Best Bhagavad Gita translation?

"MUH LINEAGES"

Degenerate easterners and their zombified orientalist westerner slaves will often cry "MUH LINEAGES" or sometimes "MUH UNBROKEN CHAIN OF GURUS GOING BACK TO THE HOLY ONE HIMSELF" when faced with superior Western scholarship that easily disproves their folk wisdom. They will then demand that you read a 600-volume commentary by the guru they met in the airport on their trip to Nepal, because he is "authentic"

this is exactly what i want to avoid by buying the penguin or oxford version instead of some smelly version on dried out paper that seems to have been sitting in the back of a market for a generation

Don't be so sure, Sanatana Dharma (which is falsely called Hinduism), has been under systematic assault since the British occupation. Works from the turn of the century are alright for the most part, but there was massive degradation from the 20's onwards. Many frrauds were installed in academic and temple positions to make the populace (and their beliefs) more receptive to British rule.

seriously, last time i ordered some books from india it came wrapped in bailing twine, and had a weird smell that made me sneeze every time i tried to read it, and then the binding split apart after a couple times, i'm over it, give me good western scholarship, not tourist trinkets

well i did hear that the idea of "one supreme god" in hinduism is an idea that was added or emphasized after the british to make it more compatable with abrahamic traditions so everyone can say "there is only one god" when this is not true

>superior Western scholarship

Do you mean misguided intellectual analysis of transcendental truths that can only be grasped through renuncation of the senses and direct meditative realization?

Take Wendy Doniger for example, if you even know who that is.

i used to think hindus were unfairly hating on doniger until i actually sampled some of her prose, it was very casual and had some kind of unpleasant humor in what should have been a scholarly text, wanted to be impressed, was not

Doniger is a student of Eliade who was himself semi-traditionalist. She's not some stuffy British orientalist.

>that can only be grasped through renuncation of the senses and direct meditative realization

Yes, renounce all critical faculties! Trust in the sufi pir who tells you to clean his house for 40 years to attain enlightenment. Shouldn't you be letting Krishnamurti fuck your wife or something?

Actually, Hinduism is monotheistic. All Gods are said to be aspects of the one without second, Brahman.

Gods are meant to represent specific cosmic forces. They are similar to how we have fingers, and are part of and one with ourselves, but they are called fingers so we can denote their specific functions.

>Actually, Hinduism is monotheistic.

where did that come from? since all the indo-european polytheisms in the west did not have a supreme god until adopting it from the semitic tradition

>Yes, renounce all critical faculties! Trust in the sufi pir who tells you to clean his house for 40 years to attain enlightenment.

Yes thats what the Vedas say. Your reality is limited by your attachment to the senses, which is avidya (ignorance). Only through dispassion (vairagya) can knowledge of absolute reality occur (jnana).

The Brahma Sutras were written for this purpose. To dispel all misunderstanding and doubts about the nature of Brahman, which is the one (and also the Self), which is eternal, all-encompassing, unmoving, all-knowing, free from death and rebirth, formless, etc. etc.

and when where those written?

Check out this freakin BASED Indian GURU who SHITS in the STREET

FREAKIN BASED DUDE!!

Its said 450 BCE and 200 CE, but no one really knows. The Brahma Sutras are an interpretation of the Upanishads, which is the philosophical portion of the Vedas. The author is said to be Vyasa, who is a mysterious figure. There were likely multiple Vyasas (Vedas, Brahma Sutras, commentary on the Yoga Sutras, etc.) throughout time.

Also there are numerous commentaries with Shankaras and Ramanujas being the most prominent.

Clean up his shit or you will never attain jnana

Put down those books.. Move to India, where they shit on beaches. Do everything they say. If they tell you to pack things up in twine.. just do it.

>they don't know about the vedic aryans

Come home white man, embrace the ancient Aryan Asana practice of making poo poo in the open.

Feel the prana exit your anus and feel power of the vril engulfing your feet when you step in the warm gushy fecal matter.

I like the Silver edition from Gita4free.com
p gud, nice portability, free as well.

>feel power of the vril engulfing your feet

This is what happens when the dravidians outbreed the aryans

Did you know the ancient aryans came up with the concept of caste?

In those days, they separated people according to the capacity to learn and comprehend the transcendental truths of the Vedas. That is where the concept of high and low birth originated from. Those of low birth are the lower caste, and are naturally suited to talking about and working with things like poo poo, since they have little of worth to contribute to society.

what does this image represent as a story?

Krishna says to Arjuna, "I am the infinite Brahman"

Arjuna says, "i don't understand, show me"

Krishna says, "k watch this shit"

>"k watch this shit"

was this the birth of indian culture?

