Bhagavad-gita "As It Is": How can you be so sure?

[Guest guest]

First of all, does the original Bhagavad-gita compiled by Vyas exist anywhere?

 

If not, how do we know that Srila Prabhupada's "As It Is" is actually the Truth and not a translation of a version that could in fact be an interpolation from Vyas' original Gita?

[Guest guest]

Bhagavad-gita As It Is leads to Krsna. The tasting proves the pudding.

[srinivas]

i had the same feeling before i read the bhagavat gita but if u read any other version and this version you would feel all other gitas are mere translation or just intellectually translated just for advancing in this material world.

 

I have been studying in Chinmaya Vidyalaya where a regular gita gyana yagna was conducted regularly and you will find he talks a lot about right action , staying steady to reach our goal ,always being detached to the result but work in the spirit of service.But there is no mention of developing krishna conciousness.

 

You will find the bhagavat gita as it is written in the spirit of devotion.To seek the grace of krishna .

 

So if you are looking foward to real spiritual meaning of gita then Bhagavat Gita As It Is will satify all your requirements.As far as the authencity of this version is considered you may need to know that the bhagavat gita is come down the generations through sampradaya (guru - shishya).

 

You will find the same verses in all the bhagavat gita in the market.But these verses have been explained differently depending upon the mood of the translator.

 

Since Prabhupad is coming the sampradaya of devotion to krishna it will be full of devotional meaning.Any other version will just be a transalation for material advancement.

[pawankr_recd]

I also agree

[shvu]

 

 

First of all, does the original Bhagavad-gita compiled by Vyas exist anywhere?

 

 

Yes. Check the Mahabharatha.

 

 

If not, how do we know that Srila Prabhupada's "As It Is" is actually the Truth and not a translation of a version that could in fact be an interpolation from Vyas' original Gita?

 

 

Since the original Bg exists, there should be no doubt.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

--

 

First of all, does the original Bhagavad-gita compiled by Vyas exist anywhere?

 

 

--

 

 

 

Yes. Check the Mahabharatha.

 

----

 

I mean the actual physical document/scripture.

[shvu]

 

i had the same feeling before i read the bhagavat gita but if u read any other version and this version you would feel all other gitas are mere translation or just intellectually translated just for advancing in this material world.

 

 

The merit of a translation is in it's accuracy and should be judged by taking the whole context into account. As such a "mere translation" with no comments and no extraenous material can in fact be an excellent one. As far as I know, there is no information in the Gita to help one advance in the material world and I am not aware of any translations hinting at material progress.

 

 

I have been studying in Chinmaya Vidyalaya where a regular gita gyana yagna was conducted regularly and you will find he talks a lot about right action , staying steady to reach our goal, always being detached to the result but work in the spirit of service.But there is no mention of developing krishna conciousness.

 

 

Perhaps he was discussing the Karma Yoga part of the Gita? Everything you've mentioned above is found in the Gita. The BG as you know, is a text which covers a lot of ground.

 

skipping to the last part...

 

 

Since Prabhupad is coming the sampradaya of devotion to krishna it will be full of devotional meaning.Any other version will just be a transalation for material advancement.

 

 

Non-sequitur. How can translations by themselves hold widely different meanings and yet be correct? It is the commentator who through his own interpretation, tries to project a certain scripture as supporting his own doctrine. The Gita was spoken to Arjuna by Krishna because Arjuna was unwilling to go to war. In other words, If Arjuna had no problems fighting, there would have been no Gita. Thus, the primary objective of the Gita was to prompt Arjuna to perform his duty without misgivings. The rest of the Gita such as Yoga, Jnana, Bhakti, etc., are secondary objectives. Therefore among the various commentaries in the market, a commentary which ennunciates the primary goal is the superior one. Shankara, Prabhupada et al., who have tried to show the Gita's primary objective to be "Moksha through Jnana" and Bhakti respectively, have missed the main point in their zeal to draw support for their own doctrines.

 

For example, the BG as it is, Prabhupada in his purport to 18.66 says,

 

"Now, in summarizing Bhagavad-gita, the Lord says that Arjuna should give up all the processes that have been explained to him; he should simply surrender to Krsna. "

 

which does not make sense. If that was Krishna's intention all along, why bother with the various processes in the previous 17 chapters and 65 verses? Since Krishna instructed Arjuna to perform his duty in more than one place, according to Prabhupada, all that should be given up and Arjuna should not do his duty. In fact, Prabhupada need not have commented on the previous chapters simply stating that they were to be given up.

 

Similar mistakes can be identified in every translation and commentary. Translators and commentators are humans and are prone to errors just like anyone else. No one is specially empowered and flawless -- except in the minds of his/her own followers.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

 

I mean the actual physical document/scripture

 

 

Obviously not, considering the BG is atleast 2000 years old, if not older. Anyway, assuming such a document was available, how can one know for sure that it was authored by Vyasa? Working this way, all history can be rejected. The inscriptions may be fake, archeological evidence may be planted and records may just be mere stories.

