Introduction
I attempt in this paper to clarify certain essential teachings of the Bhagavad-gītā which are traditionally “zones of puzzlement” among scholars. These areas focus on a single point: the nature and status of God, Kṛṣṇa, according to the Gītā. My strong conviction is that the Gītā itself is a lucid, self-explanatory work, and therefore the occasional practice of commentators to force on it extraneous doctrines often renders the text obscure where it is bright, esoteric where it is literal, and impersonal where it is intensely personal. I am operating here on an ancient principle which holds that certain Vedic1 literatures are svatah—prāmāṇyam, literally “evident in or by themselves”. As stated in the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa:
ṛg-yajuh-sāmārtharvāś ca bhāratam pañca-rātrakam
mūla-rāmāyaṇaṃ caiva veda ity eva śabditāh
purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduh
svatah-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṃ nātra kincid vicāryate
“The Ṛg Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pancarātra and original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered by authorities to be Veda. The knowers also know that those Purāṇas dedicated to Lord Viṣṇu enjoy the same status. These literatures are self-evident, and there is nothing at all to speculate about them.”
It should be noted at once that the above exegetic principle does not do away with intellectual response to the scriptures. Rather it is a call for sober hermeneutical practices, in which we first struggle to comprehend a scriptural message on its own terms, through careful study of its internal structures of meaning.
We get some historical flavor of this methodology by turning to a fascinating theological debate which took place almost 500 years ago in Benares between Srī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the founder of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, and Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, a leading Sankarite sannyāsī of the time. After hearing Prakāśānanda ‘s interpretation of Vedānta-sūtra, Srī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied: “The Veda is evident by itself. It is the crown-jewel of all evidence. By interpreting it, the self-evident quality is lost.” [Caitanya-caritāmāta, Ādi-līlā, 7.132] The original text, in medieval Bengali, is:
svatah-pramāṇa veda — pramāṇa-śiromaṇi, lakṣaṇā karile svatah-pramāṇatā-hāni.
The quality of self-evidence mentioned above is especially apparent, in my view, in the Bhagavad-gītā, which is part of the Mahābhārata. I have therefore selected five specific areas, vital to the Bhagavad-gītā’s message, which are especially prone to misinterpretation, and I have attempted to demonstrate from the Bhagavad-gītā itself the consistent, and self-evident view of the speaker, Lord Srī Kṛṣṇa, especially as He describes Himself.
The first topic is the Gītā’s strong montheism, in which the many gods of the Hindu pantheon are sharply relegated to the status of subordinate servitors to the Supreme Lord. The second topic is that of the separate individuality of Krṣṇa as God, distinct from, and transcendental to, the individual entities, who are tiny expansions of the Lord. Third, I have shown that within the Gītā, Kṛṣṇa is understood to be the supreme controller. The fourth subject is the delicate issue of monism. I believe to have clearly shown that despite certain statements in the Gītā to the effect that “Kṛṣṇa is everything,” there is nothing like a bald monistic doctrine in the Gītā. Finally, in the fifth section, I have argued from the Bhagavad-gītā itself that Kṛṣṇa comes to this world in a spiritual, eternal form, and not a material body, such as those we inhabit.
As mentioned above, these five topics ineluctably lead to a single conclusion: that the real and final topic of the Bhagavad-gītā is Kṛṣṇa Himself, who is inseparably related to, and yet eternally transcendental to the individual souls, of whom we are specimens. This doctrine of bhedābheda-tattva, the difference and non-difference of the Lord and individual souls, is Srī Caitanya’s reading of the Bhagavad-gītā, and Vedic literature in general.
I have included the topic that Kṛṣṇa is the controller to drive home the point that the Godhead being talked about in the Bhagavad-gītā is not a vague, wispy Deity, whose true ineffable status is but indirectly hinted at by the hierarchical language of mortals. Completely to the contrary, we have in the Gītā a full-blown description of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Supreme Lord, commanding, and even poignantly entreating, the individual souls enmeshed in māyā to return to Him in His divine abode.
I call this paper a “Beginning Ontology” because the constraints of time and space have permitted only an introductory statement about the Godhead, as He is conceived in the Bhagavad-gītā. In fact, the points made herein are amplified by the rest of the Bhagavad-gītā. At the very least, I hope this paper will stimulate the reader to investigate the Gītā as far as possible on its own terms. There are certainly esoteric passages in religious scriptures, including the Vedic books. But the guiding Vedic principle is that we should interpret that which is ambiguous, that which plainly calls for explication of hidden meanings. There are many such statements in the Sanskrit scriptures, but the fundamental message, the central theme is generally clear.
The verses quoted here are all my own translations, unless otherwise indicated, and I have given great stress on literal accuracy in their rendering. I have endeavored to avoid, thereby, unfounded flights of poetic inspiration, and dubious constructions devised to legitimate tentative insights. My conclusions reflect what I have learned from the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, [The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Los Angeles, 1989] whose translation and purports are the the unique devotional scholarship of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
The point of view here is clearly in the tradition of Srīpāda Madhvācārya, Srīpād Rāmānujācārya, Srī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and other illustrious Vaiṣṇava scholars, who opposed the monistic interpretation of Srīpāda Saìkarācārya, and those in his line. In a sense, one gets here a glimpse of a millennial theological debate in action.
1. There is one god
In the Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa declares Himself to be the Supreme Godhead, and He specifically asserts His supremacy in relation to the well-known gods or demigods of the Vedic and Hindu pantheon. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa is the source of all the other gods that inhabit the cosmos [aham ādir hi devānām 10.2], for He is the source of all that exists [aham sarvasya prabhavaḥ 10.8]. Thus those who worship other gods are ultimately worshiping Kṛṣṇa, the source and sustainer of those gods [ye ‘py anya-devatā-bhaktāh…te ‘pi mām eva…yajanti avidhi-pūrvakam 9.23]. Similarly, although gods may accept offerings from their worshipers, gods themselves act as mere agents of the Supreme God who is the ultimate enjoyer of all types of sacrifice [ahaṃ hi sarva-yajñānām bhoktā ca prabhur eva ca 9.24]. An ignorant worshiper of demigods who does not clearly recognize the Godhead’s supremacy falls to a lower status of life. [na tu mām abhijānānti tattvenātaś cyavanti te 9.24]; The demigods cannot award ultimate liberation, since those who attain to their worlds again fall back to the mortal earthly realm when they exhaust their pious merit [te taṃ bhuktvā svarga-lokaṃ viśālaṃ kṣīṇe puṇye martya-lokaṃ viśanti 9.21]. This impermanence holds true not only for Indra’s planet, surendra-loka [9.20], or svarga-loka [9.21], but indeed for all worlds within the material cosmos, including that of creator Brahmā [ā-brahma-bhuvanāl lokāh punar-āvartino ‘rjuna 8.16] It is only in the Supreme God Kṛṣṇa’s world that one finds the eternal abode, reaching which one never returns to take birth in the material world [yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṃ mama 15.6; yam prāpya na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṃ mama 8.21; mām upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate 8.16].
We find further evidence of the gods’ temporary position in chapter eleven of the Gītā. The cosmic form which the Lord therein displays is revealed to be Kṛṣṇa’s form and power of Time [kālo ‘smi 11.32] that even overwhelms and astonishes the hosts of gods who succumb to Time’s destructive power [11.21-22].
Lord Kṛṣṇa also absolutely surpasses the gods in cognitive powers. In all respects, Kṛṣṇa is the origin of the gods, and hence they cannot understood Kṛṣṇa’s origin [na me viduh sura-gaṇāh prabhavaṃ na maharṣayaḥ aham ādir hi devānām maharṣīṇāṃ ca sarvśah 10.2], for indeed He is beginningless. Not only gods, but the entire universe is bewildered by the modes of nature and thus does not recognize or understand Kṛṣṇa, since Kṛṣṇa is beyond those modes [tribhir guṇa-mayair bhāvair ebhiḥ sarvam idaṃ jagat mohitaṃ nābhijānāti mām ebhyah param avyayam 7.13]. Only by the bewildering influence of the material modes upon conditioned souls they worship other gods at all [yajante sāttvikā devān yakṣa-rakṣāṃsi rājasāḥ pretān bhūta-gaṇāṃś cānye yajante tāmasā janāḥ 17.4].
Kṛṣṇa’s omniscience is superlatively causal since Kṛṣṇa is the source of everyone’s memory, knowledge, and forgetting [sarvasya cāhaṃ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṃ ca 15.15]. Indeed Kṛṣṇa knows the past, present, and future of all beings, but no one in the material world knows Him in truth [vedāhaṃ samatītāni vartamānāni cārjuna, bhaviṣyāṇi ca bhūtāni māṃ tu veda na kaścana 7.26]. In fact, so much do living beings depend on Kṛṣṇa, that Kṛṣṇa must even supply their faith in other gods [yo yo yāṃ yāṃ tanum bhaktaḥ śraddhayārcitum icchati, tasya tasyācalaṃ śraddhāṃ tām eva vidadhāmy aham 7.21]. And the results those gods award are actually given by Kṛṣṇa alone, of Whom the gods are but agents [labhate ca tataḥ kāmān mayaiva vihitān hi tān 7.22].
As Kṛṣṇa is ontologically and epistemically prior to the gods and absolutely superior in powers of being and cognition, so too the result of worshiping Him, eternal life in the Lord’s abode, greatly surpasses temporary states derived from worshiping all other powerful beings: “Men of small intelligence worship gods, and [thereby gain] limited and temporary fruits. Those who worship gods go to the gods, but My devotees come to Me” [antavat tu phalaṃ teṣāṃ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām, devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api 7.23]. Similarly: “Those sworn to the gods, go to the gods; those sworn to the forefathers, go to the forefathers; worshipers of ghostly spirits go to such spirits; but those who worship Me go to Me” [yānti deva–vratā devān pitṝn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ, bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā yānti mad-yājino ‘pi mām 9.25]. In view of this fundamental distinction between Kṛṣṇa and the gods, and their respective powers to reward their worshipers, only those whose intelligence is stolen by lust worship the gods, and neglect the Supreme Godhead [kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante anya-devatāḥ 7.20]. And, as stated above, Kṛṣṇa alone actually bestows even the temporary fruits apparently awarded by gods [labhate ca tataḥ kāmān mayaiva vihitān hi tān 7.22].
Thus there is nothing at all beyond Kṛṣṇa [mattah parataram nanyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya 7.7]; He is the great Lord of all the worlds [sarva-loka-maheśvaram 5.29]; and He is the creator and sustainer of everything [sarvasya dhātāram 8.9]. Within the Gīta, Arjuna glorifies Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Supreme Purifier, the Supreme Divine Person [param brahma paraṃ dhāma pavitraṃ paramaṃ bhavān puruṣaṃ śāśvataṃ divyam…10.12]; God of gods [deva-deva 10.14]; and original God [ādi-devam 10.12. tvam ādi-devaḥ 11.38] and the primeval Person [puruṣah purāṇaḥ 11.38]. Arjuna further affirms that no one is equal to or greater than Kṛṣṇa [na tvat-samo ‘sty abhyadhikaḥ kuto ‘nyo 11.43].
The Lord ends His teaching in the Gīta by urging Arjuna to abandon all other duties (dharman) and take shelter of Kṛṣṇa alone: sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṃ śaraṇaṃ vraja 18.66. Thus the Gīta’s monotheism is neither vague nor occasional, and apparent asssertions of a monistic ontology, as will be shown later in this paper, do not compromise the overwhelming conclusion: the absolute supremacy of Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna certainly understands Kṛṣṇa to be the Supreme Lord. When asked if he has understood the Lord’s teachings, he replies: “My illusion is gone… I shall execute Your instructions [naṣṭo mohaḥ…kariṣye vacanaṃ tava 18.73].
2. Kṛṣṇa and the individual souls are distinct entities.
As Lord Kṛṣṇa is eternally the Supreme Person, so the individual souls are, of logical necessity, eternally distinct from and subordinate to the Lord: “Never did I not exist, nor you, nor all these kings. And it is certainly not (the case) that we shall not exist, all of us, for ever after [na tv evaham jatu nasam na tvam na tvaṃ neme janadhipah na caiva na bhaviṣyamah sarve vayam atah param 2.12].
Here Kṛṣṇa clearly states that “all of us” [sarve vayam] will exist forever, just as I (Kṛṣṇa), you (Arjuna) and all these kings have always existed at all times in the past. Indeed, never was there a time when we did not exist. In the previous verse, Kṛṣṇa chastized Arjuna for taking the body to be the self. Similarly, in the verse immedaitely following, Kṛṣṇa will describe the soul as dehī, the owner of the body, different from deha, the body. Indeed the entire first half of the second chapter of the Bhagavad-gīta makes it clear that our real identity is eternal soul and not the body. Thus having said that a learned person (paṇḍita) sees the soul, and not the body, as primary, it is certain that Kṛṣṇa is speaking of the real person, the soul, as He begins to explain to Arjuna the fundamental ontology of the world. After all, how can the Lord be a-paṇḍita, or foolish? Thus it is the real Kṛṣṇa, the eternal Kṛṣṇa, and the real Arjuna, the eternal Arjuna, who have always existed and always will exist. And all of us, says Kṛṣṇa, will continue to exist in the future.
