Regarding some questions about srila prabhupada's Gita translation ...

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Prabhus

PAMHO AGTSP

 

I recently got a forwarded post from a fellow devotee friend of mine

regarding a critique of srila prabhupada bhagavtad gita as it is

translation.

perhaps some sanskrit-versed devotees can elucidate regarding the points

made

and how we may understand the issues at hand and amicably reply.

 

ys

 

r. jai simman

 

ps : forwarded section appears below :-

 

" For instance, Prabhupada's claim that

> Krishna is in some

> sense a superior form of the Paramatman than other

> forms, is not upheld by

> Madhva (who is, however, misleadingly listed in

> Prabhupada's

> guru-parampara in the earlier pages of "Bhagavadgita

> as it is"). As

> another example, Prabhupada translates verse 1:10 -

>

> "Aparyaaptam tadasmaakam balam Bhiishmaabhirakshitam

> Paryaaptam tvidam etesham balam Bhiimabhirakshitam"

>

> - as saying that the speaker of this verse

> (Duryodhana) is saying that

> his army, defended by Bhiishma, is of complete

> strength, but the other

> army defended by Bhiima is of incomplete strength.

>

> This translation is directly opposite to what

> Duryodhana actually said, if

> one is to believe Madhva (as he states in his

> 'Gita-bhaashya). It is also

> incorrect from consideration of grammar, or word

> meanings; "aparyaaptam"

> means incomplete, and "paryaaptam" means complete --

> even a Hindi speaker

> with no knowledge of Sanskrit can see this. And if

> Duryodhana were indeed

> saying what Prabhupada claims, why would he then, in

> the very next verse,

> implore all his warriors to defend Bhiishma only (from

> the aggression of a

> weaker opponent)? Vyaasa also says that in the war,

> Bhiima accounted for

> all 100 Kaurava brothers and 7 of their 11

> Akshauhinis; his counterpart

> was nowhere near as good, and even at the start of the

> war, Duryodhana

> must have known this."

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

> " For instance, Prabhupada's claim that

> > Krishna is in some

> > sense a superior form of the Paramatman than other

> > forms, is not upheld by

> > Madhva (who is, however, misleadingly listed in

> > Prabhupada's

> > guru-parampara in the earlier pages of "Bhagavadgita

> > as it is").

 

Several postings have already been posted about the Maadhva concept

of "kr^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam" under several different headings.

Readers may wish to refer to these in the message archives located at

www.achintya.org (requires a id to access). Vidvan-

Gauranga Prabhu pointed out based on Madhva's Bhaagavata-tatparya-

nirnaya (Bhaagavatam commentary) that Madhva clearly endorses a

concept of a muula-ruupa (original form) of the Lord. I also posted

multiple shruti and smriti verses substantiating the fact that this

muula-ruupa is Krishna Himself. These verses can also be found on the

Gaudiya Vaishnava verse list located in the bookmarks section. I also

pointed out that the Maadhva interpretation of SB 1.3.28 is clearly

unacceptable by simple grammatical standards of Sanskrit -- there

isn't even subject-verb agreement in their interpretation.

 

Also, it isn't the case that Krishna is "in some sense a superior

form of the Paramatman than other forms." This is NOT the Gaudiiya

Vaishnava view. The Gaudiiya/Vedic view is that Krishna and all other

Vishnu-tattva forms are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead, but

Krishna is the original form while the other forms are PLENARY

expansions. Another way of understanding this is that all Vishnu-

tattva are equally omnipotent, omnisicient, omnipresent, etc, but

only in Krishna are all the potencies manifest while only some

fraction of these potencies are manifested in other Vishnu-tattvas.

Srila Prabhupada's commentary on SB 1.3.28 makes this abundantly

clear.

 

The author of this paper quoted here also conceeded in the past that

some forms of Vishnu (Sankarshana, Aniruddha, Pradyumna) can be

partial manifestations of other forms (Vaasudeva). So he cannot take

issue with the idea of some forms having only partially manifested

the full range of potencies. In fact, and Gerald Surya might actually

recall the exact posting in the Dvaita archives, this author

explicitly referred to the other forms of the Chatur-Vyuha as partial

realizations of Vaasudeva. Hence, he cannot make the case that we

somehow discriminate between the different Vishnu-tattvas.

 

yours,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jai Simman s/o R. Rangasamy" <rjsimman@m...>

wrote:

 

> > Madhva (who is, however, misleadingly listed in

> > Prabhupada's

> > guru-parampara in the earlier pages of "Bhagavadgita

> > as it is").

 

I also forgot to mention that the paramparaa issue was explicitly

dealt with by me in an earlier posting on achintya. I plan to include

this in the Gaudiya Vaishnava position paper which I am 75% done

with.

 

As

> > another example, Prabhupada translates verse 1:10 -

> >

> > "Aparyaaptam tadasmaakam balam Bhiishmaabhirakshitam

> > Paryaaptam tvidam etesham balam Bhiimabhirakshitam"

> >

> > - as saying that the speaker of this verse

> > (Duryodhana) is saying that

> > his army, defended by Bhiishma, is of complete

> > strength, but the other

> > army defended by Bhiima is of incomplete strength.

 

[...]

 

It is also

> > incorrect from consideration of grammar, or word

> > meanings; "aparyaaptam"

> > means incomplete, and "paryaaptam" means complete --

> > even a Hindi speaker

> > with no knowledge of Sanskrit can see this.

 

Apparently, the problem here is that the author of this statement is

in fact a HINDI speaker with NO knowledge of Sanskrit.

 

The bookmarks/Sanskrit section of the Achintya home page contains a

number of links to online Sanskrit dictionaries. The Apte Sanskrit-

English dictionary gives the following meanings for "aparyaapta"

 

1.not sufficient or enough;

 

**2.unlimited;***

 

3.unable (to do its work)

 

The same dictionary gives the following meanings for "paryaapta:"

 

1.obtained;

 

2.finished;

 

3.full;

 

4.able;

 

5.enough;

 

6.large;

 

7.abundant;

 

***8.limited in number***

 

Srila Prabhupada is using meaning #2 for "aparyaapta" and meaning #8

for "paryaapta." So both translations are grammatically sound.

 

Furthermore, the As It Is translation has the advantage of contextual

consistency. The author of the statement was Duryodhana, who was well

known to be envious of the Paandavas and a nondevotee to boot. Which

makes more sense of a corrupt, nondevotee king who had just willingly

picked a fight with the forces of dharma? Would he acknowledge

publicly to his own troops that his own forces were incomplete before

the enemy (Maadhva translation)? Would Duryodhana, a materialistic

nondevotee, actually have the realization that he was going to lose

the battle before it began? To suggest that he had that level of

realization is to give him more credit than Raavana, Hiranyakashipu,

and other demons had when they stood before the Lord and His devotees

in battle. If he knew his forces were limited, then why did

Duryodhana desire the war? And if he only came to that realization

when he was standing on the battlefield, then how did he get that

realization being a nondevotee afflicted by maya?

 

And if

> > Duryodhana were indeed

> > saying what Prabhupada claims, why would he then, in

> > the very next verse,

> > implore all his warriors to defend Bhiishma only (from

> > the aggression of a

> > weaker opponent)?

 

That should be obvious -- "bhiishmaabhirakShitam." Duryodhana's

forces seemed immeasurable becuase of Bhiishma's protection. An

obvious strategy when faced with a superior foe is to attack that

which makes the foe superior - in this case Bhiishma. Duryodhana was

anticipating this, and thus wanted to protect his greatest asset by

asking everyone to protect Bhiishma.

 

Vyaasa also says that in the war,

> > Bhiima accounted for

> > all 100 Kaurava brothers and 7 of their 11

> > Akshauhinis; his counterpart

> > was nowhere near as good, and even at the start of the

> > war, Duryodhana

> > must have known this."

 

That is nothing more than baseless speculation. Bhiishma was a far

more experienced general, and Duryodhana certainly did not have the

foresight to anticipate how the war would end. If he had that much

foresight, then why didn't he settle peacefully with the Paandavas

when the latter stated that they would accept life in a village as

their rightful inheritance?

 

I'm afraid this individual's criticism of Srila Prabhupada's

translation simply lacks in substance.

 

yours,

 

Krishna