Suhotra Maharaja explains Bhagavad gita 12.12

Dear Maharaja,

Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am a student in Melbourne who visits the Melbourne Temple weekly
to attend (and sometimes preach in) a youth program that is held on
Saturdays.

I write to you expressing a doubt that I have had for quite some time -
it concerns the Sanskrit-to-English translation by Srila Prabhupada of
certain slokas of Bhagavad Gita As It Is, the following two slokas in
particular:

* 12.12: I always have a habit of trying to turn the word-for-word
transliteration into a full translation myself before I read a verse
translated by Srila Prabhupada. Normally when I do this, I
end up with my "own" translation being either identical with or extremely
close to Srila Prabhupada's translation. With sloka 12.12 of Bhagavad
Gita, however, not only was "my" translation not consistent with
Prabhupada's, but my translation of the first line of Sanskrit appeared
to be exactly opposite to the translation given by Srila Prabhupada. At
first I thought I was at error, but after much consultation I discovered
that my version of the first line of this verse was one that was commonly
accepted, even by the previous Vaisnava acaryas. What I still cannot
understand is how to make any connection between the given translation and
the Sanskrit words spoken by Krsna. I wonder whether you might just be
able to help me out in this regard.

* 3.9: In this famous verse the word "yajna" is translated as Visnu. Thus,
Prabhupada's translation suggests that any work other than work done for
Lord Visnu (including, I assume, work done for the demigods) causes
bondage to this material world. However, in the verses immediately following
3.9, the same word yajna clearly refers to sacrifice done for the
demigods. I simply cannot see how in one verse, Krsna can use yajna to
mean Lord Visnu, and then all of a sudden use the same word to refer to
sacrifice for the devas. Such a sudden change of meaning just does not
seem to be very logical. I understand that Krsna emphasises in later
chapters that He is the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices (and
therefore that He should be the object of all sacrifices), but this does
not seem to me to be Krsna's main emphasis in Chapter 3. So, my question is:
Why does not the "yajna" in Verse 3.9 refer to sacrifice for the demigods,
as it does in the rest of Chapter 3?

These are questions that have been on my mind for well over a year now,
and in a way they have impeded my steady growth in Krsna consciousness. I
hope that you might be able to find some time to answer them.

Please forgive me for any offenses I may have committed above.

Hare Krsna.

Your fallen servant,
Karuppiah Chockalingam

---------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Karuppiah,

Hare Krsna. Please accept my greetings. Thank you for your letter of
31 December.

Your question is about *sabda.* According to standard Sanskrit
dictionaries, *sabda* means "sound, noise, voice; speech, language;
right word, correct expression; name; verbal testimony, oral tradition,
verbal evidence."

*Sabda* is the manifestation (in thought and speech) of Goddess Vac,
the Veda-mata, Mother Veda personified. There are two statements in
the Rg-Veda concerning Vac which I would like to share with you here.

*Rig-Veda* 10.71.3:

*yajnena vaacah padaviiyam aayan taam
anv avindann rsisu pravistaam taam*

"By means of *yajna* (sacrifice), they followed the tracks of
Vac and found she had entered in the sages."

The second, from *Rig-Veda* 10.125.5, is spoken by Vac herself.

*yam kaamaye tam-tam ugram krnomi tam
brahmaanam tam rsim tam sumedhaam*

"He whom I love, that one I make terribly powerful, that one
I make a *brahmana*, that one a *rsi*, that one a wise sage."

The idea that I hope comes across in this *pramana* is that knowing
*sabda*, or Vac, is not a matter of academic scholarship. First of
all, seeking the true repose of *sabda* (taking its meaning to be "the
right word," since your questions focus on this concern) requires
sacrifice, like that described by Krsna in the verses leading up to Bg
4.34. Then, after having done sacrifice, one finds that *sabda*
(again, taking "the right word" as the meaning) is known only to the
sages. Now, who is a sage? One who is *ugram krnomi*, terribly
powerful with Vedic knowledge.

