Understanding Krishnas first-person and third-person referencs in the Gita – part 2

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
On Krishna’s electrical system he said, to the first and third person, the devotee comes.
So what we are trying to understand by this is, what does the devotee come and say about the conception of the Absolute Truth? Whether I refer to the Absolute Truth, in the first person or the third person, whatever it may be. And we will be trying to understand how the Bhagavan conception is the highest conception. So, one of the questions that many devotees get as well as outside people get when they read the Bhagavad Gita when they read the Bhagavad Gita more carefully, is that Bhagavan often seems to translate everything as Bhakti Yoga or as I refer to all references to the Absolute Truth as if they are referring to Krishna himself.
So what is this? Is such a translation justified? That’s what we will try to look at in today’s discussion. We will correlate different sections of the Gita and try to understand how they are connected to him. So now we will see that, so if you remember what I discussed, the first six chapters, the focus is not on Krishna.
The focus is on the right course of action. That is, one should have defense control, one should be detached, and then one should act for a transcendent purpose. And if there is a focus on Krishna, that is to enable one to become detached.
The only exception is in the fourth chapter where Krishna refers to himself in response to Arjuna’s question. But in the seventh chapter onwards, Krishna’s references to himself become much more prominent. In the eighth chapter, there is a comparison between Ashram Yoga and Bhakti Yoga.
And Bhakti Yoga is literally a syllabus. Now, in the ninth chapter, actually there are many parallels between the seven chapters of the Gita. Third and fifth chapters are very particular.
Seventh and ninth chapters are also interlinked. So now what I will focus on in the ninth chapter is how the concepts that Krishna has introduced in the earlier chapters, he shows how they are centered on Bhagavan. So, for example, let’s look at in the eighth chapter, Krishna has talked about So in the eighth chapter, Krishna has talked about how the universe is heightened.
That means he talks about, say, 8.17 to 8.19, he talks about how the universe is created and it is destroyed. So if we look at these verses, so see, I just will recite some of these verses, and you will see how that same concept is developed further in the ninth chapter. So this is the eighth chapter.
On the right is the eighth chapter, on the left is the ninth chapter. So in the eighth chapter, Krishna is telling that this universe is operating seismically. Things are created, things are maintained, and things are destroyed.
And even Brahma is going to be destroyed. So here, the focus is on creation, maintenance and destruction. But, now, the purpose of this discussion in the eighth chapter is to contrast between the temporary material world and the eternal spiritual world.
So, 8.23, Parastha, Samadhi, Bhava, Ramayana, that the eternal is transient in the world. So the focus here is on this material world is temporary. And that’s why there’s creation, maintenance and destruction.
And in the ninth chapter, the same point is being talked about, but the focus is not that the world is temporary, but the movements of the temporary world are under Krishna’s control. So the point is the same, essentially, but because of the context, the emphasis is different. And in the eighth chapter, there is no reference to Ma over there.
So, for example, here the verse is, let’s recite, we’ll recite one more verse, which I’ll tell you. Yeah. avyakta devpayar sarva avyakta devpayar sarva prabhu nitya rādhude prabhu nitya rādhude rādhude ānande pratīyante rādhude ānande pratīyante tatraiva abhyakta saṅgīke tatraiva abhyakta saṅgīke So, it’s unmanifest, it becomes manifest at the day of Brahma.
And it becomes manifest at the day of Brahma. Now, although the reference point is Brahma’s day and night, but Brahma is not in control of this. It is, the next verse we’ll talk about, here you all see what is there.
No. Here it is. Yeah.
So, everybody from the lowest to the highest line, everything is destructive. So, the Brahma is in the reference because Brahma abode in the highest. But even that is destructive.
So, now, when he talks about Parasasman’s Bhagavad-gītā, he didn’t directly say that, okay, that eternal religion is mine. He will talk about that in 8.22. Āvyāya-kakṣaṃ yantra-sthamaḥ paramaṅgati yantrākṣaṃ yantrākṣaṃ yantrākṣaṃ tad dhāmaḥ paramaṅgam which is 8.21. And then, 8.22 talks about how the process of attaining the bhāgavata. So, what is happening over here in the 8th chapter? Krishna is telling that material world is temporary.
There is a general world, that is māyā world, and that is attaining the bhāgavata. So, in this section, Krishna’s control over the material world is not talked about. The focus is on the temporary world, the later world, and that bhakti is going to take later.
But in the 9th chapter, the same cyclic process of material existence is talked about, but it is talked about in terms of Krishna’s control over it only. So here, the thought is being developed. So, if we just compare these verses over here.
So, let’s look at 9.8. prakṛteṁ svām avaśyakya prakṛteṁ svām avaśyakya viṣṇu-jāni-pūrṇā viṣṇu-jāni-pūrṇā bhūtra-grāmaṁ yama-kṛṣṇa bhūtra-grāmaṁ yama-kṛṣṇa So here, what Krishna is telling is avaśyam. It’s prakṛtevaśyā. That means, from the linearity point of view, they are helpless.
They are under the control of karma. But in the same line, in the first line, prakṛteṁ svām avaśyakya viṣṇu-jāni-pūrṇā It is my prakṛti, Jīsus. I do also live in the inner here.
I am actually my prakṛti. So, Krishna is developing the thought. So, what he has referred to earlier as the general process of nature, now here he has explained as being under the control of Vishnu.
That means, there is an earlier, ok, this middle world is temporary, the Surya world is eternal, therefore we have the middle world and the Vishnu. But now, even this temporary middle world is controlled by Krishna and therefore, we should take shelter of Krishna to become free from the control of Vishnu. Because he is the controller of Vishnu.
So, thought flow is being developed. So, there are many parallels like this. Let’s look at just one more parallel over here.
You can compare 4.24 and 15.60, sorry, 9.60. So, 4.24 is, this is the Mahāprasāda equivalent of the Māyā world. When they take food, they recite this verse. So, there is a spell with Brahmā and experience Brahmā.
