bad translations

[janardana prabhu 0]

Many a hack have penned there name to Sri Krishna's Bhagavad Gita. But all fall short but one. A. C. BHAKTIVEDANTAS BHAGAVAD GITA AS IT IS even with its minor falts it carries the spirit of Sri Krishna in full. And those that read its pages with awe and reverence(take note shvu) will have found Krishna the true friend of all living entities. As amasing as it seems there are those that are trying to remove the Personal aspect of Krishna from this book. this is complete madness, and there is no philosphy that can ever cool the burning heart of these rascals. All they can do is harass others, but even this does not cool there fever. There can be no solution when you reject the soul and supersoul. Dear brothers let us pray for these miserable people! Even though they ask to be engaged in philosophical debate, what they really need is a hug and gentle words that even they are dearly loved by the Supreme Lord! even if they reject Him for a million lives, they too will evetually see the Light. untill then they are fare game for those Sadus that take pleasure in defeating there stupidity. Let them rant and rave, when its our turn, we will glorify the Personal Form of Sri Krishna and drink the nectar that eminates from His golden flute.

[animesh 0]

I feel that this forum should be used for healthy discussion. Nobody should expect others to belive in what he/she says blindly. Sri Gaurachandra has called Sri Shvu's usage of the terms "his fans", "lap it up" etc. as impolite. I wonder what he will call the usage of the words "rascals", "madness", "burning heart" etc in this posting. Sri Janardana Prabhu writes as if the people who do not believe in personal form of Krishna deny the concept of soul and super soul, but in reality, this is very far from the truth. If somebody says that Krishna did not appear in his original form, then he is not doing any insult to Krishna. As an example, even ISKCON people do not call all forms of Krishna as original. Does it mean that they insult those forms. Sri janardanaprabhu also has called all the translations of Gita other than that of SP as wrong without telling why it is wrong. It is extremely unhealthy to criticize others just because they do not agree with one's point of view. I really like the way Sri Shvu and Sri jndas discuss. They both make contradictory statements, but both of them discuss in a very proper manner, i.e., they give proper examples to explain their point of view. They do not simply make a statement and expect others to follow. This is why, in spite of their making contradictory statements, I like the way of thinking of both these people.

When I first came to know about this site, then I was very impressed by it, but such kind of postings really disppoint me. If it is felt that all those who do not agree with what ISKCON people say are bad, then it should be mentioned very clearly in this site that "nobody who contradicts ISKCON people is supposed to participate in the discussion forum". Also, anybody taking part in this forum should clearly mention whether or not he is associated with ISKCON.

If we are supposed to simply blindly follow what somebody else says, then I must say that the name "Discussion Forum" is a misnomer.

[viji_53 0]

Dear animesh,

You are correct. ISKCON people can not expect every one to accept blindly what their Guru says is correct.Lord Krishna Himself will not like such type of impoliteness in His name. First of all let me say that Hinduism is like Banyan tree & it will spread itself. We do not need any preaching for spreading it. If at all non hidus need any preaching ; they should be correctly taught about Bhagavatam which clearly says Krishna is one of the avatars of Lord Narayana. Narayana is the Supreme God. By the impoliteness of few people the name of ISKCON gets spoiled. What is the use of being a devotee of Krishna if you do not have politeness? Janardana Prabu's ahankara is clearly shown in his words. Lord Krishna never likes the persons who speaks harsh words. First let us learn to speak sweet words then we can talk about God & philosophy.

Hari Bhol!

viji

[animesh 0]

In one shloka, Krishna says that there was never a time when he did not exist or anybody else. It is obvious that he was not talking about his bodily form. Because he is talking not only about himself but about everybody else (Arjuna, all kings etc.). So, if we say that Krishna was saying that his bodily form always existed, then we must be ready to accept that the bodily forms of everybody else always existed. In other words, if a person is reborn, then the two bodies are identical. But this is clearly contradicted by scriptures. Only the soul remains unborn. So we can safely conclude that all Krishna was saying was that "there was never a time when the soul of anybody did not exist". This is further confirmed by other shlokas.

Those people who say that the Supreme God appeared in his original form as Krishna, do not call all forms of Krishna as original. Why is it that God had to appear in original form as Krishna but not as others like Rama, Narasimha etc. Some people might say that the work to be performed by Krishna was so big and important that he had to appear in his original form. But what about the works performed by different forms of Vishnu (Maha Vishnu etc.)? Are they any less important or big?

 

I once again read all the shlokas of Bhagwat Gita. Fortunately, I have got knowledge of Sanskrit. I did not find a single shloka which sates that the two handed form standing before Arjuna was the original form of the Supreme God. But I did find many shlokas in which Krishna calls himself as the Supreme God. Now the question is: How do we correlate these two seemingly contradictory observations? I feel that these are not at all contradictory if we think analytically. We know that many forms of the Supreme God give birth to many other forms, e.g. Vishnu appeared as Rama. As respected Viji states, he has given birth to the Krishna form also. Similarly Maha Vishnu gives birth to other forms of Vishnu. But, we do not know of a single shloka which states that Krishna form gave birth to any other form of the Supreme God. But we should not forget that, in Gita, Krishna has been called as the Supreme God.

 

Based on these observations, I conclude the following: -

 

Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu like Rama was his avatar. But this does not mean that Krishna can not be considered as the Supreme God. All forms of the Supreme God can be considered as Supreme because no matter whatever form the Supreme God takes, he has got all the powers. He may not decide to use some of these powers if there is no need, but he has got the power. As an example, Rama never made it obvious that he was God, but he could if he wanted to. So, Krishna's form can not be called as more original form of the Supreme God than Rama's. Similrly Rama's form can not be considered as more original than Krishna's form. The same holds true if we talk of any other avatar, not only Rama and Krishna.

 

If somebody feels that I am wrong, then please do not just say that I am wrong. I request you to kindly give the reasons. I will be very glad if somebody is able to point out the fallacies in my interpretation by siting shlokas from scriptures. This will help me correct my mistakes and improve my knowledge.

 

Before closing, I would really like to ask what we mean by the original form of the Supreme God. As the word suggests, the original form should be the form that was there when the Supreme God was born. But this can not be true because he is unborn. We can talk about the form which is the origin of a FINITE no. of other forms, e.g. Vishnu is the origin of many avataras on Earth. But there is no meaning of talking about the form which is the origin of all other forms. Supreme God exists, in a cycle, not in a single form but in a large no. of forms. So, I accept that the Supreme God has got form (or better forms). But we can't call any one form as the ultimate original.

 

Always remembering Sri Ramachandra,

yours truly.

[Gauracandra 1]

Animesh,

 

Yes, I agree that this discussion has become unnecessarily impolite and would advise Janardana to tone down this rhetoric regardless of what Shvu may say in the future. I have personally decided to drop this conversation and let it die for lack of oxygen. Take care.

 

Gauracandra

[shvu 1]

 

Dear J Prabhu,

 

Very eloquent.

 

If you disagree with my postings, you should as a minimum, read at least one other translation of the Gita and prove me wrong by providing proper references. Now that would be worthy of a Veteran disciple of SP. Otherwise I consider your postings as meaningless rambling. Just so you know, your abuses do not bother me one bit. I have faced such a reaction from SP's Devotees before and am very well seasoned.

 

Dear Guaracandra,

 

According to current Indology, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are Myths written by poets. If the war was a myth, then Arjuna would have needed no advice, which means the Gita is baseless. So as you can see Indology and the content of Shastras do not go together.

 

It is true that the Impersonal View came after Buddhism. But remember that the Personal View came after the Impersonal View. They are just views put forth by people.

 

To all,

 

Disputing and debating over Shastras is an integral part of Hinduism, right from early times. As opposed to this, the Christians are taught to faithfully follow everything where there is no scope for questioning. So debating over Shastras may appear wrong to people with a Christian background.

[shvu 1]

 

Dear Animesh,

 

About 500 years back, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu spread the glory of Krishna in North India, and what is now called as the Bhakti movement. Subsequently 6 of his disciples took up the job of writing literature to establish a new System known as the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya. This system primarily considers Krishna as the original and complete form of the Supreme Power. They rely on the Bhagavatam as their main Authority. They look upon the Bhagavatam as a parallel Shruthi.

 

If you read the the Bhagavatam, you will notice that Narada tells Vyasa to write about the glories of the Krishna Avatara and to promote the Bhakti marga which is the simplest way to God-Realisation for the people of Kali-Yuga. On Narda's advice Vyasa came up with the Bhagavata Purana to give details of the Krishna Leela. Naturally it is focussed more on the Krishna Avatara, and stresses on Bhakti as the easiest means to attain God. A Purana as per rules, should contain certain mandatory elements and should follow a pattern. So it also contains history of the world and also mentions the other Avatars.

