SHORT NOTES ON GITA.

Short Notes on reading Bhagavad Gita. (June-July 2010)

(These notes are just my overviews and do not follow any authoritative commentaries that are available in articles, journals and books. I have read many of them from school days. Evan earlier the Gita is something to be recited on a daily basis to acquire Punya (good deeds). When I started thinking on the meanings of the verses being recited daily, I thought of reading the Malayalam translations as well as commentaries in Malayalam and Sanskrit. They were all too solemn in the meanings and short/long explanations mainly exhibiting the saintly spiritual and vedantic slant. They never question the underlying assumptions and bland assertions. I followed them for too long a time in the past. However at certain juncture doubts crept as I found some of the comments contradicted themselves or others. So these notes are based on textual meanings as I understand them with my unfinished Sanskrit college studies.)

Chapter 1.

Gita starts with the blind king asking Sanjaya on the happenings in Kurukshetra where the two sides are arraigned in readiness to commence attacks on each other. Sanjaya with his divine vision sees all and makes a live commentary on the happening in the battlefield. He hears the sayings and conveys them with precision. First it was Duryodhana keeping his teacher Drona informed of the readiness of the army on both sides. The battles are signalled by the noise booming from conch shells of each and every warrior on both sides including that of Krishna the charioteer and Arjuna the warrior as well as from all kinds of battle drums. (The time is already late to re-think about the advisability or viability of the action to start. But that is what happens for the next long time.)

Arjuna asks Krishna to take his chariot to the middle of the formations facing each other, combat ready. He says that he wanted to see the battle ready warriors on each side especially whose who are on the other side with the cranky Duryodhana. (Here is my first skeptical quarry. Does this mean that Arjuna had no knowledge of the warriors facing each other before he came to the battle field? The preparations for the war must have taken a long time and consultations with allies and friends on the strength of the armies to be rallied. Might be this is the way the author wanted to introduce his philosophical not philosophical but theological thoughts?)

When he saw his entire dear and near ones ready to fight a deadly war Arjuna sat down resting his weapons and spoke of his dilemma to his charioteer. (I. 28 to 46) He opined that he does not wish to kill any of these near and dear relations even if he gets the three worlds as gifts in return. Arjuna makes a long argument to sustain his stand. He says that killing ones own will result in family women go astray and thus finish off entire clans and that entails falling in hell finally.

Chapter 2.

Krishna replied: Where from did you get this sadness at this emergent juncture that does not fit with your nature or heavenly trait and bringing dishonour to you. Don’t be a eunuch (asexual) as it is not befitting you. So get up; shedding your little heart troubles. (II.2. & 3)

Again Arjuna repeats his worries. (II.4 to 8)

Here starts Krishna’s philosophical discourse. It is a long argument on the nature of life on earth. Life goes on changing and death too is natural. He uses so many illustrations to buttress his point that there is no need to grieve the dead or living. Neither me or you nor all warriors assembled here were there neither in the past; neither all of us may be there in future. Both who think that one is the killer and other killed; are completely ignorants of the fact that no one kills or anyone is killed. He (Atma) is not born or dead while leaving the body. More of the same continued. (II.11 to 30) He might have thought that it is not convincing enough; so further down to earthly arguments. (One gets a doubt as to whether extinguishing a living person by using weapons is compatible, to the natural process of life from childhood, youth, aging and death? The question is not raised and so no answer.)

He says: It is the sacred duty of a Kshatriya to wage war. Only too lucky ones get such a divine opportunity. If you are not fighting this war, you will be skipping your duties and losing glory thus readying to be branded as a sinner. Such a situation is more fearful than death itself. Other warriors will insult you as a weakling who ran away from the battle ground. People will say unpalatable things. Keep your thought of happiness and grief as well as gains and loss at an equal level and get ready to fight. You will not be committing any sin by such an act. (II.31 to 38)

Here Krishna says that what is said above is as per Samkhya (philosophy). (According to my short knowledge, there are too few authoritative works available on this philosophy. Most of them are secondary which Vedantists quote in order to refute them. However there seems to be a consensus that the basic idea of Samkhya is duality i.e. Purusha who is not active and Prakriti that is very much active in formation of all things. However Krishna talks about Purusha and Prakriti at a later stage with one addition. He claims that he is the Purusha and Prakriti is his magical powers. (XIII).

