Vyabhicāra-duṣṭāḥ and my philosophy of translation

A few days ago, a group of devotees connected to Jiva got the following letter:

Radhe Radhe to all devotees. Yesterday I finally got around to printing out the translation by Jagatji that Vilasaji had sent (below). However, I noticed that the translation of a key verse does not agree with me at all, even though the translation appears literally correct. The translation asserts that the gopis are 'sullied by the sin of adultery'. The gopis are not adulterous at all; their behavior only *seems so*. I reproduce Babaji's translation below Jagatji's for comparison.

Jagatji's translation:

kvemāḥ striyo vana-carīr vyabhicāra-duṣṭāḥ

kṛṣṇe kva caiṣa paramātmani rūḍha-bhāvaḥ

nanv īśvaro ’nubhajato’viduṣo’pi sākṣāc

chreyas tanoty agada-rāja ivopayuktaḥ

Contrast these forest-dwelling women, who have been sullied by the sin of adultery, with this ascended stage of love for the Supreme Soul, Krishna. Surely God brings the most direct auspicious benefit to those who worship him constantly, even if they do not have any knowledge, just like the king of medicines cures one who uses it [even without knowledge of how it works, etc.].

Babaji's translation from the Prīti Gīti book;

What is the status of these simple women who wander in the forest, seemingly of unchaste behavior, and how great is this mahābhāva for Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Self? There is a great difference between the two. Yet, it is true that Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa directly grants the ultimate welfare to one who constantly serves Him although the worshiper may be ignorant about His true nature, just like ambrosia, the king of medicines, cures an ailing person even if consumed without knowledge.

Words have meanings which they invoke in the mind. The meaning of the word adultery is: giving up one's husband for a lover. This meaning does not apply to: giving up one's husband, and accepting Krsna as one's lover (I am sure you have seen Sri Visvanatha's commentary).

Sri Jiva writes that vyabhicara is having desire for someone else other than Krsna. So vyabhicara-dustah applies to everyone other than the gopis- everyone else is adulterous, but not them.

Given the copious refutations by the acharyas, and most importantly, the context - Uddhava is prostrating himself before the gopis, and he is the topmost dharmic person who cannot even think of sin - I don't think it is imposing bias to interpret the words so that they do not convey a pratikūla meaning.

---

Radhe Radhe

In actual fact, your remarks illustrate exactly why I translate the way that I do.

I hope you understand that I try to present the Sandarbha translations in as literal a way as possible. This allows the commentator to elucidate doubts like the one expressed here. Naturally Jiva Goswami will not allow the accusation of adultery to stand. Yet, that is the whole magnificence of the gopis' bhakti is that they abandon family, society and the religious law in order to serve Krishna. So my translation is literally correct. Now the question is, is it permissible to project any biases onto the text when we translate it? This is a constant problem and one that has different levels or degrees of balance. The words vyabhicāra-duṣṭāḥ are clear. Their clarity was intended by the original author of the Bhāgavatam who understood full well the weight of his choice.

But please remember that my translations are, at least where Jiva and Babaji are concerned, specific to the Sandarbhas.

In the Sandarbhas, Jiva Goswami cites verses from the Bhāgavatam that often have immediate meanings that go contrary to the Vaishnava siddhānta or ruci. This would have applied in the 16th century as much as it does now. In fact, it is a recognized characteristic of the Bhāgavatam, and indeed of the rishis and Bhagavān Himself. to whom the parokṣa-vāda is dear.

Those verses are therefore in need of commentary and elucidation according to the understanding of our ṭīkākāras. The Bhāgavatam would likely never have become so influential if it hadn't been for the commentary of Sridhara Swami, who dealt with many questions like the ones you are troubled by, clarifying contradictions and inconsistencies, as well as obscure meanings of words. And there are a lot of those in the Bhāgavatam. You blame my translation instead of blaming the Bhāgavatam or Vyasa!

To translate the interpreted meaning instead of the actual words of the Bhagavatam as they are renders the commentary irrelevant and would further result in confusion for the English reader, who would wonder what the point of the commentary was at all if it is just repeating what was already said in the verse. And one with a little knowledge will look at the translation and say, "Hey, this is not in the verse. This is not what it says!"

This was particularly problematic with Kushakratha's translations [and, I believe, Babaji's early first drafts]. They used the BBT translations of Bhāgavata verses I suppose out of respect for Prabhupada and in feeling that the translation should be standardized, like the King James Bible or something. The BBT translations are generally full of extra material, however, which frequently resulted in complete confusion when reading those translations in the context of the Sandarbhas.

Sri Jiva does have a precise thought process that we try to follow. We assume that he does not quote a verse out of place. Often, he only quotes verses partially, precisely because he does not want to clutter his argument with extraneous material.

For the historically interested student, this makes a lot of sense. It allows you to see more clearly how the commentators are thinking and disagreeing with each other to establish more and more profound siddhāntas.

The imperative of the scholastic system, however, insists that the scriptures be the authoritative source of any interpretation that they make. This occasionally requires that a text's words' meanings are stretched in order to fit them. A translation of a work of this character should reflect what is going on in the mind of the author AND the commentator.

In order to bring our work on the pivotal theological opus of our sampradāya to the level of scholarly sophistication that Babaji Maharaj wishes to achieve, in order to gain widespread acceptance for it in the scholarly community as an authentic rendition of Jiva Goswami's thought, to put into view the magnificence of his presentation as a thinker, and so that his stature as a scholar and a teacher of prema-dharma be more fully understood by all, we are best served by this approach.

That is, the most honest and helpful approach would be not to hide the immediate meanings of the words of the Bhāgavatam in order to placate the prejudices of some and thereby obscure the intent of Jiva Goswami's purports. And, of course, our Babaji Mahashaya masterfully follows up to clarify more fully what JG often says in very succinct or abbreviated manner.

Of course in a songbook the principles of translation would be different because the purpose and the functional audience are different. In such a case, it makes sense to use a translation that has been given the slant that the teacher desires.

To put it another way is that we go to the abhidhā vr̥tti or literal meaning and stick to that for as long as it is possible. Lakṣaṇā is a natural reaction of the mind when abhidhā proves inadequate to making sense of the complete thought. Nevertheless, lakṣaṇā still has something to do with abhidhā vr̥tti. The cowherd village might not be IN the Ganga, but it certainly has something to do with the Ganga. Vyañjanā is where the commentator's role becomes necessary and his own voice comes out.

Jai Sri Radhe.