Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

  1. #1

    Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Greetings.

    Recently I’ve discovered Vedanta and consequently have been studying the Upanishads, and I’ve run in to a major discrepancy between translations—I cannot read classical Sanskrit, sadly, so I’m looking to get the opinions of those who can. In some translations of the Katha Upanishad, book I, chapter 2, line 10 reads like this:

    Nakiketas said: 'I know that what is called a treasure is transient, for that eternal is not obtained by things which are not eternal. Hence the Nâkiketa fire(-sacrifice) has been laid by me (first); then, by means of transient things, I have obtained what is not transient (the teaching of Yama)
    In other translations, the line reads more like this:

    Yama said: I know that the treasure resulting from action is not eternal; for what is eternal cannot be obtained by the non— eternal. Yet I have performed the Nachiketa sacrifice with the help of non—eternal things and attained this position which is only relatively eternal.
    Considering the fact that the Upanishads were kept consistent through a series of checks and balances, my guess is that this section was never directly attributed to a speaker in the first place, and is open to interpretation. But again, I can’t read Sanskrit, so that’s only a guess.

    Part of me says that, since it only seems to be Western translators who accredit this line to Nachiketas, it may be that it requires a subtle knowledge of Classical Sanskrit that would only be available to native speakers of Hindi. They’re closely related languages, right? Like middle English and English.

    The other part of me says that there may be a bias since all of the Eastern translators are, to some degree, representing their own school of Hinduism. Even the very academic translation of Nikhilananda’s seems to show a little bit of bias towards Vedanta.

    Can anyone say with any certainty which translation is correct? The reason I ask is because one of the translations I read, which attributes this line to Nachiketas, is the Penguin Classics version. This is kind of like the standard version you would find in mainstream bookstores in the West. Penguin publishing is a client of the company I work for, so I may be in a position to bring this potential discrepancy to their attention. But I’m not even sure if it’s an error, it might just be the subjective opinion of the translator.

    Any help you guys could give me would be most appreciated.
    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Dear Simex,

    I think the above translation you have taken from http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15011.htm.

    According to "Eight Upanishads" published by Advait Ashram, Kolkata, the above lines are attributed to Yama ( the Death). That to me appears logical because Yama has just started teaching & there appears no need for Nachiketa to interrupt at this juncture.

    Take care,
    Namaste.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~

    Namaste,

    Swami Sivananda also addresses this. He suggests Nachiketas never performed the sacrifice /yajya till he received the information from Yama.
    In chapt 1, valli 1 sloka 16, it is there that Yama says, I give thee this other boon, the fire sacrifice (yajya) shall be named after thee (Nachiketas) and take thou this many-colored chain. (a garland with gems or necklace).

    Therefore how could Nachiketas perform the yajya prior? Hence, this sloka is owned and said by Yama. In fact Yama owns the first 13 slokas. Nachiketas only speaks once in Chapt 1 valli 2 , the 14th sloka, and the remainder is Yama.


    This nAciketa नाचिकेत - is a beautiful word. Perhaps sarabhanga can give us its roots. I am taught that his name means one who is unaware of the depth of the questions he is posing.


    pranams,
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #4
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Namaste,

    naciketAH asks:

    yama, tell us that in which men have this doubt, and which is about the great hereafter.
    naciketas does not choose any other boon but that of which the knowledge is hidden.

    yamaH replies:

    One is more good (sreya), while another is more pleasant (preya). These two having different objects chain a man.
    Blessed is he who between them chooses the good alone, but he who chooses what is pleasant loses the true in the end.

    The good and the pleasant take hold of man; the wise man extinguishes them.
    The wise man prefers the good to the pleasant, but the ignorant man chooses the pleasant for the sake of the body.

    naciketaH, thou hast renounced objects of desires and desirable objects of pleasant form, judging them by their real value.
    Thou hast not chosen the road of wealth, in which many men perish.

    These two, ignorance (avidyA) and knowledge (vidyA), are wide apart and lead to different points or goals.
    I believe naciketas to be one who desires for knowledge, for even many desires have not shaken thee.

    The ignorant, who live in the midst of darkness but fancy themselves as wise and learned, go round and round, deluded in many crooked ways, as blind people led by the blind.

    The way to the hereafter is not apparent to the ignorant man who is foolish, deluded by the illusion of wealth.
    ‘This is the world,’ he thinks, ‘there is no other’ ~ thus he falls again and again under my sway.

