Bhagavad-gita As It Is - Macmillan 1972 Edition -- Prabhupada Books (14 page)

Bg 2.8

TEXT 8

TEXT

na hi prapaśyāmi mamāpanudyād

yac chokam ucchoṣaṇam indriyāṇām

avāpya bhūmāv asapatnam ṛddhaṁ

rājyaṁ surāṇām api cādhipatyam

SYNONYMS

na-
do not;
hi-
certainly;
prapaśyāmi-
I see;
mama-
my;
apanudyāt-
they can drive away;
yat-
that;
śokam-
lamentation;
ucchoṣaṇam-
drying up;
indriyāṇām-
of the senses;
avāpya-
achieving;
bhūmau-
on the earth;
asapatnam-
without rival;
ṛddham-
prosperous;
rājyam-
kingdom;
surāṇām-
of the demigods;
api-
even;
ca-
also;
ādhipatyam-
supremacy.

TRANSLATION

I can find no means to drive away this grief which is drying up my senses. I will not be able to destroy it even if I win an unrivalled kingdom on the earth with sovereignty like that of the demigods in heaven.

PURPORT

Although Arjuna was putting forward so many arguments based on knowledge of the principles of religion and moral codes, it appears that he was unable to solve his real problem without the help of the spiritual master, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He could understand that his so-called knowledge was useless in driving away his problems, which were drying up his whole existence; and it was impossible for him to solve such perplexities without the help of a spiritual master like Lord Kṛṣṇa. Academic knowledge, scholarship, high position, etc., are all useless in solving the problems of life; help can only be given by a spiritual master like Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, the conclusion is that a spiritual master who is one hundred percent Kṛṣṇa conscious is the bona fide spiritual master, for he can solve the problems of life. Lord Caitanya said that one who is master in the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, regardless of his social position, is the real spiritual master.

kibāvipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei 'guru' haya.

(Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 8.127)

"It does not matter whether a person is a
vipra
[learned scholar in Vedic wisdom] or is born in a lower family, or is in the renounced order of life-if he is master in the science of Kṛṣṇa, he is the perfect and bona fide spiritual master." So without being a master in the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, no one is a bona fide spiritual master. It is also said in Vedic literatures:

ṣaṭ-karma-nipuṇo vipro mantra-tantra-viśāradaḥ
avaiṣṇavo gurur na syād vaiṣṇavaḥ śvapaco guruḥ

"A scholarly
brāhmaṇa,
expert in all subjects of Vedic knowledge, is unfit to become a spiritual master without being a Vaiṣṇava, or expert in the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. But a person born in a family of a lower caste can become a spiritual master if he is a Vaiṣṇava, or Kṛṣṇa conscious."

The problems of material existence-birth, old age, disease and death-cannot be counteracted by accumulation of wealth and economic development. In many parts of the world there are states which are replete with all facilities of life, which are full of wealth, and economically developed, yet the problems of material existence are still present. They are seeking peace in different ways, but they ean achieve real happiness only if they consult Kṛṣṇa, or the
Bhagavad-gītā
and
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam-
which constitute the science of Kṛṣṇa-or the bona fide representative of Kṛṣṇa, the man in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

If economic development and material comforts could drive away one's lamentations for family, social, national or international inebrieties, then Arjuna would not have said that even an unrivalled kingdom on earth or supremacy like that of the demigods in the heavenly planets would not be able to drive away his lamentations. He sought, therefore, refuge in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and that is the right path for peace and harmony. Economic development or supremacy over the world can be finished at any moment by the cataclysms of material nature. Even elevation into a higher planetary situation, as men are now seeking a place on the moon planet, can also be finished at one stroke. The
Bhagavad-gītā
confirms this:
kṣīṇe puṇye martyalokaṁ viśanti
"When the results of pious activities are finished, one falls down again from the peak of happiness to the lowest status of life." Many politicians of the world have fallen down in that way. Such downfalls only constitute more causes for lamentation.

Therefore, if we want to curb lamentation for good, then we have to take shelter of Kṛṣṇa, as Arjuna is seeking to do. So Arjuna asked Kṛṣṇa to solve his problem definitely, and that is the way of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Bg 2.9

TEXT 9

TEXT

sañjaya uvāca

evam uktvā hṛṣīkeśaṁ

guḍākeśaḥ parantapaḥ

na yotsya iti govindam

uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha

SYNONYMS

sañjayaḥ uvāca-
Sañjaya said;
evam-
thus;
uktvā-
speaking;
hṛṣīkeśam-
unto Kṛṣṇa, the master of the senses;
guḍākeśaḥ-
Arjuna, the master at curbing ignorance;
parantapaḥ-
the chastiser of the enemies;
na yotsye-
I shall not fight;
iti-
thus;
govindam-
unto Kṛṣṇa, the giver of pleasure;
uktvā-
saying;
tūṣṇīm-
silent;
babhūva-
became;
ha-
certainly.

TRANSLATION

Sañjaya said: Having spoken thus, Arjuna, chastiser of enemies, told Kṛṣṇa, "Govinda, I shall not fight," and fell silent.

PURPORT

Dhṛtarāṣṭra must have been very glad to understand that Arjuna was not going to fight and was instead leaving the battlefield for the begging profession. But Sañjaya disappointed him again in relating that Arjuna was competent to kill his enemies
(parantapaḥ).
Although Arjuna was for the time being overwhelmed with false grief due to family affection, he surrendered unto Kṛṣṇa, the supreme spiritual master, as a disciple. This indicated that he would soon be free from the false lamentation resulting from family affection and would be enlightened with perfect knowledge of self-realization, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and would then surely fight. Thus Dhṛtarāṣṭra's joy would be frustrated, since Arjuna would be enlightened. by Kṛṣṇa and would fight to the end.

Bg 2.10

TEXT 10

TEXT

tam uvāca hṛṣīkeśaḥ
prahasann iva bhārata
senayor ubhayor madhye
viṣīdantam idaṁ vacaḥ

SYNONYMS

tam-
unto him;
uvāca-
said;
hṛṣīkeśaḥ-
the master of the senses, Kṛṣṇa;
prahasan-
smiling;
iva-
like that;
bhārata-
O Dhṛtarāṣṭra, descendant of Bharata;
senayoḥ-
of the armies;
ubhayoḥ-
of both parties;
madhye-
between;
viṣīdantam-
unto the lamenting one;
idam-
the following;
vacaḥ-
words.

TRANSLATION

O descendant of Bharata, at that time Kṛṣṇa, smiling, in the midst of both the armies, spoke the following words to the grief-stricken Arjuna.

PURPORT

The talk was going on between intimate friends, namely the Hṛṣīkeśa and the Guḍākeśa. As friends, both of them were on the same level, but one of them voluntarily became a student of the other. Kṛṣṇa was smiling because a friend had chosen to become a disciple. As Lord of all, He is always in the superior position as the master of everyone, and yet the Lord accepts one who wishes to be a friend, a son, a lover or a devotee, or who wants Him in such a role. But when He was accepted as the master, He at once assumed the role and talked with the disciple like the master-with gravity, as it is required. It appears that the talk between the master and the disciple was openly exchanged in the presence of both armies so that all were benefitted. So the talks of
Bhagavad-gītā
are not for any particular person, society, or community, but they are for all, and friends or enemies are equally entitled to hear them.

Bg 2.11

TEXT 11

TEXT

śrī-bhagavān uvāca

aśocyān anvaśocas tvaṁ

prajñā-vādāṁś ca bhāṣase

gatāsūn agatāsūṁś ca

nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ

SYNONYMS

śrī bhagavān uvāca-
the Supreme Personality of Godhead said;
aśocyān-
that which is not worthy of lamentation;
anvaśocaḥ-
you are lamenting;
tvam-
you;
prajñā-vādāḥ-
learned talks;
ca-
also;
bhāṣase-
speaking;
gata-
lost;
asūn-
life;
agata-
not past;
asūn-
life;
ca-
also;
na-
never;
anuśocanti-
lament;
paṇḍitāḥ-
the learned.

TRANSLATION

The Blessed Lord said: While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead.

PURPORT

The Lord at once took the position of the teacher and chastised the student, calling him, indirectly, a fool. The Lord said, you are talking like a learned man, but you do not know that one who is learned-one who knows what is body and what is soul-does not lament for any stage of the body, neither in the living nor in the dead condition. As it will be explained in later chapters, it will be clear that knowledge means to know matter and spirit and the controller of both. Arjuna argued that religious principles should be given more importance than politics or sociology, but he did not know that knowledge of matter, soul and the Supreme is even more important than religious formularies. And, because he was lacking in that knowledge, he should not have posed himself as a very learned man. As he did not happen to be a very learned man, he was consequently lamenting for something which was unworthy of lamentation. The body is born and is destined to be vanquished today or tomorrow; therefore the body is not as important as the soul. One who knows this is actually learned, and for him there is no cause for lamentation, regardless of the condition of the material body.

Bg 2.12

TEXT 12

TEXT

na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ

na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ

na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ

sarve vayam ataḥ param

SYNONYMS

na-
never;
tu-
but;
eva-
certainly;
aham-
I;
jātu-
become;
na-
never;
āsam-
existed;
na-
it is not so;
tvam-
yourself;
na-
not;
ime-
all these;
janādhipāḥ-
kings;
na-
never;
ca-
also;
eva-
certainly;
na-
not like that;
bhaviṣyāmaḥ-
shall exist;
sarve-
all of us;
vayam-
we;
ataḥ param
-hereafter.

TRANSLATION

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

PURPORT

In the
Vedas
, in the
Kaṭha Upaniṣad
as well as in the
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad,
it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord, can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.

nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān
tam ātmasthaṁ ye 'nupaśyanti dhīrās
teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām.

(Kaṭha 2.2.13)

The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna, and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield, are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned as well as in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord's eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual, eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone.

The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the
Upaniṣads,
will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality is not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much-even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His
Bhagavad-gītā
has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The
Gītā
is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the
Bhagavad-gītā.
When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the
Gītā
loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great
ācāryas
like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the
Gītā
that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the
Gīta
is something like bees licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the
Bhagavad-gītā
can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the
Gītā
be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the
Gītā
is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the
Gītā.
If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the
Vedas
as above mentioned.