[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dishonesty (was Re: The Bhagavad-Geeta - Chapter 12)
I do not know whose Gita translation is being posted here. However, it is
plainly obvious after a cursory examination that this translation is
misrepresenting some of the key verses of the Gita.
>
> Self-realization is more difficult for those who fix their mind on
> the formless Brahman, because the comprehension of the unmanifest
> Brahman by the average embodied human being is very difficult.
> (12.05)
The implication of this translation is that God is ultimately impersonal,
but that we should worship Him as personal because "the comprehension of
the unmanifest Brahman by the average embodied humang being is very
difficult." The translator probably believes that there are some
better-than-average human beings who are qualified to worship the
impersonal.
However, the exact verse is:
kles'o 'dhikataras teSAm
avyaktAsakta-cetasAm
avyaktA hi gatir duHkham
dehavadbhir avApyate
kles'aH- trouble; adhika-taraH-very much; teSAm-of them; avyakta-to the
unmanifested; Asakta-attached; cetasAm-of those whose minds;
avyaktA-toward the unmanifested; hi-certainly; gatiH- progress;
duHkham--with trouble; deha-vadbhiH-by the embodied; avApyate-is
achieved.
Translation by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal
feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress
in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied."
Nowhere in this verse does it say that advancement for an impersonalist
is only troublesome for the "average embodied human being." What it quite
clearly states is that spiritual advancement for an impersonalist is
troublesome, period. There is no room to believe that there can be a
separate class of worshipers who can worship the unmanifest Brahman and
still advance effortlessly, at least, not according to the Gita.
Whoever this translator is (the one quoted by Mr. Jay Maharaj) he is
clearly inserting his own opinions, and not remaining faithful to the
original Sanskrit.
> If you are unable to meditate (or focus your mind) steadily on Me,
> then seek to reach Me, O Arjuna, by practice of (any other)
> spiritual discipline (or Sadhana of your choice). (12.09)
This translation is an even more clear-cut example of the translator's
dishonesty. The exact verse does NOT, I repeat, does NOT say that Arjuna
can simply pick any spiritual discipline. Once again, the original
Sanskrit:
atha cittam samAdhAtum
na s'anknoSi mayi sthiram
abhyAsa-yogena tato
mAm icchAptum dhanan~jaya
atha-if, therefore; cittam-mind; samAdhAtum--to fix; na-not; s'aknoSi-you
are able; mayi- upon Me; sthiram - steadily; abhyAsa-yogena - by the
practice of devotional service; tataH - then; mAm - Me; icchA - desire;
Aptum - to get; dhanam-jaya - O winner of wealth, Arjuna.
"My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me
without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of bhakti-yoga.
In this way develop a desire to attain Me."
The Gita translator which Jay quoted would have us believe that Krishna
is saying we can choose "any other Sadhana of your choice." But that is
NOT what Krishna said. He quite clearly stated that Arjuna should
undertake 'abhyAsa-yogena', or devotional service. Now, the
impersonalists will not doubt take issue with the meaning of this word.
But regardless of one's individual beliefs, the bottom line is that
Krishna is NOT giving Arjuna a choice of yoga systems here. Just to be
objective, I even checked Sankara's Gita translation. Sankara's
translation makes it quite clear that Krishna is indicating a specific
yoga system here, and not giving a choice of yoga systems.
Despite the clarity of the Sanskrit, this Gita scholar whom Jay quoted
(one who, I imagine, professes fluency with the language) has completely
misrepresented some of the important verses of our scripture. One wonders
why he finds it so difficult to present the text honestly, without
inserting his own opinions. As far as I am concerned, I think it is a
basic belief in ANY religion (including Advaita) that one should be
honest at all times, and not try to misrepresent oneself or others. But
this Gita scholars seems to have deliberately misrepresented the
scripture in order to sell us his own opinions.
I am completely disgusted with this kind of dishonesty. Most Hindus I
speak to pride themselves on the way they can tolerate and even accept
other beliefs and opinions. But can they actually tolerate this sort of
opportunistic "scholarship?" I hope not.
If the people of a religion have become so spineless that they refuse to
make a distinction between the truth and a lie, then either those people,
or their religion, are completely useless and not worth emulating. I hope
this will serve as a reminder that alt.hindu netters must be more
discriminating before they choose a Gita translation in which to trust.
-- HKS
