Commentaries on Maha-Mantra -

Dear Vaishnavas, Radhe Radhe !

I'm translating the commentaries of Srila Jiva Gosvami on the Maha-mantra to Portuguese (compiled by S.N.M. from GM).

My question: is this translation below giving the (right and only) meaning for parirambha-vicaksana

Verse 10:

Rama---Sri Krishna is parirambha-vicaksana, the crest-jewel amongst those ingenious in the arts of embracing. He is thus known as Rama because He wanders with Sri Radhika, playing and enjoying with Her in kunjas of Govardhana.

Does anyone has the translations in english, for Sri-Raghunatha-Gosvami-Krta Mahamantra-vyakhya ?
( commentary on Maha-mantra composed by S.R.D.G.)

Anyother translation of Sri Jiva Gosvami on Maha-Mantra available ?

What is the best definition for dhira-lalita-nayaka?


Yours,

Why don't you check out the attached file. It should have everything you need, plus some more.

Parirambha means embracing and vicaksana means skillful, clever, splendid and so forth. Sri Jivapada writes:

govardhana-darI-kuJje parirambha-vicakSaNaH |
zrI-rAdhAM ramayAmAsa rAmas tena mato hariH || 10 ||

"When He makes love with Radha in the caves and groves of Govardhana, the splendid embracer Hari is known as Rama."

The translations of the NM's nama-vyakhyas, as well as most of the translations in their giti-guccham, tend to elaborate on the original text beyond the literal meaning. They are rarely literal.



Have you read the Ujjvala-nilamani? You'll find the exact description under Nayaka-bheda-prakaranam, the first chapter. That's the best definition.

Literally dhira-lalita-nayaka would translate to "a clever and playful lover".

Thank youuuu !





Well, I remember that i read something... The thing is, I will move to other place near by soon, now my books and other things are all inside the box.







Some times, it is hard to see things clear in a foggy day...






yours,

(Translated by Jagadananda Das)

govardhana-darI-kuJje parirambha-vicakSaNaH |
zrI-rAdhAM ramayAmAsa rAmas tena mato hariH ||

"When Krishna, the expert embracer, makes love with Radha in the forest bowers or the caves of Govardhan, He is known as Rama".


(translated by Srila Narayna Maharaja)

Verse 10:

Rama---"Sri Krishna is parirambha-vicaksana, the crest-jewel amongst those ingenious in the arts of embracing. He is thus known as Rama because He wanders with Sri Radhika, playing and enjoying with Her in the kunjas of Govardhana".

---

My first question was based on my own mistake. The word ingenious(vicaksana) that is very similar to the word 'ingenuo' in Portuguese, have two different meanings, the first : resourceful, clever, original, inventive, etc.. the second (in Portuguese):

from Lat. ingenuu

adj.,
natural;
em que não há malícia; (that has no malice )
simples; (simple)
inocente; (inocent)
ant.,
puro, sem mistura de sangue plebeu; (pure not mixed)

from Lat. ingenuitate

s. f.,

simplicidade; (simplicity)
singeleza. (Gentle)


Although they are similar in form but there are difference in meaning.

---

So my point now is, what about the final result or effect of a translation , how can we analyze a poesy that has in it some sort of beauty and the context is about rasa or mellow ? What, if by the public opinion one way is more poetical than other and the translation responds better to their feelings?


Would not that be counted as if the poesy (translated) has achieved it is aim of exposing the beauty in it ?

I'm not expert in poesy, I just want to understand how to judge an interpretation.


My pranans goes for both translators.

(Translated by Jagadananda Das)

govardhana-darI-kuJje parirambha-vicakSaNaH |
zrI-rAdhAM ramayAmAsa rAmas tena mato hariH ||

"When Krishna, the expert embracer, makes love with Radha in the forest bowers or the caves of Govardhan, He is known as Rama".



(translated by Srila Narayna Maharaja)

Verse 10:

Rama---"Sri Krishna is parirambha-vicaksana, the crest-jewel amongst those ingenious in the arts of embracing. He is thus known as Rama because He wanders with Sri Radhika, playing and enjoying with Her in the kunjas of Govardhana".

---

Well looks like my (pointless) Q will be swallowed by this virtual-giant-website at any time and be part of the countless number of Q&A in its memory. But before that happen, let me try to say something about these two translations. Why do I have the necessity to understand it's contribution? I don’t really know…



The word "Srila" for Narayna Maharaja, is a superlative that somewhat indicates his Guru position, seniority or any another appreciation that is derived from his followers. As so, his writings has a certain compromise to a particular Institution, Group or Organization. On the other side, our respected and dear Jagadananda takes with him only the "Dasa" position, which (somewhat) indicates his less compromised connection with a particular Institution, etc…. His natural and free desires take his hands with a skillful capacity and makes him to write and translate whatever is beneficial to his own state of mind. One writes to his and friends's heart pleasure and the other, writes to the heart's content of his Institution and followers. One is a lenient and the other is a good-heart-free-thinker inside an Institution. Therefore, they both contribute with their different visions and ability to describe (what they can see) about the Truth.



Let me not forget to say: Thank You Madhavananda!, to share your personal Collection of "Precious Writings-Like-Peals". It shows your good taste and character. Good job!

I’m looking forward to savor some more of this rare type of nectar.



Yours truly,

Hari Saran

There is also another angle to looking at various translators. There are undoubtedly infinite opportunities to express one's own inner experiences invoked by any given verse, but there are also people who aspire to stay as close to the original text of the author as possible. For what I have seen, Jagadananda is a translator who aspires to present translations which are as true to the original as possible, in contrast to a great number of others who have a desire to present the original text seen through their own visions. Both styles of translation certainly have their place in this world. However, when we debate a "correct" meaning for a text, we generally seek the meaning which is closest to the original, without anything added or substracted.