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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here I go!