Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Not taking sides here, but I think the scholarly unreliability of Satyananda Sarasvati's work is -- as a technical matter -- pretty much a settled point. In the case of Devi Mahatmyam (Satyananda's "Chandi Path"), Thomas Coburn in "Encountering the Goddess" very politely distinguished between Satyananda's "laudably devotional" approach (or words to that effect) and serious, accurate Sanskrit translation. Devadatta Kali, in his "In Praise of the Goddess" (another translation of DM) noted the need to find a balance between the passionate-but- inaccurate translations such as Satyananda's and the accurate-but- lifeless efforts of scholars (among whom I'd have to include Coburn). In my opinion, Devadatta Kali -- in the case of DM -- has set the English-language standard for years to come. As for "Kali Puja" ... I have not seen Arjuna's work, but certainly Satyananda (who should be applauded for at least getting *something* out there, rather than doing nothing at all) leaves room for considerable improvement. aim mAtangyai namaH , "Llundrub" <llundrub wrote: > > If your criticisms are so poignant then be scholarly about them, showing exactly each and every one, avoiding personal attacks on the author. > > Scholars at least respect other scholars to be able to keep to the body of their work. > > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:14 PM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > I have no problem with U personally. > U are free to have whatever opinion about me which U like. > This is irrelevant. > > The point was accuracy of translation of sahasranama in "Kali Puja" of Satyananda Sarasvati > - and this only point i would like to keep to. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Please be so kind to show me where i did any "personal attacks" at mentioned swami. I am ready for scholarly discussion - the problem is ARE U READY? Please... , "Llundrub" <llundrub wrote: > > If your criticisms are so poignant then be scholarly about them, showing exactly each and every one, avoiding personal attacks on the author. > > Scholars at least respect other scholars to be able to keep to the body of their work. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 How very true. Swamiji is a shining example of a true sadhu. How many do you know that have done and continue to do 1000 day Chandi Path Yajna Vrat, who sit in one asana, knees on the floor, while chanting for 7 hrs straight or more? I've read His translation and others and I don't see ANY mistakes. And yes, I do have some Sanskrit competency. Jai Maa! Surya - vinod sharma Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:11 AM Re: Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Hello everyone! As an Indian born in India,I am very surprise with the life of Swamiji. Sri swamiji has done an excellent job to organize our maze of religion and I think ,overall he has done an excellent work. MahaKali only wants a devotion ,not how perfect is the pronounciation. Some mistakes are bound to occur in any work I think those critical of Swamiji must do better of their own,they should wake up at 4AM ,chant chandi daily,live a life of a swami and print your own books. Vinod.Sharma,M.D. [Moderator's note: edited] sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: Arjunaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Is this right? I would like to say the following. 1. Whether the Swami is right or wrong, a more polite approach would have been nicer. 2. If you disagree refer to the Namas and say why you think the meaning is wrong. 3. Let us not be judgemental. I am NOT defending him. Arjuna Taranandanatha <bhagatirtha wrote: Exactly to that email i wrote. So many people are trying to "defend" swami Satyananda. [....] a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 And yes, I do have a decent understanding of Sanskrit, though I would never claim mastery of such a subject, even if I was 300 and had studied it all my life. - Llundrub Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:48 AM Re: Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] But you're definitely the half empty cup, not the half full. That's your problem, not ours. - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:42 AM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Exactly to that email i wrote. So many people are trying to "defend" swami Satyananda. That's gr8. But have U personally read that book (and that sahasranama of Shmashanakali there) and do U understand sanskrit? In this case we can bring up exact evidences. Please, U all are welcome. Swami also, if he is willing to. Note, i never critisize baselessly - that is stupid and always evident for others. Why to spoil own reputation LOL. Regards, A Traditions Divine a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Please, if U have "Kali Puja" by Swami SS, find names that i mentioned in Kali 1000 nama. Then we can figure out who is right. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > I've read His translation and others and I don't see ANY mistakes. And yes, I do have some Sanskrit competency. > > Jai Maa! > > Surya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 OK, fair enough, but then we need to start with your definitions of: 1. Sanskrit 2. What constitutes proper pronunciation of Sanskrit 3. What constitutes proper translation of Sanskrit into another language such as English Our experiences and definitions might be VERY different. It doesn't necessarily make one of us right or wrong as well. Jai Maa! Surya - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:06 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Namaste, That's all right, and i never argued any of these points (if U think i had, kindly show where). But U also miss the point i talked about. I said ONLY that Swami Satyananda provided wrong translations of certian names of Kali from mentioned sahasranama - and nothing above this. He might be a Mahatma or even Avatar (that i cannot judge, and do not know him personally), but even so it doesn't make his traslations appropriate (those which are incorrect). Situation is crystal clear, nevertheless people are trying to shift the accents... Strange, eh? A , vinod sharma <vs7578 wrote: > > Hello everyone! > As an Indian born in India,I am very > surprise with the life of Swamiji. > Sri swamiji has done an excellent job to organize our maze of religion and I think ,overall he has done an excellent work. > MahaKali only wants a devotion ,not how perfect is the pronounciation. > Some mistakes are bound to occur in any work > I think those critical of Swamiji must do better of their own,they should wake up at 4AM ,chant chandi daily,live a life of a swami and print your own books. > Vinod.Sharma,M.D. > [Moderator's note: edited] > > sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: > Arjunaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa > > Is this right? I would like to say the following. > > 1. Whether the Swami is right or wrong, a more polite approach would have been nicer. > > 2. If you disagree refer to the Namas and say why you think the meaning is wrong. > > 3. Let us not be judgemental. > > > I am NOT defending him. > > Arjuna Taranandanatha <bhagatirtha wrote: > Exactly to that email i wrote. > > So many people are trying to "defend" swami Satyananda. [....] > Traditions Divine a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Its on the Devi Mandir website. Swamiji - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:38 AM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] As i have told, i wrote a message to this swami with no reply from his side. If U know his private email, U may give it to me. Of course, i will ask him directly then. , "Llundrub" <llundrub wrote: > > Can it be said we have discussed this subject about for 1,000 previous posts? Why not take it up with the Swami? > > > > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:44 AM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > Yes, i state that certain names (not two or three, but dozens) are translated WRONGLY. > > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 "It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to the teachings of her/his lineage". This is the main point. The meaning of Sanskrit in Yogic Paramparas, is defined by Their Gurus and Their Own Experience. Scholars can't really touch Sanskrit in a true way, as they have no experience of the subtleties being discussed. Rare it is to find a True Scholar Yogi. - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:40 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Agree on every point, brother A , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta wrote: > > It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to > the teachings of her/his lineage. > > But the scriptures are what they are, and -- while some "drift" of > meaning is probably over the centuries in an oral tradition -- I > cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be "appropriate" to > for a Guru to change them. > Traditions Divine a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 But being that Sanskrit is truly a "sound form", it can't really be exactly translated, but rather needs to be experienced. - Devi Bhakta Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:22 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to the teachings of her/his lineage. But the scriptures are what they are, and -- while some "drift" of meaning is probably over the centuries in an oral tradition -- I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be "appropriate" to for a Guru to change them. On an editorial note, I would add that studies of orally transmitted texts have found a remarkable accuracy. One of the more dramatic examples, of course, was the Dead Sea Scrolls. While public attention has naturally focused on what is "new" and "different" in the scrolls, what really fascinated Biblical scholars was how much was exactly the same. After the fall of Rome, centuries of chaos, the Dark Ages, generations of monks hand-copying texts in remote monasteries, losses by fire, war and natural disaster ... guess what? Most of the Old Testament (the Dead Sea scrolls were exclusively Old Testament; Nag Hammadi was New Testament) had come down to us pretty much exactly as it was