Jimbo

"BUT the Gita has sanskrit to english TRANSLITERATION! If you don't want to read the Purports please go ahead. Don't blame devotees, blame Krishna! Krishna Himself says He is Supreme. WHERE Do YOU think people get the idea of God from?????" Govindaram, i dont have a problem with the purports. They're some of the best material ive ever read. What i have a problem with is the BIAS that has crept into his work which is evident at the beginning of the text, after which he seemed to have settled down a bit. My problem is that god cant be found in one religion, god must be found in every religion. to put prabhupada's translation at the forefront and have 'sects' / 'cults' like ISKON preach is as the only way is a slap on the face of alot of hindu's. it is not a seperate entity from hinduism, just another interpretation of it.

my first translation of the gita is by prabhupada and i find the setup of the text very good and accessable. the explanations are mostly good as well. my other version is by yoganda and ive yet to read it. but i have a doubt which annoys me constantly. im aware that the 'history' of the hindu gods has been changed and manipulated somewhat over the ages. we had the trinity which were really one god. then we progressed into considering vishnu as the supreme. apparently history shows that indra and surya worship in early times was on par with vishnu worship, but over time it gave way to vishnu and shiva. anyway, krishna was considered an avatar. now prabuphadas book seems (to me) to be biased towards and giving the impression that krishna is the supreme and the other two are lesser. so nowadays we consider krishna as the supreme. personally i thought krishna to be the PERSONALITY of godhead but still an avatar on earth to deliver the message. its the age old vaishnava fued in play. i personally dont care who's the greatest as hinduism at its core isnt meant to be polytheistic, but do you think prahbupada's interpretation is accurate? or based on his assumptions? im in no way stating that he's a fake, but i do find it ironic that he attacks those who've made other versions of gita (in his words "fulfilling their own agenda") while he himself has presented his own opinion with his book. reading much of the opening of his version feels almost intimidating as it gives the impression of an unaccepting and conversionist attitude you could compare with many christians out there. i vist ISKON sometimes but im not enjoying the singlemindedness they derive from this translation of the gita... what are your thoughts on this?