versions of as it is

[Gaea 0]

I have only read 1 version of Prabhuapada's translation of the Gita. I compare to other translations and the words - indeed the entire meaning of the verses - vary... expected, as the translator may knowingly or unknowingly put his/her own thoughts into it.

 

I just wanted to analyse this deeper; let's take Prabhupada's translations first - have these changed significantly over the years? (question prompted by someone's post in another thread, pointing to 1972 Gita - why that one in particular?)

[Kulapavana 0]

I have (and use frequently) at least 4 Vaishnava translations of the Gita. The differences are fairly minor IMO.

[andy108 0]

 

I have only read 1 version of Prabhuapada's translation of the Gita. I compare to other translations and the words - indeed the entire meaning of the verses - vary... expected, as the translator may knowingly or unknowingly put his/her own thoughts into it.

 

I just wanted to analyse this deeper; let's take Prabhupada's translations first - have these changed significantly over the years? (question prompted by someone's post in another thread, pointing to 1972 Gita - why that one in particular?)

 

No, Srila Prabhupada's (Bhaktivedanta Swami's) translations never changed at all. The 1972 Bhagavad Gita As It Is was his complete and unabridged seminal treatment of Bhagavad Gita.

 

He admitted there may be some flaws in spelling and minor grammatical deviations from what is generally accepted in the circles of English scholars, but that these were not important enough to change the message he was sure he got across.

 

For this reason, he repeatedly discouraged the disciples he employed as editors on his future writing projects, from considering that his Gita need any further scrutiny. It was good enough for him, and his name was on it.

 

Unfortunately, after he left his body, and was unable to prevent it, his ambitious disciples went back to his Gita, claimed it needed the minor spelling and grammatical corrections the author did not authorize, and proceeded to change over 50% of the contents, changing the philosophical slant in many cases.

 

This is the truth, as it is.

[AncientMariner 0]

All I know is Prabhupada was a badass. Don't care what anyone has to say about it. That is final as far as I am concerned no matter how much mental gymnastics and contortions all the critics can come up with.

[gHari 0]

Chewing the chewed: Previous Comprehensive Thread about Editing

[mahak 0]

Plenty said about this, as gHari indicates. It may be surprising to know that one most criticized for editing, Sri Jayadwaita Swami, was deeply influenced by Srila Prabhupadas displeasure over the abridged edition of the Gita in the mid-70s. I, for one, have never been too critical of Sri Jayadwaita, because Srila Prabhupada spent much time with him, establishing him, by his own words, as his authorized editor.

 

Ive seen a few changes that kind of irritate me. I personally think such editing takes away from Prabhupadas personality presented early on, say pre-1972. But I also think Sri Jayadwaita is an honorable man, true to Srila Prabhupada and acting on His order, and only wish my direct service was comparable. I agree with Kula, that the changes were minor. St John the divine, at the end of his Book of Prophecy (Revelations), curses anyone who changes "the meaning" of his words. IMHO, the meaning of Srila Prabhupadas words were not changed in a blatant way, unfortunately some stuff is too slanted to political stances and sectarianism. This is why, on the other thread, I stated that I dont bother with Srimad Bhagavatam after the third volume of tenth canto (Where Srila Prabhupada finished), not because of editing, but because I dont accept the authors of the end volumes in the same manner as I do Srila Prabhupada. Not to say they are not bonafide, but if ya gotta guru, why shop.

 

mahaksadasa

[Smiley 1]

I see your point. Perhaps the attribution should be "HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and his disciples"?

 

 

No, Srila Prabhupada's (Bhaktivedanta Swami's) translations never changed at all. The 1972 Bhagavad Gita As It Is was his complete and unabridged seminal treatment of Bhagavad Gita.

 

He admitted there may be some flaws in spelling and minor grammatical deviations from what is generally accepted in the circles of English scholars, but that these were not important enough to change the message he was sure he got across.

 

For this reason, he repeatedly discouraged the disciples he employed as editors on his future writing projects, from considering that his Gita need any further scrutiny. It was good enough for him, and his name was on it.

 

Unfortunately, after he left his body, and was unable to prevent it, his ambitious disciples went back to his Gita, claimed it needed the minor spelling and grammatical corrections the author did not authorize, and proceeded to change over 50% of the contents, changing the philosophical slant in many cases.

 

This is the truth, as it is.

[Smiley 1]

Would you please clarify what you mean when you say "badass"?

 

 

All I know is Prabhupada was a badass. Don't care what anyone has to say about it. That is final as far as I am concerned no matter how much mental gymnastics and contortions all the critics can come up with.

[Haridasdasdas 0]

 

I have only read 1 version of Prabhuapada's translation of the Gita. I compare to other translations and the words - indeed the entire meaning of the verses - vary... expected, as the translator may knowingly or unknowingly put his/her own thoughts into it.

 

I just wanted to analyse this deeper; let's take Prabhupada's translations first - have these changed significantly over the years? (question prompted by someone's post in another thread, pointing to 1972 Gita - why that one in particular?)

 

Interestingly Prabhupada himself said that the translations were not very important, since they varied little despite the different views of the translators.

 

The importance of Prabhupada's Gita is in the purports. Scriptures are supposed to be read under the guidance of a Guru, and in the form of the purports, Prabupada provides this guidance to everyone.

 

I think it's a good idea, and I would reccomend any Sampradaya that doesn't like Prabhupada's purports to write their own, and publish their own gita in the same fashion, it will be educating for everyone.

[Smiley 1]

I believe this is the original, unaltered version of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita: www.asitis.com

Everyone can read it online for free.

 

 

I have only read 1 version of Prabhuapada's translation of the Gita. I compare to other translations and the words - indeed the entire meaning of the verses - vary... expected, as the translator may knowingly or unknowingly put his/her own thoughts into it.

 

I just wanted to analyse this deeper; let's take Prabhupada's translations first - have these changed significantly over the years? (question prompted by someone's post in another thread, pointing to 1972 Gita - why that one in particular?)