Srila Prabhupada, Srila Acaryadeva's Spiritual Master

Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita

A Beginning Ontology

© Hridayananda das Goswami

Introduction

I attempt in this paper to clarify certain essential teachings of the Bhagavad-gita that are traditionally “zones of puzzlement” among scholars. These areas focus on a single point: the nature and status of God, Krsna, according to the Gita. My strong conviction is that the Gita 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 Vedic literatures are svatah-pramanynam, literally “evident in or by themselves.” As stated in the Bhavisya Purana:

rg-yajuh-samatharvas ca bharatam pa–ca-ratrakam
mula-ramayanam caiva veda ity eva sabditah
puranani ca yaniha vaisnavani vido viduh
svatah-pramanyam etesam natra ki–cid vicaryate
“The Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pa–caratra and original Ramayana are all considered by authorities to be veda. The knowers also know those Puranas dedicated to Lord Visnu to enjoy the same status. These literatures are self-evident, and there is nothing in them to speculate about.”

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 that took place almost 500 years ago in Benares between Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the founder of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, and Prakasananda Sarasvati, a leading Sankarite sannyasi of the time. After hearing Prakasananda’s interpretation of Vedanta-sutra, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu 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-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.132). The original text, in medieval Bengali, is:

svatah-pramana veda — pramana-siromani, laksana karile svatah-pramanata-hani
The quality of self-evidence mentioned above is especially apparent, in my view, in the Bhagavad-gita, which is part of the Mahabharata. I have therefore selected five specific areas, vital to the Bhagavad-gita’s message, that are especially prone to misinterpretation, and I have attempted to demonstrate from the Bhagavad-gita itself the consistent and self-evident view of the speaker, Lord Sri Krsna, especially as He describes Himself.

The first topic is the Gita’s strong monotheism, in which the many gods of the Hindu pantheon are sharply relegated to the status of subordinate servitors to the Supreme Lord. The second is that of the separate individuality of Krsna as God, distinct from, and transcendental to the individual entities, who are tiny expansions of the Lord. Third, I show that within the Gita Krsna is understood to be the supreme controller. The fourth subject is the delicate issue of monism. I believe I will clearly show that despite certain statements of the Gita to the effect that “Krsna is everything,” there is nothing like a bald monistic doctrine in the Gita. Finally, in the fifth section, I argue from the Bhagavad-gita itself that Krsna comes to this world in a spiritual, eternal form, and not in 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 subject of the Bhagavad-gita is Krsna Himself, who is inseparably related, and yet eternally transcendental, to the individual souls, of whom we are specimens. This doctrine of bhedabheda-tattva, or the inconceivable, simultaneous difference and non-difference of the Lord and the individual souls, is Sri Caitanya’s reading of the Bhagavad-gita and the Vedic literature in general.

I have included the topic that Krsna is the controller to drive home the point that the Godhead being talked about in the Bhagavad-gita 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 Gita a full-blown expression of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Supreme Lord, commanding, and even poignantly entreating, the individual souls enmeshed in maya to return to Him in His 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-gita. In fact, the points made herein are amplified by the rest of the Bhagavad-gita. At the very least, I hope this paper will stimulate the reader to investigate the Gita as far as possible on its own terms. There are certainly esoteric passages in all religious scriptures, including the Vedic books. But the guiding Vedic principle is that we should only 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 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-gita As It Is (The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Los Angeles, 1989), whose translation and purports are the unique devotional scholarship of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

