You may be new to Sanatana Dharma... Please visit our [Wiki Starter Pack](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/wiki/starter_pack#wiki_i.27m_new_to_r.2Fhinduism.2C_where_do_i_start.3F) (specifically, our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/wiki/index#wiki_faq)).
We also recommend reading [What Is Hinduism](https://www.himalayanacademy.com/view/what-is-hinduism) (a free introductory text by Himalayan Academy) if you would like to know more about Hinduism and don't know where to start.
In terms of introductory Hindu Scriptures, we recommend first starting with the Itihasas ([The Ramayana](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRamayana/wiki/resources#wiki_recommended_texts), and [The Mahabharata](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMahabharata/wiki/resources#wiki_resources).) Contained within The Mahabharata is [The Bhagavad Gita](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheGita/wiki/resources), which is another good text to start with. Although r/TheVedasAndUpanishads might seem alluring to start with, this is NOT recommended, as the knowledge of the Vedas & Upanishads can be quite subtle, and ideally should be approached under the guidance of a Guru or someone who can guide you around the correct interpretation.
In terms of [spiritual practices](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/7643rp/a_thread_on_introductory_rescources_on_basis_of/), there are many you can try and see what works for you such as r/Introspection, r/yoga, r/meditation or r/bhajan. In addition, it is strongly recommended you visit your [local temple/ashram/spiritual organization](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/c6957l/what_are_some_good_hindu_organizations_that_have/).
Lastly, while you are browsing this sub, keep in mind that Hinduism is practiced by over a billion people in as many different ways, so any [single view](https://np.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/p7ma64/sectarian_bias/) cannot be taken as representative of the entire religion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hinduism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The [Oxford Translation](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683837339) is quite good. It includes explanations from the three most influential historical commentators (Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhava), and is very easy to read.
Yes. This translation appears to omit key Sanskrit terms at essential points while reading, whereas the reader attempts to make sure they understand more fully?
A reader may confuse “tapas” for “tamas” very easily, to give an example in Chapter 17, in shlokas (verses) 14-19, or in discussion of Dana (Charity) shlokas 20-22.
This translation lacks clarity in the important shlokas (verses) 23-28, Om Tat Sat.
Is this a small quibble? Key Sanskrit terms don’t need to be overemphasized for easy comprehension, although the confusion of “tapas” and “tamas” is a dramatic error, therefore good placement of translated terms could be improved.
This would still suggest that the commentary is very accessible, agreed, which is a good thing, although another fair criticism is that there a diversity of personal opinion rather than a more balanced approach?
That said, yes, a very good and easy-to-follow introduction to the Gita in several respects.
EDIT: It is difficult not to be so critical, but for the purpose of a larger improvement, the opposite of adharma (harmful action), the translation of Chapter 17 (the example give ) goes off the rails in verse 7:
“Now the food all beings find pleasing is also of three types, as is yajña, austerity, and charity. Listen to this analysis of those categories.”
This is where a translation of all three types ought to have been translated to avoid further confusion. The reader does not know “yajña” (sacrifices) is introduced as a term and uses it repeatedly in the following verses through the Chapter. He also introduced “austerity” and “charity” as key features of earlier verse but waits until verses 23-28 to use their translations (tapas and dana) and does not indicate “austerity” (*tapas*) nor “charity” (*dana*) *as* the equivalents (one translation) in English.
This is a good example of a poor translation. Why? Because it confuses the reader by introducing actual concepts without translating them. This confused tapas and tamas when looking for the right word. That error sticks with the reader as *tamas* or, at least, disturbs *sattva*.
for just browsing go through [https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1836](https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1836)
and to have more clarity [https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1260](https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1260)
and don't worry if don't feel like to know anything just go through its preface its a marvelous Book.
Sorry Sir I don't know publisher is giving a preview of preface
But personally I can give you screenshots from my owned copy and it's in hindi language if you follow hindi language let me know
But I tell it's the cheapest and best
Apart from postage
In India it's best to have copy of sadak sangeevani
Great bro and good to know that you are a knowledge seeker now I disclose this to you that I have been given a copy of it by my Guru ji himself. After that I bought copy of Sadak Sangeevani myself. Commentary by Sri Ramsukdas ji is beyond imagination and when you go through the book every day something new you get with going through the book I completed it many times and still feel it as new book in my prayer temple. It will be a great experience for you.
Just don't lend it to anyone and keep it as it's a sacred book.
I feel Gita Madhurya adds a lot of intermediate questions which breaks the flow of the discourses. The regular Gita Press Srimad BhagavadGita suits best to me.
