Gita Study Pune 2013 – 13.1-7 The context of kshetra-kshetra jna in the Gita

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Now, personally and impersonal, which he asked at the start of the 12th chapter, was focused on clarifying a general concept. So, now, after that, in the 13th chapter, now Krishna, Arjuna will ask Krishna the meaning of six terms. So, this, in a conceptual sense, is a continuation of the question that started 12th chapter.
12th chapter was, which is better, personal or impersonal worship. So, now, the impersonal path is based on analysis. And analysis involves looking at the material elements and trying to decide what they are and what is beyond those material elements.
So, that analysis is done through Sankhya. And Sankhya ultimately culminates in Jnana. So, these are terms which are generally used in Sankhya.
Sankhya, as we know, is analysis of the material world. So, Purusha, Prakriti, Kshetra, Kshetrajna and Jnana. So, these are the six terms which Arjuna will ask.
So, those questions are not based on something immediately in the preceding chapter, but Krishna, Arjuna is clarifying the meanings of various words and concepts, which are in familiar circulation in his times. And they are understood to be in some way connected with spirituality. So, what do they actually mean? And how are they to be understood from the insight that devotional service is the highest sadhana.
So, Krishna will explain these in the context of the insight that Bhakti Yoga is the highest path. So, how do these various things relate with the path of Bhakti Yoga? So, this chapter is called as Kshetra, Kshetrajna, Vibhaga Yoga. So, the division of Kshetra and Kshetrajna.
And, Prabhupada translates it as Nature, the Enjoyer and Consciousness. So, Nature refers to Purusha and Prakrit. These are the six terms.
We will come to those six terms. So, here is the overview of the chapter quickly. So, now the overview of the chapter that is given, it is never a frozen thing.
This classification is a conceptual tool for us to understand how the thought flow of the chapter is. And, it can be given differently by different people. The important thing is that we get a picture of what is happening in the chapter.
So, verse one starts with Arjuna’s six questions. And then, the questions are answered by Krishna in a way that leads to the logical development of the subjects. Sometimes, people may ask two, three questions at one time.
Then, if the questions are interrelated, all of them will be answered one time. But, sometimes the third question may be more basic. Second question may be more advanced.
And, first may be the most advanced. So, in the first, the most basic question is answered. Then, the more advanced and the most advanced.
So, like that, Krishna doesn’t answer the questions in the sequence in which they are asked. Krishna answers in a sequence which leads to the development of the subjects. So, prakritim purusham jayiva kshetrak kshetrag jayiva jayiva.
So, first he is asking about prakriti and purusha, then kshetra and kshetrag and jnana and jnana. So, Krishna answers first kshetra and kshetrag in verses two to seven. And then, from eight to twelve he answers what is jnana and thirteen to nineteen he answers what is jnana.
And then, after that, twenty to twenty-six he explains what is prakriti and purusha. So, which are the answers to the first and second questions. And then, lastly, Krishna gives a section that is called as jnana chakshu, which is an integrated vision based on the concepts that have been talked prior.
So, sometimes when somebody asks a question, we may answer something more if it gives a clearer understanding, although that may not necessarily be related with the concept, with the question. So, like that, Krishna, the last section of this chapter, verses twenty-seven to thirty-five, which is called as jnana chakshu, that is, giving an integrated vision of the material world based on philosophical knowledge, based on philosophical insight. So, in this way, these six questions are answered and something more is given by Krishna.
So, let’s move forward. Arjuna vacha, prakritim purusham chaiva kshetrak kshetrakya evacha etadveditu mithyami jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam jnanam So, his question is, six concepts are there, prakriti, purusham, let’s look at what these meanings are. So, Krishna starts with the description of idam shariram.
Now, when scriptures are passed down generation to generation. They are passed down through recensions. Recensions are when the manuscript is written down.
See, nowadays we have printing presses and we have machines which can make facsimiles, identical copies of whatever is there previously. In the past this job was done by scribe writers or scribers they were called as. So what they would do is called as Pathantara.
Pathantara, that means what is written, you move it from one to another copy because as the book gets old it can get damaged and quite often while Pathantara is done, although the scribes are trained and meticulous and their work is supervised, still some bhed comes up. Bhed means when change comes up. So that’s why if you look at the traditional commentaries now and I have saw one commentary written by in the Madhava tradition.
So they had a book which is bigger than our first Canto Bhagavatam and that is just the first two chapters of the Bhagavad Gita. So they have the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita and they have around ten of their Acharya’s commentaries. So right side Madhavacharya.
Madhavacharya has not written a full commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. He has commented on selected verses. But then other scholars have written.
So their commentary, commentary, commentary. So it’s a huge book and at the start of that book, there’s an elaborate introduction which talks about Pathantara Bhed. Pathantara Bhed means that sometimes the verses may be slightly different.
For example, there is this verse in Prahlad Maharaj section 7.9. What is that? So the first prayer that Prahlad Maharaj offers is that, my dear Lord, how can I satisfy you? Brahmaji and all the other Devatas, they ask you to Satvaguna and the words that they have spoken are like flow of nectar. But that was not able to satisfy you. So how can I possibly satisfy you? So when he says this, now there is a slight Pathantara Bhed between the way we have the verse and the way it is therein.
So here if you see, Satvaikataam Gatayo Vachasam Pravahai. So in the Sri Vaishnava rendition, it is Satvaikataam Matayo Vachasam Pravahai. Instead of Gatayo, it is Matayo.
Now actually speaking, the overall meaning doesn’t change. Satvaikataam Gatayo means, those situated in Satvaguna, their words are flowing. The Gati of the words is like Vachasam Pravahai.
It is like a flow of nectar. Matayo would mean, those situated in Satvaguna, their opinion, their opinion they have expressed, they have glorified you. And their glorification was Vachasam Pravahai.
Because those people who would do the scribes, they would also know Sanskrit. And they would themselves see, this word, is it this or is it this? And even if there is a change happens, they make sure that the verse that is there is meaningful. It doesn’t lose meaning, because that much caution they take place.
So sometimes like this, minor changes come up. But overall, there is remarkable fidelity in the verses. Because these things are very carefully supervised.
And certainly, changes are there, but major changes don’t take place, especially if the books are widely circulated. And especially if the books are commented. Because in the commentaries are preserved very carefully.
So some Puranas, which are not so widely circulated, which are not commented, there may be some interpolations in them. But the main scripture, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Vedanta Sutra, the recensions, they have multiple recensions, but they don’t have much differences. So this is a whole field of academic study.
It is called as textual analysis. And it looks at various, for example, the Bhandarkar Institute here in Pune itself of Oriental Research, they decided to make a critical edition of the Mahabharata. Mahabharata is 110,000 verses.
So they had something like a body of 500 scholars and they had 5000 different manuscripts or 5000 editions of the Mahabharata. And then each verse, each verse from each of these 5000 editions, they compare. And then somewhere the U might be first, U might be second, Li might be first, Li might be second, some word might be changed.
So then they go back and they look at this whole, all these 1000 copies are there. They look at it and then based on their analysis, they have their own historical methods. They try to decide, which among all these recensions is the original one.
So now this whole business is very speculative. It’s very difficult to determine. And that’s why it requires hard work.
And they did work for almost like 18 to 20 years. This whole body of scholars was working full time and finally they produced a critical edition. The critical edition is reasonably respected.
Critical edition means what according to the scholars is the most faithful rendition of the book as it originally was. It’s very difficult to know whether their assessment is right or wrong. But that is one reference that is available.
So generally the traditional scholars would do their own critical edition analysis. For example, Vedanta Desika, when he will write a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, he will say these are all the recensions that are available. And then he will say, okay, this is what some people think this letter means, but actually the letter is this.
And then he will explain it. And generally, especially with respect to Bhagavad Gita, because it’s a small book, 700 verses, there’s not much differences. Almost all the acharyas, the commentaries are using the same basic verses.
So among the very few changes that are there in Bhagavad Gita, one of them is the verse that we just recited. So 13.1 is not present in the Gorakhpur Press edition. So this verse is missing.
