Transcription:

Bhagavad-gītā, which you all know. It is very interesting when Śrīla Prabhupāda was still a family man, by that time he had already moved to Mumbai from Allahabad and he had written a commentary on Bhagavad-gītā and someone stole it. And at that time, that was like back in pre-war days even. So, it was all written by hand, so just a handwritten manuscript, document and someone stole it, so when Prabhupāda came to the West in 1965, he began to again write his commentary on the Gītā. In the beginning he was typing, he had a typewriter, he was typing and he had already had some handwritten manuscripts from then. He must have started again when he was in India, but he finished it off in the West.

Originally, Macmillan was the one who published the book. But for them, they thought the purports were too long. So, it was an edited version and this is our Bhagavad-gītā.

Macmillan bought the rights to the edited version for 5 years. It was a different book, it was a blue coloured book just with Viṣṇu on the cover. That was the book that I first got, that was the first Bhagavad-gītā that I also bought.

But the unique thing was in fact when I first went to get a Bhagavad-gītā, I went to the temple. This was in Montreal, because by then my family had moved to Montreal and I was going to McGill University. I went to the temple and said “I want a Bhagavad-gītā.”
He said, “Sorry, we do not have one.”
I said, “But you are Hare Kṛṣṇas, you are supposed to have a Bhagavad-gītā.” He said, “We are all out.“
I said, “What do I do?”
He said, “Go to the bookstore.”
I went to the bookstore, but there were about 10 different editions of the Bhagavad-gītā. Fortunately, I did not actually really read, I picked up Prabhupāda's Bhagavad-gītā. So, I had to buy it at the university bookstore.

Of course, Prabhupāda's introduction is based on the fact why he calls it Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Why not just Bhagavad-gītā? Why Bhagavad-gītā As It Is?

Śrīla Prabhupāda explains that in India there are so many editions of Bhagavad-gītā. Because really anyone who is either an ācārya in the line or any spiritual teacher, they should give commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra, Upaniṣads, Bhagavad-gītā. This is like a minimum. But often people give their own commentaries, their own versions. What either they think Bhagavad-gītā says or what message they want to get across through Bhagavad-gītā, through Kṛṣṇa's words.

Śrīla Prabhupāda makes the point, “No, if we want to actually understand Bhagavad-gītā then we need to understand Bhagavad-gītā as Kṛṣṇa spoke it, what does Kṛṣṇa say.” What Kṛṣṇa says, does not need interpretation or reinterpretation. But rather Kṛṣṇa's statements, just like Kṛṣṇa explains in Bhagavad-gītā, he says, imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam vivasvān manave prāha manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt. [Bhagavad-gītā 4.1] He says, “I spoke this same science, imaṁ visvavate yogaṁ, I spoke this to Vivasvān, to the sun-god.” So according to our Vedic chronology, that means over 200 million years ago Kṛṣṇa spoke to Vivasvān; Vivasvān spoke to Manu; Manu spoke to Ikṣvāku. Ikṣvāku already means mankind, that is on this planet and “Now I am speaking the same thing to you.” So Bhagavad-gītā is not something new, it is actually an eternal science. It is the eternal science of the soul. That is what Kṛṣṇa begins with, he begins with explaining the science of the soul, kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā tathā dehāntara-prāptir [Bhagavad-gītā 2.13], the body is always changing. Boyhood, youth, old age and then you take another body.

This becomes the real basis of the Gītā. These are the real subject matter, time, universe, karma, supreme controller, material energy, what actually the world is. These are the basis topics which are common to all upaniṣadic texts. In fact, Gītā is sometimes called Gītopaniṣad because it is of the nature of an Upaniṣad text just like different types of Vedic literature have different methods of presentation. Purāṇas talk about history, Upaniṣads talk about philosophy. Generally, the philosophy is in the context of a conversation. So just like Bhagavad-gītā is also in the context of a conversation. It is a conversation between Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa.

Of course, Kṛṣṇa is encouraging Arjuna that karmaṇy evādhikāras te [Bhagavad-gītā 2.47], that he should do his duty, which is that he should fight. It is a pretty controversial thing nowadays when every time we see the news, someone else has blown themselves up or blowing somebody else up in the name of God. Of course, the real text or the context of Bhagavad-gītā is not about fighting a war in the name of religion. The purpose of Bhagavad-gītā was not because there was someone of one religion who was fighting against someone of another religion. It was basically on the principles of just governance. But in Vedic times, the principles of governance were based on dharma and so therefore inevitably dharma comes in, but it was not that the Pāṇḍavas were of a different religious conviction than the Kauravas, the issue was not that. The issue was actually, who should actually be governing the earth, because of the political inclination. Duryodhana's political inclination went in one direction and Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja's was the other and ultimately, he was the one who was the just and the proper ruler. He was the legal king.

Although, of course that is the very beginning of the Gītā, Arjuna says that, “I am just going to go away and become a beggar”, which sounds nice. Forget all about the throne, why get into a whole legal tussle, why get into a whole war, why not just let them govern? But it was a point of principle that Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja was the legal king. The gambling match and everything was all a ruse in order to try to cheat Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja from actually his rightful claim. So Kṛṣṇa's point was a point of principle that if anyone can cheat someone else out of their government position, what will happen? Yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhas [Bhagavad-gītā 3.21]. That is what we see happen more and more as time goes on, that people just push other people out of political power and of course that is what happened especially during monarchies is that... Aurangzeb would come and throw his parents in jail and take over.

So, something similar for instance to Sītā Devī. Why have a war over a woman? But it was not just over a woman. For instance, the whole supposedly Greek war, Greek Troy war they had supposedly over one woman, Helen all these people had to die. So, is this what Rāmāyaṇa is all about? But really the idea is no, it is about a principle and the principle is that if someone, a rākṣasā can come and can steal away someone else's wife and if that goes unchallenged then yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhas tat tad evetaro janaḥ sa yat pramāṇaṁ kurute lokas tad anuvartate [Bhagavad-gītā 3.21]. Then if this becomes the pramāṇa, if this becomes the example, lokas tad anuvartate, the whole world will follow. So, therefore Rāmāyaṇa is about a principle; Lord Rāmacandra recruited all the monkeys. Of course, they are not all exactly monkeys, vānaras. They are a little different, they are forest-dwellers but they are sort of a higher race. There was this big war with rākṣasās and so many people had to die. But for a principle, it is all right. For a principle it is important, otherwise if you do not maintain principles then everything goes out the window.

So same thing here, the whole war, Kurukṣetra war is about a principle and unless that principle is being protected then ultimately anything may happen, but the issue was not about religion. So, we say “religious war” but it was not about one person's religion against another person's religion, but even when they fought, then śāstra says how you are meant to fight, although as we see later on in the battle, that sort of went out the window. I think just before when Ghaṭotkaca got killed somewhere down around the tenth day because usually the battle means that you start in the morning and you end at night. Sunrise and sunset and then it is finished, but at a certain point they started to continue further.

So, both at Kurukṣetra war and as the Bhāgavatam begins, the real dharma or the rules by which kṣatriyas conduct themselves, brāhmaṇas conduct themselves that became corrupted by the influence of Kali, by Kali-yuga.

So Prabhupāda called Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, because he wanted that Kṛṣṇa should be allowed to speak for himself. Kṛṣṇa does not need any interpretation so when Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañ-jaya [Bhagavad-gītā 7.7], he says, “There is no truth superior to me.” It is a very clear statement. It is a very expressive statement. It is self-explanatory.

So, either one accepts, Bhagavad-gītā is actually the truth but if we accept Bhagavad-gītā as the truth then Kṛṣṇa's statement as the truth, then when he says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat, then he says, “There is no truth superior to me.” Kiñcid asti dhanañ-jaya mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva [Bhagavad-gītā 7.7], He says, “Everything is based on me.” He gives this very beautiful example, “Just like pearls are strung on a thread”. When you have a necklace of pearls, you do not see the thread, you just see the pearls. No one says, “Oh what a beautiful thread you have”. Everyone says, “What a beautiful necklace of pearls you have”. Everyone is attracted to the pearls, but what keeps the pearls together? It is the thread but it is invisible.

So, similarly he says, sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva, he says, “Everything rests upon me”. So everything in existence rests upon Kṛṣṇa's potencies. We may not see them, just like we may not see the thread. But we know, if there is a necklace, those pearls are not stuck together by themselves, there is something underneath that keeps it together. Similarly, this whole world, everything is kept together. How? Why does everything function? Just like the scientist they are looking for the smallest particle. They figure if they find that smallest particle... now they got this monstrosity, machine going from France all the way through to Switzerland, this big accelerator to figure out they are going to find the basic building block of matter, which is a theory that is based on faith. Their faith is that the basic building block is matter, but Kṛṣṇa says, “I am the basic building block of matter”. It is not matter. Matter does not move on its own, matter is not conscious. Consciousness comes from a higher source, consciousness comes from life. Consciousness is a symptom of life, it comes from the presence of the soul.

So, what is that great soul that is all-pervasive everywhere and makes everything move and function? So Kṛṣṇa says, “Yes”, that is him. In the beginning of the Ninth Chapter also, Kṛṣṇa says, mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni [Bhagavad-gītā 9.4], “I pervade this whole universe by my potencies”.

But when Kṛṣṇa says things like that, sometimes it is understood that “Yes that means that God is just some all-pervasive energy and he is everywhere and he is everything.” That is true, but it is only true in one sense, because then Kṛṣṇa says more. He says, “Although I am everywhere and I am everything”,

na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni
paśya me yogam aiśvaram
bhūta-bhṛn na ca bhūta-stho
mamātmā bhāta-bhāvanaḥ

[Bhagavad-gītā 9.5]. He says, “Although I am everywhere and everything, still I am different.” In other words, he is a person. Just like our Vijaya is a person but he has got business; business is going on. How? Through our potencies, through our energies. Everyone has potencies and energies by which they enact and have things going on at a distance. But that does not mean they are everywhere. That just means that their energies are being felt and engineered everywhere but they are also locally situated as a person.

So, this idea that God is a person, this has been very much undermined, especially over the last period of time, over the last centuries by Sankarācārya's teachings, because Sankarācārya was teaching the philosophy of māyāvāda. We are ultimately talking about a non-qualified non-dualism, an all-pervading oneness, the ultimately brahman, which means bṛhatva is impersonal. But then who is Kṛṣṇa? Well, Kṛṣṇa is a person; he is just some manifestation of this brahman. But what does Kṛṣṇa say? He says,

avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā
māṇuṣīṁ tanum āśritam
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mama bhūta-maheśvaram

[Bhagavad-gītā 9.11]. He says, avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā, “Those people who are mūḍhā, they think I assume this human form but they do not know my paraṁ bhāvam, they do not know my higher nature which is imperishable and eternal.”

So, what is this energy of God and God? Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?

So, again in the Fourteenth Chapter of the Gītā Kṛṣṇa says very clearly,

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛitasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca

[Bhagavad-gītā 14.27]. So, this brahman, we are very familiar with that word. Just like in the Upaniṣads it says, ekaṁ brahma dvitīyaṁ nāsti, that ultimately everything is one, the absolute truth is one and it has no second. But who is that ekatvam? So Kṛṣṇa says, brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham. He says, that this brahman pratiṣṭhā, it is dependent aham, on me, because it is dependent on me. Just like earlier he said, sūtre maṇi-gaṇā iva, like pearls are strung on a thread.

So, the potency is dependent on the potent. Kṛṣṇa is the supreme potent person and the potency or energy that pervades this world and which is ultimately the cause of this world, that is Kṛṣṇa.

Like Prabhupāda used to say, “Why is the sky blue?” He said, “Because it is coming from the effulgence, the brahmajyoti, from Kṛṣṇa's bodily energy, potency. Kṛṣṇa is blue, that is why the sky is blue.” Kṛṣṇa is blue; so, this potency, this brahmajyoti, this is actually the effulgence of Kṛṣṇa's body. That is why Brahma-saṁhitā says, that the brahmajyoti is the bodily effulgence of the Supreme Lord. Everyone has a certain type of effulgence, nowadays it is very fashionable to see people's aura because we generate energy, we generate different types of energies; therefore it is a fact that people actually have an aura. What is Kṛṣṇa's aura? So Kṛṣṇa's aura is this energy, this potency, this acintya-śakti, unlimited potency and it is by that potency which actually is the cause of and which maintains everything, all of material existence. Of course, it is also the cause of the spiritual existence but that spiritual existence is eternal and this material existence is temporary, or at least it is temporary in the sense that bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate [Bhagavad-gītā 8.19], is that there is creation and destruction, creation and destruction and that cycle goes on and on.

So Kṛṣṇa in the end, he concludes, of course throughout the Gītā he is talking about sakāma-karma-yoga, niśkāma-karma-yoga; he talks about karma-kāṇḍa and he talks about astāṅga-yoga or hatha-yoga; Kṛṣṇa talks about jñāna-yoga. So, he talks about all different types of yoga systems and different types of yogīs. He gives them as different types of means for purification, for advancement, but Kṛṣṇa does not necessarily point out that all of them come to the same conclusion. So, for instance in the Sixth Chapter after talking about astāṅga-yoga, Kṛṣṇa says, yoginām api sarveṣāṁ [Bhagavad-gītā 6.47]. He says, of all the yogīs, yogināṁ sarveṣām means of all types of yogīs, yoginām api sarveṣāṁ mad-gatenāntar-ātmanāa śraddhāvān bhajate yo māṁ [Bhagavad-gītā 6.47]. He says, “Of all the types of yogīs, those who are engaged in my devotion, śraddhāvān, with great devotion, bhajate, who are doing bhajana, sa me yukta-tamo mataḥ, they are the best.”

So, it is not really an issue of competition between yoga systems or religions but we see that different yoga systems are meant for purification. What does the purification lead up to? So, again Kṛṣṇa says, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti [Bhagavad-gītā 18.55], that “If you ultimately want to know the absolute truth, bhaktyā mām, then you have to only know through bhakti.”

Similarly, in the Eleventh Chapter, Kṛṣṇa is concluding the Eleventh Chapter and he says wonderful things because he has shown this universal form to Arjuna, and Arjuna sees Kṛṣṇa's universal form and he is a little bewildered. When Arjuna saw this universal form, and he ultimately became very bewildered by it. It was too much, it was too awesome, it was too frightening, there was too much going on. So ultimately Arjuna said, “Let me see your original form.” So Kṛṣṇa says, “You have been perturbed and bewildered by seeing this horrible feature of mine. Now let it be finished, my devotee, be free again from all disturbance with a peaceful mind, you can now see the form you desire.” Then Sañjaya said to Dhṛtarāṣṭra, “The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, having spoken thus to Arjuna, displayed His real four-armed form.” So, from the universal form then he saw the four-armed form, “...and at last showed His two-armed form, thus encouraging the fearful Arjuna.” Then when Arjuna saw Kṛṣṇa's two-armed form then he said, “Now I feel very peaceful, I feel very happy.”

Kṛṣṇa says,

su-durdarśam idaṁ rūpaṁ
dṛṣṭavān asi yan mama
devā apy asya rūpasya
nityaṁ darśana-kāńkṣiṇaḥ

[Bhagavad-gītā 11.52] He says, “My dear Arjuna, this form of Mine you are now seeing is very difficult to behold. Even the demigods are ever seeking the opportunity to see this form, which is so dear.”

nāhaṁ vedair na tapasā
na dānena na cejyayā
śakya evaṁ-vidho draṣṭuṁ
dṛṣṭavān asi māṁ yathā

“The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.” [Bhagavad-gītā 11.53]

Of course, then the natural question is if you cannot see Kṛṣṇa with all these things, how do you see Kṛṣṇa? He says,

bhaktyā tv ananyayā śakya
aham evaṁ-vidho 'rjuna
jñātuṁ draṣṭuṁ ca tattvena
praveṣṭuṁ ca paran-tapa

“My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.” [Bhagavad-gītā 11.54]

Fotók

Videók

Vlogok