Now another prolonged discourse on Yoga. Unlike what is usually understood by Yoga Krishna explains it as “Yogah Karmasu Koushalam;” the expertise on doing things with unflawing dedication. Also here the meaning of the word ‘Sthita Prajna’ and the nature of such a man are explored in all details. At a stage Krishna refers to a chain of actions and reactions thus: Those who contemplate on worldly pleasures get attached to them. Desire comes out of attachment. (Unfulfilled) desires cause anger. Anger results in confusion in mind. When mind is confused memories get fumbled. The brain gets affected due to fumbling memories. One will perish through defective brain. (II.40 to 72) There is no need to go through all those intellectual exercises but to note that they are used to buttress arguments already made earlier to persuade Arjuna to fight the war without looking to the results. There is one puzzling saying from Krishna to the effect that Vedas composed of three qualities and you Arjuna should move out of it. (II.45)

Chapter 3.

Arjuna question’s Krishna to the effect saying, if according to you duties are at higher level than others then why are you advising me to do something cruel in nature i.e. engaging in war? (III.1 & 2)

According to some; the most essential thought of Gita is here i.e. Doing duties without having influenced by worldly desires. “Nishkama Karma”. Here the charioteer assumes his real identity as god himself. Krishna says that he has shown two paths in the most ancient times; the Jnana Yoga to Samkhyas and Karma Yoga to yogis. No one is inactive at any moment. Person cannot get salvation by doing nothing in life. In this part some that are rational enough but more of them are rationalization of apriori assumptions. The above two short sentences are examples to the first. The later could be illustrated as the need to perform sacrifices (Yajna) ordained by the Prajapati or Brahma. By postulating a Prajapati, did Krishna admit that there are other gods than himself? It says that Prajapati after creating; ordained the humans to perform Yajnas to satisfy the gods; and they in turn favour you in achieving your desired worldly pleasures. Thus exchanging favors you will attain prestige and reputation. Krishna says that creations came from food; rains bring the food; rains happen through sacrifices (Yajna); sacrifices are righteous duty; know that righteous acts come from Brahma and Brahma rose from universal. So everything is depends in sacrifices (Yajna). Persons partaking the left over from Yajna get purified from all sins. More assumptions and rationalizations follow culminating in assuring Arjuna that he should leave all duties to Krishna and fight without remorse. The final words are that it is honorable to do one’s own (caste) duties even if they are qualitatively lower; the duties of others are scary enough. (III. 3 to 35)

Arjuna asks: if you have shown the way forward to do good deeds and salvation; why people resort to sin though unintentional and as if forced? (III. 36)

The answer is typical. People sin due to lust and anger that arise out from Rajo Guna i.e. middle qualities. He advises Arjuna to control all emotions. Senses, mind and intellects are the sources of these emotions. (III. 37 to 43)

One could sense how far Krishna has taken the original questions without responding to any of them. Now he is talking as the God himself. So believe him implicitly.

Chapter 4.

The God says that he imparted the above said Yoga to Vivaswan and he in turn instructed Manu and Manu told it to Ikshvaku. These lessons went on from generation to generation but completely lost in the process. These are the secret instructions that I have told you now. (IV. 1 to 3)

When Arjuna pointed to the fact that the life of Vivaswan is too far off in the past to claim that you Krishna instructed him in Yoga; Krishna responds to convey that you and me had very many past lives and I remember them but not you. (I am God and you are just a mortal.) This claim by God sounds to contradict his starting lesson conveying; you, me nor the kings assembled here did exist earlier; also all of us will not exist in future (II.12). Then follow more homilies. Among them is the classic: “Yada Yada Hi …”. I take birth through my magical powers (Maya) in all the eras (Satya/Krita, Treta, Dvapara and Kali Yugas.) whenever the righteousness (Dharma) slips down and evil (Adharma) raises up; in order to protect the pious and destroy the evildoers. (IV. 7 & 8) All avatar stories are explained with this promise made by the God. He also promises that those who know this divine origination; will have no re-birth when they get out of their bodies i.e. dead but absolved in me (God). (IV.9)

Krishna goes on illustrating more of the same Karma and Yoga in which renunciation also comes up. Among them is the most contentious claim that “Chaturvanaim Maya Srishtam Guna Karma Vibhagashah” meaning thereby that the four Varnas (castes) are created by God himself based on the qualities of duties prescribed. Scholars have found it too difficult to explain the genus that God himself created the castes that are found in Indian society. Most of them twist and turn the words to mean that caste is defined not by birth but through profession carried by individuals and or families.

(Here I find one saying that was incomprehensible. “Karmanyakarma Yah Pashyed, Akarmani cha Karma Yah: Sa Budhiman Manushyeshu, Sa Yukta Krisna Karmakrid.” (IV. 18) it might mean that the one who sees duties as non-duties and non-duties as duties; is the wisest and does his duties well. Could any one explain this without resorting to some mysterious meanings?)

Continuing in the same vain Krishna expounds several types of Yajnas and concludes that among all; the knowledge or intellectual (Jnana Yajna) understanding is the best and following this path person will be out of birth death cycle. The one who doubts will perish and not this world or the nether world will accept the one in doubt. By this Krishna cautioned not only Arjuna but all devotees to believe implicitly on his sayings without raising any doubts. All Gita commentators followed the advice. (IV.10 to 42)

Chapter 5.

Still Arjuna is skeptic on the choice which makes Krishna to lecture more on doing duties unattached which he equates with renunciation. Here there are some definitions of Samkhyayoga and Sanyasa Yoga which need no more explanations here.

(V)

Chapter 6.

Krishna continues with his teachings that Yogi does all duties prescribed just like others but without desire or attachment and through well dedicated mind. (VI. 1 to 32)

Arjuna reminds Krishna that mind is like wind and could not concentrate all the time and one might shake out. Krishna responds again saying that yes mind is wavering but could be controlled through regular practice, meditation and dedication. Now another question: what happens to the one who failed at certain circumstance? (VI. 37 to 39)

Krishna gives such people a kind of consolation. Their efforts will not go in vain. They will go to nether worlds where they spend more happy days and when their good deeds get exhausted they will be reborn in good families of learned people. (VI. 40 to 47)

Chapter 7.

Krishna goes on explaining the meaning and nature of Jnana and Vijnana Yoga. All that were spoken here have nothing to do with original questions posed. They are mind blogging words and thoughts that commentators and lecturers on Gita revel. As such unless one is a believer in Krishna the God; dwelling on these sayings is futile. (VII. 1 to 30)

It is clear that Arjuna has completely forgotten the questions where from he started and is being carried away by Krishna’s long non-material or spiritual talks. He demands more explanations from Krishna.

Chapter 8.

The Brahma has no end (Aksharam) and it is me. There should not be any doubt that those who leave their bodies thinking about me will be absorbed in me. (VIII. 3 to 28)

Chapter 9.

Now is the time to convince Arjuna about all his (Krishna’s) divine qualities and the same is done in a thorough manner. He says: this part is known as very secret hidden yoga and I am revealing the same to you. It seems that Krishna propagates a kind of devotion to him by all. He says “Ananyaschintayando mam” meaning that I will be taking the complete care of those devotees who do not think about any others but me alone. (IX.22) This might be the reason for many Indians to be indifferent to the fate of others in history. He further adds that even if one is a bad character, he should be considered pious if he is my ardent devotee. (IX. 30) (I think that all the politicians, corrupt and criminal elements have absorbed this tenet pronounced by Krishna. These people visit Tirupati, Pandarpur, Shirdi, and Guruvayoor, Sabarimala and all other innumerable temples and perform pilgrimages.) All those who submit to me will go to heaven; even those born of sins (Papayonayah); like women, vaisyas (peasants, traders etc.) and likewise Sudras. So there is nothing to be said about Brahmins and Kshatriya. (IX. 32 & 33) (Here one might point out the discriminatory view expressed by God himself between castes meaning that caste is by birth. Also the reference to women along with fourth Varnas Sudras as being born of sin signals a derisive and abusive mind set of the speaker. Significantly here is the only place where women are referred in a patronizing manner in the entire text of Gita.) (IX. 1 to 34)

Chapter 10.

