Email: pkamath001@gmail.com

This book is written for advanced students and scholars of the Bhagavad Gita who are familiar with the text.

Brāhmanic shlokas are shown in saffron color; Upanishadic shlokas are shown in green color and Bhāgavatha shlokas are shown in blue color.

The meanings of Sanskrit words used in this book can be found in the section titled Essential Glossary, which follows the introductory chapter below. Those wishing to communicate with me should contact me by the above email and not by means of the blog as 99.9% of blog hits are junk mail and I delete them without reading them.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Did You Know?

1. That there are three distinct Gitas hidden in the text of the Bhagavad Gita promoting three distinct doctrines representing three distinct Dharmas -the Brāhmanic Gita, the Upanishadic Gita and the Bhāgavatha Gita?

2. That Brāhmanism rested on the doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma; Upanishadism rested on the doctrines of Knowledge of Brahman/Ātman and Yoga; and Bhāgavathism rested on the doctrines of Lord Krishna as the Parameshwara and Bhakthiyoga?

3. That the rise of heterodox Dharmas such as Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and Lokāyata was as a result of decadence of Brāhmanism due to it obsession with desire-driven sacrificial rites known as Kāmya Karma?

4. That the Original Gita was composed and inserted into the Mahābhārata by Brāhmanic loyalists to address the issue of Kshatriyas abandoning decadent Brāhmanism and joining heterodox Dharmas?

5. That Emperor Ashōka the Great, suffering from Shōkam (grief), Dwandwam (disturbed mind) and obsession over Karmaphalam (consequences) of war on the battlefield of Kalinga, detested by Brāhmanism as a fallen and renegade Kshatriya, was the model for Arjuna suffering from the same three maladies on the battlefield of Kurukshetra?

6. That Upanishadism as well as the Bhāgavathism came into being solely for the purpose of overthrowing Brāhmanism and replace it with their own respective Dharma?

7. That it is impossible to understand the true purpose and spirit of a given shloka without first identifying which Gita a given shloka belongs to and its correct context?

8. That Brāhmanic editors of the Bhagavad Gita resorted to extreme editing to destroy evidence of the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism?

9. That centuries later, the three great Achāryas -Shankarāchārya, Rāmānujāchārya and Madhvāchārya- who wrote lengthy commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, had no clue to the fact that most of the shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita had no relevance to Arjuna’s despondency on the battlefield whatsoever, or they chose not to acknowledge it?

10. That all the long-winded Brāhmanic commentaries come across nonsensical because they misinterpreted shlokas meant to overthrow Brāhmanism as if they were related to Arjuna’s predicament?

11. That it is impossible to understand the true purpose and spirit of the Bhagavad Gita without studying the history of ancient India side by side?

12. That the Bhāgavatha shloka 18:66: “Abandon all Dharma and surrender unto Me alone; I shall liberated you from all evil, do not grieve” is the secret code that encapsulates the Bhāgavatha revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism?

The Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita

An Introduction

0.1: The Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita

The Bhagavad Gita is considered as one of the most sacred texts of Hinduism. Brāhmanism (Orthodox Vedic Dharma), which pervades every atom of Hinduism, considers it as the Handbook of Brāhmanism. Brāhmanism rests on bedrock of the doctrines of Gunas and Karma, and it is held up by four pillars: sanctity of the Vedas, class system known as Varna Dharma, sacrificial rites known as Yajnas and supremacy of Brāhmins over the other three classes (Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras).

The truth is that far from being the Handbook of Brāhmanism, the Bhagavad Gita is the Manifesto of a grand Socio-religious Revolution initiated by the essentially rationalist Upanishadic sect and completed by the Bhāgavatha sect to overthrow every single aspect of Brāhmanism, and to establish in its place a New Dharma with exactly opposite doctrines and ideology. In fact, the sole purpose of both these sects was to get rid of Brāhmanism’s doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and also Varna, Jāti and Kula Dharmas and Yajnas rooted in them.

*Whereas Brāhmanism swore by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha sects considered these as the cause of three great maladies (Tāpatrya) of mankind, namely Shōkam (grief), Dwandwam (loss of wisdom and peace of mind) and obsession with earning Karmaphalam (fruits of Yajna) in action.