It just confuses people. So, Brahmārpana Brahmāve. So, this is basically Krishna, see the yajna, Krishna is giving you the spiritual vision of the whole process of yajna.
So, now spiritual and devotional are not necessarily same. Spiritual, that was genetic spirituality. So, it can be Raman conception, it can be Parmātmā, it can be Bhagavān.
Devotional is more of a specifically personal definition. So, here in 4.24, Krishna gives a spiritual conception of yajna. Generally, people think of yajna that fire is being offered, how the oblations are being offered in fire and there are certain gods who are being meditated by that and they will give some proofs because of it.
Krishna says, yes that is true but actually this whole process is a representation of Ramana. Actually, this is hinted at, this 4.24 is an elaboration of what Krishna mentioned earlier in the previous chapter in 3.15. 3.15, he says tasmā sarva-gataṁ brahma tasmā nityaṁ yajñe prateṣṭhitaṁ, he says, therefore that yajña, that Brahmā sarva-gataṁ is everywhere but that Brahmā is accessible to us through yajña. So, Brahmā is actually there everywhere but we can’t perceive Brahman reality everywhere.
But that Brahman reality is accessible through yajña. Now, how that is accessible? So, here he is telling that all the aspects of yajña are manifestations of Brahman. The person who is performing the yajña, he is the soul who is Brahman.
The sacred fire that is there, that is manifested by Krishna, that is Brahman. Now, what it is that is offered actually that is ultimately given by that individual Brahman. The consciousness which is offered, that is also Brahman.
So, this whole process is spiritualized. That means, at a material level people may think of it as a dharma-bhāna process. But what Krishna is telling, actually it is nothing.
And by realizing this, through the process of yajña, one can come to a spiritual level. Now, if we see, so here Krishna uses this, he talks about the yajña in spiritual terms. But in 9.16, he will talk about it in devotional terms.
… … … So, although there is not an exact word-to-word correlation, there are some words which are common. But, the principle is the same. That Krishna is talking about the elements of yajña.
In 9.16, as he was talking in 4.22. But now, it is not just brahma-hārvana-brahma whereas, … … So, it is I who am manifesting as all this. So, Krishna is developing his flow of thought and basically he is showing Arjuna how all the diverse elements of religious spirituality that are present in Vedic culture are centered on Him. So, that to God, that Krishna-centered understanding of spirituality is what the Bhagavad Gita is saying.
So, that yajña, we have the example of say, in the Vedic literature, we have examples of many different yajñas without knowing the purpose. The yajni-brahma-hārvana, they forgot the purpose. … … He did not know the purpose of it.
And when Narada Puri told him, he said, I have never heard of this instruction. He was really, I think, devoted to it, but he did not know the purpose. So, that’s why this … So, when we say, … What is good here is, is that Krishna is the underlying unifying center of everything in the religious and spiritual culture prevailing at that time.
That is what Krishna is revealed by the progression in Gita. So, now let’s move forward. So, I discuss now this progression in the concepts of Gita from a general spiritual conception to a specific emotional conception.
The 9th chapter is called as Bhakti Yoga. And in the 9th chapter, Krishna contrasts between these processes and establishes bhakti. So, now I just take one more example of this and then we move forward.
So, here what is the point that I am making? How Gita reveals Krishna to be the center of the prevailing religious and spiritual culture. So, I won’t write it down. One example is 8.18 and 9.8. Another example is 4.24 and 9.16. Now, if we go further from here.
So, now Krishna talks about visible control over noise. That’s true in 7th chapter. But the point that is being talked about here is that the same concepts are revealed in a more devotional way in this Upanishad.
So, 8th chapter, actually Krishna doesn’t talk about visible control over noise. Although he can infer that. He just says that these are my energies.
And then he says, 7.6 is So, I am the beginning and I am the end. See, you remember I discussed earlier about these two conceptions of God. Deism and De-ism.
Deism is that God is the creator and the controller. Deism is just that God is just the creator but not the controller. So, what happens is, at the level of 7th chapter, Krishna is revealed primarily as a theistic God, not I will explain what I mean by this.
There is no need to get confused by the terminology. See, generally how, I will explain why sometimes, sometimes we find it difficult, why people find Gita so difficult. Gita is a system, if you want to know, you can go to the Dharma We have some stand-alone verses which give the philosophical conclusions that we want to give people.
And we think this is the important part of the Gita. But the Gita has its own flow of thought. And often, we don’t even address that flow of thought.
So, what is happening is, the way we have studied, first let’s understand the difference between a philosophy and a book. The philosophy is a body of thought that answers fundamental questions of life. So, you can have Greek philosophy, you can have Christian philosophy, you can have Islamic philosophy.
So, philosophy is a body of thought that answers specific questions. And a book is a set of statements that leads to a particular conclusion. A book is basically a set of statements.
So, philosophy and book, they are two different things. Now, a philosophy may be derived from a book. A book may be teaching a particular philosophy.
But when we study, the way we have studied is, first we have studied the philosophy of Christian consciousness. Then we have studied the Bhagavad Gita. Isn’t it? So, because we have studied the philosophy of Christian consciousness first, so we see the Gita from the perspective of the philosophy of Christian consciousness only.
And that’s why we see whatever correlates with that philosophy, whatever does it, it does not have any importance. That’s how we sort of don’t give much importance to it. For example, in the 17th chapter, there is a quote that says, Om Tat Sat.
You know, what should this keep over it? What is this? Om is this, Tat is this, Sat is that. Doesn’t matter. Om Tat Sat is Krishna.
Forget it. You can take it like that. So, what happens is, we study the philosophy and then, now I am not saying that the two are different.
I am going that that’s permeated with the philosophy of Christian consciousness. But there is a flow of thoughts to the Gita by which it concludes to the philosophy of Christian consciousness. So, that often we don’t understand because we are just focusing on the standalone verses of the Gita which establish the conclusion of Christian consciousness.
However, the Gita has its own flow. So, now, that means if I study the Gita on its own, I don’t assume that Gita teaches Christian consciousness. I study the Gita on its own, what does it lead to? So, if I don’t know in advance Krishna is God and I study the Gita, then okay, from the epics, from the honorifics, Shri Bhagavan Vacha, I can know Krishna is God.
But that is not Krishna’s teaching. That is Vyasa’s teaching. So, then from that point of view, the revelation of Krishna being God will come first time from Krishna in the Pocha.
So, now what we are talking about is here where does the Bhagavad Gita make specific statements about the philosophy of Christian consciousness. So, now if you see 7th chapter, Gita’s vision of God is distik. Distik means he is the creator but not the controller.
So, this is the typical idea that of a clockwork. This world is like a clock and a clock is definitely created by a clockmaker. But that clockmaker doesn’t have any control over the clock.
Now, I am not saying that this is the only conception because there also in 10th point what Krishna says that if you surrender unto me, you will go beyond it. That means, even now he is in charge of material energy. But there is no explicit statement that is as direct as Mayan text universe.
So, he says, Prakriti bhegi eksha guna mayi, mam maya dvartiya, mam eva ye prakriti maya nitham dharmi. So, there he says mam maya. So, from that I can conclude that this is Krishna’s material energy.
And by surrendering to him, one can go beyond material energy. So, in that sense, we can say that Krishna does have some capacity to intervene in material energy. But whether he is specifically the moment to moment controller of material nature, that is not as explicit in 6th chapter, 7th chapter as it is in the 9th chapter.
So, the Bhagavad Gita is flowing its own thought forward. And 9th chapter, actually the conception is more theistic. Krishna is the creator and the controller both.
Is this clear? Is this true? So, what we are trying to do in this particular class is see how the Gita itself leads to the conclusion of Krishna’s supremacy, of the philosophy of Krishna. So, to give another example of what we are trying to say, of the reference between, this is a fundamental point of a romance, the reference between a book and a philosophy. For example, if I want to know what is the philosophy of Krishna in Bhagavad Gita, how will I know that? In Bhagavad Gita, for example, philosophy, we can have, what is the conception of God? Another question could be, what is the explanation for the problem of evil? Why is there evil in God? Why is there evil in the soul? So, for example, what is the nature of the self? So, now if I want to know the philosophy of Krishna in Bhagavatam, I have to look over the whole Krishna in Bhagavatam and look at sections where there is an answer.
If I want to look at the conception of God, then I have to see, maybe 7th chapter talks about Virata, 2nd chapter talks about Virata, then the 3rd chapter talks about Sankhya, then the 4th chapter talks about Krishna. There are so many conceptions of God in God. If I want to understand the problem of evil, then maybe I have to look first at the discussion between the bull and the cow, where Saraswati Maharaj is asking them, who is the cause of their suffering? And then they are saying that, actually our suffering is, it’s very difficult to know who is the cause of suffering.
Some people say this, some people say that, some people say that. Or I can look at Bhishma’s threads, and Bhishma says everything is caused by karma. Or I can look at the 10th canto where Yudhishthira Maharaj is being told a lot of Krishna, that is my special person.
So, then if I want an answer for the problem of evil based on the Bhagavatam, then I have to look at all the places where the Bhagavatam leads to the problem of evil, and answer that. Now, if I want to answer the problem of evil based on the Bhagavatam, where will I go for it? Now, you have to really think which verses talk about the evil of this world, and does it talk about God? So, if I take my own lecture, if I could think, that would be one, the more specific one would So, why is that even so? Krishna is not the controller directly, Krishna is the overseer in the paramita. If the soul wants to be evil, Krishna allows it to be evil.
So, philosophy means there are fundamental questions that have to be answered. A book contains a set of statements. So, those set of statements will have to be correlated with the questions of philosophy, and then we will get an answer to the question.
Yes, correct. Yes, so some people may ask me that Prabhupada’s purpose won’t allow us to approach the Gita as a book, because he gives the usual purpose as Lord. Yes, that is true, but it is not that purpose is not meant to prevent us from approaching the Gita as a book, because if that were his intention, then he could just have avoided giving the word-to-word translations.
He could have avoided giving the Sanskrit verses also. He could just have given his translations as purpose. Now, actually what Srila Prabhupada has done is quite provocative, where he allows us to read the Sanskrit as Karma Yoga, and then he gives the translation, Krishna consciousness.
So, what Srila Prabhupada is doing is, he is forcing us to think. Srila Prabhupada had to conceivably put a very different way. There are many scholars who have commented in the Bhagavad Gita like this, we just avoid the Sanskrit part entirely.
Prabhupada has not done that. So, Prabhupada has used a very consciously strategy. See, the Bhagavad Gita analysis can also be understood at multiple levels.
At the most preliminary level, people may not read the Sanskrit, people may not read the Sanskrit with the word-to-word translations. So, at the first reading, at the preliminary reading, let them get a clear understanding of the situation. So, that’s why, in all his purports Srila Prabhupada gives to them, Srila Prabhupada’s mode is that, say, if there is a conversation like, people are so busy, people are so lazy, people are so distracted in Karma Yoga, that they may not even read the book fully.
So, they may say that, okay, I have paid this rascal some money, let me look at what is he doing. This opens up pages like random and read. And when they read, Prabhupada’s idea is that, any page of my book they open, they should get the conclusion.
So, that is Prabhupada’s compassion. But, along with that compassionate giving of the conclusion, Prabhupada also allowed us to see the book. He allowed us to see the book.
And we also know that Prabhupada, when he was asked which book he would like to comment on, he said Bhagavad Gita. That means, Prabhupada himself recognized that his own book he commented pretty well. And now, one more thing I would like to point out.
If you go to the purport of 2.72, at the last purport of the second chapter, you will see a very significant statement. Now, here at the end, Prabhupada is saying, in the Bhagavad Gita, so in the second chapter, Karma Yoga and Yana Yoga have been clearly discussed. And a glimpse of Bhakti Yoga has been given as the contents of the complete text.
Now, the glimpse of Bhakti Yoga is given in 2.61. That is the only statement where the glimpse of Bhakti Yoga is given. But, Prabhupada is not given the glimpse. He is given the full picture.
You know, in that same 2.61 purport, he will say, He gives a pretty solid description of how to deal with all the glimpses. So, you know what, now Prabhupada is giving us the full conclusion, but Prabhupada is also aware of the philosophies. That’s why he is saying, in the second chapter, only a glimpse is given.
But, he is not giving us the glimpse. He is giving us the full picture throughout. So, it’s a provocative strategy, what Prabhupada receives.
And we as his followers, we need to understand it to explain the problem. Otherwise, it was easy to just dismiss Prabhupada as a topic and end. People can do like that.
But if Prabhupada had to do that, why would he have to do the word-for-word translation and the Sanskrit? He allows us to see what he sees. So, in that sense, he is not trading anything. He is doing something very unconditional.
But he is allowing us to see what he sees. Yes, we will proceed that. In the 7th chapter, when Prabhupada started his first six chapters, he talked about Karma Yoga.
And then he did not talk about Bhakti Yoga. Prabhupada talked about much more things. He did not just talk about Karma Yoga.
He talked about Bhakti Yoga also in those chapters. Any other questions? Yes. Okay, this is a good question.
But I think we are not able to cover the whole writing of the chapter here. I think I talked a bit too much. I think we have to take a quick nance.
So, now we are focusing on Karma, Jnana and Bhakti. But why is it that Karma, Bhakti and Jnana are the focus? See, Krishna’s focus is on getting Arjuna to do the right thing. It will give him the reasoning by which he will do the right thing.
So, what is the right thing? The right thing is to take up the responsibility of a quality. So, for that purpose, Krishna basically has a… For Arjuna, the choices are in his spirit only. Action or enunciation.
So, should I act and get bound by Karma? Or should I renounce and stay free from Karma? So, Krishna gives him a third option of not enunciation or action, but renunciation in action. That means you can be renounced while doing action. And renunciation in action is possible at two levels.
Possible in Karma Yoga and also possible in Bhakti Yoga. So, now, in the first six chapters, Krishna develops a thought that how Karma Yoga… So, Krishna’s first six chapters are focused on rule out renunciation entirely. Focus on action.
But action can be done with renunciation. And so, the second chapter starts in the Karma Yoga level and the sixth chapter he comes to Bhakti Yoga. Now, from there, an actual progression forward, forward is to develop excellence in Bhakti Yoga.
Because in the first six chapters, Krishna has clearly emphasized action. And how to do action with renunciation? Primarily with Karma Yoga. Advance with Bhakti Yoga.
When Krishna has thought about that, naturally moves forward and explains Bhakti Yoga, how it is to be practiced, how it is to be a real transcendence, and how Bhagavan is the highest of all the Vedas. Now, after this gets over in the twelfth chapter, the connection between the twelfth and thirteenth chapters, or rather between the second and third sections of the Yantra, Yantra and Yantra sections, are explained differently by different Acharyas. So, Sridhar Swami gives one explanation that, when Krishna tells in 12.6 and 7, that I deliver my devotee from material existence.
Desha, Samudra, Vrnda, Vrnda, Vrnda, Vrnda, I deliver him. So now, that, at one level can refer to Krishna’s grateful mercy. Krishna comes and by his mercy delivers the devotee from material existence.
Now, Sridhar Swami gives another explanation. It also means that Bhakti Yoga contains and gives the Jnana that will disentangle the body from material existence. And how that Jnana will manifest through Bhakti is described in chapters 13 to 18.
So, what is happening here is that Krishna has basically established in the middle of these chapters, Bhakti as the highest process. And, in the 12 chapters specifically, he has compared Bhakti and Jnana. He has compared personal worship versus impersonal worship.
And he has said Bhakti is better. But, he has not clearly explained how Bhakti will include Jnana. So now, Krishna has said in 10.10 that, I will give that knowledge.
That is assurance. But, that is not an analytical description of how Bhakti Yoga includes that knowledge or Bhakti Yoga is conducive to the development of that knowledge. So now, if we look at the 13th chapter, we write in the middle of the 13th chapter, several places.
I discussed in the last two classes before this, that’s about the world as a virtual reality. In the heart of the 13th chapter, Krishna is repeatedly talking about Bhakti. In 13.19 and 20, he talks about So, all this knowledge of Jnana, Jnana, all this, who will understand it? Similarly, in 13.26, he talks about how can one go beyond all this? And similarly, in the 14th chapter, he says, the whole analysis of gods includes Bhakti Yoga as the most consequential.
So like that, in all the chapters, within the Jnana section, Krishna has explained that, okay, the Jnana analysis is important, but this Jnana analysis will be internalized and applied behind the process of Bhakti. So in this way, Krishna makes sure to explain to Arjuna that by practicing Bhakti, you will not miss out on Jnana. In fact, whatever Jnana he gives, that it gives the convenience of this practice of Bhakti to someone.
So, the flow is that, if you see, Prabhupada also writes in the Prakot of 10.12 and 13, that when Arjuna says, that four verses, there Prabhupada mentions that now Arjuna has understood the conclusion and in one sense, the Gita is over. But Krishna is asked by Arjuna, now please tell me how I can remember you in your theory. And then the question of Vibhuti comes along, Ishvike Parveshu, and then Virat also comes along.
So, from the philosophical conclusion point of view, the supremacy of Bhakti and Bhagwan is established in Sekhashloki Gita and is also accepted by Krishna, Arjuna, in his response. So, subsequent is for clarification is everything. So, the Bhagavad Gita itself is not leading in a hierarchy linearly from Karma to Jnana to Yoga.