written 2,000 years ago. I think we'd find the same is true of the Vedas, Puranas, Epics etc in Hinduism. In any oral tradition -- and explicitly in the Hindu tradition -- the Word IS God/dess. Every word of the Vedas, of the Devi Mahatmyam, of the Lalita Sahasranama -- is a MANTRA, a sound- form of a Divine Entity. Such things are not to be changed lightly. Thus, I'd reiterate, any true Guru's role is to explain and elucidate scripture, not change it. aim mAtangyai namaH , "msbauju" <msbauju wrote: > > Hmmm. Can I try out a "what if" on you? > > What if Sw. Satyananda didn't intend > his translations as definitive scholarly > works, but instead as supplementary > instructional material for *his* devotees? > If he is communicating with his devotees, > is it "appropriate" for him to give > idiosyncratic or "different meanings" > to names? > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > He might be a Mahatma or even Avatar > > (that i cannot judge, and do not know him > > personally), but even so it doesn't > > make his traslations appropriate > > (those which are > > incorrect). > Traditions Divine a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Sigh. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had more books/translations (into English) of that caliber? I love Devadatta Kali's DM. In a way, the core issue here is the paucity of definitive, thoughtful, scholarly, translations. (And of course, *I* want the translations to be into English. :-) , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta wrote: > [....] > In my opinion, Devadatta Kali -- > in the case of DM -- has set the > English-language standard for years > to come. [....] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 I do and will, but please answer my questions first. Thanks, Surya - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:48 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Please, if U have "Kali Puja" by Swami SS, find names that i mentioned in Kali 1000 nama. Then we can figure out who is right. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > I've read His translation and others and I don't see ANY mistakes. And yes, I do have some Sanskrit competency. > > Jai Maa! > > Surya Traditions Divine a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Kalika-sahasranama (which is taken from Kalikula-sarvasva) is NOT a yogic text, but purely Kaula one. And it has to be dealt with from viewpoint of Kaula-tantrism. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > "It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to the teachings of her/his lineage". > > This is the main point. The meaning of Sanskrit in Yogic Paramparas, is defined by Their Gurus and Their Own Experience. Scholars can't really touch Sanskrit in a true way, as they have no experience of the subtleties being discussed. Rare it is to find a True Scholar Yogi. > > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:40 PM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > Agree on every point, brother > > A > > , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta@> wrote: > > > > It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to > > the teachings of her/his lineage. > > > > But the scriptures are what they are, and -- while some "drift" of > > meaning is probably over the centuries in an oral tradition -- I > > cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be "appropriate" to > > for a Guru to change them. > > > > Traditions Divine > > > ---------- -- > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web. > > b.. > > > c.. > > > ---------- -- > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 We do not speak about experiences in this issue (which may and will differ). Neither we deal with pronunciation now. Sanskrit is a language, it can be translated. To be translated properly material is to be put into context (medical text into context of medical science, Kaula - into Kaula-tantrism's). In this case SUCH differences won't get developed. , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > OK, fair enough, but then we need to start with your definitions of: > > 1. Sanskrit > 2. What constitutes proper pronunciation of Sanskrit > 3. What constitutes proper translation of Sanskrit into another language such as English > > Our experiences and definitions might be VERY different. It doesn't necessarily make one of us right or wrong as well. > > Jai Maa! > > Surya > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:06 PM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > Namaste, > > That's all right, and i never argued any of these points (if U think i had, kindly show > where). > But U also miss the point i talked about. I said ONLY that Swami Satyananda provided > wrong translations of certian names of Kali from mentioned sahasranama - and nothing > above this. > He might be a Mahatma or even Avatar (that i cannot judge, and do not know him > personally), but even so it doesn't make his traslations appropriate (those which are > incorrect). > > Situation is crystal clear, nevertheless people are trying to shift the accents... > Strange, eh? > > A > > , vinod sharma <vs7578@> wrote: > > > > Hello