“By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature, which is like My own nature. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation nor disturbed at the time of dissolution.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 14.2)

Download this episode (right click and save)

इदं ज्ञानमुपाश्रित्य मम साधर्म्यमागता:
सर्गेऽपि नोपजायन्ते प्रलये न व्यथन्ति च

idaṁ jñānam upāśritya
mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ
sarge ’pi nopajāyante
pralaye na vyathanti ca

“I understand that what I am about to bring up is considered highly offensive in your circles. Don’t shoot the messenger. I am simply passing along a categorization that you will find in many other published works of the same category. Mind you, there are many publications in this area. I am talking about Bhagavad-gita, the original song of God delivered to Arjuna, the bow-warrior, on the battlefield of Kurukshetra.

“Due to the passage of time, we have many versions of Bhagavad-gita, particularly filling the need for translation and the explanation of a culture now considered ancient. In many of these presentations, the author will refer to Shri Krishna as a prophet. The author in this sense is the name that goes on the title of the book. Obviously, there is no author other than Krishna. You can include Arjuna, if you like, since he asks the questions. Vyasadeva dictated everything to be written down, providing something like a transcript within the much larger work known as Mahabharata.

“The authors I refer to are from the modern day or the past few centuries. Enough time has passed, you see, that different people can speculate on what is otherwise a historical narrative. These people say that Krishna is merely an elevated being. Something like a Brahman-realized soul imparting wisdom onto the inquisitive student. Krishna is still important, but not more than any other prophet, who may have appeared at any other time in recorded history.

“I get it that people in your circles view Krishna as Bhagavan. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada intentionally translates the name Bhagavan to mean the Supreme Personality of Godhead. I am not arguing with that particular identification. I am just wondering about the cause of the uproar in considering Krishna to be merely a prophet. I don’t see how that really takes away from the presentation.

“Is the knowledge not more important? Each one of us is living in something like a kshetra, which is a field. We are the kshetrajna, or the knower within that field. Isn’t that the basis for the science of self-realization? If Krishna is providing such information to both Arjuna and countless future generations, does it really matter if we know exactly who Krishna is? Does the proper identification of the teacher make a difference?”

The promise is that from accepting, incorporating, and assimilating such knowledge, a person has the potential to reach a nature similar to Krishna’s. They will not take birth again at the time of creation. They will not be affected by the universal dissolution. Their nature will be entirely transcendental. Birth and death will not affect them.

Krishna’s kindness extends further, in that He assures the student that this is not merely a hypothetical destination. Rather, sages of the past have attained that very perfection which is being identified. They have reached the summit of the mountain, so to speak. You do not have to simply take Krishna’s word for it. You can verify after extending trust. You can refer to other elevated beings to see that the transformation is indeed possible.

At the same time, should there not be some gratitude extended in the direction of the teacher? Should we not appreciate the kindness He shows in revealing this sacred, confidential, and ever-applicable wisdom? Should we view Krishna as an order supplier, akin to the online retail outlet? Is He like the local body of water from which we only take and offer no appreciation? Is that the ideal relationship with the most valuable of teachers? We simply exploit and then go about our merry way?

As Krishna is the ideal teacher, Arjuna is the ideal disciple. His interaction does not end with accepting the information. Arjuna understands that the individual is kshetrajna. This is the most important distinction for the person otherwise in illusion. Arjuna also understands that there is a higher kshetrajna, who happens to be the knower in all bodies.

क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत
क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम

kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi
sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata
kṣetra-kṣetrajñayor jñānaṁ
yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama

“O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its owner is called knowledge. That is My opinion.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 13.3)

There is only one universal kshetrajna. That person is Krishna. This means that the label of prophet cannot apply to Him. It is not accurate to say that Krishna is a prophet, though He may serve many of the same purposes through His instruction periodically and intentionally distributed to worthy recipients. A prophet is an elevated being, but they are not the universal kshetrajna.

The complete assimilation of the highest knowledge is to know Krishna, as well. That is the reason for the distinction in referring to Him as Bhagavan. This is the very word used throughout Bhagavad-gita. To deny Krishna’s status as Bhagavan is to deliberately misrepresent Bhagavad-gita. That very misrepresentation nullifies the validity to the rest of the presentation, whether from a reputed scholar or a largely followed spiritual leader. To relegate Krishna to a prophet is to deceive others as to the actual meaning of Bhagavad-gita.

In Closing:

Prospects to kill,
When ignorance to fill.

In those published pages,
From even respected sages.

That Krishna as prophet to describe,
A false conclusion to subscribe.

Only one knower in bodies all,
Rightly as Bhagavan to call.

Categories: questions

Tags: brahman, dailyprompt, hare krishna, poem, poems, poetry