No, it basically starts with Karma or Jnana, no not Jnana, Karma only and Karma will lead to Bhakti. And then you describe how Bhakti is an alternative way which you can approach directly also. And then do you miss out on Jnana? That will be the last question.
That is how the Jnana aspect comes at the end. Now, you can give a scientific example to, in a preliminary way, explain how Bhakti, why Bhakti is in centre, it is protected by Karma. That is true, but there is also an internal truth in the Jnana.
Why the Bhakti is actually concentrated? Is it clear? So, yes. Your performance sounds like a pretense, I guess. I just wanted to know, again this is a similar question to Krishna.
I have heard many persons say, they do not like Bhakti as it is, because Gita is clear, it is a pretense. But there are some who like, you know, Bhakta meditates on God, and then he loves him very intensely and meditates on him and this way he enables, and then ultimately he becomes one with God. What can go wrong with this? So, one hand they say it is a pretense, but the conclusion is very, you know, academic.
So, maybe the first rule is, glorify Bhakti, but then ultimately you merge into God. So, that is the idea of one popular Mayavadi. He says that he is trying to put down Christianity.
So, in a Christian tradition you only have an idea of father and son relationship, but we have many more relationships. And each of these relationships goes, you know, master and servant, they distribute each other. Closer is, you have a friend in God.
Still closer is, that you are a family to God. Still closer is that you are a lover to God. Closest is, you are one with God.
So, what he does is, you know, the same hierarchy, now in Chetan’s example, actually that sort of impersonal meditation is put at the bottom, even below Shankara. But he puts that above mother innocence. So, it is, inward is the whole thing.
Now, if we look at the scriptural basis for this, that is the question. Bhagavatam is clearly, Atma, Rama, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Vibhranta, Uttar-Bhagavatam. Those who have participated, those who are situated in the Brahmin conception, they go towards the true path.
And that is not just Shukadeva Swami, they also have to go towards the Mahabharata. That is a good set of examples, as well as other scriptural statements. Now, when we study the Tukdam Gita, there are several verses which make this very clear.
There are most unambiguous statements in the Gita. There is 7.7, there is 10.8, there is 3.19. There are three most unambiguous statements. So, 7.7 I mentioned in the first class.
7.7 means, Mattaha parataram nanya kinchi rasti munam Bhagavan is the highest. 7.7 is one. Nothing higher than me.
And in between all these verses, the Ma aspect is very emphatic. And even below, before or after, there is an in-person conception working. So, if you see normally that, then after that there is 10.8. So, aham sarvasya prabhavo.
It’s a very emphatic. Sarvasya, everything. I am the source of everything.
Rajiv Goswami takes this and he says, this proves that Krishna is also Vishnu also. Aham sarvasya prabhavo. It means Krishna is also Vishnu also.
Like when you feed on one insect, certainly sarvasya means in-person conception. And not only that, Krishna says, after you feed on this hand, what happens? Bhajate maam. Aham sarvasya prabhavo nitya matva bhajate mudha bhava sarvanmita.
This verse is very emphatic because it says, it first says, Krishna is the source of everything. Second is, one who knows this, he is the wise person, he is Buddha. Third is, such a person becomes my devotee.
Bhajate maam. And then not only that, bhajate maam mudha bhava sarvanmita. This emotion.
The point is, it’s a very very clear verse which talks in one verse, talks about Bhakti and Bhagwan both being the highest. Similarly, actually the strongest reference from Mahabharata is 15.16 to 18. That is what our sages have called the Trishopini.
There are two Purushas. There is one Purusha who is beyond both and he says, I am that. So it’s very clear that this is talking about the personal aspect as higher than even the liberated souls.
Even in the Brahman conception. But at the end of Trishopini Jita, that is 15.19. yo maam eva asambhu janati purushottama satsarvgati prajiti maam sarva bhave na bhavati dharam So, yo maam eva asambhu. No doubt.
One who understands, he has no doubt. janati purushottama He understands he has a supreme person. Such a person is satsarvgati.
He knows everything. And then, one who knows everything, what happens to him? Again, sarva bhave na bhavati dharam sarva bhave na bhavati dharam He worships you with his own heart. So they have three very clear verses.
And this is one interesting thing about the Gita. That most western scholars who have studied the Gita in its own right. They have more or less universally concluded that the Bhagavad Gita is a rocky book.
And almost all Indian scholars have concluded that the Bhagavad Gita is an impersonal script. So why is that? It is because most Indian scholars have lived under the shadow of Shankaracharya. So Shankaracharya’s influence has been so much.
Because he gave an impersonal script to him. So everybody has spent years bent towards the impersonal script. Of course, there are other reasons also.
The other reason is that many of the Indian interpreters of the Gita they have interpreted the Gita from a socio-political, nationalist perspective. And their goal was not just to understand the Gita. Their goal was actually to explain the Gita in a way that would unify it.
So, for example, Aurobindo, Gandhi, Tilla. All of them, there is a prominent commentator among the politicians. Among the political leaders who are also seen as spiritualists.
All of them wrote their Gita commentaries when they were in jail. And they prided themselves on the fact that they did not refer to any of the traditional truths commentarily. That means they just read their concerns, more or less, in the Gita.
That’s why their Gita commentaries are not really statements of the Gita itself. So, now, it’s not that they were malicious. That’s not what happened.
People will read the Gita all they want to read. There is a Shaivite scholar, Abhinav Gupta. He tried to write a commentary on the Gita saying that Gita proves that Shiva is the Supreme Personality of God.
And the whole Gita, there is no word Shiva on it. Only the 10th chapter, among the Vibhutis, Rudranam Shankara’s chapter is there. There is no other reference to Shankara.
Now, how we can interpret it, use all sorts of metaphorical, esoteric representations, portraits. It doesn’t make any sense. But when people are agenda driven, they can see anything and everything.
