Sit Properly

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

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

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

In the second chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, Arjuna the warrior has just surrendered to Krishna, God. He is requesting Krishna to teach him everything he needs to know.

This verse, 2.13, is a basic verse. It’s one of the most referenced and quoted. But it’s also one of the most difficult to realize. The second chapter as a whole is full of stuff like this. It’s the building blocks of spirituality, but even the great gurus and masters struggle with these realizations.

Two verses prior, Krishna explains to Arjuna that a wise person does not lament either for the living or the dead. In this verse, He explains further.

As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.
-Srila Prabhupada

Just as the embodied soul experiences changes of body, such as childhood, adulthood, and old age, so similarly it will acquire another body after death. Wise persons are not deluded about this.
-Tripurari Swami

Just as the embodied atma passes from boyhood to youth to old age, similarly, after death, he passes into another body. An intelligent person is not bewildered by the birth and death of the body.
-Narayana Maharaja

Just as the embodied
    while in this body
    passes through childhood,
    youth, and old age,
So also the embodied
    attains another body -
    the wise person
    is not bewildered by this.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Krishna is setting up an analogy. It is understood that we are not the body, that we are spirit souls. We are the soul, we have a body. And just as we experience our bodies changing from a baby all the way to an old fellow, we will also experience a new body after this one dies. This is reincarnation, one of the core beliefs in many spiritual philosophies.

The first line dehino ‘smin yatha dehe is one of the few lines of Sanskrit that I have memorized. I have a lot of trouble with learning a language and very little sticks. This, however, has stuck (well, the first line of it).

All four translations match up here. “(Just) as the embodied soul…” Narayana Maharaja uses the Sanskrit term atma, which means soul. Garuda dasa, however, continues “Just as the embodied while in this body.” It seems a little awkward, but the Sanskrit and the other translations, except Narayana Maharaja’s supports that, though less awkwardly.

It does seem redundant to restate that an embodied soul is in a body. That is why both Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami slide that restatement into the next line, kaumaram yauvanam jara.

These three words are simply “from boyhood to youth to old age.” Only Tripurari Swami translates yauvanam to adulthood. While other Sanskrit sources and dictionaries translate this as “youth,” it does get the point across. We don’t go straight from youth to old age, though in the eyes of the elderly, I’m sure it seems like we do. Time flies….

The second half of the verse is the target of the analogy. As Garuda dasa has put it: “So also the embodied attains another body.” The term praptih, which ends this third line, is glossed as “achievement” by both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja, though neither of them use it in their verses. Instead, they both use the word “passes,” as in “passes into another body.” Tripurari Swami glosses praptih as “acquiring.” Garuda dasa uses “attains.”

The slight variations in meaning between “achieve,” “pass,” “acquire,” and “attain” are too minuscule to break a sweat over.

Garuda dasa, whose version of the Gita attempts to follow the Sanskrit as much as possible, is the only translator to not mention death. The original Sanskrit verse does not mention death at all. But our other three translators clarify that it is “at death” or “after death” when the soul acquires another body. Though we may not like to hear this, we are going to die. But when we die, we will receive another body.

With the analogy complete, Krishna adds: dhiras tatra na muhyati. As Tripurari Swami puts it, “Wise persons are not deluded about this.”

Dhirah is a commonly used term describing a person. Sober, thoughtful and wise were used by our authors. Srila Prabhupada chose “sober” for his word-for-word rendering, but went with “self-realized” in his verse.

The Sanskrit doesn’t mention self-realization here. It only notes that a wise or sober person is not bewildered by this idea of changing bodies. Srila Prabhupada takes it a step farther, as he often does, interpreting the verse rather than providing a straight translation. In his purport, he again translates dhirah as sober.

A self-realized person is wise and sober, though not all wise or sober people are self-realized. But either way, they are all na nuhyati: not bewildered by this change.

All of the translations, except Tripurari Swami’s use “not bewildered.” He uses “not deluded,” just as his spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada used in his word-for-word (though wound up using “not bewildered” in his verse). Narayana Maharaja uses “not confused” in his word-for-word, though chose “not bewildered” in his verse translation, as does Garuda dasa.

The commentary of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, as provided by Narayana Maharaja, sums up this verse very well:

The following point may be raised: Since the atma is associated with the body, the body will also be an object of our love. Furthermore, those who are related to the body, such as sons, brothers, relatives, grandsons and so on, will also be the objects of our love, so when they die we will certainly feel grief.

Sri Bhagavan [Krishna] speaks this sloka [verse] beginning with dehinah, in answer to this. “The jiva [soul] in the body attains boyhood; at the end of boyhood he attains youth, and at the end of youth he attains old age. Similarly, at the loss of the body he attains another body. Just as one does not grieve at the end of boyhood and youth, which are objects of love due to their relationship with the atma, similarly one should not grieve for the body itself, which is also an object of love due to its relationship with the atma, when it is lost.

