PDA

View Full Version : Question about ISKCON Bhagavad Gita



wcrow
11 January 2010, 06:22 AM
I have recently read a version of the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by A.C Bhakitivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who I believe is the main founder of the ISKCON movement. In the commentary he describes the difference between the Impersonal Brahman and the Svayam Bhagavan and the Svayam Bhagavan as being the original and the impersonal Brahman as being a manifestation of Krishna. At least that is what I have got with my limited understanding.
Now, this seems to be the opposite way around to what I have read in other places, where the Svayam Bhagavan is an aspect of brahman and the brahman is the original. So, who is correct or am I just misunderstanding something completly?

Jivattatva
11 January 2010, 04:13 PM
Pranam wcrow

Your question :So, who is correct ? is not a good question to ask. But yes, you do have a good general understanding of the issues at hand.

I'm not an iskconite but I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava (at least Im trying to), and people from iskcon also are.

GVism is based on the philosophy which originates from the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. More than 500 years ago Chaitanya Mahaprabhu expounded and gave light even more to the GV siddhanta.

I think what Hridayananda das Goswami an iskcon guru says, see below, is a good basis of our understanding why we have faith that Krishna is svayam bhagavan .


I ATTEMPT IN THIS PAPER to clarify certain essential teachings of the Bhagavad-gita that are traditionally "zones of puzzlement" among scholars. These concern a single point: the nature and status of God, Krsna, according to the Gita. My strong conviction is that the Gita itself is a lucid, self-explanatory work, and therefore the occasional practice of commentators to force on it extraneous doctrines often renders the text obscure where it is bright, esoteric where it is literal, and impersonal where it is intensely personal. I am operating here on an ancient principle which holds that certain Vedic(1) literatures are svatah-praamaanyam, literally "evident in or by themselves." As stated in the Bhavisya purana, "The Rg Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pancaratra, and original Ramayana are all considered by authorities to be Veda. The knowers also know that those Puranas dedicated to Lord Visnu enjoy the same status. These literatures are self-evident, and there is nothing at all to speculate about them.

I should note at once that this principle does not do away with intellectual response to the scriptures. Rather it is a call for sober practices for understanding, in which we first struggle to comprehend a scriptural message on its own terms, through careful study of its internal structures of meaning.

smaranam
11 January 2010, 05:07 PM
Namaste

With due respects to everyone, here is my understanding :

There is no chronology or time sequence here.

"Krshnas Tu BhagvAn Svayam" - (S.Bhagvat 1.3.28)

Krshna sang the Bhagavad Gita and showed His VirAt Svaroop (some call it Cosmic Form)

What does this mean ?

Krshna == Brahman and Brahman == Krshna

Krshna = Saguna( Brahman) and Brahman = Nirguna (Krshna)

Saguna () and Nirguna () are functions

When Krshna says "Me", yes , He is that very Brahman, the Adi Purusha , and Svayam Bhagvan

Krshna says in the Gita (Chap 14)

"BrahmAnohi pratishthA aham"
"I am the resting place of Brahman"

All the havoc gets caused on the word "pratishthA"

pratishthA = resting place, base , basis, foundation, home

One Guru explains this as "I am the Self of Brahman"

So pratishthA == Self.

It makes sense. Self of Brahman.

There is no chronology or time sequence here.

Brahman == AtmA == Self == Krishna (all opulent , all attractive, black) == Vishnu (all pervading) == VAsudeva (who is everywhere) == SadAshiva (eternally pure one) == Ganesh ( OmkAra PradhAna , AUM/OM , Anahat , ahat Naad Brahman and God of Wisdom , remover of obstacles ) == Shakti (potency, energy, mother of world , Sat = existence = Durga ; Chit = knowledge = Saraswati ; Ananda = HlAdini = bliss = Lakshmi )


Krshna exibits sweetness that makes Him a very dear personal God.

-------------




Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajami

Krshna is my Self.
my self = AtmA
AtmA = Brahman
By Transitive property my Self = Krshna = Brahman

------

Vishnu = all pervading (Whole, Brahman)
Krshna = all attractive, all oppulent (complete ,whole)
Vasudeva = all pervading or one present everywhere (complete , whole)
GovindA = one who gives pleasure to the senses, also to the cows = AtmA
Shiva = pure one = AtmA
SadAshiva = eternally pure one = AtmA alone = Self - Brahman

Jivattatva
12 January 2010, 12:08 AM
Namaste Smaranam


I dont get why you make issue out of my giving background information on Gaudiya Vaishnavism when wcrow specifically mentioned Bhaktivedanta Swami and ISKCON's take on the Bhagavad Gita.

Many devotees in the broader Vaishnava community (not just Gaudiya) who find inspirations from the Gita have slight differences in their understanding of its messages so I'm citing where the basis of the difference might be.

Regards anyway

ScottMalaysia
12 January 2010, 12:19 AM
ISKCON teaches that the impersonal Brahman is the light radiating from Krishna's body. Advaita teaches that the impersonal Brahman is the highest form of God - the other forms of God are simply illusion, or maya.

I'd recommend that you stay away from ISKCON's translation of the Gita. It's translated according to ISKCON's philosophy, with the aim of supporting it. For example, Prabhupada translates the word "deva" as "demigod". This is a mistranslation. "Deva" means "god" (it's the root of the English word divine). However, ISKCON says that only Krishna is God, and that Shiva and Durga and Ganesh are His servants. Because they aren't the Supreme, he calls them "demigods", which is an inappropriate term. "Demigod" means "half-god" (generally the offspring of a God and a mortal woman) and such a term is absolutely inappropriate for Lord Shiva and Goddess Durga.

However, there are three instances in the eleventh chapter of the Gita where the word "deva" is used to address Krishna. Because Prabhupada believes that Krishna is the Supreme, he obviously can't translate it as "demigod" here, so he translates it as "Lord". This is selective translation designed to convey his sect's philosophy.

Jivattatva
12 January 2010, 12:44 AM
Pranam ScottMalaysia

If you advice him to stay away from iskcon's translation which one do you recommend?


Namaste Crow

You can download a free Bhagavad Gita from this site .

http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-a-magazines-mainmenu-63/cat_view/53-bhakti-books-download/31-english.html?start=30

They have lots of e-books which can give you a very good understanding on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The translations , commentaries, on this site, based on my opinion, are much better than Iskcon's.

I dont belong to group that runs the site but this is the best I can recommend.

Be well

devotee
12 January 2010, 01:08 AM
Namaste,

I agree with Jivatatva that Bhagwad Gita needs no commentary. Lord Krishna has taken so much pains to explain like a patient teacher that if one goes by the original text in Sanskrit, the meaning is clear without a doubt.

I would also suggest that it is better to get some other authentic translations than rely on ISKCON's translation which is manipulated at many places as per their understanding.

I have found that the translation done by Gita Press is better. I don't know if it is available on-line.

OM

Krsna Das
12 January 2010, 01:47 AM
Dandavat Pranamas !

All glories to Sri Sri Radha Ksrna !

FIRST POINT:
============

brahmaṇo hi (http://vedabase.net/h/hi) pratiṣṭhāham amṛtasyāvyayasya ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca)
śāśvatasya (http://vedabase.net/s/sasvatasya)ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca)dharmasya (http://vedabase.net/d/dharmasya) sukhasyaikāntikasya ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca)

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [14.27]

Those who think that impersonal brahm is supreme truth and is the basis of everything - Krsna wants to refute this statement, and so he says that I AM THE BASIS OF ETERNAL BRAHM (AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND).

SECOND POINT:
============

Also, those who say that Supreme truth is actually impersonal and all the incarnations alone emerge from him, Lord again refutes this ap-sidhhanta as follows:

avyaktaḿ (http://vedabase.net/a/avyaktam)vyaktim (http://vedabase.net/v/vyaktim)āpannaḿ (http://vedabase.net/a/apannam)manyante (http://vedabase.net/m/manyante)mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam)abuddhayaḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/abuddhayah)
paraḿ (http://vedabase.net/p/param)bhāvam (http://vedabase.net/b/bhavam) ajānanto mamāvyayam anuttamam (http://vedabase.net/a/anuttamam)

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna), was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme. [7.24]

THIRD POINT:
============

Brahma Samhita, 5:40:

I worship Govinda (http://vedabase.net/g/govinda), the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman) mentioned in the Upaniṣads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth.

FORTH POINT:
============
The question was asked by thread creator in relation to ISKCON BG. Therefore, in my opinion, only those who have read this ISKCON BG several times, and also understood this, under the guidance of Vaisnavas have the right to comment and explain. Others, who have not read/understood carefully, do not have any right to answer this question.

Also, one more thing, reading BG in itself is not sufficient, it has to be read under the guidance of pure unalloyed devotees of the Lord, otherwise one may become a scholar, but will be unable to gain the real essense of this great text. it is for this reason, Srila Yamunacarya, a great devotee has said - "
prakhyāta-daiva-paramārtha-vidāḿ mataiś ca naivāsura-prakṛtayaḥ prabhavanti boddhum" - those who are in the modes of passion and ignorance, the demons, the nondevotees, cannot understand You. They are unable to understand You. However expert such nondevotees may be in discussing Vedānta (http://vedabase.net/v/vedanta) and the Upaniṣads and other Vedic literatures, it is not possible for them to understand the Personality of Godhead." (Stotra (http://vedabase.net/s/stotra)-ratna (http://vedabase.net/r/ratna) 12)

If any one feels that ISKCON BG AS IT IS is actually BG AS IT IS NOT, then I have nothing to say except following -"sarvārthān viparītāḿś ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca)buddhiḥ (http://vedabase.net/b/buddhih)sā (http://vedabase.net/s/sa)pārtha (http://vedabase.net/p/partha)tāmasī (http://vedabase.net/t/tamasi)" - Intelligence that tells wrong to be correct and correct to be wrong is in the mode of ignorance.


