Talk:Narada Bhakti Sutra/Archive 1

TODO: Need to an Introduction, add citations about benefits of reading this scripture, citations from various texts that refer to Narada Bhakti Sutra.

Wikisource
I am not sure if this is complete work which is requiered by the inclusion policy. Also the English needs checked for copyright violations based on who the translator is.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the complete text of Narad Bhakti Sutra. I am the translator and nothing is copyrighted in this text.

Future direction?
I'm not really sure where this page is heading? - It's not really a Wikipedia article, nor is it a complete work in English. The chapter sections at the bottom of the page need to be heavily edited and the translations are still not fully sourced. The Narad Bhakti Sutra itself is very rich in content which I don't feel is being communicated in the article so far. GourangaUK 10:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buddhipriya": Hello Buddhipriya, I'd be happy to collaborate on the Narad Bhakti Sutra article. At the moment it's neither one thing or the other. What do you think about removing the masses of sanskrit and turing it into a more encyclopedic article containing quotations and disussions of the main points and different philosophical viewpoints on the text etc... is this what you were thinking of? I'm not so much into the wikisource idea as the straight text already exists elsewhere on the web. Gouranga(UK) 10:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if the source should be deleted yet as I have not made a systematic check of what versions are available on the net, but I am sure that an overview article should be written. As a possible format take a look at the Ganapati Atharvashirsa article which includes textual issues (such as critical editions or lack thereof). The issue of variant texts is usually important when first taking up a Hindu text, because there are often many versions of the text. In the present article the source dooes not seem to be identified so it would be necessary to do a close examination of the passages to try to figure out where it may have come from. Another version of a critical edition review is in the section on text variants for the Ganesha Purana. The Narada article may be of most interest to the average reader if it included highlights of passages that are likely to be of reader interest. This is sort of like doing a "Wit and Wisdom of Jesus" version of the New Testament. Buddhipriya 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has chimed in on this yet. I did a very limited spot check of the Sanskrit text against the version given in the Swami Prabhavananda commentary edition and find that the text is not completely wrong, but it is not useful as is for serious work.  It uses simple English transliteration, no IAST, and thus is almost useless as a real Sanskrit source.  Even allowing for the simple English, some typos are apparent.  The English translation looks like it may have been an attempt at a literal rendering.  Since no source is given it is hard to tell where the English may have come from.


 * I would recommend not deleting the text because this work is short enough so theoretically the Sanskrit could be cleaned up. I have not yet looked to see if other versions are available on the Internet in electronic form.  If so, then this one probably can be deleted.  If not, perhaps it should be kept for a while.


 * Regarding editions, please post any citations you have to other published editions of this. Does anyone know if there is a critical edition?  I have not studied this scripture in detail, only having read one version with commentary. It is a wonderful work that is a cornerstone of bhakti tradition. Buddhipriya 07:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * naradabhaktisutra.com gives a complete translation in English. If we are to keep all of the Sanskrit then it should really be moved over to Wikisource in my opinion, rather than being kept under the guise of an encyclopedic article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the version on that web site and it is superior to the version in the article. The web site also fails to provide any detail on which source it is from, but it corresponds closely with the print edition I have.  I agree that at this point the text needs to be cleanly separated from discussion about the text, and I will make some edits to the article in the coming week to try to set it up so the text could either be deleted or moved to Wikisource.  I am looking for additional references about the text now.  Do you have a print edition of the work, and if so, can you give the ISBN?  do you see any value in providing some highlights of the content with selected passages?  Buddhipriya 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The code on the book is ISBN 0-89213-273-6. I think it would be nice to highlight certain key content, and give chapter summaries with quotations etc ... sounds like a good plan. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ISBN. I see that version is by Prabhupada, and thus will be helpful for a Vaishva perspective.  The Prabhavananda version I have is from Ramakrishna Math.  Let me look into it and I think we have a good plan now. Can the page name be changed to "Narada Bhakti Sutra" so we use the Sanskrit "Narada" instead of the Hindi "Narad"?


