Why is the conclusion of the Gita–18.66–rejected as external in the Chaitanya-Ramananda Samvada?
Good point. When we say that this verse is the culmination of the Bhagavad Gita, it’s true—it appears at the end, and it reflects the level of kevala-bhakti, pure devotion. So then, a natural question arises: Why is this verse not considered the highest, or conclusive, in the hierarchy of spiritual realization?
I’ve had that same question myself. And honestly, I haven’t yet found a completely conclusive answer. But I have reflected on a few possibilities.
One thought is that we must consider the hierarchy of realization being outlined in the Gita. The verse is quoted in a specific context and serves a specific purpose within that flow. The general progression in the Gita is something like this:
- First, do your duty (karma-yoga).
- Then, infuse that duty with devotion (bhakti).
- Then, realize that the world is inherently entangling.
- So, renounce the world.
- Then comes realization of Brahman.
- Beyond Brahman is Bhagavan.
- And finally, realization that Bhagavan can be accessed even without renouncing the world entirely.
Hence, we find the instruction: Wherever you are, just hear about Krishna. The important point here is that spiritual realization does not require physical renunciation, nor is it dependent on worldly action or inaction. The key is connection with Krishna—especially through hearing from devotees.
So, this verse is quoted in a context where renunciation is being emphasized. Within that flow of thought, its function is to stress renunciation, not necessarily to highlight the ultimate goal of devotional service.
Now, each verse in scripture can offer multiple layers of meaning depending on context. For example, the famous Atmarama verse from the Bhagavatam has been explained in numerous ways by different acharyas. That shows how contextual application plays a big role in scriptural interpretation.
So when a verse is quoted, we must ask: In what context is it being used? That’s crucial. Take, for example, the concept of “triangular desires” that I often talk about. People sometimes ask, “Is there a scriptural basis for that?” It’s a commonsense observation, but there is a relevant scriptural verse: Bhagavad Gita 2.62.
There, Krishna says that by contemplating sense objects, one develops attachment. In the original context, it’s about mental association with sense objects. But Srila Prabhupada, in a different context, quotes it as: In association, desires develop. That’s a valid decontextualization—he’s using the principle behind the verse to make a broader point.
Similarly, Prabhupada often quoted patram pushpam phalam toyam (BG 9.26) when discussing food offerings to Krishna. But if we examine chapter 3 of the Gita, the original context is about Vedic fire sacrifices—about maintaining cosmic harmony, not food offerings per se. Yet the principle still applies, and the verse is validly used in a devotional context.
So, a verse may convey one meaning in its original context, and a different, but still valid, meaning in another context—as long as that meaning supports the scriptural purpose.
Of course, this brings responsibility. Misplacing a verse or quoting it out of context can misrepresent its intent—especially when used to justify views that conflict with the scripture’s core message. That’s how some scriptural quotes can appear provocative or even inappropriate by modern standards—because they are being misapplied.
In that sense, we can think of scriptural verses like Lego pieces. In scripture, they are arranged a certain way to build a particular structure. But if you take one piece (a verse) and plug it into a different structure, you get a different creation. Whether that new creation is valid depends on how well it reflects the spirit of the original scripture.
That’s why careful thought is needed. What is the meaning constructed here? What was the meaning over there? This kind of reflection is key to preserving the integrity of scriptural wisdom.
This is also one reason scriptures are endlessly relishable—nava-nava-rasadhama—because every time we approach them, especially as our context and consciousness evolve, we draw new insights.
If five years ago I read a verse, and now I read it again, I may find something entirely fresh. Just the passage of time changes us. If that passage of time is combined with sadhana, our consciousness deepens, and scripture reveals more.
So yes, different contexts bring out different messages. Some people come with ulterior motives, trying to read their own agenda into scripture—that’s when misinterpretation happens. We need to be cautious.
To summarize, there are three levels of quoting scripture:
- Quoting within the original context.
- Quoting in a different context that still supports the purpose of the scripture.
- Quoting against the original context, which undermines or violates the scripture’s intent.
This particular verse we’re discussing falls in the second category. In its original context, it’s about renunciation. But here, a part of the verse is being quoted to highlight that renunciation alone is not sufficient. That’s a valid application—though not the only one.