Here is Another Blunder

Bábá

Respected Márgii Brothers and Sisters Namaskára,

Here is Another Blunder

Introduction

There has been interesting discussion on the point of Bábá's discourse from Namah Shiváya Shántáya, Discourse 14, "Shiva's Teachings-2 Continued Shivopadesha 4", on page 220 of the November 1982 edition. In the passage in question, Bábá is discussing the danger of misinterpreting scripture and introducing serious dogma into the society.

How They Printed It

Namah Shiváya Shántáya, Discourse 14, "Shiva's Teachings-2 Continued Shivopadesha 4", on page 220 of the November 1982 edition. The way it is printed in the book:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
“There must also be a fourth factor, darshana pravaktá, that is, a propounder who will train the people in philosophy, for the philosophical treatises may be wrongly interpreted.”

“For instance, it was written, Vidhavá agre gamiśyati [“A widow should go (die) before (her husband)”]. But later, due to a defective interpretation, this was misread as Vidhavá agne gamiśyati [“A widow should go into the fire”].”

“As a result, hundreds of thousands of innocent widows were burnt alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Hence the necessity of a proper trainer, well-versed in philosophy.”

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

In this passage, Bábá is discussing the danger of misinterpreting scripture and introducing serious dogma into the society. As an example of this danger, Bábá points out that the Saḿskrta sentence “Vidhavá agre gamiśyati” was misinterpreted in society as “Vidhavá agne gamiśyati”. The word vidhavá means “widow”, agre means “forward”, and gamiśyati means “will go”. In accordance with the word-by-word translation, the original sentence means literally, “A widow will go forward.” Bábá explains that in earlier times i.e. hundreds or even thousands of years ago, the word agre meaning “forward” came to be misread in this sentence as agne meaning “in the fire”. This confusion arose because in the local scripts agre and agne look quite similar. And plus in those days, there was no paper. When people wrote, they wrote on leaves. And with the passage of time, as the leaves became mildewed or even rotted, the writing on those leaves used to became unclear. There were of course no machines such as typewriters, so everything was written by hand. And handwriting is itself less clear and more variable and prone to misinterpretation. So all in all, Bábá is teaching that due to these various factors, the Saḿskrta sentence “Vidhavá agre gamiśyati” (lit. “A widow will go forward”) became misinterpreted to be “Vidhavá agne gamiśyati” (“A widow will go into the fire”).

And so here Bábá is giving an example of how a teaching (i.e. “Vidhavá agre gamiśyati”) can be misread or misunderstood to be something else (“Vidhavá agne gamiśyati”), which has a negative meaning. In this case, the sentence came to have a distorted and wrong meaning, “The widow will go into the fire.” Bábá says in His discourse that due to the misinterpretation of this sentence, “Hundreds of thousands of innocent widows were burnt alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Hence the necessity of a proper trainer, well-versed in philosophy.” So this is Bábá's teaching, that when scripture is wrongly understood it wreaks havoc on the society.

Same Passage from Printed Discourse,

with Distortions in Red

Namah Shiváya Shántáya, Discourse 14, "Shiva's Teachings-2 Continued Shivopadesha 4." The way it is printed in the book. Here we are presenting the passage again. Please pay special attention to the words in red, where distortion has occurred:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
“There must also be a fourth factor, darshana pravaktá, that is, a propounder who will train the people in philosophy, for the philosophical treatises may be wrongly interpreted.”

“For instance, it was written, Vidhavá agre gamiśyati [“A widow should go (die) before (her husband)”]. But later, due to a defective interpretation, this was misread as Vidhavá agne gamiśyati [“A widow should go into the fire”].”

“As a result, hundreds of thousands of innocent widows were burnt alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Hence the necessity of a proper trainer, well-versed in philosophy.”

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

About above passage

Color Key: Serious errors from the published discourse appear in red.

Note that there are two sentences in the above passage in square brackets []. That means they are sentences added by the AMPS Publishers. And are not words spoken by Bábá. This is convention created by the AMPS Publishers, that any sentence enclosed in square brackets [] has been added by them.

