Preface to Sri Madhva’s Commentary on Bhagavad Gita .
In my study of the commentaries on Bhagavad Gita by many commentators, I was surprised to see that I could get hardly any good word to word translation in English language of Sri Madhva’s Bhashya (commentary) and Tatparya Nirnaya (summation). Therefore in 1995, when I took Sri Madhva’s text for study and attempted translation in English language with few explanatory notes according to my own limited understanding and receptivity, even though I was aware that I was not qualified nor am I even now qualified to know Sri Madhva’s mind, still traversing the Path walking through woods, dark and deep, thick foliage hiding the luminous Path. While many appreciated the book with strange feeling, and sensation of satisfaction going through their subconscious mind, as they informed, few burdened with their traditionally accepted Knowledge questioned my qualification to translate the Bhashya and Tatparya Nirnaya, using words which according to them "do not explain Gita as Sri Madhva understood and wanted to convey. Therefore my attempt did not bring out the spirit of the Bhashya and Tatparya, in the translation of the verses, the author taking the readers for a ride thinking that the verses give Madhvacharya’s meaning of the verses, having bungled and made a mess of Madhva’s thought . . . About the terminology, they are inexact, fanciful and far from correct".
As a student of Vedic scriptures and Upanishads, I have observed that the seers have always declared that the supreme, unheard and unhearable, the unknown and unknowable, the eternal Vak, Anahata Aumkara is Para, which only exceptionally sensitive seers have perceived, experienced as Pashyanti never ever can be spoken or documented faithfully, fully and in entirety declaring that both speech along with the mind returns without achieving the sa,e - "yatao vaacaao inavat-nto Ap`aPya manasaa sah | AanandM ba`*maNaao ivaWana\ |". Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that the Seers or the Acharyas speak of Satya, the Prime Existence. They do not, in fact they can not because that is impossible. Because that which is experienced within the heart in silence cannot be expressed outwardly in words. One can therefore speak of Brahman only if one experiences Brahman as the seer did experience. .
For the seers Vak, Anahata Aumkara is more important than the words in the scriptures, sound more than the symbol. They have seen and experienced Satya, the Prime Existence. and heard Satya, the Prime Existence. Therefore, seers do not depend so much on words as they do on sound, not so much on intellect as they on the heart. Man is not the finished, the actual, the ultimate but the potential, growing and evolving, the seed, not the tree. Nature has done job, now the man to do what is needed to be done. One an ordinary caterpillar the seeker became seer transformed as a butterfly. The Seers and the Acharyas know how they became transformed and how the seekers can become transformed. Therefore, they point out, indicate, direct attention, provoke, shake you up, awaken the dead or sumbering consciousness to be proactive, receptive to the resonance of the Vak, Anahata Aumkara, which is beyond words. Since all are not capable being receptive to Vak, Anahata Aumkara, in spite of it being his source, reverberating and being energized, seers out of compassion have tried to articulate and express in words, using vaikhari, the language spoken by masses, which though insufficient and not exact as the ii
language of the science, is suggestive providing many alternative meaning, suitable and sufficient as a pointer, indicator that directs ones attention seeking to unravel what they experienced transcending time according to the receptivity of the seeker though without much success, as appears from the multiplicity of additional commentaries that are required.
Knowledge through scriptures and commentaries are good so long as they do not bind mind but liberate to have vibrant receptivity and access fresh perception. Receptivity, reflection and meditation solely dependent on Knowledge contained in scriptures and commentaries defeat the purpose if the mind conditioned by the experiences, information, thoughts and traditional views secreted in mind since past or the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the future gives rise to his power to discrimination, rationalization and intellectualization becoming barriers and hurdles. Receptivity, reflection and meditation on Knowledge contained in scriptures and commentaries with unfettered and unconditioned become good and useful making one humble liberate the primary Mind from the experiences, information and thoughts secreted since past or the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the future and his power of discrimination, rationalization and intellectualization.
