[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Bhagavad Gita translation diff.
-
Subject: Re: Bhagavad Gita translation diff.
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 18:26:30 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Mon Jan 9 13: 17:11 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
-
References: <3ei7i3$k0i@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
In article <3ei7i3$k0i@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, pontus.mattsson%nesterc@nesterc.neste.fi (pontus mattsson) writes:
|> In article <3eeu2j$q91@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon) says:
|> >BG 15.7 mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah
|> > manah-sasthanindriyani prakriti-sthani karsati
|> >
|> > "The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
|> > fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling
|> > very hard with the six senses, which include the mind."
|>
|> For a novice like me this whole group is very valuable. Reading the above post and translation
|> I decided to compare to the translation I have used myself (Juan Mascaro,
|> Penguin Classics 1979) :
|>
|> BG 15.7 " A spark of my eternal Spirit becomes in this world a
|> living soul; and this draws around its centre the five
|> senses and the mind resting in nature."
Actually, I don't think there is any philosophical difference between the two
translations as far as the first part (mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah
sanatanah) is concerned except that Juan Mascaro clearly misses the point
about "sanatanah" which means eternal and my reason for that is that westeners
almost always try to lower the value of the Vedic scriptures thus they take
out some of the stuff which implies the timeless nature of their teachings.
The real difference however is in the second part, 'karsati' I think (please
someone check this) means "struggling" which is not even vaguely reffered
in the Penguin translation.
|> This translation is certainly true poetic English, but the difference in the
|> above verses make you cautious about reading translations at all. In your
|> opinion , which are the authoritive translations ?
|> Any advice ?
One of the most important (I think) criteria should be word-for-word
translation. This ensures that the person cannot (atleast willfully) miss
something and even if they do, it is pretty easy to find that.
|> pontus mattsson
Manish
