How the Bhagavad-gita offers a world-unifying philosophy, The Monk’s Podcast 130 with Ishvara Krishna Prabhu

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
surface, it is better to do bhakti. I stood as a devotee and it was a very deep experience, I stood as a devotee and that very much changed my life I have to say, Then, around the age of 30, actually 32, almost 33, I went to school, to university to do my studies, and I focused on Indology, Indian Studies, Sanskrit Indology, Philosophy, and Religious Studies. Which studies? Which studies? Religious, Theology, Religious Studies.
Okay. That was my undergrad, and then my Master’s, I focused on the Bhagavad Gita. I decided to write my dissertation, my MA dissertation, on the Bhagavad Gita in Tel Aviv University with Professor Shlomo Biderman, who was my advisor, and I actually treated the Gita as a philosophy, I would say.
I actually looked at the Gita as a philosophy, and I remember my conversations with my advisor at that time, as I mentioned, Biderman, and we were trying to compare the Gita to Plato’s philosophy, Plato’s cave, and things like that. I mean, there was a feeling, at least I had that, that the Gita has a very deep philosophy which remains to be articulated, and I remember my supervisor saying to me, he said, you’re giving us like a magnifying glass into the Gita, you’re kind of opening the Gita for us. I had it, I had this inclination, I don’t know, previous life, yes or no, I don’t know, but it was a deep attraction, which I have to this very day, to the Gita.
So that became the focus of my academic studies. At first, I wanted to teach the Gita at the university, which I did, then I wanted to publish a Hebrew edition of translation and commentary, which I did based upon my master’s dissertation. And then later that was published in English, in the form of exploring Bhagavad Gita philosophy structure and meaning, and later done in Chinese and Russian and Portuguese, and now there’s another Chinese edition coming, but that’s basically the way it went.
Okay, amazing. So when you said you presented the Gita as a, you focused on the Gita as a philosophy, so how is the Gita seen in the mainstream world or in the academic world? Is it primarily seen as a religious text? Is it not seen as a philosophy in general? Well, the Gita in general is seen as an eclectic text of wisdom. I mean, everyone agrees that the Gita contains deep wisdom, there’s no argument about that.
Things which change your life, go into your heart, touches upon the deep truth of life, that’s accepted. However, most scholars see that as a religious text and also as eclectic. Eclectic means it has many ideas which are not tied together.
There’s no unifying structure, it’s many ideas. Some say the Gita is the Hindu response to Buddhism. That’s another thing which people say about the Gita, which has a grain of truth in it.
I mean, you can see that argument and understand. But basically, I think my main innovation was treating the Gita as philosophy. I have a good friend, I have a friend, and he’s a philosopher.
He was a lecturer in philosophy at Haifa University, later became the Israeli Minister of Finance and went to politics. And now he knows me for many years with my Gita journey. And years ago, he told me, Itamar, he said, actually, your argument is that you have discovered a philosophical text.
You have discovered, that’s what you’re saying, Itamar, he said, you know, if I try to condense your statement, your argument, that’s what you’re saying. You’re saying you have discovered a new philosophical text. The Gita is not new.
Everyone knows the Gita. But to claim that the Gita is philosophy, that is a new, innovative argument. And that’s what you are saying.
He told me years ago, and he was right. He was right, in a sense, that is what I was saying. You know, if I can mention that, we have… One minute, Prabhu.
I mean, this is a very significant point. So when you are saying two things, it’s eclectic and it’s philosophy. So when you say you treat it as a philosophy means that it’s a rational body of knowledge with a coherent message.
Is that what you mean by the word philosophy? Yeah, by philosophy, I mean that it has a coherent structure, which is perhaps my main argument about the Gita. I have my commentary where I explain each and every verse or section. But beyond that, I have an argument about the structure.
I call the structure the three stories house structure. Just one minute, Prabhu. Before we go into that, I’m just trying to, I’m curious to understand.
So why is it not considered to be a philosophy? Because there are so many commentators that various Acharyas have written. And generally within the tradition, at least the Bhagavad Gita is seen as a philosophical text. Or are you saying that each Acharya has their own philosophy and then they use the Bhagavad Gita to substantiate their philosophy? But it is not that the Bhagavad Gita itself has its own philosophy.
Well, I would say… Why is this an innovation? For somebody who has lived in the tradition, we understand the Bhagavad Gita is a philosophical text, but yeah. Let me try to answer for different points of view. One point of view would be that for years, Indian philosophy was considered in Western terms.
For example, take Western terms, logic, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and then try to find the Indian counterpart. So you have academics working in the field of Indian philosophy, but that would be like logic, nyaya, that would be… I mean, things like that. I mean, the famous B.K. Matilal was a professor in Oxford.
Professors such as Sajjanathan Ganeri. I mean, you have academics looking at Indian philosophy, but usually they will not treat the Gita as philosophy. Of course, the Gita is one of the Prasanna Trayee, one of the three foundations of the Vedanta tradition.
This is known. But even there, it usually treats more like a text of karma, yoga, and ethics rather than philosophy, logic, epistemology, ontology, and so forth. So that would be one answer.
One answer would be that seen from a Western point of view, that’s not exactly what philosophy looks like. Rather, nyaya would be like serious philosophy, logic. Let me rephrase what you’re saying.
So there are certain conceptions within the Western vision of what philosophy means and how philosophy should be. So that’s why we have the six systems of philosophy. Like there is, as you said, nyaya, there is vaiseshika, there is… In one sense, systems of philosophy.
But Vedanta… Yes, that’s true. That’s true. That’s true.
But then the Gita would have all of them, more or less. I mean, the Gita would have Mimamsa, it has the Vedic sacrificial ethos. It would have Vedanta, very clearly it would have Vedanta.
It would have much yoga, no doubt it has yoga. It would have Sankhya. You have Sankhya in the Gita quite a bit.
Then you have some nyaya, a little nyaya. Krishna says, in logic, I am the conclusion. What is that verse? There is a mention of logic in the Gita.
Vaadaha Sanyata Maham, I think. Among the logicians, I am the perfect one. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. And also, I would say you have a vaiseshika, perhaps through Bhumir Purnalova, the elements. You could consider that the structure of matter, it’s not very developed.
You can look at this as some hint of matter, of atomism, but certainly it has strong Mimamsa, Vedanta, yoga, and Sankhya. That’s no doubt. But it’s not clearly a text of one of them.
It speaks for all of them. OK. But you cannot say that the Gita is a Mimamsaka text, a Prabhakara, a Mimamsa Sutra, things like that, or a Jaimini Prabhakara, and so forth.
And as Vedanta, we know it has various commentaries. You have Advaita, you have Vishishtadvaita, Advaita, and so forth. So that’s how the Gita is treated.
It is considered philosophy in some places, but still, in most places, you’ll find the Gita as representing Hinduism, as representing Hindu thought, eclectic, full of wisdom, but not as a hardcore philosophy. OK. So just one question then, are, and parallelly, does the, is the Bible said to have its own, is the Bible seen as a philosophical book, or is the Quran seen as a philosophical book, or? No, no, no, Bible is not philosophy, Quran is not philosophy.
That’s preaching, it’s sermons. I mean, Bible is sermons that is taken, changing the heart. Again, the same thing, the Sermon on the Mount changes the heart, makes you a good person, calls you to get closer to God, but it’s not philosophy, perhaps theology, but I don’t think anyone, I mean, most people would not study, study the Bible in the category of philosophy, and Puranas, they consider mythology, basically.
I mean, the 19th century, 19th century definitions are still around, Purana equals mythology, that’s 19th century, basically. No, OK, I didn’t mean, sorry, I didn’t, I didn’t mean Puran, I mean Quran, and other religious texts. Ah, you said, you said Quran, not Puran, I thought you said Purana.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Quran, no, Quran also is not philosophy, Quran is religion. Ah, OK.
Of course, Quran is not philosophy, Quran is religion, of course. OK. So, you have Islamic philosophers, but they will be like writing interpretations, maybe philosophers or Islamic philosophy or theology, but that won’t be the Quran, the Quran will be the scripture, and they will develop their own systems around that.
So, if you consider philosophy as a systematically developed body of thought, then we could say the Gita will contribute to that systematically developed body of thought, but the Gita itself is not seen as having a systematically developed body of thought. But what you have done is… That’s the way the Gita is seen, and my work, I’m trying to highlight, to prove, to show that you can read the Gita as philosophy. Of course, I’m offering an interpretation, that’s the way I view the Gita, I organise it.
But yes, that is my statement, my innovation. I’m saying here there is a real philosophical text. Interesting.
So, the implication here would be that… So, practically speaking, how would the approach or what would be the result if the Gita is seen not as a religious text or as a philosophical text? Is it that it acquires more intellectual respectability? It goes beyond, its reach goes beyond sectarian boundaries? Or how does it make a difference? Let’s try to look at the Greek, what happened in Greece like 2,500 years ago. You had, in ancient Greek, you had groups like the Pythagorean, followers of Pythagoras. Now, they would live in what we call today an ashram setting.
They lived in ashrams. They had dietary rules. They were vegetarian.
They followed vows. Sometimes they had to be quiet, silent for five years, Maunam. Five years? In order to… Five years of Maunam, in order to be accepted.
They had religious practises. They would worship the Greek gods, the goddess of wisdom. They treated their knowledge as mystical.
Mathematics were treated as sacred knowledge. It wasn’t like today, computerised and secular. It was sacred knowledge.
They felt that they were doing mystic studies, and that’s how Greek philosophy developed. And then, that’s the Pythagorean. Then people were, some of them, some of these groups were gathering in Academos field.