But later on they divide the other verses in such a way, the total number of verses is 700. So, no, no, it’s not a matter of trickery. It’s just a matter of, if you see, there are some verses, for example, 6.23 and 24.
If you see the way Prabhupada analyses it, actually there are two verses in it. Actually the other verses have three Sanskrit lines instead of two, or they have six English lines instead of four. See how it is here, Prabhupada has divided this verse into the 24th, 6.20 to 23 is clubbed together and 23 just has two lines.
Now after that 24, he will divide it in such a way that it has six lines. So actually Prabhupada does that sometimes. Even similarly in, I think, 4.30 or 4.31, it has only one line.
It is only one Sanskrit line. Yeah, 4.31. It’s only one Sanskrit line. So like that, sometimes verses, even in the first chapter also there is something similar, one place Prabhupada does that.
So this is a division of verses. So overall the chapter, the Bhagavad Gita has 700 verses. But the slight division might be different.
That’s why many times in academic circles when the referencing is given, that say, if they say the Bible is Luke 5.18, then they will say Luke 5.18 NIAC or NIA, New International Edition. Or they will give not only the verse of the Bible, but they will also give the edition of the Bible. So generally speaking, when Srila Prabhupada gave his commentaries, he did not go into the whole zone of textual analysis.
He focused primarily on the verses and their meaning as is given in parampara. So in general in the Vedic tradition, the traditional scholars have not focused too much, especially in the modern times, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisandha Thakura, Srila Prabhupada, they did not go into the zone of textual analysis too much. Bhaktisandha Thakura could do that.
Now we also have to see Srila Prabhupada’s situation. Srila Prabhupada started an institution at the age of 69 and he was focussing primarily on giving the core content. And he did not want to, and he did not have the time or the resources for this sort of textual analysis.
That doesn’t mean it is unimportant, but it just simply means that actually that is not a priority in the study of scriptures. The priority is understanding the essential meaning. So now we may wonder if the verses themselves have different essentials, then how will the essential meaning stay the same? But actually the essential meaning is not just conveyed by the letters.
The essential meaning is conveyed through the overall purport or overall understanding of the subject. And it is demonstrated through the lives of those who are living according to it. So literalist understanding of the scriptures where we have this conceptual idea that every single letter of every single book has been preserved as it is over 5000 years, that is not defensible intellectually.
From the historical scholarly point of view, we cannot defend that. And we don’t have to defend that. That is not the essential point.
Srila Prabhupada is quite nonchalant about it. If you read many Bhagavatam verses, Bhagavatam purports, Prabhupada will say, in the Srimad Bhagavatam version of Viragacharya, there is one more verse over here. And Prabhupada will give the purport of that verse.
And he will just quote some Acharya’s purport and leave it at that. So 10th Canto, I think there are 2-3 sections where I have seen this. So the point is, Srila Prabhupada was not unaware of this, but Srila Prabhupada did not consider this to be very important.
So if somebody asks us, from where this verse has come? Why is it there in one Bhagavad Gita and not there in another Bhagavad Gita? The answer simply is that these are inconsequential things. That even if we don’t have the question of Arjuna over here, the overall Bhagavad Gita remains the same. The question gives some level of continuity to the Bhagavad Gita.
Because without the question, Krishna suddenly starting, idam shariram kaunteya, kshetra mithya abhidhe, doesn’t seem to have any context. And overall in the Bhagavad Gita we see that when subjects change, Krishna’s speech doesn’t waver arbitrarily. Krishna’s speech is quite guided, quite focused and guided in a particular thought flow.
So if the subject changes, it is because of some question that Arjuna has asked. So in that sense, it makes sense from the point of your textual flow. But if somebody argues that, OK, this verse is not there, fine.
It’s not an issue worth battling over. Doesn’t matter. OK, if you think that this verse is not there, fine.
The essential meaning of the Bhagavad Gita doesn’t change. Any questions about this? Are the scriptures quoting the actual words of the characters or are they the summarised versions? Generally speaking, these books themselves will tell us. So if we look at the history of the books, for example, the Mahabharata, it is described that it is a historical narrative, which is based on a, the style is called as omniscient narrator.
In writing, sometimes something, suppose, you know, if I am going to tell, say, now our new temple, Purana temple was inaugurated. So now if I am going to tell how the Purana temple started, I can tell it from my perspective. So that will be my narration of the story.
Or if I want to write a more objective report of how it has happened, then I’ll interview different people and then say this person’s experience, that person’s events. So then I can describe from different perspectives. So that is called the omniscient narrator.
That means the narrator knows everything that is there. And the narrator even knows what is the thoughts of some people. And then the person describes.
So if you look at Valmiki, Valmiki gets a divine vision by which he sees the whole Ramayan being enacted and he describes it. He basically puts down that vision in the writing. So in general, the scriptures are described from the omniscient narrator point of view.
And when they are described from the omniscient narrator point of view, they are described as their literal accounts. That is how the events happened and that is how they were spoken. Now, when the scriptures are translated, then for example, Krishnadharma Prabhu’s Ramayan and Mahabharata, they are novels.
They are not literal translations. That’s why it’s very clearly retold by. So now if you look at the Mahabharata inside, Krishnadharma Prabhu will say, Karna felt agitated and he was enraged and then he will describe some thoughts of the characters over there.
Now what they were thinking, that is not exactly described in the Mahabharata. So that is not wrong because that is consistent with the overall knowledge that we have of the characters and the overall storyline is consistent. It is consistent with the philosophy also.
So in that sense, as I told yesterday, the Puranas are open-ended. The Puranas are a body of knowledge that is presented according to the level of the audiences. So as far as the original scriptures are concerned, that means the Bhagavatam, the Ramayan, the Mahabharata, they are considered to be historical narratives of things that happened that particular way and then they were revealed through some mystical arrangement from the perspective of omniscient narrator.
Now subsequent books may vary. There are many other books which are written by various people. Some poets may write some poems about the Lord’s pastimes.
Now in those poems, certain people may speak certain things. Krishna may speak certain things, Radharani may speak certain things. So now how authentic they are, that will depend on the authority of that person.
Now if from the Guru Sadhu Shastra we know that that person is a liberated soul who is seeing Krishna’s pastimes, then that is fine. But otherwise, it’s not so. So Sri Ram Maharaj has written a series of books called Krishna and Vrindavan series.
And that is fiction. It’s fiction in the sense that what concepts told are not fiction. What he does over there is, there is a Gopi or there is a Jivatma who becomes liberated and goes back to the spiritual world.
And when he goes back to the spiritual world, that Jivatma becomes a Gopi named Navasakhi. And this Navasakhi has a Yutheshwari. She has a leader of her group of Gopis.
And then she introduced this Navasakhi to everyone in the spiritual world. So then he introduces him to Krishna and all the Gopis and what are the pastimes performed, how everything happens. So now he himself gives a lot of clarification and introduction about that.
So the pastimes which he has told over there, the pastimes that are there, are there in various books. He has not created any pastimes of Krishna. But the concept of a Navasakhi arriving at those pastimes, that is not there in the scripture.
So that means in some cases, some devotees may do certain things. But as far as the primary scriptures are concerned, the primary scriptures are considered to be literal narrations. Is it clear? Yeah.
The question is like we take it literally that Krishna has spoken each word because we explain about each word. Yes. So Bhagavata, yes, definitely.
But Bhagavata is the part of Mahabharata where whole Mahabharata is narrated in that way. So we have to take that everybody has composed each verses. Like Vidura is talking to Dhritarashtra, Dhritarashtra is speaking, whether they spoke in the same poetic way, they are only recorded or the words are taken exactly those words what they spoke, they are taken and composed into the scripture.
See, Mahabharata is not especially a very poetic book. Sanskrit itself is to some extent poetic language. And the characters who were there, they were intelligent people and they would speak in dignified ways.
But it’s not that if you look at the Mahabharata in and of itself is not a poetry in the sense that it’s not a formal poem. It may be in a poetic format, but the conversations are real. I mean, real in the sense that the way that if you look at the Mahabharata verses, they are relatively simple and people in Sanskrit can talk like that.
It’s not difficult for people to talk like that. So they are, they are the record of the conversations as they took place. So, Puruji, how will we come to know that a particular scripture has been interpolated? Because there can be different opinions of different people.
So what, what will clarify that? Yes, this is interpolation or it is not an interpolation. Okay. So how can we know whether a particular scripture is interpolated or not? For example, we say that many of the Puranas have been interpolated, especially like Shiva Purana and all different pastimes have been put.
So similarly, from the other party, somebody may say, this has been interpolated. So how do we come to a conclusion? Yeah. So one people may say that something else has been interpolated.
Others may say something else has been interpolated. So in general, in the traditional circles, the argument of interpolation has rarely been used. And that’s because it is something which is not done.
In the sense that the scriptures were considered to be sacred. They are the word of God. And that’s why those who are commenting on the word of God, those who are Acharyas, they would neither do nor broke such a thing.
So in general, for example, many of Madhava’s commentaries, he quotes verses which are not to be found anywhere. He sometimes quotes verses from books, which whole books are only not to be found anywhere. And other places he quotes verses from books and in those books, those verses are not to be found.
So modern scholars take strong issue with this. They say that Madhavacharya has concocted these verses. But then if we look at Madhavacharya’s peers, when Madhavacharya postulated Dvaita Vedanta, that was the time when he was critiqued.
But none of his peers have ever criticised him for having interpolated verses. So there are several prominent Madhava scholars like B. N. K. Sharma and others. So they have defended Madhava by saying that actually if it were interpolation, he should have been caught long ago.
So his works have been critiqued. Mayavadis have refuted his works and then there have been refutations to those works that have been put up. But among all the charges against Madhavacharya that have been made in traditional circles, interpolation has never been a charge.
So why the charge of interpolation is coming up now? That means within the traditional circles, especially when the primary books are concerned, people would not dare to change the books because they are sacred books. And changing them would be extremely dangerous thing to do. People would fear to do such a thing.
So in general, the accusations of interpolation are not found as levelled by any Acharya against any other Acharya. Or in general, in the lineages also, the Advaithins have not levelled that charge against Madhavas. So that means that interpolation may have happened.
If it has happened, we have to look at the, generally the Gurusadha Shastra is the pramana by which we understand what is the authoritative rendition of the book. And that’s how we move forward. So now what is the pramana according to Gurusadha Shastra for us? Some other Sampradayas may not accept that.
That is possible sometimes. So we have to understand that these are ultimately the differences that are there. They are usually like storms in a teacup.
A storm in the ocean can cause a lot of devastation. A storm in a teacup doesn’t cause much damage. So the storm in a teacup means that generally speaking, if there are any differences on this, they are on issues that are not very consequential.
And some small sections, some places might have been debated to be changed. But overall, the meaning is preserved. Now generally speaking, when we talk to new people, there is no need to bring in the issue of the change of scriptures.
There is no need to. People need to face doubts and battles as they come. It is not that we have to create the doubts.
They have enough doubts without that. And so our goal is not that we want to hide anything. But it is just that the system of education is that progressively people’s conceptual understanding is erased gradually, one step by step by step.
Generally, what I tell is, it’s possible that certain certain things might have been changed. But if you look at the overall meaning, that is consistent. And if you look at, you know, that example, I gave it in Narishopanishad classes.
If a medicine is given, if a medicine is given by a doctor to a patient and the patient passes on the medicine to the second patient, third patient, fourth patient, fifth patient, like that it goes on hundred patients. Now, when the medicine comes to the hundredth patient, how do we know that the medicine is still unchanged? Somebody might have taken away that pill and put some counterfeit pill over there. So the way we know it is by looking at the effect.
You know, if the first patient was cured by the medicine and the hundredth patient is cured by the medicine, then that would mean that the medicine has been preserved. Similarly, we see what was the effect on Arjuna, the original student of the Bhagavad Gita. The effect was that, you know, he gave up, he accepted Bhagavan, Krishna as the supreme truth.
That’s what we see from the Bhagavad Gita, Parambrahma Parambrahma. And he accepted devotional service to him, Karishe Vachanam Tava. So he accepted Bhagavan as the Sadhya and Bhakti as the Sadhana.
And we see people today are doing the same thing by studying Bhagavad Gita as it is, by understanding it. People from all over the world, they are giving up all other conceptions of the absolute truth. And they are accepting Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and they are practising devotional service to him.
So if you want to do a scrutinising historical analysis, you know, when this medicine came to him, when this medicine came to him. So when all the medicines are passed down, you have a video recording of all the people and see whether somebody put something in a pocket or not, somebody changed something. That’s not practically possible.
We don’t do that in day to day life also. So what happens is, generally speaking, the way, whatever we emphasise, that’s what people ask questions based on. So if we ourselves emphasise inordinately the literal fidelity of the scriptures, that everything has been preserved, exactly all letters as it is, then that will unnecessarily raise doubts among people.
So our point is that the essential message has been preserved. Yes, Kanhaiya Krishnaji. Has this Pathantarbheda happened with even the Shruti scriptures or only with Smriti, because then that weakens the case further with Smriti scriptures? Has this Pathantarbheda happened with Shruti also? Slightly, lesser, especially at the least with Rigveda.
Rigveda is recited and when it is recited, the oral tradition, the whole Rigveda is recited. So there is Shayana and there are Yaksa, Aska, the two traditional commentators. And they come over hundreds of years.
They are themselves several centuries apart. And their rendition of the Rigveda, which they have commented on, Yaksa has commented on, then Shayana has commented on that. And then we have modern Rigveda.
It’s nearly identical. So there’s no doubt that in Shruti, the literal word also has potency. So Shruti, that’s why the literal word was also preserved.
In Smriti, the focus was not so much on the literal word as on the essential meaning. So we don’t necessarily mean that the word has been changed, but just preserving the literal word is not enough. I think in the Garuda Puran, there is a verse that if somebody knows all the four Shrutis, but doesn’t know the Smritis, his knowledge is incomplete.
He is not a proper Ramana. Because the Smritis make accessible the meaning that is often concealed in the Shrutis. So I think that if we just emphasise in the literal fidelity, that itself will raise questions which will weaken our case.
So our focus is not necessarily on the literal fidelity. It is on the essential meaning. The meaning will change if there is a recension.
Then the Acharyas are the ones who can actually clarify the meaning. Is that so? Correct. If the meaning changes, then the Acharyas will clarify it.
So Madhavacharya for example, in the Mahabharata, he has written a condensed explanation of the Mahabharata. So he says there are so many essentials in the Mahabharata and therefore now I am clarifying things for you. So Acharyas do that work.
In many cases, there are also some differences found in different literatures about the same pastimes also. One example is in Ramayana, this Lakshman Rekha, which is not found in Valmiki Ramayana. But it is there in some other editions of Ramayana.
Similarly, there are some other differences also. In Nasik, if you go, people tell that this was the same Lakshman Rekha, which was wrong. Ok, first this question.
What about these differences? So, no book ever claims that it is giving an exhaustive description of the Lord’s pastimes. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s pastimes, what He performed in one moment, there is so much that you cannot describe them. Even Amitashesh cannot describe them.
So we cannot have one book describing the pastimes exhaustively. So Krishna or Lord Ram, they can reveal their pastimes in phases. Some pastimes are revealed to one devotee, some pastimes are revealed to later devotees.
So, as long as the later revelations are consistent with the storyline and the philosophy of the original revelation, then they are accepted as embellishments. Embellishment means further revelation, which enhances the narrative. So, Lakshman Rekha is not a contradiction to anything that is given in Valmiki Ramayana.
It is an embellishment. And that has been accepted widely in the Ramayana tradition. So, one does not necessarily have to doubt that.
It is not there in Valmiki Ramayana, that is fine, but then Valmiki Ramayana is not the only Ramayana. It is the most authorised Ramayana, but then it is not the only Ramayana. So, subsequent revelations can also be accepted to the extent that they are in harmony with the Ramayana.
