The following article, written by Dr. Joseph Vekerdi, an HungarianIndologist, was published in the Hungarian weekly journal Lifeand Literature on 24 November 1995. The articlespeaks for itself. The ISKCON communications team showed this interestingpiece to other indologists, religious scholars and academic experts,and invited their response. Both Dr. Vekerdi's article (translatedfrom the original Hungarian) and the responses from two prestigiousscholars of religion appear below.  These responses also appearedin Life and Literature in January 1996.

The book market in Hungary has been inundated with Eastern kitschover the last few years. Although it is just as difficult to findpublishers for the bona fide Hungarian translations of the Easternliterary works and the classical values of our national assets,there are dozens of reprints of the false Eastern imitations andthe second- and third-hand Eastern religious philosophical flightsof wit as well as the Western (or said to be Western) thrillerson the shelves of the bookstalls in the streets. The religious publicationsthat are proclaimed to be Indian stand in the first place.

One would be happy to receive an 'original' work after somany unreliable interpretations. Doubts only arise after reading thetranslations of 'His Divine Grace', especially if one has alreadyread passages of the Gita from the authorised Mahabharatatranslation by Szerdahelyi Istvan. The contents and style are verydifferent. It should be noted that in the so-called original, itsdreadful Hungarian translation was not made from the original Sanskrit,but from the English revision of 'His Divine Grace'. The high soundingSanskrit name of the translator ('Krsna's slave novice') belongs toa Hungarian national. If one also reads the true translation (TheProclamation of the Almighty, Bhagavad-Gita, Bp 1987) of thefull text and philological commentary by Lakatos Istvan - which verifiesSzerdahelyi - one will have no more doubts about 'originality'. Itis in vain that His Divine Grace shows pride in being thirty-secondin the line through which Krsna gave this superhuman wisdom, firstto the creator, Brahma, later to the poet, Vyasa - who lived for thousandsof years - and finally to himself.

Let us examine this original Sanskrit text. Even by readingthe first two words we can see the differences that are present throughoutthe whole revision. The Gita is an episode from the Mahabharatawhere prior to the battle of Kureksetra, Krsna, the Supreme Godhead,the Universal Soul, speaks his philosophy.  The Sanskrit text is dharmaksetrekuruksetre: 'on the land of Truth, Kuruksetra'. Szerdahelyi'stranslation reads: 'on the land of the Kurus'; Lakatos': 'the landof the Kurus, the holy place', and His Divine Grace's: 'the placeof pilgrimage at Kuruksetra'. In addition, the most popular IndianEnglish translation by Jayandalal Goyandaka interprets dharmaksetrekuruksetre as: 'on the sacred soil of Kuruksetra'. Why are thereso many different interpretations?

The poetical imagination placed the pseudo-historical battleon the Kuru field northeast of India's legendary cultural centre -modern Delhi. The name of the place has become a symbol, just likethe Verecke-pass or Pusztaszer in Hungary. There has never been apilgrimage site at Kuruksetra (since its precise location was unknown).His Divine Grace explains in his Purport: 'Kuruksetra is a place ofworship even for the demigods of the higher planets'. He fails toexplain that the meaning of the word dharma is not 'pilgrimage'but 'law, truth'. This can be compared to translating the 'holy peakof the Carpathians' in the Hungary national anthem as 'the pilgrimagesite of the Carpathians'.

I will cite another example from Chapter 4, verse 28, whereKrsna speaks about the importance of renunciation and sacrifice: 'Somesacrifice their possessions, others sacrifice by austerities or bypractising yoga'. (dravya-yajnas tapo-yajnas yoga-yajnastathapare). His Divine Grace interprets this as: 'There are otherswho have become enlightened by having sacrificed their material possessionsinto strict austerities. They take strict vows and practise the yogaof eight-fold mysticism'. I should point out that this is not thepurport, just the translation!

This distortion is present throughout the whole text. His DivineGrace changes the word 'knowledge' (jnana) to 'transcendentalknowledge'; the epistemological technical term for 'knowledge andcognition' (jnana-vijnana) to 'absolute truth' and the importantpantheistic concept 'universe' (sarvam idam) to 'thewhole body', not to speak of the sentimental, kitsch effusions addedas purports. Meanwhile he constantly repeats that redemption canbe attained only by those who join his Krishna consciousness movement.

