A Critical Review of Prabhupad's "Bhagavad Gita As It Is"

[Bhakta Shakta]

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/prabhupada_review.html

 

..."In addition, Prabhupada's lack of understanding of even the most basic facts of science and astronomy is manifest, so much so that one wonders if he ever passed high school."

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Yet hundreds of thousands of highly educated devotees have dedicated themselves to his teachings. Perhaps we should wonder whether or not they also passed high school. Just a thought to ponder.

 

And as for the academic qualification of the "reviewer", we can deduce them from his own statements:

 

"In fact, given the evidence, it is far more correct to say that Prabhupada's interpretations derive from Shankara's than from Madhva's."

 

What can we say?

 

 

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

ananda tirtha-nama sukha-maya-dhama yatir jiyatsamsararnava-taranim yam iha janah kirtayanti budhah

 

"May that great sannyasi, Srila Ananda Tirtha (Madhvacarya) be ever victorious. He is like a boat to cross the ocean of the material world, and the wise men in this world praise him."

 

(Prameya Ratnavali by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana)

 

I have opened by writing a verse in praise of Sripada Madhvacarya. Gaudiyas will always respect their sampradya acarya.

 

Coming to why exactly that is there on the web page:

The reason is a group of young men claiming to be the followers of Sri Madhvacarya have recently challenged the siddhanta of the Gaudiya sampradaya. Many of their points simply stem from lack of knowledge of the Gaudiya siddhanta, whilst other arguments appear to stem more from the fundamental defects of conditioned souls, such as malice and envy.

Gaudiyas have given them befitting reply. For that you would like to check:

 

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html

 

Actually to tell you these scholars speak so boastfully of themselves cannot realize that Srila Prabhupada in his old age when he was personally suffering medically preached the Vaishnava Dharma throughout the world. Do you know what comments the Dvaitins pass about the Gaudiyas:

" Our young tattvavadi friends seem very keen to malign the gaudiya vaisnavas in so many ways, calling their philosophy a "hotchpotch presentationfit to be thrown in a dustbin.far fetched", "rubbishhogwash" and a "perverted Kali-yuga philosophy to please every Tom, Dick and Harry". They have insulted prominent gaudiya acaryas calling them "deluded", "Pseudo-vaisnavas", who "lack any understanding of real philosophy" whose purports are "a travesty", "ludicrous", "very stupidvery poor" and "cannot be taken seriously" which are something that "should be given up" because they represent "something which is definitely not a Vaishnava tradition."

 

Although they have none who can preach the Vaishnava dharma all over the world, still they say such things about the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Please read how we have refuted them on the page provided above. Neither they have wit of disproving the divinity of Lord Chaitanya, although they will stubbornly sit aside and not accept it as a fact. The fact is that Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Lord. These tattva-vadis although cannot disprove this, but cannot accept it either. Thereofre some people are misguided about the fact that Lord Krishna comes in Kaliyuga.

The plain fact is that although there are very big big names[scholars] sitting out there who will not accept Lord Chaitnaya yet none of them[who calls themselves great stalwarts of vedanta]have even bothered to challenge the Gaudiyas even when they consider our siddhanta non-vedic. We have been preaching since the time of Lord Chaitanya, and the mission has been growing since then, yet never any vedic scholar has formally challenged the Gaudiyas on this. Yet they will stubbornly sit aside and not accept it. Only once in Galta the Sri Vaishnavas challenged the Gaudiya authority, and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana gave them a reply in form of Govinda Bhasya which left them speechless. You can see more detail on that on my post Govinda Bhasya.After that until now Sri vaishnavas have never openly challenged the Gaudiyas, I think so now is the tattva-vadis are due for the same result. I will not go further than that.

Also read the following:

http://www.vnn.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000492.html

 

Yours Servant Always

In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

Sumeet.

[shvu]

 

I would like to point out that Shrisha Rao, the reviewer is a an educated person and is a Dvaiti Scholar. He maintains the dvaita.org site and is extremely qualified. As one can see, he has not just made a blunt statement . He has also provided all the sources by which he arrived for that conclusion. And can anyone refute that?

 

'Yet hundreds of thousands of highly educated devotees have dedicated themselves to his teachings'

 

Millions of people follow Mohammad's teachings. Scores of people were impressed by Hitlers' ideas. Rajneesh at one time had a very impressive following too. The number and size of the following hardly indicates anything.

 

Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is.

 

1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines.

 

2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Gauracandra]

There will always be differences of opinion among various schools as to who is bonifide. As I understand it, Sri Caitanya took 2 points of philosophy from each of the 4 Vaisnava sampradayas to signify the unity of all Vaisnavas, as well as adding his own point, thus comprising the 9 points of philosophy Gaudiyas follow. Not all followers of Madhvacharya feel that way of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. As I understand it Srila Viswesha Tirtha Maharaja, one of the foremost followers of Madhvacharya, is very appreciative of the service Srila Prabhupada has performed. And there are others. And this wasn't just being politically respectful. In fact, I read that one of the most prominent followers of Madhvacharya (I'm not sure it was Srila Viswesha Tirtha Maharaj or someone else) made a very provocative statement. On one of the key anniversaries of Madhvacharya, all of his most senior followers gathered to celebrate the appearance of Madhvacharya. At this gathering, one very prominent follower stood up and said "All of us in this room, combined, are not equal to even a speck of dust at the feet of those followers of Srila Prabhupada who are preaching sanatan dharma all over the world." I don't remember the person's name, but it was very profoundly moving when I read it. So just because one reviewer doesn't like Srila Prabhupada's teachings is of no real consequence. Simply try to remain humble, let others criticize, and push forward in trying to alleviate the material suffering of others. Those that want to criticize will, and those that see one's true sincerity will be appreciative and kind.

 

Gauracandra

[viji_53]

Instead of wasting our time whether Prabhupada's translation of BG is right or not let us chant BG original & get Krishna's Bliss. God's words are not mere empty words, but contain the potency to clear all the dirt within. Chanting is an easy process & the BG exert a powerful influence on man & condition his mind. Let us cultivate devotion by recitation .Let the milk of our mind be churned into the Butter of Divine Love by means of religious practices. HariBhol!

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

--

"Millions of people follow Mohammad's teachings. Scores of people were impressed by Hitlers' ideas. Rajneesh at one time had a very impressive following too. The number and size of the following hardly indicates anything."

--

 

It seems you failed to understand my statement. Please read it once again. The reviewer makes an assertion that because Prabhupada does not accept some modern conceptions of the universe, it is therefore doubtful as to whether or not he had completed high school. In response I noted that many highly educated (in the material sense of the word) people had dedicated their lives to the teachings propounded by Prabhupada. Thus the faulty premise that one who has completed highschool will accept everything taught in highschool is dismissed.

 

Unfortunately you interpreted my statement as judging the correctness of a teaching based on the number of followers. I see very little connection with my statement and your understanding of it. If you read it a second time perhaps the subtleties of it will become clearer.

 

My statement is one of fact - Many people who have finished high school follow the teachings of Prabhupada. Thus the conclusions and doubts of the reviewer are nothing more than personal animosity, rather than genuine bewilderment.

 

 

--

"As one can see, he [the reviewer] has not just made a blunt statement . He has also provided all the sources by which he arrived for that conclusion. And can anyone refute that?"

--

 

Perhaps you read a different article then what I read, because in the entire article I read there were only two vague references to very minor differences in the explanation of two particular phrases. And the reviewer fails to mention or realize that the two meanings do not contradict each other. In other words there can be simultaneously multiple meanings for a set of words. If one had a sat-guru such things would be clear and easy to understand.

 

For example the reviewer fails to understand that there were different universal forms shown by the Lord to different people. He is under the misconception that there is only one category of vishva-rupa. Because of his misconception, he is unable to reconcile the apparent difference between shankara's statement and madhva's statement. And we should note the apparent disagreement has nothing to do with the actual philosophical position of either acharya, as I am sure you understand.

 

Regardless, this is why the scriptures advise us to study under the guidance of a sat-guru, and not just a kula-guru, or ritualistic family priest.

 

And it is very interesting to note that this "reviewer" has written a review for a book which he has never actually read! This is evident from the fact that in the purports to the 11th chapter of Gita, Prabhupada explains the same conclusions as found in Madhva's and Raghavendra's commentaries to this topic. It is like judging the taste of something by its looks, or judging the smell of something by its shape. This would be considered quite unethical by some.

 

--

"Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is."

 

"1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines."

 

"2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation."

--

 

It is interesting (not really) that you choose to use these two reasons why someone would favour Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is. Especially since you seem to be concluding that it is not possible to have read many translations and still appreciate Prabhupada's version while not being his follow. This is of course false, as we can prove by citing many scholars of Hindu philosophy who consider Prabhupada's Gita as the best english translation in the world.

 

And of course you imply that other "learned people" some how are not in the special position which you are in, which allows you to see things which they cannot.

 

Could you remind us exactly what that special position you are in is?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

--

"I would like to point out that Shrisha Rao, the reviewer is a an educated person and is a Dvaiti Scholar. He maintains the dvaita.org site and is extremely qualified. As one can see, he has not just made a blunt statement . He has also provided all the sources by which he arrived for that conclusion. And can anyone refute that?"

--

 

Well lets have a look at some of his precise arguments which you alude to:

 

--

"In the Upanishads, the sacred Vedanta texts of yore, one finds in more than one place the well known metaphor of a blind person leading other blind people astray, to illustrate what happens when an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself. This metaphor is very apt to describe Prabhupada's translation and purport for the Bhagavad Gita."

--

 

Some may judge this as more of a personal attack then a precise argument. Lets see something more direct in regards to the philosophical differences:

 

 

--

"For while he claims that his translation and purports follow a "disciplic succession" of traditional commentaries and understanding of the work deriving from the dualistic school of Vedanta of Madhva, they in fact show a great divergence and opposition to the traditional understanding found in the latter's works."

--

 

This seems to be a baseless allegation. There is not a single philosophical analysis in the reviewers article. If the difference was so obvious, as is claimed, it should be easy to show to us common folks.

 

 

--

"In fact, given the evidence, it is far more correct to say that Prabhupada's interpretations derive from Shankara's than from Madhva's."

--

 

Again this is an unsupported claim by the reviewer. He even avoids discussing the philosophical conclusions of either madhva or shankara in favour of some faulty gramatical argument.

 

Later we find this statement by the reviewer which is quite revealing:

 

--

"...Therefore, Madhva says, as clarified by his commentator..."

--

 

Just out of curiosity does Madhva's statement need to be clarified by a later commentator? And if Madhva's statement isn't crystal clear, then how can we compare it to Prabhupada's translation. I hope you understand my logic here. Is the reviewer comparing Prabhupada's translation to Madhva's direct statement or to a later conclusion which was "clarified" by a future "commentator." I am sure you understand what I am saying and probably agree with me on this point. According to the reviewers own words, he is comparing Prabhupada's statements to a later comentator in the line of Madhva.

 

Then the reviewer sets up a straw man to blow down:

 

--

"While followers of Prabhupada may have any number of objections against this interpretation..."

--

 

The fact is the followers of Prabhupada do not object to the mentioned interpretation. Thus to write an article based on such a point is a waste of time.

 

And then the reviewer explains his purpose of writing this:

 

--

"...our purpose here is only to establish an irreconcilable difference in this matter between Madhva and Prabhupada..."

--

 

Did he establish an "irreconcilable difference"? I failed to see it. It took me all of 3 seconds to see the harmony between the various descriptions in regards to seeing the Vishvarupa. This is the problem when we study a book academically without the guidance of a sat-guru. We fail to see beyond the text.

 

Yet the reviewer again shows his true position as follows:

 

--

"Egregious as Prabhupada's error in this instance is, it is not the only one..."

--

 

Is he saying that Prabhupada's statement is an error (which he claims is also made by shankaracharya), or is he saying Prabhupada's statement disagrees with that of Madhva's. From his words he is saying Prabhupada's translation is an error.

 

So now his paper is proving beyond any doubt, that both Prabhupada and Shankaracharya made grave errors in their interpretation of the sanskrit language (as these alleged errors are purely gramatical). Unfortunately he stops his paper at the point of making the allegations, and fails to offer any support what so ever to his claims. Zero, as in non. Is it a mere coincidence that he repeatedly follows this pattern or argument?

 

What other arguments does this highly qualified individual offer? Lets see:

 

--

"It is clear that the Prabhupada lied through his teeth..."

--

 

Ooops. Thats not an argument, thats just a personal insult. It is interesting that he uses the words "the Prabhupada". Maybe English isn't his first language. We wont get into that here.

 

Here is some more:

 

--

"In addition, Prabhupada's lack of understanding of even the most basic facts of science and astronomy is manifest, so much so that one wonders if he ever passed high school."

--

 

This statement is quite childish and imature. The reviewer would like us to believe that anytime we disagree with something, it is because we don't understand the topic. The reviewer concludes that because Prabhupada disagreed with some modern concepts, he therefore must not have understood those concepts properly. This is a stupid argument, though we find variations of it very popular in these forums.

 

Lets see what else the reviewer has to say:

 

--

Consider for instance what he says under X-21: "There are fifty varieties of winds blowing in space,"...

--

 

Here the reviewer foolishly thinks the word space, which is a translation for "akasha" refers to the modern conception of space, as in outer-space. Does this deserve a comment? I think not.

 

Once again I can only stress the importance of accepting the shelter of a sat-guru. Without such spiritual guidance, the scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita remain locked like a treasure chest.

 

Those who accept a kula-guru to fulfill their caste-based need for a family priest fail to receive the divya-jnanam revealed by the sat-guru. Thinking spiritual knowledge is the property of a particular caste, such people fall deeper and deeper into material conceptions and fail to understand the soul, which is situated beyond all duality and material designation.

 

[Dasha]

May be the main hidden reproach this "scholars" make to Srila Prabhupada is that he gave us love of God, and love of God means: HUMILITY and SURRENDER, and this is not possible for someone who wants to show the superiority of his scorlarship.

 

Their misfortune is that they cannot understand that love of god means also BLISS and FELICITY, but this they will never achieve with their grammatical knowledge.

 

Srila Prabhupada KI JAY

 

 

[Bhakta Shakta]

"In fact, given the evidence, it is far more correct to say that Prabhupada's interpretations derive from Shankara's than from Madhva's."

 

Yah it's obvious 'this' guy has a strong bias toward Prabhupad. At least he makes no attempt to conceal his aversion.

[viji_53]

The 11th canto of Bhagavat catogorises the devotees as

Uttama - Best - Those who love the Lord as the self of all, hence love all unconditionlly.

Madhyama- Middle- those who love His devotees, are compassionate towards the under privileged, & indifferent to wicked.

Manda- last - those who think of Lord only as an idol or form. They remain indifferent to His devotees & dislike others. They become fanatics & breed hatred & strive.

Attachment is because of & devotion is inspite of. Even though devotion is one alone, its expressions are many, due to the differences in the attitudes & aptitudes of devotees. The devotee whose mind is established in God conquers the three worlds. A devotee easily crosses the Maya. Even God constantly chants the name of such a devotee! The whole world chants the name of Lord Krishna; but Lord Krishna told Uddhava that He was constantly remembering the love of Gopikas. Tulsidas says-' I prostrate to Hanumanji, whose fame even Rama extols.' May we too gain Supreme love & fulfil the purpose of our life.

HariBhol!

 

[Bhakta Shakta]

I thinks these criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone as successfuls as Prabhupad is obviously going to be an object of jealousy and envy.

 

Like when Krishna and Balarama descended to this material planes, many many powerful kings tried to kill them. But were they successful? NO. They all die. It was just all part of the manifest lila. That all. Narada Muni glorify Kamsa as a great devotee even! What to say...what to say?

 

[viji_53]

Uma je Rama charana rata bigata kaama mada krodh

Nija Prabumaya dekhahi jagata kehi sana karahi Birodh

Uma, those who are devoted to SriRama's feet are free from lust, vanity & anger & look upon the whole world as full of their Lord; against whom can they harbour animosity?

HariBhol!

[shvu]

 

---

... In response I noted that many highly educated (in the material sense of the word) people had dedicated their lives to the teachings propounded by Prabhupada. Thus the faulty premise that one who has completed highschool will accept everything taught in highschool is dismissed.

---

 

I am sorry to say that I don't understand this.

 

---

This is of course false, as we can prove by citing many scholars of Hindu philosophy who consider Prabhupada's Gita as the best english translation in the world.

---

 

I must say that, it is highly unlikely that anyone with knowledge of sankrit and is familiar with other transaltions would favor the BG as it is unless for one of the two reasons mentioned above. I am sure you aware that Vaishnavas of other traditions do not actually hold the stand of 'Original form' whoch is exclusive to GVs. Neither do the Advaitis. So who are these other scholars who consider this translation as the best in the world?

 

---

And of course you imply that other "learned people" some how are not in the special position which you are in, which allows you to see things which they cannot. Could you remind us exactly what that special position you are in is ?

---

 

I don't see where I implied anything of that kind. Perhaps you could point it out to me. Then I can answer the question of my 'special position', as you put it.

 

I won't get into a review of your review of his review of the BG as it is. I will just point out that some people take a critical review of Prabhupada's works, as an attack on Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I will just say that Shrisha Rao does not say so anywhere and there is no reason for people to jump to such conclusions.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

I have been wanting to ask you this for sometime. You say 'Sat-Guru'. How does one identify a Sat-Guru out of several Gurus that we have? Is there a a method for this, because if I do come across one sometime, I would like to be in a position to identify him. It will also be useful to other people who read it.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra]

I'm must say the one thing that surprised me the most in reading this "critical" review of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-Gita translation, was how little there is to the review. Rather than a deeply thoughtful analysis, the reviewer comes off more like a freshman college student than the "scholar" someone claims he is. He strings together a thin (very thin) argument, and then fills in the outside with superfluous insults and meanderings. I remember these sorts of essays in college. In fact I'm sure most of us have done this a few times. When confronted with an essay we don't know what to do with, we talk around the issue, we fatten it up, in order to fill up the page, hoping our Professor will let us slip past. This is what this review reminds me of. It is sad to think that some people think this is deep and "scholarly". I can only conclude that such an individual must be pretty shallow. But then again there are 6 billion people on this planet. And here is one reviewer that doesn't like the Bhagavad-Gita translation by Srila Prabhupada. Does it really matter? Not really. The review is quite disposible and the reviewer inconsequential. Hare Krsna.

 

Gauracandra

[Gauracandra]

The following was stated by Shvu:

 

“Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is.

 

1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines.

 

2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.”

 

I will now prove these two statements to be false. Below this posting are various quotes from people who are not followers of Srila Prabhupada. In addition they are highly learned individuals. But even more important, they are highly learned scholars of religious and philosophical thought. Such individuals, many of whom hold distinguished chairs at some of America’s best universities, most assuredly have read other translations of the Bhagavad-Gita. You will find quotes from Professors of Religion, from Professors of Sanskrit and Linguistics, and from Theologians. Here is just a small sampling of their praise of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita As It Is.

 

[Gauracandra]

“No work in all Indian literature is more quoted, because none is better loved, in the West, than the Bhagavad Gita. Translation of such a work demands not only knowledge of Sanskrit, but an inward sympathy with the theme and a verbal artistry. For the poem is a symphony in which God is seen in all things… The Swami does a real service for students by investing the beloved Indian epic with fresh meaning. Whatever our outlook may be, we should all be grateful for the labor that has lead to this illuminating work.”

 

Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Philosophy

University of Southern California

 

[Gauracandra]

“I am most impressed with A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s scholarly and authoritative edition of Bhagavad Gita. It is a most valuable work for the scholar as well as the layman and is of great utility as a reference book as well as a textbook. I promptly recommend this edition to my students. It is a beautifully done book.”

 

Dr. Samuel D. Atkins

Professor of Sanskrit, Princeton University

 

[Gauracandra]

“I have had the opportunity of examining several volumes published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and have found them to be of excellent quality and of great value for use in college classes on Indian religions. This is particularly true of the BBT edition and translation of the Bhagavad-Gita.”

 

Dr. Frederick B. Underwood

Professor of Religion, Columbia University

 

[Gauracandra]

“The increasing numbers of Western readers interested in classical Vedic thought have been done a service by Swami Bhaktivedanta. By bringing us a new and living interpretation of a text already known to many, he has increased our understanding manifold.”

 

Dr. Edward C. Dimock, Jr.

Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization

University of Chicago

 

[Gauracandra]

“The scholarly world is again indebted to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Although the Bhagavad-Gita has been translated many times, Prabhupada adds a translation of singular importance with his commentary….”

 

Dr. J. Stillson Judah, Professor of the History of Religions and Director of Libraries

Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California

 

[Gauracandra]

“…It is a deeply felt, powerfully conceived and beautifully explained work. I don’t know whether to praise more this translation of the Bhagavad-Gita, its daring method of explanation, or the endless fertility of its ideas. I have never seen any other work on the Gita with such an important voice and style… It will occupy a significant place in the intellectual and ethical life of modern man for a long time to come.”

 

Dr. Shaligram Shukla

Professor of Linguistics, Georgetown University

 

[Gauracandra]

“I can say that in the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is I have found explanations and answers to questions I had always posed regarding the interpretations of this sacred work, whose spiritual discipline I greatly admire….”

 

Dr. Paul Lesourd, Author

Professor Honoraire, Catholic University of Paris

 

[Gauracandra]

I think, by any objective standard, I have now disproven both points by Shvu.

 

These individuals are not followers of Srila Prabhupada. And most assuredly they have read other translations of the Bhagavad-Gita. A number of them favor the translation so much so that they recommend its use as a textbook for the study of Indian religious thought. The quotes speak for themselves.

 

Do I think by posting these quotes that I will convince Shvu or other detractors? No. Certainly he will try to find some other reason for criticizing this translation. He will no doubt follow up this post, trying to wiggle the words in his favor. In Latin I believe this is called “Argumentum ad absurdam” – meaning, continuing to argue a point proven conclusively wrong, for the sake of argument, in order to have the last word.

 

Again, by any objective standard, I have disproven both points by Shvu.

 

Gauracandra