God as Krsna or Krsna as Krsna

[ggohil]

"Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My Original Form"

BG 4.6

 

"Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality.........."

BG 7.24

 

Here A.C. Prabhupada interprets that Krsna (Supreme Lord) appears as himself. In other words the supreme Lord (God) has a personal form and that form is that of Krsna.

 

Further

 

"Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Krsna..........."

BG 8.7

 

Here A.C. Prabhupada further interprets that Krsna wants Arjun to fix his mind on Krsna's

personal form.

 

In view of this many Krsna devotees are still of the opinion that God incarnated as Krsna and assumed a personal form. The God does not have any form. They explain this idea in terms of Sakar and Nirakar.

 

I am looking for direct and clear evidence in Vedic literature which can or cannot confirm A.C.Prabhupada's interpretation.

 

 

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Hello ggohill,

 

Krishna says, "Some people think that I was unmanifest before and am manifest now. They do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme."

 

Krishna does not explicitly say that he is manifest. He is beyond the manifest and the umanifest or in Prabhupada's terms, beyond Personal and Impersonal.

 

The folowing verses may clarify things. It is SP's translation.

 

---------------

 

At the beginning of Brahma's day, all living entities become manifest from the unmanifest state, and thereafter, when the night falls, they are merged into the unmanifest again.

 

- 8.18

 

Yet there is another unmanifest nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is.

 

- 8.20

 

That which the Vedantists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns--that is My supreme abode.

 

- 8.21

 

-----------------

 

The dualistic translations were targetting to oust Shankara's Monism where he primarily focused on the formless Brahman. So their translations will always insist on God having a form.

 

Personally I would suggest that you avoid all the purports in any book and read only the original content. Otherwise we will end up reading the translator's views and interpretations (or misinterpretations? ).

 

Also try reading translations of BG by other people.

[Gauracandra]

I guess I’ll jump in here briefly. First let me say to Shvu that I think the tone of your reply is rather snide and totally unnecessary. If anything it takes away from what you are saying. Phrases like “his fans”, “Our man”, “So they lap [it] up” etc… are not appropriate for polite conversation.

 

Second, with regard to the words Srila Prabhupada uses in his transalation, it should be clear that he is not trying to hide anything. He offers a word for word translation of each verse. And I would recommend, as Shvu has suggested, that you read the word for word translation. However, if there are certain themes that are developed through the Bhagavad Gita, over many verses, over a number of chapters, I do not think it inappropriate to address these themes in a distinct, stand alone verse.

 

For instance, Shvu does not like the translation Srila Prabhupada gives for the word Ahankara. To quote “Ahankara is a sanskrit verse that means ego in english as any dictionary will say. However Prabhupada translates it as 'False ego'. Where did that false come from ? That would imply that there is something called 'True ego', which is not found anywhere in the Gita.” Well, my American Heritage dictionary defines ego as “The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.” One of the themes developed in the Gita is the misidentification of the body with the self. Ego, as my dictionary clearly states, is the self. False ego is a false self, a false identification. It is the body, not who you truly are. True ego, which Shvu says the Gita does not address, is one’s true identity, one’s true self, the soul.

 

Now certainly there are many interpretations of the Gita, some from an impersonalistic view, some from a personalistic perspective. Each side can quote verses that backs their side up. I personally am unqualified to go into such in depth analysis. There are many schools that take a personalistic view of God. To such individuals, one of the themes of the Gita is the Personhood of God. Therefore I do not think it is wrong to use the phrase “The Supreme Personality of Godhead”. If this is a theme that is developed over many verses, then it can logically be applied to a distinct, stand alone verse. I am reminded of a nice pastime that is related on this website with regard to Sri Ramanuja and his translation of a verse from the Chandogya Upanishad:

“He was a boy of extraordinary intelligence and placed himself under the charge of Yadavacharya, a renown Sankarite scholar. His guru was struck with his marvellous intellect and became very uncomfortable on account of his firm faith in Bhakti. One day while taking a massage, Yadavacharya was explaining to Ramanuja a sutra:

 

tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikamevamaksini

- Chandogya 1.6.7

 

Yadavacharya explained that according to Shankara the sutra says the two eyes of Pundarika (Vishnu) are like two lotuses which are red like the nates of a monkey. On hearing this interpretation with the unbecoming and low simile, Ramanuja's soft heart, tender by nature and softened by devotion, melted and as he was massaging, tears rolled down from the corners of his eyes like flames of fire and fell on the thigh of Yadava. Looking up at the touch of the hot tears, Yadava understood that something troubled his disciple. Ramanuja explained his dismay at hearing such an unbecoming explaination from his guru. He thought it sinful to compare with the posterior of a monkey the eyes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead - who is endowed with all gracious qualities and who is the repository of all the beauty of the universe. Yadava was angry at the boys audacity and told him to explain the verse if he could. Ramanuja analysed the word kapyasam to mean `blossomed by the sun' and the verse to mean "The eyes of that Golden Purusa are as lovely as lotuses blossomed by the rays of the sun."

 

After a few more such incidents when Ramanuja corrected his guru, Yadavacharya thought him to be a threat to the Sankarite line and plotted to kill him. Later it came to pass that Yadavacharya was to become the disciple of Ramanuja.”

 

Gauracandra

 

[shvu]

 

Hello ggohill,

 

Here are my observations and comments.

 

When reading SP's translation of the Gita, people would do good to also read the word to word translation that comes before that, in the 'Gita as it is'.

 

When you do that, and if you have some basic knowledge of sanskrit you will find that he has interpreted sanskrit words in his own sweet way. He has given new meanings to sanskrit words to suit his message. ( No offense to his fans...)

 

Examples :

 

Ahankara is a sanskrit verse that means ego in english as any dictionary will say. However Prabhupada translates it as 'False ego'. Where did that false come from ? That would imply that there is something called 'True ego', which is not found anywhere in the Gita.

 

Ask his devout fans and they will get angry for raising questions about their revered Guru.

 

Bhagavan means God, Lord, etc. Our man translates it as 'Supreme personality of Godhead'. Whew ! That is something ! Where did all the extra words come from ?

 

Let us take the verses mentioned above by you.

 

--------------

SP's translation :

 

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My Original Form"

BG 4.6

------------------

 

shvu: If you check out the literal word to word thing, you will find that there are no sankrit words there to say 'Original form'. That was conveniently added by our man.

 

---------------

 

SP's Translation :

 

"Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality.........."

BG 7.24

 

--------------------------

This verse completes with 'Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.'

 

So it does not say that Krishna says his original form is Personal. What he says is he has a higher nature, which is above manifest and unmanifest.

 

-------------

SP's translation:

 

Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Krsna..........."

BG 8.7

 

-------------------

 

Distortion again. Krishna tells Arjuna to think of him, period. 'In the form of Krishna' was added by our man, SP.

 

--

 

Krishna does not say anywhere that his personal Human form is his original form, nor that he has a transcendental form. He does say in several places tha he is unmanifest, which implies he is beyond forms.

 

Translators have a way of twisting the meaning to repesent their view. The same goes for SP. Although most people here do not like to think so, they should remember that there is nothing extra-ordinary about anyone that whatever he says has got to be true.

 

Of course, a lot of people who read "BG as it is" do not know Sanskrit and would not have read other translations. So they just lap up whatever they read.

 

Nothing is lost anyway.

 

I hope this answers your questions. Any outraged fans of SP, who can pick holes in my explanation are welcome to.

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Dear Shvu

 

Thank you for your response. My knowledge of Sanskrit is nil, so please excuse my ignorance.

 

"Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality.........."

BG 7.24

If this translation is correct, then does not the line “ .....I, the Supreme prsonality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have assumed this personality....” clearly imply that Krsna

was not impersonal before and has not assumed this personality. This would suggest that by not being impersonal before, Krsna always had a form.

 

I agree, in either case, nothing is lost.

 

Hari Bole

[shvu]

 

Dear Gaurachandra,

 

Yes, my tone towards these translators who write Bhashyas, and Purports to suit their views (Impersonal, Personal, whatever...) is inclined to be curt, because I dislike anybody distorting any meanings for their convenience.

 

A fan means a devotee. Why does that bother you so ? Our man, means SP in this context. Again why does that bother you so ? I am not into sarcasm, if that is what you think I am doing here. I am pointing out my observations, my way. That is how I would addressany such tranlsator, not just SP. A secure person will not get riled about these things.

 

Your Guru may be a big person to you, but remember that he is just another ordinary person to others. I have read somehwere that SP used to get offended if someone called him Acharya. He wanted to be called as the 'Founder Acharya'. Such a person is not really exceptional, is he ? There are several other people who have translated the Gita, the Bhagavatam, etc. Anybody who knows Sankrit, english and has the inclination can do it. It is no big deal.

 

Coming to your translation about ego, if Ahankara means 'False ego' would you please give me the sankrit term for ego ?

 

Thank you.

[shvu]

 

Gurus thrive because none of their disciples question them. Out of respect or fear or faith. if there had been more people like Ramanuja to question their Gurus, history would have been quite different.

 

Questioning the Guru and his teachings is not Aparadha as some people think. It takes courage and intelligence. Some Gurus who did not wish to be questioned, came up with the idea of Aparadha to safeguard their position. And today people are faithfully following it. Similar to Blasphemy in Christianity. It is a safety mechanism.

[Gauracandra]

A quick reply before I head off to work. First, I was in no way riled by your statements. I realize that your statement that any angry fans of SP should respond to you was a way of innoculating yourself from any response. I simply felt the tone was rather silly. Now perhaps english isn't your first language (I don't know) but I think anyone who read your post would come to my conclusion.

 

With response to Ahankara and ego, I think it important to understand the subtle definition of ego. Most people take the word ego very loosely to mean pride. Ego in its traditional sense is a relative point of identification. To give you a simple example, if you were to say "My wife is very beautiful" this would be a statement of ego. Now if I were to say, "Your wife if very beautiful" this would not be a statement of ego. These sentences are exactly the same, the ONLY difference is the point of reference. Therefore it can be concluded that Ego is based on the point of reference. Therefore when Arjuna is saying "How can I fight MY cousins, MY teachers. Why should I risk MY kingdom with their bloodshed?" What does Krsna say. "Look, you are identifying with this body. Why? Identify with who you really are. This body will whither and die, its just like clothes that you take on and off. Don't worry about it, perform your duty. You are actually Atma. This is your real point of reference." With this in mind I think it entirely appropriate to say "false ego" because it is a false identification with this body. "My body, My wife, My cousins, My Kingdom". But you are Atma, that is your true identity. I hope this clears up this issue. Anyways, I've got to head off to work now.

 

Gauracandra

[shvu]

 

I am not in awe of these Gurus, and to see them twisting words around, is likely to trigger such a response from anyone. Anyway let us move on...

 

Ego - Soul, Self, Individuality.

 

In Sanskrit the word Atman is always used to mean soul. So Ahankara when translated to ego, is to mean individuality or the self.

 

Given this situation, "giving up the ego" means "giving up individuality", which is against the Personal View. It is evident that he had to work his way around this, somehow. So it is clear that the tranlsation is wrong according to sanskrit. What we are reading there is his own view and not what is.

 

They are clever people. In a lighter note, it should be called 'The Gita as it is not'.

[viji_53]

In Gita when Krishna said shed off your ego, He meant our pride. He meant as long as we do not shed off I & mine it is not possible to reach Him. Self is meant by the word atma. Why He meant the word self realization?. Devotees should not be fanatics. Our Vedas allows all sort off questions through JabaliMuni. Gurus should encourage queries by the desciples.Though I am also ISKCON life member, sometimes I feel ISKCON people are a bit fanatics which is against our religion. Everybody must be encouraged to understand the real meaning of Gita irrespective of the transolaters. As Shvu said I read one translation in 9th chapter 32 sloka, saying sinnesrs like women, vaisyas & sudras. I donot think Krishna would have meant like that, if He said that how can you say Gopikas attained Krishna easily than Gopalas? Some male chuvanist must have interpreted like that. I do not want to hurt anyone. At the same time you can not expect everybody to follow what you think is correct.

HariBhol!

[janardana prabhu]

dear shvu, It is you how are twisting the words of the Baghavad Gita! And at that they are not even origional just the same old crap one might expect from some fool who has no understanding of the soul. Have you expierenced the soul? The false ego is a covering of the soul in the same way true ego is a covering, one is in the preview of maha maya and the other in the preview of yoga maya. Both are lovingly supplied and maintained by Krishna. It is clear that your feeble attempt at understanding Srila Prabhupada is a joke. the only thing I think we can learn from you is the nature of false ego. you seem to be an expert in that field.

[shvu]

Hello J Prabhu,

 

So we have an outraged fan. Please allow me to analyse your posting.

 

I said SP has twisted meanings of sanskrit words with my observations and comments above.

 

You said I have twisted meanings. But you have not provided any details of how I did that.

 

Do that (if you can) and we will talk further. Picking holes is to pull out valid points and provide valid logic to refute it. Otherwise it is simply going around in circles for lack of a sensible answer, like you have done now.

 

 

[ggohil]

Jai Sri Krsna

 

Dear Shvu:

 

Irrespective of the matter, whether the Bhagavad Gita was translated correctly or not, did you ever entertain the thought that in this world there may be a possibility that there may be some followers of Prabhupada’s teachings, who may actually be rendering his or her’s devotional service with pure heart and love to Krsna.

 

One does not necessrily need to question or need to understand each and every word of Bhagavad Gita or Vedic literature to render pure and loving service to Krsna.

 

In view of this, on what grounds do you proclaim all the devotees to be “fans”.

 

Hari Bole.

[animesh]

Hi everyone,

First of all, let me tell that I am not at all a scholar in Gita, vedas or any other dharm granthas of ours. But I do know Sanskrit and I do have inclination towards knowing about such a vast literature of ancient India. Without wanting to cause any harm to anyone, I must say that I did find many words in translations in "BG As It Is" which are not there in Sanskrit shlokaas. But one can not claim that it is bad because sometimes, I may be necessary to clarify meanings. As an example, if after reading the actual Sanskrit shlokaas in Gita and without being biased, one can come to the conclusion that the view that talks of personal form of Krishna is true, then there is nothing wrong in mentioning it in the translation of a shlokaa even though the shlokaa itself does not contain these words. But if somebody adds words from his side only to tell his personal views which are not found by actual translations of shlokaas, then it is definitely bad.

 

But, first of all, I really fail to understand why the discussion between "Personal" and "Impersonal" form of Krishnal is so important. In both ways, he is the Supreme Personality Of Godhead.

[shvu]

Dear ggohill,

 

A fan is one who is in awe of his idol. A disciple is in awe of his Guru, otherwise he would not choose him as his Guru, in the first place. Very simple.

 

Now I am curious to know why people are bothered about using 'fan' ? Would you please explain what you understand by 'fan' ?

 

Thank you

[shvu]

 

Dear Animesh,

 

It is true that some verse may seem puzzling and need to be explained further. That is why translations usually have a word to word translation followed by the verse in english, and finally the purport. So the translator who intends to explain the verse in detail will do so in the purport, where he can add his view, opinions, etc.

 

However in this case, the translator distorted meanings while translating the verse itself, which is not right. Especially when the name is 'As it is'. The change may be a very minor one, but notice how it changes the whole meaning of the verse.

 

 

[shvu]

 

To all,

 

This thread was raised to clarify points on SP's interpretation of the Gita, and I have made my observations and comments.

 

Some of the fans of SP may be of the opinion that the word fan is sarcastic.

 

Fan - Support, Supporter [Dictionary meaning]

 

So going by this meaning, using the term "fan" is perfectly in context.

 

I have not said anywhere, that SP is not worthy of being a Guru or any such thing.

 

But I will say this -

 

No one is extra-ordinary because he translated books or opened organisations. There is nothing divine about anyone. He is as ordinary as you and me, and is bound to have made mistakes. Being his devout disciples you may not want to acknowledge his mistakes. Fine, makes no difference. Anyway like I said earlier, nothing is lost.

 

Lastly I am not promoting any impersonal views or any other Guru here, just in case someone thinks I am.

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Dear Shvu:

 

I think you have missed the point I made above.

 

Fan = devotee of a specified amusement, performer etc. ( film fans, football fans). Defination taken from “The Concise Oxford Dictionary”.

 

Shvu you view the devotees of Krsna (who follow the teachings of Prabhpada ) to fit above definition of “fans” and I do not.

 

Just for the record I am not a memeber of Iskon or am bothered by what you are saying.

 

But addressing devotees as fans is perhaps not accurate.

 

I am already sorry I even address the this issue earlier. This is not here or there and is taking up valuable time of everyone.

 

Hari Bole

 

[ggohil]

Hari Hari

 

Dear Hari and Jayasriradhey.

 

All I am seeking is, if there is any written evidence in vedic knowledge that confirms that Krsna has a defined form and incarnated as himself.

 

I do not see anything wrong in seeking knowledge on Krsna, do you?

 

Personal or Impersonal, if there is clear references made in the vedic literature on this subject then I would like to know.

 

That's all.

 

Hare Krsna

 

[animesh]

Sri ggohil has written that he is sorry to have raised this issue. I understand his concern. This discussion is really going in a direction which he definitely had not anticipated. But, I firmly believe that we can utilize the discussion on this topic in a very positive way. Why not we do the following: -

 

Let us post those shlokas (and their accurate translations) from our holy books, which talk about personal form" and also those shlokas which talk about "impersonal form". I do not know whether we will reach any unanimous view or not. If we do, good. Even if we don't, still good. Because, at least, we will be able to know a lot about God from these shlokas. This is because any shloka will not tell only about personal or impersonal form but also many other things about the supreme personality of godhead.

 

Also, based on these shlokas, Sri ggohil and the rest of us can make our own judgement about personal or impersonal form.

 

Hare Rama

[animesh]

The word "ego" is used in two very diferent ways. One, which is gound in many English dictionaries and which is used in technical articles, is the one propounded by the well known psychologist Friad. (He talked of "Id", "Ego", "Super ego", "Conscious", "Unconscious", "Semi-conscious" etc.). There is another meaning which is used in day-to-day conversation by many people. This meaning is "conceit". The actual meaning of the Sanskrit term "Ahankar" (or "ghamand") is "conceit" or "haughtiness". The Sanskrit term equivalent to the former meaning of ego should be "Swayam".

 

[viji_53]

Maha Vishnu took avataars as Raama & Krishna. Lord Vishnu on His own will took the humans form for the sake of His devotees. As Raama He has never showed He is God. But Krishna from the beginning showed that He is God. Krishna proved to the world that unscrupulous things can never succeed & Only dharma will win. He gave Gita to the world through Arjuna. As long as we understand the saramsa of the Gita that is enough. Why to bother about word to word translations. In my opinion ahankara is arrogance& pride. In Gita ahankara is mentioned along with kama,or krodha orloba. So the word ahankara is ego which should be shedoff whether false or true. Unless we shed off our ego we can not go forward in the spiritual path.

[shvu]

 

Dear ggohill,

 

My dictionary says a fan is a supporter. However for the sake of convenience, I will refrain from using that term in this context.

 

You are looking for a reference from Vedic Literature. Vedic literature has revealed knowledge [shruthi] and everything else that was written by man [smrithi]. Going by that, the Vedas and the Upanishads are Shruthi and are held one cut above the rest of the Vedic Literature. So the Vedas and the Upanishads is to be considered as the highest authority.

 

From the Mundaka Upanishad -

 

-------------------------

 

He is the self-luminous and formless Purusha, uncreated and existing both within and without. He is devoid of prana, devoid of mind, pure, and higher than the supreme Imperishable. 2.1.2

 

The heavens are His head; the sun and moon, His eyes; the quarters, His ears; the revealed Vedas, His speech; the wind is His breath; the universe, His heart. From his feet is produced the earth. He is, indeed, the inner Self of all beings 2.1.4

 

Brahman is not grasped by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other senses, nor by penance or good works. A man becomes pure through serenity of intellect; thereupon, in meditation, he beholds Him who is without parts. 3.1.8

 

This Atman cannot be attained through study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. whomsoever Atman chooses,by him alone is Atman attained. It is Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature. 3.2.3

 

------------------------------

 

These authorites were existing before the time of Krishna. All the Post-Krishna's Period Literature was written by Devotees of Krishna and are inclined to glorify Krishna.

 

Krishna does not say in the Gita or the Bhagavtam that he has a transcendental form. All that he says is that his nature is transcendental.

 

Transcendental - Beyond Understanding, Intellectual,etc.

 

Transcendental being beyond the mind an d senses, how can that have a form ? A form is

something that can be comprehended by the mind. And if it can be comprehended, then it is not Transcendental.To say that it is formless is not right either. Krishna says "I am beyond the manifest and the unmanifest...". It is beyond comprehension.

 

Vedic literature is chiefly the Vedas and the Upanishads. Krishna was made popular largely by Chaitanya and his followers. Now recently ISKCON brought Krishna to the west. Westerners get to read the Gita and the Bhagavatam and are led to believe that is the essential Vedic literature. But they are not.

 

Vaishnavas are followers of Chaitanya and believe that Krishna is the only true way out, just like the Christians are taught that Christ is the only true way. Naturally they attach prominence to Krishna based Literature.

 

But if there is a God, he will certainly not be exclusive to one set of people, worshipping one particular form (Krishna Jesus,etc) as people are led to believe. That is part of the marketing done by the promoters of that respective System.

 

A Krishna himself has said,

"In all paths, Men walk in my path".

 

In the 12th Chapter of the Gita, Krishna says that he who worships the unmanifest,inconcievable will attain him. But that is a difficult path and so, is easier to worship his physical form.

 

---------

 

To conclude, Krishna never said that he had a Spiirtual form. Any literature that one finds about Krishna having a form, will be from the Post-Krishna period, and not something that Krishna said. For the reasons mentioned above.

[mark]

Dear Shvu,

 

It is most refreshing to hear a point of view such as yours. It is one which I wholeheartedly agree with and always have. I think it is so very important to read other translations of the Bhagavadgita as well as the Srimad Bhagavatam in order to gain a more lucid understanding of the messages they hold for mankind. Srila Prabhupada did some great work in his translations but we must remember they are only his translations. By cross-referencing with other translations we can see the similarities and thus come away with a better understanding of the intended message of Lord Krsna. Thanks again.

Mark