Sit Properly

Each week I select a verse from the Bhagavad-gita and compare/contrast four different translations. These translators all subscribe to the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy. This examination isn’t to prove one more superior to another, but to highlight the similarities and learn from the differences in ideologies.

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)

Though I’m hardly qualified to do so, I dissect each translation, sometimes interjecting my own unsolicited commentary. More on this can be found here.

For this week’s verse, we’re dipping back into Chapter 4, generally titled “Jnana Yoga” (“Yoga of Knowledge), but titled “Transcendental Knowledge” by Srila Prabhupada.

At the beginning of this chapter, Arjuna asks Krishna how he (Krishna) taught Vivasvan, even though Krishna was born much, much after Vivasvan was born. Krishna explains that we’ve all had many lives and while we can’t remember them, Krishna can. He manifests Himself for specific reasons when He comes to the material world. He explains a few verse prior that He comes to protect the saintly. He explains that those who understand this do not have to take birth again – they are liberated if they take refuge in Him.

All of them – as they surrender unto Me – I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O Son of Prtha.
-Srila Prabhupada

In whatever way people take refuge in me, I reciprocate with them accordingly. Everyone in all circumstances, O son of Prtha, follows my path.
-Tripurari Swami

O Partha! As all surrender to Me and perform My bhajana, I reciprocate accordingly. Every follows My path in all respects.
-Narayana Maharaja

In the way they offer
    themselves to me,
    in just that way
    I offer my love
    to them reciprocally.
Human beings
    follow my path
    universallly,
    O Partha.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

To understand what Krishna meant as “they” and “all of them,” we have to look to the previous verse. “They” refers to those who have been purified by the light of knowledge and have attained love of God.

The first line, ye yatha mam prapadyante, is nicely translated by all four of our authors. It is interesting that both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja gloss the word yatha as “as” while Tripurari Swami takes it to mean “in whatever way.” Garuda dasa seems to have it as “In the way.” In this context, they all mean about the same thing.

There are many different paths to God. Here, Krishna is saying “however you worship, if you surrender to Me (God)…” and then continues to the next line.

Tams tathaiva bhajamy aham. I like how Garuda dasa puts this: “in just that way I offer my love to them reciprocally.” The other translators keep it simple with “I reciprocate (or “reward” according to Srila Prabhupada) accordingly.” The Sanskrit word bhajami was translated by Narayana Maharaja and Garuda as “love and reciprocate.” Those who have love of God, receive love of God.

In last week’s verse, I (and others) claimed that there seemed to be a contradiction between the first half and second half of the verse. Of course, that’s not actually so, but it appears to be. This verse in similar in that respect.

The first half is speaking about those who have (and thus receive) love of God. The second half, deals with everyone else.

Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja both translate it exactly as “Everyone follows My path in all respects…” Tripurari Swami replaces “respects” with “circumstances.” Garuda dasa translates it as “universally.” We all follow God’s path.

But that’s clearly not the case. Some of us are Hare Krishnas, some are Christians or Jewish or Muslims. Some follow Buddhism, which is atheistic. Some are just atheists.

Of the theists and even folks like the Buddhists, it isn’t too difficult to understand that we are all following some path that eventually leads to God. As Srila Prabhupada says in his purport, “all kinds of spiritual processes are but different degrees of success on the same path.” There are many religions that don’t believe that, that believe their way is the only way, but I disagree and so, it seems, does the Bhagavad-gita.

According to Bhaktivinoda Thakura (as related by Narayana Maharaja in his purport), Krishna reciprocates “with whatever intention or faith they have in relation to Krishna. Everyone can certainly attain Me, because I am the ultimate objective of all paths.”

Each week I select a verse from the Bhagavad-gita and compare/contrast four different translations. These translators all subscribe to the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy. This examination isn’t to prove one more superior to another, but to highlight the similarities and learn from the differences in ideologies.

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)

Though I’m hardly qualified to do so, I dissect each translation, sometimes interjecting my own unsolicited commentary. More on this can be found here.

This week’s verse comes from Chapter 9: Raja-Guhya-yoga, also called The Yoga of Hidden Treasure and the King of Secrets. This chapter deals with the most important knowledge.

