What does the statement that Prabhupadas purports are more important than even the translations really mean? And are scriptures written such that they cannot be misinterpreted?

From Jacob:

I have heard that the Gita verses cannot really be interpreted much. That that is one of the glories of the Sanskrit and the Scriptures. Also Srila Prabhupada is saying that somewhere, or something similar. It is these purports only that are important -he is saying. So how is it then that the Mayavadi can change the meaning of the verse so much. How can both be true?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
And overall, that’s an extremely traumatic experience. 4.11, which in your lectures you have explained is misinterpreted by the Mayavadis.
Where one can also change the meaning. Answer, there are multiple issues here. First is, when Srila Prabhupada says that the purports are important, what he meant is, we have to see the context.
It is when Hayagriva Prabhu was doing the editing of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita. At that time, he was spending a lot of time trying to make the translations poetic and artistic and aesthetic. So, Srila Prabhupada had given the translation in a particular way.
And Hayagriva Prabhu wanted to make them more poetic. And Prabhupada emotionally indulged him and he would come repeatedly and ask Prabhupada, can I put this like this? And after some time, Srila Prabhupada basically said that Prabhupada did not feel that that endeavor was worthy of so much time of his. And he said, basically, the translations are okay.
It is the purports that are lacking. So, Prabhupada even said that at that time, the standard Gita in the western world, in English, was Radhakrishna’s Gita. So, Prabhupada said that, just take the translations from any other Gita.
Don’t spend time on this. The purports are what is important. He said, Prabhupada said, you can just take translations from Radhakrishna’s Gita.
So, he was shocked when Hayagriva Prabhu said that, but that would be plagiarism. So, plagiarism means taking somebody else’s work and presenting it as one’s own work. Prabhupada said, how can it be plagiarism? They are not, that’s not Radhakrishna’s work.
It is Krishna’s work. So, how can you plagiarize from Krishna? Krishna is the source of all knowledge. That was the idea that Prabhupada meant over there.
So, anyway, the context is that Shri Prabhupada did not want too much time to be spent on the translations. So, he wanted to make sure that the publication of the books happens quickly. It doesn’t get delayed inordinately.
And that’s why he said, what my contribution is, is not a poetic translation. It is the meaningful purports that conveys the essential message of the Gita. So, in that sense, it is the purports that are really important.
It is not that the translations are, the verses themselves or the translations are unimportant, but the verses and translations, they cannot be stretched excessively. So, Shri Prabhupada did not have too much objection to the translations that were given by others, commentators. For example, man-mana-bha-mad-bhakto-mad-yaji.
So, the mana is so obviously there that nobody can deny its presence. And even Mayavadis translate that mana as ma, but then their purports, they will say that actually this ma doesn’t refer to Krishna. It refers to something which is the unborn within Krishna.
And that was something which Shri Prabhupada took strong objection to. He said, this is a misrepresentation because Krishna is very clearly saying ma and how can one, when I say I, how can you say that I am referring to some unborn, unseen, formless, something else apart from I. So, in that context, Prabhupada’s purports are of great importance. Because they were his distinct contribution.
And most of the translations were okay. But still, there is also the point that ultimately, no two languages are identical. And every word which is used in a particular language has its own history of usage and has its own connotations.
Connotations means such as suggested associations, meanings and implications that come with particular words that are unique to the usage of that word in that particular language. So, generally translations are done, if they are done in literal way, they are done based on denotations. Denotations means the direct meaning, what it denotes.
Connotations means what it implies. So, connotations also significantly shape our understanding of a concept when a word is used to mean for that concept. So, the Archa Vigraha or the Shri Moorthi, when the Britishers translated British Indologists who wanted to show how the Vedic religion was pagan and primitive, they translated that as idols and they called this as idolatry.
Now, idolatry has an extremely negative connotation with the Abrahamic religions and this translation of the Shri Moorthi or the Archa Vigraha as idols immediately sets off a strong negative reaction in the minds of people who hear about it. So, that way, I am saying all this to imply that no translation can ultimately be foolproof. So, we use words from one language and we try to choose corresponding accurate words in another language.
But all words have their connotations, which can significantly shape the meaning that is used. That is why this translation is done by a person who is very intimately familiar with both the languages and knows what words denote and what words connote. So, naturally, if a person has a Mayavadi ideology, then the words in Sanskrit will be seen to have Mayavadi connotations.
For example, the word Brahman, it just refers to the absolute truth. It doesn’t necessarily have to refer to Brahmajyoti, to the impersonal aspect of the absolute truth. In fact, there is a book published by the Vedanta Research Foundation.
It is called Brahman is Vishnu and there are extensive quotations from the Shrutis, Mathis and Etihasas, the various Vedic scriptures, to show how the word Brahman in general in the Vedic scriptures refers to Vishnu and not to anything else in a broad sense. But Mayavadis, whenever they will see Brahman, they will say, oh, this refers to the impersonal absolute. So, the connotations of the words which we take as primary or even decisive will depend on our preconceptions.
And that’s why, although Sanskrit is a remarkably precise language, but still because although words have their connotations, and often words in Sanskrit are multivalent, they can have multiple meanings also. So that means they can have multiple denotations also, not just connotations, but they can have multiple denotations also. So that’s why translation is a messy business.
And yes, Sanskrit is precise. And if somebody wants to use a precise word, that person can definitely use a precise word and get a correct understanding. But it’s not necessary that that will always happen.
And even if a precise word is used to give a precise understanding, still, somebody else who has a different set of connotations can come up with a different meaning at that particular time. That’s why the best translations come from those who have lived in the culture that is based on the book that is being translated. And that’s why Aishwarya Prabhupada translated his Kalas Bhagavad Gita as it is, because he was living a devotional life.
And as he was living a devotional life, so he accordingly did the needful in terms of translating everything very precisely as much as is possible within the limitations of language, within the limitations of culture, within the limitations of the connotations and denotations that keep coming with words. So multiple translations are possible. There are many verses which are translated.
And we can’t go into a catalogue of all the verses that are translated improperly by Mayavadis. 7.24 is one or 18.55 is another. 9.11 is also one verse which is translated like that.
So often the meaning is almost inverted by the Mayavadis in such situations. But anyway, it is best that we focus on what the Acharyas have given us, what Shri Prabhupada has given us, and understand the Bhagavad Gita properly. And by applying it, we can transform our lives, develop our love for Krishna and thus fulfill the intention with which