Question: Different Versions of GitaI have a copy of the Song of God Bhagavad-Gita, translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, Intro. by Aldous Huxley. Is this different from the Bhagavad-gita As It Is version?Thank you.Hare KrishnaAnswer: As It Is, and As It Is NotThe Bhagavad-gita edition that you mentioned presents an incorrect description of the Supreme Truth which is not in accord with the actual teachings of the Bhagavad-gita. It takes advantage of the Bhagavad-gita's popularity to present a view which is contrary to the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita. This occurs in a section entitled "The Cosmology of the Gita." This section describes the Supreme Truth as Brahman without existence or attributes. In this way the Prabhavananda-Ishwerwood edition presents a Supreme Truth which is impersonal. This directly contradicts the personal conception of the Supreme Truth, which is clearly described as follows in Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10:arjuna uvācaparaṁ brahma paraṁ dhāmapavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavānpuruṣaṁ śāśvataṁ divyamādi-devam ajaṁ vibhumāhus tvām ṛṣayaḥ sarvedevarṣir nāradas tathāasito devalo vyāsaḥsvayaṁ caiva bravīṣi me"Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me."--Bhagavad-gita 10.12-13In short, the Bhagavad-gita clearly reveals that the Supreme Truth as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna, not as non-existing attributeless Brahman. The Prabhavanand-Isherwood edition is covering the clear statements of truth given in the Bhagavad-gita with the cloud of mental speculation.If we want to understand the Bhagavad-gita as it was originally given to Arjuna, we should simply take what is directly stated by Krishna without trying to add some indirect interpretation of its meaning. Interpretation is only necessary things are unclear. Just like if I tell you that I live in a house on the river, it will be unclear whether my house is on the bank of the river or it is a houseboat floating on the river. So some interpretation or further clarification will be required. But if something is clearly stated, there is no need for interpretation. When Bhagavad-gita clearly states the the person Krishna is the Absolute Truth, why do they explain the Absolute Truth differently as non-existing, attributeless Brahman? Such speculation should not published under the name of Bhagavad-gita. If they want to independently speculate that is their business, but they should not do so in the name of Krishna's immortal, timeless words of wisdom.Hare Krishna Hare KrishnaFor more discussions visithttp://harekrishnaharekrishna.ning.com/forum/
You need to be a member of ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT to add comments!
Replies