Editorial Note

In translating Sanskrit works of poetry or verse into their prose form, the traditional system employed was to first rearrange the words of a verse into their proper syntactical order, which would necessarily be different from the sequential order of the words composing the verse. This syntactical reconstruction is known as anvaya. In the grammatical lexicon, A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, anvaya is defined as “the arrangement of words according to their mutual relationship based upon the sense conveyed by them” (śabdānāṁ parasparam arthānugamanam). Monier-Williams gives it as “the natural order or connection of words in a sentence, or syntax.”

From this, it is clear that an anvaya is meant to convey something more than individual sequential word meaning, which is simply not designed to show the syntactical connection between the words. In reality, it is the sentence as an indivisible whole that conveys meaning and, hence, the precise sense of the words that make up that sentence really only emerges through careful analysis of their mutual relations. Taking all of this into consideration, we have followed the traditional system for representing the anvaya in accordance with sentence syntax and not according to the sequence of the words as they appear in a verse.

To assist the reader in understanding the anvaya system employed throughout this volume, we specify below the special features that have gone into its construction. This will serve the purpose of deepening comprehension of both specific terms and overall sentence meaning. The anvaya can thus be used as a tool to unlock the often hidden import of the verses. Moreover, the anvaya and verse, taken together as a unit of meaning, can be read in apposition to each other to facilitate reflection on and contemplation of the śabda.

The first thing to be noted is the anvaya’s skeletal structure or framework, in which individual words or compounds are arranged together in such a manner that they form the actual outline of the translated sentence. This is clearly evident by reading the verse translations themselves, which mirror the anvaya construction. To make this framework possible, it was necessary to insert bracketed texts to supply the meaning for omitted words and to illuminate the meaning of the words used in the verses. Special rules have also been implemented in the anvaya to deal with issues like the Sanskrit case endings.

The bracketed inserts for the most part contain the gloss on words drawn from the commentaries of the principal Śrīmad Bhāgavata commentators, including Śrīdhara Svāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Vaṁśīdhara, Vīrarāghava, Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, Śukadeva, Vallabhācārya, and Giridhara. These citations generally include both the Sanskrit and English along with footnotes identifying the commentator in question. In consulting these commentaries, attention has been given not only to the elucidation of individual word meanings but also to the syntactical connection between words. Thus, the commentaries have been crucial both to the precise construction of the anvaya and the resultant verse translation, which is literally the version of the text according to the Bhāgavata commentators. In the few cases where no Sanskrit is provided in bracketed inserts, the comment is added by the editors.

The bracketed inserts are used in several different ways. The most basic is when a bracket follows the English translation of a Sanskrit word used in the verse, for example, “vivitsitaḥ — all that he wished to know [jñātum iṣṭam].” Here, the words jñātum iṣṭam clarify the meaning of the word vivitsitaḥ using Sanskrit synonyms that are more easily recognizable for those who have some basic familiarity with Sanskrit words. In this case, an English translation of the words jñātum iṣṭam is not required because their meaning is identical to the one already given, i.e., “all that he wished to know.”

When, however, the bracketed Sanskrit words provide something more than simplified synonyms, the English translation is then required, for example, “ātmavān — [who] has realized the Self [who has directly intuited the truth of the individual self and the Supreme Self (vijñātātma-paramātma-tattvaḥ)].” Here, the commentator has clarified the meaning of the word ātmavān with the phrase given in parentheses.

In cases where more than one commentator is cited within the same bracket, their comments are separated by semicolons, for example, “avyayam — who are immutable [i.e., indivisible (aparicchinnam); implying that although You are present everywhere, You remain undiffused by such expansion (sarvatra sthito’py avyayaṁ tena saha na vyeti)].” Here, two different commentators have been cited, as indicated by the semicolon. The footnote markers, which are supplied in the text itself, have been removed here to simplify the illustration. Otherwise, they normally appear immediately after semicolons and the closing parenthesis but inside the closing square bracket. If, however, a single commentator provides more than one explanation of the same term, these are separated by a comma instead, for example, “abaddhavati api — even though grammatically defective [(apa-śabdādi yukte’pi), or devoid of poetic artistry (vināpi pada-cāturyam)].”

In some cases, a bracket is directly connected to a Sanskrit word used in the verse, for example, “arkaḥ iva [sarva-darśī] — like the [all-seeing] sun.” Here, the word sarva-darśī, “all-seeing,” does not appear in the verse but has been supplied by the commentator. By placing it here (instead of after the English translation), the commentator’s analysis of the syntax is shown directly, which also preserves the sentential quality of the reading.

In other cases, brackets are inserted between terms to supply words that are omitted yet required to complete the sense of the statement. To illustrate this, we provide the following sample of a complete anvaya (minus the footnote markers):

yathā — just as; iha — in this world [loke]; saṁyoga-vigamau — the conjunction and disjunction; krīḍa-upaskarāṇām — of the implements required for play [such as dice (krīḍā-sādhanānām akṣādīnām)]; syātām — occur; icchayā — by the will; krīḍituḥ — of the player; tathā eva — so too; [the conjunction and disjunction (saṁyoga-vigamau)]; nṛṇām — of human beings; [transpire (syātām)]; icchayā — by the will; īśa — [of] Īśvara.

In this example, two brackets have been inserted in between terms to complete the meaning, namely, “[the conjunction and disjunction (saṁyoga-vigamau)],” and “[transpire (syātām)].” It is to be noted that in these brackets, the normal order of the Sanskrit word followed by its English translation is reversed. This is done to distinguish the added words from those actually appearing in the verse itself.

