Humanities desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 7

Bhagavad Gita

Is there a standard, or particularly well though of, (modern) English translation available? I'm aware that there are many versions free on-line (including on WikiSource); in my experience with other translated works, though, you tend to get what you pay for with that. I was happy to pay for a copy of Seamus Heaney's Beowulf instead of grabbing one of the free ones out there, for example. Annotation would be a bonus, but not necessary. Any suggestions? Matt Deres (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Bhagavad- Gita As It Is, by his divine grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupãda [1] Don't know if this is what you want but is is in English and makes a lot of sense. Understand this mighty tome and one has the equivalent of a collage education for less than a tankful of gas.--Aspro (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious problem with this book is that it is very important to most of Hinduism, which also has disagreements on core tenets which make Christianity look like a bunch of Borg in comparison. So, think of all the different version of the Bible available in the West, multiply that number tenfold or so, and that might give you an idea about how many variants there would be in the Bhagavad Gita. My best guess might be to take one of the Penguin editions, like those listed at Amazon, or similar editions from presses which print a lot of "classics," which probably have the best chance of being what might be the least divergent and most basically "academic" editions. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible has different translations, and Catholics accept a few more books into the canon than Protestants. But the actual content is almost identical across all versions. Pick any verse in the Bible and 95 times out of 100, there's no controversy about what the verse means or whether it's authentic. Differences between Christian denominations are usually due to differences in interpreting the Bible, in extra-biblical doctrines, and in tradition, not differences in the Bible itself. (Early Christianity was actually far more diverse than it is today; I talk about this in Early Christians Believed WHAT?). --Bowlhover (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to expand on the above points: see Arvind Sharma's The Hindu Gita for the varying ancient- and medieval-time; and Catherine Robinson's Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gita and Images of the Hindu Tradition for varying modern interpretations assigned to the text. That said, let not all this debate keep you from reading the work. Gita makes for pretty quick and easy reading, and it is only when one tries to collapse it into ONE CORE message (or rather, tries to derive/justify ones existing philosophy) that one runs into such complexity. If you read it as you would read Shakespeare, or Homer, none of this an issue. Abecedare (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhagavad- Gita As It Is is thr Hare Krishna version which is not considered to be accurate by scholars. It depends what you are after - something clear and readable, or something thst goes into detail on the problems of interpretation.Paul B (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something readable and accessible is foremost. Some background info would be fine, but I can also get that on WP. This is just out of interest, so I'd like something I can read and enjoy, ideally without having to reach for a reference book every third word or something. Don't get me wrong; I understand Arjuna and I don't share a lot of common ground and I'll likely need to look some stuff up regardless of the edition. Matt Deres (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford's World Classics generally does a great job, and they have a Bhagavad Gita translation here. The translation has 20 pages of introduction and extensive commentary on the text, which you can see using "Look Inside". I've never read it myself, so I can't vouch for this translation specifically, only for the World Classics in general. (Their annotated Bible is superb, if you ever plan on buying one.)

If you find a better translation, let me know. I plan to read the Bhagavad Gita in 18 months or so. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, there are over 300+ translations of Gita in English (a bibliography of 1891 translations was compiled way back in 1982 by Calleweart and Hemraj), so you definitely don't lack for choice. What translation you prefer will depend upon your taste, and what you intend to get out of it. Assuming you are looking for modern complete translations, in a recent Biography of Gita, Richard Davis highlights the following ones:

J. A. B. van Buitenen's for its scholarship (although it's not the easiest one to read casually; amazon link)
Stephen Mitchell's for it's poetry (amazon link)
Swami Prabhupada's as a devotee's translation (amazon link)
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan' as a philosopher's translation (amazon link)

Davis also has pocket reviews for a few other translations that you may be able to see here. Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Red hot coals' on moon

There was 'Red hot coals' on the moon according to this page. What does that mean? Is it something that could be seen by people? Apparently there was an earthquake then and also a solar eclipse. Any more info anywhere on these events of 1185? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entry says "Solar eclipse 'Red hot coals' on Moon. Prominences?". Sounds like an attempt to describe what the eclipse looked like as in our picture of prominences during a total eclipse. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)As I understand it, the "red hot coals" were reported to be visible during the solar eclipse. However, according to List of solar eclipses in the 12th century, the May 1st 1185 solar eclipse was more or less in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, so its surprising that anyone saw it. I'd take the report with a grain of salt... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this was a reference to what we now call Baily's beads. If the sun was relatively low in the sky at the time of the eclipse, these might appear red, just as the sun appears redder when closer to the horizon (sunrise and sunset). RomanSpa (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page does give sources although it's not immediately obvious...if you can find them, the ones for the 1185 eclipse are Botley, C.M. 'Some centenaries for 1985'. Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 95, 2, 1985; Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 89, 3, 1979; and Stephenson, F. R. Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation. Cambridge University Press, 1997. This sounds like the sort of thing some British or Irish chronicle or annals would have recorded, so hopefully one of those sources mentions which one. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - you guys are sweethearts.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]