All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna alone !

Jivattatva
12 January 2010, 04:33 AM
Pranam Krishnadas


Thanks for your post.

There's one thing I'm a bit concerned about, the last part of your post is like from someone who is a fanatic.

Please tone down your rhetoric a bit. We can all agree to disagree.

Regards

Krsna Das
12 January 2010, 04:39 AM
Pranam Krishnadas


Thanks for your post.

There's one thing I'm a bit concerned about, the last part of your post is like from someone who is a fanatic.

Please tone down your rhetoric a bit. We can all agree to disagree.

Regards

Dandavat Pranamas Prabhu !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

As far as disagreement is concerned, we all have right to do that. But disagreement does not mean writing irresponsibly about Vaisnavas like SriSrimad Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj. In such cases, I have to acquire a rhetoric tone, I am helpless.

Jivattatva
12 January 2010, 05:14 AM
Dandavat Pranamas Prabhu !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

As far as disagreement is concerned, we all have right to do that. But disagreement does not mean writing irresponsibly about Vaisnavas like SriSrimad Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj. In such cases, I have to acquire a rhetoric tone, I am helpless.



Well, what are we taught in GVism. If we feel our gurus are being "criticized" what is the best course of action?

If you don't remember , I will tell you. Leave the place.

You have to choose, engage in the discussion and endure the pain of feeling that your guru is getting criticized or leave the forum.

If you dont leave and then complain your guru is being criticized then I would assume that you just want a fight.

Sorry, but I am getting embarrassed as a GV by your and Grames' attitude.

Krsna Das
12 January 2010, 05:21 AM
Well, what are we taught in GVism. If we feel our gurus are being "criticized" what is the best course of action?

If you don't remember , I will tell you. Leave the place.

You have to choose, engage in the discussion and endure the pain of feeling that your guru is getting criticized or leave the forum.

If you dont leave and then complain your guru is being criticized then I would assume that you just want a fight.

Sorry, but I am getting embarrassed as a GV by your and Grames attitude.

Dandavats Prabhu !

Sorry that me and grames are the cause of embarassement for you.

We dont want any fight with anybody. We haven't criticized anybody's Gurus. If somebody does, we have to retaliate or leave that place. I will chose to retaliate in my own way.

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

grames
12 January 2010, 05:23 AM
Dear,

When we discuss about a topic, it is of high merit to expose your ignorance and keep the doors open for more learning. I am not sure how my attitude is embarrassment to you but in any case, i beg your pardons and forgiveness.

A right thing not told is also a crime and very bad karma. I do not mind going to hell because i try to share the little i know as long as it helps at least one in this world. Same time, i do not want to consider myself a "greatest" or the ultimate person with utmost knowledge, bhakti etc. This is not my GuruKul and my honorable Guruji's will not be affected by any of the opinions expressed here and i am very sure about that.

Hare Krishna!

smaranam
12 January 2010, 06:35 AM
Namaste Smaranam


I dont get why you make issue out of my giving background information on Gaudiya Vaishnavism when wcrow specifically mentioned Bhaktivedanta Swami and ISKCON's take on the Bhagavad Gita.

Many devotees in the broader Vaishnava community (not just Gaudiya) who find inspirations from the Gita have slight differences in their understanding of its messages so I'm citing where the basis of the difference might be.

Regards anyway

PraNAm Mataji

I am extremely sorry, I do apologize.

My intention was not to antagonize anyone, most certainly not you ! Your responses are always very well balanced.

Nor did I intend to criticize any Guru.

My post was really addressed to WCrow alone ! But stupid me, did not even address him specifically on paper, so how would you know ? Especially when we all use the linear format, not threaded.

My purpose : To give him a broad understanding of how both statements can be right because there is no chronology between Brahman, Vishnu and Krshna whatsoever.

That silly thing about "do you like milk ?" was for WCrow. Sorry, I shall remove it. I hope you will forgive me.




And KrshnaDasJi,

WCrow was confused due to two appearantly varying siddhantas or darshanas. I was just reconciling it for him, so he starts out with a broader outlook, and then is free to love and adore Krshna as much as he wants :) Be ready for Krshna's reciprocation, WCrow ! :)

Namaste.

keshava
12 January 2010, 10:53 AM
ISKCON teaches that the impersonal Brahman is the light radiating from Krishna's body. Advaita teaches that the impersonal Brahman is the highest form of God - the other forms of God are simply illusion, or maya.

I'd recommend that you stay away from ISKCON's translation of the Gita. It's translated according to ISKCON's philosophy, with the aim of supporting it. For example, Prabhupada translates the word "deva" as "demigod". This is a mistranslation. "Deva" means "god" (it's the root of the English word divine). However, ISKCON says that only Krishna is God, and that Shiva and Durga and Ganesh are His servants. Because they aren't the Supreme, he calls them "demigods", which is an inappropriate term. "Demigod" means "half-god" (generally the offspring of a God and a mortal woman) and such a term is absolutely inappropriate for Lord Shiva and Goddess Durga.

However, there are three instances in the eleventh chapter of the Gita where the word "deva" is used to address Krishna. Because Prabhupada believes that Krishna is the Supreme, he obviously can't translate it as "demigod" here, so he translates it as "Lord". This is selective translation designed to convey his sect's philosophy.

I would like to disgaree.
Deva like the word bhagvan can also refer to saintly people, demi-gods and the supreme god, so its translated according to context and philosophy.

Krishna makes it clear according to the vaishnav perspective (Not just ISKCON) that he is supreme among devas. verses 7.20-7.23. Prabhupada uses the word demigod to make the distnction between the limited controlling deitys and the absolute lord. Deva is translated according to context.
Its used to describe
Supreme gods,
annya devtas whose abodes are temporary,
Saints.

Like many words in sanskrit translations depend on philosophical as well as textual context.

We had a recent discussion on the matter. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4649&page=4
Im sure there will be differences to how people see things but this forum is for understanding. Those with a different philosophy and understanding will see things differently. A neo advaitin perspective may translate even deva/bhagvan when refering to saintly person like narada as god.

Hare Krishna

wcrow
12 January 2010, 11:14 AM
Thankyou all for your insight and information. It has all been very helpful.



I'd recommend that you stay away from ISKCON's translation of the Gita.

Thanks for the advice. I have another copy but it is a very old penguin classics version. I hope to get a newer copy of the Mahabharata as a whole soon. Looking through both translations and the ISKCON commentry I can see the differences you mentioned.

Just to make sure my understanding is now correct: Krishna essentially is Brahman, but they are all just different forms or different functions.
I hope that I am not being too stupid, I find it quite to hard to wrap my head around theology.

Jivattatva
12 January 2010, 02:16 PM
PraNAm Mataji

I am extremely sorry, I do apologize.


And KrshnaDasJi,

WCrow was confused due to two appearantly varying siddhantas or darshanas. I was just reconciling it for him, so he starts out with a broader outlook, and then is free to love and adore Krshna as much as he wants :) Be ready for Krshna's reciprocation, WCrow ! :)

Namaste.





Pranam Smaranam

No worries. I also meant no offence, just want to understand.

I'm with you on this one. I think the idea is cool!

ScottMalaysia
13 January 2010, 02:53 AM
Pranam ScottMalaysia

If you advice him to stay away from iskcon's translation which one do you recommend

I have a copy translated by Swami Chidbhavananda, with commentary by him. I'm not sure if it's available where you are, but you can purchase it online here (http://www.vedanta.com/store/bhagavad_gita_chidbhavananda.htm?__utma=1.61841784.1263371703.1263371703.1263371703.1&__utmb=1&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1263371703.1.1.utmccn%3D%28organic%29%7Cutmcsr%3Dgoogle%7Cutmctr%3Dbhagavad-gita%2Bswami%2Bchidbhavananda%7Cutmcmd%3Dorganic&__utmv=-&__utmk=56781995). It seems to be non-sectarian.

Generally, any copy will do as long as it's easy to understand. Try to avoid those with archaic pronouns and verb forms (e.g. thou art, he hath) if you find that difficult to read. Also, poetic translations are best avoided, since they can be hard to make sense of. Commentary is okay, but for the first time, I'd advise you to read it without commentary.



I would like to disgaree.
Deva like the word bhagvan can also refer to saintly people, demi-gods and the supreme god, so its translated according to context and philosophy.

Krishna makes it clear according to the vaishnav perspective (Not just ISKCON) that he is supreme among devas. verses 7.20-7.23. Prabhupada uses the word demigod to make the distnction between the limited controlling deitys and the absolute lord. Deva is translated according to context.
Its used to describe
Supreme gods,
annya devtas whose abodes are temporary,
Saints.

Yes, the word "deva" is used to refer to saintly people as well as Gods. However, "demigod" is not an appropriate translation for it. The Latin word "demi" means "half" (it's still used in French - demi-heure means 'half hour') so that would therefore mean that a demigod is half god. Demigod is used to refer to people who are born from the union of one human parent and one divine parent (it's generally a human mother and a divine father). Examples from mythology include Perseus, who slew Medusa the Gorgon (Father: Zeus [god] - Mother: Danae [human]), Hercules, who performed the Twelve Labours (Father: Zeus [god] - Mother: Alcmene [human]) and Gilgamesh (Father: Lugalbanda [human] - Mother: Ninsun [goddess]).

In the Hindu religion, the term demigod is used to refer to deities who were once human and later became devas and are worshiped as such. Worship of the demigods is often different from worship of the regular Gods such as Lord Ganesha and Lord Shiva and is usually carried out by non-Brahmins. Animal sacrifice may play a part in demigod worship as well.

Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga, Lord Ganesha and the other Hindu Gods are NOT demigods, no matter how much any ISKCONite tries to say they are.

Also, please read this thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14966#post14966).

keshava
13 January 2010, 05:03 AM
I have a copy translated by Swami Chidbhavananda, with commentary by him. I'm not sure if it's available where you are, but you can purchase it online here (http://www.vedanta.com/store/bhagavad_gita_chidbhavananda.htm?__utma=1.61841784.1263371703.1263371703.1263371703.1&__utmb=1&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1263371703.1.1.utmccn%3D%28organic%29%7Cutmcsr%3Dgoogle%7Cutmctr%3Dbhagavad-gita%2Bswami%2Bchidbhavananda%7Cutmcmd%3Dorganic&__utmv=-&__utmk=56781995). It seems to be non-sectarian.

Generally, any copy will do as long as it's easy to understand. Try to avoid those with archaic pronouns and verb forms (e.g. thou art, he hath) if you find that difficult to read. Also, poetic translations are best avoided, since they can be hard to make sense of. Commentary is okay, but for the first time, I'd advise you to read it without commentary.



Yes, the word "deva" is used to refer to saintly people as well as Gods. However, "demigod" is not an appropriate translation for it. The Latin word "demi" means "half" (it's still used in French - demi-heure means 'half hour') so that would therefore mean that a demigod is half god. Demigod is used to refer to people who are born from the union of one human parent and one divine parent (it's generally a human mother and a divine father). Examples from mythology include Perseus, who slew Medusa the Gorgon (Father: Zeus [god] - Mother: Danae [human]), Hercules, who performed the Twelve Labours (Father: Zeus [god] - Mother: Alcmene [human]) and Gilgamesh (Father: Lugalbanda [human] - Mother: Ninsun [goddess]).

In the Hindu religion, the term demigod is used to refer to deities who were once human and later became devas and are worshiped as such. Worship of the demigods is often different from worship of the regular Gods such as Lord Ganesha and Lord Shiva and is usually carried out by non-Brahmins. Animal sacrifice may play a part in demigod worship as well.

Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga, Lord Ganesha and the other Hindu Gods are NOT demigods, no matter how much any ISKCONite tries to say they are.

Also, please read this thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14966#post14966).


I've seen that thread before and commented on it on the "why?" thread at length. Shubang argues from an advaitic or pantheist point of view that all gods are equal.

Your definition of demigod may be incomplete and limited. Demigod has a few definitions and isnt as fixed as you make out.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demigod
1. Mythology a. A male being, often the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god.
b. An inferior deity; a minor god.
c. A deified man.

2. A person who is highly honored or revered.

According to the vaishnava perspective Vishnu tattva is supreme, where as other dieties (apart from siva tattva) are regarded as limited dieties in charge of a certain part of creation therefore they are not regarded as absolute God but partially in control, semi or demi in relation to the absolute Lord and can not be refered to as god in the absolute sense.

Hare Krishna

ScottMalaysia
13 January 2010, 05:27 AM
I've seen that thread before and commented on it on the "why?" thread at length. Shubang argues from an advaitic or pantheist point of view that all gods are equal.

Your definition of demigod may be incomplete and limited. Demigod has a few definitions and isnt as fixed as you make out.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demigod
1. Mythology a. A male being, often the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god.
b. An inferior deity; a minor god.
c. A deified man.

2. A person who is highly honored or revered.

Thanks very much for the info. However, Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga and Lord Ganesha, to name only a few, are not inferior deities or minor gods. Millions of Hindus worship them every day and dedicate their lives to serving them, they are not minor or inferior in any way.


According to the vaishnava perspective Vishnu tattva is supreme, where as other dieties (apart from siva tattva) are regarded as limited dieties in charge of a certain part of creation therefore they are not regarded as absolute God but partially in control, semi or demi in relation to the absolute Lord and can not be refered to as god in the absolute sense.

Hare Krishna

Do most non-ISKCON Vaishnavas or non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe this?

Krsna Das
13 January 2010, 05:58 AM
Thanks very much for the info. However, Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga and Lord Ganesha, to name only a few, are not inferior deities or minor gods. Millions of Hindus worship them every day and dedicate their lives to serving them, they are not minor or inferior in any way.


I re-iterate, that at-least as per gaudiya vaisnava tradition, Visnu-tattva is Supreme, all others (anya-devatas) are not at par than him. This is our sidhhanta.



Do most non-ISKCON Vaishnavas or non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe this?

My understanding is that Sri Vaisnava tradition also beleived that Visnu-tattva alone is Supreme, but I might be wrong. You can ask this question in Sri vaisnava community.

Hare Krsna.

keshava
13 January 2010, 08:58 AM
I have recently read a version of the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by A.C Bhakitivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who I believe is the main founder of the ISKCON movement. In the commentary he describes the difference between the Impersonal Brahman and the Svayam Bhagavan and the Svayam Bhagavan as being the original and the impersonal Brahman as being a manifestation of Krishna. At least that is what I have got with my limited understanding.
Now, this seems to be the opposite way around to what I have read in other places, where the Svayam Bhagavan is an aspect of brahman and the brahman is the original. So, who is correct or am I just misunderstanding something completly?


This question is more to do with the general differences in vaishnavaism and adviata rather than ISKCON. Here is the word for word.

mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) — unto Me (http://vedabase.net/m/me); ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) — also; yaḥ (http://vedabase.net/y/yah) — a (http://vedabase.net/a/a) person who; avyabhicāreṇa (http://vedabase.net/a/avyabhicarena) — without fail; bhakti (http://vedabase.net/b/bhakti)-yogena (http://vedabase.net/y/yogena) — by devotional service; sevate (http://vedabase.net/s/sevate) — renders service; saḥ (http://vedabase.net/s/sah) — he (http://vedabase.net/h/he); guṇān (http://vedabase.net/g/gunan) — the modes of material nature; samatītya (http://vedabase.net/s/samatitya) — transcending; etān (http://vedabase.net/e/etan) — all these; brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma)-bhūyāya (http://vedabase.net/b/bhuyaya) — elevated to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) the Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman) platform; kalpate (http://vedabase.net/k/kalpate) — becomes.

14.26
One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman).

14.27
brahmaṇaḥ (http://vedabase.net/b/brahmanah) — of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi (http://vedabase.net/h/hi) — certainly; pratiṣṭhā (http://vedabase.net/p/pratistha) — the rest; aham (http://vedabase.net/a/aham) — I (http://vedabase.net/i/i) am (http://vedabase.net/a/am); amṛtasya (http://vedabase.net/a/amrtasya) — of the immortal; avyayasya (http://vedabase.net/a/avyayasya) — of the imperishable; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) — also; śāśvatasya (http://vedabase.net/s/sasvatasya) — of the eternal; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) — and; dharmasya (http://vedabase.net/d/dharmasya) — of the constitutional position; sukhasya (http://vedabase.net/s/sukhasya) — of happiness; aikāntikasya (http://vedabase.net/a/aikantikasya) — ultimate; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) — also.

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman), which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.


I know a few people on this thread have suggested reading a so-called "neutral" translation. However Krishna himself and arjunas example in the Gita gives the science to understand the Gita. This knowledge cant be actually understood by faithless scholarship. With faithless scholarship we get a mundane superficial academic understanding of the gita.

If one wants to understand the gita one should approach someone who fits into how Lord Krishna describes the quality of one who has understaood the Gita.


Chapter 6, Verse 46.
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifA yogi is greater than the ascetic, greater than the empiricist and greater than the fruitive worker. Therefore, O Arjuna, in all circumstances, be a yogi. Chapter 6, Verse 47.
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifAnd of all yogis, he who always abides in Me with great faith, worshiping Me in transcendental loving service, is most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all.

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

Below he describes the qualities of a student and saintly person.


2.7
Now I am confused about my duty and have lost all composure because of miserly weakness. In this condition I am asking You to tell me for certain what is best for me. Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.

4.34
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

13.8-12
Humility; pridelessness; nonviolence; tolerance; simplicity; approaching a bona fide spiritual master; cleanliness; steadiness; self-control; renunciation of the objects of sense gratification; absence of false ego; the perception of the evil of birth, death, old age and disease; detachment; freedom from entanglement with children, wife, home and the rest; even-mindedness amid pleasant and unpleasant events; constant and unalloyed devotion to Me; aspiring to live in a solitary place; detachment from the general mass of people; accepting the importance of self-realization; and philosophical search for the Absolute Truth -- all these I declare to be knowledge, and besides this whatever there may be is ignorance.
12.5For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

12.6-7
But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā (http://vedabase.net/p/prtha) — for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

BG 18.64 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/64/en): Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.
BG 18.65 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/65/en): Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.
BG 18.66 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/66/en): Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
BG 18.67 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/67/en): This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me.
BG 18.68 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/68/en): For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me.

BG 18.71 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/71/en): And one who listens with faith and without envy becomes free from sinful reactions and attains to the auspicious planets where the pious dwell.

keshava
13 January 2010, 09:10 AM
Thanks very much for the info. However, Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga and Lord Ganesha, to name only a few, are not inferior deities or minor gods. Millions of Hindus worship them every day and dedicate their lives to serving them, they are not minor or inferior in any way.



Do most non-ISKCON Vaishnavas or non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe this?