This particular example also illustrates another feature of the anvaya. In verses that contain a simile, indicated by words like yathā, “just as,” there are certain words in the verse that are meant to be applied both to the standard of comparison (upamāna) and to the subject of comparison (upameya). In the above verse, the upamāna is “the implements required for play” (krīḍa-upaskarāṇām) and the upameya is “human beings” (nṛṇām). Thus the compound saṁyoga-vigamau and the verb syātām are applied to both. Once again, this is shown by the bracketed inserts. Footnotes generally accompany all such verses to make clear the twofold application of the words in question.

In some verses, a bracket is inserted containing a commentator’s introductory statement to the verse itself. These texts help to specify the context of the verse, the principal topic with which it is concerned, or its correlation with the preceding verse. These appear as the first entry of the verse’s anvaya, for example, “[Nārada now describes the practice of aṣṭāṅga-yoga undertaken by Dhṛtarāṣṭra in that holy place, in four verses beginning with the following (tatra tena kṛtam aṣṭāṅga-yogam āha snātveti caturbhiḥ)].”

Normal punctuation is applied in these statements, meaning that the initial letter of the first word is upper cased and the sentence is closed with a period. Other than these instances, lower case for all words other than proper names is the general convention applied throughout the anvaya, treating it in this respect as a glossary of terms. There are, however, exceptions to this rule when two or more complete sentences are supplied as a commentator’s gloss within the same bracketed insert. These types of inserts are occasionally found either in the middle of the anvaya or at the very end when a comment is added to clarify a particular point or the verse as a whole. Sentences involving questions also fall under the same category. In all such instances, standard punctuation was inevitable to avoid confusion. Consequently, an overall liberal approach to punctuation has been adopted to account for exceptional cases.

In regard to the rendering of Sanskrit compounds or a series of Sanskrit words all having the same referent and appearing in the same case, only the first word in the series is translated along with its built-in preposition, for example,

“te sarve — they all; vīkṣantaḥ — gazed [vīkṣyamāṇāḥ]; tam [eva] — upon Him [alone]; animiṣaiḥ — with unblinking; akṣaiḥ — eyes [netraiḥ].”

Here, the words animiṣaiḥ and akṣaiḥ are both in the instrumental case and are related as adjective and noun. Hence, the word akṣaiḥ, if treated independently, should have been rendered as “with eyes.” In all such cases, the preposition is omitted from the ensuing words in the series to convert them into a readable form, as is naturally done in the verse translation itself. The connection between the words is, however, clearly indicated by the identical case termination (in this example, “aiḥ”).

To illustrate the use of the footnote markers in the anvaya as well as many of the features discussed above, we present here the following sample from SB 1.2.6:

[Here, the answer to the sages’ first question regarding humanity’s ultimate good (ekāntataḥ śreyaḥ, SB 1.1.9) is given by Sūta.¹]; saḥ — that; vai — alone [eva]; paraḥ — [is] the supreme; dharmaḥ — essential duty [the ultimate good (ekāntikaṁ śreyaḥ); here meaning sādhana-bhakti in the form of śravaṇa, kīrtana, and other such practices (śravaṇa-kīrtanādi-rūpo yo dharmaḥ sa bhaktir eva sādhana-nāmnī)²]; puṁsām — of human beings; yataḥ — from [i.e., by] which; ahaitukī — causeless [arising without cause, signifying its categorical distinction from the material guṇas (hetuṁ vinaivotpadyamānā iti saguṇā vyāvṛttā)]; apratihatā — unobstructed [like an unbroken stream of oil (taila-dhārāvad avacchinna)³]; bhaktiḥ — devotion [characterized as divine love (prema-lakṣaṇā)]; adhokṣaje — for Adhokṣaja, Śrī Kṛṣṇa; [can come into being (bhavet) of its own accord as the completion stage of bhakti itself (bhaktir eva pāk-daśāyām)]; yayā — as a consequence of which; ātmā — the self [or consciousness (cittaḥ)⁴]; suprasīdati — is completely fulfilled.

In the above passage, the inserts [eva] and [ekāntikaṁ śreyaḥ] are understood as Śrīdhara Svāmī’s comments by the statement made in footnote 1. Accordingly, all unmarked inserts from number 2 onward are understood as Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s comments by the statement made in footnote 2. This strategy has been adopted to try to minimize, as far as possible, the total number of footnote markers, which can be quite numerous in many of the key verses that contain lengthy commentaries.

Although the complete anvaya system as detailed above may at first appear somewhat complex, once the reader adjusts to it, the reading becomes straightforward, and it greatly facilitates a deeper comprehension of the verses. In this regard, several different approaches to the reading may be adopted. Those who can read Sanskrit will be greatly enriched by the addition of the commentators’ Sanskrit glosses that illuminate the meaning. Similarly, those who have built up a substantial vocabulary of Sanskrit words through years of study will find the English translations further clarified by reference to their precise Sanskrit terms.

Additionally, since the anvaya is designed as far as possible to read in sentential fashion, even the readers who have no prior exposure to Sanskrit can train the eye to read through the anvaya ignoring the Sanskrit comments altogether. In this manner, they can avail themselves of the deeper and expanded meaning of the verse, which is then neatly compacted in the literal verse translation. And for those who are interested in the translation alone, the anvaya itself can simply be ignored. Even then, it is reassuring to know that the translation has been rendered on the most authoritative grounds and that if any confusion arises in meaning, the anvaya can always be consulted for clarification.