*Whereas Brāhmanism considered the Gunas as the irresistible force of Nature (Prakriti) within the body, which motivated all action (3:5, 27, 33; 18:59-60), the revolutionaries condemned them as the hotbed of all human weaknesses, such as lust, jealous rage, attachment and delusion, and therefore, they should be destroyed (3:28-29, 34, 41, 43).

*Whereas Brāhmanism considered doctrine of Karma, which is the cause of Samsāra, as insurmountable, the revolutionaries considered Samsāra as evil, and its bonds could be broken by means of Buddhiyoga (2:39-53) (Yoga of Reason).

*Whereas Brāhmanism considered the Vedas as the most sacred scriptures, the revolutionaries considered them as lower knowledge, which was useless to enlightened people (2:46, 52-53).

*Whereas Brāhmanism promoted class and caste system based on unequal distribution of the Gunas and Karma, the revolutionaries promoted equality of all people (5:18-19) by virtue of the fact that Brahman was the same in all.

*Whereas Brāhmanism indulged in mindless desire-driven Yajnas and rituals, which were the cause of Shōkam, Dwandwam and obesession with Karmaphalam, the revolutionaries condemned them as useless (3:17-18) and promoted Buddhiyoga by means of which one could overcome the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma in which were rooted these three maladies of mankind.

*Whereas Brāhmanism promoted supremacy of Brāhmins, the revolutionaries declared that in the eyes of the enlightened people they were not superior to animals and out-castes (5:18-19).

*Whereas Brāhmanism considered ritualists as wise, the revolutionaries considered them as ignorant, dullards, iditots, stupid, fools and worst among men.

Upanishadists create Brahman to counter Prakriti of Brāhmanism: The Upanishadic revolutionaries created the all-pervading Brahman, also known as Purushotthama -Superman- only for the purposes of countering the force of the of Prakriti. That is why they termed it Nirguna and declared it as having none of the negative Qualities of Prakriti. Whereas Prakriti manifested itself in the body as the Gunas, Brahman manifested itself in the body as its counter force Atmān. Whereas the Gunas expressed themselves by means of Action and the Senses, Atmān and Brahman were beyond Action and the Senses. Hence the oft-quoted Upanishadic phrase: Not this, not this. Brahman was the Superman -Purushotthama- whose only goal was offer itself as a greater force for one to take refuge in in order to escape the evil of the Gunas. They had no intention of creating a god. They gave man Buddhiyoga as the weapon to overcome the doctrine of Karma and chop down the rotten tree of Brahmanism (15:1-5).

Bhāgavathas create Supreme Lord: Later on the Bhāgavatha creed introduced the Supreme Lord -Parameshwara- only because Brāhmanism succeeded in neutralizing Brahman and Buddhiyoga (18:1-39) by means of anti-Upanishadic and pro-Brahmanic shlokas (17:1-4, 7-28). Parameshwara was conceived as a terrifying Super Force to destroy all aspects of Brāhmanism, as declared in the Ultimate Shloka of the Bhagavad Gita: 18:66: Abandon all Dharma and take refuge in Me alone, I shall liberate you from all evil (doctrine of the Gunas and Karma). Do not grieve (for the demise of Brāhmanism).

The Bhagavad Gita became the battlefield for a sectarian war: Hidden in the Bhagavad Gita is the story of the great sectarian war between the seers of decadent, ritual-addicted Brāhmanism on one side defending itself and the seers of the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha sects on the other, attacking it. This great sectarian war was fought with quills as arrows and palm leaves as bows. The Bhagavad Gita was their battlefield.

Brahmanism hid these revolutions from the public: The story of this revolution, and the great sectarian war that followed, was concealed by Brāhmanic loyalists by means of extreme editing of the text, and various other devious means. The result is that today the Bhagavad Gita comes across as incoherent, self-contradictory and bewildering even to scholars. Subsequently, various medieval Brāhmanic Achāryas such as Shankarāchārya, Rāmānujāchārya and Madhvāchārya wrote long-winded commentaries on the text, obfuscating, misinterpreting and misrepresenting the revolutionary shlokas. Modern Brāhmanic commentators have mindlessly followed suit. The net result is that it is now impossible to find a commentary that makes any sense, and which explains the true purpose and the true spirit of the Bhagavad Gita. This is the greatest religious fraud ever committed in the history of mankind, which has resulted in incalculable damage to India as well as humanity. We are all familiar with the scourge of untouchability and caste-based politics that has tainted and undermined democracy in India. We are yet to determine the role class and caste system played in the one thousand year long foreign rule and plunder of India.

