Sit Properly

The Gita Comparisons posts will return next week at their regularly scheduled time. For now, enjoy this little nugget of wackiness!

I don’t read Sampradaya Sun very much. Maybe once a week, maybe less. I’ll glance at it here and there. So it was surprising when I noticed that my blog was getting a lot of hits from the Sampradaya Sun site. I didn’t post there, never have. The folks who rant at the SS seem to rant about the same things over and over and over and never get anywhere and it gets amazingly dull.

Anyway, yesterday some fellow named Janmastami dasa posted a mini-rant about me, proving once and for all that the Sampradaya Sun’s editorial policy is a very loose “anything goes” kind of policy.

Apparently, he took issue with my post questioning Srila Prabhupada’s use of “lower birth.” You can read what I wrote here.

Though possibly controversial, I thought my post was, at least, a fair question to ask. I explained my idea of “lower birth” and did take issue with Srila Prabhupada’s use of it in translating this verse. I wasn’t a jerk about it. I wasn’t offensive. I was merely questioning why he chose to do so.

And Janmastami answered (which is fine) on the Sampradaya Sun (which is sort of weird). I’m not really sure why he didn’t just comment here, since that seems the sensible thing to do. But as we’ll soon find out, “sensible” probably isn’t something he’s regularly accused of being.

He starts off with some wild ideas:

One of ISKCON’s current and more prolific bloggers is Bhakta Eric, who recently posted this alleged “spiritual knowledge”. Clearly, if the ISKCON he purports to speak for felt that he was misrepresenting the facts, they would admonish him rather than making him a contributing editor at the Planet ISKCON. If, however, the points that the powers that be want made are as volatile and politically incorrect as some now being brought up, it would behoove them to have a surrogate speak “the philosophy” vicariously for them.

First, while I am a current and prolific blogger, I’m not ISKCON’s blogger. Hell, most of my posts are about scooters and Godzilla. As far as I know, they have nothing to do with ISKCON. And why does he put “spiritual knowledge” in quotes like he’s quoting me? That’s weird. I never said that.

I’ve also never purported to speak for ISKCON. They’ve never asked me and I’m certainly not holding my breath waiting for that phone call. And while I don’t want to throw pipe bombs at ISKCON temples, you could hardly call me a company man. I’ve openly taken issue with MANY things ISKCON has done and is doing. I mean, ever read The Hing?

I’m also not an editor at Planet ISKCON. I’m actually surprised I’m still allowed to post there [thanks, btw]. I also don’t think ISKCON has the power to make people contributing editors to Planet ISKCON, though I’m not sure.

I do agree, however, that if ISKCON, unbeknownst to me, is using me as their spokesperson, they should probably find a surrogate.

His second paragraph was an incomplete sentence and a couple of quotes from my post, so I’ll not trouble you with it.

Then in his third:

We find accusations about the various errors he finds in Srila Prabhupada’s writings. One must be struck with wonder as to whom this bhakta aspires to seek initiation from. One who feels the need to issue his bhakta’s eye view of Srila Prabhupada’s mistakes, complete with his analysis and corrections, must surely find some of ISKCON’s “in good standing” gurus highly attractive.

I don’t think I was accusatory. And I never used the word “error,” but it’s cute how he tried to link me with those who say that Prabhupada’s books are filled with errors and must be changed.

And yes! One must be struck with wonder! This bhakta aspires to seek initiation from nobody. I’ve been a devotee for fifteen or so years and when Krishna sees fit to send me a guru, I will most assuredly accept. Maybe Janmastami has some suggestions? To be honest, I’ve not found anyone “highly attractive.” Sorry?

The magnitude of the deviation is obvious when some overly pampered bhakta has the audacity to criticise Srila Prabhupada’s Bhaktivedanta purports because the idiots that he has been reciting Gita with for his entire time in association with ISKCON have no real understanding or appreciation of the mass of information they almost have at their disposal. These are the times we find ourselves immersed in. Can the massive correction be far off?

I’m a little cloudy on “magnitude of the deviation.” And I’m not really sure what an “overly pampered bhakta” is. But while I don’t feel that I’m overly (or underly) pampered, I am a bhakta, and pretty happy about that. Bhakta means student, right? Actually it means “devotee,” but the connotation is on studying bhakti. And I am. But nobody feeds me peeled grapes or does my laundry for me.

I’ve also not been reciting Gita with anyone, really. I mean, sure, I do the weekly Gita comparison post and there’s some chit chat about it that I have really grown to love, but I’ve not really recited Gita with anyone since my days at New Vrndavana. Now that I think about it, that’s sort of a bummer. Hopefully when I find people to recite Gita with they’re not idiots, goodness!