There was a field, an orchard, actually, by someone called Academos. And that’s how the academy, this term academy, came to light. It happened.
And then you had Plato. He was part of that academy. Also, they were initiated.
They were practising religious practises. And that’s basically what we would call today an ashram setting. And gradually, that tradition became secularised, and it became separated from its religious background.
It happened about 2,500 years ago. And then you have the whole story of the Western tradition. You have the classical period, the Greek and the Romans.
Then you had Christianity. They mixed together, and they built up the Western civilisation. But the implications are huge.
Once the Gita is taken as philosophy, I mean, you can also read Plato and Aristotle as Greek mystical writing, just study Greek classical writing. But at a certain point, once it became philosophy, it became secularised. It became universalised.
And it changed the world, actually. We can say that this world is, in many ways, thinking in Greek terms. Mathematics.
I mean, you’re an engineer. You study mathematics. That’s a Greek branch of knowledge, in many ways.
And that allows so many things. So that happened some 2,500 years ago, that this mystical knowledge took the shape of philosophy. And now, these days, you can go to a philosophy department.
You can study Greek philosophy. You don’t have to take initiation into a Greek occult. You don’t have to be studied for five years.
You just study it as philosophy. So what I think is that what’s happening now is that the Gita is, in some ways, following the same path 2,500 years later. I mean, you go to the ashram.
Many people go from Israel, actually. They go to Rishikesh. They sit in an ashram and study the Gita in an ashram setting.
In a sense, what I’m doing, I’m taking the Gita out of the ashram setting, and I’m universalising it. I’m trying to secularise it and bring it as a universal philosophy. And that happened already with the Greek philosophy a long time ago.
And I think that it’s happening now, not because of me, because of geopolitical shifts, the rise of Asia, 21st century. All these things are happening. And Asia is becoming more prominent in the world.
As I mentioned, geopolitically, all these changes, 21st century, rise of Asia. And in that, the Gita is occupying a much more prominent place. So to your original question, once articulating the structure of the Gita, which is what I’m trying to do or arguing, I see it as a world global philosophy, potentially global philosophy for various reasons, which I’ll be happy to discuss.
But that is what I’m saying. I’m saying 21st century, there are shifts, cultural shifts. There’s the rise of India and China.
There is the rise of post-modernity, which you know my opinions about. And in that, the Gita has a potential to become the foundation of global ethics. Global ethics.
I mean, we have globalisation. We have the shifting of commodities and finances and people. But we also need to have a global ethical system.
I mean, so many groups and everyone has different ethical ideas. And I think that the Gita has a potential there. And yes, that’s basically what I’m saying about the Gita.
I’m trying to present it as a beneficial philosophy for 21st century, which is basically that’s what I’m saying. This is fascinating. You’ve made a lot of points and I think we’ll have to unpack them a little bit.
So now, I had read Plato and Socrates and Aristotle. But as you rightly pointed out, when reading about them, we hardly read anything about what gods they believed in or what gods they worshipped. So when we approach them, we approach them as philosophers.
So what you’re saying is that they had the religious dimension to their life. Yes, of course. But that because if that had become their defining identity, then who wants in today’s world who wants to commit to a particular religion? It’s not.
Yes, exactly. Exactly. These days, you can go and study Greek philosophy without worshipping Athens, the goddess Athena.
You don’t have to worship her. You don’t have to sacrifice a, I don’t know, a chicken or I don’t know what they were doing. You don’t have to do any vows.
It’s considered to be secularised. No one says, oh, now you’re a Greek. Now you’re practising Greek religion, the separation of Greek philosophy with a Greek practise.
And it happened. It actually happened and changed the world. So it becomes that you create space for intellectual exploration without demanding, say, religious affiliation or religious conversion.
Exactly. I’m saying here is a good philosophy. I’m saying here’s the good philosophy.
You can study the Gita. You can live the Gita. And of course, the Gita will ultimately change you.
I mean, once you accept it, as the Greek philosophy changed us in many ways and made us all Greek in some ways, I mean, we have become Greek, not in our religion, but in our giving mathematics importance and in our epistemology, ontology. I mean, all these things happen unknowingly. I think it’s in the intellectual DNA of modern humanity.
You could say. Yes, exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly. But as you are saying, I am saying you can study the Gita without taking initiation, without being committed to religious principles and so forth.
But as a good text, which is a good philosophy. So that’s interesting. Now, when you’re later talking about, say, Christianity, see, even Newton was quite a committed Christian.
And he did a lot of writings on trying to explain Christianity in empirical terms and try to do Bible dating. But that aspect of Newton is not what is highlighted. Newton is prominently known as a scientist for his scientific contributions.
So basically, if we consider, say, the wisdom of the Gita to be like a temple, then you are opening like a big new door for people to come in. Traditionally, the door was that you worship, join a particular tradition, worship the Lord, and then that’s how you come in. Well, if I may mention something about Srila Prabhupada, there was a statement that Srila Prabhupada built a house for the whole world to live in.
It said about Srila Prabhupada that he built a house for the whole world. Now, where’s that house? I mean, can the whole world, 9 billion people enter a temple, a preaching centre, where? And I’m taking that and I’m saying that the Gita, this three-story house is a house which can accommodate the whole world and accommodate various religions, various philosophies, give them all space within the structure of the Gita in a way which will unify them and elevate them, take them into a progressive ethical and spiritual path regardless of their culture, religion, beliefs, and so forth. Really, that’s a remarkable claim.
So, what you’re saying is that the Gita can be appreciated by people irrespective of their religious affiliations, that it can accommodate everyone. Yes, we didn’t bring it to this conversation for discussion, but I did publish in India a book chapter called the Bhagavad Gita as an all-Indian text. In that book chapter, which was published a year or two ago, I described the Gita and tried to show how it is compatible with the nine Indian religions.
Of course, Hinduism, of course. The Gita, I didn’t even mention because the Gita is considered Hindu, but I do mention Buddhism and bring some verses which, to my mind, are close to Buddhism. I do mention Jainism.
I mean, not very difficult to find Jain ideas in the Gita. I do mention Sikh tradition, find devotional about the guru, about various ideas. I mention Christianity, and I bring verses from the Gita which, to my mind, are compatible with Christianity.
I mention Islam, yes, also Islam, and I bring some verses. Actually, I bring a chapter from the Gita which I feel resembles the religious feeling of Islam, chapter 11. It’s another question, another discussion.
Also, Judaism, where I make the connection of dharma and halakha, the Jewish law. I bring the Zoroastrian idea, and I bring various ideas about the elements, dualism, and, of course, Vedic fire altars and things like that. I bring the Baha’is and bring various ideas, such as the avatar idea, to be close to Baha’i ideas.
So, I do have a paper, a chapter, about trying to see the Gita as an all-Indian book and how the Gita is compatible with all these nine central regions which all are there in India. Of course, yeah. That’s fascinating.
So, I think you sent me that paper and I read it also. So, I didn’t think of that in this framework. Now, each of these religions will have their own, you could say, philosophy built around and their own systems of practise and other things.
Are you saying that all of them have some elements that are compatible with the Gita? Yes. Or all of them, within, if you consider the Gita’s philosophy, Gita’s worldview, there is space to accommodate all of them? Yes, yes. And I think some of the space is allowed by the application of the Guna doctrine, which is basically secular.
The Guna idea of Sankhya is at the foundation of the Gita, at the base of the Gita, and that allows an expansion through a secular idea. The Guna, the way I take the Gunas, is non-religious. I mean, you can think in terms of the Gunas in whatever religion you practise.
You can think about the Gunas and basically the principle is elevation, trying to climb up the position within the Gunas. And once this idea is accepted, then many religions can be practised. You want to practise Judaism, so try to practise Judaism, not in Tamas, but in Rajas, and not in Rajas, but in Sattva.
It works, and people find common language, because all these religions, they have these ideas of becoming a better person, which basically goes to be more and more Sattvic. I didn’t mention a larger Asia, I just mentioned India, but they also have a paper about the Gita, it’s an old Asian book, and to that they add two more religions. One is Confucianism and one is Daoism, and they make the connections there.
I mean, Confucianism would very much like to see the gentleman, the Junzi, the ideal person as the person in Sattva Guna, but that’s a different direction. But it’s there, and I developed it elsewhere, that direction between Chinese philosophy, ethics, Junzi, and the Bhagavad Gita. So now, I read your book, and you talk about a three-level presentation of the Gita, but I’m not sure whether this point of the Gita as a world philosophy, it didn’t come out so prominently through the book, or is it something which you are also developing as you are moving forward, because this paper makes it much more clearer.
So, how has been the reception to the idea that the Gita could be a potential world philosophy or world unifying philosophy? Well, I published this book, Exploring Bhagavad Gita, Philosophy, Structure, and Meaning, back in 2010. It was published by Ashgate, a good academic publisher in the UK, and it gained very good reception very quickly. It received the Choice Outstanding Title for Excellent Books, which is a very prestigious award given by the American Association of Academic Libraries.
They award this to 1 to 40, two and a half percent, of new publications in 56 disciplines, and the book received that award without me having any connections with anyone. I wasn’t even aware of that, that the book was judged in there, and they gave them. Now, it received very good reviews, and a few good reviews.
It received a review in the Journal of Hindu Studies, one of the best, or if not the best, Journal of Hindu Studies, Oxford University Press, and there it was said that it’s very difficult to break new grounds in the study of the Gita, but I’ve done it, that I have broken new grounds. And it ends with a statement that future scholars who will not refer to this will be deficient in their scholarship. I mean, that’s what they wrote.
