Tattva-viveka
Brahma-samhita
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 5, 2009 4:07 pm
Does anyone have the Gaudiya Matha edition of Brahma-samhita with commentary by BSST?
Babhru Das - January 5, 2009 5:11 pm
I have an old copy, but it's in one of the boxes in my yurt at Audarya.
Bhrigu - January 5, 2009 5:46 pm
I have the SCS Math edition.
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 5, 2009 8:54 pm
I have a small black paper back edition that was put out by the BBT. It has the commentary of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Do you need me to check something for you? Do you want me to send it your way? How may I be of service?
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 5, 2009 10:19 pm
I would like to compare the capitalization usage between the Gaudiya Matha and BBT editions to see if there is any change, as I know that BSST often capitalized not only pronouns referring to divinity but nouns and adjectives as well and that this is not done in the BBT edition. Brighu, could you let me know how 5.1 is translated? One other thing, I know that in the Bengali in Cc. the familiar form of pronouns is mainly used for divinity...is the same true for the Sanskrit in SB?
Babhru Das - January 6, 2009 12:39 am
Ooh--is someone objecting to our capitalization policy? I can imagine that Chicago may not be appreciated by many folks, especially those not involved with publishing. It seems as though the use of the familiar in addressing the Lord (lord?) in Cc may serve as useful evidence.
Bhrigu - January 6, 2009 11:03 am
I'm afraid the BS that I have is a new translation, so it will not be of use in this case. The one you are thinking of was published by Sripad BV Tirtha Maharaj at Madras. I have seen it, but don't have a copy. However, I have other books by Bhaktisiddhanta published pre-ISKCON. Nisikanta Sanyal's Sree Krishna Chaitanya was THE English book of the Gaudiya Math in Bhaktisiddhanta's time, and he capitalizes all kinds of words, not always so consistently. One random example, page 149:
Person of Godhead
Divine manifestations
divine Forms
Divine Vishnu
Himself
the Regulator of the gods
the Source Who imparts
As for Sanskrit and familiar forms of the pronouns, Sanskrit does not really make a distinction between familiar and polite pronouns.
Babhru Das - January 6, 2009 6:59 pm
My copy is an old one. If Nitai or Gurunishta has time, maybe they can look in my boxes in the yurt (if that's where they are). It has been rebound and has a blue cloth cover.
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 6, 2009 11:24 pm
Ooh--is someone objecting to our capitalization policy? I can imagine that Chicago may not be appreciated by many folks, especially those not involved with publishing. It seems as though the use of the familiar in addressing the Lord (lord?) in Cc may serve as useful evidence.
Yes, here a letter that came in reply to the last Sanga, followed by my reply, which I'll send out once I confirm the part about the Brahma-samhita.
Isvara (das) GGS (Touchstone Media - IN) wrote:
> Hare Krishna,
> PAMHO. AGSTP.
> Reading the sanga of HH. Tripurari Maharaja, I see that you are using small
> letters for divine pronouns. Using small pronouns for Krishna, Mahaprabhu,
> Radharani or any divinity is not something that goes well with me and it is
> not something that our previous acaryas will be approved of. Thus, I will
> henceforth stop reading your sanga postings. In fact I will delete it the
> moment it comes on my PAMHO account.
>
> your servant,
>
> Isvara dasa,
My reply:
Hare Krishna,
We would like to remove your email address from our Sanga mailing list, but the email addresses from which you sent this email (Isvara.GGS@pamho.net) is not on our list. At the end of the Sanga you received is a line with the email address to which the Sanga was sent. If you could please look that up and send us that email address, we will remove it from the Sanga list.
Thank you.
P.S. Discerning our previous acaryas' views on pronoun usage may not be as straightforward as you imply, given the fact that they have not had a uniform standard. In Bengali there are no uppercase letters, but the familiar case of pronouns was generally used rather than the honorific form (see Caitanya-caritamrta). This is the equivalent of using a lowercase pronoun rather than an uppercase one.