Srila Prabhupada once explained,

Not that I am talking something nonsense. It is
because...Sruti-pramanam. Whatever we talk, it must be
supported by Vedic injunction. Then it is right. Just like
we sometimes challenge these big, big scientists and others,
and what is our strength? I am not a scientist, but how I can
challenge? The Veda gaya. We are got evidence from the
Vedas. Just like so many people are thinking that the moon
planet is first. We are challenging, "No, moon planet is
second." What is the strength? The strength is Vedic
knowledge. We cannot accept it. So vede gaya yanhara carita.
Vedic knowledge is so perfect that you can challenge so many
scientists.

Srila Prabhupada's presentation of Bhagavad-gita is not one of academic
scholarship. It is one of empowerment by the Veda-mata herself.

Regarding the verses you mention, the English wording for Bg 12.12 is
congruent with Krsna's presentation elsewhere in the Gita. In 4.33,
the sacrifice of knowledge is said to be higher than the sacrifice of
material things. This is echoed in 12.11, where Krsna advises Arjuna
to give up the results of work and be self-situated (which presupposes
knowledge of the self). If Arjuna is unable to give up the results of
work, then in 12.12 the Lord says he should cultivate knowledge of the
self, since, as was explained in 4.37, knowledge burns up the reaction
to material work. Better than knowledge, however, is meditation, as
confirmed in 6.46 (the yogi is better than the tapasvi, jnani and karmi).
Better than yoga meditation is renunciation (sannyasa) of the fruits of
action, as confirmed in 6.2 (na hy asannyasta-sankalpo yogi bhavati
kascana).

As for your concern about yajna, since from the evidence of the 11th
chapter you can have no doubt that the devatas are angas (limbs) of
Lord Visnu's Visvarupa, then what is the use of trying to argue that
yajna in 3.9 refers only to the demigods and not to Visnu? This is not
logical. If you place a sweet in the hand (anga) of a child and tell
her, "This is for you," is it logical to insist that the "you" that you
mean is only her hand and not her mouth? In the Vedic sacrifices, the
flame of homa is Visnu's tongue. All the offerings go to Visnu, even
though the names of different devatas are chanted. It is exactly like
giving a child a sweet. You put can put it in her hand--it will go to
her mouth. You can also ask her to open wide and drop it directly into
her mouth. Doesn't matter.

Thank you for writing. I hope the above answers are satisfactory.

Suhotra Swami

------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Maharaja,

Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you very much for your detailed reply to my query on Srila
Prabhupada's translations. I hope you do not mind if I ask you a few
further questions.

I have no doubt that one needs special mercy and qualifications to
properly understand and translate a scriptural text from Sanskrit to
English (and therefore there are certain parts of Bhagavad-gita that
only a pure devotee or sage can properly grasp and explain). However,
surely any translation or explanation of a Sanskrit text must expand and
elaborate on the Sanskrit words at hand. To give a wild example of what
I'm trying to say (it certainly need not apply to Srila Prabhupada), in
an attempt to elaborate a Sanskrit verse a devotee/sage might give a
theory or explanation that is perfectly valid (and in-line with other
scriptures) in its own right, but has absolutely nothing to do with the
verse actually being discussed.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Prabhupada's understanding of the essense
of the vedas is impeccable. Therefore, the translations to Verses 3.9 and
12.12 of Bhagavad Gita As It Is may make perfect philosophical and
devotional sense of their own accord (as philosophical assertions). But
do they *accurately* represent what Krsna is trying to say in those
respective portions of the Gita? This is my question.

I understand that one needs special mercy (i.e. the favour of Veda-mata)
to properly explain a Sanskrit verse. But surely any explanation must
stem from the Sanskrit words of interest. In Bhagavad Gita Sloka 12.12
the first words Krsna uses (sreyo hi jnanam abhyasat) literally translate as
"Knowledge is better than practice". Prabhupada's first statement seems
to imply the opposite of this. True, Prabhupada's statements may be
consistent with the rest of Bhagavad Gita and, for that matter, the rest
of the Vedas. But is it consistent with Krsna's words in Verse 12.12
itself? This is my doubt.

