tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post1905894197859077083..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: Guru Vāchaka Kōvai – a new translation by TV Venkatasubramanian, Robert Butler and David GodmanMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60081105271038341742008-11-30T07:22:00.000+00:002008-11-30T07:22:00.000+00:00But for the lengthy explanatory notes in many plac...But for the lengthy explanatory notes in many places, which may not be needed for a self-explanatory work appealing to the intuition of man than the intellect demanding such explanations, the translation by the trio of Venkatasubramanian, David and Robert Butler, is very elegant and simple. But if you fortunately happen to know Tamil and read the prose rendering of Sadu OM, ,I feel that it is sufficient. Every attempt to convey the meaning of Kovai, be it the original poetry or the rendering in prose by Om Swamy, is only a feeble effort to convey the teachings, but nevertheless very praise-worthy. None can do justice to the original prose rendering of Sadu OM, who made it possible to understand the tough poetry of Murugnar. The difficulty in correctly translating OM Swami's rendition is the fact that the true import runs intact through the entire thread of the words used by him in long complex sentences, which might pursuade one that the translation would be alright if you break them into simple sentences for achieving brevity, which, I think<BR/>is a fatal error that any complacent translator might commit. The breaking the seemless thread of the spiritual message into several parts deprives it of its spiritual wholeness. None can do justice to the rendition of Sadu Om. But we must be greatful to all who have made fine efforts in this regard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-33425463766627174442008-11-27T11:08:00.000+00:002008-11-27T11:08:00.000+00:00Thank you, Haramurthi, for this second comment of ...Thank you, Haramurthi, for this <A HREF="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/11/guru-vchaka-kvai-new-translation-by-tv.html?showComment=1227453060000#c3145272427771916334" REL="nofollow">second comment</A> of yours, particularly for your interesting explanation about the range of meanings for the word <I>gati</I> as it is used in the <I>Bhagavad Gita</I>.<BR/><BR/>In a separate article, <A HREF="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/11/advaita-sadhana-non-dualistic-spiritual.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Advaita sadhana</I> – non-dualistic spiritual practice</A>, I have written some reflections about what you have written in the last few paragraphs of your <A HREF="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/11/guru-vchaka-kvai-new-translation-by-tv.html?showComment=1227453060000#c3145272427771916334" REL="nofollow">comment</A>. I hope that you find what I have written there to be useful, and that in the light of the verses of <I>Ulladu Narpadu</I>, <I>Upadesa Undiyar</I> and <I>Guru Vachaka Kovai</I> that I have quoted or referred to, you may decide to reconsider some of the views that you have expressed here.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-31452724277719163342008-11-23T15:11:00.000+00:002008-11-23T15:11:00.000+00:00Thanks again, Michael, for your kind response both...Thanks again, Michael, for your kind response both here (above) and in connection with discussing Sri Muruganar's urai. <BR/>Of course, anticipating doing a word-for-word explanation for the whole of the Guru Vachaka Kovai seems almost too overwhelming even to start with it. But, in fact, you did already start -- a sure indication (if you allow me to be so naughty to point it out in this way) that Sri Bhagavan already has seen the necessity to let you proceed with it, being perfectly aware that you are able to do so, and rather enjoying of finding a particular feature of himself reflected in your manner of handling texts in such a sensitive way of being conscientiously concerned about every subtle detail. It seems obvious that for your consciousness the Guru Vachaka Kovai is also a medium to be intimately in touch with this space pervading the waves of reflection that rise and fall within in. Well, there is no need to anticipate doing the whole and none to formally stick to a particular sequence, or to expand treatments beyond a clarification of the padas plus a recollecting it in a translation (as done for GVK 579). However far you'll reach, its basic validity will be of a more timeless quality than that of any, more or less idiosyncratic, translation. And the Guru Vachaka Kovai, along with a growing number of hitherto contracted forms of self-awareness appreciating semantic aids promoting decontraction, is bound to become a Classic.<BR/><BR/>Given, in your response above and while providing an explanation of the urai, you are, in a sense, particularly concerned about the interpretation of gati, it may be assumed that you grant that there is a spectrum of hermeneutic possibilities even while you are interested in narrowing down this spectrum into what is reasonably pertinent with regard to GVK 579.<BR/><BR/>Partially the difficulties arise from the fact that the noun gati, derived from the Skt. root "gam-" (to go, to walk), basically means "a walk", but has from early on been metaphorically employed to refer to more abstract notions in various religious traditions. Thereby the term has assumed a predominantly metaphorical or existential meaning, somewhat corresponding to what happens when we speak of different "walks of life" to refer to the phenomenon of how, say, individual karmatic propensities are unfolding.