Question about ISKCON Bhagavad Gita

[wcrow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/....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]

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]

Dandavat Pranamas !

All glories to Sri Sri Radha Ksrna !

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

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasyacadharmasya sukhasyaikāntikasya 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:

avyaktaḿvyaktimāpannaḿmanyantemāmabuddhayaḥ
paraḿbhāvam ajānanto mamāvyayam anuttamam

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, 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, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated 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 and the Upaniṣads and other Vedic literatures, it is not possible for them to understand the Personality of Godhead." (Stotra-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 cabuddhiḥsāpārthatāmasī" - 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]

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]

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.