Jahnava Nitai Das 2 Report post Posted February 13, 2001 "O Great King ! I have narrated to you the stories of many who lived to make their names famous in their life time and then to pass away and become a memory soon after. These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to instil into you the importance of renunciation and realisation. They have no significance in themselves and are not to be taken as literal facts. - SB 12.3.14" "What do you say to this? However our people will conveniently avoid such statements." -------- This translation is incorrect, as I am sure you will agree, since you are very particular on the correctness of translations. The verse runs as follows: katha imas te kathita mahiyasam vitaya lokeshu yasah pareyusham vijnana-vairagya-vivakshaya vibho vaco-vibhutir na tu paramarthyam "O great one, I have related to you the narrations of all these great kings, who spread their fame throughout the world and then departed. My real purpose was to teach transcendental knowledge and renunciation. The stories of kings lend power and oppulence to these narrations but do not in themselves constitute the ultimate aspect of knowledge." Please review the two translations and honestly conclude which one is the correct translation. Take very careful notice of the words "na tu parama-arthyam", which mean "but this is not the ultimate purpose." It certainly does not, as your translation seems to clame, mean "these are not to be taken as literal facts". The distortion is so obvious that there is probably no need for further clarification. But just to be certain, let us observe some more points. Let us look at the second sentence of your translation: "These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to..." Please note that none of these words appear in the sanskrit even indirectly. The literal sanskrit that corresponds to this section would be: vijnana-vairagya-vivakshaya "Desiring to teach (or describe) renunciation (vairagya) and realization (vijnana)." Since this is a compound sentence, it naturally refers to the subject "kathah", or the narrations of various kings, in regards to the word "kathitah" which means "having spoken". Or in other words: "I have spoken these narrations desiring to teach you renunciation and realization." Now let us compare this accurate translation with what you have presented: "These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to instil into you the importance of renunciation and realisation." I think the distortion is self-evident. I hope you feel the same. The worst part is that this translator, whoever he may be, inserts the nonexistant phrase "these are not to be taken as literal facts", at the end. But to make things even clearer, we should take notice of the previous verse which belongs to the Bhumi Gita: mamatam mayy avartanta kritvocair martya-dharminah kathaveshashah kalena hy akritarthah krita vibho "O great one, although they [the various kings] lived their lives intensely trying to possess me, these kings were subject to the passage of time, which reduced them all to mere historical accounts. None of them could permanently establish their rule." This is a verse being spoken by Bhumi, the goddess earth. I hope this has cleared up any confusion. And I would hope people of all schools would double check things prior to making emphatic assertions. --- "However our people will conveniently avoid such statements." --- I think most people will naturally avoid such non-existent statements in the scriptures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shvu 1 Report post Posted February 13, 2001 Hi Jndas, That Translation is by Swami Tapsyananda of Ramakrishna Math. I checked the translation and found that it was my mistake. I reproduced it incorrectly. The translation reads as, They have no ultimate significance in themselves (or are not to be taken as literal facts) The last part is in brackets. Of course, I agree that that is not exactly an alternate meaning and I don't know why he has added that. But I think I can understand why he may have felt that way. I did some translation [not literal] myself and here it is, --- Vijnaana Vairaagya Vivakshaya Vibho Vacho Vibhuutir na tu paaram aarthyam These stories were chosen to adorn this narration which is actually to teach the sicence of renunciation. That is what is ultimately meant here and not greatness, glory [of the kings] --- The author says that he chose these stories with the intention of teaching the science of renunciation. Everthing else is decor to make it lively. But yes, that does not say that these stories are real or fiction. Perhaps Tapsyananda felt it appropriate to consider it that way. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