Pranams ScottMalaysia
Yes most vaishnavas believe this and have for thousands of years (academic dating) millions of years (scriptual perspective) they make up a large percentage of Hinduism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaishnavism

Its because of Gaudiya vashnavism in the west primarily ISKCON, people have become aware of this rather than the advaitic version of the scriptures which other movements in the west have spread and generally people associated with Hinduism. Therefore there is sometimes the misconception among some that this is only an ISKCON thing.

grames
23 February 2010, 01:20 AM
Do most non-ISKCON Vaishnavas or non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe this?

The very basic meaning of Vaishnavaism means, worshiping Shri Vishnu as Supreme and yes all the Vaishnavas Shri Vishnu is the Supreme.

Einherjar
23 February 2010, 04:13 PM
SECOND POINT:
============

Also, those who say that Supreme truth is actually impersonal and all the incarnations alone emerge from him, Lord again refutes this ap-sidhhanta as follows:

avyaktaḿ (http://vedabase.net/a/avyaktam)vyaktim (http://vedabase.net/v/vyaktim)āpannaḿ (http://vedabase.net/a/apannam)manyante (http://vedabase.net/m/manyante)mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam)abuddhayaḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/abuddhayah)
paraḿ (http://vedabase.net/p/param)bhāvam (http://vedabase.net/b/bhavam) ajānanto mamāvyayam anuttamam (http://vedabase.net/a/anuttamam)

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna), was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme. [7.24]


I would like to comment on this a bit. I'm not a Vaishnavite so maybe I'm just missing something here. Couldn't it be quite possible that the meaning of the statement is that he was never impersonal in that people generally believe that any kind of god-force in any religion is held to such a level above the rest of existence that people have difficulties truly identifying with it? Maybe it implies that "he" has always been there and has a very personal relationship with all of existence.

I'm not trying to be offensive, just trying to stimulate some conversation. ISKCON's ideals seem a little narrow minded and seems to throw off other possible interpretations of the knowledge in the Gita. Not to say "you're doing it wrong" by any means. But sometimes its good to try to read a little deeper. If you continuously take scriptural wisdom for it's literal face value, that is how you wind up with things like the modern Christian church. Not to say that's the direction ISKCON is heading, I just like reminding people to try to keep an open mind :)

(Also, apologies if this is too off topic for this thread. I'm still getting used to the general posting guidelines enforced on this forum.)

ScottMalaysia
23 February 2010, 05:56 PM
I received my Chidbhavananda translation of the Gita at the weekend, in the package I sent from Malaysia. I thought I'd provide an alternate translation and commentary of the verses in question.

And he who serves me with an unswerving devotion, he, going beyond the Gunas, is fitted for becoming Brahman. (14:26)

Extreme devotion surges in the heart of the devotee who has made himself over to the Lord. He has nothing but Narayana to cognize both within and without. The intense fervour ends with his becoming Brahman. As darkness disappears when light comes, the three Gunas disappear when the dawn of the Brahma-jnana takes its place.

The devotee sees Iswara in many forms. But when he gets into Samadhi this very Iswara is realized by him as the formless Infinite Nirguna Brahman. It is in this realisation that Bhakti and Jnana get harmonized.

- Sri Ramakrishna


For I am the Abode of Brahman, the Immortal, and the Immutable, the Eternal Dharma and Absolute Bliss. (14:27)

All the four Yogas are herein harmonized. Bhakti and the attainment of the Saguna Brahman through it have been explained in the previous stanza . The Immortal and the Immutable Brahman or the Nirguna Brahman is reached by Jnana yoga. By serving the Lord through Karma yoga, the Eternal Dharma or the Sanatana Dharma which is another name for Brahman is made one's own. The practice of Raja yoga culminates in the creation of Amrita dhara, the Divine Nectar which provides Absolute Bliss which is another name for Brahman. Thus all the four yogas are paths by pursuing which the sadhaka gets beyond the three Gunas. The right course is to adopt all these four yogas simultaneously. He who does so traverses the three Gunas and gets into Brahman who is supremely beyond them.

This is the answer to the last question.

Mythology has it that the Lord Siva made elaborate preparations to invade and lay siege to the iron, silver and golden citadels of three mighty Asuras who were invincible. Finally, the great Lord's opening His divine eye resulted in the total destruction of the Demons and their domains. This is a mythological presentation of the transcendence of the three Gunas with the aid of Self-knowledge.

Men of poor understanding think of Me, the unmanifest, as having manifestation, not knowing My supreme state — immutable and unsurpassed. (7.24)

A benevolent and charitably-minded millionaire may be in rags occasionally just for the fun of it. If a beggar misunderstands him as one in rags and passes by without availing himself of the rich man's charity, the poor man becomes poorer for his ignorance. Such verily is the lot of those ignorant of the glory of Iswara.

An Incarnation of God, like Sri Krishna, assumes a human body, just as the bound souls do. But he is no more bound in the manifested body than the sky seen through a window is bound within the frame of that window. The manifested body of Sri Krishna is mutable; but in reality He is immutable and unsurpassed by the ordinary human beings. His supreme state remains unknown to the people of poor understanding. They do not therefore seek to worship Him.

grames
24 February 2010, 12:49 AM
Dear Scott,

Have you wondered after all your thoughts, posts here that even dear Chidbhavananda might be translating the BG inline with his philosophy which you ought to believe non-sectarian?

ScottMalaysia
24 February 2010, 01:26 AM
Dear Scott,

Have you wondered after all your thoughts, posts here that even dear Chidbhavananda might be translating the BG inline with his philosophy which you ought to believe non-sectarian?


Swami Chidbhavananda does not translate the Gita according to any sect.

grames
24 February 2010, 03:30 AM
How are you so sure about it? :)
Its not about right or wrong and hear me properly, He belongs to one of the school of Indian thought :)

The point is, with your faith and love, you consider Swami Chidbhavananda's translation as fit and right and be it true to you.


Swami Chidbhavananda does not translate the Gita according to any sect.

bhaktajan
24 February 2010, 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottMalaysia http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=40201#post40201)
Swami Chidbhavananda does not translate the Gita according to any sect.

How is that possible?

Where did he get the name, SWAMI, awarded to Him?

Where did he find this Gita Book that you speak of?

Scott, you are planting the seeds of a sect of your own making with your postings.

The translation of the Gita is not copywright-able; because it is self-evident. Take the Gitas message verbatim, IOW, the Gita message is good enough as it is, without reading between the lines for hidden messages.
A person can be supremely confident in reading A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's presentation literally.

The Gita's message should be taken literally.

satay
24 February 2010, 03:29 PM
Admin Note

Please do not make personal attacks on each other. That is against HDF's forum rules.

Thanks,

ScottMalaysia
25 February 2010, 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottMalaysia http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=40201#post40201)
Swami Chidbhavananda does not translate the Gita according to any sect.

How is that possible?

Where did he get the name, SWAMI, awarded to Him?

He is a swami in the line of Ramakrishna. His guru was Swami Shivananda.


Scott, you are planting the seeds of a sect of your own making with your postings.Most Hindus are not sectarian.


The translation of the Gita is not copywright-able; because it is self-evident. Take the Gitas message verbatim, IOW, the Gita message is good enough as it is, without reading between the lines for hidden messages.
A person can be supremely confident in reading A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's presentation literally.The only problem being that Prabhupada's translation is translated according to the teachings of his sect. For some verses, the "translations" are actually interpretations according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism instead of literal translations. I will give you an example.

Bhagavad-Gita 4:24

braha'rpanam brahma havir
brahmagnau brahmana hutam |
brahmai 'va tena gantavyam
brahmakarma samadhina

brahma - Brahman arpanam - the oblation brahma - Brahman havih - the clarified butter brahmagnau - in the fire of Brahman brahmana - by Brahman hutam - is offered brahma - Brahman eva - only tena - by him gantavyam - shall be reached brahma karma samadhina - by the man who is absorbed in action which is Brahman

The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes who cognizes Brahman alone in his action.

As we can see, this translation fits with the word-for-word meanings (which I copied directly from the Gita, minus the Devanagari). However, Srila Prabhupada's "translation" doesn't.

A person who is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature.

The term "Krishna consciousness" is not present in the original Sanskrit. Neither is the term "spiritual kingdom" (it is actually a translation of the fourth brahma). However, we cannot translate any of the other brahmas in the verse as "spiritual kingdom" or the whole verse would make no sense.

Here is Prabhupada's word-for-word translation:

brahma — spiritual in nature; arpaṇam — contribution; brahma — the Supreme; haviḥ — butter; brahma — spiritual; agnau — in the fire of consummation; brahmaṇā — by the spirit soul; hutam — offered; brahma — spiritual kingdom; eva — certainly; tena — by him; gantavyam — to be reached; brahma — spiritual; karma — in activities; samādhinā — by complete absorption.

Going by this word-for-word translation, an approximate translation of the whole verese would be something like:

"The contribution is spiritual in nature, the butter is spirtual in nature, offered by the Supreme in the fire of consummation; certainly the spiritual kingdom will be reached by him who is completely absorbed in spiritual activities."

However, in Prabhupada's actual translation, the terms "havih" (clarified butter) and "agnau" are not translated. He instead writes an interpretation of this verse based on his sect's beliefs. No other translators of the Gita would ever use the term "Krishna consciousness" in translating this verse.

To finish, let's look at some more translations of this verse.

From www.bhagavad-gita.org (http://www.bhagavad-gita.org)

The sacrificial paraphenalia is the Ultimate Truth, the sacrificial fire is the Ultimate Truth, offerings of oblations and ghee by the brahmana is the Ultimate Truth, for him being fully absorbed in the Ultimate Truth by spiritual activities, certainly the Ultimate Truth is attainable.

