Posts RSS Comments RSS

More on the Gita

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.

gitaHe 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!




Related posts:

  1. But getting back to the Bhagavad-gita…
  2. Bhagavad-gita: Whenever and Wherever… (4.7)
  3. Bhagavad-gita: In Due Course of Time (4.38)
  4. Bhagavad-gita: The futility of material attainment (8.16)
  5. Bhagavad-gita: Love God with great joy in your hearts (10.8)

4 responses so far

RSS feed

4 Comments

Comment by urukramaNo Gravatar
2008-12-22 10:54:45

The translation Srila Prabhupada used was Dr. Radhakrishnan, a professor at Oxford University and president of India, not Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (who was said to be illiterate).

The influence of Radhakrishnan’s Gita (which was rather popular) on Prabhupada’s is quite strong. In several places where Prabhupada criticises impersonalist readings of the text, he is really reacting against Radhakrishnan’s reading of the text. For example, Radhakrishnan is the one who said one should not surrender to Krsna, but to “the unborn within Krsna”. Srila Prabhupada directly argues against this idea in several places.

Hayagriva Prabhu writes in “The Hare Krishna Explosion” at great length how Srila Prabhupada’s Gita came about, and how Prabhupada at one point even told him to just copy Radhakrishnan’s translations, as the main reason for his own Gita was the commentary, not the translation!

Comment by ericNo Gravatar
2008-12-22 10:59:46

The Hare Krishna Explosion! That’s where I read it. Long time ago too. Thanks for clearing it up – Dr. Radhakrishnan.

Thanks a bunch!

 
 
Comment by ArunNo Gravatar
2008-12-22 20:11:18

Hare Krishna Prabhu,

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada. PAMHO.

Unless the Guru authorises his disciples to write such commentaries, only then is there a potency present in such books. What i notice from the Bhagavad-Gita written by the so-called disciples will not have any impact, so why are they required to write such books? Srila Prabhupada authorized his disciples to contribute to BTG, that’s fine. I can’t understand what need is there to again give a commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita as it is. Is it to prove that they are better than Srila Prabhupada? Did Ramanujacharya or Madhvacharya’s disciples also do the same thing?

You mention Narayana Maharaja, I do not know whether you are aware that this so-called well wisher of ISKCON, is openly ridiculing Srila Prabhupada, by commenting all kinds of nonsense about HDG. Do you really think that it will help anyone, when they read such literatures of such people, whose consciousness is on a steep roadway to Hell?

Such literatures are as Srila Prabhupada commented, “Sarpochistam va payah” Milk touched by the lips of the serpent.

Haribol,
In the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Arun Ramakrishnan.

Comment by ericNo Gravatar
2008-12-22 20:22:21

Could you please provide some sastric evidence to support your statement of: “Unless the Guru authorises his disciples to write such commentaries, only then is there a potency present in such books.”

If you can, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, it’s speculation and sentimentality, neither of which have a place in spiritual discussions of this nature.

I await your reply.

 
 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.