The Bhaktivedanta Purports

LAL Publications, Inc.

All Rights Reserved ©2003 - 2016

No part of this material may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, or transmitted in any form, by any means, including
mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.

sarvopaniñado gävo
dogdhä gopäla-nandanaù
pärtho vatsaù südhér bhoktä
dugdhaà gétämåtaà mahat

All the Upaniñads are like a cow, and the milker of the cow is Çré Kåñëa, the
son of Nanda. Arjuna is the calf, the beautiful nectar of the Gétä is the milk,
and the fortunate devotees of fine, theistic intellect are the drinkers and
enjoyers of that milk. (Gétä Mähätmya)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those devotees who helped make this book a
reality. The more I wrote the more I became aware that books are not a
one-man job. The following were instrumental in making my ideas a reality.
Bhürijana prabhu - inspired me in the study of the Gétä. Advaita Candra
prabhu - took responsibility to coordinate the production and printing.
Ananga Maïjaré d.d. - helped in the initial research and production. Caitanya

1
Candra prabhu - layout and design. Gaìga Näräyana prabhu - cover art and
pictures. Åñabhadeva prabhu - proofing and editing. Jagannätha Kåñëa prabhu
- first editing. Gomaté d.d. - research.

Foreword

by Steven J. Rosen (Satyaräja Däsa)

Reading Çivaräma Swami’s book on Bhagavad-gétä takes me back to 1969.

During my first year in High School, I happened upon a copy of Bhagavad-gétä,
a battered Penguin paperback. I was intrigued. I really couldn’t make heads or
tails of the message, but I appreciated that it was some sort of spiritual
philosophy and was written with poetic style. Throughout my high-school
years I rummaged through old bookstores, looking for different editions of
Bhagavad-gétä. All were alluring, and all were mysterious. The Gétä, it seemed,
was a book of inscrutable wisdom, a book of contradictory truths. Was it a
glorification of war or a treatise on nonviolence? Was it to be taken
allegorically or literally?
During my senior year, I picked up a copy of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is by His
Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda, the founder and
spiritual master of the International Society for Kåñëa Consciousness. Here
was a refreshing change. Çréla Prabhupäda did not explain the
Gétämetaphorically. His approach was literal, giving the essential message of
each text according to the ancient Vaiñëava tradition. Unlike other editions,
it provided me with a clear understanding of the Gétäs almost simple message:
surrender unto Kåñëa, God, and develop pure love for Him. Since Çréla
Prabhupäda was the first to reveal this direct meaning of the Gétä, I realized
that many of the other translators and commentators missed the Gétäs
essential message.

2
 Later, as I continued my study of Bhagavad-gétä in college, I discovered that
most scholars agreed with Çréla Prabhupäda, praising his as the definitive
edition. Dr. Samuel D. Atkins, Professor of Sanskrit at Princeton University,
wrote, “I am most impressed with A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda’s
scholarly and authoritative edition of Bhagavad-gétä. It is a most valuable work
for the scholar as well as for the layman and it is of great utility as a reference
book as well as a textbook.” Moreover, I was learning that Çréla Prabhupäda’s
Bhagavad-gétä As It Is stands as a challenge to all armchair philosophers who
depart from the Gétäs central teaching of devotional service to the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, Lord Kåñëa. In the Ninth Chapter, Lord Kåñëa
categorically advises Arjuna to surrender to Him and to love and worship Him
only. Yet a renowned Indian philosopher and one-time political leader begins
his commentary on this crucial verse, “It is not to Kåñëa that we have to
surrender....” But Kåñëa clearly tells Arjuna to surrender specifically to Him.
The Gétä carefully asserts that this is not metaphorical by using the words
kåñëät säkñät kathayataù svayam (Bg. 18.75), which indicate that Kåñëa was
directly (säkñät) in front of Arjuna preaching personally (svayam) to him.
Why Çréla Prabhupäda entitled his edition Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is
apparent from Kåñëa’s statement to Arjuna early in the Fourth Chapter. Lord
Kåñëa explains that Arjuna’s qualification for receiving the Gétäs teachings is
not that he is a great yogé or scholar. Rather, Kåñëa said, it is “because you are
My devotee and My friend; therefore you can understand the transcendental
mystery of this science” (Bg. 4.3). Kåñëa also explains in the Gétä that its
truths can be understood only by those who are in a line of authorized
devotees known as paramparä, or disciplic succession. Çréla Prabhupäda was a
teacher in one of the four such successions recognized by the Vedic literature
and his students carry the message even today.
Vedic knowledge is like a family secret that has been carefully handed
down through many generations. Just as present family descendants can know
precisely what took place generations ago, so sincere disciples of a bona fide

3
spiritual master can clearly receive the Gétäs message of surrender to Kåñëa.
Çivaräma Swami is such a disciple; this tome certainly establishes his
qualification as a transparent via medium of his own guru’s understanding of
the Gétä and, thus, Kåñëa’s purpose in originally delivering it.
Ever since Charles Wilkins first translated Bhagavad-gétä into English in
1785, there have been literally hundreds of translations with scholarly,
political, and even devotional agendas. Until Çréla Prabhupäda released his
Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, however, not one Westerner had become a devotee of
Kåñëa. And this is quite strange, since Lord Kåñëa makes it completely clear in
the Gétä that becoming His devotee is life’s goal: “Always think of Me and
become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you
will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear
friend” (Bg. 18.65).
According to Bhagavad-gétä, spiritual truths reach the most sincere
students by a descending process, from the scriptures themselves, the great
sages, and through a genuine and qualified spiritual teacher, who guides one
on the path of devotion to God. Thus the real import of the Bhagavad-gétä is
not to be had by incessant wrangling and a dazzling display of philosophical
hermeneutics, but by surrendering to Kåñëa and His pure representatives in
this world.
By 1973 I had found the authentic Bhagavad-gétä and was convinced that
Çréla Prabhupäda, through his books, would guide me to unravel the mystery of
the Gétä once and for all. As I look back on my search, I can understand that
Çréla Prabhupäda was waiting and that Kåñëa had been guiding me all along
from within my heart.
Now, so many years later, I am called upon to review the work of Çivaräma
Swami, whose initial research had led him down pretty much the same path as
the one I had traversed. It is heartening to read luch a thoroughly assembled
book.

4
 The author’s engineering background and substantial analytical
intelligence are in full use here to fend off all would-be interlopers into the
Song of Kåñëa, who use this eternal philosophy for their own temporary
purposes and with neglect to and in ignorance of the Originator’s intent.
Çivaräma Swami expertly connects all the dots to reveal the amazingly
intricate structure that is the complete system of yoga so logically delivered by
Çré Kåñëa for the benefit of all spiritual aspirants. In doing so, he valiantly
defends the honor and devotional explanation of his guru, His Divine Grace
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda with clear, logical intelligence and
humor.
While Çivaräma Swami recognizes the conventions of modern Western
scholarship, he instead adheres to a scholarship of a higher order. He has
studied and reported on the text “from the inside,” as it were. He is thus able
to penetrate its mysteries in a way no non-devotional academician ever could.
By adhering to the ancient Paramparä system, he has created for himself an
access to the Gétä that would be the envy of any research scholar. For this
reason, I invite the reader to sit back and benefit from his work: take
advantage of many years of research and a lifetime of practice—read and
relish Çivaräma Swami’s window into Bhagavad-gétä, and learn for yourself
what this ancient classic is really all about.
-Steven J. Rosen Satyaräja Däsa

Introduction

In commenting on the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is by His Divine Grace A.C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda, many academics and scholars qualify his
translation and purports. They volunteer to relativise Çréla Prabhupäda’s
presentation of a text supposedly well-known to them. In his forward to the
first edition of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, Edward Dimock sees this Gétä as an

5
“authentic interpretation within the Gauòéya tradition.” Eric Sharpe in The
Universal Gétä comments that this “version... remains substantially an
impression of what a particular corner of the Hindu world imagines that it is,”
while A.L. Herman opines that “...Bhaktivedanta interprets the passages so as
to give them a distinctively bhakti flavour.” Subjective analyses as these tend
to define Çréla Prabhupäda’s version of the Gétä as being a devotionally biased
interpretation.
ISKCON supporter Thomas Hopkins traces Çréla Prabhupäda’s edition to a
“long tradition of interpretation,” while Callewaert and Hemraj are less kind,
alleging Çréla Prabhupäda had made “...a mockery of a venerable Hindu
document.” This clearly condescending attitude supports the view that Çréla
Prabhupäda’s perspective is just one of many ways to view the Gétä, each as
valid as the other. Herman epitomises this outlook in his conclusion to A Brief
Introduction to Hinduism. He states:

Again, no one of the prescriptions for liberation (in the Bhagavad-gétä) is better
than the others. Instead each prescription is simply more appropriate or less
appropriate to the individual guna...

More outspoken critics have asserted that Çréla Prabhupäda

over-emphasised the role of bhakti as the means and goal of the Gétä. Herman
opines that

...the second definition ties all karma-yoga actions to both Lord Kåñëa and from
that, by implication, to bhakti-yoga, a tying that is grossly unfair...

The commentators quoted above, while qualifying Çréla Prabhupäda’s

translation, generally have a positive attitude to his works. Others have on
occasion tendered stronger criticism. These include statements asserting that
Çréla Prabhupäda was emphasising too much bhakti or even “covering” other
paths, such as karma, jnana and yoga, which are all equally relevant. Robert
Baird, in Robert Minor’s Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavad-gétä, says,

6
 A similar imposition is clear in 6.11-12 since the text recommends one thing and
Swami Bhaktivedanta cancels that.

In my study of the Bhagavad-gétä over the last two decades, I have

understood that it is not a relativistic philosophy, to be interpreted in as many
ways as there are fields of speculation. Neither is Çréla Prabhupäda’s
explanation of the Gétä merely a subjectively valid approach. The Gétä is the
Absolute Truth and, as such, is to be understood in absolute parameters. It is
spoken with both clarity of purpose and meaning. Lord Kåñëa has given
devotional service as the process for maintaining the integrity of such an
understanding. This is revealed in the text consistently. Some such references
are quoted below.
4.2 evaà paramparä-präptam imaà räjarñayo viduù
4.3 bhakto 'si me sakhä ceti rahasyaà hy etad uttamam
9.2 räja-vidyä räja-guhyaà pavitram idam uttamam
11.54 bhaktyä tv ananyayä çakya aham evaà-vidho 'rjuna
13.19 mad-bhakta etad vijïäna mad-bhäväyopapadyate
18.55 bhaktyä mäm abhijänäti yävän yaç cäsmi tattvataù

The Lord has stated that “only by devotion” is He to be understood. Since

He is both the speaker and object of the Gétä, the text can only be understood
as He has instructed it — through the eyes of bhakti. Thus, the purpose of this
book is to show that Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanations are:

1. not a biased over-exaggeration,

2. nor just one valid approach,

7
 3. but, rather, the “only” way in which to understand the Gétä completely
and perfectly.
“Hey, that is too much, too soon!” may be the reader’s response. As Denise
Levertov put it, this is “alternative fundamentalism.” I apologise to the reader
for my arrogance and, perhaps, unsparingly direct approach. The basis for
making such presumptuous and exclusive statements is the conviction that
this is the clear intent of the speaker of the Gétä, Çré Kåñëa. Who else is more
qualified to explain His own words?
Before the reader considers discarding this explanation as being too
dogmatic, I humbly request, for the sake of argument, that they complete their
investment of time and try to follow the presentation in this book. I do not
consider that the understanding expressed herein is mine. It is the
understanding of any true student of the Gétä. Although the chapters of the
Gétä may be variously titled, they all direct the reader to devotion and
surrender to the Lord. Every topic of the Gétä ends in and indicates devotional
service, and every verse of the Gétä glorifies surrender to the Lord. This is
because the theme of the Gétä is consistent and permeates the text from
beginning to middle to end.

Chapter 1, Arguments of the Scholars

Arguments of the Opposition

8
 In meeting with those acquainted with the Gétä, I must admit to having
crossed a plethora of objections to Çréla Prabhupäda’s presentation. A lesser
number of these critiques made it to print. I shall list those that we have used
as reference material.
1) Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavad-gétä, edited by Robert N.
Minor, Chapter 10 Swami Bhaktivedanta and the Bhagavad-gétä “As It Is“, by
Robert D. Baird, published by State University of New York Press.
2) A Brief Introduction to Hinduism; Religion, Philosophy and Ways of
Liberation, by A.L. Herman, published by Westview Press.
3) The Universal Gétä; Western Images of the Bhagavad-gétä, by Eric J.
Sharpe, published by Duckworth.
4) Bhagavad-gétä anuvada -A Study of Transcultural Translation, by W.M.
Callewaert and Shilanand Hemraj, published by Satya Bharati.
5) The Bhagavad-gétä- A New Translation, by K. Bolte, published by
University of California.
6) His Divine Grace and the Revised Bhagavad-gétä -Life and Literature, by
Joseph Vekerdi, December 1995 Budapest.
7) Searching for a Perfect Man - The Science and Religion, no 6, 1995, by
Rostislav Rybakov, Moscow.
8) The Gétä As It Was: Rediscovering The Original Bhagavad-gétä, by
Phulgenda Sinha (Open Court 1987).
Criticism of Çréla Prabhupäda is generally couched in a sincere
appreciation for his obvious devotional achievements. In Sharpe’s words:

Since 1968, however, one version has risen head and shoulders above all the others
in respect of the numbers sold or otherwise distributed.

9
 On the other hand, critics are ready to question Çréla Prabhupäda’s
scholarship and understanding of the Sanskrit language. In any case, it is rare
that criticism of the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is wholly negative.
A comment I have received in questioning the need for this book is as
follows: “If the critics have positive things to say about Çréla Prabhupäda, why
make an issue over obscure arguments?”
I would like to tender the following answer to the reader. As a general rule,
in the eyes of the learned, Çréla Prabhupäda’s “angle” on the Gétä is
overshadowed by the undisputed good of its mass circulation. In addition, the
teachings of the Gétä, as practised by the members of ISKCON, are beneficial
from both a social and moral perspective, which is unique in the history of
Gétä publications. Although the disagreements with Çréla Prabhupäda may
appear to the layman a minor issue, their implications are not to be taken
lightly.
In a relatively friendly tone Herman writes,

... to make his [Çréla Prabhupäda’s] point it is incumbent upon him to take obvious
karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga passages... and torture them a bit either by translation or
interpretation...

There is a fundamentally deceptive concept at the basis of such statements,

discussed at length in Chapter 11. In brief, it is an inherent mäyäväda
siddhänta, which is completely at odds with the teachings of the Gétä. Thus, to
allow such comments to go unchallenged would be to agree with them, as well
as their underlying philosophy. This would be tantamount to denying the
Gétä, as well as Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary and mission.
This mission is described in the words of Çréla Prabhupäda’s pranäma
mantra*1(1)

namas te särasvati deve gaura-väni-pracäriëe

10
 nirviçeña-çünyavädi-päscätya-deça-täriëe

Our respectful obeisances are unto you, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda, the
servant of Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura, who is delivering the Western
countries from voidist and mäyäväda philosophies.

Although disagreements with Çréla Prabhupäda’s work may appear to be of

a minor nature, I have chosen not to overlook them.
In addition to friendly critics, there have been opinions voiced with
marked animosity. On a few occasions criticism was dominant to the extreme,
to the extent of rejecting Çréla Prabhupäda’s book wholesale. In one instance
this mood climaxed with a lecturer in Budapest allegedly publicly denouncing
Çréla Prabhupäda’s Gétä as a text book. Unfortunately, another mäyäväda
version was preferred.
I have been party to other second-hand reports and media denunciation of
the Gétä as “unauthorised” and “un-Hindu.” Joseph Vekerdi, in a recent
Budapest newspaper article, denounces both Çréla Prabhupäda’s persona as
being “proud” of his disciplic lineage and his purports as “sentimental kitsch
effusions.” Rostislav Rybakov, the Director of the Oriental Studies Institute of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, makes an even stronger statement:

Many of our intellectuals, experiencing some interest and attraction to India and its
philosophy, read about it only in Bluvatskaya’s and Roerish’s treatises, and in poor
translations and horribly illiterate purports of the great Bhagavad-gétä, distributed by
the local Kåñëaites’ sect. I would like our society to get rid of such ignorant exotics.

As mentioned above, such criticism is rare and originates both from the
academically uninformed and those bearing some manner of prejudice.
Perhaps the most comical satire of Çréla Prabhupäda’s Gétä was The Gétä As
It Was by Phulgenda Sinha. The book, as evidenced by its title, is an obvious
take off of the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is. Unfortunately for the author, in his
attempt to prove that the Gétä is originally composed of only 84 verses, he lost

11
the credibility of scholars, as well as believers, and thus will not be referred to
any further in this book.
Overall, the range and scope of the criticism from “reasonable” sources is
generally quite consistent. I have separated them into five main categories.
These allegations are listed (as objections in the form of questions) below.
1. Why does Çréla Prabhupäda insist on understanding the entirety of the
Gétä exclusively in “devotional terms?”
2. Why does he explain “other yoga systems” as bhakti-yoga (Kåñëa
Consciousness)?
3. Why the constant “contrast” of other disciplines to bhakti-yoga and
their subsequent disqualification in favour of Kåñëa Consciousness?
4. Why does he define and explain general terms in a solely devotional
way?
5. Why does he translate general words in very specific devotional
contexts, which then lend weight to a devotional interpretation?
These allegations form the five main topics which will be dealt within this
book.
As a preliminary exercise to answering these questions, a common ground,
as with all arguments, needs to be established. In personal encounters with this
issue, I have found a common ground missing, and not easy to establish in a
limited time frame. The Vaiñëava and non-devotee will have different
methods of approach to resolving an issue. However, agreement cannot be
achieved without mutually acceptable frames of reference. I have taken the
liberty to devote a large part of this book to establishing such a common
ground. The effect is to establish mutually agreed upon axioms, known as code
and corollary. Applying these axioms to the five allegations above forms the
basis of an intellectually honest methodology for arriving at suitable answers.

12
 The complaints against the Gétä are of a generic nature and are often
addressed to Çréla Prabhupäda’s other works [such as Çrémad Bhagavatam. For a
complete list of Çréla Prabhupäda’s books see any BBT publication.] as well.
The lines of argument taken to defend the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is could just as
readily apply to his other works. Thus, by this one presentation we hope to
defuse the issue in its entirety.

Examples of Çréla Prabhupäda’s Practice

In the previous subsection the five main allegations have been listed. These
allegations are categorised generalisations of a wide range of objections. To
answer each such critique that is made of Çréla Prabhupäda’s Gétä would be
impractical. I feel the groupings in the five allegations do justice to the
objections raised.
In this subsection I shall quote from a critical source in addition to a
practical example found in the Gétä typifying each allegation. The examples
referred to herein are examined in more detail in Part 3 of this book, wherein
Codes 6 and 7 are proven.
There are many other examples that could be cited from Bhagavad-gétä As
It Is. Those that follow are typical in their category. The allegations serve as
the heading of the examples typified.

ALLEGATION 1

Why does Çréla Prabhupäda insist on understanding the entirety of the

Gétä exclusively in devotional terms?
Critics are often frustrated by Çréla Prabhupäda’s exclusively devotional
explanation of the Bhagavad-gétä. The spectrum of opinions vary from viewing
such an approach as one which caters to the perspective of a limited audience

13
to that which completely misrepresents the message of the Gétä.
Herman writes:

Swami Bhaktivedanta’s interpretation of the Gétä takes a different tack entirely

from either Gandhi’s or Mahäåñhi’s. Nowhere is this more apparent than in
Bhaktivedanta’s translation of and interpretation of the Bhagavad-gétä... First as one
would expect for Bhaktivedanta the Gétä is primarily a bhakti text, expressing Lord
Kåñëa’s love for man with the expectation of a return of that love to Lord Kåñëa. In
good Fundamentalist Kåñëaism fashion and after warning the reader against the “so
called scholars” who “push forward their demoniac propensities and mislead people
regarding right understanding”, Bhaktivedanta charges that the “absolute position of
Kåñëa is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of Kåñëa in the
paramparä system.” Being in that succession himself he is able, he states, to offer the
“authorised” commentary and the “authorised translation”... It is in this
understanding then that allows Bhaktivedanta to express the central message of the
Gétä: “This is the art, and this is also the secret of Bhagavad-gétä: total absorption in
the thought of Çré Kåñëa.” Such absorption and the means of attaining it is what
bhakti-yoga is all about.

To exemplify further the point being made in this allegation, I quote Çréla
Prabhupäda’s words from the Purport to 2.12.

...Those who are envious of Kåñëa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no
bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to the teachings
of the Gétä is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot
have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the
Bhagavad-gétä 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 Gétä be touched by persons
who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the mäyävädéexplanation of the
Gétä is a most misleading representation of the whole truth...

ALLEGATION 2

Why does he explain other yoga systems as bhakti-yoga (Kåñëa

14
Consciousness)?
Çréla Prabhupäda speaks of other yoga systems in his purports as if they
were bhakti-yoga. This practice raises allegations of fundamentalism and lack
of scholarship on Çréla Prabhupäda’s part. Critics have great difficulty in
understanding how it is that Çréla Prabhupäda apparently overlooks such
obvious points.
In Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavad-gétä, Robert D. Baird makes
the above observation and objection.

In 2.48 this is how yoga is defined. It is actions performed without attachment,

indifferent to success or failure (samatvaà yoga ucyate). Yoga, then, is defined as
indifference or evenness of mind. This would seem to be confirmed in 3.3 where
jïäna-yoga is identified with säìkhya... while the term yoga is identified with
karma-yoga (karma-yogena yogénäm). Already Swami Bhaktivedanta takes
karma-yoga, not merely as unattached action, but in the light of later passages in the
Gétä, as “devotional work.”

This whole chapter, which emphasises unattached work as the means of

liberation, is infused with Kåñëa Consciousness. The reference to Kåñëa as the
object of meditation is taken as a reference to Kåñëa Consciousness.
Another example of Çréla Prabhupäda’s practice in this regard is given
below from the Purport of 2.39.

...Thus the buddhi-yoga mentioned in this verse is the devotional service of the
Lord... Lord Kåñëa made an analytical description of the soul just to bring Arjuna to
the point of buddhi-yoga, or bhakti-yoga... One should therefore understand that
buddhi-yoga means to work in Kåñëa Consciousness...

ALLEGATION 3

Why the constant contrast of other disciplines to bhakti-yoga and their

15
subsequent disqualification in favour of Kåñëa Consciousness?
Where Çréla Prabhupäda does not identify other yoga systems with
bhakti-yoga, he may analyse them in comparison to bhakti and discard them as
cither impractical at this time or irrelevant.
Both Baird and Herman make a strong emphasis with the above allegation.
Baird repeats his objections as follows.

In addition, to using texts of the Gétä to teach Vaiñëava life style and thought,
Bhaktivedanta often seeks to show the superiority of the Vaiñëava position and the
error of other positions... There are passages which seem to support Swami
Bhaktivedanta’s interpretation but which makes no mention of other views as being
inferior.

Herman states:

To make his case, one strategy adopted by Bhaktivedanta is to represent all yogas
other than bhakti as inferior... Another strategy lies in representing other yogas as
simply techniques climaxing in bhakti.

Herman analyses the result of this “strategy.”

It is interesting to compare passages in other translations of the Gétä with those of

Bhaktivedanta to note the curious and oftentimes embarrassing discrepancies.

Below is one example of what is being referred to above by Çréla

Prabhupäda’s critics.

The so-called yogés who meditate on something which is not on the Viñëu platform
simply waste their time in a vain search after some phantasmagoria. We have to be
Kåñëa conscious — devoted to the Personality of Godhead. This is the aim of real
yoga. (Purport 2.68)

ALLEGATION 4

16
 Why does he define and explain general terras in a solely devotional way?
The Bhagavad-gétä is rife with practical, historical and cultural references,
among others, in addition to direct reference to the practice of yoga. True to
his previous practices, Çréla Prabhupäda does not hesitate to explain such
terms in the context of bhakti-yoga.
Baird discusses this point at depth under the section subheading entitled
“Implication of a Vaiñëava Life Style”. I quote briefly from is four-page
treatment on the subject.

...he goes beyond specific text and the Gétä itself when he makes it the occasion for
the inculcation of a Vaiñëava life style. In several place Swami Bhaktivedanta credits
Caitanya (1486-1534) with instituting the chanting of the mahä-mantra. Yet in
numerous places in his purports on specific verses, which never mention this
practice of chanting, Swami Bhaktivedanta recommends it as the best way of
achieving the goal of the text in the present age, kali yuga... In 6.35 it is admitted by
Kåñëa that it is very difficult to control the mind, but it is said that it is possible
through practice (abhyäsena) and detachment (vairägyena). The text does not
specify precisely what practice is, but Swami Bhaktivedanta does in some detail. It is
the practice of Kåñëa consciousness... In 16.1-3 he indicates, as does the text, that
sacrifice is useful. He says that one should perform Vedic sacrifices, but because of
the tremendous expense it is not really possible. The best sacrifice that one can offer
in this age is the maha-mantra. Nowhere is this stated or implied in the text. A
similar imposition is clear in 6.11-12, since the text recomends one thing and Swami
Bhaktivedanta cancels that and offers the maha-mantra... In 6.16 the text warns of
eating too much or too little or sleeping too much. It is a good text to show how
Swami Bhaktivedanta is more interested in expounding the principles of Kåñëa
consciousness than in merely explicating the text at hand... In 7.8-10... The text
speaks of sattvic foods as being fattening. Swami Bhaktivedanta takes this to mean
not animal fat, and goes to great length to indicate that one can get all the animal
fat that one needs through milk, which rules out the need for killing innocent
animals. None of this is mentioned in the text, etc...

Since Baird has given detailed examples above, I shall quote one which

17
encompasses all the individual examples to be found in the book.

...This Bhagavad-gétä is the science of Kåñëa Consciousness... (Purport 6.8)

ALLEGATION 5

Why does he translate general words in very specific devotional contexts,

which then lend weight to a devotional interpretation?
In addition to the interpretation of practices as aspects of devotion cited
above, critics are particularly vexed by their perception of Çréla Prabhupäda’s
approach to the Sanskrit language. They take exception to how Çréla
Prabhupäda translates words in ways that are directly devotional, apparently
ignoring conventional translations.
Both Herman and Baird take exception to Çréla Prabhupäda’s entire
approach as shown below. Herman states:

Bhaktivedanta, by rendering “buddhi-yoga” as “on the strength of Kåñëa

Consciousness” translates the verse as: O Dhanaïjaya, rid yourself of all fruitive
activities by devotional service, and surrender fully to that consciousness.
“Devotional service” to Lord Kåñëa, a bhakti activity, certainly, is derived from a
passage that contains no mention of “bhakti”at all.

Baird:

An interesting passage is 4.6-8, since it shows how Swami Bhaktivedanta’s theology

is brought to bear on a text on which scholars have generally agreed. Here in verse 6
the text translated by Edgerton, Deutsch and Zaehner to indicate that though
Kåñëa’s ätmän is eternal and unborn by his own mysterious power (mäyä), he does
take on prakåti. The next verse indicates that this happens when dharma languishes
and adharma thrives. Swami Bhaktivedanta takes this to mean that although
unborn, Kåñëa’s transcendental body never deteriorates. Prakåti is taken as
transcendental form. This means that although Kåñëa appears he does not assume a
new body as living entities do. When the Lord appears, he does so in the same

18
 original body, by his internal potency (ätma-mäyayä).

An example of Çréla Prabhupäda’s practice, which has received more

attention than probably any other, is:

That abode of Mine is not illuminated by the sun or the moon, nor by electricity.
One who reaches it never returns to this material world. (15.6)

Who Is It For?

Every book must have its audience. Although Vaiñëava literature may be
written for the purification of the author, the question remains, which reader
will desire to share the benefit by hearing its content? The sources of
argument averse to Çréla Prabhupäda’s rendition of the Gétä are certain
academicians, philosophers and religionists. Generally such folk share some, if
not all, of the opinions listed in the Allegations above. Will they devote time
to these pages? I sincerely hope they will. My efforts are certainly flawed, and
this methodology is diametrically opposed to that of the academic. Yet in the
search for truth I quote from Cäëakya to assist in resolving apparent
contradictions.

viñad apy amåtaà grähyam

amedhyäd api käïcanam
nécäd apy uttamam jïänam stré-ratnaà duñkaläd api

One should accept nectar even from poison and gold even from a filthy place. One
should accept knowledge even from a low-born person and a good wife even if she
comes from a low family. (Néti-darpana. 1.16)

If this book will not draw their attention, it will be due to its “unacademic”
and “fundamentalist” approach. According to academics, it has the same
inherent defect that they find in the Bhaktivedanta purports. It lucks the
academic integrity needed to be seen as being objective and is marred with the

19
integrity of the devotee, known as faith in scripture, which compounds its
disqualification as an academic source.
One could argue that if the presentation was couched in a terminology and
format more acceptable to the aforementioned audience, it would draw their
interest. However, such acceptability would require the conclusions to be as
much altered as the presentation. That would, in effect, contradict the very
theme of this work. As Eric Sharpe aptly put it:

In comparison (to Çréla Prabhupäda) other Indian gurus of the same period were less
effective and far more capable of compromise. In ‘the age of approximation’
compromise was of the essence.

Thus, among such literati, only the rare exception will devote time to this
reading and pondering these conclusions. Why is that? The answer to this
question is the very reason I felt a need to write this book. The general
approach of scholars is traditional empiricism. Whether the supporting
evidence (which is generally very selective with its data, often ignoring
contradictory information) is archaeological, epigraphic, or numismatic, it
falls in the same empiric category without improving the quality of its
epistemology. It neglects the authority of the Gétä as cither Absolute Truth or,
for that matter, any truth at all. As a consequence the methodology for the
understanding of the Gétä given by Lord Kåñëa in the text, confirmed by a
succession of äcäryas [äcärya - a spiritual preceptor coming in a line of
succession.] is rejected. Thus, at the outset, we are of divergent interests. The
Vaiñëava and the empiricist have different lines of approach in studying the
Gétä. Baird exemplifies the non-devotional venue in his essay:

Swami Bhaktivedanta and the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is… Hence, although from the
standpoint of the devotee the scholar’s approach may lack integrity, the academic is
bound by a scholarly integrity of his own.

What is that integrity based on?

20
 The historian is interested in learning precisely what the text has to say. He wants
to understand everything that might be implied in the words of the text without
importing anything that is not actually there. Furthermore, he is interested in
understanding the slokas in their historical setting. Exoteric meaning is his only
realm, for the esoteric tradition is closed to him.

Then who will read it? There are certain classes who will want to examine
this book.
1. Those academics interested in an alternative to their empiric view.
2. Those devotees who meet modern-day intellectuals studying Çréla
Prabhupäda’s Gétä with a speculative and non-devotional attitude. The
arguments found in Part Two, in part or in whole, will be of assistance in
answering criticism against the Gétä.
3. Then there are the general students of the Gétä who will find that Part
Two contains many useful arguments. These arguments are put to practical
use in one of many possible ways in Part Three.
4. Finally, there are those who spend time with academicians and the very
folk who raise the objections in I.ii. Taking the logic and arguments contained
in this book, they may present a perspective that may bring about an effective
change in the way that some scholars view Bhagavad-gétä As It Is.
I hope that the Vaiñëavas will find this work of some value. Then, in
uddition to self-purification, I will be blessed by a more valuable commodity—
the mercy of the Vaiñëavas.

Method of Presentation

In this work the methodology has been to exclude any other references
than the Gétä. I have done this to avoid other junctures of disagreement. In
addition, the Gétä is known as the essence of the Vedas. There are countless

21
Vedic scriptures that could be quoted to uphold these arguments; however,
that would increase the volume of this book unnecessarily. Therefore, the
scope of argument is limited to the Gétä itself. The following is a list of the
structural elements of this work. This is presented to tender a preliminary
understanding of its composition.
The First Part of the book introduces certain basic anumän as the common
ground of operation. These are eight in number and are substantiated by brief
arguments, based on, as above-mentioned, the content of the Gétä itself.
Following this are Seven Codes, which comprise the seven points of logic
that are the methodology for arguing against the five allegations (categories of
complaints). By such argument, the allegations against the Bhagavad-gétä As It
Is may be shown to be unjustified.
The Codes are points of logic which are argued individually in the Second
Section. The Codes are supported by Corollaries, or component logical steps.
The two comprise the complete instruments of debating the issues. The Third
Part is the Conclusion. Applying the consequences of the Codes and their
Corollaries, derived from and proven in Part Two, we use them as instruments
by which to address the original five Allegations against the Bhagavad-gétä As
It Is. In addition to these, there are arguments in the Appendices that are
ancillary to the main arguments.
This approach offers a comprehensive method to address the issue and
gives a process of resolution which will be acceptable to those who study or
teach the Gétä. The reader should keep in mind that such study should be
undertaken with an idea to really understand its meaning, keeping an open
and honest heart as to the Gétäs relevance to themselves and humanity.

Terminology and Mechanics

There are a variety of terms and techniques employed in this work. I have

22
tried to present things systematically and, in doing so, have evolved a certain
system that employs its own terminology, referencing and logic. I would like to
detail these elements here to familiarise our reader. Without a working
knowledge of them, it could be difficult to follow the arguments in their
subtlety, detail and interaction.

PAGES:

References will often be made to statements in other sections of the book

by citing the page number. This is done by prefixing the page with the letters
pg., all within parentheses. Otherwise the actual page reference will be quoted
as part of the sentence.

SECTION HEADINGS:

References or location within the text are referred to by a Section

Reference. This quotes the Chapter (in large Roman numerals), Section
(small roman numerals), and subsection (where relevant, in lower case letters,
always in regular (non-bold) script); e.g., Xl.i.b means Chapter Eleven, section
i, subsection b.

SLOKAS:

Slokas are quoted within and without parentheses, referring to the Chapter
and verse; e.g., (12.6) refers to verse 6 of the l2th Chapter of the Gétä.

ALLEGATIONS:

These are the five criticisms of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, the refutation of

which is the theme of this book. They are listed in I.ii.

23
 ANUMÄN:

In developing the main points of argument presented in Codesl -7, there is

a certain common ground of agreement that needs to be established. They are
preliminary evidence upon which further points of logic are constructed.
These are known as Anumän.

CODES:

There are seven Codes which form the main logical steps of our thesis.
They are proven in Part Two. They are then used as axiomatic truths to
substantiate further arguments in challenging the Allegations.

COROLLARIES:

These are the logical steps which lead to the conclusion of a Code. They
are accepted as axiomatic to the Codes to which they relate. They include the
reference to the Code to which they relate. For instance, Corollary 4.4
indicates the fourth corollary of Code 4.

ARGUMENT:

There may be other arguments raised and referred to which do not fall in
the categories of Codes, Corollaries, Anumän, or Appendices. They are simply
referred to by subject, according to their particular page and section.

APPENDIX ARGUMENTS:

The last sources of arguments are found in Appendices numbered 1-15.

24
These may be referenced by quoting the relevant Appendix or Section
Heading Number.

CHAPTER PRESENTATION:

Beginning with Chapter Three, the method of establishing Codes I - 7 will

follow a systematic presentation. This will include the following subheadings.
PROPOSITION will state the Step of Logic as the point to be argued.
ARGUMENT will be the content of the section, establishing the validity of
the proposition. SUMMARY will briefly recap the main points of the
argument. CONCLUSION will state, where necessary, the consequences of
the argument. When arguments are very short, (he summary may be omitted.
The format and occasional repetition are meant to assist the reader in
following what are at times detailed arguments with cross references. Once a
Proposition has been argued and confirmed, then, instead of being called a
step of logic, we will use the term Code 1, etc.

Chapter 2, The Flow of Logic

Introduction

To proceed properly, we shall in this chapter establish certain presumed

verities by which devotional logic will unfold step by step. Chapter Two
presents these verities in the form of Anumän, Codes and Corollaries which
will be proven in the rest of the book.
Anumän 1-8 serve as the basic language of the text. In any argument some
basic ground of agreement must be established in order to maintain a common
line of communication. For example, in a discussion upon the Absolute Truth,

25
both parties must first agree what the Absolute Truth is. Lacking that
common understanding, they will be at odds in their discussion and will be
unable to arrive at any conclusion. In the same way the Anumän act as the
common language of this book.
There is always a dilemma in how much evidence should be prepared to
prove a point. The Anumän are the evidence of this book. I have tried to
assemble an extensive range of evidence, without going to excess. There were
other points I felt could have been included to increase details for the basis of
the book without of necessity strengthening the arguments. Therefore I have
confined myself to the eight Anumän listed below. These Anumän are briefly
confirmed in Chapters 3-5.
Codes 1 - 7 are derived with assistance from the Corollaries. Both Codes
and Corollaries are based on the Anumän confirmed within Section One.
Section Two, a large portion of this work, proves both Corollaries and Codes.
To follow the progression of arguments the reader should briefly familiarise
himself with the evidence and steps of logic contained within this chapter.

1) Lord Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One must accept

this on faith or, at least, theoretically, for the purposes of this paper.
2) Bhagavad-gétä is Lord Kåñëa’s Absolute statement and, as such, is not
subject to speculative interpretations.
3) Bhagavad-gétä is consistent and has a particular theme and conclusion.
4) The Gétä can be quoted as authority and, as such, it is authoritative in
verifying its own purpose.
5) The Gétä is part of the Vedic småti-sästra; [çästra - scripture] it is known
as the Gétopaniñad, and its conclusion must concur with that of the body of
26
Vedic texts.
6) As Kåñëa is the perfect teacher, so Arjuna is the perfect student of the
Gétä.
7) The perfect understanding of the Gétä is that which concurs with
Arjuna’s understanding.
8) As miscellaneous points we shall include the following:
i. Çréla Prabhupäda’s Sanskrit text for his Gétä is authentic.
ii. Çréla Prabhupäda’s rendition is the understanding of the Gauòéya
Sampradaya, and he is a current representative of that disciplic succession.
iii. Subsection 8.ii. includes the conclusion that the Absolute Truth is in
the ultimate sense personal, i.e., the Supreme Being is a Person.
iv. The yoga systems of karma, jïäna and añöäìga [añöäìga-yoga - the
eightfold yoga system based on physical practices including breath restraint to
achieve sense control, and, ultimately, focus of the mind, or samädhi]
mentioned in the Gétä and this text, as well as any other spiritual practices,
refer to classical Vedic procedures.
v. The version of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is that we are using as reference is
the 1983 Revised and Enlarged BBT Edition.

Logical Steps (The Codes)

These numbers will be referred to in their proofs as Code 1, etc.

1) The theme of the Bhagavad-gétäis how to free oneself from the
bewildering materialistic condition of life, known as the “bodily concept”.
2) The solution to the false bodily conception of life and its consequent
problems can be approached by karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga, añöäìga-yoga and

27
bhakti-yoga.
3) The actual solution to the problems of life is complete realisation of
one’s original spiritual nature. This is possible only by bhakti-yoga.
4) Bhakti-yoga is the independent goal of the yoga ladder. However, all
other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti.
5) The reason Çré Kåñëa mentions other yoga systems is to attract different
types of conditioned souls to His devotional service.
6) The translations and purports of the Bhagavad-gétä by Çréla Prabhupäda
are presented exclusively in relation to devotional service. This commentary,
known as the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, is a complete and consistent explanation
of the Gétä in that it perfectly serves Kåñëa’s purpose in bringing all its readers
to bhakti.
7) The Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is not only an acceptable commentary but
presents the only means for knowing the Gétä. Other authorised Vaiñëava
commentaries share its methodology and conclusions.

Preliminary Logic to Codes (The Corollaries)

3.1 Bewilderment is due to illusion or ignorance.

3.2 A solution to Arjuna’s problem must be based on knowledge.
3.3 Knowledge means understanding the Absolute Truth.
3.4 The Absolute Truth is Lord Çré Kåñëa.
3.5 Bhagavad-gétäis the means for understanding the will of the Lord.
3.6 Solving the problems of life is included in and is an element of
knowledge.
3.7 The solution comprises:

28
 1) recognising the problem
2) identifying the goal (the Absolute Truth)
3) the solution itself, ananya-bhakti, as a means of knowing Him.

3.8 Kåñëa is only known by unalloyed devotion.

3.9 Unalloyed devotion as the solution means that other things (karma,
jïäna, etc.) are not conducive for solving the problem. (They are meant to
approach the problem.)
3.10 Bhakti is independent of other yoga systems and superior to them.
3.11 Bhakti-yoga is not only the means for knowing Kåñëa but also for
coming to Kåñëa.
3.12 The nature of devotion induces the Lord to reciprocate with His
devotees; this is known as revelation.
3.13 That revelation is the understanding that we are spiritual entities,
distinct from this world, part and parcel and servants of Lord Kåñëa. It is this
knowledge by which one becomes attached to the Lord and detached from the
world. That is the solution to life’s problems.
3.14 All problems of life and problems in executing bhakti are overcome by
the grace of Kåñëa.
3.15 If one rejects His grace, acting under ignorance, one will continue to
suffer.
3.16 This understanding is the final conclusion of the Vedas.
4.1 Yoga implies a combined practice of work, renunciation, knowledge
and meditation.
4.2 The goal of yoga is liberation.

29
 4.3 Liberation means to attain Lord Kåñëa in the spiritual world.
4.4 The definition of yoga is “that dutiful detached activity, directed by
transcendental knowledge, which brings one to make Lord Kåñëa the ultimate
goal of life and trains one to achieve His Supreme abode.”
4.5 “Yoga”means bhakti-yoga.
4.6 Other yoga systems indicate elements of bhakti.
4.7 All yoga systems are dependent on bhakti (for results).
4.8 Bhakti is independent of other systems.
4.9 All yoga practices are interrelated.
4.10 That interrelation is known as the yoga system, or yoga ladder.
4.11 Only bhakti awards ultimate liberation.
4.12 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the yoga system (yoga ladder).
4.13 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the Gétä.

5.1 Living entities are under different modes of material nature.

5.2 According to their modes, living entities acquire different types of
faith, knowledge and determination.
5.3 The modes of nature also determine one’s circumstances, environment,
etc.
5.4 Different yoga systems are designed by the Lord to accommodate men
of differing faiths, circumstances and times.
5.5 But bhakti-yoga, acquired by the grace of the Lord or His devotee, is
transcendental to the modes of nature.

30
 5.6 The ultimate purpose of these yoga systems is to bring their
practitioners to the devotional service of Lord Çré Kåñëa.
6.1 Çréla Prabhupäda ‘s condemnation of non-devotional interpretations
of the Gétä is correct. Such interpretations are insufficient to understand the
Truth.
6.2 The devotional purports to the Gétä are the proper explanation of
all.yoga systems. This is because only a devotional commentary is
philosophically consistent with the message of the text.
6.3 Devotional service is the most practicable spiritual discipline for this
age. The comparison of other yoga systems found in the Gétä to bhakti-yoga is
the rightful literary style of the author and the ornament of Bhagavad-gétä As
It Is.
6.4 Çréla Prabhupäda ‘s devotional definitions of general terms is within
the proper understanding of the Gétä.
6.5 Translating general words in very specific devotional terms is the
perfect illumination of the Gétä.

Chapter 3, Supporting the Assumptions

Introduction

Preceding a discussion on the arguments in logic (Codes 1-7), I would like

to substantiate the Anumän proposed in Chapter Two. The original
presentation of the Anumän were as assumptions rather than axioms. An
axiom is a universally accepted truth. An assumption is a premise that one
accepts for the sake of argument. Whereas Gauòéya Vaiñëavas will all accept
Anumän 1-8 as axiomatic, other readers may not. Nonetheless, once the

31
assumptions are confirmed, they remain as foundations for our discussion, as
relevant as axioms.
Before proceeding further I should like to raise a point which is important
for both academically concerned readers and the logical consistency of this
presentation. Anumän 1 and 2 are the epitome of what the academic views as
the fundamentalist attitude of the devotee. Thus the issue needs resolution, as
it is integral to the discussion. I have thus dealt with it in the argument of
Anumän 1 and hope that the reader is satisfied with an alternate approach
which is both scientific and serves as a sound foundation for the text.

Eight Verified

The process in this chapter will be to verify each of the Anumän

individually.

Lord Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One must accept this
on faith or, at least, theoretically, for the purposes of this paper.
As has been mentioned earlier in the Introduction, there are traditionally
two approaches to understanding the Gétä: the approach of the empiricist and
the approach of the orthodox. The following pages relay a short history of the
evolution of empirical thought on Indian culture. My purpose is to show that
this view, as it stands, is found on a series of unscientific premises. Although
such an analysis is brief, it is historically accurate and relays the mood, past
and present, with which empiricists study the Vedas.
The purpose of this review is to show there is sufficient reason to doubt the
self-acclaimed authority of the empiricists. If reasonable doubt is validated, the
search for an alternate approach, or one that completes and corrects the

32
present one, must continue. It is at this juncture that I would like to tender
the authority of the Vedas — in their own study — as that alternate
approach. This approach offers scientific procedures for the verification of the
Vedas’ own philosophy, culture, chronology and authenticity. Therefore, there
is no reason why this reference should not be given an opportunity, equal to
that afforded the empiricist, to prove its methodology.
The evangelism of Christian missionaries in India predates the advent of
the early students of Vedic culture. The attitude of the Christian missionaries
is reflected in Alexander Duffs’ (1806-1878) purpose for establishing Scots
College in Calcutta. He envisaged it as a “headquarters for a great campaign
against Hinduism.” Duffs expressed that his mission in India was to undermine
the “superstitions of the country.” It is not surprising that he consequently
opined that the Vedas were “absurdities” meant “for the amusement of
children.” Although Indologists later attempted a more scientific approach,
their attitudes were tainted with a Christian bias. To make matters worse, the
immigrant Englishman held a strongly expressed racial superiority which the
British Government extolled. In 1813 Governor General Hastings expressed
his opinion of the Indians by writing that

The Hindoo appears to be merely limited to animal functions and even in them
indifferent... with no higher intellect than a dog.

This was the setting in which the first Indologists appeared. To be lair, they
varied in extremity in their views of Indian culture. Sir William Jones
(1746-1794), the first Britisher to master Sanskrit and study the Vedas, opined
that India had possessed a “high state of civilisation.” Although other early
Indologists held such a view, it was systematically dismantled by their
successors. Despite Sir William’s opinion, he viewed the literature of the
Vedas only as readings which could enrich the English tradition, in much the
same way as did the narratives of Greece and Rome. His opinion, as a “devout
Christian,” was that the Bhägavatam was a “motley story,” based on the fable

33
of Keçava (Kåñëa) but engrafted with Christian Gospels.
The history is lengthy. However, the attitudes toward the Vedas are
documented and real. H.H.Wilson (1786-1860), described as the “greatest
Sanskrit scholar of his time,” first holder of Boden Professor of Sanskrit at
Oxford and director of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1837, made his purposes
clear through his writings and his lectures, one of which offered a “prize of two
hundred pounds...for the best refutation of the Hindu religious system.” He
wrote that the Vedas were “speculative tenets...particularly those regarding
the nature and condition of the soul” and hoped that the “specious” system of
Vedic thought would be “shown to be fallacious and false by the Ethereal spear
of Christian truth.”,
German-born Max Muller (1823-1900), Sir Monier-Williams (1819-1899)
and Theodore Goldsrucker (1821-1872) were Indologists ofworld renown with
a common attitude toward the Vedas and Vedic culture. Max Muller concisely
summarised this view on Vedic philosophy as “Aryan legend” and “myth”.
Muller viewed India as a ripe field for Christianity and planned to infiltrate
India by learning the language and culture and making friends with the
purpose of taking on a “work by means of which the old mischief of Indian
priestcraft could be overthrown.”
Monier Williams, best known for his Sanskrit-English Dictionary,
dedicated twenty-five years of his life to founding an institute at Oxford for
disseminating information about Indian literature and culture. Considering
that his view of the Vedas was that “...they all begin with some flashes of true
light and end in utter darkness,” one may well imagine the objectivity of the
information his institute disseminated.
Goldstucker viewed the people of India as having been burdened by the
Vedas, which had only brought them worldwide “contempt and ridicule.” In
his book Inspired Writings of Hinduism, Goldstucker assailed the validity of
Vedic literature. His aim was to demonstrate to following generations that he

34
had scholastically discredited their scripture and that their only subsequent
recourse to sanity would be to accept European values and thus improve their
character.
This then is the foundation of the early study of the Vedas. It is clear that
the theories or analyses of early Indologists are clouded with sectarian views,
overshadowing whatever brilliant scholarship with which they are credited.
History revises itself and scholars on Indian culture now have a much
modified view of the Vedas. Their stand is often tolerant — even
self-acclaimed as friendly. Yet the teachings of the founding fathers of Indolgy
have not been abandoned. Neither have such teachings been edited for
historical accuracy or personal objectivity. They continue to remain as
time-honoured precepts. W.T. de Bary in his Approaches to Asian Civilisation
writes:

The foundations for the recovery of India’s past were laid by certain eminent
classical scholars including Sir William Jones, James Prinsep, H.T. Colebrooke and
H.H. Wilson...the debt owed these men is great.

Modern Indologists are rarely missionaries, yet they retain the culture of
their predecessors — if nothing else than out of academic habit. The result is
that many of today’s scholars still teach that the Vedas are mythology and the
Puräëas are inconsistent with the teachings of çruti. They disregard the
teachings of the äcäryas and view the Vedas and Puräëas as disconnected
texts. As a consequence they have no cohesive view of Vedic culture and
completely miss the monotheistic concept of the Absolute Truth which the
Vedas teach through progressive stages. The successive dissemination of this
disjointed and inconsistent view of Vedic literature compounds a message of
cultural and literary confusion in the eyes of students. Thus the dye is cast for
the inquisitive before they begin their study.
To exemplify this point we may examine the scholars’ view of the
authorship of the Vedas. Moritz Winternitz typifies this empiric world view.

35
He claims that the authors of the Vedas are unknown to us, although
sometimes “a mythical seer of primitive times is named as author.” In contrast
the Vedas make very clear statements about their own origins. Çrémad
Bhägavatam (1.3.21) states:

Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Çré Vyäsadeva appeared in

the womb of Satyavaté, wife of Paräçara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into
many branches and sub-branches.

In response to this obviously clear answer, Winternitz continues to argue

that:

The orthodox...believe the same Vyäsa who compiled the Vedas and composed the
Mahäbhärat, who also in the beginning of Kali-yuga...was the author of the eighteen
Puräëas. But this Vyäsadeva is a form of the exalted God Viñëu Himself.

And thus without further ado, Winternitz rejects the possibility of

Vyäsadeva’s authorship. He chooses to speculate on other possible candidates,
solely because the Puräëas claim Vyäsadeva as an avatära. This rejection of
the Vedic version because of its claim to Vyäsa’s divinity leads to further
rejection of the statements and personalities of the Vedas. The final product is
graciously labelled as being “mythological,” solely because it implies the
supra-mundane.
It is at this point that this author humbly suggests a paradigm shift in the
study of the Vedas. Anumän 1 gives the mechanism for a new paradigm. The
outline of the origins of Indology has been presented to show the basic
prejudices with which it began as a science. Those prejudices remain to this
day, imbedded in its practices. The purpose of such an exercise is meant to
show there is sufficient cause to doubt the empirical approach to the Vedas
and opt for a new paradigm in Indology.
One may well ask what other alternative could have existed for the original
pioneers of Indology, or what other alternative exists at the present. My

36
response to the first question is obviously hypothetical. What if the first
European students of the Vedas did not start with the empiric view? What if
they had gone to the teachers of the Vedas, the äcäryas in disciplic succession?
What if they inquired from them what their 5000-year, unbroken tradition of
teaching offered in terms of the understanding of their scriptures? If those
äcäryas responded that the student had to surrender and become a menial
servant in order to be eligible to hear and understand the Vedic conclusion,
and the Mullers and Colebrooks had complied, what would have happened to
Indology then? No doubt a much different view than has been painted today.
It would have been a different paradigm.
The present is a more malleable reality than the past. I suggest that the
alternative that could have been pursued at the beginning of the 19th century
be put into practice now. That alternative paradigm is to accept the authority
of the Vedas verbatim. In addition to the Vedas themselves the commentaries
of the äcäryas (the original Indologists) should also be accepted as authority.
This is so because the explanations of the äcäryas conform to the Vedic
criteria, which include an ideal personal example, realised faith and an
unbroken disciplic succession.
There is no reason for an a priori rejection of this train of thought. The
Vedas claim to be a scientific text and offer the methodology of their own
verification to any reader. The scientific process consists of experimentation,
observation and hypothesis. To pursue the example of the authorship of the
Vedas, cited earlier, we may analyse their own statements. The Vedas claim
Vyäsadeva their author. According to the äcäryas, Vyäsa is still to be found in
a cave in the Himaläyas near the Tibetan border, the exact location of which
is known. As an incarnation of the Lord he is visible by eyes of devotion. One
questioning his credentials as the author of the Vedas may meet him directly.
This requires one to practice the process of bhakti-yoga, come to its perfection
stage and subsequently inquire directly from the sage Vyäsa of his relationship
with the Vedas, Upaniñads, Mahäbhärata, Puräëas and so on. That is the

37
experiment. Until performed, according to its conditions and disproven due to
incorrect result, it cannot be rejected by a scientific thinker. One must
perform the experiment and witness whether the observation is consistent
with the hypothesis.
In the 13th century the famous Mädhaväcärya was said to have personally
visited Vyäsadeva and received teachings directly from him. The same is
available for those who follow the path of Mädhava.
As far as the Gétä is concerned, I would like to apply the above argument to
our study. The approach of the empiricist has been shown to be questionable
at the best of times, always speculative and completely useless at its worst. As a
consequence their understanding of the Gétä is equally defective, and thus no
foundation for supplying reliable answers on its application. Let us instead
adopt the Gétä as its own authority and see what results such following
manifests. If the results are contradictory and unverifiable through the
prescribed procedure of the text, then it should be rejected. If, on the other
hand, it yields consistent, scientifically verifiable results, then those should be
accepted.
The first step in this procedure is Anumän 1. This establishes that Kåñëa’s
word is infallible authority, as he is the Supreme God. Thus the Gétä, the Song
of God, is equally infallible. If so, then we may accept the statements of the
Gétä as self-evident and by applying them under appropriate conditions,
expect to reap the predictable results.
The focus of argument in this book is Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation of the
Gétä. Whether it is his approach to the entirety of the text or the
word-for-word translations, critics have found cause to complain. Since the
Gétä makes unequivocal statements, quoted in the Introduction, that it is
understandable only when one practices bhakti, this devotional perception
must be the new methodology with which we approach this study. In this new
approach, the statements of the Gétä may be put to the test, not by

38
speculation, but by practice. To do so will give the reader personal verification
of the words of Lord Kåñëa. That experience should be the ultimate
observation of the scientific process. Then one may verify if Çréla
Prabhupäda’s explanations, translations and so on are in conformity with the
experience of the reader. This request is not unreasonable. In any field of
science, adequate training is needed for proper understanding. It is within the
scope of that scientific procedure and its adherents to establish the
prerequisites. An untrained novice cannot volunteer a concocted process by
which he will understand the subject at hand.
Çréla Prabhupäda also emphasises this point and offers the minimum
prerequisites for understanding the meaning of the Gétä. This criteria is
described by Çréla Prabhupäda in his Introduction. He states that

...the person who is trying to understand the Bhagavad-gétä... should at least

theoretically accept Çré Kåñëa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and with that
submissive spirit, we can understand the Bhagavad-gétä.