After reading many commentaries on Gita I felt the need to revise Sri Madhva’s Bhashya and Tatparya Nirnaya providing the original text in Sanskrit and translation in English. Since the book as originally conceived contained my own response to the Bhashya and Tatparya Nirnaya without knowing or explaining as Sri Madhva understood and wanted to convey, as speciously pointed out by the learned critic, I decided to eliminate my explanatory notes provided by me, so that the readers may not think that those views represent the truly Sri Madhva’s meaning of the verses, having bungled and made a mess of Madhva’s thought in earlier edition. This would enable the readers and sincere seekers to respond with mind unconditioned and unburdened by my explanatory notes and being taken for a ride thinking that the verses give Madhvacharya’s meaning of the verses,
Therefore, if I say that the book which I place before the seekers does not contain any errors I will be lying, knowing well from vedic scriptures that though Satya, the Prime Existence was One, seers have fashioned (and Acharyas have explained) it variously – "ekM sad\ ivap`a bahuQaa vadintM | " or "saupNa-: ivap`a: kvayaao vacaaoiBar\ ekM santM bahuQaaklpyaint |" and though the seers sent the first and foremost Speech – vaak\, giving names to their immaculate visions and revealing the divine luminosity therein, sifting with spirit as they sift the flour with the sieve, there are those who do not see vaak\, even when seeing, do not listen even when they hear, though all are equally endowed with sight and hearing and are equal in quickness in spirit. For some the immaculate Speech – vaak\, reaches only up to a point, while others revel fully therein. Some being enlightened and wise leave far behind those who boasting to be Brahmins, wise in wisdom. Thus have the vedic scriptures (Rigveda X.) have variously recoded, thus pointing out the difference between being informed and Knowledgeable and being enlightened to the Wisdom pf the Wise.
As far as I am concerned, I say ad admit without slightest hesitation as Socrates declared - "I know that I know not, while others do not know that they know not". Therefore, if there are errors in the transcribed text of Sri Madhva’s Bhashya or Tatparya Nirnaya or any where in the iii
books, let them neither be accepted nor commented but let the seekers brush aside these as hurdles and barriers, traversing further of the Path of Perfection. I have completed Eighty years of my empirical life and hear Death’s silent, muted footsteps slowing creeping towards me. Therefore, before Death lays its cold, icy hands on my mortal body let me restate and affirm what I had earlier mentioned in the Epilogue attached to my earlier edition of the translation of Sri Madhva’s Bhashya (commentary) and Tatparya Nirnaya (summation).
In the present age where receptivity has given place to skepticism, where purity of mind denies clarity of vision of the Self within in the present moment by the mind obsessed by thoughts secreted since past and aspirations for future. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
I have tried to be receptive to the visions of the seers and clarity of the wise, the clarifications of the commentators and the songs of the saints, relating myself to Rta, the ancient Law and Dharma, the perennial principles. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
I have tried to believe in the presence of Satya, the Prime Existence in every thing that is in creation and potentiality of my self to become blessed by the Bliss of Beatitude of the divine resplendence, knowing that the longest reach to Satya, the Prime Existence is the shortest to the heart within. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
I believe religion to be the response of the heart and not of the mind intensely personal, proactive to be reveled within in solitude of the self. I believe my outward expressions should reflect my inward experience. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
I believe in the Grace of the Lord to reveal his presence in every thing that is in creation with clarity, in certainty and in abundance. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
I believe in the words of earlier adepts and if I appear to disagree with them then it is because I would prefer to have my own experiences, respecting my own responses rather on borrowed words of experience of earlier adepts. Therefore I do not see any contradiction between what I believe and what I express. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
When I observe what I have experienced and what I have express is not different and others to have similarly experienced and expressed. And what I have expressed and written is expressed and written by others, their words echoing in my mind even as the words of the earlier adepts did echo in the minds of latter adepts. I do not see any contradiction in this statement. But iv
I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
I believe that my experiences are my responses and what I express is what I experience. I have reveled in my experiences and have found satisfaction in my expressions. If they appear to differ from the experiences and expressions of others I need doubt neither my experiences and expressions not the experiences and expressions of others. I believe that only I can be Witness to my experiences and expressions and others are Witness to their experiences and expressions. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
This is indeed and insufficient world, inefficient world, imperfect world. If any of my expressions are found inadequate to declare my experiences and there3fore unacceptable, then let that very fact may make my seeking more deep and sincere, my perception more sharp and focused so that I may attain that which is worth attaining. But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail.
I think I should do what is natural for me to do according to my attributes and inclination. Can an antelope climb the tree? Can the leopard change its spots? But I often feel a sense of failure but no one can deny me the right to say that I have made a tryst with my own self and that having tried I will surely not fail. If some say that I have not succeeded then they know not and will never know how much I have tried.
Kartik Purnima, Nagesh D. Sonde
10th November, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment