“But you cannot see Me with your present eyes. Therefore I give to you divine eyes by which you can behold My mystic opulence.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 11.8)

Download this episode (right click and save)

न तु मां शक्यसे द्रष्टुमनेनैव स्वचक्षुषा ।
दिव्यं ददामि ते चक्षु: पश्य मे योगमैश्वरम् ॥

na tu māṁ śakyase draṣṭum
anenaiva sva-cakṣuṣā
divyaṁ dadāmi te cakṣuḥ
paśya me yogam aiśvaram

“If a person picks up Bhagavad-gita As It Is for the first time, they might be surprised at the constant and consistent reference to Mayavada, Mayavadis, impersonalists, monists, and other such terms. It is almost like impersonalism is the premise upon which many of the purports are based.

“Except that the person consuming the material for the first time might have no idea what impersonalism is. It is like they are being fed an argument on a point for which there is no contention. At least there shouldn’t be contention.

“You have Arjuna taking advice from Krishna. You have Krishna addressed as Bhagavan in many places. This Sanskrit word translates to ‘Supreme Personality of Godhead’, a description which also appears to be intentionally put together.

“Krishna has so many other names. Govinda. Janardana. Keshava. We know this to be true based on the conversation itself. Arjuna uses these words. He addresses the same person every time. The same charioteer. The same spiritual guide. The same individual who shows the virat-rupa, the universal form.

“Just what exactly is the argument from the impersonal side, then? What are they trying to say? Krishna is not real? He is some figment of the imagination? That conversation never took place? If that is the case, why are we reading the material? Why are we immersed in fiction?

“If you study the concepts mentioned within the principles, it sure doesn’t seem like fiction. The distinction between body and spirit. The origin of the species. The transmigration of the soul. The cycle of the universe. The pattern of desire leading to wrath and anger. The different modes of nature.

“Therefore, why are we even arguing the impersonalist side? Why are we giving them credence? Does anybody actually believe that the Krishna in Bhagavad-gita refers to someone else?”

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada gives the comparison of a person asking for a drink of water. If they write down their request on a piece of paper, the meaning never changes. If someone were to consult that piece of paper, the written word, thousands of years later, the meaning is the same. A person is requesting a drink of water.

In the same way, Bhagavad-gita features repeated use of the Sanskrit words aham and mama. These refer to Krishna the person. There is no ambiguity. Arjuna is speaking to a person. The vision of the universal form, facilitated through the grant of a special pair of eyes, is from a distinct individual. Arjuna refers to Krishna directly when speaking of the amazing nature of that form.

The recommendation for surrender is to Krishna the person. The same for the assurance of protection against loss in future endeavors. The promise for continued alignment with dharma, in the path of devotion.

मया ततम् इदं सर्वं
जगद् अव्यक्त-मूर्तिना
मत्-स्थानि सर्व-भूतानि
न चाहं तेष्व् अवस्थितः

mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ
jagad avyakta-mūrtinā
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni
na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ

“By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 9.4)

Shri Krishna is so kind that He gives information on the impersonal side, as well. This is known as the avyakta-murtina. It is unseen or difficult to notice. Krishna is in everything, but not everything is in Him. He always has an independent existence, whereas we are dependent.

The cheaters will speculate that Krishna is merely an abstract. Surrender to the Krishna within, you see. Or try to understand the symbolism to the exchange, which took place at a specific time and area, prior to the Bharata War on the battlefield of Kurukshetra.

Of course this sophistry crumbles upon the slightest bit of application of intelligence. If it is the Krishna within we are supposed to worship, does that mean we can show the universal form? Are we responsible for the cosmic manifestation? Are we the ones directing the cycle of the universe?

भूत-ग्रामः स एवायं
भूत्वा भूत्वा प्रलीयते
रात्र्य्-आगमे ऽवशः पार्थ
प्रभवत्य् अहर्-आगमे

bhūta-grāmaḥ sa evāyaṁ
bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate
rātry-āgame ‘vaśaḥ pārtha
prabhavaty ahar-āgame

“Again and again the day comes, and this host of beings is active; and again the night falls, O Partha, and they are helplessly dissolved.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 8.19)

If we are God, then what role does Arjuna play? Does he not have an identity? Are Krishna and Arjuna the same person? What is the point to the conversation, then? Why does any person require instruction if they are already God?

Unfortunately, such bogus interpretations are more prevalent in the published literature space than the authorized explanations from those following in Arjuna’s line. It is for this reason that the acharyas intentionally juxtapose the proper understanding with the impersonal point of view. If we steer clear of the mistaken identification, if we understand Krishna for who He is, we take the highest benefit from the bhagavata culture so kindly passed along to us.

In Closing:

A conversation took place,
In Kurukshetra place.

Between two persons real,
For knowledge to reveal.

Disciple and guru explaining,
For Divine wisdom attaining.

From an actual person the source,
Krishna the original force.

Categories: questions

Tags: god, hare krishna, hinduism, poem, poems, poetry, religion