I guess I am the times you find yourself immersed in. Ho-hum.

And what is this “massive correction?” He’s so cryptic!

So, that’s about it. Half the things he said meant something else and the other half didn’t mean anything at all. Sad, really.

A little while ago, I wrote an entry entitled “Questioning Srila Prabhupada.” This is the first toe-dipping into that arena.

The quote in question is from Bhagavad-gita 9.32:

O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth–women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]–can approach the supreme destination.

What is actually being said is those that take shelter in Krishna can approach the supreme destination. That’s the whole intent of the verse.

Both Krishna (in the original Sanskrit) and Srila Prabhupada (in the translation) mention “women, vaisyas and sudras.”

In the original Sanskrit, it is a list: those of lower birth, women, vaisyas, also sudras. But in Srila Prabhupada’s translation the list is describing “lower birth.” He describes “lower birth” as women, vaisyas and sudras.

This, of course, is where the controversy is.

In no other Gaudiya-Vaisnava translation and commentary that I’ve seen is it translated as such. The verse is a great one. It is saying that love of God is available to anyone without discrimination. However, it also appears that Srila Prabhupada is discriminating against women, vaisyas and sudras, calling them “lower birth.”

To me, this term is not so much insulting as it is truthful. I have always taken it to mean “worse situation from birth.” Technically, the word “papa-yonayah” means “troubled womb.”

If someone is, for instance, born a black woman or in a working class family, it’s probably going to be a tougher life than someone born as a while male in a rich family. That’s just a fact. And technically, one would be a “higher birth” and the other a “lower birth.”

I don’t see this particular verse as Srila Prabhupada saying that “women are worse than men.” The real purport is that everyone is eligible, no matter your social status.

Like I said before, the original Sanskrit and every other translation avoids this confusion and does not claim that “women, vaisyas and sudras” are of a lower birth. But it does mention “papa-yonaya” – basically troubled families.

Why Srila Prabhupada chose to translate it this way is beyond me. While I don’t believe he was exposing a prejudice here, he certainly could have phrased it in a clearer way. After all, this is a very anti-prejudicial statement by Krishna.

Again, my take on it is that women, sudras, people from troubled families and pretty much anyone that’s going to get a crappy end of the stick due to how they were born and where they were born (black, gay, poor in a place that is prejudiced against them) is, by definition a “lower birth.” It’s not going to be an easy life because of the situation at birth. Lower birth = crappy birth.

“Lower birth” is a material designation, it has nothing to do with the spiritual (as this verse says). However, Srila Prabhupada’s choice to translate it like this could easily turn off women (right away) and workers/farmers when they figure out what “sudras” and “vaisyas” are. Someone could easily take this to mean that Srila Prabhupada is being prejudiced against them – and in his translation that appears to be so.

If he had translated it as it was in Sanskrit and as other acaryas and gurus in our line have translated it, it would be much clearer and wouldn’t require a long explanation.

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)

More on this can be found here.

For the month of March and for this Gaura Purnima time of year, I’ve decided to tackle the chatur shloki. The chatur shloki are the four verses that pretty well sum up the contents of the Bhagavad-gita. If you’re only going to read four verses from Bhagavad-gita, these are the four to read.

This is the conclusion of the chatur shloki.

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 11

Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.
-Srila Prabhupada

Out of compassion for them, I dwelling within their soul destroy the darkness born of ignorance with the effulgent lamp of knowledge.
-Tripurari Swami

Only out of compassion for these ananya-bhaktas do I, dwelling within the core of their hearts, destroy the darkness of samsara, born of ignorance, with the blazing lamp of transcendental knowledge.
-Narayana Maharaja

For them especially,
    out of compassion,
    dwelling as the Self
    within their hearts,
I dispel the darkness
    that arises from
    the absence of knowledge
    with the radiant
    lamp of knowledge.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

It’s amazing how closely each of the verses follows the next. Obviously one was influenced by the ones before it, but that is part of the tradition. Build what you can on the foundations of what you’ve learned.

Our first line (and first word of the second), tesam evanukampartham aham has to be flipped around to make much sense in English. Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami both translate: “Out of compassion for them, I…” but discard the Sanskrit word eva, meaning “certainly” or “only” (depending on who is doing the translating).

The word tesam means “for them.” The “them” is a reference to “the wise.” from the first two verses (Bg 10.08 & 10.09).

