If You Love Krishna, Why Avoid/Distort the Gita?
Questioner: Namaste Acharya ji. Sir, in one of your podcasts, you had stated that the Upanishad says, Neti-Neti to personify the God—the God in the personified way. Because sometimes, it's like disrespecting God, that ultimate Brahm . (doesn’t add to context)
But, in Bhakti Marg (the path of loving devotion), it is said that we are first to assume that God and with the help of Naam, Roop and Leela , we should try to reach that ultimate Brahm or that ultimate God. So, it's, both are somewhere conflicting.
I am following you and I am also following Bhakti Marg . I am in a dilemma, what to follow? Whether to personify that God in that being or not?
Acharya Prashant: See, Brahm is not God—it's a popular misconception. Brahm is not God. So, in your question you said that there is a way to reach Brahm or God using this, this, this, this, this. First of all, Brahm is not God.
The objective of all spirituality is Truth realization, not God attainment—these are two very different goals.
To believe in God, you have to believe in yourself, which is ego. So, God's attainment can come only when there is a belief in the egoistic self. Who else will attain it? Whereas Truth realization involves dissolution of the ego—which means you are seeing yourself as fictitious, unnecessary, invalid. These are two very different things. Now proceed from here.
Questioner: So sir, again I have a dilemma. I used to listen to Bhagavatam and there it is said that the ultimate purpose of life is to attain that, because that is ultimate happiness. That is the ultimate happiness to attain, to know yourself, that you are attaining God.
Acharya Prashant: How do you know? How do you know?
Questioner: By reading the Vedānta , by doing meditation, by devoting ourselves to God.
Acharya Prashant: Wait, wait. Bhagavatam is not Vedānta. So, what have you read? What do you know?
Questioner: Actually, I read that the whole purpose of life is not to eat, earn and die one day. There is a bigger purpose—there is some bigger happiness, to help others and ultimately there is that God to achieve. Like Krishna , you can achieve Krishna by taking his name, by meditating, by līlā .
Acharya Prashant: Why should you achieve Krishna ? Very objectively, I am just enquiring.
Questioner: That maybe that he is the ultimate source of happiness.
Acharya Prashant: Okay. So Krishna is ultimate, so you must achieve him, right? Okay, right. And all this has been told to you by Krishna ?
Questioner: No, like from whom I..
Acharya Prashant: No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. If Krishna is ultimate, should I listen to Krishna or someone else?
Questioner: But there is no way to listen Krishna directly, right?
Acharya Prashant: There is the Bhagavad-Gītā. There is the Bhagavad-Gītā. Instead of that you are reading a Purāṇa , which is not from Krishna. If Krishna is indeed ultimate, should I listen to Krishna or should I listen to anybody else? Even if it's a high sage?
Questioner: But in Kali Yuga it is said that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam ..
Acharya Prashant: Who said that? Again, who said that? Krishna said that or somebody else?
Questioner: Somebody else, of course somebody else.
Acharya Prashant: So, why should you not listen to Krishna directly?
Questioner: In Śrīmad Bhagavad Gītā also there is a concept of Bhakti Marg , where you have to personify that God.
Acharya Prashant: You don't have to personify. Bhakti is not at all about personification. Who has put these concepts to you? Sikhism , for example, is entirely a religion of devotion. And tell a Sikh that God is a person, and he will not spare you.
Questioner: I am not saying a person in that sense; but someone whom we can love, whom we can devote, whom we can imagine.
Acharya Prashant: I am again saying, Bhakti is not about imagining something. All imagination arises from the ego and therefore all imagination is just ego fodder. This is a very unfortunate kind of cult that has developed over the last 50-100 years in India. Not 100 years, 50-70 years. The cult of imagination—romantic kind of imagination. By romantic, I do not necessarily mean man-woman; romantic means pleasing kind of imagination. Think of a pleasing God. A pleasing God, beautiful to look at.
Questioner: That's what Mirabai did.
Acharya Prashant: How do you know what Mirabai did? Have you really gone into her literature?
Questioner: I have gone to her pada (poem) that she sang for Krishna.
Acharya Prashant: How many of them have you read? How do you know you really understood what she was saying? And in all of this, why are you not talking of the Bhagavad-Gītā ?
Questioner: Since I have not listened to Bhagavad-Gītā to that extent. I had read it myself once.
Acharya Prashant: But then all this discussion is with Krishna at the centre, right?
Questioner: Yes, exactly.
Acharya Prashant: And the word of Krishna is Gītā ? And if Krishna is at the centre, then Gītā should be at the centre. So why is Gītā not at the centre, if Krishna is at the centre. You know what that means? The obvious conclusion? In all this that you are saying, not even Krishna is at the centre. It is the ego that is at the centre. And it is the ego that looks for an imaginary personal kind of God. When Krishna is at the centre, you do not go after imaginations. That's the difference between a real Krishna lover and a lover of imaginations.
Questioner: What is the correct way?
Acharya Prashant: Why should I tell you? Let Krishna tell you. So go to the Gītā.
Questioner: It's not easy to decode it.
Acharya Prashant: I am talking to a Krishna lover, I suppose, right?
Questioner: Yeah, you are talking to a Krishna lover.
Acharya Prashant: And if I am talking to a Krishna lover, the Krishna lover should be the Gītā lover. And how is Gītā not easy to decode? The Bhagavat Purana is in Sanskrit; the Gītā is in Sanskrit. If you can read the Bhagavat Purana , why can't you read the Gītā ?
Questioner: I read it, but I didn't…
Acharya Prashant: You didn't comprehend it in the first attempt, right?
Questioner: Yeah, exactly.
Acharya Prashant: If you really love someone, how many times do you woo him?
Questioner: Till I don't attain him.
Acharya Prashant: So if you really love Krishna , how many times would you attempt the Gītā ?
Questioner: Till I get that ultimate thing from that.
Acharya Prashant: But you have not attempted. What does that mean?
Questioner: Sir, I was going from that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam part itself.
Acharya Prashant: Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam —we are talking of Krishna here. Please. We are not talking of stories about Krishna . We are talking of Krishna directly. Not something about him, right? Something that emerged right from him, which is the Gītā. Nothing comes close to the Gītā , right? We agree, it's an obvious thing.
So, if I really love Krishna , obviously I will be going through the Gītā 2000 times. And in the light of Gītā , I will then read Bhagavat Purana , Harivansh Purana , many other Puranas ; and then I will be able to understand the stories in the Puranic way. Without understanding the Gītā , how will you understand the Purana ?
Questioner: They also restricted—before reading Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam , try to learn Śrīmad Bhagavad Gītā first.
Acharya Prashant: No, not try. Trying is a very safe kind of excuse. I tried and I failed. No? You have to have Gītā before you even touch any of the Puranic stories. Otherwise, the stories will not make sense to you. You will just misinterpret all the stories.
Questioner: It's not good to personify Krishna through his stories, through his bal-līla. Is it not right?
Acharya Prashant: Kid, person is a technical term.
Questioner: It's a wrong term.
Acharya Prashant: No, no, it's not. Anything that you say is a technical term. You have to understand what a person means. Vyakti , person is a term. And the exact meaning of that term can be known only via Gītā , which is Vedānta. So, if I do not know what the person means, how will I know the implications of personification?
Questioner: It means my definition of person is wrong and which I get.
Acharya Prashant: Exactly. Our definition of person comes from the layman, from the social grapevine.
So, we say, “Oh, he's moving, he's a person.” “There are two persons standing there.” That's the way we define a person, right? Now that's not the way Gītā defines a person.
When you will understand how Gītā and Vedanta define a person, you will be very, very cautious of personifying Krishna . Do you know what Gītā says about persons? So here comes a shocker. A person is a myth. A person is a myth. So, if you have personified Krishna , you have turned Krishna to a myth. Now is that respect or love?
Questioner: No. But again, to imagine on that great extent, like you say…
Acharya Prashant: Imagination, now we will come to that word. That again is a technical word—Imagination. So, what is imagination?
Questioner: To imagine Krishna …
Acharya Prashant: No, no, no. What is imagination?
Questioner: To bring something to our mind level, to imagine it.
Acharya Prashant: And Krishna is way higher than your mind, right? Imagination is activity of the ego, subtle activity of the ego. The ego is the doer. Gross activity is seen in external action, for example, this action (picking up a thing), right? When the action is within the mind, you call that as thought or imagination or conceptualization or whatever. So, all that is just ego-centered, mental. Now Krishna by definition, is to be much higher than the mind, right? But if I imagine about Krishna , what have I done? I have dragged him down to my own level. And that is stubbornness of an evil order. I am saying, “I will not rise to the level of Krishna , instead I will drag him down to my level.” I think of myself as a person, I will not stop thinking of myself as a person. Instead, I will turn Krishna into a person so that he comes down to my level.
The fact is, even I am not a person. How can Krishna be a person? Even if you are not a person. It is a faulty assumption that you have. It is a fundamental illusion that you hold that you are a person. Even you are not a person, how can Krishna be a person?
Questioner: But it's a point to start, like in maths also we assume it.
Acharya Prashant: And your assumption is always subject to verification, right? And you never assume an answer. But you here have assumed something that is very fundamental. As a solution to a mathematics problem, do you ever write—let's assume the answer is 20? Right? So, the assumption has to be a very superficial thing and always available for verification. But as soon as you say, “Let's assume Krishna is a person,” that's no more an assumption. That becomes a fundamental thing you are starting from. You cannot do that.
Please see how the mind works. The ego wants security and continuity. The ego says, “I want to remain as I am. And I want to continue being as I am.” So, what will I do? I will not change; but I have been told that something called Krishna is great to have. So, what will I do? I will think of Krishna as somebody like me, a person. Whereas the entire purpose of the Gītā is to tell you that you are not a person. If you are not a person, how can Krishna be a person?
Now see, look at the whole tragedy in this. Krishna is telling you, “You are not a person.” And you are telling Krishna , “Krishna you are a person.” I don't know whether to call it tragic or comic. Krishna is telling you, “Dear daughter, you are not a person.” Well, you are not even a daughter, because if you are not a person, you can't have a gender. You are not a person. That's what Krishna is telling you. And what do we come up with? We come up with a rebuttal and that says, “No sir. I am obviously a person and to make it worse for you, even you are a person.”
So called Krishna lovers have done this to Krishna. And this entire orgy of imagination and picturization and narrative building and storytelling and this and that. Krishna is the one about whom not even a word can be said. Instead, we take perverse pleasure in narrating endless stories about Krishna .
Questioner: Then it's impossible to attain Krishna per se if I think in that sense.
Acharya Prashant: Remaining a person, obviously you cannot attain Krishna. If you continue to believe in your personhood, Krishna will remain elusive.
Questioner: Then it’s a bit difficult to forget my personhood.
Acharya Prashant: That's the entire objective of all spirituality and the Gītā. To help you emerge from this illusory narrative of your personhood. That's the very objective. To help you realize that you are not a person. As long as you are a person, you will keep suffering. Spirituality exists to alleviate suffering. If you are a person, you are suffering. But you want to remain a person and you are so adamant that you turn Krishna too into a person, just so that you can continue to suffer.
That's the wisdom of ego for you—the one thing that I cannot give up is my suffering. Suffering, because if I don't suffer, I feel I don't exist. So, there have to be some problems, some torture, a lot of pain here and there; only then I feel I exist.
Questioner: So, what’s the correct way, if I am talking one or two lines?
Acharya Prashant: Why should I tell you the way? Who is the ultimate?
Questioner: The ultimate is Krishna.
Acharya Prashant: So, the way told by Krishna is called Bhagavad-Gītā. So why should I tell you anything? Go to the Gītā.
Questioner: But in Gītā again, I am saying that there are various marks.
Acharya Prashant: So let's start with chapter 1, right? Chapter 1, right? Chapter 1.
Questioner: Should we not take that name or Naam group like I am taking?
Acharya Prashant: Why should I tell you? Let Krishna tell that to you. Chapter 1—Arjun speaks so much. And chapter 2, Krishna will tell you where all the names come from. Then you will be in a position to decide whether all this Naam , Līlā , Roop , Aakār , are they any good? You don’t have to go too far, Chapter 2 itself will settle the debate.
Questioner: So sir, don’t you want to attain Krishna ?
Acharya Prashant: I have the Gītā.
Questioner: Okay. Is it sufficient?
Acharya Prashant: If Krishna is ultimate, Gītā is sufficient. If Krishna is not ultimate, then you need 4-5 other things.
Questioner: Let me read Gītā first , then I will come to you again.
Acharya Prashant: You may not need to.
Questioner: Okay. Thank you, sir.