    He of whom many are not even able to hear, whom many, even when they hear of him, do not comprehend; wonderful is a man, when found, who is able to teach the self; wonderful is he who comprehends the self when taught by an able teacher.

    That self, when taught by a man of inferior intellect is not easy to be known, as it is to be thought of in various ways. But when it is taught by a preceptor who is one with brahman, there is no doubt concerning it, the self being subtler than the subtle, and is not to be gained by arguing.

    This knowledge is not to be obtained by argument, but it is easy to understand it, O dearest, when taught by a teacher who beholds no difference; thou hast obtained it now; thou art fixed in truth. May we have, naciketaH, an enquirer like thee!

    I know that the treasure is transient, for that eternal is not obtained by things which are not eternal.
    Therefore, the naciketas fire has been propitiated by me with the perishable things and I have obtained the eternal.

    The end of all desires, the foundation of the world, the endless rewards of sacrifice, the other shore where there is no fear, the praiseworthy, the great, the wide-extended sphere and the abode of the soul ~ all these thou hast seen, and being wise, naciketaH, thou hast with firm resolve rejected all.

    The wise sage who, by means of meditation on his self, recognizes the ancient, who is difficult to be seen, unfathomable and concealed, hidden in the cave of the heart, dwelling in the abyss, lodged in intelligence, indeed he renounces joy and sorrow.

    Having heard and well grasped this, the mortal, abstracting the virtuous Atman, attaining this subtle self, rejoices, because he has obtained what is cause for rejoicing. I think that the abode of brahman is wide open for naciketas.

    naciketa is derived from cit (“to perceive, fix the mind upon, attend to, be attentive, observe, take notice of, aim at, intend, design, be anxious about, care for, resolve, understand, comprehend, or know”), with ciketa as the active singular form of the perfect tense (“I have perceived, resolved, comprehended, known, etc.”). And naciketa is one who has “not perceived, not resolved, or not comprehended”.

    naciketa is “innocent, ignorant, or unknowing”.

    naciketas was a young brAhmaNa “who did not understand” why his father had sacrificed all of his possessions.

    yama himself knows that worldly treasure is transient, for he was the very first mortal, the first one to sacrifice and to die. Therefore, he gave up or sacrificed all mortal things into the incomprehensible fire of unknowing, or into the hearth of naciketas, and thus attained immortality.

    yama is praising naciketas as surpassing even himself ~ i.e. naciketas is surpassing yama (as “death”) and is thus approaching eternity.

    The text is not explicit as to the speaker, but it seems clear from the context.

    Most western authorities assume that jesus is the first and only example of a god being born and suffering death as a man, and so this may be why they assume that it must be the young naciketas who is saying “I know that the treasure is transient” and “I have obtained the eternal”. But it is yama who teaches naciketas the agnicayana (preparation of the sacred hearth) for performing the nAciketa sacrifice, so it cannot be naciketas who claims to have attained eternity by previously making that same sacrifice. And naciketas does not interrupt until the last line of the vallI, when he asks his next question of yama: “That which thou seest as other than virtue or vice, other than cause and effect, other than the past and future, tell me that.”

  5. #5
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Namaste Friends,

    Sarabhanga has excellently gone into the roots and Yajvan and Devotee have agreed that the context is not of Nachiketa speaking. If one examines the verses before and after, then it is abundantly clear that it is Yama who is teaching.

    The particular translation wherein "Nachiketa says" appears is of Muller.

    Anyway that is not the main problem. The main controversy is in the essence as shown below:

    Katha Upanishad
    Translaetd by Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli
    1-II-1. Different is (that which is) preferable; and different, indeed, is the pleasurable. These two, serving different purposes, blind man. Good accrues to him who, of these two, chooses the preferable. He who chooses the pleasurable falls from the goal.
    -----
    1-II-10. I know that the treasure is impermanent, for that which is constant cannot be reached by things which are not constant. Therefore, has the Nachiketa Fire been kindled by me with impermanent things, and I have attained the eternal.

    Whereas, the Nikhilananda translation says: "----attained this position which is only relatively eternal."


    Both of these translations are from Advaitins, of course.

    Personally, I go with the former translation, but I do not know. May be Yajvan, Devotee, Sarabhanga can go to the roots.

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

    Note: However, both translations may be correct. Position of Yama is temporary but the knowledge of Self is eternal. God is naughty.