Similarly, later in the Gīta, we find the following:
“There are two [classes of] beings in this world, the perishable and the imperishable. All created forms are perishable, but a soul who stands at the summit is imperishable.
“The Supreme Person, however, is another, and He is declared to be the Supersoul. It is that inexhaustible Lord who has entered the three worlds and sustains them.
“Because I am beyond the perishable beings, and greater even than the imperishable, I am thus celebrated in this world, and in the Vedas, as the Supreme Person. One who knows Me in this way to be the Supreme Person is a knower of everything, and he worships Me with all his heart” [15.16-19].2
There are many significant lessons in these four ślokas of the Gīta. Kṛṣṇa defines the term puruṣottama as the Supreme Person, who stands beyond both the conditioned souls entangled in the snare of maya, and “even beyond the highest soul,” e.g. a liberated soul who stands at the highest point of spiritual perfection. Indeed Monier-Williams in his Oxford Sanskrit dictionary describes kūṭa-sthaḥ as the pure soul standing on the unchanging, spiritual platform. Since Kṛṣṇa emphatically declares that puruṣottama is beyond even the liberated soul, we can hardly translate puruṣa here as “man” or anything indicative of a material position, since this would not even apply to the kūṭa-stha or the liberated soul, and what to speak of the Supreme Person who stands far beyond such a pure soul. Kṛṣṇa uses the word api, “even” to make explicit that “I am beyond even the liberated soul.” In other words, it is not the Gīta’s philosophy that one becomes Kṛṣṇa, or equal to Kṛṣṇa, by spiritual liberation. A normal reader would not question that Kṛṣṇa is beyond the conditioned soul, but here the Lord emphasizes by the world api that He is beyond even the liberated soul who stands at the summit of spiritual perfection.
The finality of this understanding of the supreme personal individuality of Kṛṣṇa is confirmed at 15.19 wherein Kṛṣṇa states that one who understands Him in this way [evam] as the Supreme Person [puruṣottama] is the knower of everything [sarva-vit] and worships the Lord with all his heart [bhajati māṃ sarva-bhāvena bhārata 15.19]. In other words, Kṛṣṇa explicitly rejects the notion that realization of the personal feature of the Lord is a mere prelude to an eventual impersonal understanding.
Earlier in the fifteenth chapter, Kṛṣṇa states that the living being in this world is eternally a fragmental part [aṃśa] of the Lord [mamaivaṃśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ 15.7]. The soul is further said to be indivisible [acchedyo ‘yam 2.24], and so the fragmental status is not effectuated in time, but is a pre-eternal, never-ending fact: [na tv evāhaṃ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param 2.12]. As Lord Kṛṣṇa simply puts its, God is not one of the ordinary living beings, nor even one of the liberated souls; rather: “the Supreme Person is someone else…” [uttamaḥ puruṣas tv anyaḥ 15.17].
We have already demonstrated that Kṛṣṇa claims to be absolutely cognizant and the source of all other cognition. He makes the same claim in the thirteenth chapter where Lord Kṛṣṇa introduces the terms kṣetra, “the field (i.e. the body)” and kṣetra-jña, “the knower of the field (i.e. the soul who is conscious of the body).” The Lord concludes this discourse by asserting that although each soul is the knower of his field, i.e. his particular body, “I am the knower of all fields” (meaning all bodies) [kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarva–kṣetreṣu bhārata 13.3].
In the same thirteenth chapter, Kṛṣṇa describes both the individual soul and the Lord as puruṣa, but the contrast is striking. The individual soul is a puruṣa, but he is (a) “situated in material nature,” (b) “trying to enjoy the material qualities”, and thus (c) compelled by his attachments to those qualities to take birth in high and low species of bodily encangement [puruṣah prakṛti-stho hi bhuìkte prakṛti-jan, karaṇaṃ guṇa-saìgo ‘sya sad-asad-yoni-janmasu 13.22]. In the very next śloka, the Lord describes Himself also as puruṣa, but the difference between the two puruṣas could not be more clear, for Kṛṣṇa is said to be the supreme or transcendental puruṣah [puruṣah parah]. The use of the adjective parah to denote the supreme puruṣa is sigificant, for this word not only entails the notion of supremacy, but also a strong sense of “the other.” Indeed, para is often used in Sanskrit to indicate the opposite of atma- or sva-,3 both of which indicate “self” or “one’s own”. In fact, atma is the simple reflexive pronoun in Sanskrit. In other words, para has the unequivocal sense here of the wholly other who is supreme. In this same śloka, Lord Kṛṣṇa also uses the term paramatma, describing Himself thus as the “Supreme Soul.”
It should be noted that the adjective parama [used with atma to form paramatma], is almost identical to para, as regards the notion of supremacy, but that parama does not convey the sense of being the “other” in contrast to one’s self. It is this wider term para that Kṛṣṇa employs to distinguish Himself, as puruṣa, from the ordinary puruṣa who is struggling vainly to exploit the Lord’s material creation. Thus the Gīta’s claim that the indiviual soul is eternally distinct from the Supreme Soul is a strong one, and not a vague or esoteric articulation.
The Lord is also said to be the maintainer of the living beings [sarva-bhṛc caiva 13.5]. It is natural that the Lord maintain the living beings, for they are stated in the Gīta to be the Lord’s own energy: “Besides the material nature, there is another superior energy of Mine. Know it to be the living being…” [apareyam itas tv anyāṃ prakṛtiṃ viddhi me parām jīva–bhūtāṃ… 7.5]. The living being trapped in the clutches of maya, the Lord’s illusory material energy, can only escape her control by surrendering to the Lord. He cannot escape by his own autonomous decision or endeavor: [daivī hy eṣa guṇa-mayī mama māyā duratyayā, mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etām taranti te 7.5].