everyone! > > As an Indian born in India,I am very > > surprise with the life of Swamiji. > > Sri swamiji has done an excellent job to organize our maze of religion and I > think ,overall he has done an excellent work. > > MahaKali only wants a devotion ,not how perfect is the pronounciation. > > Some mistakes are bound to occur in any work > > I think those critical of Swamiji must do better of their own,they should wake up at > 4AM ,chant chandi daily,live a life of a swami and print your own books. > > Vinod.Sharma,M.D. > > [Moderator's note: edited] > > > > sankara menon <kochu1tz@> wrote: > > Arjunaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa > > > > Is this right? I would like to say the following. > > > > 1. Whether the Swami is right or wrong, a more polite approach would have been nicer. > > > > 2. If you disagree refer to the Namas and say why you think the meaning is wrong. > > > > 3. Let us not be judgemental. > > > > > > I am NOT defending him. > > > > Arjuna Taranandanatha <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > Exactly to that email i wrote. > > > > So many people are trying to "defend" swami Satyananda. [....] > > > > > > Traditions Divine > > > ---------- -- > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web. > > b.. > > > c.. > > > ---------- -- > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 And as if there is only one lineage/viewpoint/definition of Kaula Tantrism as well. I would not agree with this either. - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:23 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Kalika-sahasranama (which is taken from Kalikula-sarvasva) is NOT a yogic text, but purely Kaula one. And it has to be dealt with from viewpoint of Kaula-tantrism. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > "It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to the teachings of her/his lineage". > > This is the main point. The meaning of Sanskrit in Yogic Paramparas, is defined by Their Gurus and Their Own Experience. Scholars can't really touch Sanskrit in a true way, as they have no experience of the subtleties being discussed. Rare it is to find a True Scholar Yogi. > > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:40 PM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > Agree on every point, brother > > A > > , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta@> wrote: > > > > It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to > > the teachings of her/his lineage. > > > > But the scriptures are what they are, and -- while some "drift" of > > meaning is probably over the centuries in an oral tradition -- I > > cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be "appropriate" to > > for a Guru to change them. > > > > > > > > > > > Traditions Divine > > > ---------- -- > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web. > > b.. > > > c.. Terms of Service. > > > ---------- -- > > > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Again, I would have to at least somewhat disagree. But please, answer the questions. Why not do so. And add one more definition: What is language? - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:28 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] We do not speak about experiences in this issue (which may and will differ). Neither we deal with pronunciation now. Sanskrit is a language, it can be translated. To be translated properly material is to be put into context (medical text into context of medical science, Kaula - into Kaula-tantrism's). In this case SUCH differences won't get developed. , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > OK, fair enough, but then we need to start with your definitions of: > > 1. Sanskrit > 2. What constitutes proper pronunciation of Sanskrit > 3. What constitutes proper translation of Sanskrit into another language such as English > > Our experiences and definitions might be VERY different. It doesn't necessarily make one of us right or wrong as well. > > Jai Maa! > > Surya > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:06 PM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > Namaste, > > That's all right, and i never argued any of these points (if U think i had, kindly show > where). > But U also miss the point i talked about. I said ONLY that Swami Satyananda provided > wrong translations of certian names of Kali from mentioned sahasranama - and nothing > above this. > He might be a Mahatma or even Avatar (that i cannot judge, and do not know him > personally), but even so it doesn't make his traslations appropriate (those which are > incorrect). > > Situation is crystal clear, nevertheless people are trying to shift the accents... > Strange, eh? > > A > > , vinod sharma <vs7578@> wrote: > > > > Hello everyone! > > As an Indian born in India,I am very > > surprise with the life of Swamiji. > > Sri swamiji has done an excellent job to organize our maze of religion and I > think ,overall he has done an excellent work. > > MahaKali only wants a devotion ,not how perfect is the pronounciation. > > Some mistakes are bound to occur in any work > > I think those critical of Swamiji must do better of their own,they should wake up at > 4AM ,chant chandi daily,live a life of a swami and print your own books. > > Vinod.Sharma,M.D. > > [Moderator's note: edited] > > > > sankara menon <kochu1tz@> wrote: > > Arjunaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa > > > > Is this right? I would like to say the following. > > > > 1. Whether the Swami is right or wrong, a more polite approach would have been nicer. > > > > 2. If you disagree refer to the Namas and say why you think the meaning is wrong. > > > > 3. Let us not be judgemental. > > > > > > I am NOT defending him. > > > > Arjuna Taranandanatha <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > Exactly to that email i wrote. > > > > So many people are trying to "defend" swami Satyananda. [....] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Traditions Divine > > > ---------- -- > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web. > > b.. > > > c.. Terms of Service. > > > ---------- -- > > > > > Traditions Divine a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 The matter discussed is very precise and clear. Do not try to divert discussion into other fields like linguistics and epistemology. Well, U may - but i won't follow. I have neither time nor desire to speculate around "what is language" etc. Sorry. There is a particular text in Sanskrit and it's version (posed as translation) in English. We can examine how they correlate. Nothing more. Context is not a lineage. Kaula context is same for every given Kaula school of scripture. Finally, U may disagree (who said U can't?), U are a free person. But doing this U cannot prove anything in regard of Swami's translation. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > Again, I would have to at least somewhat disagree. > > But please, answer the questions. Why not do so. And add one more definition: What is language? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 With what do U disagree? That a kaula text is kaula one? Or that it has to be seen from viewpoint of Kaulism and not yoga, islam or chemistry? That's enough. From now on i will reply in this thread ONLY to messages discussing purely matters of translation - with sanskrit examples. Please, no more pointless and useless speculations. Either put examples to examination, or be so kind to keep quiet on this matter. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > I am sorry but I disagree. > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:23 PM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > Kalika-sahasranama (which is taken from Kalikula-sarvasva) is NOT a yogic text, but > purely Kaula one. And it has to be dealt with from viewpoint of Kaula-tantrism. > > A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 And who are you to say what is pointless or useless? You are the one who refuses to answer simple questions and are putting things in boxes that don't belong in boxes. - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:00 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] With what do U disagree? That a kaula text is kaula one? Or that it has to be seen from viewpoint of Kaulism and not yoga, islam or chemistry? That's enough. From now on i will reply in this thread ONLY to messages discussing purely matters of translation - with sanskrit examples. Please, no more pointless and useless speculations. Either put examples to examination, or be so kind to keep quiet on this matter. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > I am sorry but I disagree. > - > Arjuna Taranandanatha > > Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:23 PM > Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] > > > Kalika-sahasranama (which is taken from Kalikula-sarvasva) is NOT a yogic text, but > purely Kaula one. And it has to be dealt with from viewpoint of Kaula-tantrism. > > A a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 5, 2006 Your view of Sanskrit and Indian Esoteric Tradition, is quite limited and incomplete, IMHO. I don't feel the need to discuss it further with you either. - Arjuna Taranandanatha Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:57 PM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] The matter discussed is very precise and clear. Do not try to divert discussion into other fields like linguistics and epistemology. Well, U may - but i won't follow. I have neither time nor desire to speculate around "what is language" etc. Sorry. There is a particular text in Sanskrit and it's version (posed as translation) in English. We can examine how they correlate. Nothing more. Context is not a lineage. Kaula context is same for every given Kaula school of scripture. Finally, U may disagree (who said U can't?), U are a free person. But doing this U cannot prove anything in regard of Swami's translation. A , "Mahamuni" <mahamuni wrote: > > Again, I would have to at least somewhat disagree. > > But please, answer the questions. Why not do so. And add one more definition: What is language? a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Aha ! the fires ... I would rather say, fan it further, make it a raging roar, see how much you can take before going kaput, and was it worth it ??? :-P Just kidding.. let's tone it down friends...... Llundrub <llundrub wrote: Well, you always 'dis' the Swami but I don't hear you dissing Shree Ma. How can you have the name Tara in your name and dis the Mother or Her worshippers in any way? [Moderator's note: edited. Gentlemen, can we please tone down the discussion a bit?] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with Sanskrit. The verses can mean entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is said Shankara or someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some contradictory and some even ludicrous. An example of different meanings is the shloka (I use this always as an example *smile*) utthAya ca mahAsiMhaM devI caNDamadhAvata , gRRihItvA cAsya kesheShu shirastenAsinAcChinat . 20. Chapetr VII verse 20 of DM Meaning that Devi mounted the great Lion and chased caNDa…. But if we break the words like this utthAya ca mahAsiM haM devI caNDamadhAvata , Having raised the great sword Devi chased caNDa with the bIja of distruction “HAM” Both are correct to the context. However, the picture conveyed is different. There are other meanings attributable to the same Shloka. I know at least 8 meanings. There will be scholars who can give many many more. My Sanskrit teacher (who always despaired about my ability to learn Sanskrit) always emphasized on the various meanings to enable us to think out of the box when interpreting scriptures. I hope this post is in context. Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to the teachings of her/his lineage. But the scriptures are what they are, and -- while some "drift" of meaning is probably over the centuries in an oral tradition -- I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be "appropriate" to for a Guru to change them. On an editorial note, I would add that studies of orally transmitted texts have found a remarkable accuracy. One of the more dramatic examples, of course, was the Dead Sea Scrolls. While public attention has naturally focused on what is "new" and "different" in the scrolls, what really fascinated Biblical scholars was how much was exactly the same. After the fall of Rome, centuries of chaos, the Dark Ages, generations of monks hand-copying texts in remote monasteries, losses by fire, war and natural disaster ... guess what? Most of the Old Testament (the Dead Sea scrolls were exclusively Old Testament; Nag Hammadi was New Testament) had come down to us pretty much exactly as it was written 2,000 years ago. I think we'd find the same is true of the Vedas, Puranas, Epics etc in Hinduism. In any oral tradition -- and explicitly in the Hindu tradition -- the Word IS God/dess. Every word of the Vedas, of the Devi Mahatmyam, of the Lalita Sahasranama -- is a MANTRA, a sound- form of a Divine Entity. Such things are not to be changed lightly. Thus, I'd reiterate, any true Guru's role is to explain and elucidate scripture, not change it. aim mAtangyai namaH , "msbauju" <msbauju wrote: > > Hmmm. Can I try out a "what if" on you? > > What if Sw. Satyananda didn't intend > his translations as definitive scholarly > works, but instead as supplementary > instructional material for *his* devotees? > If he is communicating with his devotees, > is it "appropriate" for him to give > idiosyncratic or "different meanings" > to names? > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > He might be a Mahatma or even Avatar > > (that i cannot judge, and do not know him > > personally), but even so it doesn't > > make his traslations appropriate > > (those which are > > incorrect). > Traditions Divine Visit your group "" on the web. New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Dear Kochu, I thought "Ham" was Akasha Tatva bija. Could you clarify my doubt. Thanks, Balaji {You are absolutly right!! I am sorry. I was sleepy when i posted==> Kochu} -------------- Original message -------------- sankara menon <kochu1tz But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with Sanskrit. The verses can mean entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is said Shankara or someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some contradictory and some even ludicrous. An example of different meanings is the shloka (I use this always as an example *smile*) utthAya ca mahAsiMhaM devI caNDamadhAvata , gRRihItvA cAsya kesheShu shirastenAsinAcChinat . 20. Chapetr VII verse 20 of DM Meaning that Devi mounted the great Lion and chased caNDa…. But if we break the words like this utthAya ca mahAsiM haM devI caNDamadhAvata , Having raised the great sword Devi chased caNDa with the bIja of distruction “HAM” Both are correct to the context. However, the picture conveyed is different. There are other meanings attributable to the same Shloka. I know at least 8 meanings. There will be scholars who can give many many more. My Sanskrit teacher (who always despaired about my ability to learn Sanskrit) always emphasized on the various meanings to enable us to think out of the box when interpreting scriptures. I hope this post is in context. Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to the teachings of her/his lineage. But the scriptures are what they are, and -- while some "drift" of meaning is probably over the centuries in an oral tradition -- I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be "appropriate" to for a Guru to change them. On an editorial note, I would add that studies of orally transmitted texts have found a remarkable accuracy. One of the more dramatic examples, of course, was the Dead Sea Scrolls. While public attention has naturally focused on what is "new" and "different" in the scrolls, what really fascinated Biblical scholars was how much was exactly the same. After the fall of Rome, centuries of chaos, the Dark Ages, generations of monks hand-copying texts in remote monasteries, losses by fire, war and natural disaster ... guess what? Most of the Old Testament (the Dead Sea scrolls were exclusively Old Testament; Nag Hammadi was New Testament) had come down to us pretty much exactly as it was written 2,000 years ago. I think we'd find the same is true of the Vedas, Puranas, Epics etc in Hinduism. In any oral tradition -- and explicitly in the Hindu tradition -- the Word IS God/dess. Every word of the Vedas, of the Devi Mahatmyam, of the Lalita Sahasranama -- is a MANTRA, a sound- form of a Divine Entity. Such things are not to be changed lightly. Thus, I'd reiterate, any true Guru's role is to explain and elucidate scripture, not change it. aim mAtangyai namaH , "msbauju" <msbauju wrote: > > Hmmm. Can I try out a "what if" on you? > > What if Sw. Satyananda didn't intend > his translations as definitive scholarly > works, but instead as supplementary > instructional material for *his* devotees? > If he is communicating with his devotees, > is it "appropriate" for him to give > idiosyncratic or "different meanings" > to names? > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > He might be a Mahatma or even Avatar > > (that i cannot judge, and do not know him > > personally), but even so it doesn't > > make his traslations appropriate > > (those which are > > incorrect). > Traditions Divine Visit your group "" on the web. New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. Visit your group "" on the web. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Yes! Another very valid side of things! This is why I asked the questions I did. It is not like translating Spanish into English. It is not exact, word for word type of thing, with only one possible definition. These are the sounds of the Mother, put together to form concepts, etc. Jai Maa! - sankara menon Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:10 PM Re: Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with Sanskrit. The verses can mean entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is said Shankara or someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some contradictory and some even ludicrous. An example of different meanings is the shloka (I use this always as an example *smile*) utthAya ca mahAsiMhaM devI caNDamadhAvata , gRRihItvA cAsya kesheShu shirastenAsinAcChinat . 20. Chapetr VII verse 20 of DM Meaning that Devi mounted the great Lion and chased caNDa.. But if we break the words like this utthAya ca mahAsiM haM devI caNDamadhAvata , Having raised the great sword Devi chased caNDa with the bIja of distruction "HAM" Both are correct to the context. However, the picture conveyed is different. There are other meanings attributable to the same Shloka. I know at least 8 meanings. There will be scholars who can give many many more. My Sanskrit teacher (who always despaired about my ability to learn Sanskrit) always emphasized on the various meanings to enable us to think out of the box when interpreting scriptures. I hope this post is in context. Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: It is certainly the Guru's role to interpret scripture according to the teachings of her/his lineage. But the scriptures are what they are, and -- while some "drift" of meaning is probably over the centuries in an oral tradition -- I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be "appropriate" to for a Guru to change them. On an editorial note, I would add that studies of orally transmitted texts have found a remarkable accuracy. One of the more dramatic examples, of course, was the Dead Sea Scrolls. While public attention has naturally focused on what is "new" and "different" in the scrolls, what really fascinated Biblical scholars was how much was exactly the same. After the fall of Rome, centuries of chaos, the Dark Ages, generations of monks hand-copying texts in remote monasteries, losses by fire, war and natural disaster ... guess what? Most of the Old Testament (the Dead Sea scrolls were exclusively Old Testament; Nag Hammadi was New Testament) had come down to us pretty much exactly as it was written 2,000 years ago. I think we'd find the same is true of the Vedas, Puranas, Epics etc in Hinduism. In any oral tradition -- and explicitly in the Hindu tradition -- the Word IS God/dess. Every word of the Vedas, of the Devi Mahatmyam, of the Lalita Sahasranama -- is a MANTRA, a sound- form of a Divine Entity. Such things are not to be changed lightly. Thus, I'd reiterate, any true Guru's role is to explain and elucidate scripture, not change it. aim mAtangyai