If a person grieves when he attains old age at the loss of youth, then he also feels happy when he attains youth at the loss of boyhood. Therefore, you should feel happy because when Bhisma and Drona [Arjuna's relatives] lose their old bodies they will attain new ones.

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

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four Gitas are:
-Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada (1972 edition)
-Bhagavad-gita: It’s Feeling and Philosophy by Tripurari Swami
-Srimad Bhagavad-gita by Narayana Maharaja
-Bhagavad-gita: The Beloved Lord’s Secret Love Song by Garuda dasa (Graham Schweig)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devotees of God are the exception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s go!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week’s verse is from Chapter Three: Karma-yoga. It’s message is one found throughout Vedic literature and is really the crux of the Bhagavad-gita.

In Chapter Three, Arjuna is asking Krishna very plainly, “why should I fight?” Arjuna is a warrior, it’s his duty to fight. However, Krishna just got through with telling him that intelligence is better than such a ghastly activity as warfare. Krishna explains that you can’t automatically achieve perfection simply by renouncing work and certainly not by renouncing your duty. One must also control the mind (a subject dealt with very specifically in the Sixth Chapter). He explains that one should work without attachment to the fruits of his activities. And one should always perform their duty.

This verse, the 30th, sums up the teachings so far. Krishna, a few verses down the road, brings it all home, telling Arjuna that it is better to do your duty, even if it’s flawed, than to engage in another’s duty. As Srila Prabhupada translates it: “to follow another’s path is dangerous.”

So here is Bhagavad-gita 3.30…

Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with mind intent on Me, and without desire for gain and free from egoism and lethargy, fight.
-Srila Prabhupada

Offering all of one’s actions unto me in knowledge of the indwelling Supersoul, free from desire, selfishness, and grief, fight!
-Tripurari Swami

With your mind fixed in the self and offering all your activities to Me, being reed from desire, possessiveness and lamentation, fight.
-Narayana Maharaja

Renouncing all actions in me,
    with one's thought on
    the 'principle of self',
Without longings,
    without a sense of 'mine'-
    fight, with grief cast off.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Srila Prabhupada starts off his verse with “Therefore, O Arjuna,” a phrase that isn’t actually in the sanskrit. None of our other translators do this. While the meaning is there in all of these translations, Srila Prabhupada seemed to be poking us with the point that “this is the logical conclusion to Chapter Three!” When someone says “therefore,” usually they’ve laid out a logical argument before you. And as described before the verse, Krishna did that for Arjuna.

The verse actually begins with the idea of “surrendering all your works unto Me,” as Srila Prabhupada translated it. Tripurari Swami, his disciple, puts it “Offering ones actions unto me.” Narayana Maharaja, translates “actions” or “works” as “activities,” while Garuda translates “surrendering” or “offering” as “renouncing.”

There is a bit of difference here. It’s no big surprise that the word “karmani” is translated as “actions” or “works” or “activities.” Karma actually means “works.” These words are interchangeable, as far as we’re concerned.

While Srila Prabhupada chose “surrendering,” both Tripuari Swami and Narayana Maharama chose “offering.” Garuda dasa, oddly, chose “renouncing.” There is a bit of difference in all of these. The sanskrit word is sannyasaya. The first three translations have word-for-word sections. In that, all three translate it as “giving up completely” (or some variation close to that). Garuda’s has no such word-for-word, but seeing as how “renouncing” is the same as “giving up completely,” it makes a bit of sense where he was coming from.

When we, as devotees, surrender, renounce or give something up, we do it for Krishna. This verse explains that. All of the translations, in one way or another, convey that. Garuda uses what almost appears to be a Biblical expression “Renouncing all actions in me.” Means the same thing, but it’s an odd way of saying it.

Another thing to note is the use and lack of use of the capitalized “M” in “me,” meaning Krishna, God. Traditionally, any pronouns dealing with divinity are capitalized. Lately, the scholarly trend is to not do that. Tripuari Swami’s and Garuda dasa’s follow this new rule, while Srila Prabhupada’s and Narayana Maharaja’s do not. I personally don’t like this new rule, though don’t believe that either Tripurari Swami or Garuda dasa are trying to subtly say that Krishna is not God. Both of their versions drive that point home again and again, just like the two that capitalize.

How the word adhyatma is translated and placed. In his verse, Srila Prabhupada says, “with mind intent on Me.” Tripurari Swami uses, “in knowledge of the indwelling Supersoul.” “With mind fixed in the self,” is how Narayana Maharaja translates it. Garuda dasa puts it: “with one’s thought on / the ‘principle of self’.” He uses “principle of” quite a lot in his translation.

So is our mind supposed to be fixed in “the self” or on the “indwelling Supersoul” (or “Me,” meaning Krishna)? What’s the difference between “the self” and Krishna? In his purport, Tripurari Swami indicates that it is both. We must surrender in the knowledge of both the self and of Krishna. We must understand our position, that we are not “the enjoyer,” but rather God is. Our action is carried out by material nature.