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, in accordance with the prevailing British usage of the time, which leaned towards heavy capitalization, capitalized not only pronouns referring to divinity but many adjectives and nouns as well. Here is an example of the style he used:
"Obeisance to the most Magnanimous, the Giver of the Love of Krishna, the Own Self of Krishna, the Lord bearing the Name Krishna-Chaitanya and possessed of the Form of golden hue! I submit myself to Sri Krishna-Chaitanya, that merciful Person of wonderful deeds Who by the nectar of the treasure of His Own Love intoxicated the world, delerious with ignorance, by freeing it from the malady of nescience." ("The Attainment of Krishna Prema." Note the capitalization of "Magnanimous," "Giver," "Love," "Form," "Who," etc.)
Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, also in accordance with the prevailing usage of the time in which he wrote, had a different policy than Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. He did not capitalize adjectives and nouns referring to divinity. Furthermore, in the edition of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura's Brahma-samhita published by the BBT, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura's writing was presented in contemporary usage rather than the style that he himself used previously:
"Krsna is the exalted Supreme entity having His eternal name, eternal form, eternal attribution and eternal pastimes." (Sri Brahma-samhita. Note the lowercase "entity," "name," "form," etc.)
The editions of Brahma-samhita from Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math and Gaudiya Vedanta Samhiti also reflect this trend toward lighter use of capitalization.
The current prevailing usage, as delineated in the Chicago Manual of Style, the preferred style guide for book publishing in North America, is to not capitalize pronouns referring to divinity. Taking into consideration that our previous acaryas have utilized the prevailing usage of their times and the fact that using lowercase pronouns to refer to divinity is in accord with the original Bengali, we have carefully adopted our current policy. In light of the facts above, we cannot agree with your assessment that our policy would not be approved by our previous acaryas. Rather history shows that our policy is in line with the dynamic approach of our previous acaryas, who sought to present Gaudiya siddhanta in contemporary forms of the ever-evolving English language. For more information in regard to this issue, please see the following Sangas:
[links to be added]
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 7, 2009 1:16 pm
Here is the translation from the Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja edition:
Krishna who is known as
Govinda is the Supreme God-head. He
has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He
is the Origin of all. He has no other
origin and He is the Prime Cause of all
causes. (1).
"Body" isn't capitalized, but "Origin" and "Prime Cause" are, so the point holds that the capitalization policy has evolved, from capitalizing pronouns, some nouns, and some adjectives, to capitalizing only pronouns.
Swami - January 7, 2009 1:49 pm
I know I have written on this subject previously but cannot find it. I anyone knows where it is, please let me know.
Vrindaranya, I think you have done a good job in answering this person. You have some fire for defending Sri Guru and that is desirable. It will help you advance.
Babhru Das - January 7, 2009 3:48 pm
"Body" isn't capitalized, but "Origin" and "Prime Cause" are, so the point holds that the capitalization policy has evolved, from capitalizing pronouns, some nouns, and some adjectives, to capitalizing only pronouns.
It looks as though nouns used as subjects or complements are capitalized, whereas those used as objects aren't.
I've had some dealings with this man (can't remember their exact nature) and found him lacking. He was superficially very polite, but somehow I was left dissatisfied. Somehow, this didn't surprise me after seeing his name. But has anyone else protested our standard? I remember asking about it when I was working on Bhagavad-gita and was immediately satisfied when Swami simply said that it's the current standard, according to CMS. And I also like your response. The tone strikes me as perfect. Thanks for the example.
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 8, 2009 2:34 pm
There have been others who questioned our capitalization policy, but not with such vehemence.
Here is Isvara dasa's response. My points seem to have gone over his head:
"In light of the fact that both Sanskrit and Bengali languages have no method
of capitalisation of letters of divine pronouns, but English language does.
Thus I cannot agree with your below assessment. Chicago Manual Style may be
a standard for English literary works, but it has no authority over as to
what is divinity. The style of modern languages is to bring divinity down to
their levels. BBT also tried it for a while but had to discontinue because
of devotees' opposition. We are not to pander to mundane use of languages.
Rather we should language in glorification of their Lordships."
Madan Gopal Das - January 8, 2009 2:48 pm
yes; i think that Your points on The Topic of discussion may have passed over His head. Judging From his response It is unclear that He knows How to use english well himSelf.: Your languaging of responding to him was accurate and respectful of a complete nature, totally. Pander not to those whom Might object henceforthly. What fault Is there in trying to make someThing (SASTRA) readable to a native Speakers, following the current Standard and thereby making the TEACHING credible, more presentable and effective as An service to the LORd.?