namaH , "msbauju" <msbauju wrote: > > Hmmm. Can I try out a "what if" on you? > > What if Sw. Satyananda didn't intend > his translations as definitive scholarly > works, but instead as supplementary > instructional material for *his* devotees? > If he is communicating with his devotees, > is it "appropriate" for him to give > idiosyncratic or "different meanings" > to names? > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > He might be a Mahatma or even Avatar > > (that i cannot judge, and do not know him > > personally), but even so it doesn't > > make his traslations appropriate > > (those which are > > incorrect). > Traditions Divine Visit your group "" on the web. New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Namaskar, Sankara! Sure, U are right. But even in this case there is primary interpretation and specific (mantric) one. Usually main interpretations are rather few, one/two/three - which we can see from Bhaskararaya's commentary of LSN. Coming to discussed sahasranama of ShmKali, lumme provide some examples (as i see my "great and wise" opponents are capable only of insults but not of study): Firstly let us note that we deal with rather specific case: it those names translation of which is diverted in "Kali Puja" we find same three expressions: bhaga-li~Nga svayambhUpuShpa/kusuma shukra Which all refer to sexual items. Of course we can try to take shukra as "fire" of name of god of Venus, and take svayambhUpuShpa to mean "flower born by itself". First assumption make sense (but put in context, Shukra-Venus doesn't occupy in Tantra SUCH important place that so many names of Devi are devoted to him, while perhaps none to other grahas). Second assumption doesn't make any sense apart from literal - what is this "flower"? Expression bhaga-li~Nga is so obvious that it cannot be diverted. Still, Swami Satyananda does this. What is bhagali~NgAmR^itAtmikA? bhagali~NgArchanaprItA? svayambhUpuShpatarpitA? shukrasnAtA? I do not remember what was Swami's translation was (maybe finally someone will take a burden to look and give out), but i remember me and my guru were really wondering about them. And the reason of supposedly deliberate mistranslation is clear - to avoid any note about sex, blood, alcohol etc. But why then to take THIS sahasranama? Now, all mahamunis etc, have a chance to come at last to exact point of discussion. Pranam, A , sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: > > But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with Sanskrit. The verses can mean entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is said Shankara or someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some contradictory and some even ludicrous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Avoiding literal interpretations is in accordance with tradition and causes accumulation of siddhi, while literal translation can disperse the result of your sadhana. It is an individual decision not concernend with scholarship. , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" <bhagatirtha wrote: > > Namaskar, Sankara! > > Sure, U are right. > But even in this case there is primary interpretation and specific (mantric) one. Usually > main interpretations are rather few, one/two/three - which we can see from > Bhaskararaya's commentary of LSN. > Coming to discussed sahasranama of ShmKali, lumme provide some examples (as i see my > "great and wise" opponents are capable only of insults but not of study): > > Firstly let us note that we deal with rather specific case: it those names translation of > which is diverted in "Kali Puja" we find same three expressions: > bhaga-li~Nga > svayambhUpuShpa/kusuma > shukra > Which all refer to sexual items. > > Of course we can try to take shukra as "fire" of name of god of Venus, and take > svayambhUpuShpa to mean "flower born by itself". First assumption make sense (but put > in context, Shukra-Venus doesn't occupy in Tantra SUCH important place that so many > names of Devi are devoted to him, while perhaps none to other grahas). Second > assumption doesn't make any sense apart from literal - what is this "flower"? > Expression bhaga-li~Nga is so obvious that it cannot be diverted. Still, Swami Satyananda > does this. > > What is bhagali~NgAmR^itAtmikA? > bhagali~NgArchanaprItA? > svayambhUpuShpatarpitA? > shukrasnAtA? > > I do not remember what was Swami's translation was (maybe finally someone will take a > burden to look and give out), but i remember me and my guru were really wondering > about them. And the reason of supposedly deliberate mistranslation is clear - to avoid any > note about sex, blood, alcohol etc. But why then to take THIS sahasranama? > > Now, all mahamunis etc, have a chance to come at last to exact point of discussion. > > Pranam, > A > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz@> wrote: > > > > But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with Sanskrit. The verses can mean > entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is said Shankara or > someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some contradictory and some even > ludicrous. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