 

SP hails from the line of Gaudiya Vaishnavas and his translations are in favor of his Tradition. Thus the ISKCON people have their roots in the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

 

Basically Vaishnavas are worshippers of Vishnu. The other Vaishnava Systems disagree that Krishna is the Supreme form. They maintain that Krishna is yet another form of Vishnu/Narayana. And of course, they have references to support their view.

 

I hope that gives a better picture of the whole thing.

[viji_53 0]

Dear shvu,

I really appreciate your knowledge & maturity. We can not argue with immatured people. Maturity is not related with age. 5 year old Prahalada was more matured than his father Hiranyakasipu. When our Dharma gives us freedom to dispute who are these ISKCON people to refuse it?. Purpose of Hindu religion which teaches tolerence loses its value if we are forced to accept which we do not agree.

Hari Bhol!

viji

[animesh 0]

Dear Viji and Shvu,

I agree with you two that any form of Supreme God is equally worshipable. I feel it is very easy to find this if we read shlokas in our holy books with open and unbiased mind. This is what I have mentioned in one of my comments in this thread itself. Please read this and tell me if you find me to be correct/incorrect?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

"We can not argue with immatured people."

 

Mature people don't argue.

[viji_53 0]

Dear jndas,

Why do you get perturbed by the truth? Do you justify janadanaprabu's words? If you do not want matured people to participate in this forum, the forum will end up with nonsense. Learn to face truth.

HariBhol!

[Gauracandra 1]

"Why do you get perturbed by the truth? Do you justify janadanaprabu's words? If you do not want matured people to participate in this forum, the forum will end up with nonsense. Learn to face truth."

 

To be honest with you, Viji, I think that has already happened. It appears to me that certain people have agendas. Topics that start off on one point, inevitably end up in anti-Iskcon rhetoric. Why? I would hardly call the discussions thus far on the forums mature. As the saying goes, "So much heat, soooo little light." That about sums up these forum discussions.

 

Gauracandra

[janardana prabhu 0]

Shvu writes-If you disagree with my postings, you should as a minimum, read at least one other translation of the Gita and prove me wrong by providing proper references. Now that would be worthy of a Veteran disciple of SP. Otherwise I consider your postings as meaningless rambling.-

Dear shvu and other members of this forum, I apologize if I have offended anyone by my standing up for Srila Prabhupada. But stand up I must! And I will continue to do so whenever and wherever I find His good name trampled underfoot, just as you have been doing in your postings. As far as reading other translations, so that I can debate you further is of no real interest to me . It is not important for me to prove you right or wrong. I am only taking advantage of some of your more stupid comments about Srila Prabhupada to preach His message. If you could understand anything about the devotee you should know that any opportunity to chant, write, type the name of SRI KRISHNA is bliss. And I relish the opportunity. For that I thank you! You may try to steer the conversation away from KRISHNA and I will reassert that it is none other than SRI KRISHNA, who sang the Gita, who is the true friend of us all. So go ahead and play with others with your infantile circular logic games. Just remember that if you continue to offend the dear object of our affection you will be rebuked and forced to read over and over the wonderful and magical names of the Supreme Lord SRI KRISHNA AND SRI RAMA! Go ahead MAKE MY DAY!

 

[viji_53 0]

Give prominence to intellect over emotions. God has placed your emotional heart and logical mind in one body. Do not be swayed by emotions, nor be carried away by mere logic. Obtain inspiration from the heart,guidance from the brain and go ahead with steady steps.

From Atharvana Veda.

Hari Bhol!

viji

[shvu 1]

 

Dear J Prabhu,

 

I wonder if you even understood what I was writing about all this time ? I suggest you read the previous postings, if you haven't.

 

I am not running a 'negative propaganda' mission against your Guru or against devotion to Krishna. But it appears like that is what you think I am doing.

 

Ggohil wanted Vedic refernces to certain translations of SP. I made my Observations and commments on the translations. That was all. That does not in anyway mean that I consider his mission as false or all his disciples as worthless. Nor did I tell anyone to do something different from what they have been doing.

 

You seem to be a touchy person. Take it easy and relax. All this time, I have been talking about something and you have been talking about something else.