Click here to load whole tree
NITAAI-Veda.nyf > Spiritual Questions & Answers > Pre-2007 QnA Swami Gaurangapada > Different translations

Title: Different translations

User: Swami Gaurangapada Date: 2006-12-01 18:49:00


Question by Hadai Nityananda dasa: Nityananda! Gauranga! Hare Krishna! All glories to Maharaja Gaurangapada! All glories to All the devotees of the Lord! Dearest Maharaja, In chapter 1 verse 28 of the Bhagavad Gita Shrila Prabhupada quotes from the Shrimad Bhagavatam (5.18.12):


Answer by Swami Gaurangapada:


Nityananda! Gauranga! Hare Krishna! As you have said both the translations basically convey the same message. Sometimes translations by the same Acharya of the same verse or translations by different Acharyas of the same verse are differently presented as every time an Acharya or an advanced devotee reads a Sanskrit or Bengali verse, different meanings and realizations arise in his heart which he or she may pen down as each Sanskrit and Bengali syllable has so many different meanings which may be applicable. For example, Lord Gauranga gave 61 meanings of the same atmarama verse of Shrimad Bhagavatam. But the essence always remains the same.

01/01 00:15:56


yasyasti bhaktir bhagavaty akincana

sarvair gunais tatra samasate surah

harav abhaktasya kuto mahad-guna

mano-rathenasati dhavato bahih

His translation in the Bhagavad Gita of this verse is: "One who has unflinching devotion for the Personality of Godhead has all the good qualities of the demigods. But one who is not a devotee of the Lord has only material qualifications that are of little value. This is because he is hovering on the mental plane and is certain to beattracted by the glaring material energy."

His translation in the Shrimad Bhagavatam of this same verse is: "All the demigods and their exalted qualities, such as religion,knowledge and renunciation, become manifest in the body of one who has developed unalloyed devotion for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vasudeva. On the other hand, a person devoid of devotional service and engaged in material activities has no good qualities. Even if he is adept at the practice of mystic yoga or the honest endeavor of maintaining his family and relatives, he must be driven by his own mental speculations and must engage in the service of the Lord's external energy. How can there be any good qualities in such a man?"

My questions is: Both translations convey the same message however they are differently presented. Why is that?