Krishna continues to assert his divine nature saying that he is the essence of everything and not even gods and rishies are fully aware of it. Ahimsa (Non-violence) is mentioned in verse 5. (X. 1 to 11)

Now Arjuna is convinced that the one speaking to him is God himself and he acknowledges this fact and requests Krishna to repeat those teachings since they are (Amrita) nectar. (X. 12 to 18)

Krishna is too eloquent in his response. He says that he is the soul (Atma) of everything created and he is the beginning, middle and end of them. Then instances follow. He is Vishnu among adityas. (It is supposed that adityas i.e. suns are 12; one for each month of the year) Next he mentions Ravi i.e. sun among the luminous. (The fanciful imagination becomes clear when he says that among the stars he is the moon. Today everyone knows that moon is not a star. Even the Astrologers don’t take it as a star but a planet.) Krishna goes on listing the names of the ‘best’ claiming them as himself. Finally he concludes that there is not much meaning by detailing all these and you just understand that I am holding all of them with a small bit of me. (X. 19 to 42)

Chapter 11.

Arjuna tells Krishna: You have cleared my confusions by telling me about the colours and shades of all your images. I would like you; show me your real soul in its full entity; if it is possible for me to view it. (XI. 1 to 4)

Krishna responds saying that I will endow you with divine vision so you might be able see all of me. (XI. 5 to 8) This part of Gita is titled Viswarupa Darsanam.

Sanjaya also views the God in all its manifest images and explains them. (XI. 9 to 14)

Now it is the turn of Arjuna to elaborate all that he saw in Krishna. For him the view was too awe inspiring and fantastic; both scaring and humbling. Arjuna also saw all the warriors from both sides entering the mouth of Krishna and they being crushed in the teeth. He saw all of them perish. (XI. 15 to 31)

Krishna says that he is the destroyer of all the worlds and creatures and therefore also all those warriors lined up in opposite sides. So get up and achieve fame by winning the fight against your enemies and enjoy the kingdom. I have already finished them much earlier and you are just a mean to realise it. I have already killed Drona, Bhishma, Karna and all other warriors and so you will be victorious in fighting them. (XI. 32 to 34)

(I have not come across any believer who entirely imagines his god in this fashion.)

Sanjaya says that after hearing this Arjuna; shaken with fear bowed and mumbled words praising the God for all his attributes and then asked his pardon for posing questions as to a friend without knowing his real nature as God. I am too fearful of this divine image and so please change to image that is familiar to me (XI. 35 to 46)

Sanjaya says that Krishna reappeared in his human form and calmed the scared Arjuna. Viewing the human form Arjuna came to his senses and conveyed his regards. (XI, 47 to 51)

Krishna said that you have seen my form that was shown to no one else. No Vedic, ascetic or renouncer nor giver or sacrificer could view me in my original form. You were able to see it because of your ardent devotion. (XI. 52 to 55)

Chapter 12.

Then he was asked by Arjuna to define favorites and Krishna responds that those are his favorites who unflinchingly devote their time and life to me i.e. the real devotees. (Here is the basic teaching on Devotion to God. Bhakti. In course of time Bhakti replaced all else with addition of going on pilgrimages to innumerable places and temples. All Indian women follow the teachings on devotion to gods and goddesses even though they are born out of sin as earlier specified by Krishna. It may be reason enough to keep women ignorant and illiterate; fit only to do household work.) (XII. 1 to 20)

Chapter 13.

It becomes clear that Krishna has taken Arjuna to that far off place that the former has forgotten as to what he wanted to be cleared and now wishes to hear Krishna talk on Samkhya philosophy proper i.e. Purusha and Prakriti. Krishna makes out an exhaustive illustration of the two. Purusha is here first designated as Kshetrajna and Prakriti as Kshetra. Though they are opposite; one is completely stable and inactive; the other is most unstable and active. They fulfill each other in keeping the worlds go on. All those who know and understand these intricate relationships and engage in activities without confusion are the ones who are wise and learned. They reach heaven at the end of mortal life. It is here the word ‘Ahimsa’ appears for the second time in the text, Verse 8. (XIII. 1 to 35)

Chapter 14.

Krishna continues: I will tell you a very secret teaching; by knowing it one will not be affected by creation and destruction. By learning it most of the Munies got out of birth-death cycle. All creations come out of me since I am the greatest source of them all. There are three natural qualities in the creatures Satva, Rajas and Thamas i.e. best, middle and worst. These qualities enslave the created ones. (Does Krishna mean that the three qualities are separate from god and created by him?) Those are their natures and will appear and assert in their thoughts and actions. Those who accumulate their best qualities will go to the world inhabited by the best at the time of the great flood. Those middle qualities come back to the world at end of the flood. Similarly those with worst qualities will be born again in sin. Krishna continues with more of these teachings. (XIV. 1 to 20)

Arjuna wishes more clarification on the mode of transcending the three qualities and Krishna responds: All those who devote everything to me are the ones who will be able to clear from qualities. There are more in the same genre in this part. (XIV. 22 to 27)

Chapter 15.

Now Krishna redefines himself as the Paramatma who is everywhere inside as well as out all creations. This again is elaboration and repetitions in so many words to concretize the concept of God. He did not look back to recognise that he has told much about separate nature of God and creations. (XV. 1 to 20)

Chapter 16.

Krishna continues to propound a doctrine on the qualities divine and devilish. The divine include ‘Ahimsa’ (Verse 2) and other good qualities and behaviours. Since most of the earlier discourse covered the nature of goodness; in this part he concentrates to define ungodly ones which include atheists. There are three paths to hell, lust, anger and avarice and therefore one should throw them all out of life. I definitely feel that almost all politicians and public workers never read or understood the implications of what God said about carriers of the worst qualities (Thamas). (XVI. 1 to 24)

Chapter 17.

There are three kinds of concentration (Shradha) as well. They are of three qualities Satva, Rajas and Thamas. These are explained in more detail. Also there comes an explanation when Brahmins perform sacrifices with Om, Tad and Sat. Krishna did not give an idea as to what other castes (Varnas) should do in place of Brahmins performing sacrifices. (XVII. 2 to 28))

Chapter 18.

This is the last part and longer than the earlier ones. At first Arjuna asks for more explanations on renunciation or asceticism (Sanyasa) and on making donation/gift (Tyaga). Incidentally here is re-assertion of the nature and duties of the four castes (Varnas) making it more clear that castes are based on birth and birth alone These duties are ingrained in each caste. Verses 41 to 44. Once again it is said that ones own duties are greater than another’s’. Even if one’s duties are bad in themselves they should not be abandoned. Verse 47. (One hopes that the present day honour killers and khaps may not quote these to defend and justify.) Krishna says almost as a final edict to Arjuna: Rest all your mind on me by using your intellectual might so that you will overcome all hurdles with my blessings. You will perish if you don’t want to fight in order to satisfy your super egoism. It is useless for you to be carried away by your egoism and arrogance, since nature will compel you to do it. I have given you the teachings that are secret in all secrets. You discern them all and follow whatever you choose. (What is here to choose except follow the dictates of the god?) (XIII. 1 to 63)

The God has still some doubts about Arjuna. He states that once more I will impart the most secret of all secret teachings because you are my most beloved friend: Keep me in your mind, be my devotee, perform sacrifices for me and bow to me always. I assure you my fast friend that at the end you will join in me. Relinquishing all duties/faiths (Dharma) take refuge in me and then I will redeem you from every kind of sinful deeds; so don’t grieve. (XIII. 65 & 66)

Then comes a kind of admonition: This knowledge should not be made available to anyone who is not a devotee etc.

I say that he does a Jnana yajna who learns these conversations between us. Also the one who hear them with concentrated attention and without envy will escape from sins and reach worlds of good people. (XIII. 70 & 71)

Now Krishna asks Arjuna whether he got rid of his confusion after hearing all these to which Arjuna replies: All my confusions are cleared and I have found my mind due to your blessings. My doubts disappeared and I will do what you have ordered. (XIII. 72 & 73)

Sanjaya concludes that he is both happy and awestruck hearing these conversations and viewing the God Universal. This was made possible through the blessings of Vyasa (the author). There will be wealth and victory where dwell both Krishna the real god and Arjuna the warrior with bow and arrows in hand. (XIII. 74 to 78)

After going through the text at several occasions and reading those commentaries in Malayalam the last one by late Nitya Chaitanya Yati (an ardent disciple of Sri Narayana Guru a Vedanta scholar and composer of several works on the philosophy in Sanskrit and Malayalam. He was an un-touchable by caste) and also in English; I noticed that the God did not refer to the rightful duties of women anywhere in his preaching. It is strange and a little distressing indeed. This might be due to the fact Krishna is addressing Arjuna a male. Of course at one place (IX. 32) he mentions women as born of sin bracketing them along Sudras. The reference is most derogatory and sounds of male chauvinism. One might be tempted to envisage a scene where Krishna faces the defiant Draupadi who is all for revenge against Kauravas for their derisive behaviour against, assault and disrobing of her in public assembly when she was going through her menses period. While Krishna forcing Arjuna to fight, never recalled this incidence which would have helped Arjuna to stand up and redeem the honour suffered by his wife. I am unable to think about as to how Draupadi could have reacted to any negative advice. So be it.

Though the Gita is considered as a vedantic text; I find it emphasizing more on devotion (Bhakti) to Krishna than to any other philosophical principle. I am ignorant as to how Mahatma found this text advocating non-violence. (Ahimsa. X. 5; XIII. 8 ; XVI. 2 & XVII. 14) They are the only four places where the word is found. Non-violence is only one among other qualities to be cultivated by men.

There are a number of puzzles that confounded me while reading the text. I will site only four of them here.

(1) “Thraigunya Vishaya Veda; Nistraigunyo Bhava Arjuna.” (II. 45) Does Krishna disown the Vedas as unacceptable? There are similar sayings elsewhere. But everywhere in the rest of the text he affirms the relevancy of Vedic rituals like performing sacrifices to feed the gods.

(2) “Vidya Vinaya Sampanne, Brahmane, Gavi, Hastini;

Suni chaiva Svapake cha, Pandit á Samadarsina:”

(V. 18). Here it is pronounced that learned wise men view

all creatures as equal. The puzzle is the word “Svapaka”

meaning the groups who cook and eat dogs. Were there such people during the time of Krishna’s discourse?

(3) “Dharmaavirudho Bhuteshu Kamosmi” (VII. 11). The word “KAMA” is used to denote lust in all through the text but here it is qualified by word “Dharmaavirudha” meaning that is not opposed to righteousness. I am unable to comprehend the object/emotion specified. Does it mean that there are two modes of lust one that is opposed to righteousness and another not opposed?

(4) “Dyutam Chalayatamasmi”. (X. 36) I am the dice game among the acts of gambling. Just like in the case of lust, gambling is frowned upon and denounced as vice and therefore dark (Thamasa) by nature but there seems to be something that is acceptable to God.

I do accept that these notes penned here above seem too clumsy and disorganized. They are clumsy because of my own weak command on both Sanskrit as well as English languages. There could be better and more appropriate words and usages to convey the correct meanings of the concepts propounded. They are disorganized due to my perception on reading the text. I was dutifully reading Gita as sacred text since childhood. Slowly and during the course of time I became skeptical about its teachings finally culminating in disbelief. I do see that there are certain good things that could be accepted by all as universal. However all those are qualified as edicts of a god. All the good things to do and practice in life could be arrived at through well founded reasoning and scientific inquiry. There is no need to postulate a god to enforce good.

I am of the view that one of the essential teachings of the god could be interpreted as professing or justifying killing one’s own kith and kin if necessary. I am afraid that the recent developments in the killings of own siblings in the name of honour (sic) might come under these teachings.

The idea of caste being based on birth is explicitly explained where ever the subject was dealt with in the gita text especially in “It is honorable to do one’s own (caste) duties even if they are qualitatively lower than others’. Also it is honorable to die while doing one’s rightful duties. The duties of others are scary enough.” “…..One does not sin in doing own assigned natural duties.”

Sreyan Swa Dharmo Viguna: Paradharmat swanishtitad; Swadharme Nidhanam Sreya: Paadharmo Bhayavaha: (III. 35) Sreyan Swadharmo Viguna: Paradharmat swanishtitad; Swabhava Niyatam Karma, Kurvannapnoti Kilbisham. (XIII. 47) See that the first part of the verses being repeated making it difficult to mean anything else.

Of course there are modern commentators who would circumvent the topic to different directions to establish that cast is based on duties and professions. None of them are convincing enough at least in my case.

I find that almost on every other day one of those who script and fill the columns on spirituality and puranic lore in daily papers; quote some or other sayings of Krishna from gita as the evidence and authority for their contentions. They don’t recollect the contrary sayings in the same gita that refute their contentions. Instances are too many to list here.

In so many ways Krishna conveys that he is the creator of animate, inanimate, liquid, solid and all other objects in the world. This claim is repeated again and again in almost all parts of Gita. He also says that Brahma came out of him and then Brahma made all creations. But ultimately he is the one who is the first originator.

I have not come across Krishna saying why he or some one else created the world and creatures in it if not for them to suffer the death birth cycle. The question did not occur in Arjuna’s mind at any point during the long dialogue. It is surprising that such a basic issue did not figure in this philosophical teaching. Did Krishna know the Rig Vedic hymn “Nasadiya Suktam” wherein the Rishi is skeptic about the creator and why he created. He speculates that ultimately he knows or even he does not know the why.

There is some kind of follow up to the Gita in Mahabharata in Aswamedha Parvam. Following the victory in the war both Arjuna and Krishna were together in the palace they occupied. They were enjoying the happy days after the Pandavas started ruling the kingdom. During their conversations, Arjuna is said too have conveyed to Krishna that he has forgotten the teachings addressed to him by the later; just before the commencement of the Great War.

Krishna responded by saying that he also could not recollect all that secrets of all secrets in their entirety. The essence is that both have forgotten the teachings; the one who was hearing and the one who preached them. Here is another point to ponder over. The gita is dialogue between two individual though overheard by Sanjaya and recited to Dhritarashtra. In the entire dialogue Krishna affirms that these teachings propounded by him are too sacred and secrets of all secrets. Did it not signify that gita is not addressed to all and sundry in the world? How is it correct to propagate it as essential to all persons living in the present world? The fresh dialogues are termed as “Anu Gita”. I have not read the “Anu Gita” with the same attention that was given to gita itself. I remember them purveying some theological sayings and stories. More to the point is the fact that both have forgotten the teachings and still able to carry on their duties as usual. If at that period itself the teachings were forgotten and therefore became irrelevant; what are their worth in modern times? People could lead a good, fruitful and cooperative life among their near and dear ones even without going through the great Bhagavad Gita teachings.

(Add on: After going through the notes I happened to search the web where I found an English translation of Bhagavad Gita with a long introduction by the venerable and devout Hindu scholar advocate, Kashinath Tryambak Telang. He made the translation in 1875 or so when social reform movements were getting encouragement. Telang is only one of several scholars who commented upon the ancient scriptures. They were trying to be reasonable without any bias. To my astonishment and elation I found the following observation penned by Telang in the introduction:

“He (Krishna) next proceeds to distinguish another and higher species of 'indifference,' and then he goes on to point out the results of that self-restraint which is to be acquired in the mode he has expounded. That is one instance. Now take another. In chapter VI, stanza 10 and following stanzas the Gita sets forth elaborately the mode of practically achieving the mental abstraction called Yoga. It need not be reproduced here. The reader can readily find out how sundry directions are there given for the purpose specified, but without any attempt at systematizing. Contrast the Yoga-sutras. In my opinion, therefore, these comparisons strongly corroborate the proposition we have laid down regarding the unsystematic, or rather non-systematic, character of the work. Let us look at the matter now from a slightly different point of view. There are sundry words used in the Bhagavad gita, the significations of which are not quite identical throughout the work. Take, for instance, the word 'yoga,' which we have rendered 'devotion.' At Gîtâ, chapter II, stanza 48, a definition is given of that word. In chapter VI, the signification it bears is entirely different. And again in chapter IX, stanza 5, there is still another sense in which the word is used. The word 'Brahman' too occurs in widely varying significations. And one of its meanings, indeed, is quite singular, namely, 'Nature' (see chapter XIV, stanza 3). Similar observations, to a greater or less extent, apply to the words Buddhi, Âtman, and Svabhâva. Now these are words which stand for ideas not unimportant in the philosophy of the Bhagavadgîtâ. And the absence of scientific precision about their use appears to me to be some indication of that non-systematic character of which we have already spoken.

There is one other line of argument, which leads, I think, to the same conclusion. There are several passages in the Gîtâ which it is not very easy to reconcile with one another; and no attempt is made to harmonise them. Thus, for example, in stanza 16 of chapter VII, Krishna divides his devotees into four classes, one of which consists of 'men of knowledge,' whom, Krishna says, he considers 'as his own self.' It would probably be difficult to imagine any expression which could indicate higher esteem. Yet in stanza 46 of chapter VI, we have it laid down, that the devotee is superior not only to the mere performer of penances, but even to the men of knowledge. The commentators betray their gnostic bias by interpreting 'men of knowledge' in this latter passage to mean those who have acquired erudition in the Sâstras and their significations. This is not an interpretation to be necessarily rejected. But there is in it a certain twisting of words, which, under the circumstances here, I am not inclined to accept. And on the other hand, it must not be forgotten, that the implication fairly derivable from chapter IV, stanza 38, would seem to be rather that knowledge is superior to devotion--is the higher stage to be reached by means of devotion as the stepping-stone. In another passage again at Gîtâ, chapter XII, stanza 12, concentration is preferred to knowledge, which also seems to me to be irreconcilable with chapter VII, stanza 16. Take still another instance. At Gîtâ, chapter V, stanza 15, it is said, that 'the Lord receives the sin or merit of none.' Yet at chapter V, stanza 29, and again at chapter IX, stanza 24, Krishna calls himself 'the Lord and enjoyer' of all sacrifices and penances. How, it may well be asked, can the Supreme Being 'enjoy' that which he does not even receive?' Once more, at chapter X, stanza 29, Krishna declares that 'none is hateful to me, none dear.' And yet the remarkable verses at the close of chapter XII seem to stand in point-blank contradiction to that declaration. There through a most elaborate series of stanzas, the burden of Krishna's eloquent sermon is 'such a one is dear to me.' And again in those fine verses, where Krishna winds up his Divine Lay, he similarly tells Arguna, that he, Arguna, is 'dear' to Krishna. And Krishna also speaks of that devotee as 'dear' to him, who may publish the Mystery of the Gîtâ among those who reverence the Supreme Being. And yet again, how are we to reconcile the same passage about none being 'hateful or dear' to Krishna, with his own words at chapter XVI, stanza 18 and following stanzas? The language used in describing the 'demoniac' people there mentioned is not remarkable for sweetness towards them, while Krishna says positively, 'I hurl down such people into demoniac wombs, whereby they go down into misery and the vilest condition.' These persons are scarcely characterised with accuracy 'as neither hateful nor dear' to Krishna. It seems to me, that all these are real inconsistencies in the Gîtâ, not such, perhaps, as might not be explained away, but such, I think, as indicate a mind making guesses at truth., as Professor Max Müller puts it, rather than a mind elaborating a complete and organised system of philosophy. There is not even a trace of consciousness on the part of the author that these inconsistencies exist. And the contexts of the various passages indicate, in my judgment, that a half-truth is struck out here, and another half-truth there, with special reference to the special subject then under discussion; but no attempt is made to organise the various half-truths, which are apparently incompatible, into a symmetrical whole, where the apparent inconsistencies might possibly vanish altogether in the higher synthesis. And having regard to these various points, and to the further point, that the sequence of ideas throughout the verses of the Gîtâ is not always easily followed, we are, I think, safe in adhering to the opinion expressed above, that the Gîtâ is a nonsystematic work.” (Pages 10-13: Some intervening sentences are omitted here.)

“My view is that in the Gita and the Upanishads, the philosophical part has not been consistently and fully worked out. We have there the results of free thought, exercised on different subjects of great moment, unfettered by the exigencies of any foregone conclusions, or of any fully developed theory. It is afterwards, it is at a later stage of philosophical progress, that system-making arises. In that stage some thinkers interpret whole works by the light of some particular doctrines or expressions. And the result is the development of a whole multitude of philosophical sects, following the lead of those thinkers, and all professing to draw their doctrine from the Gîtâ or the Upanishads, yet each differing remarkably from the other.” (page 7-8)

The last para is an explanation for all the inconsistencies in Krishna’s teachings. I take a rest here even though the quotes raise more questions in my mind.)