The point of view here is clearly in the tradition of Sripada Madhvacarya, Sripada Ramanujacarya, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and other illustrious Vaisnava scholars, who opposed the monistic interpretation of Sripada Sankaracarya 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-gita Lord Krsna 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, Krsna is the source of all the other gods that inhabit the cosmos [aham adir hi devanam, 10.2], for He is the source of all that exists [aham sarvasya prabhavah, 10.8]. Thus those who worship other gods are ultimately worshipping Krsna, the source and sustainer of those gods [ye ’py anya-devata-bhaktah. . . yajanti mam avidhi-purvakam, 9.23]. Similarly, although the gods may accept offerings from their worshipers, the gods themselves are acting as mere agents of the Supreme God who is the ultimate enjoyer of all types of sacrifice [aham hi sarva-yaj–anam bhokta ca prabhur eva ca, 9.24]. An ignorant worshiper of the demigods who does not clearly recognize this supremacy of the Godhead falls to a lower status of life [na tu mam abhijananti tattvenatas cyavanti te, 9.24]. The demigods cannot award ultimate liberation, since those who attain to their worlds again fall down to the mortal earthly realm when their pious merit is exhausted [te tam bhuktva svarga-lokam visalam ksine punye martya-lokam visanti, 9.21]. This impermanence holds true not only for the planet of Indra, surendra-loka [9.20] or svarga-loka [9.21], but indeed for all the worlds within the material cosmos, including that of the creator Brahma [a-brahma-bhuvanal lokah, punar avartino ’rjuna, 8.16]. It is only in the world of the Supreme God Krsna that one finds the eternal abode, going to which one never returns to take birth in the material world [yad gatva na nivartante tad dhama paramam mama, 15.6; yam prapya na nivartante tad dhama paramam mama, 8.21; mam upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate, 8.16].

Further evidence of the temporary position of the gods is given in the eleventh chapter of the Gita. The cosmic form, which the Lord therein displays, is revealed to be Krsna’s form and power of Time [kalo ’smi, 11.32] and even the hosts of gods are overwhelmed and astonished, and enter within Time’s destructive power [11.21–22].

Lord Krsna is also absolutely superior to the gods in cognitive powers. In all respects, Krsna is the origin of the gods, and hence they cannot understand Krsna’s origin [na me viduh sura-ganah prabhavam na maharsayah, aham adir hi devanam maharsinam ca sarvasah, 10.2], for indeed He is beginningless. Not only the gods, but the entire universe is bewildered by the modes of nature and thus does not recognize or understand Krsna, since Krsna is beyond those modes [tribhir guna-mayair bhavair ebhih sarvam idam jagat, mohitam nabhijanati mama ebhyah param avyayam, 7.13]. It is only because of the bewildering influence of the material modes upon the conditioned souls that they worship other gods at all [yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah, pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah, 17.4].

The omniscience of Krsna is superlatively causal since Krsna is the source of everyone’s memory, knowledge, and forgetting [sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto mattah smrtir j–anam apohanam ca, 15.15]. Indeed Krsna knows the past, present, and future of all beings but no one, in the material world, knows Him in truth [vedaham samatitani vartamanani carjuna, bhavisyani ca bhutani mam tu veda na kascana, 7.26]. In fact, so much are the living beings dependent on Krsna, that even their faith in other gods must be supplied by Krsna [yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktah sraddhayarcitum ihate, tasya tasyacalam sraddham tam eva vidadhamy aham, 7.21]. And the results awarded by those gods are actually given by Krsna alone, of whom the gods are but agents [labhate ca tatah kamam mayaiva vihitan hi tan, 7.22].

As Krsna is ontologically and epistemologically prior to the gods and absolutely superior in powers of being and cognition, so too, the result of worshipping Him, eternal life in the Lord’s abode, is clearly distinguished from the temporary results derived from worshipping all other powerful beings: “Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the demigods, but My devotees come to Me” [antavat tu phalam tesam tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam, devan deva-yajo yanti mad-bhakta yanti mam 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 worship Me go to Me” [yanti deva-vrata devan pitrn yanti pitr-vratah, bhutani yanti bhutejya yanti mad-yajino ’pi mam, 9.25]. In view of this fundamental distinction between Krsna 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 [kamais tais tair hrta-j–anah prapadyante anya-devatah, 7.20]. And, as stated above, even the temporary fruits awarded by the gods are really provided by Krsna alone [labhate ca tatah kaman mayaiva vihitan hi tan, 7.22].

Thus there is nothing at all beyond Krsna [mattah parantaram nanyat ki–cid asti dhana–jaya, 7.7]; He is the great Lord of all the worlds [sarva-loka-mahesvaram, 5.29], and He is the creator and sustainer of everything [sarvasya dhataram, 8.9]. Within the Gita, Arjuna glorifies Krsna as the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Supreme Purifier, the Supreme Divine Person [param brahma param dhama pavitram paramam bhavan, purusam sasvatam divyam. . . , 10.12]; the God of the gods [deva-deva, 10.15]; the origin of the gods [adi-deva, 10.12; tvam adi-devah, 11.38], and the Primeval Person [purusah puranah, 11.38]. Arjuna further affirms that no one is equal to or greater than Krsna [na tvat-samo ’sty abhyadhikah kuto ’nyah, 11.43].

The Lord ends His teaching in the Gita by urging Arjuna to abandon all other duties [dharman] and take shelter of Krsna alone: sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja [18.66]. Thus the monotheistic thrust of the Gita is neither vague nor occasional, and apparent assertions of a monistic ontology, as will be shown later in this paper, do not compromise the overwhelming conclusion: the absolute supremacy of Krsna. Arjuna certainly understands Krsna 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” [nasto mohah. . . karisye vacanam tava, 18.73].

2. Krsna and the individual soul are distinct entities

As Lord Krsna 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 tvan neme janadhipah, na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param, 2.12].

Here Krsna clearly states that “all of us” [sarve vayam] will exist forever, “Just as I [Krsna], 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, Krsna chastised Arjuna for taking the body to be the self. Similarly, in the verse immediately following, Krsna will describe the soul as dehi, the owner of the body, different from deha, the body. Indeed the entire first half of the second chapter of the Bhagavad-gita makes it clear that our real identity is the eternal soul and not the body. Thus having said that a learned person [pandita] sees the soul, and not the body, as primary, it is certain that Krsna 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 apandita, or foolish? Thus it is the real Krsna, the eternal Krsna, and the real Arjuna, the eternal Arjuna, who have always existed and always will exist. And all of us, says Krsna, will continue to exist in the future. Similarly, later in the Gita 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” (Bg. 15.16–19).

There are many significant lessons in these four slokas of the Gita. Krsna has defined the term purusottama as: the Supreme Person who stands beyond both the conditioned souls entangled in the snare of maya and “even beyond the highest soul” i.e. a liberated soul who stands at the highest point of spiritual perfection. Indeed Monier-Williams in his Oxford Sanskrit dictionary describes kutha-sthah (15.16) as the pure souls standing on the unchanging, spiritual platform. Since Krsna emphatically declares that the purusottama is beyond even the liberated soul, we can hardly translate purusa here as “man” or anything indicative of a material position, since this would not even apply to the kuta-stha, or the liberated soul, and what to speak of the Supreme Person who stands far beyond such a pure soul. Krsna uses the word api, “even,” (15.18) to make explicit that “I am beyond even the liberated soul.” In other words, it is not the Gita’s philosophy that one becomes Krsna, or equal to Krsna, by spiritual liberation. A reasonable reader would not question that Krsna is beyond the conditioned soul, but here the Lord emphasizes by the word 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 Krsna is confirmed at 15.19 wherein Krsna states that one who understands Him in this way [evam] as the Supreme Person [purusottama] is the knower of everything [sarva-vit] and worships the Lord with all his heart [bhajati mam sarva-bhavena bharata, 15.19]. In other words, Krsna 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, Krsna states that the living being in this world is eternally a fragmental part [amsa] of the Lord [mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah, 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 tvevaham jatu nasam na tvan neme janadhipah, na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param, 2.12]. As Lord Krsna simply puts it, God is not one of the ordinary living beings, nor even one of the liberated souls; rather: “the Supreme Person is someone else. . .” [uttamah purusas tv anyah, 15.17].

We have already demonstrated that Krsna claims to be absolutely cognizant and the source of all other cognition. He makes the same claim in the thirteenth chapter where the Lord introduces the terms ksetra, “the field (i.e. the body)” and ksetra-j–a, “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 [ksetra-j–am capi mam viddhi sarva-ksetresu bharata, 13.3].

In the same thirteenth chapter, Krsna describes both the individual soul and the Lord as purusa, but the contrast is striking. The individual soul is a purusa, 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 encagement” [purusah prakrti-stho hi bhunkte prakrti-jan gunan, karanam guna-sango ’sya sad-asad-yoni-janmasu, 13.22]. In the very next sloka, the Lord describes Himself also as purusa, but the difference between the two purusas could not be more clear, for Krsna is said to be the supreme or transcendental purusa [purusah parah]. The use of the adjective parah to denote the supreme purusa is significant, 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- , both of which indicate “self” or “one’s own.” In fact, atma is the simple reflexive pronoun in Sanskrit. In other words, para has here the unequivocal sense of the wholly other who is supreme. In this same sloka, Lord Krsna 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 Krsna employs to distinguish Himself, as purusa, from the ordinary purusa who is struggling vainly to exploit the Lord’s material creation. Thus the Gita’s claim that the individual 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-bhrc caiva, 13.15]. It is natural that the Lord maintains the living entities, for they are stated in the Gita 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 anyam prakrtim viddhi me param jiva-bhutam. . ., 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: daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya, mama eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te, 7.14.

3. God is the controller

Because God, Krsna is one, and eternally separate from the individual soul, it follows that He is the Lord and controller of all that be. Lord Krsna delineates a bi-partite 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 [karya-karana-kartrtve hetur prakrtir ucyate, purusah sukha-duhkhanam bhoktrtve 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 maya. 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 [prakrte kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarvasah, ahankara-vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate, 3.27]. Nature in turn is directly under the control of the Supreme Lord, and the entire cosmos turns by His command [mayadhyaksena prakrti. . . hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivartate, 9.10]. Thus the causal chain originates in Krsna, 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” [isvarah sarva-bhutanam hrd-dese ’rjuna tisthati, bhramayan sarva-bhutani yantrarudhani mayaya, 18.61].

Krsna is a living God who orders, punishes, and reclaims the fallen souls who are eternally part and parcel of Him. Thus Krsna 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 loss, for they are confused about all that is knowledge” [ye me matam idam nityam anutisthanti manavah, sraddhavanto ’nasuyanto mucyante te ’pi karmabhih; ye tv etad abhyasuyanto nanutisthanti me matam, sarva-j–ana-vimudhams tan viddhi nastan acetasah, 3.31–32].

This same point is dramatically driven home at the end of the Gita: “If then because of false ego you will not hear, then you will perish” [atha cet tvam ahankaran na srosyasi vinanksyasi, 18.58]. We will understand Krsna without doubt and fully, Krsna declares, by hearing from Him [asamsayam samagram mam yatha j–asyasi tac chrnu, 7.1].

One achieves real peace by recognizing that Lord Krsna is the great Lord of all the worlds [sarva-loka-mahesvaram. . . j–atva mam santim rcchati, 5.29]. Similarly, one who knows that Krsna is the great lord of the worlds, and that He is unborn and beginningless, is himself unbewildered among mortal beings and is freed of all sins [yo mam ajam anadim ca vetti loka-mahesvaram, asammudhah sa martyesu sarva-papaih pramucyate, 10.3]. Arjuna acknowledges Lord Krsna to be the “controller of all beings,” and the “Lord of the universe” [bhutesa. . . jagat-pate, 10.15].

Finally, the entire eleventh chapter of the Bhagavad-gita demonstrates in an unforgettable way that the entire universe can be devoured in an instant by Lord Krsna. 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 j–atva na punar moham evam yasyasi pandava, yena bhutany asesani draksyasy atmany atho mayi, 4.35].

4. Krsna is everything

Lord Krsna strongly and repeatedly declares in the Bhagavad-gita 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. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu thus stated that the philosophy of the Gita is acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, which means that God is inconceivably one with, and simultaneously different from, His creation. We shall survey Krsna’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 Krsna.”

Sri Krsna declares in the Bhagavad-gita: “I am the source of everything, from Me everything emanates” [aham sarvasya prabhavah mattah sarvam pravartate, 10.8]. Similarly, He states: “I am the origin and the annihilation of the entire cosmos” [aham krtsnasya jagatah prabhavah pralayas tatha, 7.6]. Krsna goes on to say, “There is nothing else beyond Me, O Dhana–jaya. All this world rests on Me like pearls strung on a thread” [mattah parantaram nanyat ki–cid asti dhana–jaya, mayi sarvam idam protam sutre mani-gana 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). Krsna 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 stages of being of the living entities, and they all come from Me” [buddhir j–anam asammohah. . . bhavanti bhava bhutanam matta eva prthag-vidhah, 10.4–5]. “The seven primordial sages and the four Manus owe their existence to Me, for they are born of My mind” [maharsayah sapta purve catvaro manavas tatha mad-bhava manasa jata. . ., 10.6].

Let us now examine the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, wherein Lord Krsna claims (10.20–38) to be the superlative exemplar in seventy categories. Here is a sample verse from that section: “Of the Adityas I am Visnu; of lights I am the radiant sun; of the Maruts I am Marici; of stars I am the moon” [adityanam aham visnor jyotisam ravir amsuman, maricir marutam asmi naksatranam aham sasi, 10.21]. To read monism into all this would be a transparent misreading of the text, for a serious look at the entire chapter makes abundantly clear what Krsna is actually saying.

First, we notice that most of Krsna’s statements, cited above, to the effect that He is the source of everything come this same tenth chapter, namely verses 10.2, 10.4–5, 10.7, and 10.8. Krsna 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 Krsna stated that all the things of this world are His energy, or prakrti (7.4–6) and that He is therefore the source of all that be. That Krsna is referring to the same ontological state of affairs becomes clear when we notice the repeated use here of the word vibhuti, which indicates the following: expansion, manifestation of might, great power, glory, etc. Arjuna introduces this term when he says to Krsna: “You should speak about your own divine glories, those by which You pervade these worlds and abide in them” [vaktum arhasy asesena divya hy atma-vibhutayah, yabhir vibhutibhir lokan imams tvam vyapya tisthasi, 10.16]. The word for “glories” here is vibhutayah, the plural form of vibhuti. But that is just the beginning of the word’s career in the tenth chapter of the Gita. Arjuna then says, “O Janardana (Krsna), please describe again, and extensively, your mystic power and might for, as I listen to this ambrosia, I find no satiation” [vistarenatmano yogam vibhutim ca janardana, bhuyah kathaya trptir hi srnvato nasti me ’mrtam, 10.18]. Again, the word for “might” is vibhutim. Lord Krsna then answers, agreeing to explain His own divine opulences, and again the word vibhutayah is used (10.19). In the very next sloka, the Lord begins His identification of Himself with the seventy categories mentioned above. At the end of the narration, Krsna says, “O burner of the foe, there is no end to My divine powers, and so I have given some example of the extension of My glory” [nanto ’sti mama divyanam vibhutinam parantapa, esa tuddesatah prokto vibhuter vistaro maya, 10.40]. Predictably, the word vibhuti is used twice in this verse and it is repeated in the following verse, wherein Lord Krsna says: “Whatever glorious, beautiful, or mighty thing there may be, understand that it is born of but a spark of My splendor” [yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va, tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-’msa-sambhavam, 10.41]. Here the word vibuti-mat means “that which possesses vibhuti,” i.e. power, glory, etc.

By using the word vibhuti no less than six times, Lord Krsna makes clear that He is talking about His powers, His properties, His opulence, 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 Krsna is the source of all that be, matter and spirit being His superior and inferior potencies. At the conclusion of 7.9–11, Krsna 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 tan viddhi na tv aham tesu te mayi, 7.12].

It also bears mentioning that one rightly understands the sense in which Krsna 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” [aham sarvsya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate, iti matva bhajante mam budhah bhava-samanvitah, 10.8].

The purpose of the identification verses is to nourish the devoted theists, as Krsna explains in the verse immediately following the above sloka: “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-citta mad-gata-prana bodhayantah parasparam, kathayantas ca mam nityam tusyanti ca ramanti ca, 10.9]. Further, Arjuna explicitly states that it is just to facilitate such meditation on the Lord that He is requesting Krsna 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.” [katham vidyam aham yogims tvam sada paricintayan, kesu kesu ca bhavesu cintyo ’si bhagavan maya / vistarenatmano yogam vibhutim ca janardana, bhuyah kathaya. . . 10. 17–18]. There is hardly a doctrine of pantheism in the Bhagavad-gita. The real message is quite clear: surrender to Krsna.

We find, however, one instance where Lord Krsna says that after many births one in knowledge surrenders to the Lord, realizing that “Vasudeva (Krsna) is everything” [bahunam janmanam ante j–anavan mam prapadyate, vasudevah sarvam iti. . . 7.19]. And there is also an instance where Arjuna tells Krsna, “You cover everything and thus You are everything” [sarvam samapnosi tato ’si sarvam, 11.40]. Still, there is in these cases a devastating evidence against the impersonal, monistic interpretation.

In the first instance, Lord Krsna’s statement come in the midst of a discussion of four types of people who do not surrender to God and four types who do. Krsna’s point in the verse we have cited (7.19) is that surrender to Him 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 Krsna 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 Krsna 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. Now the verses following 7.19 emphasize that it is Krsna alone who is to be worshiped, and no other gods. In other words, the topic under discussion is nothing but surrender to Krsna, and an elaborate ontological explanation in this very chapter has clarified that Krsna 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 Krsna is simultaneously aloof, that He is “not in them” [na tv aham tesu te mayi, 7.12].

Similarly, in the second instance Arjuna declares to Krsna: “You are everything because You entirely possess everything” [sarvam samapnosi tato ’si sarvam, 11.40]. Arjuna’s statement is in response to the cosmic vision of God, in which Krsna 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. Krsna Himself provides us such a focused metaphysical analysis in the ninth chapter of the Gita (9.4–10), where He intentionally speaks in apparently contradictory language: “By Me in My unmanifested form this whole universe is pervaded. 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 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).

Lord Krsna makes here several ontological distinctions between Himself, God, and the many living beings like ourselves:

Krsna 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 Krsna, but He is not in them (9.4).
Krsna is the maintainer of all beings, but not they of Him (9.5).
Krsna is the source (bhavana) of all beings, but not they of Him (9.5).
Lord Krsna compares Himself to the sky, and the living beings to the air that moves within the sky but does not mix with it (9.6).

This metaphor is further developed 13.33, wherein Krsna compares the sky to the soul, which does not mix with the body. Krsna states at 13.33 that although the sky extends everywhere (sarva-gatam), because of its subtlety (sauksmatvat), it does not mix with anything and hence nothing can taint it (nopalipyate). At 9.6, then, Krsna 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 superiority He cannot be affected by the inferior qualities of the beings that He contains. Indeed, Krsna states that He pervades the universe in an unmanifest form (avyakta-murtina), and the term avyakta “unmanifest” here 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 13.16, where it is said that, “The Absolute is incomprehensible because of its subtlety” [suksmatvat tad avij–eyam]. This very word suksmatvat 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 9.4–6: Although Sri Krsna 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-gita.

5. Krsna has a spiritual form

In the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna 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 8.8–10 Krsna 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” (8.8–10). Similarly, Arjuna declares Krsna to be the “eternal divine Person” [purusam sasvatam divyam, 10.12], and later he says, “I consider You the eternal Person” [sanatanas tvam puruso mato me, 11.18].

At this point, it is good to bring forth the strict ontological rule that Krsna enunciated at the very beginning of His teaching, “Of the temporary there is no real existence, and of the eternal there is no cessation” [nasato vidyate bhavo nabhavo vidyate satah, 2.16]. Thus when Arjuna declares Krsna to be the eternal Person, it is understood that Krsna’s personality has no beginning or end, and indeed Arjuna states that Krsna is ajam, “unborn” (10.12). It is significant that Krsna states that not only He Himself but, in fact, individual souls in general are beginningless: “Know that both material nature and the individual person [purusa] are beginningless. It is the accidental qualities and transformations of prakrti that come into being” [prakrtim purusam caiva viddhy anadi ubhav api, vikarams ca gunams caiva viddhi prakrti-sambhavan]. So the sanatana-purusa, the “eternal person” cannot refer to a material form.

As Krsna is an eternal, supreme, divine Person, it is natural that He has an abode, and that is also described in the Gita: “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 bhasayate suryo na sasanko na pavakah, yad gatva na nivartante tad dhama paramam 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 ’ksara ity uktas tam ahuh paramam gatim, yam prapya na nivartante tad dhama paramam mama, 8.21].

According to he Bhagavad-gita, the Supreme Personality of 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 Gita Lord Krsna 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” [avyaktam vyaktim apannam manyate mam abuddhayah, param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam anuttamam, 7.24].So important is this sloka that we shall examine its key terms in detail. Lord Krsna says: The unintelligent [abuddhayah, plural of abuddhi, literally “those without intelligence”] think [manyate] that I am avyaktam, unmanifest, but that I have become vyaktim, “a manifest person.” The term avyaktam contrasts with the term vyaktim not only in the sense of the invisible versus the visible but also in setting in opposition a type of impersonal existence and a personal, individual reality. This sense of avyakta as impersonal and 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 Krsna contrasts avyaktam not with its immediate antonym vyaktam, “the manifest,” but with the cognate vyaktim, which more specifically indicates a manifest, individual person. What Krsna is saying, then, is: “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 bhavam]. . .” The param bhavam, or “supreme nature,” mentioned here is clearly the transcendental nature of the vyakti, or visible personal identity of Krsna. It is difficult to find another straightforward reading of this simple Sanskrit sentence.

Lord Krsna’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 Brahma], all the individual beings come forth from the unmanifest, and on the coming of the night [of Brahma], they are merged into the very place that is called the avyakta” [avyaktad vyaktah sarvah prabhavanty ahar-agame, ratry-agame praliyante tatraivavyakta-samj–ake, 8.18]. There are several significant features of this statement. Krsna uses the term vyaktah, 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 Brahma. Since there is clearly a plurality of living beings mentioned here (and everywhere else in the Gita), and since the term vyakti is here used to describe the beings at their specific stage of manifestation, coming forth on the coming of Brahma’s day, it is clear in this context also that the term vyakti refers to an individual, manifest person, active within the world. Krsna 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 Krsna does not assume His visible, personal form at all, but that His personal form is His superior nature, param bhavam. In fact, Krsna explains almost immediately after this, at 8.20, that the param bhavam (inflected here as paro bhavo, since it shifts to the nominative from the accusative) is beyond the avyaktam, the unmanifest, from which the ordinary souls come forth on the coming of Brahma’s day. Although Lord Krsna describes that paro bhavah as being a superior avyakta, or unmanifest realm, we find at 8.21 that here the paro bhavah actually refers to the Lord’s supreme abode. In other words, although His supreme abode is not manifest to ordinary persons, Krsna descends from His abode so that we can see Him as He is. This is the highest sense of avatara.

The same term paro bhavah has been used at 7.24 to indicate the spiritual nature of Krsna’s personality, and at 8.20 the term is used specifically to describe the spiritual quality of the Lord’s abode. In either case, however, it is clear that the paro bhavah at 8.20, or indeed the param bhavam mentioned at 7.24, are both 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 Gita affirms the spiritual personality of the Lord, which is not a mere symbol of, incarnation of, way of getting at, etc. an unmanifest impersonal Absolute Truth. Yet it is not by mental speculation that the personal form of the Lord is to be known. Thus the term vyaktim is used also at 10.14, when Arjuna says to Krsna, “Neither the gods nor the demons, O blessed Lord, know Thy personality [vyaktim]” [na hi te bhagavan vyaktim vidur deva na danavah, 10.14]. Rather, “It is by devotion that one knows Me in truth, as I actually am” [bhaktya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tattvatah, 18.55].

That Lord Krsna is ultimately to be know 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?” [evam satata-yukta ye bhaktas tvam paryupasate, ye capy aksaram avyaktam tesam ke yoga-vittamah, 12.1]. Here Arjuna places in direct competition personal devotion to Krsna and worship of the avyakta, the unmanifest feature of the Absolute. Krsna 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 avesya mano ye mam nitya-yukta upasate, sraddhaya parayopetas te me yuktatama matah, 12.2]. Both in Arjuna’s original question (12.1) and in Lord Krsna’s reply, the personal pronoun indicating Krsna (Arjuna’s tvam, You, and Krsna’s mam, 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 Krsna 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, Krsna calls the impersonal path kleso ’dhikataras, or “exceedingly troublesome” (12.5).

Sri Krsna also states: “Because I inhere in a human-like body, foolish people disrespect Me, for they do not understand My transcendental nature” [ avajananti mama muchah manusim tanum asritam, param bhavam ajanato. . . 9.11]. It is certainly noteworthy here that Lord Krsna repeats the exact same words as in 7.24, i.e. “not knowing My transcendental nature” [param bhava ajanato, 7.24 and 9.11]. Thus the unintelligent [abuddhayah] who think that Krsna has assumed this personal form are compared to the foolish [mudhah] who disrespect Krsna because He appears in a human-like body.

Krsna states at 9.11 that He inheres in a human-like body. The Sanskrit phrase is: manusim [human-like] tanum [a body] asritam [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 Gita. Let us turn to chapter four of the Gita, wherein Lord Krsna elaborately describes His descent into this world. Lord Krsna 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 Bharata, 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).

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 Prakrti by his mysterious power (maya) 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-gita 4.8 from Thomas Hopkins, The Hindu Religious Tradition]

There are two grave problems with Dr. Hopkins’ translation:

Hopkins inserts the foreign notion that “He creates a form for himself out of Prakrti by his mysterious power, etc.” The view that Krsna is different from His personal form, which is presumed here to be made of matter, is not what Krsna says here. Indeed He says the opposite. At 4.6, the Lord says, “Although I am unborn and My Self never deteriorates. . .” The word for “self” is the standard term atma, and avyaya means “unperishing, undecaying.” It is hard to construe this avyaya-atma as different from the personal form of Krsna, because in the very next sloka Krsna states that when He descends, He does so by manifesting that same atma [tada atmanam srjamy aham]. In other words, the form that Krsna sends forth to this world is eternal. In English syntax, Krsna simply says, tada aham srjami atmanam: “Then I manifest (My) Self.” The verb here is srj: to let go, release, discharge, send forth; also: to create, procreate, beget, etc. We cannot apply here the latter sense of creating, begetting, etc. since Lord Krsna has just stated that His atma is avyaya, and it has been clearly established from the outset that those things that arise in time also end in time: “For that which is born, death is certain” [jatasya hi dhruvo mrtyur, 2.27]. Thus within the clear ontology of the Gita 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-gita. If we then accept the verb srj in the alternative sense: “to release, discharge, send forth, etc.”, we still do not have anything like Hopkins’ “He creates a form for himself.” Krsna 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 Krsna, the supreme authority, by whose order all universes turn (9.10)?
There is no sense to the translation “I come into being.” Lord Krsna has elaborately explained that He has always existed [na tv evaham jatu nasam, 2.12] and indeed that all living beings are beginningless (2.12, 13.20). The verb that Hopkins has translated as “I come into being” is sambhavami, the present tense, first person singular of sam-bhu, the first meaning of which is “to be or come together.” Thus we should first understand that Lord Krsna is simply stating that by His descent [avatara] into this world He is coming together with the souls of this world for their eternal benefit. After all, Krsna has stated twice in the Gita 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-bhu 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 word is “to arise, spring up, develop” and it may be this inapplicable sense of the verb that Hopkins has chosen. A fourth sense of the word, 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 Krsna 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 Pandava” [janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti attvatah, tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mam eti so ’rjuna]. Krsna 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 Krsna as the divine person. Krsna emphasizes that one must understand His birth and activities in truth [tattvatah] and, if Krsna’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 Krsna 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 thoughtfully at the position of Krsna.

There is much more to say about the position of Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita. We have covered but a few topics, albeit important ones. One may or may not choose to believe the statements of Krsna, but before examining the validity of His claims, one should first understand what Krsna is saying.

| The Difference Between the Body and Soul | Philosophy and Truth | The Importance of Women in ISKCON | Getting to Know Him, the Absolute Truth | Isolation in Krishna Consciousness | Krishna in the Bhagavd-gita - A Beginning Ontology | The Logic of the Absolute | Guru and GBC in ISKCON | Moral Vaisnava Philosophy and Homosexuality