<BR/>In the Indian context, gati has moreover become strongly connected to the notion of getting reborn into different realms or form of existence (deva, animal, ghost, human, hell-being, and so on). This Buddhist model of a "Wheel of Existence" (bhavacakra; check in Google) provides a good impression of the semantic crystallisation of gati in that tradition.<BR/><BR/>But, to stay with the Hindu tradition, one of its most popular (hence semantically also normative) texts, the Bhagavadgita (BhG), has an interesting range of employing the term gati, in various contexts, while in fact basically assuming its meaning to be that of a "state or mode of existence" (somewhat similar to, though dogmatically less crystallised as compared with, the one of the Buddhist tradition). At the same time, the contextual employment of the term gati in the Gita shows, how easily the basic meaning may have developed derivative associations (such as destiny, goal, refuge, etcetera) in people -- that is, particularly associations implying a "something to be reached" in future.<BR/>In accordance with the model of getting reborn into different modes/forms/stages of existence, Shankara, in his commentary on BhG 9.18, glosses gati with the notion of of karmaphala, "fruit of [one's] karma (= intentional action)". The underlying notion is that there are forms of sugati, "good modes of existence" and of durgati, "bad modes of existence", in the Gita also designated as white and black forms of gati (see BhG 8.26). These circumstances allow Krishna, in BhG 6.40, to console anybody who believes in him and performs good deeds that neither here in this life (iha) nor in the next one (amutra) s/he will go to any bad mode of existence (durgati). Evildoers, on the other hand, are likely to enter more undivine wombs (asuriyoni) and may, guided by their delusions, birth after birth, pass into the one or other "meanest mode of existence" (adhama gati) [BhG 16.19-20]; Shankara glosses adhama with the term nikRSTama, "lowest, vilest, most vulgar".<BR/>However, the Bhagavadgita is naturally rather celebrating the other end of possible gatis to achieve, that of the highest or ultimate mode/state of existence. The phrase yAti parA.m gatim, "s/he attains the ultimate mode/state of existence" occurs several times in the Gita (in various chapters). At BhG 6.45, a Yogin, purified after striving for perfection in many rebirths, finally attains the ultimate mode/stage of existence (see also BhG 8.12-12; 13.28; 16.22). Commenting on BhG 16.23, Shankara explains this highest mode of existence to correspond to either svarga (heaven) or mokSa (liberation). Of course, the Gita itself has also passages with a more theistic bend to offer, letting Krishna speak of himself as the ultimate mode of existence (uttama- gati-; BhG 7.18), basically accessible through devotion also to people from less priviledged backgrounds (BhG 9.32).<BR/>Thus, in most cases, gati as a mode of existence implies motion of a process of life; but in contrast to such manifested forms, the Gita likewise knows of an "unmanifested mode of existence" (avyaktA gati; BhG 12.5) -- corresponding to the Imperishable (akSara) -- that is difficult to bereached/perceived by beings generally identified with their embodiment.<BR/>It goes without saying that the innumerable translators of the Gita mostly preferred to follow their own associations rather than caring all too much for carrying out adequate terminological investigations.<BR/><BR/>With regard to the present verse GVK 579, there is another problem besides the strictly lexicographical one.<BR/>In my view, this verse has a very pronounced non-dualistic emphasis, it speaks from the non-dual perspective: there is simply no mode of existence ever apart from the Self --- and then it explicates a mode of existence under the aspect of a path/means for attaining something and under the aspect of being the result of actions (karmaphala), here technically designated as upeya, that which may be attained by some means. And all this is ever already inseparable from the Self --- a suggestion which, at least for an awareness deeply engaged in a sAdhana (e.g. of self-enquiry), has profound implications!<BR/>If a translator suddenly introduces the essentially dualistic notion of a "refuge", it means turning the verse into partially speaking from the altogether unenlightened perspective of a self-estranged and confusing consciousness, thereby actually destroying the sublime beauty, suggestiveness and logical integrity of the verse.<BR/>It may be part of the agenda, say, of Christian piety to adopt its phantasy of a god as a consoling refuge, but it is less sure whether such a model and its implication, to quote Michael, of "clinging firmly to self as our sole refuge" is a particularly useful strategy in terms of an Advaitic practice, to say nothing of being the "only" method.<BR/><BR/>As Atmavidya has little to do with social sciences, it may perhaps also be advisable to be somewhat careful with a social notion such as "our".<BR/>Where Self is there is no "our", where "our" is there is no Self.<BR/>Where "our" is, there are thoughts, and there may be thoughts and phantasies about notions related to the word "self" --- but there is no Self as actualised presence. Regular employment of the social term "our" in the context of Atmavidya-discourse tends to reconfirm a presumed validity of the priority of ignorance; it is subtly self-defeating.