As for Verse 3.9, yes, there is no doubt that by satisfying the stomach
all limbs are satisfied (and thus by satisfying Lord Visnu all demigods
are satisfied). Therefore, I have absolutely no trouble accepting
Prabhupada's translation to Verse 3.9 of Bhagavad Gita - as a statement in
its own right. But what word does Krsna use? "Yajna". Throughout the
Third Chapter it is clear that Krsna points to one main thing when he uses
the word "yajna" - sacrifice (for the devas). My question is: How is it
that, in one solitary verse, the same word yajna represents Lord Visnu?
Yes, by satisfying Visnu the demigods are automatically satisfied, but is this
Krsna's main emphasis in *Chapter 3*? In this particular verse, why isn't
Krsna being consistent with His statements in the rest of Chapter 3 by
referring to sacrifice (for the devas) with the word "yajna"?

Even though Krsna's instructions are confidential and not easy to
understand "as it is" without the help of someone qualified, I always
thought Krsna, being God, would employ some degree of logic and natural
flow of reason in His instructions. Inconsistencies in the flow of
reasoning from one verse to the next in certain chapters of Bhagavad Gita
As It Is has led me to ask you the questions that I have in this letter.
I hope you will forgive me for my sometimes open way of putting forward my
questions.

Hare Krsna.

Your servant,
Karuppiah
----------------------------------------------

Dear Karuppiah,

Hare Krsna. Thank you for your second letter. In it, you wrote:

>>In Bhagavad Gita Sloka 12.12 the first words Krsna uses (sreyo hi
jnanam abhyasat) literally translate as "Knowledge is better than
practice". Prabhupada's first statement seems to imply the opposite of
this.<<

I am glad you specified where you find the problem you see in Srila
Prabhupada's translation. That was not clear to me in your first letter.
But then again, now that you've specified it, I fail to follow why you see
this as a problem.

The plaintext rendition of the first line of Bg 12.12 is: "certainly
knowledge is better than *abhyasa.*" *Abhyasa* means, according to the
dictionary, "repeated exercise, discipline, habit, custom, repeated
reading, study, military practice, effort of the mind." What Prabhupada
says in his translation is a direct consequence of this, namely,
considering that knowledge is better than repeated exercise,
discipline, habit, custom, repeated reading, etc., "if you cannot take
to this practice, then engage yourself in the cultivation of
knowledge." Prabhupada's translation is not "exactly opposite to the
literal meaning of the first line," as you propose in your first
letter.

If you are wondering why, if it is admitted that knowledge is better, that
Prabhupada's rendition is "if you can't practice, then take to knowledge;"
why it doesn't flatly state "knowledge is superior, practice is lesser;" I
indicated the answer in my last letter. I wrote that in 12.11 Krsna
advises Arjuna to give up the results of work and be self-situated. That
He tells Arjuna *sarva karma phala tyagam* (give up all results of your
work) and *tatah kuru yatatmavan* (be self-situated) presupposes that
Arjuna has already cultivated knowledge of the self, in which he can be
self-situated as Lord Krsna directs. In the next verse, the point is that
if Arjuna does *not* have knowledge of the self, his *abhyasa* (practice
of *karma-phala-tyaga*) will be defective, because knowledge is
indeed better than the mere practice of the sacrifice of material
possessions. I noted in my last letter that 4.33 confirms this. What
Srila Prabhupada brings out in his translation is that if Arjuna has not
cultivated knowledge, he will be unsuccessful in giving up the results
of work--therefore the logical consequence is, "if you cannot take to
this practice" etc., because the *abhyasa* Krsna refers to presupposes
knowledge. You cannot deny that, because the word *yatatmavan* is used
in 12.11. One has to know *atman* to be situated in *atman.* Any number
of parallel examples could be given: medical practice, for instance.
The term "medical practice" presupposes that the practicioner is a
qualified doctor. If he is not, his practice is illegal. By law, he's
*unable* to take up such practice. The best advice for him is, "If you
are unable to take up medical practice, then engage yourself in
cultivating medical knowledge." Therefore in 12.12 the idea is that before
attempting to renounce, Arjuna should cultivate knowledge of the self,
since, as was explained in 4.37, such knowledge burns up the reaction to
material work. Meaning: now, without knowledge, you will not be
successful in renunciation, so there will be reaction--but if you get
knowledge, that reaction will be destroyed.