Kashinath Trimbak Telang translation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe08/index.htm):

Brahman is the oblation; with Brahman (as a sacrificial instrument) it is offered up; Brahman is in the fire; and by Brahman it is thrown; and Brahman, too, is the goal to which he proceeds who meditates on Brahman in the action

Eknath Easwaran translation (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=a-Oh_-rK5SQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhagavad+gita&source=bl&ots=HB6YBMYCPB&sig=D6jqEPVnGn-GnYEM2D6-i7Ynxvs&hl=en&ei=vyCGS4f0MYO4swPf0dDFDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false):

The process of offering is Brahman; that which is offered is Brahman. Brahman offers the sacrifice in the fire of Brahman. Brahman is attained by those who see Brahman in every action.

Sir Edwin Arnold translation (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=KOd6N2_t6XoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bhagavad+gita&source=bl&ots=nLlGC_fVsQ&sig=PcwaF1WabKIoHZUuSVVXhl4qmAY&hl=en&ei=uyGGS_PkPIWesgPCzsjFDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=bhagavad%20gita&f=false):

The sacrifice is Brahm, the fire is Brahm, the flesh it eats is Brahm, and unto Brahm attaineth he who, in such office, meditates on Brahm.

Jayaram V translation (http://www.hinduwebsite.com/gita4.asp):

His offering is Brahman, his oblation is Brahman, his sacrificial fire is Brahman, the sacrificer is Brahman. He certainly attains Brahman who finds Brahman situated in all activities.

William Q. Judge translation:

The Supreme Spirit is the act of offering, the Supreme Spirit is the sacrificial butter offered in the fire which is the Supreme Spirit, and unto the Supreme Spirit goeth he who maketh the Supreme Spirit the object of his meditation in performing his actions.


The Gita's message should be taken literally.I agree.

devotee
25 February 2010, 01:25 AM
Namaste Scott,

I appreciate your methodology to understand Bhagwad Gita's true message. It is really nice and will save you from many misunderstandings.

Best wishes ...

OM

grames
25 February 2010, 02:50 AM
It is unfortunate that you do not provide any translation which in fact stands word by word meaning to satisfy your claim of SP being sectarian etc.

Please do not dictate how the translation should be when you may or may not even know how to translate and adhering to 'what' and how etc. None of the Vedic texts should be or can be translated meaningfully when gone word by word and i hope you know the quality of such translation by Max mullar and like minded people. It will be just ignorance or over enthusiasm to get the understanding of Vedic text with the help of some dictionaries when the same texts are talking so loudly about learning from proper source etc. ( Being follower of Shaivaism, i can point out the process of learning if you want to. Mere reading of Shaivaism text will not yield anything meaningful even if u go word by word as all will be just confuse you and lead you nowhere be it Sanskrit or Tamil or Kannada texts.)

If you are so sincere and having very high expectation, please write a message where you elaborate the details of what needs to be followed, what needs to be adhered and what should be avoided etc. to write a Bhasya. If you have such knowledge, then we may see where exactly the translation fails.

For your help, such system of Grammar, Interpretation rules, pronunciation Guides etc are all available and except one school of thought, no other school fully followed/follows such strict adherence to the Grammar and Rules etc and they have their own reasons to deviate. With out knowing them, what you read or consider or have faith in are all pure emotionally driven faith. Paroxa Janana do not come by random reading of some translations alone and with out Paroxa there is no room for any sort of Aparoxa Janana. SP's translations with respect to BG and SB where some of the Raghasyas are explained in fact is in the realm of Aparoxa Janana and it is not going to satisfy any mundane practitioner who did not transcend the material mode of thinking, correlating and understanding. It may sound sectarian etc. but in the big context it should be the understanding and if you teach anything else here, the whole picture will be distorted. You then will be forced to introduce your own thoughts as Vedic to justify your interpretations and delude the people with wrong conclusions. You just go ahead and read the subsequent verses of BG of chapter 4 and try to see whether the context is kept intact or lost as in other translations.

AS IT IS is given there along with purport and AS IT IS is not in fact mean word by word but AS IT IS propagating from the Divine First!

keshava
25 February 2010, 04:25 AM
Most Hindus are not sectarian.
Depends on your definition of 'sectarian' and 'most' - everyone has their own opinion which may differ from others.

Trying to get everyone to believe in an all inclusive philosophy where everything is equal and rejecting anyone who doesnt susbcribe to this philosophy can also be called 'sectarian'. Krishna is giving a certain formula of how to get to him he can only be understood in truth by bhakti. This may seem sectarian to some. Who cares?



The only problem being that Prabhupada's translation is translated according to the teachings of his sect. For some verses, the "translations" are actually interpretations according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism instead of literal translations. I will give you an example.

Prabhupada translated according to what Krishna says himself and how arjuna interpreted the gita, Arjuna didnt undertsand the gita in thousands of different ways, and Lord Krishna wasnt giving abstract verses so people can do mental gymanastics on them for millenia. He was giving a formula for self realization.

You give translations from scholars and gyanis as examples, however Lord Krishna has given the qualifications of who can actually understand him which is only a bhakta.

BG 10.10 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/10/en): To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

BG 18.55 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/55/en): One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
BG 18.56 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/56/en): Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My pure devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace.





Bhagavad-Gita 4:24

braha'rpanam brahma havir
brahmagnau brahmana hutam |
brahmai 'va tena gantavyam
brahmakarma samadhina

brahma - Brahman arpanam - the oblation brahma - Brahman havih - the clarified butter brahmagnau - in the fire of Brahman brahmana - by Brahman hutam - is offered brahma - Brahman eva - only tena - by him gantavyam - shall be reached brahma karma samadhina - by the man who is absorbed in action which is Brahman

The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes who cognizes Brahman alone in his action.

As we can see, this translation fits with the word-for-word meanings (which I copied directly from the Gita, minus the Devanagari). However, Srila Prabhupada's "translation" doesn't.

A person who is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature.

The term "Krishna consciousness" is not present in the original Sanskrit. Neither is the term "spiritual kingdom" (it is actually a translation of the fourth brahma). However, we cannot translate any of the other brahmas in the verse as "spiritual kingdom" or the whole verse would make no sense.

Here is Prabhupada's word-for-word translation:

brahma — spiritual in nature; arpaṇam — contribution; brahma — the Supreme; haviḥ — butter; brahma — spiritual; agnau — in the fire of consummation; brahmaṇā — by the spirit soul; hutam — offered; brahma — spiritual kingdom; eva — certainly; tena — by him; gantavyam — to be reached; brahma — spiritual; karma — in activities; samādhinā — by complete absorption.

Going by this word-for-word translation, an approximate translation of the whole verese would be something like:

"The contribution is spiritual in nature, the butter is spirtual in nature, offered by the Supreme in the fire of consummation; certainly the spiritual kingdom will be reached by him who is completely absorbed in spiritual activities."

However, in Prabhupada's actual translation, the terms "havih" (clarified butter) and "agnau" are not translated. He instead writes an interpretation of this verse based on his sect's beliefs. No other translators of the Gita would ever use the term "Krishna consciousness" in translating this verse.

To finish, let's look at some more translations of this verse.


You say the word Krishna conciousness is not present in the sanskrit. Yes not directly in this verse.
However this is
brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma) — spiritual; karma (http://vedabase.net/k/karma) — in (http://vedabase.net/i/in) activities; samādhinā (http://vedabase.net/s/samadhina) — by complete absorption.

Lord Krishna later in the gita defines who this brahman is 14.27 (bramano aham pratistham). Krishna clarifies what complete obsorption is using the verse twice in the gita (the only verse where the first half of the verse appears twice in the gita)

Bhagavad-Gita, chapter 18, verse 65
Absorb your mind and heart in Me, become My devotee, offer propitiation to Me, just give humble obeisance unto Me, and surely you will come to Me. I promise this in truth to you, being very dear to Me.

Bg. 9.34
“Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, offer obeisances and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me.”

As you can see complete absorbtion is Krishna consciousness. This isn't an interpretation of the 'sect' but its using Krishnas clarification which occurs throughout the gita.


However, we cannot translate any of the other brahmas in the verse as "spiritual kingdom" or the whole verse would make no sense.

Why not?

The word for word is brahma — spiritual kingdom; eva — certainly; tena — by him; gantavyam — to be reached;

You have translated it as "Brahman verily he goes"
Srila prabhupada goes futher and clarifies what this brahman is, as the verse I quoted previously. Krishna himself defines

Krishna in 18.62 uses the word param sthanim.

Arjuna in 10.12-13 understoond Krishna to be brahman who has a supreme dhama (abode)

arjunaḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/arjunah) uvāca (http://vedabase.net/u/uvaca) — Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna) said; param (http://vedabase.net/p/param) — supreme; brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma) — truth; param (http://vedabase.net/p/param) — supreme; dhāma (http://vedabase.net/d/dhama) — sustenance; pavitram (http://vedabase.net/p/pavitram) — pure (http://vedabase.net/p/pure); paramam (http://vedabase.net/p/paramam) — supreme; bhavān (http://vedabase.net/b/bhavan) — You; puruṣam (http://vedabase.net/p/purusam) — personality; śāśvatam (http://vedabase.net/s/sasvatam) — original; divyam (http://vedabase.net/d/divyam) — transcendental; ādi (http://vedabase.net/a/adi)-devam (http://vedabase.net/d/devam) — the original Lord; ajam (http://vedabase.net/a/ajam) — unborn; vibhum (http://vedabase.net/v/vibhum) — greatest; āhuḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/ahuh) — say; tvām (http://vedabase.net/t/tvam) — of You; ṛṣayaḥ (http://vedabase.net/r/rsayah) — sages; sarve (http://vedabase.net/s/sarve) — all; deva (http://vedabase.net/d/deva)-ṛṣiḥ (http://vedabase.net/r/rsih) — the sage among the demigods; nāradaḥ (http://vedabase.net/n/naradah) — Nārada (http://vedabase.net/n/narada); tathā (http://vedabase.net/t/tatha) — also; asitaḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/asitah) — Asita (http://vedabase.net/a/asita); devalaḥ (http://vedabase.net/d/devalah) — Devala (http://vedabase.net/d/devala); vyāsaḥ (http://vedabase.net/v/vyasah) — Vyāsa (http://vedabase.net/v/vyasa); svayam (http://vedabase.net/s/svayam) — personally; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) — also; eva (http://vedabase.net/e/eva) — certainly; bravīṣī (http://vedabase.net/b/bravisi) — You are (http://vedabase.net/a/are) explaining; me (http://vedabase.net/m/me) — unto me (http://vedabase.net/m/me).