The Bhagavad-gita is a conversation between Krishna (God) and Arjuna (His devotee). Arjuna is asking questions and Krishna in answering them. Arjuna’s last question was at the beginning of Chapter 8. Since then, Krishna has covered a lot of topics, from the importance of our last thought to explaining the entire material existence. He’s on a roll.

He just finished up teaching Arjuna the proper ways to worship Him. After He speaks this verse, He continues explaining worship and its rewards. This verse gives a small glimpse into God’s nature and position.

I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.
-Srila Prabhupada

I am impartial to all beings. I hate no one and I favor no one. However, those who worship me with devotion are in me, and I am also in them.
-Tripurari Swami

I am equal to all living beings and am neither inimical nor partial to anyone. But as those who serve Me with bhakti are attached to Me, so too am I bound by affection for them.
-Narayana Maharaja

I am the same
    towards all beings;
    no one is either hated
    or dearly loved by me.
Yet those who,
    with an offering of love,
    offer their love to me -
    they are in me
    and I am also in them.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Translating from the Sanskrit is no easy task. Each of our esteemed authors must make tough decisions about where to place which phrases. Garuda dasa chooses to follow the Sanskrit poetical flow as closely as possible. Tripurari Swami seems to keep it as simple as he can, adding no extra content to the verses. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja both take liberties not only in placement of phrases, but in the addition of ideas to explain the verse.

The first line, samo’ham sarva-bhutesu is similarly translated by all four: “I am equal to all.” Srila Prabhupada choses to translate the second line before the first line, but his verses often have to be taken as a whole.

Tripurari Swami translates samah as “impartial” rather than “equal.” Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja are, of course, not indicating that Krishna is equal to us, that we are the same, that we are God. The meaning is that Krishna is impartial. Garuda dasa (whose edition provides no word-for-word analysis of the original Sanskrit) seems to have translated it as “the same towards.”

Srila Prabhupada placed the second line before the first. In his edition, Krishna explains that He envies no one and that He is not partial to anyone. He then states that He is equal to all. Prabhupada actually translates samah as “equally disposed” in his word-for-word.

Tripurari Swami translates na me dvesyo ‘sti na priyaha, the second line, as “I hate no one and I favor no one.” “Hate” has been translated from dvesyah. Narayana Maharaja also translates it as “hated,” though chooses the word “inimical” in his verse. Garuda dasa also uses “hated.”

While Srila Prabhupada glosses dvesyah as “hateful,” he choses to verse it as “envy.” This is interesting that he is equating envy with hate. We usually think of envy as a strong form of coveting or even obsessive admiration. But true envy cannot exist without hatred (and often that is also hatred of oneself).

Three of our translators chose the word “dear” from priyah. In their verses, they used “partial” or in Tripurari Swami’s case, “favor.” However, Garuda dasa oddly chose “dearly loved.” His exact line is: “no one is either hated or dearly loved by me.” This seems a bit extreme. True, when something is dear to you, it is loved by you. So it’s not that his translation is incorrect. But saying that God does not love anyone seems a bit misleading.

That is, however, the nature of this verse. It is contradictory. In the first two lines, Krishna is telling us that He is impartial, that He favors nobody over another. But that all changes in the second part of the verse.

With the tiny Sanskrit word tu, Krishna throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing. Tu means “but” or “yet.” So even though all of this may be true, that Krishna is impartial and doesn’t favor one person over another… tu. There is an exception. Who is this exception?

Ye bhajanti tu mam bhaktya – However, those who worship Me with devotion….

Devotees of God are the exception.

As Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami translate bhajanti as the more traditional “worship,”
Srila Prabhupada translates bhajanti as “render transcendental service.” All Gaudia-Vaisnavas agree that service to God is worship, but Srila Prabhupada often drove this point home. Here is another such example. Instead of simply translating bhajanti as worship, he translates it as “devotional service.”

I usually enjoy Garuda dasa’s translation. Sometimes it may be quite different from (though never at odds with) the other translations. He truly captures the poetry contained in the Bhagavad-gita. Oddly, In this case I guess I just don’t get it. “Yet those who, with an offering of love, offer their love to me…” The purpose in his translation was to follow the Sanskrit as closely as possible. He nearly always takes it line-by-line, and though he may sometimes choose words that seem strange, he rarely, if ever, departs from the flow of the original poetry like he does here.