And then there was another review by Professor Arvind Sharma, a very famous Gita scholar, probably you know him, and that was in another excellent journal, International Journal of Hindu Studies, the second excellent, I would say the second, these are the two leading journals of Hindu studies. And there was this review by Professor Sharma who wrote that most Gita commentaries are not philosophical, but my own commentary is philosophical, which is unique and special. There was another review by Hamza Stanton in Philosophy East and West, and he wrote that actually I wrote two books.
One book is my Gita commentary. I actually offer a commentary in the text, but the second one is my argument about the structure, which is something else. So we have two books in one, he said.
So that was another important review. And then Ashgate was acquired by Routledge. Routledge is this huge international publisher, academic publisher.
So Routledge acquired Ashgate because one company buys another sometimes, and then I became a Routledge author, and then Routledge decided to publish this in India, a soft cover, which was done two or three years ago, I think 2019. So now the same book is in the West and also in India with an Indian edition, Indian price. So I think it was received well.
I mean, published both in the West and India and got good reviews. Yeah, I think today there’s a PhD student in Oxford right now who just wrote an article basically accepting my interpretation of the three-story house and taking it as a point of departure for further development. I’m in touch with him, which is quite, I mean, quite good.
I mean, someone takes your ideas and think, OK, let’s accept that as a point of departure for an Oxford dissertation and or article, I’m not sure where it went exactly, and develops that into a further argument, takes it further into details. So yes, I think it was received well, and I think that my Gita now is one of the, I don’t know, leading editions, but it is one of the editions which some scholars refer to. Let’s try to not go too far, but you do have some serious papers on the Gita which quote my edition.
Let’s leave it there. It has occupied a place among Gita editions. Yeah, people are happy with it.
Let’s leave it like that, not be carried away. So overall, it’s now in the academic world to actually, as you said, the kind of compliments you got, appreciating you got, that is remarkable. And how has the response been in the devotee community? Have you tried to publicise it in the devotee community or that is not your primary target audience? Well, I’m very happy to say that the devotee community very much likes this book.
It’s just true. My other book on the Bhagavata Purana, the Shiva Bhagavata, I think was different, but my Gita book, the devotee community liked it. First, there was the Russian GBC, Bhaktivignan Maharaj, he was aware of the book and he said he asked ISKCON Russia to do it in Russian.
So that was actually, they invited me to the court case. There was a court case against the Gita, Prabhupada’s Gita, some eight years ago. I couldn’t come, but I would have come if I could.
It was just for some practical reasons, but I still supported it. And he said, why don’t we do this, your Gita in Russian, which the devotees did. We worked together.
They acquired the rights from Routledge. Everything was done properly. The Gita is now published by ISKCON in Russia and distributed to libraries.
My work, and that was encouraged by the GBC at the time, Bhaktivignan Maharaj. So that’s the Russian edition. Now in Brazil, devotees also wanted my edition and just now it happened.
We did a lot of work and that was translated into Portuguese and published by a leading academic press called Vozes just about a month ago. And actually, I was supposed to have an inaugural speech through Zoom, a promotion speech. Just tomorrow evening, me in Israel speaking to a Brazilian audience in English, translated into Portuguese, but they asked me to postpone it to later this month.
So we’re talking now about inauguration of the book in Brazil promoted by devotees. That’s my point. And then in China, it was done also by devotees.
And there’s a Chinese edition. And right now there’s another edition being done by Chinese devotees because they felt that the other edition wasn’t clear enough. The language was too high.
And they want something more accessible. So I’m in touch with a certain Chinese devotee lady. We’re corresponding.
We’re supposed to meet on Zoom just two days ago, three days ago. And we just made another meeting for later this month to discuss some questions of the translation. But the point is that ISKCON China also wants to have this as another edition.
So we’re talking now about a Russian edition with ISKCON in Russia. We’re talking about a Portuguese promoted by ISKCON scholars in Portugal, in Brazil. And two editions in China, one done by devotees and one in the making.
So the conclusion is that the devotees like the text. The devotees like it. They feel that the text is devotional.
It’s not theoretical. They feel it’s a good apparently. Otherwise, they would have not read it.
So I think the devotees like it. I’m intellectualising the Gita. It’s true.
I am intellectualising. But I think devotees still like it. Yeah.
And I’m very happy about it because they wanted it to serve the devotees, to serve Shila Prabhupada and to serve as a bridge, I would say. Perhaps that’s what a bridge to the more academic, more, I don’t know, secular world. True.
This is remarkable. Quite a lot of devotees are appreciating it. And so you talk several times about the three-level structure.
Can you explain that a little bit? I… Yeah, yeah, that’s, as I mentioned, the core of my argument. I would say that in order to see the three-story house structure, we have to divide it into two parts. One part is the three stories.
And the other part is the staircase or the ladder. Now, the three stories is a division of the Bhagavad Gita into three different metaphysical layers. I’m trying to say that the Gita is a practising what you call hierarchical reality.
That’s a basic concept in Indian philosophy. In Indian philosophy, you have basically the direct realistic position where we all share the same reality. But you also have the hierarchical position where a reality is divided into slots, into parts.
And what one person sees is not what the other person sees. We know it from Vedanta. We know it from Buddhism.
I mean, an absolute reality and a contingent reality. We have these terms of absolute and contingent. And basically, I’m saying that in the Gita, we have three levels.
One level is the level of… I call it the world of dharma, the humanistic level. And the second one is the level of yoga. I call it the spiritualistic level.
And the third one is the absolute level, the level of moksha, pure devotion, moksha, whatever. Now, in the first level, we have the human being. The human being is the term.
We have people, we have persons, men, women with material identities. And that’s the language. The basic language is the humanistic language.
That’s basically the Vedic language of offering sacrifice and aspiring to prosper in the world, be happy, healthy, religious, go to higher planets, secure, cultured. So that would be the first level. So in this first level, which contains a whole terminology, in that first level, the subject means we are human beings, men, women, and so forth.
And the ethics is to prosper, to be healthy, Om Shanti, and so forth. And the ontology is that we are human beings. Now, the last, the highest point, I don’t discuss so much with that in the Gita, the moksha part.
That’s a completely different liberated state that’s up there in the spiritual world. It’s a different discussion, which is not so much in the Gita. The hints about that, it’s there.
I mean, in devotional terms, we consider ourselves to be servants of God and enjoy rasas, serve Krishna in a spiritual world. Or if you want to go to Advaita Vedanta, then that would be one with Brahman. But let’s leave it aside.
It’s not so important for us. And the second level is a level of in-between. So just wait one minute.
I mean, this is a lot of things. The three levels, let me understand them clearly. So using the terms of dharma, yoga and moksha.
And dharma is the humanistic level. So I was just thinking, which are the verses in the Gita which talk about the humanistic level? It’s something like 231 to 237, where it says that if you fight and win, you will attain heaven. If you fight and win, you will attain heaven.
Exactly. This is very clearly first floor. This is very clear.
Yeah. So you’re right. So the yoga level is in-between.
Now, the yoga level is different. In the yoga level, we’re no longer human beings, but our anthology is different. We’re spirit souls in samsara.
It’s a different terminology altogether. And also the ethics change. In the first level, the humanistic level, we aspire for prosperity.
But in the second level, the yogic level, our ethics is to be equal-minded towards happiness and distress, loss and gain and so forth. It’s completely different ethics. Now, I can change.
Yeah, I think this happens from 237 to 238, 239, there’s a radical change. You’re right. It’s a radical change.
Exactly there. Exactly. Exactly.
You’re right. So that’s what’s happening. That’s the story of the Gita.
So Arjuna speaks the whole first chapter from the first level. He says, I don’t want to kill them. There’s going to be sin, papa.
And we’re going to go against dharma. And I’m going to kill my parents and my kids and so forth. That’s all first floor arguments.
Now, when Krishna answers Arjuna, he doesn’t answer him directly. Rather, he starts by what I call a Copernican revolution. He goes up to the second floor.
Arjuna says, oh, and so much sin and this and that. Krishna says death. I don’t see any death.
No one seems to be dying here. All alive eternally. All these kings are alive.
The spirit soul is eternal. He’s speaking from the second level. Arjuna speaks from the first level.
And Krishna speaks second level. He says, I see only spirit, soul, and samsara. I don’t see anyone dying.
And actually, he says, I don’t see the need for prosperity. Because these yogis are matra spashas to Kuntayya. They aspire to tolerate, not to enjoy the world, but to be equal minded.
So that’s the Gita. Then he goes down, as you mentioned in these verses. He goes down, happy the kshatriyas, where svarga, dharma, bhavritam, and all that.
That goes down. And then he builds the ladder. But you have to recognise a different language in the Gita.
And once you see that the Gita has these levels, the Gita starts to make sense. Then it works out. Then you see.
Now we’re talking first story. Now, even me, I can talk with you now, first story. Haribol, I’m Ishvar Krishna Das, or Isamar Theodore.
And I live in Israel. I live in Amiri. It’s all true.
I’m not lying. I’m saying the truth. I live in Amiri.
I’m an Israeli. I joined this, got this and that. It’s all truth.
Now I can shift to the second floor. I’m not Ishvar Krishna. I’m not Theodore.
I’m not in Amiri. I’m a spirit soul. I’m being tossed in the ways of samsara.
I don’t know exactly what I’m doing here. And it’s also true. It’s just a different language.
I can say that because it’s a different point of view, which is there. In the Gita, of course, it’s there in classical Indian philosophy. You have the yoga school and so forth.
But in the Gita, you have it very clearly. So that’s these two languages. I’m putting aside a third language.
It’s not so important for me now. Basically, the Gita focusses about these two languages. In my work on the Bhagavatam, I would deal more with the third language.
But now there are these two. So there is a gulf of difference between them. And once you accept the principle of hierarchical reality, which is a basic principle of Indian philosophy, the Vedanta tradition, it’s there.
Then you can see that the Gita goes into steps or tiers of stories. And you have to know the point of view where you’re talking. If I say I’m a Fyodor Ishvara, I live in Amirim.
I’m not lying. I’m saying the truth. But it is from the humanistic point of view.
And now I’m saying I’m not Ishvara. I’m not this body. I have nothing to do with this world.
I’m a spirit soul. I don’t know what I’m doing here. Apparently, my karma took me here.
That’s a different language. It’s a different set of values there. I mean, this is quite fascinating.
I just think of so many Gita verses which can be, almost every Gita verse we can analyse from which framework it is, from which level it is spoken. So does Krishna actually affirm the first level? In one sense, Krishna, you could say that it’s like the Purvapaksha. Arjuna is presenting the first level.
And Krishna is, in one sense, is Krishna acknowledging the first level? Or Krishna is saying the first level is an illusory and go beyond it. So can we call it Krishna? He answers Arjuna’s questions very systematically. In the first chapter, Arjuna basically, to my mind, presents four arguments against fighting.
The first one is the utilitarian argument, which has two divisions I can explain. The second one is the dharma argument. The third one is the papa, the sin argument.
And the fourth one is the relinquishment argument. And I can explain, basically, I can expand that. And then if you see the Gita, Krishna answers all these arguments one by one.
Systematically, everything is answered. These verses in the second chapter, which you mentioned about the kshatriyas going to heaven, that’s an answer into the first argument. Everything is in place.
You can see the Gita, and it’s structured. And surprisingly, my students, who are not devotees, they understand that. They write examinations about that.
They understand the structure of the Gita. They write their exams on this, explain the arguments, explain the answers to the arguments. It works.
But with your permission, I’d like to address the other component, which is the ladder. So we know… The first is the levels. What’s that? You have the three levels.
And then you have a ladder between the levels. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you have a three-story house.
How do you move between them? How do you go from the first one to the second one? Okay. So here, I’m applying a traditional Vaishnava idea. It’s not my idea.
This is the idea which I learned first. If you don’t mind, just one minute, I’d like to make a point before we move forward. Now, I was thinking about that Krishna is not actually rejecting the first level also.
He’s acknowledging, but he’s contextualising, isn’t it? Because Krishna says, But in the next verse itself, he refers to Arjuna as Partha. He refers to Arjuna as Kaunteya, son of Kunti, son of Prutha. So Bharata Arshabha.
So in that sense, when Shri Prabhupada would say, you are not the body. But then Prabhupada would also say, when he was asked, why is your accent so thick? Prabhupada says, I’m a Bengali. My body is Bengali.
I’m Bengali. You are Americans. So the humanistic identity cannot be rejected.
No, no, no, no. They lean on each other. They lean on each other.
You have to understand Indian thought, Indian philosophy. They coexist. They coexist.
And we move back and forth all the time. We move back and forth all the time. I mean, if you see the structure of the Gita, and maybe I’ll come to that later.
You will see that the whole structure enforces dharma, but from different points of view. But it’s always enforcing dharma. I mean, the message of the Gita is be dharmic, but raise your consciousness.
But let me come to that gradually. So about the ladder. The ladder, this is a traditional Vaishnava idea.
I first learned that in VIHE in Vrindavan. Basically from Burjan Prabhu. That was in 1991.
I studied there and learned that from Burjan Prabhu. And that very much impressed me. And later I discussed that with him.
And he said, why don’t you go to look for a Vishwanath Chakravarti course Gita commentary. It’s there, which I did. And I found a translation by Bhanu Swami.
And it seems that this is the source that Shri Vishwanath Chakravarti, he writes his commentary based upon this idea of refinement. Now, in the yoga tradition, you have the famous yoga ladder of Patanjali. That’s very famous.
Now, the Gita offers a similar ladder of karma yoga. A similar ladder of karma yoga. And you don’t even have to argue too much to get that because it’s just there in the 12th chapter.
If you look at chapter 12, you have the ladder in a descending form, going from up down. This is the second part of the last part of the 12th chapter. Yeah, 12.8 to 12.
Yes. Yeah, you go, you have that. So it’s there in the Gita.
You don’t even have to make too much of an argument, but it’s there. So basically, I adjust the ladder to the three story house. And I show that you have the lower stage, which is the utilitarian stage.
Basically, if you mention these verses, like people will think of you as a coward. And for one who has been honoured, this honour is worse than death. This is the lowest argument, the lowest stage of the ladder, utilitarian.
Just talking about Krishna to Arjuna in the utilitarian terms. Then you have the second one, which is also utilitarian. Arjuna says, I will go to hell, to Naraka.
And Krishna says, no, you will go to Svarga if you die in the battle. Because happy are the Kshatriyas, to whom such fighting opportunities. That’s a second level, slightly higher.
And then you have the third level, which is in the border between the first and second levels. And that’s the Sukha, Dukha, Samekha, Ritva and Karmani, Eva, Dikara, Stay, working without a desire for the fruits of action. So you’re talking… That’s… Sorry, is it like Sakam Karma, Nishkam Karma and Karma Yoga? Or those terms may not exactly apply.
Well, perhaps we have to discuss what I’m calling Karma Yoga. Basically, actually, I gave a talk about in the last Sanskrit, World Sanskrit Conference, saying that Karma Yoga is actually Dharma Yoga. Karma Yoga is Dharma Yoga.
That was my argument, that in analysing the Gita, when we talk about Karma Yoga, we actually talk about following one’s Dharma in terms of Varna, Ashram and Dharma. That’s a good point. This is the Karma.
The Karma is following one’s Dharma, your duty, my duty. And the duty is in terms of Varna, means Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. And in terms of Ashram, Brahmachari, Vyastha, Vanaprastha, Sannyasa.
That’s these two, these four and four designate one’s Dharma, one’s duty. And now when this turns into Yoga, it becomes Karma Yoga. And that happens in the conjecture between the first and second levels.
That’s, again, these verses, Sukha, Dukha, Samekha, Ritva and Karmani, Eva, Dikala. So we have a structure here where Krishna convinces or preaches to Arjuna to follow his Dharma. And that structure remains all through the Gita.
But Krishna is urging Arjuna to purify his motivation, to sublimate his motivation. Do your Dharma, but go up and up. Do your Dharma.
Say a Brahmachari or a Vyastha or a Brahmin, don’t renounce your Dharma, but sublimate it. Change your consciousness. Go up and up and up.
And then Krishna says, why don’t you do it for the sake of the highest good? You know, the second chapter, the one who has a flood that doesn’t need a well, where there’s a flood, you don’t need water. And then Krishna says, Yoga, Karma, Sukha, Ushalam. Why don’t you practise your Dharma as Yoga? Very interesting idea.
Very interesting that you practise your Dharma. Your Varna, Ashrama, Dharma as a form of Yoga. Which means a mother can take care of her child as a Yoga.
As Yoga. Be a Yogini and do it, i.e. control your mind, reduce your desires, practise Yama Niyama. You can give your classes as a scholar, as a form of Yoga.
And that’s a very interesting state where Dharma becomes Yoga. And then when it goes higher, it gradually turns into Bhakti. This is the peak of the Gita.
You go upper. At first, you have Bhakti according to your tendency. Yad Karosh, Yad Ash Nasi, Yad Juhosh, Yad Ash Nasi, and so forth.
Means work for Krishna according to your capacity. If you’re a carpenter, build an auto for Krishna. If you’re a driver, drive Krishna, and so forth.
And then it goes upper to Manmanabha, Bhakto, and so forth. Be a pure devotee, go beyond material designations, do your spontaneous devotion. Surrender unto Krishna, Charama Shloka, Sarva Dharma Parityaja, and so forth.
But it is all within the framework of Dharma. All these stages, all these stages are externally the same. In all these stages, Arjuna’s urge to follow his Dharma and fight.
The journey is internal. The journey is internal from this humanistic level of thinking myself as a human being all the way up to a lover of Krishna, of Sarva Dharma Parityaja, and various stages in the middle. But externally, it is the same.
And that’s why the Gita can stabilise the world. Because it adheres to Dharma in every, in all stages. And, therefore, it can bring the whole, it can bring the whole world into a framework, a Dharmic framework where everyone, I mean, if you take Dharma in the very wide sense of all religions are Dharma and this and that, everyone lives within their Dharmic duties, whatever religion they are, but all try to sublimate, purify their existence, go up and up the ladder, turn their attention up, go upper and upper towards a more sublimated state of existence.
That’s basically how we see the Gita. So then, by any chance, just one minute, by any chance, have you depicted this three levels and the ladder dramatically, diagrammatically, anywhere? Yeah, I can show you. If you like, I have it on a slideshow.
I show it to students. I can share screen and show you if you like. Yeah, that would be nice.
Then things will become clearer for everyone. Yeah, yeah, this is in Hebrew. But this is actually, I took the Sheldonian theatre.
I was studying in Oxford at that time. So I took the famous Sheldonian theatre as an example, and this is the first part. It’s called the world of Dharma.
This is the second part. And actually, this small part is called the gods. I mean, that’s the traditional name.
Oh, okay. Yeah, and this is the ladder. A simple utilitarianism, Dharmic utilitarianism, duty for its own sake.
This is Karmani, Eva, Dikaraste, action for the highest good, yogic action and devotion action, which can also be divided. And this is how they correspond. Now it’s upside down.
This is the first tier, simple, Dharmic, duty for its own sake. Here’s someone offering the fruits, the supreme good. Turning ethical action to yoga and up, unalloyed, spontaneous and pure devotion.
So it’s interesting. Offering fruits for the supreme good. You’re putting that in the first tier.
That is not the third tier. No, no, no, it’s a second tier already. Okay, but this is a stage where someone does.
I mean, Mother Teresa, people who gave their life for the welfare of the public, for a good cause in general. It’s not focussing on Krishna directly, but it’s a stage where someone is above one’s egoistic tendencies and opens oneself to the whole world or to the highest good, whatever they consider to be the highest good. Okay, makes sense.
Now here, so the aspiration is lofty, but the conception of the ultimate divinity or the ultimate reality may not be that clear at this point. Yeah, yeah. The ultimate divinity is up there.
It can be different concepts. Of course, in the Gita, that’s Krishna. He’s the highest.
But in translating the Gita to a wide universalistic audience, I would say whatever concept of divinity is there could be accepted. Whether one is this religion or that religion. The structure allows the focussing of attention towards divinity in a more general way.
So, how do you differentiate between simple utilitarianism and dharmic utilitarianism? Well, dharmic utilitarianism assumes next life, Svarga and Naraka. And when Arjuna says that if I do that, I will go to hell, to Naraka, Krishna answers, no, you will go to Svarga. Now, simple utilitarianism is without that.
It’s just calculating what is for my benefit. Arjuna says, basically, that’s the lowest state in the Gita. Arjuna says, well, if I go to war, I lose.
Because if I lose, I lose. And if I win, this means my family will be dead. I’m going to lose my relatives.
So, I lose too. What kind of a victory is that where your family dies? There’s no one to celebrate the victory. That’s the lowest argument.
And Krishna answers, no, you will win. Because if you will win, you will win. And if you will avoid the battle, you will be considered a coward.
And for someone like you, with your sense of honour and dignity, to be considered a coward is worse than death. This is the lowest argumentation. But Krishna takes the trouble and goes there.
And then, the next argument, Arjuna says, I’ll go to hell. Krishna says, no, you want to calculate hell and heaven? You’ll go to heaven, to Svarga. Because the doors of heaven will open for Kshatriyas who fight dharmic wars.
But then, here, we start going into more spiritual discussions. Krishna says, why don’t you turn your fighting into yoga? So, just like in yoga, you practise it in a state of equal mindness. Why don’t you do your fighting as a type of yoga? Karma, Nyeva, Nikarashtak, give her the fruits of actions.
Duty for its own sake. Now, this is also close to Confucianism. Confucianism has a similar idea of rejecting utilitarianism and acting out of pure duty.
Here, you’re going to an Asian resemblance. And now, here, you go to offering the fruits for the highest good. Do that as a service.
Because this is the best thing to do. That’s the well and the water, which you mentioned. And then, this is yoga.
Turning ethical action into yoga. Yoga Karma Sukhothalam. This is… You’re placing all of them in different levels.
Basically, here. There are different levels. Now, yoga, there’s a similar idea with Zen Buddhism.
And actually, there are many Zen stories, various Zen stories about people reaching perfection, enlightenment through archery. If you know these stories, people went to the guru and they practised archery. And then, they became enlightened.
And they were able to hit the target. Various Japanese Zen stories in this slide, which connect fighting, especially archery, just like Arjuna, and enlightenment. And so, here, Krishna says, go to the battle and do yoga.
Which yoga? Not Ashtanga yoga, but fighting yoga. Send your arrows as a form of yoga. Concentrate your mind.
If you want, purify your mind, just like a yogi. Just like a yogi who is doing asana, concentrating, getting a mystical vision, detaching the senses from their objects. So, fight in this manner.
Fight like a mystic yogi, just like in Zen Buddhism. It’s very interesting, this idea. It’s very interesting.
And you can expand that. You can take it to all areas of life. You can be a bus driver, a yogi, and go to work, drive your bus, and try to meditate that you’re doing yoga, trying to drive the bus smoother, and to concentrate, to purify your mind, to gain a mystical vision.
And you’re going to be a better driver. A better driver. Every day doing abhyasa, a continual practise.
Every day doing your bus driving better. So, you’re saying this is a yoga karma sukaushalam, that level. Yes.
Okay. Yes. And then, from all that, where it leads? It leads to devotion.
This is the peak of the Bhagavad Gita. It’s devotion. And then, this karma yoga turns into bhakti yoga.
And you start doing your service to Krishna, to see the Supreme, and coming close and close to Krishna. As I mentioned before, first doing the service within my tendencies. Still constrained by my nature to some degree.
And then, gradually coming to pure devotion, to unalloyed devotion, going by our own nature. And just serving Krishna, because that’s what Krishna wants. As Krishna says, just become an instrument in my hand.
It’s there in the 11th chapter. Consider that we are instruments, and Krishna is acting, and we are just instruments. But, the interesting thing is, all these stages, all adhere to dharma.
There’s no stage where Krishna says, okay, don’t go to renounce the war, renounce dharma. You can go now. No.
All these stages, all these stages send Arjuna to adhere to his dharma. Now, you can ask, but if Arjuna has self-realised, why does he need to adhere to his dharma? So, for this, you have a discussion in the third chapter about this exactly. So, Krishna says, one who is enlightened is free from dharma.
And then, Krishna says, and apparently Arjuna says, what about if I gain enlightenment, will I be free from this battle? And Krishna says, no. Look at himself. He says, take myself as an example.
He says, I’m free from the karma. I don’t need to do dharma, but I do it as an example for the whole world to follow. I do it.
So, even at that point, Krishna covers and says, and so forth, that even if you have reached that, and you don’t need to follow, you’re self-realised, so what will you do? Go to the beach. No, you will still follow dharma, but from a higher motive, to give example to the general populace, to lead people on the right path, but still. So, that is perhaps one of the unique features of the Gita is that it adheres to dharma all the way from down to up, all the way it’s dharmic.
But the journey is internal. It’s an internal journey, internal spiritual journey throughout one’s dharma. And this is the special karma yoga leading to bhakti yoga ladder in the Gita, and in the way shifting from the first tier to the second one, going upper and upper and thinking in higher and higher terms.
You can call it mystical terms. But the direction is to become more dharmic, more detached from this world, become a devotee and go all the way up, just like the yogic samadhi. Beautiful.
Thank you, Prabhu. Thank you, this is so nice. So, what I, now I’ve heard about when you study the Gita and teach the Gita, when you talk about the yoga ladder, but what is striking about this is how you are presenting this in not just, you could say, technical insider terms, but universal terms and frameworks, like simple utilitarianism, dharmic utilitarianism and then various levels and connecting with the different religions.
So, what I am getting a sense is that within the multilevel frame of the Gita, almost all thought systems can find a place. And that’s what I’m aiming. Yeah, and the Gita has a universal global structure.
Yes, and the other thing is that the Gita is not disrupting people from the normal conduct of life, because whether you are at this level or this level, the action is like responsible activity in the world. So, it’s always responsible activity, it’s always dharmic, and dharma is for the betterment of society, it’s always, dharma is always good for the betterment of society, the betterment of the world, ecologically, that’s dharma. I mean, if a thief would come and say, well, I’m also doing my dharma, I would say, no, dharma has its limits.
It has to be for the benefit of the society. It’s not that every action could be considered dharma. It has to be an ethical action within a framework for the betterment of the world and society.
Yes, in one sense, I sometimes contrasted the Gita and other literature. So, even when the Gita talks about hell, it doesn’t talk about hell as a consequence of, as a punishment for non-believers. It is, hell is a punishment for wrongdoers, like those who act according to lust, anger, greed.
So, the focus is more pragmatic rather than, it doesn’t, although it gives philosophy, you could say it gives its own philosophy, but it is not, what we can say, it is not policing thought. It is not, it is not mandating a certain belief system in itself. No, no, no.
I think, I think the way I see the Gita is that it is uplifting. The message for every human being in all, all 9 billion human beings on the planet, uplift yourself, sublimate yourself, become better, purify your desires, reduce your desires, become more spiritual in your path. If you’re a Jew or Muslim or Hindu, everything, go up and up, sublimate, purify, be a better person, more Dharmic.
It’s all, it’s Dharmic. And that’s how I see the Gita as a potential, as a potential world philosophy, because it can embrace and accommodate so many philosophies and concepts and bring them all to the common ground of going up and going higher and higher. So, from my point of view, the variety of religions are not meant to conflict with each other or compete, but unite for the cause of upliftment.
And here’s a framework. By the way, the idea that Dharma is, can serve as a universal ethical framework is not my idea. I mean, years ago in Oxford, we had a talk by the late Professor Joseph O’Connell, who was very much close to the devotees, a great scholar of Bengali studies, and Lord Chaitanya and so forth.
And he said that in a lecture, he said that the people who are thinking in terms of global ethics mentioned Dharma as a multicultural framework, which can accommodate many cultures and philosophies and habits into one. It’s part of the beautiful multicultural feature or character of Dharma. Amazing.
Dharma is like that. In many ways, I mean, you would say Hindu Dharma, but basically Dharma, to my mind, is quite non-sectarian, quite accommodating, can bring many cultures together. And that’s the Indian experience.
I mean, that’s how India was always. That’s how India was so multicultural, because you have this framework of Dharma, which can accommodate so many cultures and ideas into a framework. So, Prabhu, would this, the Gita framework, be also able to accommodate atheists? Yes, yes.
Or let’s say atheists are materialists who deny the existence of Dharma. Yes, yes, it could accommodate atheists and materialists. And basically, how? It would talk to them through the Gunas.
It would say, first of all, I mean, the minute they think in terms of the Gunas, that would change everything. They would say, first of all, why don’t you examine your own nature, your own Svabhava? This was one of my points in my paper. Just look at the mirror, the metaphysical mirror, not the actual mirror, and see what your nature is.
Just look at yourself, study yourself. You have Brahmanical tendency. You have these tendencies that try to study your nature and try to study the composition of your Gunas.
I mean, I’m aware of the composition of my Gunas. I know more or less how my Gunas work. I know which kind of things I do.
I have my advantages. I also have my disadvantages. I have a certain combination of Gunas between Sattvic, which is more Brahmanical, and Sattvic, which is more Brahmanical in teaching, and Kshatriya, kind of ready to fight for my ideas.
I know my combination. So people, atheists, could look at their Gunas and see their Gunas if, I mean, someone has to guide them. You have to be a little learned to do that, and from there, that will take them into a journey of sublimating their Gunas.
They will go higher and higher. I mean, you have this also in our scriptures. You have Migrarik the hunter.
If you remember that story in the Chittanacharita Amrita, he didn’t kill people. He didn’t kill animals. He half-killed them.
So Nara told him, at least kill them. See, you have a saint here saying, kill animals. But for him, it was an upliftment.
Instead of torturing them, at least kill them all the way, because the principle is all sublimation. And then the hunter does it, but then he says, why don’t go further? And he goes further, and he asks his family about their karma, and eventually becomes a sadhu. But it did start by this instruction, kill them to be a better person.
I mean, so once you think in terms of the Gunas, wherever a person is, the direction is good. A person’s ignorance is tamasic. So go a little further.
You’ll feel better. Go, become a little more rajasic. But don’t be so gross in tamas.
And then you become rajasic. So why don’t you go to sattva? I mean, it’s a route which takes you upward, takes one upward. And eventually, I believe, will bring you to bhakti.
But at the beginning, even if one is an athlete, you can speak to the athlete in terms of the Gunas. That’s the main thing about the Gita, is that it combines this Guna theory, which is basically Sankhya. It’s basically secular.
It’s non-religious. It’s accepted as a Sankhya philosophy component, and brings it together, and uplifts it, or connects it to dharma, and says, go up and upper from the Gunas. So yes, the secular.
So earlier, three-level and ladder, where do the Gunas fit in? Where? Because the Gunas take you up. If you have a person who’s non-dharmic, someone says, I’m an athlete. I have nothing to do with dharma.
I do what I want. And you convince them to look at his nature, her nature, through the Gunas. And then say, why don’t you uplift yourself? Climb up the Gunas.
So that will bring them to dharma. Because, and that is another point, if you examine the Gita, you’ll see that Satva Guna means to follow one’s dharma. And for this, you have to read chapters 17 and 18, first part of 18.
Also 14, but basically 17 and the first part of 18, till 1844, that’s where the connection is made. That Satva Guna means dharma, without regard to the fruits, enthusiastic, that’s a state of dharma. So if one thinks in terms of the Gunas, and one tries to uplift himself or herself, that would bring them to be dharmic.
According to these chapters, 17, 18, they will start being dharmic. I’m dirty, I’m cheating, I’m a bad person, whatever. And then I start thinking in terms of the Gunas, just by thinking about it, that lifts my consciousness.
I start to see things. I start to open up. I look at myself.
I see how tamasic and rajasic I am. I’m trying to uplift myself, go up. My vision expands.
I start to see the world from a wider perspective. I go upper. And what does it take me to be dharmic? Eventually, I’ll be dharmic.
And dharma, that will stabilise me and put me in satva. And then I think, how do I go further? And that will take me into the ladder, basically the ladder. I will try to be dharmic, but I will try to sublimate my motive and go upper to consider the welfare of the world, and then go upper and be a yogi, and then start seeing Krishna and say, let me serve Krishna.
But at first, I will serve Krishna according to my tendencies, but I’ll get a better taste for that. And eventually, I’ll go back home, back to Godhead. That’s basically the direction it goes.
And that can start also from Tamas, for a person who’s atheistic and Tamasic, who can just follow the Gita. I’m giving a Gita lecture series to yoga teachers in Israel. And the last lesson, a person, actually a devotee, he asked me, he said, what if someone is homosexual? He said about Enyo.
So I said, from whatever point one is, one can rise oneself upper in the Gunas. That’s the principle. That’s the universal principle.
Wherever you are, there’s no question of judgement. You are good or bad. Wherever you are, whether you are this or that, climb up the ladder.
This is the basic yoga ladder, the karma yoga ladder. Go up. It’s always that the journey always goes up.
The end is Krishna’s lotus feet. That’s the end. And the journey is individual.
Wherever you are, you go up here, you sublimate, you improve, but you go up and up. That’s that’s the journey. That’s that’s the direction it’s going.
So this is a very inclusive approach to the presentation of the Gita. And this is sometimes contrasted with like many devotees, even devotees also present the Gita in a very exclusivist way. So in the sense, which means what? Exclusivist means what? Exclusivist means like surrender to Krishna or anybody who is not a devotee is a demon.
I see. So that that that also comes up sometimes. I mean, I’m not saying academic or scholarly devotees do that.
But to some extent, the inclusivist approach that you have. So that means somebody could study the Gita without necessarily being without even or not study the Gita. One could be living according to the principles of the Gita, even without knowing Krishna or focussing on Krishna or being devoted to Krishna.
Because if somebody is at the level of Karma Yoga or Dharmic utilitarianism or some of the doing duty for duty’s sake. So now, so then in that, if that is the case, then how do you see Prabhupada’s presentation of the Gita? Prabhupada is presently prominently presenting from the third level perspective. Is it you see that way? Srila Prabhupada gave a very deep commentary on the Gita.
And I was very deeply, very deeply influenced. I gave prayer to Prabhupada in my academic edition. I said, I first read Gita as it is by Srila Prabhupada, by Prabhupada, and that very much influenced my views.
I give the credit. So I would say that Prabhupada did that. I would say as an academic that Prabhupada’s commentary is very religious, religious.
Means Prabhupada very strongly emphasises the divinity of Krishna and translates many verses into devotional service, focussing on Krishna. Means Prabhupada very strongly emphasises the religious aspect of Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the direct connection with Krishna. Which is wonderful.
I mean, that’s Prabhupada’s unique contribution. I think I defer. I think I’m interpreting Prabhupada as a devotee.
I feel more comfortable saying that I’m building bridges to Prabhupada, but I’m giving the Gita a more universal applicability and perhaps less religious. Perhaps that’s what I’m doing. I’m taking the Gita, but I’m keeping the same siddhanta.
I’m giving the same conclusion. As you saw, I keep to proper statement that Krishna is the goal of the Gita. You saw, my ladder leads to devotional service, pure devotional service in the Char Mashloka.
But my way of doing it will be much more universal and dharmic in a sense. I wouldn’t press the dichotomy, as you mentioned before, between devotees and demons. And so I would do it in a much more wide, universal, global way.
Some people would consider what I’m doing to be compromising, watering down. Why don’t you call for surrender? You let everyone be in the Gunas and climb from Tamas to Rajas. Just tell them, be heavy, surrender to Krishna, fools.
Devotees told me that. They said, your philosophy is watering down Prabhupada. You’re watering down Prabhupada.
Instead of telling them, surrender to Krishna, you are saying so many stages and ladders and so forth. So I can live with that critique. I can live with that critique.
I think, I hope I’m serving Prabhupada in my way. I hope I’m offering the Gita to a wide audience. I think I’m trying to keep Prabhupada Siddhanta.
I am saying openly that I think this is my interpretation of saying that Srila Prabhupada built a house for the whole world to live in. So this is my own interpretation of this statement, that the Gita is that house, not a physical material house. But I’m also open to accept critics and saying that perhaps, you know, it should have been done differently.
Every, I think it’s in the Bhagavatam, that every bird flies as high as its wings carries it. It’s in the beginning of the Bhagavatam with this verse. Also, it is there that different birds fly to different heights.
Yeah. Yeah. So I may be a small bird.
I fly lower. I fly between the bushes. And Prabhupada being a high bird, he takes up to the sky all the way to Krishna, which is fine.
It’s fine with me. I feel very comfortable there to be a small bird going near the bushes, but not going very high. But that’s where I’m floating, so to speak.
That’s your humility. I think you’re also flying very high in terms of the intellectual depth that you’re having in presenting the Gita. So coming to this.
So the Gita, in one sense, what you are saying is it culminates in Krishna, but it also accommodates people who are not yet ready for Krishna. Exactly. It accommodates.
I think this is the right term. And thank you for that. It accommodates in a very, very wide way.
Many types of people, everyone can find their corner, their place, something for them. And once they catch the Gita in some point, something which they they synthesise with, that will take them up and eventually lead them to Krishna as pure devotees, although not necessarily in this lifetime and very quickly. It’s a long march, but it will take them up.
That’s for sure. So in another sense, you know, you’re not rejecting anyone. Say if somebody says the Gita is a Hindu book, they’re saying, yes, it is a Hindu book, but it is more than a Hindu book also.
Because the idea of Hindu would be at the level one, isn’t it? Exactly. Exactly. If someone says it’s a Hindu book, you know, I’m a Hindu, not a Hindu.
I would say, yes, but this is this is level one. This is the humanistic point of view. It is Hindu.
It’s not Muslim. It’s not a Christian. It’s a Hindu book.
I have no problem with that. But of course, even academically, the Gita would shift between being a Hindu, Indian and universal. That’s the three categories.
Some people will consider the Gita to be a Hindu scripture. Well, it’s the bane of Hinduism. Some people consider the Gita to be an Indian Bible.
They say Indian Bible, the Indian book. Some people say that even non-Hindus. I mean, I myself encountered a professor a few years ago.
I was giving a paper on the Gita at New Delhi, and the professor came to me and said there was a great talk. I said, thank you for that. He said, I’m very proud of you because the Gita is our national book.
I said, yes, thank you. I said, yeah, you’d be surprised. I’m Muslim.
I’m a Muslim professor. Yeah, he said, I’m Muslim and I’m a Muslim professor teaching a 13th century Delhi Sultanate history. But I’m proud of you because the Gita is our national book.
And yeah, he was a learned person. Very nice. Muslim.
And said very openly. So people say that, and we also have to be aware that the Gita is the Indian Bible, the Indian national book. Some people say that.
Not a lot of people. And the universal, that’s of course. I mean, there’s a spiritualist.
They see the Gita as universal. Since the mid-19th century, you have these views of Henry David Thoreau and Waldo Emerson in North American Concord. They were saying the Gita is like an empire, a universal scripture speaking about existential questions, which each and every human being is facing.
So you have this universal, basically the spiritualist, the new age, the spiritualist all around the world, actually. See the Gita in these terms. I gave a lecture two weeks ago to the Theosophical Society.
Israelis adhering to a theosophy, Annie Besant and Madame Blavatsky. Of course, they have Indian roots. So these people admire the Gita.
They admire the Gita. They try to live the Gita. And some of them come to my Gita classes.
They are theosophists. You know, following Krishnamurti and Subaru and people like that. So you have this universalist approach to the Gita, also academically.
So the Gita does shift between these three designations, Hindu, Indian and universal. Nice. And when we are talking about the Gita being appreciated at different levels, so still, what are the ways in which it might be seen as sectarian? Won’t placing Krishna at the top of the hierarchy be one reason to consider it sectarian? Yes, well, basically, I mean, most non-devotees would consider devotees to be sectarian.
As you say, Krishna’s divinity would be, I mean, yeah, Krishna’s divinity. Of course, in my reading, I will go to more universal verses. These are my separate energies.
I mean, a more wide thing. But generally speaking, most people will consider Krishna’s divinity to be a sectarian feature of the Gita. That is true.
And the Vedic gods to be Hindu gods. Of course, I try to build bridges beyond that. I would say Vedic practises correspond to Jewish halakha also.
But most people would say, yes, these are the sectarian features of the Gita. Krishna’s divinity, Vedic gods, Vedic sacrifices, Hindu geography of all the rivers and Ganges, a geography, Ashwagandha trees, Ashwagandha Sarva Vrikshanam. I don’t know.
So from that point of view, the Gita would be considered more, I guess, sectarian. That is just one aspect. And then overall, if you consider the Gita as a, how do we put it? We consider the Gita as a book for potentially unifying the world thought systems.
So another challenge could be that the Gita has been associated in people’s minds with certain specific religions or specific ideologies. It has been used for Indian nationalism. It has been, well, you could say that those are levels at which it can be used.
But what you’re saying is that is not the whole of the Gita. The Gita is much bigger than that. Yeah, well, first of all, I didn’t mention my other book, but the other book is called the Bhagavad Gita Critical Introduction, edited volume, which was published just a few months ago.
And in that book, we have a chapter. I mean, it’s an edited volume, so it’s by different authors, a chapter on the Bhagavad Gita and the Indian national movement. And that chapter discusses Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Sri Aurobindo.
Everyone had a different approach, of course. Gandhi with his nonviolent interpretation, Bal Gangadhar Tilak with his activist interpretation, and Aurobindo Ghosh with integral yoga, means that the person has to follow karma yoga, jnana yoga, and bhakti yoga to be a full in one’s personality. So that we discuss in that book, at least three approaches.
There are more, but at least three approaches. These were analysed in that book. And they’re quite different.
I mean, Gandhi and Tilak are opposed, if you want, on the question of violence. Just to give an example. But I want to say something.
That both of them, so that Gandhi interpret interpreting the Gita in their own way. And that’s their own ideas. The other way is that what you’re saying is that the Gita is not enough to I’m saying that the Gita is very, very wide.
And it allows a variety of interpretations. And here’s an example. Gandhi and Tilak are quite different.
They read the same text and come to different conclusions. But I also want to say that to bring a slightly different perspective to the discussion. This is the 21st century.
And we’re facing the rising of Asia. Asia is rising. That’s a fact.
I don’t think I have to argue for that. One minute before. I mean, I would like to go to the geopolitical aspect because you mentioned it earlier also.
But just one point before this. See, when we say that the Gita can accommodate both, the Gita is wide enough to accommodate somebody who advocates nonviolence and violence both. Now, how do we avoid the danger of, say, complete relativism? That metaphysical, philosophical relativism or that reality is ultimately whatever you conceive it to be.
That is something which I don’t think the Gita is. Gita does have, as you say, it has its philosophy. I’m not saying that.
I’m not saying that the Gita is relative. I think my own interpretation is very clear. First of all, it’s Dharmic.
I very strongly endorse Dharma in all levels of the Gita. No, but there’s a difference. It’s quite clear you’re not endorsing moral relativism.
But what about philosophical relativism? You’re saying that all the levels of the Gita, they all talk about Dharma. So it’s not moral relativism. But not ethical relativism, but philosophical relativism.
That, you know, you are at this level, you believe this. But say, when atheists can be accommodated in the Gita, but atheistic philosophy, can that be the philosophy that there is no soul? I don’t think that philosophy can be accommodated within the Gita, isn’t it? No, this is not the philosophy of the Gita. I mean, do you see an example of… I mean, well, okay, now let me take the challenge.
If someone came to me with such a philosophy, I would have probably tried to look for some kind of sattvic component in their philosophy. They would say, no, there’s no soul. Okay, I will try to say this, look for something.
I would ask him probably, so what is there? They will say, okay, there’s just matter. So I would say, probably, okay, so at least you believe in Mumir upon all of you. Krishna says that in the Gita, I would try to look for a point where their philosophy would be compatible with the Gita.
That’s basically myself. That’s the way I would probably hand it. Look for some kind of a bridge.
Look for something which they say, which can find a place in the Gita. But of course, I see the Gita as a structure philosophy, not a flowing, not everything can be accommodated. Of course not.
Okay, so what I’m understanding by what you’re saying is that we, while presenting the Gita’s wisdom, can accommodate people by seeing something which is something within their existing worldview or existing way of seeing the world worldview itself. We can see some level of compatibility. Yes, like somebody may be atheist, but there could be some aspects of their life which are sattvic.
Yeah, exactly. So in that sense, so there is, so accommodation is different from relativism. That, okay, you have a place over here, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this place is the ultimate or whatever, everything about you is right, right now.
So, okay. No, no, of course, of course, I, of course, relativism is something else. I’m accommodating.
That’s, that’s my meaning. The Gita can accommodate, but the direction is to going up and climb that ladder. Can we say a word about this geopolitical circumstances? Please, please.
So, so I’m saying. Contextualise this a little bit, that like earlier you said that, in general, Indian philosophy has been studied through Western lens. So there is, even in India right now, as India is rising economically and geopolitically, there is an increasing concern among thoughtful Indians, intellectual Indians, that what is India bringing to the intellectual table? Not just as a, not just responding or reflect, not just reacting to Western perceptions of India, but what is India itself bringing to the, we could say, the world table, world intellectual table.
So I think that’s a very. This is, yes, this is very strongly felt everywhere. I very much agree with what you’re saying.
And a few years ago, I was in a conference in New Delhi and about, actually about Asian philosophy. And I could see that among the Indians present, there were two centres. One was Gandhian studies, Gandhian legacy.
And the second was Bhagavad Gita. And of course, these are closed because Gandhi was an adherent of the Gita. And they were trying to figure out what is our statement? What is our interpretation of the Gita? How can the Gita become our national book? What is the Gita philosophy? What is Gandhi in the Gita? I could see very strongly that the focus was somewhere between Gandhi and the Gita in this attempt to bring something to the world in terms of philosophy.
It wasn’t Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Mimamsa. It was the Gita. So many people, I think, feel that it’s the Gita, which is that something.
I may be wrong, but that’s my feeling. Now, I was also working a few years in Hong Kong. You may remember, I came to see when I was in Hong Kong on my way back to Israel.
And in Hong Kong, I saw something similar. Chinese scholars learned people speaking in terms of, let us articulate a Chinese original philosophy. I remember one famous professor saying that now is time for Occidentalism, not Orientalism, not the West defining the categories of Asia, telling the Asian how to think, but of us, I’m not Chinese, but he said, let us Chinese define categories for the West.
Let’s be Occidental. We will stay the terms. So anyhow, I see this happening.
And basically, the way I see it, at the 21st century, we have basically three centres. One is Western civilisation, which is very strong and probably will continue to be dominant for years to come. It’s not going to go away.
We all think Western in so many ways. The second one is Indian, which is one of the two big main Asian civilisations, India and China. So India will more and more contribute its philosophy and thought and originality.
And the third is the Chinese, which is also a very ancient and big civilisation. These are two big civilisations of Asia, ancient, very sophisticated. And of course, many people follow them.
You know, the number is probably two and a half, three billion people just among these two civilisations, Indian and Chinese. Now, within these, I see the Gita as the bridge between East and West. Now, please see my terms.
East means China and West means the West. India is in between. Exactly.
Now, why do I say that? I say that because the Gita is compatible with both sides. You may remember that I published a book called Brahman and Tao comparing Indian and Chinese, a cultural religion. And I made connections between the Gita and Chinese philosophy and religion.
Now, the Gita, when the Gita went to the West, the religious aspects were emphasised because the West was mainly Christian. So, Krishna’s divinity, religiosity, bhakti as falling at the feet of Krishna, praising Krishna, all these were compatible with Christianity and with Christian religious feelings. So, that’s another answer.
Why should I probably emphasise perhaps Krishna’s divinity? Because it went well with Christianity. People knew that Jesus, you surrender to Jesus and you surrender to God, you praise God and so forth. Now, this will not work with China.
I’ve been there. I’ve taught there. With China, you have other aspects.
And these are what I call the naturalistic aspects of the Gita, the Gunas. These work very well for Chinese philosophy. You want to ask how the Gunas work with Daoism? The Gunas are like Yin and Yang and Dao.
Beautiful, yes. Here you have the Gunas and they are compatible with Daoist philosophy and Confucian philosophy, very easy. I mean, if you read these chapters 14, 17 and half 18, that’s more or less Confucianism.
Take out the religious part of Krishna’s divinity and look at the Gunas, the division of the Gunas, and you’ll find the Junzi, the Confucian Junzi, the ideal gentleman, working, enthusiastic, out of duty, without being utilitarian, offering respect to the elders. That’s the Confucian gentleman. I could put it in a Confucius, how do you call it, the Confucius famous book, the Aphorism of Confucius.
I don’t remember, Lunyu in the Chinese, don’t remember the English name. And you won’t see the difference, probably. I would have put these verses there, how the gentleman, he is enthusiastic, out of duty, without regard to failure and success.
I mean, that’s Confucianism. So, basically, the Gita will live very well with both East and West. With East, it is compatible with many Daoist and Confucian, and of course also Buddhist ideas about samsara, different things.
And with the West, it has this theistic component of monotheism, of personal divinity. So, I do envision a bright future for the Gita as unifying East and West, perhaps a bit messianic, but that’s the way I see it. That the Gita is deeply connected with both East, means with Chinese philosophy and religion, and I mentioned both Confucianism and Daoism, and the West.
It has many components which are compatible with Western thoughts. So, yes, I think the Gita has also a place in terms of the geopolitical situation to occupy within the 21st century. It’s not only an esoteric scripture, it’s not only Hindu, it’s not only even Indian, it can be a major Asian philosophy or text.
Let’s see if it’ll happen or not, I don’t know. But potentially, I think it has the potential because of its structure and components and some of its ideas. That’s amazing, you know, I think this could be a whole different discussion in itself, because generally in India, in the Indian educational system, Western thought has been studied to some extent, but I don’t think Chinese thought is studied much.
But so this idea of bridge between East and West is not a bridge between India and America or India and the West, but between China and the West. This is fascinating. So how is the Gita in the middle? Is this also getting a good response as such? Well, I presented that in Hong Kong in 1912, sorry, in 2019, two years ago.
Hong Kong University was received very well, but I don’t think it ever went. See, there is a publication, Indian publication about the light of Asia, which I published there a few years ago. Actually, I can show you if I find that.
Yeah, this is a publication, an Indian publication, you see, Asia in Transition, it’s called. And you can see the editors are all Indians. No, no, here is Chinese, all Indian editors.
A published in Kolkata. And this is a my paper. Toward the articulation of an Asian identity.
The highlighting of links between the Indian and Chinese philosophy and religion. That’s amazing. Yeah, so that was published, I think, 2014 or 15 or something.
And yeah, so I present these ideas there. I make these connections between Gita and Chinese, basically Confucianism and Daoism. It’s amazing.
I think that there is enormous potential in the avenue which you are exploring in presenting the Gita. So I offer my best wishes and prayers and I hope that this podcast can help devotees and the viewers come to know about your contributions. We’ll provide links to your books also.
If somebody wants to contact you personally, is there something to contact you? Well, email, usually email is the best. OK, perfect. So in general, toward the end of the podcast, I try to summarise what we discussed.
And we went through a lot of areas, but I’ll try if you’re OK, just summarise in a few minutes. So broadly, we discussed today about how you have encountered and presented the Gita as a book of world philosophy. So the idea is that the Gita itself is seen more as a, as you said, eclectic book of wisdom, which can transform people’s hearts and tell deep truths.
But because it’s eclectic, it is seen as bringing in, not having a coherent or unifying thread of coherent message or unifying school of thought, unifying thread of thought. So what you did was you tried to present the Gita as a philosophy. Philosophy means that as a rationally developed body of thought.
And in the Vedic tradition, the Gita has been used or Gita has been seen as being used to contribute to various schools of thought. But the Gita itself has not been seen as having its own school of thought. So that is a quite a significant contribution.
And then through your books, which have won awards and which has been quoted and quite lavish, I would say quite generously appreciated in academic terms. So that has, that effort has been quite successful. And you talked about your journey also, how you were attracted to the Gita, right from the early days.
And then you focused on sharing it in your, focussing on the academic outreach. So the thrust of your presentation, from what I understood is there are three things. There are three levels at the presenting the Gita, the humanistic level, which is the dharma level.
Then there is a spiritualist level, which is the yoga level. And then there is the absolute level, which is the moksha. But then you present moksha not as impersonal, but moksha also as devotional.
There’s three levels. Mainly devotional. I emphasise devotional over the impersonal.
Yeah, devotional. So then there are various verses in the Gita, which can be talked about at each of these levels. And Krishna doesn’t reject any of them, but Krishna accommodates them within a framework.
And then to go from one level to the other, there is the ladder. And then the ladder, you talked about how there are various levels within. And the key over here is that whatever be one’s level of consciousness or whatever one’s conception of ultimate reality, the Gita focusses on dharma.
So in one sense, dharma is one level in the reality, but also in the three-level framework. Dharma is also the conclusion. That means Arjuna can see himself as a Kshatriya and as a member of the Kuru dynasty, and still the call is you fight.
And Arjuna can see himself as a soul who is a part of Krishna, and then also the conclusion is fight. And even if Arjuna sees himself simply as a soul, then also the conclusion is you have to set an example for society, and therefore you should fight. So in that sense, from a pragmatic perspective, the Gita can be very world building.
It can contribute without causing divisions. So quite often… Loka Sanghra. Yes, perfect.
I was going to say the same word. So now because the Gita has this remarkable inclusiveness, so different thought systems can be accommodated. And at the same time, not that we go in for moral relativism, because the Gita does emphasise Dharma.
And it’s not philosophical relativism also, because different thoughts have their own place and there is a hierarchy. It’s not that everything is right. But rather the Gita has the vision, a Gita provides us the breadth of thought by which we can see the good in various schools of thought and give them a place.
So even atheism and materialism, rejection of God or rejection of soul, that does not lead to those people being rejected. But whatever is good within them, that can be seen. And for that, this third framework of the modes comes in, where in one sense, the idea of the Gunas comes from the Sankhya.
And Sankhya, we could say at one level is secular. So because it’s secular, it’s more of, say, the way one behaves in the world, the way one interacts with the world. So one’s belief system doesn’t matter so much.
And this has enormous potential for expanding the reach of the Gita, because just as you mentioned Socratic philosophy, it grew up within the Greek philosophy. It was developed within the ashram setting and those philosophers or those particular proponents, they had their own religious beliefs and their ideas of worship. But because it has become secularised, so it has a far greater appeal.
So people may not want to join a particular ashram or worship a particular deity, but they want to explore thoughts. And now when we present the Gita in this way, many people who would not be interested in it, if it were a religious book, they will become interested in it. And when Prabhupada presents the Gita, he’s giving very deep insights.
At the same time, he’s presenting it at the religious level. And we can say that Prabhupada is presenting it at the level of the ultimate reality. But the Gita also has ways in which it can be explained at various levels.
And so then you talk also about two things that, I think the last part was about how geopolitically speaking, the Gita can be a bridge between the West. So the West has the, if you consider the West as broadly arising from the Christian worldview, then the theistic aspect of the Gita, the devotional aspect of the Gita can appeal to them. And if you consider the East China, primarily China, which is a super rising power now, there the two schools of Confucianism and Taoism, there the yin and yang, and especially the concept of the modes and the concept of equanimity, functioning with equanimity, that is something which can appeal over there.
So although the theism is not there, so in one sense, the theism is there in the Gita. And also the, if you consider the pragmatism, how does one behave in the world, that is also there in the Gita. And in that sense, it can build a bridge between the East and the West.
So it’s a, I say, I have been studying and speaking on the Gita for two decades now, more than two decades, but, and I have read your book also, but still I feel that I got such a inspiring appreciation of the majestic breadth of the Gita. So thank you very much for sharing this wisdom. It’s wonderful talking with you.
Do you want to share any concluding words? Well, I want to thank you for the opportunity. I mean, it’s a pleasure to talk with you because you really have a deep understanding of the topic. I mean, it’s difficult for me to find audience who can go to this depth.
And so it’s for me, it’s a pleasure to speak with you. It’s wonderful. I’m very grateful for that.
And to thank the audience for listening. I mean, it’s wonderful. Thank you very much for joining, Pramod.
Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna.