[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dishonesty (was Re: The Bhagavad-Geeta - Chapter 12)
-
Subject: Re: Dishonesty (was Re: The Bhagavad-Geeta - Chapter 12)
-
From: aq974@lafn.org (Bon Giovanni)
-
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 19:26:09 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@relay1.uu.net
-
From news@lafn.org Fri Aug 4 15: 16:08 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net
-
References: <3v9ak6$d0e@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Reply-To: aq974@lafn.org (Buckaroo Bonsai)
-
Sender: news@lafn.org
******** *** ******* ********* *** **** ****
*^* *^* *^* *^* *^* *^* *^* *^* *^* ^*^*^* *^*^*^
^*^ ^*^ ^*^ ^*^ ^*^ ^*^ ^*^ ^*^ ^*^ ^*^*^ ^*^
^#^^*^^#^^ ^#^^*^^#^^* ^#^ ^#^^*^^#^ ^#^^*^^#^^* ^#^ ^*^ ^#^
^#^ ^#^ ^#^ ^#^ ^#^ # ^#^ ^#^ ^#^ ^#^
#^# #^# #^# #^# #^# #^# #^# #^# #^# #^# #^#
####### ### ### ####### ### ### ### ### ### ###
Then contemplate O Man the memorials of Allah's Mercy!- How He gives
life to the earth after its death: in truth the Same will give life
to those persons who are dead- for He has power over all.
-Koran 30:50
Imagine if someone translated the word Allah in that verse as God.
While it changes the flavour, the meaning is still intact. But suppose
instead one were to translate Allah as `spiritual in nature.'
Kindly look to Bhagavad Gita 4:24. The word brahma in its first appearance
in that verse means, I believe, Brahma, and could be translated as God, or
as The Creator, or as Brahma. Opening the ISKCON version however, Swami
Prabhupaada says it means `spiritual in nature.'
He does not say it means God, or Creator, or Brahma.
Perhaps out of kindness so that all might understand why Swamiji says
that, and why He offered so many other alternate meanings of the word
brahma, Pai has thoughtfully presented an extensive cite from a
dictionary showing how very many different meanings the word SPIRIT can
have. I believe he wanted readers to consider a parallel to Swamiji's
multiple definitions of brahma.
While that was kind of Pai, the analogy does not hold since none have
suggested that brahma has only one meaning- rather the point is that
Swamiji did not employ the most apt meaning: Brahma, or God, or The
Creator. See what He offers instead:
brahma--spiritual in nature;
brahma--the Supreme;
brahma--spiritual;
brahmana--by the spirit soul;
brahma--spiritual kingdom;
While `the Supreme' comes close to its genuine meaning, Swamiji seems
to go out of His way to avoid letting the reader in on the fact that
brahma in that verse refers directly and specifically to Brahma as the
Creator, ie God. Later in His translation of that verse, Swamiji again
does not employ the name Brahma, nor the word God, nor the title Creator.
I believe He does that because in the view of Swamiji's sect, Brahma is
not God, but rather only a demigod. Therefore the parallel most apt to
this situation would be for Pai to show all of the meanings for the
word `creator', while intentionally excluding the word God.
That the concept and meaning of words is edited like that by Swamiji is
one reason why the ISKCON version is, in my view, not a translation of
Gita so much as an illustration of ISKCONic theology and scholarship.
Indeed, for me that is its prime utility. It also serves as the world's
most published example, sur la rose, of how theologians alter scripture to
fit their sectarian view of the the Divine- instead of widening their
theology to fit His Word. One finds similar effect in the version of the
Bible published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as in Khalifa's
version of Quran. As long as the Original exists unaltered, little harm is
done. The danger, which is usually sleight and but temporary, is that
students will believe the translator, over the Author.
This is my considered opinion.
*+*
--
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
Whatever a fine person does, so will others do; people effect behaviour
by example. -Bhagavad Gita 3:21
*%*%*%*%*%*%*%**%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%**%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