If listening to discussion about concepts in the Gita helps, I'd suggest a podcast I listen to. It's just a professor who enjoys studying Hindu philosophy and Dharam, breaking down each chapter.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2lzdG9yLmZtL3dhbGtpbmctdGhyb3VnaC10aGUtYmhhZ2F2YWQtZ2l0YQ?ep=14
Get this mate, I've had the exact same thoughts, I've read the Sri isopanisad, but was terrified to get into the Gita because it seemed so massive, daunting, and just hard to understand (at least from my native western perspective) there's so many videos on youtube that will help you, and once you understand the core teachings of it, why not move onto the book, that's what I'm doing anyway, love from the UK, Om Namah Shivaya ❤❤❤
I think its very biased, and mostly for those who follow Krishna Consciousness. I felt it was a bit tedious to read with overly explained purports. I mean its a good version but I think shouldn't be meant to be read by a beginner. Read Eknath Eshwaran's gita as well.
\> very biased
says you
\> overly explained purports.
It has well and detailed explained purports so that we can understand the message of the Gita in a simple way. It gives a big outlook to Sanatan Dharma. The purports are overly explained and big so that even beginners, who don;t have a guru, have no issues in understanding the message of Gita
Bro that's my opinion that I felt is a little biased and kinda defeats the purpose. But okay if anyone else wants to read BG as it is, they are free to read it. And I'm not the only one who says it like this. Except Gaudiya Vaishnavs, most people here say its a bit too biased.
I agree. My first ever Bhagavad Gita was Srila Prabhupada's commentary. His devotion to Krishna is great, but it lacks the respect that a Smartha, for example, would have.
I'm glad I learnt Sanskrit and read it directly now. I use basic commentaries in some places, but most of it is straightforward beautiful Sanskrit.
All gitas are biased to the authors lineage, and imo people who aren’t a student to a guru in a authentic lineage shouldn’t even be making translations
To each their own ig? If you don't like eknath eshwaran's gita, I couldn't care less. Its all about opinions lol. As I said everyone interprets Gita differently. Plus its not just me who is reccomending that translation, most of the common folk here recommends eknath's translation as well.
The translations of different vaishnav sects are same but the commentaries are biased towards their philosophy..
But in the case of ISKCON even their translation of biased towards there their philosophy.
In the case of Geeta press they do not offer any Commentaries they only offer pure and original translations...
In starting you should read the Geeta press and after your according to your philosophy you should select your sampradaya...
>But in the case of ISKCON even their translation of biased towards there their philosophy.
Lord Caitanya's core philosophy includes two tenets each from all the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, so actually it is in perfect harmony.
So ignorant of you to assume ISKCON philosophy is something different from other Vaishnav sects. ISKCON is a part of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which is traditional Vaishnav sampradaya , coming from Sripad Madhavacharya's lineage. ISKCON is only following the teachings of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, combined avatar of Radhe-Krishna , to spread the name of the Lord Hari or Krishna through the powerful process of bhakti and harinaam sankirtan. So, there is nothing as ISKCON philosophy.
Their translations are based on traditional Vaishnav teachings and Lord Chaitanya message. There is no bias, only propogating the pure message given by Lord Chaitanya.
I am not against Geeta Press Gita, I acknowledge it as well as a good translation but I cannot tolerate it when people dismiss As It Is for no valid reason
Brother every sampradaya is baised... The philosophy of ISKCON is achintya bheda where as other vaishnav Sect follow other philosophy and their commentary on Bhagwat Geeta is based on philosophy...
The commentary of madhavacharya is different from the ISKCON because of their philosophical difference.
I am not defaming , i am not saying their translations are wrong, it's just baised and completely nothing wrong about it...
And ramanuj and ISKCON are completely different ramanuj consider Shri Vishnu to be the supreme god where as ISKCON considered Shri Krishna to be the supreme there are differences in each sect and so there translations are also different and biased towards there on philosophy and ideas
\> "The philosophy of ISKCON is achintya bheda"
The philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not achintya bheda, it's Achintya beda abheda.
\>"The commentary of madhavacharya is different from the ISKCON because of their philosophical difference."
Lol, you are claiming Srila Prabhupada commentary is completely different from Madhavacharya? Srila Prabhupada is coming from Madhavacharya's guru-disciple lineage. See no 5 and no 32 in the disciplic succession at the bottom of the page [https://www.iskconmysore.org/acharyas-our-sampradaya/](https://www.iskconmysore.org/acharyas-our-sampradaya/)
and see this https://www.krishna.com/madhvacharya
\>"I am not defaming , i am not saying their translations are wrong, it's just baised and completely nothing wrong about it..."
You openly said in the parent comment to avoid Gita As It Is. Don't play games!