The true purpose of the Bhagavad Gita was not only to dismantle the foundation of Brāhmanism -the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma- but also to knock down all four pillars of Brāhmanism -the Vedas (2:46, 52-53) the Varna Dharma (5:18-19), Yajnas (3:17-18) and superiority of Brāhmin class (5:18) over the other three classes.The word “evil” in the ultimate shloka18:66 refers to the evil of Brāhmanism’s doctrines of the Gunas and Karma from which arise the three great maladies of mankind: Shōkam, Dwandwam and obsession with Karmaphalam. These three maladies affected Arjuna in the Mahābhārata context and the Upper Classes of Brāhmanism in the context of historical processes of post-Vedic India.

The true spirit of the Bhagavad Gita was that all people are equal in the eyes of enlightened people (5:18-19), and there is no need for one to belong to any Dharma including Buddhism, Jainism, Brāhmanism and its sub-Dharmas such as Varna Dharma (class system), Jāti Dharma (caste system) or Kula Dharma (clan system).

This, in brief, is the Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

02. What necessitated the Upanishadic Revolution: The Historical Context

The revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism was necessitated by the gradual decadence of Brāhmanism in the post-Vedic period of 900-300 B. C. E. This was symbolized by its obsession with desire-driven sacrificial rites known as Kāmya Karma (18:2), performed contrary to the ordinances of scriptures (16:17, 23; 17:1) to gain Karmaphalam (fruits of Yajna) namely pleasure and lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter (2:43). Whereas the upper classes, made up of Kshatriyas and Brāhmins, suffered from severe Dwandwam (restlessness or fickleness of mind, mental fever) resulting from their lust for Karmaphalam, a large number of disgusted and dissenting Kshatriyas, suffering from Shōkam (grief) abandoned Brāhmanism to join rationalist, heterodox Dharmas such as Buddhism, Lokāyata and Jainism, which had arisen in revolt. An internal revolution was urgently needed to overthrow decadent Brāhmanism or to get rid of the turmoil and pacify the country. The Upanishadic seers led the charge. The revolution took place in two stages:

1. In the first stage of the revolution, the Upanishadic seers, mostly Kshatriya intellectuals and rationalists, elevated prince Krishna to the position of Upanishadic Guru. Blaming Kāma (selfish desire), Krōdha (jealous rage), Sangas (attachment) and Mōha (delusion) arising from the Gunas as the cause of Shōkam and Dwandwam, countered the doctrine of the Gunas with the doctrine of Knowledge of Atmān/Brahman (2:16-30, 39). By taking refuge in Atmān, one could overcome the power of the Gunas (3:43). Whereas the Gunas were the representative of Prakriti in the body, Atmān was the representative of all-pervading Brahman in the body. Atmān and Brahman were conceived as forces greater than the Gunas by virtue of the fact that they had none of the bad aspects of the Gunas.

Blaming the doctrine of Karma as the cause of Samsāra (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth), they replaced it with the doctrine of Buddhiyoga (2:39-53). What is Buddhiyoga? It is Yoga of Wisdom, Yoga of Reasoning. This was exactly opposite of Kāmya Karma, mindless rituals. Whereas Brāhmanic ritualists hankered for sense objects, a Buddhiyogi was detached from them. This detachment was known as Sanyāsa or Jnānayoga. Whereas the ritualists performed Yajna with the motivation to earn Karmaphalam, Buddhiyogi gave up all Karmaphalam in Yajna as well as all action. They called this Tyāga or Karmayoga. Any Yajna performed with even-mindedness associated with Buddhiyoga earned no Karmaphalam. In fact, they announced that Yajnas were useless to people who have conquered the Gunas and Karma and thus gained knowledge of Atmān (3:17-18). Thus they converted all Yajnas into Yoga.

