The Critical Review

[sumeet 0]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

I was going over the review written by the dvaitin scholar Shrisha Rao carefully. Some more thoughts came to my mind, which I would like to share with everyone.

 

" In the Upanishads, the sacred Vedanta texts of yore, one finds in more than one place the well known metaphor of a blind person leading other blind people astray, to illustrate what happens when an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself."

 

Look at the ending words " when an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself ". Here is the a comment from a great educated dvaiti scholar. Now also look at this:

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_38/msg00041.html

" Though sometimes we praised Sri Prabhupada's achievements in spreading the

Bhakti message widely,........."

 

Saprema Narayana Smaranas.

Sri Vishveshateertha Swamiji.

Pejavara Matha. UDUPI.

Here a dvaitin acarya has lauded Srila Prabhupada for his achivements, but wait a minute is " an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself " supposed to be praised by a revered acarya of the sampradya, which calls him incompetent, leading people astray. If Srila Prabhupada is blind acarya who himself knows nothing & is leading people astray. Kindly note here that acording to Shirsha Rao, Srila Prabhupada is leading people astray, which means that he is cheating people; then why is his achievements being lauded. Does Shirsha Rao means to say that revered dvaitin acarya is praising Srila Prabhupada for misleading people and cheating them ?

Also look at another difference according to Shrisha Rao, Srila Prabhupada is a cheater who is misleading people but according to the opinion of the revered dvaitin acarya Srila Prabhupada is a preacher who is spreading bhakti. Or is it to understand that today misleaders who are cheating people are preaching bhakti. If Srila Prabhupada is cheating and is not preaching genuine vaishnava dharama then why is it that the dvaitin acarya has praised it[bhakti spread by Srila Prabhupada]. And this bhakti which is being spread is not by reading Shirsha Rao's BG or opinions but is by reading Srila Prabhupada's translations & commentary. So the bhakti being spread is based on Srila Prabhupada's knwoledge of Vedanta according to Gaudiya Siddhanta. And then the revered dvaitin acarya has lauded Srila Prabhupada's achivements in spreading bhakti. So should we understand that the work which according to Shirsha Rao is " In all, a very poor work, which is to be read and understood only for what it most certainly is not -- a qualified, balanced representation of the meaning of the Bhagavad Gita."[see the last line on the web page] is effective in spreading genuine Bhakti which is being praised by dvaitin acarya. Another thing to note is that " Though sometimes " used by Srimad acarya[dvaitin see on the web link provided] means that he has not praised Srila Prabhupada once but he has done it more than once. Next thing to note is that Srimad acraya says: "Bhakti message"; now certainly the message that Srila Prabhupada has spread is the genuine bhakti presented in Bg otherwise what's the need to mention bhakti message. Note that Srimad acarya never says that Srila Prabhupada has concoted his own message, or has preached his own message; but the way he uses the words bhakti message clearly indicates that he[srimad acarya] is clearly pointing to the genuine bhakti that is the message of Vedas. Certainly the dvaitin acarya mentioned must have read Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad gita before saying something like that, but has he ever said something like this about it.

 

One more thing before I end, one must note that both the review document and post on the links provided are from Shirsha Rao. This clearly shows that although Shirsha Rao has blamed Srila Prabhupada of lying through his teeth, he himself how reverentially follows the foosteps of his own sampradya acarya is shown in this present post by me.

 

Now coming to what is the point of his review, that Srila Prabhupada has lied that the Gaudiyas succeeds from Madhvaacrya one must note one point clearly that Gaudiyas are an genuine branch of the Madhva sampradya. For that one must go through the folowing links-

http://www.vnn.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000492.html

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/indexh.html

and then click on the Validity of Gaudiya Parampara.

This would make one understand that what is the difference and unity between Madhva and Gaudiyas. And the reason why Gaudiyas call themselves a genuine branch of Madhva's sampradya.

