Have you read translation made by Srila Praphupada? I noticed
in his translation some serious differences between original
and translation - adding something not present in transcription
(his book on BhagavadGita contains for every verse: the original
text which is almost unreadable for me, due to unknown alphabet,
although the book contains info on the alphabet; then it is
followed by some transcription to latin alphabet, translation of
all words used there, and finally translated text; I noticed
words are translated differently, and the final text sometimes
says things which cannot be found in the transcription).
> Here I have to disagre with Jerry that ISLAM and CHRISTINAITY preaches
> to learn in original languages. I don't know how many christians read Bible
> in Hebrew or Howmany Mouslims read in Arabic. It is a matter of number.
I don't remember to write that Christianity preaches to learn
in original languages, and there are very little number of
Christians who have "interline" of the Bible - the interline
is a text in original language, with some info about grammar
(like which word is a verb, which noun, which adjective...),
and some translation of every word (with marks when there is
more than one possible translation) - this all form 3 lines,
and as a tool there is a table of the language grammar. But
it is not preached, in fact for a long time it generally
wasn't preached to read Bible at all (although some people
preached it), note most of people were analphabetes.
I compared precision of translation of BhagavadGita and the
Bible and I found big difference, at least when comparing
Praphupada's translation. I wondered one twists things so
much, since I am used to the precision of Bible translation
in which when there is many possible interpretations of
a sentence in original it is still attempted to make the
translation in a way it has same possible interpretations.
Concerning Islam, I have read they claim the language of
the Prophet Muhammad is most perfect language of the world
and everyone must read holy book (Quran) in this language.
> Just like Interpretations of Bible exist (John, Paul etc)
> and get reinterpreted by Christian brothers, so does there
> might be communication errros in transmissions. It doesn't
> mean that the original versions are correct or wrong.
Such a communication errors were traced very carefully based
on various sources available, or even comments to original
texts written by other nations, and eliminated. It was not
possible in every place, and doubtful places are marked, at
least in catholic edition of the Bible.
Also, correctness of original was examined carefully. Note
writing incorrect words to the original was punished by death.
What do you mean by saying "John, Paul etc"?
> We cannot determine. Moreover two people will intepret
> the same verse in a different manner depending upon his
> knowledge, time, space etc.,
Yes. Such a verse may have many different meanings for
different people, and usually they all are correct. Just
like a TV set show different movies for childs and adults.
A good example is "Song of Songs" book in the Bible, by
people which don't know anything it is recognized as song
about wedding, by Judes it is song about their holy town
Jerusalem, later it was recognized as saying about relation
with God, and as a guide for mystic experiences - and the
same words describe correctly all these things!
> find in other religions.(Note that the concept of God is
> almost same in all religions, it might have evelved out
> of suffering, pain , fear or for the need for a superior
> power then human being, or God might actually be existing
> (that is what I believe) or for redifing human values).
Maybe the "concept of God is almost the same" may be claim
of Hindu, we (Christians) don't make such a claim, at least
don't make it a priori without examining another concepts
and differences between them. Note making a claim "1=2" you
get (by adding 1 to both sides) "2=3" and so on, therefore
the result is "all numbers are the same" and you can't count
anything ;-). A claim of equivalence of some things makes
you unable to distinguish them, closing your mind, while:
> Being open minded itself has many positive effects for
> being closed minded is confinement or restriction.
> Confinement is lack of freedom in thought and it
> is slavery of thought, from which we all try to get rid of.
> (No one prefers slavery do we?).
I hope :-). But some overlook it when it is.
The "God might actually be existing" (which you believe)
what does it mean for you? And what it evolved from?
Your view on perfect unity is a bit strange for me. Why
is it to be harmful for the nature? Is it, for example,
harmful that superconductivity occurs? or that helium
in low temperature condensates in single quantum state?
> Regarding Swami Vivekananda preaching that all paths are one,...
> It doesn't matter from which direction you climb a pyarmaid? does it?
Unless one plans to get inside it (and the hole is on
one side), and all sides are the same, it doesn't matter
from which direction, although it matters to climb up...
for every side there is one valid direction.
> Regarding the statement whether all religions are contained in Hinduism,
> it is possible that some of the Ideas might be borrowed from Hinduism
> (Since it is the oldest religion) or it might be a cliam that all religions
> are one which is again the essence of universal oneness which is the concept
> of Hinduism.
Concerning the first (oldest) Christianity has roots many
centuries older than Hinduism, and Egypt civilization is few
thousand years older (it has over 6000 years). Unless, of
course, I have false info on origins of Hinduism - I met info
it was originated 3200 to 3500 (depends on source) years ago.
Please fix me if there is reliable info it is older.
The second I met few times, but... if Hinduism claims it is
one with another religion, and the another religion claims
it is not one with Hinduism, then assuming Hinduism is right
we get it is wrong - this way Hinduism disproves itself...
Jerzy
Advertise with us! |
|