Are ISKCON’s translations of the Vedic scriptures devotionally biased?

Is it clear? Divinity and the translation given by Gita Press. So, Markandeya, she is praying for a maleficient to have unfailing devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and for His devotees, especially you.
Whereas, the Gita Press is also you. So, essentially, in this particular context, both translations are correct. As I talked about Achaitya Bheda Abhed.
So, in the Srimad Bhagavatam, Divinity Translation, the Bheda aspect is emphasized. And in Gita Press, the Abhed aspect is emphasized. And in certain situations, certain emphasis may be there.
So, the various scriptures in general are concerned primarily with elevating the conditioned soul. And for that purpose, the Lord manifests in many ways. And so, sometimes the religious scriptures may appear to be contradictory because what is good at one level may not be good at another level.
So, if a father has two sons and one of them is a brilliant son who always gets outstanding marks, he gets 80% in his exams. The other is a dullard who gets barely passes, getting 40% marks. Today, both of them have got results and both of them have got 60%.
So, the 40% son comes and says, father, I have got 60%. Father pats his back, shabash. And the 80% scorer comes and says, father, I have also got 60%.
Father slaps him on the back, badmash. What did you do? So, now, both have got same percent marks. Why are there such different reactions? Because 60% is good at one level.
If somebody is coming from 40% to 60%, that is praiseworthy. But if somebody is going down from 80% to 60%, that is phenomenal. That is chastisement worthy.
Similarly, the various scriptures talk about the message of the scripture according to what is required for people. So, for some people at a particular stage in their spiritual growth, understanding the bhed aspect may be important. For other people, understanding the abhed aspect may be important.
So, a simple example would be that if a doctor has to cure a patient, for a particular patient, two patients may have the same disease. But for one patient, the doctor may recommend surgery. Other patient, he may recommend just oral medicines.
And he may actually, while recommending oral medicines, tell that surgery is not good for you. Other person, while recommending surgery, he may say that oral medicine is inadequate for you. Although the disease is apparently the same, you have to see the background, the overall health, the disease track record, and other factors which determine what is the exact modality of the treatment that will be usable for the person.
So, the Vedic scriptures are omniform. Just like God is omnipresent, means he is present everywhere, Vedic scriptures are omniform. Omniform means they have many forms of instructions for different levels of people.
And the spiritual master finds out, according to the level of the seeker, what level of instruction is best for him. And that’s why without the guidance of a spiritual master, we will get endlessly confused by the apparent contradictions in the Vedic scriptures. So, import translations are accurate according to the context that is there.
And that is why the dictionary is not a sufficient tool for understanding the import of the Vedic scriptures. The dictionary is useful, but it is not sufficient. Why is it not sufficient? Because the Vedic scriptures are a part of a living culture.
A simple example, suppose Ayurveda is a very good branch of medicine and there is Charaka Samhita which is written in Sanskrit. And there is a traditional Indian Ayurvedic doctor who has treated thousands of patients and cured people using Charaka Samhita. And there is another English scholar who learns Sanskrit, becomes a Sanskrit scholar and he translates the Charaka Samhita into English.
And this person is not a doctor and he has never cured anyone using Charaka Samhita, but he has done a translation of Charaka Samhita into English. And from the linguistic point of view, it is accurate. And there is this other doctor who has cured thousands of people of the disease.
He understands the essential purpose and the methodology of using that book and he learns English. His English may not be so perfect. Even his Sanskrit may not be 100% accurate because he is primarily a doctor using Sanskrit.
He is not a philologist or a linguist who specializes in Sanskrit. So, he translates from Sanskrit to English. And he makes this book available for people to read and take benefit and get cured.
So, from a linguistic point of view, the philologist, the English and Sanskrit specialist book will be more accurate. But from a practical utility point of view, it is natural that the doctor’s book will be more beneficial to people. So, the great Acharyas are like that practicing doctor.
So, they understand not just the language of the book, but the purpose and the context of the book. That’s why translating the text requires understanding of the context. And the context is a full living culture.
It is not just what comes before and after the verse. The context is a full living culture. And that’s why the Acharya’s translations may sometimes seem inadequate from the strict linguistic point of view.
But from the point of view of actually benefiting and transforming people, they are immensely beneficial. And that benefit cannot come from any translations which are done purely by linguists. Those translations are also useful, but they have their own use just from a linguistic point of view.
From a practical application transformation point of view, they will not be sufficiently useful. So, Srila Prabhupada’s translations may seem sometimes inadequate or inaccurate. They may also sometimes seem to be a little partisan.
But the important point is that Srila Prabhupada is an Acharya and he knows how to present scripture in a way that can elevate and transform and benefit people. So, yes, Srila Prabhupada himself writes in the first canto while he is commenting on the verse that our attempt to present this great book in a foreign language will be inadequate. And Prabhupada says it will certainly fail.
