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.

Being a collector of “Hare Krishna” books, I’ve found myself with a slew of Bhagavad-gitas. That’s how I came up with the idea of doing the Gita comparisons (one of which will post tomorrow).

My favorite translation was done by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, entitled Bhagavad-gita: As It Is. I’ve got three different versions of it.

The first one is a purple edition from 1968. It’s small with no Sanskrit and sparse in the annotations area. It was published by MacMillan (under their imprint Collier). The introductions were done by Allen Ginsberg, Denise Levertov and Thomas Merton. Not bad, eh? I talked about this edition here and here. While this was Prabhuada’s first Bhagavad-gita released in America, he wasn’t very happy with it. He wanted the full commentaries and Sanskrit, which MacMillan insisted be edited out.

By 1972, however, demand for his Bhagavag-gita increased and they released the full version. This is the version that most older devotees and Prabhupada himself used every day. The older purple ones were set aside and the new unedited version of Bhagavad-gita: As It Is, weighing in at 1,000 pages, with full index and tons of purports and Sanskrit took its place.

In the early 80′s, several years after Prabhupada’s passing, his Bhagavad-gita was “revised and enlarged” without prior consent or request by the original author. All older copies of Bhagavad-gita: As It Is were put aside at the insistence of ISKCON itself and the new, re-edited Gita with well over 700 changes took its place. The 1972 edition, which the devotees and Prabhupada used every day was no longer to be printed, read or distributed.

As time went on, more and more books were re-edited and more and more devotees desired again to print, read and distribute the original editions.

Eventually in 2002, ISKCON decided that it would be alright to reprint some original editions as historic “facsimile editions.” They did this for Bhagavad-gita: As It Is with a caveat warning the buyer that this is not the recommended edition. The recommended edition is the revised and re-edited one.

Oddly, this facsimile edition is now out of print. Other facsimile editions are also going out of print. Thankfully, a devotee-run company called Krishna Books is printing these spiritually and historically important volumes.

I don’t have the original 1972 edition. I only have a facsimile of it. It’s big and rather cumbersome. This is also the facsimile that is out of print. Fortunately for me (and those on the street distributing books), Krishna Books has made a smaller edition. It’s much smaller in size with thinner paper and that’s just perfect. It’s still hardbound, of course, but it’s small. It can be purchased here. Many other original printing books can be purchased on that site as well.

However, my own daily Gita doesn’t really fall into any of those categories.

Of course, it’s the same edition that Srila Prabhupada and the devotees used, but its printing history predates ISKCON’s facsimile edition by a decade or so.

It was given to me by Candramauli Swami in 1995 while I was living in New Vrndavana. He was teaching a Bhagavad-gita class every night and was very insistent that we used the original Gitas. He even called the re-editors “rascals” for what “they have done to Srila Prabhupada’s words.” He was very adamant about this then, though he has since changed his tune.

This Bhagavad-gita: As It Is claimed to be published by ISKCON’s Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (ISKCON’s book printing arm) in India in “Hare Krishna Land, Juhu Road.” I apparently have the 7th printing, which was done in 1992. The first printing was in 1983, just as the revised edition was being released.

Was this really done by ISKCON? I have my doubts. Why would they release Prabhupada’s original edition when they were pushing their own revised edition so heavily? My suspicion is that it was published by devotees outside of ISKCON. Though I could be wrong.

It is very obviously an Indian printing. The cover is bubbling, the pages have huge chunks of wood floating around in them. The print is blurry and blotchy at times. The few colored plates are washed out. The inside cover is upside down! It’s a book binder’s nightmare.

Oddly enough, however, unlike most Indian printings, the binding itself is fully intact. It’s strong and sturdy. Like I said, it’s my daily Gita. I love the feel and the smell of it. The pages are soft and a brownish tan that my eyes have grown accustomed to. The printing and even nonfatal binding errors give this Gita, my Gita, a personality. Yes, this was a mass produced book, but it has its own character.

I collect many editions of Bhagavad-gita: As It Is. There are a few more I’d still like to have (the original printing of the 1972 edition, for example), but this is the Gita that I use. I was trained up in this Gita, I have turned every page, read every line again and again. It never gets old.

This is the Bhagavad-gita for me. And you should find one for yourself. It’s great daily reading. Allow me to suggest this one. It’s Prabhupada’s original, the one he personally wrote and read from every day. How can you go wrong with that?

Back in 1948, Srila Prabhuapda wrote a paper partially about the many translations of the Bhagavad-gita that were floating around. He would hit on this subject often, explaining that only those who are following the teachings of Bhagavad-gita could properly translate and give commentary upon it.

Now, certainly, a direct, word-for-word translation could be done by anyone with a degree in Sanskrit. They could get the basic ideas, the plot and even the poetry pretty close to accurate (as can be noted by Srila Prabhupada’s using of Rama Krishna’s Gita translation before his own was completed) (Edit: It was actually Dr. Ramakrishnan’s – thanks to Urukrama prabhu for the info, see his comment for more info.).

In this paper, Srila Prabhupada uses the Gita’s idea of the four classes of men who cannot understand the Gita’s teachings. It’s hit upon in the seventh and eighteenth chapters. He then describes each of these classes in some detail:

1. Ordinary men who have no training in austerity or penance.

2. Those who are not devotees of Godhead but are either mundane workers, mundane philosophers or mundane mystics.

3. Those who do not come in the line of disciplic succession like Vivasvan, Manu, Iksvaku, Arjuna, etc.

4. Those who disbelieve Sri Krsna as the Absolute Personality of Godhead.

He takes it a step farther by explaining that these same classes of men are also translating and commenting on Bhagavad-gita. Mostly, of course, the translations come from scholars who find some importance (either philosophical, spiritual or historical) in the writings. Translations are easy (so to speak), but teaching via purports and lectures is another thing.

When you read the writings of the sadhus and gurus in our line, the point of disciplic succession is mentioned again and again. Without this chain of teacher and student handing down a philosophy over the years, what do you have? The qualification for writing your own translation and commentary on Bhagavad-gita seems to be a teacher who has themselves commented greatly on Bhagavad-gita. Yet, while reading the three bona fide Bhagavad-gita commentaries that I have (namely Srila Prabhuapda, Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja), I find few “re-used” topics. Each is fresh even though each is coming directly from the same line (each from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati).

The individual authors inject their own style, topics and approach to their purports. The spiritual topics aren’t simply “ever-fresh” because they’re spiritual, there’s no possibility of going stale, even materially, with so much to discuss.

When I was just finding an interest in Krishna consciousness, I discovered my Grandmother’s Bhagavad-gita. It was a Penguin edition translated in the 60′s. While it offered (thankfully) no commentary, the introduction explained that Krishna wasn’t really God or god or even anything at all. Krishna was an “experience.” That stuck with me while reading it and the whole thing made really no sense to me at all. “So this ‘experience’ is telling Arjuna to do his duty?”

It wasn’t until Srila Prabhupada’s Gita and his classes and the classes of some devotees that things really started to click with me.

Over the years, I have tended to ignore or, at best, “move past” the Bhagavad-gita. Opting instead for the writings of the Goswamis of Vrndavana or the latest wildly popular book on Krishna-lila (without sastric references) by one ISKCON guru or another. While many of these have their place, I made the mistake of thinking that I was able to move past the foundation of spiritual life. Pretty insane, huh?

And while I more than likely fall into one or more of those four classes of men described in the Gita, I’ve again taken an interest in studying it so that I can hopefully escape from not only the three modes of material nature, but the four classes of men unfit to understand the Bhagavad-gita. That’s a might tall hill to be climbing.

Here I go!

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).” [↩]

It was well over a year and a half ago (May ’07) that I started a fun little project that compared four different Gaudia-vaisnava versions of the Bhagavad-gita. It’s been over a year since I’ve even attempted that. Strange how time flies.

While the response wasn’t overwhelming and I’ve never had anyone approach me on the street and beg of me, “hey, when are you going to do more Gita comparisons,” I had a good time with it, so I think I’ll be starting it up again.

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)

While each Gita was translated and purported by devotees (Gaudia Vaisnavas), each did so with specific and differing goals in mind. Srila Prabhupada was introducing the west to a translation and commentary done by someone who practices what the Gita preaches. Tripurari Swami draws on the more emotional side, but never leaves the philosophical. Narayana Maharaja’s seems to be writing to a friend, also including comments by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. Garuda dasa’s is the most different of them all, he focuses not on commentary, but on the Gita as poetry. That’s nothing new, but it’s the first time it’s been done (in a respectable way) by a devotee.

Like Garuda prabhu, I won’t be focusing upon the commentaries very much. I’ll pretty much reference them only if they specifically pertain to the verses themselves. My job is to simply compare one translation to the next and the next. Any commentary of my own that I give with be either accidental or speculative, so be mindful of that as you read.

This will be a weekly endeavor and will be posted on Sundays. I’ll be drawing verses mostly from the book Srila Prabhupada Slokas, which presents many verses that he used day-to-day. These verses, especially the Bhagavad-gita ones, seem to me to be the most helpful in our daily spiritual as well as material lives.

With four different perspectives on the same divine source, hopefully we all can find a little something to take away from it, even if you’re not a devotee or even interested in spirituality. The Bhagavad-gita, in its many translations, has been studied by all sorts of people. I’m sure you’ll discover something here.

I think I’ll focus on the third and fourth chapters for a bit. I’ll be starting with 4.38. But if you have any requests, let me know, this could be a really fun group project.

Also if there are any other gaudia-vaisnava Gitas out there, I’d love to throw them into the mix as well. I was under the impression that Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote one, but all I can find is his commentary on the Gita, not a translation of it into English. Did Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati do a Gita in English? I’d be surprised if he didn’t.

Anyway, you can see some past examples of it here.

See you Sunday!