Did it ever occur to you that a lot of indian litterature is being derived from Foreigners themselves when the religion/culture/tradition hinduism its birthplace is India. I do not know what to believe anymore and so do my relatives, collegues, acquintances and fellow indian strangers. For instance an author by the name of "Stephen Mitchell" - by no means am I giving him credentials - published a book titled the "Bhagavad Gita: A New Translation" while putting some decor on the book cover that resembles an indian cloth (orange, red obviously) so as to attract his target audiences which are the new generation Indians. That same author wrote a book titled "Tao Te Ching: A New English Version."
Do you see the irony in this for one Indians are lead to believe the knowledge of someone that never really fully understood the Bhagavad Gita because the language Sanskrit which the original was written, is tremedously distinct from other languages therefore the book and its meaning has not been fully articulated in the english language thus creating a new tradition were people are unaware of the difference, the new generation of indians are dumb pursuing a wrongfully inscribed Bhagavad Gita and people become stupid as a cause of this. Second authors come with many translations for instance there are more than nine translations each of them unique from the others which carry on different messages, for the new generations they ponder "which one truthfully represents the Bhagavad Gita?" Thirdly Stephen Mitchell the author and translater of this indian/european book has also authored another book as mentioned above which had been derived from a completely different cultural and traditional background and has a different approach to the values of morallity, he did that numerous times each with different cultures. The difference is philosophic in nature and one who knows a great deal about India will also know that it has a distinct and elaborate philosophy. One would think of this mere author as omniscient from writting this book when in doubt his words in the book initiated a change in hinduism. The author is not a sage nor is he a scripter and there are dozens of others like him that mimic what was said, done and completed in other cultures all for the mere pleasure of money and being famous. A law should condemn this act of folly - this foolish behaviour, however he has his own law protecting him - the one in his country.
Oh yes did I mention the book is 221 pages long. It replaces God by Lord, God is used in hindu texts translated in english and defines a different definition from Lord. What is up with that?
According to answers.com the corporate entity mentions "Different authors offer a wealth of diverse views which, when taken as a corpus of literature, present a fittingly varicolored idea of the possible interpretations of the religion and philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita." Yes it might seem like that but it is in no way practical to the new generations of Hindu's.
Therefore I kindly ask which side are you on?
Do you see the irony in this for one Indians are lead to believe the knowledge of someone that never really fully understood the Bhagavad Gita because the language Sanskrit which the original was written, is tremedously distinct from other languages therefore the book and its meaning has not been fully articulated in the english language thus creating a new tradition were people are unaware of the difference, the new generation of indians are dumb pursuing a wrongfully inscribed Bhagavad Gita and people become stupid as a cause of this. Second authors come with many translations for instance there are more than nine translations each of them unique from the others which carry on different messages, for the new generations they ponder "which one truthfully represents the Bhagavad Gita?" Thirdly Stephen Mitchell the author and translater of this indian/european book has also authored another book as mentioned above which had been derived from a completely different cultural and traditional background and has a different approach to the values of morallity, he did that numerous times each with different cultures. The difference is philosophic in nature and one who knows a great deal about India will also know that it has a distinct and elaborate philosophy. One would think of this mere author as omniscient from writting this book when in doubt his words in the book initiated a change in hinduism. The author is not a sage nor is he a scripter and there are dozens of others like him that mimic what was said, done and completed in other cultures all for the mere pleasure of money and being famous. A law should condemn this act of folly - this foolish behaviour, however he has his own law protecting him - the one in his country.
Oh yes did I mention the book is 221 pages long. It replaces God by Lord, God is used in hindu texts translated in english and defines a different definition from Lord. What is up with that?
According to answers.com the corporate entity mentions "Different authors offer a wealth of diverse views which, when taken as a corpus of literature, present a fittingly varicolored idea of the possible interpretations of the religion and philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita." Yes it might seem like that but it is in no way practical to the new generations of Hindu's.
Therefore I kindly ask which side are you on?
Comment