 * To reduce the chance that I accidentally remove what is there now I have copied it to a work page at User:Buddhipriya/Narada. Notice that the Prabhavananda edition is organized into nine chapters. Can you look at your copy of Prabhupada edition and compare his organization with what I have added to the introduction to the article?  The first step must be to understand what variation there is among editions.  Does he mention anything about a critical edition having been issued?  I would guess that he does not as he rarely discusses these things in other of his books. Buddhipriya 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Buddhipriya - I'll add some text later on today, it's in progress at the moment.... Gouranga(UK) 12:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any critical edition being issued? Have got as far as verse 43 in regards to the summary. It's one-sided in terms of references - would you be able to compare and intertwine information from the translation you have into & around the current text? Hopefully I should be able to go through the second half later on or tommorrow. Best Wishes, Ys Gouranga(UK) 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are doing a wonderful job! Let me know when you have finished your pass and then I will go over it to hightlight a few points where the Prabhavananda commentary puts a different spin.  I am still trying to get some critical background on the text itself and am surprised that it is not as easy to reference as I expected it would be.


 * In hunting for other editions I turned up this one by Chinmayananda who has probably done an informal version of it if his other stuff is any guide. I will park these miscellaneous editions here as I find them.


 * Do you have JSTOR access? (I do not.) Some citation to the role of the Narada Bhakti Sutras appears in: Evolution of Love Symbolism in Bhagavatism here

Buddhipriya 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

About the Prabhupada commentary
My copy of the Prabhupada translation arrived in the mail today, along with another translation by Prem Prakash. In thumbing over the Prabhupada version I see it is quite sectarian in tone (not too surprising). The other two commentaries bend over backwards to be non-sectarian. So it will be interesting to go through them in a comparative manner. I think perhaps it would be good to note that the Prabhupada edition would be of particular value to some devotees, while others might prefer the non-denominational versions. Does that seem reasonable? Buddhipriya 04:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd disagree that Prabhupada's writing is sectarian, it is just definite in what is being said. I would feel happier with saying that the translation is from a Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective - maybe in comparison to others being more generic in their outlook, if that's the case? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the Prabhupada commentary give an interpretation that is specifcally about Krishna, and in some cases there are even mentions of ISKCON (e.g., pp. 108, 147). I think that a devotee who worhips some other form of divinity, such as Devi, Shiva, or Ganesha, would find it difficult to read the Prabhupada commentary without needing to do mental tranlations on every page.  There are also even references to things like the need for "spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness" (p. 145) that have little to do with the source text but which seem to be promotions of ISKON.  Comparison of commentary on specific passages between the Prabhupada editon and the other two I now have in hand are very striking in this regard.


 * The Prabhavananda commentary obviously tries to take a non-sectarian tone throughout. For example, in verse two he comments on the Sanskrit by saying "Narada does not use the word God, but the indefinite neuter pronoun "this"... It is interesting to consider why Narada used the pronoun "this" instead of God, or Brahman, or Atman, or Rama, or Krishna, or some other divine name. One reason is that he wished his teachings to be completely nonsectarian." (p. 12, Prabhavananda edition).  The rest of his commentary brings in that the "Chosen Ideal" of the devotee is up to the devotee.  In thumbing through the Prem Prakash translation I have not yet seen the name Krishna mentioned (it may be in there somewhere). Buddhipriya 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of Narada's role in the Bhagavata Purana (eg 1.6.27) it would be hard for any Vaishnava not to see Vishnu or Krishna as being alluded to in the Bhakti-Sutra text. Narada also gives the Gopis of Vrindavan as the highest example of bhakti in NBS Text 21, but no direct mention of a name of God, which I appreciate leaves the text more open. Prabhupada is writing as a Krishna-bhakta, about (in his eyes) the text of another Krishna bhakta (Narada is one the primary acharyas in the Brahma Vaishnava sampradaya) but I would not consider this sectarian, just as I would not consider it sectarian for a Shaivite guru to explain the supremacy of Shiva in his commentaries - it's simply where his heart is. Elsewhere Prabhupada says that other paths are also bhakti and emphasises a number of times that all designations and isms are external to real love of God:
 * Gold is gold. Does it mean that if a Christian possesses some gold, it becomes Christian gold? Or Hindu possesses some gold, it becomes Hindu gold? No. Gold is gold. Either it is in possession of Hindu or Muslim or Christian, it doesn't matter. Gold is gold. So we are preaching that, that "Here is dharma, to surrender unto the Supreme Being." That is dharma. Sarva-dharman parityajya [Bg. 18.66]. This is bhagavata-dharma.
 * It's just that as a Krishna bhakta who else would you want to focus upon? Gouranga(UK) 11:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In reading the commentary more closely I see that it was not all written by Prabhupada, having been started by him and finished by ISKCON. The cover attributes authorship to Prabhupada "And His Disciples", and Prabhupada is referred to in the third person from time to time in the commentary.  There are several promotional mentions of ISKCON, including this rather defensive passage: "Critics deride the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement as a concocted new cult." (p. 191)


 * The ISKCON commentary goes beyond enthusiam for Krishna and actively devalues the worship of other forms of the divine, which the commentary calls "demi-gods." In effect, the commentary rejects the concept of ishta-devata.  This is a significant departure in interpretation from the other two commentaries, both of which stress the importance of the idea that one can worship the divine in many ways.