It is the storyline and its philosophy. Also about some scriptures, I have heard that some pastimes are inconsistent with the original Valmiki or Vyasadev’s writings. And some pastimes are not in line with that.
So, sometimes some Acharyas have accepted a part of it and rejected a part of the same literature. Say, Devinand Bhruvan, he had come here in Pune long time back. He was speaking about Chetan Mangal.
So, Chetan Mangal, some pastimes are not inconsistent. He was quoting that, not in consistence with the Chetan Bhagwat. So, those pastimes which are not in consistence with Chetan Bhagwat, we don’t take those pastimes.
Like that he quoted in one of the classes. So, now Chetan Mangal in itself is written by some of the, I think, which devotee? Flochindas Thakur. He himself is a great Acharya.
So, what about that? I don’t have any detail knowledge about the pastimes, but he quoted. Just I am repeating that. So, Chetan Mangal, has it been interpolated or something like that? And Flochindas Thakur has written it.
Bhakta Sansa Thakur has discussed this quite a bit. And he makes the point that, there are certain sections of Chetan Mangal especially, which are in the mood of Gauranga Nagar. That is, you know, Chetan Mahaprabhu, always, he was a, later part of his life a Sanyasi, and even when he was in the Grahastha, you know, he was quite strict in his dealings with women.
And Chetan Mahaprabhu basically adored the worship of Radha and Krishna. He never had the mood of himself being the centre of attraction. So, however, in Chetan Mangal, there are certain pastimes, which seem to describe as if, Lord Chaitanya is the centre of attraction as if he were Krishna.
That means, for example, there are certain sections where it is described as, Chetan Mahaprabhu is performing kirtans and all the women come to see him and all the women cheer him. And then the way the Gopis react to Krishna’s presence. So, it’s that the women react to Chetan Mahaprabhu’s presence.
And this is clearly at odds with the mood as well as the message that both Kaviraj Goswami and Vrindavan Das Thakur, primarily Kaviraj Goswami gives. Because Vrindavan Das Thakur focusses primarily on the Bal Leela, the Navadvipa Leela. And generally in the Navadvipa Leela, Chetan Mahaprabhu does not exhibit the Gopi Bhava too much, either way.
So, actually it is the meeting with Ramananda Raya. Before the meeting with Sri Krishna Chaitanya, Radha Krishna Mahayanya. So, before the meeting with Ramananda Raya, Chetan Mahaprabhu is mostly exhibiting the Krishna Bhava.
And after meeting with Ramananda Raya, he starts exhibiting the Radha Bhava. So, that meeting with Ramananda Raya is very critical in the sense of transformation. Before that, Chetan Mahaprabhu is in the whole missionary mood of preaching.
And when he meets his associate, then she brings out the Radha from him. And then afterwards, he goes to Vrindavan and he is mostly in the Radha Bhava. So, Radharani is not primarily a preacher.
She is a servant of Krishna. So, Chetan Mahaprabhu from there onwards. So, anyway, the point here is that we don’t have in Navadvipa, Chetan Mahaprabhu, when Chetan Mahaprabhu is acting as Krishna, he is more acting as a Yuga Avatar, teaching Yuga Dharma.
Not Krishna performing pastimes with the Gopis. So, these Gauranganagar sort of pastimes are, according to Bhaktisiddhanta Sri Thakur, they are not the original writings of Chaitanya Mangal as given by Lochindas Thakur, but they have been interpolated by the Gauranganagaris. And actually, Bhaktisiddhanta Sri Thakur did a lot of research.
And there are several, he has uncovered several very old versions of Chaitanya Mangal. All the Chaitanya literature are 500 years old. And even 500 years old, the paper doesn’t last for 500 years.
So, the older the manuscripts, the more we can know what actually was written. So, he himself did a lot of research to see what was the original rendition or original writings in Chaitanya Mangal. So, basically, what Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur said is, that places where, in the Chaitanya Mangal, there are certain sections which seem to exhibit Gauranga Bhava, we have to be careful about them.
Because that is not the mood which Krishna’s Kaviraj Goswami and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself exhibited. That’s where we have to be careful. Is it clear? Another thing was, Prabhuji, this Jagai Madai coming, like Jaya Vijaya coming again as Jagai Madai.
So, this also was put to question by some people. Jagai Madai, Jagai Madai. Jaya Vijaya came as in the 4th.
They were supposed to be coming as three incarnations as demons. So, they came as Jagai Madai again. This was also put to question in some of the lectures.
What about that thing? Put to question by whom? See, once we, it’s like, you know, once you switch on a light, then the whole room gets illumined. And if you don’t switch on the light, then nothing is illuminated. So, actually speaking, for the whole, the Krishna or the roles of, the other roles or other identities of all the associates of Lord Chaitanya, that, once we accept Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as God, then all that follows automatically.
So now, for that matter, if you see, why only Jagai Madai? You could say, otherwise Acharya is Sadashiva or is Mahavishnu. Where is the reference in the Vedic scriptures for that? That Dityan Prabhu is Balramji. Where is the reference in the Vedic scriptures for that? So, actually the Vedic scriptures have reference to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s incarnation.
Now, once we understand that the Lord is going to incarnate, the Lord never comes alone. If you look at all the pastimes, the Lord comes with his associates. Lord Ram, when he comes, he asks the Vanaras, the Devatas to play the role of assisting him as Vanaras.
So, similarly, when Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is coming, there will be people who will assist him at that time. So, those who assist him at that time, they, who they are, how will that be revealed? That will be revealed by the other associates themselves. So, the references for these, for who Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s associates are, are there in various Chaitanya literatures.
We can’t expect that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself is Channa Avatar. He is mentioned in the Vedic scriptures, but he is not exhaustively described in the Vedic scriptures. So, when we want to know about further associates, how will we know it? It is from the revelation which is there in the Gaudiya tradition.
Now, if others don’t accept it, we again, as I said, we don’t have to create storms in a teacup. We don’t have to emphasise that. We don’t have to emphasise that.
Same way, for example, Ramanujacharya is Ramanuja, Lakshman. And then, they also have the tradition that various Ramanuja’s associates, some of, even Madhucharya’s associates, they were Shankhachakra, Gadapadma, like that they were the Chakra. They were like the paraphernalia of Lord Vishnu.
Now, if you look at that, where is the reference for that? That reference is within the Sri Vaishnava tradition itself. So, whenever there is any issue brought about to a discussion, the first thing that is to be discussed is epistemology. Epistemology means knowledge about acquiring knowledge.
What is the basis for acquiring knowledge? Like yesterday I was telling, if I want to refute evolution, if Dhritarashtra wants to refute evolution, he cannot say Prabhupada said evolution is wrong, therefore it is wrong. Who is the audience that we are reaching out? What is the epistemology that they are accepting? So, once you are going to accept empirical evidence, scientific journal records, then we will present it based on that. So, generally speaking, when we are going to talk about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and glory of the various associates of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, especially in terms of their Krishna connection, we should talk about this when people have come to a level where they accept Gaudiya Vaishnava epistemology.
So, till they don’t accept, we don’t have to, till they have not come to that level of faith, those are not the things that we should emphasise. When Srila Prabhupada preached, first he focused on, you are not the body, you are the soul. Chandi Hare Krishna will help you to realise that you are the soul.
Then gradually introduced one by one by one, Krishna, Radha Rani, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, all these were progressively introduced by Srila Prabhupada when he preached in the Lower East Side. So, like that, it’s like a pyramid and as you have to climb up on the pyramid, the top peak of the pyramid is always narrower than the bottom. So, when we say that Gaudiya Vaishnavism has given us the highest understanding of the absolute truth, that’s at the peak.
So, the epistemology that will give that, the books that will talk about it, as you go up the pyramid, it becomes thinner and thinner. Similarly, the specifics of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his pastimes and his associates, that we will talk about in Gaudiya literature. So, what we have to do is, we have to build up, help people grow up gradually, so that their understanding of epistemology gradually evolves.
And then once they accept the pramanas that are used by the Gaudiya Acharyas, then they will be able to accept it. Is it clear? I will have to find out about that. I don’t know whether, I have not heard that it is not mentioned specifically.
I will find out. As you heard that, this interpolation, many times the literature comes from like 500 years ago, like that, more years. So, there is some chances the Mayavadis are involved in that.
I heard that in Marathi also some literature, the Mayavadis mix. So, how the below generation, they will get perfect knowledge. So, if Mayavadis have interpolated certain sections of scriptures, how subsequent generations will get perfect knowledge? Through the parampara.
So, the knowledge is not just preserved in the texts, it is preserved in the hearts. The hearts and the texts together combine to give the knowledge. So, those who are living according to the scriptures, for all of us also, even now we are studying the scriptures, but to a large extent our faith comes from the practise of devotees.
Those who are guiding us, those who are inspiring us. So, that’s why, dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam, mahajano yena gatah sapantha. So, dharmasya tattvam, it is nihitam guhayam, it is not said it is hidden in the scriptures.
It is hidden in the hearts of the mahajanas. So, it is by following them that we learn. So, that’s why, when we study scripture and we teach scripture, there are scholarly devotees who can do this sort of analysis.
Ok, this is interpolated, this is not interpolated and that’s a whole field. As I said, I was giving an example that the scholars, they spend years or decades to try to get a critical evaluation of the Mahabharata. So, like that, that’s a whole field.
If somebody really has an interest, they can go in that field and do the study. But in general, for most people, that is not what is required. What is required is that if people understand the basic principles of the philosophy and they experience the potency of the process, how it benefits us, how it transforms us, how it enriches our life, then that’s what inspires people to practise it.
Clear? Yes. Oh, good comment. I thought of the same book.
So, Gauda Gaudanesh Deepika is saying that it mentions J. V. J. Kim as Jagayamadai. There are two Deepikas. There is Gauda Gaudanesh Deepika and there is Radha Krishna.
Gaudanesh Deepika is also there. So, which discusses about who all are, what are the roles of the various Sakhis and Manjiris and Sakas in Krishna Lila also. Thank you.
Probably like this, in the scripture, this interpolation is going on when there comes down the lineage. So, we generally worship the scriptures and we think that scriptures are also one of the deities and by worshipping or by having the scriptures, there is some different kind of phalautpati, by reading the scriptures also. In so many scriptures it is mentioned that by reading the scriptures this will happen and this will develop.
So, it changes according to the interpolation or what we have to take it. Okay. So, if the scriptures are interpolated, then you worship scriptures.
And what about the phalashruti that comes from the scriptures? Where did the scriptures get this result? See, it is something which is, Bhaktivedanta Thakur talks about saara-grahi and bhava-grahi or those who are essence-seeking and those who are burden-carrying. So, if you look at it, if you compare the scriptures to deities. Now, you will see, in the different temples, the deities may look slightly different.
And still, if you go to the temple and worship the deity, it is we are connecting with Krishna through that deity. Isn’t it? So, there may be some slight changes in the way Krishna looks in different temples. But the same Krishna, the same Krishna who is manifesting over there and he is reciprocating based on our devotional intention.
Similarly, with respect to scriptures, the literal words of the scriptures are important. But the literal words alone do not transform. As I said, there are academic scholars who can study the Bhagavad Gita very exhaustively.
But they may not even believe in the existence of God. So, that is also possible. That’s why devotional intention is very important.
And Krishna can manifest himself through the scriptures irrespective of the way they are presented. In Bhagavad Gita, we can have hard bound, we can have deluxe cover, we have paper bound, we have digital copy. That does not change the reality that Krishna can manifest himself through the Bhagavad Gita.
In whatever way it is made available to people. So, same way with respect to, even if there is some occasional interpolation, like Chakravarti Pat talks about certain sections, there might be this verse, some people think this verse is interpolation. But then after that also, he goes on with the whole chapter and talks about the Phalashruti and the Phalashruti still holds.
So, in general, the Puranas, the Smritis, their potency is not dependent on literal recitation. It is not like how Uttarasura was created because one word was pronounced wrong. That may be for certain specific Vedic mantras.
But in Smritis, the real potency is in the devotional connection. What is that verse about Vishnaya and Vishnave? So, some people may say Vishnaya, some people may say Vishnave. So, grammatically Vishnave is correct, Vishnaya is not correct.
But because Janardhana is Bhavagrahi, so both people will get the same punya. So, let’s move on. Ok, last question.
Ok, two questions. You were talking about some verses being removed or summarised in the case of like Gita Press, Bhagavad Gita. So, how does it hold in the case of Srimad Bhagavatam? Like we say that it is made up of 18,000 verses, but the actual count doesn’t come to 18,000 verses.
It is far less than that. So, what is the understanding on that? So, the actual verses in the Bhagavatam are far less than 18,000. Generally speaking, the Bhagavatam numbering is complex because there are many sections of the Bhagavatam which are not verses.
In the whole section of Bharat Maharaj pastime, 5th canto, in the Bharat Maharaj pastime some sections and especially the cosmology sections. If you come to that, most of the time we skip the verses recitation only. Because the verses can’t be recited.
They are not only not in the musical metre, but they are not even breakable into lines. So, now according to some numerical system, we need to have some numerical system. That’s why we will use it for the sake of numbering.
But often the numbering is quite complex. It is, let’s see, I am not sure. Yeah, you see these verses now.
How do you recite this? So, well, I wouldn’t say there is no metre. There is the metre that is not accessible to us Kali Yuga souls. So, now you see from the literal point of view, is this one verse? We really don’t know.
But now, numbering may be done in a particular way. But whether this is really one verse. Traditionally, we generally translate that the Bhagavatam is 18,000 verses.
But if you look at the original sources where the reference is given, generally it is called as there are 18,000 Granthis. Now, Granthis are measured as units of sound. In terms of how much, so one Granthi has a particular number of sounds.
And this many Granthis will have this much sounds. So, if you take the numbering the way we do it or the way it is done in the Bhagavatam, it doesn’t work out to be 18,000 verses. That’s true.
But there are two issues. One is that there are many things which are not verses. And the original reference is not literally to verses, but it is to units of sound.
So, because the Bhagavatam has many, many, many, much of its content is of variable length, where it cannot be called as one verse, but just for the sake of numbering system, it is called as one verse. So, if you analyse it from the units of sound point of view, then this objection that it is not 18,000 verses is not necessarily a decisive objection. So, traditionally it’s talked about that there are 18,000 verses.
And not only about the Bhagavatam, in general, this objection can be raised to all Puranas. So, the various Puranas they talk about, these are the number of verses that are actually there. And what we find out is the number of verses are lesser.
So, again, if you just want to take it from an objective point of view, if people were, it’s unlikely that we are the first person in history to have discovered that the number of verses in Bhagavatam are less than 18,000. I’m sure throughout the thousands of years that Bhagavatam has been studied, other people have found it out. So then, if really people wanted to cover it up, the verses where it says 18,000, they could have just deleted the verses from the Bhagavatam.
They could have done that. But nobody has done that. People have kept that as it is.
And the Acharyas, when commenting on it, they have not raised that as an issue. The 12th Canto, Bhagavatam, where there is a reference to the number of verses in various scriptures, then Chakravarti Pa just comments on that and leaves it as it is. And even the other Acharyas, when they comment on it, whether it’s Sridhar Swami’s Vasya or others, it doesn’t really go too much into the zones about the problem with the numbering of the verses.
So, when we look at the three facts, the first fact is, the number of verses is given in the scripture itself and it has not been changed or deleted by anyone, despite the very clear knowledge that the numbering system doesn’t tally with that. The Acharyas have not commented on it. And thirdly, the numbering system itself is not related with the verses per se, but units of sound.
And the way this is measured will be varying depending on the verses that we find in the Bhagavatam. Because some are not really verses in the traditional sense of the word. That’s why we can’t necessarily say that there are not 18,000 verses in the Bhagavatam, although our numbering system may not yield it to 18,000.
Is it clear? But the same thing doesn’t hold true for Gita because it is known to be a book with 700 verses and we find numerically there are 700 verses. And that is one point. So, Gita doesn’t have anything like this.
This sort of verses which just cannot be divided literally speaking. There is nothing like that in the Gita. Is one regular verse in Bhagavatam, is that one Granthi? Yeah, that’s true.
Basically it is based on units of sound and the one Granthi is corresponding to the normal verses. But if we consider paragraph verses like these, there would be some few number of verses like this, but still it would not make up for the gap which is there between 14,000 verses and 18,000. I think the gap is almost 3,500 or 4,000 verses.
So, how many such verses would be there? Actually, Radhanath Maharaj was writing his new book. So, at that time he had mentioned 18,000 and while editing it I had told him that it is not 18,000. So, then Maharaj asked me how much it is.
So, then Maharaj removed the 18,000 reference. He just did not put anything. I will find out how it is exact.
Is it 14 or 14.5? It is something like 14.952 or something like that. That is the count. Paragraph verses like these also won’t make up for so many? It is possible that they don’t make up.
But then as I said, you don’t really know how to divide this. At the first of all. And then there is one scholar in the, where is it? I think Chanda is there.
He has done the calculation and it is exact 18,000. So, show us the calculation then. I mean, you know, these sort of issues are major discussions and unless somebody actually establishes that, these claims will not be taken very seriously.
He has said that there is a Bengali person who has done the calculation in Anustubh Chanda. If it is there, that will be very nice. I will talk with him also once.
If he has that, that will be helpful. So, my understanding is that if you do it properly, the division, and talk about in terms of Granthis, it will work out to be accurate. It is not a problem with the content of the Bhagavatam.
It is a problem with the numbering system. So, if you just adjust the numbering system, it will come. So, I am talking about, somebody has actually done this.
That will be very nice. You should be able to see it. But on the other hand, it is quite likely also that some part of Bhagavatam may have got missed out in the whole transition of 5000 years.
Because that seems to be a more probability and possibility also. Yeah. So, as I said, even Prabhupada also talks about it.
As I said, Prabhupada doesn’t deny that. How do you go to 10th point? I will find out. In the 10th canto, several places, Prabhupada mentions that this verse is found only in this edition and this verse is not found in that edition.
So, we don’t deny the possibility that has happened. Our main point is that, that has not led to any substantial change. And I will find that out.
Somewhere in the 10th canto, Prabhupada talks about it quite a bit. Okay. Yes, sir.
So, word to word translation or sentence translation? Which ones? Versus English translation, after words. They are not Valdividyavishn. They are Prabhupadas.
Prabhupada did that and then Haigiri Prabhupada did some further work on it. And the family Prabhupadas. So, you know, in the old edition of the Bhagavad Gita, when there is some place where the blessed Lord’s head is there, instead of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
So, that was, initially Prabhupada coined the word Supreme Personality of Godhead somewhere in 68. So, before that Prabhupada was using the blessed Lord as a translation of Bhagwan used by Dr. Radhakrishnan. So, in some of the older editions that’s kept as it is.
So, Prabhupada actually, so Haigiri Prabhupada was spending, I think I mentioned this, no? Haigiri Prabhupada was spending a lot of time on trying to make the translations poetic. So, Prabhupada, he would again and again consult Prabhupada, should I put like this, should I put like this? Then Prabhupada said, Prabhupada indulged him a little bit and after that Prabhupada said, actually the translation is not so important. There are so many Bhagavitas, they have given translations, more or less the translations are okay.
What is missing in the world is the purports, according to tradition. So, Prabhupada said, don’t spend so much time, just take the translations from any standard translation. Take Dr. Radhakrishnan’s translation and publish it.
So, Haigiri Prabhupada was shocked, that’s plagiarism he said. Plagiarism means that when one author takes the work of another author and publishes it in his own name. So, Prabhupada said, how is it plagiarism? They are Krishna’s words, not Radhakrishnan’s words.
So, basically the translations are largely what Prabhupada did with some playing around by Haigiri Prabhupada. I have heard that in Bhavarth Deepika, Gyaneshwari, Mayavad is mixed. Whether devotees should respect this literature? In general, the Gyaneshwari, as it is understood today, contains a lot of Mayavad.
Now the question is whether that Mayavad was originally there in the Gyaneshwari or it is interpolated or it is the interpretation. Interpolation and interpretation are two different things. What happens is, even the Marathi is not a static language.
No language is static. Like if you read 19th century English, they will be all filled with the, thy, thou, words like that. So, similarly, the Marathi of say several hundred years ago is different.
And to understand even that Marathi, if you just directly read it, we can’t really understand it accurately. General sense we can get. But there are words which have shades of meaning.
So that’s why it could be either that there is interpolation that is Mayavadi or the interpretation of the Gyaneshwari is Mayavadi. So that means there are Marathi scholars who know today’s Marathi, who know that Marathi. And now they are rendering the book from that Marathi to the present Marathi.
You know, now what they are doing is the BBT started a project of translating Prabhupada’s books into Sanskrit. So they are starting one by one. First they started Bhagavita and other books.
Because now, actually, because of some kind of cultural pride or national pride, a lot of people are learning Sanskrit. Especially in America and NRIs, they like to learn Sanskrit. So now they are translating, they started a project of translating Prabhupada’s book into Sanskrit.
So similarly, if you look at Chetan Charita Amrit, what they have in Chetan Charita Amrit is Bengali. Prabhupada did it in English. So then what they have is the English is translated back into Bengali.
So you have a Bengali book originally, but then from Bengali is English and from English back to Bengali. Why is that needed? Because that Bengali is not the same as the Bengali that is spoken today. There are differences, not major differences, but there are significant differences.
So that similar thing happens with Marathi also. So generally speaking, in a public forum, there’s no need for us to disrespect Gyaneshwari because we cannot be sure for sure what is the content. And if people are having a reverence for it, which people do have in a very large degree in Maharashtra, then we should say that these are the issues with it.
It’s quite likely that the impersonalist content, mayavadi content that is there, it could come from interpolation or interpretation of the scholars. But as far as practical application is concerned, Gyaneshwar also emphasises the chanting of the holy names. And that is what is taught by Shilpa Prabhupada also.
And Shilpa Prabhupada is presented in a language which is quite unambiguous, which is quite clear and applicable for our cultural context. Therefore, the same essential message in terms of practical application is given to us by Shilpa Prabhupada. So without disturbing their faith, we can bring them towards Krishna Consciousness.
So what is our stand on Tulsidas, Ramcharitmanas and how much can we here read and have Kathas which quote them? So there is only one reference of Shilpa Prabhupada, which is negative. I have a whole article on this. And let me see.
So anyway, if you just search on my website. So basically, we have analysed all the quotes of Tulsidas, of Prabhupada on Tulsidas. And there is only one quote which is negative.
But otherwise, overall majority Prabhupada is saying that Tulsidas was a great devotee and he was a devotee of Lord Ram. And that one negative quote is also in a context. Prabhupada wanted devotees to not just go around reading this book and that book.
Prabhupada wanted devotees to say focus. So in the early days, in a letter, Prabhupada has quoted that, saying that don’t go around reading so many books, focus on the Valmiki Ramayana. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Tulsidas is not bona fide.
So there are large traditions of Rama Bhakti which are based on Ramcharitmanas. And Prabhupada’s godbrother, Puri Maharaj, he was very upset when devotees went to him and told that this book is Mayavadi. He says, where is the Mayavadi in it? Then Gaurav Govind Maharaj asked the same thing.
Gaurav Govind Maharaj says, if you find Mayavadi in it, you show it to me. Then we will discuss it. So in general, we shouldn’t have an exclusivist attitude towards the broader Vedic tradition.
That if certain, if Ramcharitmanas is respected, unless we find something specifically, which is very, very damaging, much of the Ramcharitmanas is filled with intense devotion. And should we quote it? Should we quote it? If we are speaking on the Ramakatha, there is no necessary ban against quoting it. Prabhupada himself has quoted Tulsidas also quite a few times.
Now if you see in our tradition, the Acharya has not commented on the Ramayana so much. The only commentary from our tradition that we have on the Ramayana is the 10th and 11th chapters of the 9th Canto, where Ramlila is talking about. So apart from that, we don’t have any commentary on the Ramayana.
So then where do we draw from? We have to draw from somewhere. So the broader Vedic tradition, which is there, as long as that is not explicitly containing Mayavada, we don’t have to reject it just because some people have some doubts about it. So overall, Ramcharitmanas contains quite a good amount of devotion.
And it can be quoted, but it should not be quoted so much that it becomes like a primary reference source for us. It should be primarily that our classes should be based on Gaudiya literature. And when we are speaking about Ramlila, at that time we can quote this occasionally.
But that should not be our primary source. We are not deriving our philosophy from Ramcharitmanas. It’s Lord Ram’s past tense we can take from Ramcharitmanas.
How many verses are there in CC? Well, can you tell in the next class? I know how many there are. I just have to find out. Just remind me at the start of the next class.
I’ll tell you. 63 chapters as far as I know in CC. And the number of verses are more than the Bhagavatam.
Something like 24,000. We don’t want two hours on one verse. Let’s do at least a few verses.
So now when Krishna answers, idam shariram kaunteya kshetram ityabhidhyate etad yo vettitamprahu kshetragya iti tadvidha So idam shariram kaunteya, that this body is the kshetra. And etad yo vettitamprahu, one who knows this, that is the kshetragya. etad yo vetti, one who knows this, that is the kshetragya.
Now what is the kshetra and kshetragya referring to? Kshetra is field. Kshetragya is the knower of the field. So the idea is that the field is like the area of influence.
So every soul has a particular area of influence. And that will vary depending on the past karma of the soul. So an elephant, his kshetra is much bigger than that of an ant.
Or for that matter a blue whale’s kshetra is far greater than that of a small fish. So that way the kshetra is determined by our karma. But one who knows the kshetra is called as the kshetragya.
Let’s move forward. Then Krishna says that there is another kind of kshetragya. kshetragyaṁ ca apimāṁ viddhiḥ sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārataḥ kṣetrakṣetra-jñeyor jñānaṁ yat tas jñānaṁ matam mama What does knowing the kshetra mean? Does it mean that we have to know what is happening in the body? No.
Kshetragya is basically referring to the soul. The soul may not have exhaustive knowledge of the body, but the soul has some basic functioning knowledge of the body. The soul is in the material world for a particular purpose.
That is either to enjoy separate from Krishna or to become purified and return back to Krishna. So whatever is the purpose of the soul, to fulfil that purpose the soul has the body in this world. And the soul knows basically how to operate the body.
The soul doesn’t know intricately how internally the body functions. But the soul knows how to use that body to fulfil its desire. So in that sense the soul is Kshetragya.
kṣetragyaṁ ca pīmāṁ viddhi So he is saying that I am also the Kshetragya. sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārataḥ Now, this verse has two distinct parts. The first part introduces a second Kshetragya.
Baladeva Goswami in Paramahamsa Nidarbha analyses this verse quite elaborately. And the point that he makes in Paramahamsa Nidarbha is this. He is saying, the Mayavadis try to say that the Kshetragya is also me.
There is a difference, I am also the Kshetragya and the Kshetragya is also me. There are two different sentences and their implications are different. There is one Kshetragya, one who knows the body is the Kshetragya.
Then the Kshetragya is also me or I am also the Kshetragya. What is the difference? It’s like saying, in India I am a citizen of India. And then the Prime Minister is also a citizen of India or I am also the Prime Minister.
So, there is a very radical difference between the two. Prabhupada is asked, Swamiji, my Guru says that I am God. Prabhupada says, I say I am the Queen of England.
What is the basis of such a claim? Where is the power? Where is the influence? Where is the authority? Kshetragyam chaapimam viddhi. So he says that here, what is the sentence actually saying? That Kshetragyam chaapimam viddhi. So, I am also the Kshetragya.
Kshetragyam chaapimam viddhi. Sarva Kshetra ishu Bharata. Who knows everything.
So, the point which Jigna Goswami makes is, if you look at the grammatical construction of the sentence, then what is being said is that there is another person. Not that this same person is another person. What he is talking about is, there is another person who is also a knower.
So, there is similarity between the two and that is what is common. Both are Kshetragya. So, the soul is Kshetragya and there is another Kshetragya.
So, another person is there and his Kshetragyata is also greater. He is Sarva Kshetra ishu Bharata Kshetragya. So, you can imagine there is a room over here.
Or let’s go back to the example of a field. So, the field has its own owner. So, the field is owned by a particular person.
And then beyond that, everything in the country is owned by the king. It’s the king’s kingdom. So, then in one sense the property is belonging to the farmer and in another sense the property is belonging to the king.
So, the farmer is the owner of the king. The father is the owner of the farm. Similarly, the king is the owner of the farm and the king is the owner of all the farms.
All the lands. So, here that means there is one common land that is being talked about. And first verse or the second verse of this chapter is introducing the first owner.
That is the soul. The third verse is introducing the second owner. And the second owner’s characteristic is described as he knows all the fields.
And Krishna describes after this that Kshetra Kshetra Gnyor Gyanam That one who knows the Kshetra and Kshetra Gyan to know this is called as Gyanam. So, Gyan as we know is to know matter, spirit and the controller. Correct.
Yes. Correct. Correct.
Correct. So, this verse is going to give a summary of what is going to come later. So, this is what is explained in later verses.
So, how the body is constituted that is explained in verse 6. And how the body undergoes changes. So, Vikari changes are explained in verses 7 and 22. That is explained in 6, 21 and 22.
How, when and where the body is produced. The identity of the knower and the field of activities. That is Kshetra and Kshetra Gyan.
That is 14 to 18 and 23. Sorry, that is Gyan and Gaya. And then after that is influence, Prabhava.
That is talked from 14 to 18. So, this is like a condensed prelude of what is going to come later. Now, these purports of Shri Prabhupada are quite technical.
And he quotes from the Upanishads to explain these purports. So, now let us look at those concepts. So, these concepts are related with Kshetra and Kshetra Gyan.
Now, there are in the scriptures they talk about three Koshas. Sorry, five Koshas. So, Kosha, literally if it is translated into English it means sheath.
Like a sword is placed in a particular covering. That is called as a sheath. So, the Atma is placed in a covering which is called as a Kosha.
So, now this covering is both objective and subjective. That means, you know these five Koshas. Annamaya, Pranamaya, Gyanamaya, Vigyanamaya and Annamaya.
So, that is, this Kosha is like, it’s both as I said a concept and object. Like say nationhood. You remember we discussed in the Upanishad classes.
I will not elaborate this. Nationhood is there. So, now the concept of nationhood is objective in the sense that there is a nation and there is the concept of nationhood.
And everybody who is an Indian national has the concept of nationhood with him. But then if there is a dog in India, is that dog an Indian national? Well, you could say in one sense, yes, because he is in India. But in another sense, he doesn’t have the consciousness to understand that I am an Indian.
So, that means the concept of nationality is an objective reality. There are some people who are Indian nationals, some people who are not Indian nationals. It’s an objective reality.
But along with being an objective reality, it is also a subjective experience. It is not an experience that everybody has. So, it’s both objective and subjective.
So, only when a person has a particular level of consciousness, will that person be able to experience that level of, that kind of reality. So, same way, annamaya, pranamaya, jnana, vijnanamaya, these are both objective levels of Krishna’s energy and they are also subjective experience of, subjective levels of individual realisation. So, at the annamaya level, when the person exists, everything is potentially food.
Everything that exists is just food. So, small babies are there, you know, they just, their whole, their primary interaction with the world is through their mouth. You know, whatever they get, when they want to feel it, they will take it and put it in their mouth and put it.
So, sometimes parents have to guard their children, their babies, because the children, when they pass the waste products, they sometimes pick that up and eat that also. So, their primary mode of interaction in the world is through food. That is annamaya, everything is potentially food for them.
Then, as the consciousness evolves further, then one understands that, actually, I have to survive, I have to exist. And certain things are favourable for my existence, certain things are unfavourable for my existence. At that level, one comes to the pranamaya level of consciousness.
So, pranamaya means that one’s existence is defined by struggle for survival. So, this is largely the animal world. And Darwin, he talked about this level of consciousness, when he talked about survival of the fittest and the struggle for existence.
Now, beyond that is the jnanamaya. At this level, philosophical thinking starts. So, the first two are at the level of the gross body.
The next two are at the level of the subtle body, touching the soul. And the last is at the level of the atma. Or more precisely, I’ll put it this way.
So, one starts thinking about philosophy, at jnanamaya level. Basically, one starts delighting in the life of the mind. Life of the mind means not mental speculation necessarily, but art, poetry, literature.
All these are not necessarily and always sensual. There can be deeper emotions involved also in it. Then here, at the vijnanamaya level, one comes to the level of atma.
Starts perceiving one’s spiritual identity. One starts understanding that beyond the mind, there is consciousness, and that is the reality. And beyond that, when one goes to the anandamaya level, one comes to the level of Bhagawan.
That means one perceives Bhagawan and one practises pure bhakti at that level. So, that is where one actually starts experiencing ananda. Now, at the vijnanamaya level also, the perception of the atma is not very complete.
Because the perception of atma is not complete without understanding the relationship of atma with paramatma, with Bhagawan. But there is some preliminary perception. So, why are we discussing this? What is the context of this? So, the concept of kshetra and kshetrajna is related with how much is the level of consciousness that a person has.
Generally, when we want to learn about the world, there are three ways to learn. You look around, you look within, and you look up. So, when you look around, that leads to the field of materialism or material science.
When you look within, that leads to the whole field of psychology and mental speculation. When you look up, that leads to spirituality and revelation. That’s how we do.
To understand in another way, when we face problems in life, we can turn three ways. When we face problems, we can blame others, we can blame ourselves, or we can blame God. Because of that person, that happened.
Or, you know, I am good for nothing only. I am like this only. Or, you know, God is bad.
Meri kismati pooti hai. So, we can go basically in our interaction with the world, whether it is to acquire knowledge or whether it is to face problems. We can go outwards, inwards, or upwards.
There are three primary ways in which we can go. So, when we go, accordingly, the Upanishads… When we look outwards, we have materialism. And to a large extent, material science has progressed in this way.
When we look inwards, there is the whole field of psychology which progresses. And when you look upwards, we have spirituality based on revelation. So, now, as devotees, what is the way we prefer? Look upwards.
Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t look outwards or inwards. We do that also. But our primary pramana is shabda.
So, primarily we look upwards. So, in a sense, looking outwards is pratyaksha, looking inwards is anuman, and looking upwards is shabda. So, here… So, in the scriptures, in the Shrutis especially, Upanishads, now all these three approaches are used.
And the first two approaches are used and then their limitation is recognised. And then after that, the final third approach is adopted. So, when we want to evolve in our consciousness, when we are looking outwards, we will be primarily in pranamaya and annamaya.
Because outwards we are interacting with. But when we start looking inwards, then we come to the jnanamaya and move towards vijnanamaya. But only when we look upwards, then we come to anandamaya.
Then we actually realise the complete reality of who we are and how we can become truly happy. So, two ways of knowledge are called vyasthi and samasthi. Vyasthi means from individual to universal and samasthi means from universal to individual.
So, generally speaking, we talk about this in terms, roughly, in terms of arohan and aurohan, ascending and descending. But that doesn’t mean necessarily ascending is wrong and descending is right. It is not necessarily like that.
Like inshallah Prabhupada would say, by testing one grain of rice, we can know whether the rice is cooked or not. By looking at one fruit in the basket, we can know whether the basket of fruit is good or not. Prabhupada goes to Chanakya for that.
So, both are valid approaches. But according to time, place, circumstance, a particular approach will be used. Now, we will just discuss six and seven and then we will stop here.
rishibhir bahudhā gītam chandobhir vividhai prathā brahma-sūtra-padeścaiva hetumadbhirvi-niścitai So, rishibhir bahudhā gītam. So, the rishis have spoken this chandobhir vividhai prathak. They have spoken this through chanda.
So, here chanda refers to the Upanishad which has chanda. It is called as Chandogya Upanishad. Chandogya, it is pronounced as Chandogya Upanishad.
So, in Chandogya Upanishad, this analysis of Kshetra and Kshetragya is given. And brahma-sūtra-padeścaiva, it is given even in the Brahma-sūtra. Hetumadbhirvi, with respect to cause and effect.
So, basically Krishna is telling that what I am telling is based on these sources. So, he is referring to previous sources to substantiate what he is saying. Then he will start by describing the Kshetra.
So, the first verse describes the Kshetra. It describes the Kshetra in terms of the 24 elements. So, indriyāṇi-daśāyikaṁ ca is 11, pañca-cendriyā is 5, 16.
Then mahābhūtāṇi-ahamkāra. Mahābhūtāṇi is gigantic elements, earth, water, fire, air, that’s 5 more. That makes it 21.
And ahaṅkāra-buddhi-anārī-vekta, that makes it 24. The 24 elements of Sāṅkhya. Now, after that is the interesting part that Krishna is telling, icchā-dveṣa-sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ saṅgāta-ścetanādṛti.
This is Kshetra samāsa. In summary, Kshetra vikāra. That this is the transformation of the Kshetra.
So, actually, etad kṣetram samāsena. This is Kshetra, this is referring to the 13.6. And sa vikāraṁ udārataṁ. Sa vikāra is described in 13.7 A and B. So, what are the vikāra of Kshetra? icchā-dveṣa-sukha-duḥkha and cetanādṛti.
Now, how is it that consciousness is said to be a transformation of Kshetra? Consciousness comes from the soul, isn’t it? So, why should consciousness be called as a Kshetra vikāra? As a transformation of material energy. So, cetanādṛti. So, actually speaking, if you look at the context, icchā-dveṣa-sukha-duḥkha, that is, attachment, aversion, happiness and distress.
See, consciousness in and of itself is originally spiritual. But consciousness, when it is rooted in the material world, it is different. So, you remember, I don’t know whether we discussed in our Īśopaniṣad, the difference between citta and chitta.
We discussed it? Most of you will not remember it. So, Baladeva Devotee talks about it in the Govinda Bhāṣya in terms of jñāna-rūpa and jñāna-svarūpa. So, it’s like say, a person is watching TV.
Then the person has his own consciousness by which the person can see other things also. Person can see the TV screen, person can see the people around him, person can see the room. So, like that, chitta is the original consciousness of the soul.
It is a part of sat-chit-ānanda. Whereas, chitta is consciousness rooted in the material world. That means, when the person is watching TV, at that time the person’s consciousness gets caught in the TV.
And then through the TV screen, that person’s consciousness gets transported to various places. If on the TV a cricket match is going on, the person’s consciousness may go to the Wankhede Stadium or wherever it is. So, like that, the consciousness gets rooted.
So, in the material world, the consciousness that we experience is chitta only. Chitta is not available to us. Chitta will be available only when we come to the pure state of consciousness, when our consciousness is withdrawn from material existence.
So, this chitta is a vikāra of kṣetra. That’s why your consciousness is different from my consciousness. Although originally all of us are transcendental and all of us have the desire to serve Krishna, but now all of us are coloured or discoloured differently by our conditionings.
And that’s why our consciousness is different. So, saṅgātaś cetana-dhṛtiḥ. So, the way we have icchā-dveṣa, the way we have sukha-duḥkha, it’s different for different people.
And that’s different for different people because their cetana, there’s a vikāra of that cetana. That their original consciousness has been distorted. That’s why it’s called as cetra-vikāra.
So, after this, Krishna will describe the elements of knowledge. That we’ll discuss after a 20-minute break. So, we’ll start at 11.25. Thank you very much.