has to satisfy the senses of the Lord. That is the highest perfection of life. The Lord wants this, and He demands it. One has to understand this central point of Bhagavad-gītā."

unquote

So, Srila Prabhupada's translations are far above "merely literal translations". If you like, you may call them as "bhava-anuvada" or in a loose sense "translation cum purport". The purpose, however, is pure i.e. to make everyone happy.

Hope this helps your goodself understand us better,

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa

("Nandagrama" Varnasrama Community Project)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/44228820-7E7F-4838-917B-AD8993BF6604%40cornell.edu.

[Bijoy Misra]

Srila Prabhupada's translations follow the ultimate context of the Bhagavad-gita, that is "Bhakti" or "Sharanagati", and thus, provide the most practical application of Bhagavad-gita in the modern context, for any other yoga i.e. karma-yoga, Jnana-yoga, Ashtanga-yoga demands shastrokta-karmas and so on that are simply impractical in this degraded time to the largest extent (Even Arjuna rejected Ashtanga-yoga for its being impractical Bhagavad-Gita (6.33). Kindly note the following from an excerpt from Bhagavad-gita as It Is, Preface (emphasis mine): 

This is the stretch that creates complaints.  The beauty of Bhagavadgita is its openness and strong enunciation of personal responsibility. Bhakti is a path to the goal, the goal being self-realization..

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BjeE66Y900fjK5ALPsFN5%3D0KjKf0Etmder09Xmi_jcH2ZBa7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jay Nityananda Das]

>>This is the stretch that creates complaints.  The beauty of Bhagavadgita is its openness and strong enunciation of personal responsibility. Bhakti is a path to the goal, the goal being self-realization.. Shri Bijoy Misra ji

Thanks for reading my reaction and giving a thoughtful deliberation on the same. 

As monks, more than debats, we love thoughtful discussions, however, if Srimat Paturi Mahodaya allows (and probably he won't), we can continue discussing various terms as "stretch", "openness",  "strong enunciation of personal responsibility", "Bhakti", "path to the goal", "self-realization" and so on within the context of "Shastra-maryada". But, I think this is not a suitable platform to discuss all these theological points that demand a lot of interaction between both sides. Moreover, what constitutes PRAMANA in such discussions, is again the foremost question, lest the discussion can never end. If your goodself is interested, I will be happy to discuss this issue with you on my personal email address (jay.nitya...@gmail.com). Feel free to contact me or just ignore this email. 

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa

("Nandagrama" Varnasrama Community Project)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjUeVS_C%2B6292YTNeck1V6rp07jqkxpiH9qcP5O%2BT%3DFPGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Self-realization would not come without total silence.  Arguments are noise to impose our views on others.

There is the singular scientific view that life is eternal, it has no gunas and hence is beyond debate.

I produced a book for the Ramakrishna Mission with our Swami at MIT.  The book of 2005 is still in circulation.

You may peruse.  https://www.vedanta.com/cgi-vedanta/sb/productsearch.cgi?storeid=*121ceca48a820a7c9750f4&search_field=bijoy+misra

Self-realization is a lofty goal, but we can try.  We start by respecting all whatever they are.  it may take a long time to remove various sheaths

that cloud us.  We would be too scared to get rid of them.  By uncovering oneself, one may see light.  

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BjeE67k2a%2B2DRhvVWybKNGZq2x2RXivaKXTatHBC0H3unbTUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Can we close this thread please. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjWZVvTviLJCqBzpMT3VJO9CCn22%2B_v-3GOO%2B_LTzfxwFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Yasoda Jivan dasa]

dear bijoy misraji

please read these two articles. although it doesn't give the deep understanding of bhakti but can give you some introduction.

1) https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=effec822012035ccJmltdHM9MTcxMjg4MDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0yZDdkZTdmNi02ZmQ2LTYyZTMtMmI3Mi1mM2JkNmU0ZDYzYzEmaW5zaWQ9NTMwMg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=2d7de7f6-6fd6-62e3-2b72-f3bd6e4d63c1&psq=supremacy+of+bhakti+in+bhagavatam&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHJla3NoYWEuaW4vYXJ0aWNsZS9nbG9yeS1iaGFrdGktdmlzaG51cHVyYW5hLWFuZC1iaGFnYXZhdGFt&ntb=1

2) https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=859311491de14033JmltdHM9MTcxMjg4MDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0yZDdkZTdmNi02ZmQ2LTYyZTMtMmI3Mi1mM2JkNmU0ZDYzYzEmaW5zaWQ9NTIxNw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=2d7de7f6-6fd6-62e3-2b72-f3bd6e4d63c1&psq=bhakti+the+only+reanscendental+yoga&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9idGcua3Jpc2huYS5jb20vYmhha3RpLXRoZS1vbmx5LXRyYW5zY2VuZGVudGFsLXlvZ2Ev&ntb=1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjUeVS_C%2B6292YTNeck1V6rp07jqkxpiH9qcP5O%2BT%3DFPGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 8:55 AM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

You did not answer a single point about the various print issues and other problems in the books of Swami Rambhadracharya. 

You could've easily replied to the issues of misprints and hurling muck on other sadhus that are so clearly present in the books of Swami Rambhadracharya. I did not see you address even one of those issues, whereas you show eagerness in passing unsolicited comments only on ISKCON translations. 

Also once again you selectively targeted ISKCON in your message. This again is a clear proof of your inherent bias against ISKCON. Does your book on akhadas not contain any section on the details of the conflict between Swami Rambhadracharya and the other akhadas? Do you cover anything on the issue of POSCO act on the successor of Swami Rambhadracharya for sexually assaulting a minor ( https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/india/up-uttarakhand/uttar-pradesh/jagadguru-rambhadracharya-successor-jai-mishra-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-minor-case-filed-under-pocso-act/1112151 ) ? Or the case of bungling of funds in the Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University in Chitrakoot ( https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/former-teachers-of-chitrakoot-varsity-seek-chancellors-removal/ ) ? Or the issue where he called all the sādhus of Ayodhya as fools and had to tender an apology letter for his edition of Rāmacaritamānasa? ( https://scroll.in/article/704059/a-padma-award-from-modi-government-has-reopened-an-old-rift-in-ayodhya ) 

Neglecting all these, you highlighted only the issues related to ISKCON. No matter how much you try to hide your selective myopia, it is evident in your replies. Please try to come out of your myopic worldview. Best wishes.