Misc. 185 : Bhagavad Gita – A Critical Look from Cover to Cover 0 / N

 

The Bhagavat Gita has been bugging me.

 

Krishna in the Mahabharata - Štrbské pleso

 

I employee the word ‘bugging’ in a nice sense – not in a way to suggest that it irritates me but that it triggers my curiosity. Well, the writings have been there a long long time but I take refuge in the words of the writer of Ecclesiastes in the Bible that   “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” to be addressing the matter at this point of time. One good senior friend thought it would be a rewarding exercise and I readily agreed (not realizing that it is no easy task).

Since it was convenient to work with the PDF version of the book, I downloaded the following:

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is

Macmillan 1972
COMPLETE EDITION
with original Sanskrit text, Roman transliteration, English equivalents, translation and elaborate purports

His Divine Grace
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda

Collier Books
A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
NEW YORK

Having read the Foreword, Preface  and Introduction I reckoned I should register my views straightaway before delving into the book itself, so as not to lose any thread of thought that might present itself in the early stages. I will attempt to deal with issues as they arise from a merely human to human (or agnostic if you like) point of view. Also since I am a Christian by conviction (as differentiated from ‘generational’), it shall additionally be my endeavor to underline parallels and deviations – to and from the Christian Bible – which are significant in the ” sacred Hindu Bible!”(not my construction. Paramahansa Yogananda’s).

At this stage, I think a brief introduction to this Yogi (PY) is in order.

 

This is a Hindu Yogi who established his ashram in the U.S. and wrote a most remarkable book called

 

As is understandable, this is a fact not widely known in India today. A little uncomfortable to the majority, what?

This Yogi claims that he was sent to the West in order to reestablish God in the temples of souls through revival of the original teachings of God-communion as propounded by Christ and Krishna. Who sent him? “Maha avatar Babaji, the deathless Yogi-Christ of modern India“.

 

Again believe me, I did not coin the appellation Christ of modern India!

If this isn’t reason enough to raise your eyebrows a notch or two skywards, listen to this note by Sri Daya Mata – successor to PY on how this Yogi came to write this book carrying such a fantastic title:

” Imparted to PY through direct personal communion with Jesus of Nazareth”

Come again!

Please note this is a man who knew both the Hindu religion and the Christian faith. In fact, he wrote a commentary on Bhagvat Gita entitled “God talks to Arjunan”. So, it is needless to say he knew the Gita like the back of his hand. And yet he has no qualms about keeping the Bible as the gold standard and labelling Gita the ” sacred Hindu Bible!”

This should tell us a thing or two about how the knowledgeable Hindus perceived the Bible.

Be that as it may, we will proceed further:

Writing the Foreword, Professor Edward C. Dimock, Jr. Department of South Asian Languages and Civilization University of Chicago notes that, “the Gita is the text most frequently quoted in the philosophical writings of the Gaudiya Vaisnava school, the school represented by Swami Bhaktivedanta as the latest in a long succession of teachers. It can be said that this school of Vaisnavism was founded, or revived, by Sri Krishna Chaitanya  Mahäprabhu (1486-1533) in Bengal, and that it is currently the strongest single religious force in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent. The Gaudiya Vaisnava school, for whom Krishna is Himself the Supreme God, and not merely an incarnation of another deity, sees bhakti as an immediate and powerful religious force, consisting of love between man and God.”

This Foreword immediately raises the following issues:

  1. Are there schools other than the Gaudiya Vaisnava school?
  2. Are there other religious forces in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent which may not be as strong?
  3. there is an implied suggestion that to other schools Krishna Himself may not be the Supreme God but may only be an incarnation of another deity.

Needless to say, these are fundamental issues raising questions about the basics of Gita.

 

In the Preface, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami seems to differ considerably from the Foreword in affirming that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Krishna (there is no mention of different schools). He further goes on to state that “let there be one God only for the whole world―Sri Krishna. And one mantra only―Hare Kåñëa, Hare Kåñëa, Kåñëa Kåñëa, Hare Hare/ Hare Räma, Hare Räma, Räma Räma…. (ad infinitum)

Now, where does Rama come in?

The insertion of ‘Rama’ in this mantra begs a question answered by Chat (GPT) thus:

” Krishna and Rama are two of the most revered and beloved deities in Hinduism, but they are distinct and separate entities.

Rama is the seventh avatar (incarnation) of the god Vishnu, and his story is told in the Hindu epic Ramayana. He is revered as a symbol of righteousness, virtue, and strength of character, and is often depicted holding a bow and arrow, representing his heroic deeds in battling demons.

