I begin this post with offering great blessing to Geshe Michael Roach and it is with respect to his vast learning, dedication and insight that I am left a little baffled by his Yoga Sutra translation. I have read several translations over the years and some are more interesting than others, some more liberal in their academics than others, but Geshe's is leaving me very confused.
His commentary is nice, if a little soft from an astanga viewpoint. He translates 1.2, which in sanskrit, as I'm sure most people know, reads, yogas chitta vritti nirodhah, as "We become whole by stopping how the mind turns." When I read this, I winced a little. A loose translation is one thing but adding "we" and "becoming whole" is another thing altogeather. It's just not there in the text, and in my mind should be reserved for commentary. A more common translation would be Ramakrishnan's "Yoga is the restraint of mental modifications" or Satchidananda's similar, but more awkward, "The retraint of the modificiation of mind stuff is yoga." Another translation, which I like for its Edwardian succintness, is by Charles Johnson (Bengal Civil Service, ret. 1921) is "Union, spiritual conciousness, is gained through control of the versatile psychic nature."
So I was a little confused by Gashe, but read on, especially given his authority on asian classics...
Then came the translation of 1.23 and 24 "Isvarapranidhanad va/klesa karma vipakasayir aparamrstah purusavisesa isvarah" which is admittedly a difficult translation for anyone and an even more difficult concept for westerners. Satchidananda's translation reads "Or[samadhi is attained] by devotion with total dedication to God [Isvara]" and then "Isvara is the supreme Purusha, unaffected by any afflictions, action, fruits of actions or by any inner impressions of desires," while Iyengar transaltes it thusly. "Or, the citta may be restrained by profound meditation upon God and total surrender to him/ God is a special unique Entity [purusa] who is eternally free from afflictions and unaffected by actions and their reactions, or by their residue."
Roach's translation reads "And another way is to ask the Master for her blessing. / A master[sic] is an extraordinary person who is untouched by mental afflictions, by deeds, their ripening, and their storing." This seems to be very different from an impersonal Self "eternally free." In his commentary on 1.24, Roach goes further towards personalising, or in my mind, humanizing, Isvara by saying that we must "look for a person who really understands where things are coming from."
I'm not trying to be difficult or catty in posing this discussion. I am truly baffled by where Roach is going with this translation. It seems the translation makes nice, if a little fuzzy, commentary, but then that's what it should be; commentary. My dilemma is that I am becoming distrustful of Geshe Michael Roach's authority on this, and therefor all of his previous translations. I have learned a lot about Tibetan Buddhism through his thoughts and I am wondering ifthey were, if not wrong, then perhpas "loaded."
Can someone help to clarify this? Or add to this discussion?
His commentary is nice, if a little soft from an astanga viewpoint. He translates 1.2, which in sanskrit, as I'm sure most people know, reads, yogas chitta vritti nirodhah, as "We become whole by stopping how the mind turns." When I read this, I winced a little. A loose translation is one thing but adding "we" and "becoming whole" is another thing altogeather. It's just not there in the text, and in my mind should be reserved for commentary. A more common translation would be Ramakrishnan's "Yoga is the restraint of mental modifications" or Satchidananda's similar, but more awkward, "The retraint of the modificiation of mind stuff is yoga." Another translation, which I like for its Edwardian succintness, is by Charles Johnson (Bengal Civil Service, ret. 1921) is "Union, spiritual conciousness, is gained through control of the versatile psychic nature."
So I was a little confused by Gashe, but read on, especially given his authority on asian classics...
Then came the translation of 1.23 and 24 "Isvarapranidhanad va/klesa karma vipakasayir aparamrstah purusavisesa isvarah" which is admittedly a difficult translation for anyone and an even more difficult concept for westerners. Satchidananda's translation reads "Or[samadhi is attained] by devotion with total dedication to God [Isvara]" and then "Isvara is the supreme Purusha, unaffected by any afflictions, action, fruits of actions or by any inner impressions of desires," while Iyengar transaltes it thusly. "Or, the citta may be restrained by profound meditation upon God and total surrender to him/ God is a special unique Entity [purusa] who is eternally free from afflictions and unaffected by actions and their reactions, or by their residue."
Roach's translation reads "And another way is to ask the Master for her blessing. / A master[sic] is an extraordinary person who is untouched by mental afflictions, by deeds, their ripening, and their storing." This seems to be very different from an impersonal Self "eternally free." In his commentary on 1.24, Roach goes further towards personalising, or in my mind, humanizing, Isvara by saying that we must "look for a person who really understands where things are coming from."
I'm not trying to be difficult or catty in posing this discussion. I am truly baffled by where Roach is going with this translation. It seems the translation makes nice, if a little fuzzy, commentary, but then that's what it should be; commentary. My dilemma is that I am becoming distrustful of Geshe Michael Roach's authority on this, and therefor all of his previous translations. I have learned a lot about Tibetan Buddhism through his thoughts and I am wondering ifthey were, if not wrong, then perhpas "loaded."
Can someone help to clarify this? Or add to this discussion?