You have written that you expect to see "some degree of logic and
natural flow of reason" in Krsna's instructions. To my way of
understanding, Srila Prabhupada's translation is quite fitting to the
natural flow of reason throughout the 12th chapter and the entire
Bhagavad-gita. If you are suggesting that in 12.12 Krsna is saying
categorically that knowledge is better than *any* abhyasa, that breaks
the flow of reason in these verses, and in the Gita as a whole. Verse
12 follows verse 11. The natural flow of reason compels us to seek the
context of the *abhyasa* mentioned in 12 in the previous verse. The
*abhyasa* referred to in 11 is renunciation of the fruits of work; but
that is explicitly married to situation in the self. In 12, Lord Krsna
states that of these two, knowledge of the self is better. So Arjuna
should better get knowledge. *Then* he can practice. If your idea is
that Krsna means to say practice can be curtailed completely in favor of
knowledge, then what is the use of Krsna's conclusion that Arjuna must
fight? That would instead mean that Arjuna's proposal in chapters 1 and 2
to give up his duty as a ksatriya and become a nonviolent sadhu is
correct. The Gita is not in the category of a *jnana-kanda sastra*.
Therefore the conclusion of 12.12 is not that *jnana* is supreme over all
other practices, and that all other practices may be stopped when one has
*jnana*. Such an interpretation of this verse would be logically
incoherent, because Gita is undeniably a *bhakti-sastra*. Even in terms
of *jnana-kanda*, it would be incoherent, because the practice in question
is renunciation, and *jnana* is always associated with *vairagya*
(nonattachment). The proof of Arjuna's *jnana* would be seen in his
practice (*abhyasa*) of fighting without attachment. Anyway, *bhakti*
subsumes both *jnana* and *vairagya*. As Bhagavatam says,

vasudeve bhagavati
bhakti-yogah prayojitah
janayaty asu vairagyam
jnanam ca yad ahaitukam

TRANSLATION

By rendering devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead,
Sri Krsna, one immediately acquires causeless knowledge and detachment
from the world. (Bhag. 1.2.7)

Knowledge and detachment are included in *bhakti-yoga*. Arjuna's
devotional service to Krsna was to fight. Therein are two components: 1)
selfless duty (*vairagya*, renunciation of personal attachment to
results) and 2) transcendental knowledge (*jnana*). There is no
question of choosing one over the other. But if one has to muster
these components in order to get the determination to fight for Krsna,
one should start with *jnana*, because without *jnana*, *vairagya* will
be extremely difficult.

Regarding the word *yajna*, Gita 8.4 explains:

adhibhutam ksaro bhavah
purusas cadhidaivatam
adhiyajno 'ham evatra
dehe deha-bhrtam vara

"O best of the embodied beings, the physical nature, which is
constantly changing, is called adhibhuta [the material manifestation].
The universal form of the Lord, which includes all the demigods, like
those of the sun and moon, is called adhidaiva. And I, the Supreme
Lord, represented as the Supersoul in the heart of every embodied
being, am called adhiyajna [the Lord of sacrifice]."

In his Rig-Veda commentary, Madhvacarya explains that the names of the
demigods have three levels of meanings, corresponding to *adhi-
daivika,* *adhy-atmika,* and *adhi-bhautika.* The names Indra, Varuna
etc. on one level refer to qualities of Krsna. On another level, they
refer to the *angas* of the Visvarupa of the Lord, who are the cosmic
administrators. On yet another level, they refer to natural phenomena.
Thus Monier-Williams says that *yajna* means a name of Visnu, a name of
Indra, and worship, etc. In Treta-yuga *yajna* was the *yuga-dharma*
of worship of the Supreme Lord. It was also the worship of the
*devatas* who administer the departments of universal order. It was
also the way people related to nature in order to do agriculture, fight
against non-Aryas, etc., because *yajna* was the sonic technology of the
Vedic age. Which definition of *yajna* a person in Treta-yuga would favor
would be determined by the factors mentioned in *Bhag*. 5.11.11: *dravya-
svabhavasaya-karma-kalair*--the object (*dravya*) of his attraction, his
*svabhava* (conditioned nature), his *asaya* (culture), his *karma* and
the *kala* (time, place, circumstances). But since this same *Bhagavatam*
verses states, *ksetrajnato na mitho na svatah syuh*, these considerations
are not self-manifest, but are arranged by the Supreme Knower
(*ksetrajna*), then at the deeper level, *yajna* refers to Him only.