Krishna, on the other hand, is also an avatar of Vishnu and is regarded as a divine figure who lived on Earth as a human being. His life story is told in the Hindu epic Mahabharata and the Bhagavata Purana. He is known for his playful and mischievous nature as a child, his heroic deeds as a warrior and prince, and his teachings on spiritual wisdom and devotion.

While both Rama and Krishna are revered as incarnations of Vishnu, they have distinct personalities, stories, and teachings that differentiate them from one another.”

We may raise questions like:

  1. What is the relative ranking of Kishna and Rama as gods?
  2. Why is Vishnu – apparently the first in this series – not part of the mantra?
  3. Why are the other avatars left in the cold?

Chat (GPT) supplied the answer to these questions:

“Vishnu, Rama, and Krishna are all considered to be important deities in Hinduism. Vishnu is one of the three major gods in Hinduism, known as the Preserver of the universe. Rama and Krishna are two of the ten incarnations (avatars) of Vishnu.

Rama is considered to be the seventh incarnation of Vishnu, and is known for his unwavering devotion to dharma (righteousness) and his triumph over evil forces. He is worshipped as an ideal human being and an embodiment of righteousness. The story of Rama is told in the epic Ramayana.

Krishna is considered to be the eighth incarnation of Vishnu, and is known for his role in the Bhagavad Gita, where he teaches the principles of dharma to Arjuna. He is also known for his playful and mischievous nature, and his love for Radha. The story of Krishna is told in the epic Mahabharata.

In Hinduism, all three deities are revered and worshipped in their own right, but they are also seen as different manifestations of the same ultimate reality, known as Brahman. The relationship between Vishnu, Rama, and Krishna is therefore seen as one of unity and interconnectedness, rather than one of hierarchy or competition.”

I leave it for your cogitation.

Moreover, I have to say one finds it difficult to grasp the following averment:

” Kåñëa descends to this planet once in a day of Brahmä, or every 8,600,000,000 years. This purpose is stated in Bhagavad-gétä, and we have to accept it as it is; otherwise there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad-gétä and its speaker, Lord Kåñëa. Lord Kåñëa first spoke Bhagavad-gétä to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. 

We are discouraged from raising doubts about the statement above, including the fantastic number of 8,600,000,000 !

I say, the figures are getting out of hand!

Further we are told that:

 

 

 ” The Kåñëa consciousness movement is essential in human society, for it offers the highest perfection of life.”
Also, “The highest perfection of life of a living entity is to satisfy the senses of the Lord.”
The spectacle of a living entity satisfying the Lord’s senses seems to be problematic to say the least.
What do you say? (I can imagine the Lord having senses rather different from those of a human)
On the question of ‘perfection’, I consulted the Bible commentaries, and I got this following answer:
Absolute perfection is a quality that belongs to God alone. Yet only in Matthew 5:48 does the Bible explicitly state that God is by nature perfect.
So, I tend to conclude that it is not possible for a living entity to be perfect.
What do you think?

Now, let us move on to the Introduction. There is no mention who wrote this, but I think it is fair to conclude that this is a kind of extension of Bhaktivedanta Swami ‘s Preface.

There is a statement here that

“we should know that Lord Çré Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is confirmed by all great äcäryas (spiritual masters) like Çaìkaräcärya, Rämänujäcärya, Madhväcärya, Nimbärka Svämé, Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu and many other authorities of Vedic knowledge in India.”

Houston, there is a problem!

I reckon the acharyas are all creatures; Lord Çré Kåñëa is declared to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Now, don’t you think the creature giving a certificate to Godhead a bit strange?

The Bible has it differently in Matthew 3: 16-17:

“16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

 

Visual search query image

 

Who is testifying? God the Father. Isn’t that a more credible testimony? How do you see it?

Before I forget if “Lord Çré Kåñëa is declared to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead” won’t Lord Rama be displeased and burn with jealousy?

Another statement I find in the opening section is:

”  O my dear Kåñëa, You are the friend of the distressed and the source of creation. You are the master of the gopés and the lover of Rädhäräëé.”

Now, who are these gopis? Being rather nescient on the subject, I turned to Wikipedia:

Gopi  or Gopika in Hinduism are worshipped as the consorts and devotees of Krishna within the Vaishnavism and Krishnaism traditions for their unconditional love and devotion (Bhakti) to god Krishna as described in the Sanskrit scriptures like Bhagavata Purana and other Puranic literature. Gopis are often considered as the expansion of goddess Radha, the chief consort of Krishna.”

Apparently, there are prominent gopis  and not-so prominent ones; for further information states that.

“The prominent gopis of Vrindavan are total 108 in numbers. They share the eternal intimate friendship with Radha Krishna. ”

“Eternal intimate friendship (with 108 gopis)”?  Sounds a bit titillating, what?