Or maybe the ebin Aryan concept is just retarded, and that Europeans were not muh pharoahs, muh chinese mummies, and muh Aryan gurus.
Do we have to really get all kangzy and claim responsibility for every ancient civilization?

I mean for fucks sake people even go on about how the Aztecs wuz Aryans n shit. These are the same Aztecs who cut people up in South America and fuck animals. Gobineau was a fucking autist and people still carry on his autistic bullshit.

It is in a way, because the Gita is a simplified or one could say, dumbed down version of the Upanishads, which is beyond the grasp of most men.

The Gods were created to convey notions of cosmic forces and how they work upon the psyche of man, making things easier to understand in a way... but clearly not enough as history as shown.

...and this is why the Buddha came about and decided to not talk about transcendental things.

In his time the Brahmins lost all meaning behind the Vedas and preformed empty rituals that did nothing. Buddha came to the conclusion that its best not to even talk about the ideas in the Upanishads because all they do is cause more confusion. So he was adamant about teaching practical things to keep in mind, like the 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, etc.

The Gavin Flood one is great, its published by Norton Critical Editions

Bhagavad Gita "As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prahupada is quite nice

Shreemad Bhagavad Gita: The Song of Love by Paramahamsa Sri Swami Vishwananda is also very good

found a pdf of Chinmaya's Gita commentary if anyones interested:

factmuseum.com/pdf/upaveda/Holy-Geeta-by-Swami-Chinmayananda.pdf

its a big read, 1300+ pages

Prahupada's actual translations are really good, you don't have to read the commentary and can treat it as extra if you want. The philosophy behind the long commentaries is that the Gita, and all the Vedas, should be studied under a spiritual master to be completely understood. Prahupada is a spiritual master so he goes in depth in some of the verses as if you were actually studying it.

No, Krishna is not a representation of the impersonal absolute truth in a metaphorical sense, rather he himself personally IS the absolute truth. The highest truth is a person, God. In fact the Gita Krishna directly says that the impersonal manifestation of the truth, the impersonal Brahman, emanates from him.

to add to this Prahupada's As It Is is also avaliable free online

asitis.com

Read a translation by a bhakta to fully understand the Geeta

Prahupada's translation is probably the most popular Bhakti translation

Read one of the two greatest modern Indian philosopher's editions.

Or the other greatest.

I respectfully disagree, but I'm not going to try to convert you. I'll just list some reasons here.

The Gita is not Sruti and therefore not as authoritative as the Vedas and Upanishads. You are free to believe otherwise, but in regards to Vedas, only the Sruti is authoritative, and the Gita is a derivative work in comparison.

Now this is not to say Krishna is not Brahman, as all is Brahman. That is straight from the Vedas. The misconception that needs to be avoided is that a particular FORM such as Krishna has no claim to being the highest manifestation of Brahman over all other fully-realized jivas, especially when the sources in which such claims stem from are derivative works of the Vedas.

As for why Krishna says hes the ultimate and the highest, he says to to make things easier for all men to understand. The common man NEEDS a form to focus and meditate upon with full faith and devotion, as it is beyond his capacity to focus upon that which is without form. This difficulty is why the vedic teachings are reserved for Brahmins or sanyasi. For example, even the Mundaka Upanisad translates to the "shaving", which refers to the renunciate with the shaved head and robe (who is fully turned away from worldliness and form).

Krishna's function is to lead all men to Brahman by way of making himself approachable by all men. He does this by way of his graspable manifest form and simplified statements of truth that all can find comfort and solace in. That has merit, but is not superior to the daunting, sometimes terrifying direct statements of the Sruti.

In the Gita Krishna clearly says:

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

It's a matter of accepting the authority of the Gita or denying it as trying to interpret this verse only results in useless mental speculation. Even Shankaracharya himself accepted that worshipping the Personality of Krishna elevates one to the highest platform among many other authorities. This is not to say the stage of the impersonal Brahman realization does not exist, but that it is not the highest perfection. If one attains the impersonal Brahman and advances no further, he is at risk of falling down as his knowledge is not perfected.

Additional if the absolute truth is impersonal and formless, how then can personal manifestations and form come to be? The impersonal cannot become personal. However, it is possible for attributes to be stripped away, thus the personal becomes impersonal. This is why the saguna brahman is the supreme.

Right, that quote is not in conflict with the Vedas, and the Vedas itself clarifies that simplified truth to a deeper extent.

Brahman is one without second. Brahman is all-encompassing, all-pervasive, all knowing. Atman is Brahman, therefore jivas who realize Brahman, realize the absolute self, which is the absolute reality.

This is beyond the notion of "Krishna" or any God with a qualified form for that matter. For when Brahman is realized, there is only one Self. This level of consciousness is none other than pure consciousness, which is beyond all forms (e.g. the Gods, Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, etc.). There is no subject and object, all is One.

What Shankara always says is that pure consciousness is the Self, and pure Self is devoid of form, because it is nothing but consciousness. Now it must be said, things are not this simple, which is why the Vedic teachings are beyond the grasp of most men:

In a way, form is eternal as well (as Ramanuja affirms with his qualified Brahman doctrine), but to be more precise (which is where Shankara differs from him), is that only the secondary basis of form is co-eternal with the unmoving pure consciousness. This is called "maya", which Sankara reconciles as co-existing with the singular absolute reality, by calling it illusory, or an ephemeral projection. All manifest forms fall into that category.

And furthermore, this cycle of maya or creation, is subject to birth, preservation and dissolution into the unchanging all-pervasive pure consciousness of Brahman. Compared to the eternal pure consciousness, such phenomena is regarded as illusory and unreal as its specific manifestations (i.e. objects of perception) simply do not last, similar to how dreams are considered unreal upon waking up.

refer to
I didn't cover everything, so if you have any questions I can clarify further

Shankara writes in his commentary on the Brahma-sutras:

"When the reabsorption of the effected Brahman world draws near, the souls in which meanwhile perfect knowledge has sprung up proceed, together with Hiranyagarbha the ruler of that world, to 'what is higher than that i.e. to the pure highest place of Vishnu."

sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38311.htm

And in his commentary on the Katha Upanishad he writes:

"The man of knowledge attains 'the highest place of Vishnu', i.e. the nature of the all-pervading Brahman, the Paramatman known as Vasudeva (the Self-luminous)."

ia802604.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/13/items/kathaandprasnaup029591mbp/kathaandprasnaup029591mbp_tif.zip&file=kathaandprasnaup029591mbp_tif/kathaandprasnaup029591mbp_0058.tif&scale=6.08282208588957&rotate=0

This is statement in the Srimad Bhagavad: "Those who know the Absolute Truth, they know that Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān, they are one. It is different phases of understanding only." Just like if you see one hill from a distant place, you will find impersonal, hazy, something cloudy. If you go still forward, then you can see it is something greenish. And if you go actually within the hill, you'll see there are so many animals, trees, men. Similarly, those who are trying to understand the Absolute from distance place or far away, they are realizing, by speculation, impersonal Brahman. Those who are still forward, yogis, they can see localized aspect. Dhyānāvasthita-tad-gatena manasā paśyanti yaṁ yoginaḥ (SB 12.13.1). They can see, dhyāna avasthita, localized within himself. This is Paramātmā feature. And those who are devotees, they see Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of God, eye to eye, one person to another.

Did you understand my previous post and how it pertains to the function of Gods as an aid to understanding the transcendental for the common man?

Again those quotes do not contradict what I've just said. Furthermore, Shankara has authored many famous devotional works beyond just praising Vishnu.

As a matter of fact, out of all the Gods, he praises Shakti in his Saundarya Lahari above all Gods. He specifically says that all Gods lie at her feet and worship her. And she was the one he turned to for help when he needed the hex that was killing him lifted.

Now again, this is not to imply he has favoritism towards any Gods. He knows like the realized rishis before him, that the Gods are all aspects of the one Self, each representing a specific function of which the one Self possesses. In general terms, Brahma is the creation, Vishnu the preserver, Shiva the destroyer, etc.

To play favoritism because of misguided Bhakti (towards form rather than what the form represents) is what Shankara did not do. Actually, he united many different traditions into one, because he did not contradict them, instead showing them a deeper clarity of the one reality.

Many people don't know Shankara was a tantric adept, Bhakta, and Shakta

Here Tripura Sundari represents the highest aspect of Adi Shakti, who is Maya. Maya is formless and oftentimes referred to as the cosmic or milky ocean from which all things manifest. Tripura Sundari represents the highest formless aspect of Shakti in a form. This is why shes considered the highest form of Shakti.

Note Saraswati and Lakshmi fanning her. They are aspects of the Adi Shakti (Maya), but they do not represent her formless state and thus appear subservient to Tripura Sundari.

And you can see all the Gods serving her because their forms originate from her, as she is the creatrix from which all form springs. Further, they are dependent on her, because she is the energy which moves all things, she is their power and source of bliss. The Gods themselves are pure consciousness, but again they are differentiated from one another because they each represent separate cosmic functions.

