Bhagavad Gita As It Is - Adhyaya 8

The commentary at the end of this chapter says that 'the first and the last six chapters are like coverings for the middle six chapters, which are especially protected by the Lord.' It also recommends that the middle six chapters be listened to in the association of devotees. The moment I read that I had a vision of rows and rows of people sitting - the men on one side, the women on the other - singing, chanting, crying. That's a sight I had witnessed years ago in the Iscon temple during my one and only visit there. I was okay with singing and chanting, at least to a certain extent. But the crying alarmed me. Somehow all the 3 activities made me think that I was part of some cult activity. And that scared the hell out of me. Since then I have consciously stayed away from any kind of organized religious activity. I suspect that there is a lot there that needs to be taken on faith and not much is explained in great detail. If that is the case, then I am better off being on a one-to-one relationship with my God. So here I am - reading the Gita and trying to make sense of it as best as I can. This may not be the best of the approaches but it's the one that I am comfortable with - at least for now.

So, now about the takeaways from this Adhyaya - there are 2 of them - Text 6 and Text 7.

Text 6

यं यं वापि स्मरन भावं त्यजत्यन्ते कलेवरं
तं तमेवैती कौन्तेय सदा तदभावभावित:

Translation:

Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kunti, that state he will attain without fail.

I must confess that this verse worries me. If remembering Krishna constantly in the course of our daily lives is difficult, making sure that we remember Him at the time of death seems well nigh impossible. What if I slip into a coma and and die without ever gaining consciousness? What if I die so suddenly that I don't get any time to think about anything - leave alone Krishna? What if I go senile (shudder!) and don't remember my own name at the time of death? Even if I consider the best case scenario where I will die in ripe old age comfortably in my own bed with all my faculties intact while chanting the Holy name, who is to know what I may or may not remember just in between 2 chants? The possibility that my next life (if at all there is ever one!) totally hinges on what I think during the split second of my death is rather unfair! :-(

Of course, the scripture suggests that if we make it a point to always remember Krishna during our lifetime, we don't have to worry about not remembering Him at the time of death. That brings us to the next verse.

Text 7

तस्मात्सर्वेषु कालेषु मामनुस्मर युध्य च
मय्यर्पितमनोबुद्धीर्मामेवैषयस्यासंशय:

Translation:

Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Krsna and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty of fighting. With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence fixed on Me, you will attain Me without doubt.

It is stated in previous verses that Krishna tells Arjuna that he is not expected to renounce his worldly duties in order to walk on the path that leads to Krishna and that he can remember Him while performing his duties. Now, there are some activities where you may be able to achieve this by chanting as you do the activities e.g. cooking or cleaning. But if you are driving a car in the evening rush hour traffic or trying to cross a road (God Forbid!) at a busy intersection (where you wish you had 10 heads like Ravana instead of just one!) or trying to manage a project or performing a difficult operation, how can you remember Him? Our mind is capable of concentrating on only one thing at a time. I am not saying this lightheartedly. I am genuinely puzzled and wish to know how this can be done because right now the only times that I can remember God is while doing my morning Puja and while saying my prayers just before turning in at night. Oh, and when things don't go as planned (which is more often than not!).

What, then is the way out?

Bhagavad Geeta - As It Is (Adhyaya 7)

I finished reading Adhyaya 7 last week. But looking back, I cannot think of a clear takeaway - except maybe for Text 16. It goes like this:

चतुर्विधा भजन्ते मां जना: सुकृतिनोऽर्जुन
आर्तो जिज्ञासुरर्थार्थी ज्ञानी च भरतर्षभ

Translation:

O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service into me - the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

When I read this, I wondered how can the distressed and the desirer of wealth be categorically called 'Pious'. Most of us think of God when we are in distress, when we are sad or confused. That doesn't make us pious. If a person goes to God because he wants wealth, then he clearly is seeing God as the means to an end and not an end in itself. Both these people are on the path of spirituality temporarily. And as far as the inquisitive and those searching for knowledge of the Absolute are concerned, it's more likely that they will veer off the spiritual path sooner rather than later because it takes a lot of patience - a commodity that's increasingly becoming rare - to keep walking on it.

The purport says that 'These are not pure devotees because they have some aspiration to fulfill in exchange for devotional service'. Can such people even be called 'Devotees', let alone 'Pure' ones? And is it possible to find a pure devotee in this day and age?

Which category do I fall in? Certainly 'the distressed'. It usually begins with 'God! Why me?'. But not 'the desirer of wealth' - not because I don't care for money but because I believe that no one can give you a penny more or a penny less than what you are destined to get. So 'try your best and leave the rest to God' is the motto that I have chosen to follow since a long time now. I also honestly cannot call myself 'a searcher for knowledge of the Absolute' because my steps in that direction are so small that they will give even 'baby steps' a complex! But yes, I am inquisitive about this whole life, Karma and assorted business. But am I pious? Hell no - even if you stretch the definition of this term all the way to China!