There is a timeless level of *sabda* known as *para-vak.* On this level,
*yajna* refers not to "a" *dharma* as it is defined in some particular
age, but to "the" *dharma,* the essence of all of the *yuga-dharmas* (the
root of *dharma* is *dhri*, which means "essence"). This essence is, as
Srila Prabhupada so often pointed out, service to the Supreme Lord. Thus
nowadays we have our *sankirtana-yajna.* The demigods are also included
even in this: *siva-suka-narada preme gadagada*: "Great personalities like
Siva, Sukadeva Gosvami and Narada Muni are overwhelmed in ecstacy by the
sankirtana of Lord Caitanya." However, though the demigod Siva is
mentioned in this line of *Gaura-arati*, it is not an essential conclusion
that since the complete understanding of the term *sankirtana-yajna*
includes Siva, therefore the complete performance of *sankirtana-yajna*
requires worship of Siva as per the Saiva-agamas.

We are not in Treta-yuga any longer nor is the Rig-Veda the main
*sastra* of our present age. We are certainly not restricted, in our
reading of Gita chapter 3, to only one level of Rig-Vedic meaning of
*yajna* as the names of the cosmic administrators. After all,
Bhagavad-gita was spoken at Kuruksetra 5,000 years ago, which was not
the Treta or Rig-Vedic age. In the Gita verse cited above, the Lord
specifically says *adhiyajno 'ham*, "I am Yajna." Krsna is not a
demigod. He is the Paramapurusa. So when He says in Gita "I am
Yajna," that is the primary meaning in the context not only of the
Gita but of all Vedic *sastras*, because *vedais ca sarvair aham eva
vedyah.*

If you see compelling reasons why *yajna* must only mean demigods
in the 3rd chapter, then again I question your understanding of the
flow of reason throughout Bhagavad-gita as a whole. We are not simply
discussing the meanings of words in some abstract academic context.
The *sabda* has consequences in life. So the consequence of your
interpretation (if I have understood it correctly) is that worship of
demigods is intrinsic to the complete meaning of *yajna* given by Krsna
in Bhagavad-gita. In other words, complete *bhakti-yoga* should
include demigod worship. Then what about the words *avidhi-purvakam*
Krsna uses in 9.23? Here demigod worship is rejected as being
incorrect *yajna* (the words *yajante* is used in this very verse).
You can't suck sugarcane and whistle at the same time. In Gita,
*yajna* means Visnu. It *can* mean demigod worship, on a *laukika*
(conventional) level. Krsna does use *yajna* in that way in ch 3, in
reference to the means given by Prajapati by which the material desires of
humanity might be satisfied. But nontheless, Yajna *does* mean Visnu at
the deepest level. In *every* case.

If you still have a problem in accepting the above explanations, then you
should be prepared to argue the full consequences of your philosophical
position. You speak of the natural flow of reason. I do not see any
natural reason in either of your positions--on knowledge vs. *abhyasa, and
on *yajna*. It is not reasonable to quibble over the translation of these
terms outside the context of the meaning and practice of *Bhagavad-gita*
as a whole. Such a proposal is similar to the modern trend of literary
criticism known as deconstructionism, in which words are extracted from a
text and analyzed with no reference whatsoever to the intent of the author
himself, but simply according to all manner of concocted meanings imposed
by the critic. Jacques Derrida, a famous French deconstructionist, wrote
at length on a margin note made by Nietzche in one of his manuscripts.
The margin note said, "I've forgotten my umbrella." Derrida tried to
prove that remark to be the key to the understanding of the whole of
Nietzche's manuscript. This is unreasonable. One has to show by reason,
not unreason, that the main text deals with forgotten umbrellas.
Similarly, if you wish to reasonably put forward your interpretation, you
have to argue with reason that it is supported by Krsna throughout the
whole text of the Gita. Indeed, in this respect you have undermined your
own position with these words from your second letter: >>True,
Prabhupada's statements may be consistent with the rest of Bhagavad Gita
and, for that matter, the rest of the Vedas. But is it consistent with
Krsna's words in Verse 12.12 itself? This is my doubt.<< Your doubt, so
expressed, is not a reasonable one.

Hare Krsna,

Suhotra Swami