Maybe it’s a typo. His typical four lines are now an inexplicable five with two of the lines repeating the same idea. “With an offering of love, offer their love to me” just doesn’t make any sense. Maybe he was trying to decide between the two lines and accidentally left them both in. Though sloppy, that would at least explain it. “Yet those who offer their love to me…” makes sense, even if it has no mention of worship or devotional service. I’m honestly baffled by this one.

Moving on, mayi te tesu capy aham is a very sweet line. I find Srila Prabhupada’s to be the sweetest here: “… is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.” Narayana Maharaja puts it similarly, “… are attached to Me, so too am I bound by affection for them.” In the original Sanskrit there is no mention of attachment or friendship. It is simply, as Tripuari Swami and Garuda dasa both put it, “… are in me, and I am also in them.”

Though there is no specific mention in the verse of such a reciprocal relationship, a devotee understands that “I am in them and they are in Me” is very reciprocal.

We, as Gaudia-Vaisnavas, believe in a personalist philosophy. God isn’t just all around us or somewhere off in heaven. We believe that He is a person and that we have a relationship with Him (and He with us). This verse confirms that if we love God, He reciprocates. While He is fully impartial to everyone, He favors those that favor Him. Isn’t this natural?

Srila Prabhupada concludes his purport by saying, “Devotional service of the Lord is not an activity of this material world; it is part of the spiritual world where eternity, bliss and knowledge predominate.”

All three of the purports to this verse (Garuda dasa’s translation contains only the verses – without commentary) are very worth reading. Any honest student of the Bhagavad-gita would be greatly benefited by obtaining and studying at least these three books.

This week’s Gita Comparisons verse comes from Chapter Four. Verses in this chapter mean a lot to me. When I was having some trouble getting my head wrapped around Krishna consciousness, I picked up Srila Prabhupada’s book Vraja-vidya: The King of Knowledge. Many of the verses covered in that book come from Chapter Four.

One of the fun things about doing these comparisons is that, upon first read, the verses all appear pretty similar and pretty basic. But once you start jumping into the nitty gritty, things take off and it gets really exciting.

I’m not sure how many actually read on after a quick glance at the verses, but if you do, I hope some of this excitement comes through. This really can be a bunch of fun!

Let’s go!

One is understood to be in full knowledge whose every act is devoid of desire for sense gratification. He is said by sages to be a worker whose fruitive action is burned up by the fire of perfect knowledge.
-Srila Prabhupada

A person who has removed desire and motivation from his undertakings, and consumed his karmic reactions in the fire of knowledge is called a sage by the wise.
-Tripurari Swami

He whose every action is free from hankering for pleasure, having burnt all fruitive desires in the fire of pure knowledge, is called a pandita by the wise.
-Narayana Maharaja

One whose every
    endeavor is without
    the intention of
    selfish desire,
Whose actions
    have been consumed
    by the fire of knowledge -
    those of discernment
    call the person learned.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

This verse is a good example of a few different ways to layout a verse from sanskrit. It’s also a good example of a few different ways to say the same thing.

Srila Prabhupada once again demonstrates that his translation is not simply a translation – it’s also an explanation. He provides exposition in his verses. This would explain why one can read just his verses and derive a deeper meaning out of that than to simply read any ol’ translation. It must bug scholars of Sanskrit something ferocious.

Though Garuda dasa’s selection of words to use is, at times, bewildering, his translation and structure is nearly identical to that of the Sanskrit. It’s nice to have two polar opposites in our tradition and at our disposal.

Garuda dasa translates “One whose every endeavor is without the intention of selfish desire…” This is following very closely to the Sanskrit. Narayana Maharaja also follows closely: “He whose every action is free from hankering for pleasure…” Tripurari Swami’s rendition is a bit broader, “A person who has removed desire and motivation from his undertakings…”

Srila Prabhupada actually dips into the end of the verse right in the beginning. However, he also covers the end of the verse at the end. He writes: “One is understood to be in full knowledge whose every act is devoid of desire for sense gratification.” The phrase “is understood to be in full knowledge” does not appear in the Sanskrit. Perhaps Prabhupada wanted to make sure the reader understood the intent of the verse right away.

