<Back

Without Attachment
By Jayadvaita Swami
Posted September 29, 2004

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.57

yah—one who; sarvatra—everywhere; anabhisnehah—without affection; tat—that; tat—that; prapya—achieving; subha—good; asubham—evil; na—never; abhinandati—praises; na—never; dvesti—envies; tasya—his; prajna—perfect knowledge; pratisthita—fixed.

He who is without attachment, who does not rejoice when he obtains good, nor lament when he obtains evil, is firmly fixed in perfect knowledge.

In the material world, one who is unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain, neither praising it nor despising it, is firmly fixed in perfect knowledge.

(In the material world) one who is without any affection either for the good or for the evil neither does pray or envy such things, such person is situated fixed consciousness.

Comment:

A critic complains:

"Here the principle of being without attachment is completely removed from Jayadvaita's translation. Of course he may say he has some secret manuscript he has got this information from or he may have studied the Sanskrit and by his great learning in the Sanskrit language decided there was no attachment in the original Sanskrit. But where did he get the authority from to retranslate this verse?"

My response:

I'll answer all the critic's points. But let's go step by step.

First: As a reader, when I look at a verse carefully I want to see how Srila Prabhupada derives his translation from the Sanskrit. And my key for this is the word-for-word meanings he provides. But with this verse—as with many others—in the first edition the translations and word meanings don't match. Why not? Because Srila Prabhupada's original translation has been largely discarded.

Let's look more closely.

The translation in the first edition apparently renders the word "abhinandati" as "rejoices"—a valid meaning for the word, but not the one Srila Prabhupada chose.

In the word-for-word meaning for "abhinandati," the first edition has "prays." But that's a simple error. As the Sanskrit dictionary confirms, it should be "praises." As Srila Prabhupada said in a lecture on texts 2.55-58 (April 15, 1966, New York), "Now, na—na abhinandati. Now, suppose one has done very marvelous work. So we should not be very much enthusiastic to praise for such work."

The second edition sets this right.

Again, in the first edition the word "dvesti" becomes "laments." But as far as I know, that's not what the word means, nor what Srila Prabhupada says it means. The word comes from the root "dvish," which according to the Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary means "to hate, show hatred against, be hostile or unfriendly, to be a rival or a match for."

Srila Prabhupada, in this verse and elsewhere, gives the meaning "envies." Does that seem strange to you? I've had many devotees ask me about his use of that word. Here's my explanation.

Srila Prabhupada, it seems, uses the word "envy" in an older sense, a sense which matches the Sanskrit dictionary's definition for "dvesti." That sense is recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary (though marked as obsolete): "To feel a grudge against (a person); to regard (a person or an action) with dislike or disapproval." Roughly: to hate.

Here again, therefore, the second edition, which says "despises" rather than "laments," is closer to Srila Prabhupada.

Now we come to the point brought up by the critic: "Here the principle of being without attachment is completely removed. . ."

In Srila Prabhupada's original manuscript for this verse, "the principle of being without attachment" never appears.

Yet in the first edition, there it is—"without attachment." And it appears to stand on its own, as if mentioned as a separate quality: "the principle of being without attachment."

What's going on?

The word in question here is "anabhisneha." In Srila Prabhupada's original, and in the Sanskrit, it's clear that "anabhisneha" doesn't stand alone. It goes with the words "tat tat prapya subhasubham" (the good and evil one obtains). So if "without attachment" are the words to be used, we should see something like "without attachment to the good and evil one obtains." Which we don't. (And which, anyway, when it comes to "evil," would sound mighty strange. "Attachment to the evil one obtains"?) Instead, in the first edition, we see—wrongly—what the critic objects to having removed: "the principle of being without attachment."

Now, what does the word "anabhisneha" actually mean? It's the opposite of "abhi-sneha," which the Monier-Williams Dictionary defines as "affection, desire." (The root is "sneha"—"tenderness, love, attachment to, fondness or affection for," and so on.)

Commenting on this verse of the Gita (in the same lecture quoted above), Srila Prabhupada speaks of "affection":

"Now, our affection between ourself is due to this body. . . . One who does not identify with this body, therefore his bodily affection also diminishes."

Well, the word "attachment" isn't far off. But can we get closer to what Srila Prabhupada said?

Why not another form of the same word he used himself—"affection"? The word "affected" can mean "moved, influenced, or touched in the feelings; usually to sympathy, sorrow, or sadness." So "unaffected" means "not affected or influenced in mind or feeling; untouched, unmoved." And since the verse speaks of both good and evil, "unaffected" works reasonably well. A Krsna conscious person is "unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain."

In the beginning of the purport, when Srila Prabhupada originally spoke of one who is "with out any affection for the good or evil," Hayagriva Prabhu chose the same solution: "who is unaffected by good and evil."

And later in the purport Srila Prabhupada himself says, "one who is fixed in Krsna consciousness is not affected by good and evil."

So now you know what happened to "the principle of being without attachment." It's not that I have "great learning in the Sanskrit language" (though I do know how to use the dictionary). Yes, it was my fidelity to the original words of Srila Prabhupada, as found in that not-so-secret manuscript, the one typed by Srila Prabhupada himself.

And where did I get "the authority to retranslate this verse"? That question I've answered elsewhere: Srila Prabhupada personally told me, "Closer to what I have said? Then it is all right."

My apologies for the length of this text. The critic raised more questions than he knew.

Hare Krsna.

This message also appears on the following web page:

http://www.krishna.com/newsite/main.php?id=242

Interested in the differences between the first and second editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is? You'll find more than 175 examples at the "Gita Revisions Explained" website, at this address:

http://www.krishna.com/newsite/main.php?id=288

There you'll see the published versions side by side with the text of the original manuscripts. And the graphic format of the web helps you see at a glance what the revisions are and where they're coming from.

For anyone who has concerns about the editing of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, this is a must-see.

Also worth seeing:

"Bhagavatam Revisions Examined"

http://www.krishna.com/newsite/main.php?id=286

This is an "information-only" conference, not a discussion conference. The only person who can post texts to it is me. (Queries and comments may be sent to me privately.)

The conference is public. If you are a member of the PAMHO e-mail system, you can join or leave it on your own—no need to send a request to the Sysop or to me. E-mail users who are not on PAMHO can join or leave the conference by sending me a request at <jayadvaita.swami@pamho.net>.

The First and Second Editions of Bhagavad-gita As It Is are © 1972, 1983 by The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Except where I have included quotations from non-BBT sources, the rest of this message, and of the conference as a whole, is © 1999-2004 by The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. All rights reserved.

Hare Krsna.

© dipika.org September 29, 2004

Send articles to news@dipika.org  
Send comments to webmaster@dipika.org 

All rights reserved. Copyright © 2002 - 2004 by www.dipika.org