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)

More on this can be found here.

Like last week, I’ll jump into a verse from a chapter that I’ve not covered before. Today, that’s the last verse of chapter 12.

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 12, Verse 20

He who follows this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engages himself with faith, making Me the supreme goal, is very, very dear to Me.
-Srila Prabhupada

Indeed, I love those who, endowed with faith in my supremacy, are devoted to me.
-Tripurari Swami

Certainly, those bhaktas who engage in My exclusive bhajana with firm faith and worship this nectarean dharma that I have described, are exceedingly dear to Me.
-Narayana Maharaja

Indeed, this is the immortal
    essence of dharma,
    which has been declared;
    those who participate in
    this worship fully.
Who have faith,
    who are devoted to me,
    who have offered their love -
    they are most dearly loved by me.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

The four different translations of this verse run from Tripurari Swami’s very brief condensation to Garuda dasa’s poetically faithful, but wordy rendition.

Sometimes when trying to explain something simple that requires only a few words, the writer throws in extra words, bigger words in an attempt to trick us into thinking that he or she is smarter than us. As if an expanded vocabulary is proof of real intelligence. It’s true, there are times when many words are required for something. But there are more times when a simple explanation is far more beneficial, both to the listener and the writer.

When I first read these four translations, that thought was in my mind. How could one translation be so short and another so long? Was one superior to the next? Did one give more information with its wordiness or leave out important details with its brevity?

These are important questions. You don’t want a translation of any book that is either too full of words to really mean anything or so sparse that you are robbed of important particulars.

Let’s see if that’s what we’ve got here.

Because of the way this verse has been translated, it’s virtually impossible to take it line-by-line. Garuda dasa’s version is the closest to that and, though wordy, I feel it’s pretty faithful to my discrimination the original Sanskrit. I’ll be using his as the base here.

The first line, ye tu dharmyamrtam idam is translated by Garuda dasa as “Indeed, this is the immortal essence of dharma … those who….” The Sanskrit ye tu literally means “those who indeed,” or in this translation, “Indeed … those who.” Idam is a pronoun meaning “this,” which in this case references everything Krishna has said so far in this chapter.

Here, we’re left with dharmyamrtam. This is actually two words, dharma and amrtam. These are often translated as “religion” and “like nectar” respectively.

That is basically how Narayana Maharaja translates it in his verse (as “nectarean dharma“). Garuda dasa also uses a similar wording with “essence of dharma.” Tripurari Swami leaves out the reference to “nectar” and “dharma,” but focuses on that in his purport. Srila Prabhupada also does not mention either nectar or dharma, instead translates is as “this imperishable path of devotional service.” In his word-for-word section, he translates dhrama as “generosity” and amrtam as “understanding.”

Our next line, yathoktam paryupasate, Garuda dasa has translated as “which has been declared” and “those who participate in this worship fully.” If you reread his fully verse, you can see that even he had to move a line or two around to make it work.

The word yathoktam really just means “as said” or “as described.” Narayana Maharja is the only other translator who uses it in his verse as “that I have described.”

Paryupasate, on the other hand, has been translated by all, but one. Srila Prabhupada translates it as “completely engages.”

Narayana Maharaja, in his word-for-word, has glossed it “worship in every way.” In his verse, he translates, “engage in My exclusive bhajana,” a Sanskrit word which, according to his own glossary, basically means devotional service (bhakti) to Krishna.

Tripurari Swami has again left this out. He makes no specific translation of paryupasate.

The third line of this verse, sraddadhana mat-parama, translated by Garuda dasa as “[those] who have faith” and “[those] who have offered their love.” Again, he switches a couple of lines around for clarity, but it’s basically an exact copy of the Sanskrit.

Faith is not something that has been beaten to death by writers in the Gaudyia-Vaisnava tradition. But it’s there when needed and it is here and its importance is stressed and rewarded, as we’ll see. The word sraddadhana means “with faith.” All of our translators use it in the same way.

That way is mat-parama, “taking the Supreme Lord as everything,” (as glossed by Srila Prabhupada). Tripurari Swami similarly translates “in my supremacy.”

Narayana Maharaja doesn’t specifically reference it, but earlier in the verse writes, “engage in My exclusive bhajana,” which denotes Krishna’s supremacy.

The fourth line bhaktas te’tiva me priyah has been rendered by Garuda dasa as “[those]who are devoted to me… they are most dearly loved by me.”