BG 10.12-13 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/12-13/en): Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/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 (http://vedabase.net/n/narada), Asita (http://vedabase.net/a/asita), Devala (http://vedabase.net/d/devala) and Vyāsa (http://vedabase.net/v/vyasa) confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.

Prabhupada is giving in this verse which Krishna clarifies later, he does this in many translations.

You may say why can't srila prabhupada just translate the verse according to the word for word, however many people have done that people unfortuantely still do not understand the message of the gita therefore Srila prabhupada gives the context and conclusions in many translations which occur later in the gita.

People have a tendancy to understand brahman in their own way ignoring what krishna says later and how arjuna understood it to mean. Many people think all the yogas are the same (not according to 6.47). Therefore prabhupada consistently tries to give the context in each verse.

Prabhupada's intention for the gita wasnt an academic 'As it is' translation but 'As it is' in terms of Krishnas conclusion of how bhakti to Krishna is the conclusion of the gita (Sarva dharma pariyaja 18.66) and its only by bhakti it can be truly understood (According to krishna himself 10.10, 18.55 etc) Not even demigods or demons can understand krishna 10.14 . The highest yogi is a bhakti yoga 6.47

Unfortunately other gita translations ignore or minimise these truths, which are the essence of the gita. People prefer instead to do mental gymnastics trying to get different meanings thinking they are very broad minded and liberal by doing so, however krishna explains the only way to understand him is only by bhakti.

This is what its meant by 'As it is' and Srila prabhupada consistently keeps emphasising these conclusions through out the gita therefore those with other motives are agitated by these translations. His purpose wasnt academic 'As it is' his purpose was to create bhaktas, which is the purpose of krishna and the role of arjuna who understood the gita in a devotional way.(10 - gita 'as it is' isnt just one way of translating the gita, the devotional way is the only way to translate the gita. (Does this sound sectarian? does verse 18.65, 18.66, 18.55 10.10 etc sound sectarian?) Krishna goes to the extent of warning this confidential truth should not be spoken to non bhaktas and the envious 18.67. We can see what happens when they do the translating Krishnas unequivicol points are minimized or explained away. People get so caught up with specific words they miss the spirit the goal.

This has been done with so called 'neutral' western or indian translators. Krishna doesnt say translate gita using so called 'neautrality' or by atheists. He says only bhaktas can understand this truth and only by bhakti is this truth revealed(verses given above). Go to a tattva dharshani serve him and enquire submissively 4.34 if literal words are enough then why advise this? Truth and spirit is more subtle than academic translations


Hare Krishna

ScottMalaysia
25 February 2010, 04:32 AM
It is unfortunate that you do not provide any translation which in fact stands word by word meaning to satisfy your claim of SP being sectarian etc.His use of the word "demigod" shows that he considers only Krishna to be God and doesn't accept Lord Shiva or Lord Ganesha to be forms of God, but lower beings who serve Krishna.

Men in this world desire success in fruitive activities, and therefore they worship the demigods. Quickly, of course, men get results from fruitive work in this world. (BG 4.11)

The actual word used in the Sanskrit is devatah which means "gods". Most other translations use the word "god" to translate deva and "gods" to translate devatah.

Indeed, Srila Prabhupada translates the word deva as "Lord" in two instances.

tasmāt praṇamya praṇidhāya kāyaḿ
prasādaye tvām aham īśam īḍyam
piteva putrasya sakheva sakhyuḥ
priyaḥ priyāyārhasi deva soḍhum

You are the Supreme Lord, to be worshiped by every living being. Thus I fall down to offer You my respectful obeisances and ask Your mercy. As a father tolerates the impudence of his son, or a friend tolerates the impertinence of a friend, or a wife tolerates the familiarity of her partner, please tolerate the wrongs I may have done You. (BG 11.44)

No mention of "demigods" here - the word deva is clearly referring to Krishna.

adṛṣṭa-pūrvaḿ hṛṣito 'smi dṛṣṭvā
bhayena ca pravyathitaḿ mano me
tad eva me darśaya deva rūpaḿ
prasīda deveśa jagan-nivāsa

After seeing this universal form, which I have never seen before, I am gladdened, but at the same time my mind is disturbed with fear. Therefore please bestow Your grace upon me and reveal again Your form as the Personality of Godhead, O Lord of lords, O abode of the universe.

Again, deva is translated as "Lord".

The reason that he translates deva as "demigod" in the other verses is that they refer to the Gods in general, not Krishna alone. As a Gaudiya Vaishnava, Prabhupada believed that only Krishna was Supreme. His purport from BG 4.12 illustrates this:

"There is a great misconception about the gods or demigods of this material world, and men of less intelligence, although passing as great scholars, take these demigods to be various forms of the Supreme Lord. Actually, the demigods are not different forms of God, but they are God's different parts and parcels. God is one, and the parts and parcels are many. The Vedas say, nityo nityānām: God is one. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ. The Supreme God is one — Kṛṣṇa — and the demigods are delegated with powers to manage this material world."

In the first two sentences he has maligned the belief that the majority of Hindus hold - that all the Gods are different forms of the Supreme Lord. Neither of the two verses that he quotes are from the Vedas. Nitya means 'ever, always' and Nityanam means 'ever existing'. It is a reference to a verse in the Katha Upanishad:

"Whoso among the intelligent realize the Self in the (inner space of the) heart as the eternal among the ephemeral, the consciousness among the conscious, who, though one, dispenses the desired objects to many, to them belongs eternal peace, not to others." (Katha Upanishad 2.2.13).

While the Katha Upanishad is Shruti, and could therefore be classified as Vedic, the second quote is from the Brahma-Samhita, a Pancharatra text in praise of Krishna. It is not part of the Vedas at all.

"Even the great demigods like Brahmā and Śiva cannot be compared to the Supreme Lord. In fact, the Lord is worshiped by demigods such as Brahmā and Śiva (śiva-viriñci-nutam)."

The Shiva Purana states that Lord Vishnu worships Lord Shiva. I don't have a quote for this, because the only copy of the Shiva Purana I saw was in my university library many years ago.

In the Bhagavata Purana, Lord Brahma states the following:

Lord Brahmā said: My dear Lord Śiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.
My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web.
My dear lord, Your Lordship has introduced the system of sacrifices through the agency of Dakṣa, and thus one may derive the benefits of religious activities and economic development. Under your regulative principles, the institution of the four varṇas and āśramas is respected. The brāhmaṇas therefore vow to follow this system strictly.
O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuṇṭha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.
My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramātmā in each and every being, and as such they do not differentiate between one living being and another. Such persons treat all living entities equally. They never become overwhelmed by anger like animals, who can see nothing without differentiation. (Bhagavata Purana 4.6.42 - 4.6.46)

Sounds like Shiva is pretty Supreme to me from these verses. He is the Creator and controller of the cosmic manifestation, He ordained the heavenly planets, and most importantly, He is present in every living being as the Paramatma.

Sure doesn't sound like a "demigod" to me.

grames
25 February 2010, 05:11 AM
Again one more blunder of blunders...

In Sanskrit and tamil, one word can have multiple meanings and such meanings can be deducted only by context, subjects involved and Kala associated with that. ( Many other languages are also have this proficiency specialty in them)

But i sense that, you are also started parroting the usual wining of the newbies who fall in deep love with some Universalism philosophy but claim that you are "This" or "That" but still throw numerous doubts and insincere accusations on Vaishanva philosophies. I am sure, the above message of yours might have only very little contribution from your own thoughts and time and more of borrowed contents.

To explain everything to you and make you understand, you have to first learn Sanskrit by spending at least 12 yrs in some of the Veda Padashala and then another set of long years in any of the glorious "Sectarian" philosophy of SD be it Shaivaism, Vaishnavaism or other. Until then, you can only remain egoistically satisfied by ignoring what makes such philosophy and also throwing away the inquisitiveness that "CAN IT BE" really true.

I thought you follow Shaivaism but i realize you just branded yourself safe and if it is not true then, are you aware that entire Shaiva Agamas Declare proudly that Lord Shiva (Not the TriMurti) is the Ultimate and all others are serving Him alone. Also are you aware the gradation they teach among Nandi, Nada, Nadanta, Sidda and Badda etc? Please educate yourself and have some sort of originality in your accusations before expecting truths to flow in to you.

grames
25 February 2010, 05:14 AM
Dear Satay,

Will you be able to please move this thread under ISKCON catogory.

Thanks

devotee
25 February 2010, 07:42 AM
Dear Scott,

It is not considered right in Hinduism to shake someone's faith. Let ISKCON members have their own version of BG. What is the harm ? They are following the path of Bhakti-yoga dedicated to Lord Krishna. It can't produce anything inauspicious unless they start forcing their philosophy on others.