Nitaisundara Das - January 8, 2009 3:47 pm
yes; i think that Your points on The Topic of discussion may have passed over His head. Judging From his response It is unclear that He knows How to use english well himSelf.: Your languaging of responding to him was accurate and respectful of a complete nature, totally. Pander not to those whom Might object henceforthly. What fault Is there in trying to make someThing (SASTRA) readable to a native Speakers, following the current Standard and thereby making the TEACHING credible, more presentable and effective as An service to the LORd.?
Prema-bhakti - January 8, 2009 8:25 pm
"In light of the fact that both Sanskrit and Bengali languages have no methodof capitalisation of letters of divine pronouns, but English language does.
Thus I cannot agree with your below assessment. Chicago Manual Style may be
a standard for English literary works, but it has no authority over as to
what is divinity. The style of modern languages is to bring divinity down to
their levels. BBT also tried it for a while but had to discontinue because
of devotees' opposition. We are not to pander to mundane use of languages.
Rather we should language in glorification of their Lordships."
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 8, 2009 9:17 pm
There have been others who questioned our capitalization policy, but not with such vehemence.
Here is Isvara dasa's response. My points seem to have gone over his head:
"In light of the fact that both Sanskrit and Bengali languages have no method
of capitalisation of letters of divine pronouns, but English language does.
Thus I cannot agree with your below assessment. Chicago Manual Style may be
a standard for English literary works, but it has no authority over as to
what is divinity. The style of modern languages is to bring divinity down to
their levels. BBT also tried it for a while but had to discontinue because
of devotees' opposition. We are not to pander to mundane use of languages.
Rather we should language in glorification of their Lordships."
This is the exact case of a devotee who are fanatic and have potential to make offences. So they cannot appreciate the descent of bhakti unto them and take untoward advantage of being a devotee.
Babhru Das - January 8, 2009 10:23 pm
Vrindaranya's point definitely seems beyond his ken. However, I'd lighten up a little on his comical misuse of English; it's not his first (or probably even his second) language. I say "a little" because the fellow is a publisher, and both his poor fund of knowledge and his poor writing have to make one wonder about the quality of his publications.
Prahlad Das - January 9, 2009 12:09 am
There have been others who questioned our capitalization policy, but not with such vehemence.
Here is Isvara dasa's response. My points seem to have gone over his head:
"In light of the fact that both Sanskrit and Bengali languages have no method
of capitalisation of letters of divine pronouns, but English language does.
Thus I cannot agree with your below assessment. Chicago Manual Style may be
a standard for English literary works, but it has no authority over as to
what is divinity. The style of modern languages is to bring divinity down to
their levels. BBT also tried it for a while but had to discontinue because
of devotees' opposition. We are not to pander to mundane use of languages.
Rather we should language in glorification of their Lordships."
Shouldn't Divinity be capitalized?
Madan Gopal Das - January 9, 2009 1:10 am
it's not his first (or probably even his second) language.
I know that, and it is precisely why he should leave the discussion of the use of English language to someone who is wholly familiar and aware of how to use it properly and on top of that follows the current use of the language in publishing. There are two faults here, his lack of familiarity with modern English, and his fanaticism which limits his ability to see the utility of becoming familiar with modern English. The first is easy to solve, and the second requires some faith and a keen sense of how to preach. He should continue reading Sanga keeping in mind this verse:
tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavoyasmin prati-ślokam abaddhavaty api
nāmāny anantasya yaśo 'ńkitāni yat
śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti sādhavaḥ
On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.
Babhru Das - January 9, 2009 1:39 pm
I know that, and it is precisely why he should leave the discussion of the use of English language to someone who is wholly familiar and aware of how to use it properly and on top of that follows the current use of the language in publishing.
Of course. I said "a little." I think that, at the same time I felt inclined to chuckle at the joke, I was a little embarrassed by the mocking tone (as well as by my appreciation for it). At the same time, if I had a better relationship with him, I would advise him privately to check and double check his emails for grammar, syntax, missing words, etc., especially when he's writing to criticize someone's writing style.
There are two faults here, his lack of familiarity with modern English, and his fanaticism which limits his ability to see the utility of becoming familiar with modern English. The first is easy to solve, and the second requires some faith and a keen sense of how to preach. He should continue reading Sanga keeping in mind this verse:
The first is easily solved only when he has dealt sufficiently with the second. That fanaticism and self-righteousness prevent him from even seeing the first. And his presumptuousness in seeking to correct Swami's style signals an arrogance that will likely render reading of Sanga unproductive. I think his best move would be to carefully consider Vrindaranya's points, reflect on the error that moved him to write that first email, and humbly approach Swami for siksa and service.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 9, 2009 5:01 pm
Of course. I said "a little." I think that, at the same time I felt inclined to chuckle at the joke, I was a little embarrassed by the mocking tone (as well as by my appreciation for it). At the same time, if I had a better relationship with him, I would advise him privately to check and double check his emails for grammar, syntax, missing words, etc., especially when he's writing to criticize someone's writing style.
The first is easily solved only when he has dealt sufficiently with the second. That fanaticism and self-righteousness prevent him from even seeing the first. And his presumptuousness in seeking to correct Swami's style signals an arrogance that will likely render reading of Sanga unproductive. I think his best move would be to carefully consider Vrindaranya's points, reflect on the error that moved him to write that first email, and humbly approach Swami for siksa and service.
Everybody want to use their aggression in krsna's service. Overtly nice and inside aggressive that is his theme. I think it should pinch you when you need to be aggressive so that you are careful of aparadhs. Aggression is good only when one honestly introspects and finds that there is no other motivation but to actually please krsna.
Syamasundara - January 9, 2009 6:33 pm
I could finally catch up with this thread, after hearing about it during meals. I had such a laugh when I read Isvara's original email!
As usual, these discussions are for our own benefit and purification. What can we hope for him, asking to be removed before even asking for explanations, that Vrndaranya kindly gave him anyway, and we saw the result...
Swami - January 11, 2009 3:03 pm
Everybody want to use their aggression in krsna's service. Overtly nice and inside aggressive that is his theme. I think it should pinch you when you need to be aggressive so that you are careful of aparadhs. Aggression is good only when one honestly introspects and finds that there is no other motivation but to actually please krsna.
I think we have dealt with the aggression issue previously, wherein Vrindaranya prevailed. No need to bring it up again.
I my opinion Isvara dasa should not even be publishing and perhaps not even reading without guidance. If we can't laugh a little about his position, we would have to cry or worse. Sometimes comic relief is necessary when argumentum ad vaculam is not possible. People like Isvara dasa need to be put in their place forcefully. The unwillingness to do so and sympathy for him citing extenuating circumstances just allows the problem to perpetuate.
Babhru Das - January 11, 2009 5:54 pm
I my opinion Isvara dasa should not even be publishing and perhaps not even reading without guidance. If we can't laugh a little about his position, we would have to cry or worse. Sometimes comic relief is necessary when argumentum ad vaculam is not possible. People like Isvara dasa need to be put in their place forcefully. The unwillingness to do so and sympathy for him citing extenuating circumstances just allows the problem to perpetuate.
In my own defense (ahem), I said "a little." Any sympathy I have is due to my decades of experience teaching folks whose first language isn't English. I don't know what he thinks his qualification is for publishing books, and I don't remember seeing anything from Touchstone I found interesting. I think I asked once about his interest in publishing a children's book about Dhruva that Govinda dasi and I did together years ago, but we both decided rather easily that we didn't want to work with him.
Moreover, my sympathy extends to inviting him to accept siksa and opportunities for service from you. That's it. Otherwise, as I said before, I found Vrindaranya's reply perfect. I guess I was just a little embarrassed by my own delight in mocking this guy's broken English. I would not have been uncomfortable laughing at his narrowmindedness.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 12, 2009 12:28 am
I think we have dealt with the aggression issue previously, wherein Vrindaranya prevailed. No need to bring it up again.
I my opinion Isvara dasa should not even be publishing and perhaps not even reading without guidance. If we can't laugh a little about his position, we would have to cry or worse. Sometimes comic relief is necessary when argumentum ad vaculam is not possible. People like Isvara dasa need to be put in their place forcefully. The unwillingness to do so and sympathy for him citing extenuating circumstances just allows the problem to perpetuate.