 

Furthermore my dear Shvu you had the problem that with Srila Prabhupada's translation and were saying that he has wrongly translated bg from the original sanskrit, so you tell me onething:

" Therefore, Madhva's reading of `tvadanyena na dR^ishhTapUrvaM' is to say, "they, the people less than you in worth, did not see as you did". This is a line from the same review by Shirsha Rao. Here Madhva acarya reads the original sanshrit words "tvadanyena na dR^ishhTapUrvaM" as "the, the people less than you in worth, did not see as you did"

in this translation by Madhva acarya, the sanskrit word for the words- "worthpeopleless" does not appear. And also as you said for Srila Prabhupada that his translation changes the meaning of the verse totally here also in Madhva acarya's translaton the meaning of the word according to actual sanskrit text and the meaning according to Madhva becomes clearly different. So would you also say that Madhva acarya's commentary is flawed.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

Sumeet.

[sumeet 0]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

I forgot to mention in my previous post that-

Note that Srimad acarya never says that Srila Prabhupada has concoted his own message, or has preached his own message; but the way he uses the words bhakti message clearly indicates that he[srimad acarya] is clearly pointing to the genuine bhakti that is the message of Vedas. AFTER THIS WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN MY PREVIOUS POST I FORGOT TO INCLUDE that bhakti which is lauded by dvaitin acarya is genuine bhakti according to vedas. Otherwise what's the need of lauding bhakti, if it is not according to Vedas. And if the Bhakti preached by Srila Prabhupada is according to Vedas then why is it that Madhva acarya wouldn't have given it a yes nod. But according to Shrisha Rao last line of the web page- " It is indeed a travesty that it is often taken seriously by those believing it to have the sanction of Madhva." So if this bhakti has no sanction of Madhva acarya as Shirsha Rao suggests then why has a revered dvaitin acarya lauded it. Certainly no one would laud and praise something that is wrong.

Now here is the big question

 

SHOULD WE FOLLOW SHIRSHA RAO- AN EDUCATED AND LEARNED DVAITIN SCHOLAR OR A REVERED DVAITIN ACARYA- A PURE DEVOTEE OF LORD, A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS DVAITA SIDDHANTA & VEDAS BETTER ESPECIALLY BETTER THAN SHIRSHA RAO????????????????

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

In service of Sri Sri Guru And Gauranga

Sumeet.

[shvu 1]

 

Hi Sumeet,

 

A piece of friendly advice.

 

How about reading postings more carefully, before commenting on them? It will avoid misinterpretation as you have done above. I can pick a number of holes in your arguments, but I won't do so since it really does not help in any way.

 

Now supposing I do go the extent of disproving whatever you have written above, what will your reaction be? You will go back to the review and try to pick some other faults. And finally when you can't do so anymore, you will conveniently become silent. I am not interested in one-way discussions [talk-when-it-suits-me, otherwise-go-silent] as I have told you earlier.

 

I must also add that it is next to impossible to pick faults in Shrisha Rao's material. He has more Vedic knowledge than all the people on this forum put together. Check out some of his postings and you will find out for yourself [if you are willing to do so, that is].

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

 

Clarification:

 

When I said "...all the people on this forum...", that includes me too. This is explicitly stated for the benefit of some people who may conclude that I was not counting myself among them.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra 1]

Hi Sumeet,

 

In my opinion it is of no use discussing this matter with Shvu further. I have conclusively proven him wrong in the forerunner to this posting (re: A Critical Review of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita As It Is) and yet he continues to deny that which is obvious to any unbiased observer. For those not familiar with this point, I will quote again from Shvu:

 

“Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is.

 

1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines.

 

2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.”

 

In response to this, I quoted a number of the most prestigious religious scholars in the country who praised Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita translation. First, they are not his followers (scratch point 1) and second, they have most assuredly read other translations of the Gita (scratch point 2). In the course of conclusively disproving both of Shvu’s statements, I predicted that this would in no way change his mind. In fact, I knew he would do what he is famous for – “The Shvu Wiggle”, trying to wiggle the words around to give him an out. Personally, I think a better description is “The Shvu Slide”, simply because the alliteration makes it sound so much nicer.

 

So how did he slide? Well here is his quote:

 

“Anyway I must say that I consider the people whom you have mentioned above to belong to the second category. I don't believe that they bothered to compare translations and find out what the differences were and why. And those statements above don't say otherwise.”

 

Now I think this is disingenuous at best. Essentially he is acknowledging that I am correct that these individuals are 1) not followers of Srila Prabhupada (scratch point 1) and 2) that these individuals are highly learned scholars of religious thought, who most assuredly have read other translations of the Bhagavad Gita. By the way, you may want to take a look at his response in “slow-motion” so as to see the slight additions he has made to his original point 2, this is what we call “The Shvu Slide”. Essentially he is saying “Show me a statement from someone who says “I have looked at other editions of the Gita, and here are the differences”. But that is not what point 2) says. Again, point 1 – not followers of Srila Prabhupada and point 2) have read other translations of the Bhagavad Gita. To suggest that the individuals I have quoted have not read other translations is disingenuous. Again, any objective observer will see this.

 

But just for a moment, let me pull out one single quote that I gave. Here it is:

 

“I am most impressed with A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s scholarly and authoritative edition of Bhagavad Gita. It is a most valuable work for the scholar as well as the layman and is of great utility as a reference book as well as a textbook. I promptly recommend this edition to my students. It is a beautifully done book.”

 

Dr. Samuel D. Atkins

Professor of Sanskrit, Princeton University

 

Now, let us focus in on Shvu’s original second point:

 

“2) People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.”

 

What is this position that one must be in? By Shvu’s statement it would appear that he places himself in such a “position to know about the distortions which exist in” it.

 

So let me get this straight. Is he suggesting that DOCTOR Samuel D. Atkins, a PROFESSOR of SANSKRIT from PRINCETON University, is not in a “position to know about the distortions which exist”? First this is a PROFESSOR of SANSKRIT. A person with a Doctorate in Sanskrit. And what does he say “It is a most valuable work for the scholar…” He was so “impressed” by this “authoritative” translation that he would “recommend this edition to my students”. Certainly a person with a Doctorate in Sanskrit is in a position to know if any distortions exists in this translation. Certainly a person with a Doctorate in Sanskrit will have read other translations of the Bhagavad Gita, which negates point two of Shvu’s statement. To suggest otherwise is again disingenuous. But let us take this further. This is not simply a Professor of Sanskrit. This is a Professor of Sanskrit at PRINCETON University. You know – Princeton, one of the most elite Universities in the world. Princeton, as in up there with Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and Yale. You know that Princeton? And yet Shvu seems to suggest that such an educated individual, well versed in Sanskrit, most assuredly having read many translations of the Bhagavad Gita, from one of the most prestigious Universities in the world --- is not “in a position to know about the distortions which exist in” it and by implication that Shvu is qualified.

 

The fact is, I have conclusively disproven both points by Shvu. Any objective observer will see this. And yet he will not acknowledge this simple point. This is a Professor of Sanskrit, from Princeton University, who favors this translation. How do we know? Because he recommends its use by his students.

 

So Sumeet, I think you see my point. If Shvu will not concede this simple point, which again is obvious to any objective observer, then certainly he will not listen to any points you make. He will just continue to do “The Shvu Slide” and be disingenuous.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

[shvu 1]

Hi Gauracandra,

 

There was once a frog in a well which was under the assumption that the well was all that there was. It refused to ackowledge that there was an outside world much bigger than it's small well...

 

I am sure you know the rest of the story and it's relevance here.

 

When a person with hardly any knowledge of sanskrit, jumps up to brand a scholar as shallow, without knowing jack squat about what he is talking about, then I know that further talk with such a one is absolutely useless.

 

2 words of advice....grow up.

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

Hi Sumeet,

 

I suggest you take Gauracandra's advice seriously. In this age of Kali, it is rare that such an elevated soul, who can pass judgements on topics that he knows nothing about, appears. Even more rare that they have the time to login to forums and make these judgements and opinions available to the world. Fallen souls should consider this a great benediction and make full use of it. Such a miracle can be possible only by the causeless mercy of the personality of Godhead.

 

So Sumeet, I hope you understand what an opportunity you have here.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra 1]

Pretty weak Shvu...actually very weak. But this discussion has been very informative to me in relation to future discussions with you. When you can not even acknowledge such a simple point, which by any objective standard I have proven, then what is the point of discussing anything with you.

 

Essentially, Shvu's argument comes down to this: "Those who favor Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita are wrong, and those who agree with me (Shvu) are right". You set up a criteria, and through logic, I showed that there are individuals, all scholars, who defeat your criteria. End of story.