You have become more like a common born-Hindu. However, the sectarian Hindus, like ISKCONites etc. too are Hindus ... we all derive our philosophies from the same scriptures.

OM

Ganeshprasad
25 February 2010, 08:02 AM
Pranam Devotee ji


Dear Scott,

It is not considered right in Hinduism to shake someone's faith. Let ISKCON members have their own version of BG. What is the harm ?

I can think of a lot of reasons but for the moment i am done arguing.



They are following the path of Bhakti-yoga dedicated to Lord Krishna. It can't produce anything inauspicious unless they start forcing their philosophy on others.

bhakti is great and auspicious, is the second part that bothers me.



You have become more like a common born-Hindu. However, the sectarian Hindus, like ISKCONites etc. too are Hindus ... we all derive our philosophies from the same scriptures.

OM

Hindus! now that is good question? problem is Prabhupads sated position is that they are not Hindus, think about it.

Jai Shree Krishna

grames
25 February 2010, 08:25 AM
For people who think they can contribute more using proper grammar, context and knowledge in Vedic texts, please provide first

1. The basis of your interpretation ( which cannot be a dictionary word by word translation )
2. Follow grammar and context
3. Give a actual interpretation which keeps the context of the interpreted verse in tact.

Unless you have the above ability, please refrain from throwing judgments and branding something as "cult" "sectarian" etc. with your limited view and borrowed knowledge.

Hindu is not even an authentic name and why would you expect anyone who follow SD to go by this name when they want to go by only AUTHENTIC knowledge and practice. Do not take things out of context to support certain ideals as the problem here is not to figure out who is Hindu and who is not Hindu. I can happily declare with out any shame or regret that i am not a Hindu but have all my heart, soul and complete breathe on Lord Krishna.

Ganeshprasad
25 February 2010, 09:59 AM
Pranam ji



Unless you have the above ability, please refrain from throwing judgments and branding something as "cult" "sectarian" etc. with your limited view and borrowed knowledge.


Why are you the Admin here, and setting the rules on this 'HINDU' forum?

Jai Shree Krishna

Ekanta
25 February 2010, 11:04 AM
I'm currently going through the Gita and compare different versions. There are many examples but this is one. Im not saying who's right or wrong, its just an example how it can be rendered differently:

jñeyam yat tat pravakṣyāmi | yat jñātvā amṛtam aśnute |
anādi mat param brahma | na sat tat na asat ucyate || BG 13.13 ||

ISKCON:
13.13. I shall now explain the knowable [jñeyam], knowing [jñātvā] which you will taste the eternal [amṛtam]. Brahman, the spirit [brahma], beginningless [anādi] and subordinate to Me [mat-param], lies beyond the cause [sat] and effect [asat] of this material world.

Sivananda:
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known [jñeyam], knowing [jñātvā] which one attains to immortality [amṛtam], the beginningless [anādi-mat] supreme Brahman [param-brahma], called neither being [sat] nor non-being [asat].

atanu
25 February 2010, 11:27 AM
I'm currently going through the Gita and compare different versions. There are many examples but this is one. Im not saying who's right or wrong, its just an example how it can be rendered differently:

jñeyam yat tat pravakṣyāmi | yat jñātvā amṛtam aśnute |
anādi mat param brahma | na sat tat na asat ucyate || BG 13.13 ||

ISKCON:
13.13. I shall now explain the knowable [jñeyam], knowing [jñātvā] which you will taste the eternal [amṛtam]. Brahman, the spirit [brahma], beginningless [anādi] and subordinate to Me [mat-param], lies beyond the cause [sat] and effect [asat] of this material world.

Sivananda:
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known [jñeyam], knowing [jñātvā] which one attains to immortality [amṛtam], the beginningless [anādi-mat] supreme Brahman [param-brahma], called neither being [sat] nor non-being [asat].

Namaste ekanta,

When seen in the context of anadimat used in Svet. Upanishad for Brahman, anadimat can only mean 'without beginning'. The parsing of anadimatparam to anadi matparam is surely wrong when seen in the light of shruti reference.

Shri Abhinava Gupta, in my view, gives the most concise knowledge on this matter directly from Gita itself. He cites another verse where 'akshara param brahma' is used. 'param' cannot again be subordinate.


Om namah Shivaya

keshava
25 February 2010, 11:28 AM
Pranam ji



Why are you the Admin here, and setting the rules on this 'HINDU' forum?

Jai Shree Krishna


Its ashame that people make statements with (probably) a superficial search and try to stick people in to boxes.

Its only recenty last century or so that neo-hindus have tried to create this umbrella banner telling people what hindus believe and dont who are hindus and who are not, prior 15th centuary people were okay to refer to each other as vaishnavas, shaivais followers of santan dhrama, bhagvata dharma, vedic dharma etc.

Srila prabhupada was happy to refer to the process as sanatan dharma, vedic dharma, bhagvat dharma, varnashrama dharma as these are concreate and refer to specific vedic concepts.

However with hinduism sometime's he was scathing in his remarks when describing a hodge podge philosophy not based on scripture and sometimes refered to it favourably when refering to it in the vedic context.

Neo hindus on this forum will only quote one side. The term hindu is relative and changes and different people hold different meanings to what it means.

If you want to read about the issue more thouroughly then you can read
http://www.salagram.net/IskconHinduism.html#What

If this is just more neo-hindu regurgitation of one sided quotes then keep it.

I'm surprised that when members of ISKCON call them selves followers of sanatan dharma, varnashrama dharma and followers of the vedas, people get hung up on the Hindu word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Definitions


Why not call this forum sanatan dharma? vedic dharma etc? At least its faithful to the vedic scriptures and has a specific concept attached to it?

Neo hindus need to get a reality check as someone who calls themselves a follower of sanatan dharma or varnashrama dharma is more of a traditional hindu than modern neo hindus who insit upon this label.

Pranams

devotee
25 February 2010, 11:46 AM
I can happily declare with out any shame or regret that i am not a Hindu

That is sad to hear from you. May be that explains many things. BTW, I am a Hindu and am proud of it.


but have all my heart, soul and complete breathe on Lord Krishna.

Thanks, it brings the smile back on my face. I love Lord Krishna, as you do.

OM

bhaktajan
25 February 2010, 01:03 PM
Per Post #42:

"Why are you the Admin here, and setting the rules on this 'HINDU' forum?"

Just feel free to post what ever you'd like to using the best of Human standards that best suit you.

You will be censored by the authorities without notice.
So, rest assured, just do your part and leaving the rest to Oz.

ScottMalaysia
25 February 2010, 01:06 PM
Dear Scott,

It is not considered right in Hinduism to shake someone's faith. Let ISKCON members have their own version of BG. What is the harm ? They are following the path of Bhakti-yoga dedicated to Lord Krishna. It can't produce anything inauspicious unless they start forcing their philosophy on others.

The problem is that they claim that their version of Bhagavad-Gita is the only valid one, because it was translated by a guru who is in a line of disciplic succession going all the way back to Krishna. They are disparaging of other translations, calling the translators "Mayavadis" because they don't agree with ISKCON's philosophy.



You have become more like a common born-Hindu. However, the sectarian Hindus, like ISKCONites etc. too are Hindus ... we all derive our philosophies from the same scriptures.

OM

I have become a lot less sectarian. I still identify as a Saivite but I mainly pray to Durga Ma.

bhaktajan
25 February 2010, 01:21 PM
In my useless & fallen & conditioned by maya opinion:
All that Scott must face up to is the question:

Is this true, or not true?:
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami a guru who is in a line of disciplic succession going all the way back to Krishna"

Is this true, or not true?:
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami,a] followed in every Swami's tradition of, 'Wrighting his own Commentary of the Gita'; and,
b] A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami titled his Commentary of the Gita: 'Bhagavad-gita, As-It-Is'.
c] Lord Shiva is the Chief Vaishnava.

Ekanta
25 February 2010, 04:12 PM
In my useless & fallen & conditioned by maya opinion:
All that Scott must face up to is the question:

Is this true, or not true?:
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami a guru who is in a line of disciplic succession going all the way back to Krishna"

Is this true, or not true?:
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami,a] followed in every Swami's tradition of, 'Wrighting his own Commentary of the Gita'; and,
b] A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami titled his Commentary of the Gita: 'Bhagavad-gita, As-It-Is'.
c] Lord Shiva is the Chief Vaishnava.


Its neither sat or asat? :)

ScottMalaysia
25 February 2010, 10:30 PM
In my useless & fallen & conditioned by maya opinion:
All that Scott must face up to is the question:

Is this true, or not true?:
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami a guru who is in a line of disciplic succession going all the way back to Krishna"

True. He is a guru who is in a line of disciplic succession going all the way back to Krishna.

Bodhinata Velyanswami is a guru in the Nandinatha Sampradaya, which came from the Nath Sampradaya, which was founded by Shiva Himself.


Is this true, or not true?:
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami,a] followed in every Swami's tradition of, 'Wrighting his own Commentary of the Gita'; and,

Many Swamis wrote commentaries on the Gita. Prabhupada was (to my knowledge) the only Swami who claimed that his translation was the only authentic one.


b] A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami titled his Commentary of the Gita: 'Bhagavad-gita, As-It-Is'.

True. He named it as such to indicate that the Gita is not interpreted allegorically, as some translators do. However, the copy of the Gita that I have is not interpreted allegorically. It makes reference to Iswara, the Sanskrit term for "God".


c] Lord Shiva is the Chief Vaishnava.

False. Read the Shiva Purana.