“Every endeavor,” “every action,” “undertakings,” and “every act” are all very similar. Only Garuda dasa’s “every endeavor” denotes desire, since “endeavor” indicates attempt at action, rather than just action. In his word-for-word section, Srila Prabhupada glosses the Sanskrit word samarambhah as “in all attempts,” giving weight to Garuda’s choice of words. In fact, Narayana Maharaja defines it exactly as “endeavor.”

The second line, kama-sankalpa-varjitah, is to betaken as one thought. Garuda dasa translates it as “without the intention of selfish desire.” Again, Narayana Maharaja, following close to the original Sanskrit structure, is similar: “free from hankering for pleasure.” Tripurari Swami, who has changed the tense a bit, translates, “removed desire and motivation.” Srila Prabhupada has it as, “devoid of desire for sense gratification.”

Tripurari Swami’s relation of this is a bit strange at first. While the other writers, more or less, relate that this person’s actions are free from desire, Tripurari Swami writes that this person has removed that desire from the actions. Though it may not be strictly in the Sanskrit, it’s fitting. He, in his own word-for-word, defines varjitah as “devoid” (meaning devoid of desire). Though in his translation, he uses “removed,” indicating that this is a process. The desire was once there, but it has been removed, seemingly be this person.

I say “seemingly” because the word sankalpa. It has been defined as “determination” and “motivation,” but according to Tripurari Swami’s purport (which references Madhusudana Saraswati), sankalpa “indicates a sense of agentship, thinking oneself the doer.” So, while this person has removed this desire, the actual remover (the actual doer) is the Lord.

In comparing the translations of the second part of the verse, we’ll have to jump around with word tense a bit. Srila Prabhupada uses present tense, while the rest use past.

The third line of the verse, jnanagni-dagdha-karmanam, is “backwards” when looked up by our English-centric minds. Srila Prabhupada translates it that fruitive action (karmanam) is burned up (dagdha) by the fire of perfect knowledge (jnanagni).

All agree in “the fire of knowledge.” However, while Srila Prabhupada translates karmanam as “fruitive action” and Tripurari Swami writes it as the similar “karmic reactions,” Narayana Maharaja expands it to mean “fruitive desires,” to indicate that it’s not just our actions that give us reaction, but our desires as well (a point well worth noting). Garuda dasa simply uses “action.”

The last line explains who this person is and who can see this person for what he or she is. The phrase tam ahuh panditam budhah means: the wise (budhah) call him (tam ahuh) a sage (panditam).

Srila Prabhupada takes some liberties in his presentation. His verse must be taken as a whole rather than line by line. His last line is mostly from the verse’s third line. He, however, clears it up in his purport. “Only a person in full knowledge can understand the activities of a person in Krishna consciousness.”

Tripuari Swami and Narayana Maharaja more closely follow the Sanskrit. Tripurari Swami writes that this person “is called a sage by the wise.” Narayana Maharaja uses the Sanskrit pandita instead of “sage.” Incidentally, pandita is where we get the English word “pundit.” Both have very similar meanings.

Garuda dasa translates that “those of discernment call that person learned.” “Discernment” is a very interesting choice of words. It not only denotes wisdom, but discrimination. When one can discriminate based upon the three modes of material nature (goodness, passion and ignorance), then the true nature of a person can be seen. As we know, the modes of nature can entangle us, but they can also give liberation. We must discern between pure devotional service and mixed devotional service.

This verse describes a person in pure devotional service. This person has removed the desire for sense enjoyment and has burned his actions in the fire of knowledge. We must become budhah, wise to see this (or to see if we do not see this). This is especially important when choosing a teacher or guru to follow. We must learn to discrimination in order to see whether or not this devotee is pure. If we can’t see that this person is free from the desire for sense gratification, we will never know if he or she is truly qualified.

From such a simple Gita verse we can learn many things.