But still, he says it is a technical science of spiritual values. And so we hope that people will not focus on the language, but understand the essential message. So, the verse on which Srila Prabhupada is commenting is told by Narguna de Vyasdev that that literacy which glorifies the Supreme Lord, even if it is filled with mistakes in every stanza, is accepted by saintly people because its purpose is glorious.
Its purpose is to glorify the Supreme Lord and that glorification of the Supreme Lord purifies people’s heart and revolutionizes the world in a positive way. So, we may find other translations also which are sometimes not exactly accurate from the linguistic point of view. But in life, all of us have to make choices.
Do we just want accurate translation or do you want the essential message? And from our practical benefit point of view, the essential message is most important. Srila Prabhupada’s translations and purports give us that. And Srila Prabhupada did not deny the fact that there could be alternative translations.
Srila Prabhupada was asked at one time, which are the future books you would want to comment on? And he said he wants to comment on Bhagavad Gita. And Srila Prabhupada was asked by the devotees, have you already commented on the Bhagavad Gita? Prabhupada said there are so many Acharyas who have commented on the Bhagavad Gita. And we can write many commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita.
So, Bhagavad Gita as it is, does not mean that that is the only Bhagavad Gita. There can be many Bhagavad Gitas as it is, which convey the essential message and purpose of Krishna. So, the different words in Sanskrit can have different meanings.
Sanskrit is famous for having words which are multivalent. Multivalent means having many meanings. And that’s why the many different meanings can lead to many different explanations.
Now, that doesn’t mean that the text is infinitely elastic. And any meaning can be screwed out from the text. The text does have a conclusion.
At the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna does say, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam bhaja. At the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna does not practice Ashtanga Yoga. Arjuna does not practice Jnana Yoga.
Arjuna, as a devotee, surrenders and does Krishna’s will as a bhakti yogi. So, as long as the original purpose of the Bhagavad Gita is maintained, different words can be analyzed to have different meanings. But still the original purpose is served.
So, there can be different translations. If they are still serving the same purpose, then there is nothing wrong in having variant readings. So, Bhima and Yudhishthira may have a difference of opinion about how to deal with Ashwathama.
Should we punish him or should we forgive him? But both of them have the common purpose of serving Krishna. But they have a difference of opinion of how to serve Krishna. Whereas, when Bhima and Duryodhana have a difference of opinion, when one of them wants to serve Krishna, the other entirely wants to defy Krishna.
So, there are certain Bhagavad Gita translations which completely defy the purpose of Krishna. And they screw out, they portray sometimes Krishna as a heco-maniac. The Gita Press doesn’t do that.
But there are certain translations by certain scholars motivated by trying to prove the superiority of Christianity. They portray Krishna as a malevolent or a violent God or as an ego-maniac who is demanding respect from others. And they are certainly deviant translations.
So, just as there can be difference between two devotees about how to serve Krishna, there can be two different translations of the same book, both serving the ultimate purpose of elevating people by guiding them to Supreme Lord. But just as there can be a difference of opinion between a devotee and a demon, a demonic person. Similarly, there can be translations which serve the purpose of Krishna and which defy the purpose of Krishna.
So, understanding the import of the Vedic scriptures is not just a matter of linguistic expertise. It is a matter of gaining a holistic understanding from one who has got that holistic understanding. And therefore, at this stage, there is no need to bother too much about whether Lord Shiva is subordinate or identical with Lord Vishnu, because both are true.
The emphasis is that we need to purify ourselves and become elevated. When we become elevated, we get a clearer understanding of things. So, I will conclude this answer with one principle.
In the Vedic scriptures, in the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says that that knowledge is not just a product of, Krishna doesn’t say, just by studying, we get knowledge. He says, by purifying ourselves, by coming to the mode of goodness, we get knowledge. So, knowledge is not just a matter of study.
Knowledge is a matter of cultivation of a spiritual lifestyle. So, if we practice spiritual lifestyle associated with devotees and chant Hare Krishna, that purification of the heart will make things clearer for us. And at that time, just like an infant girl or a baby girl or a pre-pubescent girl, no matter how much she analyses, she cannot understand what is pregnancy.
But when she grows up, she herself understands it and experiences it also. So, at initial stages, we may find a lot of contradictions and we may get bewildered. But if we practice spiritual life and let ourselves grow up, then we will ourselves understand that actually the contradictions are not contradictions because they are serving a harmonious purpose.
So, Nityanand Prabhu, when he went to South India and he saw the Vaishnavas and Shaivites quarrelling with each other at Kanchipuram, he just laughed and laughed and walked away from there. Why? Because he realized this kind of quarrelling is useless. So, that’s why we shouldn’t get caught up in these controversies.
But let ourselves grow up practicing spirituality and the controversies will become resolved by practice. So, how can we know if Prabhupada’s message is getting diluted and what cultural