From the book "Dancing with Siva" by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami:

"As Primal Soul, Siva is the five-fold manifestation: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; Rudra, the destroyer; Maheshvara, the veiling Lord, and Sadashiva, the revealer. He is our personal Lord, source of all three worlds."

grames
26 February 2010, 01:18 AM
Pranam ji

Why are you the Admin here, and setting the rules on this 'HINDU' forum?

Jai Shree Krishna

Dear Ji,

I am not doing any admin or even will try that. But, instead of throwing some judgments and mere opinions, i asked whether the person who wants to lodge such judgments can provide substance and if not, just keep cool. What is the point in discussiing on a "judgement" when it is already 'fixed' in the mind.

keshava
26 February 2010, 03:14 AM
Many Swamis wrote commentaries on the Gita. Prabhupada was (to my knowledge) the only Swami who claimed that his translation was the only authentic one.

He didnt say his one is the only authentic one.

http://vedabase.net/bg/preface/en
"If personally I have any credit in this matter, it is only that I have tried to present Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) as it is, without any adulteration. Before my presentation of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) As It Is, almost all the English editions of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) were introduced to fulfill someone's personal ambition. But our attempt, in presenting Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) As It Is, is to present the mission of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna). Our business is to present the will of Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna), not that of any mundane speculator like the politician, philosopher or scientist, for they have very little knowledge of Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna), despite all their other knowledge. When Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) says, man-manā (http://vedabase.net/m/mana) bhava (http://vedabase.net/b/bhava) mad-bhakto mad-yājī (http://vedabase.net/y/yaji) māḿ (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) namaskuru (http://vedabase.net/n/namaskuru) , etc., we, unlike the so-called scholars, do not say that Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) and His inner spirit are different. Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) is absolute, and there is no difference between Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna)'s name, Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna)'s form, Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna)'s qualities, Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna)'s pastimes, etc. This absolute position of Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) in the system of paramparā (http://vedabase.net/p/parampara) (disciplic succession). Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svāmīs, without perfect knowledge of Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna), try to banish or kill Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita). Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) is known as Māyāvāda (http://vedabase.net/m/mayavada)-bhāṣya (http://vedabase.net/b/bhasya), and Lord Caitanya (http://vedabase.net/c/caitanya) has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya (http://vedabase.net/c/caitanya) clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) from the Māyāvādī (http://vedabase.net/m/mayavadi) point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead."



[B]True. He named it as such to indicate that the Gita is not interpreted allegorically, as some translators do. However, the copy of the Gita that I have is not interpreted allegorically. It makes reference to Iswara, the Sanskrit term for "God".

He named it such to indicate that it has stuck with the spirit of the gita - hasnt tried to minimise bhakti or present it as some stepping stone nor explain away the personality of Krsna.

http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en
Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) is also known as Gītopaniṣad. It is the essence of Vedic knowledge and one of the most important Upaniṣads in Vedic literature. Of course there are many commentaries in English on the Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita), and one may question the necessity for another one. This present edition can be explained in the following way. Recently an American lady asked me to recommend an English translation of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita). Of course in America there are so many editions of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) available in English, but as far as I have seen, not only in America but also in India, none of them can be strictly said to be authoritative because in almost every one of them the commentator has expressed his own opinions without touching the spirit of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) as it is.
The spirit of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) is mentioned in Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) itself. It is just like this: If we want to take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the directions written on the label. We cannot take the medicine according to our own whim or the direction of a friend. It must be taken according to the directions on the label or the directions given by a physician. Similarly, Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) should be taken or accepted as it is directed by the speaker Himself. The speaker of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) is Lord Śrī (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna). He is mentioned on every page of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavān (http://vedabase.net/b/bhagavan). Of course the word bhagavān (http://vedabase.net/b/bhagavan) sometimes refers to any powerful person or any powerful demigod, and certainly here bhagavān (http://vedabase.net/b/bhagavan) designates Lord Śrī (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) as a great personality, but at the same time we should know that Lord Śrī (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is confirmed by all great ācāryas (spiritual masters) like Śańkarācārya (http://vedabase.net/s/sankaracarya), Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka Svāmī (http://vedabase.net/s/svami), Śrī (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Caitanya (http://vedabase.net/c/caitanya) Mahāprabhu (http://vedabase.net/m/mahaprabhu) and many other authorities of Vedic knowledge in India. The Lord Himself also establishes Himself as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita), and He is accepted as such in the Brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma)-saḿhitā (http://vedabase.net/s/samhita) and all the Purāṇas, especially the Śrīmad (http://vedabase.net/s/srimad)-Bhāgavatam (http://vedabase.net/b/bhagavatam), known as the Bhāgavata (http://vedabase.net/b/bhagavata) Purāṇa (http://vedabase.net/p/purana) (kṛṣṇas tu (http://vedabase.net/t/tu) bhagavān (http://vedabase.net/b/bhagavan) svayam (http://vedabase.net/s/svayam)). Therefore we should take Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) as it is directed by the Personality of Godhead Himself. In the Fourth Chapter of the Gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) (4.1-3 (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/1/en)) the Lord says:

....

"Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/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 (http://vedabase.net/n/narada), Asita (http://vedabase.net/a/asita), Devala (http://vedabase.net/d/devala), and Vyāsa (http://vedabase.net/v/vyasa) confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me. O Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna), I totally accept as truth all that You have told me. Neither the demigods nor the demons, O Lord, can understand Your personality."
After hearing Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna) accepted Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) as paraḿ (http://vedabase.net/p/param) brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma), the Supreme Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman). Every living being is Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman), but the supreme living being, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the Supreme Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman). Paraḿ (http://vedabase.net/p/param) dhāma (http://vedabase.net/d/dhama) means that He is the supreme rest or abode of everything; pavitram (http://vedabase.net/p/pavitram) means that He is pure, untainted by material contamination; puruṣam (http://vedabase.net/p/purusam) means that He is the supreme enjoyer; śāśvatam (http://vedabase.net/s/sasvatam), original; divyam (http://vedabase.net/d/divyam), transcendental; ādi (http://vedabase.net/a/adi)-devam (http://vedabase.net/d/devam), the Supreme Personality of Godhead; ajam (http://vedabase.net/a/ajam), the unborn; and vibhum (http://vedabase.net/v/vibhum), the greatest.
Now one may think that because Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) was the friend of Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna), Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna) was telling Him all this by way of flattery, but Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna), just to drive out this kind of doubt from the minds of the readers of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita), substantiates these praises in the next verse when he says that Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead not only by himself but by authorities like Nārada (http://vedabase.net/n/narada), Asita (http://vedabase.net/a/asita), Devala (http://vedabase.net/d/devala) and Vyāsadeva. These are great personalities who distribute the Vedic knowledge as it is accepted by all ācāryas. Therefore Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna) tells Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) that he accepts whatever He says to be completely perfect. Sarvam (http://vedabase.net/s/sarvam) etad ṛtaḿ (http://vedabase.net/r/rtam) manye (http://vedabase.net/m/manye): "I accept everything You say to be true." Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna) also says that the personality of the Lord is very difficult to understand and that He cannot be known even by the great demigods. This means that the Lord cannot even be known by personalities greater than human beings. So how can a human being understand Lord Śrī (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) without becoming His devotee?
Therefore Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) should be taken up in a spirit of devotion. One should not think that he is equal to Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna), nor should he think that Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) is an ordinary personality or even a very great personality. Lord Śrī (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So according to the statements of Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) or the statements of Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna), the person who is trying to understand the Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita), we should at least theoretically accept Śrī (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Kṛṣṇa (http://vedabase.net/k/krsna) as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and with that submissive spirit we can understand the Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita). Unless one reads the Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) in a submissive spirit, it is very difficult to understand Bhagavad-gītā (http://vedabase.net/g/gita), because it is a great mystery.

smaranam
26 February 2010, 09:42 AM
Its neither sat or asat? :)

That was the best answer yet.

If PrabhpAd's Gita goes all the way back to Brahma and KRshna, Swami Shivananda, Chidbhavananda, Krshnananda , Chinmayananda go all the way back to Shiva.

If BhagvAn Shri Krshna's Name, Form, Qualities, Pastimes and Tattva are the same as Krshna (wonder why His Tattva is not mentioned often),
depending on the jiva's flavour and taste , one focuses on His Transcendental Form, another on His Holy Name, NAmaPrabhu, and another one on His Tattva.

Its all Sat.

PrabhupAd's and all of Vaishnav emphasis is really on scholars that say Krshna is an ordinary human.

THAT is wrong.

As long as He is taken as Ishvar, Parameshvar, even the same as SadAshiv, and one focuses on His message

1. What He is ( more than, or in additional to the form He shows us earthlings for our benefit ) - Adi Purush, Parameshwar, ParaBrahman, akshar , avyay, kshetradnya, paramgati, .......

2. What He wants us to do , what He expects from us

that should be Ok.


The wise who are listening to our conversations look at all this as an amusing Leela, fighting over the same Truth-elephant, using different language to say the same things and thinking we are debating....

The KEY : A novice seeker must find what approach is the most pleasant , soothing and mostly natural , in the direction of the flow for them, and not against the current.

This is needed till we shed the ornamental name-shape-form concepts.

Although, Of course , "My First Gita" will be in accordance with my past Karma although I think I chose it :) In many cases, the Gita "landed" in our hands. We think it was not pre-arranged ? However, as we go deeper, discrimination is possible.

Are there any fans of DnyAneshwari here ? Just curious.

May we all flow in the direction of our manas-Ganga that flows from His Lotus Feet - attached picture.

P.S. Let us pray to the AntaryAmi , our dearmost inner Self, that may He lead us, guide
us to light , which resides at the deep root of His Heart. May Lakshmi at the door to His Heart extend Her motherly love and grant us this privilege.

satay
26 February 2010, 10:53 AM
Admin Note

Thread under review.