Objetive critticism of Prabhupada translations...

[Guest guest]

Objective criticism of Prabhupada tralations and comentarys.

Transcript by Hare Krsna das (student of Linguistic and Literature in the U A de

C. Priest of Radha-Govinda Mandir ISKCON Saltillo North Mexico. He is working in

the thesis project The Real Ancientness of Srimad-Bhagavatam?) 

Subject 

It is very common between some conservative scholars deride and minimise the

vality of A.C. Bhaktivendanta Swami  Srila Prabhupada translations and

commentaries of Bhagavad-gita and Bhagavata-Purana, etc. Saying that Prabhupda

did n't translate the texts like "As It is". However, many students in the

Indological camps, repeated this  derogative slogan without reading the

Prabhupada's works. But let me show the poverty of this subjective idea  with

the critical opinion of one of the most serious observer of Hare Krsna

Movement, Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins Ph D., from Yale University, and Chairma  in

the Religious Studies at Franklin and Marshall College. He is specialist in

Hindu devotional movements. His publications include the widely-used college

text The Hindu Religions Tradition, The Social Teachings of the Bhagavata

Purana, in  Krishna, etc. This interview was in 1979 and 1981 and It is part

from the book  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna. Five Distingued scholars on the

Krishna Movement in the West. Steven J. Gelberg ed. Goves Press 1983. (SJG)

means  Steven Gelberg and (TH) DR. Hopkins.

Part I.

 

SGJ: In his light, then, what is significant about Bhaktivedanta Swami's commentaries?

 

TH: What is significant is that his commentaries are the firts that have been

written specifically for the comprehension of Westerns and others no familiar

with the total Indian culture and theological context. If you try to read the

commentaries of Jiva Goswami or Sanatana Goswami or any of the great teachers,

you find that understanding. they contain a good deal of thecnical terminology,

and they were written with the assumption that the readers has familiarity with

traditional Indian philosophy, culture and aesthetic. Anyone who doesn't come

out of the particular cultural background is going to miss at least half of

what's being said. Bhativendata Swami has managed, successfully, to bridge an

enormous cultural gap and to give practical application to teachings that were

originally designed for people in a very different cultural setting, that 's no

easy to do, by any means. I think he's been very successful. the very existence

of a genuine Viasnava movement in the West is compelling evidence of his

success as a commentator.

 

SJG: Apart from his work as a commentator, what about his work as a translator—

from linguistic point of view?

 

TH: The Translations are done accurately from a scholarly point of view. He

leaves no tracks obscure. for each verse of the original he presents the

Sanskrit text, its roman translations, a translation of each individual word of

the text, and a full English translation. There's no sleight of hand there.

Everything is out front so you can see what's going on. You might no agree

entirely with every coice of terms for translation, but at least you know what

you' are dealing with. It's all there aviable to work with.

 

SGJ: Occasionally, I 've heard the criticism, or comment that Bhaktivedanta

Swami's translations are less concerned with literal meanings than with the

devotional spirit of the texts he's translating. Could you comment on this

whole issue of literal versus interpretative translation and apply it to the

case of Bhaktivedanta Swami works?

 

TH: This is , of course, a long-standing problem in translation in general.

Entirely part from the religious context, the problem of translating a text

from one language to another, wheter poetry or prose, is the tension between

the endeavour to give a strict, literal translation and the endeavour to convey

the spirit of the original. Thai's the classic problem for anyone attempting

translation work. It's commonly recognised that it's no possible, in a sense,

to translate any trext as it is, is the tex itself. Any translation is, in that

sense, a change in the meaning of the text.

I have looked at Bhaktivedanta Swamki's translations from that standpoint and I

think, again, the face that I have had affair amount of experience with

commentaries has helped me understand what it is the he's doing. A lot of his

translations are based on a combination of literal text and commentaries, as if

he is involved ina a tradition of interpretation which does not look at Sanskrit

text in isolation form the tradition of commentaries, as if he were translating

it for firsts time. He's translating out of a tradition of translations where

over period of time there's developed and agreement on what  the significance

of various terms is. This goes back a long way. If you look, or instance, at

Sridhara Svami's commentary on the Bhagavata Purana, you 'll find that a lot of

his commentary consists of  describing what devotees do, so that one can

understand the meaning of the text.

 

SJG: I don't follow.

 

It shall in the next............