CORRECT ENGLISH SPELLING OF THE BHAGAVAD GITA
 

The first English translation of the Bhagavad Gita by Charles Wilkins spelled it as

BHӐGVӐT - GĒĒTᾹ

with a solid line above the two E's.

My question is what is the proper spelling of the name for this document?


The first chapter and verse reads in Sanskrit as:

धृतराष्ट्र उवाच |
धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे समवेता युयुत्सवः |
मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव किमकुर्वत सञ्जय ||1||

Why are there different translations of this verse?

Namaste.

The first shloka from the Bhagavad Gita sets the tone and gives the whole background story for the unfolding of events IN the context they are about to be related to the reader.

The Bhagavad Gita forms a small part of the larger narrative which is the Mahabharata and it essentially is a dialogue between the blind king of the Kauravas called Dritarashtra and his scribe, Sanjaya.

Now, due to Dritarashtra's blindness - which some would argue that it was not a physical blindness but one of being Spirituality blind or ignorant of the truth, he couldn't see what was going on right in front of him and why the battle was occuring in the first place..

So, Dritarashtra spoke to Sanjaya:

Dritarashtra Uacha (Uacha is the verb of Vacham - to speak).

Dharmakshetra, Kurukshetra, samaveda yuyudsawah.
Maamaka Pandavaschaiva, kim acurywat O' Sanjaya?

Which means, on this holy battlefield of Kurukshetra, what happened between the Pandavas and the Kauravas which has now led to this battle? Tell me, Sanjaya.

The translation is pretty much straight forward.

The word Geet or Gita or Geeta...no matter how it is spelled simply means "song" as the Sanskrit language is meant to be sung and not spoken..that is basically how that is.

Now, I realise that I am not interacting with you and I also realise you had asked me not to reply to your posts and threads anymore...however, when it comes to the correct translations of Hindu holy books from the original Sanskrit, that does not apply. LOL

Aum Namah Shivaya

Why are there different translations of this verse?

Sanskrit is a highly inflected language with completely free-form construction of sentences. It is also one of the only languages with such an inordinately high number of synonyms, and complicated sandhi (word joining) rules. Therefore it can either be crystal clear or unbelievably ambiguous, needing the context to clarify the writing or speech. Hence, so many different translations. Not to mention the translator's personal biases, agenda, intentions.

Bhagavad Gītā भगवद् गीता is pronounced (as closely as possible given English phonology) bh-ug-uh-vud gee-taa. The a's in Bhagavad are short, pronounced like the a in about. The G is like get. the i is long, like ee, the a is long like in father.

धृतराष्ट्र उवाच |
धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे समवेता युयुत्सवः |
मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव किमकुर्वत सञ्जय ||1||

dhṛitarāśhtra uvācha
dharma-kṣhetre kuru-kṣhetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāśhchaiva kimakurvata sañjaya

Word for word:
dhṛitarāśhtraḥ uvācha—Dhritarashtra said; dharma-kṣhetre—the land/place/field of dharma (righteousness/law/duty); kuru-kṣhetre—at Kurukshetra (place/field/land of the Kuru clan); samavetāḥ—having gathered; yuyutsavaḥ—desiring to fight; māmakāḥ—my sons; pāṇḍavāḥ—the sons of Pandu; cha—and; eva—certainly/indeed/truly; kim—what; akurvata—did they do; sañjaya—Sanjay

Dhṛitarāśhtraḥ said "Having gathered at the place of righteousness [this becomes clear later in the epic], Kurukshetra (actually a geographical name), desiring to fight (wage war), what did my sons and the sons of Pandu (Dhritarashtra's brother) indeed do?" i.e., what happened then, did they fight?

A Hindu always feels duty-bound to either explain, expound, expand, augment or correct anything about scriptures. :biggrin:

EXACTLY! :hug3:

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Also, there are certain words in Sanskrit which have no exact correlation in English, so translation comes with a small amount of "poetic license" and individual biases can get in the way of it...which is why I love the language so much!

Most translations of the scriptures are just alternative ways of saying exactly the same thing anyway. There is never any contradiction...just different ways of looking at exactly the same thing, with different ways of describing it which is essentially the same anyway...think of it as an exercise in similes and metaphors.

Maybe if Big John would like to provide three or four examples he is referring to for our perusal and comparison so I can see what he is talking about. :rolleyes:

Yes, I know...it is almost like a subconscious compulsion which is very intriguing.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Thanks, both very interesting ,

Jl

No problem my dear....so, wanna hear a tale?

A long time ago, there was a wise and pious sage called Veda Vyasa who had two wives (their names escape me right now).

When the time came to conceive a child from each wife, one wife closed her eyes and turned away from Veda Vyasa....so the child they conceived was born blind...his name, Dritarashtra.

The other wife went very pale when the saint approached her, so the child they conceived was born pure white, with skin like milk and his name....Pandu.

Eventually, each son went on to father a dynasty....even though Pandu was cursed never to be able to sleep with a woman (I forget exactly why at this point)...however, essentially, and for all intents and purposes, the sons of Dritarashtra (Kauravas) and the sons of Pandu (Pandavas) were cousins (but not blood cousins) because the Pandavas were said to be fathered by all of the Nature Devas...but I am digressing.

These guys were cousins, had many teachers in common...pretty much got on well otherwise..with many territorial spats of course....so Dritarashtra was asking "what is happening here?" basically..

Well, apparently the leader of the Kauravas, Duryodhana invited the leader of the Pandavas, Yudhisthira to a rigged game of dice...and Yudhisthira was a compulsive and impulsive gambler.

Eventually Yudhisthira forfeited the whole kingdom and all residents in it (including his 4 brothers and their shared wife, Draupadi... don't ask me how that works) to Duryodhana... Yudhisthira lost everything..he bet his crown...and lost.

After Draupadi put up a good argument that humans cannot be treated like cattle and it goes against free will to barter with human lives, her and the 4 brothers (including Arjuna) accompanied Yudhisthira into exile..never to set foot in the kingdom again ..

Then the Pandavas found out that Duryodhana was cheating and had planned it all along...it was a trap and they fell right into it.

That is when Krishna came to them and told the Sons of Pandu they needed to restore their honor and dignity for the sake of the subjects who still love them...and for themselves..

Arjuna was very kind and soft hearted and did not want to fight his "cousins" who had the same grandfather..the same teachers and upbringing etc

So, that is when Sri Krishna imparted the lessons in the Bhagavad Gita, which was witnessed by Sanjaya and then recounted to Dritarashtra.

Thus the Hindu teachings became codified.

If anyone has Netflix there is an Indian tv show from 2014-2015 called Dharmakshetra. It is a fantasy; it’s not canon inasmuch as this court never happened. It’s about all the characters facing Lord Chitragupta in his court (his dharmakshetra assembly) to accuse, defend, exonerate, account for, all their deeds before, during and after the war. Lots of finger pointing. Obviously they’re all dead and in the afterlife. But they are recounting the real war. I’m almost finished with it, 24-26 episodes I’ve been binge watching.