However, while Narayana Maharaja includes eva (here, translating it as “only”), he seems to redefine “the wise”: Only out of compassion for these ananya bhaktas do I,…” He has made no prior reference to ananya bhaktas in his translations of the chatur shloki.

What he is referencing is the commentary by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. Ananya bhaktas are devotees of God that have no other desire than to serve God. Narayana Maharaja seems to be tying together his translation with the commentary of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura.

Garuda dasa’s poetic translations keeps as close to the original Sanskrit as possible: “For them especially, out of compassion….” He broadens the word eva, before translated as “only,” to mean “especially.” It’s a bit of a difference, but keeps with his trend of widening the Bhagavad-gita.

The second line aham ajnana-jam tamah and the third line nasayamy atma-bhavastho must be inverted and inter-mingled (even by Garuda dasa) to make much sense in English.

All of our translators choose to use the phrase atma-bhavasto, meaning, as Srila Prabhupada [and Garuada dasa] put it: “dwelling [as the Self] in their hearts.” Narayana Maharaja is a bit more specific with “core of their hearts.” Tripurari Swami exchanges the word “heart” for “soul.”

“Destroy” is how three of our authors translate nasayami in their verses. Srila Prabhupada glosses it as “dispel” in his word-for-word and that is the translation that Garuda dasa chose to use in his edition. “Dispel,” has a much more refined connotation than “destroy” does. You dispel doubts while you destroy enemies.

But what is it that Krishna is destroying and dispelling? Ajnana-jam tamaha, “the darkness born of ignorance,” as Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja put it.

As often is the case, we find Narayana Maharaja adding Sanskrit words that were not in the original Sanskrit. He seems to be doing this to provide commentary not just in his purports, but in the verse as well. This is a common thing, Srila Prabhupada has done it (along with many other gurus in our line).

Here, Krishna is destroying not just the darkness, but the darkness of samsara, the cycle of repeated birth and death. When he does this, he is often taking after a previous commentator of the Bhagavad-gita. But here, he merely seems to be clarifying.

Srila Prabhupada, in his word-for-word, glosses ajnana-jam as “due to ignorance,” but chose the more poetic “born of ignorance.”

In Garuda dasa’s translation, Krishna is dispelling “the darkness that arises from the absence of knowledge.”

Srila Prabhupada moved the fourth line, jnana-dipena bhasvata, literally “the glowing lamp of knowledge,” to where the third line would be. His translation is slightly confusing at first, feeling muddled up. We first learn Krishna will destroy something and that his “weapon” is “the shining lamp of knowledge.” Only then do we learn about the “darkness born of ignorance.”

While Srila Prabhupada used “glowing” in his word-for-word, he used “shining” in his verse. Tripurari Swami chose “effulgent” and Narayana Maharaja used “blazing.” Garuda dasa picked “radiant.” It seems that all definitions and connotations here fully describe and add to the description of Krishna’s lamp of knowledge.

Narayana Maharaja clarifies further with defining this as the lamp of “transcendental knowledge.”

This is one of those verses that needs to be read a couple of times so your mind can put everything in a logical order. Srila Prabhupada’s verse is written in a much older, flowery style. While I usually prefer that, here it can become messy to our modern minds. Narayana Maharaja’s is very nice as well, but his additions, I feel, hurt his translation. Garuda dasa’s Gita can hardly be held in comparison since its purpose is mostly to be poetic rather than simply philosophical.

Tripurari Swami’s Gita once again seems to be clearest to me. Still, the verse seems cloudy. This is, no doubt, a great example of the trouble from translating from Sanskrit to English. Sometimes it works out pretty perfectly, but other times, such as in this case, it’s nearly impossible to make clear what is being said.

Nevertheless, with a little perseverance, it becomes clear that out of compassion for those that are fully devoted to God, He dwells within their hearts. By His presence, He destroys the darkness that is ignorance with His lamp of knowledge.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in his commentary (speaking “as” Krishna): “The basic idea is that the insignificant jiva (soul) can never attain real tattva-jnana (conclusive knowledge of the truth) merely on the strength of his own intelligence. No matter how much he deliberates, he can never achieve even a particle of pur jnana (intelligence). But if I bless him, then even an insignificant jiva can easily acquire complete and thorough transcendental knowledge by the influence of My acintya-sakti (inconceivable potency).”

He concludes (as do I) that it is our right to acquire the perfect knowledge of God, not by reasoning, but by devotion to God.

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 the month of March and for this Gaura Purnima time of year, I’ve decided to tackle the chatur shloki. The chatur shloki are the four verses that pretty well sum up the contents of the Bhagavad-gita. If you’re only going to read four verses from Bhagavad-gita, these are the four to read.