<BR/><BR/>Having merely tried to to elucidate some aspects implied in my translation of GVK 579 --- utterly dependent on (and persistently grateful for) Michael's word-for-word explanations, but deviating from his subsequent elaborations --- there is admittedly little indulgence in expecting much of a sort of general agreement achieved among beings, who by their very nature cannot but manifest as a diversity of hermeneutic modes of understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51050663591797623902008-11-19T21:46:00.000+00:002008-11-19T21:46:00.000+00:00Today I have written a continuation of this articl...Today I have written a continuation of this article, <A HREF="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/11/guru-vachaka-kovai-verse-579-and.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Guru Vachaka Kovai</I> verse 579 and <I>Anubhuti Venba</I> verse 610</A>, in which I have translated and discussed the brief <I>urai</I> (explanation) that Sri Muruganar wrote for verse 579 of <I>Guru Vāchaka Kōvai</I> in <I>Anubhūti Veṇbā</I>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-50279008297899908782008-11-17T20:37:00.000+00:002008-11-17T20:37:00.000+00:00In reply to the above comment by Haramurthi:Thank ...In reply to the above <A HREF="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/11/guru-vchaka-kvai-new-translation-by-tv.html?showComment=1226882520000#c8154111215694738666" REL="nofollow">comment</A> by Haramurthi:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your suggestion. I do not know if or when Sri Bhagavan will ever give me the time to write a word-for-word translation of each of the verses, but if he ever does enable me to do so, I will certainly consider posting my translation and explanation of each verse on this blog as I go along.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your paraphrase of verse 579, which you give at the end of your comment, it conveys the general idea of the verse quite clearly and correctly. The only point in it that I would like to comment upon is your choice of the words ‘mode of existence’ to convey the meaning of <I>gati</I>.<BR/><BR/>Though a state or mode of existence is one of the many meanings of <I>gati</I>, as I explained in this article, it is probably not the most appropriate meaning for it in this context. Since the central truth expressed in this verse is that not only our goal but even the path by which we can reach that goal is only self, the most appropriate interpretation of <I>gati</I> here is either ‘path’ or ‘goal’.<BR/><BR/>Venkatasubramanian, Robert and David took <I>gati</I> to mean ‘final goal’, which is certainly not wrong, but personally I prefer the meaning given by Sri Sadhu Om, namely வழி (<I>vazhi</I>), which means ‘way’, ‘path’ or ‘means’, because I feel that the main emphasis in this verse is not on the fact our goal is only self (since anyone reading <I>Guru Vachaka Kovai</I> would presumably have understood this truth already) but on the fact that even the path to attain self is only self.<BR/><BR/>Though it is not expressed explicitly, there is a causal connection implied between the first and second clauses of this verse. That is, since our real self is absolutely non-dual — devoid of anything other than itself — there is no way to attain it other than itself. If we could really attain self by any means other than self itself, self would not be perfectly non-dual.<BR/><BR/>Another appropriate meaning of <I>gati</I> in this context is ‘refuge’, which can be understood as meaning both the means and the goal. If we sincerely wish to attain self and thereby escape from all the suffering that arises from our illusory experience of duality, there is no refuge or recourse for us other than self itself.<BR/><BR/>Only by clinging firmly to self as our sole refuge can we merge and lose our false self in our real self, escaping thereby from all the delusive dangers of <I>māyā</I>. Thus self is both our final goal and the only means by which we can reach that goal.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-81541112156947386662008-11-17T00:42:00.000+00:002008-11-17T00:42:00.000+00:00To me this explanation of verse 579 appears as a r...To me this explanation of verse 579 appears as a remarkable example of clarity; especially the word-by-word, pada-by-pada, translation followed by a literal, syntactically adequate, translation is able to connect the reader (speaking at least for myself), both semantically and in fact experientially, with the original much closer than the one by Venkatasubramanian, Robert and David (although the latter has its own suggestive beauty) -- perhaps a sign of superiority, certainly in terms of philological honesty.<BR/><BR/>If you, dear Michael, endowed as you are with such excellent linguistic skills (what else to say?), anyway intend to produce a word-for-word translation of all the verses, wouldn’t it be a good idea to collect all of the verses done in the course of time in one place on your blog and let them, one by one, carry the fullness of meaning through the gates of mind of your readers into the presence of their own self-recognizing light?<BR/><BR/>There could even a sort of interactivity arise between vibrant selves (speaking from the point where what is there is reflected as minds) offering responses in form of what understanding was effected, semantically and metaphorically, affected by reading your wonderful display of so many facets and nuances of verbal meaning as there may echo in the background.<BR/><BR/>Removing the square brackets, but otherwise reflecting, as said, to your explanation, my understanding of this verse might be formulated as follows:<BR/><BR/>Because of the permanent Self’s non-dual nature,<BR/>[and] because of the fact that, apart from one’s Self,<BR/>there is no other mode of existence:<BR/>one’s Self itself is that which is to be attained by some means,<BR/>[and] one’s Self itself is the means of attainment<BR/>-- one should know these to be inseparable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com