Articles for Saadhana

Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru. Jai Guru.

(Initial few minutes of audio is not available)

See, I have to explain this verse (for Muktisudhakaram recording). Krishna was so far speaking as a human being quoting the tattvadarśis, taking verses from Kathopanishad and very rarely referring to Himself as a teacher. Suddenly sometimes going to say that “I have had a number of births, you also had. But you don’t know them. I know them. Whenever dharma declines and adharma rises, I will get born.” etc. So, he is speaking as a human being and also sometimes he gets into a divine mood. Now, I have to understand it and explain it because anybody who has spoken, articulated, that articulation has to be done with a human mouth, a human throat, a human tongue and using words and phrases which are understandable to the human being. So, only a human can talk and articulate.

Whenever we hear about God, it is a human speaking about God. There is nothing like God speaking himself. God doesn’t speak himself. God is omnipresent and he doesn’t have a body. So, all descriptions of God are made by the man, by the human. So, how is it that Krishna sometimes speaks about him in a certain manner and other times he says “I am God.”? So, right from the beginning I used to say, it is part of the Hindu culture and the way of narration that the teacher sometimes gets into a kind of a supernatural or divine mood and he speaks in terms of identity with God. That feeling identity with God and speaking in that manner is characteristic of our culture. I would like to explain it a little better.

We can speak about God referring to Him in the third person – God, He is like this, she is like this. Even when God is referred to in the third person, please understand, (I am afraid you will miss the point) all that is said is coming from the human mind, human brain and human intelligence and the description that you get are from the human himself. It is his comprehension. So, he refers to God in the third person. But you will find, there are occasions when we refer to God in the second person. Whether you refer to Him in the third person or second person, in both cases, the descriptions are made by the human. So, if the human alone refers to God in the third person and second person, he can as well refer to God in the first person. What difference does it make?

I say, “Somebody told me.” and I heard. “Somebody told me” and “I say”, is one thing, I myself feel and I tell you, is another. You tell me, which is more affirmative and trustworthy? Is it to quote a third person or a second person or is it to speak from oneself - the first person? But mind you, the catch is not that. The catch is that whenever one speaks about God in the third person, it is again the description, feelings, experience etc. of the person himself. “Oh, this is the God I know. So, I speak about Him in the third person. The same God I can speak about in the second and first person also because the speaking person is the same.” Will you be able to, I don’t know whether I can call it an elevation, rise to the first person from the third person? That is something very rare.

Another point. What is another point? What is this God or who is this God? First of all, we look at the world. Who looks at the world? We. And we think, such a huge and complex world would not have been created by an ordinary source. So, the extraordinary source we describe as supra-human and God. So, it is again our assessment. That assessment is made upon my seeing the world. So, in the seeing of the world, actually is it the world that comes into play or I myself? I wake up. I activate the senses and I see the world. Then I interact with it. In the whole process, I don’t get out of myself. So, the cardinal experience of anybody at any point of time is about oneself, the first person. Only when the first person is there, the second and the third are and can be there. That is why our sastra says ātmadarśanāt īśadarśanam - What you really experience or see is your own self and from the self you understand God. I understand the world in terms of my own reflection, my own experience. So, I and the experience that arises from that, that is the first and last factor in the whole of our life.

So, I am explaining that Krishna sometimes speaks about the truth quoting the Upanishads, quoting the seers’ words and presenting a lot of reason, logic and other things. Sometimes, He also refers to Himself. He said, “There was no time when I was not, you were not, others were not, we shall not be.”  Sometimes he says "tatvadarśibhih", at other times He says, "matparah". Sit in meditation. "yuktaḥ āsīta mat-paraḥ" (Bhagavad Gita 2.61), “Be devoted to Me and think of Me.” Then he says “I have had so many births. You don’t know. I know. You also had so many births.” So, "so many births" as a common factor. It is not for Krishna alone, for the others also. There is nothing special about him. And then He says, “Whenever there is a decline of dharma and an upsurge of adharma, then I get born.” What is the difference between saying God will be born and I will be born? I don’t think there is any difference at all. It is only referring to a proposition in the third person and first person. Both are being made by the same individual. Perhaps in the first person there is a greater identity or a greater assertion, and some people like it, some people may not like it.

Now, in the 5^th chapter he comes to a point where "bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ sarva-loka-maheśvaram, suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ jñātvā māṁ śāntim-ṛcchati."

What does it mean? I am the bhokta of all yajnas and tapas. That means, I am the yajnapati. How could Krishna say that He is the yajnapati? His body was born. Yajnās were done before he was born. They are being done after he has gone. But still if the statement has to be true, it should be a reference not to the body but to the presence that is immortal within the body and that is the truth with everyone.

Sarvalokamahēśwaram, if somebody understands me as the mahēśwara of the entire world, suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ, as a friend of all creatures, then he becomes peaceful. Now this transition in Bhagavad Gita is very important. In the sixth chapter He explains meditation and from the seventh onwards He strikes the position of God and starts explaining in terms of everything in terms of God. Though it is done, I would like to say and think for the understanding of people that it is not that Krishna is any special God; His realization He explains with reference to third person, second person and first person. Actually there is no second person coming here. Third person and first person.

I thought, this is a kind of thought process that comes to my mind because I want to give a rational and an acceptable explanation of Bhagavad Gita as to why Krishna said it. Can I also say? Will another man also be able to say or is it exclusive to Krishna? Then our sanātana dharma does not become universal. It is very selective and specific, applicable only to a few people. But that is not what Vedanta is. Vedanta exhorts everyone to realize the truth. Brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati, this is what Vedanta says – “To know God is to become God” and to behave and act godly, godly, godly.

Now, why I said this? As I told you earlier, the subject of spirituality, religion, God, devotion, self, it is such a wonderful subject that it can stimulate any number of thoughts, an assortment of thought processes. And it is good also. So, this is a thought process that came to my mind. I am going to speak about it in a little more elaborate manner the next time the recording is going on.

Harih Om Tat Sat. Jai Guru.