Bhagavad Gita of Sri Sri Paramahansa Yogananda

[Cosinuskurve]

Namaste,

has anyone of you read the Bhagavad Gita of Sri Sri Paramahansa Yogananda, entitled God Talks With Arjuna? Would you recommend it?

Thanks for your answers.

[Believer]

Namaste,

A search of the forum for Bhagwad Gita should yield the numerous translations available, many online. Since every swami/guru/master gives a personal touch to the translation, it is up to you to decide which one to read. Generally, the translation by Gita Press is recommended more often than others as it sticks to the spirit of the message without injecting personal flavors. Hope that helps.

BTW, how long have you been reading/studying Hindu philosophy/theology and have you read any BG translations before?

Pranam

[Cosinuskurve]

Namaste,

well, I know that I’m an amateur :o, but I’ve been interested in Hinduism for 16 years now. I started with a translation in my native language, German, then I read Prabhupada’s “Bhagavad Gita As It is” (German and English), then I sought for a copy of Adi Shankara’s Bhagavad Gita commentary (English) because I wanted to know what was about those so-called “mayavadis”. I also read the translation and commentary of Swami Rama which gives a lot of psychological interpretation. As for Paramahansa Yogananda, I read his “Autobiography of a yogi” which was a bit too mystical for my taste. His Bhagavad Gita commentary comes in 2 volumes and is not cheap, so I wondered whether some would recommend it.

[Believer]

Namaste,


....I wondered whether some would recommend it.
Some may, but I would not waste time on it and definitely would not pay for it. The reason being that the Xitian missionary school educated Indian gurus who pander primarily to the Westerners don't represent Hinduism. For them it is/was a business which by its very nature must accept Abrahamic deities and their concept of divinity for the package to be acceptable to the Westerners. So, his views are Xitianized Hinduism. If that is what you are looking for, by all means spend your money and read 'his version'. But I would not touch it even with a ten foot pole. Auf Wiedersehen.

Pranam.

[isavasya]

Namaste,


Some may, but I would not waste time on it and definitely would not pay for it. The reason being that the Xitian missionary school educated Indian gurus who pander primarily to the Westerners don't represent Hinduism. For them it is/was a business which by its very nature must accept Abrahamic deities and their concept of divinity for the package to be acceptable to the Westerners. So, his views are Xitianized Hinduism. If that is what you are looking for, by all means spend your money and read 'his version'. But I would not touch it even with a ten foot pole. Auf Wiedersehen.

Pranam.

Namaste,

Sri paramahansa Yogananda was a proponent of Kriya Yoga (which was first revived in modern times by mahavtar Babaji). I have not read Bhagavad Gita Translation of paramhansa Yogananda ji, so cannot comment on them. But book which makes Yogananda ji famous is Autobiography of a Yogi. While Gurus of modern times, such as Yogananda ji and Prabhupada do accept Christ as an Avatar , a thing not authenticated by Hindu scriptures, it is wrong to say that Sri Yogananda was preaching xianized Hinduism. It is blasphemy in Christianity to see God in one's own self. God/jesus are separate entity from man according to Christianity. Yogananda's preachings were exactly opposite in that he asked his followers to seek God in one's own self or experience God inside one's own soul. In essence he was a preacher of Vedanata. Also Yoga is thought to be an invitation to satan according to Christianity, so by no means Yogananda ji was teaching xianised Hinduism to anyone. I will ask you to please read his work before dismissing him altogether.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I agree with Believer. At the time (maybe 70 or more years back, America was really dominated by Christianity. Today things have changed dramatically. So swamis of that era, in order to get anyone to listen to them at all, had to water down Hinduism. The Christianity they added wasn't fundamentalist variety, but more in line with something akin to Eastern Orthodoxy, which had more of a mystical flavour.

Some swamis and organisations still follow this pattern today, and personally I no longer think it's necessary at all. There are far more people today who remain totally unfamiliar with Abrahamism, and like their Hinduism in the pure unadulterated form.

But nobody can change what you want to study. The mix suits some people, especially those with a strong Christian subconscious.

Still I would caution anyone responding on this thread that we no longer allow posting to certain sections here.

This thread is about Gita recommendations, and nothing else.

Aum Namasivaya

[IcyCosmic]

Not to derail OP's original question but If I may also ask something akin in relevancy; rather than starting a new topic. How is Swami Sivananda's Gita Translation? I have been reading this one quite often recently.
I did a forum search but could not find any opinions on its validity.
Thanks.

[Believer]

Namaste,


I will ask you to please read his work before dismissing him altogether.
I started with a limited amount of time on this planet and most of it is gone. There are lot fewer grains of sand left in the top half of the hour glass of my life than in the bottom half. I am not going to be shopping around and sampling each yogi's views in the few years that I have left for practicing my sadhana. So, thank you for your suggestion, but I will just read the best available translations and not waste any time in validating the contaminated ones. You are free to read what inspires you and choose the path that suits you.

Pranam.

[devotee]

Namaste Cosin,



has anyone of you read the Bhagavad Gita of Sri Sri Paramahansa Yogananda, entitled God Talks With Arjuna? Would you recommend it?


Bhagwad Gita commented upon by Sri Sri Paramahansa Yogananda contains very high philosophy of Advaita VedAnta. The whole war is seen in a very different perspective. Here Arjuna is the soul who must win war against the hundreds of Kauravas who are the delusion-created forces within himself. It is an excellent read but not recommended for the beginners. Mahabharata has not been a one-time war which has been won ... this war is constantly going on within all of us and everyone must win this war for his own self.

If you are a beginner and not comfortable with Advaitic teachings, I would recommend that you read Bhagwad Gita translation in English from Gita Press which is available free on internet.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Would you recommend it?
I would recommend as many views as one is able to pursue... I have read yoganada-ji's book and it added value to my understanding. I also read other authors - some popular, some not¹. Why read several authors ? It is the difference between reading and studying.

iti śivaṁ

1. other authors:

Śrī Jñānadeva's bhāvārṭa dīpikā some call Jñāeśvarī ( his commentary the Bhāgavad gītā)
the bhāgavad gītā by abhinavagupta-ji
the bhāgavad gītā by mahaṛṣi mahesh yogī
the bhāgavad gītā by svāmī prabhupāda

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

For basic introduction to the teachings of the Bhagavad gita almost every translation may well serve.
However seriously exploring the teachings of the Bhagavad gita begins when we begin to study the commentaries on Bhagavad gita. Only these commentaries reveal the depth of the teachings of the Gita. There a problem usually occurs, especially with a novices. Which commentary to choose? What to read?
These are questions that are usually asked by beginners. He who has already chosen a philosophy of Hindu dharma or a tradition (sampradaya) probably does not have a problem when selecting. He will choose a commentary which belongs to this tradition. Teachings of a particular traditions can differ considerably. At least we must be aware of that when we reach for some commentary, otherwise we will be confused.
Now, I know that many people will say "Oh yes I'm aware that their teachings differ considerably, but I'm still confused because I do not know which teaching to choose. One tradition says one thing and the other tradition often even says the opposite. So who is right?" :)
Unfortunately there is no simple answer to this problem. Then the answer could only be something like this (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/en) Lord Krishna said to Arjuna in the Bhagavad gita:


BG 10.8: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

BG 10.9: The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.

BG 10.10: To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

BG 10.11: To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

BG 10.12-13: Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

BG 10.8: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

BG 10.9: The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.

BG 10.10: To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

BG 10.11: To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

BG 10.12-13: Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.


These verses' meanings entirely depend on the way of comprehending it. It depends on what we take here for I ? The I of Nirguna Bramh ( formless ) or Saguna Bramh ( with form ) or both ? I think Adi Shankara was with with both Formless & Bramh with Maya who is Krishna or Vishnu ( Krishna himself says in BG " I unmanifested, appear in human form with my Maya". The Bramh who is formless in its essential nature, creates a divine form with the power of Maya. The path of realisation for common people is from form to formless and the Bhakti is the very important ladder to reach upto that Bramh.


And Shri Krishna never said in gita that his form is supreme reality. If form is reality, then Krishna would have said it clearly in Gita. But he didn't. Instead he identifies himself as an unending omnipresent Bramha and a Tattva. Tattva and Omnipresent things can not have forms in any aspect. Besides Krishna himself has declared in Gita that supreme abode is unmanifested ( formless ) In Uddhava Gita also, Krishna says " My highest abode is Atma or Bramh having no any dualities " I think Krishna nowhere declares his real abode as Vaikuntha though he is often described as the lord of Vaikuntha.

Besides in Vibhuti yoga, Krishna mentions his Krishna ( Vasudeva ) form as a Vibhuti. And in his final teachings taught to uddhava ( Uddhava Gita ), Krishna talks about all these vibhutis and declares that these all are imaginations superimposed on my Nirguna nature. I created these all just to concentrate on me. Whoever thinks of me or broods over me, becomes my self. The knowers of Bramh become Bramh themselves .

Hare Krishna..... ;)

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste :)

I wanna say something in a little bit funnier way on that last verse of Gita presented by Bramha Jijnasa

Here is that verse...


BG 10.12-13: Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatestAnd here is Bhagavata Purana's Mahavakya verse :


Shuka says to Parikshita :

" Dear Parikshita, You yourself are that supreme bramhan. You yourself are that supreme absolute abode. You are god . In this way, you should fix your self in an undivided Atma. " ( Bhagavata Purana 12.5.11) Now tell me what did you understand from these two verses ? If Krishna's form is bramhan, then here according to Bhagavata purana, Parikshita should become the supreme Personality of Godhead or bramhan. Isn't it ?

So it's very clear that the I of Bhagavada gita isn't the form of Krishna. I is the real nature of Krishna which is formless & Nirguna. I refers to ultimate formless Bramh. Besides in our scriptures there are plenty of verses standing to show Bhagavan as Nirakara or Arupa.

" Jiva or Atma himself is the Supreme abode or Bramh." This is the ultimate supreme knowledge . I really don't see anything higher than this truth of self.

However the most important thing is that this is the authority of Bhagavata purana. It's very strange that Krishna himself says that jiva becomes/is bramhan and most of his followers ignore his words.

Hare Krishna....

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



The path of realisation for common people is from form to formless and the Bhakti is the very important ladder to reach upto that Bramh.

Instead he identifies himself as an unending omnipresent Bramha and a Tattva. or Bramh having no any dualities

The knowers of Bramh become Bramh themselves .

" You are That Bramhan. You are that absolute abode .. You should always meditate like this. Thus you'll know your Infinite Self " ( BP 12.5.11 )

On multiple post and for some time you offer the spelling of brahman as 'bramhan'. Is there a reason ( or insight) for this as an alternative spelling ?

I do not find any roots to bram + han or braṁ + han , or bra + mhan.

Brahman is from bṛh or bṛṁh - increase , expand, 'to make big'. So brahman is 'growth', 'swelling', 'expansion'.

Any insights to your alternative spelling approach is appreciated.

iti śivaṁ

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste HLK and others

In my last post in this thread my intention was not to start a debate. My intention was to briefly describe the difficulties faced by newcomers in their quest for true Hindu dharma. They often ask "What to read? Which translation and commentary to choose? Which Hindu dharma tradition and philosophy to choose? Who is right?".
Often they think that in their quest for true Hindu dharma it is enough just to pick out some translation and commentary and that it will solve their problem. But soon they realize that it does not solve their problem because the fact remains that there are many teachers (acaryas), many Hindu dharma traditions and their various philosophies that differ so much so that they are often even opposing to each other.
When newcomers realize that then they become confused and wondering "Who is right? Which tradition and the commentary to choose?" ... etc. Being so confused they often remain uncommitted and can not decide for any of tradition and philosophy. So the crux of my previous post was that it is not for a newcomer enough just to choose some translation and commentary on some Hindu dharma scripture, but the answer could only be something like Lord Krishna said to Arjuna in the Bhagavad gita 10.8-13, such as


"engage in My devotional service and worship Me", "The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service"
and then if they did so what will happen? It will happen this:


"To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance."

That was my point.



" Jiva or Atma himself is the Supreme abode or Bramh." This is the ultimate supreme knowledge . I really don't see anything higher than this truth of self.

If you think so then let you stay well in this belief.

regards