Sit Properly

This week’s verse is from Chapter Three: Karma-yoga. It’s message is one found throughout Vedic literature and is really the crux of the Bhagavad-gita.

In Chapter Three, Arjuna is asking Krishna very plainly, “why should I fight?” Arjuna is a warrior, it’s his duty to fight. However, Krishna just got through with telling him that intelligence is better than such a ghastly activity as warfare. Krishna explains that you can’t automatically achieve perfection simply by renouncing work and certainly not by renouncing your duty. One must also control the mind (a subject dealt with very specifically in the Sixth Chapter). He explains that one should work without attachment to the fruits of his activities. And one should always perform their duty.

This verse, the 30th, sums up the teachings so far. Krishna, a few verses down the road, brings it all home, telling Arjuna that it is better to do your duty, even if it’s flawed, than to engage in another’s duty. As Srila Prabhupada translates it: “to follow another’s path is dangerous.”

So here is Bhagavad-gita 3.30…

Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with mind intent on Me, and without desire for gain and free from egoism and lethargy, fight.
-Srila Prabhupada

Offering all of one’s actions unto me in knowledge of the indwelling Supersoul, free from desire, selfishness, and grief, fight!
-Tripurari Swami

With your mind fixed in the self and offering all your activities to Me, being reed from desire, possessiveness and lamentation, fight.
-Narayana Maharaja

Renouncing all actions in me,
    with one's thought on
    the 'principle of self',
Without longings,
    without a sense of 'mine'-
    fight, with grief cast off.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Srila Prabhupada starts off his verse with “Therefore, O Arjuna,” a phrase that isn’t actually in the sanskrit. None of our other translators do this. While the meaning is there in all of these translations, Srila Prabhupada seemed to be poking us with the point that “this is the logical conclusion to Chapter Three!” When someone says “therefore,” usually they’ve laid out a logical argument before you. And as described before the verse, Krishna did that for Arjuna.

The verse actually begins with the idea of “surrendering all your works unto Me,” as Srila Prabhupada translated it. Tripurari Swami, his disciple, puts it “Offering ones actions unto me.” Narayana Maharaja, translates “actions” or “works” as “activities,” while Garuda translates “surrendering” or “offering” as “renouncing.”

There is a bit of difference here. It’s no big surprise that the word “karmani” is translated as “actions” or “works” or “activities.” Karma actually means “works.” These words are interchangeable, as far as we’re concerned.

While Srila Prabhupada chose “surrendering,” both Tripuari Swami and Narayana Maharama chose “offering.” Garuda dasa, oddly, chose “renouncing.” There is a bit of difference in all of these. The sanskrit word is sannyasaya. The first three translations have word-for-word sections. In that, all three translate it as “giving up completely” (or some variation close to that). Garuda’s has no such word-for-word, but seeing as how “renouncing” is the same as “giving up completely,” it makes a bit of sense where he was coming from.

When we, as devotees, surrender, renounce or give something up, we do it for Krishna. This verse explains that. All of the translations, in one way or another, convey that. Garuda uses what almost appears to be a Biblical expression “Renouncing all actions in me.” Means the same thing, but it’s an odd way of saying it.

Another thing to note is the use and lack of use of the capitalized “M” in “me,” meaning Krishna, God. Traditionally, any pronouns dealing with divinity are capitalized. Lately, the scholarly trend is to not do that. Tripuari Swami’s and Garuda dasa’s follow this new rule, while Srila Prabhupada’s and Narayana Maharaja’s do not. I personally don’t like this new rule, though don’t believe that either Tripurari Swami or Garuda dasa are trying to subtly say that Krishna is not God. Both of their versions drive that point home again and again, just like the two that capitalize.

How the word adhyatma is translated and placed. In his verse, Srila Prabhupada says, “with mind intent on Me.” Tripurari Swami uses, “in knowledge of the indwelling Supersoul.” “With mind fixed in the self,” is how Narayana Maharaja translates it. Garuda dasa puts it: “with one’s thought on / the ‘principle of self’.” He uses “principle of” quite a lot in his translation.

So is our mind supposed to be fixed in “the self” or on the “indwelling Supersoul” (or “Me,” meaning Krishna)? What’s the difference between “the self” and Krishna? In his purport, Tripurari Swami indicates that it is both. We must surrender in the knowledge of both the self and of Krishna. We must understand our position, that we are not “the enjoyer,” but rather God is. Our action is carried out by material nature.