Another Gaudia-Vaisnava, B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami, translates adhytma-cetasa as “with the understanding, ‘All my actions are under the control of the indwelling Lord.’” And that about sums it up.

I’ve seen all of the translators use “the self” in different places and it’s not always clear what it mean (to my mind anyway). But this does shed some light upon it. “The self” is the soul. Not only the soul, but everything the soul actually needs. Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura comments, “Do not let your mind dwell on the sense objects, and give up any sense of possessiveness towards them.”

Moving now to the second stanza of the verse, Krishna instructs Arjuna (and in doing so, instructs us) to do our duty without selfishness.

Our translators use a handful of different words to convey this. Srila Prabhupada picked “without desire for gain,” “free from egoism and lethargy.” Tripuari Swami quickly sums it up, “free from desire, selfishness, and grief.” Narayana Maharaja has it as “being freed from desire, possessiveness and lamentation.” Garuda dasa, as he is writing a poetical representation of Bhagavad-gita, arranges it as it was in Sanskrit, but uses, “Without longings,” “without a sense of ‘mine’,” and “with grief cast off.”

Only Srila Prabhupada describes which desires we should be free from. We should not desire to gain.

“Egoism,” “selfishness,” “possessiveness,” and “without a sense of ‘mine’” all describe the same nasty quality the whole world could very well do without. While each translator uses a different word with slightly different meaning and implication, it’s nice to put them all together to get a feel for how awful that selfish desire is and what all it can encompass.

The sanskrit term vigata-jvarah means “without lamentation, without grief.” That is a difficult one to conquer. It should be. Grieving is a sign of kindness. None of our commentators address this lamentation. But in the chapter prior to this one, in Bhagavad-gita 2.11, though using a different Sanskrit word for “lament,” it instructs us that the “wise lament neither for the living nor the dead.” The next verse explains there was never a time when God and we did not exist, and in the future never will any of us cease to be.”

That is the lamentation we should be free from.

Krishna’s last instruction to Arjuna, in this verse, is “Fight!” as Tripurari Swami puts it. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja simply say, “fight.” with a very somber and serious period. Personally, I like Tripurari Swami’s excited “Fight!”

However, in a very literal translation, Garuda dasa comes closest to the original Sanskrit poetry, “fight, with grief cast off.”

The message, of course, is one. While it is “fight” for Arjuna the great warrior, it is “do your duty” whatever that may be, for the rest of us. We do our duty, without all the baggage and hangups, as an offering to God. This is the whole purpose of the Bhagavad-gita.

Hare Krishna!

Today’s verse comes from the fourth chapter, entitled Jnana-yoga. Srila Prabhupada calls this chapter “Transcendental Knowledge,” while Tripurari Swami, his disciple, entitled it “Yoga of Knowledge,” which is pretty well an exact translation from sanskrti. Narayana Maharaja, disciple of Srila Prabhupada’s godbrother, somewhat flips it around, calling it, “Yoga Through Transcendental Knowledge.” Garuda prabhu, through his poetical translation, gave it the title of “The Way of Knowledge.”

In his title, Srila Prabhupada makes sure that we understand that when he speaks about knowledge, jnana, it is of a spiritual nature. This isn’t material knowledge. Tripurari Swami assume we already know that “knowledge” here means spiritual. “Yoga” in this case (and in all cases throughout the Gita) means to “link up,” generally with the Supreme. Narayana Maharaja, though his Gita was written before Tripuari Swami’s, seems to split the difference. I’ve found this to often be the case, which, in my mind, is a very good thing.

Garuda prabhu’s work is one of poetry. Originally, the Bhagavad-gita was a poem. I find his version to be the most true to that feel. He thusly uses “The Way of Knowledge.” “The Way” invokes the idea of a path, a process. It’s not merely a linking, there is more to it than that.

This idea is also supported in today’s verse, the 38th verse of chapter four.

In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And one who has achieved this enjoys the self within himself in due course of time.
-Srila Prabhupada

There is nothing here that is as purifying as transcendental knowledge. One who is perfect in yoga realizes this wisdom within himself in due course.
-Tripurari Swami

In this world, there is nothing more purifying than transcendental knowledge. A person who has attained complete perfection in niskama-karma-yoga, receives such jnana naturally within his heart, in due course of time.
-Narayana Maharaja

There is no means of purification
    found in this world
    that is equal to knowledge.
In time, one perfected
    in yoga personally finds
    that [knowledge] within the self.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Each translation, very closely follows the next. All four start by explaining that “in this world” (or “here” in Tripurari Swami’s translation), there are no means of purification, nothing more purifying, nothing as sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge (or just “knowledge” in Garuda dasa’s).

The Bhagavad-gita was spoke to Arjuna on a battlefield. Each translation, with the exception of Tripurari Swami’s, states “in this world.” He recounts it as “here.” The word in Sanskrit is iha. All of the Gitas, except Garuda’s have word-for-word translations printed just above the actual translation of the verse. Both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja translate iha as “in this world.” Clearly, Garuda did as well.

However, in Tripurari Swami’s purport, he states that “iha (here) refers to this world.” He then continues, “Iha can also refer to the sacrificial practices mentioned previously. Among all sacrificial acts, it is the wisdom that arises from them that justifies their performance.”

His is the only commentary to mention iha.

Each commentary goes on to describe transcendental knowledge. Each, in their own way, explain that this knowledge is naturally there within us. Though none of them use the analogy of a tree growing from a small seed, here is an example of such a thing.

Only Srila Prabhuapda’s translation of the verse hints at it. “Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism.” This comes from four seemingly different translations of the word samsiddhah.

“Matured” is how Srila Prabhupada defines it. Tripurari Swami has it as “perfect.” Narayana Maharaja gives it a bit of a longer definition: “one who has attained complete perfection of niskama-karma-yoga.” Garuda prabhu’s translation has no word-for-word,
however it can be concluded that he translated it as “perfection.”

But what is this niskama-karma-yoga that only Narayana Maharaja mentions? In this verse and its commentary (which in this case is the commentary by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura), he does not define or even describe it. Srila Prabhupada has described it as the “renunciation of the fruits of one’s labor.”¹

From here till the end of the verse, there almost seems to be a bit of disagreement on how this knowledge is achieved/realized/received/found.

Srila Prabhupada states that it is the “mature fruit of all mysticism” and that it is “achieved.” He is the only one to use “mysticism” and it’s a bit puzzling why he chose this word. He uses this word a lot throughout his writings, often translating it from yogina. While the word “mysticism” isn’t in his word-for-word translation, it’s clear that he’s recalling his past uses of “mystics” (meaning yogis, ones who are linked with the Supreme). However, in his word-for-word, he defines yoga as devotion.

Tripurari Swami writes that “one who is perfect in yoga realizes this wisdom…” From combining both Srila Prabhupada’s and Tripurari Swami’s we can conclude that “one who is perfect in devotion realizes this wisdom.” In his purport, Tripurari Swami seems to give a call back to Srila Prabhupada’s “mysticism” reference, this knowledge naturally awakes in someone who has learned how to “acquire knowledge from a seer by engaging himself under that seer’s direction.”

Narayana Maharaja translates that this knowledge is received “naturally.” Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s purport explains that while natural, it is not immediate or automatic simply by accepting sannyasa (the celibate, renounced priestly order).

Garuda prabhu’s is a bit more mysterious. “One perfected in yoga, personally finds that [knowledge] within the self.” Many Bhagavad-gita verses are dedicated to describing the different kinds of and the perfection of yoga. Taking this one verse out of that context, it almost seems like with little effort, we’ll stumble upon the knowledge. Devotees know this to be true and also, at times, untrue. Devotion is simple for the simple and complicated for the complicated.

However, all versions conclude that it is not immediate. All four state “in time” it will happen. It’s not something that happens right away. “In due course of time” is used by three translations. Garuda prabhu entitled this chapter “The Way of Knowledge.” Finding this knowledge is a process.

This knowledge and peace are culminated in Krishna consciousness. As our hearts become purified, this knowledge will awaken within us. And, as Srila Prabhupada states in his purport, “that is the last word in the Bhagavad-gita.”

1. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura does go on to describe it a few verses farther, “giving up karma through the process of sannyasa (renunciation of attachment to the fruits).” [↩]

Hare Krishna!

I have a segment on my blog where I take a Gita verse or two and post the translations from four different Gaudia Vaisnava Bhagavad-gitas. I use Srila Prabhupada’s, Tripurari Swami’s, Narayana Maharaja’s and Garuda dasa’s. While all four are accepted by different Gaudia Vaisnavas, it’s really nice to see the harmony in them. It’s also nice to learn how they differ. Maybe it’s some of that “unity in diversity” jazz.

I don’t do this to say “this Bhagavad-gita is better than that Bhagavad-gita!” And I don’t do this to stir, create, tickle or otherwise agitate controversy.

Today’s verse is Bhagavad-gita 18.55. This is a pretty well known one, so it should be fun to hear it from four different personalities. Let’s go!

Chapter 18, Text 55

One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in fully consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
-Srila Prabhupada

Through devotion to me he comes to know who I am in truth. Thereafter, having understood the truth about me, he enters my abode.
-Tripurari Swami

It is only by bhakti that he can know the tattva of My glories and svarupa. He then enters My eternal pastimes through that tattva on the strength of prema-bhakti.
-Narayana Maharaja

By offering love
    one recognizes
    me fully and
    who I am in truth.
Once knowing
    me in truth,
    one comes to me
    immediately.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Well how about that. Four very different translations of the same verse. This is what “Four Gitas, One Verse” is all about.

Let’s take the first part. Srila Prabhupada says that one can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. He is using third person, while all of the other Gitas are using first person. In Prabhupada’s word-for-word, he translates the sanskrit word “mam” as “Me,” just like the other Gitas do. But for some reason, Srila Prabhupada thought this verse was important enough to have it stand out as a direct instruction.

In the verses before and the verses after, Prabhupada translates Krishna speaking in first person. This verse alone is He speaking in third person. Interesting. The meaning is, of course, the same.

Moving on, Srila Prabhupada says that it is by “devotional service” (his translation of “bhaktya”)that we can understand the “Supreme Personality.” Tripurari Swami simply says “devotion.” Narayana Maharaja, as is often the case in his Gita, uses many sanskrit words. This, I feel, can make reading his Gita a bit daunting. Nevertheless, he translates “bhaktya” as “through bhakti.”

Gaurada prabhu’s Gita says that we can “recognize” Krishna “by offering love.”

So we have “devotional service,” “devotion,” “bhakti,” and “offering love.” I wish that Garuda prabhu’s word-for-word were available (I understand that that’s not the nature of his Gita, and that’s perfectly fine, but it would still be fun to have it). “Offering love” to me seems a bit of an over-simplification. I’m not really sure why he chose that wording.

Also an oddity is how Narayana Maharaja translates “yavan” as “how great is My opulence.” Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami, on the other hand, in their word-for-word, both translate “yavan” as “as much as,” which is much different from “how great is My opulence.” However, both Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami seem to leave out “as much as” from the actual verse itself (as does Garuda prabhu).

In the next part of the verse, Srila Prabhupada translates, “And when one is fully conscious of the Supreme Lord….” Tripurari Swami has it as, “…having understood the truth about me….” While Garuda prabhu writes, “Once knowing me in truth….” Narayana Maharaja, once again with a slightly different angle. In his word-for-word, he uses the words “having understood” and “truth,” like Tripurari Swami and similar to Srila Prabhupada and Garuda prabhu. However, in his actual translation of the verse, it’s difficult (at least for me) to understand where he translates, “through that tattva on the strength of prema-bhakti.”

What he is saying is most definitely true, I just don’t understand how he got that from even his own word-for-word translation.

This entire part of the verse is a bit of a mystery to me. “He then enters My eternal pastimes through that tattva on the strength of prema-bhakti.” To get “eternal pastimes” he translates “mam” in the second half of the verse as “Me (My nitya-lila).” Tripurari Swami and Srila Prabhupada both translate it as simply “Me.” Garuda prabhu clearly does as well.

I am not trying to say that Narayana Maharaja is mistaken or wrong or anything like that. I’m just showing how different his translation of this verse is.

Srila Prabhupada takes the second half of the verse as, “And when one is in fully consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.” Tripurari Swami: “Thereafter, having understood the truth about me, he enters my abode.” And Garuda prabhu: “Once knowing me in truth, one comes to me immediately.”

They are all basically saying the same thing. When one fully understands Krishna he enters Krishna’s abode, he is with Krishna. However, one thing is a bit of a mystery to me. While each translation states that there is an “abode” or “kingdom of God,” none of the word-for-words state it. It’s simply not there.

Each has the sanskrit word “visate,” which each translates as “enters” or “one can enter.” But it doesn’t say what one can enter. Since all four Gitas do this, I’m assuming that I’m deficient in some way. maybe “visate” means “enters my abode.”

Srila Prabhupada’s purport addresses this. “One should not misunderstand that the word visate, “enters into Me,” supports the monist theory that one becomes homogeneous with the impersonal Brahman. No. Visate means that one can enter into the abode of the Supreme Lord in his individuality to engage in His association and render service unto Him.

In Narayana Maharaja’s purport, as his verse translation suggests, he interprets “visate” to mean that one enters into Krishna’s eternal lila. He also refutes the monist theory.

Tripurari Swami’s entire purport is basically devoted to the same idea.

Interestingly, the word “visate,” according to a footnote in Garuda prabhu’s book, can also translate to “comes back.” While none of the Gitas use this particular definition, it does seem to apply to our “Back home, back to Godhead” philosophy.

We can only understand Krishna through love, bhakti, devotional service. And when we do fully understand Krishna we can once again be with Him in His abode, in His pastimes.

The Bhagavad-gita is our manual for understanding just who Krishna is and how to return to Him. By studying this verse and the rest of the Gita, we can gain the understanding we need to be good bhaktas, good devotees.

For those new to the fray, I have a segment on my blog where I take a Gita verse or two and post the translations from four different Gaudia Vaisnava Bhagavad-gitas. I use Srila Prabhupada’s, Tripurari Swami’s, Narayana Maharaja’s and Garuda dasa’s. While all four are accepted by different Gaudia Vaisnavas, it’s really nice to see the harmony in them. It’s also nice to learn how they differ. Maybe it’s some of that “unity in diversity” jazz.

I don’t do this to say “this Bhagavad-gita is better than that Bhagavad-gita!” And I don’t do this to stir, create, tickle or otherwise agitate controversy.

The verse I’m picking today is Bhagavad-gita 10.34. Chapter 10 is a great chapter. The Opulence of the Absolute! The Yoga of Divine Manifestation! Viubhuti Yoga! The Sublime Presence of Divinity! Whatever you call it, Chapter 10 is a good bit of fun!

In Chapter 10, Krishna describes himself through use of smilies. A few months ago, I did a verse from Chapter 10. It was the “Of Secret Things I am Silence” verse. That’s one of my favorites.

But today is text 34. So let’s get on it with it!

Chapter 10, Text 34

I am all-devouring death, and I am the generator of all thins yet to be. Among women I am fame, fortune, speech, memory, intelligence, faithfulness and patience.
-Srila Prabhupada

I am death, destroyer of all; I am the source of all things yet to be. Of women I am fame, prosperity, speech, memory, intelligence, fortitude, and forbearance.
-Tripurari Swami

I am all-devouring death, and of the six progressive transformations experienced by all living beings, I am birth. Among women, I am fame, beauty, fine speech, memory, intelligence, forbearance and forgiveness.
-Narayana Maharaja

I am death, which
    takes away everything,
    and the rising into being
    of all that will be.
Of feminine attributes
    [and their presiding goddesses],
    I am fame, beauty, speech,
    remembrance, intelligence,
    constancy, and forbearance.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

The chapter 10 verses are difficult to do because basically, they’re lists. Lists are translated by item, so you don’t have a ton of variation here. But since Praveen mentioned this verse in one of the comments she left yesterday, I thought that I’d tackle this one today.

Both Srila Prabhupada and Naryana Maharaja use “I am all-devouring death.” Tripurari Swami uses “I am death, destroyer of all.” While Garuda dasa uses “I am death, which takes away everything.” While we don’t know Garuda dasa’s word-for-word, Both Prabhupada and Naryana Maharaja translate sarva-harah as “all-devouring” and Tripurari Swami translates it as “destroyer of all.”

Krishna is saying that “I am death, I take away everything, I destroy all.”

It continues in Srila Prabhupada’s as “I am the generator of all things yet to be.” Tripurari Swami’s pretty well agrees with that: “I am the source of all things yet to be.” Generator and source are basically the same. Prabhupada translates udbhavah as “generator” and Tripurari Swami translates it as “source.”

Garuda dasa’s has a slightly different twist on it with “[I am]… the rising into being of all that will be.” His is poetic (that’s the point of his translation). It clearly shows the cycle of death and birth. Krishna is death that takes away everything and he’s the rising into being of all that will be. Birth.

While Srila Prabhupada’s and Tripurari Swami’s say that Krishna is the generator/source, Garuda dasa’s hints that He’s not just the origin of this birth, but the activity itself. He “is the rising into being…” “rising” is a verb, while “generator” and “source” are nouns. I wish I could see his word-for-word. Was he literally translating it? Or was he taking a poetic license? I don’t think it really changes the meaning. After all, we do worship an absolute God.

But Narayana Maharaja’s is very different. “…and of the six progressive transformations experienced by all living beings, I am birth.” The conclusion is the same: I am birth. But where does “…and of the six progressive transformations experienced by all living beings” come from?

He translates bhavisyatam as “of the progressive samskaras.” In contrast, Srila Prabhupada translates it as “of the future” and Tripurari Swami as “of future manifestations.”

Srila Prabhupada, in his purport, explains the “six basic changes” as “They are born, they grow, they remain for some time, they reproduce, they dwindle and finally vanish.” Those are the progressive transformations. I’m not sure why Narayana Maharaja translated them as “samskaras.” Maybe at one time, vedically, there were ceremonies for each stage.

All of the translations, except for Garuda dasa’s, translate “narinam” as “of (or ‘among’) women.” Garuda dasa’s translates it as “Of feminine attributes,” which is rather different, but same point. Again, we don’t have his word-for-word to see how he came to that conclusion.

Moving on, here’s a quick little chart. They go, from top to bottom:
-Srila Prabhupada
-Tripurari Swami
-Naryana Maharaja
-Garuda dasa

fame    fortune        speech          memory            intelligence    faithfulness    patience
fame    prosperity    speech          memory            intelligence    fortitude        forbearance
fame    beauty        fine speech    memory             intelligence    forbearance    forgiveness
fame    beauty        speech           remembrance    intelligence    constancy     forbearance

1) kirttih – Fame. All agree.

2) srih – Prabhupada is the only one to translate “srih” as “fortune”. Tripurari Swami translates it as “prosperity” while Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa translate it as “beauty.” Fortune and prosperity are the same, of course. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura defines it as “beauty.” In his purport, Narayana Maharaja defines it again as “beauty or fortune.”

3) vak – Speech or “fine speech.” Same thing, really. In his purport, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura translates it as “cultured speech.” Tripurari Swami says that “Speech (vak) is also identified with the Sanskrit language, which is said to be capable of expressing all ideas.”

4) smrtih – Memory or remembrance. Also the same.

5) medha – Intelligence. All agree. This was the word that Praveen specifically mentioned in her comment. “Of women (or “Of feminine attributes”)… I am intelligence.” All translations agree. There’s also nothing in the purports about this.

6 & 7) dhrtih & ksama – This word and the next, ksama, seem to have very similar meanings. So much so that while Tripurari Swami used the word “forbearance” for dhrtih, Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa used it for ksama. The words: fortitude, forbearance and constancy are all very similar in meaning. Every translation, except for Srila Prabhupada’s uses them for one or both of the words. Srila Prabhupada uses “faithfulness” and “patience” respectively. I really like that. Faithfulness is a type of fortitude, but it’s softer and seems more spiritual. Patience is a virtue, similar to forbearance, but kinder, with more mercy. And speaking of mercy, Narayana Maharaja translates ksama as forgiveness, possibly taking that hint from Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. Forgiveness is certainly one of the most wonderful things ever. To be forgiven is beautiful. I’m not sure why it is translated as such when others translate it as patience or forbearance, but I’m glad it’s there.

Interestingly enough, Srila Prabhupada translated “ksama” as “forgiveness” in Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto Seven and in many classes.

And that’s the verse.

The reason that this was picked was because of the last part. The “of women” part. Here, Krishna is saying that he is the good qualities of women. These qualities are actually the qualities of the seven wives of dharma (as noted in Tripurari Swami’s purport), though he doesn’t mention who they were (aside from their names clearly being the words above – Kirti, Sri, etc).

The Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 6, Chapter 6 is all about the Daughters of Daksa and their Progeny. However, from what I read, it doesn’t mention these daughters. Just that Prajapati Daksa has sixty daughters. Is it mentioned elsewhere in the Bhagavatam? I don’t know. I’m not a scholar, I’m a parrot.

Narayana Maharaja’s purport goes into more detail. They were the daughters of Prajapati Daksa. He was the one who cursed Narada Muni so that he (Narada) had to constantly travel (which seems to be why sanyasis must travel).

I’ve just spent the last half hour researching the daughters of Daksa. There are different accounts as to how many daughters he had (sixty, twenty-four, etc). And it’s rather confusing, so I stopped, thinking that I was probably taking it a bit too far.

And in that light, I leave you with the last bit of purport from Srila Prabhupada…

“The six opulences listed are considered to be feminine. If a woman possesses all of them or some of them she becomes glorious. Sanskrit is a perfect language and is therefore very glorious. After studying, if one can remember the subject matter, he is gifted with good memory, or smrti. One need not read many books on different subject matters; the ability to remember a few and quote them when necessary is also another opulence.”

It’s been about two or three months since I last posted any Bhagavad-gita verses. I think I’ll rectify that right now. But first an explanation or two.

Firstly, if you don’t know what the Bhagavad-gita is, think of it as (basically) the bible of the Hare Krishnas (also of many Hindu peoples). It was spoken by Krishna to Arjuna on an ancient battlefield. Krishna is God and Arjuna is Krishna’s friend and servant. Arjuna wanted to neglect his duty and Krishna not only talks to him about duty and responsibility, but of the true nature of soul and our relation to God and the universe. It’s some pretty intense stuff. Well worth a read.

What I’m doing here is comparing four different translations of the Bhagavad-gita. In order: Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami, Narayana Maharaja and Garuda das (Graham Schweig). I don’t do this to say “this or that Bhagavad-gita is better!” I do it simply to compare. It’s interesting to me. Anyway, that’s what I’m doing here.

My selection for today is from the 18th chapter. I mentioned them in my last Gita post.

There are two verses, I’ll combine them into one chunk of words.

Chapter 18, Texts 61 – 62.

The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone’s heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy. O scion of Bharata, surrender unto Him utterly. By His grace you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode.
-Srila Prabhupada

O Arjuna, God resides in the hearts of all beings, directing their wandering by the magical power of maya, on which they are seated as if it were a machine. Take refuge in him alone with all your heart, O descendant of Bharata. By his grace you will attain the supreme peace and eternal abode.
-Tripurari Swami

O Arjuna, Sarvantaryami Paramatma is situated in the heart of all jivas and is causing them to wander in the cycle of birth and death by His maya, as if they are mounted on a machine. O Bharata, surrender exclusively to the Isvara in every respect. By His grace, you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme eternal abode.
-Narayana Maharaja

The supreme Lord
    of all beings, O Arjuna,
    is present within the inner
    region of the heart,
Causing all beings
    to move about like riders
    upon a mystical machine,
    by the divine power of Maya
In him alone take shelter
    with your whole being,
    O Bharata.
Through his grace
    you shall attain
    supreme peace,
    the eternal dwelling.
-Garuda dasa

You’ll see that Prabhupada’s, Tripurari Swamis and Garuda dasa’s are all fairly similar, especially when compared to Narayana Maharaja’s.

All start out basically the same, with Krishna addressing Arjuna. “God is in our hearts,” Krishna tells Arjuna. Arjuna, throughout the Gita, is basically us. The everyman. Sort of. Narayana Maharaja uses the sanskrit “Sarvantaryami Paramatma” to describe God in our hearts. It literally means “The Supreme person who dwells in the hearts of everybody.” He uses “jivas,” a sanskrit word for “souls.”

See, we believe that we are not these bodies, that we are spirit souls. A lot of folks think that we have a soul. But really, we ARE the soul, we have a body. Get it?

From here, we learn that God is in us, directing (or causing) our wanderings (or movements) as if we were on a machine. “Machine” is interesting and I’ll come back to that in a second. All of the verses mention “maya” except for Srila Prabhupada’s. Maya is illusion. As defined in Srila Prabhupada’s Gita, maya is “an energy of Krishna’s which deludes the living entity into forgetfulness of the Supreme Lord.”

Prabhupada’s translation leaves out the word “maya,” but describes the machine as made of material energy (which is maya). When put that way, we can really see how this machine that is carrying us around is maya, illusion.

Narayana Maharaja doesn’t use the word “machine.” He describes the machine as the cycle of birth and death. Machines are cyclical. This machine, the machine that is carrying us around, the machine that is simply illusion is the cycle of birth and death. This cycle is everything that we think we know. Everything from our births to our deaths (since we believe in reincarnation), ad infinitum. And so everything we think we know is illusion, it’s not real.

It’s described as a dream. When we’re dreaming, we think it’s real. It seems real, no matter how wacky it is. That’s life in the material world. We think it’s real, but it’s not. It’s a real dream. But still a dream.

Tripurari Swami calls maya’s power “magical.” It’s like magicians (who are also called “illusionists”).

Then, moving onto the next verse, Arjuna, here addressed as the scion/descendant of Bharata (India), is being urged to surrender/take shelter/take refuge of this Supreme person, God, who is residing in our hearts. Narayana Maharaja uses the term “Isvara” which simply means “the Supreme controller.” In every translation, we’re not just being urged to surrender to Him, but to surrender “in every respect,” “utterly,” “exclusively,” and with our “whole being.”

Why? The last line covers it. We will attain transcendental and supreme peace as well as the eternal abode. Transcendental peace means eternal peace. Peace the transcends this material world. As we know, peace in this world is fleeting (if it ever comes at all), but transcendental peace is spiritual peace, the supreme peace. That is eternal.

The eternal abode, or eternal dwelling, is Vaikuntha, the “spiritual sky.” Or as Tripurari Swami put it in his purport “Give your heard to me [Krishna] and by my grace you will come to the end of all sorrow and attain my abode.” Meaning that we will be with Krishna in Krishna’s abode. Heaven, the Kingdom of God.

Now, as devotees, we shouldn’t be thinking of a reward for worshiping God. While we know that by this devotion we will come to Krishna’s abode (get to heaven), we shouldn’t think of God as a vending machine, here to meet our every whim.

To me, that almost seems like we need material proof of God’s existence. “God, if you’re there, show me a sign!” If a sign is shown, this may satisfy our very base spiritual desires, however, if a sign is not shown (as is often the case), our fragile faith is shattered. We have no capacity to see God with our material senses. It’s like looking for the sun with a flashlight. It’s pointless to try. Only through faith can we prove to ourselves that He is present.

But Krishna is so kind that He tells us the reward anyway. We just shouldn’t focus on that. We shouldn’t love God because we’re getting a reward out of it.

That’s sort of how I was raised, in the Baptist Church. Love God and accept Jesus as your savior or burn in hell for eternity. However, if you do accept Christ, you go to heaven. It’s two sides of the same coin. I was taught no devotion, no faith, no humility, only fear. I was told what hell would be like and how horrible it would be. I was told very literally nothing about heaven. “Streets of gold, mansions, etc.” But that’s it. And it didn’t matter, because even though I had no idea what heaven was like, it was definitely better than hell. So I got saved right quick.

But that taught me nothing about faith. It told me to love God or else. When I asked “why?” I was told “because otherwise, you’ll go to hell.” And who wants that?

In these two verses, Krishna tells us that He is in our hearts, but because of material illusion, we don’t know this. However, if we surrender to Him, we will have peace and be with God eternally.

There is no “and if you don’t do this, you’ll go to hell!” No condemnation or fear. The Bhagavad-gita isn’t about fear. What’s needed is there to scare people into believing something? If they are scared into believing it, it’s not that they really believe it, they’re just afraid to admit they don’t.

These two verses are the last of Krishna’s instructions in the Bhagavad-gita. This is the culmination of His teachings. Everything was leading up to this.

And what is “everything”? Well how about you pick up a copy of the Bhagavad-gita and find out? I personally recommend Bhagavad-gita: As It Is by Srila Prabhupada. You can buy that here.

This has been fun. If anyone’s got questions, I’ll do my best to answer. Hare Krishna!