Different approaches to Gita study: historical, literary, philosophical, revelational, descriptive, prescriptive
Are there any questions? So, I'll speak on the topic of, metaphorical usages in the Bhagavad Gita. Now, the Bhagavad Gita, is, we consider a revelation.
And this revelation means, it's a word of God. But it's also, a work of literature. And every book is a work of literature, to some extent.
So the Bhagavad Gita is studied in different ways. It can be studied as a literary work. When we study a literary work, we'll look at, the kind of Sanskrit that is used, what are the similes, metaphors, analogies, what quality of poetry is it.
So, we can look at all those things. So, now, if otherwise, we can study the Bhagavad Gita, as a historical book. That means, we try to see, what we can learn, about the times, when the Bhagavad Gita was spoken.
What were the values at that time? What were the kind of, social systems, political structures, cultural dreams. All these, we can study the Bhagavad Gita, as a historical book. So, we can also study, the Bhagavad Gita, as a philosophical book.
We may say that, are all these different? See, each of these, are like in themselves, areas of studies. Each branch of knowledge, you could consider like a flashlight. The flashlight focusses, on the same object, from different directions.
So for example, is the Bhagavad Gita, a philosophical book? Yes it is. But when we study it, primarily as a philosophical book, then we try to find out, why are we studying, the Bhagavad Gita? How does it answer, philosophical questions? Philosophy, is itself a branch of knowledge, which, tries to find out, answers to life's, fundamental questions. So for example, who am I? What is the purpose of life? Or in philosophy of religion, the biggest question is, if God is good, why is there evil in this world? If God is omnipotent, does that mean, that he can do everything, and everything? So, if God can do everything, then can he make, 3 plus 5 into 10, is equal to 10? So, there are many different kinds of questions, coming to philosophy.
So if I study the book, as a history, then I try to find out, what was happening, at that time? So each of these approaches, can give us a different, way of understanding. So I thought about, as a work of literature, as a work of poetry, as a work of history, as a work of philosophy. Then also, we could study it, as a work of theology.
Now, fundamental difference between, philosophy and theology is, philosophy is generic, about questions of life. Theology, is more centred on God. And often, in terms of, academic definitions, we say philosophy, is centred more on logic.
We try to get, logical answers, where theology, is more centred on, revelation. Because ultimately, how much can you know, about God through logic? We can, say for example, conclude that, God exists, through some logical inferences. But, there is no logical inference, by which you can conclude, that God is a, blueish black, cowherd boy, wearing a peacock feather, and playing the flute.
Standing at the, three-four by three-four, you ask, why, why, why? What is the logic for this? So, theology, often has to be, revelation centred. And, significant amount of revelation, has to be there. So, then we could see, what is the Gita's, conception of God? So now, if I were to look at, say, the Gita as a book of, philosophy.
Then I would read the full Gita, but then I would look at, which are the verses, which deal with, philosophical questions. So for example, if I were to say, the problem of evil. God is good, why is there evil in this world? Is God responsible, for the evil? Then we could say, we can look at, 9.9 and 10.
Krishna says, maya dhyakshina prakruti. But then he also says, manthani karmani, nivartani nivartani. He says, the world is, under my control, but, I am not responsible for this.
Or we have, 5.14, 4.15, na ratte, kasati, papam, which I must have to come to. So, I will not accept, the good and bad results, of the works of the living entities. So these are, the verses, we would focus on, if we approach, the Gita, as a, work of philosophy.
If we approach, the Gita, as a book of theology, then we may focus on, maya dhyakshina prakruti, or no, mattaha parathartha, and then, kirchi vasthi, 7.7. Or we focus on, aham sarva, sri prabho, mattaha sarva, 10.10, 10.8, like that. Now, beyond all, now these are not, wrong categories. Now some people, may have tried to approach, the Bhagavad Gita, as a work of science.
And if I want to, approach it, as a work of science, science has various branches. So which branch of science, would I, go into the Bhagavad Gita? If I wanted to, I would approach it, to cosmology. Right? So what is the cosmos? What is the Gita's, understanding of the cosmos? What is the Gita's, understanding of, the nature of matter? Then we would focus on, say, bhumeda, purnalava, yukhamana, veda, yajna, and try to see, what are the other things, that the Gita, does in the whole matter.
So, in this way, the Gita, can be approached, in different ways. Now when it is approached, as we do in the tradition, we approach it primarily, as a work of tradition. That means, it's God's word, speaking to us.
Now, if it's God's word, God speaking his words, to us, then that acquires, a trans-distorted, kind of, The Gita, is a historical book, in the sense that, it was spoken, at a particular moment, in history. There are two words, historic, and historical. And the two are, different meanings.
Historic means, something, which is very special, in history. Say, in Calcutta, you would hold, the 50th of January. And that would be, historic meaning, something, which makes history.
Historical, means, not that, historic means, something that is, outstanding in history. Something that stands out, in history. Historical means, something, that has happened in history.
So, historical, is contrasted with, mythological. The Bhagavad Gita is, historical, and historic. It actually happened, in history.
And it is a, history-defining event. When God spoke, his words, on that very day. There is no other book, in the world, words, theological, or philosophical literature, that is so, dramatic, assetting.
You know. Nowhere, has God's speaker, spoken. Wherever, Ancharavada traditions claim, that their works, are revelations of God.
Nowhere, has God spoken, such profound philosophy, at such a, dramatic juncture, in any seeker's life. So, each of these approaches, can illuminate the Bhagavad Gita, in different ways. But, when we focus on, the Bhagavad Gita, as a work of revelation, then, we focus, primarily, on its, trans-historical importance.
Trans-historical importance, that, we focus on, what is the Bhagavad Gita's, central, eternal message. That means, that, the Bhagavad Gita, will have certain statements, which are made, according to, that particular context, at that particular time. So, for example, Arjuna, is a fighter.
Now, that is a, contextual message. That, fighting, if you go to the Gita, that is not a, very much, repeated in the Gita, per se. So, the universal message, of the Gita, is, not about, violence, or non-violence.
You see, the Gita is not a book, of violence, or non-violence. It is a book, of transcendence. A book, of transcendence.
And, in that particular situation, for Arjuna, the path to transcendence, was through violence. But, that is not, the standard, in Arjuna. For different situations, the path, to transcendence, will be different.
And, primarily the path, to transcendence, is through, cultivation of devotion. So, in that way, we can study, the Bhagavad Gita, as a, trans-historical book. When we study, as a trans-historical book, that means, we acknowledge, that this book, had a particular, time in history, but, its essential message, transcends, its context.
And, it applies, at all times. So, for example, now we are trying, to revive Varanasi. Now, exactly, how Varanasi, is going to be revived, or whether, it is going to be revived, or not.
We don't know, that Prabhupada himself, in the 1970s, in all his talks, he was saying that, the Varanasi, must become corrupted, as a caste system, and, it is no longer, possible to, implement it. Therefore, we say, it is practise, and, we can transcend it. But, by the 70s, as the euphoria, of the initial days, started dying down, and, Sannyasis, started having problems, Brahmins started, ending in divorces.
Then, Prabhupada, slowly, evolved his position. And, Prabhupada said that, this Krishna Consciousness, path of transcendence, but, we will need a supportive social system, for that. And, as a supportive social system, he recommended Varanasi.
Now, he, did not give any specific, euphoria, about how to do it. He just talked about, the end to be achieved. So, anyway, the point is, that, the Bhagavad Gita's teachings, were spoken, in a Varanasi context.
But, is Varanasi, absolutely, essential for practising, the Bhagavad Gita? No, if I understand, I am not the body understood, and, I try to be the body in that. I can live that, outside, its, cultural context also. Now, the Bhagavad Gita's, cultural context, may help, in practise.
But, it is not, absolutely, essential. So, when we study, the trans-historical book, we focus, on, the essential, principles, formula. We don't, go into the, various, historical, literary, sociological, that kind of, details.
Now, we look at, briefly, what were the, different approaches, in our tradition, to the study, of the Bhagavad Gita. So, the oldest, extreme commentary, that is there, in the Gita writing, prominent commentary, is by, by, Shankaracharya. So, he, of course, interpreted the Gita, according to his, philosophy, that is, as, Advaita Vedanta.
Now, before that also, there are other commentators, and he refers to, previous commentators, of the Gita also. But, they have, they are not, so prominent. Because, there is a, Shaivite commentator, Abhinav Gupta, he, that is, one of the, greatest, intellectual, prestidigitations, in Indian history.
Now, prestidigitation means, prestidigitation, it is, how to compute it, basically, what it means, it means, deception through, word jugglery, and intellectual juggling. So, Abhinav Gupta, wrote a full commentary, on the Bhagavad Gita, by which, he tried to conclude, that Shiva is the, Supreme Personality of God. Now, he is a very great, Kashmir Shaivite, and a, big scholar.
He also wrote, quite a bit on, Rasa Shastra, and Rupa Goswami, draws from his writings, while writing Rupa Goswami, writing Patrisam Sundar, Vijayudin Mahi. But, the point is, here, in the Bhagavad Gita, actually, the word Shiva, doesn't even come once, in the Bhagavad Gita. The only expression, reference to Lord Shiva, is, Rudranam Shakarachasmi, in the, Vibhuti Veda chapter.
That's once, and again, in the 11th chapter, Rudra Vidya Vasa Veda Sadhya, Vishveshina, one of the, Chosha pastimes, Vendar Vyakshasana, Siddha Sangha, Vikshante Dvam, Siddha Ashtayeva Sangha. And, that one, is quite different, because, there is no Rupa Goswami, who talks about it. So, there are actually, only two, three references to Shiva.
But, somehow, he tries to, screw everything, and, he tries to explain that, Shiva is the Supreme Personality of God. So, basically, how it works is, that, every, philosopher, in Indian history, tries to gain, intellectual respectability, for, his doctrine, by trying to show, how it is based on, the Vedas. So, in Indian history, one way or the other, there have been basically, nine systems of philosophy, that have been, majorly evolved.
There are six, traditional systems of philosophy. They are called as, Astik. And, there are three, which are not.
And, there are six, Astik philosophies. Yeah. So, there is, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vedanta, is the last one.
We will go, one by one. From the beginning, we have, if you want to understand philosophy, you can just go straight away. You can look at matter, and try to see, what it is made of.
That, analysis of matter, and its components, is called as, Samkhya. So, in western philosophy, there have been, two broad theories of matter. One is, the elemental theory of the matter, and the other is, the atomic theory of matter.
Elemental theory means, they divide nature, into elements. So, that was present, in Greek also. So, the elemental theory of matter, is called as, Samkhya.
Now, we have elements, in physics. But, they are quite different. Because, those elements, get further developed, by dividing into, basically, symmetrical molecules.
So, atoms actually. So, one is the elemental theory of matter, and the other is the, atomic theory of matter. That is also present, and that is called as, Mimamsa.
So, we divide, no sorry, that is called, Vaisheshika. See, so, I look at matter, and the things that I see, I try to divide them, into fundamental elements. So, that is the, Samkhya.
I try to divide it, into fundamental particles. That is called, Vaisheshika. Now, after I have divided things, into matter, then, I want to, attain, some, higher state, of knowledge.
So, for that, there is practise, and that is, Yoga. So, Yoga, we now use the word, Yoga, in a generic sense, to refer to connection. But, Yoga is also, one of the, six integral philosophies.
And, in fact, in, Balbaldev, Vyabhushan, and Govindabhashya, actually, it takes each of these philosophies, and refutes each of these philosophies. It proves how Samkhya is wrong. It proves how Yoga is wrong.
It proves how Vaisheshika is wrong. Why? Because, originally, these six integral philosophies, were progressive. That means, I look at matter, analyse it into elements.
I look at matter, analyse it into, atoms. Then, after that, I try to practise, some rules and rituals, by which I can, attain a better state of matter. That is, Karamangalam.
Karamangalam says, basically, Karamangalam. So, in that, I try to process matter, by which I can attain a, higher state of existence, material. Now, after doing all this, I understand that, actually, higher material existence, is not of much use.
Therefore, I try to understand, what is spirit, and I try to connect with that spirit. So, that is, Yoga. So, Yoga involves, there is a, physical side, and a metaphysical side, to Yoga.
Physical side is, all the asanas, pranayamas. The metaphysical side is, trying to connect, to the highest, spiritual reality, whatever it is. Now, Patanjali's Yoga Sutra, in and of itself, does not talk much about, what the higher reality is.
Ishvara, Duryodhana exists. You have to, surrender to Ishvara. Who is that Ishvara? Patanjali was a very, small, just a few hundred sutras.
So, they assume that, there is already no Ishvara. And, different schools of thought, bring their own concepts, to Ishvara. Now, to, do all this analysis, you require logic.
So, Nyaya, is about logic. And, the culmination of all these, schools of thought, is Vedanta. Now, Vedanta, is what Vedanta Sutra, establishes the, ultimate truth.
So, now try to understand, the difference between, something here. See, there is a literature, and there is a philosophy. They are two different books.
So, when we say, Vedic Philosophies, or six Vedic, we have six Vedic Philosophies. So, now there are Vedas. There are four Vedas.
Veda Samudra Dharma. They have their sections, as the Brahmanas, Vrindikas, Upanishadas, Samhitas. Samhitas are the most fundamental.
So, now, what are people trying to do, in this system of philosophy? These books, the Vedas, have somehow, gained authority, in the Indian cultural context. So, if I want to prove my philosophy, what do I mean by philosophy? Philosophy means, it is, a, evolved system of thought, which answers, life's fundamental questions. So, so, every school has its own philosophy.
Now, they try to prove, how their philosophy, is based on the Vedas, or its conclusion of the Vedas. So, for all these systems of philosophy, they accept the Vedas as authority. But then, they select certain verses, from the Vedas, as important.
And they reject, other verses, as unimportant. Like, we have in 2.42, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, at the Mimamsakas, what do they do? या विमां पुष्पिता वाचन् त्रवधन्त्यविपश्चिता वेदवाद तः पार्थ नान्यः अस्तितिवादिया So, what they do? They say, those verses in the Vedas, which talk about heaven and hell, they are the most important. Other things, don't matter.
And Krishna says, these are all our philosophy. So, these six systems of philosophy, have developed, because, people, tried to, take the Vedas, and show how their, own schools of thought, are based on the Vedas. Now, as I said, originally, these six systems of philosophy, were based on the Vedas.
That means, I move, I look at matter, analyse matter into its components, and I understand. Either I look at it, elementally, or I look at it, atomically. There is nothing attractive about matter.
You know, if I see a beautiful person, that person will look attractive, but if I think of it, as made up of, that person is made up of, fire, rain, nothing very attractive about those things. Or even, if I think of that person, as made of atoms, that is also very attractive. So, basically, all these philosophies, they, deconstruct matter, to, deprive it, of its elements.
Deconstruct means, to bring together. Deconstruct means, to break apart. So, deconstruction is not only philosophical, physical, it can also be philosophical.
So, they deconstruct matter, so that it becomes free from the lure of matter. And then, we try to go beyond matter, either through, higher level of matter, through Mimamsa, beyond matter, through Yoga, and ultimately, we come to Vedas. These are six systems of philosophy.
Now, originally, they are like six departments, in the same university. Progressive department, which ultimately, take you to, Veda Vishwa Sarvai, Ambedkar, Krishna. But, every school of thought, tries to, establish, its own authority.
So, eventually, what were progressive schools of thought, became, competitive schools of thought. So, teacher of six, became, its own philosophy, instead of, competing with other philosophies. So, the founders, of these six, systems of philosophy, they were, original, they were, great sages.
But, they were, influenced by, the Lord's Maya, and that's why, they tried to prove, their own philosophy, as supreme. So, their philosophies, are, proclamations towards, the ultimate Vedantic truth. But, they are, they have now, become contradictory.
So, why am I talking about, all this? We are not trying to, how the Bhagavad Gita, is situated, in the Indian, philosophical context. So, now, the Bhagavad Gita, refers to, all these, systems of philosophy. Now, there are a couple of verses, which talk about, karma mamams.
It reflects karma mamams, like I said, it's the, herbal question. So, now, the analysis of, things into, its elements, is Samkhya. So, how the, I am trying to explain, how the Bhagavad Gita, is related to the Vedas.
So, from the Vedas, from the Vedic literature, if the Vedic literature, are at this level, from the Vedic literature, came, the six systems of philosophy. They are at this level. From this, six systems of philosophy, different, schools of, different ideas, they have done.
And the Bhagavad Gita, is drawing, from these, six systems of philosophy, which, are drawing, from the Vedas. But, what has happened, as we begin, the six systems of philosophy, they, often became, on rent. So, the Bhagavad Gita, is, a work of, synthesis.
At one level, we understand, it's a work of God. But, God, Krishna himself, is not just, instructing Arjuna, he is, within that instruction, synthesising, the various, strands of thought, which have become, disjointed, he is, integrating that, into a magnificent, text. So, which, gives a holistic, vision of reality.
So, how does, Krishna do this? So, now, we can't go there, into technical, to explain how, various schools of thought, I'll just give a couple of examples. How there are references to, Sankhya, there are references to, Mahamsa, and, there are references to, similarly, other schools of thought, also. So, we start off, with Yoga, of course, in the, sixth chapter.
But then, Krishna, shows how, all these, schools of thought, culminate, in him, as the, Highest Reality. Now, for example, if we talk about, Karma Mahamsa, which is in, first he talks about, 2.42, 42, then again he talks about, 9.20, 21. Then he talks about, Krishna, Mahamsa, Mukta, Bapa, how they go to heaven, they call that, and the significant point, in this is, Krishna says that, they are worshipping, you only.
So, Trai Vidyama, Somapara, Mukta, Bapa, Yagya, Ishwara, Svargati, Prarthana. So, they are doing, Yagya, and they are worshipping, me. But, they desire, him.
And they do not know, I am Supreme. So, Krishna talks about, they do not know, he is Supreme. 9.24, Aami Sarva Yagyaana, Bhokta, Jagra, Bhav Doleva Chakras, Nandu Maha Bijanati, Draina, Vishwamitri.
They call that. Now, before this, I will now, stick the detour, to current understanding of Yagya, to see how, things are confused, and how Prabhupada tried to resolve this. So, this 9.23, there is interesting words, anyone know those 9.23? Ete ante devata vata, jante shraddha yantra, ve ki mahaar meva kaunteya, jante Aavidhi purnu vata, So there is a prominent site of Hinduism which has a translation of the Gita and it is a translation of this verse as, those who worship the gods also worship me.
That's all. Abhidheekovakam is not there only. So, then I wrote to the editor of this site and I asked him, see it's such a flagrant violation of the spirit of the Gita.
That, he said, clearly Vishnu is saying Abhidheekovakam. So how can you remove Abhidheekovakam from there? So now, he is a Hinduism scholar in his own right. He is prepared to provide me.
He said that, you know, what the meaning of the Gita is very complex. And we are not interested in the original meaning of the Gita because it's impossible. We want to know the meaning of the Gita as it is understood by those who want to live a godly life.
Therefore, we have taken 25 prominent spiritual teachers whose commentaries on the Gita are spent. And we have studied those Gitas and based on that we have taken the translations. You know according to your response translation you take, you put Abhidheekovakam permanently.
But most other Gita commentators do not. Therefore, we are simply interested in understanding the Bhagavad Gita as it is understood. As it is understood.
So basically, there are two approaches to Gita study or to the Gita which are conflicting. There is a prescriptive approach and there is a descriptive approach. Prescriptive approach means this is the way it is and this is the way it is to be done.
Descriptive approach means this is the way it is being done. So, the approach he has chosen to study the Gita is what? The descriptive approach. The descriptive approach comes from that notion and that actually either the Gita has no original meaning or the Gita's original meaning is unknowable to us.
So, now the problem is that we may say all these people are geniuses. But these are the people who are the opinion leaders about Hinduism today. And yes, we have our own commentary.
But the mainstream Hinduism's criticism of Bhagavad Gita as it is is that, primarily there are many criticisms. One of them is that actually you just, you have not promoted the Bhagavad Gita as it is on its merit. You have promoted the Bhagavad Gita as it is on its, on your organisational strength.
They say keep Bhagavad Gita as it is only in the bookstores. And let's compare how many copies of that Gita gets sold as compared to the other Gita scholars' commentaries. And according to their argument, the other Gita scholars' commentaries would get sold much much more.
Therefore, they say we cannot give, although this may be the argument which I made to them is that this is the most widely distributed Gita. So, their argument was, is it distribution because of the merit of the book or is it because of your own aggressive distribution of the book. According to them, their logic was that if we had distributed the same amount of energy and input in distributing some other book as well, then that Gita would have been distributed much more.
So, the extent of distribution of the Gita according to them is not a reflection of the merit of the book. Now, which is not a reflection? From their point of view, see, we have to, when we are analysing, when we are trying to communicate at one level, in one kind of dialogue, these people are all speculators, deviants, demons, nonsense, this, this, that, that, that. We can speak over that.
But then, you know, name calling is the end of all rationalisation. We call them speculators and deviants. They call them the dogmatics and fanatics.
And there is no possibility of dialogue. So, the point here is, if we try to understand from their perspective, most of these people, for them, Bhagavad Gita is just a, as I said, they are not really approaching it as a revealed literature. They are just approaching it as a book which has somehow gained a large importance for a large group of people.
So, let us see what they find important in that. So, that's why they are adopting the descriptive approach rather than the descriptive approach. So, now, what is happening? That, I was talking about how the Bhagavad Gita shows this existence of philosophy in their devotional conclusion.
That means, what it does is, it talks about karmamamsa in 9.20, 21. But then it shows that even those who attain heavens, they will fall down. So, just like there is a Vedanta Sutra, there is a Mimamsa Sutra.
And the Vedanta Sutra begins with Athato Brahmachityasara. So, the Mimamsa Sutra begins with Athato Dharmachityasara. What is dharma? Now, there are many sutras.
There is Chandekya has written a Bhakti Sutra. There are many Bhakti Sutras. Now, the Bhakti Sutra is not Brahmacharya.
A much more famous Bhakti Sutra is Chandekya Bhakti Sutra. Chandekya Bhakti Sutra starts with Athato Bhaktichityasara. So, like that, they all have their subjects.
And they try to analyse what is the subject. So, now, according to Mimamsa, they just want to find out what is dharma. And their idea of dharma is the Karmakandha understanding of what is dharma.
So, anyway, the point which I am making over here is, Krishna says, those who follow the Karmakandha understanding of dharma, they go to heavens. And then they fall back again. They fall back again.
Whereas, my devotees, Ananya Vishnu, 9.22 centuries, they attain heaven. So, now, what we need to do is, I talked with 2-3 of our prominent Gita scholars in our interaction with their website. Varun Prabhu has written a very nice book on the Gita, The Beloved Lord's Secret Love Song.
One of the best books on the Gita. And it has become very widely respected also. And he has given a talk to all of them about emotional understanding of the Gita.
So, what we need to change the mainstream understanding of the Gita is not just the description of the Gita. That is a little required. But along with that, we need more and more Gitas that cue the devotional input of people.
And then, if these authors also… Inside ISKCON, Prabhupada is the founder, Acharya. But outside ISKCON, Prabhupada is just one of the many teachers of Hinduism. So, if you want to change the mainstream understanding of Hinduism, just promoting one Gita will not be acceptable.
So, among these 25 prominent scholars on the Gita, now we have got 3 scholars who are from ISKCON. So, just 5-6 years ago, when I first started together, there was only one scholar. So, after that we included.
We got Graham, Shri Varun Prabhu included. Then Dikha Matra, another devotee, Ishwar Krishna Prabhu, who has written a very good book on the Gita. He was also included.
Now, their Gitas are not very widely distributed. Because they are not for academic purposes. But they have been quite appreciated in intellectual circles.
So, basically, we will have to use multiple approaches to change the understanding of the Gita in the outside world. Like earlier, I was telling you. Our goal is not just to make outsiders and insiders.
Yes, we would like people to become devotees. But even people who don't become devotees, their understanding of the concept should change. They should get a better understanding of the Gita.
So, for that, there is a different kind of outreach that is required. Now, coming to our main point. I was basically, I was planning to talk about Metaphorical Usage of the Bhagavad Gita.
But to set a background for that, I was planning, why I went into the subject is, I was trying to say how the Bhagavad Gita may approach the work of literature. And they approach the work of literature, then we can look at the Metaphorical Usage. But when I was going through that, I started talking about the different approaches and I elaborated on that.
So, I will conclude this with one last point. That when we approach the Gita, we approach it in a trans-historical sense. Trans-historical sense means, at one level, at a cultural level, we do try to implement or replicate the culture as it was at that time.
But that is not mandatory. What is essential is, we understand the essential principles and apply those essential principles. So, for example, Sri Ramappa was quite flexible about some things.
He, for example, used English language primarily for his outreach. Actually, when the Christian missionary started preaching in India, there was a big mismatch. In the sense that, a traditional Brahmin scholar said that there is no need for having a discussion of Tattvai.
And then, they said we will write books only in English, only Sanskrit. And British only Sanskrit. And what happened? The whole Bengali Intelligentsia that was there, from around the 18th and 19th century, there was what is called as the Bengali magazine that happened.
And all these famous spiritual teachers from Ram Mohan Roy down to Pankaj Indrajit and all of them, they came at that time. And they formulated Hinduism and they made the foundation for Indian nationalism. Now, all of them were educated in the Western education system.
But they were all trying to reinvent Hinduism in a way that would sustain the critique of modernity and Christianity. Modernity offered a scientific critique of Hinduism. Christianity offered an inter-religious critique of Hinduism.
And they wanted to sustain that, defend against that. The traditional scholars, they did all this in the Vedic language, they were not even bothered about it. But then what happened by that was, this has been often a fundamental problem of Hinduism.
In Buddhism and Jainism, they both propagated in the Pali and Brahmin, Brahmin has said this is a lower caste, we will not bother about it. And in Marxism, actually from the Buddhism up to the 5th century until Shankara came in the 6th century AD, that means 1100 years later, Buddhism had, at one time Buddhism ruled 85% of India. 85%.
That means the kings in 85% of the country had all become Buddhists. So it was huge. Buddhism, Jains, they had 85%.
That figure of course is open to debate. As everything is still open to debate. But there is no doubt that there is a large number of people who One of the reasons was, the traditional scholars, they didn't bother about it.
In the Pali and Brahmin, nothing worthwhile can come about it. And then eventually Buddhism became so powerful that from the 1st century to 5th century BC, at AD, the Buddhists wrote more books in Sanskrit than what Hindus had written in the previous 1000 years combined together. And that's why Sanskrit has a dubious distinction that among all the classical languages, like Greek, Roman and whichever languages there, Sanskrit has the maximum books of atheism than in any other language.
We think of Sanskrit as a very sacred language. But when it is a language of intellectual discourse, and Buddhism and Jainism are basically atheistic doctrines, then they wrote atheistic books in Sanskrit. So basically what happened, what we neglected at the popular level, saying it is non-intellectual, then eventually some intellectuals will also be involved as well.
And that will eventually become an intellectual threat also. So this was Bhaktisanth Thakur and especially Prabhupada's strategy. Actually, Bhaktisanth Thakur and Bhaktisanth Thakur both wrote primarily in Bengali.
They wrote a little bit in English, but not much in English. What we call as Bhaktisanth Thakur's English is mostly Sundararayan's Indian disciples. It is his English.
Bhaktisanth Thakur would give the ideas and he would write. So, they did not write. Now, the Bhakta, that's why, but they both knew the importance of writing in English.
And Bhaktisanth Thakur wrote his book. We know that book, Teachings and Recepts of Lord Chaitanya. That is actually the introduction of an elaborate book on Lord Chaitanya.
And Bhaktisanth Thakur sent that book to Raja Prahlad of Emerson. So one of my devoted friends has done a PhD in Bhaktisanth Thakur. So, he showed me a letter.
Raja Prahlad of Emerson. Most of you know Emerson, right? He was an American thinker. He was called American Prime Minister.
So, he sent a letter back to Prabhupada. I have received your book. I thank you for sending it to me, but unfortunately, I do not know the Bengali language.
So, I could not read the book. So, that's why, when Bhaktisanth Thakur met Prabhupada, the first thing he observed is, this person speaks English quite nicely. Now, being from today's standards, or from my internal standards, Prabhupada's English skills had to fix up the English.
But from the 1920s, Prabhupada's English was quite good. And the conversation in English was quite good. He said, you can speak in English and share the best part of it.
So, what Prabhupada did was, he took the language of the masses. And not just the language of the masses in terms of the popularity of the language. But in the language of the masses, he chose the diction of the masses.
If you see Prabhupada's early literature, 1944 onwards. He was a pioneer in literature. In 1944 and 1955, Prabhupada wrote his literature.
But he was in great struggle and not much result. And then, other people suggested, why don't you write Bhagavad? So, then from 1955, Prabhupada started. Whatever money he had, started using it to try to publish the Bhagavad.
And in 1962, he published the first volume. In 1963, he published the second volume. In 1964, he published the third volume.
All three volumes in the first hand. And then, after he had it ready, then he felt, now I am ready to go to the west. So, the point I am making is, if you look at the language of Prabhupada in those pioneerial medievals, it's quite different.
It's like Upasana in our own language. Or what we read in the books. It's quite a different kind of English and it's not so accessible.
So, Prabhupada chose a different kind of English, that would have a broader reach. And, so Prabhupada focused, at one level, on the trans-historical aspect of the India, where he gave the universal principles to be applied by everyone. At another level, he also wanted that the historical aspects could be replicated in a limited way.
In a limited way means, Prabhupada did not say that everyone has to understand the Sanskrit language to understand the Guru. He did not try to necessarily re-institute the teaching of the ancient language. He did not try to re-institute all the cultural aspects.
Some cultural aspects are affected based on his transcendental intelligence. Any writer can do it. But, essentially, the Bhagavad Gita, when we study it, what is our objective? Vishwa Chakravarthy explained, the whole Bhagavad Gita is actually a book which is true and true about the Guru.
So, his commentary, the Rasik, is a very Rasik commentary. Rasikalaam. Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote two commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita.
One of them is Birbat Ranjana and another is called Rasika Ranjana. So, at that time, books were not very easily available. So, Bhaktivinoda Thakur went on a search.
And, he wanted to try the Bhagavad Gita. So, when he got Bhagavad Gita, he read it. He was so inspired by reading the Bhagavad Gita, that he wanted to present it because the Bhagavad Gita copies were not available at that time.
So, he took that Bhagavad Gita, and he published it, and he wrote his own sub-commentary on it. And, that he called as Birbat Ranjana. At another time, he discovered, in the same direction, Gita commentary is called as Gita Mukshi.
So, on Gita Mukshi, the book has been called as Birbat Ranjana. And, then he discovered, Birbat Ranjana comes from Sarath Varshini, and he took that, and he read that, he was so inspired by that, he published it also, and he wrote his own sub-commentary on that. That is called as Rasika Ranjana.
So, in that way, he wrote the commentaries on the Gita. And, Prabhupada took the Gita, and he presented the Bhagavad Gita as it is. Wherein, consistently, he gives a devotional inclusion of the Gita.
So, Siddhu says, this scholar, this individual scholar, he said that, you know, your, this Bhagavad Gita is basically, it's a Bhakti fanatic Gita. Where there is no Bhakti also, there you have Vindhya Bhagavad Gita. So, then, actually speaking, when Prabhupada is in a conversation, there one Mayavadi comes to him and says, you know, in this verse, there is no Maam.
How are you putting Maam also? So, what Prabhupada is trying to say is, you know, where there is Maam, you have removed her there. So, I have to make up for that. Now, it's not that Prabhupada is not aware of things.
You know, if you read 2.72, commentary of the Bhagavad Gita, last verse of the second chapter. So, Prabhupada writes over there, this chapter is called as the contents of the Gita summarised by Bhaktivinoda Thakur. And he says, in this verse, in this chapter, Karma Yoga is talked about, and a hint of Bhakti Yoga is there.
Now, that hint of Bhakti Yoga is, there is no direct reference to Maam in the Bhagavad Gita, second chapter, except for 2.61. Yuktasi, Matpada, that is the only reference. So, that is what Prabhupada is referring to. But, in the Bhagavad Gita, in this chapter, there is only a hint of Bhakti Yoga.
But, Prabhupada is perposing on you only a hint. He has given the full picture. You know, where the Yuktasi, the Matpada, Prabhupada will bring in, what is that, Savai, Manana, Krishna, Padavar, Vrindaya, Vachamsi, Vaikuntha, Kunam, Varna.
He says, how to think of Krishna, think of Krishna, how to worship the lotus feet of Krishna, about the temple of Krishna, take the Tulsi, and then go for Krishna. So, what is Prabhupada doing? Is it a Bhakti fanatic book? Actually, it is not a Bhakti fanatic book. It is a focused book.
See, fanatic means, we don't accept the reality or validity of the other paths. Prabhupada says, Dhyan Yoga is also a bona fide path. Dhyan Yoga is also a bona fide path.
Karma Yoga is also a bona fide path. But, what is the conclusion? In the Gita, itself, it is very clear about its conclusion. Sarva Dharma Paripraja Mahamedhi Tamsara So, what does Prabhupada do in his Gita? You know, when I said, Prabhupada is not, Gita is not a Bhakti fanatic, it is a Bhakti focused Gita.
Bhakti focused Gita means, whatever Krishna gives at the end of the Gita, Prabhupada gives throughout the Gita. And, why does he do that? His approach was very straightforward. Prabhupada knew that actually, people in Kalinga are too impatient, too distracted, and therefore, they need not read the book covered in Gita.
So, his approach was a compassionate approach. And, his idea was that, if a person picks up any one book and reads any one page, he should get the touch of Krishna on his own. That's Prabhupada's approach.
And, with that, he used the Gita. And, that is a very potent transformation and so many people have actually understood and introduced the Gita. So, Prabhupada is aware of the flow of the Gita.
See, if Prabhupada wanted to just give a documentary interpretation, then he could just have avoided Sanskrit and just give a translation of the Gita. Or, he could have just given the Sanskrit and not given the word-to-word translations. Now, Prabhupada gives the Sanskrit, where, say, for example, Narada 3.2. What is 3.2? 3.3 Radha.
Lok, Kesh, Mithri, Vidha, Nishtha, Ura, Prakta, Nanga, Jnana, Yoga, Samkhya, Nanga, Karma, Yoga, Yoga. So, here it is clearly Prabhupada giving the Sanskrit twice, you know. Except Sanskrit, Devanagari also, Roman translation also.
Karma Yoga is there. And then, in the word-to-word translation, Karma Yoga perpetuates as Karma Yoga. And then, in the sentence translation, we have devotional service.
So, now, if Prabhupada really wanted to give a bhakti fanatical interpretation, he could have avoided the word-to-word translations, he could have avoided the Sanskrit and just given the translation Devanagari. But, Prabhupada, by giving him the Sanskrit, by giving him the word-to-word translation, and then by giving him the translation, he forces us to think what is happening over there? Translation is Karma Yoga, translation is bhakti, what is going on? So, we understand the importance of the translation. Sometimes, Prabhupada gives different words in his word-to-word translation, and different in his translation.
Sometimes, what Prabhupada is doing is, he sometimes packs up the commentaries of two acharyas. So, in one acharya's commentary, he gives the word-to-word translation, another acharya's word-to-word So, that's why Prabhupada's Gita is a well-thought-out strategy. So, as a well-thought-out strategy, he focusses on trans-historical history in the Gita, and he also doesn't focus too much on the technical flow.
He focusses on its evolution, and that way, he ensures that it becomes a book that is a call for action. It's a call for transformation action. So, that is Prabhupada's message to all of us.
We summarised as I remember talking about how we were looking at it in different ways, as a historical, literary, philosophical, theological book. And then we discussed about how there is a system of philosophy, how they were progressive, but then they became competitive. And then how Vedanta Sutra refutes all these philosophies and establishes Vedanta as the highest.
Bhagavad Gita synthesises all these philosophies in a history perspective, in a devotional history perspective. So, you have all these philosophies culminating in Bhakti. And that's why Vedanta used to serve as a harmony of Vedanta.
And then within that we discussed the prescriptive and the descriptive approaches to Vedanta and how the prescriptive understanding which Prabhupada gives is not historical, it is trans-historical. And then lastly, in such a way, Prabhupada chooses a particular approach that of not a Bhakti fanaticism but a Bhakti focus, where he gives a conclusive understanding of the Vedanta consistently throughout the Vedanta. Thank you very much.
Are there.