In the last two verses, Krishna reveals that He is the source of everything and those who are wise love Him because of that. The wise also enjoy enlightening each other with talk of Krishna.

This week’s verse explains what is given in return for that love.

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 10

To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.
-Srila Prabhupada

To those who are constantly devoted, who worship me with love, I give the power of discrimination by which they come to me.
-Tripurari Swami

Upon those who perform bhajana to Me with love, yearning for My eternal association, I bestow the transcendental knowledge by which they can come to Me.
-Narayana Maharaja

For them, who are constantly
    absorbed in yoga,
    who offer loving service
    with natural affection
I offer that yoga
    of discernment
    by which they
    come close to me.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Here again we have four good examples of how to say the same thing four different ways. From these four ways, we can learn not just one thing, but four different angles on that one thing.

The first line of this verse, tesam satata-yuktanam, Krishna refers to “the wise” from the two previous verses. With this referring, He adds another description: satata-yuktanam. Here is where four different translations can add four different levels of understanding.

Srila Prabhupada translates it as “always engaged” in his word-for-word section, but as “constantly devoted” in his verse translation. There is a definite difference between the two. In his word-for-word, he is usually very literal as to what the Sanskrit actually says. In his verses, however, he sometimes takes liberties, explaining rather than directly translating.

Possibly following the lead of Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami uses “constantly devoted” in both cases. He supports this definition by quoting Madhusdana Saraswati, the Advaitist philosopher from late 1500′s Bengal, in his purport.

Narayana Maharaja hints at yoga (meaning “linking” or “connecting”) in his translation, using “who desire My eternal connection.” In his verse, he flips a couple of lines around, but says “Those who … [yearn] for My eternal association.”

Taking the yoga idea a step farther, Garuda dasa translates “who are constantly absorbed in yoga.” He is, I assume, referring to the definition of yoga meaning “to link with the divine” and not the physical exercise of yoga. His choice to use this Sanskrit word when that word doesn’t appear in the original Sanskrit is, to me, troublesome and potentially misleading.

Our second line, bhajatam priti-purvakam, is generally glossed as “those who worship with love.” Srila Prabhupada uses “devotional service in loving ecstasy” in his word-for-word.

Both Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharama translate it to “those who worship me with love.”

Garuda dasa somewhat splits the difference with: “[For them,] who offer loving service with natural affection.” In the Sanskrit “natural affection” may be implied, however, our other translators do not acknowledge that it is.

After describing “the wise” in the first two lines, He now descries the exchange, dadami buddhi-yogam tam. In his purport, Srila Prabhupada describes buddhi-yogam in great detail. He refers to the Gita’s second chapter where Krishna explained buddhi-yoga, here described as “the process by which one gets out of the material world.” Also, he states that it is “action in Krishna consciousness” and “the highest intelligence.” There seems to be many ways to take buddhi-yoga.

In his word-for-word, he uses only “real intelligence.” For his verse, he translates the line as “I give the understanding…”

Narayana Maharaja’s take on it is similar. He glosses buddhi-yogam as “transcendental knowledge,” also using it in his verse.

Both Tripurari Swami and Garuda dasa seem to translate buddhi-yogam to mean “the power of discrimination” (or “yoga of discernment” in GD’s). Here, it’s easy to see why Garuda dasa used “yoga,” but it’s interesting that both use discrimination/discernment. In his purport, Tripurari Swami also translates it as “yoga of wisdom,” a nice call back to “the wise” from the previous two verses. Like Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami remembers chapter two. “From his [Krishna's] use of the therm buddhi-yogam in this verse, it is apparent that Krishna’s use of the same term earlier in the second chapter, while overtly referring to niskama-karma-yoga, implies bhakti-yoga. The full sense of buddhi-yoga is bhakti.”

He describes this “discrimination” as a cognitive aspect of bhakti proper. Bhakti, according to Tripurari Swami’s glossary, is a “discipline of love and devotion to God.” This love and devotion gives us the power of discrimination, discernment. Tripurari Swami describes the uses for this power in his purport.

What that “real knowledge,” that “power of discrimination” gives us is told in the last line, yena mam upayanti te. All translators agree that it means “by which they can come to Me.” Narayana Maharaja glosses upayanti as “approach,” which gives a slightly expanded meaning when compared to Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami’s choice of “they come.” Garuda dasa expands it also, using “come close.” It seems that upayanti implies not only the destination (Krishna), but the journey (devotion) as well.