Explanation

The AMPS Publishers have translated the first Saḿskrta sentence (“Vidhavá agre gamiśyati”)—i.e. the sentence which Bábá shows as an example of scripture—in the following way: “A widow should go (die) before (her husband).” Here it should be noted that the Saḿskrta sentence Bábá has given—Vidhavá agre gamiśyati—contains only three words viz widow, ahead, will go. In course of translation if in place of forward one uses first or before, then that is acceptable. But note that the AMPS Publishers have additionally added the words “die”, and “her husband”: “A widow should go (die) before (her husband).” There are no grounds in the original Saḿskrta sentence for adding such terms as “die”, and “her husband”. Not only were these baseless additions, but they completely alter the meaning of the sentence such that it has serious negative ramification for the society. When the AMPS Publishers have translated the sentence as “A widow should go (die) before (her husband)”, then it means the AMPS Publishers have utterly distorted the example of scripture which Bábá is Himself giving.

So here is the significant problem: The sentence as translated by the AMPS Publishers actually makes no sense. As, a widow means a woman whose husband has died—and therefore it is logically impossible and absurd to suggest that a woman whose husband has already died, should die before him.

In light of this it is understandable how persons knowing Saḿskrta as well as those not knowing Saḿskrta would be confused and perplexed. Because (1) the words “die” and “her husband” are not even in the original Saḿskrta sentence which Bábá cites: “Vidhavá agre gamiśyati;” (2) Bábá would never make a self-contradictory remark saying a widow should die before her husband when a widow means a woman whose husband has already died.

Another distortion worthy of note is that both Saḿskrta sentences used by Bábá are in the future tense i.e. the first sentence “A widow will go forward”, and the second sentence “A widow will go into the fire”. The AMPS Publishers changed both sentences from will to should.

Same Passage from This Discourse,

As it Should Be

Namah Shiváya Shántáya, Discourse 14, "Shiva's Teachings-2 Continued Shivopadesha 4." The way it should be printed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
“There must also be a fourth factor, darshana pravaktá, that is, a propounder who will train the people in philosophy, for the philosophical treatises may be wrongly interpreted.”

“For instance, it was written, Vidhavá agre gamiśyati [“A widow will go forward”]. But later, due to a defective interpretation, this was misread as Vidhavá agne gamiśyati [“A widow will go into the fire”].”

“As a result, hundreds of thousands of innocent widows were burnt alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Hence the necessity of a proper trainer, well-versed in philosophy.”

- - - - - - - - - - -

About Above Passage

Color Key: Sections highlighted in purple are missing entirely from the printed discourse.

Especially Alarming

This mistranslation by the AMPS Publishers is particularly alarming given the contextual setting. In this passage Bábá is warning of the dangers of scriptural distortion and how such distortion can harm the society. And in this very passage in which Bábá is issuing such a warning, our AMPS Publishers have themselves introduced scriptural distortion.

All in all, it is very concerning that that which Lord Shrii Shrii Ánandamúrtiji is instructing not to do, our AMPS Publishers are doing. They have introduced dogmatic, illogical translation into the very sentence Bábá is using to showcase the idea that scripture should not be distorted. And in that very passage the AMPS Publishers have injected the dogmatic, verily absurd translation, “A widow should go (die) before (her husband)”.

It is of note that all editions of Namah Shiváya Shántáya contain this wrongly translated sentence, including all four electronic editions. Many Márgiis have sent us correspondence this week, expressing concern that the current negative translation should be removed from our AMPS Publication of Namah Shiváya Shántáya. To all interested in seeing our Ánanda Márga scripture made proper, we encourage you to express your concern to the AMPS (B) and AMPS (H/EC) Publishers.

In addition, we would like to make a special request for Ánanda Márgiis around the world to help in the work of producing and reviewing the “as is” discourses. We welcome the help of all who are inspired and interested to serve in the protection of the discourses of Lord Shrii Shrii Ánandamúrtiji. Any and all may contact as at the above email address.

In His service,

Ciranútana
Ánanda Márga Discourse network Editors

Note 1: The word “agne”, translated by AMPS Publishers as “into the fire”, actually does not exist at all in Saḿskrta. The Saḿskrta word for “into the fire” is agnao (अग्नौ). Here Bábá is showing that on two counts the society misinterpreted the sentence. Firstly, they accepted a meaning—that a widow should jump onto the burning funeral pyre of her husband—which is dogmatic and harmful. And second, as most people in even Indian society do not know Saḿskrta, they unwittingly accepted a sentence which doesn't even make sense in Saḿskrta. The AMPS Publishers should have noted this double danger displayed in this sentence, but failed to do so.