Another Gaudia-Vaisnava, B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami, translates adhytma-cetasa as “with the understanding, ‘All my actions are under the control of the indwelling Lord.’” And that about sums it up.

I’ve seen all of the translators use “the self” in different places and it’s not always clear what it mean (to my mind anyway). But this does shed some light upon it. “The self” is the soul. Not only the soul, but everything the soul actually needs. Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura comments, “Do not let your mind dwell on the sense objects, and give up any sense of possessiveness towards them.”

Moving now to the second stanza of the verse, Krishna instructs Arjuna (and in doing so, instructs us) to do our duty without selfishness.

Our translators use a handful of different words to convey this. Srila Prabhupada picked “without desire for gain,” “free from egoism and lethargy.” Tripuari Swami quickly sums it up, “free from desire, selfishness, and grief.” Narayana Maharaja has it as “being freed from desire, possessiveness and lamentation.” Garuda dasa, as he is writing a poetical representation of Bhagavad-gita, arranges it as it was in Sanskrit, but uses, “Without longings,” “without a sense of ‘mine’,” and “with grief cast off.”

Only Srila Prabhupada describes which desires we should be free from. We should not desire to gain.

“Egoism,” “selfishness,” “possessiveness,” and “without a sense of ‘mine’” all describe the same nasty quality the whole world could very well do without. While each translator uses a different word with slightly different meaning and implication, it’s nice to put them all together to get a feel for how awful that selfish desire is and what all it can encompass.

The sanskrit term vigata-jvarah means “without lamentation, without grief.” That is a difficult one to conquer. It should be. Grieving is a sign of kindness. None of our commentators address this lamentation. But in the chapter prior to this one, in Bhagavad-gita 2.11, though using a different Sanskrit word for “lament,” it instructs us that the “wise lament neither for the living nor the dead.” The next verse explains there was never a time when God and we did not exist, and in the future never will any of us cease to be.”

That is the lamentation we should be free from.

Krishna’s last instruction to Arjuna, in this verse, is “Fight!” as Tripurari Swami puts it. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja simply say, “fight.” with a very somber and serious period. Personally, I like Tripurari Swami’s excited “Fight!”

However, in a very literal translation, Garuda dasa comes closest to the original Sanskrit poetry, “fight, with grief cast off.”

The message, of course, is one. While it is “fight” for Arjuna the great warrior, it is “do your duty” whatever that may be, for the rest of us. We do our duty, without all the baggage and hangups, as an offering to God. This is the whole purpose of the Bhagavad-gita.

Being a collector of “Hare Krishna” books, I’ve found myself with a slew of Bhagavad-gitas. That’s how I came up with the idea of doing the Gita comparisons (one of which will post tomorrow).

My favorite translation was done by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, entitled Bhagavad-gita: As It Is. I’ve got three different versions of it.

The first one is a purple edition from 1968. It’s small with no Sanskrit and sparse in the annotations area. It was published by MacMillan (under their imprint Collier). The introductions were done by Allen Ginsberg, Denise Levertov and Thomas Merton. Not bad, eh? I talked about this edition here and here. While this was Prabhuada’s first Bhagavad-gita released in America, he wasn’t very happy with it. He wanted the full commentaries and Sanskrit, which MacMillan insisted be edited out.

By 1972, however, demand for his Bhagavag-gita increased and they released the full version. This is the version that most older devotees and Prabhupada himself used every day. The older purple ones were set aside and the new unedited version of Bhagavad-gita: As It Is, weighing in at 1,000 pages, with full index and tons of purports and Sanskrit took its place.

In the early 80’s, several years after Prabhupada’s passing, his Bhagavad-gita was “revised and enlarged” without prior consent or request by the original author. All older copies of Bhagavad-gita: As It Is were put aside at the insistence of ISKCON itself and the new, re-edited Gita with well over 700 changes took its place. The 1972 edition, which the devotees and Prabhupada used every day was no longer to be printed, read or distributed.

As time went on, more and more books were re-edited and more and more devotees desired again to print, read and distribute the original editions.