Here we see the real reason behind this translation. The HareKrishna movement was not born in India, but in America, and is financedfrom there. Its European expansion also serves the cultural expansionof America. The place of publication, Vaduz, is the main seat oftheir shady international holding business. The movement's organisationis so far from Indian religiousness - which is based on individualdevotion - that there isn't even a Hindu church.

This propaganda of American spirit is to the liking of those whopropose drugs for the young and organise homosexual clubs insteadof nursery schools in the name of 'difference'. This pseudo-Indianmysticism is truly 'different' from the traditional European Jewish-Christianculture and the traditional Indian Hindu religiousness: it is destructive.

______________________________

A Response to:
'His Divine Grace and the Revised Bhagavad-Gita'

Charles S. J. White, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy& Religion, The American University, USA

Let me say first of all, and most emphatically, that the HareKrishna movement has deep and unimpeachable sources in traditionalHindu experience and history. It is a development from the Gaudiyasampradaya, a medieval Hindu movement that began inVrindavan (a religious centre associated with Krsna's life as an avatarof Vishnu and an active place of pilgrimage today) under the inspirationof close followers of Sri Caitanya, a great Bengali Vaishnava saint,who is a principal source of devotion for the adherents of ISKCON.Contrary to Vekerdi's claim, there are many organised Hindu sub-groups,analogous to churches in the Christian world. These groups, some ofwhich are called by the generic term sampradaya, tracetheir origins to specific Hindu, historical personalities who exhibitedunusual spiritual qualities, both devotional and intellectual, andwho established lineages of disciplic succession to perpetuate theirspiritual experiences and intellectual viewpoints. The Hare Krishnasare in the disciplic succession of the Gaudiya sampradaya andare nowadays recognised everywhere in Hindu India as a legitimateextension of the authentic parampara, or disciplic succession,of the Gaudiya sampradaya.

 Although I am not a member of ISKCON, I have engaged in academiccollaboration and travelled widely in India with its members. It maystill be a matter of minor comment in some circles that Westernersshould have adopted the Hindu way of life to the extent that the membersof ISKCON have. Nevertheless, in my travels with them I was impressedto see the genuine acceptance of Western ISKCON members by other IndianHindus. Indeed, ISKCON's Western adherents are now so well acceptedin India that their presence is actually a matter of pride to otherHindus who see the Hare Krishnas as a further confirmation of theirown religious traditions.

I would agree that A. C. Bhaktivedanta's translations of Hindutexts reflect his sectarian tradition but this is true of other translationsof the Bhagavad-Gita and other works. However, I know frompersonal knowledge that some Sanskrit teachers in US Universitieshave used A. C. Bhaktivedanta's translation of the Gita asa text in their second year Sanskrit courses. Teachers of comparativereligion have also used it in other types of courses.

Further, Vekerdi's quibbling insistence, for example, on atwo-word translation of dharma as 'law, truth' is simply wrong.Dharma has a multitude of meanings in Indian philosophicaland religious writing besides those given by Vekerdi. If one doesnot care for Bhaktivedanta's translation, there are others available;but this is not to say that Bhaktivedanta's Bhagavad-Gita isnot a valid translation in the context of the Vaishnava understandingof the text.

I would urge Joseph Vekerdi to take the trouble of becoming more familiar with the total picture of ISKCON in its Indian and internationalaspects. He would find, as I have, an impressive sincerity and opennessin the ISKCON leadership. It is sad to read Vekerdi sum up a spiritualteaching that produces whole adult lifetimes of self-sacrificing religiouscommitment and practice - I refer specifically to the lives of ISKCONdevotees whom I have known for many years - as kitsch. The use ofsuch an epithet is sheer bigotry.

______________________________

A Response to:
'His Divine Grace and the Revised Bhagavad-Gita'

Thomas J. Hopkins, Ph.D, Professor, Department of Religious Studies,Franklin and Marshall College, USA

I have read the English translation of Joseph Vekerdi's essay in Lifeand Literature entitled 'His Divine Grace and the RevisedBhagavad-Gita'. I must say that I find it disappointing asa scholarly statement on Prabhupada's translation, the Gitaitself and the Hindu tradition as a whole. I have no doubt that Vekerdiis a competent Indologist in some area of study, but he is clearlyoutside his field of competence in this essay.

Vekerdi's critique of Prabhupada's translation can be dividedinto two categories: his criticism of how certain verses are translatedand his denial that Prabhupada represents 'traditional Indian Hindureligiousness'. Although Vekerdi's most serious error is in thelatter category, I will begin with his critique of specific translations.He fortunately gives only a few examples, because each representsa complex pattern of misunderstanding.

Dharmaksetre kuruksetre

Vekerdi devotes two full paragraphsto his critique of Prabhupada's translation of the first two Sanskrit words in the Gita: dharmaksetre kuruksetre, which Prabhupadatranslates as 'in the place of pilgrimage at Kuruksetra'. There isno issue with the translation of kuruksetra, literally'the field of the Kurus', but Vekerdi strongly criticises the translationof dharmaksetra as 'the place of pilgrimage'. As Vekerdi says,it is true that 'the meaning of the term "dharma" is not "pilgrimage"',but that is not the point. Prabhupada certainly knows that, as doeseveryone who has ever studied Sanskrit and quite a few who haven't.A literal translation of dharmaksetra would thus be 'the fieldof dharma', or 'the place of law / truth / duty / justice/virtue / morality' (to use only a few of the possible translationsof the multi-faceted term dharma).

Prabhupada could obviously have translated dharmaksetraliterally, as most translators do; the preferred English translationby most Hindu translators is 'the sacred soil' (cited by Vekerdi)or 'the holy plain' (as in Swami Vireswarananda's translation of SrimadBhagavad-Gita with Sridhara Swami's commentary), although Radhakrishnantranslates it more literally as 'the field of righteousness'. Prabhupada'spoint is more subtle, however, and seems to have been totally missedby Vekerdi.

Prabhupada explains in his Purport to the Gita 1.1that dharma-ksetra has the meaning of 'a place where religiousrituals are performed', and that this is significant because Dhrtarastra- to whom the battle scene is being described by Sanjaya - knows thisand fears the outcome of the impending battle in such a holy placethat would 'influence Arjuna and the sons of Pandu favourably, becauseby nature they were all virtuous'. What Prabhupada does not revealin his Purport, and no doubt believed that he need not say to anyonewho was familiar with the Mahabharata or Hindu culture, isthat Kuruksetra had already been praised by the sage Pulastya earlierin the Mahabharata (Critical Edition, 3.81) as a 'much-lauded'pilgrimage site to which anyone who goes in a spirit of faith 'obtainsthe fruit of a Royal Consecration and Horse Sacrifice' (3.81.6). Kuruksetrahas thus been presented as a sacred pilgrimage site in the Mahabharatanarrative in Book Six (6.23-40 in the Critical Edition) long beforethe appearance of the Gita, and its identity as an already-famousplace of pilgrimage is taken for granted by the narrator.[1]

Given this background, and the fact that Kuruksetra was asacred site known as dharmaksetra as early as the VedicBrahmanas (Kane, op. cit., p. 680), Prabhupada stands clearlywithin the tradition when he translates dharmaksetra as 'theplace of pilgrimage' to identify the sacred ritual centre Kuruksetraas the scene of the coming battle. What is surprising is that an Indologistsuch as Joseph Vekerdi knows nothing of this tradition, as evidencedby his authoritatively stated claim that 'there has never been a pilgrimagesite at Kuruksetra'. The Mahabharata and Puranas clearlystate otherwise, Hindus know otherwise, and it is the Indian Hindutradition that Prabhupada assumes in his translation.

Gita 4.28

Vekerdi's second textual criticism, chosen (in his own words) 'atrandom', is the translation of Gita 4.28. Here he quotes onlythe first half of the Sanskrit sloka, dravyayajnas tapoyajnayogayajnas tathapare, which he translates as 'Some sacrifice theirpossessions, others sacrifice by austerities or by practising yoga'.He then quotes Prabhupada's translation of the entire verse, whichsays that 'having accepted strict vows, some become enlightened bysacrificing their possessions, and others by performing severe austerities,by practising the yoga of eight-fold mysticism, or by studying theVedas to advance in transcendental knowledge'. This translation,Vekerdi claims, has been 'made up' by Prabhupada from the 'one line'of Sanskrit that Vekerdi has quoted. It is obvious, however, thatPrabhupada's translation is based on both lines of the Sanskrit sloka,not just the one Vekerdi quotes: the phrase 'having accepted strictvows' translates the term samsita-vratah in the secondhalf of the sloka, while the phrase 'studying the Vedasto advance in transcendental knowledge' translates svadhyaya-jnana-yajnas,also in the second half of the sloka.

If we look at the whole Sanskrit verse, and not just the half-versequoted by Vekerdi, we can see clearly that Prabhupada has not 'madeup' his translation; he has simply translated the full verse as itappears in the Gita and not just the first half that Vekerdiquotes.

The only thing that Prabhupada adds to a strictly literaltranslation is the phrase 'of eight-fold mysticism' to qualify theterm yoga in yoga-yajnas and distinguish it from other meaningsof yoga in the Gita. As Prabhupada makes clear in hisPurport on this verse, he interprets the term in this way so thatit may be used in reference to 'different kinds of mystic yogas likethe Patanjali system (for merging into the existence of the Absolute),hatha-yoga or astanga-yoga (for particularperfections)'. A glance at various commentaries on this verse suchas those of Sridhara Swami, Sankara or others that are found in RobertN. Minor's Bhagavad-Gita: An Exegetical Commentary, indicatesthat the term yoga-yajnas is given different meanings by differentcommentators. Prabhupada is simply clarifying what he takes to bethe meaning with reference to the commentary tradition, not 'makingup' something that is not there. Vekerdi does not seem to understandthat any Hindu translator or commentator works within an establishedtradition of commentaries, and positions himself in relation to whatothers have said. Prabhupada is doing no more than that as he makesclear in his Purport.

Jnana

Vekerdi's next criticism is Prabhupada's translationof jnana as 'transcendental knowledge', claiming that it changesthe word 'knowledge' (jnana) to something else. However, theEnglish word 'knowledge' has many possible meanings, as I suspectthe Hungarian equivalent does also, while the Sanskrit term jnanahas a very specific meaning: knowledge of the unchanging reality ofBrahman or atman. To avoid confusion, Prabhupada thus translatesjnana consistently as 'transcendental knowledge' to distinguishit from other more mundane kinds of knowledge. Far from being devious,as Vekerdi implies, this is nothing more than using a translationthat comes closest to the meaning of jnana in its Hindu context.

Knowledge and cognition

Vekerdi next claims that Prabhupada'changes ... the epistemological technical term "knowledge and cognition"(jnana-vijnana) to "absolute truth"'. The term jnana-vijnanaappears twice in the Gita, in 3.41 and 6.8, bothas  compounds: jnana-vijnana-nasanam in 3.41 and jnana-vijnana-trptatmain 6.8. In both cases, Prabhupada translates jnana as 'knowledge'in this compound form and vijnana as 'self-realisation' (3.41)or 'realisation' (6.8). Again, however, Prabhupada is clearly respondingto an issue posed by earlier commentaries. As Robert Minor says, 'thevariety of interpretations of commentators on the distinction betweenjnana and vijnana is great', and he then illustratesthis by citing the various interpretations of commentators from theclassical views of Sankara and Ramanuja to a host of modern scholars.[2]

As one might expect, Prabhupada's translations of the termscome closest to the meanings given by the Vaisnava devotional scholarRamanuja, who refers to jnana as 'knowledge of the nature ofthe self' and vijnana as 'a deeper discrimination of the self(atma-viveka)'. In a situation where there is no certain meaningof the terms established by a consensus of commentaries, Prabhupadais giving his own best interpretation based on the commentator whoseauthority he most trusts; the explanation of his translation is givenopenly in his Purports to the two verses so there is no confusionabout what he means.

Vekerdi again seems to know nothing about the commentary traditionon the issues involved, but instead considers jnana-vijnanato be a 'technical term in epistemology' meaning 'knowledge andcognition'. This assumption that there is a single meaning of theterms either together or separately, ignores the long debate overthe meaning of both terms in Hindu as well as Buddhist philosophy,and it places their assumed meaning entirely outside the context ofthe Gita in the field of epistemology. If anything is certain,it is that the Gita does not use the term jnana-vijnanaas a 'technical term in epistemology' since it predates the riseof philosophical schools with a precise technical terminology forconcepts in epistemology or any other area of philosophical discourse.

Sarvam idam

Much the same problem appears in Vekerdi's assumptionthat sarvam idam in 2.17 represents the 'important pantheisticconcept "universe"', which he claims Prabhupada changes to 'the wholebody' in his translation. This verse is part of Krsna's teaching aboutthe difference between the dehin (the indestructible 'embodiedone', later identified with the atman or 'self') and the perishabledeha or 'body' in which it appears in the world. Verse 2.17explains that 'that' (tat) by which 'all 'this' (sarvamidam) is pervaded should be known as 'imperishable' (avinasi).Commentators in all ages have struggled with the meanings of and /or references to the terms tat and sarvam idam,as Minor's survey of commentaries makes clear (op. cit., pp. 41-3).The all-pervading tat clearly refers to the imperishable andindestructible dehin, but commentators disagree aboutwhether tat refers to the neuter Brahman (Sankara's position)or to the 'category of individual selves' (Ramanuja's position). Similarly,some take sarvam idam to mean "this universe", whileothers such as Sridhara Swami and Prabhupada take it to mean the bodyor bodies which the atman or 'self' (the embodied dehin)pervades.

The issue here is not whose view of this verse is right orwrong; if that could be known with certainty, there would not havebeen a thousand years of debate between commentators. Rather, it isthat Prabhupada stands in a long tradition of interpretation thatshapes his translation of sarvam idam as 'the entirebody' in contrast to Sankara's (and Vekerdi's) monistic or 'pantheistic'interpretation of the term. This is not a 'distortion' of the meaning,as Vekerdi claims, but instead a choice of one traditional interpretationover another. This choice, moreover, is entirely consistent with theless ambiguous meaning of the following verse, which says that 'thesebodies' (ime deha) of the 'embodied' (saririnah)are said to 'come to an end' (antavanta). Whatever one saysabout Prabhupada's translation, he clearly does not stand alone inhis reading of its meaning, which is not inconsistent with the Gita'sself-evident meaning in other verses.

Conclusion

This is the sum total of Vekerdi's textual critiqueof Prabhupada's translation. He claims that these are 'random' examples;if so, he is remarkably unlucky in his choices. Not a single criticismthat he makes stands up to scrutiny and he reveals in the processa lack of knowledge of Hindu religion, the Gita and the commentarialtradition that one would not expect from a trained Indologist.

However, if this speaks for Vekerdi's textual criticisms, it doeseven more so for his final paragraph. He claims, for example, thatthe organisation of the Hare Krishna movement is alien to 'Indianreligiousness', a statement that reveals a total ignorance of allthe devotional movements in India from Sri Vaisnavism and SaivaSiddhanta to Caitanya's Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the modern KrishnaConsciousness movement started by Bhaktivinoda Thakura in Bengalin the nineteenth century. Contrary to what Vekerdi says, it issimply an historical fact that the 'Hare Krishna' movement, as hecalls it, started in India as a purely Indian outgrowth of the earlierCaitanya movement in Bengal. Prabhupada represented the third generationof that movement in India as the disciple of Bhaktivinoda Thakura'sson Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and he did not come to America untilhe was seventy years old after a lifetime of devotional serviceand translation work in India.

It is true that many of Prabhupada's own early disciples wereAmerican, but quite a few of these have become accomplished Sanskritistsor Bengali specialists to a degree that has won them acceptanceas equals by Brahmans in India, not only for their scholarship butfor their purity of devotion and practice. One can hardly imaginehow, as Vekerdi claims, this 'serves the cultural expansion of America'in Europe or anywhere else. Moreover, Prabhupada himself was adamantlyopposed to drugs and sexual promiscuity, and he enforced this oppositionwithin his movement. Whatever Vekerdi may think of 'American spirit'in general (which he seems to believe is some monolithic culturalposition), he can certainly not claim that the Krishna Consciousnessmovement presents a 'spirit' that is 'to the liking of those whopropose drugs for the young and organise homosexual clubs insteadof nursery schools in the name of "difference"'. The 'difference'the Krishna Consciousness Movement represents is another thing thatVekerdi seemingly does not understand: 'traditional Indian Hindureligiousness' that is not 'destructive' as he claims but rathera means of purifying the body and mind for service to the Lord.