 

Although speculation is rife, there is no evidence to show that the original BG may have been tampered with. So long as no evidence is uncovered, there is no reason to suspect it's authenticity. For example, it is clear that the Bhagavatam and the Mahabaharata were authored by different people. Since Vyasa is known as the author of the MB, it is obvious that the Bhagavatam as we know it today was authored or atleast interpolated by someone else. However, no such problems can be identified with the BG.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>>it is obvious that the Bhagavatam as we know it today was authored or atleast interpolated by someone else

 

If it's obvious, then who authored or interpolated the SB?

[Guest guest]

 

 

If it's obvious, then who authored or interpolated the SB?

 

 

Someone else. Someone other than the author of the MB; someone who did not leave his name behind.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

What makes it obvious that Vyasadeva didn't write SB, is it the writing style, errors, contradictions, etc.?

[Guest guest]

He keeps saying "someone else" but he can't say who. That is not factual than. Give us a name or proof of your 'theory.'

 

Srila Prabhupada would not waste his time translating something if he did not have the original sanskrit from Srila Vyasadeva.

[leyh]

Student: Sria Prabhupada, one librarian wanted me to prove that Bhagavad-gita was five thousand years old. He wanted to see a copy that was written down five thousand years ago.

Srila Prabhupada: Suppose I go into a dark room and say to the person inside, “The sun has risen. Come out!” The person in darkness may say, “Where is the proof that there is light? First prove it to me; then I will come out.” I may plead with him, “Please, please, just come out and see.” But if he does not come out to see, he remains ignorant, waiting for proof. So, if you simply read Bhagavad-gita you will see everything. Come and see. Here is the proof. ("Recorded on December 7, 1973,

On the shores of the Pacific Ocean Near Los Angeles", Life Comes From Life by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that wonderful insight! I guess, the proof really is in the pudding, as they say.

[Guest guest]

 

.... Non-sequitur. How can translations by themselves hold widely different meanings and yet be correct? It is the commentator who through his own interpretation, tries to project a certain scripture as supporting his own doctrine. The Gita was spoken to Arjuna by Krishna because Arjuna was unwilling to go to war. In other words, If Arjuna had no problems fighting, there would have been no Gita. Thus, the primary objective of the Gita was to prompt Arjuna to perform his duty without misgivings.

 

 

The primary objective of the Gita was to leave shastra behind for us!

 

 

 

The rest of the Gita such as Yoga, Jnana, Bhakti, etc., are secondary objectives. Therefore among the various commentaries in the market, a commentary which ennunciates the primary goal is the superior one. Shankara, Prabhupada et al., who have tried to show the Gita's primary objective to be "Moksha through Jnana" and Bhakti respectively, have missed the main point in their zeal to draw support for their own doctrines.

 

 

It appears you think you know more about the Gita than any translater, including the pure devotee Srila Prabhupada. One must first surrender to the guru, Srila Prabhupada, before they can understand. As long as we think we know something separate from the spiritual teacher, we are lost.

 

 

For example, the BG as it is, Prabhupada in his purport to 18.66 says,

 

"Now, in summarizing Bhagavad-gita, the Lord says that Arjuna should give up all the processes that have been explained to him; he should simply surrender to Krsna. "

 

which does not make sense. If that was Krishna's intention all along, why bother with the various processes in the previous 17 chapters and 65 verses?

 

 

It makes complete sense for those who lived in a temple and attended classes every monring, etc. First Krishna gives introductory information. Next, he gives more advanced knowledge and tells Arjuna what He (Krishna) wants the most. More important than doing your duty is to give up everything and surrender unto Lord Krishna, developing love of God and doing whatever He tells us to do.

 

 

Since Krishna instructed Arjuna to perform his duty in more than one place, according to Prabhupada, all that should be given up and Arjuna should not do his duty. In fact, Prabhupada need not have commented on the previous chapters simply stating that they were to be given up.

 

 

So now you know what Prabhupada should and should not have said.

 

(It is Krishna who says all that should be given up.)

 

 

Similar mistakes can be identified in every translation and commentary. Translators and commentators are humans and are prone to errors just like anyone else. No one is specially empowered and flawless -- except in the minds of his/her own followers.

 

 

You think Prabhupada is human? You think he made mistakes? Be careful, you are on thin ice now. Oh, I know your excuse all ready. It is in my mind as his follower. Therefore we should surrender to your human understanding instead? Do you follow all 4 regulative principles and rise early and chant 16 rounds japa and study Gita, Btwm, Bhaktirasamrita Sindu, etc., every single day, come rain or shine? Are you a pure devotee who can criticize Prabhupada's translation and profess your own understanding as better? Please reconsider, before you make offenses to jagat guru. It could bring about awful reactions. Hope you will rethink this and let the false ego down.