Yes I agree. I just wanted to say how people like Isvara dasa just keep on attacking people unnecessarily. Apart from that your point is valid about the fact that there is no need for any further discussion per se. I apologize for going in that direction.
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 12, 2009 1:49 pm
My second reply to Isvara:
You seem to have missed both my points. Although Bengali has no way of capitalizing letters, it has its own way of doing the same thing: the honorific forms of pronouns. It is significant that our Gaudiya acaryas do not generally use these forms for Krsna. The reason for this is that although according to tattva-vicara Krsna is God (corresponding with honorific usage), from the angle of rasa-vicara he is my friend (corresponding with familiar usage). In other words, a key aspect of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is to bring divinity down to a humanlike level (to facilitate intimacy). The Vrajavasis see Krsna as their friend, not as God. Thus from different angles of vision, both the honorific usage and the familiar usage are correct, but the familiar usage is more true to the heart of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, and it is the usage employed in most of our Gaudiya scriptures.
Secondly, you seem to be ignoring the evidence that our previous acaryas' usage of English has evolved in tandem with the evolution of the English language. Although our acaryas are not bound by the conventions of language, they nonetheless follow them because it is favorable to a cutting-edge presentation of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. This holds true not only in terms of language, but in innumerable other ways as well: use of the printing press, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's having some of his brahmacaris dress in Western clothing, etc. He even said that he was prepared to serve meat in Mayapur if it was necessary for the spreading of Krsna consciousness. Thus there is substantial basis for a progressive presentation of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. In fact, true orthodoxy in our lineage is dynamic not static.
A final point about your conclusion that the use of lowercase letters for pronouns referring to divinity is an attempt to bring divinity down to a lower level: this is mere speculation, albeit widespread, and betrays a lack of knowledge about the evolution of the English language. Old English contained much more capitalization as a result of its Germanic roots (all nouns are still capitalized in German). Here is an example of a sentence from 1749: "Examine your Heart, my good Reader, and resolve whether you do believe these Matters with me." Capitalization usage began to change in the 1800s, mainly due to aesthetics in typography. Instead of using capital letters for all nouns, only proper nouns were capitalized. Thus capitalization in English is not meant to be a sign of respect, as is evidenced by the fact that Satan, Hitler, and the Ku Klux Klan are capitalized and demigod and angel are not. The use of lowercase letters for divinity follows a larger trend of increasing readability by decreasing comma usage and capitalization (for example, "brussels sprouts" rather than "Brussels sprouts")--a so-called down style. In its 14th edition, the Chicago Manual of Style itself has defeated the idea that the use of lowercase letters for divinity is a sign of disrespect. The Bible in its original languages of Hebrew and Greek did not capitalize pronouns, and most current editions of the Bible do not capitalize pronouns referring to divinity. As the three major style guides in the United States doesn't capitalize pronouns (other than "I," for typographic reasons), doing so already gives publications a dated feel for many readers, and this is highly likely to only increase in the future. Do we wish to lead the pack or be pulled unwillingly from behind?
I do hope you will reconsider your views on this issue, not so much in terms of your own usage decisions but rather your harsh condemnation of our usage policy, which I think I have established is well-thought out and not based on pandering to those with bad intentions.
Syamasundara - January 12, 2009 2:03 pm
This is still private correspondence, right? It would be a great forum material (besides ours), because we need to hear these points only to some extent, and he is unlikely to change or open his mind, but others could have benefited from it; oh well.
Guru-nistha Das - January 12, 2009 5:52 pm
Jay-hooo!!
Excellent reply, Vrindaranya.
Babhru Das - January 12, 2009 6:36 pm
Another perfect response, both in substance and tone. Thanks again for your example.
Bhrigu - January 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Sâdhu, Vrindâranye, Sâdhu!
Prema-bhakti - January 14, 2009 10:07 am
Excellent!!!
Rathi Krishna Dasa - January 15, 2009 4:19 pm
I will admit to asking this same question many, many years ago. I was mainly curious as I had not seen it before but did not necessarily have a problem with it.
Reminds me of an old Warner Brothers cartoon.
