1956 Back to Godhead vol 3 part 12 - Anomalies of Geeta Press Gorakhpur
Anomalies of "Geeta Press" Gorakhpur
We have got a copy of "Srimad Bhagwat Geeta" published by the "Geeta Press" Gorakhpur. This copy is published with Hindi paraphrase meaning and its price is fixed up at Rs 1/4/- per copy. It is understood that more than 150,000 copies of this edition are already sold out and we do not know how many copies will be more sold in the future with so many anomalies in it.
There are many anomalies and inconsistencies in this edition and as such it appears that the translator was a hired "Pandit" and not one who had undergone the training in the spiritual parampara system.
Unless one has undergone the spiritual training in the disciplic succession, it is not possible to comment on "Bhagwat Geeta" or any other revealed scripture. Simple academic knowledge is useless for this purpose.
The authors of these scriptures are not ordinary human being with four disqualifications of conditioned life. And as such there is no possibility on the part of such liberated authors to commit mistakes, inconsistencies, cheating the public or imperfection.
Bhagwat Geeta was spoken by the Supreme Lord Shri Krishna Himself and the same was recorded by Shree Vyasdeva the spiritual master of all Sampradaya. Both these personalities are liberated souls and as such it is great folly to find inconsistency in them without measuring one's own strength. If anybody finds inconsistency in such liberated Personalities—it must be considered as sheer anomaly on the part of the editor.
We are pointing out some of the anomalies in the above edition of 'Bhagwat Geeta' published by the Geeta Press. They are as follows:—
On page 458 the 16th sloka on the 15th Chapter appears. In this sloka there is mention of two Purushas namely the Kshara and the Akshara. It is also said there that all living being in the material word Sarbani Bhutani are Kshara Purushas.
This Bhutani is explained as Body of the living being (?). Is it the proper meaning of the word? Kshara is a Purusha is already explained and how it can be then the body of the Purusha? In another place i.e. on page 413, the editor has clearly mentioned that Purusha means the living being. So how the living being can be the material body? Is it not anomaly of hazy ideas? Is it not inconsistency that in one place the Purusha is explained as living being and in another place the same purusha is explained as "Body"? We are very sorry for this inconsistent explanation of "Geeta Press" which stands to guide the spiritual upliftment of the people in general.
Then again a footnote is given on page 458 which suggests inconsistency on the part of the author of Bhagwat Geeta.
This is absolutely nonsense. This footnote definitely proves that the editor has no clear conception in himself and he has advanced a petitio principii logic to explain away his inability to understand "Bhagwat Geeta." We give him friendly advice that he may learn "Bhagwat Geeta" from a realised soul and not to try putting inconsistency on the part of the Supreme Lord.
Kshara and Akshara are clearly stated as Purusha. Para and Apara have been designated to the Prakriti. Prakriti and Purusha have been clearly defined in the 13th chapter as two different identities and the editor himself has explained the meaning of both Maya and Jivatma. How then it is possible to explain Kshara Purusha (living being) as "Body"? And there are many such anomalies in the edition.
We are perturbed for this commentation because the "Geeta Press" publications have very wide circulation. People have some respect for this Press and with the same sentiment we also purchased one copy of the edition under reference.
But if such anomalies are published by the authorities of Geeta Press, certainly it will be a great disservice by them as such anomalies will misguide the already misguided people.
We shall be very glad if we find that the anomalies mentioned above have duly been corrected in its next edition. If any help is needed, we are prepared to render such service in this noble cause.