That’s how it works. So, if you let the Gita speak for itself, the person’s conclusion is quite clear. Yeah.
Okay, you can ask me. So, in the Gita, it says, the world is a prison of the special kind. In the verses in Gita, it says that impersonal merging is inferior to bhakti.
Are there verses which say that impersonal merging is inferior to bhakti? That is a different chapter. Okay. See, what did Krishna predict? What did Krishna predict? Merging is nice.
Anyway, Krishna asked, okay, let’s look at the Gita’s references to impersonalism. So, the first, most clear reference is 7.24. 7.24 is avyakta-yakti-mapanam manyan te mam abuddhaya So, avyakta-yakti-mapanam. So, I was unmanifest, and I became manifest.
So, to think like this, I Now, what the Mayavadis do is, they put a comma after avyakta. It is such a delirious translation. What is it? Avyakta.
I am unmanifest, but those who think that I am manifest, they are unmanifest. They completely distort the meaning. But actually, from the Sanskrit point of view, their translation is very good.
It’s a very clear avyakta-yakti-mapanam. I am unmanifest, and I am unmanifest. So, to think like this, I am I am avyakta-yakti-mapanam.
Then, the strongest condemnation is How do we respond to the grammatical point of view? Okay. How do we respond to the grammatical point of view? We have to go to Sanskrit grammar. But the point is, that this way, if you start inserting sort of clauses, no, the question is that, when I insert a comma, avyakta, I am unmanifest.
But, I don’t think that I am unmanifest, they are unmanifest. When you start doing like that, then any eta sentence can be changed. Do you understand? So, any statement can be changed.
So, I have a book which talks about how, you know, changing commas can change everything. So, it’s a very, it’s not grammatically sound. It’s not something which can be defended in terms of grammar.
We’ve done that. Now, the strongest condemnation is 9.11 in there. avajananti ma sansindhanam and the next one is govarsamohakadamaham So, that’s again very strong.
Then, as you mentioned, 12.5 is also there. It will show viktsaraptesham. Now, Now, where does Krishna talk about merging in a positive light? Well, there is… So there are some fractions that we see to say like that.
There is, for example, 18.55. There is another 11.54. So these… See, these are two male verses which are products of species. So let’s look at these two verses. I probably will not be able to take anything more.
Let’s conclude with this. Okay, fine. Now, what happens is, if you look at this context… So Krishna is saying… You will know me and I. You will know me and you will be able to see me.
Now, pravesh means enter. You enter. Now, although there is this word enter over here, and similarly here, in 18.55, these are the only two places where, sort of, some visha takes place.
So praveshtam and vishate, these are two places where the incursive motion might be given some credits. But still, if you see, vishate and praveshtam, these are not accompanied by any mention of where one enters or what one verges, praveshtam or vishate. So whether that is the absolute truth, that is not mentioned.
The simple understanding here is, Krishna is here with Arjuna in the material world right now, speaking. He says, if you know me, you will attain the spiritual world. You will enter the spiritual world.
Now, what the nature of that ultimate reality is, we have to look for that itself. Krishna has talked about mama dhama, my abode. And then he talks about my abode, he says, it is not there.
He says, he is there and his abode is there. The word dhama is very specific, and it comes repeatedly in the Bhagavad Gita. So that’s why they are saying that this refers to, it’s like a person entering into a city.
The city is there, the person is there. After he enters, he somehow becomes one. This Krishna city, the person enters into the city.
There are two only, as far as I can see, there are only two verses, which can be skewed for impersonal spirituality. Apart from that, the word ekatham may come in a few places, but if you look at the context, it’s very clear. Ekatham is not necessarily referring to impersonal merging.
Ekatham is referring to impersonal merging as the highest. Yeah, let’s focus on one thing at a time. So, yoma, pashyaka, parvatra.
Can it be interpreted impersonally? One who sees me everywhere, and one who sees everything in me, such a person is never lost to me, nor am I lost to him. The I is very emphatic. To interpret that impersonally, is very difficult.
The I is very complicated. So, that is quite a devotional verse. But now, we are a bit ambiguous.
Let me switch. Okay, fine. Okay, fine.
I am not devotional to other verses, but we know this is 9.11. Yeah, so there are not many other references to impersonals. Whichever are there, from the context, it is very clear that it is not a very strong idea in the Kundalini. Yes.
Yes. See, Shankaracharya’s conclusion, what was Shankaracharya’s conclusion? See, in the 3rd and 4th Vajayogini, in the 3rd and 4th Vajayogini, in Narayan, from his commentary, now, Shankaracharya definitely made those statements, but if you look at the whole body of knowledge that he gave him, he can’t strike towards the impersonal. That is a service that was given to him by knowledge.
Because the Quran talks about Maya. So, Maya Kalpita, Maya Vajayogini, but even then, both of them would change. So, in the Maya Vajayogini, if we quote these statements, which are Govindam or Narayan, they will say, you are quoting things that are out of context.
That is not the conclusion of Shankaracharya. But, the point is, that Shankaracharya did make these statements in a very strategic point of view. And, it is like, Vajayogina, whenever he composed it, there was an old scholar in Varanasi, old Pandit Brahman in Varanasi, he was very initiated, and he was trying to learn the rules of Sanskrit grammar.
And then, at that time, he told him, what is the use of all this? Vajayogini, Vajayogini, just worship Govindam. Even his own mother, when he took swami, his mother was not ready to give him anything. And he said that, I will be there by your side at the last minute.
Then he came back. And then his mother was about to die. Actually, he helped her remember Lord Vishnu.
So, if we see from his life, there are quite a few indications that he was a he did speak about Bhagavad Gita. He did teach Bhagavad Gita also. Now, whether that was his conclusion or not, that is debated.
If you look at the Padmapurana work, you understand that he was actually a Bhagavan. He wanted to teach Bhakti. But he was told by the Lord to teach his persons.
So, now his followers, what they say is that when Shankaracharya would talk about Bhakti, he would become so overwhelmed with Bhakti, that temporarily he would forget the glory of Kriyam. And that’s why he would glorify Bhagavad Gita. That’s how they explained it.
So, they say that Vajayoginam is important but they don’t insist that Shankaracharya will give it to his persons. Any questions? Relax. Shankaracharya came before Paramahamsa Narayana.
Whose influence is it? Shankaracharya came before Shankaracharya. Why is the influence still so much? Actually, he wrote the first commentary on the Gita. And the first commentary, among the commentaries that are available today on the Vedanta Sutra also, any commentaries before that are not available.
They definitely were there. But they are not available. So, because he was the first commentator, his commentaries are a bit normative.
And his influence is still on them. As you see, Shankaracharya at an intellectual level was responsible for repeating and trying out Buddhism. So, he unified India in many parts of the world.
He brought India back within many folds. So, what he did was significant. And then subsequent Acharyas have taken their course forward.
So, Ramacharya has given further revelation. And then, historically speaking, you know, Baldev did mention many of his commentaries during the Darshan. That is the last among the traditional commentaries that on the Vedanta Sutra that talk about conflict between Mayavada and Prakashyas.
And Baldev’s commentaries are quite drastic. It refutes his Buddhism quite strongly. But after, now Baldev also wrote his commentaries around 17th century, something like that.
After that, suddenly the whole geopolitics of the whole India continent changed. Because, when the Britishers came to India, the Britishers did not just attack India politically, they attacked India intellectually. And to defend India intellectually, there was a whole body of intellectuals which rose starting from Ram Mohan Roy and Ram Saraswati and all of them.
Most of them from Bengal. So, then they wanted to respond to the British and Christian critique of Hinduism. And for that, they thought that the most convenient or convenient body of thought that could be used to respond to British critical being persons.
So, their idea was that their idea was they were trying to show that how Hinduism is superior to Christianity. He said that you people say that all of us are children of God. We say all of us are God.
So, their idea was you say that Christianity is the only God. So, they said that if there is only one God, you say there is only one God, he says there is only God. So, they tried to prove polemically that the impersonal idea is higher than the Christian idea.
So, for them, at that time, in dealing with the Christian British theory, impersonalism was the most convenient doctrine. Because if you choose personalism, then it is divisive. Some people worship Devi, some people worship Shiva, some people worship Krishna.
See, can you tell that all Shiva, Devi, Buddha, they are all manifestation of Brahma. You can worship any of them and still you can stay united. It is a very convenient doctrine for them.
So, that’s why the modern impersonalism is quite different from traditional impersonalism. Traditional Shankaracharya’s impersonalism is a deviation from Vedic philosophy. And modern impersonalism is a deviation from Shankaracharya’s impersonalism.
So, Shankaracharya did not talk of Maharasheva, Mahasheva. He did not say there is the Narayana. So, all these conceptions were brought about in response to Christian missionary humanity and activities.
And it was a very complex issue. So, it was quite spent by the time of the Vedic era. But it brought a flip because of the geopolitical situation.
And then Shankaracharya Chandra Prabhupada quite strongly responded to it. And now at least very widely acknowledged. In the past, Hinduism was equated with impersonalism.
But now everywhere in academia as well as in the public eye, it’s well known that Hinduism has two thoughts. Personalist and impersonalist. See, people will not explain, accept that it’s not widely accepted that personalist is the only thought, or the manifest thought or the highest thought.
But if I accept that there are two distinct thoughts and both of them have a very rich tradition from the past. Thank you very much. One of his essays, he says that he gives that few other commentaries that we understand that Sridhar Swami is glorified even by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
But then here he says that it’s not pure devotional commentary on Bhagavad Gita. Sridhar Swami’s commentary is not a pure devotional commentary on Bhagavad Gita. On Bhagavad Gita.
So, how do we… I mean, so different Acharyas have different… So, Bhaktivinoda Prakash said that Sridhar Swami’s commentary is not pure devotional. Well, it is true. Sridhar Swami officially belonged to an impersonal Sampradaya.
And because he was in that Sampradaya he could not directly refute impersonal commentaries. So, that’s why Sridhar Swami sort of he gave personal points also and he gave impersonal points also in his commentaries. And that’s why if you see Vallabha, when he met Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he said everything that his critique of Sridhar Swami’s commentary was everything is contextual.
So, why he’s done like that? Because where the scripture seems to be impersonal, there he gives impersonal commentary. Where he gives personal, he gives personal. So, what Sridhar Swami did was he gave bhakti a respectable place within impersonalism also.
So, that’s what he did. So, on the other hand, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu he did not just see the literal words of Sridhar Swami but he also focused on the unpretentious intention. And he said his intention was actually devotion.
But actually even Jigokaswami does it. Jigokaswami also says that, Jigokaswami what he does is, that wherever Sridhar Swami is quoting properly means personalistically he says, shiv tika hua, tika se. And then he quotes it and then he elaborates it.
But when Sridhar Swami gives impersonal commentary, he says, according to an imaginary translation, this verse says this, but this is wrong. So, while refuting Sridhar Swami, he doesn’t take the name. But while quoting Sridhar Swami to support his personality, he took the name.
So, it is a, basically Sridhar Swami had a tough job over that. Within the impersonal tradition, to establish personalism is not easy. So, what he did was So, what Sridhar Swami did, if you look at the literal words of Sridhar Swami, it’s not directly fully personal.
There is another question. Both. It is contextual.
That means, if the verses lend themselves to a personal commentary, it is a personal commentary. If the verses lend themselves to an impersonal commentary, it is a personal commentary. Because he was, in fact, it is said that when he wrote his commentary, it created a controversy.
And the impersonalist says, how can you do a personal commentary like that? So, in his commentary, Maharaji was taken to the Shiva temple, kept over there and then through certain master, it’s not, it’s not sure. And then they accepted it. Now, Vedini and Shreya.
Yeah. It kind of summarizes the whole Vedic history into 5000 years. 5000 years.
I mean, I think it is to, you know, preach to Christians, maybe. But, I mean, what exactly was this, I mean, like he says that 5000 years ago, there was the kingdom of Devas, then the kingdom of Prajnaparamita. No, actually, that’s not what he has done.
He has done this in a book called Krishna Samhita. There, he basically, in the introduction, the introduction is very, very careful. So, he says that different people have different mentalities and scripture needs to be explained to them accordingly.
So, he says that traditionalists may find my explanation offensive and I think forgiveness. Because I just want to get the modern people, the Arjunic mind, contemporary mind, to understand it. So, basically, what his point is, he says that there are three aspects in the Bhagavatam which the modern mind will find difficult to understand.
First is the chronology and the cosmology, second is the complex philosophy and third is the apparent immorality of Krishna. These three are the primary obstacles. And then he sets out putting aside these obstacles.
So, as far as philosophy is concerned, it’s a very advanced book, you should be ready to spend time to understand it. Don’t take it so cheaply. And cosmology and chronology, basically he says, it is not the important part of it.
Just put it aside and move forward. So, his idea is, get to the heart of the Bhagavatam. So, but in his own translation, in his own introduction, he says as far as he is concerned, he accepts the traditionalism.
And one of my friends, Lalit Madhav Rao, who is doing his PhD in Krishna Samhita. So, Vashvanath Thakur published the Krishna Samhita, I think in 1878 or something like that. And in 1904, just before he sort of retired completely, he printed a later edition.
And in that, he has given many footnotes. And in all the footnotes, he is resorting to the traditional understanding. So, that is just a contextual thing which he used to help people get it all.
Let’s say, for example, somebody says, I don’t understand Kendra Vajmohan. Just put it aside and focus on the Bhagavatam. Focus on the principles of yoga, like that.
Why did Prabhupada put a lot of effort in that creation, but at the same time what was his structure? He just wants to have a temple. Srila Prabhupada’s focus was on trying to provide a artistic cosmology to counter the atheistic cosmology that is there in today’s society. But at the same time, Srila Prabhupada also realized that it is not an easy job.
And when Srila Prabhupada was asked how to construct, Prabhupada said, construct an expo. Prabhupada did not say, no, I am not going to do it. He said, construct an expo.
But during Prabhupada’s time, they did not find an expo. So, that means, his intention was clear. He wanted to give an artistic cosmology.
For that purpose, he wanted a planetarium. So, his idea was that the stronghold of science and people’s intellect can be broken. It has to be done here.
I was just thinking that, you know, like we mentioned that Brahma, Brahma, Brahma, usually in Vaishnava understanding, Brahma is not discussed much. And in other understanding, they give, I mean, in Bhagavad Gita’s understanding, they give just interpretations on Brahma. So, if we want to understand what exactly it is, where do we get the right understanding of Brahma? Where do we get the right understanding of Brahma? I mean, elaborate understanding.
Because Vaishnavas usually don’t talk about that aspect. We move forward that Bhagavan is the source of Brahma, and like that. We cannot refer to impersonalism because they give interpretations on Brahma.
Interpretations are very good. Now they are doing translating. They give a lot of analysis.
Their argument needs a refutation also. Because the terms like it is inconceivable, so they need more explanation. I mean, Govind Bhagat talks about it.
Actually, you know, to understand our philosophy, the foundational books are Govind Bhagat’s and his other books. Without these two books, we cannot understand what actually is Bhagavad Gita. So, if you want to understand our understanding of Brahma, then, not even Govind Bhagat, Sandharvas only apparently.
Sandharvas are tough to read. And generally, if you have read Prabhupada’s books adequately, and especially if you want to understand the specific concepts, then you can read those books. Some of those concepts are a little technical.
And you have to read them carefully. But they help you, man. In our as well, his commentary is also good enough.
This last question, they were discussing this in Vidyabhitsa. They said, they were asking that, that bhakti is a high tukdi. But, you know, he also said that karma yog leading to jnana yog, and it is leading to bhakti.
In the sense that, brahma bhuta prasannatma samasarveshu bhuteshu madbhagyam labhadebh param. So, how is it that brahma jnana is leading to bhakti? See, when you say bhakti is a high tukdi, is that the nature of bhakti or the nature of the practitioner? Bhakti. It is not.
That is how we should practice bhakti. It is, we should practice bhakti without any motive, without any intention, without any interruption. But then, does it mean that bhakti cannot be attained after going through other paths? It can be.
Again, it is not that jnana is the hetu for bhakti. Even when a person is brahma bhuta prasannatma, madbhaktam labhadebh param. How does that person get it? It is by the grace of bhakta only.
There has to be a grace of bhaktam. Bhakti sanjayate param. Now, at that time, if at the brahman level somebody gets the mercy of bhakta, then, because there is no material desire, the bhakti that a person will get is param.
Madbhaktam labhadebh param. So, it is a purely pure resource. Now, at the last stage also, we may also get a solution, we may get bhakti.
But the bhakti that we develop right now is not pure, it is mixed, because we have material desires. So, other paths can set the foundation for bhakti. It is just like, if the wood is wet or semi-wet or dry, these conditions are definitely conducive or not conducive for lighting the wood.
But the illumination has to come from a different source only. So, like this is ignorance, passion and goodness. The wood being wet, semi-wet and dry.
But the association of devotees is the star that will light it. But even with the association of devotees, if the wood is very wet, lighting is difficult. So, certainly somebody’s goodness is easier for the person to practice.
Similarly, if somebody has tried to purify oneself by other sadhanas, it is likely that the person will bring goodness, it will be easier to practice. He is already humble or something, that means it is easy. He is primarily detached.
Humility may not be there in the jnana path so much, but detachment itself is easy. Thank you.