 

Gauracandra

[shvu 1]

Hi Gauracandra,

 

Let me try again...

 

About the Sanskrit Professor Dr Atkins at Princeton University. Comparing the review of Dr Atkins to one of my conditions, it does seem to disprove my stand. Allow me to show that it is nothing like that,

 

We have a sanskrit professor saying that he will recommend the 'BG as it is' to his students, who we will assume are students of sanskrit language.

 

1. Coming to the translation itself, which says 'Original form' in several places while there is no sanskrit equivalent found to be in the verse, how does one explain that? Any person with knowledge of sanskrit, can see that for himself or herself. Sumeet, Jndas, JayaSriRadhey, Viji and Animesh can all testify that the translation is incorrect, although the ISKCON set of this group will not as confirming to criteria 1.

 

2. Which brings us back to Dr Atkins. Did he actually verify the content of the BG as it is for it's 'scholarly integrity'? The review posted by you, does not say so anywhere. If you have his e-mail ID or a ph number, I can call him up and ask him myself.

 

After thinking along the lines of 1 and 2, how can one say that Dr Atkins does not belong to the second category? Unless he is a ISKCON person, whoch will place him in the first category.

 

So let us have Dr Atkins or someone else, show that there is indeed no such distortion as mentioned in 1, and I will accept that you have 'conclusively' proven me wrong.

 

Not until then, and I am sure you have no problems with that. The simplest way out for you is to show that there is a sanskrit equivalent to 'original form' in the BG as it is. That will prove you right and prove me wrong.

 

And if you cannot do so, and neither can Dr Atkins, then I am sure you have will have no objections in accepting my criteria as true. All we can do is feel sorry for those sanskrit students of Dr Atkins. Looking forward to something more concrete from you this time, instead of the 'going around in circles while avoiding the key topic' approach, that you have been showing so far.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra 1]

The Shvu Slide continues....

[shvu 1]

 

So can I accept that you cannot backup your claims?

 

Silence on your part will automatically prove that you are wrong and I was right. It is in your own interest to defend yourself and your Guru.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I don't want to intrude into this topic, but you seem to have changed the question in mid argument. There is a technical word to describe this type of argument, but being not too educated I can't tell you what it is. Maybe Shirsha Rao can help us out by telling what the technical word for this would be.

 

Anyway, to the point. The original argument that was being debated was whether there were people who accepted Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as authoritative, who themselves were not followers of Prabhupada. It waas a pretty straight forward question, and the answer was pretty straight forward as well.

 

But then you changed the rules:

---

"So let us have Dr Atkins or someone else, show that there is indeed no such distortion as mentioned in 1, and I will accept that you have 'conclusively' proven me wrong."

---

 

You seem to have mixed up things. There was no debate as to whether people could convince YOU about Prabhupada's translation. No one needs to "conclusively" prove to YOU whether the translation is right or wrong. That is another topic altogether. The topic was simple:

 

Are there scholars who accept Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as authoritative, who themselves do not follow Prabhupada?

 

No question of proving to you anything other than that. If you disagree with the scholars opinions, you can feel free to call them up and debate with them. But that would pretty much prove that your two points were false.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Just to clarify what is "point 2" I will repost it below.

 

---

“2) People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.”

---

 

Your stance is that this sanskrit professor being discussed fits into this category. Either he hasn't read other translations of Bhagavad Gita, or he is basically a fool who isn't aware of all the things which you are privy to in regards to Bhagavad Gita. According to some, the world's leading universities generally employ professors who don't know anything about the topic they teach...

 

In a follow up point you created two new "points" also called point 1 and point 2. So just to make it clear that we are not discussing the new two points, but are discussing the original two points, I thought it would be helpful to repost original point 2 above. We wouldn't want the discussion to slide of in another direction.

[shvu 1]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't want to intrude into this topic...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Oops !