Eventually in 2002, ISKCON decided that it would be alright to reprint some original editions as historic “facsimile editions.” They did this for Bhagavad-gita: As It Is with a caveat warning the buyer that this is not the recommended edition. The recommended edition is the revised and re-edited one.

Oddly, this facsimile edition is now out of print. Other facsimile editions are also going out of print. Thankfully, a devotee-run company called Krishna Books is printing these spiritually and historically important volumes.

I don’t have the original 1972 edition. I only have a facsimile of it. It’s big and rather cumbersome. This is also the facsimile that is out of print. Fortunately for me (and those on the street distributing books), Krishna Books has made a smaller edition. It’s much smaller in size with thinner paper and that’s just perfect. It’s still hardbound, of course, but it’s small. It can be purchased here. Many other original printing books can be purchased on that site as well.

However, my own daily Gita doesn’t really fall into any of those categories.

Of course, it’s the same edition that Srila Prabhupada and the devotees used, but its printing history predates ISKCON’s facsimile edition by a decade or so.

It was given to me by Candramauli Swami in 1995 while I was living in New Vrndavana. He was teaching a Bhagavad-gita class every night and was very insistent that we used the original Gitas. He even called the re-editors “rascals” for what “they have done to Srila Prabhupada’s words.” He was very adamant about this then, though he has since changed his tune.

This Bhagavad-gita: As It Is claimed to be published by ISKCON’s Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (ISKCON’s book printing arm) in India in “Hare Krishna Land, Juhu Road.” I apparently have the 7th printing, which was done in 1992. The first printing was in 1983, just as the revised edition was being released.

Was this really done by ISKCON? I have my doubts. Why would they release Prabhupada’s original edition when they were pushing their own revised edition so heavily? My suspicion is that it was published by devotees outside of ISKCON. Though I could be wrong.

It is very obviously an Indian printing. The cover is bubbling, the pages have huge chunks of wood floating around in them. The print is blurry and blotchy at times. The few colored plates are washed out. The inside cover is upside down! It’s a book binder’s nightmare.

Oddly enough, however, unlike most Indian printings, the binding itself is fully intact. It’s strong and sturdy. Like I said, it’s my daily Gita. I love the feel and the smell of it. The pages are soft and a brownish tan that my eyes have grown accustomed to. The printing and even nonfatal binding errors give this Gita, my Gita, a personality. Yes, this was a mass produced book, but it has its own character.

I collect many editions of Bhagavad-gita: As It Is. There are a few more I’d still like to have (the original printing of the 1972 edition, for example), but this is the Gita that I use. I was trained up in this Gita, I have turned every page, read every line again and again. It never gets old.

This is the Bhagavad-gita for me. And you should find one for yourself. It’s great daily reading. Allow me to suggest this one. It’s Prabhupada’s original, the one he personally wrote and read from every day. How can you go wrong with that?

Back in 1948, Srila Prabhuapda wrote a paper partially about the many translations of the Bhagavad-gita that were floating around. He would hit on this subject often, explaining that only those who are following the teachings of Bhagavad-gita could properly translate and give commentary upon it.

Now, certainly, a direct, word-for-word translation could be done by anyone with a degree in Sanskrit. They could get the basic ideas, the plot and even the poetry pretty close to accurate (as can be noted by Srila Prabhupada’s using of Rama Krishna’s Gita translation before his own was completed) (Edit: It was actually Dr. Ramakrishnan’s – thanks to Urukrama prabhu for the info, see his comment for more info.).

In this paper, Srila Prabhupada uses the Gita’s idea of the four classes of men who cannot understand the Gita’s teachings. It’s hit upon in the seventh and eighteenth chapters. He then describes each of these classes in some detail:

1. Ordinary men who have no training in austerity or penance.

2. Those who are not devotees of Godhead but are either mundane workers, mundane philosophers or mundane mystics.

3. Those who do not come in the line of disciplic succession like Vivasvan, Manu, Iksvaku, Arjuna, etc.

4. Those who disbelieve Sri Krsna as the Absolute Personality of Godhead.

He takes it a step farther by explaining that these same classes of men are also translating and commenting on Bhagavad-gita. Mostly, of course, the translations come from scholars who find some importance (either philosophical, spiritual or historical) in the writings. Translations are easy (so to speak), but teaching via purports and lectures is another thing.

