HinduNet
  
Forums Chat Annouce Calender Remote
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Dishonesty (was Re: The Bhagavad-Geeta - Chapter 12)

 
 
                   ++++            ++
                 ++  ++
                ++      ++++    +++   ++ +++   ++++    +++   ++++
                ++++      ++    ++    +++ ++     ++   +++ ++ +++
                  ++  +++++    ++    ++      +++++   ++  ++  ++
             ++  ++ ++  ++    ++    ++     ++  ++   ++  +   ++
             ++++   +++ ++  ++++  ++++     +++ ++  ++      ++
          ________________________________________________
God cannot be identified with one name and one form. He is all names
and all forms. All names are His. All forms are His. Your name too is
His.  You are His forms.
                        -Sathya Sai Speaks Volume 10, page 8
 
I believe that saying is so, and so say with full heart that Srila
Prabhupada was, in my opinion, a Form of the Lord to whom all praises
are due.  Truly He may well be remembered and honoured as a great
propogator of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, as He understood and embodied it.
Sage that He was, I find that many of the things He said can be best
appreciated only by those who love GOD more than they love their ideas
about Him, since some of Swamiji's words are sometimes misunderstood,
and misapplied, by those whose hearts are intent on domination instead
of deliverance.
 
Perhaps that explains why some of Prabhupaada's opponents as well as
proponents believe that unless He is worshipped in full, or denied in
full, then attack is the only other possible relationship.  That
combative attitude is echoed in much online correspondence: the two
sides either praise, or attack.  Those are the only two options they
manifest in any online post.
 
I call that heckling, and find it not only rude, but counterproductive
for someone who's truly taken, or seeking, shelter at the feet of any
enlightening sage. It is however apt to address what any sage or
aspirant says, where it was said, and what those words mean- no matter
how often hecklers reply to that.
 
Hecklers assert that by saying anyone who looks at Swami Prabhupaada or
His work or His words with less than fully submissive eyes, is
*attacking* Swamiji. Others announce they find it `interesting that in
reply to this thread' Bon `would suddenly post from Chapter 4 of the
Bhagavad Gita when the topic being discussed was Chapter 12.'
 
I consider the application of patient discernment to be neither sudden
nor an attack, but I appreciate that my words are found interesting;
thanks. I feel that noting bias wherever it is found is but a duty of
the spiritual aspirant.  Indeed, those whose discernment becomes dulled
by either delight or despair, by drugs or devotion, _cannot_ realize
the full value of the Acharya, nor the purpose of sincere scriptural
study neither.  That is why I suggest all do well to pay attention.
 
For example, in my view the topic in this thread was not Chapter 12, as
Pai says--   rather the topic is how translators often insert their own
bias into a text and call it a translation.
 
Hence the use of sic. Should one look at the text I quoted, one can see
I used the term `sic' because the word TRANSLATION (sic) appears as is,
in standing letters, and because, as noted earlier, I do not find it a
translation so much as a purport. His Divine Grace Swami Prabhupaada
seems to have agreed with Bon, for He ends each chapter in that wise:
saying it is a purport.
 
Some mistake my comments about that for insult, and so say, "If one
were really interested in not igniting passions and in maintaining
steadiness, then what's the point of making the statements?"
 
The point of my reply was to subtly delineate those who showed such
fluttering passion.  For one whose subtlety and discrimination is alert
to such things, it is clear that usually it is those who rant the
loudest or complain the most about how only their translation of choice
is The Truth, who are often those with the least appreciation for His
Word. I thought it was obvious that I replied in hopes of reminding
readers that the simple fact is folks do choose their translation as
best they can. It is therefore absurd to defame each other about such
differences.
 
That was `the point,' but as ever, there are one or two rowdies
hereabout who look for a point only to stick it in yer eye.
 
Perhaps that was too subtle. This thread then, and the `point' of my
earlier post, is that in my view _every_ translation suffers personal
bias in the translation, and one need not cry havoc about it.  The text
changes through the vocabulary of the translator, as well of the
listener.  I stress then it is helpful to study the original, as well
as _many_ translations.
 
Apparently I am not alone in this, since many people use multiple
translations of Gita to study that text, including Swami Prabhupaada.
I therefore ignore those who teach that one study _only_ Swamiji's
version of Geetaa.
 
So, for those who want to argue more than discern, or accept
commentaries and mistranslations instead of the text itself, there is
little to discuss with Bon.  If even this is taken as an offense, such
persons might consider simply not reading my articles, unless of course
they enjoy heckling.
 
Since it is the duty of the good to allow such men whatever little
pleasure they can derive from that, I send them
 
All best wishes
 
 *+*
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.