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura explains in his commentary (as translated by Narayana Maharaja) that buddhi-yoga cannot be achieved by individual effort. “It is bestowed by Me alone and only such loving bhaktas (devotes, lovers of God) are qualified to receive it.”

This verse is stated by Krishnadasa Kaviraja in his Caitanya-caritamrta (a biography of the life of Caitanya Mahaprabhu). Srila Prabhupada’s purport to this verse (Adi-lila 1.49) sums everything up very well.

The Lord declares that by enlightenment in theistic knowledge He awards attachment for Him to those who constantly engage in His transcendental loving service. This awakening of divine consciousness enthralls a devotee, who thus relishes his eternal transcendental mellow. Such an awakening is awarded only to those convinced by devotional service about the transcendental nature of the Personality of Godhead. They know that the Supreme Truth, the all-spiritual and all-powerful person, is one without a second and has fully transcendental senses. He is the fountainhead of all emanations. Such pure devotees, always merged in knowledge of Krishna and absorbed in Krishna consciousness, exchange thoughts and realizations as great scientists exchange their views and discuss the results of their research in scientific academies. Such exchanges of thoughts in regard to Krishna give pleasure to the Lord, who therefore favors such devotees with all enlightenment.

For the past several weeks, I’ve been giving quite a lot of thought to a few things that Srila Prabhupada has said that could be seen (by pretty much anyone) as controversial. Over the next week, I am planning on reviewing these statements.

There’s been quite a bit of talk about this already, but much of that, in my opinion, is made of either excuses or anger. Neither will be here. I’m in no position to make excuses for Srila Prabhupada and I really have no time or patience for anger, especially about spiritual matters.

I plan on simply being fair. I am pretty good at not taking things out of context, but also not allowing the context to be used as a free pass.

While these topics have been discussed, ISKCON has not really addressed them. They almost did when the whole “footnotes” thing came up, but it quickly died down.

And actually, the “footnotes” thing is what originally got me thinking about this. Some devotees wanted to add footnotes to some of Srila Prabhupada’s books in order to explain some of the controversial things he had written. Those footnotes never came to be.

My take on that was that I didn’t believe that Srila Prabhupada’s books should be changed in any capacity. They are his books (for better or worse). Just as I’d be against changing Stephen King’s books or Mark Twain’s books, I’m against changing Srila Prabhupada’s books. Basically, if you want the books to say something they didn’t say, write your own book and say it yourself – that’s the tradition in our line (and in the real world too!).

Anyway, my soul searching on this issue has very little to do with book changes. It has everything to do with my own reconciliation with some statements made by Srila Prabhupada.

Until this point, I basically ignored it. I knew that he said some controversial things – hell, I even knew what most of them were – but I excused all of them with the “he’s from a different generation in a different culture” pass. While that is most certainly true and does, in my opinion, explain some, it does not explain all.

Mostly, those are the ones that I’ll be exploring.

I won’t be hitting upon the spiritual differences between Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and other Gaudia-Vaisnava groups. I’m not qualified to do that. So things like “origin of the jiva,” etc won’t be touched here.

What I’ll be posting will definitely not be everyone’s cup of tea. But it’s my promise that it will be devoid of anger (because I’m not angry) and fair/balanced (but not in a Fox News sort of way). Much of what has been written about this is long, ranty and often boring. I’ll try to be brief, to the point and hopefully not boring.

At this point, I don’t really have an opinion. I have some thoughts, but I don’t know where I stand (or, in some cases, where to stand). And if it’s also fair and without anger, I would very much enjoy feedback on this from anyone. Angry stuff and long rants will be deleted no matter which side you’re on.

All of this said, no matter how this turns out, it will not waver my faith in Gaudia-Vaisnavaism even a little bit. Quite to the contrary, it will strengthen it.

Again, help is always welcome. And if there be questions, feel free to ask.

Today is a holiday called Gaura Purnima. It celebrates the appearance day (birthday) of the founder of the Sankirtana movement, Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

The Sankirtana movement is what most folks would call the “Hare Krishnas.” But the Hare Krishnas are one of many branches of this tree. Sankirtana literally means “group chanting.” 500 or so years ago, Caitanya Mahaprabhu took religion from the so-called higher classes and distributed it to the masses. He and His followers took to the streets with a mantra that has become known the world over:

Before Mahaprabhu, there were practitioners of this faith, but never on such a grand and public scale. His followers were from all walks of life and from different religions. He did not discriminate, love of God is for everyone.

From the days when He started this tradition to the present, devotees of the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy regard Caitanya Mahaprabhu as an incarnation of Krishna, God.

Though He traveled widely and spoke countless times to the public, He only wrote eight verses, called Siksastakam. Here in these eight short stanzas one can find everything needed for the perfect spiritual life.

Of these eight, it is said that the path to true love of God runs through one very in particular. If all of Mahaprabhu’s instructions were to be summarized into one verse, the third verse would be it.

Being humble like a blade of grass,
being more tolerant than a tree,
expecting no admiration
yet showing others veneration,
one should glorify Hari [God] constantly.

I first heard this verse soon after discovering that being a Gaudia Vaisnava was for me. It was the one verse that I kept in mind, always trying my best to live up to this high standard. Of course, I failed miserably for the longest time, but, thanks to age and a better understanding of just what kind of a role humility and tolerance play in spiritual life, I’m slowly getting better.

Each spiritual path has teachings that are meant solely for that specific spiritual path, Gaudia Vaisnavism is no different. But this verse can be taken by anyone who is even a little serious about spiritual life. It will help the neophyte just as it will help the wise old sage.

A few years ago, Tripurari Swami wrote a book called Siksastakam of Sri Caitanya. He takes each verse and breaks it down from the most basic, universal meaning to the esoteric. For a deeper study of the Siksastakam, I strongly recommend this book.

Happy Gaura Purnima!

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 the month of March and for this Gaura Purnima time of year, I’ve decided to tackle the chatur shloki. The chatur shloki are the four verses that pretty well sum up the contents of the Bhagavad-gita. If you’re only going to read four verses from Bhagavad-gita, these are the four to read.

Last week, Krishna revealed to Arjuna that He is the source of everything. The wise realize this and adore Him, feeling great joy in their hearts.

This week, Krishna continues…

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 9

The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are surrendered to Me, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss enlightening one another and conversing about Me.
-Srila Prabhupada

Those whose minds are fixed on me and whose live are absorbed in me derive satisfaction and delight from enlightening one another and always speaking of me.
-Tripurari Swami

Those whose minds are absorbed in Me and whose lives are wholeheartedly devoted to My service, derive great satisfaction and bliss from constantly enlightening one another about My tattva and performing kirtana of My nama, rupa, guna and lila.
-Narayana Maharaja

"With their thought on me,
    with their life-breath
    offered to me,
    enlightening one another
And conversing about me
    continuously,
    they are satiated and
    they feel rapturous love.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

The first line describes two traits of “the wise” (or “enlightened”) from last week’s verse. First, mat-cittah, means “those whose minds are fixed on Me [the speaker, in this case, Krishna]. All four of our translators basically agree on this.

Srila Prabhupada substitutes “pure devotees” for budhah, which is generally translated (even by Prabhupada in the previous verse) as “the wise.” He glosses the phrase as “minds fully engaged in Me” in his word-for-word section, but translates it as “The thoughts of My pure devotes dwell in Me…” in his verse.

It does have a bit of a different connotation than the rest. Tripurari Swami uses the phrase “minds are fixed on me,” while Narayana Maharaja uses, “minds are absorbed in Me.” Garuda dasa uses simply “thought on me…”

Secondly, mad-gata-prana, means “those whose lives (or ‘life-breath’) are devoted to me [the speaker, again, Krishna].”

Rather than “absorbed” (as Tripurari Swami puts it), both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja focus upon devotional service.

In Srila Prabhupada’s word-for-word, as in Narayana Maharaja’s verse, devotional service is mentioned. Prabhupada puts it, “their lives are surrendered to Me,” and Narayana Maharaja puts it, “whose lives are wholeheartedly devoted to My service…”

Garuda dasa seems to translate gata as “offered.” He writes, “with their life-breath offered to me…”

The second line, bodhayantah parasparam, is basically, as Garuada dasa translates: “enlightening one another.” All translators completely agree, all using the word “enlightening.”

All (except for Garuda dasa) also translate the third line before the second. This line (most of it), “kathayantas ca mam” is a very basic and easy to translate line: “conversing about me.” That line, however, is pushed to the end of the verse to make way for a bit of exposition.

The fourth line, nityam tusyanti ca ramanti ca, (which also incorporates the last word of the third line) is “they always” (nityam) “derive (or experience) satisfaction” (tusyanti), “and also rejoice/take delight” (ca ramanti ca).

Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja both put it, “they derive great satisfaction and bliss.” Tripurari Swami also says the same, substituting “delight” for “bliss.” Garuda dasa changes it up a bit and says, “they are satiated and they feel rapturous love.”

