From Dhyana to Sankhya: Prabhupada’s Vision for Chapter 6

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

Srila Prabhupada’s decision to title Chapter 6 of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is “Sankhya Yoga” stands as a distinctive and deliberate choice, diverging from the more common “Dhyana Yoga” favored by traditional acharyas, modern scholars, and Western translators. This title, unique in the history of widely recognized Gita commentaries, reflects his mission to present the text through the lens of Gaudiya Vaishnavism while reintroducing the theistic Sankhya philosophy of Kapila Muni, the divine son of Devahuti from the Srimad Bhagavatam. Far from a mere editorial quirk, Prabhupada’s naming can be seen as a strategic reclamation of the term “Sankhya,” serving as an implicit attack on the atheistic Sankhya school and aligning the chapter’s teachings with Krishna consciousness. This choice makes sense when viewed through the philosophical content of Chapter 6, its integration of Sankhya and Yoga, and Prabhupada’s broader purpose of countering materialistic philosophies.

Philosophical Foundations: Theistic Sankhya and Its Contrast with Atheism

Sankhya philosophy, one of the six classical schools of Indian thought, fundamentally distinguishes between purusha (the eternal, conscious soul) and prakriti (temporary, unconscious matter), aiming for liberation through analytical knowledge. However, two versions of Sankhya exist: the atheistic, classical Sankhya, often attributed to a sage Kapila, which denies a supreme God and posits multiple purushas liberated through intellectual discernment alone, and the theistic Sankhya of Kapila Muni, an incarnation of Vishnu, as detailed in Srimad Bhagavatam (Canto 3, Chapters 24–33). The latter integrates this dualistic framework with devotion to Krishna, the Supreme Purusha, as the source and controller of all existence.

Srila Prabhupada consistently champions the theistic Sankhya of the Bhagavatam’s Kapila, critiquing the atheistic version as incomplete. In his purport to Gita 2.39, he describes Sankhya as the analytical study of soul and matter but ties it to Krishna’s authority, while in Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.30, he credits Kapila (the Vishnu avatar) with creating Sankhya to dispel material illusion, implying the atheistic school is a corruption. By titling Chapter 6 “Sankhya Yoga,” Prabhupada reclaims the term from its godless connotation, positioning it as a Krishna-centric science of self-realization. This choice serves as an attack on atheistic Sankhya by asserting that true Sankhya—unlike its materialistic distortion—culminates in devotion to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not mere intellectual isolation.

Chapter 6’s Content: A Blend of Sankhya Philosophy and Yogic Practice

Chapter 6 of the Gita, while renowned for its meditative instructions (e.g., 6.11–14: sitting steadily, focusing on the self or Krishna), contains philosophical elements that resonate with Sankhya, justifying Prabhupada’s title. Verses like 6.5–6 (“One must deliver himself with the help of his mind… the mind is the friend or enemy”) echo Sankhya’s view of the mind as a product of prakriti that binds or liberates the purusha depending on its mastery. Similarly, 6.1–4 emphasize detachment from sense objects and fruitive results, mirroring Sankhya’s goal of disentangling the soul from material nature. The description of the yogi’s transcendent state in 6.20–23—realizing the self’s distinction from matter through “transcendental senses”—further aligns with Sankhya’s liberation through discriminative knowledge.

Prabhupada’s “Sankhya Yoga” title broadens the chapter’s scope beyond meditation (dhyana) to include this analytical foundation, reflecting the theistic Sankhya of Kapila, where understanding the soul’s eternality leads to Krishna (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.25.18). Unlike “Dhyana Yoga,” which narrows the focus to meditative practice, “Sankhya Yoga” encapsulates the integration of knowledge (Sankhya) and discipline (Yoga), culminating in devotion (6.47: “The highest yogi thinks of Me constantly”). By highlighting these Sankhya elements, Prabhupada challenges atheistic Sankhya’s endpoint—self-isolation without God—replacing it with a theistic synthesis that directs the practitioner to Krishna, thus undermining the atheistic school’s philosophical legitimacy.

Historical Context: Sankhya and Yoga’s Traditional Connection

The tendency in Indian tradition to connect Sankhya and Yoga as complementary systems supports Prabhupada’s titling. Historically, Sankhya provides the metaphysical blueprint (distinguishing purusha from prakriti), while Yoga, particularly Patanjali’s Ashtanga Yoga, offers the practical path, with dhyana (meditation, the seventh limb) as a key stage. The Gita itself reflects this synergy: Chapter 2 introduces Sankhya’s analytical wisdom (2.39), and Chapter 6 blends it with yogic practice. Prabhupada’s “Sankhya Yoga” title leverages this tradition, but adapts it to Vaishnavism by rooting it in Kapila’s theistic Sankhya, not the atheistic version that Patanjali’s Yoga partially accommodates (via Ishvara, Yoga Sutras 1.23).