All in all, this Adhyaya left me with more questions than answers.

Bhagavad Geeta - As It Is - Adhyaya 6

I have to be honest here. Ever since I read that Bhakti-Yoga is considered to be the best for the present age of Kali, I read the Adhyayas on Karma-Yoga (Adhyaya 5) and Dhyana-Yoga (Adhyaya 6) for the sake of it. Still, my takeaway from Adhyaya 6 are the following 2 verses:

Text 34:

चंचलं हि मन: कृष्ण प्रमाथि बलवदृढम
तस्याहं निग्रहं मन्ये वायोरिव सुदुषकरम

Purport:

The mind is restless, turbulent, obstinate and very strong, O Krishna, and to subdue it, I think, is more difficult than controlling the wind.

I was mightily relieved when I read this. All the talk of controlling senses (this brought memories of yummy black forest cake to mind!), regulating life (Boy! Our lives already run as per the schedule dictated by the clocks!) and treating friends and foes alike had begun to scare me. It all seemed just impossible - not only in this life but probably in next several ones. Though I understand that all this is necessary for one to be on a true spiritual path, it looked very overwhelming - kind of asking a 7th grader to solve a Physics paper meant for someone in the 10th. Where am I going to start? How am I going to know that I am on the right track - given especially that I am unlikely to find a bonafide master to teach me the same. But it turns out that I can take baby steps - like chanting the God's name. I doubt that I can do so all throughout the day as some people have done in the past, if the scriptures are to be believed. But if I am not bone-tired by the end of the day, then a little chanting before I hit the bed and close my eyes is practical. Or so it seems at least for now.

Of course, it is clear that even if I manage to do so on a consistent basis, it is not going to take me very far on the spiritual road in this life. If there isn't going to be another one, then I would have reached as far as I could and that would be the end of it. But if there are more - and I certainly believe in rebirths - then the question is - do I get to pick up from where I left off? This becomes especially relevant because none of us seem to be remember if we have ever been before on this planet. The 41st verse answered me - but only partially.

Text 41:

प्राप्य पुण्यकृतां लोकानुषित्वा शाश्वती: समा:
शुचीनां श्रीमतां गेहे योगभ्रष्टोऽभिजायते

Purport:

The unsuccessful yogi, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.

Comforting as the verse is, I am not entirely convinced by it. We all see people born into rich aristocratic families waste their life by adopting a lifestyle that has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual progress. So either they don't remember their spiritual efforts from past life or they choose not to follow it. In both cases, whatever you do in this life to not get attached to the illusions of the world is a waste, isn't it?

Bhagwad Geeta - As It Is (Adhyaya 5)

I have finished reading the 5th Adhyaya. And for me, the whole of it boils down to this 12th verse:

युक्त: कर्मफलं त्यक्त्वा शान्तिमाप्नोति नैष्ठीकीम
अयुक्त: कामकारेण फले सक्तो निबध्यते

The purport goes as follows:

The steadily devoted soul attains unadulterated peace because he offers the result of all activities to Me; whereas a person who is not in union with the Divine, who is greedy for the fruits of his labor, becomes entangled.

On the theoretical level, this seems almost like a no-brainer, isn't it? The best way to get disengaged from the material world is not to renounce it completely but to be there and still be free from it. And yet, it is one of the most difficult things in life. In this day and age, who has got time to do anything just for the love of it? We all do most of the things because we have to earn our living or because it is our duty. That's precisely what gets us into the anxiety about the results of the work. Have I done it right? What if I have messed it up? What will this person say and what will that person think? Sleepless nights, increased stress levels and a complete waste of time - none of it is conducive to our well-being.

Yet, somewhere deep down, we all know that it is futile to fret over things we don't control. But we do it nonetheless. And make our lives miserable. Only if we could follow the adage 'Do your best and leave the rest to God'. Not only will we get rid of unproductive worrying, it will leave us with a lot of free time to do things we really love doing. There will be lot of peace and calm.

And who knows? In the process, we might actually be able to take ourselves a teeny weeny bit far away from the illusion that is this life.

I have finished reading Adhyaya 4. But I am still clueless about what exactly is meant by the term 'transcendental knowledge'. It is used everywhere in the purports, and yet hasn't been fully explained. The purports keep talking about being in 'Krishna Consciousness' but till now no practical example has been given - probably because one is supposed to learn it from the master. If that is true, I guess there is no hope for people like me who don't trust folks in saffron robes. I agree that a spiritual person need not be so attired. Nor does he/she need to have a large following. In fact, I would expect a truly spiritual person to be free from such ceremonial trappings. Ironically, it is precisely this fact that will make it harder for one to come across such a person.

It is said that when the student is ready to receive knowledge, the master appears. Maybe, I am not ready enough.

Bhagavad Gita - As It Is (Adhyaya 4), Verses - 1 to 23

There was quite a gap after I finished reading Adhyaya 3 - so much so that I feared I was destined to abandon the project once more. But then I started reading 1-2 shlokas at a time and got back into the regime. I have also decided to note down my comments as I read so that I don't have to go back and look them up later.

My first comment is about the purport for Text 1. The shloka doesn't mention it but the purport goes like this:

Bhagavad Gita has to be accepted as it is, from thd disciplic succession, and it is described herein that the Lord spoke to the sun-god, the sun-god spoke to his son Manu, and Manu spoke to his son Iksvaku.

Okay, let's say this disciplic succession was exactly the same as described here. But doesn't that make it all the more necessary to NOT accept Gita as it is? After all, there is a real possibility that things could have got lost in translation across centuries - given that there were 32 people involved in the succession chain, if the list at the end of the introductory chapter is anything to go by. It also means that there is really no need of any 'purport' because however one might try, it is humanely impossible to keep one's views, opinions and judgement out of it. The chances of one misunderstanding something are more when one is told to accept what is told as it is. No way!

This Adhyaya contains 2 of my favorite verses of the Gita (I must confess though that the reason I know them by heart is B. R. Chopra's TV series Mahabharata!) . The first of them (#7) is:

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत|
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम|

I was glad when I came across the following in the accompanying purport:

It is not a fact that the Lord appears only on Indian soil. He can manifest Himself anywhere and everywhere, and whenever He desires to appear.He speaks as much about religion as can be understood by the particular people under their particular circumstances. But the mission is the same - to lead people to God consciousness and obedience to the principles of religion. Sometimes He descends personally, and sometimes he sends his bonafide representative in the form of His son, or servant, or Himself in some disguised form.

These lines kind of rhymed with what I have always believed - God appears in the form that the devotee chooses and that's why we have different religions all talking about their own scriptures, rituals and beliefs.

I looked forward to reading the purport of my other favorite verse (#8):

परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृतां!
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय संभवामि युगे युगे!

I agreed with most of the purport except a few lines at the end. 'As stated in the Srimad-Bhagawatam, the incarnation in the Age of Kali is Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who spread the worship of Krsna by the Sankirtana movement and spread Krsna consciousness throughout India'.

Here, another confession is in order. I don't much care for the modern age swamis and sadhus. So I had skipped the section giving their names and photos at the beginning of this book. This line made me go back and find out just who this Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu was. Turns out that he is the founder of the ISKON movement. His name was mentioned in the ancient text Srimad-Bhagawatam? How is that possible? I read that line again and realized that the Srimad-Bhagawatam talks about Krsna's incarnation in every age. And it is the author's interpretation that this 'incarnation in the Age of Kali is Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu'.

My suspicion was confirmed by the following lines at the very end of the purport:

Lord Caitanya as the incarnation of Krsna, the Personality of Godhead, is described secretly but not directly in the confidential parts of the revealed scriptures, such as the Upanisads, Mahabharata and Bhagavatam.

Guess the author has committed the same crime that he accuses mundane wranglers of committing (Page 217) - speculating on the Gita in their own ways.

The Chaturwarna system is mentioned in verse 13 as follows:

चातुर्वण्यं माया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागाश:|
तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विध्द्यकर्तारमव्ययम|

Translation:

According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable.

It is clearly mentioned that the Chaturwarna system is based on nature of human beings, and not on one's birth. So, if a Brahman's child displays aptitude and inclination to follow the duties of a Kshatriya, he or she can do so and vice versa. One doesn't need to follow a particular profession just because one is born to parents who practice it. Wonder who twisted the definition of Chaturwarna and how.

I have finished reading the 3rd Adhyaya of 'Bhagwad Geeta As It Is'. But I could not stomach some of the contents of Adhyaya 2. Here they are:

Text 31

स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसी|
धर्म्याद्धी युध्दाच्छ्रेयोsन्यत् क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते|

Translation:
Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.

When I read the words 'fighting on religious principles', I thought to myself 'well, this is a pretty subjective matter'. Who gets to decide what is a religious principle and what isn't? If tomorrow a band of people starts looting and killing saying such-and-such activities are against the tenets of Hinduism (aren't they already!), who gets to decide whether they are justified or not?After all, we cannot expect Lord Krishna to descend to earth and sanction or disapprove it, can we? So how does this apply to the present age?

The same Text gives following lines from a source that has been vaguely mentioned as 'religious law books':

यज्ञेषु पशवो ब्रह्मन हन्यते सततं द्विजैः
संस्क्रत: किला मंत्रेश्च तेsपि स्वर्गं अवाप्नुवन

The translation given is like this - 'The brahmans attain the heavenly planets by sacrificing animals in the sacrificial fire'. The purport further elaborates saying that 'The animal sacrified gets a human life immediately without undergoing the gradual evolutionary process from one form to another'.

I had to read this line twice before I could be sure that it means what I think it means. How can this 'religious law book' sanctify killing animals in sacrificial fire'? And that too by saying that we are doing them a favor? Yeah, yeah, I know I am a non-vegetarian and so have no right to take such a self-righteous tone. But I was brought up on a non-veg diet and I am sure that if I had been given a choice, I would not have opted for it. Because it is plain wrong to kill other animals for food - especially because we longer live in caves.

Text 62

ध्यायतो विषयान पुंस: संगस्तेषुपजायते|
संगात्सन्जायते काम: कामात्क्रोधोsभिजायते|

Translation:

While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust developes, and from lust anger arises.

The purport says that 'One who is not, therefore, in Krishna consciousness, however powerful he may be in controlling the senses by artificial repression, is sure ultimately to fail, for the slightest thought of sense pleasure will agitate him to gratify his desires'.

Now, elsewhere 'Krishna consciousness' is defined as 'doing everything for the enjoyment of Krishna'. But how do we know what will and what won't be enjoyed by Lord Krishna? Again, the text mentions that we need to be guided by a person who is Krishna conscious himself. How in the world is one supposed to find such a person? In this day and age, the probability of one stumbling across a religious crook is more than finding someone who is truly enlightened. So what do we do then?

Text 64

रागद्वेषविमुक्तैस्तु विशायानिंद्रियैश्चरन|
आत्मवश्यैर्विधेयात्मा प्रसादमधिगच्छति|

Translation:

But a person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord.

A part of the purport goes something like this - If Krishna wants, the devotee can do anything which is ordinarily undesirable; and if Krishna does not want, he shall not do that which he would have ordinarily done for his own satisfaction.

Now, let's say I am craving for a piece of pastry that is so full of calories that I can practically see them dripping off it. I know that it won't do me any good and hence should be avoided. But I can argue that I will offer it as Prasadam to Krishna first and then eat it. So actually I am doing this for my own satisfaction but can argue that I am doing it for the Lord's enjoyment. And this clearly is not the way to go. So what is?

A lot of days and many interruptions later I finally managed to finish reading the 8th chapter of 'Bhagwad Geeta - As It Is'. When I reflect back on what I read I find it a bit difficult to stomach the teaching that if you are Krishna Conscious throughout your life and have His name on your lips as you depart from this world, you are free from the cycle of life and death. That could be because of the fact that despite going through 8 chapters (almost half of the holy book!) I am still unsure of what exactly is 'Krishna Consciousness'. I am sure though that it doesn't mean shying away from your worldly duties to become a monk. It could mean participating in Satsangs, doing Puja or reading holy scriptures. Yet, who can guarantee that the people who engage in some or all of these activities become, at the core, good human beings? No one. A lady who doesn't miss out on even one Satsang might misbehave with her daughter-in-law at home. A person who never sleeps without reading a chapter from some holy book might be cheating or doing illegal things in his professional life. Will uttering 'Hare Krishna, Hare Rama' absolve them of all their sins, even if they continue to perpetrate them day in, day out - without even once realizing that they need to mend their ways? Highly unlikely.

At one place, Geeta says that being Krishna Conscious means knowing that whatever you are doing, you are doing to please Him. You shouldn't do anything to achieve something for yourself - rather you should do it because you know that He enjoys all fruits of all labors. Yet, there are no instructions on how this can be done in practical life. e.g. I work because I like to be financially independent and have a secure future. I am not sure exactly how Krishna fits into this whole totally materialistic picture. I am not making fun of the Geeta here. I genuinely want to understand so I can put myself on the right path.

Maybe what they say about learning Geeta from some authority on the holy book is true. But searching for such a person is going to be more difficult than searching for the proverbial needle in the haystack. Think 'Herculean'!

I have also heard it said that when the student is ready the teacher appears. Maybe I am not ready yet........

I just finished reading the 6th Chapter of 'Bhagwad Geeta - As It Is'. My takeaway is a little bit confusing. Krishna says that he is the Supreme Being who everyone should strive to ultimately reach. The chapter also mentions that there are various other demigods that people worship in order to fulfill a variety of earthly desires. Being an ardent devotee of Lord Ganesha, I am not sure if He too comes in the category of the demigods. If yes, then is it possible to keep worshiping Him while trying to follow the principles laid down in the Geeta to bring about Krishna consciousness?

I have finished reading the 6th chapter of Bhagwad Geeta. But I must confess that I found the explanation of the verses in 'Bhagwad Geeta - as it is' rather difficult to understand. :-( I ploughed on nevertheless. And now I am onto Chapter 7. Hope I find it a bit easier to grasp. :-)