“Rapturous love” seems a bit intense when compared to “delight.” But Srila Prabhupada glosses ramanti as “enjoy transcendental bliss.” Bhaktivinoda Thakura, in his translation/commentary of Bhagavad-gita says, “In this way, by sravanam [hearing] and kirtanam [chanting, talking] they attain the happiness of bhakti [love of God].” And what is more rapturous than love of God?

Going back to the third line, kathayantas ca mam nityam, always speaking of me [Krishna], the translators end their respective verses.

Garuda dasa, whose translation tries to follow the actual flow of the Sanskrit poetry, keeps the lines in order. The way he puts it makes sense, which is odd when translating poetry. That the other three translators didn’t put the lines in this order is interesting. All four, however, make perfect sense. When reading one after another, they all seem to agree and you hardly notice that some lines are rearranged.

Narayana Maharaja, however, tacks a bit of commentary onto his verse. Instead of ending it with “always speaking of me” or “conversing about Me” (as he himself glosses in his own word-for-word), he writes: “constantly enlivening one another about My tattva and performing kirtana of my nama, rupa, guna and lila.”

If you do not know what these six Sanskrit words mean, reading his purport doesn’t help. These words are not mentioned in the original Sanskrit, nor are the defined in the purport. The use of the words, to me, seems incredibly unnecessary.

Often times both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja will add bits to their translations. Srila Prabhupada did this in the first line when he switched out “the wise” with “pure devotees.” Whenever they do this it raises a flag. Why are they doing this? Is there an agenda? Are they hiding something?

While you can often read the word-for-word and figure it out what they were saying pretty easily, I simply cannot understand Narayana Maharaja’s use of six Sanskrit words that weren’t in the original text. Why not simply include that description in the purport?

Tattva basically means “the real being of something, “performing kirtana” here means chanting. Nama means “name,” rupa means “form,” guna means “tenancies” or “methods” and “lila” means “pastimes.”

What he’s saying is true, but it’s not part of the verse. It’s true that devotees derive great satisfaction and bliss from constantly enlightening each other about God and by talking about His name and form, about what He is like and His pastimes. But going on to describe that in the purport seems more appropriate.

This verse is a fine example of how all four Gaudia Vaisnava translators are in concert. Yet, it’s also a fine example of how some translations are a bit more than translations and sometimes move into the realm of adaptation. There’s, of course, nothing wrong with that. Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s translation/commentary of the Bhagavad-gita was just that. It was written like a translation would be written (meaning when Krishna was speaking, Thakura would write “I”), but it was also a commentary, expanding on the teachings of the Gita.

However, Bhaktivinoda Thakura didn’t call his book “Bhagavad-gita.” It was called “Rasika-ranjana,” and I’m still looking for a copy of it (hint-hint!).

By talking about God, we are satiated. Not only that, we also feel blissful, ecstatic love of God when talking with like-minded folks about God. This is community. It’s not just love of God that we feel, it’s love of each other that enlightens us when our thoughts, our conversation and our lives dwell in the spiritual.

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 the month of March and for this Gaura Purnima time of year, I’ve decided to tackle the chatur shloki. The chatur shloki are the four verses that pretty well sum up the contents of the Bhagavad-gita. If you’re only going to read four verses from Bhagavad-gita, these are the four to read.

Krishna tells Arjuna at the beginning of this tenth chapter to listen close, He’s about to drop some knowledge that’s even better than the knowledge he dropped in chapters one through nine. And Chapter Four is a tough act to beat.

But, of course, He lives up to His word.

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 8

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.
-Srila Prabhupada

I am the source of everything; all proceeds from me. Realizing this, the wise imbued with love adore me.
-Tripurari Swami

I am the source of both mundane and spiritual worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this well, engage in My bhajana with great joy in their hearts.
-Narayana Maharaja

"I am, of everything,
    the coming forth into being;
    from me everything
    is set forth into motion."
Mindful [of these words],
    they offer their love to me,
    the enlightened ones,
    being fully immersed
    in feelings of love.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

In Sufism, there seems to be an expression, “everything is the God.” From my limited exposure to it, it’s said as a reminder that everything is happening according to God’s plan and that everything, material and spiritual, comes from God. The Bhagavad-gita has a similar idea (as is often the case).

The first line aham sarvasya prabhavo, is roughly “I am the source of everything.” The word aham simply means “I am.” In the Torah and the biblical book of Exodus, God refers to Himself as “Ehyeh asher ehyeh,” commonly translated: “The I am that I am.” This is basic stuff here. God is what He is. And what is He?

He is the source of everything.

Srila Prabhupada makes it clear that the word sarvasya is everything spiritual and material. Narayana Maharaja does the same by explaining that Krishna is “the source of both mundane and spiritual worlds.” Tripurari Swami sticks closer to the Sanskrit with “I am the source of everything.”

