Prøv at bemærke forskellene i oversættelserne til Bg. 2.20. Ifølge 1972-udgaven:
- ”For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.”
Ifølge 1983-udgaven:
- ”For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.”
Den virkelige forskel, der skal bemærkes her, er i den anden sætning, hvor formuleringen for 1972 lyder: ”Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be.” Dette udtrykker en filosofisk forkert forståelse, nemlig at efter at sjælen er blevet skabt, fortsætter den med at leve evigt. At sjælen bliver skabt på et tidspunkt og derefter fortsætter med at eksistere fore evigt, er ikke Bhagavad-gitas filosofi. Den rigtige forståelse udtrykkes derfor i 1983-udgaven med formuleringen: ”He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being.” Med andre ord betyder sjælens evige natur ifølge Bhagavad-gita, at den altid har eksisteret og ikke blev til eller blev skabt på noget tidspunkt, ligesom den aldrig vil ophøre med at eksistere på noget tidspunkt.
Dette er også, hvad Srila Prabhupada skrev i originalmanuskriptet:
- ”For the soul there is no birth, death either at any time neither does he come into being, will become no has so become.”
Jayadvaita Swami kommenterer:
- ”Clearly, Edition Two more closely follows Srila Prabhupada’s original manuscript.
- Christian philosophers, as far as I know, believe that God creates the soul, which then lives forever. Having once been, he never ceases to be. The Bhagavad-gita has a different point of view. According to Vaisnava philosophy, the soul is never created; it is a beginningless and endless part of God.”
Hvordan er en sådan filosofisk fejl endt i 1972-udgaven? En forklaring finder man måske i Hayagrivas biografi, hvor han fortæller:
” Swamiji finally tires of my consulting him about Bhagavad-gita verses.
“Just copy the verses from some other translation,” he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. “The verses aren’t important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It’s my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports. There are so many nonsense purports like Dr. Radhakrishnan’s, and Gandhi’s, and Nikhilananda’s. What is lacking are these Vaishnava purports in the preaching line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That is what is lacking in English. That is what is lacking in the world.”
“I can’t just copy others,” I say.
“There is no harm.”
“But that’s plagiarism.”
“How’s that? They are Krishna’s words. Krishna’s words are clear, like the sun. Just these rascal commentators have diverted the meaning by saying, ‘Not to Krishna.’ So my purports are saying, ‘To Krishna.’ That is the only difference.”
Og det er, hvad der skete. Hayagriva lånte oversættelser fra andre Bhagavad-gita-oversættelser såsom Dr. Radha-Krishnans udgave. Er det derfra, en sådan filosofisk fejl har sneget sig ind i 1972-udgaven? Fra Prabhupada er det i hvert fald ikke.