When you read the writings of the sadhus and gurus in our line, the point of disciplic succession is mentioned again and again. Without this chain of teacher and student handing down a philosophy over the years, what do you have? The qualification for writing your own translation and commentary on Bhagavad-gita seems to be a teacher who has themselves commented greatly on Bhagavad-gita. Yet, while reading the three bona fide Bhagavad-gita commentaries that I have (namely Srila Prabhuapda, Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja), I find few “re-used” topics. Each is fresh even though each is coming directly from the same line (each from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati).

The individual authors inject their own style, topics and approach to their purports. The spiritual topics aren’t simply “ever-fresh” because they’re spiritual, there’s no possibility of going stale, even materially, with so much to discuss.

When I was just finding an interest in Krishna consciousness, I discovered my Grandmother’s Bhagavad-gita. It was a Penguin edition translated in the 60’s. While it offered (thankfully) no commentary, the introduction explained that Krishna wasn’t really God or god or even anything at all. Krishna was an “experience.” That stuck with me while reading it and the whole thing made really no sense to me at all. “So this ‘experience’ is telling Arjuna to do his duty?”

It wasn’t until Srila Prabhupada’s Gita and his classes and the classes of some devotees that things really started to click with me.

Over the years, I have tended to ignore or, at best, “move past” the Bhagavad-gita. Opting instead for the writings of the Goswamis of Vrndavana or the latest wildly popular book on Krishna-lila (without sastric references) by one ISKCON guru or another. While many of these have their place, I made the mistake of thinking that I was able to move past the foundation of spiritual life. Pretty insane, huh?

And while I more than likely fall into one or more of those four classes of men described in the Gita, I’ve again taken an interest in studying it so that I can hopefully escape from not only the three modes of material nature, but the four classes of men unfit to understand the Bhagavad-gita. That’s a might tall hill to be climbing.

Here I go!

Hare Krishna!

Today’s verse comes from the fourth chapter, entitled Jnana-yoga. Srila Prabhupada calls this chapter “Transcendental Knowledge,” while Tripurari Swami, his disciple, entitled it “Yoga of Knowledge,” which is pretty well an exact translation from sanskrti. Narayana Maharaja, disciple of Srila Prabhupada’s godbrother, somewhat flips it around, calling it, “Yoga Through Transcendental Knowledge.” Garuda prabhu, through his poetical translation, gave it the title of “The Way of Knowledge.”

In his title, Srila Prabhupada makes sure that we understand that when he speaks about knowledge, jnana, it is of a spiritual nature. This isn’t material knowledge. Tripurari Swami assume we already know that “knowledge” here means spiritual. “Yoga” in this case (and in all cases throughout the Gita) means to “link up,” generally with the Supreme. Narayana Maharaja, though his Gita was written before Tripuari Swami’s, seems to split the difference. I’ve found this to often be the case, which, in my mind, is a very good thing.

Garuda prabhu’s work is one of poetry. Originally, the Bhagavad-gita was a poem. I find his version to be the most true to that feel. He thusly uses “The Way of Knowledge.” “The Way” invokes the idea of a path, a process. It’s not merely a linking, there is more to it than that.

This idea is also supported in today’s verse, the 38th verse of chapter four.

In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And one who has achieved this enjoys the self within himself in due course of time.
-Srila Prabhupada

There is nothing here that is as purifying as transcendental knowledge. One who is perfect in yoga realizes this wisdom within himself in due course.
-Tripurari Swami

In this world, there is nothing more purifying than transcendental knowledge. A person who has attained complete perfection in niskama-karma-yoga, receives such jnana naturally within his heart, in due course of time.
-Narayana Maharaja

There is no means of purification
    found in this world
    that is equal to knowledge.
In time, one perfected
    in yoga personally finds
    that [knowledge] within the self.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Each translation, very closely follows the next. All four start by explaining that “in this world” (or “here” in Tripurari Swami’s translation), there are no means of purification, nothing more purifying, nothing as sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge (or just “knowledge” in Garuda dasa’s).

The Bhagavad-gita was spoke to Arjuna on a battlefield. Each translation, with the exception of Tripurari Swami’s, states “in this world.” He recounts it as “here.” The word in Sanskrit is iha. All of the Gitas, except Garuda’s have word-for-word translations printed just above the actual translation of the verse. Both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja translate iha as “in this world.” Clearly, Garuda did as well.

