Bhagavad-gita: Take shelter, such worry is useless (18.66)
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)
This week, our verse is taken from the last chapter. It’s one of the final instructions to Arjuna from Krishna. Srila Prabhupada entitles this chapter “The Perfection of Renunciation.” However Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami call it “Moksa Yoga” and “Yoga of Freedom.” In this chapter we find that surrendering to God is actual freedom. And this verse explains that through surrendering to God, we gain true freedom from religion. It’s pretty intense.
sarva-dharman parityajya
mam ekam saranam vraja
aham tvam sarva-papebhyo
moksayisyami ma sucah
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.
-Srila Prabhupada
Forgoing all religious injunctions, take exclusive refuge in me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
-Tripurari SwamiCompletely abandoning all bodily and mental dharma, such as varna and asrama, fully surrender to Me alone. I shall liberate you from all reactions to your sins. Do no grieve.
-Narayana MaharajaCompletely relinquishing all forms of dharma, come to me as your only shelter. I shall grant you freedom from all misfortune - do not despair! -Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)
This was the first verse that I was to memorize when I moved into a temple. I got the English down without too much of a struggle, but the Sanskrit was tough and it took me about a month of daily recitation for much to stick. Today, twelve or thirteen years later, I still know the first two lines. The third line is completely wiped from my Kali-yuga memory, but the last line, with the fun-to-say word “moksayisyami” and the fun-to-quote “ma sucah” is still there. Plainly, I cannot memorize stuff very well. I’m surprised that I’ve retained as much of this as I have.
The first line, sarva-darman parityajya, is translated as “abandoning (or forgoing) all dharma.” Now, to me, it’s sort of impossible to translate from a language while still using bits of that language. And while Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami accommodate this idea, Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa both stick to the word “dharma.”
All here agree that parityajya means to abandon. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja both use that word specifically. Tripurari Swami uses “forgoing,” and Garuda dasa uses “relinquishing.” They all basically mean the same thing.
Also, all agree that the first word, sarva, means “all.” But with dharman, we get some difference. This isn’t surprising since dharma can mean a slew of different things. Srila Prabhupada’s seems to be the most bold here. He tells us to “Abandon all varieties of religion….” Tripurari Swami’s seems a bit more specific with “Forgoing all religious injunctions….” But in Narayana Maharaja’s and Garuda dasa’s, their use of a Sanskrit word in their translation seems odd.
Narayana Maharaja’s edition adds quite a lot to the verse: “Completely abandoning all bodily and mental dharma, such as varna and asrama….” He not only uses dharma, but also varna and asrama. In his case, that’s fairly forgivable since his audience is not the neophyte. He’s writing for folks who already have an understanding of these words. Also, in his very long purport (like in Srila Prabhupada’s and Tripurari Swami’s) he fully explains the verse.
Garuda dasa’s use of the word dharma is, to me, troubling. “Completely relinquishing all forms of dharma….” Certainly translating dharma in such a collegiate book would be controversial. His footnote for this verse simply states: “Forms of dharma: Translates the plural form of dharma.” Now, his job isn’t to explain every aspect of the Gita. He is simply a translator. His short explanation of the Gita as a whole, in the back of the book, sheds no more light onto the subject.
This verse’s second line, mam ekam saranam vraja, also shows some difference, but ultimately, they are in concert. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja are the most closely related. Srila Prabhupada’s “just surrender unto Me” and Narayana Maharaja’s “fully surrender to Me alone” both cover the same ground. Tripurari Swami has it as, “take exclusive refuge in me.” While I don’t agree with how he has decapitalized “me,” I do appreciate “refuge.” Garuda dasa’s “come to me as your only shelter” also is very nice. The more strict translation of saranam as “surrender” could be carelessly taken the wrong way. This certainly isn’t the fault of Srila Prabhupada or Narayana Maharaja – in both of their purports this is cleared up.
Narayana Maharaja adds Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s translation of “take exclusive shelter in Me.” Srila Prabhupada explains, “with faith and love, one should surrender unto Him [Krishna].” This isn’t submission or coercion. This isn’t a surrender after being defeated by guilt or so-called “fear of God.” This is surrendering through love. This truly is taking “shelter,” taking “refuge.”
The third line and a bit of the fourth, aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami, is translated by Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja in nearly identical ways. Both Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami translate: “I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction,” though Tripurari Swami makes “reaction” plural. Narayana Maharaja puts it, “I shall liberate you from all reactions to your sins.” It’s basically the same, though he specifically mentions “liberation” and glosses moksayisyami as “shall free” rather than “deliver.”
Garuda dasa, again, seems to vague-up the translation. He has it, “I shall grant you freedom from all misfortune….” While “freedom” would be a great word to use if he also used the word “surrender” earlier in the verse, his use of the word “misfortune” is odd. Throughout the Gita, we learn that misfortune comes from reaction to our “sins.” Now, in Sanskrit, there really isn’t a word for what we in the west know as “sin.” It’s not that we believe sinful actions don’t exist, it’s just a different understanding of “sin.”
I was raised with the idea of “original sin” and have talked about that a long time ago here. Because of this upbringing, I’m no fan of the word “sin.” However, in this verse, Krishna is not attempting to use guilt or fear to get us to surrender to Him. He simply states “I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction.” The key word here is “reaction.” It’s clear that He is speaking of our karma. This would naturally include not only our “bad” karma, but also our “good.” But here He specifically uses papebhyah, glossed by all as “sinful reactions.”
Though I’m no fan of the word “sin,” I am less of a fan of the use of the word “misfortune” in its stead. Though it is not the point of the verse, it makes it clear that it is not simply “misfortune,” it’s not that some crappy accidents keep happening to us, it’s a reaction for the things we have done. God will deliver us from our own evil (to use a biblical expression) if we take shelter in Him alone.
The last phrase ma sucah, is comforting. Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami both translate it “do not fear.” Narayana Maharaja chose “do not grieve,” and Garuda dasa uses “do not despair.” These are interesting takes on it. Grieving and despair are essentially fear.
Visvanatha Cakrabarti Thakura, in his commentary (as given by Narayana Maharaja) sums this up in a really nice way:
“Ma suchah means, “Don not grieve for yourself or others. I am bound by My vow to carry the burden of freeing any person like you from all his sins and deliver him from the cycle of birth and death. If such a person fixes his mind upon Me, completely giving up all his [dharma] and remains happily situated having surrendered to Me, I am also bound to carry the burden of providing him with the means ot achieve Me. What more can I say? I am even ready to accept the burden of maintaining his material life, as I stated when I spoke ananyas cintayanto mam (Gita 9.22).
“Do not grieve by thinkng, ‘Alas! I have placed such a heavy burden on my Lord and master!’ There is absolutely no labor involved in accepting this burden for Me….”
Srila Prabhupada puts it in much simpler terms, “The particular words used here, ma suchah, ‘Don’t fear, don’t hesitate, don’t worry,’ are very significant. One may be perplexed as to how one can give up all kinds of religious forms and simply surrender unto Krishna, but such worry is useless.”
Related posts:
02/15/2009 at 9:09 am
Though different in form, the verse I always think of in this sense is the “All things perish save His face”
I always hear that as ‘look, do what you want, theorize and philosophize, but this is the reality, pay attention and it’ll be alright.’ Simplified into my words, of course.
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 3:01 pm
this is hands down the most important moment in the entire gita for me. i think about it pretty often.
and part of that is that i like the word surrender (and prabhupada’s translation) here: for me its important not to impoverish this word too much by only thinking in singular terms. that is: surrender, it seems to me, while of course based in love, can take many forms; including the sense of being defeated… whether by guilt (which i am coming more and more to feel and a natural and positive emotion when one makes errors [which is the straightforward translation of the word "sin"]), “fear [awe] of god”, life, or whatever.
while the world is beautiful and amazing (in the words of the qur’an, the complimentary verse to the one ryan quoted is: “everywhere you look, there is the face of god” [2:115]), the truth of parishing, impermanance can be crushing. as can the density, the weight of the world. indeed, it seems that in terms of religious experience: ryan’s quote describes the realization that leads to surrender, while my quote is the realization that follows true surrender.
i also like the “abandon all varieties of religion”; that religion, and all of the debates about theory and philosophy, pale before reality / truth: god. but i guess ryan covered that. onward!
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 3:58 pm
The word “surrender” can take many forms, but surrendering because of true love is the purest. If it is through coercion (as how I was raised), it’s not anywhere near pure. They’re pointed in the right direction, but for different reasons. It’s like being vegetarian cause it impresses the ladies. It’s good to be veg, but it’s a dumb reason.
“Fear” of God was very literal in my upbringing. It wasn’t just awe. It was actual fear. Fear of God punishing you by sending you to hell. There, love and true surrender are impossible.
But maybe I’m throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That’s possible. I’m sure there are goodish uses for guilt. But guilt is close to grieving, which this verse covers. It is useless. Guilt is useless if all there is is guilt. Overcoming guilt, of course, should be the goal of feeling guilty. And by overcoming it, the same errors are not repeated.
I am absolutely in love with the “abandon all varieties of religion” part. Though, I don’t think abandoning the “debates about theory and philosophy” was specifically indicated here, that’s one of Gaudia-Vaisnavaism’s major points, so we’re right in line there. Woo!
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 4:00 pm
I really like the “all things perish save His face” bit. It hits on how everything is temporary but God. That’s quite nice.
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 4:23 pm
I can just imagine if I threw the baby out with the bathwater. Viri: We don’t throw out the baby Papa, that’d be bad bad. Not nice Papa.
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 5:30 pm
gamera doesn’t help bad boys, papa.
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 5:46 pm
to herc’s comment:
being vegetarian impresses the ladies? really? dude, what on earth am i doing wrong?!
but yeah, i guess i don’t think about that kind of “fear of god” because its dumb. i forget that people would actually respond to it. but i suppose they do. because they’re dumb.
i’ve been thinking about guilt a lot. especially, and this might be a bit of a controversy: it seems like men are apt to forget their mistakes. i don’t know if this is intrinsic to maleness, or socialized, but it is a common theme among men i know (especially in terms of their relationships). i’ve noticed with myself that anything i maintain guilt over i don’t forget. but like a lot of modern men, i have bought the whole “let go of your guilt” thing… this has pretty much only helped me to forget most of my mistakes.
however, if guilt is a natural-emotional means of remembering mistakes, then: 1) it makes sense that it would be an important thing to hold on to; and 2) it makes sense that male dominated religious culture over-emphasizes guilt.
i think the later here is what has to be overcome, not the former. that is: number 2, this over-emphasis, represents an unbalanced relationship with guilt; the judeo-christian (and in some cases: muslim and buddhist) obsession with guilt. however, the number 1 represents the point of guilt, why we experience it, and should hold on to it. this doesn’t mean we walk around feeling horrible about ourselves. on the contrary, i would guess that a healthy relationship with one’s guilt would be freeing; we would not overcome it because it would be helpful in our development.
the problem here is that it leads us back to star trek five and kirk yelling about how he needs his pain. *shiver*
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 5:50 pm
although as crappy as that scene and movie is, i like the idea he states. the mistakes are part of the package.
(now you have to think of shatner’s package! ha! talk abut wanting to forget…)
[Reply]
02/15/2009 at 6:40 pm
What you’re talking about is coming to terms with what you’ve done and learning from it. That’s a far cry from “Catholic guilt”, etc., but essentially I agree.
[Reply]
02/16/2009 at 12:33 pm
shatner’s package is a terrible thing to do to someone, sir. terrible thing.
[Reply]
03/28/2009 at 6:33 am
“Completely relinquishing
all forms of dharma” -
Dharma here means the Gnana Yoga, Karma Yoga and Bakthi Yoga He describes in the preceding chapters. In fact, this sloka (18:66) is the essence of BG.
Adiyen,
Ramanuja Dasan
[Reply]