    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Namaste Atanu,

    nitya (or nityam) means “innate, native, one’s own, continual, perpetual, eternal, constantly dwelling, ordinary, usual, invariable, fixed, necessary, or obligatory”.

    nityam indicates “always, constantly, regularly, or by all means”.

    nitya refers to “the sea or ocean”, and nityam to “a constant and indispensable rite”.

    nitya is opposed with anitya, which is “not everlasting, transient, occasional, incidental, irregular, unusual, unstable, or uncertain”; and anityam (“occasionally”) is the opposite of nityam (“always”).

    The occasional is sacrificed to gain the constant.
    The transient is sacrificed to gain the fixed.
    The incidental is sacrificed to gain the necessary.
    The unstable is sacrificed to gain the invariable.
    The drop is sacrificed to gain the ocean.
    The allotted portion is distributed to gain the whole lot.

    yama is saying, “I have attained the whole ocean, the invariable, the necessary, the fixed, the constant, the continual, the abiding, the perpetual, the innate, my own true nature or original self”.

    “I have attained the eternal” is surely the intention, while the words “only relatively” are the translator’s own interpolation. And “I have gained that which is only relatively everlasting by sacrificing that which is only relatively not everlasting” or “by sacrificing that which is not only relatively everlasting” seems an unlikely opposition, especially coming from lord yama, the perfect twin (who was anciently twice twain and resurrected through his ultimate sacrifice as the one yoke of all yoga).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    Namaste Atanu,
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post

    nitya (or nityam) means “innate, native, one’s own, continual, perpetual, eternal, constantly dwelling, ordinary, usual, invariable, fixed, necessary, or obligatory”.

    ----

    The occasional is sacrificed to gain the constant.
    The transient is sacrificed to gain the fixed.
    The incidental is sacrificed to gain the necessary.
    The unstable is sacrificed to gain the invariable.
    The drop is sacrificed to gain the ocean.
    The allotted portion is distributed to gain the whole lot.

    yama is saying, “I have attained the whole ocean, the invariable, the necessary, the fixed, the constant, the continual, the abiding, the perpetual, the innate, my own true nature or original self”.
    Namaste sarabhnaga,

    What you have said accords with my comprehension: "----sacrifice of the non-eternal in favour of the eternal ----".

    Yet, I feel that Vac is a bit naughty. This happens with so many sanskrit verses. It is however, predicted and explained in the 'Da Da Da' story. In fact, behavioral psychology has terms called selective cognition and cognitive dissonance, to explain this phenomenon.


    Regards,

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  8. #8

    Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Yes, this makes perfect sense, especially considering Yama's history.

    I was only using the Muller translation as an example, since it was floating around the internet. The Penguin Classics version, translated by Valerie Roebuck, translates the verse very similarly.

    Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with me, everyone.

    I'm going to bring this up with our contacts at Penguin Publishing, to see if they want to correct it.

    Thanks again!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Hari Om
    ~~~~~
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    Namaste Atanu,

    nitya (or nityam) means “innate, native, one’s own, continual, perpetual, eternal, constantly dwelling, ordinary, usual, invariable, fixed, necessary, or obligatory”.

    nityam indicates “always, constantly, regularly, or by all means”.

    nitya refers to “the sea or ocean”, and nityam to “a constant and indispensable rite”.

    nitya is opposed with anitya, which is “not everlasting, transient, occasional, incidental, irregular, unusual, unstable, or uncertain”; and anityam (“occasionally”) is the opposite of nityam (“always”).
    Namaste,
    I think the verse is tena nityam praptavan asmi ... please correct any blemishes as you see fit.

    IMHO here's how i read this - this is not opposed to any of the views offered. I thought if the veribage was offered it may perhaps be useful.

    tena तेन - on that account , for that reason , therefore , in that manner
    nityam or nitya नित्य - per sarabhanga's post above
    praptavan - rooted in prApaka प्रापक - causing to arrive at , leading or bringing; establishing , making valid
    asmi अस्मि - I am

    I am attained/established that eternal/ocean by that ( on that account).

    Swami Sivananda writes it as, ' I have attained the eternal by that'

    pranams
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  10. #10
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Katha Upanishad: discrepancy in English translations?

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    Hari Om
    Namaste,
    -----
    tena तेन - on that account , for that reason , therefore , in that manner
    nityam or nitya नित्य - per sarabhanga's post above
    praptavan - rooted in prApaka प्रापक - causing to arrive at , leading or bringing; establishing , making valid
    asmi अस्मि - I am

    I am attained/established that eternal/ocean by that ( on that account).

    Swami Sivananda writes it as, ' I have attained the eternal by that'

    pranams
    Namaste Yajvan,

    Let me take a bit of liberty.

    --- by that without break I am that I am.

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •