Post by amalagauradas on May 12, 2020 17:39:50 GMT -5
I want to thank Uttamashloka Prabhu for this book. I read it and will post another review but this topic of translating mana to mind is kind of a separate topic that I wanted to raise.
I don't think this is a mistake, but just an area I think raises confusion because of the cultural differences between the direct Sanskrit based languages and English
Regarding serving with the "siddha deha" within the mind, I think we should be careful using "mind" as a translation for "mana". There is no doubt a loose coorelation between the two and "mind" is commonly used as a translation for "mana". But the two words are not exact counterparts.
Mana is to be understood as including the emotional mind. As a concrete example, if translate "mood" to Hindi you will get the Hindi/Sanskrit word "manodashA". mana and dasha. It could be translated as "mental state" or "state of mind" but it is also "state of emotion" or "mood".
So concentrating the mana can denote an approach of feelings rather than a type of mental concentration. We cannot, in English, concentrate our emotions on something. There is no term "emotional concentration", but manasic concentration can be considered a focus of feelings.
The point of all this etymology is that I take issue with the more direct translation of CC 2.22.157 that is offered.
‘mane’ nija-siddha-deha kariya bhavana
ratri-dine kore vraje krishnera sevana
"Next, internally, one should engage the mind to think of one’s own siddha-deha, and in that spiritual body conceived within the mind, one should day and night perform seva to Krishna in Vrndavana."
It uses an idea of mana as "mind". I consider the following as a far more accurate direct understanding.
"One should engage internally in the understanding of one’s own siddha-deha, and being absorbed in that spiritual body, one should day and night perform seva to Krishna in Vrindavana."
I feel this lessens the idea of the mental siddha-deha as dependent on a mental conception or "thinking" of a siddha-deha.
I don't think this is a mistake, but just an area I think raises confusion because of the cultural differences between the direct Sanskrit based languages and English
Regarding serving with the "siddha deha" within the mind, I think we should be careful using "mind" as a translation for "mana". There is no doubt a loose coorelation between the two and "mind" is commonly used as a translation for "mana". But the two words are not exact counterparts.
Mana is to be understood as including the emotional mind. As a concrete example, if translate "mood" to Hindi you will get the Hindi/Sanskrit word "manodashA". mana and dasha. It could be translated as "mental state" or "state of mind" but it is also "state of emotion" or "mood".
So concentrating the mana can denote an approach of feelings rather than a type of mental concentration. We cannot, in English, concentrate our emotions on something. There is no term "emotional concentration", but manasic concentration can be considered a focus of feelings.
The point of all this etymology is that I take issue with the more direct translation of CC 2.22.157 that is offered.
‘mane’ nija-siddha-deha kariya bhavana
ratri-dine kore vraje krishnera sevana
"Next, internally, one should engage the mind to think of one’s own siddha-deha, and in that spiritual body conceived within the mind, one should day and night perform seva to Krishna in Vrndavana."
It uses an idea of mana as "mind". I consider the following as a far more accurate direct understanding.
"One should engage internally in the understanding of one’s own siddha-deha, and being absorbed in that spiritual body, one should day and night perform seva to Krishna in Vrindavana."
I feel this lessens the idea of the mental siddha-deha as dependent on a mental conception or "thinking" of a siddha-deha.
