chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Oct 1999 07:39:18 GMT, dturina@geocities.com (Danijel
>Turina),wrote:
>
>> and when I go to a bookstore and ask
>>if they have a translation of Gita, I'm usually told that they just
>>have "that Hare Krishna trash from Prabhupada", and none of the real
>>translations. So I'm not alone in my estimates. But I seriously
>>dislike when my words are distorted. If you want to qoute my
>>defamation of Prabhupada, just ask me and quote, I'll be happy to
>>provide. But don't misquote me because that makes me irritated. OK?
>
>I suggest you try some other bookstores, because the ones you went
>truly suck, and the intendants didn't know what they were talking
>about. The fact is that Srila Prabhupada's translation of the Bhagavad
>Gita is the only one authorized. It is all the other translations that
>suck because they are not authorized in parampara.

What is an authorized translation? In my book, a translation of a holy
text is accurate if several conditions are fulfilled: that the
translator is well versed in the languages, both source and target,
and that he knows the meaning of the text - that is possible only with
personal experience. I have seen several good translations of the Gita
(I speak only of the Croatian versions, I unfortunately don't have the
English versions with me) - the best one was done by Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi, but there are unfortunately only 6 chapters translated. His
comments are good, although biased (he keeps pointing out the presence
of his TM technique, although he's the only one who can see it there),
but the translation is simply great, because it carries the depth of
the original text (one gets the feeling for the original after reading
several slightly different translations). He added things in the
comment, but not in the translation. Prabhupada, unfortunately,
incorporated his interpretation into the translation, and that
completely blurred the text. Furthermore, his translation is "flat",
it lacks the poetic component of the other translations. One good, but
unfortunately partial translation is that of Prof. Dr. Mislav Jezic,
in the translation of Mahabharata. Due to the volume of everything he
shortened it significantly, but the parts that he translated are
excellent, one can just feel the bliss and power of the words, they
are brilliant and sparkling, pure mantras of power. That's the first
translation that I've ever read, and I still remember it as the most
remarkable. There's another Croatian translation, made by Rade Sibila,
Maharishi's disciple; he translated all 18 chapters, and did a nice
job; his translation is less beautiful compared to Maharishi and Dr.
Jezic, it lacks a bit of the brilliance, but it's still very good.
I've seen another Croatian translation by some Robotic guy, but that
one is so bad that it's difficult to imagine what it has in common
with Gita.
Prabhupada's translation is mostly accurate, in the basic meanings of
the words, with some gross distortions, but that is not the main
problem. The problem is the lack of depth, of the poetic range, of
everything. It's flat; it's not a poem, it's written like a handbook.
Since I'm accustomed to the poetic translations like Maharishi's, that
fact alone is enough for me to just forget Prabhupada's version in any
serious discussion about Gita. Also, it lacks the "vibe" of the
original, it lacks divinity. In Prabhupada's version, Krsna and Arjuna
sound "ordinary", they lack both humanity and divinity, they sound
completely unimpressive. I sincerely hope that you read Maharishi's
translation of the first 6 chapters and see what I mean. I have heard
that other great yogis have made translations of their own, and I'm
looking forward to obtaining them as soon as possible.
The biggest problem with the translations of Gita is that it's a
multi-layered material, which is a fact that most translators don't
have in mind; Krsna speaks from two positions, from the position of
atman/brahman, which is the universal and absolute Self in everything,
and from the position of Isvara, the Highest Lord. Most translations
force only one perspective, and they either translate purusa as
brahman and relativize the position of Krsna as purusottama, or they
force the Isvara aspect over all proportions, and translate brahman as
Krsna or something. Sankaracarya was very wise, he didn't mix things.
He used to say that brahman is the supreme reality and the foundation
of everything, and that Vasudeva is the goal of all worship, leaving
it to the others to argue about what he meant. He saw no contradiction
because there isn't any. It's unfortunate that I know so little of
Caitanya, because it seems to me that he, too, saw no contradiction,
and he knew how to unite those two aspects, having no problem with
simultaneous unity and division. 
The biggest problem is that some schools see the term "relative" as
the spitting mark, something inferior, some sort of an illusion. It is
not, there is a huge difference between being relative an being in
illusion or being made of illusion. For instance, Krsna and Puranjana
are in essence both atman/brahman, in the perspective of the Absolute,
but in the relative perspective Krsna is the highest Lord, and
Puranjana is a lowlife scum. 
Also, the relationship between an individual person and God is in the
relative sphere of existence - because it is a relationship, and
relative is the sphere of relationships, philosophically speaking. In
the absolute perspective, everything is brahman, sat-cit-ananda. That
sat-cit-ananda is manifested through the relative, and God (Isvara) is
the full embodiment of sat-cit-ananda. 
When we don't know that there are two different perspectives, we can
falsely conclude that when someone talks from the position of
atman/brahman ("I am the only reality"), that he claims to be Isvara;
that is not true. It's a much more complex issue and it should be
approached with great care.

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net