Prabuphada & ISKON

[Jimbo]

my first translation of the gita is by prabhupada and i find the setup of the text very good and accessable. the explanations are mostly good as well. my other version is by yoganda and ive yet to read it. but i have a doubt which annoys me constantly. im aware that the 'history' of the hindu gods has been changed and manipulated somewhat over the ages. we had the trinity which were really one god. then we progressed into considering vishnu as the supreme. apparently history shows that indra and surya worship in early times was on par with vishnu worship, but over time it gave way to vishnu and shiva. anyway, krishna was considered an avatar. now prabuphadas book seems (to me) to be biased towards and giving the impression that krishna is the supreme and the other two are lesser. so nowadays we consider krishna as the supreme. personally i thought krishna to be the PERSONALITY of godhead but still an avatar on earth to deliver the message. its the age old vaishnava fued in play. i personally dont care who's the greatest as hinduism at its core isnt meant to be polytheistic, but do you think prahbupada's interpretation is accurate? or based on his assumptions? im in no way stating that he's a fake, but i do find it ironic that he attacks those who've made other versions of gita (in his words "fulfilling their own agenda") while he himself has presented his own opinion with his book. reading much of the opening of his version feels almost intimidating as it gives the impression of an unaccepting and conversionist attitude you could compare with many christians out there. i vist ISKON sometimes but im not enjoying the singlemindedness they derive from this translation of the gita... what are your thoughts on this?

[maadhav]

prabhupada was an aacharya and intellectual warrior.

whatever he preached in regards to krishna bhakti, he never concocted. he said what gurus, sahdus, and shastras have said.

 

i wish all gurus fight like he fought with the anti vedic ideologeis.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have absolutely the same feeling.

 

Devotees must contemplate on what 'Supreme Personality of God Head' -- so frequently used with so much emphasis, means?

 

Over zealous falter.God, takes care of everything.

 

[Guest guest]

I think you have grasped the essence of hinduism.

Different sects of Hinduism call their own gods as superior and others as subordinates.

Like

1. Ganapathyas-For them lord ganesh is supreme

2. Sakthas- For them the mother godess is supreme

3. Kaumaram- Lord Karthikeya

4. Saivas- Lord Shiva

5. Vaishnavas- Lord Vishnu.

 

And there are some groups of hindus called Smarthas, who worship all gods.

 

And Shankara's commentaries of Gita is considered the baseline, as it is earliest, and is most logical.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

BUT the Gita has sanskrit to english TRANSLITERATION!

 

If you don't want to read the Purports please go ahead. Don't blame devotees, blame Krishna!

 

Krishna Himself says He is Supreme.

 

WHERE Do YOU think people get the idea of God from?????

 

Hello!?

www.asitis.com

http://www.krsnaconsciousness.org/Srimad-Bhagavad-gita.exe

[Guest guest]

"m not enjoying the singlemindedness they derive from this translation of the gita.."

 

obviously any generalization is not sign of evolution.. so you had to visit all iskcon devotees and temples and well examined to make such statement.

 

You have not done it, so the singlemindedness of Iskcon in general, is your very risky assumption

 

two things to say..

 

one is that prabhupada is exactly teaching the gaudya vaishnava siddhanta wich is in in india from 1496, so, actually, more ancient that many forms of hinduism who are followed now in india.. So the supremacy of Sri krsna over other personalities is not a new thing, without saying that the previous vaishnava sampradaya, actually "born" with krsna when he gave the first version of the bhagavad gita to vivasvan, do accepts the supremacy of sri vishnu who actually is non different by krsna..

 

The different interpretation of bhagavad gita, pointing more on polytheism or impersonalism are surely much more new and lesser traditional of the vaishnava's or the gaudya vaishnava's ones..

 

 

another thing to say is that prabhupada has surely an "agenda"... and such agenda was to make of gita what truly it is: a tool to go back to godhead and to achieve liberation when too many intellectuals and fake gurus have used it as a background for useless speculations and intellectual games.

 

And the way prabhupada used was the simplicity.. when there's written "krsna says.. surrender to me", we have to interprete "krsna says .... surrender to me".

This is most respectiful for the reader (and "democratic") who's recognized to have an intelligence useful to read the words of god by himself without having to give submission to someone who, when it is written "krsna.." he wants that the reader understand something else..

 

So one great merit of sri gaudya vaishnava sampradaya... and prabhupad is that they do not concoct anything, they do not plagiarize the readers.. if there's written "krsna"... it is krsna, if there's written "arjuna".... it is arjuna.

 

Bhagavad gita is meant for achieve liberation... to be experienced and practiced with this purpose under the guidance of a pure vaishnava spiritual master (as bg itself says in the verse "tad viddhi pranipatena.."

 

If we live on hypothesis, on feelings, on false religious tolerance, on this boring idea that an hindu, if he spreads sanatana dharma he is like a fanatic christian..... we simply do not have any success in our life and we do not use the gita for the purpose that it is written for.. to surrender to the supreme lord and quit the material world

..