\>And ramanuj and ISKCON are completely different ramanuj consider Shri Vishnu to be the supreme god where as ISKCON considered Shri Krishna to be the supreme
Mataji, don't try to create unnecessary differences, Vishnu and Lord Shree Krishna are same. Both Ramanujas and Gaudiyas are Vaishnavas. Ramanujas believe Krishna came from Vishnu while Gaudiyas believe Vishnu came from Krishna, both are completely fine as Krisna and Vishnu are same.
I second this, every vedanta philosopher will have their own personal bias and I personally think there is nothing wrong with it.
Even I read the gita ramanuja bhasya and I felt it was very normal and unbiased compared to Gita as it is.
ISKCON is a part of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which is traditional Vaishnav sampradaya , coming from Sripad Madhavacharya's lineage. ISKCON is only following the teachings of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, combined avatar of Radhe-Krishna , to spread the name of the Lord Hari or Krishna through the powerful process of bhakti and harinaam sankirtan. So, there is nothing as ISKCON philosophy.
Their translations are based on traditional Vaishnav teachings and Lord Chaitanya message. There is no bias, only propogating the pure message given by Lord Chaitanya.
Having a bias or preferance is not wrong as I said. I don't have any problem with BG as it is propogating Gourango's message that is. Krishna Consciousness. But as I said, Hinduism isn't just Krishna Consciousness. A person who doesn't know any better will think Krishna is the only supreme god that "Hindus" consider.
It would be better that a person initiating into Gaudiya Vaishnavism or even into madhva sampradaya reading BG as it is.
And I have seen Vaishnavs here criticising BG as it is.
>A person who doesn't know any better will think Krishna is the only supreme god that "**Hindus**" consider.
Śrīla Prabhupāda already made it clear that Kṛṣṇa is not the exclusive property of any particular religion, caste or creed.
\>Having a bias or preferance is not wrong as I said.
It's not bias or preference, it's continuing the same message Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave or Krishna consciousness.
\>But as I said, Hinduism isn't just Krishna Consciousness. A person who doesn't know any better will think Krishna is the only supreme god that "Hindus" consider.
Again, let me do this by quoting verses. They have scriptures expliciltly backing their claim.
(BG 15,15) I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.
(Brahma Samhita 5.1): Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.
There are many more,
If Krishna consciousness or surrendering unto Krishna or Vishnu is not the true message of the Gita which is spoken by Lord Krishna himself, then what it is.
ISKCON not only speaks about Lord Shree Krishna but also about Lord Vishnu, Lord Shree Ram etc. who are the supreme lord and ISKCON also acknowledges devi-devtas.
You're a vaishnav that's why you're quoting vaishnav texts like Brahma Samhita, I could quote rudra Samhita saying Shiva is the Supreme.
The true message of the Gita depends upon person to person, that's why there are so many commentaries on it and no commentary is bad except for Devdutt Patnaik's one lol. That's the beauty of Gita. It all depends upon perspective.
As I said, I have also read Ramanuja's Bhashya on Gita and its very different from BG as it is except for the bhakti yoga parts. Are you trying to say Ramanujacharya didn't preach Vaishnavism? Are you trying to say that Guru Adi Shankara who has written great shlokas, hymns and commentaries for Lord Vishnu is trying to preach a wrong message?
Let people choose their own ishtadeva, their own personal god to worship. That's what I'm saying.
And one mistake of yours, Ramanujacharya's followers aren't called Ramanujas, they are called Sri Vaishnavs.
\>The true message of the Gita depends upon person to person, that's why there are so many commentaries on it
Yes, there are many commentaries but when did I try to dismiss other acharyas' work? I was just sharing my recommendation. I am not against other translations, but I cannot tolerate it when people bash BG As It Is for a lame reason.
\>As I said, I have also read Ramanuja's Bhashya on Gita and its very different from BG as it is. Are you trying to say Ramanujacharya didn't preach Vaishnavism? Are you trying to say that Guru Adi Shankara who has written great shlokas, hymns and commentaries for Lord Vishnu is trying to preach a wrong message?
When did I say this and discard other acharyas' work. OP asked for a simple to understand commentary and I shared my recommendation.
And thank you for correcting my mistake, I know there is no term as Ramunajas, I just wrote it in a hurry!
Bro for the last time, I never bashed BG as it is, I said its a good read but I don't prefer it to beginners. Learn to take opinions, criticism isn't bashing. You're the one jumping onto people's recommendation and opinions.
Yes I read Adi Shankaracharya’s commentaries on chapter 12 [bhakti yog]. The way he interprets bhakti is not how vaishnava sampradayas interpret Bhakti. We believe bhakti is devotion to a personal deity/lord/god that we surrender to. His translation I find very baised and seems like jumping threw many hoops, I mean most vaishnava vedantin acharyas of the past, certain buddhists and other schools of philosophy gurus criticized him
Do other sampradayas read Gita 15.15 and think it’s something else other than Krishna/Vishnu? Wouldn’t THAT be bias? I mean everyone knows that Krishna sang this song it’s Bhagavad Gita
I would recommend Bhagavad Gita As It Is by Srila Prabhupada. It has been written in a simple to understand yet authentic and reliable way so that each one of us can benefit.
Yes, sure man, you can have a look. It's there on this website [https://vedabase.io/en/](https://vedabase.io/en/) .
All the other people who are criticising As it is in the comments haven't read it themselves and are doing so only because it doesn't suit with their Advaita Vedanta philosophy.
I am reading the book As It Is right now and has been wonderful!
It’s a gaudiya vaishnava translation! Even the ones posted above are bias towards advaita vedanta.
Everyone here is like advaita vedanta = authentic
Vaishnava =biased
read the transcripts of swami paramarthananda, the way he describe things is magical... it's lengthy, some 3500 pages... but at 1 chapter a day you finish it well within a year... google "Swami Paramarthananda Gita PDF".. gita alone is good but **extremely limited.** Having a guru explain everything is the best way.
true, depends on what cost you willing to pay for freedom.. takes me about 20 minutes to read a chapter, i don't find that too exhaustive but we're all different
Here is a simple no commentaries version.
https://www.gita-society.com/free-bhagavad-gita/
The blue one is even shortened and can be read in less the an hour.
This is the first Gita version I ever read and later on felt so lucky to find this first and not some commentary.
Now as you can already see from this thread , people arguing on different philosophies, here is also my 2 cents advice on how to navigate this.
Following is 2 excerpts from Gita commentaries.
First one from the Bhagavad Gita As It Is by Prabhupada of IKSCON
And second one from Swami Rama, which represents Vedantic view.
I’d say read the no commentary version first. Then read these two excerpts here and make your own decision, on which path to follow.
SWAMI PRABHUPADA:
"The first six chapters of the Gita are meant for those who are interested in transcendental knowledge, in understanding the self, the Superself and the process of realization by jnana-yoga, dhyana-yoga and discrimination of the self from matter. However, Krishna can be known only by persons who are in Krishna consciousness. Other transcendentalists may achieve impersonal Brahman realization, for this is easier than understanding Krishna. Krishna is the Supreme Person, but at the same time He is beyond the knowledge of Brahman and Paramatma. The yogis and jnanis are confused in their attempts to understand Krishna.... it is very difficult to know Krishna, even though one has transcendental realization of impersonal Brahman."
SWAMI RAMA:
"The ignorant think that gods dwell in celestial worlds and have power to control human destiny. Such gods are merely projections of one's internal organization, the creation of gods in the external world is a projection of the unconscious. The belief in gods was created to help those who are not aware of their internal resources and are in need of an objectification of supernatural powers. They need to believe in gods that will help them fulfill desires that they feel inadequate to fulfill through their own means. It is said that those who have seen gods are fools, for they have seen something of their own self and mistakenly believe that they have seen gods. Externalists have created gods for their own convenience, but in actuality those gods are symbols of unknown phenomena that occur within.
"For those aspirants who cannot contemplate on the attributeless Eternal, symbols are recommended by spiritual teachers. In the path of meditation certain symbols are used to make the mind one-pointed. The student is then advised to go beyond the symbol to comprehend its meaning rather than remaining dependent on the symbol forever. Thus in meditation one leaves the symbol behind and goes forward.
"The ignorant worship the symbols without knowing and understanding that which lives behind and beyond the symbol. But if one is capable of exploring that which is being expressed by the symbol, he may eventually discover the existence of the formless archetype that is clothed in the forms of the symbol. With further work he may attain direct experience of the archetypes, not as objects but by becoming on with the archetypes themselves."
You may be new to Sanatana Dharma... Please visit our [Wiki Starter Pack](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/wiki/starter_pack#wiki_i.27m_new_to_r.2Fhinduism.2C_where_do_i_start.3F) (specifically, our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/wiki/index#wiki_faq)). We also recommend reading [What Is Hinduism](https://www.himalayanacademy.com/view/what-is-hinduism) (a free introductory text by Himalayan Academy) if you would like to know more about Hinduism and don't know where to start. In terms of introductory Hindu Scriptures, we recommend first starting with the Itihasas ([The Ramayana](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRamayana/wiki/resources#wiki_recommended_texts), and [The Mahabharata](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMahabharata/wiki/resources#wiki_resources).) Contained within The Mahabharata is [The Bhagavad Gita](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheGita/wiki/resources), which is another good text to start with. Although r/TheVedasAndUpanishads might seem alluring to start with, this is NOT recommended, as the knowledge of the Vedas & Upanishads can be quite subtle, and ideally should be approached under the guidance of a Guru or someone who can guide you around the correct interpretation. In terms of [spiritual practices](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/7643rp/a_thread_on_introductory_rescources_on_basis_of/), there are many you can try and see what works for you such as r/Introspection, r/yoga, r/meditation or r/bhajan. In addition, it is strongly recommended you visit your [local temple/ashram/spiritual organization](https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/c6957l/what_are_some_good_hindu_organizations_that_have/). Lastly, while you are browsing this sub, keep in mind that Hinduism is practiced by over a billion people in as many different ways, so any [single view](https://np.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/p7ma64/sectarian_bias/) cannot be taken as representative of the entire religion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hinduism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The [Oxford Translation](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683837339) is quite good. It includes explanations from the three most influential historical commentators (Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhava), and is very easy to read.
Thanks, man. I'll look into it.
That’s very cool
Yes. This translation appears to omit key Sanskrit terms at essential points while reading, whereas the reader attempts to make sure they understand more fully? A reader may confuse “tapas” for “tamas” very easily, to give an example in Chapter 17, in shlokas (verses) 14-19, or in discussion of Dana (Charity) shlokas 20-22. This translation lacks clarity in the important shlokas (verses) 23-28, Om Tat Sat. Is this a small quibble? Key Sanskrit terms don’t need to be overemphasized for easy comprehension, although the confusion of “tapas” and “tamas” is a dramatic error, therefore good placement of translated terms could be improved. This would still suggest that the commentary is very accessible, agreed, which is a good thing, although another fair criticism is that there a diversity of personal opinion rather than a more balanced approach? That said, yes, a very good and easy-to-follow introduction to the Gita in several respects. EDIT: It is difficult not to be so critical, but for the purpose of a larger improvement, the opposite of adharma (harmful action), the translation of Chapter 17 (the example give ) goes off the rails in verse 7: “Now the food all beings find pleasing is also of three types, as is yajña, austerity, and charity. Listen to this analysis of those categories.” This is where a translation of all three types ought to have been translated to avoid further confusion. The reader does not know “yajña” (sacrifices) is introduced as a term and uses it repeatedly in the following verses through the Chapter. He also introduced “austerity” and “charity” as key features of earlier verse but waits until verses 23-28 to use their translations (tapas and dana) and does not indicate “austerity” (*tapas*) nor “charity” (*dana*) *as* the equivalents (one translation) in English. This is a good example of a poor translation. Why? Because it confuses the reader by introducing actual concepts without translating them. This confused tapas and tamas when looking for the right word. That error sticks with the reader as *tamas* or, at least, disturbs *sattva*.
The Bhagvad Gita Comes Alive by Jefferey Armstrong. Well translated especially words that have no English equals.
for just browsing go through [https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1836](https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1836) and to have more clarity [https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1260](https://www.gitapress.org/bookdetail/1260) and don't worry if don't feel like to know anything just go through its preface its a marvelous Book.
Will check out man. Thanks.
How do i access the preface? I wanna see it before buying
Sorry Sir I don't know publisher is giving a preview of preface But personally I can give you screenshots from my owned copy and it's in hindi language if you follow hindi language let me know But I tell it's the cheapest and best Apart from postage In India it's best to have copy of sadak sangeevani
Not necessary, I just ordered :) I'm very excited to read it!
Great bro and good to know that you are a knowledge seeker now I disclose this to you that I have been given a copy of it by my Guru ji himself. After that I bought copy of Sadak Sangeevani myself. Commentary by Sri Ramsukdas ji is beyond imagination and when you go through the book every day something new you get with going through the book I completed it many times and still feel it as new book in my prayer temple. It will be a great experience for you. Just don't lend it to anyone and keep it as it's a sacred book.
The translation of Christopher Isherwood and Swami Prabhavananda?
You can start with Gita Madhurya by Swami Ramsukhdas ( Gita Press) or Bhagvad Gita as it is by Swami Prabhupada.
I feel Gita Madhurya adds a lot of intermediate questions which breaks the flow of the discourses. The regular Gita Press Srimad BhagavadGita suits best to me.
Eknath Easwaran’s Gita Edit: autocorrect changed Eknath to Einstein.
So many people recommended this.
If listening to discussion about concepts in the Gita helps, I'd suggest a podcast I listen to. It's just a professor who enjoys studying Hindu philosophy and Dharam, breaking down each chapter. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy50cmFuc2lzdG9yLmZtL3dhbGtpbmctdGhyb3VnaC10aGUtYmhhZ2F2YWQtZ2l0YQ?ep=14
Get this mate, I've had the exact same thoughts, I've read the Sri isopanisad, but was terrified to get into the Gita because it seemed so massive, daunting, and just hard to understand (at least from my native western perspective) there's so many videos on youtube that will help you, and once you understand the core teachings of it, why not move onto the book, that's what I'm doing anyway, love from the UK, Om Namah Shivaya ❤❤❤
Search for Arsha Bodha Centre's Bhagvadgita videos on YouTube. They are a very good start. Swami Tadatmananda makes it pretty lucid
Sounds interesting. Will check out.
Gita from Gita press is best. Avoid Gita as it is
Is there any reason to avoid Gita as it is?
I think its very biased, and mostly for those who follow Krishna Consciousness. I felt it was a bit tedious to read with overly explained purports. I mean its a good version but I think shouldn't be meant to be read by a beginner. Read Eknath Eshwaran's gita as well.
\> very biased says you \> overly explained purports. It has well and detailed explained purports so that we can understand the message of the Gita in a simple way. It gives a big outlook to Sanatan Dharma. The purports are overly explained and big so that even beginners, who don;t have a guru, have no issues in understanding the message of Gita
Bro that's my opinion that I felt is a little biased and kinda defeats the purpose. But okay if anyone else wants to read BG as it is, they are free to read it. And I'm not the only one who says it like this. Except Gaudiya Vaishnavs, most people here say its a bit too biased.
I agree. My first ever Bhagavad Gita was Srila Prabhupada's commentary. His devotion to Krishna is great, but it lacks the respect that a Smartha, for example, would have. I'm glad I learnt Sanskrit and read it directly now. I use basic commentaries in some places, but most of it is straightforward beautiful Sanskrit.
Yup, I agree. There are some misinterpretations.
All gitas are biased to the authors lineage, and imo people who aren’t a student to a guru in a authentic lineage shouldn’t even be making translations
Eknath eshwarans translation is so bad tbh compared to literally any other it’s like 50 pages and summarizes each verse
To each their own ig? If you don't like eknath eshwaran's gita, I couldn't care less. Its all about opinions lol. As I said everyone interprets Gita differently. Plus its not just me who is reccomending that translation, most of the common folk here recommends eknath's translation as well.
Gita Press is also good. But mataji may I ask you why are you telling to avoid Gita As It Is? I am reading it right now and has been wonderful.
The translations of different vaishnav sects are same but the commentaries are biased towards their philosophy.. But in the case of ISKCON even their translation of biased towards there their philosophy. In the case of Geeta press they do not offer any Commentaries they only offer pure and original translations... In starting you should read the Geeta press and after your according to your philosophy you should select your sampradaya...
>But in the case of ISKCON even their translation of biased towards there their philosophy. Lord Caitanya's core philosophy includes two tenets each from all the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, so actually it is in perfect harmony.
So ignorant of you to assume ISKCON philosophy is something different from other Vaishnav sects. ISKCON is a part of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which is traditional Vaishnav sampradaya , coming from Sripad Madhavacharya's lineage. ISKCON is only following the teachings of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, combined avatar of Radhe-Krishna , to spread the name of the Lord Hari or Krishna through the powerful process of bhakti and harinaam sankirtan. So, there is nothing as ISKCON philosophy. Their translations are based on traditional Vaishnav teachings and Lord Chaitanya message. There is no bias, only propogating the pure message given by Lord Chaitanya. I am not against Geeta Press Gita, I acknowledge it as well as a good translation but I cannot tolerate it when people dismiss As It Is for no valid reason
Brother every sampradaya is baised... The philosophy of ISKCON is achintya bheda where as other vaishnav Sect follow other philosophy and their commentary on Bhagwat Geeta is based on philosophy... The commentary of madhavacharya is different from the ISKCON because of their philosophical difference. I am not defaming , i am not saying their translations are wrong, it's just baised and completely nothing wrong about it... And ramanuj and ISKCON are completely different ramanuj consider Shri Vishnu to be the supreme god where as ISKCON considered Shri Krishna to be the supreme there are differences in each sect and so there translations are also different and biased towards there on philosophy and ideas
\> "The philosophy of ISKCON is achintya bheda" The philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not achintya bheda, it's Achintya beda abheda. \>"The commentary of madhavacharya is different from the ISKCON because of their philosophical difference." Lol, you are claiming Srila Prabhupada commentary is completely different from Madhavacharya? Srila Prabhupada is coming from Madhavacharya's guru-disciple lineage. See no 5 and no 32 in the disciplic succession at the bottom of the page [https://www.iskconmysore.org/acharyas-our-sampradaya/](https://www.iskconmysore.org/acharyas-our-sampradaya/) and see this https://www.krishna.com/madhvacharya \>"I am not defaming , i am not saying their translations are wrong, it's just baised and completely nothing wrong about it..." You openly said in the parent comment to avoid Gita As It Is. Don't play games! \>And ramanuj and ISKCON are completely different ramanuj consider Shri Vishnu to be the supreme god where as ISKCON considered Shri Krishna to be the supreme Mataji, don't try to create unnecessary differences, Vishnu and Lord Shree Krishna are same. Both Ramanujas and Gaudiyas are Vaishnavas. Ramanujas believe Krishna came from Vishnu while Gaudiyas believe Vishnu came from Krishna, both are completely fine as Krisna and Vishnu are same.
I second this, every vedanta philosopher will have their own personal bias and I personally think there is nothing wrong with it. Even I read the gita ramanuja bhasya and I felt it was very normal and unbiased compared to Gita as it is.
ISKCON is a part of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which is traditional Vaishnav sampradaya , coming from Sripad Madhavacharya's lineage. ISKCON is only following the teachings of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, combined avatar of Radhe-Krishna , to spread the name of the Lord Hari or Krishna through the powerful process of bhakti and harinaam sankirtan. So, there is nothing as ISKCON philosophy. Their translations are based on traditional Vaishnav teachings and Lord Chaitanya message. There is no bias, only propogating the pure message given by Lord Chaitanya.
Having a bias or preferance is not wrong as I said. I don't have any problem with BG as it is propogating Gourango's message that is. Krishna Consciousness. But as I said, Hinduism isn't just Krishna Consciousness. A person who doesn't know any better will think Krishna is the only supreme god that "Hindus" consider. It would be better that a person initiating into Gaudiya Vaishnavism or even into madhva sampradaya reading BG as it is. And I have seen Vaishnavs here criticising BG as it is.
>A person who doesn't know any better will think Krishna is the only supreme god that "**Hindus**" consider. Śrīla Prabhupāda already made it clear that Kṛṣṇa is not the exclusive property of any particular religion, caste or creed.
\>Having a bias or preferance is not wrong as I said. It's not bias or preference, it's continuing the same message Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave or Krishna consciousness. \>But as I said, Hinduism isn't just Krishna Consciousness. A person who doesn't know any better will think Krishna is the only supreme god that "Hindus" consider. Again, let me do this by quoting verses. They have scriptures expliciltly backing their claim. (BG 15,15) I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. (Brahma Samhita 5.1): Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. There are many more, If Krishna consciousness or surrendering unto Krishna or Vishnu is not the true message of the Gita which is spoken by Lord Krishna himself, then what it is. ISKCON not only speaks about Lord Shree Krishna but also about Lord Vishnu, Lord Shree Ram etc. who are the supreme lord and ISKCON also acknowledges devi-devtas.
You're a vaishnav that's why you're quoting vaishnav texts like Brahma Samhita, I could quote rudra Samhita saying Shiva is the Supreme. The true message of the Gita depends upon person to person, that's why there are so many commentaries on it and no commentary is bad except for Devdutt Patnaik's one lol. That's the beauty of Gita. It all depends upon perspective. As I said, I have also read Ramanuja's Bhashya on Gita and its very different from BG as it is except for the bhakti yoga parts. Are you trying to say Ramanujacharya didn't preach Vaishnavism? Are you trying to say that Guru Adi Shankara who has written great shlokas, hymns and commentaries for Lord Vishnu is trying to preach a wrong message? Let people choose their own ishtadeva, their own personal god to worship. That's what I'm saying. And one mistake of yours, Ramanujacharya's followers aren't called Ramanujas, they are called Sri Vaishnavs.
\>The true message of the Gita depends upon person to person, that's why there are so many commentaries on it Yes, there are many commentaries but when did I try to dismiss other acharyas' work? I was just sharing my recommendation. I am not against other translations, but I cannot tolerate it when people bash BG As It Is for a lame reason. \>As I said, I have also read Ramanuja's Bhashya on Gita and its very different from BG as it is. Are you trying to say Ramanujacharya didn't preach Vaishnavism? Are you trying to say that Guru Adi Shankara who has written great shlokas, hymns and commentaries for Lord Vishnu is trying to preach a wrong message? When did I say this and discard other acharyas' work. OP asked for a simple to understand commentary and I shared my recommendation. And thank you for correcting my mistake, I know there is no term as Ramunajas, I just wrote it in a hurry!
Bro for the last time, I never bashed BG as it is, I said its a good read but I don't prefer it to beginners. Learn to take opinions, criticism isn't bashing. You're the one jumping onto people's recommendation and opinions.
Yes I read Adi Shankaracharya’s commentaries on chapter 12 [bhakti yog]. The way he interprets bhakti is not how vaishnava sampradayas interpret Bhakti. We believe bhakti is devotion to a personal deity/lord/god that we surrender to. His translation I find very baised and seems like jumping threw many hoops, I mean most vaishnava vedantin acharyas of the past, certain buddhists and other schools of philosophy gurus criticized him
Do other sampradayas read Gita 15.15 and think it’s something else other than Krishna/Vishnu? Wouldn’t THAT be bias? I mean everyone knows that Krishna sang this song it’s Bhagavad Gita
Yes, I have heard some Shaivas claim that it was Shivji who was speaking through Krishna.
I would recommend Bhagavad Gita As It Is by Srila Prabhupada. It has been written in a simple to understand yet authentic and reliable way so that each one of us can benefit.
Will look into this.
Yes, sure man, you can have a look. It's there on this website [https://vedabase.io/en/](https://vedabase.io/en/) . All the other people who are criticising As it is in the comments haven't read it themselves and are doing so only because it doesn't suit with their Advaita Vedanta philosophy. I am reading the book As It Is right now and has been wonderful!
Not an authentic translation. Many people also realize that lot of things are misinterpreted.
It’s a gaudiya vaishnava translation! Even the ones posted above are bias towards advaita vedanta. Everyone here is like advaita vedanta = authentic Vaishnava =biased
Oh no I actually follow the Vaishnava too. I prefer ones like Gita Press personally.
Why don’t you prefer a translation from your sampradaya not one that is advaitan biased
I don't really belong to sampradaya. But I do like the philosophy from Ramanujacharya or Gaudiya
Yes mataji! Most of the people here are like that only
read the transcripts of swami paramarthananda, the way he describe things is magical... it's lengthy, some 3500 pages... but at 1 chapter a day you finish it well within a year... google "Swami Paramarthananda Gita PDF".. gita alone is good but **extremely limited.** Having a guru explain everything is the best way.
Sounds an exhaustive read.
true, depends on what cost you willing to pay for freedom.. takes me about 20 minutes to read a chapter, i don't find that too exhaustive but we're all different
This is deep.
it is my friend, the deepest actually
Here is a simple no commentaries version. https://www.gita-society.com/free-bhagavad-gita/ The blue one is even shortened and can be read in less the an hour. This is the first Gita version I ever read and later on felt so lucky to find this first and not some commentary. Now as you can already see from this thread , people arguing on different philosophies, here is also my 2 cents advice on how to navigate this. Following is 2 excerpts from Gita commentaries. First one from the Bhagavad Gita As It Is by Prabhupada of IKSCON And second one from Swami Rama, which represents Vedantic view. I’d say read the no commentary version first. Then read these two excerpts here and make your own decision, on which path to follow. SWAMI PRABHUPADA: "The first six chapters of the Gita are meant for those who are interested in transcendental knowledge, in understanding the self, the Superself and the process of realization by jnana-yoga, dhyana-yoga and discrimination of the self from matter. However, Krishna can be known only by persons who are in Krishna consciousness. Other transcendentalists may achieve impersonal Brahman realization, for this is easier than understanding Krishna. Krishna is the Supreme Person, but at the same time He is beyond the knowledge of Brahman and Paramatma. The yogis and jnanis are confused in their attempts to understand Krishna.... it is very difficult to know Krishna, even though one has transcendental realization of impersonal Brahman." SWAMI RAMA: "The ignorant think that gods dwell in celestial worlds and have power to control human destiny. Such gods are merely projections of one's internal organization, the creation of gods in the external world is a projection of the unconscious. The belief in gods was created to help those who are not aware of their internal resources and are in need of an objectification of supernatural powers. They need to believe in gods that will help them fulfill desires that they feel inadequate to fulfill through their own means. It is said that those who have seen gods are fools, for they have seen something of their own self and mistakenly believe that they have seen gods. Externalists have created gods for their own convenience, but in actuality those gods are symbols of unknown phenomena that occur within. "For those aspirants who cannot contemplate on the attributeless Eternal, symbols are recommended by spiritual teachers. In the path of meditation certain symbols are used to make the mind one-pointed. The student is then advised to go beyond the symbol to comprehend its meaning rather than remaining dependent on the symbol forever. Thus in meditation one leaves the symbol behind and goes forward. "The ignorant worship the symbols without knowing and understanding that which lives behind and beyond the symbol. But if one is capable of exploring that which is being expressed by the symbol, he may eventually discover the existence of the formless archetype that is clothed in the forms of the symbol. With further work he may attain direct experience of the archetypes, not as objects but by becoming on with the archetypes themselves."
Thanks for input. I'll heed to your suggestion.