Reforming Brāhmins and Kshatriyas: In the next step of the Upanishadic revolution, they elevated Guru Krishna to the position of Lord of beings (4:6-8) and they attempted to reform Kāma-ridden Brāhmins by giving them Jnānayoga, as per the atheistic Sānkhya philosophy (Chapter Four), and attempted to reform the greedy Kshatriyas by giving them atheistic Yoga Sutra-based Karmayoga (BG: Chapter Three).

Though the initial goal of the revolution appeared to be to restore the purity of Yajna (2:47-49; 4:15), its overall goal was to dismantle all aspects of Brāhmanic Dharma: The doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (2:45), the Vedas (2:46; 52-53), the Varna Dharma (5:18-19), Yajnas (3:17-18) and supremacy of Brāhmins over the other three classes (5:18).

The Upanishadic revolution failed because the Brāhmanic forces reinstated Brāhmanism in full force by adding pro-Guna and pro-Karma shlokas, and anti-Upanishadic shlokas to the Gita. A force greater than Brahman was now needed to topple Brāhmanism. At this critical point, Bhāgavathas entered the fray on the side of the Upanishadic revolutionaries.

2. In the second stage of the revolution, the Bhāgavatha seers replaced the doctrine of Knowledge of Atmān/Brahman with the doctrine of Lord Krishna as the earthly manifestation of the Great Lord -Parameshwara (9:22; 11:3). By combining Buddhiyoga with Bhakthi, they came up with the hybrid Bhakthiyoga (9:26-30). Lord Krishna declared that He is now the terrifying Super Power no one could resist. He declared His superiority over Prakriti (14:3). One could cross over the Gunas by surrendering to Him alone (7:14; 14:19), and break the bonds of Karma by dedicating all acts to Him (9:28) alone. Lord Krishna became the Guardian of the Sanatana Dharma (11:18) and the Eternal Dharma (14:27). The only goal of creating a Super Power -the Great Lord, Parameshwara, was to destroy Brāhmanism. Whereas Brahman was devoid of any positive attributes, Parameshwara was given infinite attributes for people to identify with (Chapters Seven and Ten). However, the Bhāgavathas vastly underestimated the evil genius of Brāhmanism. Brāhmanism made Lord Krishna their own, and continued their rituals even though Lord Krishna detested them passionately (11:48,53). Lord Krishna became the commodity of Brāhmanism to profit from.

0.3: Why is there a need for another commentary on the Bhagavad Gita?

Numerous commentaries have been written on the Bhagavad Gita over the past twelve hundred years, most of which were written by staunch supporters of Brāhmanism. It is common for Hindus to unquestioningly accept whatever explanation Brāhmanic commentator gave about the shlokas in the Gita regardless how nonsensical they appear. Either these commentators were not aware of the historical-revolutionary context of the Bhagavad Gita namely it was the manifesto of a revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism, or, if they did, they did not want anyone to know about it. Only 76 out of 700 shlokas in the current text are related to the Mahābhārata context, namely Arjuna’s Lamentation (grief) on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. I have posted these 76 shlokas in Chapter Five of this book. The remaining 624 shlokas are related to the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha revolutions to overthrow Brāhmanism and Brāhmanism’s counter-revolution. When one tries to interpret shlokas related to the revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism as related to Arjuna’s grief, the inevitable result is a lot of nonsense and confusion. For example, the Ultimate Shloka 18:66 as shown above has only the historical-revolutionary context. It has no relevance to Arjuna’s dilemma on the battlefield. In this shloka, Lord Krishna asks everyone to abandon all Dharma (religions) and take refuge in Him alone since, from now onwards, He is the Dharma (14:27). The phrase ‘all Dharmas’ stands for all religions prevalent in north India during the post-Vedic period, such as Brāhmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and myriard of other sects and their sub-sects. The phrase ‘all Dharmas’ includes sub-Dharmas of Brāhmanism such as Varna Dharma, Jāti Dharma and Kula Dharma. However, the word Dharma has many other meanings as well such as Law, righteousness, socially designated duty (Karma), discipline, and the like. If one applies any one of these alternative meanings to the phrase ‘all Dharmas’, this shloka means one should give up all Law, righteousness and performance of one’s bounden duty! This is exactly what Shankarāchārya does. The result is utter nonsense.

Shankarāchārya says: ” ‘All Dharma or acts of righteousness’ - Dharma (righteousness) here includes Adharma (unrighteousness) also. What is sought to be conveyed is the idea of freedom from all works (Dharma here means Karma).” He tries to back up this contrived claim by fourteen pages of long-winded, inscrutable explanations quoting various scriptures. In all the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, there is no call for anyone to give up righteous Karma though there is plenty of call to give up the unrighteous Kāmya Karma (2:47-49). No sensible religion will ever tell its followers to give up their righteous duty. In the Brāhmanic Gita, prince Krishna asks Arjuna to perform his Karma as per his Dharma (2:37). In the Upanishadic GIta, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to perform his obligatory Karma in order to attain Self-realization (3:19). In the Bhāgavatha Gita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to dedicate all Karma to Him in order to free himself from the bondage of Karma (9:27-28). His explanations cancel-put all the fundamental teachings of the Gita.

Rāmanujāchārya says: ‘Relinquishing all Dharmas means the complete relinquishment of the sense of agency, possessiveness, fruits, etc., in the practice of Karma, Jnāna and Bhakti Yogas in the way instructed, and realizing of Me as the agent, object of worship, the means and the end. It is beyond anyone’s comprehension how relinquishing sense of agency (the Gunas), possessiveness and fruits of action be considered as relinquishing all Dharma. He is clearly baffled by the Lord’s call to abandon all Dharma.

Madhvācharya says: ” ‘Dharmatyaga’ means renunciation of the fruits. Otherwise, how can one speak of the methods in battle? ‘By which the actions are renounced he comes to be known as the renouncer.’ Thus has it been explained.” He goes on to say, “Renouncing all other constraints of the Perennial Principles, one should attain one’s Self by whatever means.” It is clear from his commentary that he has no clue about this shloka’s true intent.

Let us now take up another well-known revolutionary shloka, which has been widely misinterpreted. In an effort to clean up Kāmya Karma, which Lord Krishna bluntly calls evil acts (3:37-40), and restore it to its original purity, Lord Krishna tells Brāhmanic ritualists performing Kāmya Karma: 2:47: Your entitlement is only to perform Karma (Yajna), but never at any time to its fruits (because, according to Prajāpati’s intent, the fruits belong to the Devas, 3:10-13); never should Karmaphalam be your motive (when you perform Yajna); nor become attached to inaction (like the heterodox monks who do nothing but beg).

Like the word Dharma, the word Karma also has multiple meanings -action, socially designated duty, Yajna, etc. All Brāhmanic commentators interpret this shloka by applying the meaning ‘action’ and as applicable to Arjuna’s dilemma. So the shloka is interpreted as meaning Arjuna has the entitlement to perform action (fight) but no right to its results (regain his kingdom)! Shankarāchārya even adds, “You have the right only to perform Karma and not to undertake the discipline of knowledge (Jnāna). While doing works, do not think you have the right to claim their fruits.” The great Achārya does not seem to realize that the only goal of all Yogas is to gain Knowledge (Jnāna) of Atmān. Telling Arjuna that he has no right to undertake discipline of Knowledge of Atmān while practicing Karmayoga (acting without claiming fruits) is utter nonsense. Lord Krishna says in 5:4-5: Children, not the wise, speak of knowledge and performance of action as different; he who is truly established in one obtains the fruits of both. The state reached by the Jnānis is also reached by the Karmayogis. He sees who sees Jnāna and Karmayoga as one. It is obvious that the true context of this shloka is historical-revolutionary and it has no applicability to Arjuna’s dilemma. Such nonsensical interpretation of these and other revolutionary shlokas has obfuscated their anti-Brāhmanic intent in the historical-revolutionary context as well as destroyed the very basis for waging the righteous war in the Mahābhārata context (2:31-32), namely to gain back what was taken away unjustly. Such meaningless explanations indicating total ignorance of the historical-revolutionary context abound in all Brāhmanic commentaries.