 

 

so practice prabhupada's/gaudya vaishnava's message and instructions, do it exactly and carefully, chant hare krsna mahamantra everyday and come back to share your realizations.. bhagavad gita is a practice, subjected to be followed and verified in our very life, not an intellectual gratification

[Guest guest]

*******The different interpretation of bhagavad gita, pointing more on polytheism or impersonalism are surely much more new and lesser traditional of the vaishnava's or the gaudya vaishnava's ones..********

 

Adi Shankara was born around 788 CE. And his commentary on Gita is the oldest one available( 788 is earlier than 1496... the lesser the number, the earlier it is), and is considered the baseline.

 

So anything else is a deviation or self interpretation by acaryas, who either made commentaries based on shankara, or had their own interpretations based on the sect they were following.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"...and is considered the baseline...."

 

the baseline is gita's text who is the clear, pure and manifest statement of the need to surrendering to krsna as the supreme personality, source of all kind of liberations, summum bonim, supreme living being..

 

that's simply the text of the gita.. if you simply read it, there's no controversy.. if you want to preach other theories, different from gita's text, there's no use even in mentioning gita

 

so it is not question of interpretation.. prabhupada actually brings out the idea of a "non-interpretation" of the gita.. he calls his translation "bhagavad gita AS IT IS"

 

krsna is able to write clearly what he wants to make us know, he does not need someone who extract the truth from his words, his words are already the truth..

 

"self interpretation by acaryas..."

these two words are in conflict... an acharya does not give a "self interpretation"

 

it is like you have said a "honest thief"

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

ki jai

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Adi Shankara was born around 788 CE. And his commentary on Gita is the oldest one available( 788 is earlier than 1496... the lesser the number, the earlier it is), and is considered the baseline.

 

 

Didn't Madhvacharya go around with his own intrepretation also /images/graemlins/smirk.gif?

 

Krishna says He 1st instucted the Gita to Sun-god visvasvan. So Sun-god was the 1st recipeient of this knowledge then it was handed down. [[[baseline]]]

[Guest guest]

Thats correct. But Shankara's translation precedes that, and is the oldest one available.

What I mean to say is different philosophers have intepreted it asper their conveinience, and because Shankara was the greatest intellectual, his commentary is considered correct.

 

[Guest guest]

Shankara's honesty is not in discussion, but his commentary is considered correct among his followers.. and he's the greatest intellectual for his followers

 

actually the greatest intellectual is krsna who explains clearly his philosophy in the gita

 

 

[Guest guest]

And not Prabhupada's if you are so smart.

[Guest guest]

the thing that you fail to understand is that there's no competition between prabhupada and krsna..

 

prabhupada writes "bhagavad gita AS IT IS" giving exactly what krsna says, not his concoctions or theories

 

so krsna is the greatest intellectual,and who communicates exactly krsna's words is also greatest

 

the true guru is the transparent medium of god's message, he does not add or change anything.. that's the quality of guru

 

smartness is to understand this simple thing

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Thats correct. But Shankara's translation precedes that, and is the oldest one available.

 

What I mean to say is different philosophers have intepreted it asper their conveinience, and because Shankara was the greatest intellectual, his commentary is considered correct.

 

 

Who was greatest in Satya-yuga?

 

Before Sankracharyaji it was the Buddhists who gave the Great Interpretations of Vedas! Later came Sriman Sankracharya. Go figure.

 

Much much later came Madhvacharya..

 

Anyway Sankracharya left the his own Bhagavatam commentation alone. If you want to read it go here-

 

www.vedabase.net /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[Jimbo]

"BUT the Gita has sanskrit to english TRANSLITERATION!

If you don't want to read the Purports please go ahead. Don't blame devotees, blame Krishna!

Krishna Himself says He is Supreme.

WHERE Do YOU think people get the idea of God from?????"

 

Govindaram, i dont have a problem with the purports. They're some of the best material ive ever read. What i have a problem with is the BIAS that has crept into his work which is evident at the beginning of the text, after which he seemed to have settled down a bit. My problem is that god cant be found in one religion, god must be found in every religion. to put prabhupada's translation at the forefront and have 'sects' / 'cults' like ISKON preach is as the only way is a slap on the face of alot of hindu's. it is not a seperate entity from hinduism, just another interpretation of it.

 

[imported_servegod]

 

Haribol,

 

"What i have a problem with is the BIAS that has crept into his work which is evident at the beginning of the text, after which he seemed to have settled down a bit."

 

Could you please give an example of the 'bias' you talk of?

 

"My problem is that god cant be found in one religion, god must be found in every religion"

 

God is found in every bona-fide religion i.e. religion based on scriptures predicted in the Vedas. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc all predicted in the Vedas. God is found in most religions, Prabhupada does not deny that. If we examine Jesus' teachings, God is found in that. Mohammed's teachings one can find God etc. However, these religions have constantly been interpreted to suit the followers' lifestyles. For example, Jesus' teachings have been INTERPRETED to say that meat-eating is alrite. Prabhupada said that chanting the names of God is the only way, whether you chant Krishna or Allah, the potency of God is in the name. The name however must be authorised. For example, Jesus is not an authorised name, because Jesus is the name of the Son of God, not God Himself.

 

 

"to put prabhupada's translation at the forefront and have 'sects' / 'cults' like ISKON preach is as the only way is a slap on the face of alot of hindu's"

 

It is not Prabhupada's translation which claims that Krishna is supreme. Every scholar in the world agrees that there is a verse in the Bhagavad Gita which says 'Just surrender to me. I will deliver you from all sinful reactions.' No-one would argue against Prabhupada that the Bhagavad Gita says 'I (Krishna) am the source of all material and spiritual worlds. Everything emanates from me.'

 

There is therefore no interpretation involved.

 

Let's forget the purports even, it all boils down to the following: If Krsna says he is supreme and no-one is equal to him, then that is the truth, unless one wants to deny the validity of the Vedic scriptures. Interpretation is to say otherwise.

 

There is no sect involved. ISKCON is inviting everyone to chant the name of Krsna because it is the most intimate name of God. If one has something against the name of Krsna, then chant another authorised name/designation of the Lord e.g. Christ, Jehovah, Allah or Buddha. No problem. World religion. Sanatana Dharma. No sects, no divisions, just everyone chanting name of God - and the world will become spiritually infused.

 

Hare Krsna.

[Guest guest]

"My problem is that god cant be found in one religion, god must be found in every religion."

 

that's a prejudice... or better... it is a very good feeling and disposition, but this has to be discussed and well considered. In this circumstance prabhupada is simply promoting the text and the literal translation of the gita.

The respect to krsna's words and will is to be kept in consideration more than an artificial respect of anyone feels to say any nonsense using the gita as a pretext

 

so tolerance is very good... but also discrimination is important...

 

i respect everyone who lives in this world, but between two bhagavadgita's editions, one who gives exactly the krsna's words and one who gives a personal interpretation of these words to promote his personal idea.. i know what to choose

 

the fact that i have preferences.. does not means that i am not respectiful and tolerant..

 

(prabhupada was most humble, respectiful and tolerant... and you'll see if you get deeper in his works and message)

[Guest guest]

i want to say also that prabhupada's translation and idea about bhagavad gita and spirituality in general is not a new thing... gaudya vaishnava sampradaya is in india from 1496 and it is tightly connected with the previous vaishnava sampradaya..

 

and prabhupada is a traditional gaudya vaishnava spiritual master, not a new sectarian guru

 

"iskcon" is an english translation of "vaishnavism".. not something different

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

You have a very critical mind or have been visiting forums lately who have been critical. I don't think you have read enough or tried to understand humbly what Prabhupada message is. Its only to love God [Krishna]. The aim of life is not to be Hindu, its becoming devotee of Krishna.

 

I am born Hindu. I could have been according to my karma been born a dog. Krishna clearly says in Gita that a sge of steady mind sees the same soul in a dog, a dog-eater, cow etc. Why are you propsosing Prabhupada said anything different? I suggest read with your 'eyes open' and your critical mind closed. It said in the Gita you must apporach Guru with service and submission. THIS also applies when reading Prabhupada books. Haribol

[Guest guest]

In chapter 6 verses 25 and 26 goes something like this

 

"His mind having been established in the self , he should not think of anything"

 

"Whenever the unsteady mind moving to and fro,wanders away he shld restrain it and control it in the self"

 

 

My question would be when krishna says take refugee in me, he points to himself. in the above stanzas he says about self . if he is talking about him he could have said "His mind having established in Me " instead he is using the world self .

 

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Self means the person.

 

Not the body,

 

THIS is spiritual knowledge not material. {body]

[Guest guest]

Govindaram

 

The word "atman" in the slokas is translated to SELF here. It surely does not mean the person. It is the supreme consciousness that pervades everything.

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Krishna says in Gita-

 

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.Bg 2.12

 

 

If Krishna is not competent enough to say as He is speaking to Arjuna as Guru then Gita makes no sense. Krishna or Guru speaks spiritual knowledge. So Krishna here is obviously speaking of the individuality of all those present on the battlefield. Otherwise there is no use in even having this verse in Gita. If you take one verse out then you miss a part. Chapter 2 is one of the most important. And everybody agrees this verse clearly defines Krishna as seperate entity to everybody else. So this means there is individuality also in the spiritual sence. As per Gita. As It Is.

 

Do NOT forget Guru speaks only spiritual. If not then that Guru is useless. Haribol!

 

[Guest guest]

if that is the case , then we have the question of is god bound by time, name and form. Gita was not there before krishna as born. So what happens to all those mortals who were living before that period. The vedas say "tatvamasi", "aham brahmasmin" only and they dont point to any external god.

 

Its like christians saying "Jesus is the only god and you can get salvation only thru him", what happens to those people who were there before his time"