Wikipedia also says that “Gopi (गोपी) is a Sanskrit word originating from the word Gopa. In Hinduism, the name Gopika or Gopi is especially used to refer the milkmaids of Braj region.

 

 

Ooh, romance, and that with multiple milkmaids! A ladies’ man or Godhead, pray?

Furthermore, it appears that Arjunan was not the first recipient of Bhagavad-gétä. The Introduction states that:

“the Lord informs Arjuna that this system of yoga, the Bhagavad-gétä, was first spoken to the sun-god, and the sun-god explained it to Manu, and Manu explained it to Ikñväku, and in that way, by disciplic succession, one speaker after another, this yoga system has been coming down. But in the course of time it has become lost. Consequently the Lord has to speak it again, this time to Arjuna on the Battlefield of Kurukñetra”

Since it is given in the ‘passive’, we may ask who spoke Bhagavad-gétä,  first  to the sun-god? And who is this sun-god anyway?

If I can make any sense of this complexity, the inference is that the Lord spoke to (sun) god! So, where does this sun-god go afterwards? I would imagine that god is eternal and therefore the sun-god could himself have stayed on to communicate the message to Arjunan. Gosh! How did it get lost ‘in the course of time’?

Answer me, somebody please!!

Ignoramuses like me must understand that “The purpose of Bhagavad-gétä is to deliver mankind from the nescience of material existence.” We are further informed that “our very existence is in the atmosphere of nonexistence. Actually, we are not meant to be threatened by nonexistence. Our existence is eternal. But somehow or other, we are put into asat. Asat refers to that which does not exist. Out of so many being who are suffering, there are a few who are
actually inquiring about their position, as to what they are, why they are put
into this awkward position and so on. Unless one is awakened to this position
of questioning his suffering, unless he realizes that he doesn’t want suffering
but rather wants to make a solution to all sufferings, then one is not to be
considered a perfect human being.”
Simple, isn’t it? Now tell me whether you are a ‘perfect human being’!
I think we already made the point that ‘perfection’ is a god-thing rather than a human-thing.
Hmmm!
And the Introduction goes on to state that ” Therefore those who begin to question why they are suffering or where they came from and where they shall go after death are proper students for understanding Bhagavad-gétä”
Sorry brother, it is not for everybody!!
Moving on, the Introduction further asks “What is material nature? This is also explained in Gétä as inferior prakåti, inferior nature. The living entity is explained as the superior prakåti. Prakåti is
always under control, whether inferior or superior. Prakåti is female, and she is controlled by the Lord just as the activities of a wife are controlled by the husband. Prakåti is always subordinate, predominated by the Lord, who is the predominator. “
If you are looking for further complications, you may read the Introduction yourself, but please appreciate that I am trying to simplify things for you. The feminine gender may not take kindly to the assertion that
“Prakåti is always subordinate” but there it is. You are welcome to debate the issue!
Rise up, Gopikas!
The Introduction further tells us that “Bhagavad-gétä was spoken to liberate one from the bodily conception of life, and Arjuna put himself in this position in order to receive this information from the Lord. One must become free from the bodily conception of life; that is the preliminary activity
for the transcendentalist. One who wants to become free, who wants to become liberated, must first of all learn that he is not this material body. Mukti or liberation means freedom from material consciousness.”
Furthermore,
“In the Çrémad-Bhägavatam also the definition of liberation is given: Mukti means liberation
from the contaminated consciousness of this material world and situation in pure consciousness. All the instructions of Bhagavad-gétä are intended to awaken this pure consciousness, and therefore we find at the last stage of the Gétä’s instructions that Kåñëa is asking Arjuna whether he is now in purified
consciousness. Purified consciousness means acting in accordance with the instructions of the Lord. This is the whole sum and substance of purified consciousness. Consciousness is already there because we are part and parcel of the Lord, but for us there is the affinity of being affected by the inferior modes. But the Lord, being the Supreme, is never affected. That is the difference between the Supreme Lord and the conditioned souls.What is this consciousness? This consciousness is “I am.” Then what am I? In
contaminated consciousness “I am” means “I am the lord of all I survey. I am the enjoyer.”
The Lord is the “enjoyer”. No questions there; he seems to be having the time of his life with his female friends!
I know this is not easy. But wade through, we must!
Read on:
“Kåñëa is the cause of all causes. He is the primal cause, and He is the very form of eternal being, knowledge and bliss.” Impersonal Brahman realization is the realization of His sat (being) feature. Paramätmä realization is the realization of the cit (eternal knowledge) feature. But realization of the
Personality of Godhead, Kåñëa, is realization of all the transcendental features: sat, cit and änanda (being, knowledge, bliss) in complete vigraha (form). People with less intelligence consider the Supreme Truth to be impersonal, but He is a transcendental person, and this is confirmed in all Vedic literatures.
Nityo nityänäm cetanaç cetanänäm. As we are all individual living beings and have our individuality, the Supreme Absolute Truth is also, in the ultimate issue, a person, and realization of the Personality of Godhead is realization of all of the transcendental features. The complete whole is not formless”
I have two issues here:
1. “People with less intelligence“. This makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

2. “The complete whole is not formless.”  This is not quite how the Bible has it. In Exodus 20:4 we read;

 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

And in the New Testament, John 4:24 says

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

Let’s move on:

“In the Eleventh Chapter the Lord is addressed as prapitämaha because Brahmä is addressed as pitämaha, the grandfather, and He is the creator of the grandfather”

In Christianity, you will frequently hear sermons stressing that ‘God has no grand-children’. You are either a ‘child of God’ or you are not. You cannot call God a ‘grand-father’ because your father or mother is a ‘child of God’. This of course means that salvation or redemption is a matter of individual, personal acceptance by faith of the completed work of the vicarious death of Christ on the cross in our behalf. Christians for generations?? This means nothing if you haven’t made the decision yourself!!

Now a very important point:

“Next, one may raise the question of how one goes about approaching that abode of the Supreme Lord. Information of this is given in the Eighth Chapter. It is said there:

anta-käle ca mäm eva smaran muktvä kalevaram
yaù prayäti sa mad-bhävam yäti nästy atra saàçayaù

“Anyone who quits his body, at the end of life, remembering Me, attains
immediately to My nature; and there is no doubt of this.” (Bg. 8.5) One who
thinks of Kåñëa at the time of his death goes to Kåñëa.”

Hey, this is facile! Are we to conclude that we can commit the worst form of debauchery all our lives; no matter, if you only remember to think of Krishna at the time of your death. All will be well. Hunky dory!!

                                    “சாகும் நேரத்தில் சங்கரா சங்கரா”

 

No regret, no confession of wrongdoing, no repentance, no seeking of forgiveness, no reconciliation, no restoration. 

All that is required is to think of Krishna at the time of your death.
Easy does it!
Read on people
“Kåñëa has given a great number of Vedic literatures. First He divided the Vedas into four, then He explained them in the Puräëas, and for less capable people He wrote the Mahäbhärata”
You, reading Mahäbhärata? I am afraid your capability is not esteemed great. Sorry about that.
You, a woman?
You may not be in good company but don’t worry/
“Human beings even in the lower statuses of life (a merchant, a woman or a laborer) can attain the Supreme.”
And further:
“Give up all varieties of religiousness, and just surrender unto Me; and in return I shall protect you from all sinful reactions. Therefore, you have nothing to fear.” (Bg. 18.66) Thus the Lord takes all responsibility for one who surrenders unto Him, and He indemnifies all the reactions of sin. One cleanses himself daily by taking a bath in water, but one who takes his bath only once in the sacred Ganges water of the Bhagavad-gétä cleanses away all the dirt of material life.”
I say people, plunge into the Ganges to purge away “all the dirt of material life”
Please don’t laugh. This is serious stuff.
Somewhere along the way, our writer seems to suffer from pangs of guilt that he is completely ignoring Vishnu. So he tries to make amends:
“Gétä is the very nectar of the Mahäbhärata spoken by Viñëu Himself, for Lord Kåñëa is the original Viñëu”
Eh?
Confusing. I remember reading somewhere that Krishna is an Avatar of Vishnu. Suddenly he turns out to be the original?? Quite remarkable!
The Introduction also states that “the Gita should be taken as the most perfect presentation of Vedic knowledge. The first words were spoken by the Lord Himself.
Oh? What about the rest of them? Man-made?
In case you are wondering about the ‘why’ of it all, here is the answer:
“Therefore the Lord descends to reclaim all of these fallen, conditioned souls to call them back to the sanätana eternal sky so that the sanätana living entities may regain their eternal sanätana positions in eternal association with the Lord. The Lord comes Himself in different incarnations, or He sends His confidential servants as sons or His associates or äcäryas to reclaim the conditioned souls “
I also read that the ” Human society is divided, according to work, into four divisions of social order—brähmaëa, kñatriya, vaiçya, çüdra. The brähmaëa class or intelligent class is working in one
way, the kñatriya or administrative class is working in another way, and the mercantile class and the laborers are all tending to their specific duties.”
 Is this the origin – or the legitimization – of the darned caste system?
I should also state that I always have a problem with multiple gods. If god by definition is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent then the concept of multiple gods is unsustainable. The Bible clearly proclaims in Deuteronomy 6:4 that “The Lord our God is one Lord”
Now that makes sense.
____________________________________________________

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *