Uddhava Gita now available

[theist 1]

Just ordered mine from Krishnastore.com along with a couple other things. http://www.thekrishnastore.com/StoreFront.bok

 

Happy hearing.

 

Oh, it is easier to find if you just use the search engine right from the home page.

[CCC 0]

I am getting it from http://touchstonemedia.com/ as ebook, it will cost me like $12

[theist 1]

That is a great price. I never have bought an ebook. But then I likwe the feel of a book in my hands. I do a lot of reading by carrying a book around as I walk, stopping at favorite spots.

 

But then I am an old timer who will never buy a cell phone.

 

Good to have options. How does it read to you so far CCC?

[indulekhadasi 0]

Jai! Lets use this thread to discuss different points that we will read in Uddhava Gita!

[theist 1]

 

Jai! Lets use this thread to discuss different points that we will read in Uddhava Gita!

Good Idea. Feel free to start it off anytime.

 

I want to see Uddhava Gita more popular than Bhagavad-gita. It is so packed with pertinent infromation.

 

You have the most developed taste indulekhadasi. You are the little bee of the forum who is only attracted to nectar.

 

 

[indulekhadasi 0]

On this forum there are two things gossip and nectar. Since I am young it is better to soak up the nectar rather than the gossip because these things will last my whole life.

 

I will start the discussions as soon as I get the time to read some Uddhava Gita!

[RadheRade1657 0]

I got my copy from Border's... It was translated by Swami Ambikananda Saraswati... very beautiful

[indulekhadasi 0]

Thats good- hopefully you can join the Uddhava Gita discussions too, Radhe Radhe!

[Beggar 0]

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 TRANSLATION:

O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

Swami Ambikananda Saraswati and Thomas Cleary The Uddhava Gita: The Final Teaching of Krishna, Introduction

We meditate on the transcendent reality from which this universe emerges. On which it abides and unto which it returns on that which is present in all things, and transcends all things, which is self-conscious, full and which revealed to Brahma the Vedas, which baffle even the best amongst the sages. On That through which even, the three-fold creation, though unreal, appears to be real by the power of maya, which is it's own.

[theist 1]

Yes. I am so happy that a Vaisnava stand alone translation has finally been produced.

[RadheRade1657 0]

 

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 TRANSLATION: Swami Ambikananda Saraswati and Thomas Cleary The Uddhava Gita: The Final Teaching of Krishna, Introduction

 

I don't see much difference. The same message is taught in fewer words. The bulk of what was left out was Uddhave reciting names of Krishna and talking in poetic language (e.g.-"It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being." vs. "which revealed to Brahma the Vedas") . As long as it gives the same message, what does it matter?

[Beggar 0]

Swami Ambikananda Saraswati's guru, Swami Venkatesananda wrote, "So long as the "I" is awake, so long as the ego is awake, Self-realization will not come...".

 

Prof. Hopkins: You would say impersonalist.

Prabhupada: Oh yes. They say Sivaham, "I am Siva." They are impersonalist. If you are Siva then why you worshiping Siva? That is impersonalist.

Prof. Hopkins: So any position which would deny the difference between the devotee and God, you would see...

Prabhupada: He is impersonalist.

Prof. Hopkins: Is impersonalist.

Prabhupada: The impersonalist theory is that I am now devotee. As soon as I become perfect I become one."

Prof. Hopkins: Oh.

Prabhupada: That is their theory. Then there is no more difference. In the preliminary stage, when I am not perfect, I am worshiping some imaginary form of God. But when I become perfect there is no need of worshiping, I become one with God. This is impersonal. Now, actually, the Supreme has no form so they recommend whichever form you like to worship you can select out of these five. But their destination is the same. So somebody likes "I worship Siva," somebody says "I worship Ganesa," somebody says, "I worship Durga," and Surya, or somebody says, "I worship Visnu." So this Vaisnava is impersonalist. You'll find amongst smarta brahmanas there are also some of them Vaisnavas, but they are impersonalists.

Prof. Hopkins: So you would... You would say that those, those smartas say, and I know smarta brahmanas who are worshipers of Visnu. You would say they still are impersonalists in some ultimate sense because at some point they would deny...

Prabhupada: No, it is very difficult to pick them out. Most of the so-called Vaisnavas, they are impersonalists.

Prof. Hopkins: Some, I suspect, are more Vaisnavas than they are smartas.

Prabhupada: So, satatam kirtayanto mam? Brahmananda:

<center> satatam kirtayanto mam

yatantas ca drdha-vratah

namasyantas ca mam bhaktya

nitya-yukta upasate</center> "Always chanting My glories, endeavoring with great determination, bowing down before Me, these great souls perpetually worship Me with devotion."

Prabhupada: Perpetually. It is not that I am worshiping now and when I am perfect I become one. That is impersonal.

Prof. Hopkins: But someone who sees devotion as the not just a stage...

Prabhupada: They say everything one; no devotee, no devotion, and no person. Everything becomes one.

Prof. Hopkins: So that would then be the deciding test, as it were, of whether one were a serious devotee or not.

Prabhupada: Devotee means serious devotee.

Prof. Hopkins: Not only that one is devoted now, but that one sees the goal as perpetual devotion.

Prabhupada: Yes. Nitya-yukta.

Prof. Hopkins: And which never is there...

Prabhupada: The word is used, nitya-yukta. Nitya-yukta means perpetually. If a devotee is to merge into the existence of the Lord then why this word is used, nitya-yukta. Upasana. Not only nitya-yukta, upasana. Upasana means "you worship Me." As soon as the word is "he worships" that means the worshipable and the mode of worship and the worshiper must be there. That is indicated, nitya-yukta, perpetual. But the Mayavadis or these impersonalists, they think that it is temporary. I am devotee temporarily. As soon as I become perfect I become one.

Prof. Hopkins: So that you would see then, in terms of, in terms of some kind of theological structure, you would see that Purusottama as always...

Prabhupada: Uttama, uttama means the best.

Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, 7-13-75, Philadelphia

[yogesh 0]

 

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 TRANSLATION:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Swami Ambikananda Saraswati and Thomas Cleary The Uddhava Gita: The Final Teaching of Krishna, Introduction <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> We meditate on the transcendent reality from which this universe emerges. On which it abides and unto which it returns on that which is present in all things, and transcends all things, which is self-conscious, full and which revealed to Brahma the Vedas, which baffle even the best amongst the sages. On That through which even, the three-fold creation, though unreal, appears to be real by the power of maya, which is it's own.</td></tr></tbody></table>

There is a huge difference

 

Sirla Prabhpada's translation is talking and describing Lord Krsna's position to all the readers.

 

Whereas Swami Ambikananda Saraswati and Thomas Cleary are just alluding to "itA TRANSCENDENTAL REALITY". The Supreme PERSONALITY IS NOT AN IT!!!!!

 

Udhava was so close to Lord Krsna that it is hard to imagine Udhava adressing His most beloved sweet Lord As "A transendental Reality"

 

Ughhhh... it is so dry. Do you address the person close to you in such an impersonal way "Oh my Transendental reality"??????

 

I remember reading a story (I cannot recall the full details maybe some devotees can correct me) and this is how it goes....

 

A Brahmana was reading the Scripture and everytime he read Lord Krsna's name he would scratch it out. Just as he finished reading the scripture and scratching out Lord Krsna's names there came a knock on his door.

 

He got up and opened the door and he saw a small boy bleeding with scratch marks all over his body. The Brahmana inquired from this boy "What happened to you??? Who could do such a cruel thing???"

 

The little boy replied "It was You"

 

The reason I am writing the above story is just to say be-carefull Lord Krsna's name is non-different to himself. Do not try and omit the Supreme Personality in the hope of making the Gita more acceptable to those who are innimical/envious of Lord Krsna. This is worst than atheisim. At least the atheist comes out straight and deny the Supreme Lord.

 

Hey Radhe! Radhe! Shyam Miladhe!!!!

By the way please do not get distracted. This topic is meant for discussing Udhava Gita. I will try and get my hands on a Vaisnava version.

 

Please forgive me for my distraction.

 

Hare Krsna/Krishna

 

Jay Sirla Prabhupada

[theist 1]

 

Prabhupada: No, it is very difficult to pick them out. Most of the so-called Vaisnavas, they are impersonalists.

 

And we must pick them out and not try to merge the impersonalist teaching with the Vaisnava teaching no matter how pretty the translation may sound to our mundane ears. This is absolutely essential for the aspiring Vaisnava's although it makes little difference to the impersonalists who sometimes use devotional jargon.

 

Got the notice my copy was shipped and headed this way.

 

I also find the translations in Iskcon's Bhagavatam set wonderful and inspiring.

[RadheRade1657 0]

 

 

As long as we already understand Radha-Krishna's postion, what does it matter if we read a translation by someone who doesn't? I mean, we already know that Radha-Krishna are the Ultimate Reality, so why should it matter if we read God's words as translated (NOT INTERPRETED) by Ambikananda or Prabhupada?

The 'it' it references is the universe. Look:

"We meditate on the transcendent reality from which this universe emerges. On which it abides and unto which it returns on that which is present in all things."

--OR--

"We meditate on the transcendent reality from which this universe emerges. On [the Transcendent Reality] [the universe] abides and unto which [the universe] returns on [the Transcendent Reality] which is present in all things."

I also don't address my friends as "Oh my friend, Joey, son of James, I offer my conversation unto you."(O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You.) And, while I'm still talking to him, start talking to him like I'm talking to another person, and say, "I talk to my friend Joey, because he is my friend and he makes spaghetti for me without meat in it because he knows I'm a vegetarian, even though he really likes eating meat." (I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes.) So, really, I don't talk to my friends in either way. I think that both translations are off... they were probably speaking in a much more natural way than either of the translations show.

I don't think she's trying to omit some of His titles so that it's "more acceptable" to non-believers, but because it makes it more easily readable. That story is just that, a story.

Radhe Radhe! Jai Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai ki Jai!

[Beggar 0]

 

As long as we already understand Radha-Krishna's postion, what does it matter if we read a translation by someone who doesn't? I mean, we already know that Radha-Krishna are the Ultimate Reality, so why should it matter if we read God's words as translated (NOT INTERPRETED) by Ambikananda or Prabhupada?

Srimad-Bhagavatam Class 1.7.8

Vrndavana, September 7, 1976

Srila Prabhupada:

Sometimes I have seen a big Mayavadi is explaining one verse from Srimad-Bhagavatam, that "Because you are God, therefore if you are pleased, then God is pleased." This is their philosophy. "You do not require to please God separately. So if you are pleased by drinking wine, then God is pleased." This is their explanation. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu has condemned this Mayavadi commentary. Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said, mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa. Mayavadi krsne aparadhi. He has plainly said. No compromise. The Mayavadis, they're great offender to Krsna. Tan aham dvisatah kruran, Krsna also says. They're very, very envious to Krsna. Krsna is dvi-bhuja-muralidhara, syamasundara, and the Mayavadi explains that "Krsna has no hand, no leg. This is all imagination." How much offensive it is they do not know. But to warn people like us, Caitanya Mahaprabhu has plainly warned that "Don't go to Mayavadis." Mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa. Mayavadi haya krsne aparadhi. This is the statement of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

[RadheRade1657 0]

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam Class 1.7.8

Vrndavana, September 7, 1976

Srila Prabhupada:

I said TRANSLATED, not INTERPRETED. What you just wrote is talking about the mayavadi's INTERPRETATION of the verse, not their translation.

[Beggar 0]

 

I said TRANSLATED, not INTERPRETED. What you just wrote is talking about the mayavadi's INTERPRETATION of the verse, not their translation.

 

The book, The Uddhava Gita of Krsna-Dvaipayana Vyasa, translated by Bhumipati Dasa contains the tika or commentary by Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura and Summaries and purports by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. The real insight and realizations are coming from Chakravarti Thakura and Sarasvati Thakura, who are our gurus, and the the sweetest nectar is there. It is impossible to understand the real meaning of the Uddhava Gita without their mercy. Also some of the translations of the Srimad Bhagavatam, of which the Uddhava Gita is part, are the subject of disputes by the personalist and impersonalist sections. There are many verses of the Uddhava Gita that are used by the impersonal philosophers to support their position. In that way it is similar to the Bhagavad Gita.

[CCC 0]

 

That is a great price. I never have bought an ebook. But then I likwe the feel of a book in my hands. I do a lot of reading by carrying a book around as I walk, stopping at favorite spots.

 

But then I am an old timer who will never buy a cell phone.

 

Good to have options. How does it read to you so far CCC?

 

 

I am still waiting a response from isvara about the ebook:mad2:

[RadheRade1657 0]

 

The book, The Uddhava Gita of Krsna-Dvaipayana Vyasa, translated by Bhumipati Dasa contains the tika or commentary by Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura and Summaries and purports by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. The real insight and realizations are coming from Chakravarti Thakura and Sarasvati Thakura, who are our gurus, and the the sweetest nectar is there. It is impossible to understand the real meaning of the Uddhava Gita without their mercy. Also some of the translations of the Srimad Bhagavatam, of which the Uddhava Gita is part, are the subject of disputes by the personalist and impersonalist sections. There are many verses of the Uddhava Gita that are used by the impersonal philosophers to support their position. In that way it is similar to the Bhagavad Gita.

Since the Uddhava Gita was spoken some 5000 years, and first put into writing some 700-900 years, before either of these gurus were born, I don't think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand it without them. It might help to have someone who's spiritually-qualified to interpret the verses, but it's certainly not impossible to understand without them. Sometimes people almost make it like the guru IS Krishna. It is Krishna, and Krishna only, who allows us to understand the meaning of His words. The guru can act as a conduit through which He clarifies it. The guru isn't God. Radha-Krishna are God. The guru CAN be Their representative, but isn't ALWAYS Their representative.

Jai Radhe-Madhava!

[indulekhadasi 0]

I don't know Radhe Radhe, commentaries by qualified personalities help so much. We can't understand everything by our limited intelligence. And there are no doubts about the character of Vishvanatha Chakravarti thakura. He can hardly be compared to any other commentator in the universe.

 

I have read Sarartha Darsini- his commentary book on Srimad Bhagavatam and I have seen so much deeper into the bhagavatam then previously.

 

JAI NITAI

indulekhadasi

[Beggar 0]

 

I don't think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand it without them.

Jai Radhe-Madhava!

Well then RadheRade1657, Let's see if you can answer these two questions: Why is Srimati Radharani's name not mentioned by Sukadeva Goswami in the Srimad Bhagavatam? And since it is a fact that Her name is not mentioned, how do we know it was Srimati Radharani who left the main rasa dance with Krsna?

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

Well then RadheRade1657, Let's see if you can answer these two questions: Why is Srimati Radharani's name not mentioned by Sukadeva Goswami in the Srimad Bhagavatam? And since it is a fact that Her name is not mentioned, how do we know it was Srimati Radharani who left the main rasa dance with Krsna?

If Radhe Radhe can answer this question, he will defeat his own argument.

[RadheRade1657 0]

 

I don't know Radhe Radhe, commentaries by qualified personalities help so much. We can't understand everything by our limited intelligence. And there are no doubts about the character of Vishvanatha Chakravarti thakura. He can hardly be compared to any other commentator in the universe.

 

I have read Sarartha Darsini- his commentary book on Srimad Bhagavatam and I have seen so much deeper into the bhagavatam then previously.

 

JAI NITAI

indulekhadasi

 

I didn't say that commentaries were bad, but I think that we can meditate on the passages without commentaries. I have great respect for Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura, and I think that he was very holy and the perfect example of a devotee of Sri Radha-Krishna, but I don't think that it's impossible to understand a holy book without his commentary.

Jai Radhe-Madhava!

[RadheRade1657 0]

 

Well then RadheRade1657, Let's see if you can answer these two questions: Why is Srimati Radharani's name not mentioned by Sukadeva Goswami in the Srimad Bhagavatam? And since it is a fact that Her name is not mentioned, how do we know it was Srimati Radharani who left the main rasa dance with Krsna?

I've HEARD that it's b/c he was in such a high state that if he would've written, heard, said, etc... Her name, he would've gone into samadhi and wouldn't have finished the Bhagavatam. I don't know if that's true, it's a hypothesis that someone invented. I don't know if I'm correct or not, but I think I remember reading that the most devoted gopika left w/ Krishna, and the word "Sraddha" (devotion) was being used as code name for Radha.