Talk:Bhagavad-Gītā as It Is
|WikiProject Hinduism / Vaishnavism / Krishnaism||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject India||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
On 25 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bhagavad Gita As It Is.
- Also, the existing criticisms need references. The article says that people criticise the book for being a literal translation. The book translates "yoga" as "devotion", "buddhiyoga" as "Krishna Consciousness", etc (just one example, among hundreds). I would be surprised if anyone who matters would consider these as literal translations and not blatant ISKCON POVs or even mistranslations. Also, for example, "bhagavan" means "The Supreme Personality of Godhead" only in ISKCON language, and not in the language in which the original Gita is written. Sorry, if this comment sounds harsh. deeptrivia (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say 'As-it-is' was 'ISKCON' POV - Srila Prabhupada translated as per the previous Gaudiya Vaishnava teachers ('Gaudiya Vaishnava' POV maybe). People often do not realise that what Prabhupada says in his books has been said by Gaudiya Vaishnavas for the past 500 years at least, it's just that only recently did the whole thing come to the forefront of attention, largely through ISKCON. See Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and the Six Goswamis and then all the relevant teachers inbetween them and Prabhupada.
- Bhagavan is accepted in Vaishnava schools to refer to the Supreme Person.
- In terms of the other translations you are quite correct that Prabhupada sometimes translates 'yoga' to 'devotion' and 'Buddhi-yoga' to 'Krishna Consciousness' etc... But in the version of the book he actually wanted printed with full transliteration etc... he shows this very clearly, and is quite transparent about it. . This is not ISKCON language, this is the language of a devotee of Krishna who cannot help but see devotion to Krishna in whatever he looks at. If you actually strip out all of these translations (which I have done as an exercise) then the essence of Bhagavad Gita remains the same - bhakti, Prabhupada is just emphasising this essence throughout (in a transparent way). . GourangaUK 16:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the ISKCON being a follower of Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, rather than the originator of these ideas. Isn't Bhakti just one of the many routes according to the Bhagavad Gita , rather than "the" essence of it? To say that Bhaktimarga is more special than Jnanamarga, etc., will again be just a viewpoint that became stronger since the 1500s through the works of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and Bhakti movement in general. I think we must mention that bhakti is just one of the many viewpoints, which BGAII emphasises due to the tradition it comes from. deeptrivia (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Deeptrivia - I'd personally disagree that bhakti isn't the emphasis of Gita, or that it only became the emphasis over the past 500 years. Based on these verses from Gita:
- However, I would agree that Bhagavad-Gita As-It-Is does emphasise the path of Bhakti much more than most other translations into English so this should be mentioned somewhere to give some perspective. GourangaUK 15:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
GourangaUK, thanks for your modification, which I think is quite sufficient. Just to give an example of what I meant by "misinterpretation" (in my opinion) is Chapter 18, Text 55. Literally, the Sanskrit verse says: "One can know me by devotional service" (bhaktya mam abhijanati). BGAII translation says: "One can know me only by devotional service. " To me, that's POV pushing, which would have been fine if they didn't claim it was "As It Is". Anyway, my concerns about this article have been addressed. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi deeptrivia, I'm no sanskrit translation expert, so can't comment on the best exact English to use. But with or without the 'only' I'd still say that Krishna gives Bhakti as the main emphasis throughout Gita. Especially in consideration of the verses at the end of the 11th chapter, and those given in conclusion at the end of the 18th.
- I do feel the article gives a more appropriate description now, thanks largely to your comments, so many thanks for the contributions and discussions. :-) Best Wishes, GourangaUK 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree why doesn't the articled does not have a Crictism Paragraph. There are many people who have cricticized Prabhupada's work and claims. A notable citation is http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.shtml
I have moved these pages to a title that includes the dash but excludes the non-latin characters. If further moves are required DO NOT copy and paste the text or you lose the history from the page. Use the move button.GDallimore (Talk) 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
according to some amazon reviews (http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-As-Bhaktivedanta-Swami-Prabhupada/dp/0892131233), some interpretations featured in this book may be biased (as most commentaries are); it would be nice for such statements to be reflected in the article. Twipley (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Inconsistencies regarding "The Disciplic Line of Succession" in Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Recently, I was in a used book store and began comparing the older versions of the Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is with the newer version. On the last page of the introduction, one can find a list entitled "The Disciplic Line of Succession". Well, there were clearly 33 names listed under The Disciplic Line of Succession in the older version, but there are only 32 in the newer (current) version. So, I went down each list and found the one that had been changed (and/or combined) from the two different versions. As I recall, the inconsistency occurs around number 28. "(Baladeva) Jagannatha". This is where it's confusing for me. Is this a combination of Baladeva Vidyabhushana and Jagannatha dasa Babaji ? They were clearly two different people, and one was not initiated by the other. Baladeva studied under Visvanatha Chakravarti, who is listed as number 27 on The Disciplic Line of Succession, but Jagannatha accepted initiation (diksha) from Jagadananda Goswami, and later accepted Babaji initiation from Madhusudana dasa Babaji (and neither Jagadananda Goswami nor Madhusudana dasa Babaji are listed in The Disciplic Line of Succession). So, I found this inconsistency to be quite interesting.
I haven't had much luck finding more information about this online, or a direct lineage comparison and discussion regarding the two different lists, but I did find this: Muralidhar das, of The Sampradaya Sun, wrote the following in this article: "The Parampara list given by Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in the introduction to Bhagavad Gita As It Is is the same list Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur gave in his commentary to Chaitanya Charitamrita. Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj Prabhupada listed the spiritual masters in his Guru Parampara as follows: '26) Narottama, 27) Visvanatha, 28) (Baladeva) Jagannatha'. It is to be noted that Narottama lived some two generations before Visvanatha and that Visvanatha lived two generations before Jagannatha das Babaji. Baladeva was a contemporary of Visvanatha. This list, therefore, is not a list of initiating Gurus and their direct disciples. Rather, it is a list of the most significant spiritual masters in the school of thought of Sri Chaitanya." Geneisner (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
potential resource from Portal:Current events/2011 December 20
- Indian Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna condemns a court case in Russia that could see the Gita holy book banned there. (BBC)