This is what we have referred to as the new paradigm for approaching Gétä.
The reader may not be able to make a cent-per-cent commitment to Kåñëa,
but at least for the sake of study he must make a theoretical acceptance of the
Lord and approach the text in a submissive spirit.
Çré Kåñëa has also given certain strictures at the end of His dialogue where
He specifies the qualification for future hearers of the Gétä. He states:

idaà te nätapaskäya näbhaktäya kadäcana

na cäçuçrüñave väcyaà na ca mäà yo ‘bhyasüyati

This confidential knowledge may not be explained to those who are not austere, or
devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me. (18.67)

This is certainly quite a stringent series of prerequisites for being able to

receive the message of the Gétä. It implies a general standard of qualification

39
beyond the average non-believer.
While the devotees certainly accept Lord Kåñëa as the Supreme Lord, the
question that arises is in regard to others who have not made such a
commitment. Is the Gétä eternally hidden from them? From the words of Lord
Kåñëa there appear to be serious restrictions to the audience of the Gétä.
Taking such an instruction as it is, we may be led to conclude that this text is
not for everyone. Some unqualified souls may hear it but not understand it.
Others may act against the very teachings of the Gétä, misquoting its authority
as their justification. In this age the greater population is not qualified,
according to verse 18.67. Without a resolution to this restriction, the Gétä will
remain an obscure work, destined for a few and hidden from those who most
need it.
Çréla Prabhupäda overcomes this difficulty in his Introduction by
requesting the reader to theoretically accept the position of Lord Kåñëa in all
humility. This approach is a practitioner’s tool to receive the message of the
Gétä. It keeps intact Lord Kåñëa’s restriction and yet allows the reader a proper
approach to the text, which will yield an appropriate understanding.
This means the reader adopts the following mentality: “Alright, for the
purpose of reading and understanding the Gétä, let me accept that Kåñëa is the
Supreme and see what He has to say.” This becomes a basic “ticket” for
receiving and discussing the Gétä. Although it may be an honorary ticket, a
ticket it is nonetheless. Thus an inquisitive soul who, despite many
disqualifications, adopts this attitude becomes a candidate to hear
Bhagavad-gétä. Such a mentality is imperative. As a student must be
subordinate to the teacher, one cannot be equal to Kåñëa or doubt the
authenticity of His words. A selective, piecemeal acceptance of the Gétä is no
study at all and renders the entire text meaningless. The mood of
understanding the Gétä must be submissive, as it entails self surrender and
internal analysis. This cannot be done from a position of superiority, or even

40
that of equality, with Kåñëa.
CONCLUSION
Adopting such a stance, and the ensuing mentality of surrender, one in
well equipped to step forward as a student of the Gétä and accept the mysteries
of its understanding.

Bhagavad-gétä is Lord Kåñëa’s absolute statement and, as such, is not subject

to speculative interpretations.
The second Anumän arises as a consequence of the first. If one accepts the
supremacy of Lord Kåñëa, whether in fact or theory, His words, Bhagavad-gétä,
are also on the same transcendental platform.
Çréla Prabhupäda often makes the point that if Kåñëa is an ordinary man,
Bhagavad-gétä loses all meaning as an authentic text. Relativistic reasoning
cannot explain the absolute. The subject matter is beyond the reach of
ordinary men. By accepting Lord Kåñëa’s unique position, the Gétä also
becomes a unique book for the reader. Thus, the careful reader of the
Bhagavad-gétä will try to understand what it is that Kåñëa is saying, rather
than try to juggle the contents of the Gétä to ratify a preconceived philosophy
of one’s own.
This point requires a little further clarification. It is the entire argument of
this book and thus determines its direction. As such, it cannot be easily
dismissed. The obvious question that arises from this Anumän is, “Can we
make as axiomatic something we are trying to prove?” The answer is certainly
not! Yet there must be some integrity in any approach to the Gétä. This
Anumän is meant to draw the limits of what is acceptable as a commentary to
this book. One must accept that the Gétä is the Absolute Truth. There may be
differences of opinion as to what the conclusions of that Truth are, but Truth
41
it is.
The discussion in the previous subsection aimed at making a paradigm shift
in our approach to the Gétä. It was this very point which was inferred as the
new paradigm. Instead of an empiric approach, why not adopt the
self-explanatory and scientific approach of the Gétä itself? This Anumän
stands on the ground of that argument, as well as Çréla Prabhupäda’s
instrumental approach, which accepts the Supreme authority of the Gétä and
invokes an attitude of submissiveness in trying to understand the message of
its text.
If Kåñëa is the Absolute authority and the Gétä Absolute Truth, then it
must be the reference for its own understanding. This is opposed to the
common speculation that subjective interpretations not supported by the Gétä
are an acceptable methodology for its understanding. In other words, a
commentator thinks “my opinion is as good as Kåñëa’s.” The result of such an
approach is to automatically relativise both the Gétä and its speaker. This
transgresses the requirement of submissiveness Çréla Prabhupäda has pointed
out as a requirement to proper understanding. Thus the Gétä automatically
falls out of the grasp of such individuals. Although reason, logic and
intellectual integrity should prevail, the epistemological nature of the Gétä
must be accepted as self-evident and superior to subjective speculation.
An additional argument may be given to support the position I have taken
in the preceding pages in regard to the authority of the Gétä. An argument
should not be rejected without due cause. Similarly, though common, the
approach of the believer does not disqualify his realization, simply because it is
different from the empiricist. It is a valid proposal of one of two alternatives.
They are:

1. The Gétä is Absolute

2. The Gétä is not absolute

42
 Let us turn to verse 7.7. This is one of many verses which claim that Lord
Kåñëa is the Absolute Truth.

mattaù prataraà nänyat kiïcid asto dhanaïjaya

mayisarvam idaà protaà sütre maëi-gaëä iva

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me,
as pearls are strung on a thread.

A simple definition of the Absolute is that which is the supreme

independent shelter of all relative things. This verse clearly defines Lord
Kåñëa in that light. He says that there is nothing (na anyat kiïcit) superior
(para-taraà) to Him (mattaù). This indicates that He is both supreme und
independent. Furthermore, the reference that He is the resting place of
everything (mayi sarvam idaà protaà) indicates the shelter of all things. This
is certainly as absolute a statement as can be made. In addition, the speaker is
saying this about himself. By His own testimony Lord Kåñëa is saying, “I am
the Absolute Truth.”
There are not many ways to deal with this statement. Either one accepts it
as we have argued until now, or not. If it is rejected, then the consequences
should be carefully considered.
If what Kåñëa states about Himself is incorrect, then He must be seen us
being an untrustworthy person with a highly over-inflated conception of
Himself. Hence, the value of the Gétä is called into question because it
becomes an equally unreliable text. But the Gétä deals with very serious and
exacting subjects. It is a philosophical treatise claiming to solve the problems
of life. Thus it cannot be both riddled with discrepancies and simultaneously
an authority an on the sublime science of the self. Such defects would, in
effect, make the Gétäcompletely meaningless.

43
 Now if the Gétä is disqualified as authority, full of contradictions, of what
possible value is anyone’s explanation of it? Why would the scholar or
transcendentalist desire to evaluate and comment on something which has no
intrinsic value and is devoid of literary or philosophical integrity? Certainly
such explanations become equally irrelevant. The conclusion would be that
they are as valueless as the relativised version of the Gétä. Thus, I take the
position that if a text and its explanation are based on diametrically opposed
premises (i.e., absolute and relative, respectively), then either the text has no
meaning, or the explanation is meaningless. In either case, the explanation is
meaningless and, by definition, is no explanation at all.
Thus the empiricist’s approach to the Gétä must conform to Çréla
Prabhupäda’s requirement of theoretical acceptance of Kåñëa’s position and a
submissive attitude to the teachings of the Gétä. If it does not, then the very
same stand that he has taken to approach the Gétä makes his explanation
valueless.
CONCLUSION
We therefore continue with the Vedic assumption that all Vedic literature,
including the Gétä, is self-evident Absolute Truth.

Bhagavad-gétä is consistent and has a particular theme and conclusion. The

fact that there are so many commentaries on the Gétä, with varied
conclusions, indicates that Lord Kåñëa is saying something that others feel
compelled to challenge. As Kåñëa is the Supreme intellect, one would
certainly expect a theme to the Gétä.
A CONSISTENT THEME
The theme of the Gétä is based on Arjuna’s reluctance to fight in a

44
fratricidal war. Lord Kåñëa addresses Arjuna’s bewilderment and identifies its
cause as his misconceived bodily identity. Consequently, the theme is the
Lord’s rectification of Arjuna’s misconceptions in regard to identity, duty,
reality and illusion. Its final conclusion identifies Arjuna (as well as all of us)
as Kåñëa’s eternal servant.
How to come to this standard of servitude is the ultimate teaching of the
Gétä, presented in the middle six chapters and the concluding chapter. A close
study reveals that this concept of devotion is all-pervasive. The constancy of
the Gétä is Lord Kåñëa’s unrelenting effort to remove Arjuna’s illusion and
educate him in transcendental knowledge. By His own initiative, in answering
His friend’s questions, Lord Kåñëa is offering different alternatives to achieve
the same end. A further aspect of this abiding principle will be borne out
(Code 5) by the fact that the message of surrender to the Lord is reiterated
throughout the entire text; the different paths of karma, jïäna and yoga are
but means to the same end: surrender to the Lord.
CONCLUSION
Throughout the Gétä Kåñëa is encouraging Arjuna to fight. Finally, in
18.73, Arjuna relents and states:

kariñye vacanaà tava

...I am prepared to act according to Your instructions.

This concludes the Gétä. Arjuna and the reader are prepared to become
servants of the Lord. How that conclusion is reached and executed is
progressively explained. The Gétä is not a compendium of arbitrary ideas or
philosophies. It is an incomparably structured and systematic work, with very
specific goals.
NOTE

45
 Appendix 12 offers an interesting argument in which the cause of suffering
in the material world is used to confirm that bhakti-yoga is the conclusion of
the Gétä, strengthening the argument regarding an all-pervasive, consistent
theme.

The Gétä can be quoted as authority and, as such, it is authoritative in

verifying its own purpose.
On the basis of Anumän 1 -3, the Gétä must be accepted as an authority on
the science of the Absolute Truth. If it is not, then both the reader and the
author are misusing their time — for this book, as well as all discussion of the
Gétä, becomes meaningless. Having accepted the authenticity of the Gétä, one
may question what parameters would constitute an authentic commentary.
This topic is discussed in Chapter Twelve in depth.
The Gétä is an authority for its own commentary. In other words, a
commentary of the Gétä must be verifiable by, and not contradictory to, the
text itself. This can be explained further in the following way.

THE SELF-SUPPORTING GÉTÄ

Verse 18.66 is the conclusion of the Gétä. In fact, it is the answer that solves
all of Arjuna’s problems. However, Lord Kåñëa precedes this final instruction
with almost 700 other verses. Why? Because it may be difficult to convince
readers to accept a one-line solution. Such an approach is generally too
absolute, too abrupt and too condensed for effective communication. Thus,
other supporting explanations are needed to bring a reader to the point of
action that Arjuna has reached in verse 18.73:

kariñye vacanaà tava

46
 I will act according to your order.

Thus, directly, indirectly or both, all other verses of the Gétä support and
lead to the final instruction given in 18.66. This indicates that the entire text
of the Gétä is self-balancing. That is, the verses are authoritative on their own
account and verify each other. Thus the Gétä must be accepted as an authority
in verifying itself.
FROM A POINT OF LOGIC
The following logical train of progression is a further confirmation of
Anumän 4.
1. Unless the Gétä is authority on the Absolute Truth, it is a deviation.
This is supported by Anumän 1-3.
2. If it is a deviation, there is no use in its description as a book on truth.
3. As authority on the Absolute Truth, it must be an authority on itself,
since the Absolute Truth is its theme.
CONCLUSION
The Gétä is both an authority on the Absolute Truth, as well as an
authority in its own verification.

The Gétä is part of the Vedic småti-çästra; it is known as the Gétopaniñad,

and its conclusion must concur with that of the body of Vedic texts.
THE GÉTÄ AS VEDA
According to the Gétä, the Vedas are directly manifest from the Absolute
Truth; brahmaksara-samudbhavan (3.15). Similarly, Lord Kåñëa is brahmaksara,
Himself the Absolute Truth, as per Anumän 1. The Gétäis samudbhavan,

47
emanating from Him. Thus, [Based on the logic that things equal to the same
thing are equal to each other] the Gétä is also known as being non-different
from the Vedas themselves.
The Vedic tradition also states that the çruti portion of the Vedas includes
the four Vedas and Upanishads. The Bhagavad-gétä is accepted as an
Upaniñadic text and is known as the Gétopaniñad. From two perspectives it is
confirmed that the Gétä is not an isolated work, but part of the Vedic literary
tradition.

THE THEME OF THE GÉTÄ IS THEME OF THE VEDAS

As Anumän 3 has confirmed that the Gétä has a theme, by the same
argument we may also conclude that the Vedas must have a theme as well. In
the Fifteenth Chapter of the Gétä, Lord Kåñëa declares what that theme of the
Vedas is.

vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyo

...by all the Vedas I am to be known.... (15.15)

This indicates that the entirety of the Vedic texts have Kåñëa as the goal,
and the Gétä, which is shown from two points of view to also be Veda, must
share the same goal. (This will be shown in later Chapters.) In other words, a
portion of the Vedas, the Gétä, cannot be at odds with the Vedic texts in
content or purpose, since they should share the same conclusion.
We may also state here that philosophical consistency would demand that a
commentary on the Gétä cannot differ from the Vedas or their conclusion. In
fact, commentaries known as bhäñyas or tikas are also known as Veda, by dint
of their being one in purpose with the Vedas — knowing Kåñëa. Therefore, all
commentaries, Çréla Prabhupäda’s included, must adhere to certain parameters
which ensure the tenor of such works is confined to what is acceptable by

48
Vedic tradition.
EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT THEMES
A question arises to this Anumän. Its argument supports the above
conclusion by the reference to the same verse. This argument may be stated as
follows:
The derivation of Anumän 5 was on the basis that the explicit (direct)
conclusions of the Gétä and the Vedas is one. However, there are other
variations that complicate the argument. The conclusions of both Gétä and
the Vedas could also be implicit (indirect) in which case a possible four
alternative arise. In answer to this verse, 15.15 remains the consistent and
satisfactory reply. Lord Kåñëa has unconditionally explained that He is the
goal of the Vedas. Understanding Kåñëa, or His instructions, implicitly or
explicitly, is the goal of the Gétä. Thus Anumän 5 is again confirmed.

As Çré Kåñëa is the perfect teacher, so Arjuna is the perfect student of the
Gétä.
The Gétä is studied because it is Lord Kåñëa’s words. The Gétä is authentic
because Kåñëa is. He is no doubt the perfect teacher of the Gétä. As the Gétä is
perfect, so was Kåñëa’s choice of Arjuna, among countless candidates, as the
recipient. This was due to his being a “devotee and a friend”. Arjuna’s
understanding must then be the most perfect — a disciple as qualified to hear
and understand the Gétä as Kåñëa is to speak it.
PERFECT BEHAVIOUR OF ARJUNA
This point is important, because Arjuna’s behaviour, as the perfect student,
is integral to the complete understanding of the Gétä. The Gétä is not some
remote objective laboratory study. It is the subjective science of self surrender,

49
which requires not just oral reception, but a concluded course of reaction,
conviction and activity. Thus the behaviour of the hearer, after having heard
the message, is as important a teaching as the instructions themselves.
Ultimately, there are two guru’s in the dissemination of the Gétä: Kåñëa
and Arjuna. Lord Kåñëa spoke the message, and Arjuna shows how to receive
it and put it into practice. Without the example of the latter, one will no
doubt be imperfect in understanding Lord Kåñëa’s will.
CONCLUSION
We should, therefore, accept the Gétä in Arjuna’s mood of surrender lo
Lord Kåñëa as the supreme authority (Anumän 1). Then we should hear the
Gétä with full attention and conviction as Arjuna has done. And alter having
done so, we should follow Arjuna’s example and surrender to the will of Çré
Kåñëa — living the message of the Gétä. This will make the study of the Gétä a
transcendental experience, rather than an armchair investigation.

The perfect understanding of the Gétä is that which concurs with Arjuna’s
understanding.
Following from Anumän 6, the perfect understanding of the Gétä is that
which concurs with Arjuna’s. Arjuna’s method of accepting the teachings of
the Gétä is also part of the Gétä. Thus, it is equally authoritative as the rest of
the text (Anumän 2). Furthermore, the reader should come to the same
understanding and course of action as Arjuna.
ARJUNA’S UNDERSTANDING
What is that understanding? Text 73 of the final chapter reveals it in the
following way:

50
 arjuna uväca
nañöo mohaù småtir labdhä tvat-prasädän mayäcyuta
sthito ‘smi gata-sandehaù kariñye vacanaà tava

Arjuna said: My dear Kåñëa, O infallible one, my illusion is now gone. I have
regained my memory by Your mercy, and I am now firm and free from doubt and am
prepared to act according to your instructions. (18.73)

Kariñye vacanam tava, “...I shall execute Your order”, summarises Arjuna’s
course of action after hearing the Gétä: fulfil the desire of the Lord. Or as
Kåñëa says in 18.66, “...surrender to Me...” Since this was Arjuna’s
understanding, anyone who claims to follow in his footsteps should come to
the same conclusion and act in the same way. Thus, a real understanding of
the Gétä is evidenced by surrender to Kåñëa. This concludes the first seven
Anumän. In addition to these, there are other minor points which are
recorded below in Anumän 8.

As miscellaneous points we shall include the following:

i) Çréla Prabhupäda’s Sanskrit text for the Gétä is authentic.
ii) Çréla Prabhupäda’s rendition is the understanding of the
Brahma-Madhva-Gauòéya Vaiñëava-Sampradaya, and he is a current
representative of that disciplic succession.
iii) The Absolute Truth is in the ultimate sense the Supreme Personality of
Godhead.
iv) The yoga systems of karma, jïäna and añöäìga refer to classical Vedic
procedures.
v) The version of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is that we are using as reference is

51
the 1983 Revised and Enlarged BBT Edition.

POINT 8.i:
8.i states that the Sanskrit text to which Çréla Prabhupäda is referring is
accurate. I have not heard any doubt raised about this point. I have made
reference earlier to speculations on an 84-verse Gétä. This is, by and large,
rejected by all respected scholars.
The Gétäis such a widely accepted, known and even memorised text, that
its 700 Verses are common knowledge to a majority of the Indian
subcontinent. Practically every schoolboy in India has learned some portion of
the Gétä by heart. Whereas there are many portions of the Vedas which are
lost, or have multiple copies with various renderings (e.g., Bhaviñya Puräëa),
with the Gétä we are not faced with an obscure work, or one with multiple
renditions. Thus, we accept the authenticity of the devanägari text used by
Çréla Prabhupäda.

POINT 8.ii:
8.ii reflects the existence of many disciplic successions which belong to the
Vedic tradition. They are called paramparäs (4.2), or sampradäyas. Of the four
major Vaiñëava paramparäs, the Brahma paramparä— which is also known by
the followers of Caitanya Mahäprabhu (the medieval inaugurator of the Kåñëa
Consciousness Movement) as the Gauòéya sampradäya — is the current host
for the worldwide preaching activities of Çréla Prabhupäda and ISKCON.
From a historical perspective, scholars, religionists and especially other
members of the Gauòéya sampradäya accept Çréla Prabhupäda as a most
powerful modern-day proponent of the teachings of Lord Kåñëa and a true
representative of the Gauòéya tradition in every way. I have emphasised this
point to illustrate that Çréla Prabhupäda’s rendition of the Gétä is the
inheritance of an ancient spiritual lineage. He is not an independent

52
spiritualist, however brilliant. This is in accordance with the teachings of the
Gétä, as quoted in 4.2. The heritage of the Gétä comes down from guru to
disciple, in paramparä, and is remarkably well-preserved in an unbroken chain
of successive teachers and students. Çréla Prabhupäda’s translation, although
unique in its invoking the following of a worldwide movement, is also
completely dependent upon the realisations of that disciplic succession.

POINT 8.iii:
8.iii has emphasised the personal aspect of the Absolute Truth, in
opposition to the non-differentiated, impersonal concept espoused by Çaìkara
and His followers. Although a historically ancient debate, the issue has been
dealt within Appendix 7 and Chapter Five on the authority of the Gétä. It has
been mentioned for added emphasis, as it is a most common and prevalent
misconception of the Gétä.

POINT 8.iv:
There are countless yoga practices in the modern age, which bear similar
names to terms used in the Gétä. Unfortunately, most of these practices are
neither Vedic, authorised or effective. This is because the original Vedic
practices require great degrees of discipline, austerity and purity, whereas
modern counterparts seem to dispose of all such criteria for the sake of an
enrollment fee. They are businesses organised by unscrupulous
“so-called”yogés. Any mention of names and practices common with modern
hybrids should not be misunderstood by projecting the modern usages as a
template on Lord Kåñëa’s words. Although the terminology may be the same,
the yoga systems prescribed in the Gétä are part of the Vedic tradition and
elevate the practitioner to spiritual consciousness by standard, authorised
procedures that date back to antiquity.

53
 Chapter 4, Evidence in Support of Logic

In a discussion of the Bhagavad-gétä, participating parties must agree on the

authority upon which their analyses are made. In Western philosophy, this is
known as epistemology. According to the Vedic system, this authority of proof
is known as pramäëa. There are ten types of Vedic pramäëa, of which
çruti-pramäëa, or evidence based on scripture, is the most respected. Anumän
3,4 and 5 of the previous section (III.i) form the epistemological bases of our
arguments. Our scope of reference is limited to the Bhagavad-gétä alone.

Why Only the ?

There are two reasons to restrict reference to the Gétä. One is for the sake
of brevity, and the second is to simplify arguments and interpretations of
other texts. This will aid our focus.
According to Anumän 5, the conclusion of the Gétä concurs with that of
the Vedas. On this authority there will be no loss in making the Gétä the sole
reference. The self-evident authority of the Gétä is the theme of Anumän 4.
Other Vedic literatures are all equally self-evident, non-empirical and
transcendental in their nature. Including them as reference would expand the
breadth of this book considerably. In addition, other sources of evidence, such
as Upaniñads, Bhagavatam, etc., would need to be established as commensurate
with the devotional and personal nature of the Gétä. This would also
complicate and lengthen the presentation.
For the reasons mentioned above, limiting the source of evidence to the
Gétä makes for a simple and focused presentation.

54
 Cyclic Arguments?

Those who consider these arguments cyclical need not worry. Cyclic
arguments are the use of unproven theorems as a priori evidence for their own
proof. Quoting the Gétä to understand its content does not constitute such a
logical fallacy. Anumän 4 has established the Gétä as authority, which includes
it as authority on itself. Thus, the integrity of this approach is consistent with
the premise to date. In fact the main issue being contested is not the Gétä in as
much as Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation of it. Therefore, what better
magnifying glass to view the commentary than the actual text itself?

Further Rules of Analysis

The following are other standard rules of analysis which will recur
throughout this book. In any classical school of thought there are many
logical, grammatical and rhetorical rules to abide by. This presentation is not
meant to be so rigid. However, the following should be noted:

1. If a premise is substantiated by reference to one verse of the Gétä which

is in clear context with the entire text, then that will be accepted as the
version of the whole book itself.
2. The direct meaning of a verse or word is always accepted in preference
to an indirect meaning when in context with the entire text.
3. Indirect meanings are accepted when they maintain proper context, or
give a consistent understanding; whereas the direct meaning is secondary, if in
contradiction to the above. This means that context determines the relevancy
of direct and indirect meanings.

55
 Consisitency of the

The logic of the presentation in this book is based on the consistency of the
teachings in the Gétä (Anumän 3). Such consistency is supported by the
following evidence:
1. 18.70 and 18.74 refer to the Gétä as saàväda, or a complete conversation.
Something is complete when the message it is meant to convey is present in its
fullness. The Gétä then suggests that such a consistent message should be
adhyeñyate, or studied. (See Appendix 3.)
2. The author, Veda-Vyäsa, had divided the Gétä into 18 chapters, giving
them titles like çraddhaträya-vibhaga-yogo nama sapta-daso ‘dhyäyah (the
seventeenth chapter, entitled Divisions of Faith). This indicates that there is
a theme to each chapter.
It is commonly accepted as the version of the äcäryas that the Gétä is
divided into three sets of six chapters — these being a study of karma-yoga,
bhakti-yoga and jïäna-yoga. Conclusion? There is consistency in message
throughout each chapter.
3. According to Anumän 5, the Vedas and Gétä share a common goal,
which is knowledge of Lord Kåñëa. This reference is mentioned to show that
the actual theme, which is consistent throughout the Vedic literature as well
as the Gétä, has been mentioned and established, thus strengthening the
aforemen tioned consistency of the Gétä.

Apparent Inconsistency?

Even a cursory study of the Gétä will reveal that there are parts of the Gétä
which appear to differ. Such differences appear to negate the concept of a
consistent theme. How are such contradictions to be reconciled? In answer to

56
this, I would suggest that apparent inconsistencies may arise for varying
reasons. However, such reasons need not detract from the consistency of the
entire text. This is exemplified by the following arguments:
1. For example, in 2.26 Lord Kåñëa argues that Arjuna may view the
constitution of the soul from the point of view of the Vaibhasika atheistic
philosophers. The Lord presents this argument as a hypothetical proposal,
which He then defeats in the following verses.
2. Other examples are the varied processes, such as karma-käìda,
karma-yoga, etc., that are discussed by the Lord. Do such ideas substantiate
consistency, or verify a random discussion of many alternative processes? This
whole issue is discussed in the confirmation of Code 5. Thus, it need not be
argued in detail here. The answer, however, is that such topics contribute to
the consistency of the Gétä by adding variety and raising arguments. Opposing
ideals are presented to allay doubts, as they are defeated later, or shown to be
inferior to the ultimate goal of the Gétä. In this way the purpose and
consistency of the text are indirectly verified.
The principle in such an understanding is that both the whole and the
parts of the Vedas are Veda; however, when viewed holistically or in context,
such contradictions are resolved. Thus, a consistency of siddhänta (scriptural
conclusion) is maintained between parts of the Gétä and the whole. In fact, an
argument could be raised for a “need” for consistency in the Gétä, if it is to
maintain its status as Vedic literature.

Conclusion

It has been established that the Gétä is consistent; it has a theme and
purpose, which are served by all parts and portions of the book. Studying these
are the groundwork by which a conclusion can be arrived. Who is correct?
Çréla Prabhupäda or his critics?

57
 Chapter 5, Further Evidence: Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of
Godhead

Introduction

Anumän 1 states that Lord Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of (iodhead.

In its explanation (III.ii.a) we have elaborated only the position of a theorist
who accepts this statement as an academic exercise alone. In Anumän 2 to 5,
the Gétä speaks for itself as Vedic authority. The intent in this chapter is to
review the statement of Anumän 1 in the light of the authority of the Gétä.
The arguments regarding the nature of the Absolute Truth (by those who
accept that one exists) are as old as man’s earthly confinement. The three
basic concepts of transcendence are the personal, impersonal and void.
Practically speaking, the impersonalist and voidists can be said to be in the
same category. Among these divisions there are many variations according to
culture and scriptural authority. Even the Vedas are often quoted by differing
schools of thought to establish their own understanding. Much the same can
be said for most scriptures worldwide.
Establishing the nature of the Absolute Truth is fundamental to any
spiritual practice. An impersonal concept disposes of the ultimate need to
surrender to a Supreme Being. Apersonal one emphasises the concept of being
a servant of the Supreme. For instance, the monism of Çaìkara, known as
kevalädvaita väda, adopts a convenient intermediate personal concept of God.
However, in the ultimate issue, such a Supreme Being is disposed of for
becoming “one” with Brahman. Buddhism also accepts transitory personalised
manifestations of the “nirvänaised”void. Once again, like the monist, one
ultimately seeks to annihilate all appearances as temporary but this time in
favour of nothingness. The Vaiñëava’s personal concept of transcendence, on

58
the other hand, describes perfection as a state of loving service in an eternal
transcendental realm in a harmonic oneness with the Supreme Being.
As these concepts of the transcendental reality differ, so do approaches to
their realisation. Clearly the attitude, practice and understanding of the
student will be determined by the definition of his or her goal. It is for this
reason that we shall further define the concept of the Absolute Truth,
according to the Gétä. By this we shall standardise the approach of this study
to the Gétä and its purposes. This will give the reader a clear path, alleviating
the interweaving of different understandings that arise from differing
definitions of the Absolute. With one concept of the ultimate reality, we
confine ourselves to a corresponding line of approach — to view the Absolute
Truth as revealed by the Gétä, as follows:

1. The Gétä speaks about different features of the Absolute Truth.

2. They are described as greater or lesser manifestations, all ultimately
subordinate to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavän.
3. Subsequently, the Supreme Personality of Godhead equates Him self
with the Absolute Truth.
4. Once having established the relation between the two, namely the
Absolute Truth and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Gétä reveals
Lord Kåñëa’s position in relation to these two equal factors.
5. The conclusion is that Lord Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, the Absolute Truth, who is manifest in other subordinate features
like the localised Supersoul and impersonal Brahman, and is the source of
everything.

At the outset it must be recognised that the reasoning process contained

here is not academic but Vedic. Vedic means sdstric, or scriptural. The

59
foundation of this text would be incomplete without establishing the position
of Lord Kåñëa on the authority of the Gétä. Such an understanding will assist
the reader in following the arguments in this book. To complement this
presentation, Appendix 5 offers some additional arguments on this topic.
Although conclusive, neither presentation is exhaustive by any means.
In addition to arguing the position of Lord Kåñëa as the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, this Chapter explores the consequences of such an
understanding. As stated above, this will, of necessity, imply certain
constraints on our approach. Such constraints should not be viewed as
limiting factors, but as parameters in which to avoid confusion. Such
confusion arises from ignoring the very statements of the Gétä.

The Absolute Truth

The traditional nomenclature for the Absolute Truth in Vedic literature is

brahman, paratattva or param satyam. The meaning, literally translated, is “the
Supreme Truth”. The words are sufficiently descriptive and, while they
require definition, they clearly convey the concept of that which is Supreme,
indicating that nothing is superior. Lord Kåñëa uses common terminology in
the Gétä such as param and brahman. These words translate in more detail as
“supreme” and “the greatest”, respectively. In studying the Gétä, we shall find
that these words are used to describe different concepts of transcendence —
not just one. By understanding these concepts of the Supreme, we can come to
an understanding of what Lord Kåñëa explains to be the Absolute Truth. For
example, in verse 17.23, Lord Kåñëa makes a categorical statement:

oà tad sad id nirdeço brahmaëas tri-vidhaù småtah...

From the beginning of creation, the three syllables oà tat sat have been used to
indicate the Supreme Absolute Truth (Brahman)...

60
 Here, the Absolute Truth is indicated by the word brahman. Although the
words oà tat sat represent that brahman, we have no further information as to
what that Absolute Truth is.

Absolute Truth as Brahman

There are many statements about brahman in the Gétä. We shall quote a
few and then put the different meanings into context.
1. In 14.3, Kåñëa states: mama yonir mahad-brahma...

The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth, and it is that
Brahman that I impregnate, making possible the births of all living beings, O son of
Bharata.

This reference is to the primordial material energy before variegatedness is

manifest, prior to the impregnation of the living entities and their destinies
via the glance of the Lord. It is otherwise known as mahat-tattva.

2. In answer to Arjuna’s question in Chapter 8 to define Brahman, Kåñëa states:

akñaraà brahma paramaà...

The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman... (8.3)

In this verse we have yet another definition of Brahman, and that is the
original unfettered nature of the living entity.

3. Chapter 4 gives yet another version: “...brahmägnäu... “, identifying

sacrifice as brahman. (4.25)
4. The akñara brahma from Chapter Eight is vividly elaborated upon in its
all-pervasive feature in verse 12.3-4. Herein it is the brahmajyoti, the
unmanifest feature of the Absolute Truth.

61
 5. And yet again Lord Kåñëa uses the term Brahman to describe the
all-pervasive Supersoul in 13.13 with the words:

...brahma na sat tan näsad ucyate

These quotations have not been made to confuse the reader, although
without proper guidance it is clear that confusion could arise. Summarising,
we now have Brahman as being:

1. the sum total of matter (mahat-tattva)

2. the living entity
3. sacrifice
4. the all pervading brahmajyoti, and
5. the Supersoul.

And that is not all! The Gétä describes other Brahman aspects, further
expanding our investigation. To arrive at a clear understanding of what
Brahman is, we need to study the definitions that have been given above.
There are two significant alternatives upon which to draw.

1. If all Brahman concepts are on a par, then we must accept a monistic

concept of the Absolute Truth, where each aspect is as good as another.
2. The alternative is that such study reveals a hierarchy of Brahman
features, indicating variegatedness in the realm of transcendence and a clearly
personalised concept of the Absolute Truth.

Different Forms of Brahman

62
 While studying the Gétä we shall find that, although terminology in
referring to the Absolute is one, nowhere does Kåñëa equate all features of
Brahman. Rather, we see that the five features of Brahman mentioned above
are but varied aspects of Lord Kåñëa. By His own statements, Kåñëa establishes
any other Brahman feature as being subordinate to Him. Such analysis then
qualifies Kåñëa to be referred to by Arjuna as the Supreme Brahman.
A basic teaching of the Gétä is that the Absolute Truth is all-pervading
(...tatam idaàsarvam jagat... 9.4). Therefore, as mentioned earlier, in addition
to these five, we could quote other verses to relate everything to Brahman.
However, that Brahman, although everywhere, has a qualitative difference in
its manifestations. In manifesting as material nature, it takes one form; as the
living entity, another. When activities are done in pure spiritual
consciousness, they are known as sacrifice, which is also Brahman. The
all-pervasive impersonal feature of Brahman is the resting place of everything.
And the all-pervasive personal manifestation (..puruñottama... 15.19), the
overseer of the creation, is the Supersoul. The gradations of Brahman are
confirmed in the following way:

1. In 13.32, it is explained that the pure living entity is transcendental to

material nature. This means that the jéva brahman is superior to Brahman as
mahat-tattva.
2. In 4.24, the elements of sacrifice are explained as being Brahman.
However, there is an interdependence between the object and the
consciousness by which it is employed. Thus, although all matter is Brahman,
it has a categorically higher position on the basis of its utility. That means that
sacrifice is superior to inert matter, although they are both Brahman.
Furthermore, since that sacrifice is dependent on the consciousness of the jéva
brahman, or living entity, the jéva brahman is even higher than both sacrifice
and matter.

63
 3. In the Twelfth Chapter, the unmanifest brahmajyoti is the subject of
meditation for liberation by the jïäné (speculator). If emancipation is the
result of becoming one with that Brahman, then the brahmajyoti is higher than
jéva brahman.
4. The same brahmajyoti is described in the Twelfth and Fourteenth
Chapters, but the Fifteenth Chapter begins by explaining that knowledge of
the Supersoul is considered to be more “confidential” knowledge than any
thus far explained. This indicates that brahman as paramätmäis higher than
brahman as brahmajyoti.

In addition, the akñaräbrahman, referring to the Supersoul in 15.18, is

superior (..uttama...) to all living entities, whether liberated or conditioned.
These are but a sampling of the many statements that confirm the different
grades of Brahman. From these the superiority of one category over another is
confirmed. We are left with the conclusion that all Brahman states are not
one — the Absolute Truth manifests in different states, all referred to as
Brahman.
Through the process of induction we are obliged to conclude that there is
one Brahman which manifests itself in different degrees, as confirmed by the
words of the Gétä. We have yet to identify that Absolute Truth, Who is the
source of all categories.

All Forms of Brahman Subordinate to Kåñëa

Having shown that the Absolute Truth, Brahman, is manifest in many

graded features, we must find out what the ultimate form of Brahman is,
beyond which there is nothing superior. The verses we refer to now show that
all the forms of Brahman mentioned earlier are subordinate to Lord Kåñëa.

64
 In 14.27 and 12.2, the brahmajyoti is described as a dependent, subordinate
manifestation of Kåñëa. In 13.13, the Supersoul is described as being
subordinate to Lord Kåñëa. However, since all other Brahman features are
subordinate to the brahmajyoti and paramätmä, we can conclude that all
Brahman features are subordinate to Lord Kåñëa.
The occasional argument is raised that Kåñëa is referring to Himself as a
manifestation of some subordinate Brahman feature. However, this is quite
contradictory to the exhaustive elucidation by which He carefully establishes
an existing hierarchy within the manifestations of Brahman. If at this point
His use of the word mam becomes arbitrary, then the previous categorisation
becomes meaningless. Thus, we must accept that the Personality of Çré Kåñëa
is superior to all Brahman manifestations.
We shall now take our argument into a different realm. We need not keep
to apparently relative descriptions of Brahman to establish Kåñëa’s supremacy.
There are, rather, many absolute statements which clearly show Kåñëa as
being supreme to all things, including all categories of Brahman.

Kåñëa as Supreme Brahman

To begin, we quote Arjuna’s realisation in the Tenth Chapter. Therein he

refers to Lord Kåñëa as ...parambrahman..., or the “Supreme Brahman”. This is
a new introduction of terminology. We have heard of Brahman, but never a
Param Brahman, or a Supreme Brahman. Does this indicate some sort of
uniqueness on Kåñëa’s behalf? In the Seventh Chapter, Kåñëa has stated,
mataù parataraà nänyat..., “there is no truth superior to Me...”.
This is as absolute a statement as can be made. Kåñëa and Arjuna have both
explained a distinction in Brahman features. Such quantitative gradations
find their summit in Lord Kåñëa, Who is standing and speaking before Arjuna
as his friend and guide.

65
 Kåñëa has ruled out anything being superior to Him. Paramätmä, the
brahmajyoti, nature and the living entities are subordinate to Him. As Param
Brahman, we must conclude that He is the original feature of an Absolute
Truth that has varied manifestations.
One should not think that Kåñëa’s Form is a compromise to His supremacy.
Rather He states that His paraà bhävam, or supreme nature and supreme
dominion, are fully manifest as being non-different from His Form and
Personality. One who does not accept this is ridiculed by Kåñëa by use of the
word müòhä. (9.11)
Neither should we think that this Form and Personality are the
manifestation of some other feature of Brahman, like the brahmajyoti. We
have already substantiated earlier that all other forms of Brahman are
subordinate to Kåñëa. In addition, Kåñëa substantiates this argument in 7.24,
stating that His Form and Personality are not a product of the unmanifest
Brahman.

Conclusion

In conformity with the previous sections, we now conclude that Lord

Kåñëa, who is known as the Supreme Brahman, is the resting place and origin
of all manifestations of Brahman. That means that He is the original form of
the Absolute Truth. In referring to Lord Kåñëa as the pararhbrahman, Arjuna
also refers to Him aspuruñaàçäçvataà divyam, or the original transcendental
person. The two phrases are connected as parts of a complete description. In
numerous places Kåñëa confirms His identity as the Supreme Person (15.19,
5.29, 9.10, 10.8, 15.15, 14.3 etc.). Combining these descriptions, we now
understand that the Absolute Truth is Lord Kåñëa, who is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead.

66
 The Consequences of this Chapter

Some may consider the above exercise superfluous, as it is our primary

Anumän. Due to the importance of the statement that Kåñëa is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead and the Absolute Truth, I have gone to some length to
emphasise its scriptural authenticity. By it I have sought to establish a greater
emphasis on the words of Lord Kåñëa, to assist the reader in his or her overall
understanding.
As Kåñëa is the Absolute Lord, His statements are equally Absolute. The
inherent nature of the Absolute is to overshadow all relativities. If
Bhagavad-gétä has an Absolute message, a true student should try to seek out
what that message is. What is the Gétäs goal, theme and points?
Not only is one obliged to search out the Lord’s message, but subjective and
relative understandings become secondary at best, and irrelevant in most
cases. This is clear in light of the fact that our position is much akin to that
portrayed by Arjuna — a conditioned living entity, struggling in the throes of
material life. We can do away with our own speculation as to what verses
mean, since our relative interpretations will not be able to grasp the Absolute
nature of the text.
Thus, the process is to try and understand the Gétä in a humble and
submissive attitude, as Arjuna has done (Anumän 7). After all, Arjuna did
grasp the meaning of Kåñëa’s instructions without any other opinion. In
following Arjuna’s lead, we should understand the Gétä and execute Kåñëa’s
will as he did.
By accepting Kåñëa’s absolute position, we...

1. accept the Absolute nature of the Gétä.

67
 2. must try to understand the Lord’s will through it.
3. can discard subjective (relative) interpretations.

Having briefly explained these points, we shall now analyse the actual
premise of logic in the following chapters.

Chapter 6, Code 1: The Theme of the Gita

Proposition

Code 1: The theme of the Bhagavad-gétä is how to free oneself from the
bewildering materialistic condition of life, known as the “bodily concept”.

Argument — The Theme

Few critics will argue that Code 1 does not reflect the theme of the Gétä.
Although there are numerous arguments, I feel confident that in principle all
scholars accept the above statement. Appendix 6 explains the same point
based on the Fifteenth Chapter.
Arjuna is in a dilemma. Forced by circumstances, he is on the verge of
having to fight against his relatives and loved ones (1.44). Distressed, he puts
his bow aside (1.46), expecting sympathy from his closest friend, Kåñëa.
Instead, Kåñëa not only disapproves of his kind-heartedness (2.2, 3) but
68
ridicules him (2.11) publicly. Torn by compassion and Kåñëa’s direction,
Arjuna is overwhelmed, bewildered and disheartened (2.7). In such a
condition, he turns to Kåñëa as his spiritual master and surrenders to Him.
Arjuna desires to be free of illusion and understand what his duty is, beyond a
shadow of a doubt.
Turning to the end of the last Chapter (18.73), Arjuna declares that his
illusion is dispelled and he will act according to the will of the Lord. Why?
Because he realises that Lord Kåñëa’s purpose and will are infallible, and his
duty is to abide by them alone.

The Text

The pages between verses 2.7 and 18.73 are the means by which Lord Kåñëa
has instructed Arjuna and dissipated his doubt and illusion. What is that
illusion? Illusion means to accept something that is unreal as real or the
temporary for the permanent (2.16). In the Second Chapter Lord Kåñëa
immediately identifies this illusion as false identification with the temporary
body (2.11-2.29). Basing one’s actions on this foundation causes bewilderment
by the illusory energy (13.22), and one’s direction in life is lost. Doubt arises
due to contaminated intelligence, brought about by illusion (4.41), as a result
of which one engages in all kinds of activities, according to one’s conditioned
nature (13.21). These activities begin with selfish work (vikarma), then
karma-käëòa, karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga and, finally, haöha-yoga. Religion,
liberation, sense gratification and economic development (4.13) reach their
perfectional platform when one is directed by transcendental knowledge
(4.41) of Lord Kåñëa’s opulences and activities in loving devotional service
(18.66).
We, like Arjuna, are all bewildered by the bodily concept of life and are
unclear about what our real duty in life is, especially in relation to the
Supreme. We need simply to surrender to Lord Kåñëa, the Supreme spiritual

69
teacher, and His instructions, the Bhagavad-gétä, and we will be free from all
illusion. That is the sum and substance of the Gétä.

Chapter Summary

As mentioned above, there is rarely controversy about the theme of the

Gétä. Disagreement arises in analysing how that theme is arrived at, how
Kåñëa convinces Arjuna, what is His reasoning and logic? The two preceding
paragraphs summarise the Gauòéya Vaiñëava ‘s understanding. The chapters
that follow argue the relative merits of the other positions.

Conclusion of this Chapter: Code 1 is Confirmed

From the short argument above, it may be readily accepted that Code I is
confirmed.
Code 1: The theme of the Bhagavad-gétä is how to free oneself from the
bewildering materialistic condition of life, known as the “bodily concept”.

Chapter 7, Code 2: Different Paths of Approach to the Problem

Proposition

Code 2: The solution to the false bodily conception of life and its
consequent problems can be approached by karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga,
añöäìga-yoga and bhakti-yoga.

Argument — Approaching the Problem

In Code 1 the theme of the Gétä, illusion due to the bodily conception of

70
life, acquired by prolonged material association, has been identified. Such
illusion leads to bewilderment in one’s duty (dharma-sammüòha) and weakness
of heart. In verse 2.7, Arjuna reaches a crisis and surrenders to the Lord as a
disciple. He requests the Lord to instruct him as to what is the best (çreyah,
long term righteous act) thing for him to do.
Arjuna has recognised that he has a problem and is not competent to solve
it by himself, despite his espousing so many religious formulae. He thus turns
to the Lord for a solution. The rest of the Bhagavad-gétä addresses this request
of Arjuna — çädhi mäà, “instruct me”.

Approaches and Solutions

Code 1 specifically uses the word “approach”.

We are obviously looking for the solution Lord Kåñëa offers. That solution
is the meaning and goal of the Gétä. The Gétä offers many differing paths in its
presentation. Are they all solutions, only some, or just one? Whatever such
paths are, they are certainly relevant to the solution, as established by
Anumän 3. The first step is to treat all paths as approaches to the solution.
Now, let us see what the approaches to this problem are.
Once again, the reader is requested to bear in mind that the following are
not proposals for different solutions, but rather different approaches. The
distinction between the two is that a solution is obviously the answer to a
problem. An approach is a different perspective, or means, by which to
achieve the end, the solution.

Different Approaches

This subsection shows the different yoga paths that Lord Kåñëa offers
Arjuna as possible approaches to the solution of his problem. The reader is

71
reminded that Lord Kåñëa is speaking in response to Arjuna’s request that He
free him from the bewilderment he is facing. In that light different yoga paths
as offered by the Lord may be seen as alternative approaches. What are these
alternative topics of the Gétä?
The Gétä is commonly known to be divided into three categories. These are
the karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga and bhakti-yoga sections. The first six chapters
describe karma-yoga; the next six, bhakti-yoga; and the last six, jïäna. This in
itself constitutes a plurality of approaches. Analysing each chapter closer, it
may readily be seen that while Chapter One sets the scene for the text,
Chapter Two summarises the Gétä, and Chapter Three deals with
karma-kanda and sakäma*7(2) karma-yoga. The Fourth Chapter explains
transcendental knowledge by which work, duly directed, is known as niñkäma
[niñkäma karma-yoga is karma-yoga performed without attachment to results]
karma-yoga, which is the topic of the Fifth Chapter.

1. Investigating the fourth and fifth verses of the Fifth Chapter, Lord Kåñëa
emphasises the parallel utility of yoga (karma-yoga) and säìkhya (jïäna-yoga) as
alternate approaches. Let us briefly follow His logic:

säìkhya-yogau påthag bäläù pravadanti na paëòitäùekam

apy ästhitaù samyag ubhayor vindate phalam
yat säìkhyaiù präpyate sthänaà tad yogair api gamyate
ekaà säìkhyaà ca yogaà ca yaù paçyati sa paçyati

Only the ignorant speak of devotional service as being different from the analytical
study of the material world (säìkhya). Those who are actually learned say that he
who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both. (5.4)

One who knows that the position reached by means of analytical study can also be
attained by works in devotional service, and who therefore sees analytical study and
devotional service to be on the same level, sees things as they are. (5.5)

The Lord speaks of a phalam, or result, equally attainable by ubhayoù, or

72
both processes. In the subsequent verse the same point is emphasised. This is
confirmation that both karma and jïäna are approaches to the problem.

2. Without quoting the Sanskrit, we may refer to 6.2. Here, Kåñëa refers to another
yoga, añöäìga-yoga, as being as instrumental as renunciation in linking with the
Supreme. Without a detailed definition of yoga, agreement may readily be achieved
that a yogéis a spiritual practitioner aspiring to solve life’s problems and approach the
Absolute Truth. Thus, añöäìga-yoga is also an approach to the Absolute.

The result of the above is that karma, jïäna and yoga are at least three
confirmed alternative approaches.

3. Chapters 7-12 have been identified as the “devotional chapters” of the Gétä. Of
these, 7 to 11 describe degrees of knowledge about Lord Kåñëa by which devotion is
aroused, while Chapter 12 clearly delineates bhakti-yoga as the means for “attaining
Me (Kåñëa)” (12.20).

From the brief study above, it is clear that the Gétä offers four paths as a
means to solving Arjuna’s dilemma. These means have been qualified as
approaches, distinct from solutions. Çréla Prabhupäda’s critics readily approve
of such a pluralistic approach, as reflected in the Arguments 1 - 5, as opposed
to the uniquely bhakti approach.

Chapter Summary

Before concluding this chapter, I would like to review the use of the
terminology: approach vs. solution. In the previous sections it has been
mentioned that this chapter does not argue the ultimate function of different
yoga systems. Whether they are intermediate steps to, or alternate forms of, a
solution is left to be resolved in the following chapters.
The claim of some critics is that the Gétä offers a multiplicity of solutions to
Arjuna’s problems. The logic of this section is that, taking this pluralistic view
of karma, jïäna, yoga and bhakti as all acceptable solutions, then they must at

73
least qualify as approaches to the problem. Otherwise, their presence in the
Gétä would be completely superfluous. In other words, an approach is included
within a solution. Thus, in the least of circumstances, these topics of the Gétä
can be accepted as approaches. That is self-evident from the quotations cited
above. Whether they are all solutions or not is a topic for the next section of
this paper.

Conclusion of this Chapter: Code 2 is Confirmed

Code 2: The solution to the false bodily conception of life and its
consequent problems can be approached by karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga,
añöäìga-yoga and bhakti-yoga.

Chapter 8, Code 3: The Solution is Possible Only Through

Bhakti-yoga

Proposition

Code 3: The actual solution to the problems of life is complete realisation of one’s
original spiritual nature. This is possible only by bhakti-yoga.

Argument — Introduction

In Chapters Six and Seven, the theme of the Gétä, the materialist’s
dilemma and the varied processes of approaching its solution have been
discussed. The conclusion of Chapter Seven has been to accept the paths of
karma, jïäna, yoga and bhakti as preparatory processes which may be distinct
from, but qualify one to adopt, the solution.

74
 An obvious question follows: If these topics (karma, jïäna, etc.) are merely
a means, what is the solution itself? The conviction of this author is that
bhakti-yoga and only bhakti-yoga can completely solve one’s problems in life
and revive one’s dormant spiritual identity. The proof of this conviction is
presented from two perspectives.
The first is a thorough analysis of the verses of the Gétä to elicit its natural
opinion on the subject. Although this will suffice for the devotees, for others it
may not. There is no end to the process of argumentation — theses and
antitheses will certainly abound.
The second method is recorded in the subsection entitled The System of
Jaimini in Chapter X. This is a standard literary process of analysing the
content of a text. The common conclusion of the two processes will be a
verification of Code 3.
Chapters VIII to X comprise the main thrust of preparatory arguments in
this book. Chapters IX and X clarify that the other processes of karma, jïäna
and yoga are meant to lead one to bhakti — the phalaà, or fruit, of their
endeavours. This specific design of the Lord is engineered to attract
practitioners of these disciplines to His devotional service. This section does
not analyse why other processes are not the solution to life’s problems. That
theme is the topic of discussion in the following chapter.
One may opine that an alternative approach would be to establish a
solution by a process of elimination. This would segregate any practice that is
not the solution and automatically define that which is. I reply that the verses
of the Gétä are so self-evident that, in quoting them to eliminate alternatives,
the obvious answer is implied without explanation. Thus, a detailed analysis in
a subsequent chapter would eclipse the dramatic presentation of Lord Kåñëa.

Proposed Flow of Logic

75
 Before proceeding further, additional concepts require introduction. These
are the Corollaries, or logical sequential progressions, that conclude in the
validation of a Code. Because of the simplicity of the arguments in deriving
Code 1 and 2, Corollaries have not been introduced until now. The
confirmation of Code 3 will require a more detailed analysis for which
Corollaries are necessary. These Corollaries are the basis of evidence in the
derivation of other Codes and the inevitable conclusions of this book.
The Corollaries for Code 3 are listed below. They will be verified in the
subsections entitled Arguments.
3.1 Bewilderment is due to illusion or ignorance.
3.2 A solution to Arjuna’s problem must be based on knowledge.
3.3 Knowledge means understanding the Absolute Truth.
3.4 The Absolute Truth is Lord Çré Kåñëa.
3.5 Bhagavad-gétä is the means for understanding the will of the Lord.
3.6 Solving the problems of life is included in, and is an element of,
knowledge.
3.7 The solution comprises:

1) recognising the problem

2) identifying the goal (the Absolute Truth)
3) the solution itself, ananya-bhakti, as a means of knowing
Him.

3.8 Kåñëa is only known by unalloyed devotion.

3.9 Unalloyed devotion as the solution means that other things (karma,

76
jïäna, etc.) are not conducive for solving the problem. (They are meant to
approach the problem.)
3.10 Bhakti is independent of other yoga systems and superior to them.
3.11 Bhakti-yoga is not only the means for knowing Kåñëa, but also for
coming to Kåñëa.
3.12 The nature of devotion is to induce the Lord to reciprocate with His
devotees’ service; this is known as revelation.
3.13 That revelation is the understanding that we are spiritual entities,
distinct from this world, part and parcel of Lord Kåñëa and His servants. It is
this knowledge by which one becomes attached to the Lord and detached from
the world; that is the solution to life’s problems.
3.14 All problems of life and problems in executing bhakti are overcome by
the grace of Kåñëa.
3.15 If one rejects His grace, acting under ignorance, one will continue to
suffer.
3.16 This understanding is the final conclusion of the Vedas.

For the sake of simplicity, the above Corollaries can be summarised into
four group divisions. These will be argued individually and are listed as follows:

1. (Corollaries 1-6) A solution can be effected only through knowledge and

knowledge as defined in the Gétä contains the solution.
2. (Corollaries 7-12) That solution which attracts Kåñëa and is
independent of other yoga systems is unalloyed devotion.
3. (Corollaries 13-15) How bhakti solves the problem.

77
 4. (Corollary 16) This is also the conclusion of all the Vedas.
The four group divisions containing the 16 Corollaries are presented as
Arguments 1-4 in the following subsections. As the Corollaries are proven,
they will be mentioned as “concluded” or recorded in parentheses, or both.

Argument 1: A Solution can be Effected Only Through Knowledge,

and Knowledge as Defined in the Contains the Solution

Argument 1 is described by its title. It comprises the confirmations of

Corollaries 1 to 6. They are presented as follows:

Knowledge of Kåñëa Dissipates Ignorance

Chapter Six, as evidence for Code 1, has explained the predicament of

Arjuna.
Verse 2.7 reveals Arjuna’s problem as bewilderment regarding the proper
discharge of duty. Such bewilderment is caused by ignorance. Further,
according to the symptoms of ignorance given in the Fourteenth Chapter, its
origins can be traced to a lack of knowledge. Synthesising these formulae
yields the conclusion that Arjuna’s bewilderment is due to a lack of
knowledge. As a consequence, he is unable to find a solution to his
predicament. This is the confirmation of Corollary 3.1.
The converse of Corollary 3.1 implies that the solution to any problem must
be based on knowledge. All activity requires knowledge for its understanding,
performance and completion. Similarly, the solution to bewilderment must be
based on knowledge. Ignorance cannot resolve a situation which was caused by
the very same thing. This confirms Corollary 3.2.

78
 The Definition of Knowledge

In the 13th Chapter of the Bhagavad-gétä, Lord Kåñëa has thoroughly

defined what knowledge is. In fact, He states at the end of verses 8-12 that
anything which lies outside the aforementioned definition is ignorance. These
verses may be accepted as a comprehensive definition of the system by which
the solution may be understood. A close scrutiny in reading these verses will
show this definition to be more encompassing than we may have expected.
Verses 13.8-12 are recorded below.

1. amänitvam adambhitvam ahiàsä kñäntir ärjavam

2. äcäryopäsanaàçaucaà sthairyam ätma-vinigrahaù
3. indriyärtheñu vairägyam anahaìkära eva ca
4. janma-måtyu-jarä-vyädhi-duùkha-doñänudarçanam
5. asaktir anabhiñvaìgah putra-dära-gåhädiñu
6. nityaà ca sama-cittatvam iñöäniñöopapattiñu
7. mayi cänanya-yogena bhaktir avyabhicäriëé
8. vivikta-deça-sevitvam aratir jana-saàsadi
9. adhyätma-jïäna-nityatvaà tattva-jïänärtha-darçanam
10. etaj jïänam iti proktam ajïänaà yad ato ‘nyathä

Humility; pridelessness; non-violence; tolerance; simplicity; approaching a bona fide

spiritual master; cleanliness; steadiness; self-control; renunciation of the objects of
sense gratification; absence of false ego; the perception of the evil of birth, death, old
age and disease; detachment; freedom from entanglement with children, wife, home

79
 and the rest; even-mindedness amid pleasant and unpleasant events; constant and
unalloyed devotion to Me; aspiring to live in a solitary place; detachment from the
general mass of people; accepting the importance of self-realisation; and
philosophical search for the Absolute Truth, — all these I declare to be knowledge,
and besides this whatever there may be is ignorance.

The Sanskrit verses have been numbered for reference only. By an analysis
of these verses, information relevant to this investigation may be unearthed.
As a result, Corollaries 3.3-3.6 will be confirmed through the study of these
verses.
Line 1 delineates the personable character qualities, symptomatic of
knowledge.
Lines 2 & 3 generally deal with renunciation, the conditions for acquiring
further knowledge and the result of its acquisition. The approaching of a
spiritual master is the medium through which knowledge is achieved.
Lines 4-6 are especially relevant in that they delineate the perception of
the problems of life which are categorised as being general (4), specific, as they
relate to Arjuna (5), and categorical (6). This very clearly parallels Code 1, the
theme of the Gétä. Thus, an essential element of the definition of knowledge is
revealed as the solution to the problems of life, confirming Corollary 3.6. As
this is found within the pages of the Gétä, Corollary 3.5 is also verified. Lines
1-3 can be considered to be of secondary importance in comparison to 4-6. The
former are preliminary requisites, and the latter are problems to be addressed
by their acquisition.
Line 7 describes the process of bhakti-yoga as an element of knowledge.
Line 8 explains the circumstances favourable for acquiring knowledge.
Line 9 connects the search for self-realisation with the Absolute Truth. It
has been mentioned earlier (4-6) that ignorance, which is bewilderment of our
identity, is the root cause of suffering. Now knowledge is defined to include

80
the search for one’s own identity and the identity of the Absolute Truth. This
is confirmation of Corollary 3.3.
In addition, according to Anumän 1, that Absolute Truth has already been
defined as being Lord Kåñëa. In this way, Corollary 3.4 is also confirmed.

The Solution is Contained in Knowledge

It is academic to argue that the knowledge contained in the Bhagavad-gétä

constitutes the solution to Arjuna’s problem. In verse 18.73, Arjuna states
nañöaù mohaù, my illusion is now dispelled. This is confirmation of the above
statement. If knowledge contains the solution, then the definition of
knowledge should also indicate the nature of that solution. The conclusion is
that the verses defining knowledge must hold the key to our quest.

The Process of Knowledge

Before continuing further, there is a need to qualify the definition of

knowledge, as quoted above (lines 1-7). The question may arise whether it is
actually knowledge that is being defined here. Knowledge would be expected
to be a singular definition of an absolute fact. Here, the Gétä has spoken about
the character quality and behaviour necessary to acquire knowledge, the
perception of the material world, circumstances under which knowledge is
acquired, the search for the absolute truth, and so on. This definition,
although referred to by Lord Kåñëa as jïäna, is more generally termed the
“process of knowledge” by Çréla Prabhupäda. Such terminology extends the
boundaries of the above-mentioned definition. The extended limits of such a
definition include essential factors through which knowledge is acquired, its
symptoms and consequences. Although such a redefinition broadens the scope
of the usage of the word jïäna, it does not intrinsically change it.

81
 Summary

The above has confirmed Corollaries 3.1-3.6, the first of four arguments
that constitute the verification of Code 3. Argument 1 states that a solution
can only be effected through knowledge; and knowledge, as defined in the
Gétä, contains the solution.
Argument 2: That Solution is Unalloyed Devotion, Which is Independent
of Other Yoga Systems and also Attracts Kåñëa

This argument comprises the confirmations of Corollaries 7 to 12. They are

presented as follows:

— The Solution

In summarising the 10 lines of verses 13.8-12, I have purposefully neglected

to comment on line 7. The topic of this line is bhakti-yoga, an element of
knowledge.
The purpose of this subsection is to understand line 7 in context with the
rest of the verse. Lines 1, 2, 3 and 8 describe conditions under which
knowledge is acquired. They have been mentioned earlier as secondary
elements and for the purposes of this analysis are not dealt with.
It has been described earlier (Corollary 3.1) that knowledge exists to
eradicate illusion. Thus, knowledge is the means by which the solution to all
problems of life are solved. A solution thus constitutes,

1. recognition of a problem (lines 4-6)

2. identifying the goal, the Absolute Truth (8-9)

82
 3. and the solution itself

What remains is to search out the process by which a problem is solved in

this definition. It should be noted again that the secondary elements don’t
describe a process but conditions, circumstances and results. However, line 7,
describing unalloyed and uninterrupted devotion, is found in a strategic
position and fulfils the criteria of a process. It is strategic because its position
precedes the goal of knowing the Absolute Truth, and it is the last procedure
described in the verse. What is stated last is generally accepted as being of
greatest importance.
Secondly, it is naturally situated between what is clearly established as the
problem (4-6) and the goal (8-9). The two parameters mentioned are
contextual confirmations of line 7, fulfilling the criteria of a solution.
In addition to viewing this solution as a necessity for continuity, a more
substantial perspective is derived below.
The parameters mentioned above refer to conditions and symptoms of
knowledge. However, none of them constitute, by themselves, a practice
which cultivates knowledge and thus eradicates illusion. Line 7 is the only
verse that offers a procedure, generally known as sädhana, or practice, and
thus actually qualifies as a solution. An additional method of analysis is to find
the solution through the process of elimination. Both the goal and problem
have been identified in the other lines. Where is the solution? By the process
of elimination, no other element in the verses qualifies as a solution.
One may argue that line 7 does not necessarily have to be the solution and
could be something else. But then the definition of knowledge would be
incomplete. This incompleteness would be reflected in two ways.

1. The very definition that Kåñëa presents in 13.8-12 of the process of knowledge
includes the understanding of the problems of life. If the verses did not offer the

83
 solution to that problem, the entire presentation of jïäna would become
meaningless. In fact, the relevance of the Gétä being a practically applicable text
would be called into question.

2. If the solution is not in verses 13.8-12, then it is elsewhere. However, Kåñëa

concludes His definition by stating that any thing not contained in this definition is
ignorance. Since ignorance cannot contain a solution to our problems, Lord Kåñëa
has pre-empted this alternative.

Therefore, unalloyed and uninterrupted devotional service is the solution

to the problems of life. It is the means for knowing the Absolute Truth, Lord
Çré Kåñëa.
In this way, Corollary 3.7 has been confirmed.

Other References in the

One may reasonably inquire about further confirmation of the conclusion

arrived at from the verses of the Thirteenth Chapter. Does the Gétä refer to
unalloyed devotion as the means to know Lord Kåñëa?
The answer to this question is a resounding yes. What follows is a quote
from the Eleventh Chapter, verse 54:

bhaktyä tv ananyayäçakya aham evaà-vidho ‘rjuna

jïätuà drañöum ca tattvena praveñöuà ca parantapa

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.

Understanding Kåñëa means to understand what He is offering as a

solution to Arjuna’s dilemma. In this verse the statements by the Lord are
crystal clear. The context is consistent with the rest of the book. After

84
revealing the universal form, His four-handed and finally His two-handed
form, Lord Kåñëa explains how one can pravestum, enter into jnatum — an
understanding of Him. In Chapter 10 of the Gétä, Lord Kåñëa has already been
established as the Supreme. Verse 54 is consistent with the theme of Chapter
11 and the book, being a revelation of Lord Kåñëa’s identity and the means for
knowing Him. Verses 53 and 55 highlight in further detail the points made in
54. Thus, the consistency of this verse with the entire text is clearly upheld.
Çréla Prabhupäda explains the word tu (“but”) as being significant. This
indicates that no process other than ananya bhakti is çakyaù, effective for
knowing Him. This makes it very clear that devotional service is the only
means to understand the Lord.
There may be a doubt regarding what “knowing” Kåñëa implies in this
verse. This doubt is in reference to the supremacy of His two-handed form.
Some may argue that the two-handed form is a subordinate feature of a higher
aspect. One need only study the sequence of forms manifest by Kåñëa to
answer this question. Originally, Kåñëa was present in His two-handed form
on Arjuna’s chariot. Subsequently, lie has shown the universal form, followed
by His four-handed form. In 11.54, Kåñëa states evaà-vidho, “like this”,
indicating that all other features of the Absolute are contained in this form.
Verses 11.52 and 11.53 confirm that the two-handed form is difficult to see by
the demigods who were able to see the universal form. Arjuna’s preference of
the two-handed form is also important, for it is related to his understanding of
Kåñëa as param brahman in verse 10.12.
Thus “knowing” Kåñëa indicates knowledge of the original two-handed
form.
The reservation in regard to the limiting criteria of “knowing” Kåñëa can
be laid safely to rest. Verse 11.54 can be accepted as complete evidence to
verify that it is only ananya bhakti that serves to know Kåñëa. Other
references to this ananya bhakti as the means for achieving the Lord are 8.14,

85
8.22, 9.22, 12.6.
The conclusion is that throughout the Gétä it is confirmed that Lord Kåñëa
is only known through unalloyed devotional service. This is verification of
Corollary 3.8.

The Meaning of

In the quotes above, the usage of the word ananya has significant
implications when preceding the word bhakti. It functions as an exclusive
qualifier upon the nature of devotional service. It is translated throughout the
Gétä as unalloyed, having no other object and without division. Taken
literally, the most general meaning of ananya is “not anything else”. The
common understanding of all these translations is that only devotional service
unmixed with anything else qualifies as the solution to life’s problems. The
implication of “anything else” means anything other than bhakti.
What are these other things? Karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga and añöäìga-yoga.
Two conclusions may be arrived at from the usage of this word ananya.

1. If unalloyed devotion is required to understand Kåñëa, then those

things which alloy bhakti, namely karma, jïäna, and yoga, act as
obstacles to the natural function of devotion—the sole means to know
Kåñëa. If, when mixed with bhakti, they are an obstacle to the fulfilment
of bhakti, then independent of bhakti they certainly will be deficient for
achieving the same end.Thus, although other yoga systems may be
effective as approaches, bringing one to bhakti, they are ineffective as
solutions, either partially or completely.
This is clear confirmation of Corollary 3.9.

2. If bhakti needs to be unalloyed to achieve its desired end, then it is

86
 obviously independent of its potential admixtures, i.e., karma-yoga, etc.
Thus, it is independent in delivering the result of its practice —
knowledge of Lord Kåñëa.

This second point is the confirmation of Corollary 3.10. Summarising the

above: karma, jïäna and yoga are not sufficient, nor helpful, for a complete
understanding of the Supreme Lord. Neither is bhakti dependent or enhanced
by their presence. Rather, the opposite is implied. The potency of bhakti is
impaired by such admixtures.

Coming to Kåñëa

Chapters 9 andl 8 contain two very similar verses regarding the topic of
bhakti as the means for knowing Kåñëa. They are verses 9.34 and 18.65, below:

man-manä bhava mad-bhakto mad-yäjé mäà namaskuru

mäm evaiñyasi yuktvaivam ätmänaà mat-paräyaëaù

man-manä bhava mad-bhakto mad-yäjé mäà namaskuru

mäm evaiñyasi satyaà te pratijäne priyo ’si me

These verses are important for two reasons:

1. The repetition that occurs in the first line of both verses is generally considered
a literary flaw. In philosophy, literary rules are overshadowed by norms that
facilitate ease of understanding and clarity of argument. In this case, repetition is
utilised by Lord Kåñëa to achieve emphasis. What is it that Lord Kåñëa is repeating?

Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your

obeisances to Me.
Put simply, “become My devotee.” Does He outline a procedure for
becoming a devotee? Yes. Three elements of that practice are described:

87
 1. Always think of Me,
2. Become My devotee,
3. Worship Me.

The common message one hears from these three instructions of the Lord is
“practice bhakti-yoga. “
2. Repetition is also found in the second line with the words mäm evaiñyasi (“you
will certainly come to Me”). This is the result, or phal stuti, of the preceding line.
The result of practising bhakti-yoga is that one becomes eligible to come to Kåñëa.
This is the second point of importance mentioned on the previous page.

ANALYSIS OF ITS MEANING

In its most elementary meaning, the words “coming to Me” signify going to
where a person is. Implicit in such going is knowledge of whom to go to, where
they are, and how to get there. Thus, knowledge of Kåñëa is included in
coming to Him.
Is anything else other than knowing Kåñëa implied by “coming to Him”? By
a study of the context of the two verses 9.34 and 18.65 in relation to the verses
preceding and succeeding them, we see there is more. Going to where Kåñëa is
implies going to the spiritual world. The context for these verses are:

te ’pi yänti paräà gatim

...they attain the supreme destination. (9.32)

paräàçäntià stänaà präpsyasi çäçvatam

...you will attain peace and the supreme eternal abode. (18.62)

88
 sarva-guhyatamaà bhüyaùçåëu me paramaà vacaù

...the most confidential knowledge of all. (18.64)

From the above references it is clear that coming to Kåñëa includes

acquisition of the most confidential knowledge, as well as attainment of His
eternal abode, Kåñëaloka. This confirms Corollary 3.11 and has been included
to indicate that bhakti is more than a means for acquiring knowledge. It
supersedes the solutions to life’s problems and endears the practitioner to the
Lord as a personal associate in His transcendental realm.

Induces Kåñëa to Reciprocate

The acquisition of transcendental knowledge plays a major role in

illuminating the darkened position of a conditioned soul (5.16). The
acquisition of such transcendental knowledge is not achieved by any academic
process; it is a bestowal of realisation by the Lord for service rendered. This is
traditionally called revelation and is the topic under investigation in this
subsection.
In the 9th Chapter is found the following well known verse:

patraà puñpaà phalaà toyaà yo me bhaktyä prayacchati

tad ahaà bhakty-upahåtam açnämi prayatätmanaù

If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept
it. (9.26)

This verse is a testament to Kåñëa’s reciprocation with His devotee through

the medium of devotional service. It is by this reciprocation that He is known.
The use of the word açnämi (I accept) indicates that upon the rendering of
bhaktyä, or devotion, there is reciprocation with the Lord. The simple nature

89
of the offerings mentioned here (fruit, leaf, etc.) indicates an eagerness on His
part to reciprocate with the smallest offering of love. The offering of a leaf or
a fruit (in the singular) is a token of love. After all, Kåñëa is the origin of
everything (ahaà sarvasya prabhavaù). Therefore, what does He gain by a
single leaf or flower? Rather, Kåñëa is attracted by the love such an offering
symbolises, and it is the love that He reciprocates with. We cannot find this
kind of loving reciprocation in relation to other types of practices.
The revelation of transcendental knowledge as a result of devotional
activity is described in verses 10.10-11.

teñäà satata-yuktänäà bhajatäà préti-pürvakam

dadämi buddhi-yogaà taà yena mäm upayänti te

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the
understanding by which they can come to Me.

teñäm evänukampärtham aham ajïäna-jaà tamaù

näçayämy ätma-bhäva-stho jïäna-dépena bhäsvatä

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining
lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

The first verse explains how those who are bhajatäà, engaged in the service
of the Lord, receive transcendental knowledge as revelation within their
hearts. The second verse confirms that the nature of this knowledge is to
destroy all ignorance within the heart. It is also described us
anukampä-artham, or special mercy. The extraordinary nature of this
revelation is that it is not awarded to anyone who is not a devotee. The
conclusion to be drawn from these three verses is that Lord Kåñëa reciprocates
with the service of His devotees. A part of that reciprocation is the
appearance of transcendental knowledge within the heart of the practitioner,
which destroys all ignorance. Thus, Corollary 3.12 — the nature of devotion is

90
to induce the Lord to reciprocate with His devotee’s service to Him, which is
known as revelation — is confirmed.

Afterword

An interesting observation can be made here. One will note that in the
Gétä there are many statements regarding karma, jïäna, yoga, and the results
achieved by their practice. In a study of these verses one will find various
benefits offered. The terminology is always such that there is no clear
indication that they directly relate to Lord Kåñëa. Rather, the verses can be
interpreted in both devotional and non-devotional, or personal and
impersonal, ways. The end result is that without full contextual reference, one
is left with a feeling of ambiguity.
However, in the verses cited above and others regarding bhakti, Lord Kåñëa
makes very clear and exclusive claims. He uses the word mam, or Me, in
relation to the fruits of devotional practice. In this way the meanings of the
verses, even isolated from their context, are explicit and clear.

Other References

There may be objection that verse 11.54 is the only reference to devotional
service as the means for knowing Kåñëa. Actually, there are many such verses
throughout the Gétä. In the Introduction I have stated that every verse
glorifies devotional service to Çré Kåñëa.
Below are quoted a few verses that do not give way for multiple
interpretation and clearly support Argument 2.

ye tu dharmämåtam idea
yathoktaà paryupäsate

91
 çraddadhänä mat-paramäbhaktäs te 'téva me priyäù

Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service and who
completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are
very, very dear to Me. (12.20)

iti kñetraà tathä jïänaàjïeyaà coktaà samäsataùmad-bhakta etad vijïäya

mad-bhäväyopapadyate

Thus the field of activities [the body], knowledge and the knowable have
been summarily described by Me. Only My devotees can understand this
thoroughly and thus attain to My nature. (13.19)

yo mäm evam asammüòho

jänäti puruñottamam
sa sarva-vid bhajati mäàsarva-bhävena bhärata

Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without

doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full
devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata. (15.19)

bhaktyä mäm abhijänäti

yävän yaç cäsmi tattvataùtato mäà tattvato jïätväviçate tad-anantaram

One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by
such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God. (18.55)

man-manä bhava mad-bhakto

mad-yäjé mäà namaskuru
mäm evaiñyasi satyaà te
pratijäne priyo 'si me

Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your

92
homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this
because you are My very dear friend. (18.65)

Summary

In this section Corollaries 7 to 12 have been verified. Their presentation as

integrated parts of Argument 2 also confirms the theme of that argument,
which is: The solution is unalloyed devotion which is independent of other
yoga systems and also attracts Kåñëa.

Argument 3: How Solves the Problem

Argument 3 comprises the confirmations of Corollaries 13 to 15. In solving

the problems of life, bhakti is not posed merely as a mechanical solution. It
succeeds as one because it re-establishes a lost, loving relationship with Kåñëa.
This relationship is one all beings have tried to replace with artificial and
temporary relationships within the mundane realm. The consequences have
been bewilderment and suffering. The fact that Kåñëa allows the devotee to
come to Him indicates a personal acceptance and, indeed, association with the
Lord. The verse “patraà puñpaà...”has been analysed to show that devotional
service is the basis of a relationship with Kåñëa.

Transcendental Knowledge as the Solution

The first teaching of the Gétä establishes that all living entities are spiritual
sparks, separate from their material body (2.13). That spiritual nature is the
superior (para) of the two energies of the Lord (7.5).
In the 15th chapter the Lord declares that the living entities are His eternal
parts and parcels (15.7). This emphasises a relationship between the living
entity and the Lord. The nature of that relationship is explained in many

93
verses of the Gétä. For example:

nitya-yuktä upäsate

...perpetually worship Me with devotion... (9.14)

mad-gata-präëä...nityaà

...fully devoted to My service... (10.9)

As both the living entity and the Lord are eternal, so is their relationship.
The basis of that relationship, loving service between the Lord and the
devotee, is also eternal. Thus, as parts and parcels of the Lord, all are His
servants.
Having acquired this knowledge, a consequence is the recognition that the
jéva’s (living entity) identity is in the spiritual realm (8.20), and that the Lord
is his eternal father (14.4). By practising loving service (4.10), the living entity
becomes detached from this material world and attached to the loving service,
form, activities and abode of the Lord (15.3-4). By the experience of such a
higher spiritual taste, he is able to abandon the lower pleasures of the world
(2.59). Thus one’s bonds to material life are severed, and the true solution to
life’s problems realised.
The above confirms and is summarised in Corollary 3.13: All living entities
are eternal spiritual beings, distinct from this world, part and parcel and
servants of the Supreme Lord Kåñëa. The solution to life’s problems is
knowledge by which one becomes detached from the material world and
attached to Kåñëa.

Accepting Kåñëa’s Mercy

94
 One may question whether the living entity, who is very tiny, can of his
own accord become free from the influence of the material energy. To this
Lord Kåñëa answers that the result is a combined effort between the devotee
and his Lord. In 7.14, He admits that mama mäyä duratyayä— it is difficult to
surmount the influence of the material energy. But those who surrender to
Him are successful.
How is that? In the 18th Chapter this question is answered:

cetasä sarva-karmäëi
mayi sannyasya mat-paraù
buddhi-yogam upäçritya
mac-cittaù satataà bhava

In all activities just depend upon Me and work always under My protection. In such
devotional service, be fully conscious of Me. (18.57)

mac-cittaù sarva-durgäëi
mat-prasädät tariñyasi
atha cet tvam ahaìkärän
na çroñyasi vinaìkñyasi

If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of conditioned life
by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such consciousness but act through
false ego, not hearing Me, you will be lost. (18.58)

Verse 57 is an instruction by the Lord, while 58 is the consequence ofits

execution or neglect. Attention is drawn to the words mat-prasädät tariñyasi,
meaning “by my mercy you will overcome”. Overcome what? — all the
obstacles of material existence.
The duty of the devotee is to practice devotional service, ensuring that he

95
is dependent on the Lord, working under His protection. By following the
rules of vaidhi [vaidhi bhakti - the practice of devotion according to the rules of
scripture referred to in 12.9] bhakti (12.9), and thus becoming fully conscious of
Him (7.1) through constantly hearing in the association of the devotees (10.9),
one can achieve freedom from conditioned life. The Lord assures that He will
complement the individual effort of the devotee and the combined result will
guarantee success. It should be pointed out that such success includes not only
overcoming obstacles in conditional life, the very same methodology can be
applied to any obstacles that arise in the cultivation of bhakti-yoga.
This confirms Corollary 3.14. All problems of life and problems executing
bhakti are overcome by the grace of Kåñëa.

Rejecting the Mercy

There is another alternative to the course of activity above. In 18.58, Kåñëa

says ...na çroñyasi..., “if you don’t hear Me”. The devotee by definition is one
who does hear Kåñëa and follows His instructions. There are others who do
not. What will happen to them? ...vinaìkñyasi — they will be “lost”.
The conclusion is that should one neglect this injunction, acting in any
other way than the will of the Lord (which means devotional service), then
one should not expect success. Meeting with frustration for lack of support by
the Lord, one will ultimately be lost to the material energy. This is the
substance and confirmation of Corollary 3.15: If one rejects His grace, acting
under ignorance, one will continue to suffer.

Summary

With the confirmation of Corollaries 13 to 15, Argument 3, describing how

the process of bhakti solves the problem, is confirmed.

96
 Argument 4: The Conclusion of the Vedas

Corollary 3.16 concludes the logical steps of Code 3 by answering the

question: Are the conclusions of this Code supported by the Vedas? The
answer is found in the conclusion to the Fifteenth Chapter, verse 15.15:

sarvasya cähaà hådi sanniviñöo

mattaù småtir jïänam apohanaà ca
vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedänta-kåd veda-vid eva cäham

I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and

forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of
Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

Herein Lord Kåñëa clearly explains Himself as the knower, compiler and
object of the Vedas. The subsequent three verses (16-18) are known as a
summary study and explanation of the Vedas. These verses state that there are
two classes of jévas, the fallible and the infallible, who are residents of the
material world and spiritual world, respectively. Beyond them is the Supreme
Person, who is Kåñëa. Verse 19 gives the conclusion and consequence of such
an understanding. It is engagement in Kåñëa’s devotional service. The next
verse (20) summarises that such a man of knowledge will achieve perfection in
all activities.
Once again, the conclusion is reaffirmed: bhakti-yoga is the consequence of
understanding the Vedas. Thus, the Gétä is the means for perfection. In
contrast, Kåñëa does not emphasise any other process here as a method for
perfection, a consequence of knowing the Vedas, or understanding His
transcendental position.
Herein Corollary 3.16 is confirmed, as well as Argument 4: This

97
understanding is the conclusion of the Vedas.

Chapter Summary

Clearly, the goal of the Gétä is to instruct its reader to transfer himself from
the realm of ignorance to that of transcendence. This is possible through the
acquisition of transcendental knowledge, which reaffirms each individual’s
identity as the servant of the Supreme Lord and a stranger to the material
realm. (Corollaries 1-6)
That identity is realised through loving, devotional service to Lord Kåñëa.
By such an eternal, substantial and rewarding identity, disinterest in material
objects manifests in proportion to one’s attachment to Kåñëa. (Corollaries
7-12)
Thus, propelled by a loving service attitude, one is able to attract the mercy
of the Lord, who not only severs the devotee’s bond with the material realm
— automatically solving all problems — but elevates him to His eternal abode.
(Corollaries 13-15) This understanding is the conclusion of the Gétä as well as
all the Vedas. whose ultimate authority as author, knower and subject is Lord
Kåñëa. (Corollary 16)

Conclusion of this Chapter: Code 3 is Confirmed

While confirming Argument 3 (VIII.v), two verses (57 and 58) of the
Eighteenth Chapter were briefly analysed. In the conclusion to this Chapter, I
would like to review these two verses from a slightly different perspective —
that of their relevance to other yoga practices.

ONLY BHAKTI IS THE SOLUTION

Verse 18.57 is an instruction by the Lord and 18.58 is the consequence of

98
both its execution and neglect. The content and methodology of these verses
is not unsimilar to verses 31 and 32, found earlier in Chapter 3. The statement
in 18.57 is very clear. The emphasis is on devotional service: “just depend upon
Me”, “work under My protection”, and “be fully conscious of Me” are activities
of devotional service which are emphasised three times as being directed
toward Kåñëa (mäm). There is little argument regarding Kåñëa’s intent here.
He says that sarva karmani, in all activities one should “depend on me”. The
use of the word sarva karmäëi is an absolute condition... as absolute a
statement as ahaà sarvasya prabhavo, “I am the source of everything” in the
Tenth Chapter. It can be accepted as it is, or the entire verse must be rejected.
If accepted literally, “all activities” has serious implications regarding other
yoga practices. Karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga, etc. also fall into the category of “all
activities”. In fact, any path delineated in the previous pages of the Gétä must,
according to Lord Kåñëa, be dependent on bhakti for achieving any measure of
success. From verse 57, it is readily seen that devotional service should be
practised in all activities. What is the consequence of such behaviour? In the
beginning of verse 58, Kåñëa answers this question with the phrase sarva
durgäëi...tariñyasi, or “overcome all the obstacles of conditioned life.” The
natural conclusion that arises from the above is that:
1. All other spiritual disciplines depend upon bhakti for their success.
2. Bhakti is the only means of solving life’s problems.

AND IF IT IS NOT BHAKTI?

What if one rejects the above conclusion, preferring some other process in
favour of bhakti as the solution to life’s problems? Kåñëa also covers that
alternative. If one acts na çroñyasi, “not hearing” this instruction of Lord
Kåñëa, it is due to ahaìkära, or false ego. False ego means a covered,
materialistic condition and cannot be accepted as a viable alternative to
perfection.

99
 By persisting, what will happen? The answer is vinaìkñyasi, one will be lost.
Spiritual life is meant to find oneself. Therefore the use of this word is
appropriate. One will achieve a different result than one has planned. In fact,
it will be just the opposite: “You will be lost.”
The conclusion from this verse is that other processes are not sufficient to
solve the problems of life.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The result of analysis of the two verses 18.57 and 18.58 has been shown
above. Combining their results is the final conclusion of this chapter. They
are:
1. Other processes are not sufficient to solve the problems of life.
2. They depend on bhakti for their success, without which they fail.
3. Thus bhakti is the only means for solving life’s problems.
This is final confirmation of Code 3, which is recorded here, along with its
corollaries.
Code 3: The actual solution to the problems of life is complete realisation
of one’s original spiritual nature. This is possible only by bhakti-yoga.
3.1 Bewilderment is due to illusion, or ignorance.
3.2 A solution to Arjuna’s problem must be based on knowledge.
3.3 Knowledge means understanding the Absolute Truth.
3.4 The Absolute Truth is Lord Çré Kåñëa.
3.5 Bhagavad-gétä is the means for understanding the will of the Lord.
3.6 Solving the problems of life is included in, and is an element of,

100
knowledge.
3.7 The solution comprises:

1) recognising the problem

2) identifying the goal (the Absolute Truth)
3) the solution itself, ananya bhakti, as a means of knowing Him.

3.8 Kåñëa is only known by unalloyed devotion.

3.9 Unalloyed devotion as the solution means that other things
(karma,jitana, etc.) are not conducive for solving the problem. (They are
meant to approach the problem.)
3.10 Bhakti is independent of other yoga systems and superior to them.
3.11 Bhakti-yoga is not only the means for knowing Kåñëa, but also the end,
union with Kåñëa.
3.12 The nature of devotion is to induce the Lord to reciprocate with His
devotee’s service; this is known as revelation.
3.13 That revelation is the understanding that we are spiritual entities,
distinct from this world, part and parcel of Lord Kåñëa and His servants. It is
this knowledge by which one becomes attached to the Lord and detached from
the world and that is the solution to life’s problems.
3.14 All problems of life and problems executing bhakti are overcome by
the grace of Kåñëa.
3.15 If one rejects His grace, acting under ignorance, one will continue to
suffer.
3.16 This understanding is the final conclusion of the Vedas.

101
 Chapter 9, Code 4: Karma, Jïäna and Yoga are Meant to Achieve
Bhakti

Proposition

Code 4: Bhakti-yoga is the independent goal of the yoga ladder. However,

all other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti.

Argument — Introduction

It has already been confirmed that bhakti-yoga is the only means by which
Arjuna has been able to solve his problems. The purpose of the Gétä is to offer
Arjuna the means to resolve his dilemma. It then follows that the purpose of
the Gétä is the adoption of bhakti-yoga by One and all.
Confusion may arise about the need for other yoga systems. One may argue,
“After all, they are all ‘yogas’, just different types for different practitioners.”
The following argument analyses what is meant by the word yoga. From the
pages of the Gétä, it will be readily shown that the definition of yoga is actually
bhakti-yoga. Other yoga systems will be recognised as elements of bhakti, and
fully dependent on bhakti in awarding results. This, in essence, means that a
qualifying word preceding yoga indicates the practice of a particular element
of bhakti-yoga. For example, karma-yoga is the practice of active,
scripturally-oriented work. Such work is an element of bhakti-yoga but without
the accompaniment of other ingredients such as devotion. Furthermore, while
other systems are dependent elements of bhakti, bhakti is independent of them.
The total integrated mechanism of all these yogas is known as the “yoga
system”, or “yoga ladder”.
Two obvious questions follow as a consequence to the previous chapter and

102
Code 3.

1. What is the relation of other yoga systems to the Gétä, or to bhakti’?

2. If bhakti is the exclusive solution to Arjuna’s (and mankind’s) problems,
then why mention other subordinate and subservient methods at all?

The answer to the first question (Code 4) is in this chapter, while the
answer to question 2, which is, in essence, Code 5, is the topic of Chapter Ten.
Codes 3 and 4 are the main arguments of this discussion and therefore
deserve thorough analysis. This chapter delves into the proof and
consequences of Code 4, approaching the topic from different perspectives.
The proof is based on the flow of logic in Corollaries 4.1-4.13. They are listed
below and are argued in the subsections entitled Arguments 1-4.
4.1 Yoga implies a combined practice of work, renunciation, knowledge and
meditation.
4.2 The goal of yoga is liberation.
4.3 Liberation means to attain Lord Kåñëa in the spiritual world.
4.4 The definition of yoga is “that dutiful yet detached activity, directed by
transcendental knowledge, which makes Lord Kåñëa the ultimate goal of life
and trains one to achieve His supreme abode.”
4.5 Yoga means bhakti-yoga.
4.6 Other yoga systems indicate elements of bhakti.
4.7 All yoga systems depend on bhakti (for results).
4.8 Bhakti is independent of other systems.
4.9 All yoga practices are interrelated.

103
 4.10 That interrelation is known as the yoga system, or yoga ladder.
4.11 Only bhakti awards ultimate liberation.
4.12 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the yoga system.
4.13 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the Gétä.

These Corollaries are argued in four steps as summarised below:

Argument 1: (Corollaries 1 -5) The complete meaning of the definition

of yoga is only fulfilled by bhakti-yoga.
Argument 2: (Corollaries 6-8) Other yogas are elements of, and
dependent on, bhakti-yoga.
Argument 3: (Corollaries 9-12) Other yogas are meant to achieve
bhakti.
Argument 4: (Corollary 13) Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the Gétä.

Note: A close scrutiny of the train of logic of the Corollaries reveals that
the theme of liberation in 4.2 and 4.3 is continued in 4.11. One may question
the apparent jump in logic. The answer is that the first subset of Corollaries
(1-5) gives a general definition of yoga without a detailed analysis of
liberation. (Argument 3 proves the goal of the yoga system is to reach
bhakti-yoga. This analysis has been developed, based on the preliminary
evidence in Argument 1.)

Argument 1: Means

The contested topic is the relative merits of different yoga systems. This
subsection will show that all of the characteristic elements of other yoga
104
systems are contained within bhakti-yoga. This is done by an analysis of the
definition of yoga and its goal, as found in the Gétä.
Yoga contains various components, which differentiate one yoga system
from another. For instance, karma-yoga is action characterised by degrees of
transcendental knowledge; jïäna is renunciation in transcendental
knowledge, which when matured through meditation is known as
añöäìga-yoga.
From the above one may note that yoga systems are composed of varying
combinations of work, knowledge, renunciation and meditation. These
components may vary quantitatively and qualitatively in any yoga system and
thus define the system in practice.
The following chapter points out that bhakti includes work, knowledge,
renunciation and meditation, with the essential distinguishing element of
devotion to Lord Kåñëa. Thus, bhakti includes all the elements of all yoga
practices, subsequently bestowing their benefits.

Understanding from Code 3

The following subsection establishes that what is generally called yoga is

the abbreviated terminology for bhakti-yoga. This is shown from two
perspectives:

1. The first procedure is to expand the consequence of Code 3 to define

what yoga is. The conclusion will be, as stated above, that yoga means
bhakti-yoga,
2. Following this is the derivation of a definition of yoga from the pages
of the Gétä. As mentioned before, yoga practices have different elements
and the process which contains all these elements is bhakti. Thus, bhakti
can be accepted as the complete yoga system, with other processes
105
 reflecting its integrated parts. In conclusion, yoga will be equated with
bhakti-yoga once again.

FROM CODE 3
The solution that Lord Kåñëa appears to offer to Arjuna’s dilemma is the
practice of yoga. From the beginning of the Gétä until the end, Kåñëa refers to
and explains different yoga practices. In these recommendations two things
are prominent. They are the practice of yoga, known as sädhana, and the goal
of yoga, liberation from life’s complexities, known as sädhya.
The sädhana in yoga systems varies. Therefore, they are termed as karma,
jïäna, etc. In other words, they are different paths to liberation. At closer
glance one will see that there is a gradation of the types of liberation offered.
That topic will be discussed later. The point to note here is that liberation is
the relevant solution to suffering. What can be concluded is that a yoga system
— termed, for example, karma-yoga — refers to two things. One is the
sädhana, which is the process of dutiful work, karma; and the other is the
sädhya liberation, which is the goal of that yoga.
In any yoga system the process varies but the goal of liberation, the solution
to the problems of life, is constant. Thus yoga, in effect, means that process by
which one solves life’s problems. This very same conclusion was the conclusion
of the previous chapter. The confirmation of Code 3 concurred that it is only
bhakti-yoga that can solve the problems of life.

CONCLUSION
Thus, since both yoga and bhakti have been equated as the solution to
Arjuna’s problems, it is correct to equate them with each other and conclude
that yoga means bhakti-yoga.
What, then, is the position of other yoga systems? According to the analysis

106
of Chapter 8, they have been identified as being approaches to bhakti. Having
arrived at this conclusion from the analysis of Code 3, the following
subsections are a study of the definition of yoga as given in the Gétä, to see
whether that conclusion corresponds to the above.

What is

The word yoga is first mentioned in verse 2.39. It is mentioned as an

alternative to säìkhya in understanding the distinction between body and soul
and liberation from bodily identification. The subsequent eight verses extol
the glories and virtue of this practice as the means to transcend the teachings
of the karma-käëòa (ritualistic) portion of the Vedas and elevate the
practitioner to the transcendental realm.
The actual definition of yoga is given by the Lord in verse 2.48, which ends
with the phrase “yogam ucyate”, “...is called yoga’. This general definition reads
as follows:

Perform your duty equipoised, abandoning all attachment to success or failure. Such
equanimity is called yoga.

Kuru karmäëi literally means “do your work”. However, when spoken in
conjunction with yoga-sthaù (equipoised) and saìgaà tyaktvä (abandoning
attachment to success or failure), it specifically refers to the performance of
duty. Yoga-sthaùand saìgaà tyaktvä indicate the cultivation of detachment,
which is the symptom of renunciation. The word samatvaà means equanimity,
and it is a symptom that has been repeated by use of the words yoga-sthaù and
samaù. Repetition indicates emphasis on something important. Equanimity
has been defined earlier in verse 2.15 and has been found to result by
tolerating the changing circumstances of happiness and distress through
knowledge of the temporal nature of the body and the eternality of the soul.
Thus, knowledge is implied here as an element of yoga by the repeated use of

107
these words.
The performance of work requires concentration on the goal. By rejecting
the fruits of work as the focus, the Supreme is indirectly indicated. In the same
way, tolerating the dualities of the world requires detachment, which is also
achieved by focus, on the Supreme. Such a concentration is known as
meditation.
Summarising the paragraphs above, it may be concluded that yoga, in its
full definition, implies a conglomeration of work, renunciation, knowledge
and meditation. This confirms Corollary 4.1: Yoga implies a combined practice
of work, renunciation, knowledge and meditation.
Dutiful work is known as karma, the cultivation of knowledge is jïäna, and
the practice of meditation is known as añöäìga-yoga. Thus, yoga, in its full
definition, implies a conglomeration of what is known as karma, jïäna and
añöäìga yogas.

What is the Goal of

The complete definition of yoga should include its elements and its goal. At
the first mention of yoga in verse 2.39, the Lord explains the benefit as
karma-bandhaà prahäsyasi, or “freedom from the bondage of works”. After all,
Arjuna’s fear was the reaction he would accrue when fighting. Here, Kåñëa is
explaining that yoga frees one from such reaction. In fact, in verse 2.51, He
states that by practice of yoga one “reaches that state beyond all miseries”.
Thus, it is clear that liberation from material existence is the general goal of
the Gétä. This confirms Corollary 4.2, which states: The goal of yoga is
liberation.
But the verses of the Gétä give more specific directions as to the nature of
liberation. Refer to verses 6.14 and 6.15 to elucidate this point. In 6.14, the
words mat paraù, or “make Me the ultimate goal”, define the goal of yoga. In

108
6.15, the Lord further clarifies that yoga is meant to “attain the spiritual sky”.
Joining these two quotes together offers a definition of the goal of yoga as
“making Lord Kåñëa the ultimate goal of one’s life and achieving His supreme
abode”. This confirms Corollary 4.3, which states: Liberation means to attain
Lord Kåñëa in the spiritual world.

Summary of

As a consequence of Corollaries 1-3, yoga may then be defined as “that

dutiful yet detached activity, directed by transcendental knowledge, which
makes Lord Kåñëa the ultimate goal of life and trains one to achieve His
supreme abode” (Corollary 4.4).
This definition is a broad usage of the term. Its derivation amalgamates the
catagories of work, knowledge, renunciation and meditation. These terms
commonly reflect different yoga practices. For instance, karma-yoga
incorporates work and knowledge. However, other elements are generally not
as prominent, jhana-yoga is characterised by knowledge and renunciation;
work is specifically absent. A similar analysis for añöäìga-yoga will reveal that
all three yoga practices incorporate some of the elements of the definition
above (Corollary 4.4).
The subsequent conclusion is that karma, jïäna and añöäìga do not
completely fit the definition of yoga. We then need to find a practice which
fully fulfils the definition, with a clear indication that it “makes Lord Kåñëa
the ultimate goal of one’s life and awards His supreme abode.”

DOES BHAKTI FIT?

Verse 9.34 has already been quoted as a basic definition of bhakti-yoga:

man-manä bhava mad-bhakto

109
 mad-yäjé mäà namaskuru
mäm evaiñyasi yuktvaivam
ätmänaà mat-paräyaëaù

Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to
Me and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me.

The word man-manäù is translated as “always thinking of Me”. To always

think of someone is the basic definition of meditation, which is the subject
indicated herein. Mad yäjé and namaskuru indicate practices of worship and
offering of obeisances. To perform any act of worship indicates a practice
directed by knowledge. Yäjé indicates worship in transcendental knowledge,
confirmed by the conclusive position of the verse, it being the last in the
chapter entitled, “The Most Confidential Knowledge”.
The exclusive and repetitive use of mäm, or “Me”, indicates devotion to
Lord Kåñëa, confirmed by the words yuktva (being absorbed) and
mat-paräyaëa (devoted to Me). Such exclusivity indicates the renunciation of
all things not in relation to Çré Kåñëa. Therefore, this verse defines bhakti-yoga
as possessed of work, knowledge, renunciation and meditation.
Is there an indication of what the result of such devotion to Lord Kåñëa is?
Certainly. He states mäm eñyasi, “you will come to Me”. Thus, this verse
emphasises Lord Kåñëa as the goal of life and achieving His supreme abode as
the ultimate result of devotion.
Now, what is the result of all this analysis? Bhakti-yoga has been defined as
that process of devotional activity directed by transcendental knowledge, in
full absorption of Lord Kåñëa, having renounced all other aspirations, whereby
Lord Kåñëa is the goal of one’s life and the means for achieving His abode.
This is the same definition as given by the Gétä for yoga. The conclusion is the
only process that perfectly satisfies the meaning of the word yoga is bhakti.
This is a confirmation of Corollary 4.5, which states: Yoga means bhakti-yoga.

110
 FURTHER CONFIRMATION
An interesting confirmation of this conclusion can be arrived at by
studying the twin verses 9.34 and 18.65. In verse 18.64, Kåñëa states sarva
guhyatamaà— “I will speak My supreme instruction.” In other words, of any
instructions spoken in the Gétä, the following is the most authoritative and
conclusive. The use of the word superior, or uttama, means that it also
supersedes any instructions to date.
And what is that “supremely confidential knowledge”? Verse 18.65, the
twin of verse 9.34, repeats the very same thing, confirming that this
knowledge — the practice of bhakti-yoga — constitutes the highest
understanding of yoga, the solution to Arjuna’s problems.
This section is concluded by quoting Çréla Prabhupäda’s purport of the
ending verse of Chapter Six of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is:

...The culmination of all kinds ofyoga practice lies in bhakti-yoga. All other yogas are
but means to come to the point of bhakti in bhakti-yoga. Yoga actually means
bhakti-yoga; all other yogas are progressions toward the destination of bhakti-yoga...

Conclusion

From the arguments in the previous subsections one is drawn to the

conclusion that the complete definition ofyoga is only fulfilled by bhakti-yoga.
This reaffirms Corollaries 4.1-4.5 and Argument 1, which state that the
complete meaning of the definition of yoga is only fulfilled by bhakti-yoga.
The next step is to analyse the position of other yogas in their relation to
bhakti-yoga.

111
 Argument 2: Other Systems are Dependent on

The main thrust of the previous Argument 1 has been to establish the
meaning of the word yoga. This was necessary because in the Gétäthe word is
applied to different processes with the addition of a prefix. The conclusion
above has been that the word yoga actually means bhakti. This understanding,
as given in Corollaries 4.1 to 4.5, is arrived at by confirming bhakti-yoga as the
only yoga capable of fulfilling the full definition of the word offered by Lord
Kåñëa in 2.48.
Argument 2 has evolved through Corollaries 4.6 - 10, as they are listed
below:

1. Other yoga systems indicate elements of bhakti (4.6).

2. All such systems are dependent on bhakti (4.7).
3. Bhakti is independent of other processes (4.8).
4. Yoga systems are connected (4.9).
5. That systematic connection is known as the “yoga ladder” (4.10).

The purpose of this exercise is to establish the independence of bhakti and

the dependence of other systems on bhakti in a systematic structure known as
the yoga ladder.
Considering the consequences of Corollary 4.5, a question will arise
regarding the meaning of words that refer to other yoga practices. What does
the word karma-yoga mean in a linguistic and practical sense if the root word
yoga means bhakti-yoga? In answer to this, the subsequent subsection gives the
explanation.

112
 Other Practices as Elements of

A derivation from Corollary 4.5 is the etymology of the word yoga. By

studying Lord Kåñëa’s usage in the Gétä, it may be accepted in one of two ways.
These are the direct and indirect approach. They are both explained below.

DIRECT
If the word yoga is found on its own, without any preceding qualifying word
(such as karma, etc.), and is not contextually related to other non-bhakti
processes (such as jïäna), then it means bhakti-yoga.

INDIRECT
If the word yoga is restrained in either of the above ways, then it should be
understood that a particular element of bhakti-yoga is being emphasised. As in
the term karma-yoga, we should understand that the performance of the
scripturally-directed active portion of bhakti (dutiful work) is being
emphasised. Similarly jïäna-yoga refers to the philosophically-speculative
aspect of bhakti-yoga.
In this way a new perspective manifests which is to see other yoga systems
in relation to bhakti-yoga. As there are two ingredients in this relationship,
bhakti and other yogas, they combine in two possible ways. Thus, there are two
ways of viewing other yoga systems:

1. As bhakti mixed with some other practice (e.g., karma-yoga is bhakti

mixed with fruitive work);
2. As an element of bhakti.

113
 What follows is a brief analysis of these two alternatives.

1. MIXED BHAKTI
The first alternative states that other yoga systems are simply bhakti-yoga
with a mixture of other practices. The section VIII.iv.c, entitled “The
Meaning of Ananya”, has clearly outlined that bhakti-yoga is free from even a
taint of other systems. This means that the word yoga implies freedom from
association with anything other than bhakti.
The word karma-yoga then indicates fruitive activity mixed with bhakti.
According to the type of karma-yoga (or jïäna, añöäìga, etc.), there will be
varying mixtures of bhakti. When the emphasis is on the additives, bhakti will
appear covered; and other systems appear to have their own independent
identity. In actuality, they are mixed with small proportions of bhakti.
Using examples from chemistry, other yoga systems cannot be a solution [A
solution involves a chemical interaction that produces a new substance (e.g.,
water and sugar). A mixture is a physical combination of two substances that
do not combine chemically and retain their own characteristics (e.g., oil and
water)] of two practices. This would be contrary to the definition of yoga as
being free from anything other than bhakti. However, they can be viewed as a
mixture,* that is, yoga, or bhakti, mixed with fruitive activity, speculation or
meditation (and thus named karma, jïäna, or añöäìga yogas). Such perception
of yoga will be prevalent when the mixture contains greater proportions of
non-devotional elements. Their characteristics will dominate the mixture and
may appear to be a different type of yoga, although in reality they are yoga
mixed with something else.
Subsection IX.iv.b (pg. 118), under the title Bhakti is contained in other
yoga systems, confirms the above argument.

114
 2. ELEMENTS OF BHAKTI
The second alternative is more relevant to the present investigation, which
is the study of other yoga systems as elements of bhakti. In Section IX.iii.b (pg.
104), it has been mentioned that each yoga system is characterised by
particular elements which distinguish it from others. This can be studied
according to the functional roles that such yogas play and how such roles are
assigned.
According to the Gétä, there are four strata of awareness. These are listed
according to the hierarchy mentioned at the end of Chapter Three. There,
Lord Kåñëa states:

indriyani parany dhur indriyebhyah param manah

manasas tupard buddhiryo buddheh paratas tu sah

The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses;
intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the
intelligence. (3.42)

The topics here are body, mind, intelligence and the soul. As may be found
in Appendix 13, the different yoga systems relate to the emphasis placed on
these four elements as vehicles for self-realisation. Table IX. 1 shows a listing
of the aforementioned elements pertaining to each system.
TABLE IX.1

YOGA ELEMENTS
SYSTEM

KARMA work, knowledge

115
 KARMA work, knowledge

JÏÄNA knowledge, renunciation

AÑÖÄÌG knowledge, renunciation,

A meditation

116
 BHAKTI work, knowledge, renunciation,
meditation, devotion

This table visibly makes bhakti-yoga the process which contains within it all
the elemental practices of other yoga systems. By the law that things being
equal to the same thing are equal to one another, the conclusion is clear: If
bhakti-yoga contains all the elements of other yoga systems, then it also
contains those yoga systems as well. Thus, other yoga systems may be viewed as
elements of bhakti. This is confirmation of Corollary 4.6: Other yoga systems
indicate elements of bhakti.
Considering the two arguments above, an additional conclusion is: Other
yoga systems may be viewed as bhakti mixed with some other practice (e.g.,
karma-yoga is bhakti mixed with fruitive work).

Dependence on

The following subsection will show that other yoga systems are dependent
on bhakti. One may consider this exercise academic in light of the conclusion
of the previous subsection, wherein Corollary 4.6 was verified. This corollary
states that all other yoga systems are elements of bhakti.
However, the following argument may arise: Hydrogen and oxygen are
constituents of water. Hydrogen and oxygen in general do not depend on
water but are independent elements in their own right. Those specific atoms
which have combined to form water may be dependent, but the individual
elements are not.
In the same way, yoga systems when related to bhakti may be dependent.
However, in their own right, they may be independent. The conclusion that
an element automatically constitutes dependence, uccording to Corollary 4.6,

117
is incorrect.
To answer such a valid allegation, the following is an analysis of the verses
of the Gétä. It will show that these yoga systems are both elements of bhakti
and always dependent on bhakti.

TYPES OF DEPENDENCE AND CONDITIONS OF PRACTICE

The first step is to understand what the basis of “dependence” is. There are
two kinds of dependence in question here. They are termed incidental and
absolute.

1. One thing may be dependent on another in certain conditions and yet

independent in others. Such occasional dependence is incidental.
2. That dependence which is complete under all conditions is absolute.

In defining incidental and absolute dependence, mention was made of the

conditions under which dependence takes place. What are these conditions?
They are divided in two. One is called sädhana and the other sädhya (Bg 6.3).
This means the stage of practice and the stage of perfection, respectively.
If it can be shown that other yogas are dependent on bhakti in only one
condition, then that dependence is incidental. If it is dependent in both, then
that dependence is absolute.
“Why take so much trouble?” the reader may ask. To answer, I posit that
such a proof will show the superexcellent nature of bhakti by its absolute
domination over other yoga practices.

DEPENDENCE IN SÄDHANA (PRACTICE)

An analysis of certain verses of the Gétä will reveal how other yoga
118
practices are dependent on bhakti in the stage of practice known as sädhana.

1. KARMA-YOGA
In verse 5.10, the principle of karma-yoga is described. The essential feature
of this practice is brahmaëy ädhäya karmäëi, which translates as the
surrendering of the results of all one’s activities unto the Supreme, or Kåñëa
(Assumption 1). What is outlined as an element of karma-yoga is synonymous
with the symptom of bhakti, defined in 9.26: me bhaktyä prayacchati, or
“offering” to the Lord. This indicates that it is bhakti, or devotion, that is the
prime element of practice in the description of karma-yoga (as per 5.10).
A similar directive is given by the Lord in verse 3.30: mayi sarväëi karmäëi.
He states that one should “surrender all works” unto Him. This is significant
from two points of view:

a) the repeated emphasis of surrender within the karma-yoga system,

indicating the functional role of bhakti in making the practice effective.
b) the implication of the word sarvdni, “all works”. Kåñëa states that all
activities should be surrendered to Him. This perspective implies that
the validity of the process of works depends upon its suitability to be
offered to the Lord.

In other words, the entire process of work becomes an offering of devotion.

The statement of this verse is not an option. The subsequent verse (3.31)
clearly emphasises that such a directive is a unilateral order, the neglect of
which is nañöän, ruination in the effort towards perfection (sädhana). From
both examples cited, the conclusion is that the path of karma-yoga is
dependent on bhakti in practice.

119
 2. JÏÄNA-YOGA
The jïänéis described in verse 7.19 as a practitioner whose efforts span a
continuum of many lives. The final result of such cultivation is described by
the Lord as prapadyate. The word is translatable only one way: surrender.
Surrender means devotion. Because jïänés generally strive for impersonal
liberation, Lord Kåñëa is explicit as to whom we should surrender. He is not
speaking about some non-differentiated concept of the Absolute Truth.
Rather, He qualifies surrender by establishing its object as being väsudeva,
which is none other than Himself. [Because the concept of homogeneity is the
attractive feature of the Absolute to the jïäné, the Lord here emphasises
“sarvam iti” - is everything. This is a further confirmation that Väsudeva is
everything, indicating the subordinate feature of the homogenous aspect to
the personality of Väsudeva, Himself. Had the Lord meant that Väsudeva is an
expansion of Brahman (everything), He would have said “everything is
Väsudeva]
As confirmation that such devotion is integral in the practice of the jïäné,
we quote verse 7.17. Therein, Lord Kåñëa states: teñäà jïäné nitya-yukta eka
bhaktir, the jïänéis always engaged in devotion. Thus, in the following verse
(7.18), he is sure to reach uttamäà gatim, the highest destination.
Once again, as in the case of karma-yoga, the process of jïäna-yoga is
shown to be dependent on bhakti for its success.

3. AÑÖÄÌGA YOGA
Here, verse 6.47 is the irrefutable proof that the process of yoga is
dependent in practice on bhakti. The term bhajate (renders transcendental
loving service) is not only exclusively used in the sense of devotion but is also
indicative of practice. Other words like mat-gatena (abiding in Me) and
çraddhä-vän (in full faith) are also devotional practices. Once again, it is

120
concluded that the sädhana of añöäìga-yoga is dependent on bhakti.
The natural conclusion of the above exercises is that all other yoga systems
are dependent in their various stages of practice on bhakti.
Before analysing the dependence on bhakti of the sädhya of various yogas, I
would like to draw the reader’s attention to the now familiar verses 18.57-58.
The absolute declaration within these verses has been discussed earlier. They
confirm the conclusion above: karma, jïäna and añöäìga are dependent on
bhakti in the stage of practice. In verse 18.57, Lord Kåñëa states, “In all
activities just depend upon Me and work always under My protection...” The
clear implication here is in the word sarva karmäëi, or “all activities”. It is a
generic term and simply means all types of activities. When in reference to
yoga practices, it can be paraphrased as “all (types of) yoga”. It leaves nothing
to be excluded in terms of other yoga practices.
What needs be done in all activities? “Depend on Me, work under My
protection, be fully conscious of Me.” Need we say it? Practice bhaktil
The naturally rebellious mind may challenge, “What if I don’t? Can’t I
achieve some measure of success anyway?” Verse 18.58 answers:

If you do not work in such consciousness... you will be lost.

No work succeeds without bhakti. No yoga succeeds without a connection

with devotion. Conclusion: All yoga practice is certainly dependent on bhakti
in the stage of practice.

DEPENDENCE IN SÄDHYA (PERFECTION)

The next point that needs to be investigated is the dependence of the
perfectional state of yoga systems on bhakti. Yoga is meant to solve the
problems of life. Therefore, the resolution of such problems leads to liberation
from material existence. Although different yoga systems uward different

121
types of liberation, this topic is not discussed here. What is to be noted is how
liberation in any yoga practice is achieved.
Verses 3.10, 3.19, 5.6, and 6.15 will be used as examples which indicate the
liberation achieved by different yoga systems, karma-yoga is described in
verses 3.10 and 3.19, säìkhya in 5.2, and añöäìga in 6.15. However, in the
following study we will find that the liberation resulting from these systems is
never free (unbound). Rather, it is always qualified in the verse or in ensuing
verses in some way. That qualification is its dependence on bhakti.

1. KARMA-YOGA
In verse 3.9, the phrase yajïärthät indicates that unless karma is performed
for the sake of Lord Viñëu (Kåñëa), one will not achieve liberation. In fact,
that karma will bandhanaù, bind one to the material world.
Two things are very significant here. One is that karma-yoga is capable of
awarding liberation only in contact with bhakti, or devotion to Yajna. The
other is that, devoid of devotion, one will achieve the antithesis of liberation:
bondage. This is in line with the arguments derived from verses 18.57 and
18.58.

2. JÏÄNA-YOGA
The common study of jïäna and karma are the topic of the beginning of
the Fifth Chapter. After introducing jïäna-yoga, Lord Kåñëa qualifies the
rewards to be achieved by renunciation in verse 5.6. The word ayogata
indicates that, even if one is practising yoga, the result one achieves may be
just the opposite. Indeed, one may be ayogata, or disconnected. How is that?
Although jïäna-yoga is the topic, the words yoga-yukta indicate some other
engagement is needed — something other than what is already being
performed in jïäna-yoga, that is, if real yoga, or connection with the Supreme,

122
is to be achieved.
The implication of the word yukta is clear. It is a term that is used in
connection with devotion. To further confirm this we may turn to the next
verse (5.7), beginning with yoga-yukto. It is a description of a devotee. (This is
confirmed in verse 10 of that chapter by the words brahmaëy ädhäya, or
resigning one’s work to the Supreme.) Thus, jïäna is described as being
functional when in contact with devotional service.
The same message is given as a summary of the practice of jïäna in 7.19.
Therein a jïänéis shown to achieve the platform of väsudevaù sarvam iti,
accepting Väsudeva (Kåñëa) as all in all. This has been described as the
unidirectional characteristic of ananya bhakti earlier (VIII.iv.c).
Implicit in this understanding is the converse — if the jïäné does not come
to that realisation, then he will continue in the cycle of repeated birth,
bahünäà janma, which means no liberation. Once again, to achieve the
perfectional stage, jïäna is shown to require the presence of bhakti.

3. AÑÖÄÌGA YOGA
In the study of añöäìga-yoga the same conclusion is readily reached. Verse
6.15 indicates that constant yoga practice will lead one to mat saàsthäm, the
abode of the Lord. What is that yuïjan, or practice, Çré Kåñëa speaks about? It
is obviously devotion, as shown in the meaning of the root word, yukta, above.
For those in doubt, they may turn to the previous page in the Gétä. In
verses 6.13-14, the Lord has given the direction of such practice with the words
...mac-citto yukta äséta mat-paraù, “...one should meditate upon Me in the heart
and make Me the ultimate goal of life.” This is certainly verification that it is
bhakti which succeeds in awarding liberation to the perfect yogé. Analyses of
other verses on añöäìga-yoga (such as 6.31) will support the same conclusion.
The conclusion in this subsection is that the sädhya, or perfectional stage,

123
of yogas is also dependent on bhakti to award liberation.

THE CONCLUSION OF DEPENDENCE ON BHAKTI

The initial premise is that other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti-yoga.
This proposition has been analysed in reference to the two stages every yoga
system comprises. They are the stages of practice and perfection. In the
preceding pages it has been shown that, according to the teachings of the Gétä,
both these stages are dependent on bhakti-yoga. Thus, all yoga systems are
dependent on bhakti. Furthermore, that dependence is not incidental (on one
stage alone), but absolute (in all stages).
Thus Corollary 4.7 is confirmed: All yoga systems are dependent on
bhakti-yoga.

BHAKTI IS CONTAINED IN OTHER YOGA SYSTEMS

The fact that other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti to award any
result indicates that the practice of bhakti must be contained within those
systems. In other words, every yoga system is the practice of bhakti, albeit
indirect.
This is implicit in the now familiar verse 18.57. It is also implied that bhakti
is present in each yoga system. It is to be expected that where such devotional
emphasis is neglected, the effort which the practitioner undertakes is a waste
of time.
This is clearly emphasised in the description of añöäìga-yoga in verses 10 to
33 in Chapter 6. Lord Kåñëa repeatedly emphasises devotion to the Supersoul,
directly and indirectly. The same can be said for jïäna-yoga and karma-yoga.

is Independent

124
 Subsection IX.iv.b has shown that all yoga systems are dependent on bhakti.
But what is the position of bhakti-yoga itself? Is it dependent on something
else? Is it dependent on other yogas or any other thing for its perfection?
The answer can be reached by analysing bhakti in much the same way as
the other yoga systems were in the previous subsections. Bhakti also has two
stages: practice and perfection. Once again, the Gétä will be the authority to
reveal the nature of the independence of bhakti.

BHAKTI INDEPENDENT IN PRACTICE

Verses 11.54 and 55 are instrumental in studying the behaviour of bhakti in
practice. 11.54 describes the process of unalloyed devotional service,
technically called ananya bhakti. It is explained as being the “only” means to
see Kåñëa as He is and understand Him perfectly. The details of how this
bhakti is practised is described in the following verses.

bhaktyä tv ananyayäçakya
aham evaà-vidho 'rjuna
jïätuà drañöuà ca tattvena
praveñöuà ca parantapa

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.

mat-karma-kån mat-paramo
mad-bhaktaù saìga-varjitaùnirvairaù sarva-bhüteñu
yaù sa mäm eti päëòava

My dear Arjuna, one who is engaged in My pure devotional service, free from the
contaminations of fruitive activities and mental speculation, he who works for Me,
who makes Me the supreme goal of his life, and who is friendly to every living

125
 entity—he certainly comes to Me.

Two important phrases are ananya bhakti in 11.54, and sahga varjita in 11.55.
They are, in a sense, a repetition of the same thing. They are analysed below.
Ananya bhakti - The word ananya has been explained before. Its literal
meaning is “that which is free from anything else.” Prefixing the word bhakti
excludes any admixture in the form of karma, jïäna, etc. In other words, only
bhakti which is free from any other thing can award the desired result of yoga.
This is confirmed by the use of the word tu.
The implication is that bhakti is independent of other things in its practice.
The obvious consequence is that mixing bhakti with other things will not give
the desired result. Hence, bhakti must be sufficient in its own right.
Saìga varjita is found in the 55th verse of the Eleventh Chapter. This verse
describes the process of practising ananya bhakti — that such practice is
devoid of the association of any other thing. The consequence is the same as
the usage of the word ananya. It implies that bhakti must retain an exclusive
aloofness from contact with any other process in its practice to award its
inherent results.
The conclusion is that bhakti is independent of all other things in its
practice. Sädhana bhakti awards sädhya bhakti. This is the topic of the next
subsection.

BHAKTI INDEPENDENT IN PERFECTION

Verse 12.8 explains that the symptom of the perfectional stage of pure
devotion is characterised by being fully absorbed — mind and intelligence —
in Lord Kåñëa. This is given as the guaranteed means for “living” in Kåñëa
always. The natural response to the Lord’s request is that such a standard is
not easily achieved. He then gives an alternate means for achieving the

126
perfectional stage. This is explained in verse 12.9.
There, Kåñëa opines that by practising (abyäsa-yogena) devotional service,
one will rise to the platform of desiring to achieve Kåñëa. This desire will
result in constant absorption in thought of Him. In this way, the
aforementioned perfection can be achieved more gradually.
Kåñëa presents devotion in practice as the only means to achieve devotion
in perfection. Thus, devotion, being dependent on devotion, indicates its
independence from any other thing. The conclusion is that the perfectional
stage of bhakti is as independent of any other thing as its practice.
This point could have also been proven from analysis of the word ananya
bhakti. The exclusive context that is implied by the word ananya can only be
achieved if bhakti is unmixed at any time, either in practice or perfection.

BHAKTI IS ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT

Lord Kåñëa’s usage of words to establish the independence of bhakti implies
that it is not only independent of other yoga processes, but also everything
else. This has been shown to be the case for bhakti in practice as well as in
perfection. By studying the Gétä we can conclude that other yoga systems are
found to be qualified by their dependence on bhakti. On the other hand,
devotion is not qualified by other yoga practices for its perfection. Bhakti is
functionally independent of anything, other than itself.
The conclusion of this subsection is that bhakti is absolutely independent of
any other process. This confirms Corollary 4.8. With this in mind we can
proceed in the following subsection to show bhakti as the goal of the yoga
system.

Argument 3: Other Meant to Achieve

127
 The following argument has been presented to emphasise the systematic
presentation of yoga practices presented in the Gétä. Lord Kåñëa’s train of
thought is not arbitrary or impersonal. He presents different yoga practices for
a very specific purpose. These yogas evolved from common elements which are
the natural consequence of spiritual discipline. By using such elements of
knowledge, work, renunciation, etc., as building blocks, Lord Kåñëa by
different combinations constructs different structures, known as karma-yoga,
jïäna-yoga, etc.
However, these yogas are meant to direct practitioners. That direction is
achieved by accepting common practices toward a common goal. The goal is
bhakti-yoga, the only means by which one traverses the cycle of birth and
death and attains the abode of the Lord.
The following subsections will argue the points listed below, verifying
Corollaries 4.9-12.
1. All yoga practices are interrelated (Corollary 4.9).
2. That interrelation is known as the yoga system, or yoga ladder
(Corollary 4.10).
3. Only bhakti awards ultimate liberation (Corollary 4.11).
4. Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the yoga system (Corollary 4.12).

All Practices are Interrelated

To verify that the Gétähas a systematic presentation, it must be shown that

there is a clear structure and progression to Lord Kåñëa’s words. A substantial
proof would have to show that the yoga practices are clearly interrelated, with
bhakti-yoga as their common goal. In the following, this interrelation is
presented from three perspectives.

128
 1. Section VIII.iii.b has explained the process of knowledge. As the GUI is
the solution to Arjuna’s problems which arise from ignorance of duty (2.7),
knowledge is the means to eradicate such illusion. The all-inclusive definition
of knowledge by Lord Kåñëa in verse 13.8-12 has been categorised as follows:

3.8 generally refers to work, or behaviour.

3.9-10 deal with renunciation.
3.9 explains meditation.
3.11 includes bhakti.
3.12 discusses different types of jïäna, knowledge.

All in all, Kåñëa reveals that the practice of spiritual life (as a solution to a
materialistic life’s problems) includes work, renunciation, knowledge,
meditation, and devotion.
This is identical with the analysis of the individual yoga systems in Section
IX.iv.a. The conclusion is that these elements in different measures constitute
karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga, añöäìga-yoga and bhakti-yoga.
A consequence to the common assertions of these two arguments is that
yoga systems are included within the process of knowledge.
From our previous study it is clear that the process of knowledge is one,
complete, consistent practice. Subsequently, its parts must be systematically
interrelated for it even to be known as a process, or for that process to work.
These parts of the process of knowledge, being integral to respective yoga
practices, demand that the yoga systems themselves interrelate.

2. The second perspective is a consequence of the argument above. It is as

129
follows:
karma-yoga is the simplest of all yoga practices. It contains work and
knowledge. Jïäna also contains knowledge in addition to renunciation, but is
devoid of work. The common element to both is knowledge. Similarly, all yoga
systems contain such common elements to varying degrees. [It could be said
that all elements are present in each yoga system. However, according to the
prominence of some elements over others, they may appear to be absent. It
should be remembered mat it is the element of bhakti which makes any of the
other three processes successful. This is due to their dependence on bhakti] As
a result of the common sharing of elements, the yoga systems are certainly
interdependent.
From the two arguments above, it is important to note the systematic
construction of yoga practices. The constituents of knowledge — those
practices which are conducive for self-realisation — are work, renunciation,
knowledge, meditation and devotion. Lord Kåñëa has taken these five
elements and combined them into four yoga systems to appeal to four different
types of individuals. These are the active (karma-yoga), the speculative
(jïäna-yoga), the contemplative (añöäìga-yoga) and the devoted (bhakti-yoga).
The difference between them are the incorporation of varying degrees of
these elements. Thus, it appears that there are different yoga systems.
Actually, it is all one system: the process of knowledge, which is completely
fulfilled by bhakti-yoga (Code 3). It is only due to the emphasis on certain
elements that they are termed differently.
The last argument to show interrelation is simple.

3. All yoga systems have been shown to be dependent on bhakti (IX.iv.b). If

things are related to a common thing, they are related to each other. Thus all
yoga practices are also interrelated.

130
 We have thus shown that all yoga systems are interconnected on the
following basis:

1. They are all parts of the same process of knowledge;

2. They are composed of the same constituents (work, renunciation, etc.)
in varying degrees; and
3. They are all dependent on bhakti.

The conclusion of this subsection is that all yoga systems are

interconnected. This verifies Corollary 4.9.

The System or Ladder

In the previous subsection it was shown that there is an interrelation

among the different yoga practices. This subsection will show that such a
relationship is not manifest solely due to the three reasons listed at the
conclusion of IX.v.a, which are:

1. They are all parts of the same process of knowledge;

2. They are composed of the same constituents (work, etc.) in varying
degrees; and
3. They are all dependent on bhakti.

The interrelation is attributed to each yoga practice playing a role in an

all-inclusive, comprehensive, organised yoga system in which one yoga practice
is the complementary basis of another. Such a natural evolution concludes in
the pure devotional service of the Lord, ananya bhakti.

131
 The design of such a yoga system is undertaken by the Lord to attract
spiritual practitioners of differing inclinations. However, the practice of bhakti
is itself independent and can be taken up at any time, provided the
practitioner has the association of devotees.
The concluding portion of this argument will explain Çréla Prabhupäda’s
usage of the term “yoga ladder”. This includes a rough schematic.

PARTS OF ONE YOGA SYSTEM CONFIRMED

It has been proven that karma, jïäna and yoga all culminate in bhakti.
Bhakti is also the common factor without which they are incapable of
bestowing any result. To emphasise their systematic unity, Çréla Prabhupäda
explains (6.47) they are not different, but are part of a yoga ladder — one
system.
Quoting from the Gétä in the Lord’s own words, the same thing is repeated.
In Chapter Three, Kåñëa says,

jïäna-yogena säìkhyänäà karma-yogena yogénäm

O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men
who try to realise the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical,
philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service. (3.3)
Arjuna wants to know which of the two paths, karma or jïäna, is better
(3.2). In replying to him, the Lord explains they are not different paths, but
dvi-vidhä niñöhä. The word vidhämeans stage, or platform. Here, the Lord states
that the two processes are different stages of the same process. This is
emphasised by the word dvi, which means two.
Kåñëa could have easily said they were distinctively different. That was,
after all, Arjuna’s bewilderment in 3.1. He was trying to understand how these
two apparently opposing things could both be given as the remedy for his

132
malady. They appeared contradictory. But the Lord replied they are just
different platforms, and only unlearned persons will say they are different
processes.
Similarly, in the Fifth Chapter the same theme is emphasised:

çré-bhagavän uväca
sannyäsaù karma-yogaç ca
niùçreyasa-karäv ubhau
tayos tu karma-sannyäsät
karma-yogo viçiñyate

The Personality of Godhead replied: The renunciation of work and work in

devotion are both good for liberation. But, of the two, work in devotional
service is better than renunciation of work. (5.2)
The gradation of systems is further confirmed by use of the word viçiñyate,
which means “better”. He states that whereas they may be different stages,
they are certainly not equal, as is often the argument of speculators.
Otherwise, how could one be belter than another? From these verses we have
the Lord’s confirmation that karma and jïäna are part of one system.
In Chapter Four there is further substantiation of this point. This chapter
explains how karma-yoga is brought to the platform of jïäna and then yoga by
ever increasing transcendental knowledge — hence, an ever increasing
quality of work, renunciation and meditation.
If one element — transcendental knowledge — is able to increase the
quality of work, renunciation and meditation, thereby changing from one yoga
practice to another, it is apparent that the aggregate through which such
transition takes place is a uniform process. The main elements of work,
renunciation and meditation all depend on the quality of transcendental
knowledge by which their practice is inspired. In this way a particular element
is emphasised over another. Consequently, names like karma-yoga are used.

133
This is certainly confirmation that there is one yoga system which is graded
according to its elements. Only the stages are named differently. Such a
hierarchy is stated by the Lord in 6.46:

tapasvibhyo 'dhiko yogéjïänébhyo 'pi mato 'dhikaùkarmibhyaç cädhiko yogétasmäd

yogé bhavärjuna

A yogéis greater than the ascetic, greater than the empiricist and greater
than the fruitive worker. Therefore, O Arjuna, in all circumstances, be a yogé.
Here, yoga is listed as superior to austerity, which is better than jïäna,
which is better than karma. The following verse clearly states that bhakti-yoga
is the best of the lot. In addition, there are other verses to substantiate these
points. The Eighth Chapter concludes by grading the relative destinations of
different systems, concluding that all of them are contained within bhakti
(8.28).
The Twelfth Chapter explains the superiority of bhakti over monistic jïäna
and describes the levels of devotion as well as other yoga systems, graded by
the ability of the practitioner to commit himself to a practice.
From the aforementioned arguments it is seen that:

1. What is called yoga is one continual process, with whatever element

emphasised determining terms such as karma-yoga, etc.
2. All these types of yoga are meant to elevate one to the same platform —
bhakti.
3. However, because of ease of practice or the quality of transcendental
knowledge and devotion contained within them, they are considered
vertically graded.
4. Of them all, bhakti-yoga is the best.

134
 I shall quote Çréla Prabhupäda’s summary of this argument from the purport
to verse 6.47:

...From the beginning of karma-yoga to the end of bhakti-yoga is a long way to

self-realisation. Karma-yoga, without fruitive results, is the beginning of this path.
When karma-yoga increases in knowledge and renunciation, the stage is called
jïäna-yoga. When jïäna-yoga increases in mediation on the Supersoul by different
physical processes, and the mind is on Him, it is called añöäìga-yoga. And when one
surpasses añöäìga-yoga and comes to the point of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, Kåñëa, it is called bhakti-yoga, the culmination...

In the analysis of verse 13.8-12 in subsection VIII.iii, it was shown that the
elements of yoga are work, knowledge, renunciation, detachment and
devotion. By the combination of varying degrees of these elements, different
yoga practices arise. They are interrelated and part of one system.
The following subsection analyses the yoga practices on the basis of the
prominence of these elements with a plan to view the transition from one to
the other.

TRANSITION OF YOGA PRACTICES

The following is a listing of the different yoga practices and the elements in
each. The transition from one to the other through the development of
elements is the junction between them. Table IX.2 summarises this
information.

KARMA-YOGA

work — the main feature of this practice.

135
 knowledge — since the work is directed by çästra, there is a certain
degree of knowledge, especially of the performance of sacrifices. The
knowledge that Viñëu is the beneficiary of all one’s work is the most
important.
renunciation — practitioner is willing to share results of his work,
but only partially, as he is still attached to the fruits of labour or to the
work itself.
meditation — minimal, mostly material as a concentration of fruits of
labour.
devotion — as he is willing to offer the result to the Lord there is a
sense of devotion, but it is out of duty and with a desire to succeed in
one’s work.
Transition to jïäna — The karma yogéis attached to working. At the
beginning his knowledge is meagre. Through following çästra and
association of jïänés, he becomes more aware of the eternality of the soul
and the transitory nature of the world. The result of this knowledge is
he becomes detached from work and becomes more inclined to
absorption in understanding the Absolute Truth.

JÏÄNA-YOGA

work — very little, as one is inclined to study

and speculation in solitude.
knowledge — increased through study; thus one
is absorbed in the oneness of spiritual existence.
renunciation — as a consequence of developed

136
 knowledge, one is more detached than the karma yogé.
meditation — increased from the karma yogé, as
jïänéis concentrated on understanding the self. However such meditation
is still minimal.
devotion — less than the karma yogé, as the jïäné
is not making any offering to Viñëu.
Transition to añöäìga-yoga — By increased knowledge and association with
añöäìga yogés, a jïäna yogébegins to focus on the form of Lord Visnu as the
Supersoul, the overseer and permitter of all works. Adopting mechanical
means to regulate the activities of the senses and breathing, one becomes
absorbed in meditation on the form of Visnu and comes to the stage of
añöäìga-yoga.

AÑÖÄÌGA-YOGA
work — still limited, as the tendency is to be in seclusion. However work
is recommended in the initial stages, to be renounced later.
knowledge — increased from that of the jïäné, as there is awareness of the
form of Viñëu.
renunciation — may be equal to that of the jïänéin sädhana but more
in purpose since the yogéhas renounced the concept of oneness to observe the
Supersoul as an entity separate from himself.
meditation — greatly increased as his entire sädhana is based on
meditation. However such meditation is still minimal.
devotion — increased from the jïänéor karmi in practice and even more
in the perfectional stage, as one offers one’s self to the Lord in trance.

137
 Transition to bhakti — Through association of devotees one can come to
an awareness of the transcendental qualities of Viñëu. One recognises that
service to the Lord should be performed with both gross and subtle senses,
fully absorbed in meditation on the Lord.

BHAKTI-YOGA
work — fully engaged in performing any work for the Lord. A devotee
may be more active than a karmé, but the quality of his work is always superior.
knowledge — full knowledge of Kåñëa through revelation.
renunciation — complete in the ability to engage everything in the
Lord’s service.
meditation — in all activities always working for Kåñëa. In full
absorption in Him, one is on the platform of samädhi.
devotion — complete in that the only motivation for service is the
pleasure of the Lord.
For ease of comprehension, the information above is abbreviated in Table
IX.2.
In the preceding argument it is clear that the interconnection of yoga
practices is systematic, based on the development of the elements. This is
confirmed by the natural transition in the qualitative and quantitative
increase in these elements. There appears to be a definite system in which
different yoga practices are stages, established by the degree to which the
elements of work, knowledge, etc. are present.
Çréla Prabhupäda has called this the “yoga ladder”. A simple pictorial
representation of this yoga ladder follows in Table IX.3.1 do not claim that the
table below perfectly represents the yoga system, or the yoga ladder. It is simply
indicative of how the yoga system evolves and appears. Knowledge and

138
renunciation are shown as the prime elements. By their development,
advancement in the stages of work, meditation and devotion accrue. As a
result, the transformation takes place between the respective stages of
different yoga practices.

TABLE IX.2
DEVELOPMENT OF ELEMENTS IN YOGA PRACTICES

ELEMENT KA JÏÄ AÑÖÄ BHA

RMA NA ÌGA KTI

WORK acti inac intern activ

ve tive al e

KNOWLED littl mor more comp

GE e e still lete

RENUNCIA littl mor more perfe

TION e e still ct

MEDITATIO non littl more samä

N e e dhi

DEVOTION moti men limite anany

vated tal d a

From this it can be understood that advancement in work, knowledge,

renunciation, meditation and devotion indicates advancement in spiritual
life. With progress in spiritual practice one approaches pure devotional

139
service. That is known as ananya bhakti.
Certain questions arise as a consequence of the description of the yoga
ladder. They are posed and answered in case numbers 1-3 below.
CASE 1.
Q. How is the independent nature of bhakti maintained if by increments of
work, knowledge, etc. it can be achieved in due course?

TABLE
IX.3

THE YOGA LADDER

K R

N Devotio E BHAKTI-Y
n OGA

140
O N

141
W

Meditat ASTANGA-
ion YOGA

W U

L Knowle JNANA-Y
dge OG A

142
 C

E I

143
 Work A KARMA-Y
OGA

G B.G. as I KARMA-K
Authority ANDA

144
 E N

A. The development of the elements leads to an interest in the association

of devotees, from whom one hears about devotional service (4.32,10.9). This is
confirmed in verse 7.28 by use of the word puëya-karmaëäm, “previous pious
activities”, as the eligibility for devotional service. Thus, by the grace of
Vaiñëavas, one is inspired in the service of the Lord. Furthermore, that grace is
an effect of devotion within their hearts. Thus, the cause for receiving
devotion is devotion. In this way, the self-manifesting, independent nature of
bhakti is maintained.

CASE 2.
Q. If the practice of these elements does not qualify one for devotion, then
what is the meaning of the yoga ladder or system?
A. By increasing spirituality one naturally, through proper knowledge,
becomes interested in taking the association of the devotees (7.28). Through
such association, oxpunya, one receives the seed of the creeper of devotion and
one’s path to bhakti begins.

CASE 3.
Q. Does one need to traverse all the rungs of the ladder to come to bhakti!
A. No. At any stage in one’s development one is eligible to accept

145
devotional association and become a candidate for bhakti-yoga. The graphic
verification of this is LordKåñëa’s concluding statement, verse 18.66. He
suggests renouncing all other dharmas or yoga practices and just taking up a
surrender to Him, or bhakti.

Names like the “yoga system” or the “yoga ladder” have been arbitrarily
assigned to the aggregate of the interconnecting yoga practices. Such
designations do not minimise the conclusion. There is a comprehensive yoga
system. Otherwise, the incremental use of the same elements of work,
knowledge, etc., as part of the process of knowledge, are meaningless. This
confirms Corollary 4.10, which states that: the interrelation is known as the
yoga system or yoga ladder.
Having confirmed Corollary 4.10, the next step will be to show that the
incremental development of the elements, to their complete manifestation in
bhakti-yoga, are indicative that the goal of the system is bhakti itself.

Only Awards Ultimate Liberation

Every yoga practice must conclude in a result. That result must be the
cessation of the problems of life, either partially or in full. If not, then what
would be the value of Lord Kåñëa’s recommending such activities to Arjuna in
the first place?
It is to be expected that each yoga practice awards liberation. This
liberation may be of two types: complete or partial. The stage of complete
liberation has already been given in the definition of yoga. It is “making Lord
Kåñëa the ultimate goal of one’s life and achieving His supreme abode.”
Other “partial” liberations may include different stages of advancement
towards this ultimate goal. As other yoga practices have been shown to be
approaches to bhakti (Code 2), so the liberation of all of these must be

146
approaches to the goal offered by bhakti. This conclusion is the premise of
Corollary 4.11.
The next step is to investigate the words of the Gétä directly to confirm the
conclusion above. This requires a review of the liberation achieved by each
yoga process. If it is found that such liberation is indeed “partial”, the premise
of the preceding paragraph will have been confirmed. That is, since only
bhakti awards complete liberation, it is the goal of other yogas, and hence the
yoga system.
There are two means to approach this issue. One is to analyse each yoga
practice individually, and the type of liberation awarded. The second is to
accept the generalised summary of all yoga practices in verse 4.30. The
conditions imposed by this verse define liberation for other yogas.

LIBERATION IN NON-DEVOTIONAL PRACTICES

To save time in this text the second process is presented here, while the
first is to be found in Appendix 14.
Verse 4.30 is a summary of 4.24 to 4.29. This is a description of different
types of sacrifices and their results, karma-yoga is described in 25, jhana-yoga
in 25 and 28, and añöäìga or hatha-yoga in 27, 28 and 29. Bhakti-yoga is not
mentioned or included in the topic under summary. Lord Kåñëa says:

sarve 'py ete yajïa-vido

yajïa-kñapita-kalmañäùyajïa-çiñöämåta-bhujo
yänti brahma sanätanam

All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed
of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the results of sacrifices,
they advance toward the supreme eternal atmosphere. (4.30)
The words sarve ’py ete confirm that Kåñëa is summarising all (sarve) the

147
previously mentioned processes. What is the result of their practice? They are
three in number.

1. Purification of sinful reactions;

2. Perception of enjoyment in the practice; and
3. Advancing towards the Supreme (liberation).

The topic under discussion in this subsection is the third result mentioned
above. This is the liberation achieved by yoga practice. Although the type of
liberation may vary from one process to another, they have one thing in
common. This is indicated by the words yänti brahma sanätanam. The
practitioner is directed to “advance towards the supreme eternal atmosphere.”
The significant word here is yänti, or “approach”. All the yoga practices
approach the Supreme in varying degrees. This establishes one common point
among them all. They do not “achieve” the Supreme. No matter how close
they may “approach”, they do not result in the supreme liberation attributed
to bhakti.
Other yogas award a partial liberation that approaches the Supreme. They
do not award complete liberation, which is the sole property of bhakti-yoga.
(See Appendix 14 for a more detailed argument.) This is confirmation of
Corollary 4.11, which states: Only bhakti awards ultimate liberation.

is the Goal of the System

Yoga practices are interrelated in an elaborate yoga system which has been
termed the yoga ladder. In this yoga ladder bhakti is the complete practice in
which all the elements of yoga are fully and perfectly manifest. It is the final
rung of the ladder. According to Lord Kåñëa’s statements in the Gétä, no other

148
process supersedes it. Bhakti is the goal of the entire yoga system. This
conclusion will be verified in this subsection.
No additional procedure is required, as this point has been repeatedly
proven by the verification of Codes and Corollaries. In the list below, the
relevant Corollaries are paraphrased to show how the goal of the entire yoga
system is bhakti.

1. The purpose of the yoga system is to solve the problems of life, which
is achieved only by bhakti. Thus, the purpose of the yoga system is bhakti.
(Code 3, Corollary 3.14)
2. The goal of the yoga system is the conclusion of the Gétä, and the
conclusion of the Gétä is bhakti. Thus, the goal of the yoga system is
bhakti. (Corollary 4.2)
3. The goal of the yoga system is to bring one to perfect knowledge,
which is knowledge of Kåñëa; a consequence of which is one engages in
bhakti. Therefore, the goal of the yoga system is bhakti. (Corollaries 3.6,
3.7 & 3.8)
4. All yoga practices must be connected to bhakti to achieve success.
Thus, the yoga system is also dependent on bhakti for success. Since
bhakti is the result-awarding element of the yoga system, bhakti is the
goal of the yoga system. (Corollary 4.7, 4.10)

From the above stated logic it is clear that the yoga system presented in the
Gétä has bhakti-yoga as its goal. Whenever someone takes up yoga practice, he
is ultimately directed to the devotional service of the Lord. In that way one is
able to achieve the supreme liberation of returning to the eternal
transcendental realm.
This confirms Corollary 4.12, which states: Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the

149
yoga system (yoga ladder).

Argument 4: is the Goal of the

This argument completes the last in a series of arguments meant to verify

Code 4. This code states that “Bhakti-yoga is the independent goal of the yoga
system. Other yogas are dependent on and ultimately lead to bhakti as the goal
of the Gétä and the solution to Arjuna’s problems.”
In Section IX.ii, Corollaries 4.1 - 4.13 have been listed. The arguments in
this chapter have confirmed Corollaries 4.1 - 4.12. Now it remains to confirm
Corollary 4.13, which states: Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the Gétä.
The conclusion of this corollary is axiomatic, confirming all others
preceding it. In verse 2.39, Kåñëa states, “I shall explain to you this yoga,
knowing which you shall be relieved from the bondage of works.” Elsewhere,
the Lord has confirmed that the practice of yoga is meant for liberation from
material suffering. This is confirmed in Corollary 4.2. Since yoga is offered by
the Lord as a means for Arjuna to resolve his dilemma, it is the theme of the
Gétä. Since the goal of each yoga practice, as well as the yoga system, is
bhakti-yoga, the goal of Lord Kåñëa’s speaking the Gétä is to bring Arjuna —
and all of us — to bhakti-yoga.
One may well ask whether such a conclusion is verified directly by the
words of the Gétä. Two references are tendered here from the words of the
Lord.

REFERENCE 1.
In verse 15.19, Kåñëa clearly states:

yo mäm evam asammüòho

jänäti puruñottamam

150
 sa sarva-vid bhajati mäàsarva-bhävena bhärata

Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without

doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full
devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata.
The word sarva-vit, or “knower of everything”, is a categorical, absolute
statement similar to that in 10.8. There is little way of getting around its
meaning, other than ignoring it.
Kåñëa states that the conclusion of one fully aware of “all” transcendental
knowledge (which indicates that stage beyond which nothing remains to be
known) is bhajati mäà, or devotion to Him. This means that devotional
service is taken up as the consequence of complete spiritual realisation. It is
thus the culmination of all knowledge. Since subsidiary stages of knowledge
are contained in a concept of the “knower of everything”, knowledge of all
other spiritual practices is included therein.
As knowledge is the currency imparted to Arjuna by the Gétä, the
conclusion is that one who understands the Gétä engages in Kåñëa’s devotional
service. That means that bhakti-yoga is the goal of the Gétä.

REFERENCE 2.
The second quote is the most famous of all Gétäçlokas. It is the conclusion
of the Gétä, verse 18.66. This conclusion is known by all, although understood
by few. As Kåñëa’s most confidential and final instruction, it instructs Arjuna
and us in exclusive devotional service to Him. To qualify this exclusivity,
Kåñëa once again gives a unilateral instruction: sarva-dharmän parityajya —
“just abandon all varieties oi religion”.
So much has been said in the Gétä up to this point of karma-käëòa,
varieties of karma-yoga, demigod worship, jïäna, säìkhya, renunciation,
impersonal realisation, and añöäìga-yoga. Without careful guidance one can

151
easily become bewildered. In order to make everything very understandable,
Kåñëa reveals His Full desire: “Just abandon all these other processes. Give
them up and practice bhakti.”
Why? Does He intend to deprive Arjuna of any spiritual benefit? No. It is
all included in the execution of bhakti-yoga, and the reassurance is then given
by the Lord in the last two verses: “I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction.
Do not fear.”
Kåñëa once again clearly states that the fearless means of being free from
all sin is to engage in His devotional service, depending exclusively on Him.

Chapter Summary

The strategy in this chapter has been to divide Code 4 into four divisions,
which have been discussed in Arguments 1-4.
In Argument 1, by a verification of Corollaries 1-5, it was shown that the
use of the word yoga is only fully satisfied by bhakti-yoga. Other yoga processes
are deficient and constitute only partial definitions ofyoga.
In Argument 2, Corollaries 6-8 confirmed yoga practices as dependent
elements of the independent process of bhakti.
Argument 3 showed through Corollaries 9-12 that these other dependent
yoga practices are connected in a progressive yoga system. This yoga system, or
yoga ladder, is meant to achieve bhakti-yoga as its goal. Thus, all yoga systems
lead to bhakti, which is the exclusive means for knowing Lord Kåñëa and
solving Arjuna’s problems.
As a consequence of these arguments, and analysing the conclusion of the
Gétä in Argument 4, Corollary 4.13 is confirmed. This states that the goal of
the Bhagavad-gétä is to bring everyone to devotional service of Lord Kåñëa.
This is the means of obtaining His grace, crossing over the ocean of material

152
existence, and going back to the spiritual realm.

Conclusion of this Chapter: Code 4 is Confirmed

The following is a repetition of the flow of logic, through the corollaries

derived in this chapter.

4.1 Yoga implies a combined practice of work, renunciation, knowledge and

meditation.
4.2 The goal of yoga is liberation.
4.3 Liberation means to attain Lord Kåñëa in the spiritual world.
4.4 The definition of yoga is “that dutiful, detached activity, directed by
transcendental knowledge, which brings one to make Lord Kåñëa the ultimate
goal of life and trains one to achieve His Supreme Abode.”
4.5 Yoga means bhakti-yoga.
4.6 Other yoga systems indicate elements of bhakti.
4.7 All yoga systems depend on bhakti (for results).
4.8 Bhakti is independent of other systems.
4.9 All yoga practices are interrelated.
4.10 That interrelation is known as the yoga system, or yoga ladder.
4.11 Only bhakti awards ultimate liberation.
4.12 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the yoga system (yoga ladder).
4.13 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the Gétä.

153
 In this way, Code 4 is confirmed.
Code 4: Bhakti-yoga is the independent goal of the yoga ladder. However,
all other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti.

Chapter 10, Code 5: Lord Kåñëa's Purpose in Speaking the Gita is to

Bring Everyone to Devotional Service

Proposition

Code 5: The reason Çré Kåñëa mentions other yoga systems is to attract
different types of conditioned souls to His devotional service.

Argument — Introduction

The reader may naturally be puzzled in trying to understand what Lord

Råñëa’s purpose is. Why does He talk about inferior processes of yoga if bhakti
is the best? Why not just direct everyone to bhakti? In this chapter we will
answer these questions.
Directing everyone to devotional service is exactly the Lord’s plan. In order
to effectively do so, He takes into account the different psychologies of the
readers of the Gétä. He is well aware that through the exercise of their false
ego, different living entities are attached to different paths of liberation, even
if they are inferior to bhakti. Thus, He directs all these paths towards bhakti
through the pages of the Gétä. As a result, such searchers ultimately come to
His devotional service.
This chapter will cite certain verses to show the Lord’s awareness of
different yoga paths and the attachment of their practitioners to them. A
detailed presentation of the same point is contained in Appendix 1. By

154
directing all yoga practices to bhakti, He brings all His readers to the same
devotional conclusion.
The flow of logic for these arguments is shown in the Corollaries below and
is explained in Argument 1.

5.1 Living entities are under different modes of material nature.

5.2 According to their modes, living entities acquire different types of
faith, knowledge and determination.
5.3 The modes of nature also determine one’s circumstances and
environment.
5.4 Different yoga systems are designed by the Lord to accommodate men
of differing faiths, circumstances and times.
5.5 Bhakti-yoga, acquired by the grace of the Lord or His devotee, is
transcendental to the modes of nature.
5.6 The ultimate purpose of these yoga systems is to bring their
practitioners to the devotional service of Lord Çré Kåñëa.

Following Argument 1 is an alternate Argument 2. This is a classical

analytical process. When applied to the Gétä, it will show that bhakti is truly
the goal of the text. In conclusion, the Lord has presented these other systems
to bring their practitioners to bhakti.

Argument 1: Attachment of Different Practitioners Conditioned by

the Modes of Nature

In the Fourteenth Chapter the Lord explains the appearance of the

conditioned living entity from the womb of material nature (14.3-4). There are

155
three main subdivisions, or “modes”, of nature. They are called goodness,
passion and ignorance. As a result of their interaction, there is a vast variety
of conditions to which the living entities may be subjected. Due to the
interaction of these three modes (14.10), an al most countless number of
combinations of conditioned natures result (3x3 = 9x9 = 81x81 = 6561 x ...etc.).
This accounts for individuality and variegatedness.
The main point to be concluded at this point is to be found in 14.5:

sattvaà rajas tama iti

guëäù prakåti-sambhaväùnibadhnanti mahä-bäho
dehe dehinam avyayam

Material nature consists of the three modes — goodness, passion and

ignorance. When the living entity comes in contact with nature, O
mighty-armed Arjuna, he becomes conditioned by these modes. (14.5)
All living entities in this material world, unless transcendental, are
conditioned by different modes of nature. This confirms Corollary 5.1, which
states: Living entities are under different modes of material nature.

Different Modes Mean Different Faiths

In 3.33, Lord Kåñëa explains how the material modes of nature create
individual attitudes within the conditioned soul.
The details of one’s nature are to be studied through one’s gross and subtle
constitution and behaviour. A further analysis of the 17th and 18th Chapters
shows the effect of the modes of material nature on all psychological and
physiological activities. It is clear that, according to a particular mode, living
entities tend to react differently.
The Seventeenth Chapter describes the influence of the modes on the

156
faith acquired by an individual. Lord Çré Kåñëa explains:

sattvänurüpä sarvasya
çraddhä bhavati bhärata
çraddhä-mayo 'yaà puruño
yo yac-chraddhaù sa eva saù

According to one’s existence under the various modes of nature, one

evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular
faith according to the modes he has acquired. (17.3)
The Eighteenth Chapter gives a more detailed analysis of action,
knowledge, performers of action, understanding and determination according
to the influence of the modes of nature. It is not our purpose to make a
detailed study of the process. Rather, it should be noted that all of these
existential components are all subject to the influence of the modes of nature.
This influence is based on the sensitivity of an individual to a particular mode
or combination of modes. This confirms Corollary 5.2: According to their
modes, living entities acquire different types of faith, knowledge and
determination.
(Without belabouring the point at this stage, the reader could turn their
attention to Corollary 5.5. A natural question will arise to the inquisitive
mind: If all yoga systems are products of the modes of nature, of what avail are
they in transcending them? Lord Kåñëa answers this question. Only through
bhakti-yoga can one transcend the modes of nature. Thus, by necessity, all
yoga systems will need to bring the practitioner to bhakti.)

Environment is Also a Product of the Modes

In the paragraphs preceding, it has been shown that one’s inclination to a

particular yoga system will be determined by the faith one evolves under the

157
modes of nature. This means that material nature will determine one’s ability
to take up a certain path. This is due to the affect of nature on one’s internal
development.
One may inquire whether material nature influences the living entity in
any other way. It is reasonable to recognise that material nature will influence
the external situation of a living entity. Such influences are attributed to
material nature in 13.21:

kärya-käraëa-kartåtve hetuù prakåtir ucyate

Nature is said to be the cause of material causes and effects...

The affect of material nature on the individual is also recorded in 13.6-7.

Only the English is quoted here.
The five great elements, false ego, intelligence, the unmanifested, the ten
senses and the mind, the five sense objects, desire, hatred, happiness, distress,
the aggregate, the life symptoms, and convictions — all these are considered,
in summary, to be the field of activities and its interactions.
Among other symptoms, the word dhåtiù, or conviction, is important. One’s
conviction or ability to practice will be influenced not only by the modes of
nature directly, but also by the manifestations of the modes of nature. The
entire interaction of cause and effect are complicated and need not be
discussed here. However, an array of elements are working on an individual in
any activity.

18.13 “...there are five causes for the accomplishment of action...”

18.14 “The place of action [the body], the performer, the various senses, the
many different kinds of endeavour, and ultimately the Supersoul...”
18.15 “Knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the knower are the three

158
factors that motivate action; the senses, the work and the doer are the three
constituents of action.”

From these quotes it is recognised that a practitioner will be affected by

external circumstances, such as place, effort, senses, Supersoul and time. This
is the confirmation of Corollary 5.3: The modes of nature also determine one’s
circumstances, environment, etc.
A natural conclusion to be drawn from the above is that Lord Kåñëa offers
a multiplicity of yoga systems, not only to accommodate different faiths, but
also different times and places. It follows that a yoga system may be relevant
for one time and not another. This is the Vedic system, where there is a
particular yuga-dharma [yuga-dharma refers to the religious system of an age]
according to the respective age. This confirms Corollary 5.4: Different yoga
systems are designed by the Lord to accommodate men of differing faiths,
circumstances and times.

The Transcendental Position of Bhakti-Yoga

It has been established in Corollary 5.4: As a result of the influence of the

modes of material nature, different yoga paths are assigned to different
practitioners. By the law of necessity, there must be at least one yoga system, if
not more, that is not a byproduct of these modes. If there is not, then all living
entities are destined to be bound in the cycle of birth and death eternally.
This reasoning follows the law of causality. If the cause of adopting a yoga
practice is a product of the material energy, such a yoga system cannot
generate transcendence.
How will a practitioner become free from the modes of nature? There must
be some system independent of the material energy that can award ultimate
liberation.

159
 The answer to this dilemma is tendered by Lord Kåñëa. The Fourteenth
Chapter discusses the topic of the three modes of material nature. In verse 21,
Arjuna asks three important questions.

arjuna uväca
kair liìgais trén guëän etän
atéto bhavati prabho
kim äcäraù kathaà caitäàs
trén guëän ativartate

Arjuna inquired: 0 my dear Lord, by what symptoms is one known who is

transcendental to these three modes? What is his behaviour? And how does he
transcend the modes of nature?
In verse 26, Lord Kåñëa replies:

mäà ca yo 'vyabhicäreëa
bhakti-yogena sevate
sa guëän samatétyaitän
brahma-bhüyäya kalpate

One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down in any
circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes
to the level of Brahman.
The words of this verse do not lend themselves to misinterpretation. Kåñëa
gives a comprehensive, one pointed, direct answer to Arjuna’s third question.
(The other two are answered in 22-25.) He clearly states the practice of
bhakti-yoga to be the only means of guëän samatétyä, or “transcending the
modes”. There is no hint or indirect understanding that would imply some
other practice which would elevate one to transcendence. The use of the word
avyabhicäreëa qualifies that the nature of the devotion must be unfailing.
Unfailing means unceasing, barring any practice other than bhakti. This

160
qualification is similar to the use of the word ananya. The implication is that
any practice other than continual devotion will not render one free of the
modes of nature. Thus, it is exclusively established that no practice other than
bhakti-yoga can elevate one to transcendence.
It is thus concluded that bhakti-yoga is transcendental to the modes of
nature. This is only part of Corollary 5.5. It still remains to be shown how a
yogécan acquire this devotion.
Before continuing the proof of the second portion of this corollary we
should note a consequence of what has been derived so far. That other yoga
practices are meant to direct their practitioners to ultimate liberation is
obvious. Otherwise, the entire Gétä becomes meaningless. But as they are not
of a transcendental nature, they can only direct such proponents to a process
that is. The only process, as shown above, that is described as being
transcendental, is bhakti. Bhakti is not acquired by any material means. Lord
Kåñëa explains:

etäà vibhütià yogaà ca

mama yo vetti tattvataùso 'vikalpena yogena
yujyate nätra saàçayaù

One who is factually convinced of this opulence and mystic power of Mine
engages in unalloyed devotional service; of this there is no doubt. (10.7)
Knowledge of the opulences of the Absolute, or transcendental knowledge,
is the direct cause of bhakti-yoga. The use of the words avikalpena yogena are
synonymous with ananya bhakti. Corollary 4.5 has already shown that yoga
means bhakti; and Corollary 4.8 has confirmed the independence of bhakti.
This understanding of the use of the word yogena as synonymous with
bhakti-yoga concurs with the definition of yoga which arose from the
confirmation of Corollary 4.5. This rendition is confirmed by an analysis of
the contextual consistency of the word as used in 10.7. The following verse,

161
10.8, explains the nature of that yoga practice as being iti matväbhajante mäà.
The words bhajante mäàare exclusively devotional terms, thus confirming that
yogena means bhakti-yoga here.
Çréla Prabhupäda further elucidates on the meaning of the word bhajate:
The word bhajate is significant here. Bhajate has its root in the verb bhaj,
which is used when there is need of service. The English word “worship”
cannot be used in the same sense as bhaja. Worship means to adore, or to show
respect and honour to the worthy one. But service with love and faith is
especially meant for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One can avoid
worshipping a respectable man or a demigod and may be called discourteous,
but one cannot avoid serving the Supreme Lord without being thoroughly
condemned. Every living entity is part and parcel of the Supreme Personality
of Godhead, and thus every living entity is intended to serve the Supreme
Lord by his own constitution. Failing to do this, he falls down. The
Bhägavatam confirms this as follows:

ya eñäà puruñaà säkñäd

ätma-prabhavam éçvaram
na bhajanty avajänanti
sthänäd bhrañöäù patanty adhaù

‘Anyone who does not render service and neglects his duty unto the
Primeval Lord, who is the source of all living entities, will certainly fall down
from his constitutional position.’
In this verse also the word bhajanti is used. Therefore, bhajanti is applicable
to the Supreme Lord only, whereas the word ‘worship’ can be applied to
demigods or to any other common living entity. (Purport 6.47)
The next question is how this knowledge of Kåñëa, which leads to
conclusive engagement in devotional service, is acquired. Kåñëa has already
instructed in 4.34 that to acquire transcendental knowledge one needs to go to

162
one who is in possession of it. In this case, this means a devotee. By service and
surrender one may acquire such knowledge from such a Vaiñëava. Is there any
other means of acquiring this knowledge? In 10.10-11, the Lord gives Himself as
the alternate means. Thus, both the devotee and the Lord are means by which
this knowledge is acquired.
The conclusion is that bhakti-yoga is acquired by the grace of the devotee
or the Lord. Thus, Corollary 5.5 is established as follows: Bhakti-yoga, acquired
by the grace of the Lord or His devotee, is transcendental to the modes of
nature.

Finally: The Plan of the Lord

In verifying the validity of Corollaries 5.1 to 5.5, the supremacy of

bhakti-yoga over and above other yoga systems has been revealed. This has
been achieved by showing the transcendental nature of bhakti in comparison
to other yoga systems. The natural culmination of other yogas in bhakti has
been hinted at. This is imperative in order that their practitioners are directed
to the path of transcendence. Such indirect proof, by inference and necessity,
is sufficient to indicate a connection between other yoga practices and bhakti.
This connection includes their culminating in devotional service.
Do the words of the Gétä offer substantial direct evidence of this point,
thereby substantiating Corollary 5.6 and Code 5? In this subsection the
strategy will be to analyse one very important verse as being basic to the
premise. This verse reveals the Lord’s plan, wherein He accepts different paths
from all manner of yogas to devotion.

THE LORD’S PLAN

This “plan” is revealed in verse 4.11.
In the Second Chapter, Lord Kåñëa explains the contents of the Gétä in
163
brief. Kåñëa expresses His desire that Arjuna fight. He expects Arjuna
co-operate. But in the beginning of the Third Chapter, Arjuna prolongs he
discussion and wants clarification of the conflict between renunciation and
work. Kåñëa realised that His friend could not be motivated so quickly.
Then the Lord explains work and renunciation as parts of the same process.
He encourages Arjuna to work by fighting, surrendering the results to Him, as
an act of devotion. This is the culmination of all work (3.9, 3.30). Despite such
arguments, Arjuna was inclined not to act and wanted to know the cause of
his reticence (3.36).
After explaining the influence and cause of lust, the Lord begins the
Fourth Chapter by explaining transcendental knowledge. It is that clement by
which one can come from sakäma karma-yoga to niñkäma karma-yoga, or
passion to goodness. Such transcendental knowledge constitutes knowledge of
Him, His birth, incarnations and activities (4.9).
The result of such knowledge is “coming to Kåñëa”. This is the concluding
line of 4.9. Following on, verse 4.10 explains that coming to Kåñëa through
transcendental knowledge is preceded and qualified by the development of
bhäva, or transcendental love for Him.
How does Kåñëa measure the rewards attributed to the practising devotee?
And what about those who do not develop ecstatic attachment for the Lord
and do not care for transcendental knowledge of Him? What is their
destination, and how does Kåñëa reciprocate with them? Verse 4.11 answers
these questions.

TWO READINGS OF THE WORD YE

The Lord says:

ye yathä mäà prapadyante

täàs tathaiva bhajämy aham

164
 mama vartmänuvartante
manuñyäù pärtha sarvaçaù

As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My

path in all respects, O son of Prtha. (4.11)
Two things must be noted from this statement.

1) The use of the word prapadyante, and

2) the use of the word mama vartma.

The word ye in conjunction with the generic usage of the word

manuñyäù(all men) refers to two classes. One is the direct reference to the
previous verse, perfected souls who have attained transcendental love for
Kåñëa and have attained His eternal abode (4.9). In this context the verse
refers to His loving reciprocation with His devotees, awarding them their
ontological forms and eternal service in that realm.
Equally relevant, ye also refers to everyone else who has not achieved a
liberated status. These practitioners have been the subject of discussion in the
chapters leading to this verse.
The first meaning of ye addresses the conclusion of the current argument
and not its methodology. Thus, the second meaning is more relevant to the
subject under discussion. This argument will confine itself to this word usage.

ALL PATHS
The words mama vartmänuvartante translate as “everyone follows My
path”. The words indicate a very conclusive understanding. Whatever
situation one is in—whether a karmi, jïäné, or yogé—they are on the “path” of

165
the Lord.
The word mama indicates that they are not just arbitrary processes arrived
at by speculation, random chance, or even some sage’s formulation. They are
“My path”. The possessive tense indicates that they are designed by Him and
lead to Him.
This is accentuated by the use of the word sarvaçaù, or “in all respects”. The
later reference (sarvaçaù) refers to all processes in all their efforts and results.
The connotation of the word “all respects” indicates any causal, effectual or
procedural factors.
From this the clear indication is that Kåñëa accepts all other processes as
being paths of elevation (which He has already confirmed in the Second and
Third Chapters (2.39, 3.3)).

A PLAN FOR ALL PATHS?

The next point arises from the first. If Kåñëa has a plan for which these
paths have been designed, what is it? And is there more than one plan?
The word prapadyante in conjunction with the use of the word bhajämy is
very definitive. Kåñëa states that all these paths are means of surrendering to
Him. This is a very broad topic and will take too much time to discuss in detail
here. There are basically two methods of this surrender:

1. Because all paths are based on the authority of the Vedas and Vedic
tradition, which is established by the Lord (15.15), then-acceptance and
following is surrendering to Him — causal.
2. The result of following all these paths is that it leads to surrender to
Kåñëa — effective.

166
 The word sarvaçaùis also directed at the surrendering process, as well as the
following of the paths (which are related), confirming both usages of
prapadyante.
The word prapadyante is always found in reference to devotional service. It
is inseparable from the terminology of bhakti-yoga. Therefore, one should
readily accept that the goal of all these paths is to come to the stage of
complete surrender to Kåñëa. Those who are cynical of the exclusive usage of
this word will be hard-pressed to show otherwise. The word prapadyante is
prefixed by the word mam. Any idea that surrender should be to oneself,
demigods, or other Viñëu-tattva forms is eliminated by this obvious usage.
Kåñëa is standing before Arjuna in His two-handed form, stating something
obvious: “Surrender to Me.”
The word bhajämy is as exclusive a bhakti term as prapadyante. However, it
is a statement by the Lord that He worships or serves such practitioners. The
words yathä-tathäindicate the measured reciprocation by Kåñëa with the
follower. Therefore, the words prapadyante and bhajämy reflect each other,
confirming and strengthening the personal and devotional aspect of the verse.
Surrender to, and reciprocation with, Kåñëa is further confirmed by
tän...bhajämy (“I reward them”). This can only be effectively mirrored if the
surrender is to Kåñëa. In other words, Kåñëa is rewarding the devotee because
He is the recipient of the surrender and reciprocates.
The conclusion from this analysis, as has been stated earlier, is that the
Lord has inaugurated different yoga systems (paths) which are meant to bring
their practitioners to the stage of bhakti-yoga.

The Reason for Other Paths

One may readily question, “What is the need for all these paths if bhakti is
the real means and end of spiritual practice?” The multiplicity of yoga

167
practices apparently causes vast scope for confusion. Why not just present one
path for all?
Different living entities have different natures. Due to nature, varying
faith, as well as a lack of puëya (devotee association) (7.28), they do not have
access to devotional service.
Although many yogés and jïänés are jïänavän, or learned, due to a lack of
transcendental knowledge in regards to the glories of the Lord, they remain in
the modes of nature. Their natures and faith are of many kinds and thus their
knowledge varies. Under different influences they behave in different ways,
according to their conditioned nature.
Because such a nature cannot be prematurely changed or repressed (3.35),
there are different yoga systems to regulate spiritual aspirants with differing
natures. For each to practice their own designated duty will assuredly lead to
their elevation. To prematurely engage such a person in bhakti without
purification of his nature may be dangerous. He may then fall from the path
altogether, under the influence of sensual attractions.
As in the explanation of the jyerse yeyatha, above, according to the position
of a living entity, Kåñëa awards them with different spiritual processes
through the Vedic literature. This, in effect, brings such practitioners onto the
path of surrender to Him.

What About ISKCON?

A question should be addressed before progressing further. If different

aspirants have been awarded different spiritual paths, then why docs ISKCON
try to convert all practitioners to bhakti? This was the practice of Çréla
Prabhupäda and is being continued by his followers.
In answer, the criteria by which one is convinced of Lord Kåñëa’s
transcendental position should be recalled. Two things are required. These are
168
transcendental knowledge regarding Lord Kåñëa (as taught in the Fourth,
Ninth and Tenth Chapters, specifically), and someone to communicate such
knowledge. This was the example with Kåñëa and Arjuna. Kåñëa possessed the
knowledge about which Arjuna was inquisitive.
Similarly, ajïänavän, or learned person, even under the modes of nature,
may surrender to Kåñëa. He will do so via the Gétä and Kåñëa’s representative.
They are both possessed of this transcendental knowledge. By such hearing
and subsequent training through devotee association, he may come to the
transcendental platform and engage in devotional service.
The converse also follows. If one does not have access to a representative of
Kåñëa, or fails to surrender to such a representative as was initially Arjuna’s
case, a practitioner has no alternative but to practice some other path—to
which he will automatically be attracted to Kåñëa according his nature.
In conclusion, the answer is that Çréla Prabhupäda established ISKCON to
provide both transcendental knowledge and qualified people to teach it.
Historically, it is found that many jïänavän of varied spiritual convictions
take to bhakti. If they humbly apply themselves to the process, they can take to
devotional service and feel tangible advancement in their spiritual lives.

Examples

The following are some examples of Lord Kåñëa referring to other

philosophies to bring Arjuna to the point of bhakti.
(Appendix 1 has more examples from each chapter):

EXAMPLE 1.
In verse 4.32, Lord Kåñëa concluded a series of verses, beginning with 4.25,
with the words evaà. Bahu-vidhä yajïä, translated as “all these different types

169
of sacrifice”. He indicates that different sacrifices are born of different types
of work and the practitioners yänti (advance) to the supreme atmosphere.

EXAMPLE 2.
Verse 6.46 compares the relative merits of the renunciant, yogé, jïäné and
karma-käëòé. But the Lord certifies the yogéas best and, in 6.47, describes
bhakti-yoga as the best of all yoga systems.

EXAMPLE 3.
15.15 explains Kåñëa as the goal and compiler of the Vedas and Vedanta.
Verses 16-18 describe the philosophy of the Vedas, and verse 19 summarises
that as knowing Kåñëa’s supremacy and engaging in His devotional service. In
this way varied processes recommended in the Vedas are clearly explained as
culminating in bhakti.

From the above, Kåñëa accepts a multiplicity of paths. However, these can
always be seen to be directed to bhakti-yoga.
One may question whether bhakti-yoga is also a system that is practicable at
one time, one place or one set of circumstances, etc., but not at any other. As
it is the goal of all yoga systems, bhakti-yoga is always practicable. Otherwise,
the entire yoga ladder breaks down, and there is no meaning to any spiritual
practice. Furthermore, the Lord has corroborated that the qualification for
Arjuna’s hearing is being a devotee (4.2). This same qualification is
characteristic of the disciplic succession dating back through millennia to the
sun-god.

Conclusion

170
 The conclusion at this point is to accept the validity of Corollary 5.6,
which states: The ultimate purpose of these yoga systems is to bring their
practitioners to the devotional service of Lord Çré Kåñëa.
This means that Code 5 is also confirmed: The reason Çré Kåñëa mentions
other yoga systems is to attract different types of conditioned souls to His
devotional service.

Argument 2: The System of Jaimini

Although I feel the proof for Code 5 is well founded in Argument 1,

another argument will be introduced to complement this presentation.
Jaimini Muni developed a 6-point system for analysing the essence of a
text. This procedure is traditionally accepted as valid. I shall apply this process
to the Gétä to reveal the essence of the Lord’s instructions. This process may
also be applied to a chapter or a series of verses. If the Gétäs purpose is to bring
everyone to devotional service, then the inclusion of other yoga systems
cannot have a second purpose. Thus, the natural conclusion will be the
confirmation of Code 5.
In summary, this process excavates the main theme of a text through an
analysis of six factors. These factors are listed below. They are:

1-2. A study of the connection between the first and last lines of a text to
see what common points are being emphasised.
3. Seeing what is repeated most often, as repetition implies something
important.
4. What is extensively glorified over and above anything else
(quantitatively).

171
 5. That which is most distinctly and specifically emphasised (qualitatively).
6. Understanding what is being proven through the logical progression of
the text.

The greater the agreement in the analysis of the six points, the stronger the
resultant conclusion. In other words, if the analysis of all six points concurs on
the same theme, such a conclusion is stronger than if some of the points
indicate one thing, while others another. Lack of consistency will happen if
the work being analysed is imperfectly composed. One would not expect such
a result with the writings of Vyäsadeva, or the teachings of Lord Kåñëa. But let
us see.

The Process

1. THE FIRST VERSE:

The first verse spoken by Lord Kåñëa which constitutes an instruction is
2.11. Here, He is emphasising two things:

1. As Arjuna surrendered to Him as guru to eradicate his fear and

bewilderment (2.7), the Lord immediately pacified Arjuna and
instructed him not to lament.
2. By inference the Lord speaks about knowledge beyond gross (gata)
and subtle (asün) bodies, by which one will be freed from
lamentation.

2. THE LAST VERSE:

18.66 is the final instruction of the Lord. Here, Lord Kåñëa is clearly stating

172
the same things spoken in the first verse, but directly.
1. Ma sucah means do not fear. The same word found repeated three
times in the first verse is stated here. Kåñëa once again reassures
Arjuna, but now the means for becoming fearless and free of
lamentation are very clear.
2. How? He says, “become My devotee”, mäm ekaà çaraëaà vraja.
What was implicit in verse 11, by the use of the word paëòit, or a
learned man, is openly declared here. Thus in the very beginning the
Lord wanted Arjuna to surrender and be a devotee.
What was not clear in the beginning is certainly clear at the end. The end
of a book is its conclusion and summary. The Lord invokes memory of
Arjuna’s fearfulness by the word mä çucaù, indicating that He, from the
beginning of the text, desired that Arjuna just surrender to Him. Thus, both
in the beginning and the end, Kåñëa is recommending devotional service for
Arjuna.

3. WHAT IS REPEATED MOST OFTEN:

Many things are repeated within the Gétä. However, a statistical study
shows that nothing is as extensively repeated as bhakti. While devotional
service is mentioned in every chapter, other practices such as karma and jïäna
are discussed only in chapters specifically related to them. In addition, such
repetition is numerically inferior to repetition of bhakti.
Below are quotes of a verse from each chapter recommending devotion:
2.61, 3.30, 4.10, 5.29, 6.47, 7.17, 8.14, 9.34, 10.9, 11.54, 12.20, 13.19, 14.26, 15.19,
16.5, 17.28, 18.65.
This indicates that what is spoken of most often by the Lord, verified
through constant repetition, is devotional service. The above is by no means a

173
comprehensive list. Most of these verses quoted refer to bhakti directly. There
are numerous other verses which indicate activities in bhakti or indirectly
speak of bhakti.

4. WHAT IS BEING GLORIFIED:

Glorification means exclusive appreciation of a particular thing. In viewing
the Gétä, we find verses like:
4.3 bhakto ‘si me
9.31 na me bhaktaù praëaçyati
11.54 bhaktyä tv ananyayäçakya
18.54 bhaktyä mäm abhijänäti,
where devotional service is exclusively glorified as the only means for
knowing, seeing and pleasing Kåñëa. Other things like karma, jïäna and yoga
are presented as stepping points to develop bhakti. They are always compared
to each other, rather then receiving exclusive recognition, as in the case of
bhakti. It is clear that Lord Kåñëa glorifies bhakti more extensively than any
other process.

5. WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED (APURVA):

Throughout the Gétä, different yoga systems and types of knowledge are
presented. Ultimately, they are meant to achieve the Supreme. The Lord has
generally presented two categories of transcendentalists: the impersonalists
and the personalists. In the beginning of Chapter Twelve, Arjuna asks which
of these is superior. The whole chapter is devoted to answering his question
and unilaterally establishing the supremacy of devotional service as being
easier and more perfect. Herein, it is devotional service that is mentioned
unconditionally and specifically. It is also described in comparison to other

174
yoga practices and is shown to be superior.
The same is witnessed by verses 6.46, 6.47, 15.19, 18.58, 18.64, 18.65, 18.66, to
quote only a few. Here, unilateral glorification that comparatively exceeds any
other in the text is repeated over and over again. The conclusion is that bhakti
stands out as being uniquely glorified above any other practice in the Gétä.

6. WHAT IS ESTABLISHED BY LOGIC:

The Lord develops a consistent, logical progression in the chapters of the
Gétä. These may be summarised briefly below.

1. Arjuna is in a dilemma, caused by attachment to material affairs.

Lord Kåñëa is the only one capable of solving this problem, through the
medium of the Gétä.
2. We are spiritual entities. By working in transcendental knowledge we
can attain the Supreme.
3. The essence of such work is knowledge and detachment.
4. Knowledge means to know Kåñëa’s birth, activities and non-doership
in matters of the results of work.
5. By working in such knowledge, one will recognise the Lord as
Paramätmä.
6. This also can be achieved through añöäìga-yoga. But of all yoga
practitioners, the bhakti-yogi is the best.
7. Knowledge of the Lord as Supersoul leads to knowledge of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, which develops into love.
8. By such attachment one remembers Him at death and enters the
spiritual realm.
9. By hearing the glories of the Lord in unalloyed devotion, one

175
 becomes a fully liberated soul.
10. Arjuna realises the supreme position of Kåñëa, citing the authority
of the sages. The Lord reveals His presence in everything.

In the ensuing chapters, Kåñëa’s supreme position is further highlighted:

11. as the universal form;

12. the object of devotion, the highest attainment of life;
13. the Supersoul who is always transcendentally situated;
14. the controller of the modes of nature;
15. the Supreme worshipable object as sung in the Vedas;
16. accepted by devotees and rejected by demons;
17. worshipped according to the modes of nature by the less intelligent;
18. but the sole refuge and shelter for the surrendered devotees of the
Lord.

This logical progression concludes in, and repeatedly emphasises,

devotional service. It would be deceptive to contort the words of the Gétä to
arrive at any other logical sequence in Kåñëa’s teachings. According to
Anumän 3, the Gétä is consistent and thus must possess a concisely structured
message.
The conclusion of this last point is that through logic devotional service is
being established in the Gétä.

The Conclusion of the System of Jaimini

176
 All six points concur, which indicates a strong consensus on the theme and
the clearly structured message of the Gétä. One can readily conclude that —
from the first verse to the last, by constant repetition, quantitative and
exclusive glorification, and consistent logical development — devotional
service to the Lord is the theme of the Gétä. As the Lord is Supreme, so is
devotion to Him.
This conclusion, applied to the initial premises stated in the beginning of
this chapter, confirms Code 5: Çré Kåñëa mentions these other yoga systems to
attract different types of conditioned souls to His devotional service.

Chapter Summary

In the previous section it was shown that Lord Kåñëa has introduced
various yoga systems. This is meant to appeal to the faith and nature of
different practitioners at different stags of advancement. He has done this as a
conscious strategy to get their attention, being the best authority on spiritual
matters. But the purpose of the Gétä is to establish devotional service to Kåñëa
as the ultimate duty of everyone. Thus, these systems have been introduced as
a means to bhakti and not an end in themselves.
This strategy is reflected in each chapter of the Gétä, as well as the text as a
whole. It is achieved through repetition, logic, inference, glorification,
comparison and a summarisation of both the chapters and the entire text.

Conclusion to Chapter X

Systems other than bhakti recommended or described in the Gétä are done
so by the Lord to attract different practitioners to the ultimate goal of
bhakti-yoga. This is confirmation of Code 5, which states: Çré Kåñëa mentions
these other yoga systems to attract different types of conditioned souls to His

177
devotional service.

What is the Need for the ?

Once in Jagannatha Puri, in a heated debate with a local brähmaëa scholar,

I was asked, “If jïäna and karma are only to bring others to bhakti, then what
is the need for the Gétä? Why does Kåñëa not say, ‘sarva-dharmän parityajya…’
(18.66) and leave it at that?
As the conclusion of the Gétä, one could argue that this one verse is all that
is needed. Fortunately, Lord Kåñëa is more intelligent than His critics. Like a
wise father, He knows how to get his wayward children to do his will in a way
that allows them to think they are doing it their way. That is called diplomacy.
Arjuna is the prime example of this stratagem. Because he forgot his obligation
to serve Kåñëa’s will as a devotee, Kåñëa had to entice him with other religious
formulae (2.4-5).
For the devotees, free from material affinity and attachment to fruitive
work or speculation, that one verse may be enough. For the nondevotees,
there must be substance which will bridge the gap from their present state of
practice (or no-practice) to ananya bhakti. That is the corpus of the Gétä.

Chapter 11, Code 6: Çréla Prabhupäda Rightly Explains Everything in

Terms of Bhakti

178
 Proposition

Code 6: The translations and purports of the Bhagavad-gétä by Çréla

Prabhupäda are presented exclusively in relation to devotional service. This
commentary, known as the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, is a complete and consistent
explanation of the Gétä— in that it perfectly serves Kåñëa’s purpose in
bringing all its readers to bhakti.

Argument — Introduction

In the preceding chapters, the analysis of the Gétä has been based on the
words of Lord Kåñëa. Conclusions have been arrived at in regard to the
position of bhakti in relation to other yoga systems. These conclusions are
expressed in Codes 1 to 5.
In the Introduction, five objections were cited as common criticisms of
Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary. The gist of the complaint centers about Çréla
Prabhupäda’s devotional bias. As Baird puts it,
But, while some commentators see devotion to Kåñëa as not prevalent in
the first six chapters, Swami Bhaktivedanta sees it everywhere.
As a consequence, critics feel his rendition does not objectively reflect the
actual topics spoken by the Lord. They argue, in fact, that Prabhupäda’s
explanation conceals the liberal mood for which the Gétä is famous.
In 1988, I participated in a meeting with a group of devotees and academics.
The purpose of my attendance was to glean some feedback on the public’s
perception of Kåñëa Consciousness and to improve our image. The meeting
was productive in some ways. One low point was the criticism of Çréla
Prabhupäda’s Gétä. A paraphrasing of the conversation went like this:
The title, Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, should be changed. The presumption that
179
this book, among so many editions, is ‘as it is’ is arrogant.
That led to a fairly intense discussion in which this common complaint was
again aired. Not wanting to be misunderstood, one expert on Hinduism spoke
thus:
I respect Çréla Prabhupäda’s writings immensely. However, his explanations
are exclusively of a devotional nature. That is natural as he was a devotee. He
saw everything according to his realisation. But that does not exclude other
versions of the Gétä, that have a non-devotional emphasis, as being equally
valid. Like the Gétä of Mahäriñhi, etc.
The conversation went on with little conclusive result. We opted to drop it
and moved on to the next topic at hand.
The Allegations as mentioned earlier are generally targeted at five
categories of Çréla Prabhupäda’s presentation. These are listed below.

1. Why does Çréla Prabhupäda insist on understanding the entirety of

the Gétä exclusively in devotional terms?
2. Why does he explain other yoga systems as bhakti-yoga (Kåñëa
consciousness)?
3. Why the constant contrast of other disciplines to bhakti-yoga and
their subsequent disqualification in favour of Kåñëa consciousness?
4. Why does he define and explain general terms in a solely devotional
way?
5. Why does he translate general words in very specific devotional
contexts (which then lend weight to devotional interpretation)?

The following five sections, entitled Arguments 1-5, detail the answers

180
based upon the derived Codes and Corollaries. These Arguments constitute
the practical application of the Codes in relation to differing elements of
composition, including explanations (purport), translation, definitions and
contrast.
The reader would do well to have a Gétä at hand and to have read the text
by this point. Çréla Prabhupäda’s treatment of the Gétä is so devotionally
thorough that quoting all his statements is not possible. They will be dealt
with generally and a few examples cited to illustrate the points at hand.
The purpose of this chapter is to show that, according to the proofs derived
in Codes 1 to 5 and their Corollaries, Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional
explanations are a fully valid methodology. The following chapter proceeds to
verify that Çréla Prabhupäda’s purports constitute the means for
understanding the Gétä.
Codes 3 and 4 are the fundamental evidence in support of Çréla
Prabhupäda’s explanations. This book claims that Çréla Prabhupäda’s purports
are not sectarian interpretations of a broader text. (Accusations of
sectarianism are exemplified by the statement of De Nicolas: “...the complete
disregard for the Sanskrit language the author says he translates from”; and
that of Calewaert and Hemraj: “Such disregard for text can seem comical...”)
Rather, they are factual understandings of an absolute work. Although the
pages of the Gétä are broad in scope, the book has a very particular theme and
a very specific goal. That goal is to bring everyone to the platform of pure
devotion to Lord Kåñëa.
The derivation of Codes 3 and 4 was based on a series of Corollaries. These
may be found listed in Index 15. The argument of this chapter concludes in
the verification of Code 6. The derivation of Code 6 is based on Corollaries
6.1 to 6.5. These Corollaries are proven in the following pages. They are as
follows:

181
 6.1 Çréla Prabhupäda’s condemnation of non-devotional interpretations
of the Gétä is correct. Such interpretations are insufficient to
understand the truth.
6.2 The devotional purports to the Gétä are the proper explanation of
all yoga systems. This is because only a devotional commentary is
philosophically consistent with the message of the text.
6.3 Devotional service is the most practicable, spiritual discipline for
this age. The comparison of other yoga systems found in the Gétä to
bhakti-yoga is the rightful literary style of the author and the ornament
of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is.
6.4 Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional definitions of general terms is within
the proper understanding of the Gétä.
6.5 Translating general words in very specific devotional terms is the
perfect illumination of the Gétä.

The Corollaries 6.1 -6.5 are phrased in a way to answer the five Allegations
originally listed in Chapter 1 and above. The Argument titles which follow in
this chapter are the Allegations themselves, and the conclusions to the
Arguments their answer, the Corollaries 6.1-6.5.

Argument 1: Understanding the

Allegation 1: Why does Çréla Prabhupäda insist on understanding the

entirety of the Gétä exclusively in devotional terms?

Introduction

This is the first accusation leveled at Çréla Prabhupäda. According to

182
Sharpe there were few editions of the Bhagavad-gétä in the English-speaking
world in the last century. What existed was dominated by one translation,
that of Wilkins. In the second century of its appearance (the 1900s):
...there were innumerable translations and commentaries jostling one
another on the bookshelves and in the minds of would-be-readers.
According to Prabhupäda, the number of editions exceeds 700
internationally. These translations and the explanations that may accompany
them vary according to the understanding of the authors. Many of these texts
have become widely accepted as a display of philosophical liberality. Yet, both
academics and spiritualists exercise questionable discrimination in verifying
the authenticity of these publications. Somehow they are allocated space in
what is known as the belief system of Hinduism.
As an example of how far-fetched such explanations of the Gétä may be, I
quote one of the most brilliant stars on the horizon of Indology. R.C. Zaehner
is quoted by Robert Baird on his understanding of verse 2.61. The
commentator goes as far as to admit Buddhism as an alternate goal in the Gétä.
Hence, at the end of this chapter which from now on describes the ascent
of the self to full liberation, there is no further mention of Kåñëa as God: the
goal is not God, but nirväëa, the Buddha’s goal.
Çréla Prabhupäda is strongly opinionated in his reference to such fanciful
speculations on the Gétä. His opinion is not just his own. It is the opinion of
Lord Kåñëa, as explicitly stated through the words of the Gétä. As the Gétä is
intent on establishing devotional service, so is Çréla Prabhupäda. Çréla
Prabhupäda’s purpose in presenting his purports is not to give just one of many
understandings. He does not accept commentaries which diverge from the
devotional theme of the Gétä. They are neither relevant, nor valid. Being a
true sädhu, Çréla Prabhupäda severs the bonds of illusion and is not reserved in
expressing his convictions. This practice of His Divine Grace is often

183
critiqued and is the subject of discussion in this section. Sharpe writes,
Over and over again the point is made that the Gétä can be understood
only by devotees, that the wrong commentary is worse than no commentary at
all and that in the last resort the authority of the Gétä is based on the
authority of Kåñëa Himself...

The Main Target

Çréla Prabhupäda targets the mäyäväda misunderstandings of Çaìkaräcärya

and his followers. He states that a mäyäväda explanation of the Gétä (based on
Kåñëa as a subordinate deity manifest from the supreme undifferentiated
Brahman) is “a most misleading representation of the whole truth.” Baird
makes his observation that:

The position that is attacked with the most regularity and vigour is that of Advaita
Vedänta. Its advocates are called mäyävädés, impersonalists, or monists.

Not only does Çréla Prabhupäda discard mäyäväda interpretations but

“academic”, “atheistic” and “non-devotional” ones as well. In the Purport to
2.12, he states,
...Those who are envious of Kåñëa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead
have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to
the teachings of the Gétä is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of
honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle.
Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gétä 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 Gétä be touched by persons who envy the very existence
of the Lord. Therefore, the mäyävädéexplanation of the Gétä is a most
misleading representation of the whole truth.
Why such a restricted understanding? Why unilaterally reject other

184
interpretations, or even attempts at understanding the Gétä?

Devotional Purports Mean Consistency of Understanding

In answer to these questions, we may consider the following train of

thought.
In the first purport to the book, Çréla Prabhupäda quotes the Gétä
Mähätmya of Çaìkaräcärya (Glorification of the Gétä). Therein it is stated that
one must study the Gétä with the help of one who has already realised it. In
ancient days such study was achieved by taking guidance of a guru at the
village gurukula. With modern printing methods, books are available in vast
quantities and people read them without making a prior commitment to
spiritual training. Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda has given extensive purports to give
the required assistance to the reader by which they may understand the
meaning of the Gétä.
The nature of such explanations must necessarily be transparent. By the
very meaning of the word, an explanation clarifies a subject. Thus,
explanations are meant to magnify the intent of Lord Kåñëa and the Gétä.
What is that “intent” mentioned above? Code 3 has established bhakti-yoga
as the goal of the Gétä. Thus, any explanation or purport to the verses must
reflect the same conclusion. In Section IV.iii, the third point of the conclusion
has rejected any subjective interpretation that contradicts the mood of the
text. The natural conclusion is that the purports must be completely in
harmony with Arjuna’s understanding and Kåñëa’s statements.
What was that conclusion on which both Arjuna and Kåñëa concurred?
That surrendering to Kåñëa in devotion was the only remedy for Arjuna’s
problems. At the risk of being repetitive, it is clear that an explanation,
purport or interpretation must explain the same thing — how to surrender to
Kåñëa. If one accepts any other understanding, it will be at odds with the

185
statements of the Gétä. This will result in confusion and misunderstanding.
Only a devotional explanation will be in line with the devotional direction of
the book.
It is interesting to note how Robert Baird questions the legitimacy for such
consistency at all:

...It suggests that he considers it legitimate to interpret any verse in the light of the
whole system found in the Gétä, whether it is explicitly mentioned in that verse of
the Gétä or not.

In the same vein, Herman was quoted earlier at being amazed that Çréla
Prabhupäda insisted that “...the authority of the Gétä is based on the authority
of Kåñëa himself...” Both authors see no difficulty in separating the meaning of
verses from that of the book, or the speaker from his words. Such an
interpretation leaves great gaps in the process of logic. In addition, it is at odds
with the statements of the Gétä and undermines the consistency in the
spiritual processes taught by Çré Kåñëa.
One may argue that anyone can give a devotional explanation. But the
answer of the Gétä is, “not anyone”. One must be qualified. What is that
qualification? “Bhakto si me.”— one must be a devotee. If one is anything
other than a devotee, he will not understand the full science of devotion.
Neither will he be able to enter into, amplify or transmit the devotional
message of the Gétä. Such a message is not imagination, but reality. Otherwise,
why are there countless devotees of Lord Kåñëa worldwide?
In conclusion, it must be accepted that Çréla Prabhupäda’s statement —
that non-devotional explanations of the Gétä will be “misleading
representations of the Truth”— is correct.

Confirmation by Codes 4 and 5

186
 Codes 4 and 5 lend a different approach to the same conclusion. These
codes state:

Code 4. Bhakti-yoga is the independent goal of the yoga ladder. However,

all other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti.
Code 5. The reason Çré Kåñëa mentions other yoga systems is to attract
different types of conditioned souls to His devotional service.

In essence, this means that processes other than bhakti are partial
understandings of the Gétä, which ultimately must conclude in devotional
service. That being the case, such a subordinate process which is a part of a
complete methodology is insufficient to explain the superior whole, bhakti
cannot be explained other than on its own terms. Other processes are
insufficient to fully represent the truth of the Gétä. They only represent an
aspect of the entire text. To posit that such explanations are equally valid as
the devotional one is wrong and misleading.
The academic paranoia — echoed by Herman as “unfair”, by Blair as an
“imposition” and Sharpe as “irrelevant”— may be laid to rest. The
consequence of Codes 4 and 5 is that a fully devotional explanation is the only
means to manifest the meaning of the Gétä. It can hardly “cover” it.
According to Corollaries 4.6 - 4.12 and 5.4 - 5.6, bhakti illuminates and is the
sustaining root of other processes. Without bhakti, they cannot award any
result, permanent or temporary. Thus, such a fear of covering other meanings
is without substantial basis.
The consequence of Codes 4 and 5 is that an attempt to explain the Gétä by
any process other than bhakti covers the real meaning. Karma-yoga cannot
fully explain the text, neither jïäna or añöäìga. That is the real truth of this
issue.

187
 One may argue that if a single process cannot explain the Gétä, perhaps a
combination may. This would exclude complete dependence on bhakti.
However, each process has already been shown to be dependent on bhakti
(Corollary 4.6). That means that karma, jïäna and yoga can be fully expressed
only with the aid of bhakti. In conclusion, a combination of non-devotional
themes is not capable of explaining the Gétä. Only bhakti will suffice. Any
other attempt will be incomplete and effectively cover the meaning of the
book.
Analysing Codes 4 and 5, the same conclusion is arrived at as that in
subsection IX.iii.c, which evolved from a study of Code 3. That is:
Non-devotional explanations of the Gétä will be misleading representations of
the truth.

Çré Kåñëa’s Version

Verse 18.66 is considered to be the conclusion of the Gétä. Lord Kåñëa

states:

sarva-dharmän parityajya
mäm ekaà çaraëaà vraja
ahaà tväà sarva-päpebhyo
mokñayiñyämi mä çucaù

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver
you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
Çréla Prabhupäda explains,

The Lord has described various kinds of knowledge and processes of religion —
knowledge of the Supreme Brahman, knowledge of the Supersoul, knowledge of the
different types of orders and statuses of social life, knowledge of the renounced order
of life, knowledge of nonattachment, sense and mind control, meditation, etc. He

188
 has described in so many ways different types of religion. Now, in summarising
Bhagavad-gétä, the Lord says that Arjuna should give up all the processes that have
been explained to him; he should simply surrender to Kåñëa...

There is no doubt that the concluding statements of the Lord are very
clear. He is emphasising çaraëägati, the process of self surrender. This is the
path of devotional service and the last word of the Gétä. Lord Kåñëa clearly
indicates that bhakti is the means for understanding the Gétä and hence the
Absolute Truth. If He places such emphasis on the devotional understanding
of the Gétä, how can Çréla Prabhupäda be condemned for following the same
path? It is, after all, Çré Kåñëa’s version.
A confirmation of this argument is understood from a study of the verses
following 18.66. Therein Lord Kåñëa describes the disqualifications for being a
recipient of the message of the Gétä. Such disqualifications are listed as being
devoid of austerity, devoid of devotion or being envious of Him. When Çréla
Prabhupäda repeats Kåñëa’s words, Sharpe is aghast at his unilateral approach.
Swami Bhaktivedanta was uninterested in anything save hammering his
message home, and this he did with an utterly uncompromising manner.
He seems amazed in the midst of his terse analysis.
What is chiefly impressive about this interpretation of the Gétä is its utter
and complete single-mindedness. Alternatives are not even considered. There
are no problems, no ambiguities. Every type of work can and should be done
for the sake of Kåñëa.
It is clear that a nondevotee cannot receive the message of the Gétä.
Neither has he a chance to understand it. If a nondevotee has not understood
the Gétä, then how can he be qualified to explain it? Thus non-devotional
explanations must, according to the words of the Gétä, be a deviation from the
truth. Consequently, only devotional explanations are valid.

189
 Summary

Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional explanations have been verified from three

perspectives. These have been:

1. According to Code 3, in which only a devotional understanding can

explain the Gétä, since the process and goal of the text is devotional service.
2. According to Codes 4 and 5, devotional service is the basis and goal of
other yoga processes. Thus, only a devotional explanation is able to completely
explain the Gétä.
3. According to the words of Çré Kåñëa, only a devotee can understand the
Gétä; thus, it requires a devotee to explain it.

Any Alternatives?

The reader may retain a hope that non-devotional explanations can be

entertained as a valid alternative to the devotional ones. However, any critical
study will reveal that this will never be the case. In such attempts the
applicant is stranded with irresolvable inconsistencies which remain in
contradiction to the true spirit of the Gétä (and the derived Codes and
Corollaries).
The following is an analysis of the defect of some such alternatives:
1. Non-devotional explanations raise a problem where the text and its
explanation are in opposition to each other. This can only be reconciled
if one adopts a mäyäväda methodology in which:
a) Conventional usage of words are rejected as material and one
seeks out indirect and secondary meanings. This results in

190
 abandoning contextual and philosophical propriety to conform to
the explanation.
b) One abandons philosophical integrity, arguing that all
meanings ultimately lead to the same goal. This can also be
accommodated only through an impersonal ideology.
2. Another alternative to resolve duality between a text and its purport
is that a reader reject the explanation as inconsistent with the text.
3. A third approach is the reverse of 2. The reader rejects the meaning
of the text in preference to the explanation.
As a consequence of this alternative, the verses must gradually be changed
to maintain a consistent meaning with the dominant explanation.
Clearly, these consequences are incompatible with the derivations to date.
Thus, it is clear that the usage of non-devotional explanations are
self-disqualifying. On the other hand, devotional explanations offer a natural
and consistent explanation pleasing to the mind and heart. Thus, one is led to
conclude that from all angles of vision Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional approach
is correct.

Conclusion

Çréla Prabhupäda’s condemnation of non-devotional interpretations of the

Gétä is correct, because they are insufficient to understand the truth.

IN ADDITION
Additional conclusions can be drawn from this argument regarding the
remaining four objections. From a point of logic, if the entire Gétä must be
explained in devotional terms, then the same approach may be applied to any
part of the Gétä. Any understanding of parts of the Gétä, from word meanings

191
to purports, can be viewed in the same devotional vein. This would, in
principle, nullify other objections or the need for their retorts. However, the
introduction has recorded an additional four areas that concern Çréla
Prabhupäda’s critics. To be true to the intent of this book, I will continue to
analyse each point of contention individually.

Argument 2 - Explaining Other Systems as

Allegation 2: Why does he explain “other yoga systems” as bhakti-yoga

(Kåñëa Consciousness)?

Introduction

Çréla Prabhupäda uses the words “Kåñëa Consciousness” and bhakti-yoga

synonymously. The same word usage will be continued in this book.
Another practice of Çréla Prabhupäda — as extensive as his refutation of
mäyäväda philosophy — is the explanation of other yoga processes in terms of
bhakti-yoga, or Kåñëa Consciousness. There are few purports in the book
which do not have the word Kåñëa Consciousness in them at least once.
This evokes an extensive reaction from commentators of Bhagavad-gétä As
It Is. From an outside perspective, it appears that Çréla Prabhupäda manifests
an unscholarly partiality in explaining every topic of the Gétäin terms of
devotion. Herman, among others, is liberal in labelling such treatment as
“fundamentalism” and goes on to complain that Çréla Prabhupäda’s definitions
of other yoga practices are:

...contrary to the accepted and popular definitions...within the Hindu tradition...

Baird says the same thing in kinder terms:

Swami Bhaktivedanta not only treats specific texts in a way that would be unusual

192
 among Western scholars...

In addition, I have been party to conversations where the words “dogmatic”

and “immature” were included as terms to express scholarly disapproval.
The arguments that follow show that Çréla Prabhupäda’s terminology is
correct, and in keeping with the spirit of the Gétä. In this regard his practice
falls into four divisions. They are:

1. Explaining other yoga systems as if they were bhakti.

2. Explaining other yoga systems as elements of bhakti or partial functions
of bhakti.
3. Explaining that the conclusion of other yoga practices is bhakti.
4. Explaining every chapter and verse as, or in relation to, bhakti.

My apologies to the reader if the distinction among these four divisions

appears fine. They are, however, distinct objections I have come face to face
with.
In the following subsections, the above four practices will be addressed. I
will show that, according to the conclusions of the Codes and Corollaries,
such practices are completely valid. The conclusion will be to verify Corollary
6.2 as an authorised methodology. This Corollary states: The devotional
purports to the Gétä are the proper explanation of all yoga systems. This is
because only a devotional commentary is philosophically consistent with the
message of the text.

Explaining Other Systems as if They were

A POINT OF PRINCIPLE

193
 The following subsection contains the study of an example of Çréla
Prabhupäda’s practice cited above. It is the explanation of other yoga systems
as if they were bhakti-yoga. The general procedure for treating this Allegation
will be used in application to others.
Both Baird and Herman complain that Çréla Prabhupäda identifies, even
within their definition, other yoga practices as bhakti-yoga. Baird says,
Already, Swami Bhaktivedanta takes karma-yoga not merely as unattached
action, but in the light of later passages in the Gétä, as ‘devotional work’.
Herman is more forceful in his criticism.
In this regard it is interesting to see how Bhaktivedanta defines
‘jïäna-yoga’ and ‘karma-yoga’. In a sense, these two yogas lose in the struggle
for significance even before the game is begun. For not only are the good
Swami’s definitions contrary to the accepted and popular definitions of these
concepts within the Hindu tradition...but each definition contains within
itself, so to speak, the pejorative seeds of its own destruction.
Then later he says,

The first definition is loaded in favour of bhakti, a loading confirmed by the

second...finally, the second definition ties all karma-yoga actions to both Lord Kåñëa
and from that, by implication, to bhakti-yoga...

In the following pages, I propose to apply the Codes and their Corollaries to
a verse (3.39) as an example. The treatment of this one verse can serve as a
template for treating other criticisms of a similar nature. Baird’s complaint of
Prabhupäda’s treatment of 3.3 and Herman’s example in later texts can be
dealt within the same way. I have opted for this example as it is the first such
major usage by Çréla Prabhupäda for which he is taken to task by Herman.
In one famous and genuine karma-yoga verse of the Gétä Kåñëa tells Arjuna
that mere action is inferior to the discipline of detached action

194
(“buddhi-yoga”); “seek your refuge in that detachment”, he is told.
Bhaktivedanta, by rendering “buddhi-yoga”as “on the strength of Kåñëa
consciousness” translates (ho verse as:
O Dhananjaya, rid yourself of all fraitive activities by devotional service,
and surrender fully to that consciousness. A man engaged in devotional
service rids himself of both good and bad actions in this life.
...”Devotional service” to Lord Kåñëa, a bhakti activity, certainly, is derived
from a passage that contains no mention of bhakti at all.

EXAMPLE
In Chapter Two, verse 39, Lord Kåñëa introduces buddhi-yoga as detached
work guided by transcendental knowledge. This is a progression from
karma-kanda, described in earlier verses (31-38). Buddhi-yoga is a process in
which the degree of transcendental knowledge of the practitioner determines
the quality of his work. In his purport to this verse, Çréla Prabhupäda states:
Thus the buddhi-yoga mentioned in this verse is the devotional service of
the Lord... Lord Kåñëa made an analytical description of the soul just to bring
Arjuna to the point of buddhi yoga, or bhakti-yoga... One should therefore
understand that buddhi-yoga means to work in Kåñëa Consciousness.
Here, Çréla Prabhupäda clearly equates buddhi-yoga with Kåñëa
Consciousness, or bhakti-yoga.

REASONING
As mentioned above, instead of deriving a proof in defence of Çréla
Prabhupäda’s process, let us view the requirements of the Gétä and see what
direction those parameters define.
1. Code 4 has explained that bhakti-yoga is the goal of the

195
 Bhagavad-gétä.
2. All the active mechanisms of any yoga, namely the effective means
(Corollary 4.11) as well as the goal (Corollary 5.6), are dependent on the
process of bhakti.
3. According to Corollaries 4.6 and 4.9, buddhi-yoga may be seen as
bhakti-yoga, with emphasis on karma and jïäna.
4. The entire yoga system has been shown to be one continuous process
(Corollary 4.10), known as the yoga ladder. The goal of this .yoga ladder
is bhakti-yoga (Corollary 4.12), and it may be referred to as the bhakti
ladder. In this ladder, buddhi yoga is simply one step.
5. In addition, the very meaning of the word yoga is bhakti-yoga
(Corollary 4.5).
The consequence of these restrictive parameters is that a translator must:
1. Present buddhi-yoga in its relation to, and conclusion in,
bhakti-yoga.
2. Explain the relation of buddhi yoga to bhakti in its most practical
sense for ease of comprehension.
3. Transmit the understanding that buddhi yoga is a form of qualified
bhakti-yoga.
4. That buddhi yoga is a step in the yoga system which is meant to
achieve bhakti.
The above arguments are stringent requirements on any commentator.
They are not self-imposed, nor established by any particular school of thought.
They are the natural guidelines of the Gétä which arise from the conclusion of
the Codes and Corollaries.
In the previous subsection, it was established that the commentator should

196
be a devotee. Such a devotee commentator will obviously present the Gétä in a
devotional light. To be consistent with this line of reasoning, one would
expect Çréla Prabhupäda to comment on buddhi-yoga in devotional terms. This
would express its relation to bhakti. Çréla Prabhupäda does this by maintaining
the textual word usage, while equating buddhi as bhakti in the purport.
According to the academics, Çréla Prabhupäda sacrifices the immediate
(though isolated) meaning of the verse. But this is not so. His gain is a
contextual explanation in relation to the entire Gétä. The overall result is that
the topic of buddhi-yoga is explained in a way that immediately reveals to the
reader its role in the entire book. This is not a value assessment of two
alternatives. It is the true presentation of the topic, in keeping with Lord
Kåñëa’s purposes.
The Gétä is not a yoga encyclopaedia. It is a book meant to teach bhakti.
The mention of other yoga practices are solely to direct readers lo bhakti-yoga.
In conclusion, it is certainly clear that Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional
explanation of buddhi yoga is thus consistent and fully in keeping with the
spirit of the Gétä.

OTHER EXAMPLES
Other examples are given below, wherein Çréla Prabhupäda explains other
yoga practices as if they were bhakti-yoga.
1. In Chapter Three, karma-yoga is referred to as Kåñëa Consciousness.
In fact, Çréla Prabhupäda explains (3.43) that this Third Chapter of the
Bhagavad-gétä is conclusively directive to Kåñëa Consciousness.
2. In the Fifth Chapter, Çréla Prabhupäda introduces and concludes
that karma-yoga is working in Kåñëa Consciousness: The Fifth Chapter
is a practical explanation of Kåñëa Consciousness, generally known as
karma-yoga.

197
 3. In Chapter Six, Çréla Prabhupäda equates sannyasa with bhakti.
Real sannyäsa-yoga or bhakti means that one should know his
constitutional position as the living entity, and act accordingly.
Similarly, we find dhyäna-yoga referred to in the purports as Kåñëa
Consciousness.

CONCLUSION
Each of these examples lend themselves to the method of analysis applied
to buddhi-yoga. The result will be the same conclusion. This leads us to the
verification of the first of the four divisions of Corollary 6.2, which was
entitled “Explaining other yoga systems as if they were bhakti.”
The next variation in Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional explanations is
“explaining of otheryoga systems as elements of bhakti.”

Explaining Other Systems as Elements or Partial

Functions

A.L. Herman comments on Çréla Prabhupäda’s interpretation as taking a

“different tack” from Gandhi’s or Maharshi’s Gétäs. This is especially so in his
treatment of yogas other than bhakti:

...the other yogas of the Gétä when they are treated or practised in isolation from
bhakti become insignificant; and they become significant only when they are
interpreted as adjuncts to the only important yoga of the Gétä: bhakti-yoga.

He summarises the overall effect of such an interpretation in comparison

with other translations of the Gétä as resulting in “curious and oftentimes
embarrassing discrepancies.”
Çréla Prabhupäda explains other yoga systems as stages of bhakti or

198
functions of Kåñëa Consciousness in a very matter-of-fact way. He does this
cither within his purports, while explaining related points, or in direct
response to Lord Kåñëa’s statements in a verse. Examples of both are given
below.

EXAMPLES
1. Çréla Prabhupäda explains sense control as an exclusive element of
bhakti-yoga (2.68):

One can curb the forces of sense gratification only by means of Kåñëa
Consciousness...
2. In 5.5, Çréla Prabhupäda explains säìkhya as a preliminary stage leading
to bhakti.

By säìkhya philosophical research one comes to the conclusion that a

living entity is not part and parcel of the material world but of the supreme
spirit whole... When he acts in Kåñëa Consciousness he acts in his
constitutional position.

3. In 6.4, Lord Kåñëa explains the symptoms of the stage of success in yoga,
and Çréla Prabhupäda describes in his purport,

When a person is fully engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord, he
is pleased in himself, and thus he is no longer engaged in sense gratification or in
fruitive activities.

4. In the purport to 10.10, Çréla Prabhupäda describes different yogas as

stages of Kåñëa Consciousness.

Buddhi-yoga itself is action in Kåñëa Consciousness... One should know that the goal

199
 is Kåñëa, and when the goal is assigned, then the path is slowly but progressively
traversed... When a person knows the goal of life but is addicted to the fruits of
activities, he is acting in karma-yoga. When he knows the goal is Kåñëa but takes
pleasure in mental speculation to understand Kåñëa he is acting in jïäna-yoga...

REASONING
In deriving a definition of yoga in Chapter Nine, the conclusion was that
karma, jïäna and añöäìga are included in, and are elements of, bhakti
(Corollary 4.6). Similarly, their practices and symptoms, where favourable to
bhakti, can also be viewed as their elements. The entire yoga system, known as
the yoga ladder (Corollary 4.10), has as its goal bhakti-yoga (Corollary 4.12).
Thus, other yoga practices are elemental to bhakti as well as elements of the
yoga system. The function of an element is to serve the whole and its purpose,
devotional service. Çréla Prabhupäda emphasises this point as a practical
necessity. Such emphasis is obvious and inevitable in communicating the
meaning of the verses or their explanations.

CONCLUSION
Thus, the second part in the confirmation of Corollary 6.2 is confirmed.
One must then come to the conclusion that there is no error in “addressing
other yoga systems as elements of bhakti or partial functions ofbhakti.”

The Conclusion of Other Systems is

In the words of Baird: “Swami Bhaktivedanta sees bhakti-yoga as the

fulfilment of all other yogas”Herman thinks it “unfair” for Çréla Prabhupäda to
tie bhakti to other yoga forms. He considers it a device, for which Çréla
Prabhupäda requires strategies to make his case. “Another strategy lies in
representing other yogas as simply techniques climaxing in bhakti”His opinion

200
is that such excessive interpretations constitute twisting the passages.
This argument has been established through the proof of Code 4. That
Code states: Bhakti-yoga is the independent goal of the yoga ladder. However,
all other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti. In effect, there is no need to
further analyse the point, as it has been argued extensively and would simply
constitute repetition.
Some examples of Çréla Prabhupäda’s practice in this regard are quoted
below.

EXAMPLES
1. In 12.20, Çréla Prabhupäda explains that impersonal speculation (jïäna)
culminates in devotion.
The impersonal conception of the Supreme Absolute Truth, as described in
this Chapter, is recommended only up to the time one surrenders himself for
self-realisation.
2. Verse 6.47 states:
The culmination of all kinds of yoga practices lies in bhakti-yoga.
3. In 3.7:
The whole institution of varëa and äçrama [karma-yoga] is designed to help
us reach this goal of life [Viñëu].

CONCLUSION
This confirms the third argument in verifying Corollary 6.2, which sates
that: “explaining the goal of all yoga systems as bhakti-yoga is completely in
keeping with the message of Lord Kåñëa in the Gétä.”

201
 Explaining all Chapters and Verses as

A common criticism is Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation of verses, chapters

and, for that matter, the entire text of the Gétä. The style he employs is to
contrast verses, chapters, etc., in relation to bhakti-yoga. Critics complain that
this is excessive and Çréla Prabhupäda should allow the verses and chapters to
speak for themselves .
Baird is candid in his observation of Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional
understanding and referencing of verses and chapters. He says,
The whole chapter which emphasises unattached work as the means to
liberation is infused with Kåñëa Consciousness.
And:
Yet when liberation is described as brahma nirväëam, it is understood by
Swami Bhaktivedanta as equivalent to Kåñëa consciousness.
The reader may recall that Anumän 5 explained that the conclusion of the
Gétä is non-different from that of the Vedas. Similarly, the purpose of each
verse of the Gétä, in the ultimate sense, cannot differ from the message of the
Gétä. Since Corollary 4.13 has shown that message to be bhakti-yoga, it is
correct to present each verse in a devotional context.
This methodology is the perfect interaction of Kåñëa and His commentator.
The Lord explains the immediate points of argument in a verse. Çréla
Prabhupäda’s purport, in contrast, maintains the perspective of the verse and
chapter in relation to the overall purpose of the Gétä.
Examples of Çréla Prabhupäda’s practice are given below.

EXAMPLES

202
 1. In 18.46, Çréla Prabhupäda explains the verse, describing the goal of
varëa-äçrama, as “Everyone should be engaged in devotional service to the
Lord in full Kåñëa Consciousness. That is recommended in this verse.”
2. “It is explained in this chapter that the purpose of Vedic study is to
understand Kåñëa.” (15.1)
3. “How one can attain the highest devotional perfection of association
with the Supreme Personality of Godhead has been thoroughly explained in
this chapter.”

CONCLUSION
This verifies the fourth argument, confirming Corollary 6.2, which states:
Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation of every verse and chapter in terms of bhakti is
the proper understanding of the Gétä.

Summary

Allegation 2 has been considered through four parts. Each part has been
individually answered in the previous subsections (XI.iv.b-XI.iv.e). These
answers have been shown to be substantial for the reasons listed below.
1. Explaining other yoga systems “as if they were bhakti. The Gétä
establishes its own criteria for being understood. (Anumän 4). Such
conditions fix certain parameters whereby the Gétä is properly
explained. Any yoga system must be explained in relation to bhakti in a
way most comprehensible to the reader. As a true devotee, Çréla
Prabhupäda is correct in his practice.
2. Explaining other yoga systems as elements of bhakti or partial
functions of bhakti.

203
 The Corollaries of Code 4 have established other yoga practices as
elemental to bhakti, as well as the yoga system. Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda is
remaining faithful to the meaning of yoga in his approach.
3. Explaining that the conclusion of other yoga practices is bhakti. Code
4 has explained that bhakti-yoga is the goal of other yoga systems. Thus,
this practice is supported on the strength of evidence.
4. Explaining every chapter and verse in relation to bhakti. According
to the premise of the Anumän, no part of the Gétä can have any
conclusion that differs from the entire book. Since Corollary 4.12 has
established that goal as bhakti-yoga, Çréla Prabhupäda’s emphasis
maintains a balance between Lord Kåñëa’s immediate explanations and
a total contextual relevance.

The treatment of the four parts of this Allegation leads to the following
conclusion.

Conclusion

Argument 2 has been divided and explained in four subdivisions. These

have been discussed and concluded in support of Çréla Prabhupäda. The
refutation of the second critique of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is becomes academic.
Corollary 6.2 is confirmed, wherein it is stated: The devotional purports to the
Gétä are the proper explanation of all yoga systems. This is because only a
devotional commentary is philosophically consistent with the message of the
text. This applies to devotional and apparently non-devotional topics
presented by Kåñëa. Such explanations of these topics are in conformity to the
overall mood and philosophy of the Gétä.

204
 Argument 3 - Contrast of Other Disciplines

Allegation 3: Why the constant contrast of other disciplines to bhakti-yoga,

and their subsequent disqualification, in favour of Kåñëa Consciousness?

Introduction

While being faithful to the meaning of the Gétä, an author is limited to the
variety of philosophical views he may express. On the other hand, style is the
prerogative of an individual; it is the author’s decision on how he sees best to
communicate his message.
Whatever opinion critics may hold about Çréla Prabhupäda’s Bhagavad-gétä
As It Is, they universally concede that his presentation is unparalleled in its
effectiveness. Effectiveness means inducing people worldwide to become
devotees of Lord Kåñëa. The result establishes the potency of the
Bhaktivedanta purports; they prove themselves efficient beyond comparison.
Even Sharpe concedes that

...it communicates a kind of energy, even to those whose understanding is

rudimentary — hence the frenetic distribution of the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is to
friend and critic alike.

An element of style is comparison. Yet some critics balk at the concept of

comparing one yoga system with another, especially if that comparison results
in a hierarchical gradation. Herman holds to the end that “opposition does not
mean contradiction.” According to him, if a karma-yogé, jïänéor a bhakta give
opposing interpretations of the Gétä, they may be harmonised. How?

...no one of the prescriptions for liberation is better than the others. Instead, each
prescription is simply more appropriate or less appropriate to the individual guna...

205
 Therefore, he rejects Çréla Prabhupäda’s “strategy to represent all yogas
other than bhakti as inferior.” Furthermore, he denies that “The way of
ecstatic bhakti is superior to all other yogas or ways.”
This section is meant to address the reluctance of scholars, like Herman, to
accept a conclusive comparison of other yoga systems to bhakti.
In reading the Gétä, one observes a natural process of comparison
amongyoga systems. These yoga practices have been presented as different
approaches to bhakti-yoga. Should one expect such a contrast between one
system and another? The answer is yes. Why?

1. Where many topics are discussed in a text, it is of value to repeat

their common goal. This avoids loosing sight of the goal amidst a variety
of possibly complex arguments.
2. To emphasise the prominence of one practice, it is natural to
compare its superiority, practicability etc., to other topics. By doing this,
repetition is achieved in an interesting way, employing a variety of
other topics to highlight the goal.
3. In a work as large as the Gétä, the occurrence of many philosophical
points can easily obscure the direction of the text. By bringing these
points in a comparison to the theme of a the text, the goal is kept in the
forefront. In this way, a reader, especially one of philosophy, can
maintain a perspective of the topics at hand.

One cannot accuse Çréla Prabhupäda of deviating from the Gétäs spirit in
this regard. Both Lord Kåñëa and Çréla Prabhupäda utilise this system of
comparison. In the following subsection, I shall cite such examples and deal
with the philosophical implication of the usage of style later.

206
 EXAMPLES
First, let us see a few examples by Lord Kåñëa, and then by Çréla
Prabhupäda. Kåñëa says:

1. “A yogéis greater than an ascetic, greater than the empiricist and

greater than the fruitive worker... and of all yogés, the one with great
faith who always abides in Me... is the highest of all. That is My
opinion.” (6.46-47)
2. “...I am speaking to you My supreme instruction... become My
devotee...” (18.64-65)
3. 12.8-12 describe every type of spiritual practice in comparisons to
pure devotional service. Appendix 3 gives a table where Kåñëa compares
not only non-devotional paths to devotional ones, but also grades of
devotional service.

Çréla Prabhupäda follows, making more and linguistically stronger

comparisons than Lord Kåñëa.

1. The so-called yogés who meditate on something which is not on

the Viñëu platform simply waste their time in a vain search after
some phantasmagoria. We have to be Kåñëa conscious — devoted to
the Personality of Godhead. This is the aim of real yoga.
2. In 4.29, speaking about hatha-yoga, Çréla Prabhupäda says,

...These processes are recommended for controlling the senses... A Kåñëa

conscious person however,... automatically becomes the controller of the
senses.

207
 3. In 5.2:

...Kåñëa Consciousness is far better than any amount of artificial

renunciation by a sannyasi of the mäyäväda school.

The use of comparison is the rightful literary style of the author and an
ornament of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is. In addition to the literary function of such
style mentioned earlier (Introduction), it is meant to emphasise

1. the superiority of bhakti (4.8),

2. its position as the goal of the Gétä (4.13), and
3. the perspective of other systems in relation to bhakti as simply limbs
of devotion — the elements being dependent, devotion being
independent (4.6).

These are philosophical points which have been attested by the relevant
Corollaries. Çréla Prabhupäda is using a literary style which maintains the
philosophical consistency of the Gétä. It is important to note that Çréla
Prabhupäda’s usage of style never compromises the philosophy of Gétä. Hence,
it is a consistent and clearly an illuminating approach.
It is interesting to note what a harmonious relationship is established by
the speaker, Lord Kåñëa, and the commentator, Çréla Prabhupäda, in
employing this practice of repetition. As Lord Kåñëa continually presents a
variety of new themes, Çréla Prabhupäda keeps them in the overall perspective
of the text. The benefit is multifold. Not only is the reader reminded of the
goal of the Gétä, but wherever one opens the book one is able to understand
how a particular verse or chapter relates to the theme of the entire text. This
is particularly useful for those who want to turn to a verse of the Gétä as a
daily meditation, not necessarily reading the book either systematically or in
its entirety.

208
 Time Relevance

The other aspect of this critique has been Çréla Prabhupäda’s emphatic
restriction on yoga practices due to time limitations. He argues that it is only
bhakti which is satisfactorily serviceable in this age.
Baird sees it as an “imposition” on the meaning of the Gétä for Çréla
Prabhupäda to introduce a time relevance in the understanding of a text.
...Swami Bhaktivedanta cancels that and offers the mahä-mantra. This text
(6.11-12) tells how one should select the best place for meditation and go to a
sacred place. Swami Bhaktivedanta indicates that this is fine in India, but that
in Western societies this is not possible. Therefore the Båhan-Näradéya Puräëa
says that in the kali-yuga when people in general are short lived, slow in
spiritual realisation and always disturbed by anxieties, the best means of
spiritual realisation is chanting the name of the Lord...So although nowhere in
the text of the Bhagavad-gétä is there any explicit mention of chanting the
mahä-mantra, it is recommended repeatedly as the best method in this age,
and indeed as the only means of adequately concentrating the mind on the
Lord.
Time and place application of a spiritual practice is relevant for its utility.
After all, what is the use of a yoga practice if it cannot be practised by the
aspirant? Code 5 confirms that Lord Kåñëa introduces different yoga systems
to entice individuals of different mentalities to spiritual life.
The derivation of Corollary 5.4 is to be found in Chapter 10. The argument
shows the influence of time, place and circumstances on the impetus of a yoga
practitioner. What was possible for a people of a distant time, with different
abilities, is not readily practicable at the current time and circumstances.
Therefore, there must be a flexibility in application of spiritual disciplines —
not only according to the faith of the individual, but also his or her

209
environment.
In verse 4.2, Lord Kåñëa states:

sa käleneha mahatä yogo nañöaù paranapa

...But in course of time, the succession was broken and therefore the science as it is
appears to be lost.

Kåñëa explains the effect of time on nañöaù, or destroying, a yoga practice.

Consequently, the science of yoga must be re-established. Later in the chapter,
He says:

pariträëäya sädhünäàvinäçäya ca duñkåtäm

dharma-saàsthäpanärthäya
sambhavämi yuge yuge

To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to

re-establish principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after
millennium. (4.8)
The verses above substantiate that yoga systems deteriorate over time and
are hence re-established regularly by the Lord or his representative. The Vedic
tradition accepts that a shift in emphasis — one yoga system over another —
takes place, according to the qualifications of the practitioners.
Many of the yoga practices prescribed by Lord Kåñëa have been identified
by Çréla Prabhupäda as beyond the capacity of people at present. Such a
judgement is a significant contribution by a commentator. Since many paths
are recommended in the Gétä, a true commentator must be able to prescribe
the one(s) relevant to the readers. In a chemist’s shop, there are countless
medicines. They may all have therapeutic value but a doctor is required to
prescribe the correct medicine for the patient in question.
Corollary 5.5 has shown that bhakti is transcendental to time limitations

210
and is practicable at any time, place and in all circumstances. In support of
this, it is appropriate to review some of Lord Kåñëa’s instructions. Especially
relevant are those verses wherein He recommends practising bhakti, in
preference to some other practice.

1. In 2.45, the Lord instructs Arjuna to transcend the direction of the

karma-käëòa portions of the Vedas. In the following verse, he identifies such a
person as brähmaëasya vijänataù, or “one who knows the complete purpose of
the Vedas.” That is a bhakta.
2. In Chapter 12, Kåñëa recommends the practice of pure devotional
service, and then gives other alternatives for those who are not able to rise to
the standard. Other practices are offered as inferior, not peer or superior,
alternatives.
3. The concluding verses 8.23-28 of Chapter Eight describe time
restrictions for different yogés in departing from this world. In the last verse,
Kåñëa explains that the bhakti-yogéis not dependent on such time constraints.

In other places, as shown in the table in Appendix 3, Kåñëa recommends

practising higher standards of devotion. Nowhere has Kåñëa suggested
practising any other discipline in favour of bhakti.
The reader should take into consideration the evidence (Corollaries 5.4
and 5.5) of the Gétä. Some examples from Çréla Prabhupäda’s purports below
confirm the conclusion of this subsection.

EXAMPLES
1. Explaining the congregational chanting of the holy names as easier than
other sacrifices, Çréla Prabhupäda says at 3.10:

211
 Other yajïas prescribed in Vedic literature are not easy to perform in this
Age of Kali, but the saìkértana-yajïa is easy and sublime for all purposes, as
recommended in Bhagavad-gétä (9.14).
2. Explaining the unavailability of a suitable place in 6.12:
In India yogés... reside in sacred places... But often this is not possible,
especially for Westerners... the best means of spiritual realisation is chanting
the holy name of the Lord.
3. In 9.27, Çréla Prabhupäda explains other yogas as impractical at this
time:
Nowadays people are very much inclined to the meditational process,
which is not practical in this age, but if anyone practices meditating on Kåñëa
twenty-four hours a day by chanting the Hare Kåñëa mantra round his beads,
he is surely the greatest meditator and the greatest yogé...
Therefore, the conclusion is that Çréla Prabhupäda’s approach of
disqualifying other yoga practices as being impractical in this age is his rightful
duty as commentator of the Gétä.

Conclusion

In analysing the two arguments presented in the previous subsection, the

composite conclusion is that “devotional service is the most practical spiritual
discipline for this age.” The comparison of other yoga systems found in the
Gétä to bhakti-yoga is the rightful literary style of the author and the ornament
of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is. This is the verification of Corollary 6.3.

Argument 4 – Defining General Terms in a Devotional Context

Allegation 4: Why does he define and explain general terms in a solely

212
devotional way?

Introduction

Arguments 1 to 3 are based on a philosophical presentation that derives its

authority from the words of the Gétä. Arguments 4 and 5 are not solely
philosophy. Rather, they argue Çréla Prabhupäda’s case in relation to cultural
and linguistic parameters.
Bhagavad-gétä is not an isolated work. It is part of the Mahäbhärata and
accepted by Vaiñëavas as a portion of the småti-çästras. Småti in turn forms a
portion of the greater Vedic literature. Scholars like Sharpe disagree:
...though historically speaking, the Gétä is not, and never has been, part of
Vedic literature at all.
The words of the Vedas assert the opposite (Appendix 15 explains the
Vaiñëava argument in support of the Gétä as part of the Vedas). Vedic
literature is the literal embodiment of Vedic culture and Vedic culture
includes the cultural, religious and political climate present at the time of the
speaking of the Gétä.
In the Gétä are found terms, definitions and cultural practices relating to
the äryan, or Vedic, period. These references have general and clearly defined
meanings. Such meanings are traditional as well as scriptural.
Çréla Prabhupäda explains such terms in relation to Kåñëa Consciousness,
or bhakti-yoga. The result is an interesting study of sociology from the point of
view of a devotee. Baird is sceptical of Çréla Prabhupäda’s “inculcation of a
Vaiñëava life style” in the meaning or explanation of texts. His objections are
extensive. He views the repeated introduction of the mahä-mantra as either
the goal of the Gétä, a means of controlling the mind, the ultimate sacrifice
and so on, as Çréla Prabhupäda’s interest in “expounding the principles of

213
Kåñëa Consciousness” rather than “explicate the text at hand.”
While many such observations are indeed correct, they do not indicate a
weakness in Çréla Prabhupäda’s approach. Rather, it is both a consistent and
authoritative methodology for three reasons. These are enumerated briefly
below.

REASON 1: THEY INDICATE THE ULTIMATE FUNCTION OF AN

OBJECT, PRACTICE, ETC.
There are two ways in which a relationship may be understood. One is the
immediate context; the other, the ultimate one. The Absolute Truth is meant
to establish the ultimate interaction of all things. Consistency and uniformity
in referencing is achieved when done in terms of the ultimate function of
things, relationships, practices, etc. This obviates relative references which
lend themselves to multiple interpretations. This is often the practice of Çréla
Prabhupäda when he makes references in regard to a specific object or
practice in terms of its ultimate function. Codes 4 and 5, Corollary 4.6 and 4.7
are support for such an approach.

REASON 2: THEY ARE SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF GENERAL

TERMS IN REFERENCE TO THEIR USAGE IN EXPLAINING THE
GITA.
In discussing the Absolute Truth, use must be made of convention to
transmit concepts and ideology. That is called communication. Often words
have conventional meanings based on tradition, circumstances and usage. The
explanation of the use of such words in the Gétä must also reflect a correct
philosophical understanding. In addition, the true message of the Gétä should
be transparent in such explanations.
Thus, to convey the proper import of general terms, specific usage may be

214
adopted. Such practice substantiates the true meaning and does not obscure it.
(Corollaries 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.11)

REASON 3: DEFINITIONS ACCORDING TO THE PRACTICAL

APPLICATION AT PRESENT OF THINGS PERTAINING TO AN
ANCIENT TRADITION (TIME, PLACE, ETC.).
According to Corollaries 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, all activities, with the exception of
bhakti-yoga, are subject to time variance in addition to other material
conditions. Definitions must be able to reflect the present-day practice of a
traditional discipline in order to be consistent with the application of such
words by the aspirant.
Examples of Çréla Prabhupäda’s practice are given below. They are
explained with reference to Reasons 1 to 3 above.

EXAMPLES
1. In defining a guru in 2.8, Çréla Prabhupäda states,
...a spiritual master who is 100% Kåñëa conscious is the bona fide spiritual
master...
The general meaning of guru is teacher. Such a teacher may refer to one
who teaches topics of a mundane or transcendental nature. In addition, there
are two kinds of teachers: one who is a student and one who is a master.
This obviously lends credence to the concept of a guru being something
other than a 100% Kåñëa conscious person. This definition of Çréla
Prabhupäda is argued as being too narrow and sectarian. But is it? By use of
Reasons 1 and 2, the following argument can be made in support of Çréla
Prabhupäda’s definition.
In the case of a student guru, he may be in knowledge of a topic but not in

215
full possession of the ultimate goal of life. That goal has been defined,
according to the Gétä, as becoming Kåñëa Conscious. In addition, according to
Assumption 5, this is also the goal of the Vedas and hence the goal of Vedic
culture. This student, although technically qualified as a teacher, does not
fulfill the function of transmitting the whole message of the Gétä. Therefore,
in context to the Gétä, he cannot be called a guru.
The master guru, on the other hand, is the fully mature teacher. Use of the
word “spiritual master,”or guru, most appropriately refers to him. He is in full
knowledge of all aspects of Kåñëa consciousness, as he is fully aware of the goal
of all the Vedas and its attendant civilisation.
Referring to Reason 1, which states that such a definition indicates the
ultimate function of an object, practice, etc., Çréla Prabhupäda’s definition is
most appropriate. If the guru is a teacher of non-transcendent sciences like
archery, medicine, [archery in Dhanur-veda, medicine in Ayur-veda, etc.] etc.,
such definition is irrelevant in the Gétä because the Gétä only deals with
transcendence and has no connection with subjects mundane. In 4.34, Kåñëa
defines a guru as being tattva-darçhi, or having seen the truth. Thus, on the
basis of Reason 2 which states that they are specific applications of general
terms in reference to their usage in explaining the Gétä, Çréla Prabhupäda’s
definition is again the most correct.
2. Çréla Prabhupäda defines the famous Vedic sound vibration oàkära as
“...the sound representation of Kåñëa.”Oàkära is found in all Vedic texts. It is
meant to refer to the Absolute Truth. As many realisations of the Absolute
Truth as there are, that many definitions of oàkära exist. But what is the
ultimate feature of the Absolute Truth, which is manifest and viewed in its
partial aspects? Assumption 1 begins by accepting Lord Kåñëa as the Absolute
Truth. Thus, oàkära refers to Lord Kåñëa and, as it is manifest in sound, can
be explained as the “sound representation of Kåñëa.”According to Reason 1,
Çréla Prabhupäda’s definition is the most appropriate according to the subject

216
being defined.
3. The varëäçrama system is a spiritualised social framework meant for the
elevation of mankind. Within it are differing varëas (works) and äçramas
(spiritual stages). In 4.26, Çréla Prabhupäda explains the behaviour of a
brahmacäréas one who “...hears only words concerning Kåñëa consciousness...
his hearing is engaged in the transcendental sound vibration of Hare Kåñëa
Hare Kåñëa.”
Varëäçrama is non-existent in the world today, even in India. The goal of
varëäçrama is sva-karmaëä tam abhyarcya (18.46), or “worship of the Lord by
one’s work.” In his definition, Çréla Prabhupäda refers to a fully Kåñëa
conscious brahmacäréand thus explains that äçrama ‘s practice from its
perfectional stage (Reason 1). He also emphasises the only form in which
varëäçrama can be practised in this age — in Kåñëa consciousness. Why? Like
the Gétä, varëäçrama, unless explained in the context of bhakti-yoga, is too
much to assimilate for the shallow brains of this age. The result is confusion
and misunderstanding. Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation according to
Reason 3, which is time, place and circumstance, is the correct and relevant
understanding of brahmacarya.
4. Finally, the most general and yet typical of definitions one could find in
the Gétä is the following (6.8): “This Bhagavad-gétä is the science of Kåñëa
Consciousness.” Codes 3,4 and 5 attest to this, as well as all their Corollaries.
The word “science” can be understood either as a development of knowledge
leading to Kåñëa Consciousness (Corollary 4.12) or the study of Kåñëa
Consciousness as it is manifest in the Gétä (as in Çréla Prabhupäda’s
explanation).
As has been clarified by Reason 1, above, this is the obvious function and
goal of the Gétä and is thus properly explained in its ultimate sense.

217
 Conclusion

It is thus concluded that Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional definitions of

general terms is within the proper understanding of the Gétä. This is the
verification of Corollary 6.4.

Argument 5 - Translation of Words in a Context

Allegation 5: Why does Çréla Prabhupäda translate general words in very

specific devotional contexts (which then lend weight to a devotional
interpretation)?

Introduction

Throughout the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, words are generally translated by

Çréla Prabhupäda in a devotional context. Such a practice has two
implications.

1. The translation favours a devotional understanding of a word.

2. The translation conveys the greatest meaning in relation to the goal
of the Gétä.

This practice tends to alienate the linguist, who prefers a neutral and literal
translation of words. Baird gives a list of examples.
In 3.9 the Sanskrit is as follows...this is rendered by Edgerton as ‘Except
action for the purpose of worship, this world is bound by actions.’ Swami
Bhaktivedanta, however, sees yajïa as referring to Viñëu. Then, in the
following verse: ‘Prajapati, the Lord of creatures, is taken as an equivalent of

218
Viñëu.’ Again: ‘In 4.8...a sädhu or holy man is a man in Kåñëa consciousness.’
Without comment, Baird summarises by saying,
Swami Bhaktivedanta not only treats specific texts in a way that would be
unusual among Western scholars, but he sees specific texts in the light of the
Vedas in general.
Some examples are given here. Devotional translations are found in the
word-for-word, as well as the full verse, translations.

EXAMPLES
The dictionary meaning of words is conventional and non-contextual. Çréla
Prabhupäda gives uniquely appropriate meanings to words that are in full
harmony with the mood of the Gétä. To the untrained, non-devotional, and
ultimately non-siddhantic eye, these definitions appear as a deviation from
common practice. But they are not. Instead, they reveal the true translation
among a variety of alternatives. Some examples of Çréla Prabhupäda’s practice
is given below.

karma-yoga work in devotion

yoga devotional service
yukta engaged in devotional service unto the Supreme Personality of
Godhead
mäm Me in the form of Kåñëa
mäm My personal form
pävakaù electricity

The above are not referenced, as often there are multiple translations of

219
the same words. For the purpose of this argument, they will not be analysed
individually. Instead, general principles will be applied to all translations.
These principles are two in number.

1. A devotional translation.
2. Translation for meaning (as opposed to literal).

Category 1: A Devotional Translation

In any translation there is an initial decision to be made by the translator.

He will have two alternatives.

1. Should the translations of individual words reflect the meaning and

message of the entire work?
2. Should the word translation be as general as possible and allow the
overall composition to speak for itself?

The question is not meant to be a trick, and yet asking it seems to illustrate
the issue. The method of communicating in one language is not easily
transferred to another. Such is the case with Sanskrit. The translation of
words in isolation from the meaning of the text will tend to “water down” or
obscure the overall meaning of the book. After all, a book is only as clear as
the words of which it is composed. The best translation is where the words
strengthen the text. Such is the case with Çréla Prabhupäda’s translation.
The concept of devotional service as the goal of the Gétä has emerged as
the message (from Codes 3-5). This message is so strong and pervading that
one would expect it to be reflected in the translation of the words.

220
 OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF REASONING
One may object that this argument — the pervasive nature of bhakti as
determining a devotional translation — is in reverse order. A meaning cannot
be accepted on a biased interpretation from which one works backward to
prove the translation of the words are in keeping with the bias.
In response, it should be borne in mind that Sanskrit is a language which
tends to lend itself to a multiplicity of meanings. One may argue that if the
initial step had begun with the translation of word meanings, without a
predisposed message in mind, an entirely different concept could have been
evoked.

RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION

The objection to our reasoning is flawed from two points of view. One is
practical, and the other theological.

1. The practical defect, of which any translator is aware, is that there is no

possibility of literally translating words from one language to another without
knowing the context and format. The entire meaning of a subject will change,
or even be lost, by such a process. This means that one must first understand
the subject being translated in order to effectively serve its purpose.
2. The theological point is that in reading the Sanskrit text, one will have
to arrive at a conclusion as to what the Bhagavad-gétä means. Furthermore, in
order to do justice to the text, one will have to at least theoretically adopt the
instructions in the Gétä. One cannot give an interpretation in opposition to
the text.
In this context the reader may refer to an earlier argument of Corollaries
3.8 and 3.9. Many verses were quoted to establish the qualification to
understand the Gétä. The conclusion was that one could only grasp the

221
statements of Lord Kåñëa if one is a bhakta, or devotee. This point is clear.
There is no translation of the word bhakta other than “devotee”. Since the
topic of the Gétä is clearly centred around Kåñëa, a contextual translation of
the word bhakta is “devotee of Kåñëa”. Thus, only a devotee of Lord Kåñëa will
know how to translate the Gétä.
No one will argue that there should be no guidelines for translating the
Gétä. Such guidelines must incorporate those given by the author of the text,
Çré Kåñëa.
An example to be given here is the translation of a highly technical text,
such as a book on nuclear physics. The original author would be fully in his
rights to assert that without at least a working knowledge of the subject, one
will neither be able to understand nor translate it. Only a simpleton would
consider that a word-for-word translation constitutes a linguistic reproduction
of the original. The same is the case for Çréla Prabhupäda’s translation of the
Gétä.
Code 3 has established bhakti-yoga as the goal of the Gétä. Corollary 4.7
states that any perfection of yoga is awarded only by bhakti. Surely the
communication of Bhagavad-gétä, its explanation and translation are part of
such yogéc perfection.

Category 2: Translation for “Meaning” (As Opposed to Literal)

In the previous subsection, no examples were cited in the argument. This

subsection will do so to address an oft-quoted complaint: Çréla Prabhupäda’s
non-literal translation style.

EXAMPLE
In the Fifteenth Chapter, a graphic example is quoted as follows:

222
 na tad bhäsayate süryo
na çaçäìko na pävakaùyad gatvä na nivartante
tad dhäma paramaà mama

That abode of Mine is not illuminated by the sun or the moon, nor by fire
or electricity. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. (15.6)
The word in question is pävakaù, controversially translated as “electricity”.
Traditionally, pävakaùmeans fire. In 2.23, Çréla Prabhupäda translates it in
that way. Why the change for an obviously, non-Sanskrit, non-Vedic,
Westernised word meaning like “electricity”?
The academics object. Callewaert and Hemraj write:
The translation of pävaka (fire) as electricity is certainly a surprise. The
word electricity instead of fire is a trivial distortion.
K. Bolle states that rendering “pävaka (fire)...as electricity” shows a “lack of
respect for the original text.”
There is a clear methodology to Çréla Prabhupäda’s approach. That
methodology is intrinsically related to his highly pragmatic preaching style.
Prabhupäda is concerned with communication and making relevant what is
often viewed as an outdated culture. The translation of pävakaùas electricity is
relevant in a culture where illumination means electricity. Thus, he leaps
across credibility gaps and instantly makes contact with the reader, who now
understands that the spiritual realm is not illuminated as this mundane realm
— for it is self-effulgent.
There are technical points in which this translation strengthens Çréla
Prabhupäda’s usage. The meaning of the word “fire” in Vedic culture differs
from the Western convention. It denotes a primordial energy state, rather
than simply the combustion of organic matter. Within it are contained all
forms of fiery, glowing, and heat-generating “fires”, which also include

223
electricity. Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda’s usage is not technically incorrect.
Another (non-Gétä) example in Çréla Prabhupäda’s translation style is that
of Rüpa Goswami’s phrase Kåñëa bhäva rasa bhävita matih, as Kåñëa
Consciousness. Here, he effectively communicates to a 20th-century
Westernised culture, familiar with altered states of consciousness, the goal of
an apparently ancient and foreign Indian tradition. He offers a graphic
picture to the reader that immediately crosses cultural and communication
barriers, explaining a subject in a way easily understood by the reader. This is
the art of communication. Without belabouring the point, its effectiveness is
borne out by the results. Countless people worldwide are interested in Kåñëa
Consciousness and returning to Kåñëa’s self-illuminated abode.

Conclusion

The purpose of this book is to show that one truly desiring to know the Gétä
must be true to its message. Can the honest reader come to any conclusion
other than that? The Gétä clearly states that it can be understood only by a
devotee.
In the same way, can one expect any other means of understanding the
mechanics of translating the Gétä? Unless one is possessed of a devotional
mentality, one will not know how to translate the words of the Gétä into
English, or any language for that matter.
Due to Çréla Prabhupäda’s deep devotional qualities, translating general
words in very specific devotional terms is the perfect illumination of the Gétä.
This is the confirmation of Corollary 6.5.

Chapter Summary

At this stage there is a need to summarise Arguments 1 - 5 in support of

224
Corollaries 6.1-6.5 and, consequently, Code 6. The astute reader will distill the
common argument in the last forty pages as being this: A devotional
presentation of the Gétä is of infinitely greater relevance than a literary one.
This is no doubt the crux of the argument. Generally, the academic opinion
is that the devotional explanation is valid but inferior to the literal approach.
Herman calls it “the devotional way.” The insinuation is that devotional
presentations are biased and, consequently, lack objectivity. Such lack of
objectivity weakens the literary value of a commentary, or may make it
invalid.
The assumption that a literal interpretation is superior is arbitrary and
unfounded. There is no argument to support it. It is somewhat akin to the
scientific approach that all physical phenomena are explainable by simple
mathematical formulae. It is a hypothetical approach that has been adopted as
an Absolute Truth by its proponents.

What is the Foundation?

Of course, arguments can be bandied back and forth. The question may be
asked whether there is a foundation to determine the basis of explaining and
understanding the Gétä. The answer is certainly yes! This issue has been
presented on a number of occasions.
Any understanding, explanation or translation of the Gétä or any part
thereof must be in conformity to the statements of the Gétä, which establishes
its own epistemology. These references have been quoted earlier. The
conclusion has been presented in Corollary 4.13 that the goal of the Gétä is
bhakti-yoga. Similarly, it is only through bhakti that the Gétä is to be
completely understood (Corollaries 3.8, 3.11, 4.6, 5.6). This conclusion is in
accordance with the Gétä itself (4.3, 11.54, 18.55) and is therefore the
foundation in question above.

225
 Is there anywhere in the Gétä where Kåñëa specifically stresses His
understanding through literary media?
Specifically, no. But, generally, yes. Kåñëa emphasises bhakti and nothing
else as the means of knowing Him. As the Omniscient Supreme Lord (7.26),
He knows the defects in our approach to understanding Him. He has given
only one general guideline for His understanding. There are no other
alternatives tendered. Since the Gétä is accepted as being a complete
conversation (Anumän 3), a general reference must be accepted as the answer
to multifarious specifics. The instrument of bhakti, provided for by Kåñëa,
must include the key for any literal or alternative explanations and
translations.
This is the obvious version of the Gétä. Now, one may reject such an
argument; that is free will. The result, however, will be a subjective perception
of the Gétä. In such an exercise, one loses access to its absolute nature as
established by Anumän 2 and 4.

Another Alternate Argument

There is an alternate argument to the one presented above. Its purpose

brings the reader to the same conclusion. This argument is based on a
comparison of bhakti to other yoga systems, utilising both a devotional and
literal approach. The results show that the explanations of other yoga systems
through devotional analysis are more correct than a simply literal one.
In the previous arguments (Codes 1-5), it has been shown that devotional
service to the Supreme Lord is the main message of Bhagavad-gétä. In a book
there may be many sub-plots to enhance interest. Similarly, in the Gétä the
Lord speaks about different subject matters to attract the attention of fruitive
workers and speculators. These topics, however, remain the secondary items of
the Gétä. They are simply servants of the main theme, a means to bring other

226
spiritual aspirants to devotional service. Thus, the Lord subsumes all other
yoga systems in devotional service.

Here, a few important points should be noted.

1. Bhakti is not only the theme of the Gétä but the fructifying element of
other yoga systems.
2. It is also the all-encompassing yoga system, easily containing within it all
the elements of other yogas. By its practice, bhakti yields the results of all other
yoga practices and more.

Keeping these two factors in mind, one may objectively review Çréla
Prabhupäda’s purports.
1. The goal of all the verses is to ultimately establish devotional service.
Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda is more correct in analysing them in the light of
bhakti — their ultimate and superior goal— than in their immediate
context. An immediate and, hence, limited definition would obstruct
the conclusive understanding of the Gétä.
Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda has presented the text in the most
comprehensive way. The Lord has allowed the verse to present the
immediate meaning, while Çréla Prabhupäda in his purports gives the
ultimate meaning. This allows for contrasting and development of
perspective.
2. Karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga and añöäìga-yoga are active, intellectual and
meditative aspects of devotional service. As elements of bhakti, they may
be readily treated by devotional analysis from two points of view.
i. A part may be viewed as a partial representation of the whole.
Thus, understanding of the part through reference to the whole is a

227
 most valid approach.
ii. All the benefits of yoga practices are included in and delivered by
devotional service. Since the Gétäs statements are goal-oriented,
explaining the results of certain activities as bhakti is the proper
causal explanation.
This theme of devotional understanding is highlighted by Çréla Prabhupäda
everywhere. Starting with the Introduction, each verse, chapter summary and
section summary — in fact the entire translation of the Gétä— echoes the
same message.
By this practice Çréla Prabhupäda is not being dogmatic but, rather,
consistent. It is only due to impersonalistic speculation and piecemeal analyses
that people have become accustomed to freewheeling, inconsistent
speculations as acceptable explanations.
Fortunately, Çréla Prabhupäda has corrected the situation, exposed the
frauds and given a clear understanding.

ARGUMENT IN APPENDIX 10
The reader is requested to refer to Appendix 10 before completing this
chapter. An interesting argument is presented there which strengthens the
presentation of this chapter. Simply put, Appendix 10 states that Lord Kåñëa’s
reference to any yoga practice has a dual meaning. For nondevotees the
meaning is direct, referring to a practice which is a means to come to bhakti.
For devotees, the meaning is indirect — any yoga practice actually means
bhakti.

Answering the Allegations Once Again

This book is written with a view to answer the five Allegations.

228
Furthermore, it will show that Çréla Prabhupäda’s stratagem is not only a valid
one, but the best and only way to perfectly explain the Gétä.
The answers to the Allegations are recorded below. They are presented
with their main points of argument preceding them. This constitutes the final
conclusion of this chapter.

ALLEGATION 1
Why does Çréla Prabhupäda insist on understanding the entirety of the
Gétä exclusively in devotional terms?

ANSWERS
1. According to Code 3, only a devotional explanation can explain the
Gétä, the process and goal of which is devotional service.
2. According to Codes 4 and 5, devotional service is the basis and goal of
other yoga processes. Only a devotional explanation will be able to completely
explain the Gétä.
3. According to the words of Çré Kåñëa, only a devotee can understand the
Gétä and explain it in devotional terms.
Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda’s condemnation of non-devotional interpretations
of the Gétä is correct. Such interpretations are insufficient to understand the
truth.

ALLEGATION 2
Why does he explain other yoga systems as bhakti-yoga (Kåñëa
Consciousness)?

229
 ANSWERS
1. The Gétä establishes its own criteria for being understood (Codes 4 and
5). This means that any yoga system must be explained in its relation to bhakti
in a way which is most comprehensible to the reader.
2. The Corollaries of Code 4 have established other yoga practices as
elemental to bhakti, as well as the yoga system.
3. Code 4 has explained that bhakti-yoga is the goal of other yoga systems.
4. According to the premise of the Anumän, no part of the Gétä can have
any conclusion that differs from the entire book. Since Corollary 4.12 has
established that goal as bhakti-yoga, Çréla Prabhupäda’s emphasis maintains a
balance between Lord Kåñëa’s immediate explanation and the overall message
of the text.
Thus, the devotional purports to the Gétä are the proper explanation of all
yoga systems. This is because only a devotional commentary is philosophically
consistent with the message of the text.

ALLEGATION 3
Why the constant contrast of other disciplines to bhakti-yoga and their
subsequent disqualification in favour of Kåñëa Consciousness?

ANSWERS
1. Where many topics are discussed, it is of value to repeat their goal (Code
2, 3). In this way, the reader does not lose sight of the direction of the text.
To emphasise the prominence of one practice, it is natural that it is
compared to other topics (Codes 3 and 4, Corollaries 3.9-3.12, 4.6-4.10). By
doing this, repetition is achieved in an interesting way, employing a variety of

230
other topics as highlights in pursuance of the goal.
2. In a work as large as the Gétä, the occurrence of many themes can easily
obscure the direction of the text (Code 2). By bringing these themes in
comparison to the message of a text, the goal is kept in the forefront. In this
way a reader, especially one of philosophy, can maintain a perspective of the
topics at hand (Code 4).
3. A harmonious relationship is established between the speaker and
commentator by this practice (Corollaries 3.12, 3.13). As Lord Kåñëa presents
new themes, Çréla Prabhupäda keeps them in the overall perspective of the
text. The benefit is one of being reminded of the context and goal of the Gétä
(Code 5). A beginner who reads the Gétä anywhere will be able to understand
how a particular verse or chapter relates to the whole — even understanding
what the theme of the entire text is.
Thus, devotional service is the most practicable spiritual discipline for this
age. The comparison of other yoga systems found in the Gétä to bhakti-yoga is
the rightful literary style of the author and the ornament of Bhagavad-gétä As
It Is.

ALLEGATION 4
Why does Çréla Prabhupäda define and explain general terms in a solely
devotional way?

ANSWERS
1. Those definitions and explanations indicate the ultimate function of an
object, practice, etc. (Code 4 and 5, Corollaries 4.6,4.7).
2. They are specific applications of general terms (Corollaries
4.3,4.5,4.6,4.11).

231
 3. Such definitions reflect the practical application of an ancient tradition
according to time, place, etc. (Corollaries 4.9, 4.10, 4.12).
Thus, Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional definitions of general terms is within
the proper understanding of the Gétä.

ALLEGATION 5
Why does Çréla Prabhupäda translate general words to very specific
devotional contexts (which then lend weight to a devotional interpretation)
(Codes 3-5)?

ANSWER
In relation to the Gétä, this means that the devotional conclusion must be
maintained. Thus, the meaning of words may be chosen in such a way that the
verses maintain an overall understanding of the Gétä.
Thus, translating general words in very specific devotional terms is the
perfect illumination of the Gétä.
Arguments have been given on the basis of the Codes to answer the
Allegations.

Conclusion to Chapter XI

The natural conclusion following from Arguments 1 - 5 is the confirmation

of Corollaries 6.1 - 6.5, as listed below.

6.1 Çréla Prabhupäda’s condemnation of non-devotional interpretations

of the Gétä is correct, as they are insufficient to understand the truth.
6.2 The devotional purport is the proper explanation of other yoga
232
 systems in the Gétä, because it is consistent with the overall mood and
philosophy of the text.
6.3 Devotional service is the most practicable spiritual discipline. The
comparison of other yoga systems found in the Gétä to bhakti-yoga is the
rightful literary style of the author and the ornament of Bhagavad-gétä
As It Is.
6.4 Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional definitions of general terms is within
the proper understanding of the Gétä.
6.5 Translating general words in very specific devotional terms is the
perfect illumination of the Gétä.

With the above Corollaries confirmed, so is the authenticity of Code 6.

The translations and purports of the Bhagavad-gétä by Çréla Prabhupäda are
presented exclusively in relation to devotional service. This commentary,
known as the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, is a complete and consistent explanation
of the Gétä— in that it perfectly serves Kåñëa’s purpose to bring all readers of
His Song to bhakti.

Chapter 12, Code 7: Çréla Prabhupäda Purports Constitute the

Bhagavad-gétä As It Is

Proposition

Code 7: The Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is not only an acceptable commentary

— it presents the only means for actually understanding the Gétä. Other
authorised Vaiñëava commentaries share its methodology and conclusions.

233
 Argument — Introduction

The attempt of this book has been to bring the reader to share the
conclusion presented in this final chapter. So far, logic and argument have
been employed to support this thesis. Such instruments are useful but not
considered the ultimate evidence in Vaiñëava practice. The devotee considers
the conclusions accepted by the predecessor äcäryas to be the best sources of
enlightenment, inspiring further considerations applicable to contemporary
conditions. Thus, he saves himself the tedium of argumentation.
Chapter XI has been dedicated to substantiating Çréla Prabhupäda’s
explanation of Bhagavad-gétä against certain common accusations. These were:

1. understanding the entirety of the Gétä exclusively in devotional

terms,
2. explaining other yoga systems as bhakti-yoga (Kåñëa Consciousness),
3. constant contrasting of other disciplines to bhakti-yoga and their
subsequent disqualification in favour of Kåñëa consciousness,
4. defining and explaining general terms in a solely devotional way, and
5. translating general words in very specific devotional contexts (which
then lend weight to a devotional interpretation).

These points were substantiated by logical arguments with reference to the

Codes and Corollaries arrived at in the earlier sections. The conclusion of the
previous section was that Çréla Prabhupäda was completely justified in his
devotional presentation of the Gétä— his translations, purports and word
usage being 100% in line with the mood of the GUI.

234
 In actuality, more was achieved in that section. The direct statement was
that Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanations were “justified”. The indirect implication
of the arguments indicate that Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is the understanding of
the Bhagavad-gétä. The use of the word “the” is highlighted here to show that
other explanations, which did not parallel Çréla Prabhupäda’s approach, were
“not justified”.
This argument will commonly be viewed in most academic circles as the
typical rightwing, dogmatic distortion one would expect from fundamentalist
Hindus. Callewaert and Hemraj comment in this vein:
...likewise Bhaktivedanta, did [his] best to present ‘the message’ of the Gétä,
but [his] certainty of possessing the truth led [him] to make the text look
‘modern’ and ‘relevant’ and the result was a good many distortions making a
mockery of a venerable Hindu document.
As a consequence, this chapter is devoted wholly to substantiating
Prabhupäda’s position in this argument. The analysis shall be centred on the
actual criteria of a commentary.
The controversies surrounding interpretations of the Gétä are based on two
definitions.

1) What constitutes a commentary?

2) Who is a commentator?

This chapter approaches the issue by reference to the dictionary definition

of the word commentary. The definition of a commentator is further
established by a subsequent process. These combined guidelines evolve from
the definition of a commentary with relevant Codes and Corollaries. It is the
purpose of this procedure to give some integrity to the process of analysis to

235
which the Bhagavad-gétä has been subjected.
The procedure will show that it is not possible to have “justified”
commentaries with “diverging” or opposing themes. In fact, while there is
scope for a variance in presentation, a commentary must be harmonious in
two ways. This harmony is

1) with the text it means to describe, and

2) the commentaries of the predecessor äcäryas.

Failing these parameters, such a work cannot be considered to be

“justified”, or even a commentary on the Gétä at all. It should be recognised
that it is a separate work and categorised as such. In a study of Çréla
Prabhupäda’s commentary (and the Vaiñëava line of thought he represents),
we shall see that he completely adheres to the above definition.
As a consequence, the conclusion of this chapter will confirm that Çréla
Prabhupäda’s presentation is the only way in which one should comment on
the Gétä. Thus, it is not “an” understanding, but “the” understanding, and is
therefore known as the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is. As Sharpe infers,
Impressively entitled The Bhagavad-gétä As It Is — implying a total
rejection of all its competitors...

What is a Commentary?

An analysis of word meanings will offer a working model of a definition.

The reader is requested to bear with this exercise. It will be of value in the
presentation and conclusions.
Referring to the 1976, 6th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the
word commentary is defined in the following way:

236
 Commentary: (comment - explanatory notes) expository treatise; or scries
of comments on various points in a book. One step further is the definition of
both treatise and explanation from the same source:
Treatise: literary composition dealing more or less formally and
methodically with a definite subject.
Explanation: (explain - make known in detail, make intelligible)
declaration made with a view to mutual understanding or reconciliation.

The gist of this exercise is not a lesson in vocabulary. It is meant to

highlight what the function of any commentary is meant to achieve.
Synthesising the above into a common statement, the word commentary can
be described as a composition dealing, more or less formally and methodically,
with a definite subject to make known in detail and make intelligible a
declaration with a view to mutual understanding or reconciliation.
Three points stand out in this definition which establish the requirement
of a commentary:

1. dealing formally and methodically with a definite subject;,

2. making known in detail and intelligibly a declaration;
3. with a view to mutual understanding or reconciliation.
This explanation will continue without further dictionary references.
What is of importance here is to recognise certain criteria that a commentary
is meant to achieve.

This argument will analyse the three requirements of a commentary in

general. Subsequently, these requirements will be applied to the
237
Bhaktivedanta purports, as well as other commentaries of parallel
understanding. In contrast, commentaries which have conclusions at variance
with the text of the Gétä will be disqualified. Such works will be shown to be
other than a commentary and should be recognised as such.
The definite subject of the Gétä removal of Arjuna’s bewilderment — is
achieved through understanding Lord Kåñëa (Corollaries 3.5, 3.14). The focus
here is on the use of the word methodically. The implication of the word
methodically is the need for a systematic methodology, by which one
approaches the explanation of the text.
No doubt, such parameters are adopted by both empiric and Vaiñëava
schools. To import one such system of practice or, alternatively, reconcile
many at this point would compromise the domestic approach upon which this
book is built. To maintain consistency, I shall continue to solely depend on the
Gétä as a source of reference.
To apply the Gétä to evolve a full definition of the word commentary, I
have quoted a series of verses below. They are meant to define the parameters
of a methodical presentation. A summary of these verses follows the actual
quotes.

yävän artha udapäne

sarvataù samplutodake
tävän sarveñu vedeñu
brähmaëasya vijänataù

All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great

reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one
who knows the purpose behind them. (2.46)

çré-bhagavän uväca
imaà vivasvate yoga
proktavän aham avyayam
238
 vivasvän manave präha
manur ikñväkave 'bravét

The Personality of Godhead, Lord Çré Kåñëa, said: I instructed this

imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvän, and Vivasvän
instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it
to Ikñväku. (4.1)

sa eväyaà mayä te 'dya

yogaù proktaù purätanaùbhakto 'si me sakhä ceti
rahasyaà hy etad uttamam

That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today
told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend and can
therefore understand the transcendental mystery of this science. (4.3)

yaj jïätvä na punar moham

evaà yäsyasi päëòava
yena bhütäny açeñäëi
drakñyasy ätmany atho mayi

And when you have thus learned the Truth, you will know that all living
beings are but part of Me — and that they are in Me and are Mine. (4.35)

teñäm evänukampärtham
aham ajïäna-jaà tamaùnäçayämy ätma-bhäva-stho
jïäna-dépena bhäsvatä

Out of compassion for them [those who are constantly devoted and worship
Me with love], I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of
knowledge the darkness born of ignorance. (10.11)

çré-bhagavän uväca

239
 hanta te kathayiñyämi
divyä hy ätma-vibhütayaù
prädhänyataù kuru-çreñöha
nästy anto vistarasya me

The Blessed Lord said: Yes, I will tell you of My splendor-ous

manifestations, but only of those which are prominent, O Arjuna, for My
opulence is limitless. (10.19)

kleço 'dhikataras teñäm

avyaktäsakta-cetasäm
avyaktä hi gatir duùkhaà
dehavadbhir aväpyate

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal

feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in
that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied. (12.5)

åñibhir bahudhä gétaà

chandobhir vividhaiù påthak
brahma-sütra-padaiç caiva
hetumadbhir viniçcitaiù

That knowledge of the field of activities and the knower of activities is

described by various sages in various Vedic writings — especially in the
Vedanta code — and is presented with all reasoning as to cause and effect.
(13.5)

yo mäm evam asammüòho

jänäti puruñottamam
sa sarva-vid bhajati mäà
sarva-bhävena bhärata

240
 Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without
doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full
devotional service, O son of Bharata. (15.19)

yaùçästra-vidhim utsåjya
vartate käma-kärataù
na sa siddhim aväpnoti
na sukhaà na paräà gatim

But he who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own
whims attains nether perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.
(16.23)
The aforementioned verses are summarised as follows:

4.3 - The qualification for comprehension is to be a devotee.

16.23 - The framework of understanding must be based on scripture
(Vedas).
13.5 - Its reasoning must be in line with Vedänta, according to the
process of cause and effect.
2.46 - A conclusive understanding is achieved through knowing the
purpose of the Vedas.
4.1 - Such an understanding is achieved only if one is following a
preceptorial line or disciplic succession.
4.35 - That conclusion must include seeing everyone as part and parcel
of Kåñëa.
15.19 - Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
10.19 - In addition, there may be an unlimited variety of devotional

241
 conclusions.
12.5 - Such devotional conclusions must all be of a personal nature.
10.11 - This entire methodology is made possible by the grace of the
Lord.

The criteria above must be integral to a commentary, if it is to be

consistent with the requirements of the Gétä. Conversely, should such criteria
be missing in a commentary, it should be viewed as being defective. I shall now
summarise the individual points above into a paragraph.
This methodology requires that one be a devotee of the Lord and present
facts and knowledge based on the Vedas and Vedänta, according to a
systematic and logical progression (cause and effect). Being realised in the
purpose of the Vedas, under the guidance of the disciplic succession, one must
present an understanding which reflects the living entity as an eternal servant
of Kåñëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Such an effort is made possible
by the mercy of the Lord and His devotees, not simply scholastic endeavours.

Point 2: Make Known in Detail and Make Intelligible a Declaration

The second aspect of the definition of a commentary indicates the need to

make known in detail and make intelligible the subject at hand. Examining
these two statements brings us closer to the complete description of a true
commentary.
Make known in detail clearly indicates an expansion of volume of the
content of the subject. This is for the obvious purpose of clarification. Detail
means an in-depth understanding. But of what? Of what is already there —
the declaration (in our case, the Gétä). This means a fidelity to the original
statement of the Gétä, which is expanded upon for the purposes explained in

242
the next phrase.
Make intelligible. The meaning is clear. One is meant to make
understandable the original intent of the declaration. This indicates that one
cannot come with a preconceived message to transmit through the vehicle of a
commentary. Rather, one may use the variety of understandings available to
the bona fide commentator through the methodology described earlier. This
makes Çré Kåñëa’s message clearer and more understandable to the common
man.

Point 3: With a View to Mutual Understanding or Reconciliation

This is the last criteria of the definition. The requirement of this criteria is
in harmony with the conclusions of the Corollaries and Codes to date. The
duty of the commentator is to guide the reader to a “mutual understanding”.
That mutual understanding indicates a natural evolution of logical thought in
which the commentary is based on fixed guidelines. This process may be
understood as akin to a laboratory instructor who guides a student in an
experiment through a series of standard steps to a natural understanding and a
standard result.
In commenting on the Gétä, apparent contradictions may arise, or may be
visible in the declaration itself. The term reconciliation indicates that such
apparent anomalies are meant to be reconciled through the standard
methodology by mature realisation. Such differences are not to be exploited to
concoct a limitless variety of new understandings for the sake of innovation.
According to the methodology defined earlier, one must stick to the
understanding of the predecessor dedryas and not attempt to supersede them
through fanciful speculations.

Summary

243
 The three aspects of a commentary have been given due consideration in
Points 1 to 3. From them a set of guidelines manifest which accompany the
basic definition. No doubt, Oxford dictionary meanings can lend themselves
to a multiplicity of interpretations. I have limited the extent of argument by
keeping with the conclusions of this book.
In this appellation, consistency indicates limiting all references to the Gétä
alone. By this I hope to maintain both its culture, language and symbolism.
What then follows is the basic definition and guidelines of how a commentary
is meant to work. The guidelines are a synthesis of the conclusions of Points 1
- 3 of the previous pages, including the quotes defining a methodical
presentation. I have also quoted Codes and Corollaries as source
confirmations for the Guidelines.

DEFINITION:
Commentary - a composition dealing more or less formally and
methodically with a definite subject to make known in detail and intelligibly a
declaration with a view to mutual understanding or reconciliation.

GUIDELINES:
1) This methodology requires that one be a devotee of the Lord and
present facts and knowledge based on the Vedas and Vedänta, according to a
systematic and logical progression (cause and effect). (Corollary 3.8, 3.3, 3.16)
2) Being realised in the purpose of the Vedas, under the guidance of the
disciplic succession, one must present an understanding which reflects the
living entity as an eternal servant of Kåñëa, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. Such an effort is made possible by the mercy of the Lord and His
devotees, not simply scholastic endeavours. (Corollary 3.13, 3.14, 3.15)
3) In the presentation, one must make clear what is already there and

244
avoid fanciful speculations, presenting the subject of the Gétä in a detailed
way that will be intelligible to the common man. (Anumän 2, 5, 7 Corollaries
3.12, 5.6)
4) By leading the reader along the natural prescribed methodology, one
should resolve apparent contradictions within the guidelines of the deary as
and arrive at a mutually consistent and satisfying conclusion. (Anumän 3,4,7,
8.iii. Corollaries 4.9, 4.10, 5.4, 5.6)
At this point both the basic definition, as well as the guidelines regarding a
commentary, have been established. With these tools at hand, an analysis of
Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional explanations, other devotional explanations
and the non-devotional ones can be undertaken.

Argument 1: Çréla Prabhupäda’s Explanations are Justified —

Introduction

Chapter Eleven shows that Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional translations,

purports and overall rendition of the Gétä was perfectly synchronous with the
mood of the text. The defence of Çréla Prabhupäda, as answers to the five
Allegations, drew a fair picture of his commentorial style. The purpose of this
chapter will be to show that Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary is authentic
according to definition. This is done by utilising the reasoning reached in the
previous chapter. In that chapter the following reasoning was recorded.

6.1 Çréla Prabhupäda’s condemnation of non-devotional interpretations of

the Gétä is correct. Such interpretations are insufficient to understand the
truth.
6.2 A devotional commentary to the verses is the proper explanation of
other yoga systems because such a commentary is philosophically consistent
with Kåñëa’s mood.

245
 6.3 Devotional service is the most practicable spiritual discipline for this
age. The comparison of other yoga systems found in the Gétä to bhakti-yoga is
the rightful literary style of the author and the ornament of Bhagavad-gétä As
It Is.
6.4 Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional definitions of general terms is within the
proper understanding of the Gétä.
6.5 Translating general words in very specific devotional terms is the
perfect illumination of the Gétä.

In the derivation of Corollaries 6.1 to 6.5 in Chapter Twelve, certain

supporting conclusions were reached. They will be also called corollaries here.
These are listed below, numbered from i. to viii. They are included in
Corollaries 6.1 - 6.5. Yet their form of presentation more reflects the relevance
of the corollaries to the guidelines of a commentary.

COROLLARIES
i. According to Codes 3 and 4, bhakti-yoga is the exclusive message of the
Bhagavad-gétä. All other topics are meant to draw readers to this conclusion.
i i. According to the Gétä, to understand and explain it one must be a
devotee. This refers to translation of words and verses, as well as purporting.
(XI.iii.f)
iii. Non-devotional explanations of the Gétä are a covering of the book
rather than a revelation. Explanations are meant to reveal the desire of Lord
Kåñëa, which is only possible by a devotional approach. (XI.iii.g)
iv. Çréla Prabhupäda correctly refers to other yoga processes as bhakti-yoga
because they are connected to, dependent on, conclude in and are elements of
devotion. Such terminology correctly maintains the clear emphasis of

246
bhakti-yoga throughout the entire text. (XI.iv.f)
v. The explanation of verses and chapters in relation to bhakti-yoga
complements Lord Kåñëa’s immediate explanation of points by maintaining
the overall devotional perspective. (XI.viii.b)
vi. In illuminating devotional service as the goal of the Gétä, Çréla
Prabhupäda targets popular, impersonalist misconceptions that other processes
are equal to bhakti. Thus, he compares the ineffectiveness of other practices to
devotional service. (XI.iii.b)
vii. Although Lord Kåñëa presents other yoga systems as means to come to
bhakti, Çréla Prabhupäda points out that in this present day, this is not even
possible. Thus, everyone should take to bhakti as both the means and the end.
This, is a further confirmation that all emphasis must be placed to explain
elements of the Gétä in terms of devotion for ease of practice. (XI.v.b)
viii. As the world has little or no knowledge of Vedic culture, and even less
knowledge of the application of Vedic culture, general terms are most
relevantly translated by how they relate to bhakti-yoga, maintaining a
consistency of both understanding and application. (XI.vii.d)

Verifying Çréla Prabhupäda’s Commentaries

From Corollaries i to viii listed above, it is obvious that Çréla Prabhupäda’s

explanation of the Gétä is comprehensively devotional. It is so from the
microscopic (word translation) to the macroscopic (explanation of the entire
book) scale. This consistency of presentation parallels Lord Kåñëa’s repetition
of the same devotional theme throughout His instructions to Arjuna. There is
perfect correlation between the words of the Lord and His pure devotee. As a
result, we have concluded earlier that Çréla Prabhupäda has properly explained
the Gétä in all its aspects, from translations to purports.
Although it may be academic to apply the above definition and guidelines
247
to Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary, for the sake of completeness I shall
undertake to do so.

Guideline 1

The methodology requires that one must be a devotee of the Lord and
present facts and knowledge based on the Vedas and Vedänta, according to a
systematic and logical progression (cause and effect).
There are three points in this guideline. They are:

1. One must be a devotee.

2. One must present facts and knowledge based on the Vedas and Vedänta.
3. This should be done according to a systematical and logical progression.

These may now be applied to Çréla Prabhupäda’s Gétä.

ONE MUST BE A DEVOTEE.

Little doubt can be cast on Çréla Prabhupäda’s qualification as a devotee. It
is in fact his devotional attitude to the Gétä that is the cause of the 5
Objections. Rarely does anyone take exception to Çréla Prabhupäda’s
devotional qualification. Thus, the first of the three aspects is verified.

ONE MUST PRESENT FACTS AND KNOWLEDGE BASED ON

VEDAS AND VEDÄNTA.
All of Çréla Prabhupäda’s purports refer to Vedic literature, including
Vedas, Puräëas, Vedänta and Upaniñads. His arguments may share u
conclusion different from his critics, however, they are all derived from Vedic

248
sources.

THIS SHOULD BE DONE ACCORDING TO A SYSTEMATICAL

AND LOGICAL PROGRESSION.
The Gétä has already been accepted as a systematic text in Anumän 3. The
logical progression of the text has been revealed in the system of Jaimini
(IX.iv.a) in the 6th step.
Çréla Prabhupäda’s purports are equally consistent and logical from two
points of view:

i. The theme of bhakti, consistently emphasised in explanations of

individual verses, follows Lord Kåñëa’s logic.
ii. Çréla Prabhupäda maintains the logical progression of the Gétä by
explaining devotional service as its goal, referring to its own parameters of
understanding.
All three of the aspects of the first portion of the Guidelines of a
commentary are verified. Thus, it is concluded that Çréla Prabhupäda’s
commentary on the Gétä meets the criteria of Guideline 1 in the definition of
a commentary.

Guideline 2

Being realised in the purpose of the Vedas under the guidance of the
disciplic succession, one must present an understanding which reflects the
living entity as an eternal servant of Kåñëa who is the Supreme Personality of
Godhead. Such effort is made possible by the mercy of the Lord and his
devotees, not simply scholastic endeavours.
This Guideline can be divided into three parts. They are:

249
 1. Being realised in the purpose of the Vedas under the guidance of the
disciplic succession,
2. One must present an understanding which reflects the living entity as
an eternal servant of Kåñëa who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
3. Such effort is made possible by the mercy of the Lord and his devotees,
not simply scholastic endeavours.

The same procedure will be applied to these three parts of Guideline Two
as for Guideline One. By a brief analysis of the three portions, it will be shown
that Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentaries perfectly fulfill this guideline.

BEING REALISED IN THE PURPOSE OF THE VEDAS UNDER THE

GUIDANCE OF THE DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION.
In the purport to Bhagavad-gétä 6.42, Çréla Prabhupäda states:
...By the grace of the Lord there are still families that foster
transcendentalists generation after generation. It is certainly very fortunate to
take birth in such families. Fortunately, both our spiritual master, Oà
Viñëupäda Çré Çrémad Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Goswamé Mahäräja, and our
humble self had the opportunity to lake birth in such families and both of us
were trained in the devotional service of the Lord from the very beginning of
our lives. Later on we met by the order of the transcendental system.
Çréla Prabhupäda here confirms his connection with the Gauòéya disciplic
succession through Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. Of course, that lineage is
historically verifiable.
Çréla Prabhupäda’s own admission to being born in a family of
tran-sccndcntalists also indicates his realisation in the Vedic conclusion.

250
Confirming this realisation and training, Çréla Prabhupäda says in the same
purport:
...Such families are very learned and devoted by tradition and training, and
thus they become spiritual masters...
In the words of Dr. J. Stillson Judah: [Dr. J. Stillson Judah; Emeritus
Professor of the Histoiy of Religions and Director of the Library, Graduate
Theological Union, Berkeley, California]
...Çréla Prabhupäda...has supplied the text with an elaborate commentary in
the truly authentic tradition of Çré Kåñëa Caitanya...
This is confirmation of the first part of this guideline.

ONE MUST PRESENT AN UNDERSTANDING WHICH REFLECTS

THE LIVING ENTITY AS AN ETERNAL SERVANT OF KRSNA, WHO
IS THE SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD.
In the purport to Bhagavad-gétä 15.7, Çréla Prabhupäda says:
In this verse the identity of the living being is clearly given. The living
entity is the fragmental part and parcel of the Supreme Lord— eternally...
There are numerous places where Çréla Prabhupäda has emphasised the
same. Even in the Preface, Çréla Prabhupäda has clearly said:
Everyone should know that the living entity is eternally a servant and that
unless one serves Kåñëa one has to serve illusion...
In the purport to the last verse of the Gétä, Çréla Prabhupäda again states:
...Surrender unto Kåñëa in devotional service...is the most confidential
instruction.
A simple study of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is will show that Çréla Prabhupäda

251
everywhere emphasises this most important part of the second guideline.

SUCH EFFORT IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MERCY OF THE LORD

AND HIS DEVOTEES, NOT SIMPLY SCHOLASTIC ENDEAVOURS.
In the Preface, Çréla Prabhupäda states:
If I have any credit in this connection, it does not belong to me personally,
but it is due to my eternal spiritual master...
Çréla Prabhupäda throughout the Gétä emphasises that realisation of Lord
Kåñëa and His instructions in the Gétä can be understood and explained only
by the mercy of the Lord. What is the sign of the Lord’s mercy? According to
verses 10.10 and 10.11, that mercy is the manifestation of devotional service
within the heart. Çréla Prabhupäda states:
Only one who is actually engaged in Kåñëa Consciousness and devotional
service can understand what Kåñëa is. University degrees are not helpful.
Once again, it is found that the third part of guideline two is fulfilled by
Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary.
All three of the aspects of the second portion of the guidelines of a
commentary are verified. It is concluded that Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary
on the Gétä meets the criteria of guideline 2 in the definition of a
commentary.

One must make clear what is already there and avoid fanciful speculations,
presenting the subject of the Gétä in a detailed way that will be intelligible to
the common man.
Çréla Prabhupäda’s purports are clearly in harmony with this guideline.
There is no doubt that Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is intelligible to the common
man. With over a hundred million copies distributed in over forty languages

252
worldwide, the Vedic adage phalena pariciyate, or “judge a thing by its results”,
is appropriate.
Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotion to the message of the Gétä is accepted by all. It
is his overemphasis and exclusive claims that raise the ire of some. As Dr. G.
MacGregor [Dr. Geddes MacGregor; Emeritus Distinguished Professor of
Philosophy, University of Southern California] states:
...Çréla Prabhupäda is, of course, profoundly sympathetic to the theme. He
brings to it, moreover, a special interpretative insight, a powerful and
persuasive presentation in the bhakti tradition.

Guideline 4

By leading the reader along the natural prescribed methodology, one should
resolve apparent contradictions within the guidelines of the acaryas and arrive
at a mutually consistent and satisfying conclusion.
This is the last of the four Guidelines for the definition of a commentary.
There are again three parts to analyse here. Having done so, it will be found
that Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary conforms in every detail — not only to
Guideline 4, but to all four of the Guidelines. This means that Çréla
Prabhupäda’s procedure is completely in keeping with the original definition.
The three parts of this Guideline are:

1. Leading the reader along the natural prescribed methodology,

2. one should resolve apparent contradictions within the guidelines of the
äcäryas and
3. arrive at a mutually consistent and satisfying conclusion.

253
 These will now be briefly analysed.

LEADING THE READER ALONG THE NATURAL PRESCRIBED

METHODOLOGY.
According to Code 6, which has been confirmed in the previous chapter,
Çréla Prabhupäda’s presentation is a consistent methodology, based on the
natural understanding of the Gétä (Code 5). Çréla Prabhupäda’s presentation is
in conformity with the systematic unveiling of the Gétä. It brings the reader to
the natural conclusion that devotional service is the solution to life’s problems
and the culmination of all spiritual practices.

ONE SHOULD RESOLVE APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN

THE GUIDELINES OF THE ÄCÄRYAS.
Scholars interpret the Gétä as propounding different paths. This is due to
their inability to resolve the different practices and their conclusions. Çréla
Prabhupäda, as a pure devotee, is not bewildered in any way. He sees all topics
of the Gétä as a systematic development to bhakti-yoga. In the purport to verse
9.1, he states,
The very beginning of Bhagavad-gétä, the First Chapter, is more or less an
introduction to the rest of the book; and in the Second and Third Chapters,
the spiritual knowledge described is called confidential. Topics discussed in
the Seventh and Eighth Chapters are specifically related to devotional service,
and because they bring enlightenment in Kåñëa Consciousness, they are called
more confidential. But the matters which are described in the Ninth Chapter
deal with unalloyed, pure devotion. Therefore this is called the most
confidential...

ARRIVE AT A MUTUALLY CONSISTENT AND SATISFYING

254
CONCLUSION.
According to Codes 3-5, Çréla Prabhupäda’s devotional presentation is
consistent with the theme of the Gétä.
Once again, the result of such reading speaks for itself. Non-devotional
commentaries generally leave the reader at a loss as to what practical steps to
take at the conclusion of their study. Bhagavad-gétä As It Is inspires the reader
to engage in the devotional service of Lord Kåñëa, specifically by chanting the
Hare Kåñëa mahä-mantra. As a result, millions of people worldwide feel
satisfied that their anxieties in life are diminishing. They perceive a direction
in a hitherto directionless existence. Thus they are satisfied and happy. This,
is surely the purpose of the Gétä, as confirmed by Code 1.

Summary of Verification

Having applied the definition and guidelines, it has been shown that Çréla
Prabhupäda’s commentary is distinctively in harmony with the requirements.
In fact, it is his fidelity to the disciplic tradition and conservative, pragmatic
approach to the Vedic process that brings Çréla Prabhupäda into the limelight
of unjust scrutiny.
Since the definition and guidelines of a commentary have been shown to
be totally applicable to Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, a conclusion may now be
reached. That conclusion is that Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentaries are justified
without a doubt.

Argument 2: Other Justified Explanations

There are many commentaries which explain the Gétä in terms of

devotional service to Lord Çré Kåñëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Some of these are Gauòéya works, while others belong to different Vaiñëava

255
sampradäyas. Many of the äcäryas wrote commentaries, and the same is still
being done to this very day. Such explanations are a service to humanity and
also fall into the category of justified explanations.
There may be differences in the details of justified explanations. In
defining a commentary, such differences in approach are recognised within
the established parameters. However, the diversity in understanding cannot
transgress the guidelines of the methodology. In summary, all justified
commentaries will prescribe a common conclusion, the devotional service of
Lord Kåñëa.

Argument 3: Commentaries that are Not Justified

Unfortunately, the majority of texts on the shelves of book shops do not

share the opinions of Çréla Prabhupäda or other Vaiñëava commentators.
Much has been said’about these commentaries. A few of the mainstream
approaches are listed below. No doubt there are other non-Vaiñëava
commentaries which differ from these three categories. However, they will
generally be found to share some features common to this listing. In any case,
their validity may be analysed by application of the guidelines.

1. An impersonal, or mäyäväda, commentary has as its basis a conception

of the Absolute Truth as being impersonal or void.
2. An academic commentary presents the Gétä by an empiric approach to
understand its philosophy, culture, chronology — and its speaker, Çré Kåñëa.
3. All the teachings of the Gétä are seen as separate, non-integrated paths
to the Absolute (i.e., karma-yoga, jïäna, añöäìga, tyaga, non-violence,
anthropomorphism and other such speculations). For lack of terminology, this
can be called mish-mash.

256
 In my study of other commentaries, they are not restricted solely to one
category. Very often there is an overlapping of two or more types. In fact, I
would have to say that it is rare to find a commentary which is not either
tinged or totally based on mäyäväda concepts.
In all these commentaries there is a common divergence. That is, they
differ from the obvious statements of the Gétä. A brief analysis of these three
approaches of understanding the Gétä follows. This analysis utilises the same
procedure undertaken in XII.iii to study justified commentaries.

Commentaries

The philosophy underlying mäyäväda commentaries is that the Absolute

Truth is ultimately impersonal. This relegates Kåñëa to a manifestation of the
impersonal energy known as Brahman.
Application of the four guidelines shows this type of commentary is
excluded from the realm of the viable.

GUIDELINE 1
It requires a mäyävädéto speak mäyäväda philosophy. However, Guideline 1
requires that the commentator be a devotee. This is one point of variance.
Furthermore, an impersonal understanding of the Absolute Truth is partial
and incomplete. This does not fulfill the criteria of systematic presentation of
Vedic knowledge. From two points the mäyäväda commentary fails in
fulfilling Guideline 1.

GUIDELINE 2

257
 This guideline seeks to establish the Absolute Truth as Lord Kåñëa, the
Supreme Person. Such understanding stands in opposition to the basic premise
of mäyäväda, which claims Lord Kåñëa is only a manifestation of a supreme
impersonal power. Since both devotees and Lord Kåñëa are in opposition (9.11)
to such beliefs, they hardly bestow their mercy on such believers. The
conclusion is that mäyäväda commentaries fail to fulfill Guideline 2 from
these two points.

GUIDELINE 3
The very nature of mäyäväda philosophy is extremely complex (12.5),
consequently quite unintelligible to the common man. Furthermore, to
rationalise a mäyäväda conclusion out of the strongly personal verses of the
Gétä requires extensive intellectual extrapolation. Both these points are in
opposition to this guideline.

GUIDELINE 4
The mood of the acaryas is to explain the Gétä in a way that glorifies Lord
Kåñëa. mäyäväda is based on diminishing Lord Kåñëa’s position to that of a
subordinate deity. This is inherently an offensive tact in the eyes of Vaiñëavas.
In this way, Guideline 4 is also not fulfilled.

From the brief analysis above, it is clear that a mäyäväda explanation of the
Gétä transgresses the guidelines of a commentary. The most significant
commentator in the Christian era was Çaìkaräcärya, who presented his
Bhäñya [Bhäñya - commentary or thesis] toward the end of the 9th century.
Many other authors have zealously followed in his footsteps. Some expanded
on Çaìkara’s teachings, while others enunciated their unique brand of
impersonalism. I shall not attempt to list them all.

258
 The cumulative effect of such publications has lent weight to the
acceptance of a Godless understanding of the Gétä. As a consequence, authors
like Herman are lead to such embarrassing statements as,
...knowledge that one’s Self is Brahman leads to liberation and absorption
of the liberated Self into Brahman as both the Upaniñads and Gétä again make
clear.
An even more compromising example is that of the renown scholar and
commentator Zaehner, who states of the second chapter of the Gétä,
Hence at the end of this chapter...there is no further mention of Kåñëa as
God: the goal is not God but Nirvana, the Buddha’s goal.
In the preceding pages I have shown that mäyäväda commentaries are in no
way acceptable explanations of the Gétä. They contravene each requirement
of the four guidelines without one iota of convergence to the standard
definition of a commentary. Although they may consist of reams of pages, it is
not the volume of writing but its quality which will establish authenticity.
Thus, such explanations cannot be honestly called commentaries and they
should be rejected as their approach is totally unjustifiable.

Academic and “Mish-Mash”

In the previous subsection mäyäväda commentaries were scrutinised with

the help of the four guidelines defining a commentary. It was shown that such
an impersonal explanation cannot be a justified commentary of the Gétä. In
this section the academic commentary is principally scrutinised — to be
followed by an analysis of other miscellaneous commentaries.
In Chapter 10 of his book, Robert Baird makes a study of the differing
approaches of the believer and the scholar. In his opinion,
The gulf of difference between Swami Bhaktivedanta’s presentation and

259
that of the scholarly exegete is unbridgable, for their purposes operate on
different levels.
He concisely explains the differences in the two approaches:
...there are two objects to be considered. The first is the Gétä itself and the
second is Swami Bhaktivedanta’s explanation of it. While the devotee may be
expected to merge the two... such assumption is not permitted for the historian
of religions. The historian is interested in learning precisely what the text has
to say. He wants to understand everything that might be implied in the words
of the text without importing anything that is not actually there. Furthermore
he is interested in understanding the çlokas in their historical setting.
This paradigm may be analysed by use of the above guidelines.

GUIDELINE 1
In Guideline 1, the main requirement is that an author be a devotee. This
obviously excludes many, if not most, commentators. Although Baird and
other scholars will vehemently oppose such a view, it is the conclusion of our
study. Baird himself establishes this paradox by saying:
...from the standpoint of the devotee, the scholar’s approach may lack
integrity, the academic is bound by a scholarly integrity of his own.
The meaning of this statement is confusing. How can diametrically opposed
standards be equally relevant in understanding the Gétä? Baird makes a
pronouncement but fails to establish the logic for such a world view. The Gétä,
on the other hand, does not accommodate such teachings. At close study we
shall see that Baird’s approach is a world view that can only be supported by a
mäyäväda doctrine.
Baird and his associates may say that the Gétä and its interpretation should
remain forever separated. Yet, he has based his approach on another

260
interpretation and, consequently, is guilty of neglecting the very objectivity
he calls for. He is in error of succumbing to the argument of his own criticism.
A scientific process does not accommodate a separation in understanding an
object from its means of perception. For the process of perception is without a
doubt a product of the frame of one’s mind.
Like Baird, the academician is guilty of the same crime which he charges
the believer. While Baird may claim to separate his commentary from the
Gétä, his commentary is not separate from his world view.
If the academic argues that such an approach is authentic, the same
argument may be raised that Çréla Prabhupäda’s commentary is equally so.
Establishing a world view is the theme of the Gétä. Thus, it must be correct for
&rila Prabhupäda to explain the Gétä according to his world view — that
world view which is framed by the Gétä.
In conclusion, since the Gétä requires exclusive perception through
devotional parameters, Baird is not able to give a true commentary —
regardless of his empiric, historical and academic perspectives — because he is
not a devotee. In his own words, Baird states that the scholar wants to
understand “...everything that might be implied in the words of the text...” If
that is the case, then one implication of the Gétä is the exclusivity of its
comprehension by the devotional process, i.e. by the devotee. In accepting this
implication of the Gétä, non-devotional commentaries are absolutely excluded.
If Baird is true to his word, he must also accept this version as a scholar. That
leaves him with two honourable alternatives: become a devotee or stop
commenting on the Gétä.

GUIDELINE 2
Guideline 2 implies that a commentary must conclude that the living entity
is the eternal servant of Çré Kåñëa. A.L. Herman approaches the Gétä from the
perspective of the karma-yogé, jïäné and bhakta. In so doing, he concludes that

261
they are all equally relevant paths with identical results:
..as in the Bhagavad-gétä where all three views are skillfully and coherently
intertwined in one of the greatest religious text known to the world. Again, no
one prescription is simply more appropriate or less appropriate ...
According to Guideline 2, the jïänés (or in the words of Herman, the
Brahmanist’s) world view is not at all appropriate. In Herman’s words:
Brahmanism, finally, rests upon a metaphysical monism, which holds that
there is only one real entity in the universe— Brahman.
This is certainly a negation of the jéva as the eternal servant of Kåñëa and is
not at all compatible with the actual version of the Gétä. Neither are such
fanciful commentaries accepted through the line of disciplic succession; thus,
they too are disqualified in their unauthorised quest to explain the
Bhagavad-gétä.

GUIDELINE 3
Baird has confessed that the scholar wants to understand everything that
“might be implied” in the words of the text of the Gétä. That such a miner’s
approach to the Gétä culminates in philosophically and logically exclusive
contradictions seems to pose no obstacle in his commentary.
Herman’s quote on the previous page epitomizes this confusing approach to
the Gétä. He concludes that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, according to his
reading of Brahmanism, and highly personal, according to the bhakti tradition.
However, he accommodates such glaring contradictions without offering any
resolution. Although he claims that these views are “coherently intertwined”
in the Gétä, he fails to show just how that cohesion is expressed.
Non-devotional commentaries may vent room for literary expression, yet
they rarely clarify the meaning of verses. The ethos of the academician must

262
confuse the issue. This is because their attempt to explain the Gétä via empiric
speculation is both deficient and insufficient. As a consequence, the public
has no clear idea what the Bhagavad-gétä is about. Book shelves abound with
speculations as varied as the publications. Some editions speak of the Gétä as
advocating pantheism, others of monisms and others of monotheisms. If that is
not enough, there are plenty of other philosophies which, individually or
collectively, are connected with Lord Kåñëa’s teachings.
When one book is explained in so many contradictory ways, the result is
confusion. Guideline 3 points out that speculation is to be avoided and a
commentary should be intelligible to the common man. But no two common
men share the same opinion of non-devotional, academic commentaries on
the Gétä. At the hands of academicians, the Gétä has become an unintelligible
oddity of no practical relevance to modern man. Thus, such commentaries are
defective in fulfilling the criteria of authenticity.

GUIDELINE 4
Once again the academic fails to satisfy this. As Baird points out, they have
a methodology or integrity of their own. Despite the fact that such an
integrity is opposed to the very prescription of the Gétä, academics rarely have
difficulty in accommodating such discrepancies.
The methodology of the Gétä is self-explanatory. Where there are
difficulties in understanding, one has to refer to previous authority. The
devotee sees such authority as recognised äcäryas, whereas the academic refers
to their preceptorial line that begins with Max Meuller. The principle is the
same. The Indologist, religious historian or religious sociologist refers to
preceptors dating back one or two centuries. The authority of such a lineage is
empiric and completely speculative. Both by definition and historically, it is
devoid of a direct connection with the subject — in this case the Gétä.
On the other hand, the paramparä of the äcäryas is unbroken, dating to

263
Lord Kåñëa’s speaking the Gétä. Vyäsadeva is the author who personally
witnessed the conversation on the Battlefield of Kurukñetra. As an
incarnation of Kåñëa, he had a perfect understanding of the Lord’s purpose in
speaking to Arjuna. Thus, his source of evidence is not empiric but direct.
That same understanding has been passed down through the disciplic
tradition through Mädhava, Caitanya and, now, Çréla Prabhupäda. The
members of the paramparä were all perfectly living by the teachings of the
Gétä. They did not deviate from its teachings or practice in any way. To the
present day, whoever hears the Gétä from the representative of the äcäryas
also has an experience as direct as that of Arjuna. The evidence of direct
contact is the effect which the Bhaktivedanta purports have on its readers.
Like Arjuna, they tend to surrender to Kåñëa.
On the other hand, I know of no example where a commentary which
failed to present the methodology of the äcäryas induced anyone to follow
Arjuna’s example. This is because the empiric nature of such commentaries
offers no direct contact with either the Gétä or its author. They are defective
and ineffective, for they try to explain an absolute text with relative
parameters.
Eric Sharpe is amazed that Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation of the Gétä is
devoid of “problems and ambiguities.” Others have critiqued Çréla Prabhupäda
for proposing that no paradoxes exist in the Gétä. To even propose that the
Gétä can be explained with one concise approach — bhakti-yoga — is
eclipsing its true glory, such scholars think; that glory has as its ornament
contradictions, paradox and ambiguities. One is lead to inquire how an
explanation of anything could be accepted loaded with such defects. Aside
from contradicting the requirements of this guideline, such an approach is
unacceptable to the real student of the Gétä. Code 1 establishes the goal of the
Gétä as the solution to the problems of life. To then posit that the answer
Kåñëa gives is full of unresolved contradictions etc. indicates that He really
did not answer Arjuna’s question or solve his problem.

264
 However, Arjuna says nañöo mohaù, “my illusion is eradicated”. This can
only be so if the answer he has received is clear and complete. Commentaries
which admit to unresolved contradictions are an admission to not
understanding Kåñëa’s instruction. Thus, they are no explanation at all and
should not be acceptable to the discriminating reader.
The procedure applied to the academic commentaries could equally be used
to analyse mish-mash or other commentary. The result will be that they will
also disqualify themselves. Their transgressions are numerous. However, the
first guideline stands as the most obvious qualifier for a commentator. He must
be a devotee (bhakto ‘si me...).

Summary

In the previous subsections, three types of non-devotional commentaries

were studied. This study was done using the basic definition of a commentary
and its accompanying guidelines, derived in section XII.ii.f. In every case, it
was shown that they are unjustified in their approach and disqualify
themselves under the directive of the guidelines. Thus, they are not real
commentaries at all.

Are the Five Objections Justified?

An interesting conclusion arises if the same analysis is applied to the five

objections. In the preceding pages, I have defended Çréla Prabhupäda’s
Bhagavad-gétä As It Is from these five objections. The question may now be
raised whether the objections themselves are valid.
Objections define an underlying ideology, which also should be able to pass
the scrutiny of the guidelines. If they do not, then the objections themselves
are invalid and unjustified. Before undertaking this brief study, the answer

265
should already be clear to the reader. The objections are raised by academics
and mäyävädés. They do so on the basis of their understanding of what
constitutes a commentary on the Gétä. However, it has been shown that their
commentaries and understanding are wrong and unjustified. Therefore, the
objections which stand on such an erroneous understanding must also be
wrong. These objections are not justified and are unfounded.
Continuing with the analysis according to the guidelines, I shall be brief.
To analyse them all individually would unnecessarily extend the length of this
book. I will study one criticism common to all five objections. That point will
be shown to be contradictory to the definition and will confirm general
disqualification of all the objections.
If the reader reviews the five objections, he will observe that there is one
thread of criticism common to them all. That common criticism is Çréla
Prabhupäda’s devotional approach. If I was to summarise the five objections in
one sentence, it would be: “Why does Çréla Prabhupäda comment on the Gétä
in a devotional way?” Another way of putting that summary is: “Why does
Çréla Prabhupäda not comment on the Gétä in a non-devotional way?”
Codes 1 - 6 have established that devotional service is the theme of the Gétä
and bhakti the only means for its understanding and comprehension. The
criticism voiced above is an attack on the very heart of the Gétä an attack on
the essence of its teachings. Although in the guise of objective questions, the
five objections underline an understanding in complete contradiction to the
Gétä It is clear that the five objections and Bhagavad-gétä As It Is cannot exist
side by side. They are mutually exclusive. Either the objections are withdrawn,
or the Gétä goes. This is the true insinuation of the objections.
In the Introduction a question was raised as to why I am splitting hairs by
addressing minor objections to Çréla Prabhupäda’s work. I offer the answer
here. The objections are not minor. They are in fact a frontal attack on Çréla
Prabhupäda’s commentary, covered by the veneer of academic or mäyäväda

266
liberality. Therefore, I considered it sufficiently important to warrant the
penning of this book.
What follows is the last exercise of this book. My expectation is that, along
with the contents of the rest of the text, it will bring the readers to share the
conclusion expressed in Code 7.

GUIDELINE 1
Requires that the commentator be a devotee.

GUIDELINE 2
Establishes that the commentator must follow in the disciplic succession of
Vaiñëavas and his overall commentary must direct others to the service of
Lord Çré Kåñëa.

GUIDELINE 3
Requires that a commentary be easily accessible to the common man and
readily practicable.

GUIDELINE 4
That the commentary not be in opposition to the devotional theme of the
Gétä.

The Guidelines re-emphasise the need for a devotional approach in

understanding the Gétä. In each and every objection the same devotional
attitude is being attacked. Guidelines are the dominant mould in which all
views of the Gétä must be cast. If the objections, which express a view, have
inherently wrong assumptions, they should be withdrawn. The objections are

267
baseless. They make no sense in light of the teachings of the Gétä.
To exemplify this point, I would like to share a crude example. Take an
orange. Anyone wanting to criticise an orange must do so within its
functional parameters. By that I mean one may say, “Why is the orange not
coloured orange?”“Why is it so sour?”“Why is it not ripe?” These are
parameters that are related to the orange and may be relevantly queried. But if
someone says, “Why doesn’t your orange have feet?” or “Where is the hair on
your orange?”, then these questions are meaningless. Oranges neither have
feet nor hair. To then complain that my orange docs not have feet or hair is
foolishness. To make further arguments about oranges existing with feet and
hair may be called insanity.
In the same way there is no meaning to Bhagavad-gétä without devotional
service. To object to a devotional presentation is foolishness. Furthermore, to
try to explain the Gétä in any parameters other than a devotional one is, as
with the hairy orange, an exercise in futility.

Summary of Commentaries

This book has attempted to establish an integrity for a commentary on the

Gétä. Intellectual intimidation does nothing to explain the message of Lord
Kåñëa. As the Gétä is the authority, an explanation must submit to the
guidelines of that authority and not consider itself independent. As soon as a
commentator begins with a definition which is independent from, or at odds
with, the conclusion of the Gétä (Codes 3 - 5), he invalidates his effort. This is
confirmed by Lord Kåñëa:

açraddadhänäù puruñä
dharmasyäsya parantapa
apräpya mäà nivartante
måtyu-saàsära-vartmani

268
 Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me, O
conqueror of enemies. Therefore they return to the path of birth and death in
this material world. (9.3)
The purpose of the Gétä is to solve the problems of life. An explanation on
the Gétä is to clarify that solution, and how to achieve it. Here, Lord Kåñëa
states that a faithless person, or an unfaithful commentary, cannot achieve
such a result. Individuals who propound or share such beliefs will continue to
suffer, being bound to the cycle of birth and death.
One may grapple with the detail of the four guidelines that accompany the
definition of a commentary. To summarise these parameters for the sake of
simplicity, an abbreviated definition is given below.
A commentary on the Gétä must explain the conclusion of the Gétäas
revealed by the predecessor äcäryas.
A subject and its explanation cannot differ. If they do, what is it that is
being explained? There may be a variety of explanations but they should not
deviate from the explanations of previous commentators. [Other
commentators on the Gétä are Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa, Viçvanätha Cakravaté
Öhäkur, Bhaktivinode Öhäkur, Bhaktisiddhänata Sarasvaté Öhäkur, among
others] If it is found that a commentary is at odds with both the Gétä and the
äcäryas, it should not be accepted as a valid explanation. What then is it? It is
just another book.
In conclusion, any explanation which does not share the conclusion of the
Gétä itself is not a “justified” explanation.

Argument 4: Why

The last question addressed in this book is why Çréla Prabhupäda chooses to
title his commentary, Bhagavad-gétä As It Is? I have mentioned that some

269
critics have accused Prabhupäda of being proud and audacious. In many cases
they resent the exclusivity to which Çréla Prabhupäda infers. In Sharpe’s
words:
Impressively entitled the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is — implying a total
rejection of all its competitors...
The answer I shall give may, to those not in agreement with the
conclusions of this book, appear equally audacious. From the study undertaken
in this book, it is only Çréla Prabhupäda’s Gétä (or those in line with it) which
faithfully represent the message of Lord Kåñëa. Other editions are a
distraction from the true message. How to distinguish one from the other?
Çréla Prabhupäda made a clear statement in choosing this title. Bhagavad-gétä
As It Is says that there are so many “Bhagavad-gétä As It Is Not”. These books
— the nots — also go under the title of Bhagavad-gétä. One desiring to
purchase, study, or even browse through a Gétä will be taken to think that all
editions are in the same category. Çréla Prabhupäda points out that this is not
the case. All editions are not the same, because they do not remain true to the
message of the disciplic succession.
Thus, this Gétä—As It Is — is in line with what Lord Kåñëa wanted to say.
It is not written as a “new” perspective for the sake of antithesis, financial
gain or recognition. It is composed as devotional service to the Lord. The
motivation for its composition is completely consistent with everything else
contained in the Gétä. Therefore, labels like vanity or arrogance cannot stick
to Çréla Prabhupäda for his being true to the Gétä.
Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation is not a way, opinion, school or
exaggeration. It is the one and only way in which Bhagavad-gétä can be
understood. Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is, therefore, a fitting title and should be
accepted by all and sundry.
In addition, of all the “justified” versions, none can compare to Çréla
Prabhupäda’s for inspiring people worldwide to take to Lord Kåñëa’s

270
devotional service. On the basis of its effectiveness, Bhagavad-gétä As It Is
should be considered the leader and standard for other devotional
commentaries.

Summary of the Book

I shall now summarise the conclusion of this book again briefly. Repetition
is useful for full comprehension.
In Part II, it has been shown that devotional service is the exclusive
message of Bhagavad-gétä. As there is a main theme in any book, devotional
service is undoubtedly the main theme of the Bhagavad-gétä. Other suggested
processes — karma, jndna and yoga — are delineated to attract aspirants to
bhakti. They remain incomplete in their own right without the touch of
devotion.
As these subordinate processes are partial limbs of bhakti, they can be
viewed in the light of devotion. Whatever benefits are achieved by their
practice are the partial benefits of devotional service. Those who are foolish
do not have an overall vision of Bhagavad-gétä (7.25). Their perspective is
limited and partial. But those in devotion (11.54) can see things as they are,
and properly understand the Lord.
The sub-plot of a story may appear to deviate from the main story line. This
is the inevitable conclusion of a limited perspective. When the perspective is
complete, what appears as a partial perspective in the entirety of the story will
be seen to be complementary, not contradictory. In the same way, apparently
divergent views in the Gétä remain unresolved as long as one does not have an
overall perspective.
Such a perspective is possible only by the association of a pure devotee.
Therefore, Lord Kåñëa has warned (4.35) that only by receiving the mercy of a
devotee will one see things as they are. That perspective is to see “all living

271
beings are but part of the Supreme, or in other words, that they are mine.” In
this way, each verse of the Gétä is meant for glorifying and understanding
unalloyed devotional service to the Lord. Such a vision is possible when one is
blessed with devotion. Then one is able to understand the full context of each
verse in relation to others, as well as the overall text.
Similarly, according to the academic tradition, Çréla Prabhupäda’s purport
to and translation of a verse may seem devotionally extrapolated. But this
perception is a limited perspective, because such a devotional approach is
consistent with the rest of the book and is actually correct. The commentary
composed with a total perspective is fully consistent with the body of the book
and can be truly claimed to be Bhagavad-gétä as it is.
Other explanations which deviate from this are speculations. They attempt
to deliver a preconceived message at the expense of the Gétä. It is not that
such an explanation is a “valid perspective.” When speaking about the
Absolute Truth, why should there be relative means for its understanding? An
absolute nature requires absolute understanding. Such “perspectives” are not
“valid” explanations of the Gétä; rather, they are erroneous.
Lord Kåñëa wanted Arjuna to fight in the beginning of the Gétä. In 18.73,
Arjuna summarises his understanding of the Gétä. He tells Kåñëa nañöa mohaù,
“my illusion is now dispelled.” What illusion? — thinking renunciation to be
separate from work (5.5), thinking work separate from sacrifice (3.9), or that
there are “many” paths to liberation (3.3).
How did Arjuna achieve this understanding? Tvat-prasädät, by the Lord’s
mercy; not by austerities, or yoga, or renunciation. Why? Because Arjuna was
Kåñëa’s devotee (4.3). And the result? Kariñye vacanaàtava, “I will act
according to your instructions.” Arjuna would fight.
The result of Arjuna’s hearing the Gétä is that he followed Kåñëa’s order
and fought. He surrendered to the Lord. This was a result of his being freed
from doubt and illusion. Arjuna did just one thing. He surrendered to Kåñëa

272
in devotional service. Arjuna was the qualified student of the Gétä (4.3)
through whom Lord Kåñëa wanted to re-establish the true understanding of
the paramparä. Similarly, there is no alternative to anyone who is similarly
baffled by material perplexities (2.7).
Why should there be many “interpretations” of the Gétä? Who has
authorised more than one? Not the Gétä, as the Lord explains (4.3), (11.54),
etc. If one suggests all explanations are valid, then asserting only one
explanation is real is equally valid, thus nullifying others.
The real understanding is not through logical argument but through
parampard. Such a paramparäunderstanding is what the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is
is. It is not Çréla Prabhupäda’s explanation, but Lord Kåñëa’s explanation,
spoken through His pure devotee (4.3). In fact, the title Bhagavad-gétä As It Is
is not presumptuous, as I once heard some “neutral”critics speaking. It is
factual and humble. Such qualifying subtitles are only necessary in an age
where there are so many “Bhagavad-gétäs As They Are Not”— Gétäs which
are misinterpreted and invalid texts inspired by the material energy to distract
and delude (9.11) innocent readers.
By the continued distribution and reading of the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, all
unauthorised versions will be exposed for their falsity and left by the wayside.
In the future, it may be seen that there are only authorised versions of the
Bhagavad-gétä. In such circumstances, there will be no other versions to
mislead the public.
This, then, leads us to the conclusion of this chapter and, indeed, this book.

Conclusion

Code 7: The Bhagavad-gétä As It Is is not only an acceptable commentary

— it presents the only means for knowing the Gétä. Other authorised
Vaiñëava commentaries share its methodology and conclusions.

273
 AFTERWORD
Verse 13.19 states that only a devotee can understand the workings of the
material energy and, consequently, obtain release from its clutches. If that is
the case, how can a nondevotee understand the Gétä, which is the handbook
for gaining release from the material energy (Code 1)?
Opponents of this conclusion will object to Çréla Prabhupäda’s wholesale
rejection of all academic commentaries on the Gétä. They argue that such
popular commentaries have been accepted by the general public, what to speak
of qualified scholars and recognised philosophers. In Baird’s words:
A striking quality of Swami Bhaktivedanta’s treatment of the
Gétä...he...makes it clear that those who do not hold to his position are in
error... he seldom engages in the kind of argument that scholars are
accustomed to...he merely announces what is correct.
There is a clear disagreement here between the academic and Çréla
Prabhupäda. The entire theme of this book was to resolve such disagreement.
At this point I would like to delve a little further into this argument. My
purpose is to explore Çréla Prabhupäda’s stand in an open and, hopefully,
honest way. I shall continue to employ two instruments in such argument.
One is the authoritative statements of the Gétä; the other, the lesser
methodology, is logic.
While Baird has been quoted twice earlier in his pronouncement that the
devotee and the academic have opposing views, he argues that they are not
mutually exclusive but reflect different approaches to the Gétä. Both

274
approaches are based on an integrity of their own. (Hence, although from the
standpoint of the devotee the scholars’ approach may lack integrity, the
academic is bound by a scholarly integrity of his own.)
In responding to such a stand, I want to avoid sounding like the
prototypical fundamentalist. Scientists have long since declared that ours is a
world of relativities. However, there must be limits to which the cause of
relativity may be accommodated in any argument. The line taken by Baird
seems to go beyond the realm of the reasonable. He argues that one who
adheres to a system of values he calls integrity — regardless of how subjective
and relative it may be — has sufficient qualifications to comment on the Gétä.
I have great trouble with this stand of Baird, which epitomises the academic’s
approach. It is one in which logic, reason, intellectual integrity and the Gétä
itself are victims of a lawless subjectivity, evolved from a tradition based on a
ruthlessly speculative academic clique.
As an example, thieves no doubt have their own code of honour. I lowever,
under the scrutiny of society’s legal system, such codes have no standing and
are rejected as untruths. Similarly, the integrity Baird speaks about can hardly
be called such if it contradicts the very integrity called upon by the Gétä for its
own comprehension. What Baird means is that he is being faithful to a
tradition which has never based its study of the Gétä or the Vedas on any
integrity at all. Such conformity is like the honour of thieves and has no locus
standi in any honest society. The Gétä explains that it is incomprehensible by
any empiric process. Why would an educated scholar then think that an
empiric approach has any integrity at all?
The non-devotee speculator begins with a basic, unfounded, unproved
axiomatic premise. That premise is that one can understand and explain the
Gétä independent of the state of one’s consciousness. The entire topic of the
Gétä is about understanding and purifying consciousness (Bg. 7.1). How will
such a topic be understood if the reader or commentator are not subject to a
process of purification? The Gétä is firm in its insistence that such

275
pre-qualification is fundamental to its understanding. This argument is
confirmed in verses like 4.3, 9.2, 11.54, etc.
Any subject of study requires foundational knowledge. One cannot be an
engineer without understanding basic subjects like mathematics and physics.
What will the unqualified student make of engineering texts? Nothing!
Similarly, is it not reasonable that the Bhagavad-gétä, whose subject is
described in the first verse as being very “subtle”(gatäsün, agatäsün), be
approached by one versed in subtle spiritual sciences?
Let us turn to the Gétä for the answer in this regard.
Before explaining transcendental knowledge (by which one rises from a
bewildered state of consciousness), Lord Kåñëa presents Arjuna’s qualification
for its understanding. He says, “...bhakto ‘si me...”, or “...because you are My
devotee....” Kåñëa considers Arjuna’s qualification for understanding the Gétä
his devotional credentials, not his academic learning or scholarship.
Concluding His teachings again, Kåñëa reiterates the same thing in a general
way. He says, “bhaktyä mäm abhijänäti... “, or “only by devotional service am I
understood...”
What does this all mean? This book has gone to great lengths to show that
bhakti is the goal of the Gétä. Is it not clear form the statements of the Gétä
that both its goal and its means of comprehension are bhakti? Unless one is
qualified as a devotee of the Lord, one cannot understand the Gétä. One may
come to some understanding. But it will not be the correct one. It will not be
what Arjuna understood. Therefore, it is essential to understand why Arjuna
was able to understand the Gétä...bhakto ‘si me sakhä...; He was Kåñëa’s devotee
and friend.
To understand bhakti in its superlative stages, one must have some bhakti in
its basic form. That preliminary stage begins with çraddhä, or faith. Kåñëa is
the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This was the first criterion of this book,
Anumän 1. Otherwise the Gétä and this book would be misunderstood without

276
a doubt.
How should one acquire at least a fragment of bhakti or faith? It will only be
possible when one hears the Gétä from a devotee (4.35). By the association of a
devotee, one will gain some faith and devotion. Without a devotional
intermediary, one will simply be burdened with countless speculations. Such
speculations will run against the siddhänta of the text and render any
understanding meaningless. Therefore, Kåñëa warns:
This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not
austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor one who is envious
of Me. (18.67)
As the nondevotee cannot understand the Gétä, similarly, an unqualified
person cannot explain the Gétä to anyone else. The reader should not be
offended by such statements. Do we expect someone who knows nothing
about anatomy to give lessons in medical practice, an illiterate person to teach
poetry or one who cannot add to dabble in advanced mathematics? The result
of such efforts would be only nonsense.
Our modern world is one of specialists, who achieve recognition by
dedicating their youth to the pursuit of knowledge. By decades of austerity
they become qualified for a profession. It should be understood that the
spiritual science of knowing the Bhagavad-gétä requires similar respect. There
is no room for hypocrisy and duplicity in the realm of transcendence. An
academic pursuit of bhakti does not qualify one to be a devotee. One must
actually practice the process, beginning with refraining from sinful activities
and practising the ninefold process of devotional service (9.34). Then, as the
heart becomes purified, one will be able to appreciate Bhagavad-gétä; in one’s
devotional maturity one will be able to give commentary.
In the proof of Anumän 2 and 4, it has been argued that the Gétä must be
accepted as authority. By making a study of the Gétä but rejecting its
teachings, one opens a Pandora’s box of contradictions and logical fallacies. If

277
a study of the Gétä does not reflect its statements, then of what value is there
in such a study? What value is there in following a non-devotional
commentary, or learning one, or teaching it? This may be a means of making a
living; however, such employment is not an honest profession. The business of
explaining the Gétä is not the practice of nondevotees or neophytes. The Gétä
is to be explained by great devotees who have surrendered their lives to Kåñëa.
Arjuna was a great devotee. He did not explain the Gétä but, rather, inquired
about its significance.
Embossed pieces of paper in the form of diplomas or recognition in the eyes
of the uninformed are not qualifications for understanding the Gétä. The
serious commentator must practice the process of devotional service under the
direction of a bona fide Vaiñëava. By such training the meaning of the Gétä
will become crystal clear.
While one may be reserved about the above arguments, their authenticity
is verified by the Gétä. Although limitless debates may ensue, the reality of the
Gétäs application will transport the faithful from the realm of the mundane to
that of transcendence. For Lord Kåñëa states:

mäà hi pärtha vyapäçritya

ye 'pi syuù päpa-yonayaù
striyo vaiçyäs tathäçüdräs
te 'pi yänti paräà gatim

O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth
— women, vaiçyas [merchants], as well as çüdras [workers] — can approach
the supreme destination. (9.32).
As Çréla Prabhupäda states in the purport,
It is clearly declared here by the Supreme Lord that in devotional service
there is no distinction between the lower and higher classes of people...
everyone is eligible for the Supreme destination...

278
 Thus, the devotees will return to the abode of the Lord, while the
speculators, devoid of faith and devotion, will continue in the cycle of birth
and death — as do those who follow them:

açraddadhänäù puruñä
dharmasyäsya parantapa
apräpya mäà nivartante
måtyu-saàsära-vartmani

Those who are not faithful on the path of devotional service cannot attain
Me, O conqueror of foes, but return to birth and death in this material world.
(9.3)
Of what value is such a contribution and what system of integrity docs it
represent?

Appendix 1: Examples of Kåñëa's Accepting a Plurality of Process

REFERENCES:

The following are examples from each chapter of the Gétä, revealing how
Lord Kåñëa refers to other spiritual practices with the purpose of bringing
Arjuna to the point of bhakti.

EXAMPLE 1.

In verse 2.26, Kåñëa recognises the use of non-devotional practices as a

means for encouraging Arjuna in devotion.
He states: “atha ca.., manyase” “If, however, you think...” The topic is

279
Vaibhasika philosophy, an atheistic and materialistic process. Kåñëa uses the
understanding of the transitory world of the Vaibhäñikas to verify His concept
of the soul. By using the above phrase He is aware that, against all good reason,
some people are attached to inferior ideology. Yet He uses the same Vaibhäñika
theory to confirm the cycle of manifestation and unmanifestation. By such
practice He frees Arjuna from lamentation for the bodies of the combatants
on the battlefield. In this way, by performing his duty of fighting, he will
satisfy the will of the Lord.

EXAMPLE 2.

In verses 2.32-38, Kåñëa emphasises the practice of karma-käëòa as

applicable to kñatriyas. He quotes the benefits of attaining higher planets as an
impetus for Arjuna to fight, thereby fulfilling His will.

EXAMPLE 3.

Immediately thereafter (verse 2.45), Kåñëa contradicts Himself and decries

the fruitive activities of the Vedas. He now tells Arjuna to rise above such
selfish activities and become transcendental to the modes of nature. This
exemplifies Kåñëa encouraging Arjuna to go from a lower practice to a
transcendental one.

EXAMPLE 4.

From verses 3.15 to 3.17, Kåñëa again offers one process and then a higher
alternative. The Lord explains that such regulation conducted under Vcdic
injunctions is better than unregulated activity. But for a transccndcntalist, He
280
recommends freedom from such rituals.

EXAMPLE 5.

In verse 4.32, Lord Kåñëa has concluded a series of verses with the words
evaà bahu-vidhä yajïä. This is translated as “all these different types of
sacrifice.” The indication is that different sacrifices are born of different types
of work. As a result, their practitioners advance to the supreme atmosphere.

EXAMPLE 6.

Verses 5.1 - 5.6 are a dialogue comparing the relative merits of renunciation
and work. The Lord recognises both but recommends detached work, as it is
the easier way to come to devotion (5.7).

EXAMPLE 7.
Verses 6.1 - 4 are a comparison of renunciation and yoga. Describing
añöäìga-yoga through the whole chapter, the Lord concludes that of all such
yogés (6.47), the bhakta is the best.

EXAMPLE 8.

Verse 6.46 compares the relative merits of the remmciant, yogé, jïänéand
karma-käëòé. But the Lord certifies the yogéas the best. And, in 6.47,
bhakti-yoga is described as the best of all yoga systems.

281
 EXAMPLE 9.

Verse 7.16 cites four types of surrendered souls, among whom the
jïäna-miçra bhakta is considered the best, because of his affection for the
Lord. In 7.19, a jïänéis glorified, but his achieving the affection possessed by
the bhakta is described as taking many lifetimes. In 7.20-7.23, the Lord
describes demigod worship as being an inferior practice.
In 7.24-7.25, He speaks about impersonalists (jïänés). Whereas in other
examples He leads to bhakti, here Lord Kåñëa starts with bhakti and leads down
from there to jïäna. In either case, the acceptance of other systems and their
comparison to bhakti is being clearly made.

EXAMPLE 10.

In 8.24-8.28, Kåñëa explains the departure from this world by the

jïäna-yogé, karma-yogéand the bhakta. For the bhakta the conditions of
departure are irrelevant, but the requirements for others are stringent.

EXAMPLE 11.

In 9.15, the Lord recognises the indirect worship of three types of jïänés.
They are monists, demigod worshipers and worshipers of the universal form.
The subsequent verses explain these processes. They are then compared to
bhakti in 9.26, and karma-yoga is given as an alternative to those who find
bhakti difficult.

282
 EXAMPLE 12.

Arjuna once again compares the results of jïäna and work in the form of
bhakti and the realisation of the impersonalist. In His reply Kåñëa recognises
the superiority of the devotee (12.2), while encouraging the effort of the
jïäné(12.3-4). Although their attachment to the unmanifest concept results in
unnecessary labour (12.5), they ultimately come to Him.

EXAMPLE 13.

Verses 12.8-12.11 give the alternatives to pure devotion. These alternatives

are devotion in practice, niñkäma karma-yoga and sakäma karma-yoga. In
12.12, Kåñëa gives jïäna as a further alternative and reviews meditation,
renunciation and bhakti. Once again, He clearly offers different alternatives,
although sandwiching them between devotion as the obvious goal.

EXAMPLE 14.

In 13.3, Kåñëa quotes the Vedänta as authority on metaphysics and supports

His statements with it. By this He is accepting the process of jïäna described
therein as a means for understanding the interactions of the knowers, the
field and material nature.

EXAMPLE 15.

Verse 15.15 explains Kåñëa as the goal and compiler of the Vedas and
Vedänta. Verses 15.16-18 describe the philosophy of the Vedas and 15.19 reveals
283
the conclusion of the Vedas: knowing Kåñëa’s supremacy and engaging in His
devotional service. In this way the varied processes recommended in the
Vedas are clearly explained as culminating in bhakti.

EXAMPLE 16.

In 16.22-16.24, Lord Kåñëa recommends following scripture as the basis of

regulated activity. The use of words like vidhäna, or “regulations”, emphasising
plurality, indicates that He accepts many systems by which to achieve the
supreme goal — bhakti.

EXAMPLE 17.

The entire Seventeenth Chapter is devoted to identifying different types

of faith, their concurrent sacrifices, austerities and charities. Once again, the
Lord here recommends a plurality of activities, specifically those in the mode
of goodness, for elevation.

EXAMPLE 18.

In 18.5, Kåñëa recommends that yajïä-däna-tapaù-karma, or “acts of

sacrifice, charity and penance” should never be given up, for they purify even
great souls. This is a confirmation of a plurality of systems for purification,
which leads to the conclusion of the Gétä, 18.66, bhakti-yoga.

Appendix 2: Bhakti-yoga Contains the Benefits of All Other

284
 Processes

The following are quotations of verses from the Gétä to substantiate that
bhakti-yoga contains the benefits of all other processes.

VERSE 8.28

This is a very powerful verse. Verses 23-28 of this chapter refer to the
conditions and destinations of different yogés who depart from the world.
The basic premise of the chapter is stated in verse 8.6, wherein the state of
consciousness at death indicates the destination of the practitioner. In 8.23,
Kåñëa mentions the times and means by which different practitioners leave
their body. The word yogénah in the plural indicates different types of yogés.
The following are the yogés so addressed. In verse 8.24, brahma-vido refers
to the jïäna-yogé, and in verse 8.25, yogérefers to the karma-yogé. Verse 8.26
summarises the same procedure mentioned in the preceding verses. However,
8.27 discusses another yogé. This yogéis referred to as yoga-yukta and muhyati
kaçcana. He is one who should not be bewildered by which path to take, for he
is always connected in yoga. Thus, he is distinguished from the other yogés in
the earlier verses. That same yogéis referred to in verse 8.28. What kind of
yogéis he?
Verses 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 have exclusively encouraged Arjuna to think of
Kåñëa in bhakti-yoga. The yoga yukta is also described in verse 8 as being
constantly engaged in thinking of Kåñëa. That means he is a bhakti-yogé. The
conclusion is that the yogéof verses 27 and 28 is the devotee. This is consistent
with the flow of the text and is the conclusion of Chapters 7 and 8.

vedeñu yajïeñu tapaùsu caiva

däneñu yat puëya-phalaà pradiñöam

285
 atyeti tat sarvam idaà viditvä
yogé paraà sthänam upaiti cädyam

A person who accepts the path of devotional service is not bereft of the
results derived from studying the Vedas, performing austere sacrifices, giving
charity or pursuing philosophical and fruitive activities. Simply by performing
devotional service, he attains all these, and at the end he reaches the supreme
eternal abode. (8.28)
In the previous paragraphs the word yogéof this verse has been identified as
the bhakti-yogé. This can be confirmed by the process of elimination, invoked
by the verse itself. Karmés, jïänés and tapasvés are mentioned in the first line of
the verse, thus the word yogécannot refer to them. The meaning of the verse
indicates that this yogéis different, as the benefits of all the other yogés are
achieved by his practice. Through elimination the only remaining alternative
is that this yogéis the bhakta.
Having identified the yogé, the message of this verse is self-evident. The
devotee receives the benefits of sarvam idaà, all the practices listed earlier,
achieved by other yogés. This indicates that the results of all these other
processes are served by bhakti. To emphasise the point further, the Lord uses
the word atyeti. This means that the devotee not only achieves the same
results as other practitioners but he “surpasses them.”
In conclusion it can be understood that all yoga practices are meant to
achieve particular goals. If they are to be graded, then using the maxim
phalena praiciyate (judge a thing by its result), their efficacy can be measured
by the results they yield. Lord Kåñëa states that bhakti-yoga includes the
results of all other processes and then more (atyeti).

VERSE 9.22

In this verse the words yoga-kñemaà vahämy aham form an exclusive

286
statement. The reference is to the devotee, as indicated by the phrase ananyäç
cintayanto mäà. Thus, Kåñëa states literally, “I carry what they lack and
preserve what they have.” The statement is broad in scope and so obvious as to
be free from misinterpretation. Its implication is that one who engages in
devotional service cannot be bereft of anything — everything will be provided
for by the Lord. This must also include the results of all other spiritual
processes, including karma, jïäna and añöäìga.

VERSE 6.46

In this verse the focus is on the word adhikah, meaning greater. Here, the
yogéis considered greater than a jïänéor karmé. Superiority is there if
something contains all the qualities of an inferior thing and more. In other
words, “greater” can only hold true if it is inclusive of something “lesser”. This
verse confirms the superiority and inclusiveness of bhakti and other yoga
systems.

VERSE 7.1

This verse explains that the process of devotion reveals samagraà...

jïäsyasi, complete transcendental knowledge. It has been explained that
different yoga practices are propelled by differing degrees of knowledge. Here,
the word samagaraàindicates complete and full knowledge.
The word asaàçaya means without a doubt. This is the other way of
explaining that knowledge is complete. Doubt is due to ignorance. If there is
no doubt, there is no ignorance; and the knowledge is then, once again,
verified as being complete.

VERSE 9.23

287
 This verse explains that the karma-käëòés who worship demigods are
indirectly worshipping Lord Kåñëa. This is because He is their source and the
overseer of all boons they bestow. Thus, worshipping Kåñëa, or devotion,
includes the process of karma-käëòa.

VERSE 12.1

Arjuna inquires as to which practitioner is more perfect, the jïänéor the

bhakta. In 12.2, Kåñëa replies that the devotee is by far superior. Thus, bhakti is
defined as superior to jïäna. It is easier and results in the personal association
of the Lord, in contrast to impersonal liberation. Thus, bhakti includes in it
the process of jïäna.

VERSE 14.26

The Fourteenth Chapter explains the three modes of material nature. In

answering Arjuna’s question (14. 21) on how to transcend these modes, the
Lord explains (14.26) that it is achieved by engagement in bhakti-yoga. He does
not mention other yoga systems as being efficient to achieve this end. One
may rise to the transcendental platform by other processes but it is laboursome
(12.2) and not recommended here. The Lord further states that elevation to
brahma-bhüta, or the Brahman platform, is also achieved by devotional service.
This Brahman platform is the goal of jïänés and yogés. Once again, the results
of all other systems are achieved by bhakti.

Appendix 3: Quotes Substantiating the Concept of the Yoga Ladder

Çréla Prabhupäda has used the example of the yoga ladder. This Appendix is
meant to verify the validity of such an analogy. There are two aspects which
will be proven that complete the argument of the yoga ladder. They are:

288
 1. Showing a hierarchy of knowledge which corresponds to the ascending
rungs of a ladder.
2. A connection between these grades of knowledge which corresponds to
the vertical poles connecting the rungs.
By confirming these two aspects, a picture of the yoga ladder is verified.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTERS TO SHOW A HIERARCHY

There are many statements by Lord Kåñëa that refer to different grades of
teachings in His instructions. The table below shows a progressive
development of knowledge in the verses of the Gétä. This development of
knowledge is equated with progressive confidentiality and can be supported by
even a cursory study of the Lord’s vocabulary.
In verse 4.3, Chapters 3 and 4 have been termed rahasyaà, or secret. They
discuss karma-yoga and jïäna. The term Çréla Prabhupäda uses is confidential.
Chapter 6 and 7 are labelled in 7.2 as being more confidential, as they reveal
the personal form of the Lord. Herein, añöäìga-yoga and bhakti to the
Supersoul are revealed, with full understanding that there is nothing further
to be known beyond bhakti.
Chapter Nine is labelled in 9.1 as being even more confidential knowledge
than that previously elucidated. It explains the process of surrendering to
Kåñëa as Bhagavän, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Chapter Ten is
even further advanced knowledge than Nine, as it describes the opulences of
Kåñëa which induce the hearer to engage in devotional service.
Better than Chapter Ten is Chapter Fourteen, for it explains how to
transcend the modes of nature through devotional service, rendering pure
bhakti.

289
 The verses preceding 18.63 explain the same knowledge presented in
Chapters Six and Seven — realisation of the Supersoul and surrender to Him.
The most confidential knowledge is contained in the verses succeeding 18.64,
surrender to the personal form of the Lord, hinting at the example of the
inhabitants of Våndäban. This is a repetition of Chapter Nine with greater
emphasis.
What is clearly gleaned from the verses quoted above is that Lord Kåñëa is
revealing progressively higher stages of knowledge from karma-yoga to pure
bhakti. This confirms Çréla Prabhupäda’s usage of the example of the yoga
ladder in its first aspect, i.e., showing a hierarchy of knowledge which
corresponds to the ascending rungs of a ladder.
This is a clear emphasis on the teachings of the Gétä as a cohesive
hierarchical system, its purpose being to elevate the practitioner from lower to
the highest stage of spiritual practice — bhakti-yoga. This understanding is in
opposition to the common impersonal opinion, that the Gétä is presenting a
plurality of parallel processes, each as relevant as the others.
Anumän 3, which emphasises the consistency of the teachings of the Gétä,
as well as the natural flow of logic of Lord Kåñëa’s words, is confirmation of
this.

290
 CONNECTION BETWEEN A PLURALITY OF SYSTEMS

The following are some quotes to show a definite interconnection between

the yoga practices in the teachings of the Gétä. This will establish the second
aspect of the yoga ladder, i.e., a connection between these grades of knowledge
which corresponds to the vertical poles connecting the rungs.

1. In 4.33, Lord Kåñëa places emphasis on renunciation based on

knowledge as being superior to renunciation devoid of knowledge. The word
çreyan means greater. The quality of a practice is determined by the
knowledge with which it is performed.
2. The rareness of transcendental knowledge is confirmed by verse 7.3.
There are different grades of men given as non-practitioners, practitioners
and the perfected souls.
3. By the practice of karma-yoga one is considered to be, by Kåñëa, less
intelligent (7.23). The result of such worship is significantly different than the
result attained by a bhakta.
4. The achievement of different destinations based upon one’s
consciousness is explained in 8.6.
5. Verse 9.15 explains there are anye, or others, who indirectly worship the
Lord. They do so as ekatvena (monists), påthaktvena (worshipers of demigods),
and viçvato mukham (worshipers of the universal form). But, once again, in

291
verse 9.25, Kåñëa emphasises that their destinations are different.
6. Different processes can elevate one to different heights. This is
emphasised in 11.53, wherein the Lord states that not by Vedic study (jïäna),
austerities (yoga), charity, nor worship (karma) can one see His presently
manifested two-handed form.
7. Verses 8-12 of the Twelfth Chapter offer a series of spiritual alternatives
to pure devotional service. The method offered by the Lord is in decreasing
order of difficulty from the previous one. First, He talks of pure devotion (8);
then, if that is too difficult, devotional service in practice (9). If one cannot
do that on the basis of the former being too difficult, then (10) niñkäma
karma-yoga; if not that, then (11) sakäma karma-yoga. If that is too difficult
(12), then practice jïäna.
8. Once again, the Lord summarises the ascending complexity of the yoga
ladder (12.12) by saying, better than jïäna is yoga, and better than that is
karma-yoga, but best is bhakti (12.13-14).

CONCLUSION

The previous two subsections clearly describe the two aspects of a yoga
ladder. These were:

1. Showing a hierarchy of knowledge which corresponds to the ascending

rungs of a ladder.
2. A connection between these grades of knowledge which corresponds to
the vertical poles connecting the rungs.

A ladder consists of these two things, rungs and vertical posts. The two

292
aspects listed above describe the yoga practices mentioned in the Gétä. Çréla
Prabhupäda’s usage of a yoga ladder to illuminate the entire purpose of
differing yoga practices is quite appropriate..

Appendix 4: The Conclusions of the Gétä Apply to the Vedic

Tradition

REFERENCE: APPENDIX 6

All çästra has two purposes. These may be called the immediate and
ultimate goals. Immediate goals refer to the effect of scriptural injunctions on
a practitioner. That effect is achieved by adopting regulated practices in order
to be elevated from a lower to higher standard of sädhana and realisation. The
ultimate goal is the long-term plan of the scriptures. This refers to the ultimate
destination designated for practitioners, regardless of their current position on
the path.
In Code 5, the immediate goal of the Gétä has been established. This is to
attract different yogés to focus their work, knowledge and meditation on
Kåñëa. The ultimate purpose of such a meditation is to come to Him in pure
devotion.
The purpose of this Appendix is to show that the entirety of Vedic
literature has the same ultimate goal as the Gétä. References here will be
2.41-45 and 15.15, 18, 20.

IMMEDIATE GOALS

The preliminary goal of this argument will be to establish the immediate

293
goals of the Vedas.
1. These are obvious and self-evident in the inherent meaning of
scripture (çästra). The word sastra is derived from the root çäs dhatu, the same
root for the word astra, or weapon. The purpose of a weapon is to threaten or
induce someone to follow your will. Çästra has injunctions which are meant to
induce practitioners to follow. The purpose of following is to raise the
consciousness and behaviour of the practitioner. This is the immediate goal of
scripture.
2. In 2.41, bahu-çäkhämeans “many-branched” intelligence and refers to
those who are candidates for the practice of Vedic ritualistic practices,
referred to in 2.42-43. This confirms that there are “many” approaches to the
Vedas.
Verse 2.43 lists different goals as being “elevation to heavenly planets,
resultant good birth, power, etc.” These are obviously inferior, as they are
depreciated as being the approach of avipaçcita, or those with a “poor fund of
knowledge”, and veda-väda-ratäù, or “supposed followers of the Vedas”. While
this certainly confirms that they are goals, there is a clear indication that a
higher goal exists.
3. In 2.46, the words yävän artha mean “all the purposes” of the Vedas. The
plurality is clear here, emphasising the multiplicity of goals in the Vedas.
From the above evidence we can safely conclude that there are many
immediate goals of the Vedic literature.

ULTIMATE GOAL

As far as an ultimate goal for the Vedas, there are four alternatives:
1. The Vedas have one cohesive goal.

294
 2. They have a multiplicity of (defined) goals.
3. They have no goal.
4. There is a subjective goal, dependent on the practitioner.
These four alternatives will be considered after reviewing the consequences
of the reference verses, namely 2.41-45 and 15.15-20.

1. In Argument 2 of the previous section, entitled Immediate Goals, Lord

Kåñëa established the fruitive practitioners of the Vedas as being of an inferior
stature. He encourages Arjuna to distinguish himself from those practitioners
who are apahåta-cetasäm, or “bewildered in mind” by the modes of material
nature. This indicates that there is a goal other than that practiced by general
Vedic practitioners.
2. Verse 2.42 also implies there is something besides immediate goals with
the use of the words nänyad asti — there is nothing else. This denial of a
higher goal is the view of the less intelligent. Lord Kåñëa clearly indicates that
there is a higher purpose to the Vedas.
3. This goal is clearly stated as being buddhiù samädhau, or samädhi in
buddhi-yoga. As buddhi-yoga has not been defined but only mentioned at this
point, it is not certain what that higher goal is. By Kåñëa’s assertion it is clear
that there is such a thing, and the singularity by which Kåñëa refers to it
indicates that there is not another goal.
This higher goal is repeated in 2.45 and is referred to as ätmavän, or being
situated in the constitutional position of the “self”.
4. The numerous Vedic literatures are considered to be like so many wells
in verse 2.46, whereas their conclusion is like a great reservoir of water. This is
the conclusion of the brähmaëasya vijänataù, or the person in complete
knowledge of the Supreme Brahman. Like 3 above, this indicates a higher goal

295
which is beyond the immediate injunctions of the Vedas (but not outside
them).
5. What is it that is referred to as being buddhiù samädhau, ätmavän and
brähmaëasya vijänataùin these verses? In 15.19 and 20, Lord Kåñëa repeats and
clarifies the same thing. He states that the “most confidential” (15.20) part of
the scriptures is knowledge of His supremacy and “rendering devotional
service” (15.19) to Him. It is clear here that it is devotional service to Lord
Kåñëa that is referred to in the verses of the Second Chapter.

This devotion is referred to as the “most confidential” part of the Vedas, a

singular statement which is not excelled by any other statement of the Lord in
later verses.
The ultimate nature of this knowledge is emphasised by the word sarva-vid,
and the qualification of such a practitioner as being the “knower of
everything”. There is nothing above a person who knows everything, and thus
this “ultimate goal” of devotional service is seen to be affirmed by these verses.
Verse 15.18 also repeats that all the vede, or Vedas, celebrate the Lord as the
Supreme Person. This has again been stated earlier by the Lord in verse 15.15.
Kåñëa states therein that He is vedyaù, or know-able by all the Vedas. One may
question His statement, but Kåñëa refutes it with two powerful arguments. As
Vyäsa, He is the compiler of the Vedas, and as the all-knowing Lord He is the
full knower of the Vedas. Thus, anyone who challenges His understanding,
stated in the subsequent verses (15.18-20), must supersede His qualifications.
It is clear that there is an ultimate goal for the Vedas. On page 278, four
alternatives were given to that ultimate goal(s). In this subsection it has
clearly been shown that there is an ultimate goal of the Vedas. Thus
alternative 3 can be eliminated.

296
 PLURALITY OF GOALS

Verse 2.42 says nasti, [there is] nothing more than this. This is a statement
of a singularity. Had Kåñëa thought there was a plurality of goals, He would
have said “there are nothing more than these.”
This singularity is repeated in:
1. 2.44, by the use of buddhi-yoga as the lost goal of the bewildered Vedic
practitioners.
2. 2.46, by using the word sampluta-udaka as a singular “great reservoir” in
His analogy, by repeating the goal of the Vedas in 15.15, 18, and 19 as being the
same without reference to anything else.
3. 15.20, by stating this as the ultimate (singular) secret of the Vedas.
Furthermore, there is no statement in the Gétä that remotely indicates a
plurality of goals for the Vedas. Thus, alternative 2 can be eliminated.

SUBJECTIVE GOAL?

In the verses cited above a specific goal is being indicated. There is never
scope for practitioners to define their own goals. In fact, verses 2.42-43 deride
one such concocted goal as being the prerogative of the avipaçcita, or the less
intelligent. Thus alternative 4, or subjective ultimate goals, can also be
eliminated.

CONCLUSION

297
 Alternates 2, 3 and 4 have been eliminated by the procedure above.
The conclusion is that the Vedic literature does have one ultimate goal: the
devotional service of Lord Kåñëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As
this is also the conclusion of the Vedas, it is confirmed that the conclusions of
the Gétä apply to the Vedic tradition.
One may question whether the converse holds true. The answer is yes, as is
confirmed by Lord Kåñëa in 13.5, wherein He refers to the authority of the
Gétä as being supported by Vedänta, or the conclusive portion of the Vedas.

Appendix 5: Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead

REFERENCES: APPENDIX 6 THREE PROOFS PRESENTED

There are numerous statements in the Gétä confirming Lord Kåñëa’s

position as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this Appendix three
additional proofs are offered to verify the primary argument given in Chapter
Five, confirming that Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is in
confirmation of Anumän 1.

PROOF ONE

In the Fifteenth Chapter, Lord Kåñëa is most explicit about His Godhood.
His statements lend themselves to clear comprehension.
The first three verses give the example of the banyan tree of the material
world (see Appendix 6). To become free from this entanglement, Kåñëa
explains that one must cut one’s self out of this tree with the weapon of
detachment and achieve two things:

298
 1. Go to that place from which one never returns (yasmin gatä na
nivartanti bhüyaù).
2. Surrender to the Supreme Person there (puruñaà prapadye).
The same verse is used as a reference here as in Chapter Five. The exact
lines in question are:

tam eva cädyaà puruñaà prapadye

yataù pravåttiù prasåtä puräëé

... Surrender to that Supreme Person from whom everything began and
from whom everything has extended since time immemorial. (15.4)
The word prasåtäis significant. It is the emphatic form of såsta or såta,
meaning generation. Lord Kåñëa herein defines the Supreme Person, or
Absolute Truth, as the source of all things. A relevant time frame is
established by the Lord with the words pravåttiùand puräëé. They indicate that
this process of creation has gone on since puräëé, ages gone by, and its origin is
pravåttiù, since the beginning of time. This is also confirmed by qualifying the
Supreme Person as ädyam, or original. This indicates the primeval nature of
the Supreme Person, in that I Ic precedes His creation.
Here, Kåñëa has confirmed the basic definition of the Absolute Truth as
the source of everything. The following question is: Who fulfils such criteria?
Kåñëa explains this directly and indirectly in the same chapter.

THE INDIRECT EXPLANATION

Verse 15.4 mentions the Supreme Lord and His residence, the spiritual
realm, simultaneously. This padam avyayaàis mentioned again in verse 15.5. In

299
verse 15.6, Lord Kåñëa uses the term tad dhäma paramaà mama, or “that
supreme abode of Mine”.
The supreme abode is connected to Kåñëa. The connection is explicit and
the logic clear. If the Supreme Person resides in His supreme abode — and
here Kåñëa states that the supreme abode is His (mam) — the obvious
conclusion is that Lord Kåñëa is the Supreme Person.
Verses 15.12 -15.15 are a brief description of material elements which are
generated by Lord Kåñëa. He exclusively repeats the term mam, or “Me or
mine”, in this connection. It had been established that the Supreme Lord is
the cause of everything that exists. Thus, Lord Kåñëa here again is hinting
that it is He who is the source of all things.

THE DIRECT UNDERSTANDING

For those who did not understand His intention in the previous verses,
Lord Kåñëa spells out the same in no unclear terms.
In verse 15.17, He once again mentions the “Supreme Person” as the
uttamaù puruña. In the following verse (15.18), He states:

ato ‘smi loke vede ca prathitaù puruñottamaù

...I am celebrated both in this world and in the Vedas as that Supreme
Person.
The statement is clear and Lord Kåñëa’s word should be enough. But for the
sceptics Kåñëa quotes two other sources of authority, the Vedas and “the
world”. This means people in general, as well as histories and tradition. In this
way, three sources of authority are cited for supporting the conclusion. The
following verses emphasise this understanding.

300
 Once again, in 15.19, Kåñëa calls Himself that puruñottamam and declares in
15.20 that this is the most confidential portion of the Vedas, which explains
why it is not readily understood. A confidential thing is considered to be of
utmost importance. But then it is kept secret, due to a lack of qualification for
appreciating its supreme importance.

CONCLUSION:
Lord Kåñëa is the Supreme Person, the Absolute Truth.

PROOF TWO

In giving his conclusion on Lord Kåñëa’s identity in 10.12-13, Arjuna says,

paraà brahma paraà dhäma

pavitraà paramaà bhavän
puruñaà çäçvataà divyam
ädi-devam ajaà vibhum

ähus tväm åñayaù sarve

devarñir näradas tathä
asito devalo vyäsaù
svayaà caiva bravéñi me

Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate
abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental
original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Närada,
Asita, Devala and Vyäsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself
are declaring it to me.
This verse is a mine of conclusive statements. It could be analysed in many

301
ways. The two arguments below repeat the same conclusion for emphasis.
1. Paraà brahma, the supreme Brahman, and puruñam çäçvataà, the
Original Person, are equated to Kåñëa, and thus to each other. This establishes
that the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which is
none other than Lord Kåñëa.
2. Paramaà, the Supreme, as an unqualified word, implies the Absolute
Truth, which is, as above, equated with the Original Person and Lord Kåñëa.
Thus, the same conclusion is reached.

PROOF THREE

In the Fifteenth Chapter, the Lord defines the Supreme Personality of

Godhead:

tam eva cädyaà puruñaà prapadye

yataù pravåttiù prasåtä puräëé

...That Supreme Person from whom everything has begun and in whom
everything is abiding since time immemorial. (15.4)
Arjuna states much the same in Chapter Ten (10.15): ...puruñottama
bhüta-bhävana... This means “the greatest person is the source of everything.”
In other words, the Absolute Truth is the “source and abode of everything.”
This is very much in line with the traditional definition of the Absolute Truth
as found in çruti (janmädy asya) and småti (janmädy asya yato), wherein the
same truth is stated: “The Absolute Truth is that from which everything
comes.”(Vedänta Code 1.1.2, Çrémad Bhägavatam 1.1.1)
What does this word everything mean? And who is that person who is the
source of everything?

302
 There are two approaches to these questions:
1. An analytical study of what constitutes “everything” and He Who is the
origin of such emanation.
2. A general confirmation of the person who is the source of everything.
Both these approaches are studied below. The conclusion in either case is
the same. Lord Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Who is the
source of everything.

APPROACH ONE

What constitutes everything? In the six quotations below from the Gétä,
Lord Kåñëa is identified as being the source of six individual factors. Taken in
their totality, they constitute everything.
1. Kåñëa is the source of the material world (9.7).
2. He is the origin of all demigods (10.2).
3. He is the basis of Brahman (14.27).
4. Kåñëa is the source of Paramätmä(Supersoul) (8.4).
5. Viñëu is but His partial expansion (10.42).
6. Other incarnations like Räma are plenary portions (10.31).
As Lord Kåñëa is the source of elements, the sum of which constitutes
everything, He can be taken as the source of everything and thus the Supreme
Personality of Godhead.

303
 APPROACH TWO

There are many statements of Lord Kåñëa that on their own establish Him
as the source of everything. Chief amongst them is 10.8, quoted below.

ahaà sarvasya prabhavo

mattaù sarvaà pravartate
iti matvä bhajante mäà
budhä bhäva-samanvitäù

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates

from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service
and worship Me with all their hearts. (10.8)
The word sarvasya means “of all”. This indicates Lord Kåñëa as the
prabhavaù, or source of generation of everything, including worlds, demigods,
men, Brahman, Paramätmä, Viñëu and other expansions. Nothing remains
outside of the encompassing meaning of the word sarvasya. In order to
re-emphasise the point and allay any doubts, the Lord Himself immediately
repeats the same thing. He states, “mattaù sarvaà pravartate.”“Everything
emanates from Me.” Points 1-6 are clearly substantiated here.
Those who are budhä, wise men, worship the Lord with great attention.
The Lord identifies Himself repeatedly as the object pf this description with
the words ahaà, mattaùand mäà. They all indicate “Me”. Me means the
person of Çré Kåñëa standing before Arjuna. Had the Lord meant anything
else, surely He would have had to qualify it, since the Absolute nature of His
statements here regarding the identity of “everything” in relation to Him
depend upon a clear understanding of who He is. If the personal reference
meant anything other than the self-evident vision present before Arjuna’s
eyes, the rest of the statements would become obscure and meaningless.

304
 Once again, the conclusion is that according to the Gétä, Lord Çré Kåñëa is
the source of everything and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From both
approaches Kåñëa is confirmed to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the
Absolute Truth.

Appendix 6: The CA Use and Solution to Suffereing (Purpose of the

Gétä)

As in Appendix 5, the Fifteenth Chapter is the source of reference for this

argument. There the nature of the material world is explained.
Verses 1-3 give the analogy of a banyan tree. Fruitive activities and their
instruments are likened to parts of the tree. Those attached to such fruitive
activities are described in verse 7 as being subject to the struggles of this world,
with the word karñati. Verses 8 and 9 explain in detail that such a struggle is
due to the bodily concept of life, which is carried from one birth to the next by
the laws of karma.
Although struggling painfully birth after birth, one in ignorance can
neither understand his predicament, nor come out of it. Verses 10 and 11
encourage education in transcendental knowledge as a means to see this
problematic phenomenon and find its solution with asahga-sastrena, the
weapon of detachment.
Arjuna’s own predicament is pointed out, and the solution to his problem,
transcendental knowledge, is recommended. The consequences of such
transcendental knowledge are recognising Çré Kåñëa as the Supreme Lord and
engaging in His devotional service. This is considered to be the most essential
instruction of the Vedas. The conclusion to Appendix 4 is relevant here. If the
solution to Arjuna’s problem is the secret of the Vedas, then Bhagavad-gétäalso
shares that same conclusion.

305
 However, the text itself directly refers to the Gétä, as these same
conclusions have already been stated in the conclusion to Chapter Four. In
cither case, whether by direct reference or through the Vedic literature, the
conclusion remains the same.

CONCLUSION

The bodily conception of life is the source of all suffering, and the
knowledge of the Gétä, specifically surrender to Lord Kåñëa, is the solution to
this problem.

Appendix 7: Personal Vs. Impersonal Absolute Truth

Gauòéya Vaiñëavas are not stuck in a dichotomy over whether the Absolute
Truth is personal or impersonal. According to the teachings of the
Bhagavad-gétä, both existences are real. The real question is which is the
original feature of the Absolute Truth and which is the secondary, dependent
feature.
This topic is discussed explicitly in Chapter Twelve. Arjuna asks Kåñëa
which is the most superior type of worship — that of the personal (manifest)
or impersonal (unmanifest) feature. Lord Kåñëa does not discard either. He
answers in the next verse (12.2) that personal worship is superior. He then
goes on to state the nature of worship of the nonmanifested Brahman in the
following verses (12.3), explaining that its progress is very difficult (12.5),
whereas that of the devotee is rapid (12.6).
Verse 9.4 uses the same word avyakta-mürti, or “unmanifest form”, by
which Kåñëa explains how He pervades all of creation. It is readily confirmed
that both personal and impersonal features of the Absolute Truth are accepted

306
by the Gétä.
Now what does Kåñëa say about the prominence of one over the other? Or
are they on par? These are the only alternatives.
14.27 states, “brahmaëo hi pratiñöhäham”, “I am the basis of impersonal
Brahman.” Here the “I” can only refer to the personal form, as the impersonal
is already dealt with by the word Brahman. Kåñëa thus slates that the personal
feature is the basis of the impersonal.
This is confirmed by Arjuna in the opening phrase of 10.12, where he culls
Kåñëa paraà brahma, or the Supreme Brahman. This is an unconventional
term for the unmanifest and could therefore be accepted us addressing Kåñëa’s
position as “superior to Brahman”, or the “Supreme Person who is greater than
but not different from Brahman.”Since Kåñëa is referred to as Brahman, He is
one with it. But the word param also distinguishes Him from what we refer to
as Brahman, or the nondiffercntiated Truth. Later in the verse, Arjuna uses
the unquestionable words puruñam çäçvataà, or “original person”. This
confirms Kåñëa’s personality as being the “supreme Brahman”. The word
“original”lends weight to the precedence of the personal form.
From the two statements above it is clear that the personal feature of the
Absolute is the original form, which is the basis for the impersonal Brahman.
As a last argument I shall reiterate this point and exemplify the typical
misconception of Çaìkara and his followers. This is the idea that the personal
form of Kåñëa is a manifestation of the unmanifest feature, illusory (mäyä)
and subordinate to the impersonal Absolute Truth.
Lord Kåñëa directly defeats this argument in verse 7.24. He says:

avyaktaà vyaktim äpannaà

manyante mäm abuddhayaù
paraà bhävam ajänanto

307
 mamävyayam anuttamam

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kåñëa, was impersonal before and have now
assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My
higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.
This verse speaks for itself as a stark condemnation of those who hold this
mäyäväda view. The Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
Lord Çré Kåñëa, and the impersonal Brahman is His dependent feature.

Appendix 8: Bhakti is the goal of the Gétä: Proof Through End

Rather Than Means

The Bhaktivedanta Purports, in essence, reveal that the theme of the

entire Gétä is devotional service. This has been proven through the derivation
and application of Codes and Corollaries. The methodology has been to
analyse the means for solving life’s problems. In this way a comparison of the
process of bhakti and other yoga practices has been exhibited. The conclusions
are recorded in this book.
There is a second possible approach to this proof. That is to stuffy the Gétä
for references to the end result of all knowledge as revealed by the Gétä or the
Vedas. The conclusion of Chapter Fifteen verifies this methodologyr
Anumän 5 confirms that the conclusion of the Gétä cannot be at 6dds with
the conclusion of the Vedas. In the concluding verses to Chapter Fifteen,
Lord Kåñëa states:

yo mäm evam asammüòho

jänäti puruñottamam
sa sarva-vid bhajati mäà

308
 sarva-bhävena bhärata

Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without

doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full
devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata. (15.19)

iti guhyatamaàçästram
idam uktaà mayänagha
etad buddhvä buddhimän syät
kåta-kåtyaç ca bhärata

This is the most confidential part of the Vedic scriptures, O sinless one,
and it is disclosed now by Me. Whoever understands this will become wise and
his endeavours will know perfection. (15.20)
From these verses it is clear that service to Lord Kåñëa as the Supreme
Personality of Godhead is the goal of the Vedic scriptures. Thus, it is the
theme of the Gétä as well. According to Kåñëa, the conclusion is that this
understanding will make one wise and successful in all efforts. That means
that one will become successful in resolving the problems of life. This is the
end result of bhakti-yoga. No mention of any other process is given here. The
exclusive use of the words bhajate mam clearly refer to devotional service,
nothing else.
The conclusion is that only bhakti can solve the problems of life.

Appendix 9: Realisation of Supersoul Through Bhakti

Codes 3 and 4 indicate that realisation of the Absolute Truth is achieved

only through the practice of bhakti-yoga. Confirmation of this, in the form of
realisation of the Supersoul, is found in the Thirteenth Chapter. There are
two verses of relevance here.

309
 dhyänenätmani paçyanti
kecid ätmänam ätmanä
anye säìkhyena yogena
karma-yogena cäpare

Some perceive the Supersoul within themselves through meditation, others

through the cultivation of knowledge, and still others through working
without fraitive desires. (13.25)

iti kñetraà tathä jïänaà

jïeyaà coktaà samäsataù
mad-bhakta etad vijïäya
mad-bhäväyopapadyate

Thus the field of activities [the body], knowledge and the knowable have
been summarily described by Me. Only My devotees can understand this
thoroughly and thus attain to My nature. (13.19)
The sequence in which the verses are quoted is inverse order. The reason is
that the goal of this discussion is explicitly stated in 13.25. There, the yogés,
jïänés and niñkäma karma-yogés are given as three transcendentalists who are
able to paçyanti, or see the Supersoul.
An argument could be made from this verse that Codes 3 and 4 are
incorrect, since the karma-yoga, jïäné and haöha-yogé are listed as candidates
for seeing the Supersoul. But verse 13.25 should be seen in context with a
preceding verse, 13.19. Jheyam, or the knowable, which includes the self and
the Supersoul, is understood by mat-bhaktaù, or My devotee. This is certainly
an apparent contradiction that requires resolution.
Verse 13.19 is the limiting criteria. It makes clear that only a devotee will be
able to see and understand the Supersoul. Thus, the statement of verse 13.25
must be accepted in that light. Code 2 resolves the situation by relegating the

310
three processes in verse 13.25 as approaches to seeing the Supersoul. Code 5
further confirms this. That means that the karmé, jïänéand yogé must come to
the platform of bhakti and, in that way, see the Supersoul. This has two
possible alternatives.
1. The yogés conclude their non-devotional practices in the sädhana of
bhakti-yoga and come to see the Supersoul.
2. They practice bhakti-yoga in conjunction within their own disciplines
and, by the perfection of bhakti, see Supersoul.
The nature of verse 13.25 is that it indicates that the practitioners take
darçhan while performing their respective practices, which is in support of
alternative two above. For them to abandon their own discipline and take up
the external sädhana of bhakti, the verse would have to be restructured to
reflect that.
Accepting alternative two as the correct understanding, the statements of
the Codes are confirmed. Unless yoga practitioners internally cultivate
bhakti-yoga, they are not able to understand the Absolute Truth. This
confirms Corollaries 4.6 and 4.7, which state that all yoga practices must have
contact with bhakti to bear any result; this includes partial or complete
realisation of the Absolute Truth.

Appendix 10: Yoga Means Bhakti

Subsection Xl.viii.b states:

“Simply put, Appendix 10 states that Lord Kåñëa’s reference to any yoga
practice has dual meaning. For nondevotees the meaning is direct and refers
to a practice which is a means to come to bhakti; For devotees the meaning is
indirect, and any yoga practice actually means bhakti.”
It is no secret that the arguments in this book do not favour either

311
subjective or relative means of acquiring knowledge. Anumän 2 and 7 are
primary criteria to avoid this type of logic. The reference quoted above should
not be misunderstood. It is not a message that practitioners can interpret
bhakti-yoga in their own way. Rather, I have tried to show by the two accepted
processes for understanding, direct and indirect (IV.ii Rule 2), two means to
view bhakti.
Çréla Prabhupäda has on many occasions, to the dismay of his critics, called
non-devotional yoga, bhakti. This Appendix will explain why he does so and
how it is correct. First, it will be shown that the direct understanding of a yoga
system may be seen in two ways — as bhakti mixed with another practice, or as
an element of bhakti. This is the direct understanding. The indirect
understanding is the vision of the devotee. He does not see the dominant
component in a non-devotional yoga but, rather, the all-important result of
bhakti. He thus sees all yoga practices as bhakti.

MIXED BHAKTI

According to IX.iv.a. and Corollary 4.6, all non-devotional yoga practices

may be viewed in one of two ways. These are:
1. bhakti mixed with some other practice;
2. an element of Mate’.
In that subsection other yogas were analysed as elements of bhakti.
Alternative one, as above, was not reviewed in that section. The present
argument delves into the consequence of this other alternative by which other
yoga practices are viewed as mixed bhakti.
The concept of mixed devotion was explained in IX.iv.a. There, I used the
example comparing ananya bhakti to a chemical mixture. The conclusion was
that mixing bhakti with other processes does not destroy it, but simply dilutes
312
its presence. This hypothesis is reflected in the definition of mixed bhakti as
devotional service combined with degrees of karma, jïäna or yoga. When an
element mixed with bhakti is prominent, then the entire mixture is called by
the name of the additive, just as mixing karma with bhakti is called
karma-yoga.
I would like to confirm the above understanding with reference to the
corollaries of Code 4. According to Corollary 4.7, all yoga practices are
dependent on bhakti to give results. That being the case, every yoga practice
must contain some element of devotion. The proportion of bhakti may vary,
but it must be present. Generally, the quantity of bhakti present is small;
consequently, the yoga system is called karma-yoga, añöäìga-yoga, etc. As far as
the terminology is concerned, bhakti is overlooked and the prominent practice
is denoted. This confirms the hypothesis of the previous paragraph.
This analysis has confirmed that there are two direct ways to view
non-devotional yoga practices.

DUAL VISION

Here, I shall show the indirect understanding of a yoga practice, as

envisaged by the devotee.
In verse 4.11 (ye yathä mäà prapadyante...), Kåñëa confirms that He
reciprocates with the vision of His worshiper. To whatever degree one
surrenders to Him, He rewards them proportionately. This indicates that,
according to their level of surrender to Kåñëa, different observers will see
things differently.
Let us now take the example of karma-yoga as approached by a karma-yogé
and a bhakta, respectively. Following the Vedic injunctions, the karma-yogé
surrenders to Kåñëa via the brähmaëas, çästras, and Lord Viñëu. His desire is

313
enjoyment. For him, karma-yoga is the vehicle to fulfill his enjoyment while
surrendering to the Lord. In turn, Kåñëa reciprocates with his surrender and
awards him the results for which he aspires. A karma-yogéis, consequently,
rendering some service to the Lord, albeit minimal. His main goal is karma,
work and its fruits. Because that is what he approaches Kåñëa for, that is what
he sees. Thus, for him, karma-yoga is just that — a means by which he will
legitimise his work.
On the other hand, a devotee has a different vision. In verse 6.29, Kåñëa
states that a self-realised soul sees Kåñëa everywhere. Thus, in viewing
karma-yoga, a devotee sees Kåñëa and opportunities to serve Him through
offering the results of action. For him, the work is a means to devotion;
whereas for the karma-yogé, the work is the end. Because of his devotion,
Kåñëa reciprocates with his devotion. Thus, a devotee will see karma-yoga as
bhakti.
The devotee sees the element of bhakti as prominent, as it is the factor
awarding results in any yoga — although that bhakti may, in comparison to
the dominant practice (karma), be a minor element. The nondevotee sees only
the immediate action, karma, and does not understand how it is that bhakti is
what awards the results of his efforts.
In IX.iv.b., as a consequence of Corollary 4.7, it was shown that bhakti is
contained within all yoga systems. The above argument shows how, according
to verse 4.11, the vision of the devotee and nondevotee vary in their
appreciation of non-devotional yogas. It is a change of perspective only.

CONCLUSION

The conclusions of the above are as follows: There are basically four ways
to see non-devotional yogas.

314
 1. As bhakti mixed with another additive
2. As an element of bhakti
3. As bhakti
4. As the yoga itself.
The first two alternatives are the vision according to Corollary 4.6 and
Corollary 4.7, the third of the bhakta and the fourth of the non-devotee yogé.
Although there is a variety of perspectives, it should be seen that calling
non-devotional practices bhakti is a completely valid practice.
Any yoga practice can be seen as bhakti-yoga. This vision is the indirect
reading of the name. However, for the reasons given in this appendix and
earlier, it is the direct meaning, because it gives the correct philosophical
perspective.

Appendix 11: Lord Kåñëa Favours Bhakti

Verses 12.13-20 elaborately describe the behaviour of a devotee. To

emphasise these qualities, Lord Kåñëa concludes His description of these
qualities by stating, “yo mad-bhaktaù sa me priyaù”, “such a devotee is very
dear to Me.” This is an extraordinary expression on the part of the Lord. The
qualities of a karma yogé in 2.55-72 and those of an añöäìga-yogé in verses
5.27-28 and Chapter 6 have no such appreciation by the Lord. He does not
express any inclination or partiality in their connection. In the verses of the
Twelfth Chapter, Kåñëa emphatically repeats the same thing six times: “He is
very dear to Me.” This repetition is an ornament, which is an obvious
expression of partiality by Him towards the devotee.
The qualities of a Vaiñëava are obviously attractive to Lord Kåñëa. Not only

315
are the qualities, but the possessor of such qualities, the bhakta, is attractive to
Him. He repeatedly emphasises that “such a devotee is very dear to Me.” To
ignore such an outstanding affirmation of the unique relationship between the
devotee and Kåñëa is certainly blindness. Had Kåñëa made one such
statement, it would still have stood out as unique, as no such personal
comment is made about other spiritual practitioners. To repeat the same thing
six times implies that Lord Kåñëa is not just utilising a literary ornament but
making a point, a point even the most casual readers must assimilate. The
point is devotees are special to Kåñëa.
Why are they special? Because they practice bhakti, the loving service of
the Lord. Thus, the implication is that bhakti-yoga is also very dear to Kåñëa.
Saying the devotee is dear implies that devotional service is also dear to Him.
For what distinguishes a devotee from any other spiritualist other than
devotional practice?
It is thus clear that Lord Kåñëa favours bhakti above other sciences, and
that is the purport of the Twelfth Chapter.

Appendix 12: Bhakti as the Conclusion of the Gétä Through Anuman

3

Anumän 3 has established the theme of the Gétä— Arjuna’s bewilderment

due to bodily identification. The entire discussion of the Gétä is to convince
him to take up his duty and fight, overcoming his weakness of heart.
The first instruction by the Lord in verses 2.11 to 2.39 emphasises that
bodily identification is illusory and the cause of suffering. How does this
bodily identification arise? Verse 13.22 explains that, due to the association
with the modes of material nature, the living entity is conditioned to the
bodily conception of life. Thus, the suffering Arjuna is experiencing due to
bodily identification has been caused by association with the modes of

316
material nature.
If one can free the soul of the effects of the modes of nature, then both the
ensuing bodily consciousness as well as the concomitant suffering are
eradicated. In verse 14.21, Arjuna asks three questions. The last one is how to
transcend the modes of nature. The answer to this third question is given in
14.26, where Lord Kåñëa states:

mäà ca yo 'vyabhicäreëa
bhakti-yogena sevate
sa guëän samatétyaitän
brahma-bhüyäya kalpate

One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances,

at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of
Brahman.
Devotional service is the means to become free from suffering. Lord Kåñëa
is very clear in using devotional terms. He does not insinuate that there is any
other way of transcending the influence of the material energy. Since the
entire topic of the Bhagavad-gétä is to solve Arjuna’s dilemma and this verse
gives the clear solution, bhakti-yoga is seen as the solution to life’s problems as
well as the goal of the Gétä.

Appendix 13: Non-Devotional Yoga Engages Gross and Subtle Bodies

as Objects of Self-Realisation

In the reference above, the following statement was made: The topics here
are body, mind, intelligence and the soul. As may be found in Appendix 13,
the different yoga systems relate to the emphasis placed on these four elements
as vehicles for self-realisation. This Appendix is meant to verify the above
statement.

317
 Chapter Nine has revealed quite a bit of analysis in the comparative
manifestation of different elements among yoga practices. This information
has been tabulated in Table IX.2 and Table IX.3, which show the yoga ladder.
Corollaries 4.9 and 4.10 confirm that there is an interrelation among yoga
systems and that has been called the yoga ladder. What needs to be shown
here is: karma-yoga is that process which places emphasis on the body as a
vehicle forself-realisation; jïäna, the mind; yoga, the intellect; and bhakti, the
soul.
Chapter Nine quoted the following verse to shriw the hierarchy between
matter, senses (body), mind, intellect and soul.

indriyäëi paräëy ähur

indriyebhyaù paraà manaù
manasas tu parä buddhir
yo buddheù paratas tu saù

The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the
senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even
higher than the intelligence. (3.42)
The levels of material elements can be understood to be categorised
according to their degree of subtleness, or increasing connection with spirit
and decreasing connection with matter.
The conclusion of subsection IX.iv.a. was that there was a similar hierarchy
between the yoga systems, starting with karma, jïäna, añöäìga and, finally,
bhakti. I shall briefly show how there is a complete correlation between the
yoga systems and the instrumental senses as media for self-realisation.

KARMA-YOGA

318
 Verse 3.7 exemplifies the point that karma-yoga focuses on engaging the
senses as a means of self-realisation.

yas tv indriyäëi manasä

niyamyärabhate 'rjuna
karmendriyaiù karma-yogam
asaktaù sa viçiñyate

On the other hand, if a sincere person tries to control the active senses by
the mind and begins karma-yoga [or Kåñëa consciousness], without
attachment, he is by far superior.
The repeated emphasis here is on the word indriya, meaning senses. In the
previous verse a practitioner who engages his senses but not his mind has been
condemned by Kåñëa. The difference with the example in this verse is that the
senses are under the control of the mind. However, the instrument which is
emphasised as instrumental for success in karma-yoga are the senses.
This is repeated mainly throughout the Third and Fifth Chapters of the
Gétä. One meaning of the word karma is physical work. Karma yoga means
work done with the body as a means for liberation.

JÏÄNA-YOGA

The Fifth Chapter compares the roles of the jïäné and the karma yogé. In
verse 5.13, Lord Kåñëa states:

sarva-karmäëi manasä
sannyasyäste sukhaà vaçé
nava-dväre pure dehé
naiva kurvan na kärayan

319
 When the embodied living being controls his nature and mentally
renounces all actions, he resides happily in the city of nine gates [the material
body], neither working nor causing work to be done.
The emphasis in this verse is upon the use of the mind in achieving
renunciation and freedom from work and its reactions. There are other verses,
such as 5.19, which confirm the same understanding. Thus, for the jndrii, the
purified mind is the prime instrument for self-realisation.

AÑÖÄÌGA-YOGA

Astahga yoga is first described in verse 5.27-5.28 and throughout the first
half of the Sixth Chapter.
In 5.27-28, a summary description indicates that this process comprises
yatindriya-mano-buddhir, or control of the senses, mind and intelligence. From
the aforementioned quote at the end of the Third Chapter, one would
automatically conclude that in order to bring the mind under control, the
intelligence, which is a higher order medium, must be engaged.
While Chapter 6 emphasises the need for controlling the mind, it is
repeatedly mentioned that this is possible by use of the intelligence (6.21, 25,
26). In verse 6.25, Kåñëa states:

çanaiùçanair uparamed
buddhyä dhåti-gåhétayä
ätma-saàsthaà manaù kåtvä
na kiïcid api cintayet

Gradually, step by step, one should become situated in trance by means of

intelligence sustained by full conviction, and thus the mind should be fixed on
the self alone and should think of nothing else.

320
 The verse above is quite conclusive in confirming that, for añöäìga-yoga,
the instrument of liberation is considered to be the intelligence.

BHAKTI-YOGA

There are many quotes that substantiate that the soul proper is the means
for engagement in the devotional service of the Lord. In the end of Chapter
Six, Kåñëa says: “...mad-gatenäntar-ätmanä, çraddhävän bhajate... “The word
bhajate has been shown (Appendix Eight) to mean bhakti-yoga. The
interesting word here is antaù-ätmanä.
The word ätmähas multiple interpretations. It means “the self. According
to the identification it has, it may refer to the body, mind, intelligence or the
soul. Here, the word antaùis significant. Literally, the word translates as
“innermost self. Considering the different selves that have been discussed
until now in the Gétä, the “innermost self can only refer to the soul.
Some other verses that confirm this conclusion are 9.34 and 12.8. Thus, it is
confirmed that for bhakti-yoga the instrument for liberation is the engagement
of the soul.

SUMMARY

Of course, it is clear the soul is engaged in any activity, regardless.

However, yoga systems emphasise concentration on different instruments
through which the soul acts as a means of self-realisation. This is also
confirmed in the following verse:

käyena manasä buddhyä

kevalair indriyair api

321
 yoginaù karma kurvanti
saìgaà tyaktvätma-çuddhaye

The yogés, abandoning attachment, act with body, mind, intelligence and
even with the senses, only for the purpose of purification. (5.11)

Appendix 14: Liberation in Non-Devotional Practices

In Chapter 9, two processes were cited as evidence that only bhakti awards
ultimate liberation. Of the two, one was confirmed based on the statement of
Lord Kåñëa in verse 4.30. Therein, He states that practice of non-devotional
yogas allows the practitioner to “advance” toward the Supreme destination.
This Appendix addresses the second procedure. This is the analysis of each
yoga practice by reference to the verses of the Gétä. From them I shall show
that the liberation awarded by non-devotional practices is subordinate to that
awarded by bhakti. The obvious implication is that bhakti is superior to all
other yoga systems.

KARMA YOGA

Verse 3.19 states:

tasmäd asaktaù satataà

käryaà karma samäcara
asakto hy äcaran karma
param äpnoti püruñaù

Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities, one should act
as a matter of duty, for by working without attachment one attains the

322
Supreme.
This verse concisely defines karma-yoga as working without attachment to
the fruits of action. Such obligatory work is also known as duty. The result of
such work, attested to by this verse, is “...param äpnoti... “, or “attaining the
Supreme.” What Supreme does Lord Kåñëa refer to? The following verse (3.20)
explains this attainment as “perfection”, or “...siddhim... “However, there is no
indication in either verse (3.19 or 3.20) of either the nature of that Supreme or
the nature of that perfection. Verse 3.31, which is a summary of the
karma-yoga process and its result, does shed light on this question. There,
Kåñëa states:

ye me matam idaà nityam

anutiñöhanti mänaväù
çraddhävanto 'nasüyanto
mucyante te 'pi karmabhiù

Those persons who execute their duties according to My injunctions and

who follow this teaching faithfully, without envy, become free from the
bondage of fruitive actions.
Kåñëa clarifies the nature of this liberation by the words ...mucyante te ‘pi
karmabhiù. This means “...become free from the bondage of fruitive actions.”
Thus, the “liberation”, “perfection”, or “Supreme” achieved by karma-yoga is
to be free from reaction to one’s work. By unregulated activity one becomes
entangled in material existence (3.9), and by regulated work, karma-yoga, one
is liberated from such entanglement. This may be a good platform from which
to practice spiritual life but, in and of itself, does not constitute ultimate
perfection or liberation.
Çréla Prabhupäda says in the purport to this verse:
...An ordinary man with firm faith in the eternal injunctions of the Lord,
even though unable to execute such orders, becomes liberated from the

323
bondage of the law of karma.
The conclusion is that karma-yoga does not result in ultimate liberation
but, rather, freedom from the result of fruitive action.

JÏÄNA-YOGA

In the 18th Chapter, verses 49-55 describe the different stages of perfection
for the jïäné. In verse 18.49, self-control and detachment award freedom from
reaction by karma-yoga. By further purification in detachment one comes to
the level of Brahman, which is explained in verses 18.50-53. This liberation is
known as brahma-bhüta and precedes entrance into devotional service.

brahma-bhütaù prasannätmä
na çocati na käìkñati
samaù sarveñu bhüteñu
mad-bhaktià labhate paräm

One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realises the Supreme

Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have
anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he
attains pure devotional service unto Me. (18.54)
The process by which a jïänécomes to devotional service is also described in
7.19 as being a continuum, achieved through many lifetimes of effort. The
siddhi mentioned in verses 18.50-53 is reaching the brahma-bhüta stage, which
is the consciousness of being brahman, or spirit. At this stage one is free from
the influence of the modes of nature. Liberation in brahman has been
mentioned at the end of the Fourteenth Chapter.

brahmaëo hi pratiñöhäham
amåtasyävyayasya ca

324
 çäçvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikäntikasya ca

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal,

imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate
happiness. (14.27)
Liberation for a jïänéwho has not come to devotional service will at the
utmost be elevation to the Brahman platform, which may culminate in
entrance into the brahmajyoti. With devotee association, according to verse
18.54, this is the platform at which devotional service really begins.
Çréla Prabhupäda states:
To the impersonalist, achieving the brahma-bhuta stage, becoming one with
the Absolute, is the last word...one who is engaged in pure devotional service
to the Supreme Lord is already in a state of liberation, called brahma-bhüta,
oneness with the Absolute... (18.54 purport)

AÑÖÄÌGA-YOGA

The situation of the dhydna-yogéis described in the Sixth Chapter of the

Gétä. Lord Kåñëa states:

yuïjann evaà sadätmänaà

yogé vigata-kalmañaù
sukhena brahma-saàsparçam
atyantaà sukham açnute

Thus the self-controlled yogé, constantly engaged in yoga practice, becomes

free from all material contamination and achieves the highest stage of perfect
happiness in transcendental loving service to the Lord. (6.28)

325
 sarva-bhüta-stham ätmänaà
sarva-bhütäni cätmani
ékñate yoga-yuktätmä
sarvatra sama-darçanaù

A true yogé observes Me in all beings and also sees every being in Me.
Indeed, the self-realised person sees Me, the same Supreme Lord, everywhere.
(6.29)
In verse 6.28, the perfectional stage is described as brahma-saàsparça, or
being in constant touch with the Supreme. An example of such constant
association is given in the following verse (6.29). There the vision described of
a devoted yogé is that he sees Kåñëa, situated in everyone’s heart as the
Supersoul. Such liberation constitutes an aware-.ness of oneself as part and
parcel of the Supreme.
Another example is the vision of an añöäìga yogé who has no devotional
association. The followers of Patafijali fall into this category. For them,
liberation, as described here and in verse 6.32, is to merge into the body of the
Supersoul. This practice is similar to the jïäné who desires to merge into the
existence of Brahman.
Çréla Prabhupäda states that:
...The Lord in His Paramätmä feature is situated within both the heart of
the dog and that of a brähmaëa. The perfect yogé knows that the Lord is
eternally transcendental and is not materially affected by His presence in
either a dog or a brähmaëa...

SUMMARY

The conclusion from the above exercise is that liberation in

326
non-devotional practices is always subordinate to liberation in bhakti-yoga. For
the karma-yogé, it is freedom from reaction; for the jïäné, it is liberation in
Brahman; and for the añöäìga-yogé, it is contact with or merging into the
Supersoul. This may be compared to the liberation in bhakti, about which
Kåñëa states in 18.56:
Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My devotee, under my protection,
reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace.
The attainment of Kåñëa’s abode simultaneously includes the liberations
awarded in other non-devotional yogas and more.
By the association of a devotee all kinds of yogés may take up devotional
service and achieve its result. This may be done while they are still practising
their disciplines or they may abandon those practices to take up bhakti
exclusively.

Appendix 15: The Gétä as Veda, According to the Gétä

Scholars like Sharpe do not agree that the Bhagavad-gétä is a part of the
Vedas. Of course, they also disagree on the authorship of the entire Vedas
themselves. ;
In 18.75, it is clear that Sanjaya heard the Gétä by the mercy of Vyäsa. He
says:

vyäsa-prasädäc chrutavän
etad guhyam ahaà param
yogaà yogeçvarät kåñëät
säkñät kathayataù svayam

By the mercy of Vyäsa, I have heard these most confidential talks directly
from the master of all mysticism, Kåñëa, who was speaking personally to

327
Arjuna.
If Saïjaya received the Gétä by the mercy of Vyäsa, Vyäsa must certainly
have heard and understood the Gétä. If he is not accepted as the author, it is
irrefutable that he was involved with the transmission of the same. If one then
is seeking to find the author of the Gétä, Vyäsa is certainly one sage who
should be given first consideration.
But this is not the crux of this appendix. In 13.5, Kåñëa states that He is
about to speak that topic described in the Vedas and Vedänta.

åñibhir bahudhä gétaà

chandobhir vividhaiù påthak
brahma-sütra-padaiç caiva
hetumadbhir viniçcitaiù

That knowledge of the field of activities and of the knower of activities is

described by various sages in various Vedic writings. It is especially present in
Vedänta-sütra with all reasoning as to cause and effect. (13.5)
This verse makes it clear that the topic of Chapter 13 reflects the content
of the Vedas. In the same way, the content of every chapter is Vedic. But does
the Gétä fit into the Vedic tradition and the Vedic period?
Wc should ask, what qualifies as Veda? There are different opinions among
empiricists and even transcendentalists. 15.15 has been quoted earlier. I shall
record a portion of the translation:
...By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedänta,
and I am the knower of the Vedas.
This verse clearly answers the questions at hand.
First of all, Kåñëa establishes that He is the “knower” of the Vedas. That
includes its history, purpose, philosophy — everything. As such He states that

328
the goal of the Vedas is to know Him. This is a basic definition of the Vedas
— those scriptures which teach one to know Kåñëa. This is not the goal of
some of the Vedas, but all of them, as He says. Conversely, that writing which
has as its purpose knowing Kåñëa is also Veda. The Gétä is certainly such a
text. (Corollaries 3.2,3.3, 3.4,3.5.) Thus, it is Veda.
The next point relates to the opening paragraph, discussing the authorship
of the Vedas. Kåñëa says He is the compiler of Vedänta. In the Tenth Chapter,
He also states that among sages He is Vyäsa. Take these three facts into
consideration:

1. Vyäsa was the medium for Saïjaya hearing the Gétä.

2. Among sages Kåñëa is Vyäsa.
3. Kåñëa is the compiler of Vedänta.

There is no record or indication that Kåñëa had directly written the

Vedänta. This has never been presented as an argument by anyone. But Vyäsa
is a sage with whom Vedic writings are associated. And Kåñëa says that he is
the compiler of Vedänta. This leaves every indication that such authorship is
via the medium of Vyäsa. Since Vedänta explains the Vedas, it would be
reasonable to assume that the authors are the same. This lends an even
stronger argument to Vyäsa being the author of the Gétä.
In conclusion then, the Gétä, according to Kåñëa’s authority, is certainly
Veda; and Vyäsa is a most reasonable candidate as its author.

LIST OF CODES AND COROLLARIES

The reader will find a record of all the Codes and Corollaries below. This

329
constitutes the primary and subsidiary points of logic in this book.

CODES 1-7

1. The theme of the Bhagavad-gétä is how to free oneself from the

bewildering materialistic condition of life, known as the “bodily concept”.
2. The solution to the false bodily conception of life and its consequent
problems can be approached by karma-yoga, jïäna-yoga, añöäìga-yoga and
bhakti-yoga.
3. The actual solution to the problems of life is complete realisation of
one’s original spiritual nature. This is possible only by bhakti-yoga.
4. Bhakti yoga is the independent goal of the yoga ladder. However, all
other yoga systems are dependent on bhakti.
5. The reason Çré Kåñëa mentions other yoga systems is to attract different
types of conditioned souls to His devotional service.
6. The translations and purports of the Bhagavad-gétä by Çréla Prabhupäda
are presented exclusively in relation to devotional service. This commentary,
known as the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, is a complete and consistent explanation
of the Gétä, in that it perfectly serves Kåñëa’s purpose to bring all its readers to
bhakti.
7. The Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, is not only an acceptable commentary but
presents the only means for knowing the Gétä. Other authorised Vaiñëava
commentaries share its methodology and conclusions.

THE COROLLARIES

330
 3.1 Bewilderment is due to illusion or ignorance.
3.2 A solution to Arjuna’s problem must be based on knowledge.
3.3 Knowledge means understanding the Absolute Truth.
3.4 The Absolute Truth is Lord Çré Kåñëa.
3.5 Bhagavad-gétä is the means for understanding the will of the Lord.
3.6 Solving the problems of life is included in, and is an element of,
knowledge.
3.7 The solution comprises:
a) recognising the problem,
b) identifying the goal (the Absolute Truth),
c) the solution itself, ananya bhakti, as a means of knowing Him.
3.8 It is confirmed elsewhere in the Gétä that Kåñëa is only known by
unalloyed devotion.
3.9 Unalloyed devotion as the solution means that other things (alloys:
karma, jïäna etc.) are not conducive for “solving” the problem. (They are
meant to “approach” the problem.)
3.10 Bhakti is independent of other yoga systems and superior to them.
3.11 Bhakti-yoga is not only the means for knowing Kåñëa but also for
“coming” to Kåñëa.
3.12 The nature of devotion is to induce the Lord to reciprocate with his
devotee’s service to Him, which is known as revelation.
3.13 That revelation is the understanding that we are spiritual entities,
distinct from this world, part and parcel of Lord Kåñëa, His servants. It is this
knowledge by which one becomes attached to the Lord and detached from the

331
world. That is the solution to life’s problems.
3.14 All problems of life and problems to executing bhakti are overcome by
the grace of Kåñëa.
3.15 If one rejects His grace, acting under ignorance, one will continue to
suffer.
3.16 This understanding is the final conclusion of the Vedas.
4.1 Yoga implies a combined practice of work, renunciation, knowledge
and meditation.
4.2 The goal of yoga is liberation.
4.3 Liberation means to attain Lord Kåñëa in the Spiritual World.
4.4 The definition of yoga is “that dutiful detached activity, directed by
transcendental knowledge, which brings one to make Lord Kåñëa the ultimate
goal of life and trains one to achieve His Supreme abode.”
4.5 Yoga means bhakti-yoga.
4.6 Other yoga systems indicate elements of bhakti.
4.7 Allyoga systems are dependent on bhakti [for results].
4.8 Bhakti is independent of other systems.
4.9 All yoga practices are interrelated.
4.10 That interrelation is known as the yoga system, or yoga ladder.
4.11 Only bhakti awards ultimate liberation.
4.12 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the yoga system (yoga ladder).
4.13 Bhakti-yoga is the goal of the Gétä.
5.1 Living entities are under different modes of material nature.

332
 5.2 According to their modes, living entities acquire different types of
faith, knowledge and determination.
5.3 The modes of nature also determine one’s circumstances, environment,
etc.
5.4 Different yoga systems are designed by the Lord to accommodate men
of differing faiths, circumstances and times.
5.5 But bhakti-yoga, acquired by the grace of the Lord or His devotee, is
transcendental to the modes of nature.
5.6 The ultimate purpose of these yoga systems is to bring their
practitioners to the devotional service of Lord Çré Kåñëa.
6.1 Çréla Prabhupäda’s condemnation of non-devotional understandings of
the Gétä is correct. Such interpretations are insufficient to understand the
truth.
6.2 The devotional purports to the Gétä are the proper explanation of all
yoga systems. This is because only a devotional commentary is philosophically
consistent with the message of the text.
6.3 Devotional service is the most practicable spiritual discipline for this
age. The comparison of other yoga systems found in the Gétä to bhakti-yoga is
the rightful literary style of the author and the ornament of Bhagavad-gétä As
It Is.
6.4 Çréla Prabhupäda’s definitions of very general terms in a solely
devotional context is within the proper understanding of the Gétä.
6.5 Translating general words in very specific devotional contexts is the
perfect illumination of the Gétä.

333
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baird, Robert D. Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavad-gétä, edited by

Robert N. Minor, Chapter 10 Swami Bhaktivedanta and the Bhagavad-gétä“As
It Is”, published by State University of New York Press.
Herman, A.L. A Brief Introduction to Hinduism; Religion, Philosophy and
Ways of Liberation, published by Westview Press.
Sharpe, Eric J. The Universal Gétä; Western Images of the Bhagavad-gétä,
published by Duckworth.
Callewaert, W.M. and Shilanand Hemraj Bhagavad-gétä anuvada - A Study
of Transcultural Translation, published by Satya Bharati.
Bolte, R, The Bhagavad-gétä - A New Translation, published by University
of California.
Vekerdi, Joseph His Divine Grace and the Revised Bhagavad-gétä - Life and
Literature, December 1995 Budapest.
Rybakov, Rostislav Searching for a Perfect Man - The Science and Religion,
no 6, 1995 Moscow.
Sinha, Phulgenda The Gétä As It Was: Rediscovering The Original
Bhagavad-gétä, publishd by Open Court 1987.

334
 Endnotes
1 (Popup - Popup)

Praëäma mantra - a traditional prayer with which respect is offered to

the spiritual master.
2 (Popup - Popup)

sakäma karma-yoga is karma-yoga performed with attachment to the results.

335