However, in Tripurari Swami’s purport, he states that “iha (here) refers to this world.” He then continues, “Iha can also refer to the sacrificial practices mentioned previously. Among all sacrificial acts, it is the wisdom that arises from them that justifies their performance.”

His is the only commentary to mention iha.

Each commentary goes on to describe transcendental knowledge. Each, in their own way, explain that this knowledge is naturally there within us. Though none of them use the analogy of a tree growing from a small seed, here is an example of such a thing.

Only Srila Prabhuapda’s translation of the verse hints at it. “Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism.” This comes from four seemingly different translations of the word samsiddhah.

“Matured” is how Srila Prabhupada defines it. Tripurari Swami has it as “perfect.” Narayana Maharaja gives it a bit of a longer definition: “one who has attained complete perfection of niskama-karma-yoga.” Garuda prabhu’s translation has no word-for-word,
however it can be concluded that he translated it as “perfection.”

But what is this niskama-karma-yoga that only Narayana Maharaja mentions? In this verse and its commentary (which in this case is the commentary by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura), he does not define or even describe it. Srila Prabhupada has described it as the “renunciation of the fruits of one’s labor.”¹

From here till the end of the verse, there almost seems to be a bit of disagreement on how this knowledge is achieved/realized/received/found.

Srila Prabhupada states that it is the “mature fruit of all mysticism” and that it is “achieved.” He is the only one to use “mysticism” and it’s a bit puzzling why he chose this word. He uses this word a lot throughout his writings, often translating it from yogina. While the word “mysticism” isn’t in his word-for-word translation, it’s clear that he’s recalling his past uses of “mystics” (meaning yogis, ones who are linked with the Supreme). However, in his word-for-word, he defines yoga as devotion.

Tripurari Swami writes that “one who is perfect in yoga realizes this wisdom…” From combining both Srila Prabhupada’s and Tripurari Swami’s we can conclude that “one who is perfect in devotion realizes this wisdom.” In his purport, Tripurari Swami seems to give a call back to Srila Prabhupada’s “mysticism” reference, this knowledge naturally awakes in someone who has learned how to “acquire knowledge from a seer by engaging himself under that seer’s direction.”

Narayana Maharaja translates that this knowledge is received “naturally.” Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s purport explains that while natural, it is not immediate or automatic simply by accepting sannyasa (the celibate, renounced priestly order).

Garuda prabhu’s is a bit more mysterious. “One perfected in yoga, personally finds that [knowledge] within the self.” Many Bhagavad-gita verses are dedicated to describing the different kinds of and the perfection of yoga. Taking this one verse out of that context, it almost seems like with little effort, we’ll stumble upon the knowledge. Devotees know this to be true and also, at times, untrue. Devotion is simple for the simple and complicated for the complicated.

However, all versions conclude that it is not immediate. All four state “in time” it will happen. It’s not something that happens right away. “In due course of time” is used by three translations. Garuda prabhu entitled this chapter “The Way of Knowledge.” Finding this knowledge is a process.

This knowledge and peace are culminated in Krishna consciousness. As our hearts become purified, this knowledge will awaken within us. And, as Srila Prabhupada states in his purport, “that is the last word in the Bhagavad-gita.”

1. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura does go on to describe it a few verses farther, “giving up karma through the process of sannyasa (renunciation of attachment to the fruits).” [↩]

In Krishna consciousness, dreaming about the Krishna is a very auspicious thing. Also in Krishna consciousness, serving the devotees is often seen as more glorious than serving the Lord. So naturally, one can draw the conclusion that my dream about zombies and Madhava Gosh is pretty much as auspicious as I’m going to get.

The setting of this spectacular display of unconscious storytelling was indeed in Madhava Gosh’s house at New Vrndavana. The background was that the movie 28 Days Later was real and parts of it were filmed at New Vrndavana. Being that it was real meant that zombies were real and they were attacking. But these were somehow the zombies left over from filming 28 Days Later.

In this particular movie, the zombies run after you. In traditional zombie movies, the zombies are slow and lumbering. Since I only dream about traditional zombies, this dream nixed the running zombies in favor of the lumbering variety.

The zombies were attacking and entering Madhava Gosh’s house. But we weren’t really all that freaked out. See, these zombies didn’t seem to be too much of a threat to us, only a mere annoyance.

And that’s the feeling throughout the dream. Annoyance. Gosh was directing people through his house so that they could hide from the zombies, but there wasn’t terror. Just annoyance.

I actually woke up a few times annoyed that I was dreaming this and hoping that I wouldn’t fall back asleep and continue with the nocturnal narration. But that thought was soon met with Zzzz’s and it was back to work avoiding the annoying zombies. Clearly, in my half-sleep delirium, I didn’t realize just how incredibly awesome this dream was.

Nobody died or really much noticed that New Vrndavana was overrun with zombies. Yeah, we were annoyed, but ducking upstairs (Gosh’s dream house has a second floor) did the trick.

The zombies got into the house, but the annoyance factor woke me up again and, being 6am-ish, I stayed awake.

It was weird/fun/annoying to see New Vrindaban’s woods and groves crawling with zombies. That makes it.. New Vrin-ZOMBIE!!
Best. Dhama. EVER!

A long, long time ago, on another coast, I picked up the Gaudiya Math’s version of the Srimad Bhagavatam. I’m not really sure why I did it, but I must have been trying to add to the library and curiosity most definitely played a role.

It is in English and it’s not at all easy to follow. I was expecting a verse-by-verse translation with purport on some/many verses, like Srila Prabhupada’s. But I don’t think it’s that at all.

I think it does contain every verse, as translated (as far as I can tell) by Tridandi Sri Bhakti Prajnan Yati. It claims on the title page that it has “purport folling the commentary of Sri Vishvanatha Chakravarty & the annotation of His Divine Grace Sri Srimad Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami Thakur.” That’s all well and good, but it’s not really clear where the sastra stops and the purports, commentary or annotations begin or end.

But then there’s the introduction… that’s where you find out where the author really stands.

I believe that it was written around 1982ish – a handful of years after Srila Prabhupada left our mortal vision. And so, Yati, the author, takes a few philosophical stabs at Srila Prabhupada.

This is nothing new and it’s not necessarily anything horrible. Even though we are on the same path, there may be disagreements on details.

Here is what is said:

One of his [Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's] disciples who later on became internationally famed as Swami A.C. Bhakti Vedanta being the founder of International Society for Krishna Consciousness, brought out most beautiful and costly edition of Srimad Bhagavatam in English. But he left this world before he could complete the entire work. He could get the book published upto ninth Canto with exhaustive purport under his own guide-line and the tenth Canto he brought out in two separate book-forms under the caption ‘Sri Krishna’ with his fanciful translation without any purport. His this tremendous undertaking must be applauded. But I have to apologise for pointing out some greatest mistakes that have crept in his renderings which go against the very foundation of Bhagavata-cult, and as it were, like some white marks of leprosy on the most beautiful and lovely countenance of a princess.

He goes on to detail, through several pages, what he feels are mistakes. They deal with the constitutional position of Mother Yashoda and the gopis. In dealing with that, the author refers to Srila Prabhupada as “silly and blasphemous.” That’s sort of harsh. He throws the word “blasphemy” around a bit more.

The author then goes on to “rewrite” some of what Prabhupada said, saying that “instead it should be…” A few “wrong representations” and “has not done proper justices” later, and he begins nit-picking over some very minor details that seem more lost in translation than anything.

This author, in his introduction, comes off as petty. I’m tempted to say “envious,” but I don’t know his heart and don’t care to make such a statement. But he is definitely petty and misunderstanding much of what he is complaining about.

He speaks of Srila Prabhupada for five or six pages and then moves on to how others have interpreted the Bhagavatam. Then, a handful of disagreements later, he makes his way back to Srila Prabhupada, this time about the origin of the jiva. What Srila Prabhupada actually said on this matter is still being argued today. But for the sake of argument, the author has Prabhupada take a counter position.

While I said “petty,” I believe the author has also brought up some very important points. Is Srila Prabhupada really “blasphemous”? Now, I tend to think not, but still, having these points refuted would be lovely.

If someone were willing to post a rebuttal against Tridandi Sri Bhakti Prajnan Yati’s statements on Srila Prabhupada, I would be more than willing to post them here. This devotee would have to be fairly learned in Srimad Bhagavatam. I could send them what Yati has written and then would post both arguments.

Could be fun and a learning experience for all!

It was well over a year and a half ago (May ‘07) that I started a fun little project that compared four different Gaudia-vaisnava versions of the Bhagavad-gita. It’s been over a year since I’ve even attempted that. Strange how time flies.

While the response wasn’t overwhelming and I’ve never had anyone approach me on the street and beg of me, “hey, when are you going to do more Gita comparisons,” I had a good time with it, so I think I’ll be starting it up again.

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

While each Gita was translated and purported by devotees (Gaudia Vaisnavas), each did so with specific and differing goals in mind. Srila Prabhupada was introducing the west to a translation and commentary done by someone who practices what the Gita preaches. Tripurari Swami draws on the more emotional side, but never leaves the philosophical. Narayana Maharaja’s seems to be writing to a friend, also including comments by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. Garuda dasa’s is the most different of them all, he focuses not on commentary, but on the Gita as poetry. That’s nothing new, but it’s the first time it’s been done (in a respectable way) by a devotee.

Like Garuda prabhu, I won’t be focusing upon the commentaries very much. I’ll pretty much reference them only if they specifically pertain to the verses themselves. My job is to simply compare one translation to the next and the next. Any commentary of my own that I give with be either accidental or speculative, so be mindful of that as you read.

This will be a weekly endeavor and will be posted on Sundays. I’ll be drawing verses mostly from the book Srila Prabhupada Slokas, which presents many verses that he used day-to-day. These verses, especially the Bhagavad-gita ones, seem to me to be the most helpful in our daily spiritual as well as material lives.

With four different perspectives on the same divine source, hopefully we all can find a little something to take away from it, even if you’re not a devotee or even interested in spirituality. The Bhagavad-gita, in its many translations, has been studied by all sorts of people. I’m sure you’ll discover something here.

I think I’ll focus on the third and fourth chapters for a bit. I’ll be starting with 4.38. But if you have any requests, let me know, this could be a really fun group project.

Also if there are any other gaudia-vaisnava Gitas out there, I’d love to throw them into the mix as well. I was under the impression that Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote one, but all I can find is his commentary on the Gita, not a translation of it into English. Did Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati do a Gita in English? I’d be surprised if he didn’t.

Anyway, you can see some past examples of it here.

See you Sunday!

It was easy to write for The Hing when I didn’t have all that much else to do. I started it as I was wrapping up the sale of my store. Then, when I was staying at New Vrndavana, the ideas and articles pretty much wrote themselves. I even had enough articles to cover the months when I was traveling around the country. When I returned to Pennsylvania, again, the articles came to me very easily.

But since moving to Seattle, life has been turned upsidedown. It’s a good thing in a lot of ways. I’m really really enjoying this place. But getting to a know a new city (and new coast) isn’t exactly conducive to writing.

I’ve had a few submissions and a few good ones that I’ll eventually use. But my own ideas have been few and far between. Something on the guru school would be nice, maybe on the TVP (because if you name something TVP, it deserves a good ripping), or perhaps something on the ISKCON constitution (though, you know, oh my god … boring!).

Then a couple of days ago, I started to work on a holidays “fluff” piece about a temple that got really into the Christmas spirit. The hook was going to be that they dressed their deities as Santa and Mrs. Claus.

I had some details worked out, a bit of a story line floating around in my head. And then I was sent this…

These aren't just Christmas outfits. These are full on Santa suits. The only thing missing is the beard (and, quite honestly, I'm disappointed that the cheesy, stick-on beard isn't there...).

One of the fun things about writing satire is that you often walk the thin line between fiction and reality. For instance, look how many devotees believed that a fallen ISKCON guru used his mad guru skillz to become a very nice used car salesman. I still get emails asking for more information about Ex-ISKCON guru, John O’Brien. While it’s a fiction piece, it’s close enough to our reality to make us think it’s possible, even probable (because it is).

But sometimes, and with increasing regularity, I’m seeing things in reality that should only happen in satire. What could and should be The Hing’s pages are springing to life all around ISKCON!

This makes it very difficult to write.

So simmer down, ISKCON! Get back to being just plain old weird. These ventures into the realm of “creepy,” “really creepy” and “ew, back off please” are my territory! You are stealing my stories and ideas. Stop that.

ISKCON, get out of my head!