Bhagavat-sandarbha readings

I have been working on Satya Narayana Dasji's translation of Bhagavat-sandarbha with erratic assiduity over the past month. I haven't been getting as much done as I would like, as on occasion I reach bottlenecks, or passages in which I cannot understand how the translation relates to the original. Previous editing work has proved to be a major impediment and I have found it more useful to use Satya Narayanji's original work, which is for the most part correct, simple and straightforward.

Let it be said right away that Satyanarayana Dasaji is, as many already recognize, a Gaudiya scholar without equal anywhere in the English-speaking world. As the name of his institute clearly shows, he has committed himself to interpreting and disseminating the teachings of Jiva Goswami, and nowhere is this more evident than in those works that are most philosophical in nature.

In this, his work is independent and original, in the sense that he is not simply translating his own guru's version of Bhagavat-sandarbha or anyone else's. He is commenting on the text, making use of his own vast knowledge of the methods of Sanskrit argumentation as well as the six systems of Indian philosophy and their later interpreters. Thus there is no shortage of very useful references to Nyaya, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa, etc., where the categories used by those systems helps to understand Jiva's argument. This is the milieu within which Jiva was operating, and with which he would have been deeply familiar.

It is quite apparent that understanding the Bhagavat-sandarbha without the kind of background knowledge that Satyanarayana Dasaji possesses is pure wishful thinking. Nowhere is that more obvious in the attempts that a previous editor made to fulfill his mandate, which was was simply to clean up the English and make it presentable.

So what am I doing, besides cleaning up the mess? Well, principally, I am trying to make the text consistent and coherent. The way that Jiva writes the Sandarbhas is very methodical. He develops his argument on the basis of shlokas from the Bhāgavatam, supporting them with texts from other scriptures, etc. Basically, the anucchedas (sections) of the Sandarbhas are units of commentary surrounding these key Bhāgavata verses. But since they are usually structured as commentary, the work of translation has to approach the original verse free from assumptions that are taken from Jiva's commentaries. It will make more sense if we say, "the word 'honey' in the verse means 'sugar'" if we have translated the word as honey in the first place, and not as sugar. Anyhow, I am trying to do my best I can to make this invaluable work as nicely presented both for scholars and lay people.




==============

One of the things that I notice in reading Bhagavat-sandarbha, and about which I am still reserving judgment, is the sophistication of the argumentation, which is based on far more than simply quotation bullying, and the seemingly literalist attitude towards mythology.

Nevertheless, in terms of my own philosophy, I have found a couple of points to be particularly provoking. What follows is purely my own thinking and has nothing to do with Satya Narayan or anyone else.

Jiva starts the Bhagavat-sandarbha by quoting BhP 1.2.11, the vadanti verse, which is the Bhāgavata's point of theological departure and is definitely genius. When I was in Vrindavan before coming here, Satya Narayan Dasji gave a lecture in which he laughingly summarized the verse's meaning: "There is only one non-dual consciousness, which is called Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan according to the level of understanding of the transcendentalists."

Certainly the passage in Sanskrit right near the beginning is a most poetic summary of that point, given here with the current version of the translation:

तदेकमेवाखण्डानन्दस्वरूपं तत्त्वं थूत्कृत-पारमेष्ठ्यादिकानन्द-समुदयानां परमहंसानां साधनवशात् तादात्म्यमापन्ने सत्यामपि तदीय-स्वरूप-शक्ति-वैचित्र्यां तद्ग्रहणासामर्थ्ये चेतसि यथा सामान्यतो लक्षितं, तथैव स्फुरद्वा तद्वदेवाविविक्त-शक्ति-शक्तिमत्ता-भेदतया प्रतिपद्यमानं वा ब्रह्मेति शब्द्यते।

When those transcendentalists (paramahamsas) who have rejected all material pleasures even up to the happiness available to Lord Brahma, and who by ardent practice have realized their identity with the Absolute Reality, which is indivisible and blissful in nature, but whose hearts are unable to perceive the variegatedness displayed by Its internal potencies, experience It in an unspecific way, just as they sought It, in other words, when It is defined without any distinction between energies and Energetic, then the Absolute Truth is called Brahman.

अथ तदेकं तत्त्वं स्वरूपभूतयैव शक्त्या कमपि विशेषं धर्तुं परासामपि शक्तीनां मूलाश्रयरूपं तदनुभावानन्दसन्दोहान्तर्भावित-तादृशब्रह्मानन्दानां भागवत-परमहंसानां तथानुभवैक-साधकतम-तदीय-स्वरूपानन्द-शक्ति-विशेषात्मक-भक्ति-भावितेषु अन्तर्बहिरपीन्द्रियेषु परिस्फुरद्वा तद्वद्विविक्त-तादृश-शक्ति-शक्तिमत्ताभेदेन प्रतिपद्यमानं वा भगवान् इति शब्द्यते।

And that very same Absolute Truth is named Bhagavān, when as the resting place of all other transcendental energies, It takes on some specific characteristics by the power of Its internal potency and becomes revealed to the senses, both internal and external, of the devotee transcendentalists (bhāgavata-paramahamsas), for whom the entire universe has been colored by the bliss of such experience, whose senses have been imbued with devotion, itself a specific part of the internal pleasure potency and the only efficient means of giving them this realization, in other words, when it is thus defined according to the distinction made between energies and Energetic.

That is still a bit awkward, as these long Sanskrit sentences can become in translation when it is done as literally as possible.

As good Hindus, start from the principle that God is not limited to one particular form, and that he appears to different people according to their particular subjective attitude. God as an "objective" reality is purely a philosophical being; as a subjective reality, he is living in infinite different forms.