Gita Study Pune 2013 – 10.8-18 How the Chatur Shloki is the essence of the Gita

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
chastity is very interesting. So, this is what I am telling over here.
So, what this verse says is, Brahmaji is offering, I think in Brahmaji’s prayers for creative energy, 3.9. So, as people approach you in whichever form they want to worship you, out of devotion to that person you manifest in that particular form. So, that’s why if we read this Brihadbhagavata Amrita, when the Gopakumar goes to Vaikuntha and even to Dwarka, the Vaikuntha Vasis and the Dwarka Vasis, they don’t think that Vrindavan Krishna is the source of our Dwarka Krishna or of Vaikuntha Vishnu. For them, the Vaikuntha Vishnu or the Dwarka Krishna is the be all and end all and that is not criticised in any way because actually there is a truth from the point of Tattva and there is a truth from the point of Rasa.
So, for Hanuman, Lord Ram is the absolute truth and it is not that he is wrong in any way. So, we have to understand the difference between the Tattva and the Rasa. From Tattva perspective, Krishna is the absolute truth but from the Rasa perspective, Yashodamayi chastises Krishna and Krishna feels fearful of Yashodamayi.
So, similarly from the Rasa perspective, certain devotees may consider a particular manifestation of Vishnu to be the highest and that is accepted but the point here, that is of course a different discussion, here the point of the discussion is Bhava Samanvitaha, that we offer our emotion to the Lord and when we offer our emotion to the Lord, then we attain an existence accordingly. So, let’s look at the internal flow of the Chitushloki. First point is, actually in a sense, the 9, 10, 11 are elaboration of 10th, elaboration of 8. So, 8 says, know that I am the source, become enlightened and then you become devoted to me.
So, then 9 will describe how they become devoted to me. How Bhava Samanvitaha Bhakti is practised, that is described in 9. And then somebody may say that how does one become Buddha. So, now it’s like very deep thought flow is going on over here.
See, first point is, the impersonals argue that Bhakti is preliminary to Jnana, it’s preparation. So, Bhagavata says no. After there is Jnana, then there is Bhakti.
Now, somebody may argue that okay, then you practise Bhakti only after you attain Jnana. Right now, you practise Jnana first. Because after you get perfect in Jnana, then you will practise Bhakti.
Then 10 and 11 says no. By Bhakti, you will get Jnana also. That is Dadami Buddhi Yogamtam and Tesha Vaivanu Kampartha.
So, that means, how this progression is, if this is the Jnana level and this is the Ajnana level, this is the Bhakti level. So, after we come to Jnana, then we get Bhakti. That’s what is first said.
And then 9th verse, what is Bhakti is described. And then in 10th and 11th it is described that whatever level we are at, we can get Jnana by the practise of Bhakti also. So, after Jnana comes Bhakti at the, of the perfectional level.
But even if we are not perfectionally practising Bhakti, even if we are imperfectly practising Bhakti, by that practise of Bhakti also we will get Jnana and ultimately we will attain Krishna. So, in that sense, the comprehensive superiority of Bhakti is established. First that it is superior to Jnana, it is the conclusion of Jnana and secondly, it itself gives Jnana, it itself yields Jnana.
So, in that sense, Jnana is not required at all. That is the theme of the Chatushloki Gita. So, I will repeat once again, then we can have questions.
First verse says, one who knows me becomes Jnani and becomes devoted to me. Next verse, 9th verse says, how they become devoted to me. And 10th verse, 10th and 11th describe, how they become Jnana, they attain the Jnana, just by the practise of Bhakti itself.
Okay, any questions? Yes. Yeah. Chatushloki, when we talk about.
Yes, speak loudly. I will repeat. Chatushloki is same as what we call as Paribhash Sutra of a scripture that around which the whole scripture revolves.
And also the Chatushloki is like universally accepted by all Vaishnavacharyas that this is, yes, Chatushloki of Bhagavad Gita. And also other people like impersonalists and all. So, Paribhash Sutra is how it is different from this and how universal acceptance.
In general, what is, are the Paribhash Sutra or the Chatushloki accepted by everyone? No, there is, there are methods of analysis, which are, different methods of analysis are used by different teachers. And it is not necessary that one method of analysis will be accepted by everyone. So, then if a particular method of analysis is used, then we also have to show why this method of analysis is justified, how it is right and how its conclusions are right.
So, in science, there is a concept of paradigms. Now, we look at the world in a particular way and then we arrive at certain conclusions. So, then there are two aspects to it.
Why we should look in this way and how these conclusions are right. So, similarly, so, Vishishta Advaitavad is one paradigm by which the Vedic scriptures are understood. Kevala Advaita, that is another paradigm.
Shuddha Advaita is another paradigm. Achintya Vedavaita is another paradigm. So, now, the Gaudiya Vaishnavacharya, if you see historical point of view, the Gaudiya Vaishnavism came last among the four ones I have summarised and then Jiva Goswami and later Valdividya Bhushan, they have integrated the insights of the previous Acharyas and they have given us an understanding, which is, which is the highest.
Now, that it is the highest may not be accepted by everyone and we don’t have to go into polemics at this level for that. When we are studying the four Vaishnavism, if we study them, then we can go into the details of it. But these are all methods of analysis.
They are paradigms and generally a paradigm is not universally accepted. But if a paradigm is reasonable, then others may also accept it. So, now, historically, the lines between impersonalism and personalism became blurred.
Blurred means that within the Mayavadi Sampradaya, there were Acharyas like Krishna Saraswamy. He was in Mayavadi Sampradaya, but he was a Vaishnava. Similarly, later on in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s time, there is Madhusudana Saraswati.
So, Madhusudana Saraswati is an impersonalist. He wrote many verses which talk about Krishna’s supremacy and other places he talks about impersonal absolute also as the highest. So, the point is that the lines between personalist and impersonalist often became blurred.
They are not always black and white. So, that’s why the important thing is to see whether a method of analysis helps us to understand the scripture and whether it is consistent with the method of the scripture. Now, you know, Srila Prabhupada dedicates his Bhagavad Gita to Baladevidya Bhushan and his Govinda Bhashya.
But then Baladevidya Bhushan uses a method for analysis of the Bhagavad Gita which is quite distinctive. So, he uses three kinds of yogis and Prabhupada doesn’t even refer to that. I won’t go into the technicality of that.
He uses a very particular way of analysing and it leads to many of the seeming paradoxes of the Bhagavad Gita get resolved by his method of analysis. So, that is one way of looking at it. So, the important point is that we should be able to explain the paradigm and show how it is justified in terms of the conclusion of the scripture.
So, if we look at the Bhagavad Gita, as it flows steadily, we do see that its conclusion is Bhakti. We’ll see this at the end of the chapter only, in this chapter itself. How do we understand the conclusion of a book? How do I know that? There are multiple methods.
First of all, I have to see what is the understanding of the person who studied that book. That we will see in 10.13.14, 10.12.13.14. Another is, we can see what is the action that a person takes after reading that book. That we will see in Karishye Vachanam Tava in 18.72.73. Then we can see, I think we discussed this Tatparya Linga, isn’t it? In our Yashopanishad, the five characteristics by which Tatparya is understood.
We didn’t discuss that? Ok, we will discuss it sometime. Basically, the point is that there are methods by which, universally accepted methods, by which the message of a book can be understood. So, the Tatparya Linga is, you look at what is the beginning of a book, what is the end of the book, what is the most repeated in the book, what is the most emphasised in that book, and what is uniquely taught in the book.
These five characteristics. Beginning, end, repetition, emphasis and uniqueness. So, by these five characteristics, we can understand the meaning of the book.
And the Acharyas have done that kind of analysis to show how Bhakti is the message of the Bhagavad Gita. So, Trishloki is widely accepted. After Ramavacharya, most Vaishnavacharyas refer to it as Trishloki Gita.
But it is not necessary that it is widely, it is not necessarily universally. And that is why I said that Trishloki Gita is also talked about. Is it clear? Paribhashi Sutra is more like a definition.
So, it is like one sutra in a crux which explains the meaning of the whole book. Or the intention of the whole book. So, Paribhashi Sutra is a very technical term.
And generally speaking, that is something which has to be done a priori, not a posteriori. A priori means, when I am writing a book, I should tell in advance that this is the sentence which summarises the whole book. So, when Jiyugoswami and Aracharyas use it, they don’t use it in a technical sense.
Because when Jiyugoswami is doing the analysis of a particular book, it is a posteriori. After the book is written, he is doing the analysis. So, Paribhashi Sutra is a tool which is used by the author to give the essential meaning.
And there are rules for that. So, Jiyugoswami and Aracharyas use it in a generic sense, not in a technical sense. There are so many places in Bhagavad Gita where it is so clear.
Like you were telling, if we can see the one who is listening to the message or reading the book. His conclusion in 10.12 to 13, especially those two verses and then Karishya Vachanantava. Then in 15th chapter also Krishna says that I am that Purushottam, one who knows, immediately surrenders unto me and becomes my devotee.
Here also he is telling, in 12th chapter, 12.2, 12.3 also he is telling. He is telling in 7th and 9th also directly and indirectly. So, even after getting all these, same conclusion in so many different ways and places, time and again in the same 18 chapters.
What do then the impersonalists conclude? Ok, so when Bhakti is so much repeatedly emphasised in the Bhagavad Gita, how do the impersonalists, what do they conclude? The impersonalists generally say that Bhagavad Gita teaches many paths. And they say that there are certain sections of Bhagavad Gita which are meant to encourage the bhaktas. And they have their own sort of analysis which is not really very sound.
And which, by which they say that ok, these are verses meant to glorify the bhakti path. But the other verses which talk about Jnana, they are the highest. Now, they will do a lot of twisting.
Maybe in 13th chapter we will look at some other verses which they try to twist around. So, for example, they will try to twist 18.54 and 54. 54 is very devastating for them.
54 is what? So, what is happening is, after the Brahman platform is attained, then bhakti is attained. So, this is like the death knell for the Mayavad, isn’t it? Because the whole idea is… So, after that bhakti is attained. But then, what happens after that is, they will take the next verse.
bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvāny āścāsmi tattvataḥ tato mām tattvato jñātvā viśate tad-anantaram So, they take the word viśate, enter, merge, tad-anantaram, into that Brahman. Now, actually speaking, if you look at the context, what is happening is, over there, Krishna is very clearly saying, bhaktyā, by bhakti you will know me as I am. mām abhijānāti yāvāny āścāsmi tattvataḥ You know me, and then, after you know me, you will attain that tad-anantaram.
Now, tad-anantaram does not necessarily have to refer to impersonal Brahman. It just refers to the spiritual world. After you know me in truth, you will go to the spiritual world.
So here, viśate is enter. Enter does not necessarily have to refer to impersonal Brahman merging. It can refer to the spiritual world also.
So, that viśate tad-anantaram, they take and they say, okay, this refers to, actually, after bhakti, you come to know me, and then you merge in, merge in the Brahman. So, they have their own sort of analysis, which as I said is not very sound, but they do that. And that’s why, you know, when Max Muller did the editing of the Vedanta, of the sacred books of the East, so he observed, you know, he was the chief editor, and that Bruton was one of the persons who translated, who assisted in translating the Vedanta Sutra.
And he said that, and other scholars have also observed, many of the Indian teachers, Indian interpreters of the Gita or the Vedanta Sutra, they have been impersonalists. But most of the Western scholars, who have studied either the Gita or the Vedanta Sutra, they have said that the Gita and Vedanta Sutra are personalists. So, when Bruton wrote this, you know, that actually Ramanuja’s translation of the commentary on the Vedanta Sutra is more faithful, is more consistent with the Vedanta Sutra than Shankara’s.
So, he wrote this in the foreword of his first edition, and it created such a furore. And he got scores and scores of letters. He says, how can you challenge the authority of Shankaracharya? Shankaracharya is the seminal authority.
And his philosophy is the highest. So, then he wrote a clarification for that in the second edition of the book. And he said that, you know, I am not questioning Shankaracharya’s philosophy over here.
My focus is limited. And that limited focus is, what is the meaning of Vedanta Sutra, and who understands it best, who explains it best. So, he says, if you look at the sutras themselves, then the sutras are quite personalists.
Bhagavad Gita is also personalist. So, what has happened is, the Indian tradition has, to a large extent, lived under the shadow of Shankaracharya. And although Vaishnavacharya has tried to take it out, but the shadow of Shankaracharya has always stayed on.
And especially it was revived by people like Ram Mohan Roy and Dr. Radhakrishnan. And that’s why most of the Indian commentators have commented from the impersonalist perspective, because they have followed Shankaracharya. Radhakrishnan did a translation of Vedanta Sutra, and he says that I take Shankaracharya’s translation as standard, and wherever any commentator, he has taken on 12 commentators, he takes Baldev Devshan also among them, and wherever any commentator deviates from Shankaracharya, I will explain that.
That is a deviation, that division is wrong. So, that’s his idea. But most western commentators, who were not so much overshadowed by Shankaracharya, they have studied the sutras of the Gita in their own right, in its own right, and they have come to the conclusion of bhakti in it.
So, that’s why, overall, there has to be a revival of the scholarship. And then when there is an open-minded study, then the bhakti will be established. We find that there are still some deviations going to impersonalism.
Bal Ganesh Prabhu has told us, some cases have been there, not pure devotees from the platform and above, but some, like Prabha says, when one studies Adi Leela, puppets will never go away by logic. So, are there any examples of people who logically gave up bhakti, sorry, who gave up bhakti after wrongly understanding Bhagavad Gita logically? Are there examples of people who… Because you told, no, impersonalist analysis are not very sound enough. So, see, there is… are there people who left bhakti after studying the Bhagavad Gita and went towards impersonalism? See, ultimately, studying scriptures, especially in a polemic sense, you remember I discussed about how scriptures are studied, polemic, ironic and apologetic.
Polemic means I try to prove that you are wrong. Ironic means I try to make peace. You know, what you are saying is also right, I am also right, it’s from a different perspective.
And apologetic means I am right. So, what I am saying, it makes sense. There are three modes of discourse.
Polemic is you are wrong, apologetic is I am right and ironic is both of us are right. You are right in your way, I am right in my way. So, generally, polemic study of scripture and apologetic study of scripture, they are basically a battle.
And if a person is not well equipped, then the person can get wounded. So, now, how it may happen is, if somebody studies the impersonalist commentaries, but then doesn’t study the personalist reputation of those commentaries, then the person can get swayed. So, it has happened.
And it can happen, that’s why, although the commentaries are not sound, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also warns us, See, it’s like, it’s a war. You know, if a foot soldier from a dharmic party, just take a war metaphor, one side is a part of dharma, another side is a part of adharma. So, there is a foot soldier, he is the right side of dharma.
And there is an elephant warrior on the side of adharma. Now, even if the cause of the foot soldier is virtuous, that doesn’t necessarily guarantee victory. The foot soldier should fight with the foot soldier.
If the foot soldier has to fight with the elephant warrior, then he has to have an elephant warrior from his side to help him. So, what happens is, now, although the logic is not very sound, but still, from our level of logic, you know, we are not so sound in logic. Logic itself is a science.
It’s a whole discipline in itself. And, if we start sparring, sparring means fighting, with somebody who has written a whole commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, to find faults in it is not so easy, especially if you want to go into a really serious debating mode. That’s why the traditional way of studying is that, you know, we study our Acharya’s commentaries and our Acharya’s refutations of other books.
And only when we are well-rooted in our study, well-founded in our siddhanta, then we read the books of other traditions. So, it’s like, you know, when I discuss with the scholars, the Karmaprabhu, Guru Maharaj and others, so, basically, how I study the books is, you make concentric circles. So, the innermost circle is our Acharya’s books.
The other is other Acharya’s books which are in consistence. Then there are, say, for example, if I want to study, study, say, science, then I will first of all see whether there are devotee scientists who have written books on a particular topic. If not, then I will look at other religious scientists, maybe Christians who have written, or we have somebody like Harun Yahya, who has done some study on evolution.
Then, if not that, then the third circle will be, there are neutral scholars, you know, who are giving, okay, what is right with evolution, what is wrong with evolution. And then the outermost circle will be those who are out and out atheists. Now, their books are filled with their convictions, you know, and their convictions can be quite toxic to us.
Although, they are completely wrong. See, Rahul Maharaj has one lecture that, you know, Krishna has given the human intelligence, the capacity to justify whatever belief it wants to have. So, if I want to believe something, then I can just justify that in whatever way I want.
So, one of the biggest atheists in the world is a person named Sam Harris. And he has written a whole book, he said that, how religion is a crime worse than rape. And he says, when parents teach religion to their children, they are all raping their children.
And he says, if I had a choice between removing religion from the world and removing rape from the world, I would remove religion first. Now, such a distorted mentality. But he has written a book which has become a bestseller.
So, what does it mean? What it means is, that a person who has such malevolence against God and religion, he can write his own arguments. Now, his books have been refuted. But the real problem is, see, criticism titillates the intellect.
Whereas, comprehension exercises the intellect. Now, when I want to find fault with somebody, it’s fun to hear, this is fool, this is fool, this is fool, this is fool. So, it is like tickling or titillating the intellect.
To hear the criticism of someone. But comprehension, if I really want to understand what it is, that requires exercise of the intellect. And very few people want to exercise their intellect.
So, that’s why books that are critical, they become popular very easily. But books which are responses to that, that’s one of the themes also. You know, Oh my God, a movie which is criticism, will become popular very easily.
Now, even if the criticisms are wrong, or they are misleading, the responses to that, you require intelligence to understand this. So, that’s why, in general, criticism can become popular very easily. So, you know, and this is not that we as devotees are exempt from that.
You know, we can just call in Mayavadis and atheists as fools and rascals. But, and that is very nice to hear and laugh at. But actually, if we have to refute atheism and impersonalism, there are logical arguments which have to go into substantial depth.
You know, if you see Dutta Karma’s book, Prabhu’s book, Human Devolution, it required years and years of research. So, you know, at that level, if somebody wants to go, we cannot just dismiss atheists as fools and rascals and leave it at that. We’ll have to go into their mode of analysis and prove how that is wrong.
So, it’s like, if you want to fight an elephant warrior on the side of atheism, you have to become an elephant warrior yourself. So, if, now when Prabhupada, when Prabhupada makes that statement that somebody who has studied the Siddhanta or read the Adi Leela will not fall to impersonalism, what it essentially means is, one has become an elephant warrior. So, if I have become an elephant warrior, then I won’t be defeated by another elephant warrior.
Like Bhagwat Maharaj says, if you study the 9th Canto and then you study the 10th Canto, you’ll fall in love with Krishna. But so many people have done that, they have not yet fallen in love because we have not really internalised the concepts. So, we have to be very careful.
If we require some service, we have to do some studies, that is fine. But, intellectual curiosity can be dangerous if it is not guided. It is not guided and it is not guarded.
So, Madhusudana Saraswati was a contemporary of Jiva Goswami and he studied Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s teachings and philosophy and he liked it very much and he said, I’ll prove that this is the highest. And to prove that, he decided, I’ll go to the Mayavadis, I’ll go to Varanasi. And in Varanasi, I’ll study Mayavad and after studying Mayavad very deeply, I’ll refute Mayavad.
But when he went to Varanasi, he studied Mayavad and he became a Mayavadi after that. And Jiva Goswami and Madhusudana Saraswati were very close peers. But then, Jiva Goswami, that’s why, in the later Sandarbhas, he goes into such a technical and exhaustive analysis of refutation of Mayavad.
I am doing the editing of that for Bhanu Maharaj right now. So, Bhanu Maharaj and myself were discussing. Bhanu Maharaj said that, probably in all of ISKCON, not more than 10 people can understand what is being done over here.
So, he said that even among the pre-Satyagraha’s books, the books like Saradarshani, many people read that. And Gopal Champu, past times, a lot of people read that. But Baldevi Devashan, Govinda Bhashya, very few people read.
Sandarbhas, very few people read. But Jiva Goswami saw that effect. And therefore, he went so deep into Mayavad.
Very, very, very deep. Yeah, yeah, they were contemporaries. Jiva Goswami and Madhusudana Saraswati were contemporaries.
And Madhusudana Saraswati has written a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, which Vishwanath Chakrathakur quotes, quite often. Because his understanding of certain places is quite consistent with Bhakti. Because, in a sense, he never lost the heart of Bhakti.
But the head of Jnana sort of overcame, overcame his Bhakti over there. So, there was a, Yasatirtha wrote a book called Nyaya Amrita. Yasatirtha is considered to be one of the greatest logicians in Indian history.
He was a successor of Madhacharya, distant successor. And, you know, he wrote a book called Nyaya Amrita. And that was such a devastating book that for 150 years after that book, Mayavad had no response to that.
But Madhusudana Saraswati wrote a book that responded to Mayavad. That is called as the Advaita Siddhi. And that book has become like a standard after Shankaracharya’s writings.
Advaita Siddhi is a standard writing that Mayavadis use to respond to personalism. So, Madhusudana Saraswati became not just impersonalist, but he became like a pillar of impersonalism. So, that can also happen.
And that’s why what has to be done is the study of books, especially books outside our mind has to be guided and it has to be guarded. We always have to be careful. Clear? So, let’s move forward.
We were discussing 10.9 now. So, 10.9 describes how bhava samanvita, how the bhakti is practised. achita madgata pranah bodhayanta parasparam kathayantasya mam nityam tushyante caram antichah So, now, in this study of the Bhagavad Gita I am not going too much into the purports.
So, wherever there are important points from the purports, I will just mention them. So, in 10.8, Shri Prabhupada’s purport, what he does is basically establishes the supremacy of Krishna. He gives a lot of quotes from various places to establish how Krishna is supreme.
In fact, as far as I remember, this is a verse where Prabhupada quotes many many verses about how Krishna is supreme. And in our PPT on why do we consider Krishna as supreme, most of the verses that are used are from here itself. So, now, in this verse, Krishna is talking about the body, the mind, and the speech.
So, machitta, that is the mind, I offer my consciousness of my mind, fix the mind on the lord, that is the devotees do that. Madgata prana, so prana, life, we have life as long as we have the body. So, madgata prana refers to the body.
And remaining whole thing, bodhayantah kathayantah parasparam, that refers to speech. So, the body, mind, and speech, all are offered to Krishna. And also, among the nine processes of bhakti, the first three are primary.
Shravanam, and all three are being referred to over here. That is, bodhayantah and kathayantah. So, there is speaking and there is hearing, that is shravanam and kirtanam.
And machitta is maranam. So, in this way, the primary processes of devotional service are indicated. And Acharya described that cha indicates the remaining processes of bhakti also.
So, that kathayantah chamam nityam. And all this is done constantly, nityam. Tushyanti cha ramanti cha.
So, now, there seems to be a slight tautology. Tautology, as I said, is repetition. Tushyanti and ramanti.
Tushyanti is to be satisfied. And ramanti is to be delighted. So, the intensity is slightly more.
I am satisfied with this. I am delighted by this. So, delighted means a greater expression.
So, the word ramanti is often used in the sense of Radha-Raman. Raman means especially the very intense relationship that is similar to the relationship between males and females. So, Vishwanath Chakrathakur uses this verse and 18.66, where the reference vraja comes.
So, he said these are the references where we can look at vraja bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita. So, ramanti teacher. So, actually the devotees delight in Krishna.
So, the gopis would delight in Krishna. The devotee delights in Krishna. And the this is one of the few verses in the Bhagavad Gita which actually describes how bhakti is practised.
Bhakti is the conclusion of the Gita but Krishna doesn’t elaborate bhakti because it is not that Arjuna does not know what is bhakti. See, Arjuna knows what is bhakti. Arjuna knows what is jnana.
Arjuna knows what is karma. Arjuna, what he needs to know is what I should practise. So, that’s why Krishna does not go into an elaborate analysis of how bhakti is to be practised.
So, there are no verses like Shravanam, Kirtanam, Vishnu describe nine lives of bhakti, nor is there a whole analysis like in Bhakti-rasamudra-sindhu of the various aspects of bhakti, 64 elements of bhakti or whatever. So, the verses which describe bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita are relatively few. Which establish supremacy of bhakti are many.
But which describe bhakti describe 9.13.14 and this 10.9. 9.13.14 are Mahatmanastumampartha and Satatamkirtayantamam. And of course, there is 9.34 and 18.65, the two Manmanabha verses. So, there are how many? As I mentioned, five verses in the Bhagavad Gita which describe bhakti.
There are other verses also which settle there is establishing bhakti as supreme and then there is describing how bhakti is to be practised. The two are different things. So, Bhagavad Gita’s goal, as I said earlier, you know, there are many things which are assumed in the Bhagavad Gita.
Knowledge of karma is assumed. Existence of God is assumed. So, similarly, knowledge of how to practise bhakti is assumed.
What is important is what you should practise. Whether bhakti or jnana or karma. Now, after describing this, Krishna will describe how the bhakta gets jnana.
So, the Mayavadis try to interpret this verse to say that actually by bhakti we get jnana. Therefore, jnana is higher than bhakti. So, this is an example of this sort of jugglery.
Because by practising bhakti you will get jnana. Therefore, jnana is the fruit of bhakti and jnana is the highest. But the problem with that analysis is yena mam upayanti te.
It is not yena brahmajyoti upayanti te. Krishna is telling by this jnana what will happen? You will come to me. padami buddhi yogam tam.
So, it is buddhi yoga by which you will come to me. So, this is bhakti anukul jnana. It is not the jnana which leads to brahman realisation or understanding the oneness of the soul and Krishna.
It is the jnana that leads to attraction to Krishna and return to Krishna. So, now tesham. Tesham is those who were described in the previous verse.
machitta madgata prana. They are satyuktanam. So, they constantly practise bhakti and bhajitam, how do they practise it? pritipurvakam.
So, this is the second time Krishna has referred to emotions. First was bhava samanvita in 10.8 and now it is pritipurvakam. They have an affectionate attitude and tadami buddhi yogam tam.
So, the word buddhi yoga is a compound word. Now, what does compound word mean? It means two words which come together to have a meaning that is higher and deeper than just the two words separately taken. So, buddhi yoga can be analysed as that the buddhi that leads to yoga and the yoga that leads to buddhi.
Buddhi yoga, it can refer to the buddhi that leads to yoga. So, Krishna uses the buddhi the knowledge of how he is so wonderful. The knowledge of his greatness and his sweetness by which there is yoga.
There is union with him. We return to him. So, buddhi yoga can refer to buddhi that leads to yoga and it can also refer to yoga that leads to buddhi.
That means, this is referring to the sadhana stage. When we practise bhakti, Vasudeva Bhagwati, bhakti yoga prayojita janatya ashu vairagyam jnanam cheda hetukam. So, buddhi yoga can refer to the sadhaka stage or it can refer to siddha stage.
At the sadhaka stage, it is yoga that leads to buddhi. That means, we are sadhakas, we practise bhakti and by that we get buddhi. We do practise bhakti yoga, by that we get buddhi.
We understand Krishna more and more. And beyond brahman stage, when we already have buddhi, then the buddhi that leads to yoga. So, we get the buddhi by which we understand how Krishna is so wonderful.
So, for example, we have Atmaramasya munayo. We have the words of Shukadeva Goswami, how he was impersonalist, how he was not attracted to anything material, but still he became attracted to Krishna. So, there is the buddhi that leads to yoga.
So, that’s how the dhami. So, the problem with the impersonalist interpretation that because bhakti leads to jnana, so jnana is higher than bhakti, is that the personal element is very active in this verse. The personal element is active, not just as a destination, but also as the bestower.
Krishna is saying I am giving this knowledge. The dhami, I give this. So, in the path of impersonalism, ultimately all duality is transcended.
So, there is no giver and there is no receiver. There is only consciousness. That’s all that is there.
So, normally, you remember we discussed about how when there is conscious experience, there is the perceiver, there is consciousness, and there is the object that is perceived. We’ll discuss this in the 13th chapter, gyanam, jnayam, parijnata. So, I am, say, looking at this pillar.
So, I am there. My stream of consciousness is flowing from here towards the object which I am perceiving. There is a pillar.
So, these three are there. So, according to Mayavada, both the subject, so I am the subject and the pillar is the object. According to Mayavada, both the subject and the object are illusion.
All that exists is consciousness only. But, very clearly, here, this verse is telling that there is a person who bestows this. And that’s why this is clearly referring to a personal understanding as the highest understanding.
So, there is the bestower and there is the destination. Both are personal. Now, how does Krishna give this knowledge? How does he do the dhami buddhi yogam tam? That will be explained in the next verse.
So, this is, in a sense, in the Bhagavad Gita’s first reference to Krishna being situated in the heart of all living beings. There will be more explicit references which will come in 15.15 and in the 18.61. 15.15 is sarvasya chaham buddhi sanimishto. 18.61 is Ishvara sarva-bhutanam.
But this is the first reference in the Gita that the Supersoul is situated in the heart of all living beings. Atma-bhavastho. So, I, aham atma-bhavastho, I am situated in the heart and what do I do? I remove the darkness.
I remove the ignorance. So, the path of bhakti largely depends on the grace of the Lord. We do our endeavour but it is Krishna who removes.
We do our small effort but it is Krishna who does his mega effort. His effort is much much greater than our effort. So, by his effort the jnana is, the ajnana is removed.
And jnana-dipena bhavasvataha. I light knowledge. So, actually here in Pune itself there is the second biggest Christian seminary in Asia.
And they call it as the Jnana Deep Institute of Theology. And their idea is that this concept of grace, this concept of mercy, it originated in the world history first time in Christianity. And if it has come, it is seen anywhere in other religions, it has come from Christianity only.
So, they tried to say that actually the story of Krishna is after the story of Jesus. And whatever bhakti is found in the Hindu tradition, that has all come from Christianity only. So, that’s why this jnana-dipena bhavasvataha.
Their idea is when Jesus bestows grace, then people get knowledge. So, they have the symbol that there are all the Hindu gods are there. Krishna is the highest and they all form the deep.
And from the flame of the deep comes Jesus. So, they call it fulfilment theology. Fulfilment theology means all other religions find their fulfilment in the grace of Jesus.
So, but the point here is that the jnana-dipena is the knowledge which is given in bhakti, that knowledge is not by one’s own cultivation, it is coming from the grace of the lord. So, it is not that we are lighting that jnana-dipena, it is Krishna who is lighting that jnana-dipena. See, the example is that just like every night when we sleep or every day also when we sleep, whenever we sleep, now you see that when we sleep and wake, I may lie down with the intention of sleeping, but there is a particular instant when the switch goes off.
Actually, switching the consciousness from jagruti to swapna is not in our hands. So, that switch is actually controlled by the super-soul. And we can strive to sleep or we can strive to wake.
We can strive definitely, but actually that flipping of the switch happens by the grace of the super-soul. So, similarly with respect to overcoming our conditionings, there is sort of that switch of temptation. So, now for example, if anybody offers us alcohol or meat, most of us will not be at all tempted, because that switch has been completely switched off only, but if it comes to sex or things like that, there are other temptations which may still tempt us.
Why? Because that switch has not yet been sort of flipped off. Now, why has that not been switched off? It’s not that Krishna wants us to be agitated, but it’s that we also keep stimulating ourselves. You know, some of us might have been eating meat earlier, but once we gave it up, we just gave it up forever.
But other temptations, we keep titillating ourselves sometimes, intermediately. So, that’s why those temptations keep coming to us. So, we have to battle against the temptations, but at a particular time eventually, when jnana, deepena, bhasmata will happen by Krishna’s grace, then we will just get that conviction that there is no pleasure here.
And then, bhakti will become much, much more steady and smooth. That is actually the stage of anartha nivrutti. Right now, we are not doing anartha nivrutti, we are doing anarthasangharsha.
We are battling with our anarthas. There is no nivrutti that is happening. But, when we keep battling, so, what happens is, at a particular point, that bhasmata, that illumination takes place.
And when that illumination takes place, then the temptations just, they are exposed for what they are. They are exposed to be just sources of deception, not sources of happiness. Now, let’s see what is… You were telling about the, in the previous one’s discussion, the faith, especially by reading other literature, sometimes the faith may get shaken up.
It has happened many times. So, when the faith is based on knowledge, then the proper knowledge, the highest, it does not get shaken up. But then, if that faith is not based on the proper knowledge, is that faith on the platform of ego or sentimental, or what is that faith right now, what everybody, the sadhaka has? So, if faith is based on knowledge, then it is strong, but the faith that we have, where is it? Actually, in the 17th chapter, Krishna describes very interesting verse, he says, every purusha is like we have so, he says, we are filled with shraddha and that as is our shraddha, as is the shraddha of a person, so that person becomes.
But interestingly, Krishna talks about these, this faith in the three modes. He talks about faith in goodness, faith in passion, faith in ignorance. So, and then Krishna also talks about shraddha paraya, where is parashraddha he talks about it? So, this is the gross body, this is the subtle body, this is the soul.
So, at in the conditioned stage, our faith is situated in the subtle body. In the pure stage, the faith is situated in the soul. What does it mean faith is situated in subtle body? Atheist has faith in atheism, a scientist has faith in science, you know, a computer operator has faith in computer, that it will work.
So, these are all forms of faith and they are not necessarily wrong. They are valid, they may work in that particular way, a computer will work and I have the faith that it will work. But that is situated within the modes and it is located in the mind, in the subtle body basically.
So, at the sadhaka stage, even our faith in Krishna is located in subtle body. But as we become purified, so the soul gets awakened and when the soul gets awakened, the soul has natural faith in Krishna and that natural faith, that natural attraction, that natural love is aroused. So, at our stage, our faith is based on our own intellectual analysis and to some extent our realisations, whatever we have.
But that faith is not necessarily transcendental. Our faith is in a transcendental object. But our faith itself is not transcendental.
So, but it will become transcendental as the atma awakens and that awakening of the atma happens by purification. So, that’s why at our stage we have to protect our faith. So, our faith to some extent is like the faith of everybody else.
The fortunate thing is that our faith is in the right thing. But still, it is the faith that is situated in the mind, in the subtle body basically. Mind is that combination.
Clear? So, then if our this faith which is like, fortunately our faith is in the right thing, but again it is in subtle body, it is not coming from the soul. So, based on this faith also, if we perform some sadhana, then also it brings such a transformation that it can be internalised. So, with our current faith also, can we by practising bhakti, can we internalise and transform? Yes, definitely.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur says, from imperfection perfection arises. Just like there may be dirty water, but from there a beautiful lotus emerges. So, similarly, we may be in a imperfect stage right now, but by our practise of bhakti, we will become purified.
And then the natural faith of the soul will be awakened. Atah Sri Krishnanamadi Nabhaved Grahyam Indri Sevon Mukhe Jivvado Swayameva Spuratyadah So, it is not by our cultivation. It is not by our analysis, our study.
All these are very important. And they do strengthen our faith. So, we should do them.
But ultimately, there is an awakening. Swayameva Spuratyadah. There is a revelation.
Spurati. That leads to realisation of the truths of Krishna Consciousness. So, then probably in our stage, our faith is mostly based on the person whom we came in contact with in the beginning stage and right now also whom we are contacting with.
So, based on their practises, our faith is increasing in the process of bhakti. Because we are able to see some examples. And it is as you are telling, it is in the subtle body.
So, is it that you say that that is like transcending factor or So, if our faith is based on a particular person, is that also shifting to subtle body? A pure devotee is transcendental. If our faith is a pure devotee, that gives a transcendental direction to our faith. But Prabhupada also, there is a quote of Prabhupada where he says, Guru is not just a person.
Guru is also a principle. Guru is definitely a person but is not just a person like any other person. Guru is a principle.
A principle is the Guru Tattva. So, we may say that there are some people who have great faith in Prabhupada or at least it seems that way when they talk a lot about Prabhupada and always filled in Prabhupada consciousness. But they sometimes have difficulty in following the regular principles or the standards that Prabhupada has given.
So, what does that mean? That means that we cannot separate Prabhupada from the Tattva that he represents. So, our faith has to be a balance. Ultimately, the faith is not just in a person but it is in Bhakti.
And it is Bhakti that is represented by persons. Bhakti is also a person. So, if we divorce our faith from the process, then we become a personality cult.
And if we divorce the person from the process, then we just become almost like impersonalists. We think that just the process of Bhakti will liberate me. No, process of Bhakti is also ultimately Bhakti Devi, that’s a person.
And it’s all based on relationships. And the personal aspect cannot be denied. But we should not we should not sort of assume that just because I am attracted to a person and that person is advanced that will guarantee my advancement.
But we have to use that attraction to the person to assimilate the instructions that the person is giving. And to internalise the process of Bhakti. So, our commitment to our commitment to Prabhupada is shown by following what he is giving us.
So, yes, we should also try to understand the Siddhanta. We should also try to develop attraction to the limbs of Bhakti. And we should also develop attraction to the persons.
It’s not only one thing. The attraction to the person is important but we shouldn’t neglect other aspects. Because ultimately that person is giving us a process.
That process involves philosophy, that process involves practise. So, there has to be balance between them. It’s clear? So, let’s try to conclude complete this, Arjuna’s response at least, in the next few verses.
So, Arjuna Vāca Pavitraṁ Paramaṁ bhavān Pavitraṁ Paramaṁ bhavān Puruṣaṁ śāśvatam divyaṁ Puruṣaṁ śāśvatam divyaṁ Ādhidevam ajambibhum Ādhidevam ajambibhum Āhus tvām rishaya sarve Āhus tvām rishaya sarve deva-rishir nārda-stathā deva-rishir nārda-stathā asito deva-lobhyāsa asito deva-lobhyāsa svayaṁ caiva braviṣi me svayaṁ caiva braviṣi me So, in these two verses 12 and 13, first verse Arjuna gives his own understanding and then second and third verse or second verse, he substantiates that understanding from other sources. So, parambrahma param dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān So, this is among the few places in the Bhagavad Gita where Arjuna uses a respectful second person address for Krishna. You know bhavān, in Sanskrit, there is tvām and there is bhavān.
So, tvām is something like tu and bhavān is āp. So, even when he is surrendering to Krishna in the second chapter, seventh verse, there he also uses tvām only. kārpaṇya-doṣo pahata-svabhāva pṛcchāmi tvām dharma-sambodha-ceta tvām it is there.
But here he uses bhavān and again he will use bhavān in 10.31 where he will ask the virāṭ-rūpa, the kāla-rūpa, who are you? ākhyāhi me bhagavānugra-rūpo. Who are you? So, here he has understood Krishna’s position and that’s why he uses bhavān. So, pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān and puruṣaṁ śāśivatam devyam.
So, the word puruṣa is very unambiguous. So, actually there are many unambiguous words in this. First is parambrahma.
Not just brahma but parambrahma. You are the supreme Brahman. And then puruṣaṁ is itself very categorical but when it is followed by śāśivatam and devyam it becomes even more unambiguous.
You are a puruṣa who is eternal and you are a puruṣa who is transcendental. ādidevam ajam vibhum. So, as far as the Bhagavad Gita’s testimony is concerned, Arjuna makes it very clear that his understanding is that the absolute truth, the highest truth is a person.
And then he substantiates it by saying āhustvāṁ hṛṣeya sarve. So, all the sages have said this. Now, where have the sages said this? The Rajasuya Yajna.
Isn’t it? Rajasuya Yajna was a place where there are many places, many situations in Bhagavad Gita where it happened. Many incidents in the Mahabharata where the Pandavas are told about the supremacy of Krishna. We survey but one incident I am giving is the Rajasuya sacrifice where the Agra Puja was done where Krishna was described as the supreme person.
So, hṛṣeya sarve. Asito, Devalo, Vyasa, svayam chaiva brahvishyame. Now, it is interesting that these specific names are mentioned and among these names, let us see as we look at the future chapter, who all are referred as the vibhutis of Krishna.
We will find Nārada, we will find Vyasa, let us see whether we find Asita and Devalo also. So, the idea is these specific sages are very important and they are considered authorities in their own way and Arjuna is quoting them. So, he is saying these hṛṣeya sarve this and then you yourself have said this to me.
So, I am simply repeating your understanding. So, now after describing this, Krishna started the chapter by saying namai viduṁ surgaṇa, that nobody can know me. Now, Arjuna is saying that I know you, param brahma param dhāma.
Yes, so now, Krishna will, Arjuna will clarify by saying that actually I cannot know, I know you but I cannot know you in truth. Only one person can know you in truth and that is you yourself. That will come slightly later.
But, before that he will make one more clarification. He will say that actually what you have said, I accept it in full. So, what does it mean? It means that I don’t consider that you are exaggerating or you are sort of going on a ego trip where you are describing your own glories.
No, he says actually you are the supreme person. So, sarva-meta-dṛtaṁ manye yanmāṁ vadasīkeśava yanmāṁ vadasīkeśava nahite bhagavan yaktim vidur devān yaktim vidur devān yaktim vidur devān So, the first part is what Prabhupada would quote very often. sarva-meta-dṛtaṁ manye yanmāṁ vadasīkeśava I accept everything that you say.
So, what does this complete acceptance mean? The standard example for incomplete acceptance is ārtha-ko-kutanyāi. I take the back part of the hen because it gives me eggs but I don’t accept the front part because I have to feed it. So, now complete acceptance does not necessarily mean complete immediate agreement.
There is a difference between acceptance and agreement because sometimes I may accept something as true but I may not understand it. So, it’s not that I have to put aside my intelligence. See, there are certain things, Rajendra Sourav told me that there are many things which when I read Prabhupada’s books, when I read the scriptures I put them in brackets.
He says, what is this brackets? He says, these are things which I don’t understand right now. See, the materialistic tendency is if I don’t understand, I reject it. It’s false.
But the devotional tendency is if I don’t understand, that is a that is my limitation. Now, I am finite, Krishna is infinite. How can I understand him immediately? So, I have to be patient.
So, what we don’t understand that doesn’t mean we reject it but basically, there are many aspects sometimes if you read 5th Canto cosmology or you read something about say Matsya avatar being so many millions of miles wrong then we may just we may have some doubts or especially we are presenting to new people, new people may have doubts. So, at that time what we should do is we should not make this sort of thing a faith issue. If you don’t believe in 5th Canto cosmology, you know, you will experience the hell.
If you don’t believe in hell, you will see hell soon. So, we should not make it a faith issue. There is a nice conversation of Prabhupada where somebody asked Prabhupada we try to speak to the scholars and there they say that this Maharaj Ugrasen has so many billions of bodyguards.
So, how is that possible? So, what did Prabhupada reply? Prabhupada said among the whole 18000 verses of Bhagavatam, when you met the scholars, did you have to talk about the billions of bodyguards of Ugrasen? Did you have anything else to talk about? So, we have to be relevant in our presentation. So, what we should ask for is not faith but suspended disbelief. What we should ask for is okay, we are not saying that you believe it you suspend your disbelief because there is so much in this world we don’t know about.
So, can we be certain that certain things are impossible? Somebody says where is there a milk ocean or there is a whatever honey ocean or whatever. So, can we say that no such thing is at all possible? We can’t. So, if the history of ideas has taught us anything, the one thing it has taught us is humility.
That you know whatever is thought of as impossible today may become true tomorrow. There are so many things which were considered even within the history of science which were considered impossible but they are considered very very well documented truth now. One of them is called as the staring phenomena.
What is the staring phenomena? Many experiments have been done that if I am sitting here and somebody is sitting behind me and that person is staring at me. Somehow almost everybody has a sort of sixth sense. I feel somebody is looking at me.
So, the experiment that they did is, if it is just an arbitrary guess work, then I will get it right 50%. If I am told to guess, is somebody staring at me or not? I know somebody is sitting behind me. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.
The probability will just be 50%. But almost everyone gets it more than 50%. Some people, on an average, it is 55-60%.
Some people even get it right 90-100% also. So, now how it happens, nobody knows. We certainly know for one thing that we don’t have eyes in our back of our head.
But still, somehow we acquire the knowledge. So, this is whole in the field of ESP, extrasensory perception. So, we don’t know how the perception happens, but it happens.
So, there are many things mysterious in the universe, which we don’t know about. So, if we know that something is happening, but we can’t explain how it happens. There is another phenomenon, it is a little more complicated in science.
It is called quantum non-locality. Quantum non-locality means what? That in science if object A is affecting object B, then there has to be some connection between us. If I hit this, and that pole falls, then that means, you know, this pole hitting this, there must be some connection between the two.
So, destabilising this destabilises that. So, but the scientists have found that there are two particles, which can be very very far away, and there is no connection between the two, and change in one particle affects the other particle instantaneously. So, even if the effect, there was some invisible force, which were travelling at the speed of light, still the effect wouldn’t be instantaneous.
So, there are, this is called as, they call it as quantum entanglement. That means, these two parts are somehow entangled in a quantum level, we can’t understand it. Something like Reiki, ok, something similar.
Telepathy is there. So, this whole thing is, the point over here is, what we are saying, let’s not go into the technicalities of these phenomena, but the point is, Reiki is not something which is accepted by mainstream science. It is alternative therapy, which is questionable.
But quantum entanglement or staring, these are, there is well documented mainstream scientific evidence for this. Although their conclusions are not accepted by science, but the documentation is there. So, the point which I am making over here is simple, that there is much in the universe that we can’t understand.
So, the very least we can do is suspend disbelief. Because disbelief is also a sign of arrogance. Isn’t it? If I say this is not true, what is the proof by which I am saying this is not true? Can I have a certainty that something is false? So, we shouldn’t, we should tell people, you don’t have to put so much faith in your doubts.
If you have some doubt, don’t think that the doubt is infallible. Something may be seem to wrong today, but tomorrow it may turn out to be right. So, why is to put so much faith in the doubt? So, what we can ask people is just suspend your disbelief.
It may be true, it may not be true, it doesn’t matter. Focus on practising Krishna Consciousness. There are central principles of Krishna Consciousness that are more important.
So, this is how acceptance of everything essentially means that we focus on what is central to us and whatever we can’t understand, we just put it in a suspended disbelief. Either accept, either reject it or we can’t accept it, we can’t artificially force ourselves to believe in certain things. If we can’t, we can’t.
But just put it aside. And then he emphasises the same point, although I have understood something, I have given my understanding, but actually what you have said is true. Completely nobody can understand you.
Neither devas nor dhanavas can understand you. Does that mean nobody can understand? But if nobody can understand, then how can Krishna speak about himself? So, only Krishna understands. That’s what he describes in the next verse.
vittatvam purushottama deva deva jagatpate deva deva jagatpate So, svayam, you alone, eva atmanatmana, you yourself know yourself, vitta, you know them. So, normally Arjuna is referred to by various addresses. So, here Krishna is referring to Arjuna Arjuna is referring to Krishna as purushottama.
And then, purushottama, along with that he uses many names and Prabhupada explains that these names have significance. Bhut bhavana. Bhavana refers to the source.
You are the source of all living beings, but you are not just the source. It’s not that sometimes the father produces a child, but the child goes out of control of the father. But you are bhutesha.
You have created everyone and you are also controlling everyone. And you are controlling not just everyone, but you are also controlling the devatas, deva deva. And in this way you are controlling the whole of creation, jagatpate.
So, in this way you are controlling everyone and everything. And then he describes, so now here, from 12 to 15, Arjuna has concluded his understanding. Now, 16 onwards is the question of Arjuna.
It’s a request more. It’s a question which is also a request. What is the link between 11 and 12? So, 11, basically another reason, good point, another reason why this is called as chatushloki bhagavad gita is, 8 to 11 is, that actually there Krishna stops.
So, Krishna has stopped after speaking this. And Arjuna sort of gives his understanding over there. So, that’s why the acharya explained that in a sense the bhagavad gita is completed.
Because Krishna stops speaking over there. And Arjuna gives his understanding. Arjuna is not asking a question.
Arjuna is giving an understanding. So, normally you don’t, if the class is going on, suddenly you don’t give your understanding in between. There has to be some prompt.
Or, the class is over, then he may say, okay, this is what I understood in the class. So, in a sense, the bhagavad gita is over over there. So, Arjuna gives his understanding without being prompted by, he doesn’t, and then after giving his understanding, then he asks a further question.
So, that question extends over three verses now. 16 to 18. So, let’s look at this.
In fact, now this is the, this is among the longest questions. Actually, the longest question comes in the sixth chapter, where in verses 37, 38, 39, over three verses, Arjuna asks the fate of a deviated yogi. Now, here also there are three verses, but all three verses are not a question.
Only, actually, there is a question that is there, but there is also glorification that is there in between. So, So, So, Please speak without stopping, please speak it. Your divine opulences, your own opulences, and what kind of opulences? Krishna has many opulences.
Arjuna is asking a specific request. The kind of opulences by which you have pervaded this world. So, the reason for this question is, Arjuna is thinking that Krishna is so great, Krishna is so transcendental, but how can an ordinary person understand Krishna’s transcendental glories? So, if a person can understand Krishna’s glories in this world, then gradually that person can rise to the transcendental level.
So, the whole concept of vibhuti, we will discuss a little bit more when we come to the vibhuti. Let’s look at the next two verses. Yogims So, How am I to know you? It’s interesting that Krishna uses, Arjuna uses the word yogi to refer to Krishna.
So, as we discussed in Aishwarya Mahaprabhu, words are multivalent. Worlds can have many yogis. So, here the yogi refers not to the yoga sadhaka, but the possessor of yoga.
So, that’s how the word yogi is used over here. Like you have, you can have dhani and dhanavan. So, dhani also refers to a person who possesses dhana, and dhanavan also is one of the first ones.
So, Yogeshwar is the controller of yoga, yogi is also a person who possesses all yoga. Not necessarily, he doesn’t have to be a seeker of yoga. He can also be a possessor of yoga.
And, how can, so you have said earlier, you have said, you know, you have practised bhakti constantly, you have said that. So, how is it possessor of yoga? Which all, in the material world, how can we think of you? And then, actually, the next verse is the closest that Arjuna comes to expressing ecstasy in the Bhagavad Gita. Ecstasy is expressed here by Arjuna in 10.18 and then twice by Sanjay in 18.76 and 77, where he says, But here he expresses, very close to ecstasy.
So, how should you describe it? Earlier he has used the word Asheshena, now again he has a Vistarena. Please speak in detail. Atmano yogam, Vibhutim chijanardana, your own vibhuti, please describe it.
So, the chapter started with the word bhuya. I am speaking again. But Arjuna is saying, Bhuya, yes you are speaking it again, but Nathruptirhi, that actually I am not satisfied.
Because, shunvato nastine amrutam, actually there is no end. This amruta is so much that I want it more and more and more. So, this is similar to the theme that Shukadeva Goswami, Parishad Mahagoswami says, I want to hear, so adu swadupadepade.
He also tells Shukadeva Goswami about that. So, when there is love, we want to hear more and more. And Arjuna, by this expression, he doesn’t explicitly say to Krishna that, he doesn’t say something as melodramatic as I love you.
But, what he says is, melodrama is actually artificial drama. Something that is done just to evoke an effect, even when there is not something genuine inside. That’s called melodrama.
So, but Arjuna expresses his devotion by saying, please speak more and more and more. So, we will discuss the remaining in the afternoon. Thank you very much.