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The original argument that was being debated was whether there were people who accepted Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as authoritative, who themselves were not followers of Prabhupada. It waas a pretty straight forward question, and the answer was pretty straight forward as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That was the first criteria. You may be aware that there was another too.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But then you changed the rules:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Hmmm...I don't think so, as we will see further.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You seem to have mixed up things. There was no debate as to whether people could convince YOU about Prabhupada's translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Nothing is mixed up as yet. I find it crystal clear. Dr Atkins according to Gauracandra is a scholar who must have done the exercise of verifying Prabhupada's translation. However the review of Dr Atkins does not suggest anyhwere that he actually did anything like that and I doubt it. Now I am sure that you will agree that when a person makes a claim, he should back it up with more details, when required. Otherwise it has to be dismissed as a tall claim.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>No one needs to "conclusively" prove to YOU whether the translation is right or wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

As far as I can see, that is the crux of the discussion. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The topic was simple:

 

Are there scholars who accept Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as authoritative, who themselves do not follow Prabhupada?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

...and have verified the translation. You left out that part.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>No question of proving to you anything other than that. If you disagree with the scholars opinions, you can feel free to call them up and debate with them. But that would pretty much prove that your two points were false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

wow! Your logic sure is novel. Let us see how it works. Gauracandra comes up with the name of a Sanskrit professor who claims that he referred the BG as it is to his students. That somehow proves both my points as false! Something like, the culprit claims that he is innocent. An unkown person in the crowd also says that the culprit is innocent, without actually providing any details. And the judge now has to acquit the culprit. Hardly acceptable.

 

May I point out that there is no mention of this professor not favoring SP's idea [criteria 1]? Also that there is no mention of him doing a validation check on the BG as it is? [criteria 2] A two-liner from Gauracandra means nothing, if it cannot be backed up by him.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Your stance is that this sanskrit professor being discussed fits into this category. Either he hasn't read other translations of Bhagavad Gita, or he is basically a fool who isn't aware of all the things which you are privy to in regards to Bhagavad Gita.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

In my opinion, you are privy about this too, although your background does not let you accept that.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In a follow up point you created two new "points" also called point 1 and point 2... So just to make it clear that we are not discussing the new two points, but are discussing the original two points, I thought it would be helpful to repost original point 2 above. We wouldn't want the discussion to slide of in another direction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Very thoughtful of you.

 

So now I'll repeat that the ball is in Gauracandra's court and he has to show that 'original form' is present in the Sanskrit verses of the BG.

 

Or he can give me the contact of this professor and I myself will talk to this person to find out how he accepted the 'original form'. Since he has been employed by a leading university of the world, he should know. If he he comes up with the sankrit equivalent of that, I will be proved wrong objectively and conclusively by Gauracandra.

 

Or he can simply remain silent and avoid the issue. That will prove things in my favor. That will mean that he could not explain the 'Original form', which means the translation is flawed which also confirms my stance that Dr Atkins belongs to the second category.

 

btw Jndas, although you yourself are versed in sanskrit, I notice that you have not addressed the 'Original form' issue. That would have helped Gauracandra, would have proved me wrong and the whole thing would have settled down. Instead I see that you want me to move away from that question.

 

And since although you did not want to intrude, you did intrude. And while you were intruding, you could have also proved me wrong. Surely this should be a very simple thing as you are certain that the translation is flawless. Being favorable to ISKCON and Prabhupada, it would have been in your own interest to do so.

 

Cheers

[Dasha 0]

Dear Prabhus,

 

What is all this noise made for?

 

What is this question of "Original Form" about? I am not a scholar and as such I will not debate with you on that level, but what difference does it makes if Srila Prabhupada's BG is been accepted by other scholars or not.

 

The real question is: Does Srila Prabhupada's BG can take you to the level of love of God or not. Because this is the aim of the teaching of BG.

 

If the answer is YES, so follow Srila Prabhupada because He will brings you to perfection. But if you think that the answer is NO, so follow someone else in whom you have confidence. If you have no faith in somebody do not follow him because whatever effort he will make there will be no results.

 

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, (1-5-11) Narada Muni said to Sri Vyasadev that "such transcendental litteratures (that is directed towards the glorification of the name, form and pastimes of the Supreme Lord), EVEN SO IMPERFECTLY COMPOSED (abadhavati) are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thorougly honest."

 

May be Srila Prabhupada made mistakes in his translations, but he is infusing love of God in the heart of thousands of conditionned souls and this is the highest gift that no one as done.

 

Hopping this love of God will come in my heart.

