Bhagavad-gita: Those who have love of God, receive love of God (4.11)
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.
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvarttante
manusyah partha sarvasah
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 SwamiO Partha! As all surrender to Me and perform My bhajana, I reciprocate accordingly. Every follows My path in all respects.
-Narayana MaharajaIn 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.”
Related posts:
01/25/2009 at 12:28 pm
I’m enjoying these series of posts, and have learned a lot. Thank you for posting them.
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 1:11 pm
And thanks a bunch for reading them. Doing these is one of the big highlights of my week.
Thanks!
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 2:38 pm
I really enjoy these as well, I’ve only recently began reading a Gita besides Prabhupada’s translation (a.being a new devotee and b.having everyone tell me its bad for my bhakti to read anyone elses). Great to see a comparison, Tripurari Swami’s seems to be the most straight forward.
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 4:26 pm
i’ve been giving a lot of thought to a certain aspect of this lately. to wit: if god is by nature absolute and infinite, then god would absolutely / infinitely transcend everything while being absolutely / infinitely immanent within everything (hence, all paths of necessity lead back to god). a neat fall out from this is that this absolute transcendence / immanence action would of necessity include the concepts of “existence” and “nonexistence”. thus atheism is merely the necessary working out of an aspect of god’s being-in-nonexistence. so: christopher hitchens and that crew are faithful followers of the religious function of understanding and following the ways of what one might call “god’s material energy”.
ah. fun. this would probably make richard dawkins cry. hehe.
oh, and its probably incorrect to say that buddhists are atheistic. at least in how this term is used in theological discourse today. it would probably be more accurate to say something like: buddhists have a nontheistic conception of godhead. tho even that would be incorrect. nagarjuna, would say that the “ultimate” is “empty of every thing” including emptiness. his, and i would argue buddhism’s, issue with theism is how it can objectify god and thus place limitations. much in the same way we as a culture objectify women, thus placing limitations on them. so, buddhism’s nontheism is a way of trying to de-objectify the divine.
ryan b. might have other thoughts on this.
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 10:27 pm
Well, it certainly isn’t bad for bhakti to hear from other realized devotees. Quite the opposite, the Gita itself encourages us to do so!
Tripurari Swami’s verses are definitely the truest to the Sanskrit. But Srila Prabhupada’s purports are the basis. If you’re going to check out other versions, I find that it’s good to read them along with Prabhupada’s. Not for making sure the others are “right,” but for clarity and exposition.
Though I don’t write much about the purports, I read them while writing these posts. They’re great! I really suggest them all!
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 10:33 pm
Heyya! I was going to address the atheism bits and even wrote a paragraph or two about it, but for the sake of brevity, nixed it.
You’re right about buddhism being more nontheistic than atheistic, but that wasn’t really my point. If I were writing only about Buddhism, then yeah, I would delve into this in great depth. But since it’s a post about the Gita, it seems more like semantics.
I could have substituted “Buddhism” with any other religion in this post, it doesn’t really matter if the conclusion is that all paths, in some way or another, lead back to God.
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 10:50 pm
good point.
tho, on the flip side, semantics can be important here, in that: if all paths lead back to god, then all paths are somehow necessary and important in that they all reveal something to us, thru their emphasis, about the nature and working of the divine. this means that, in some sense, religions are engaged in a conversation (which sometimes gets pretty heated, he says, aware of the incredible understatement), helping one another understand god.
so, saying that buddhism is “atheistic” creates a false impression, and would lump buddhism in with atheism proper in many people’s minds. conversely, “nontheistic” (or whatever other random similar term we could make up) is an unfamiliar word to most of us and thus allows room for probing and questioning what buddhism has to offer in the understanding god, that is distinct from what atheism has to offer.
mmmmmmm…. semantics.
why am i harping on about buddhism? who knows. maybe because the heart sutra is a sweet fucking ride!
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 10:53 pm
oops. i effed up the whole reply, conversation flow thing. sorry.
bah! techmology! screw you techmology!
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 10:58 pm
Nono. stop that!
Oddly, Ryan and I were talking about the guy who said “sweet fucking ride” a lot. But I can’t remember his name. Help?
[Reply]
01/25/2009 at 10:58 pm
Ohhh you knucklehead!
[Reply]
01/26/2009 at 3:13 am
According to the devotees intensity of love they will be rewarded, Srila Prabhupada’s says in his purport to this.
This seems so me a very encouraging and practical verse. I feel that ‘intention’ is very important.
“And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make” whoops sorry Eric that’s The Beatles.
[Reply]
01/26/2009 at 7:39 am
Intention is definitely what it’s about. The impersonalists attain Krishna too, but it’s the external energy. Still Krishna, of course, but not His personality. But then, they’re not seeking His personality. It sort of all works out.
The Beatles got a few things right (side 2 of Abbey Road, for example).
[Reply]
01/26/2009 at 9:47 am
well, it was joe kelly that announced the advent of “sweet fucking ride”; and joe kelly was refering to the immortal adam d smith with said annouancement.
everyone, in your best ronnie james dio impersonation: “saataaaaan flowing thru the streets! blooooood on the children’s feet!”
[Reply]
01/26/2009 at 9:58 am
Joe Kelly! That’s right! And Adam D Smith was the fellow. Thanks! That helps quite a lot.
Satan flowed through the streets? Flowed? Really? Weird. I guess that’s what I always sang, but never really stopped to think about Satan flowing. *Can* Satan actually flow? Weird.
[Reply]
01/26/2009 at 7:15 pm
i guess so. at least according to adam d smith. who, as we know, is a sweet fucking ride. and thus: always correct.
must be one of those mysteries of the ages type things.
[Reply]
01/27/2009 at 8:45 pm
Adam D Smith! Awesome! Truly, his ride was fucking sweet.
What metal kid uses a middle initial?
[Reply]