Garuda dasa’s poetical translation puts this first line as “I am, of everything; the coming forth into being.” This seems an odd way to put it. He seems to simply be listing the definitions of the words. “I am” is, of course from aham. The word sarvasya does mean “of everything.” And prabhavo literally means “the source” or “the source of generation” – from where everything comes. He seems to be saying that Krishna isn’t just the source of everything coming into being, He’s also the act of coming into being.

In his footnotes, Garuda dasa writes, “The coming forth into being: Translates prabhavah, as it is used in a cosmological context. The word is often translated as ‘source’ or ‘origin.’”

Our second line, mattah sarvam pravartate, very literally translates as “from me, everything emanates.” Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja both translates it as “Everything emanates from Me.” Tripurari Swami, who translates pravartate slightly differently, puts it: “all proceeds from me.” And Garuda dasa, taking it a step farther has it as, “from me everything is set forth into motion.”

While we now have three different definitions for the verb pravartate, each brings with it a slightly different, but very complementary, understand of God. These different definitions are not at adds with one another.

As is often the case when translating poetry from another language, one line seems to run in and mix with the next. Such is the case here. The third and fourth lines have to be taken as a whole. This allows iti matva bhajante mam budha bhava-samanviah to be translated in some interesting ways.

Most of us are familiar with Srila Prabhupada’s “The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.” Prabhupada translates the word bhajante in his word-for-word section simply as “becomes devoted.” But in his verse, he goes a bit deeper into it with “perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me.” Often he would remind us that devotional service to God is worship. Here is another such case.

Tripurari Swami takes a slightly different approach to bhajante. He defines is at “adore.” While he doesn’t specifically address this in his purport, he does write: “Spiritual love that knows no reason cares little for the Godhood of Godhead, yet it is this kind of love that brings one in touch with the fullest expression of the Absolute, the source of everything and its feeling, the Supreme God.”

Often, Narayana Maharaja will not translate certain words in his verses. The word bhajante is within “The wise who know this well, engage in My bhajana….” In his word-for-word section, he translates it simply as “worship.”

The last word, bhava-samanvitah, is the real nectar of this verse. Srila Prabhupada writes that the wise “worship Me with all their hearts.” He glosses it as “with great attention” in his word-for-word, but in his verse, he gives it heart. Following suit, Tripurari Swami puts it as “imbued with love.”

And Narayana Maharaja’s is very sweet. He writes that the wise “engage in My bhajana with great joy in their hearts.” In his word-for-word, it’s “filled with ecstasy.”

I greatly appreciate Garuda dasa’s translation of the Bhagavad-gita back into poetry, though sometimes I’m confused with his choice of words, after a bit of study, it all becomes clear. Here is such an example. What can be translated simply (albeit, coldly) as “having comprehended this, the wise ecstatically worship Me,” is “Mindful [of these words], they offer their love to me, the enlightened ones, being fully immersed in feelings of love.”

You can go through and pick out which English phrase corresponds with which Sanskrit word if you like, “the enlightened ones” is “budhah,” “immersed in feelings of love” is “bhava-samanvitah.” Something, however, still seems muddled. This is a clear example of undertaking such a difficult task as translating poetry to poetry.

His meaning here is that the “enlightened” ones are fully immersed in feelings of love. In turn, they offer that love to God. It is cyclical. Because they love God, they are enlightened. Because they are enlightened, they offer that love to God. God then immerses them in love and they then shower Him with love.

These verses have been translated, explained, purported up and taught in Sunday Feast lectures by everyone from the lowliest bhaktas to the most exalted gurus. There are many meanings within, as is obvious from reading the three very different purports from Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja.

Because of this, there is a great deal of discussion of these topics. We are fortunate in this regard. An example of this fortune is this four-verse commentary by Srila B.R. Sridhara Goswami, a godbrother of Srila Prabhupada, contemporary of Narayana Maharaja and sisksa-guru (teacher) of Tripurari Swami.

His translations capture the mood of our Gaudia-Vaisnana philosophical line rather than a direct word-for-word recitation (though that is there too). You can read what he has to say, here.

I apologize for being so long-winded, but this isn’t something you sum up. As Narayana Maharaja translated, we should do this with “great joy” in our hearts. God isn’t someone to just study, He is someone to adore. This adoration immerses us in love of God. With this love, as Srila Prabhupada explains in his purport, we should proceed “with determination and firmness.” Our determination and firmness, our strength, is built upon our love of God and His love for us.