goldeneagle2
Active Member
58 messages
joined Aug 2005
Back when I was prepping for one of those South Asian studies exams—takes a while, you know—I did a deep dive into the first four chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, verse by verse. I actually revisited that translation just the other day. :-) At the time, I was working off some notes from a colleague whose handwriting is... let's just say "challenging," so I wasn't entirely sure if the Sanskrit text matched what was printed. I ended up using Prabhupada’s version specifically because it includes the Devanagari script, whereas most other translations don't bother with the original Sanskrit source. As I worked my way through the verses, I started noticing some discrepancies. They’re subtle, sure, but once they pile up, they can easily lead an uninitiated reader down the wrong path. For instance, he frequently translates terms like "yogin" or "ascetic" as something like "pure devotee" or similar. In my opinion, that's pretty inaccurate. Plus, if I recall correctly, there were one or two verses in those first four chapters that were just plain poorly translated. I can't remember exactly which ones they were, and honestly, I don't really have the energy to go hunting for examples just to prove the point. So, take my word for it or don't—it's up to you.
Looking at it as a whole, there aren't a ton of glaring errors you could pinpoint without a fight, but the thing is heavily ideologically biased. And generally speaking, that makes it a pretty bad translation that you might want to steer clear of. If you ask me, the biggest flaw isn't even the translation of the original verses themselves, but rather Prabhupada’s commentaries. Those comments are arguably the worst part. Prabhupada didn't write a classic *bhashya* (commentary) on the Sanskrit; instead, he rambled extensively in modern languages—likely starting in his native Bengali before it was translated into English and other Western languages. This is where his specific worldview really shows through, making it obvious why he massaged the translation to fit his commentary style. It's essentially a translation of interest—a translation with a preconceived agenda. That’s why it might be better to stick to some of those unbiased, academic translations produced by our local experts in South Asian studies. Just for a first reading and to get an impartial impression.
By the way, in India, philosophy is traditionally taught alongside commentaries from the specific school of thought one belongs to. Every school of Indian philosophy has written its own insights and interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita. Prabhupada isn't anything out of the ordinary here, except perhaps being a more recent commentator who isn't particularly highly regarded within India itself. His translation doesn't carry much weight in serious scholarly circles. It certainly doesn't rank alongside the classic commentaries like those from Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, or Abhinavagupta, mainly because it wasn't written in Sanskrit and lacks that traditional structure (and not just because of the language). In serious academic circles in India, this isn't even treated as a scholarly commentary. It’s almost like if I wrote something in English and tried to pass it off as a definitive treatise—serious scholars wouldn't give it much thought. Naturally, Indians, much like Westerners, have their own disagreements with the content since not everyone agrees with his commentary. Generally speaking, this translation isn't held in high esteem, neither in India nor in the West. So, my recommendation: read the Bhagavad Gita in an independent, professional translation first. Later, if you want to dive into the commentaries of a specific school of Indian spiritual thought... well, feel free to choose whatever suits you.