3. God is the controller
Because God, Kṛṣṇa, is one, and eternally separate from the individual soul, it follows that He is the Lord and controller of all that be. Lord Kṛṣṇa delineates a bipartite notion of causality in which material nature is the cause of the physical workings of the world, whereas the living being is the cause of his own enjoyment and suffering [kārya–kāraṇa–kartṛtve hetuḥ prakṛtir ucyate puruṣaḥ sukha–duḥkhānāṃ bhoktṛtve hetur ucyate 13.21]. Nature responds to the attempts of the soul to exploit the illusory material world, and entangles the soul in the web of māyā. Perhaps the greatest illusion is the soul’s false perception that he is performing those physical events, such as moving of the body, that in fact are done by nature [prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ahaṃkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate 3.27]. Nature in turn is directly under the control of the Supreme Lord, and the entire cosmos turns by His command [mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ…hetunānena kaunteya jagad viparivartate 9.10]. Thus the causal chain originates in Kṛṣṇa, who states: “I am the Lord of all beings, and I stay in their hearts, causing all beings, who are mounted on the machine (of the body), to wander in this world in illusion [īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṃ hṛd-deśe ‘rjuna tiṣṭhati, bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni yantrārūḍhāni māyayā 18.61].
Kṛṣṇa is a living God who orders, punishes, and reclaims the fallen souls who are eternally part and parcel of Him. Thus Kṛṣṇa declares that: “Those who always faithfully abide by My injunction, without envy, are freed from all karmic acts. However those who are envious and do not abide by My injunction you should know to be mindless and lost, for they are confused about all that is knowledge” [ye me matam idaṃ nityam anutiṣṭhanti mānavāḥ śraddhāvanto ‘nasūyanto mucyante te ‘pi karmabhiḥ. ye tv etad abhyasūyanto nānutiṣṭhanti me matam, sarva-jñāna-vimūḍhāṃs tān viddhi naṣṭān acetasaḥ 3.31-32].
This same point is dramatically driven home at the end of the Gītā: “If then because of false ego you will not hear, then you will perish” [atha cet tvam ahaṃkārān na śroṣyasi vinaṅkṣyasi 18.58]. We will understand Kṛṣṇa without doubt and fully, Kṛṣṇa declares, by hearing from Him [asaṃśayaṃ samagraṃ māṃ yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu 7.1].
One achieves real peace by recognizing that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the great Lord of all the worlds [sarva-loka-maheśvaram…jñātvā māṃ śāntim ṛcchati 5.29]. Similarly, one who knows Kṛṣṇa to be the great lord of the words, and that He is unborn and beginningless, is himself unbewildered among mortal beings and is freed of all sins [yo mām ajam anādiṃ ca vetti loka-maheśvaram, asammūḍhaḥ sa martyeṣu sarva–pāpaiḥ pramucyate 15.19]. Arjuna acknowledges Lord Kṛṣṇa to be the “controller of all beings”, and the “Lord of the universe” [bhūteśa…jagat-pate 10.15].
Finally, the entire eleventh chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā demonstrates in an unforgettable way that the entire universe can be devoured in an instant by Lord Kṛṣṇa. His control is absolute, for all beings exist within Him: “When you have thus learned the truth you will never again fall into illusion, for by that knowledge you will see that all living beings are in the Soul—that is they are in Me” [yaj jñātvā na punar moham evaṃ yāsyasi pāṇḍava yena bhūtāny aśeṣāṇi drakṣyasi ātmany atho mayi 4.35].
4. Kṛṣṇa is everything
Lord Kṛṣṇa strongly and repeatedly declares in the Bhagavad-gītā that He is the source of all that be. It follows that God is not only distinct from His creative energies, but He is also one with them since they are eternally resting on Him. Srī Caitanya Mahāprabhu thus stated that the philosophy of the Gītā is acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, which means that God is inconceivably one with, and simultaneously different from, His creation. We shall survey Kṛṣṇa’s statements that He is the source of everything, and then see how this claim is logically linked to the claim that “all things are Kṛṣṇa.”
Srī Kṛṣṇa declares in the Bhagavad-gītā: “I am the source of everything, from Me everything emanates” [ahaṃ sarvasya prabhavaḥ mattaḥ sarvaṃ pravartate 10.8]. Similarly, He states: “I am the origin and the annihilation of the entire cosmos” [ahaṃ kṛtsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā 7.6]. Kṛṣṇa goes on to say, “There is nothing else beyond Me, O Dhanañjaya. All this world rests on me like pearls strung on a thread” [mattaḥ parataraṃ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya, mayi sarvam idaṃ protaṃ sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva 7.7]. And as previously quoted, “Neither the hosts of gods nor the great sages know my origin, for in all respects I am the origin of the gods and great sages” [10.2]. Kṛṣṇa is not only the source of the living beings, but of their qualities as well: “Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from confusion [and ten other qualities], in their various types, are states of being of the living entities, and they all come from Me” [buddhir jñānam asammohaḥ… bhavanti bhāvā bhūtānāṃ matta eva pṛthag-vidhāḥ 10.4-5]. “The seven primordial sages, and the four Manus owe their existence to me for they are born of My mind” [maharñayaḥ sapta pūrve catvāro manavas tathā mad-bhāvā mānasā jātā… 10.7].
Let us now examine the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, wherein Lord Kṛṣṇa claims [10.20-38] to be the superlative exemplar in seventy categories. Here is a sample verse from that section: “Of the Ādityas I am Viṣṇu; of lights I am the radiant sun; of the Maruts I am Marīci; of stars I am the moon” [ādityānām ahaṃ viṣṇur jyotiṣāṃ ravir aṃśumān, marīcir marutām asmi nakṣatrāṇām ahaṃ śaśī]. To read monism into all of this would be a transparent misreading of the text, for a serious look at the entire chapter makes abundantly clear what Kṛṣṇa is actually saying.
First, we notice that most of Kṛṣṇa’s statements (cited above) to the effect that He is the source of everything, come from this same tenth chapter, namely verses 10.2, 10.4-5, 10.7, and 10.8. Kṛṣṇa precedes, then, His identification of Himself with the greatest items of this world by emphasizing that He is the source of all these things. Recall that in the seventh chapter Kṛṣṇa stated that all the things of this world are His energy, or prakṛti [7.4-6] and that He is therefore the source of all that be. That Kṛṣṇa is referring to the same ontological state of affairs becomes clear when we notice the repeated use here of the word vibhūti, which indicates the following: expansion, manifestation of might, great power, glory etc. Arjuna introduces this term when he says to Kṛṣṇa: “You should speak about Your own divine glories, those by which You pervade these worlds and abide in them” [vaktum arhasy aśeṣeṇa divyā hy ātma-vibhūtayaḥ, yābhir vibhūtibhir lokān imāṃs tvaṃ vyāpya tiṣṭhasi 10.16]. The word for “glories” here is vibhūtayah, the plural form of vibhūti. But that is just the beginning of this word’s career in the tenth chapter of the Gītā. Arjuna then says, “O Janārdana (Kṛṣṇa), please describe again, and extensively, Your mystic power and might for as I listen to this ambrosia, I find no satiation.” [vistareṇātmano yogaṃ vibhūtiṃ ca janārdana bhūyaḥ kathaya tṛptir hi śṛṇvato nāsti me ‘mṛtam 10.18] Again, the word for “might” is vibhūtim. Lord Kṛṣṇa then answers, agreeing to explain His own divine opulences, and again the word vibhūtayah, plural of vibhūti, is used [10.19]. In the very next śloka, the Lord begins His identification of Himself with the 70 categories mentioned above. At the end of the narration, Kṛṣṇa says, “O burner of the foe, there is no end to My divine powers, and so I have given some examples of the extension of My glory” [nānto ‘sti mama divyānāṃ vibhūtīnām parantapa, eṣa tūddeśataḥ prokto vibhūter vistaro mayā 10.40]. Predictably the word vibhūti is used twice in this verse, and it is repeated in the following verse, wherein Lord Kṛṣṇa says: “Whatever glorious, beautiful, or mighty being there may be, understand that it is born of but a spark of My splendor” [yad yad vibhūtimat sattvam śrīmad ūrjitam eva vā, tat tad evāvagaccha tvam mama tejo-’ṃśa-sambhavam 10.41]. Here the word vibhūti-mat means “that which possesses vibhūti, i.e. power, glory, etc.
By using the word vibhūti no less than six times, Lord Kṛṣṇa makes clear that He is talking about His powers, His properties, His opulences etc. In the seventh chapter, there are three “identification verses” [7.9-11] which exactly resemble in meter, language, and content the “identification verses” of the tenth chapter [10.20-38]. These three verses, as in the tenth chapter, are preceded by an elaborate analysis of how Lord Kṛṣṇa is the source of all that be, matter and spirit being His superior and inferior potencies. At the conclusion of 7.9-11, Kṛṣṇa declares that all of these opulences that He has identified Himself with, in fact come from Him, and are resting in Him, but He is not in them. [matta eveti tān viddhi na tv ahaṃ teṣu te mayi 7.12].
It also bears mentioning that one who rightly understands the sense in which Kṛṣṇa is the source of everything does not then consider that all beings are God, but rather worships the real God with wholehearted devotion: “I am the source of all, from Me all proceeds. Knowing this, the wise worship Me with all their being” [ahaṃ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṃ pravartate, iti matvā bhajante māṃ budhā bhāva–samanvitāḥ 10.8].
The purpose of the identification verses is to nourish the devoted theists, as Kṛṣṇa explains in the verse immediately following the above śloka: “Their minds in Me, their lives dedicated to Me, the devotees enlighten one another, always speaking about Me, and thus they are satisfied and rejoice [mac-cittā mad-gata-prāṇā bodhayantaḥ parasparam kathayantaś ca māṃ nityaṃ tuṣyanti ca ramanti ca 10.9]. Further, Arjuna explicitly states that it is just to facilitate such meditation on the Lord, that he is requesting Kṛṣṇa to describe His glories: “Always thinking of You, O Yogin, how can I know You? In which various forms, my Lord, am I to think about You? Describe to me at length Your glories…etc.” [kathaṃ vidyām ahaṃ yogiṃs tvāṃ sadā paricintayan, keṣu keṣu ca bhāveṣu cintyo ‘si bhagavan mayā… vistareṇātmano yogaṃ vibhūtiṃ ca janārdana bhūyah kathaya…10.17-18]. There is hardly a doctrine of pantheism in the Bhagavad-gītā. The real message is quite clear: surrender to Kṛṣṇa.
There is one instance where Lord Kṛṣṇa says that after many births, one in knowledge surrenders to the Lord, realizing that “Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa) is everything” [bahūnāṃ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti 7.19]. Similarly, there is an instance where Arjuna tells Kṛṣṇa, “You cover everything and thus You are everything.” [sarvaṃ samāpnoṣi tato ’si sarvaḥ 11.40] In these cases also, there is devastating evidence against the impersonal, monistic interpretation.
In the first instance, Lord Kṛṣṇa’s statement comes in the midst of a discussion of four types of people who do not surrender to God, and four types who do. Kṛṣṇa’s point in the verse we have cited [7.19] is that surrender to Kṛṣṇa is the symptom and proof that one is actually in knowledge, after many lifetimes of seeking the truth. In fact, the learned one who realizes that Kṛṣṇa is everything is one of the four classes of men who surrender to the Lord. We have already explained at length the many verses in chapter seven, preceding 7.19, which claim that Kṛṣṇa is the source of everything, and that He is identical with the opulent features of this world in the sense that such items, composed of the inferior modes of nature (sattva, rajas, tamas) are but expansions of the Lord’s power. And the verses following 7.19 emphasize that it is Kṛṣṇa alone who is to be worshiped, and not other gods. In other words, the topic under discussion is nothing but surrender to Kṛṣṇa, and an elaborate ontological explanation in this very chapter has clarified that Kṛṣṇa is to be identified with the wonderful things of this world only in the sense that such items rest on Him. It was explicitly stated that Kṛṣṇa is simultaneously aloof, that He is “not in them” [na tv ahaṃ teṣu te mayi 7.12].
Similarly, Arjuna declares to Kṛṣṇa: “You are everything because You entirely possess everything.” [sarvam samāpnoṣi tato ‘si sarvam] Arjuna’s statement is in response to the cosmic vision of God, in which Kṛṣṇa devours all the universe, and all beings are subdued by the Lord’s omnipotent feature of time. That is, in the context of God’s absolute domination of the subordinate living beings, Arjuna utters His prayer, “You are everything!”
Still, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the somewhat complex ontology operating here, and Kṛṣṇa Himself provides us such a focused metaphysical analysis in the ninth chapter of the Gītā [9.4-10] where He intentionally speaks in apparently contradictory language: “By Me in My unmanifested form, I pervade this whole universe. All beings are situated in Me, but I am not situated in them. The beings are also not situated in Me. Behold My mystic power. I am the maintainer of all beings; I am not also situated in them. My self is the source of the beings. Just as the great wind, which goes everywhere, is situated in the sky, similarly understand that all beings are situated in Me.” [9.4-6]4
Lord Kṛṣṇa here makes several ontological distinctions between Himself (God) and the many living beings like ourselves:
- Kṛṣṇa states that He individually pervades the entire universe. There is no similar claim for any of the individual living beings. [9.4]
- All beings are situated in Kṛṣṇa, but He is not in them. [9.4]
- Kṛṣṇa is the maintainer of all beings, but not they of Him. [9.5]
- Kṛṣṇa is the source (bhāvana) of all beings, but not they of Him. [9.5]
- Lord Kṛṣṇa compares Himself to the sky, and the living beings to the air which moves within the sky but does not mix with it. [9.6] This metaphor is further developed at 13.3 wherein Kṛṣṇa compares the sky to the soul which does not mix with the body. Kṛṣṇa states at 13.3 that although the sky extends everywhere (sarva-gatam) because of its sublety (saukṣmatvāt) it does not mix with anything, and hence nothing can taint it (nopalipyate). At 9.6, then, Kṛṣṇa means to state that although the great winds blow throughout space or sky, the sky is never covered by the air, which is a grosser element in the traditional cosmology. By analogy, then, although God contains all living beings within His existence, because of His being superior, He cannot be affected by the inferior qualities of the beings which He contains. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa states that He pervades the universe in an unmanifest form (avyakta-mūrtinā), and the term avyakta here, “unmanifest”, is clearly related to the concept of subtlety in 13.33. This sense of subtlety as a cause or condition of imperceptibility is explicitly given at 13.6, where it is said that “the Absolute is incomprehensible because of its subtlety.” [sūkṣmatvāt tad avijñeyaṃ]. This very word, sūkṣmatvāt, is given at 13.33, to mean “because of its subtlety”.
Thus the analogy of the sky and the air [9.6] is meant to explicate the same message given at 9.4-5: although Srī Kṛṣṇa is all-pervading, and although all beings live and exist within His existence, He is always distinct and superior and is never affected by the inferior qualities of the living beings that He contains. Thus it is very difficult to mount anything like a serious argument for monism from the statements of the Bhagavad-gītā.
5. Kṛṣṇa has spiritual form
In the Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa stresses the personality of the Godhead as the highest feature of the Absolute Truth and therefore the goal of the yoga process. For example, at 8.8, Kṛṣṇa states:
“One who is engaged in the practice of yoga, meditating with undeviating consciousness on the Supreme Divine Person, goes to that Supreme Person. One who constantly remembers Him as the primeval scholar, the steady ruler, smaller than the smallest, the creator of everything, as He whose inconceivable form is luminous like the sun and beyond darkness…one who remembers Him thus attains to that Supreme Divine Person.”5 [8.8-10]
Similarly, Arjuna declares Kṛṣṇa to be the “eternal divine person,” [puruṣaṃ śāśvataṃ divyam 10.12] and later he says “I consider You the eternal Person.” [sanātanas tvaṁ puruṣo mato me 11.18] At this point it is good to recall the strict ontological rule which Kṛṣṇa enunciated at the very beginning of His teaching, “Of the temporary there is no real existence, and of the eternal there is no cessation.” [nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ 2.16] Thus when Arjuna declares Kṛṣṇa to be the eternal person, it is understood that Kṛṣṇa’s personality has no beginning or end, and indeed Arjuna states that Kṛṣṇa is ajam, “unborn” [10.12]. It is significant that Kṛṣṇa states that not only He Himself, but in fact individual souls in general are beginningless: “Know that both material nature and the individual person [puruṣa] are beginningless. It is the accidental qualities and transformations of prakṛti that come into being.” [prakṛtiṃ puruṣaṃ caiva viddhy anādī ubhāv api, vikārāṃś ca guṇāṃś caiva viddhi prakṛti-sambhavān]. So the sanātana-puruṣa, the “eternal person”, cannot refer to a material form.
As Kṛṣṇa is an eternal, supreme, divine person, it is natural that He has an abode, and that is also described within the Gītā: “The sun does not brighten it, nor the moon, nor fire, and going to it, they never return — that is My supreme abode.” [na tad bhāsayate sūryo na śaśāṅko na pāvakaḥ yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṃ mama 15.6] Similarly: “It is said to be unmanifest and indestructible, and they call it the supreme destination. Having achieved it, they never return from My supreme abode.” [avyakto ‘kṣara ity uktas tam āhuḥ paramāṃ gatim, yam prāpya na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṃ mama 8.21]
According to the Bhagavad-gītā, the supreme personality of the Godhead is not merely myth, poetry or symbol, but rather spiritually tangible form and being, which is avyakta, unmanifest, only to the materially conditioned soul. Thus in the seventh chapter of the Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa says, “The unintelligent think that I am unmanifest, but that I have become a manifest, visible person, for they do not know My supreme nature which is inexhaustible and of incomparable excellence. [avyaktaṃ vyaktiṃ āpannaṃ manyante mām abuddhayaḥ, paraṃ bhāvam ajānanto mamāvyayam anuttamam 7.24] So important is this sloka that we shall examine its key terms in detail. Lord Kṛṣṇa says that “the unintelligent (abuddhayaḥ, plural of abuddhi, literally “those without intelligence”) think (manyante) that I am avyaktam, unmanifest, but that I have become vyaktiṃ, a manifest person.” The term avyaktam contrasts with the term vyaktiṃ not only in the sense of the invisible versus the visible, but also in contrasting a type of impersonal existence with a personal, individual reality. This sense of avyakta as impersonal, in contrast to the personal, is clearly evident at 12.1, and 12.3, and is also strengthened by the fact that here at 7.24, Lord Kṛṣṇa contrasts avyaktam not with its immediate antonym vyaktam, “the manifest,” but with the cognate vyaktiṃ which more specifically indicates a manifest, individual person. Kṛṣṇa says, then, “The unintelligent think that I am impersonal and unmanifest, but that I have become a distinct, visible, individual person. They think this because they do not know My supreme, transcendental nature (param bhāvam)…” The param bhāvam, or “supreme nature” mentioned here is clearly the transcendental nature of the vyakti, or visible personal identity of Kṛṣṇa. It is difficult to find another straightforward reading of this simple Sanskrit sentence.
Lord Kṛṣṇa’s statement at 7.24 contrasts in a curious way with another use of the terms avyakta and vyakti at 8.18. There the Lord says, “On the coming of the day (of Brahmā) all the individual beings come forth from the unmanifest, and on the coming of the night (of Brahmā), they are merged into the very place that is called the avyakta” [avyaktād vyaktayaḥ sarvāḥ prabhavanty ahar-āgame, rātry-āgame pralīyante tatraivāvyakta-saṁjñake 8.18]. There are several significant features of this statement. Kṛṣṇa uses the term vyaktayah, the plural nominative form of vyaktih, and He says that all these vyaktis (my translation: all the individual beings) come forth from the unmanifest, avyakta, during the day of Brahmā. Since there is clearly a plurality of living beings mentioned here (and everywhere else in the Gītā), and since the term vyakti is here used to describe the beings at their specific stage of manifestation, coming forth on the coming of Brahmā’s day, it is clear in this context also that the term vyakti refers to an individual, manifest person, active within the world. Because one might tend to associate the term with the conditioned souls visible in this world, Kṛṣṇa takes care to emphasize, when using the word to refer to Himself, that He does not, as do the conditioned souls, acquire a visible form upon coming to this world. Indeed the entire argument at 7.24 is that Lord Kṛṣṇa does not assume His visible, personal form at all, but that His personal form is His superior nature, param bhāvam. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa explains almost immediately after this, at 8.20, that the param bhāvam [inflected here as paro bhāvah since it shifts to the nominative from the accusative] is beyond the avyakta, the unmanifest from which the ordinary souls come forth on the coming of Brahmā’s day. Although Lord Kṛṣṇa describes that paro bhāvah as being a superior avyakta or unmanifest realm, we find at 8.21 that here the paro bhāvah actually refers to the Lord’s supreme abode. In other words, although His supreme abode is not manifest to ordinary persons, Kṛṣṇa descends from His abode so that we can see Him as He is. This is the highest sense of avatāra.
The same term paro bhāvah has been used at 7.24 to indicate the spiritual nature of Kṛṣṇa’s personality, and at 8.20, the term is used specifically to describe the spiritual quality of the Lord’s abode, but in either case, it is clear that the paro bhāvah at 8.20, or indeed the param bhāvam mentioned at 7.24, are beyond the avyakta mentioned at 8.18, as the status from which conditioned souls, also called vyaktis, come forth to manifest in this world. The conclusion is that the Gīta affirms the spiritual personality of the Lord, which is not a mere symbol, incarnation, way of getting at, etc. etc., an unmanifest impersonal Absolute Truth. But it is not by mental speculation that the personal form of the Lord is to be known. Thus the term vyaktiṃ is used also at 10.14, when Arjuna says to Kṛṣṇa, “Neither the gods nor the demons, O blessed Lord, know Thy personality (vyaktiṃ) [na hi te bhagavan vyaktiṃ vidur devā na dānavāh 10.14]. Rather, “It is by devotion that one knows Me in truth, as I actually am” [bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ 18.55].
The fact that Lord Kṛṣṇa is ultimately to be known as the Supreme Person is made even more explicit at the beginning of the twelfth chapter. Arjuna asks the Lord,
“Who are the greatest knowers of yoga—those who are Your devotees, always engaged in worshiping You, or those who worship the unperishing unmanifest [evaṃ satata-yuktā ye bhaktās tvāṃ paryupāsate, ye cāpy akṣaraṃ avyaktaṃ teṣāṃ ke yoga-vittamāḥ 12.1]? Here Arjuna places in direct competition personal devotion to Kṛṣṇan and worship of the avyakta, the unmanifest feature of the Absolute. Kṛṣṇa at once replies, “Always engaged in fixing their minds on Me, those who worship Me with transcendental faith I consider to be most intimately united with Me in yoga” [mayy āveśya mano ye māṃ nitya-yuktā upāsate, śraddhayā parayopetās te me yukta-tamā matāḥ 12.2]. Both in Arjuna’s original question [12.1], and in Lord Kṛṣṇa’s reply, the personal pronoun indicating Kṛṣṇa (Arjuna’s tvām, You, and Kṛṣṇa’s mām, Me) are used to indicate the personal concept of God, in contrast to the impersonal unmanifest.
The artificiality of the impersonal path for the eternal individual soul is made clear at 12.5, wherein Lord Kṛṣṇa says that in contrast to the path of bhakti, which is susukham kartum, “very joyful to perform” [9.2], the path of meditation on the unmanifest, the ineffable, all-pervading absolute is just the opposite, it is duhkham, or miserable to perform. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa calls the impersonal path kleśo ‘dhikataras, or “exceedingly troublesome” [12.5].
Srī Kṛṣṇa also states: “Because I inhere in a human-like body, foolish people disrespect Me, for they do not understand My transcendental nature” [avajānanti māṃ mūḍhā mānuṣīṃ tanum āśritam, paraṃ bhāvam ajānanto…9.11]. It is certainly noteworthy here that Lord Kṛṣṇa repeats the exact same words as in 7.24, i.e. “not knowing My transcendental nature” [paraṃ bhāvam ajānanto…7.24, 9.11]. Thus the unintelligent [abuddhayaḥ] who think that Kṛṣṇa has assumed His personal form, are compared to the foolish [mūḍhāh] who disrespect Kṛṣṇa because He appears in a human-like body.
Kṛṣṇa states at 9.11 that He inheres in a human-like body. The Sanskrit phrase is mānuṣīm (human-like) tanum (a body) āśritam (I) have inhered in. That which is inherent is essential and intrinsic, and this notion that the Lord originally manifests in a spiritual form is also indicated elsewhere in the Gītā. Let us turn to chapter four of the Gītā wherein Lord Kṛṣṇa elaborately describes His descent into this world. Lord Kṛṣṇa states:
“Although I am unborn and My Self never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all beings, utilizing My own energy I appear by My own potency. Whenever there is a decline of dharma, O Bhārata, and a prominent rise of adharma (irreligion), at that time I manifest My Self. To deliver the pious, and to destroy the evil-doers, and to establish dharma, I appear in every age” [4.6-8].6
Some of the grave problems infecting Western indological studies can be observed by seeing how Dr. Thomas Hopkins has paraphrased the above verses, and then translated the last of the three, in his book The Hindu Religious Tradition:
“In reality he is apart from the world as the Lord of all beings, but whenever worldly righteousness declines he creates a form for himself out of Prakṛti by his mysterious power (māyā) and manifests himself among men:
For the preservation of the righteous, the destruction of the wicked,
And the establishment of dharma, I come into being from age to age
(Bhagavad Gītā 4.8)” [TH 92]
There are two grave problems with Dr. Hopkins’ translation:
1. Hopkins inserts the foreign notion that “He creates a form for himself out of Prakṛti by his mysterious power etc.” The view that Kṛṣṇa is different from His personal form, which is presumed here to be made of matter, is not what Kṛṣṇa says here. Indeed He says the opposite. At 4.6, the Lord says that “Although I am unborn and My self never deteriorates…etc.” The word for Self is the standard term ātmā, and avyaya means “unperishing, undecaying.” It is hard to construe this avyaya-ātmā as different from the personal form of Kṛṣṇa, because in the very next śloka, Kṛṣṇa states that when He descends, He does so by manifesting that same ātmā [tadā ātmānaṃ sājāmy aham7]. In other words, the form which Kṛṣṇa sends forth to this world is eternal. In English syntax, Kṛṣṇa simply says: tadā ahaṃ sṛjāmi ātmānam: “Then I manifest (My) Self.” The verb here is sṛj: to let go, to release, discharge, send forth; also: to create, procreate, beget etc. We cannot apply here the latter sense of creating, begetting, etc., since Lord Kṛṣṇa has just stated that His ātmā is avyaya, and it has been clearly established from the outset that those things which arise in time also end in time: “For that which is born, death is certain [jātasya hi dhruvo mātyur 2.27]. Thus within the clear ontology of the Gītā, there is no scope for anything, much less a divine “Self,” to come into being and then last forever. There is no such entity in the Bhagavad-gītā. If we then accept the verb sāj in the alternative sense: “to release, discharge, send forth, etc.”, we still do not have anything like Hopkin’s “He creates a form for Himself…” Kṛṣṇa appears to be saying something quite simple and straightforward: “I send Myself forth to this world.” After all, who else could order the descent of Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority by whose order all the universe turns [9.10]?
2. There is no sense to the translation “I come into being.” Lord Kṛṣṇa has elaborately explained that He has always existed (na tv evāham jātu nāsam 2.12), and indeed that all living beings are beginningless [2.12, 13.20]. The verb which Hopkins has translated as “I come into being”, is sambhavāmi, the present tense, first person, singular of sam-bhū, the first meaning of which is “to be or come together.” Thus we should first understand that Lord Kṛṣṇa is simply stating that by His descent (avatāra) into this world, He is coming together with the souls of this world for their eternal benefit. After all, Kṛṣṇa has stated twice in the Gītā that He is the father of all living beings [9.17, 14.4] and that He is thus the well-wishing friend of all [5.29].
An additional sense of sam-bhū is “to be born or produced from” but this sense of the word normally requires an ablative noun, for the subject of the verb, in this case, must be born or produced from something, and such an ablative word is conspicuously absent in our context, and it is theologically impossible anyway, as explained above. A third sense of the verb is “to arise, spring up, develop”, and it may be this inapplicable sense of the verb which Hopkins has chosen. A fourth sense of the verb, which like the first is clearly applicable here, is: “to prevail, be effective.” There are yet other senses of the verb, but the first and the fourth, for various contextual and grammatical reasons, are the likely candidates.
Lord Kṛṣṇa concludes this topic of His descent into this world at 4.9, where He states: “One who thus understands, in truth, My divine birth and activities does not, upon leaving the body, go to another birth. He goes to Me, O Pāṇḍava.” [janma karma ca me divyam evaṃ yo vetti tattvataḥ, tyaktvā deham punar janma naiti mām eti pāṇḍava] Kṛṣṇa claims that His birth and activities are divine, divya, and of course this is the same adjective we have seen used many times to describe Kṛṣṇa as the divine person. Kṛṣṇa emphasizes that one must understand His birth and activities in truth, [tattvataḥ] and if Kṛṣṇa’s so-called assumption of a material form were as patently clear as some scholars claim, why would this word of caution be used? And how could Kṛṣṇa claim that mere understanding of His birth is sufficient to guarantee liberation from material birth in this world? It is evident that a serious study of the text will force us to look more seriously at the position of Kṛṣṇa.
There is much more to say about the position of Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā. We have covered but a few topics, albeit important ones. One may or may not choose to believe the statements of Kṛṣṇa, but before examining the truth of His claims, one should first understand what Kṛṣṇa is saying.
Endnotes
1. I use Vedic here in the widespread Indian sense to mean the original Vedas, Brāhmaṇas, and Upaniṣads, as well as the religiously authoritative classic literature such as the Purāṇas, Itihāṣas, etc. ↩
2. These statements are important in this context so I have provided, below each verse, a word-by-word translation:
15.16 dvāv imau puruṣau loke kṣaraś cākṣara eva ca
kṣaraḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni kūṭa-stho ’kṣara ucyate
dvāu: two; imau: these; puruṣau: [classes of] persons; loke: in the world; kṣaraḥ: perishing; ca: and; akṣaraḥ: unperishing; eva: indeed; bhūtāni: beings; kūṭa-sthaḥ: standing at the highest, most excellent point;
akṣaraḥ: imperishable; ucyate: is said to be.
15.17 uttamaḥ puruṣas tv anyaḥ paramātmety udāhṛtaḥ
yo loka-trayam āviśya bibharty avyaya īśvaraḥ
uttamaḥ: the ultimate, greatest; puruṣaḥ: person; anyaḥ: another; paramātmā: Supreme Soul; āviśya: entering; bibharti: sustains;
īśvaraḥ: the Lord.
15.18 yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham akṣarād api cottamaḥ
ato ’smi loke vede ca prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ
yasmāt: because; kṣaram: the perishing; atītaḥ: transcendental to; akṣarāt: than the imperishable; uttamaḥ: supreme; asmi: I am; puruṣottamaḥ: Supreme Person.
15.19 yo mām evam asammūḍho jānāti puruṣottamam
sa sarva-vid bhajati māṃ sarva-bhāvena bhārata
yaḥ: one who; mām: Me; asammūḍhaḥ: unbewildered; jānāti: knows; puruṣottamam: Supreme Person; saḥ: he; bhajati: worships ↩
3. The hyphen after ātma-, and sva-, indicate that these words in uninflected form are often used in compound constructions. ↩
4. mayā tatam idaṃ sarvaṃ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni na cāhaṃ teṣv avasthitaḥ
na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni paśya me yogam aiśvaram
bhūta-bhṛn na ca bhūta-stho mamātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ
yathākāśa-sthito nityaṃ vāyuḥ sarvatra-go mahān
tathā sarvāṇi bhūtāni mat-sthānīty upadhāraya
↩
5. abhyāsa-yoga-yuktena cetasā nānya-gāminā
paramaṃ puruṣaṃ divyaṃ yāti pārthānucintayan
kaviṃ purāṇam anuśāsitāram aṇor aṇīyāṃsam anusmared yaḥ
sarvasya dhātāram acintya-rūpam āditya-varṇaṃ tamasaḥ parastāt
…sa taṃ paraṃ puruṣam upaiti divyam
↩
6. ajo ’pi san avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro ’pi san,
prakṛtiṃ svām adhiṣṭhāya sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā
yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṃ sṛjāmy aham
paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṃ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
dharma-saṃsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge ↩
7. For this and similar analytic purposes, I have removed external vowel sandhi and restored words to their inflected forms for clarity. ↩