Sit Properly

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

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

More on this can be found here.

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

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 12, Verse 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this can be found here.

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

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

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

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 13, Verse 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this can be found here.

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

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

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 5, Verse 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this can be found here.

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

This is the conclusion of the chatur shloki.

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week, Krishna continues…

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 10, Verse 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is the source of everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This week, I thought I’d jump right in the middle of Krishna and Arjuna’s conversation in the Sixth Chapter, entitled Sankhya-yoga, by Srila Prabhupada and Dhyana Yoga by Narayana Maharaja. The word sankhya refers to the philosophy that differentiates between spirit and matter. Dhyana basically means “perfect contemplation.” And that’s fitting since Chapter Six is about the mind.

Arjuna has just asked Krishna what happens to someone who is following a spiritual path, but then leaves it for some reason or another. Krishna answers, basically, that he is given another chance in the next life, picking up where he left off.

Verse 40, our verse for the week, is the beginning of that answer. Here, Krishna lays the ground rules for the sincere.

The Blessed Lord said: Son of Prtha, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.
-Srila Prabhupada

The Lord of Sri said: O son of Prtha, neither here in this world nor in the next is he vanquished. Anyone who is sincere, my dear friend, walks not the road of misfortune.
-Tripurari Swami

Sri Bhagavan said: O Partha, such an unsuccessful yogi is not lost either in this world or the next because, My dear friend, a person who is engaged in auspicious acts never attains an unfavourable destination.
-Narayana Maharaja

The Beloved Lord said:

O Partha, indeed,
    neither in this world
    nor int he next
    is the destruction of such
    a person to be found.
For no one who acts
    in virtuous ways
    ever goes to
    an unfortunate
    destiny, my dear friend.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

On the surface, there seems to be quite a bit of difference between the translations. This just goes to show the need for studying the Gita in its broader light. If you merely select a verse and meditate on just that verse, neglecting the ones before it and after it, you’re going to be a bit lost.

Since this is where Krishna starts to speak, the phrase sri bhagavan uvaca is used to denote that. Both Srila Prabhupada and Garuda dasa fully translate it, while both Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami use a bit of the original Sanskrit. Basically: “Krishna said.”

For the rest of the verse, I’ll be jumping around quite a bit since both Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja have re-arranged the placement of the words a bit.

The first line, partha naiveha namutra, means “not in this world, nor in the next.” The second line and first word of the third line, vinasas tasya vidyate na, means “is not lost” or “is not destroyed.” Plainly: “is not lost in this life nor the next.”

But who is not?

While Garuda dasa’s and Tripurari Swami’s translations are pretty well word-for-word, Srila Prabhupada’s and Narayana Maharaja’s seem to be at odds.

Both often add to the verse as more of an adaptation than a straight translation. Srila Prabhupada states that “a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities” is not…. While Narayana Maharaja’s translation is “such an unsuccessful yogi” is not…. There’s a world of difference between a unsuccessful yogi (mystic) and a transcendentalist. So what gives?

Narayana Maharaja is, of course, referring to what Arjuna asked: “What if one falls away from the path?” This is Narayana Maharaja’s “unsuccessful yogi.”

Srila Prabhupada, on the other hand, points out Narada Muni’s instructions in the First Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam (1.5.17). He sums it up with, “The Bhagavatam assures the unsuccessful transcendentalist that there need be no worries. Even though he may be subjected to the reaction of not perfectly executing prescribed duties, he is still not a loser, because auspicious Krishna consciousness is never forgotten, and one so engaged will continue to be so even if he is lowborn in his next life.”

The difference between Narayana Maharaja’s “unsuccessful yogi” and Srila Prabhupada’s “transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities”? Absolutely none.

Narayana Maharaja’s translation itself goes on to say that this unsuccessful yogi “is not lost either in this world or the next….” This hardly seems “unseccessful.”

The third line, “hi kalyana-krt kascid,” is translated by Srila Prabhupada as “one who does good.” Tripurari Swami has it as, “anyone who is sincere.” Narayana Maharaja: “a person who is engaged in auspicious acts.” And Garuda’s: “one who acts in virtuous ways.”

These all get the same general point across. One who is good, sincere, virtuous and who does auspicious acts….”

Which brings us to the closing line, durgatim tata gacchati. Here, like in the last verse, our authors translate and adapt the line in different ways.

Srila Prabhupada closes with, “is never overcome by evil.” This is simple and is the mirror of “one who does good,” showing that this is the classic knowledge that we all know. One who does good, is not overcome by evil. It really is that simple.

Narayana Maharaja translates as, “never attains an unfavourable destination.” He calls back to the second line where it mentions “the next [world].”

Garuda dasa’s verse ends with “[n]ever goes to an unfortunate destiny.”

But Tripurari Swami’s verse adds a bit of adaptation, much like his spiritual mater Srila Prabhupada is apt to do. “Anyone who is sincere, my dear friend, walks not the road of misfortune.”

Krishna calls Arjuna tata, which is translated by all as “My dear friend,” at the end of this verse. He explains in his purport, “The use of the word tata indicates great affection on the part of Krishna, who speaks here as fatherly guru to his son-like disciple.”

He goes on to explain: “Although Krishna’s words are relevant for yoga practitioners in general, this verse is intended for his devotees in particular.”

The devotee of God, simply by being a devotee of God, has gotten God’s blessing. Even if that devotee falls away from the path, God will make sure that this progress is retained. It will not be forgotten by the devotee or by God.

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

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

This week, our verse is taken from the last chapter. It’s one of the final instructions to Arjuna from Krishna. Srila Prabhupada entitles this chapter “The Perfection of Renunciation.” However Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami call it “Moksa Yoga” and “Yoga of Freedom.” In this chapter we find that surrendering to God is actual freedom. And this verse explains that through surrendering to God, we gain true freedom from religion. It’s pretty intense.

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.
-Srila Prabhupada

Forgoing all religious injunctions, take exclusive refuge in me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
-Tripurari Swami

Completely abandoning all bodily and mental dharma, such as varna and asrama, fully surrender to Me alone. I shall liberate you from all reactions to your sins. Do no grieve.
-Narayana Maharaja

Completely relinquishing
    all forms of dharma,
    come to me
    as your only shelter.
I shall grant you
    freedom from
    all misfortune -
    do not despair!
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

This was the first verse that I was to memorize when I moved into a temple. I got the English down without too much of a struggle, but the Sanskrit was tough and it took me about a month of daily recitation for much to stick. Today, twelve or thirteen years later, I still know the first two lines. The third line is completely wiped from my Kali-yuga memory, but the last line, with the fun-to-say word “moksayisyami” and the fun-to-quote “ma sucah” is still there. Plainly, I cannot memorize stuff very well. I’m surprised that I’ve retained as much of this as I have.

The first line, sarva-darman parityajya, is translated as “abandoning (or forgoing) all dharma.” Now, to me, it’s sort of impossible to translate from a language while still using bits of that language. And while Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami accommodate this idea, Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa both stick to the word “dharma.”

All here agree that parityajya means to abandon. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja both use that word specifically. Tripurari Swami uses “forgoing,” and Garuda dasa uses “relinquishing.” They all basically mean the same thing.

Also, all agree that the first word, sarva, means “all.” But with dharman, we get some difference. This isn’t surprising since dharma can mean a slew of different things. Srila Prabhupada’s seems to be the most bold here. He tells us to “Abandon all varieties of religion….” Tripurari Swami’s seems a bit more specific with “Forgoing all religious injunctions….” But in Narayana Maharaja’s and Garuda dasa’s, their use of a Sanskrit word in their translation seems odd.

Narayana Maharaja’s edition adds quite a lot to the verse: “Completely abandoning all bodily and mental dharma, such as varna and asrama….” He not only uses dharma, but also varna and asrama. In his case, that’s fairly forgivable since his audience is not the neophyte. He’s writing for folks who already have an understanding of these words. Also, in his very long purport (like in Srila Prabhupada’s and Tripurari Swami’s) he fully explains the verse.

Garuda dasa’s use of the word dharma is, to me, troubling. “Completely relinquishing all forms of dharma….” Certainly translating dharma in such a collegiate book would be controversial. His footnote for this verse simply states: “Forms of dharma: Translates the plural form of dharma.” Now, his job isn’t to explain every aspect of the Gita. He is simply a translator. His short explanation of the Gita as a whole, in the back of the book, sheds no more light onto the subject.

This verse’s second line, mam ekam saranam vraja, also shows some difference, but ultimately, they are in concert. Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja are the most closely related. Srila Prabhupada’s “just surrender unto Me” and Narayana Maharaja’s “fully surrender to Me alone” both cover the same ground. Tripurari Swami has it as, “take exclusive refuge in me.” While I don’t agree with how he has decapitalized “me,” I do appreciate “refuge.” Garuda dasa’s “come to me as your only shelter” also is very nice. The more strict translation of saranam as “surrender” could be carelessly taken the wrong way. This certainly isn’t the fault of Srila Prabhupada or Narayana Maharaja – in both of their purports this is cleared up.

Narayana Maharaja adds Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s translation of “take exclusive shelter in Me.” Srila Prabhupada explains, “with faith and love, one should surrender unto Him [Krishna].” This isn’t submission or coercion. This isn’t a surrender after being defeated by guilt or so-called “fear of God.” This is surrendering through love. This truly is taking “shelter,” taking “refuge.”

The third line and a bit of the fourth, aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami, is translated by Srila Prabhupada, Tripurari Swami and Narayana Maharaja in nearly identical ways. Both Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami translate: “I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction,” though Tripurari Swami makes “reaction” plural. Narayana Maharaja puts it, “I shall liberate you from all reactions to your sins.” It’s basically the same, though he specifically mentions “liberation” and glosses moksayisyami as “shall free” rather than “deliver.”

Garuda dasa, again, seems to vague-up the translation. He has it, “I shall grant you freedom from all misfortune….” While “freedom” would be a great word to use if he also used the word “surrender” earlier in the verse, his use of the word “misfortune” is odd. Throughout the Gita, we learn that misfortune comes from reaction to our “sins.” Now, in Sanskrit, there really isn’t a word for what we in the west know as “sin.” It’s not that we believe sinful actions don’t exist, it’s just a different understanding of “sin.”

I was raised with the idea of “original sin” and have talked about that a long time ago here. Because of this upbringing, I’m no fan of the word “sin.” However, in this verse, Krishna is not attempting to use guilt or fear to get us to surrender to Him. He simply states “I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction.” The key word here is “reaction.” It’s clear that He is speaking of our karma. This would naturally include not only our “bad” karma, but also our “good.” But here He specifically uses papebhyah, glossed by all as “sinful reactions.”

Though I’m no fan of the word “sin,” I am less of a fan of the use of the word “misfortune” in its stead. Though it is not the point of the verse, it makes it clear that it is not simply “misfortune,” it’s not that some crappy accidents keep happening to us, it’s a reaction for the things we have done. God will deliver us from our own evil (to use a biblical expression) if we take shelter in Him alone.

The last phrase ma sucah, is comforting. Srila Prabhupada and Tripurari Swami both translate it “do not fear.” Narayana Maharaja chose “do not grieve,” and Garuda dasa uses “do not despair.” These are interesting takes on it. Grieving and despair are essentially fear.

Visvanatha Cakrabarti Thakura, in his commentary (as given by Narayana Maharaja) sums this up in a really nice way:

“Ma suchah means, “Don not grieve for yourself or others. I am bound by My vow to carry the burden of freeing any person like you from all his sins and deliver him from the cycle of birth and death. If such a person fixes his mind upon Me, completely giving up all his [dharma] and remains happily situated having surrendered to Me, I am also bound to carry the burden of providing him with the means ot achieve Me. What more can I say? I am even ready to accept the burden of maintaining his material life, as I stated when I spoke ananyas cintayanto mam (Gita 9.22).

“Do not grieve by thinkng, ‘Alas! I have placed such a heavy burden on my Lord and master!’ There is absolutely no labor involved in accepting this burden for Me….”

Srila Prabhupada puts it in much simpler terms, “The particular words used here, ma suchah, ‘Don’t fear, don’t hesitate, don’t worry,’ are very significant. One may be perplexed as to how one can give up all kinds of religious forms and simply surrender unto Krishna, but such worry is useless.”

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.

I seem to keep coming back to Chapter Four – Jnana Yoga; Transcendental Knowledge. There’s quite a bit of good here. Krishna does a lot of explaining and it’s definitely a good place to start. In the Padma Purana, Lord Vishnua glorifies the fourth chapter specifically. Must be important.

This verse, 4.7, is one of the more popular. It’s often pulled out for Sunday Feast classes on appearance days. I first heard it in 1994 or ’95 in Philly for Nrsimhadeva’s Appearance Day.

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself.
-Srila Prabhupada

Whenever, O descendant of Bharata, dharma is diminished and unrighteousness is on the rise, at that time I myself manifest.
-Tripurari Swami

O Bharata! Whenever there is a decline of dharma and an increase in adharma, at that time I manifest My eternally perfect form in this mundane world.
-Narayana Maharaja

Indeed, whenever there is
    a decline of dharma,
    O Bharata,
And an emerging
    of what opposed dharma -
    at that time I send forth my Self.
-Garuda dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

From the translation of the first line, yada yada hi dharmasya, we immediately find a difference between the translations. I’ve said before that Srila Prabhupada’s Gita is more of an interpretation than a direct translation. This certainly isn’t a bad thing. A neophyte, for example, could read only the verses of all four of our translations and come away from the experience having learned more for Srila Prabhupada’s edition. He provides exposition and explanation within the verses, whereas the other translators give a pretty straight-forward translation.

Some folks will see this as a fault. Thankfully, there are alternatives for them. But for our purposes, it’s a blessing to have a variety to work with.

Srila Prabhupada translates yada yada as “whenever and wherever.” The others simply translate it as “whenever.” Even in his word-for-word, he glosses the first yada as “whenever” and the second as “wherever.” The word yada means whenever, but he is taking a liberty to further explain that it is also whenever.

The next word, hi, seems to have been left out of all of the translations. It means “assuredly” or “certainly.” Nothing like that appears in any of the verses. This is a mystery since I don’t really know Sanskrit. My best guess would be that Krishna is assuring Arjuna that what He is saying is true.

The line ends with dharmasya. The second line begins with glanir. This is actually one thought, split by the poetry of Bhagavad-gita. Dharmasya glanir, according to Srila Prabhupada, means “a decline of religious practice.” Tripurari Swami puts it to mean that “dharma is diminished.” Narayana Maharaja and Garuda dasa both translate it as “a decline in dharma.”

Dharma is a word often used, but rarely understood. On the surface, it means religious practices. But deeper than that, it means “spiritual duty.” Many Hindus will use it like “my dharma is to be a doctor” or some such silliness. Dharma does not equal job, dharma equals spiritual duty, or at the very least, religious practices.

The first two lines set up the verse. “Whenever there is a decline in the practice of spiritual duty….” The second line ends with bharata. Here, that is a name that Krishna calls Arjuna meaning “son of King Bharata.” King Bharata was the ruler and sort of founder of Vedic India. The term bharata was placed in different locations of the first part of the translated verse, depending on the style of the author. Both Srila Prabhupada and Garuda dasa keep it at the end of the second line. Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami place it at or near the beginning.

Not only does there have to be a decline in religious practice, but there must be abhuyutthanam adharmasya, a rise of “irreligion,” as Srila Prabhupada coined. Tripurari Swami simply translates, “unrighteousness is on the rise.” Narayana Maharaja keeps with the Sanskrit terminology of adharma, the opposite of dharma.

Garuda dasa has an interesting angle on it. He translates the third line with “And an emerging of what opposes dharma.” What the other translators cover as a rise of unrighteousness or irreligion, he throws in a nearly personal touch. Something is in opposition to how it should be. It’s not just that things aren’t right, there is something knowingly making these things not right.

Krishna delivers in the fourth line, tadatmanam srjamy aham, “at that time, I [Krishna] manifest myself.” The word atmanam means “self” (or in this case, Self). Srjami is glossed by all as “manifest,” though Srila Prabhupada uses “descend” in his verse. Garuda puts it as “send forth” rather than “manifest” or “descend.” I feel it’s an odd choice. “Manifest” is probably most proper, though “descend” is a bit more specific.

Within his purport, Srila Prabhupada again hits upon his use of the word “wherever” in the first line. He knew that while much of what he was bringing could be seen as strictly Indian that God, Krishna, was not an Indian God.

“It is not a fact that the Lord appears only on Indian soil. He can advent Himself anywhere and everywhere, and whenever He desires to appear. In each and every incarnation, He speaks as much about religion as can be understood by the particular people under their particular circumstances. But the mission is the same – to lead people to God consciousness and obedience to the principles of religion. Sometimes He descends personally, and sometimes He sends His bona fide representative in the form of His son, or servant, or Himself in some disguised form.”