Worst translations of scriptures?

What's the worst translation of a scripture you've ever read? Was there anything particularly weird about the translation or just seemed like the author didn't understand what they were translating?

I'll give my own little story. A few weeks ago I ordered a cheap paperback translation of the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta as I had been relying on a PDF of Jaidev Singh's massive commentary and translation. I don't really like ebooks and if I want to show someone something I find phones harder to deal with, so I had the presence of mind one day to just order any copy of it so I could always easily have one on hand. I wasn't prepared at all for how bad the paperback I ordered would be.

For one, I didn't get a preview of the cover before I ordered it so it just said "Shiva Sutra of Vasugupta", ya singular sutra, so right off the bat I noticed something off. Some parts were really badly translated, with some pretty funny results occasionally. It had the original sanskrit so that helped me decipher some of it. But I just ended up comparing it to the Jaidev Singh translation and thinking I need to get a physical copy of it (it's hard to find a copy in the U.S. that isn't expensive it seems). In this little one it sometimes didn't even translate complete sentences. I looked closer at the author (Gerard D. C. Kuiken) and noticed he isn't really a scholar but some guy that lectures on thermodynamics and fluid mechanics with an unspecified PhD from a technology university. There seemed to be some clear instances to of just mistranslated the wrong meaning.

So have you ever come across a really bad translation? In a library? At a school? Something someone else was reading? Or something like me I got without really looking close at it?

Vanakkam,

Gawd yes, had this small pocket size Bhagavad Gita for a while. Don't remember the author or something but the translation was AWFUL. Even the key terms weren't well translated, either the meaning was twisted or completely impossible to understand.
Cherry on the poop cake was the illustrations. The author just took pictures of Tibetan Buddhism deities and iconography and slapped them in the Gita as Hindu.
So apparently sakyamuni Buddha sitting under a tree is Krishna delivering the Bhagavad Gita, guys.

It was AWFUL

Aum Namah Shivaya

Vinayaka said:

I didn't realise this was a Hindu scripture.

Click to expand...

From my memory of reading the Gita, Krishna say that those worshipping other than Him are really worshipping Him, but by the wrong method.
I just googled it and found that this is written in the Gita at 9:23.
There were many translations(all similar).
Could you give a correct translation.

Jedster said:

From my memory of reading the Gita, Krishna say that those worshipping other than Him are really worshipping Him, but by the wrong method.
I just googled it and found that this is written in the Gita at 9:23.
There were many translations(all similar).
Could you give a correct translation.

Click to expand...

I've never read the Gita.

Jedster said:

From my memory of reading the Gita, Krishna say that those worshipping other than Him are really worshipping Him, but by the wrong method.
I just googled it and found that this is written in the Gita at 9:23.
There were many translations(all similar).
Could you give a correct translation.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is more or less the correct idea.

The worst in RigVeda by Dayananda Saraswati. Distortion/mutilation at its best.

Jedster said:

From my memory of reading the Gita, Krishna say that those worshipping other than Him are really worshipping Him, but by the wrong method.
I just googled it and found that this is written in the Gita at 9:23.
There were many translations(all similar).
Could you give a correct translation.

Click to expand...

I think this is a pretty good analysis, something I never thought of I am confused between two shlokas of the Bhagvad Geeta, Bg 9.23 & Bg 9.25

Prabhupada has this Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 9.23: The Most Confidential Knowledge, Text 23.

ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta
yajante sraddhayanvitah
te 'pi mam eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-purvakam

SYNONYMS
ye—those; api—also; anya—other; devata—demigods; bhaktah—devotees; yajante—worship; sraddhaya-anvitah—with faith; te—they; api—also; mam—Me; eva—even; kaunteya-O son of Kunti; yajanti—sacrifice; avidhi-purvakam—in a wrong way.

TRANSLATION
Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunti, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding.

By wrong method he means not worshiping them as the Supreme Brahman, but rather as the demi-god the devotee believes them to be. The devotee doesn't realize that all is Krishna, even the demi-gods. If they do, then that is not incorrect. This is a follow-up from 7.21-22.

21. Whichever devotee desires to adore whatever such Deity with faith, in all such votaries I make that particular faith unshakable.
22. Endowed with that faith, a votary performs the worship of that particular deity and obtains the fruits thereof, these being granted by Me alone. (Swami Tapasyananda translation)

Hinduism gives us the freedom to differ even with (what is supposed to be said by) Gods. I utilize that freedom and differ.

Every thing one reads must be taken skeptically/with a pinch of salt because they are all individual interpretations based on personal experiences and beliefs that fulfill a set agenda.

Shantanu said:

Every thing one reads must be taken skeptically/with a pinch of salt because they are all individual interpretations based on personal experiences and beliefs that fulfill a set agenda.

Click to expand...

While I wouldn't call it downright awful, it was weird to compare Prabhupada's original "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" (which also has its own agenda) with the 1980's (?) revised edition. I'm not into nitpicking but the thing I remember is that "Shri Bhagavan uvaca" was translated by Prabhupada as "The Blessed Lord said". Now it reads "The Supreme Personality of Godhead™ said".

Yeah, good change. Who will bless the Lord. Sure, in Hinduism, Rishis frequently do that.
Lord Rama sought blessings from his father and mothers, guru Vaishtha, guru Vishwamitra, Bhagawan Parashurama, his parents-in-law, their guru Ashtavakra (not sure), Sati Anusuya and Sati Arundhati and from Shabari. He bowed the dying Jatayu, to Ravana while asking him to instruct Lakshman. There may be other people too to whom he bowed, actually, he was in habit of bowing to every one.

I chanced upon a Janaka story in another forum which I give in a separate topic.

"Kapalika,"

Namaste,

I would say the worst for me is the Griffith translations of the Vedas, second would be all the other old orientalist translations, Willson being the better of the Lot.

Satyamavejayanti said:

"Kapalika,"

Namaste,

I would say the worst for me is the Griffith translations of the Vedas.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the Griffith translations are quote hard to follow. Does anyone know of any good translations of the Vedas which are easy to follow?

JediConsular said:

Agreed, the Griffith translations are quote hard to follow. Does anyone know of any good translations of the Vedas which are easy to follow?

Click to expand...

Namaste,

Unfortunately i have not come across any good translations at all, but i think that has more to do with the Mantra them self rather then the translations, as these are not "sayings", or "Commandments", nor are the Mantra a conversation or Story that can be followed, they don't have a beginning a middle and end like our modern literature. Traditionally its not the Transalations that matter, but more the Interpretations which are Adhidaivik, Adhiatmik, Adhibutik, Adhiyagna ect

Plus the translations are always going to be biased, as each word has many different meaning according to the context of the Sukta (depending on things like the Devta, Rishi and Chanda), if the context is misinterpreted or not understood then the entire Sukta can become not intelligible, or can be twisted to fit into the translators preconceived biases.

I think the best thing for those who are interested in reading the translated versions is to get a copy of all the available translations from each of the main groups, such as get a copy of Willsons and Griffiths from the Orientalist, get a copy of the Arya Samaj translations ect, these 2 groups being the most prominent in translations of Samhita texts in our modern time, but there are others, not complete but certain Suktas and Mantras are doing the rounds on the net, such as Aurabindos interpretations and translations.

I think with the Mantra Samhita, it is not much the translations that are important but more the interpretations of the Mantras by different groups or individuals who have attempted a translation, and this is more accurate, because if we look at the Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Anga's, Upas ect which are expansions, explanations and continuation of the Samhita texts, we see that there has always been in the Hindu mind about the different interpretations and uses of the Vedic texts, and there is not just "one way or the highway", version.

Anyways this is my opinion.