striyo ’nukampyāḥ
sādhūnāṃ mūḍhā dīnāś ca jantavaḥ
yatas tato ’sya dīnasya kṣamyatāṃ
kṣamatāṃ vara
“Women are to be regarded with pity by the virtuous:
animals are humanely
treated even by fools.”
–
The wives of the serpent Kālīya, to Kṛṣṇa, as he’s
about to kill him (i.e. Kāliya), 5.7.54,
Viṣṇu Purāṇa
Such is the translation of H.H. Wilson.
The Hindi translator, however, says:
“Women (strī),
Fools (mūḍha), and
beings (jantu) who are afflicted (or distressed) (dīna),
should all be
treated with Compassion (anukampa),
by Virtuous
Men (sādhu).”
As you can see, there is a significant difference between Wilson’s translation, and the indigenous, local
translation (which I have, in turn, translated from Hindi to English).
I’m not absolutely sure which is more accurate.
This is immediately followed by the serpent-wives saying (according
to Wilson): “Let therefore the author of wisdom (i.e. Kṛṣṇa) have compassion upon this poor creature (i.e. Kāliya).”
Which doesn’t sound right to me, because the word dīna is used in the original Sanskrit verse.
Hence, the Hindi translator’s version: “have mercy upon/forgive (kṣamā) this one (who is) in pain/affliction/distress (dīna)”.
“Poor creature” sounds – {i.e., makes the person whose
forgiveness is being solicited look} – snobbish & condescending –
though technically it’s not wrong.
The
word translated “the author of wisdom” is,
in the Hindi translation, “the foremost of those who
are merciful/compassionate”.
This
makes better sense to me, since the Sanskrit says “kṣamatāṃ
vara” (5.7.54).
kṣamatāṃ
vara does seem to mean profoundly compassionate,
or highly merciful, or the most forgiving of all,
rather than “the author of wisdom”, since the
wives of a serpent-being are pleading for its life to be spared.
Yes, Wisdom & Compassion are undoubtedly related, and probably both meanings may be involved: but I still think the Hindi rendition is correct, and will go with it – and my understanding of the verse.
The whole tenor of Wilson’s
translation reeks of an amalgam of condescension & servility.
The original is more dignified.
I have given both renditions.
As you can see, almost NONE of the English translations are free from
error or ambiguity.
Each & every word, term & concept has to be analyzed
meticulously.
It cannot be emphasized enough that Sanskrit words from Ancient Indian
texts have multiple meanings, and just as in the Kabbalah, or Sufism, can be
arranged & re-arranged in many ways to render different, distinct meanings.
Thus, one of the names of Viṣṇu, in the 1,000-Names of Viṣṇu – the Viṣṇu
Sahasranāma – is Kānta.
This name appears twice in the list, as No. 296, and as No. 654.
One meaning of Kānta is “He who is exceedingly beautiful” – or simply, The Beautiful – or, Supremely Beautiful.
But there’s another meaning: Kānta divides into Ka & Anta.
Ka means Kaḥ, or Brahmā, the Being who Creates.
Anta means End, or Dissolution.
Thus, as the Supreme Being, the Ultimate Existence, at the end of the appropriate time-cycle, Viṣṇu “swallows up” every created thing, dissolves the whole cosmos – & all the gods
headed by Brahmā, i.e. Kaḥ are absorbed into him – thus he is called Kānta.
This concept has absolutely no correlation with the concept of Beauty.
These crucial points need to be kept in mind while discussing
Ancient Indian Sanskrit texts.
Wilson’s “animals are humanely treated even by fools” is unconvincing, to say the least, even though an
interesting thought, in the context.
He has associated the word mūḍha with the treatment of jantu, which he’s understood as animal.
He’s basically making the Nāga-wives say: Even fools
treat animals with compassion – and you’re not mūḍha, you’re not a fool – so treat our
consort with some respect.
I am not convinced.
The Hindi version, that strī, mūḍha and dīna jantu {living beings in pain} are to be treated with compassion, seems to be way more convincing, dignified, and truthful.
mūḍha may not mean “fool” –
the term “fool” itself is ambiguous.
mūḍha may also mean bewildered, perplexed, stupefied – i.e. those who have either lost their way, or are unable to see the
truth, or have lost their perspective.
It may also mean those who have the wrong view of things, or are in a
state of confusion {intellectual, moral, emotional, social etc.}.
As far as jantu is concerned, there is a possibility that there’s reference to animals, but I see no necessity to put it that way.
Yet, dīna
jantu may mean “an animal in pain”, or, to put it
in crudely, “a wretched beast”.
It should be very obvious: to see through the symbolism of the tale {of every ancient tale, btw}, and understand that none of these “animals” are,
infact, animals.
Nāgas are by no means mundane critters – they’re powerful, knowledgeable
beings full of magical powers & occult wisdom, abounding in wealth,
overflowing with beauty, living in luxury, in Indian literature.
And everywhere else {minus the overflowing with beauty part}.
“...be ye...wise as serpents & innocents as doves”, says Jesus Christ, in Matthew 10.16.
Jesus was obviously not making any reference to “Satan”
or his legion.
The typical fire-breathing dragon is nothing but the cousin of the
Indian Nāga.