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada, even if there is fault in his books.

 

Your in Krsna consciousness.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

---

...and have verified the translation. You left out that part.

---

 

Actually I didn't leave that out... you just added it in fresh, and that was the point of my post. Again let me refresh your memory on what it is you actually said, which started this discussion:

 

 

--

Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is.

 

1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines.

 

2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.

--

 

You see, this is what we are and were discussing, but you keep bringing in other topics to side step this issue. Reread those two points you made, read them four or five times to get it clear... and then see if your latest statement is included in them:

 

--

"...and have verified the translation. You left out that part."

--

 

Ooops. Thats a new topic altogether, isn't it?

 

Back to the ORIGINAL 2 points you made, which Gauracandra was addressing by citing the sanskrit professor.

 

You say there are only two kinds of people who will favour Prabhupada's Gita, one is his followers (which the profesor is not), and the other is:

 

--

2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.

--

 

So we come back to the point as to whether this professor of sanskrit had or had not read other Gita translations in his life, or maybe he was just a very foolish person who "was not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation." Funny he would recommend it to his students then.

 

But of course this conversations is really a waste of time, because we all know, including yourself, that this professor of Sanskrit has certainly read many translations of Gita, and was certainly in a position to notice any distortions within the translation. In addition to that we know that he is not a follower of Prabhupada. Thus both points one and two that you had made are false.

 

But in order to avoid admitting this, you chose to add a third criteria... that this professor must have verified the translation and proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the translation is a literal word for word conversion of the Gita.

 

I think this is why there was mention of a "Shvu Slide". You refuse to stick to your two points which you stated, and instead dilute the discussion to the point of absurdity.

 

I have no problems with people disliking Prabhupada's translation, or thinking that a more literal translation is better. Everyone has their opinion. But that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. The topic was in regards to your two points. I will remind you of them again:

 

--

Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is.

 

1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines.

 

2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.

--

 

Now we can also say that the professor of sanskrit that was cited should first travel to the moon and prove that it isn't made of blue cheese before we accept that he likes Prabhupada's Gita. But that is just stupid. He likes what he likes. And there is no limitation we can put on what someone likes. He may even agree with you for all we know, but the point is he likes Prabhupada's Gita, and he even recommends it to his students - people whom he is trying to deliver knowledge to.

 

So your statement that learned and independent individuals will not favour Prabhupada's Gita is false.

 

Why is it false? Because their own words are there to prove it. Why should we determine what the professor likes or doesn't like based on your whim. His own words are there, and they should be given precedence over any of our ideas as to what he likes or doesn't like.

 

The topic is not on the correctness or literalness of Prabhupada's translation... It is on who "favors" Prabhupada's translation. That is the exact word you used.

 

You stated that two kinds of people will favour Prabhupada's translation: 1) his followers, and 2) those who have not read other translations.

 

The sanskrit professor quoted is not a follower of Prabhupada, and he has read many translations of Bhagavad Gita. Furthermore he is qualified to see errors in translation, as he is a sanskrit professor. Yet he still favours Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita.

 

Thus points one and two are false. It has nothing to do with proving whether Prabhupada's translation is correct or not.

[viji_53 0]

O all-wise & all-seeing God direct the ignorant worshippers & help them to revert to acts which will reclaim them. Always you protect in times of conflict- those who are feeble, but follow the path of truth, against those who are strong but tumble on the wrong path. May your blessings from all sides assuredly reach the seekers of truth.

HariBhol!

Rig veda.

 

 

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Hi Jndas,

 

I don't know if you are being serious or just trying to inject some humor here. Or I have to be real dense to not to understand something that apparently is so clear to you.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

You see, this is what we are and were discussing, but you keep bringing in other topics to side step this issue.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Perhaps you may want to refer to the title of the thread. That should remind you of the issue, in case it slipped your mind.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Reread those two points you made, read them four or five times to get it clear... and then see if your latest statement is included in them:

 

Ooops. Thats a new topic altogether, isn't it?

--

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I read it 5 times. And I fail to see how it is new, from any angle. Perhaps I have to write a Bhashya for those 2 lines, to make them more clear.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

...one is his followers (which the profesor is not)...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Gauracandra himself doesn't know that.

