Gopāl Tāpanī Upaniṣad - two English renderings.
Mahānidhi Swāmī and Tripurāri Swāmī - both published in 2004
Gopāl Tāpanī Upaniṣad is an important text since it is Śruti-śāstra, which is higher evidence than Smṛti (Purāṇas), and nicely confirms Kṛṣṇa's Vraja-pastimes.
Mahānidhi Swāmī's has some of the worst lay-outing and editing I have ever seen - texts missing italics or bold settings, and many typos. Tripurāri's version has basically his own comment, derived partially from the previous ācāryas, Prabodhānanda, Jīva Goswāmī, Viśvanātha, with Tripurāri Swami's own added comments. Mahānidhi's version has only Viśvanātha's tika. The verse-numberings of both editions is quite different somehow. In his comments Tripurāri occasionally panders to the mundane intellectuals, which disturbs the devotional flow of the book, but it is not per se uninteresting or unacceptable.
Tripurāri's explanation of svārasikī is quite different from what the bābājīs teach - he says mantramayī is f.i. attending ārati, while the bābājīs say it is mantra smaraṇa, while svārasikī is progressively, timely līlā smaraṇam. On page 29 Tripurāri claims that vaidhi bhakti is prompted by the intellect and rāgānugā by emotions, but isn't bhakti of any kind an emotional practise? Jīva and Viśvanātha comment on verse 66/67 that the Śrīvatsa mark is a bunch of hair shaped like the moon, and Prabodhānanda likens it to the collective status of the jīvas, that become differentiated when they emerge from Mahāviṣṇu.
On page 30 Tripurāri claims that, unlike in rāgānugā bhakti, in vaidhi bhakti one aspires for devotional liberation, but there are many verses in the Bhāgavat's vaidhi-cantos that reject liberation too. Verses like gopālo'ham ("I am Gopāl") to be said by the sādhaka, not Gopāla, are typical for largely non-dualistic śāstras like the Upaniṣads, but are not properly translated by Bhūmipati (Mahānidhi's translator). They are by Tripurāri, though. Tripurāri says that the middle of the book (p. 138), where his non-dualist statement is made, cannot be different from the beginning and end (which had dualistic statements), but that need not be - Jīva Goswāmī teaches acintya bhedābheda, inconceivable oneness and distinction, unfavorable as the non-dual may be for bhakti. It is not clear from the English purport if this is Tripurāri's own writing or that of the previous ācāryas.
Of the two editions Tripurāri's is better, both in material quality as well as in spiritual quantity and quality.
Mahānidhi Swāmī's has some of the worst lay-outing and editing I have ever seen - texts missing italics or bold settings, and many typos. Tripurāri's version has basically his own comment, derived partially from the previous ācāryas, Prabodhānanda, Jīva Goswāmī, Viśvanātha, with Tripurāri Swami's own added comments. Mahānidhi's version has only Viśvanātha's tika. The verse-numberings of both editions is quite different somehow. In his comments Tripurāri occasionally panders to the mundane intellectuals, which disturbs the devotional flow of the book, but it is not per se uninteresting or unacceptable.
Tripurāri's explanation of svārasikī is quite different from what the bābājīs teach - he says mantramayī is f.i. attending ārati, while the bābājīs say it is mantra smaraṇa, while svārasikī is progressively, timely līlā smaraṇam. On page 29 Tripurāri claims that vaidhi bhakti is prompted by the intellect and rāgānugā by emotions, but isn't bhakti of any kind an emotional practise? Jīva and Viśvanātha comment on verse 66/67 that the Śrīvatsa mark is a bunch of hair shaped like the moon, and Prabodhānanda likens it to the collective status of the jīvas, that become differentiated when they emerge from Mahāviṣṇu.
On page 30 Tripurāri claims that, unlike in rāgānugā bhakti, in vaidhi bhakti one aspires for devotional liberation, but there are many verses in the Bhāgavat's vaidhi-cantos that reject liberation too. Verses like gopālo'ham ("I am Gopāl") to be said by the sādhaka, not Gopāla, are typical for largely non-dualistic śāstras like the Upaniṣads, but are not properly translated by Bhūmipati (Mahānidhi's translator). They are by Tripurāri, though. Tripurāri says that the middle of the book (p. 138), where his non-dualist statement is made, cannot be different from the beginning and end (which had dualistic statements), but that need not be - Jīva Goswāmī teaches acintya bhedābheda, inconceivable oneness and distinction, unfavorable as the non-dual may be for bhakti. It is not clear from the English purport if this is Tripurāri's own writing or that of the previous ācāryas.
Of the two editions Tripurāri's is better, both in material quality as well as in spiritual quantity and quality.
