“Brahman spoke through Krishna by entering into him like a ghost.” How do we respond to this idea?
How to deal with statements like ” Krishna did not spoke Bhagavad Gita , it was someone else ” ?
Now a days in many T.V shows and social media it is being said by scholar’s and guru’s that Krishna did not spoke Bhagavad Gita , it was someone else who spoke within him .
they say the original brahman who got inside Krishna like ghost and spoke through him .
These people are claiming that Krishna was not god , the spirit inside him was the real god, and the word ” God and Maam ( Me ) ” in bhagavad gita refers to this spirit .
(This answer is long because it analyzes key verses chapter-by-chapter from the first to the eighteenth chapter of the Gita. As this is a common doubt, i have answered at length so as to address it systematically based on the Gita itself)
Dear Keshav Pr., Hare Krishna
This is my favourite question and I cannot control myself from writing something here,
As far as I know, this philosophy of Kaal (Brahman) entering into Krishna like a ghost at the time of speaking Bhagavad gita is propagated by a so called spiritual leader Sant Rampal.
Some of his FUNNY arguments for supporting this philosophy are
1. Krishna was a peaceful person and never wanted war that’s why he ran away from the battle with jarasandha and kalayavana
2. Krishna had illegal relationship with gopis and he also satisfied Kubja whereas speaker of Gita is saying “Lust leads to hell”. how can krishna speak gita?
3. Krishna went for peace mission to kauravas
4. Speaker of gita says, “Oh Arjuna! I never showed Vishwarupa to anybody else before you.” but krishna showed Vishwarupa to kauravas when he went on peace mission.
5. Krishna forgot the knowldge of gita after the war that’s why he could not repeat bhavagad gita to Arjuna in Anugita Parva of mahabharata (this forgetfullness happens to anybody only if a ghost enters his body after the ghost goes out he does not remember what he did.)
Then how can such krishna give knowledge of Bhagavad gita in which he is forcing Arjuna to fight.
All the devotees in ISKCON will do nothing but laugh for a day or two on these foolish arguments.
Refutation (Main reference Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharata)
1. in 10th canto it is mentioned what krishna did with so many demons from childhood
and also specifically with jarasandha for 17 times. Then one can decide whether krishna is a peaceful person or he came for removing the burden from earth. (SB 10.50)
3. krishna always wanted Kurukshetra war to happen for this there are more than 100 evidences in mahabharata one of the evidence I am presenting here
http://vedabase.com/en/mbk/1/45 (search for ‘Know that war will certainly result.’)
4. Vishwarupa showed by Krishna in peace mission was different from that he showed on kurukshetra. Krishna is telling that (this particular) is not seen by anybody else other than Arjuna. In detail, if one reads mbh he can find out that the vishwarupa shown in peace mission did not have warriors entering the mouth of krishna which is mentioned in BG chapter 11.
5. Krishna completely repeated the knowldge of Gita to Uddhava this is mentioned in in SB 11th canto. (chapter 7 to 29)
Thank you for the comment. Several other people have tried to reduce Krishna to a poetic device for someone else – a sage, a ghost, a Brahman or whatever else.
All these points are addressed here:
Onkar prabhu I really appreciate your work. Can I get ur contact info?
A one line refutation is this:
बहूनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मां प्रपद्यते।
वासुदेवः सर्वमिति स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः॥
Having explained His glory, Sri Krishna says that only after several births, wise souls surrender unto Him in the wisdom that “VAsudeva” is everything. This makes it clear that Krishna is indeed referring to Himself. [7-19]
And of course, having seen Krishna’s vishwaroopa, Arjuna requests His pardon for calling Him hitherto as casual friend, equal, and commanding Him without knowing His Greatness!
So have compassion for those that think otherwise, for they have a long journey in becoming deserving students of the Gita.
there is a verse in kurma purana quoted in laghu bhagavatmrta 1.5.342 and the same verse is repeated in caitanya caritamrta antya lila 5.123 . it says
” deha-dehi-vibhāgo ‘yaḿ
neśvare vidyate kvacit ”
translation : There is no distinction between the body and the soul of the Supreme Personality of Godhead at any time .
so if someone says it is not krishna who spoke bhagavad gita and spirit entered into him .then this verse is a clear evidence to show that krishna’s body and soul is not different like us .so someone else cannot speak through krishna ,it’s krishna himself who spoke ,as his body is non different from soul
thus we can conclude people who are speaking such statements ,are bewildered by lord’s maya potency ,and that’s all .
This logic is the only support for those who are not vaishnavas .most of the people who have commented and preached on bhagavad gita have not been only vaishnavas, rather many philosophers coming from various background ,some of them were mayavadis and brahmavadis . for them often the concept of krishna as a personal god, is difficult to appreciate, for they just wonder , how the infinite ,limitless brahman can take a form of some limitedly perceived form of human being as krishna. They dont know that brahman and krishna exist simultaneously às two different aspects of absolute truth. Srila prabhupada have once claimed while talking to mayavadis , that bhagavad gita is open secret ,then why is there any need to unnecessarily intepret in ones own way. Nevertheless people do this without any authority. This concept is not new, it was also spoken by other philosophers in india in past like swami vivekananda and others .vivekananda once told in his discourse,
” Worship the self in krishna, don’t worship krishna as krishna ” ( complete works of swami vivekananda/ volume 7/inspired talks/ thursday july 18)
They say that everybeing is divine , you are god ,just awaken the divine consciousness . this kind of words are used by often mayavadis. Thus the only way , they could have teached bhagavad gita, yet refrain themselves from worshiping krishna as sole object , is to intepret bhagavad gita in a spirit of killing krishna from bhagavad gita by saying that brahman spoke through krishna .