How did you come to know?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

...because we all know, including yourself, that this professor of Sanskrit has certainly read many translations of Gita...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Again I must go back to asking how do you know this?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

I think this is why there was mention of a "Shvu Slide".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

By now, it is abundantly clear as to who is sliding, slipping, turning cartwheels, running around in circles and being evasive. I don't have to use names.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

You refuse to stick to your two points which you stated, and instead dilute the discussion to the point of absurdity.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Oh oh! And now the Pot is calling the kettle black.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

I have no problems with people disliking Prabhupada's translation, or thinking that a more literal translation is better. Everyone has their opinion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Frankly this is the first pragmatic point you have made in this thread. However we are not discussing opinions. The translation being incorrect is a fact and remains unchanged immaterial of anybody's personal opinion. A person cannot say that the Pythogoras theorom is wrong in his opinion and not provide details. Now that would be absurd.

 

What can happen with this distortion?

Some innocent will read the BG as it is and will be led to believe that Krishna said in the BG that his human form is his original form. He will immediately get the feeling that other forms are inferior. Next he will try to explain that to others. And if he encounters someone from another discipline who has moderate knoweldge of the Gita, this innocent person will be made to look like a fool, thanks to Prabhupada.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

He likes what he likes. And there is no limitation we can put on what someone likes. He may even agree with you for all we know... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

These are the points which give me a feeling that you are in a humorous mood. Are you for real? If I were a professor, I would not recommend a translation to my students, knowing that it is ditorted, and yet simply because I like it. The word absurd is to be used here again.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

...but the point is he likes Prabhupada's Gita, and he even recommends it to his students - people whom he is trying to deliver knowledge to.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

And here is where things become clear. Since you yourself know that 'original form' is absent in the sanskrit version of the Gita what are the possibilities ?

 

The professor has not noticed the distortion. Or else, being a leading professor he would not haver recommened that to a sanskrit student. But since he has done that, it is obvious that he is unaware of the distortion. Wich places him in the second category. Unless he is favorable to SP's ideas, is aware of the distortion and yet wants his students to study distorted material. That puts him in the first category.

 

I will not address your other points because it is mostly a repitition of what you have already said.

 

Cheers

[Dasha 0]

Dear seekers of love of God

 

What is all this noise about ?

 

Are we going to fight and have bad words because of different interpretation on BG ? I cannot beleive.

 

Narada Muni said to Sri Vyasadeva in the Srimad Bhagavatam (1-5-11):

 

"...Such trancendental literatures (those who discribe the names, forms and pastimes of the Supreme Lord), EVEN THOUGH IMPERFECTLY COMPOSED (abaddhavati), are heard, sung and accepted by PURYFIED MEN WHO ARE THOROUGHLY HONEST."

 

May be Srila Prabhupada made mistakes in the translation of BG, but his goal was to infuse in our heart love of God, not to teach us sanskrit language.

 

The tree should not hide the forest.

 

Srila Prabhupada was not a professor of sanskrit but a professor of Bhakti, and he said that if he could simply bring one person back home back to Godhead his mission would have been successfull. As far as I know he fullfilled his mission (just read the postings about His Holyness Gaura Govinda Maharaja).

 

As far as I am concerne this is by his divine grace that I gradualy advance on the path of Bhakti, and I simply do not mind if he did faults or not in his translations. I am looking for something else because he did bring us something else, and as long as you will look for the "from" you will miss the meaning.

 

Dear brothers, please take pleasure in discussing topics about the glories of our beloved Sri Sri Radha and Krsna and let the nectar of divine love enter your heart.

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada who, although he did it with "imperfect words" has delivered attachement to Radha and Krsna.

 

Your, in Krsna consciousness.

[Dasha 0]

Once Prabhupada said:

 

"Before me, many swamis went to the Western countries to preach this Bhagavad-gita. Not a single person became a devotee of Krishna. Not a single person. And now Bhagavad-gita is being presented as it is, thousands are becoming devotee of Krishna. This is the secret. People give me credit that "Swamiji, you have done wonderful. Nobody could do it." I am not a wonderful man. Neither I do know anything magic. I have presented Bhagavad-gita as it is. That's all. This is the secret." -- Srila Prabhupada

 

This as to be meditate upon.