The Nāga-patnis tell Kṛṣṇa that (5.7.48): “Thou art the
Supreme & Inconceivable {or Inscrutable} Light” {“paraṃ jyotir
acintya”} – certainly a
statement that cannot be made by poor beasties.
{Cf. ‘Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”’ (John 8.12, The New Testament)
One of the names of Viṣṇu in the Viṣṇu Sahasranāma is Jyotiḥ (No. 877) – the Supreme Light – yet another is Prāṇada (occurs four times: No.66, No. 321, No. 408, No. 956) – One who gives life (prāṇa) to all.
Viṣṇu is also Prāṇa (the name occurs thrice: No. 67, No. 320, No. 407) – Life itself, the Life of all Lives.
One of the names of Allah is An-Nur, the Light.
“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.
The example of His Light is like a niche wherein is a lamp; the lamp is in a crystal, and the crystal, shining as if a pearl-like radiant star, lit from the oil of a blessed olive tree that is neither of the east nor of the west.
The oil would almost give light of itself though no fire touches it.
Light upon light!
God guides to His Light whom He wills.”
(Quran 24.35)
This is beautiful.
Consummate poetry, profoundly allegorical.
These are universal concepts, and will arise in the minds, and appeal to the hearts, of all great & deep souls across the world, and they can be presented in different ways, from myriad perspectives.
Who is not enthralled by the phenomenon & concept of Light?
In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa itself, we are told: “Lakṣmī is the Light (jyoti); and Hari, who is All (sarva), and Master of All (sarveśvara), the Lamp (pradīpa)” (1.8.30).
Puruṣa is called Avyaya-Jyoti – the Imperishable Light or Undecaying Light – in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.12).
In most cases, this Light does not refer to the visible light that comes from material celestial bodies, but to the Light of the Intellect, or Reason, or Spirit, or Consciousness.
There is something called the Light of Love: there is also the Light of Knowledge, or of Wisdom.
Human imagination is as infinite & complex as the universe.
It can conceive of a million different concepts in a million different ways: it can see the Mind as an Ocean, the Heart as the Sky, the Sun as an Eye, the Moon as the Mind, the Earth as a Lotus, Speech as Fire.
There is a whole chapter dedicated to the Gateways to the Light of Dharma (dharmāloka), in beautiful Buddhist text, the Lalita-Vistāra.
In Indian literature, different texts may be explaining, or referring to, different aspects of One Reality, and hence, the meanings may differ.}
But showing compassion to an animal in pain is a positive value, and
there’s absolutely nothing wrong if the Viṣṇu Purāṇa takes this
opportunity to plant that idea in the reader’s mind.
There are other discrepancies between Wilson,
and the indigenous Hindi translation.
But I must clarify that I don’t necessarily agree with the indigenous translators, and sometimes someone like Wilson may be more convincing, or correct.
I shall give a small example, from the same event & chapter.
It’s interesting to note that the Nāga-patnis, in their eulogy of Kṛṣṇa, say: “There is no wrath in thee; for thine is the protection of the world; and hence this chastisement of Kālīya” (5.7.53).
Here, Wilson’s translation makes the
point better, because the Hindi translator says: “There
isn’t the slightest anger in this thy subjugation of Kālīya, the
only cause is protection of the world...”.
You can see that Wilson’s words make
a broader, a more powerful, more universal statement: “There
is no wrath in thee”.
The Hindi translator’s emphasis is on the sentiment, or feeling, or motive, in this particular case & event.
Wilson is saying that Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa Himself does not possess any wrath, or anger, or rage – and does not act out of any such sentiment, but for the welfare of the world.
This is impressive.
I prefer Wilson here.
It must be understood that Wilson cannot be called dispassionate or objective: he makes several condescending, even derogatory remarks, about Indians & their scriptures, which demonstrate a deep-rooted prejudice against them, in his mind: but sometimes even the local translators are wrong, and the high-handed English translators (foreign or Indian), are preferable.
Translations are tricky.
For good or for bad, it is impossible to pass some sort of categorical verdict about any one word or term.
Yes, it may add to our difficulties, but it also douses the flames of dogmatism & fanaticism, or for that matter, of unending anger & unhealthy pride.
Ancient languages were, and the methodology adopted by Ancients was, very fluid, very elusive, very complex, very nuanced, very protean, so to speak.
There is genius, and there is cunning – cunning of an infinitely loftier sort – in all of this.
Words & statements can be molded this way & that.
This does not mean that a word or sentence can mean anything & everything, and anything goes: but at this distance, in our age, from our present vantage point, long after those worlds have evaporated into the slender mist of oblivion, now that we live in a universe inconceivably different from that of our ancestors, it is very difficult to sit on judgment and make categorical statements with hatred or passion.
Patience, constant & objective exploration, an undying inquisitiveness, a mind open to diverse interpretations & viewpoints, indefatigable scrutiny, and abstaining from jumping to conclusions, are the means by which we can keep our heads, keep our minds unfazed, our hearts serene, and let our knowledge grow.
In my humble opinion, we moderns are NOT in a position to know or understand what the ancients have written: we can guess, we can make approximations, we can speculate: we are neither qualified nor in a position, to pass judgment, and turn that into fanatical dogma.
Our objective should be to learn, to understand, and take away what was the best, the most exalted, and whatever we can implement & utilize, from that shoreless, fathomless reservoir of experience, knowledge, and wisdom.