This historical pairing bolsters Prabhupada’s attack on atheistic Sankhya. By invoking “Sankhya” in a yogic context, he reasserts its original spiritual purpose—lost in the godless classical school—and aligns it with the Gita’s theistic narrative, where Krishna is the ultimate goal (Gita 15.17–18). This reclamation serves as a polemic, subtly exposing atheistic Sankhya’s inadequacy compared to its devotional counterpart.

Prabhupada’s Strategic Intent: Attacking Atheistic Sankhya and Inspiring Exploration of the Bhagavatam

Prabhupada’s mission was to counter materialistic and impersonal philosophies, including atheistic Sankhya, which he saw as a distortion of Vedic truth. His critiques in purports—e.g., dismissing atheistic Sankhya as “dry speculation” (Gita 7.4, purport)—reveal his intent to restore its theistic essence. Naming Chapter 6 “Sankhya Yoga” is a deliberate strike against this distortion for several reasons:

  1. Reclamation of Terminology: By using “Sankhya,” a term familiar to scholars and practitioners, Prabhupada confronts its atheistic association head-on. He redefines it through Kapila’s lens, where analytical knowledge serves bhakti, not godless liberation, thus challenging the classical school’s authority.
  2. Philosophical Superiority: The chapter’s content—integrating self-realization with devotion—demonstrates that theistic Sankhya surpasses atheistic Sankhya. Verses like 6.29–30 (“He who sees Me everywhere”) elevate Sankhya’s dualism into a Krishna-centric unity, exposing the atheistic version’s limitation in stopping at individual purusha without recognizing the Supreme Purusha.
  3. Educational Polemic: Prabhupada’s global audience included Westerners and Indians influenced by secular interpretations of Sankhya. Titling Chapter 6 “Sankhya Yoga” educates them that true Sankhya aligns with Krishna consciousness, countering scholarly narratives equating Sankhya with atheism and reinforcing the Gita’s theistic intent “as it is.”
  4. Parampara’s Authority: By tying the title to Kapila of the Bhagavatam, Prabhupada roots it in disciplic succession, contrasting it with speculative atheistic Sankhya. This asserts the Vedic authenticity of his interpretation, undermining the classical school’s standalone credibility.
  5. Inspiring Engagement with the Srimad Bhagavatam: Beyond attacking atheistic Sankhya, Prabhupada’s use of “Sankhya Yoga” also aimed to inspire readers to explore the Srimad Bhagavatam, which he considered the “ripe fruit of the Vedic tree” (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.3, purport) and the ultimate scripture for Krishna consciousness. By linking Chapter 6 to Kapila’s theistic Sankhya—detailed in Bhagavatam Canto 3, Chapters 24–33—he creates a bridge to this text, where Kapila’s teachings expand on the Gita’s principles with a devotional focus (e.g., Bhagavatam 3.25.18). In purports like Gita 6.13–14, he references Kapila’s meditation on Vishnu (Bhagavatam 3.28.8–11), subtly encouraging readers to delve into the Bhagavatam for a deeper understanding of both Kapila’s Sankhya but also of the Srimad-Bhagavatam itself. For his audience—many unfamiliar with this scripture—the title “Sankhya Yoga” plants a seed of curiosity about Kapila’s full discourse, reinforcing the Bhagavatam’s role as the natural next step after the Gita and enhancing his mission to elevate global devotion through the parampara’s treasures.

Uniqueness and Justification

No major traditional acharya (e.g., Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya) or modern translator (e.g., Sivananda, Chinmayananda) titles Chapter 6 “Sankhya Yoga”—they typically use “Dhyana Yoga” or variants, reserving “Sankhya Yoga” for Chapter 2. Prabhupada’s divergence is a bold innovation, justified by Chapter 6’s Sankhya-like elements and his mission. While “Dhyana Yoga” fits the chapter’s meditative focus, “Sankhya Yoga” captures its broader philosophical depth, aligning with his view of Kapila’s system as both knowledge and practice directed toward Krishna.

Conclusion: A Sensible and Strategic Choice

Srila Prabhupada’s “Sankhya Yoga” title for Chapter 6 makes profound sense as a reflection of its content—merging Sankhya’s analytical insights with Yoga’s meditative discipline—and his intent to advance Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It serves as a strategic attack on atheistic Sankhya by reintroducing Kapila’s theistic version, challenging its godless conclusions, and redirecting its principles toward Krishna. This choice not only highlights the chapter’s philosophical richness but also fulfills Prabhupada’s mission to present the Gita as a devotional text, countering materialistic distortions and establishing Krishna consciousness as the ultimate synthesis of Vedic wisdom. In this light, “Sankhya Yoga” is not just a title—it’s a declaration of theistic triumph over atheism, rooted in scripture and tradition.

For a definitive proof that Srila Prabhupada wanted Chapter Six of his Bhagavad-gita As It Is to be named Sankhya-Yoga, please see this article.

PROBLEM OF THE BBT EDITING SUMMARIZED

“The problem of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) editing can be summarized fairly well with four concise points:

(1) False Assumption of Authority: where Prabhupada only granted conservative, provisional authority, the BBT editors assumed unrestricted, open-ended authority.

(2) Editorial Overreach: where Prabhupāda requested only simple copyediting and correction of obvious mistakes, the BBT editors took great liberties in revising, omitting, and even attempting to correct the author’s content.

(3) Noncompliance with Scholarly Standards: where Prabhupada requested scholarly editorial standards, the BBT editors misapplied scholarly textual methods and employed arbitrary and inconsistent editing practices.

(4) Editorial Changes without Transparency: where devotional and scholarly editorial standards compelled full transparency, the extent of editorial changes by the BBT editors are undisclosed in the author’s works.”

Reference:

Posthumous Editing of A Great Master’s Work – Special Focus on the Writings of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Edited by Graham M. Schweig, 2024, Lexington Books, Introduction, p. 3-4)

Podcast: Stop Changing Srila Prabhupada’s Books!

Narada Das from The Hare Krishna Project invited me to talk about the changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books! We had a great talk!

Please watch, like and share the podcast!

“Stop changing Srila Prabhupada’s books!”

PODCAST: The Hare Krishnas In Britain – Episode 70 – Tuesday 25th July 2023🎙

We’re pleased to welcome Ajit Krishna das as our guest on tonight’s podcast.

Born and raised in Denmark, he joined the Hare Krishna movement in 1998 whilst looking for something ‘more meaningful’ in life.

A disciple of Mahavishnu Goswami, Ajit has become a strong critic of ISKCON’s changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books – which have been a regular activity of the organisation for the past 40 years.

In tonight’s episode he gives an overview of the changes – who made them, when and why!

Ajit also shares his concerns about what the changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books does not only to the authenticity of the original texts, but the spiritual credibility of them too.

For more details about the changes to Srila Prabhupada’s books, visit Ajit Krishna Prabhu’s website:
http://www.arsaprayoga.com/

And Youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/@arsa-prayoga/videos

Ajit can be contacted directly through his Facebook profile:
http://www.www.facebook.com/ajitkrishnadasa/

Tonight’s podcast is not to be missed!
You can watch it:

Vaishnava Perspectives on the Modern World – Episode 3: Book Changes

Very informative and nice talk about the book changes. I recommend that every devotee watch this.

Sitapati and his wife, Danna Devi, has invited Garuda Prabhu, Gaura Prabhu, Dhanesvara Prabhu and Mucukunda Prabhu to their channel Param Vijayate to discuss the changes made to Srila Prabhupada’s books.

It is three hours, but worth the watch.

Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami’s Public Statement about Bhagavad-gita As It Is

By Garuda Dasa (Graham M. Schweig)

Someone alerted me to this publically available statement that Satsvarupa Das Goswami wrote:

Bhagavad-gita Editing”

“I received a letter from a disciple who told me he prefers reading the first edition of the Bhagavad-gita edited by Hayagriva. He thinks there are too many changes in the second edition edited by Jayadvaita. But I do not agree with this point of view. Jayadvaita and Dravida published a booklet, Responsible Publishing. There they demonstrated the many omissions Hayagriva made from Prabhupada’s original manuscripts. Jayadvaita restored the original material by Prabhupada and did responsible editing of his English. Prabhupada had implicit faith in Jayadvaita Maharaja and kept him as his editor for Srimad-Bhagavatam. He said that Jayadvaita’s editing should not be changed. Now Garuda Prabhu has written an entire book championing the editing version of Hayagriva and criticizing the second edition edited by Jayadvaita. I do not agree with Garuda Prabhu on this topic. My followers should feel confident to read the second edition published by the BBT, edited by Jayadvaita Maharaja, and not the earlier edition done by Hayagriva.”

Several interest points I’d like you to consider:

The first edition of the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is was authored by Śrīla Prabhupāda. It is not the Hayagriva edition. There were others besides Hayagravia who worked on it at the time, including Jayadvaita.

Whether one finds Prabhupāda’s authorized authored edition or the second heavily revised (corrupted) edition preferable or not is beside the point. Which one did Prabhupāda actually author and authorize for sure? The answer is obvious. Which one is questionable? The answer is obvious.

Satsvarupa says he does not agree with Garuda Prabhu on the topic of posthumous editing if it means correcting Jayadvaita’s work. On what basis? He’s read Dravida’s and Jayadvaita’s rationalization for editing, but he’s never read a word of my work on the subject. His decision is not being made from a rational mind but out of loyalty to Jayadvaita. Moreover, is Satsvarupa being loyal to Prabhupāda?

Satsvarupa says, “Now Garuda Prabhu has written an entire book championing the editing version of Hayagriva.” First of all, there is no “editing version of Hayagriva.” Secondly, I’ve not written an entire book “championing” anything. But I hope I’m always championing Prabhupāda himself. Is that so distasteful to Satsvaraupa?

Isn’t Satsvarupa making a foregone conclusion here by telling his followers to read Jayadvaita’s edition? But he says more . . . he’s telling his followers NOT to read Prabhupāda’s original authorized edition! And calling it the “earlier edition done by Hayagriva”! Does he foget that Hayagriva, Jayadvaita, and others worked UNDER Prabhupāda? Does he not realize that Dravida and Jayadvaita have been working OVER Prabhupāda since his departure?

Just throwing these points out to all of you.

Tomorrow is Vyāsa Pūjā for our beloved Śrīla Prabhupāda, the original world teacher of Krishna bhakti. How can we honor him in the best way? By following his instructions, instructions not filtered through the limited brains of Jayadvaita, Satsvarupa, Dravida, mine, or anyone else’s. Let us not try to better Prabhupāda as Jayadviata has been attempting to do. Let us try to better ourselves in our relationship wtih Prabhupāda!

On this Vyāsa Pūjā, let us all receive the gifts Prabhupāda has given us graciously, and reciprocate Prabhupāda’s loving gifts by preserving, absorbing, and sharing his teachings.

Dāso ‘smi premni,

Garuḍa Dāsa

Krishna Accepts the Sentiment

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

I find it interesting that there is a mistake in the Govindam adi purusam prayers which is played and sung daily in the temple.

The lead singer starts:

veṇuṁ kvaṇvantam

But the actual text says:

veṇuṁ kvaṇantam

Srila Prabhupada did not even mention this mistake, and he had the sung played every day in every temple. This was a standard he sat, and it is supposed to continue.

Devotion is more important than correctness. Those who want to correct the mistakes of devotees should consider this carefully.

Anyone who finds any fault with a devotee’s description of Krishna is a sinner. If a devotee writes a poem, no matter how poorly he does it, it will certainly contain his love for Krishna. A fool says ‘visnaya’ while a scholar knows the correct form is ‘visnave’, but Krishna accepts the sentiment in either case. If anyone sees a fault in this, the fault is his, for Krishna is pleased with anything the pure devotee says. You too describe the Lord with words of love, so what arrogant person would dare criticize anything that you have written? (Chaitanya Bhagavata 1.11.105-110)

BBTI Propaganda Material Exposé

By Ajit Krishna Dasa

The picture above contains some unserious propaganda material for the BBT International.

1) The only reason that the original Gita is being sold by BBTI, and some places in ISKCON is that BBTI/ISKCON has been under pressure to print and sell it. They do not like to print it, and in fact, the version they print, is not the version Srila Prabhupada wanted, since BBTI has left errors in it that Srila Prabhupada wanted corrected, e.g. “cattle raising”.

2) It is a fact that many devotees have been kicked out of temples because they preferred and advocated, even slightly, the original books.

3) What about all the other books? This is only the Gita. Will the original CC, SB, BBD, POY, PQPA, etc. also be sold on ISKCON property, and on their websites?

4) On the picture we see the Vedabase. Some years ago all the original books where on the Vedabase. Now they have all been removed. I do not even think the Gita is there, but I might be wrong. But at least all the other original books have been removed.

5) Also, please note how the designer of the below propaganda material writes BBT instead of BBTI, trying to hide the fact that BBTI is a corporation, while Srila Prabhupada’s BBT is a trust. Srila Prabhupada’s BBT has been made inactive, and it has been replaced by BBTI. In that scoundrelly move Srila Prabhupada was called “an author for hire” by the BBTI.

Spaced Out Edit

Changes to Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.16.12 purport.

As we know by now BBT International try to convince devotees about their changes by employing the “closer to Srila Prabhupada” manoeuvre.

This manoeuvre has a twofold approach:

It argues that 1) the BBT International have exchanged the editor’s words with those of Srila Prabhupada by going back to earlier drafts to see what Srila Prabhupada actually said, while it at the same time 2) deliberately fails to mention the many, many cases where BBT International have added, changed or removed Srila Prabhupada’s words in a way that takes the books further away from what Srila Prabhupada actually said.

Here is one such example that was brought to my attention by Caitanya Priya Dasa who also provided evidence in the form of pictures from the different editions of Srimad-Bhagavatam.

The Delhi edition

Bharatvarsa : This part of the world is also one of the nine Varsas of the Jambudwipa earthly planet. Each planet is also some times called as Dwipa on account of its being an island in the fathomless outer space. Each planet is factually an island in the airy ocean of outer space. Jambudwipa is one of such countless islands in the airy ocean of the outer space. Description of Bharatvarsa is given in the Mahabharata (Bhisma Parva chapters 9 to 10)

The 1972 edition

Bhāratavarşa: This part of the world is also one of the nine varsas of the Jāmbūdvīpa or earthly planet. Each planet is also sometimes called a dvipa because of its being an island in the fathomless outer space. Each planet is factually an island in the airy ocean of outer space. Jāmbūdvipa is only one of such countless islands in this airy ocean of space. A description of Bhāratavarşa is given in the Mahābhārata (Bhişma Parva, Chapters 9 to 10).

The 1976 edition

Bhārata-varṣa: This part of the world is also one of the nine varṣas of the Jambūdvīpa, or earthly planet. Each planet is also sometimes called a dvīpa because of its being an island in the fathomless outer space. Each planet is factually an island in the airy ocean of outer space. Jambūdvīpa is only one of such countless islands in this airy ocean of space. A description of Bhārata-varṣa is given in the Mahābhārata (Bhīṣma Parva, Chapters 9-10).

The 1978 edition

Bhārata-varṣa: This part of the world is also one of the nine varṣas of the Jambūdvīpa. A description of Bhārata-varṣa is given in the Mahābhārata (Bhīṣma-parva, Chapters 9 and 10).

Present BBT International edition (vedabase.io)

Bhārata-varṣa: This part of the world is also one of the nine varṣas of the Jambūdvīpa. A description of Bhārata-varṣa is given in the Mahābhārata (Bhīṣma-parva, Chapters 9 and 10).

Of course, the BBT International did not exist when this change was made. The BBT did. But I guess the editor in chief was the same. And since the change has not been reversed the BBT International is today responsible for it.

The BBT International claim that we can visit their website and inform ourselves of all their changes. They claim to have complete lists of all changes, explaining why they were made. The fact is that only a tiny fraction of the changes are mentioned. The above is not found on their website, so we have to clue why they made it.

BBT International Cutting in Srila Prabhupada’s Lectures

There is an error in the below video:

I thought the lecture was from 1976, but in fact it is from 1975. The 1976 edition of the First Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam was, obviously, not printed in 1975, and thus we now know with 100% certainty that BBT International inserted the wrong text in the transcript.

They cut out the audio read from First Canto 1.7.7 1972, and then in the transcript they inserted the text from First Canto 1976.

From Original Nectar to Poisonous Sap

From Original Nectar Transformed to Distastefull Sap

From Original Nectar (left) to Poisonous Sap (right)

“Though the water of the Ganga is pure and sweet, when received by the roots of bitter or poisonous trees growing on its bank, it becomes distasteful sap in the trees. Similarly when the Vedas come from the mouths of these faithless people, the meaning becomes distasteful and gives results which are opposite to the normal results.” (Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura, Srimad-Bhagavatam Sarartha Darsini, 11.14.8p., as translated by Bhanu Swami)

With their +5000 posthumous changes to Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is alone it is strikingly strange how the BBT International do not seem to notice how they themselves function as a poisonous tree who transforms pure nectar into distasteful, poisonous sap.

In their own purport to the same verse BBT International writes:

“Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has given a most interesting example, as follows. The water of the Ganges is always pure and very sweet. On the banks of that great river, however, there are several types of poisonous trees whose roots drink up the Ganges water from the soil and use it to produce poisonous fruits. Similarly, those who are atheistic or demoniac utilize their association with Vedic knowledge to produce the poisonous fruits of atheistic or materialistic philosophy.”

poisonous-tree