There is a controversy among members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as to which presentation of Bhagavad-Gita As It Is represents the better presentation. Is it version 1 (V1) or is it version 2 (V2)? Sentiments are not sufficient is this respect. A systematic approach is required. As an example, I have carefully analyzed chapter five, verses only, purports excluded, in both versions and it is my humble opinion that chapter five of V2 is simply perfect but for one exception, (addendum after consultation with HG Dravida Prabhu: this single exception is now waved. Sankhya is a philosophy and karma-yoga is obviously yoga. Regardless of other considerations, the literary convention is that names of different philosophies are spelled with capital letter, whereas the names of different varities of yoga are spelled with a small letter. Thank you Dravida Prabhu!!!) whereas chapter five of V1 is full of mistakes, some of which are grossly misleading. The following explains my reasoning openly and clearly.
Wfw stands for word for word.
Bhagavad Gita As It Is
KARMA YOGA – ACTION IN KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
5.2 V 2
Even V1 gives “the Personality of Godhead” for “bhagavan” in wfw. Why change it to “the Blessed Lord” as V1 has done?
A parallel reasoning applies to “work”.
5.3 V 2
Even V1 gives “free from all dualities” for “nirdvandvo”. Why change it to “liberated from all dualities”, as V 1 has done?
5.4 V 2 has a better structure. One reservation though:
Why should “sankhya” have a capital “s” and “karma-yoga” a small “k”. This would have to be a foolish differentiation according to the logic of the verse itself and the following verse, which states “analytical study and devotional service to be on the same level.”
I had this crucial realization while riding my pushbike to the Brisbane ISKCON temple, Jan 13th 2017, 5.40 PM. All glories to riding one’s push bike to the local ISKCON temple! All glories to the simple Krishna conscious lifestyle!
5.5 V 2 absolutely. V1 is just plain wrong. In this verse Krishna is talking about sankhya or analytical study. He is not talking about renunciation.
5.6 V 2. “munir” is singular. Improved English.
5.10 Minor change. Either one.
5.15 Clearly V2. In the first sentence of the purport Srila Prabhupada clearly gives the meaning of “vibhu”.
“The Sanskrit word vibhu means the Supreme Lord …. “
5.20 V2. No need for capital letter in “transcendence” as in V1.
5.21 V2 There is no mention of “external objects” in the purport. V2 has rightfully dropped the expression.
5.23 V2. V1 says “He is a yogi” But that we already know. We are interested in his state of advancement as V2 specifies: ”He is well situated.”
5.24 V2 In wfw, both versions give “aiming within” for the Sanskrit “antah-jyotih”.
5.25 V2 “rsayah” is a plural and is restored in V2. Duality arises from doubt as in V2 and not otherwise.
5.27-28 V2 “aiming at liberation” rightfully added.
5.29 V2 “rcchati- achieves” is a singular in both wfw versions. “beneficiary” not “purpose of sacrifice and austerities”.