All of this symbolism is designed to fashion a deeper understanding of the one reality for the common man who has yet to behold the formless absolute reality for himself.

For an academic western translation, the WJ Johnson one is good, although it's just the text without notes or commentary.

Also in case anyone is curious about the Gods, some basic meanings:

center is Tripura Sundari (Maya, Adi Shakti, consort of Shiva)
left is Lakshmi (consort of Vishnu, Wealth/Prosperity)
right is Saraswati (consort of Brahma, Wisdom/Knowledge)

Shiva is reclining (pure consciousness, formless, at rest, unmoving, that which the universe dissolves into)

from left to right:

Brahma (the creator of the manifest universe)
Vishnu (the preserver, he is the macrocosmic universe which all forms reside in)
Indra (vedic god, represents the individual self)
Isvara (the manifested form of God fit for ease of devotional worship)

bottom left to right

Ganesh (remover of obstacles)
Kartikeya (God of war and victory)

The one absolute reality (i.e. the Self) is composed of all these attributes, yet is still One.

(i gotta sleep, to whoever i was talking to, it was good talking to you)

do u think the final battle of history will come down to jew vs hindu? that seems to be what's playing out in silicon valley now that whites are out of the picture

Thanks for the information. I'm studying Christianity at the moment but I'm considering moving on to Hinduism next (yes, I know it's not a monolithic religion) though I appreciate it'll be a vast undertaking since I'm so unfamiliar with it.

can indo-europeans become hindu or is it like judaism that you have to be born into it? and if you could, why would you? christianity has salvation, and islam has guns and virgins and other shit that appeals to teenage boys, but what does hinduism have?

The three Abrahamic religions are for the most part devoid of any profound metaphysical teachings and revolve mostly around sentimentality and faith.

Hinduism and Buddhism appeal to intellectuals in the west because they offer an extremely profoud metaphysical teaching that be directly experienced by the practitioner. The wisdom and profoundess of the Dharmic teachings far exceed anything in Christianity.

For most Christians their spiritual life basically is fairly dull and consists of them thinking about god/jesus/salvation and participating in the various sacraments like mass, confession etc.

For the practitioner of Hinduism or Buddhism the central and orthodox teachings provide you will a step-by-step guide to wisdom and limitless bliss that can be experienced in this life. However profound you might think the message of Chrisianity and salvation is it all pales in conparision to what the eastern traditions offer the inquisitive mind.

thanks Rene Guenon.

>implying he's wrong

I have met 3 fucking Hare Krishna monks trying to get me to buy their books, and I've never once encountered a Jehovah's Witness person. Hinduism is officially the most annoying religion.

Suicide

one time a hare kishna guy put a book into my hand and told me he wanted me to have it, then asked for a $20 donation

I just said thanks and walked off

the gita is p garbage imo

Hare Krishna is a retarded cult, hindus hate them too.

They do they because most people are considered to be ignorant of the dharma and are generally not interested in due to being obsessed with sense pleasure. To be able to read the Gita is only possible after many many pious births.

Hare Krishnas are Gaudiya Vaishnavas and Vaishnavism is one of the biggest schools within Hinduism

Not sure about translation, but make sure to read along with a commentary. The Gita takes inspiration from a wide variety of Indian philosphy, including Samkhya, the Upanishads and even Buddhism. It's impossible to understand the Gita if you read it unaided, especially if you're unfamiliar with Indian philosophy and metaphysics.

I recommend reading the Gita along with Adi Shankaracharya's commentary, his is the best.

Honestly, this kashmir shaiva work is on the same level as Gita, but might be more the speed of visitors of this board.

Which is in the Harvard Classics?
I remember comparing that to the "as it is" one they try to con people into "donating" for on college campuses and finding that the latter was almost unrecognizable and 80% interpretive commentary.

Never ended up reading either.

This,Eastern philosophy is relegated to yellow goat herders and musty Californians.

You're correct, but that's not what monotheism is. It just doesn't mean "one God", it means "the only God". As in, while Hinduism accepts all Gods as just being part of the One, Christianity and Islam worship one jealous God and call other Gods false.

The monotheism(if you can even call it that) of Hinduism is vastly different from what's there in Abrahamic cults.

>Hare Krishnas are Gaudiya Vaishnavas and Vaishnavism is one of the biggest schools within Hinduism
They're a cultic offshoot of Vaishnavism, they do not represent Vaishnavism at all. That's like saying Jehovah's Witnesses are representative of Protestants.

chinmayanandas is great. about 1000 pages and looks beautiful on a shelf as well.