In chapter 9 of Jaiva-dharma, Bhaktivinoda Thakura references Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.31. The edition that I'm reading has Narayan Maharaja's translation:
"... knowledge of Me is non-dual, and yet it has four distinct divisions: jñāna, vijñāna, rahasya and tad-aṅga. A jīva cannot understand this by his own intelligence, but you can understand it by My mercy. Jñāna is My svarūpa, and My relationship with My potency is vijñāna. The jīva is My rahasya (secret mystery), and pradhāna is My jñāna-aṅga."
Which is very different from Srila Prabhupada's translation:
"... knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully."
I'm wondering what Krishna means when he says "the jīva is My rahasya (secret mystery)." Is it because the jīva is taṭashta (which is difficult to understand) or is there another reason?
Here is the Sanskrit of 2.9.31:
śrī-bhagavān uvāca
jñānaṁ parama-guhyaṁ me yad vijñāna-samanvitam
sarahasyaṁ tad-aṅgaṁ ca gṛhāṇa gaditaṁ mayā
In chapter 9 of Jaiva-dharma, Bhaktivinoda Thakura references Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.31. The edition that I'm reading has Narayan Maharaja's translation:
"... knowledge of Me is non-dual, and yet it has four distinct divisions: jñāna, vijñāna, rahasya and tad-aṅga. A jīva cannot understand this by his own intelligence, but you can understand it by My mercy. Jñāna is My svarūpa, and My relationship with My potency is vijñāna. The jīva is My rahasya (secret mystery), and pradhāna is My jñāna-aṅga."
Which is very different from Srila Prabhupada's translation:
"... knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully."
I'm wondering what Krishna means when he says "the jīva is My rahasya (secret mystery)." Is it because the jīva is taṭashta (which is difficult to understand) or is there another reason?
Here is the Sanskrit of 2.9.31:
śrī-bhagavān uvāca
jñānaṁ parama-guhyaṁ me yad vijñāna-samanvitam
sarahasyaṁ tad-aṅgaṁ ca gṛhāṇa gaditaṁ mayā
I just finished this expanded translation based on the principle commentaries. It is part of the book I am writing that takes one through the Cc Adi-lila. The verse is one of two introductory verses to the famous catur sloki of the Bhagavatam. Krsna speaking to Brahma from within his heart. It appears in Cc as a pramana verse to support the idea that Krsna is the guru within the heart, the original guru.
"Please take this confidential knowledge of my opulence (jnana) and the special and more confidential knowledge of my sweetness (vijnana) in relation to my original form—svayam bhagavan. I give this knowledge to you in theory (jnana) although it is the secret of sacred sound—sastra¬. It is now yours to realize (vijnana). It culminates in the mystery of the highest love for me—prema (rahasyam), which is attended by various bhavas (tad angam) and is attained by raganuga sadhana-bhakti supported by vaidhi sadhana-bhakti in the form of hearing and chanting about and meditating on me (tad angam). Now you should endeavor to tread this path of prema."
The idea that the jiva is the rahasya is different and not found in any of the original commentaries. All the commentaries identify the rahasya with prema.
I just finished this expanded translation based on the principle commentaries. It is part of the book I am writing that takes one through the Cc Adi-lila. The verse is one of two introductory verses to the famous catur sloki of the Bhagavatam. Krsna speaking to Brahma from within his heart. It appears in Cc as a pramana verse to support the idea that Krsna is the guru within the heart, the original guru.
"Please take this confidential knowledge of my opulence (jnana) and the special and more confidential knowledge of my sweetness (vijnana) in relation to my original form—svayam bhagavan. I give this knowledge to you in theory (jnana) although it is the secret of sacred sound—sastra¬. It is now yours to realize (vijnana). It culminates in the mystery of the highest love for me—prema (rahasyam), which is attended by various bhavas (tad angam) and is attained by raganuga sadhana-bhakti supported by vaidhi sadhana-bhakti in the form of hearing and chanting about and meditating on me (tad angam). Now you should endeavor to tread this path of prema."
The idea that the jiva is the rahasya is different and not found in any of the original commentaries. All the commentaries identify the rahasya with prema.
Swami, I am trying to understand a point which is obvious to me here which I hope you don't mind: Aren't there commentators that radically differ on certain points of the philosophy and word meanings, yet are still considered within a Gaudiya perspective? From my tiny perspective, I would understand my means of discrimination would generally be the commentators, or someone devotee I had faith in. Because I have an affinity for you and your reasoning, I will naturally gravitate toward your exposition--I think your translation is more clear. At the same time, I wonder how NM's disciples would explain his perspective--say in reading what you have written. (I am encountering a number of his disciples online now) I guess we would have to hear NM's arguments. and his reasoning for his conclusions. Someone could argue he is getting some special insight, or we might theorize he is speaking out of his bhava.
Swami, I am trying to understand a point which is obvious to me here which I hope you don't mind: Aren't there commentators that radically differ on certain points of the philosophy and word meanings, yet are still considered within a Gaudiya perspective? From my tiny perspective, I would understand my means of discrimination would generally be the commentators, or someone devotee I had faith in. Because I have an affinity for you and your reasoning, I will naturally gravitate toward your exposition--I think your translation is more clear. At the same time, I wonder how NM's disciples would explain his perspective--say in reading what you have written. (I am encountering a number of his disciples online now) I guess we would have to hear NM's arguments. and his reasoning for his conclusions. Someone could argue he is getting some special insight, or we might theorize he is speaking out of his bhava.
It is possible that Bhaktivinoda Thakura translated this verse from Sanskrit into Bengali this way and NM translated it that way into Hindi. Then his students translated it this way into English. I would have to look at the original Bengali of BVT to determine if this is the case. I did look at another English translation of this verse as it appears in Jaiva Dharma and it was not translated this way and I also know that BVT has translated the word rahasyam as prema elsewhere and I believe NM has as well.
But regrdless of who translated rahasyam as jiva, this translation is problematic given the context of the verse as it appears in the Bhagaatam. The verse follows four questions of Brahma, all of which are answered by Krsna in the catura sloki and the answers to which are also mentioned in seed in this verse. If rahasyam is translated "jiva" one of the questions is not answered. For that matter the entire translation is problematic in this regard. But I will think a little more about it.
One or two sentences down from the translation in question BVT give more standard translation of the same verse"
“O Brahmä, I am explaining to you this most confidential
jïäna of Myself, the vijïäna with which it is endowed, its
rahasya, and all of its aìgas (components). Accept all of this from
Me.”
It seems to me that the book itself is confusing at this point.
As for the question as to how to deal with students of an acarya who says something that does not jive with your understanding of the philosophy, I would simply ask them how he or she arrived at such an understanding and discuss respectfully with them until you are satisfied that the acarya's understanding is scripturally plausible or you conclude that the acarya's position is not supportable. In the latter case you have a few choices how to proceed dependent on the nature of your relationship with the students, choices that would seem obvious.
One or two sentences down from the translation in question BVT give more standard translation of the same verse"
“O Brahmä, I am explaining to you this most confidential
jïäna of Myself, the vijïäna with which it is endowed, its
rahasya, and all of its aìgas (components). Accept all of this from
Me.”
It seems to me that the book itself is confusing at this point.
As for the question as to how to deal with students of an acarya who says something that does not jive with your understanding of the philosophy, I would simply ask them how he or she arrived at such an understanding and discuss respectfully with them until you are satisfied that the acarya's understanding is scripturally plausible or you conclude that the acarya's position is not supportable. In the latter case you have a few choices how to proceed dependent on the nature of your relationship with the students, choices that would seem obvious.
This was related to my question when I asked that the first rishis to whom vedic mantras (like gayatri to vishwamitra) or upanishads were revealed did not have any scripture to support their revelation. It was the first revelation of the sruti to them, so there is some point at which even the acaraya can receive direct revelation from Krsna or Brahma. We just try the benevolence of the rishis of the times bygone and we have to do the same now.
This was related to my question when I asked that the first rishis to whom vedic mantras (like gayatri to vishwamitra) or upanishads were revealed did not have any scripture to support their revelation. It was the first revelation of the sruti to them, so there is some point at which even the acaraya can receive direct revelation from Krsna or Brahma. We just try the benevolence of the rishis of the times bygone and we have to do the same now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka_Sampradaya. For example Narada revealed the truth to Nimbarkacarya directly about Radha and Krsna. It was in some ways outside the canon of existing scripture.
Would it not be more appropriate to ask Narayan Maharaj about it? Is the text translated properly from Hindi?
I have often wondered whether some of the problems with NM's Jaiva Dharma may not be traced to translating his Bengali-to-Hindi translation into English. There's much I like about this edition, but there are several places where the writing is simply awkward. I have just decided to attribute those moments to the difficulty of multiple layers of translation. Translation is a real art best done by those very adept at using both languages.
If prema is the highest potency of jiva, isn't it possible from this perspective both translations to be correct?
It would be so sweet of Krishna telling us (the jivas) that we with our highest prospect for prema are his secret mystery! Sounds as a love confession of Krishna to jivas. And if he is making love confessions to Radha... and to the gopies... why not to jivas which are gopies in potential?
Such a love confession would provoke more love from jivas to him and isn't it what he wants? So he knows what to say to provoke jivas give him what he wants - their "butter" (prema). Sweet flatterer!
Did you mean prema is the "highest potential" of the jiva? Prema is a potency of Bhagavan, not the jiva.
If prema is the highest potency of jiva, isn't it possible from this perspective both translations to be correct?
Yes, sorry. This is what I was meaning, that prema is the highest potential of jiva.