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

 

I enjoyed this one...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Before me, many swamis went to the Western countries to preach this Bhagavad-gita. Not a single person became a devotee of Krishna. Not a single person. And now Bhagavad-gita is being presented as it is...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

So Prabhupada meant to say that the Swamis who went before him to the western countries did not preach the BG in it's correct form. Then it was his turn and he presented it in it's correct form. Irony! [Am laughing a lot here...]

 

If there ever was someone to distort Shaastra, SP's name has to top the list. Note that it is not that his sanskrit is bad. He knew sankrit perfectly well and also english. Yet he did not hesitate to add his own stuff to the original text. And of course, the funniest part is, he titled his book as 'as it is'. [More laughter here...]

 

Reminds one of 'If the blind leads the blind...'

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

I am not a wonderful man. Neither I do know anything magic. I have presented Bhagavad-gita as it is. That's all. This is the secret." -- Srila Prabhupada <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Everything is right here except for one line. The third line has to be changed to 'I have presented Bhagavad-gita as it is not.' With that little change, the quote becomes correct and everything falls into place.

 

btw does anyone here know that SP made some calculations from the Puranas and claimed that the Americans did not land on the moon? According to him the Amercians wwere conning the world. The reason given was that the moon is much further away than calculated by the Americans and he had the right figures from his calculations!

 

Cheers

[sumeet 0]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

I'm busy with exams so i cannot follow up with the posting. Till then kindly give me,

your own thoughts on Shirsha Rao's review and also on that verse where the word Original form is mentioned.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

Sumeet.

[shvu 1]

Hi Sumeet,

 

What do I think of Shrisha Rao's review of the BG as it is?

 

I know some background of it which I will add here. A few years back, most Tattva-vadi scholars had only heard about this translation and had never read it. They thought it had to be a good one, going by it's popularity. Then it was brought to their notice that the translation was not conforming to Madhva's Bhashya and yet claimed that it was adhering to Madhva. This prompted the review. He has set out to show that it is different from Madhva and he has, period. The question of whether the interpretation is right or wrong is out of the scope of that review.

 

Why do this?

 

That is an important part of Tattva-vada. According to Madhva, there are is only one way of interpreting Shastra. Tattva-vadi scholars are required to criticize other interpretations when they differ from Madhva's and refute them. That is their tradition.

 

Original form was 'added' by Prabhupada when he translated the verse 4.6. I can find others, but one should do. I once read an article on Mayavada by Prabhupada. The most polite word that I can come up with to describe that article is disgusting. It shows that he hardly knows the basic tenets of Advaita. A layman not knowing Advaita is acceptable, because he is not going to teach that to anyone or write articles about it. But it is not what one would expect from a scholar of Vedanta.

 

Either he did not know Mayavada, in which case he should have refrained from writing articles on the subject or else he was intentionally out to give a false picture of Mayavada, which is even worse.

 

Cheers

[animesh 0]

_________

According to Madhva, there are is only one way of interpreting Shastra. Tattva-vadi scholars are required to criticize other interpretations when they differ from Madhva's and refute them. That is their tradition.

__________

 

Has Madhva laid down any guidelines for interpretation of shastras? Also, is there any reason to belive that all those interpretations that do not conform to Madhva's must be refuted?

[shvu 1]

 

Has Madhva laid down any guidelines for interpretation of shastras?

 

Yes, that is what the Dvaita philosophy is all about. It is Madhva's interpretation of Shastra.

 

Is there any reason to believe that all those interpretations that do not conform to Madhva's must be refuted?

 

Yes, the 'all roads lead to Rome' logic is not accepted here. There is only way and that has been described in detail by Madhva. If every interpretation was ok, then there was no reason for him to challenge Advaita.

He has even written a work on how to debate with different types of people, which goes by the name of Katha-Lakshana. Thus that is an integral part of their tradition.

 

You can find more details on the web at www.dvaita.org . Check out the FAQ and doctrine there.

 

If you are interested in reading a detailed book you can try BNK Sharma's book titled Philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya. In Bangalore you can find it in Motilal Banarsidas [MG Road, St Marks Road Junction] or perhaps at The Vedanta Book house in Basavanagudi.

 

Cheers