 * "A pure devotee rejects demigod worship and worships only Lord Kṛṣṇa or His Viṣṇu expansions.... On the other hand, persons whose activities are dictated by material desires and who are also addicted to worshipping the demigods cannot become pure devotees at any stage of their lives.... In the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord says that such demigod-worshippers are of small intelligence.... In other words, as long as one is controlled by the modes of nature, one will be prone to worship the demigods for material purposes, but one who curbs this tendency and worships Kṛṣṇa exclusively can rise above the modes and attain pure devotional service." (pp. 27-28)


 * "The more power one has, the more one is liable to become puffed up. Demigods like Brahmā and Indra sometimes become proud and forget Kṛṣṇa's supreme position." (p. 69)


 * "The devas are staunch devotees of Lord Viṣṇu.... The demigods' joy at the appearance of a Vaiṣṇava proves that the devas are also Vaiṣṇavas. They are more pleased with a pure devotee who renders service unto the Supreme Lord than they are with their own worshippers who seek material boons from them." (p. 162) This comment characterizes worshippers of other forms of the divine as only interested in material boons from demigods, an insulting and dismissive characterization.


 * In the ISKCON commentary those who disagree with the approach of exclusive worship of Kṛṣṇa are "fools" and their commentaries are "nonsensical", e.g.:


 * "In the Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa stresses in many verses that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But despite Lord Kṛṣṇa's stressing this point, many so-called scholars and commentators still deny the personal conception of the Lord. One famous scholar wrote in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā that one does not have to surrender to Lord Kṛṣṇa or even accept Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but that one should rather surrender to 'the Supreme within Kṛṣṇa.' Such fools do not know what is within and what is without.  They comment on the Bhagavad-gītā according to their own whims.  Such persons cannot be elevated to the highest stage of love of Godhead.  They may be scholarly, and they may be elevated in other departments of knowledge, but they are not even neophytes in the process of attaining the highest stage of perfection, love of Godhead. Niṣṭhā implies that one should accept the words of Bhagavad-gītā, the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as they are, without any deviation or nonsensical commentary." (p. 7)


 * This is more than just enthusiam for Krishna, it is sectarian rejection of all other forms of worship, with attacks on those who do not agree. They do not say "we prefer chocolate ice cream", they say " only chocolate ice cream is acceptable, and all other forms are to be rejected." The implicit rejection of the concept of ishta-devata makes this commentary completely different in tone from the others.  In fact, on some passages I find myself checking the Sanskrit to see if they are commentating on the same verses.  It comes across as very narrow, exclusive sectarianism. Buddhipriya 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Buddhipriya - the differences between this commentary and others should definitely be noted (as much as is relevant). Ultimately there are some core beliefs within Vaishnavism that inherently disagree with a number of other philosophies within Hinduism and this book is written from a [Gaudiya]-Vaishnava perspective. The two main points are contention are as you pointed out:


 * a) Worship of any deity from the Hindu pantheon other than that of Vishnu and his avatars is not classified as worship of God (as only Vishnu and his avatars are believed to be forms of the Supreme Being in Vaishnavism); - the difference in this specific instance is that within Gaudiya theology Krishna is believed to be the source of all avatars including Vishnu - but worship is obviously still offered to all Vishnu forms as an expression of bhakti
 * b) The Supreme Being has a personality (is personal) and this Personal aspect is the highest expression of God - any philosophy which disagrees on this point is either incomplete or incorrect in it's understanding.

Now I'm not wanting to debate the validity (or not) of these points here, but all the major historical Vaishnava teachers will promote these points (amongst others) in their literatures - Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Nimbarka etc... they are not ISKCON specific, or specific to this text only. On these lines surely we can't classify the whole of Vaishnavism as sectarian because they disagree with Smarta and Advaita associated perspectives? But I feel what we can say it that a Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective is given in the commentary alongside the Sanskrit text and some references are also made to the ISKCON organisation. The negative connotations associated with the sectarian label are strong, and the label itself is very subjective - I just feel that would be too strong in this instance.

I hope this doesn't impair us from working well together on the article - as it has been going good so far compared to the usual format of exchanges. All the Best, Gouranga(UK) 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly does not impair our ability to work well together, it confirms it! I have not made any edits to the article itself because I wanted to be sure we could have a good exchange of views without affecting the content of the article itself, which is at the moment quite free of opinion.  I think that it would be unwise to have the article stray from the main topic too much.  A discussion about whether or not ISKCON does in fact reflect general Vaisnava views is not needed; as I am sure you know ISKCON has been the subject of debate.  I must say that I was personally offended by the sectarian nature of the commentary, and I am sure that someone who worships Devi, Shiva, Jesus, or any other form of the divine would find it impossible to read the Prabhupada commentary without finding it difficult to identify with.  The rejection of the concept of the ishta devata is the key issue.  I think that should be brought in in a way that warns the readers that the Prabhupada commentary is intended for a Vaishnava audience only.  The question of how well ISKCON reflects more general Vaisnava traditions should be taken up somewhere else (not here) and there would be a need for lengthy discussion to establish agreement on that question.


 * I was saddened when I read the Prabhupada commentary because it had taken a scripture that I had liked very much and turned it into a sectarian battleground. The other two commentaries could be read by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus with benefit.


 * I would encourage you to make an edit to the article that you would feel comfortable with. I think it needs to say in some way that the concept of ishta devata is rejected by Prabhupada, and is central to the other two commentaries. Buddhipriya 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Buddhipriya, in reply to the above -
 * There are some differences of opinion with different braches of Vaishnavism but the belief that "Worship of any deity from the Hindu pantheon other than that of Vishnu and his avatars isn't classified as worship of God" is not one of these - it's one of the defining principles of classical Vaishnavism . It is specifically worship of devas from Hinduism which certain Puranas describe as being servants of Vishnu (rather than Vishnu himself), or who are at least not listed as Vishnu avatars, which is frowned upon - not God as worshipped in other religious systems. It's an internal debate within Hinduism more than a general sectarian one. See for example the following quotes from the NBS regarding figures outside of Hinduism:


 * "The world still worships saviors such as Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, and Lord Caitanya. Many other pure devotees continue to appear, as the son of God or as sakty-avesa avataras, to save the human race." Narada Bhakti Sutra verse 71


 * "Sometimes devotees are personally attacked with violence. Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, Haridasa Thakura was caned in twenty-two marketplaces, and Lord Caitanya's principal assistant, Nityananda, was violently attacked by Jagai and Madhai...." Narada Bhakti Sutra verse 39


 * "An example of such a pure devotee is Lord Jesus Christ, who agreed to be mercilessly crucified rather than give up preaching on behalf of God. He was never prepared to compromise on the issue of believing in God. Such a son of God cannot be other than dear to the Lord." from Mukunda-mala-stotra


 * As you said above, none of this debate has affected the article in any way. I do appreciate your approach in this will try and think of what could be added without labouring the point any more than we really need to. Sincere Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will leave handling of this issue in your capable hands. My only suggestion is that if the subject is raised, it would be good to avoid too many generalizations about Vaisnava beliefs, as the worship of Vishnu is a wonderfully broad topic in itself.  I know from personal experience that there are Smarta Vaisnavas who would rather build bridges between different faith communities rather than erect walls between them. Buddhipriya 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I second Gauranga's explanations. Narada being a prominent Vaishnava acharya certainly teaches Vishnu/Krishna bhakti, not 'anya-devata' bhakti, which is rejected by Krishna in BG (9.23) as avidhi-purvakam (against sastra-viddhi). Regarding those who reject sastra vidhi see 16.23. The commentary was finished by Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami. --Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Another commentary
Sorry for a delay, but I have been reading the commentaries and have gotten my hands on a fourth one. It is by Swami Bhuteshananda, the 12th President of the Ramakrishna Math. Narada Bhakti Sutras. ISBN 81-7505-199-X. I have not read it yet but thumbing through it it appears to be generally in the same vein as the commentary by Swami Prabhavananda, who is also of the Ramakrishna order. So the Smarta perspective is evident. I will add the citation to the article. Since we now have a characterization of the Prabupada commentary as to tradition, I will add a similar sentence for the ones from the Ramakrishna order. We already have a characterization of the Prakash commentary as a Western perspective. I have finished the Prakash version and have warmed up to it. If the text were to be used to teach the Sanskrit from, I would use either the Prabhupada version or the Prakash version for the word-by-word vocabulary analysis, as both of those two parse the Sanskrit at the word level. Buddhipriya 00:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)