The Bhagavad-gita verse that I’ve picked for this week comes from Chapter 8: Attaining the Supreme. The original Sanskrit title of this chapter is Taraka Brahma Yoga. Directly translated, it’s The Yoga of Attaining the Absolute (as translated by Tripurari Swami).

Each week, I am choosing a Bhagavad-gita verse and sharing four different Gaudia-Vaisnava translations of it. I then pick it apart and sometimes interject my own unsolicited commentary.

Chapter Eight begins with Arjuna asking Krishna some very important questions. He asks “what is the absolute truth? what is karma?” Krishna then teaches him that whatever one remembers at the time of death is what he attains in his next life. Those who remember the Supreme Lord, attain Him.

Bhagavad-gita 8.16 sums up the first part of the chapter and of Krishna’s teachings.

From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.
-Srila Prabhupada

O Arjuna, all realms of existence up to and including the abode of Brahma are places from which one must again return. Only on who reaches me is never reborn.
-Tripurari Swami

O Arjuna, all planets in this universe up to Brahma-loka are places of repeated birth and death, but one who attains Me, O Kaunteya, never takes birth again.
-Narayana Maharaja

From the earth up to
    the realm of Brahma,
    the worlds undergo
    repeated cycle, O Arjuna.
Having come to me,
    however, O Kaunteya,
    one does not find
    repeated birth.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Arjuna is not addressed by name until the end of the first stanza of the verse (‘rjuna). While Srila Prabhupada skips this entirely, both Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja begin their translations with “O Arjuna.” Garuda dasa’s poetic translation stays as true as possible to the original sanskrit, placing this addressing at the end of the first stanza. While this does not add or take away from the meaning of the verse, it’s a good example in showing the different personalities of the different translations, especially Garuda dasa’s which strives to be as poetically accurate as possible.

The Sanskrit actually starts off as Srila Prabhupada and Garuda dasa have translated. Though the original text does not state that it is speaking specifically of planets “in the material world,” Srila Prabhupada adds that phrase where the others do not.

Loka, as many devotees know, is often translated as “planet.” Tripurari Swami translates it as “realms of existence,” which seems to indicate that not only is it planets in the material world, but everywhere in the material world, planetary or not.

Srila Prabhupada translates that it is the highest planet to the lowest. Tripurari Swami’s translation puts it that it is “up to and including the abode of Brahma.” Narayana Maharaja’s is roughly the same.

However, Garuda dasa’s leaves out the lower planets, stating “earth up to the realm of Brahma.” I’m not sure why this is as there is no word-for-word commentary in his edition. It can be deduced that bhuvanal, which is basically translated by the other three devotees as “all the way up to [Brahma-loka, the highest planet],” may have the starting point of the speaker. Meaning, when Krishna says bhuvanal, it means “from here on up.” Obviously the lower planets aren’t to be left out of the material world.

Continuing on, Srila Prabhupada, when compared to the others, is a little wordy. The Sanskrit phrase punah avartinah literally means “again returning.” Srila Prabhupada expands on this, describing these realms as “places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place.” He seems to be explaining the verse as he is translating it. While this might not suit some Sanskrit scholars, I personally enjoy when he does this.

Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja both stick closer to a literal translation: “places form which one must again return” and “places of repeated birth and death” respectively.

Garuda dasa’s translation is a bit more vague, “the worlds undergo repeated cycles.” It’s times like this when I wish he would have also published a word-for-word. It’s true, the worlds and all of material creation undergo repeated cycles, but if punah avartinah means “again returning” with avartinah emphasizing birth and death, why translate it in such a removed fashion?

The second part of the verse clarifies any confusion. It explains that one who reaches Krishna never experiences this repeated birth and death again.

Mam upetya means “arriving unto me” or, in this case, “Attaining the Supreme.” Srila Prabhupada translates it “attains My abode.” While the other three translate it as “attains Me.”

In Krishna consciousness, we believe in a truly absolute God. There is no difference between the abode of God and God Himself.

Krishna explains this material world is one of misery. While it might seem pretty good here and there, it’s not at all comparable to God. In fact, there really is no comparison. As Tripurari Swami states in his purport, “a life of spiritual culture is infinitely better than a life motivated by materialistic values.”