The word bhakta means devotee. Srila Prabhupada has chosen not to directly use the word “devotee,” but every word in this verse is describing what a devotee is. Narayana Maharaja mentions bhaktas in the beginning of his translation and Tripurari Swami closes his verse with “[those who] are devoted to me.”

The last phrase in this verse is the reward. Te-tiva me priyah means “they are most dearly loved by Me.”

Srila Prabhupada uses “very, very” instead of extremely. I like this as it gives quite a bit of emphasis to what follows, “dear to Me.”

Narayana Maharaja’s uses of “exceedingly dear to Me.” also gives that feel, but hints at this dearness and love increasing.

Tripurari Swami simply states in the beginning of the verse “I love those….”

I’ll admit, I like the verses that have a punchy and rewarding ending. I like it when Krishna describes a bunch of stuff and reveals what it all means. Tripurari Swami’s does the opposite, he reveals the reward and then tells the cost.

Aside from that one small placement issue, I like Tripurari Swami’s translation. It’s concise. He leaves out nearly half the verse, but still manages to express the full meaning. Less words, not less understanding. You can read his and get just as much out of it as the others.

That is, of course, not to say that the others are too wordy. With the exception of Garuda dasa, the other translators also leave out a line or two. This verse makes it easy to do so. Garuda dasa shows that a lot of it is poetic repetition. There is a lot of “those who have.” Also, what may be clearly spoken in Sanskrit may not be so clearly translated in English.

While it may seem simplistic, “I love those who, endowed with faith in my supremacy, are devoted to me.” leaves out nothing. Everything conveyed in the longer verses is there. Again, it’s not that Srila Prabhupada’s or Narayana Maharaja’s translations (or even Garuda dasa’s) translations are overly-wordy, they are also clear and simple. But Tripurari Swami’s verse is a fine example of how even less words can be just as clear.

This is an important lesson for us to learn. I know I need to take it to heart (I say as I’m now well over 1300 words in this post).

But however it is said, our faith and devotion to God is reciprocated. It is not the reason for our devotion, but it is because of our devotion that we are loved by 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)

More on this can be found here.

I think what I’m doing right now with this series is trying to visit some chapters that I’ve neglected. Last week, I hit the fifth chapter and this week, I’ll hit the thirteenth.

The thirteenth chapter, called “Deliberation on Matter and Spirit” by Tripurari Swami and “Nature, the Enjoyer, and Consciousness” by Srila Prabhupada is a fairly esoteric chapter. In honesty, it’s not a chapter I find myself wading through too often. Earlier in the chapter, even Krishna referenced the Vedanta-sutra. This is some heavy stuff.

In verses 8 – 12, Krishna lays down a laundry list of what is “knowledge.” He then explains Brahman, the spirit (most like the “Holy Ghost” in Christian theology). Such phrases like “He is outside and inside all beings” and “He is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, He is the goal of knowledge” are thrown around. He is situated in everyone’s hearts as what is termed “Supersoul” (paramatma). This is where our true equality lies.

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 13, Verse 28

One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies and who understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul is ever destroyed, actually sees.
-Srila Prabhupada

One who sees the Supreme God abiding equally in all beings – not perishing when they perish – truly sees.
-Tripurari Swami

Only one who sees Paramesvara equally in all beings, as the imperishable seated within the perishable, actually sees.
-Narayana Maharaja

Indeed, seeing the same
    supreme Lord fully
    established everywhere,
One does not harm
    the self by the self -
    from there one reaches
    the highest goal.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

In his purport for this verse, Srila Prabhupada first leaves out the term “Supersoul” and uses the “soul’s friend” and “friend of the soul” instead. He then uses the term “Supersoul.” Narayana Maharaja, possibly following Srila Prabhupada’s lead, does the same (their purports are similar). I like this term “friend of the soul” quite a lot. So often in our spiritual pursuits we focus on many different aspects of God, sometimes forgetting that He is our friend. We can see Him as father or as a teacher or just some spiritual blob, but it’s all too easy to forget Him as friend.

The first two lines, samam sarvesu bhutesu / tisthantam paramesvaram, is basically “God [as Paramesvara - the supreme controller] equally in everyone….”

The translators start with “One who sees…” which comes from the first half of the fourth line: yah pasyati.

Srila Prabhupada choses to use the word “Supersoul” in his translation: “One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies….” Narayana Maharaja, as he often does, keeps the original Sanskrit paramesvara, translating: “Only one who sees Paramesvara equally in all beings….” Tripurari Swami sort of splits the difference, “One who sees the Supreme God abiding equally in all beings….” Garuda dasa, in turn, keeps God, but translates sarvesu as “everywhere” rather than “in all beings.” While both are true, the former is more specific.

The differences between Paramesvara, the Supersoul and the Supreme God are mere details. Here, Krishna has just described the Supersoul. Srila Prabhupada was referring to that. And Narayana Maharaja just stuck with the original while Tripuari Swami (and Garuda dasa) broadened it, reinforcing that the Supersoul is God.

The third line is a very poetic play on words vinasyatv avinasyantam. Vinasyatsu means “in the destructible” or “in the perishing.” Here, it means “in the body,” which is destroyed at death. Avinasyantam means the opposite, “in the indestructible” or “not perishing.”

This is in reference to the first two lines. The “not perishing” part describes God. The “perishing” part describes our bodies. It is not, of course, describing our souls, which do not perish. Here, Krishna is speaking on the level of bodily identification. Because of language, we say things like “someday we will die,” when we know that essentially that’s not true. Someday our bodies will die. We will go on because we are eternal. Here, Krishna is speaking like this.

Srila Prabhupada translates the verse using this idea. Though the original Sanskrit is more closely followed by Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami, the purport of the verse is explained within Srila Prabhupada’s verse: “…and who understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul is ever destroyed….” The soul, the jiva, is not mentioned in this verse, but for the sake of clarity, Srila Prabhupada chose to translate it as if it were.

Tripurari Swami puts it, “not perishing when they perish.” And Narayana Maharaja as it “as the imperishable seated within the perishable.”

Garuda dasa’s translation takes a wild left turn here. From what I can gather, as he starts the third line of verse 28, he instead moves to the third line of verse 29. Here, he has, “One does not harm the self by the self,” which is part of the next verse.

In his 29th verse, he then jumps back to the actual 28th verse, translating, “One who sees this, and thus sees that the self is not the creator of action….” The word “self” doesn’t appear in the original Sanskrit, though sah, meaning “he” does. In the next verse, “self” appears as the word atmanam. My guess is that Garuda dasa was referring to that.

The final line is yah pasyati sa pasyati. The first half of that line was moved to the beginning of the verse as “One who sees.” The last half closes our verse, reemphasizing “sees” with the repetition of the word pasyati. Here, it is agreed that it means “actually sees” or “truly sees,” obviously indicating that this seeing isn’t your plain old material sight.

Garuda dasa translates this part as “the one [truly] sees” (his brackets). He does this in the 29th rather than 28th verse. But whichever way he chooses to put this, the original purport of the verse remains clear.

It may be easy for us to see God everywhere. I had a relative who would always talk about God and about how God was everywhere. He would see God in the mountains, in the sunrise, in pretty much everything. I always really liked that (even if it were a bit cringe-worthy in the hokeyness department). But seeing God in every person is a bit of a different thing.

Even more difficult is seeing, as Srila Prabhupada puts it, God as that individual soul’s friend residing along side that individual soul. Coming to terms with what that means, it makes it much harder to hate and be prejudiced against people. Of course, we’re not just talking about people here.

To paraphrase Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, we are to know that God is dwelling within all perishable bodies. When those bodies die, neither God nor the soul within that body dies. We are eternal just as God is eternal. Neither of us perish. One who sees this, truly sees.

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.

I’ve not dipped into the fifth chapter so far, so I thought I’d lead off with one of my favorite verses. So far in Chapter Five, Arjuna has asked Krishna to explain which is more beneficial: the renunciation of work/action (karma-sannyasa) or work/action for God (niskama-karma-yoga). Krishna explains that while both are good, action for God is better.

In fact, it seems that renunciation of action without God as for center does not make one happy. It is difficult and brings distress.

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 5, Verse 6

Unless on is engaged in the devotional service of the Lord, mere renunciation of activities cannot make one happy. The sages, purified by works of devotion, achieve the Supreme without delay.
-Srila Prabhupada

However, renunciation of action without yoga, O Arjuna, is difficult. The sage who is practiced in yoga, however, quickly attains the Absolute.
-Tripurari Swami

O Maha-baho, practicing karma-sannyasa without niskama-karma-yoga brings distress, but one who performs niskama-karma-yoga becomes a jnani and very quickly attains brahma.
-Narayana Maharaja

However, renunciation,
    O Mighty-Armed,
    is difficult to attain
    without yoga.
The sage
    absorbed in yoga
    reaches Brahman
    without delay.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

I don’t believe I have ever seen such differences in these four translations before now. What’s nice is that these differences are simply different aspects of the same truth.

The first half of the verse, sanyasas tu maha-baho / duhkham aptum ayogatah, is translated very similarly by Tripurari Swami, Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa. “However [indicating Krishna is building upon the last verse], renunciation without yoga is difficult.”

Narayana Maharaja claims that it “brings distress.” The word here, duhkham, is glossed as “distress” by he and Srila Prabhupada. Tripurari Swami and Garuda dasa define it as “difficult.” Either way, it is clear.

Srila Prabhupada takes the long way around and, while commenting more than translating, explains the meaning of the verse. Here, he adds, “Unless one is engaged in the devotional service of the Lord…” before beginning the translation, where he writes, “mere renunciation of activities cannot make one happy.”

He has taken the word ayogatah, which he has glossed as “without devotional service” and is literally, “without yoga,” and expanded it while making it more specific. He is concluding what Krishna Himself concludes: bhakti-yoga, devotional service to God, is the culmination of all yogas.

And speaking of specific, it must be noted that Narayana Maharaja throws around quite a lot of Sanskrit in this translated verse. Nearly one half of it isn’t English. His audience, of course, isn’t someone just cutting their teeth on Krishna consciousness, but I still tend to question this practice.

Firstly, while Srila Prabhupada makes no mention of Arjuna and Tripurari Swami refers to him simply as “Arjuna,” Narayana Maharaja uses the name from the verse: Maha-baho – literally, as Garuda dasa also translated, “Mighty-armed.” Arjuna was a warrior and Krishna was addressing him as such.

Also, he uses karma-sannyasa and niskama-karma-yoga rather than “renunciation” and “without yoga.” He does not explain what either are in this purport, though they are both referenced several times.

Neither Srila Prabhupada nor Tripurari Swami use these phrases in their purports, though both describe the concepts very well.

The first part of the third line, yoga-yukto munir, is quite literally “the sage [munir] who is practiced/absorbed in yoga [yoga-yukto]….” Both Tripurari Swami and Garuda dasa translate it as such.

Srila Prabhupada, keeping with the explanation of yoga as devotional service translates: The sages [munir], purified by works of devotions [yoga-yukto]….”

Again, while three of our translators defined yoga-yukto as purified/practiced/absorbed, Narayana Maharaja glosses it as “one who is engaged in niskama-karma-yoga.” In his verse, he also uses the Sanskrit phrase, saying that one who performs niskama-karma-yoga becomes a jnani….”

In his glossary, he defines niskama-karma-yoga as “worship of the Supreme Lord performed by working without attachment to the fruits of one’s prescribed duties.” He defines jnani as “one in search of knowledge, impersonal or transcendental,” referencing Bhagavad-gita 7.16, where he defines jnani as “the man in knowledge.”

Concluding this verse, Krishna tells Arjuna reward for the sages who are absorbed in bhakti-yoga: brahma na cirenadhigacchati. All translators agree, with minor differences, “quickly attains the Absolute/Supreme.” Narayana Maharaja uses brahma from the verse itself, defining it in his word for word as “the stage of transcendence.”

Tripurari Swami defines brahma as “Brahman,” which is also the word that Garuda dasa uses.

It’s tempting for me to criticize Narayana Maharaja’s abundant use of Sanskrit terms in an English translation of the Gita. Seldom will you see other translators do this. However, if you’re serious about studying his edition, these words are easily looked up in his glossary. More importantly, these words add to the definition of the verse itself, explain how it is specifically applied to our Gaudiya-Vaisnava philosophy. Of course, his purports also accomplish this, as do the purports of Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami. Even the poetical translations of Garuda dasa extend our understanding of the application of Bhagavad-gita.

Someone recently commented that my “little Bhagavad-gita comparison project is a good way to end up a so-called “Vaishnava” scholar without any real understanding of Krishna.” This, in my opinion is a very dangerous and cult-like mentality to have. Even saying that the Bible, Torah or Qur’an cannot give and understanding of God is ridiculous, let alone saying this of other editions of the Gita translated by devotees in our line.

I say that it’s the opposite. Studying other teachers who are also upon our same path (and even those that are not) is instrumental in our understanding of God. We may not agree with every word written, but we should know our own place enough to learn from that which we do find agreeable.

The mentality of one specific way is the only way is poisonous and has no place in our philosophy.