Unnikrishnan asked:

I just read an excerpt from the book where Mitchell says that his knowledge of Sanskrit is rudimentary and that he depended upon the translations of others. Then why on earth is this called a translation of the Gita? Shouldn't it be termed as an interpretation of some translations of the Gita?

To answer questions about Bhagavad Gita, please sign up.
Giacomo Mantani This version is pure. Read it fully before ask questions. Winthrop is humble. I really appreciated the giant work behind this text.
ThePieman If you want true Gita, read the penguin classic version. EXCELLENT!
Manish Bhardwaj " Then why on earth" denies reality while being outrageous about it . To me , something is always lost is translation and changed in interpretation.
You are right about the interpretation thing and good that you raised the question.
Daniel I'm sure he has some answer stored away for this which goes something like "any translation is an interpretation since the person has to choose what words to use in place of others," but ultimately, I think he just has this idea that he can rewrite books to say what he wants them to say under the guise of "translation".

For some reason, there is no real outrage over this, even though he does it over and over. For instance, Tao Te Ching is another example of a book he 'translated' while not knowing any of the language he translated it from.
Image for Bhagavad Gita
Rate this book
Clear rating

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more