Bhagavad gita questions

[Vrindavana Das]

Hi
Is the verse in question purport or commentary? I have never seen it before.

Hi,

The verse is not a part of Bhagavad Gītā. It is a scriptural teaching, most probably from the scripture - Mahābhārata.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

namaskaram vrindarvana das ,
truthfullnes is without doubt a divine quality , we should act in accordance with dharma at all times , ....and to lie inorder to deceive for any personal reason is adharmic , and of course bears a reaction .

Namaste Ratikalā,

Yes, I agree with what you have said above.

so had the hermit remained silent in order to save the merchant from harm then there would be no reaction , as his act is one of compassion in accordance with dharma .

Well, it is evident that the robber was a murderer also. Had the hermit remained silent, the robber would have sensed that the hermit is holding back information and could have killed him as, he does not seem to have any issues with killing.

this I fear is taking things a little to literaly ! to think that one were permitted to lie for profit simply because one is of merchant class would be gross foolihness ,

Then why does the judge not attract the same punishment for ordering a person to be hanged, which is awarded to a murderer? Why is not the soldier condemned to death for killing like a dacoit when both kill?

Similarly, Krishna says that He is the author of Varnāśrama Dharma, which divides the society according to the qualities of persons. What is allowed for one can be sinful for the other. Killing (hunting) for Kshatriya is allowed but is not allowed for a Vaishya. Performing vedic sacrifices are allowed for Brahman class, but is not allowed for a Shudra. Similarly, lying for profit is allowed for Vaiśya class, but is not allowed for Kshartiya and so on.

"he who is satisfied with gain which comes of its own accord who is free from duality and who does not envy , who is steady in sucess and failure , is never entangled , allthough he performs actions . B.G ch 4 ...v 22

Please note the use of "who is free from duality" in this very verse - gain and loss, good and bad, pious and impious etc., all are dual. How can Krishna ask one to be satisfied in gain and in the same breath also be free from gain (duality)?

We should understand that the gain that will come on it's own accord is spiritual gain. Gaining Love of Transcendental Lord. This is the gain that Krishna is mentioning as the first gain. The other gain that Krishna asks one to be free from, is material (duality of gain and loss).

here krsna explains that one does ones duty , satisfied with the gain that ones karma dictates , that one should not attatch to the outcome , thus one remains ballanced , equipoised ! one accepts what comes naturaly from honest endeavor .

Please refer to the above.

this way a ny one regardless of caste may act in a way which would please lord krsna whilst fullfiling the duty of their varna .

I am not clear what you are saying here. How can one be free from caste (varna) and at the same time fulfill the duty of their varna?

interestingly enough srila prabhupada here says .....
"there are so many abominable things; a kṣatriya has to be violent to kill his enemies, and sometimes a kṣatriya has to tell lies for the sake of diplomacy."

here he illustrates duty , the duty of a ksatria , which he does without attatchment therefore because he fullfills his dharma for the sake of krsna he is absolved of any reaction . this I agree with entirely .

That is correct.

however here srila prabhupada engages in a little theatre , "Oh, my dear customer, for you I am making no profit," , we all know that the indian merchants have a tendancy to exagerate some what , here prabhupada simply plays upon the indian character ,

When the teachings are to tell us that we are not Indian, American, Russian, Japanese. We are not even this body. We are pure spirit souls, which is part of Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa. Then how can you interpret it as "Indian merchants" etc.

when I first read srila prabhupada I took him litteraly and I did not realy like his purports , now reading them after many years of study , I read them a little less literaly and I find more benifit in them .

Not liking the purports, that is a personal opinion. I find complete sense in the purports, which again is my personal opinion.

the merchant in this case engages in banter , the theatre of street selling , he does not deceive , everyone knows that he will make some profit , prehaps not much , this might be an exageration but it is not truely a lie !

A lie is a lie. Is it not?

Here it is being demonstrated that some sinful acts are not qualify as 'sin' because sometimes it is necessary to engage in those 'sins' for conducting one's duty in pursuance of service to Supreme Lord.

I am not wishing to argue , simply to place things said in a fresh light for the sake of contemplation .

The feeling is mutual.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram,

Well, it is evident that the robber was a murderer also. Had the hermit remained silent, the robber would have sensed that the hermit is holding back information and could have killed him as, he does not seem to have any issues with killing.

we are only assuming that the hermit would sence that these people were not of good intention and without the text infront of us we also are assuming that we know the full writen version even then we may have different translations which may vary in their descriptions , however it hardly matters , we are discussing the principle of taking a reaction for ones actions .

here we are discussing the given account that the hermit took a reaction for his action of revealing the whereabouts of the merchant , as by revealing the wherabouts the robbers caused the merchants death , so the hermit was partialy responcable for thr death therefore had to share in the reaction .

the hermit had many choises ,
reveal the exact whereabouts , ...and endanger the merchant
to deny knowledge of the merchant ....and risk repercussions from the bandits
or to use his imagination and confuse the bandits sending them in the wrong direction .....which might give him time to warn the merchant of impending danger and himself take cover and hide from danger.

the whole purpouse of such accounts (whether we veiw them as fact or veiw them to be fable ?) ...... is to cause us to question the outcome of our actions , to concider all avenues and their consequences ,

let us concidder these three options ...

firstly as given the hermit gives the whereabouts which leads to the death of the merchant , in which case he is implicated in the death and must bear the concequences .

second he denies all knowledge in which case he him self risks attack , this he will veiw as his own karma and will bear it with grace,

thirdly he seeks to confuse the bandits , he prehaps pretends to be a little crazy or confused him self , he says Oh I am not quite sure , I do not remember clearly , .... he may even send them in the wrong direction whilst saying I think he went there , but do not trust my word I could be wrong . .......

in both second and third scenarios he seeks to protect the merchant from harm whilst placing himself in danger , however if he is truely wise he will put his trust in the lord as draupadi did when eforts were made to dissrobe her and cause her shame , in which case the lord confounds the misscreants and protects his devotee

Then why does the judge not attract the same punishment for ordering a person to be hanged, which is awarded to a murderer? Why is not the soldier condemned to death for killing like a dacoit when both kill?

the judge is administering the law which it is his dharma to do .

however where is it writen that a merchant must deceive ? that it is the duty of a merchant to deceive ?
it is the merchants varna to live by trade , however it is perfectly possible to live by trading fairly . and the just merchant will live with trust in the lord that by fair dealings he will be blessed by the lord with the ability to support his family without recourse to dubious practices :yes:

Similarly, Krishna says that He is the author of Varnāśrama Dharma, which divides the society according to the qualities of persons. What is allowed for one can be sinful for the other. Killing (hunting) for Kshatriya is allowed but is not allowed for a Vaishya. Performing vedic sacrifices are allowed for Brahman class, but is not allowed for a Shudra.

yes , with this I wholeheartedly agree .

Similarly, lying for profit is allowed for Vaiśya class, but is not allowed for Kshartiya and so on.

here I feel you take the words of srila prabhupadas purport a little too literaly .

imagine the shop of an honest merchant placed in a row of lieing deceitfull merchants , which one will gain popularity with the customers ?

the honest folk will appreciate the honesty of the fair merchant and he will attract honest and good customers , he will become popular and will serve both the comunity and his family well , he will thrive .

however his neighbouring shopkeepers who lie and cheat in order to make profit , who do not trust in the lord to provide and who think that they must live by their witts alone , they will gain only the customers who seek allso to deceive and to live by cheating , they will atract custoners who think that they will get a bargain even though they realise that the merchant is a cheat , in this case neither the merchant or the customer gain in the long run , these merchants businesses will not thive , so they will sink to more cheating and deception and their families will suffer .
I think the modern expression for this is short termism !

Please note the use of "who is free from duality" in this very verse - gain and loss, good and bad, pious and impious etc., all are dual. How can Krishna ask one to be satisfied in gain and in the same breath also be free from gain (duality)?

I am quoting you from bhagavad gita as it is , so let us examine ...

"he who is satisfied with gain which comes of its own accord who is free from duality and who does not envy , who is steady in sucess and failure , is never entangled , allthough he performs actions . B.G ch 4 ...v 22
.

"he who is satisfied with gain which comes of its own accord , he is the honest merchant who conducts his business with fairness respecting all others , he is happy with a fair profit which comes from fair exchange .who is free from duality , the fair merchant is a devotee of the lord , he realises the temporary nature of material existance and is free from illusion , he acts only in a way that will please the lord .
and who does not envy , he does not lust after more than his familys needs , and does not desire the profit of others , he is content with the fruits of his own honest labours ,who is steady in sucess and failure , he will accept what comes to him and remain equipoised trusting allways in the lord . is never entangled , allthough he performs actions .he conductshis daily activities by performing the actions of trade , yet as he is not attatched to the outcome , because he trusts in the lord , he is not entangled .therefore he will come to krsna through performing the designated dutys of his varna ,so he is free from duality because he is carying out his duty whilst situated in the lord .

We should understand that the gain that will come on it's own accord is spiritual gain. Gaining Love of Transcendental Lord. This is the gain that Krishna is mentioning as the first gain. The other gain that Krishna asks one to be free from, is material (duality of gain and loss).

yes , spiritual gain for the soul , whilst symultaniously sufficient material gain to provide for the material body , whilst we are embodied beings we need both , but we need not attatch unduely to material gain we trust that krsna will provide and we accept what comes , .... the duality here is of worldly concern as opposed to spiritual concern , the wise anomgst us realise that there is no duality , we perform our function for the sake of our spiritual advancement ,

Quote:
this way a ny one regardless of caste may act in a way which would please lord krsna whilst fullfiling the duty of their varna .
I am not clear what you are saying here. How can one be free from caste (varna) and at the same time fulfill the duty of their varna?

sorry , .... this way anyone regardless of his cast may act in a way which pleases the lord , .... meaning that what ever varna one is born into , one may conduct ones dutys in a humble and honest fasion dedicating the fruits of ones actions to the lord , the merchant may take that honest profit and provide for his family bringing them up to love and serve the lord in their every action . for a merchant to serve his customers in a just and dedicated way is to serve the lord with in all beings , to bring home a fair profit serves the family , which allso is service to the lord .

When the teachings are to tell us that we are not Indian, American, Russian, Japanese. We are not even this body. We are pure spirit souls, which is part of Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa. Then how can you interpret it as "Indian merchants" etc.

Ha ha .... only my humor seeing the nature of the indian merchants , and knowing that srila prabhupada would have observed this nature , seeing it all his life , and in my mind hearing him calling people rascals , the indian merchants are rather lovable rogues when it comes to business , I just invissage srila prabhupada seeing this

Not liking the purports, that is a personal opinion. I find complete sense in the purports, which again is my personal opinion.

I like them much better now , it took me some years to understand his way of relaying things , I found him very hard hitting at first , and rather american in his way of speach but it is like anything one grows accustomed to a persons speach in time and understands better what they strive to convey .

A lie is a lie. Is it not?

Here it is being demonstrated that some sinful acts are not qualify as 'sin' because sometimes it is necessary to engage in those 'sins' for conducting one's duty in pursuance of service to Supreme Lord.

for a merchant there are skillfull ways to conduct oneself without recorse to untruths , and there are ways to fullfill ones duty without compromising ones beleifs and principles .

fortunately I am not a ksatriya !

The feeling is mutual.

thankyou prabhu ji :namaste

 

[Vrindavana Das]

namaskaram,

we are only assuming...

...in both second and third scenarios he seeks to protect the merchant from harm whilst placing himself in danger , however if he is truely wise he will put his trust in the lord as draupadi did when eforts were made to dissrobe her and cause her shame , in which case the lord confounds the misscreants and protects his devotee

Sorry, but I fail to understand if, you are saying above that the hermit should have taken complete shelter of Supreme Lord, like Draupadi, then how is it different from what I am saying:

"However, on the spiritual platform of Dharma; truth or lie spoken in the service of the Supreme Lord is transcendental and has no reaction. No reaction because it is for the satisfaction of Lord."

3. Consciousness of hermit for satisfying the Supreme Lord: This is the highest cause. For this cause, had he mislead and lied, he would not suffer any reaction as, this is on the transcendental or spiritual platform - service to Supreme Lord.

That said, I think we are all individuals who react in different ways. We cannot tell someone how to react to a situation. I too can say if girls are truly wise, they would know they have nothing to fear from cockroaches. They should not react so wildly seeing a cockroach. Instead, should surrender to Supreme Lord like Draupadi. Does it work that way?!

People with different levels of consciousness will react differently. That is different from the scriptural teaching given in this verse. Let us not confuse the two and take the learning from this scriptural teaching.

the judge is administering the law which it is his dharma to do.

however where is it writen that a merchant must deceive ? that it is the duty of a merchant to deceive ?
it is the merchants varna to live by trade , however it is perfectly possible to live by trading fairly . and the just merchant will live with trust in the lord that by fair dealings he will be blessed by the lord with the ability to support his family without recourse to dubious practices :yes:

You agree then that same action can be right or wrong, depending upon the 'law'. It is only lawful or justified that a merchant should buy things at a price and sell them for a profit. If, to secure this profit, he tells the customer that he is not making any profit or whatever, then why do you see it as sin? Why are you equating it with deceiving?

yes , with this I wholeheartedly agree .

here I feel you take the words of srila prabhupadas purport a little too literaly

imagine the shop of an honest merchant placed in a row of lieing deceitfull merchants , which one will gain popularity with the customers ?

the honest folk will appreciate the honesty of the fair merchant and he will attract honest and good customers , he will become popular and will serve both the comunity and his family well , he will thrive .

however his neighbouring shopkeepers who lie and cheat in order to make profit , who do not trust in the lord to provide and who think that they must live by their witts alone , they will gain only the customers who seek allso to deceive and to live by cheating , they will atract custoners who think that they will get a bargain even though they realise that the merchant is a cheat , in this case neither the merchant or the customer gain in the long run , these merchants businesses will not thive , so they will sink to more cheating and deception and their families will suffer .
I think the modern expression for this is short termism !

You are taking a very vague example. Please define a honest merchant. Please define a deceitful merchant. What you understand from 'honest' and 'deceitful' does not have to be the same as what others understand.

Consider a merchant - A, who makes $500 profit and the other merchant - B, who also makes $500 profit on an article.

Merchant A tells you - Madam, I am making $ 500 profit on this article. I hope you understand that I need to pay my bills, children tution fee, insurance etc., which comes out of the profit I make.

Merchant B tells you - Madam, only because it is YOU, I have quoted my lowest price. I am hardly making any profit on this article. Your satisfaction is of utmost importance to us. I have especially shipped it from Germany and have paid a heavy import duty. It is latest technology and very much in demand. There is also a guarantee of 1 year on this article. If you have a problem, just give me a buzz. I will send my person over, and would have it replaced free of cost. Soon the prices are going to be revised upward. This is the last piece I have.

Both are making same profit. Would you buy from Merchant A (because he is honest) and call Merchant B as dishonest and deceitful?

Honestly, many people will buy from Merchant B because he makes them feel special, unlike Merchant A who, gives the feeling that we are paying for his family and bills.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I am quoting you from bhagavad gita as it is , so let us examine ...

"he who is satisfied with gain which comes of its own accord who is free from duality and who does not envy , who is steady in sucess and failure , is never entangled , allthough he performs actions . B.G ch 4 ...v 22

...yes , spiritual gain for the soul , whilst symultaniously sufficient material gain to provide for the material body , whilst we are embodied beings we need both , but we need not attatch unduely to material gain we trust that krsna will provide and we accept what comes , .... the duality here is of worldly concern as opposed to spiritual concern , the wise anomgst us realise that there is no duality , we perform our function for the sake of our spiritual advancement ,

Let us examine if we understand what the verse is saying...

Here is a commentary of the verse from Sri Vaisnava Sampradaya:

Ramanuja's Commentary

One who is tranquil and content with whatever spontaneously comes to one of its own accord to maintain one's existence is the being who has gone beyond the dualities of material existence. This means that such a being patiently endures pleasure and pain, acceptance and rejection, sadness and happiness and the rest of the opposites which inevitably all mortals must face until one attains the goal of their endeavours which is atma tattva or soul realisation. The word vimatsarah means free from malice. One who comprehends that only due to one's previous activities are present activities manifesting, such a one does not hold malice against others and blaming them others for any negative reactions one may experience. The compound words siddhau-asiddhau samah which means one who keeps their mind balanced and equipoised in success or failure while performing their duties. The essence of what Lord Krishna is saying is that if a person has this mentality while performing activities they will not be bound to samsara or the cycle of birth and death in material existence even though they are not fully following the path of jnana yoga or the cultivation of Vedic knowledge.

Brahma Vaisnava Sampradaya:

Madhvacarya's Commentary

The characteristics of one who has constrained their mind are being given by Lord Krishna, along with the method of transcending all dualities by being equipoised in all situations whether it is success or failure.

Rudra Vaisnava Sampradaya:

Sridhara Swami's Commentary

Completely content with what comes, unsought, by its own accord, patiently enduring all dualities such as success and failure, happiness and disappointment, free from elation and depression, not subject to jealousy and envy. Lord Krishna confirms that such a person is not bound to accept reactions even though performing actions, such actions being those actions exclusively that are prescribed in Vedic scriptures.

Kumara Vaisnava Sampradaya:

Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary

This verse gives the keys to being free from reactions which leads to bondage in the material existence. If one performs all activities in this manner they will neutralise reactions to bodily actions but will still remain bound if there is still any affection for previous actions that are presently being renounced. To this Lord Krishna emphasises being content with whatever comes, unsought, by its own accord. Being satisfied in one's mind with material things coming unexpected without the least desire or motivation for more and no effort to receive them. If one gets or does not get their mind remains equipoise in tranquility and never agitated by dualities such as success and failure, jubilation and sadness, triumph and disaster, elation and despondency, achievement and non-achievement. Such a spiritually enlightened being never performs an action that is devoid of a connection to the Supreme Being of all. Thus such a person situated in Vedic knowledge can never have a selfish motive or perform a selfish action; on the contrary even if such a person is requested to perform yagna or worship to the Supreme Lord on behalf of someone else and that person is blemished or tainted by material desires then even still one will not be affected by any reactions for performing such an activity to the Supreme Lord due to they are in knowledge.

Some explain in this verse that a yogi or one who developing their individual consciousness to be in communion with the ultimate consciousness after renouncing all desires and enjoyments, including even begging to sustain their physical sustenance should maintain themselves by accepting what comes unsought by its own accord and this insures that their actions become inaction and not subject to reactions. In the normal sense such a person appears to be begging to worldly people but in actual fact according to the injunctions of the Vedic scriptures this not the case and the actions of such a yogi are factually inaction. In this manner such a yogi performs activity for the maintenance of their body by only accepting what comes unsought by its own accord even though for society it appears as if one is begging. Also such a yogi incurs no negative results in the form of reactions by behaving so because all reactions leading to bondage are destroyed by the fire of knowledge. But this explanation does not fit in the context of this verse because of the flaw of being repetitive. This point was already established in the previous verse and actions like begging to maintain physical sustenance are factually no different from natural bodily management. So then the speaking of this verse would be superfluous and that is not the case. Also it is clear that if one takes this verse to refer to a yogi then there would be a contradiction in the succeeding two verses as well because in these verses the action of yagna or worship of the Supreme Lord is presented and a yogi is not entitled to perform any sacrificial rituals. Only the Vaisnavas and the Brahmins following the Vedic injunctions have the authority and are empowered to perform Vedic rituals. So it is not possible to properly explain the context of this verse in reference to a yogi because of impropriety and the correct understanding of this verse is in reference to a Vaisnava or Brahmin devotee of the Supreme Lord Krishna who is without desire and attachment and who is situated in atma tattva or soul realisation. This also applies to a Vaisnava or Brahmin devotee of any of Lord Krishna's authorised incarnations and expansions.

sorry , .... this way anyone regardless of his cast may act in a way which pleases the lord , .... meaning that what ever varna one is born into , one may conduct ones dutys in a humble and honest fasion dedicating the fruits of ones actions to the lord , the merchant may take that honest profit and provide for his family bringing them up to love and serve the lord in their every action . for a merchant to serve his customers in a just and dedicated way is to serve the lord with in all beings , to bring home a fair profit serves the family , which allso is service to the lord .

One is not born into a varna. Varna is decided by the quality of the individual. Also, please reflect on the example of Merchant A & B given above.

:namaste

 

[ratikala]

dear vrindavana das ,

no offence but this conversation could go on for a long time with you missing my point or going of at a tangent , so Ive got a better suggestion , after all it is saturday evening , ...

lets chant and be happy :jiggy::clap2::jiggy::clap2::jiggy:govinda bolo hari gopala bolo !

[youtube]WAN3KiSanZA[/youtube]
Hemant Chauhan - Govind Bolo Hari Gopal Bolo - YouTube

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

On the question of falsehood, i can only cite the most supreme authority on the matter.

Rigveda 10.161.3
- Your analysis of right and wrong should be unbiased and not specific to particular set of people
- You should organize together to help everyone enhance their health, knowledge and prosperity
- Your minds should be devoid of hatred and should see progress and happiness of all as one’s own progress and happiness and you should only act for enhancement of happiness of all based on truth
- Work together to eradicate falsehood and discover truth
- Never ever deviate from path of truth and unity

 

[Riverwolf]

On the question of falsehood, i can only cite the most supreme authority on the matter.

Rigveda 10.161.3
- Your analysis of right and wrong should be unbiased and not specific to particular set of people
- You should organize together to help everyone enhance their health, knowledge and prosperity
- Your minds should be devoid of hatred and should see progress and happiness of all as one’s own progress and happiness and you should only act for enhancement of happiness of all based on truth
- Work together to eradicate falsehood and discover truth
- Never ever deviate from path of truth and unity

With hundred-eyed oblation, hundred-autumned, bringing a hundred lives, have I restored him,
That Indra for a hundred years may lead him safe to the farther shore of all misfortune.
RV 10:161:3

...wait, what?

 

[Adi Baba]

Try the Avadhuta Gita it a fav of mine.

 

[Adi Baba]

That post was meant for a differ ant page

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

With hundred-eyed oblation, hundred-autumned, bringing a hundred lives, have I restored him,
That Indra for a hundred years may lead him safe to the farther shore of all misfortune.
RV 10:161:3

...wait, what?

Hahaha, i knew it....lol

dont want to get into that debate again.

What does that translation mean anyway, i dont know how this can be a "intellectual", translation if it makes no sense at all.

But anyway, keeping my mouth shut for now.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hahaha, i knew it....lol

dont want to get into that debate again.

What does that translation mean anyway, i dont know how this can be a "intellectual", translation if it makes no sense at all.

But anyway, keeping my mouth shut for now.

What do you mean, makes no sense? It makes perfect sense: a person restored ("rescued" in another translation) another person, and wishes that Indra lead the latter through a good life. Reading the rest of the hymn indicates that it's a medicine man praising/praying to Indra after saving someone from the brink of death.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

What do you mean, makes no sense? It makes perfect sense: a person restored ("rescued" in another translation) another person, and wishes that Indra lead the latter through a good life. Reading the rest of the hymn indicates that it's a medicine man praising/praying to Indra after saving someone from the brink of death.

Ok whatever tickles your fancy, what makes sense to you makes no sense to me, as I said don't want to get into that whole debate again. I have my Bhakti hat on these days.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok whatever tickles your fancy, what makes sense to you makes no sense to me, as I said don't want to get into that whole debate again. I have my Bhakti hat on these days.

I understand, and at this time, neither do I. (Certainly not here.)

I'm just confused as to why you're confused. That's all.

 

[makropo]

Dear Vrindavana Das, Onkara, and Ratikala,

On behalf of the university students in Thailand studying the Bhagavad Gita, I would like to thank you for the many fascinating posts following my query, posted on October 19th, about a passage in the children's Gita.

I have recorded all of them for inclusion in our course materials, so that future students may benefit from reading them, too.

Kind regards,

Makropo

 

[En'me]

I understand, and at this time, neither do I. (Certainly not here.)

I'm just confused as to why you're confused. That's all.

I think what Satyamavejayanti is trying to say is that it's difficult to understand Griffith's translation since it is oldage and poetic.

But yeah, these are the differences between the different translators of the Vedas, many of them biased, some intentionaly, some unintentionaly. Personaly, I don't trust Girrifth translations since he also translates certain passages, such as the Ashvamedha, that they contain incest and beastiality and such. And neither do I completely trust Arya Samay translations which I think is what Satyamavejayanti posted.

I'd really like to know which translations are most accurate. I don't think there are any actualy . But I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think what Satyamavejayanti is trying to say is that it's difficult to understand Griffith's translation since it is oldage and poetic.

True.

But yeah, these are the differences between the different translators of the Vedas, many of them biased, some intentionaly, some unintentionaly. Personaly, I don't trust Girrifth translations since he also translates certain passages, such as the Ashvamedha, that they contain incest and beastiality and such. And neither do I completely trust Arya Samay translations which I think is what Satyamavejayanti posted.

I'd really like to know which translations are most accurate. I don't think there are any actualy . But I hope I'm wrong.

Well, Vedic Sanskrit is almost certainly the oldest known language that didn't need to be reconstructed (correct me if I'm wrong), and translating such antiquity (especially when we don't have any other examples of it outside the highly poetic Rig Veda, AFAIK) accurately into a modern language like English, which, from what I understand, bears little grammatical resemblance to Sanskrit, is pretty much impossible.

I think the best method would be to present the verse in the original Sanskrit, and below that, various possible translations of the individual words and conjugations, along with examples of what the verse might translate into when combined with the various possibilities.