The need to protect Brāhmanism at any cost has resulted in explaining away anti-Brāhmanic shlokas or show them as pro-Brāhmanic, has resulted in long-winded commentaries by Brāhmanic authors, which have so thoroughly obfuscated the true intent and spirit of the Bhagavad Gita that now It is well nigh impossible for even erudite readers to know exactly what the shlokas meant to convey. Obfuscation, misrepresentation and misinterpretation are the rule rather than exception in all Brāhmanic commentaries. There is absolutely no need for another commentary on the Bhagavad Gita unless it interprets shlokas in their proper context, as exemplified by the two shlokas above; throws entirely new light on its contents, and provides unique insights into its true purpose, spirit and wisdom. This introductory chapter, revealing the Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita for the very first time ever, should justify the need for an entirely new way of looking at the sacred text.

0.4: The historical background: Brāhmanism corrupts Yajnas

The predominant social order (Dharma) of ancient north India was Brāhmanism or Orthodox Vedic Dharma. This Dharma rested on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. The doctrine of the Gunas said that all our actions are caused and colored by a mysterious force within us known as the Gunas (3:5), roughly translated as Natural Quality. They identified three Natural Qualities: Sattva (goodness, happiness and knowledge), Rajas (passion, greed, action), and Tamas (sleep, sloth and ignorance). The doctrine of Karma said that one’s actions caused consequences, known as Karmaphalam (fruit of action). The fruits of one’s actions accumulate and result in suffering or enjoyment here on earth and rebirth on earth in a higher or lower class hereafter (6:40-45). The Brāhmanic society was divided into four great classes based on the distribution of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (4:13). The upper classes of this society, consisting of Brāhmins of Sattva Guna and Kshatriyas of Rajas Guna, worshiped various Nature gods by means of sacrificial rites known as Yajna or Karma (17:4, 14).

Originally Yajnas were merely meant to thank various Nature-gods for their benevolence (3:10-11). They were not meant to fulfill one’s personal desire (Kāma) for power, wealth and heaven (2:43; 16:12-13), or to express jealous rage (Krōdha) against other kings (16:14-15). However, in the course of time, the nexus of the upper two classes, consisting of Brāhmins and Kshatriyas, “delighting in the flowery words disputing about the Vedas” (2:42) became attached (Sangas 2:62) to sense objects and “being deluded (Mōha 2:63) by the Vedic doctrines” (2:52) and drinking Soma (9:20), began to abuse Yajnas with the intention of gaining wealth, power and heaven (2:43). What were supposed to be humble “returning of debt” rituals dedicated to the gods became ostentatious, vulgar and drunken barbecue parties (16:12-20) dedicated to obtaining pleasure, power and heaven for themselves. Kāmya Karma thus became the ultimate symbol of decadence of Brāhmanism. Soon the epithets Kāma, Krōdha, Mōha, Sangas and Sankalpa came to be associated with Kāmya Karma of decadent Brāhmanism. Lord Krishna condemns these five epithets again and again in the Bhagavad Gita. Lord Krishna refers to these “wretched result-seekers” (2:49) as “doers of evil deeds” (4:8), meaning, Kāmya Karma, who were responsible for decadence of the Sanātana (ancient) Dharma (4:7).

Abandonment of Brāhmanism by Kshatriyas: Decadence of Brāhmanism was not without serious consequences to the post-Vedic Brāhmanic society. On the one hand, Brāhmins and Kshatriyas suffered severe Dwandwam (mental unrest, stress, 2:44; 16:12-24) due to their obsession with earning Karmaphalam by means of Kāmya Karma. (Even in the modern world we can see such ‘mental fever’ in people obsessed with making money.) On the other hand, large sections of Brāhmanic society, especially disgusted Kshatriyas, suffered Shōkam (grief) on account of loss of innocence and decadence of Brāhmanism, and began to abandon it to join heterodox (Nāstik) sects such as Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and Lokāyata (Chapter Four of this book). These ascetic adherents of heterodox sects were collectively known as Sramanas in contrast to Brāhmanas of Orthodox Brahmanism.The hierarchical Varna Dharma began to decline due to the rise of various egalitarian and rationalist Dharmas, which had arisen in revolt against the decaying Brāhmanism. A large number of aggrieved Kshatriyas joined heterodox Dharmas to become Sanyāsis or Bhikkus or Parivrājakas of those sects. These heterodox Dharmas did not believe in the Vedas, Yajnas, Varnāshrama Dharma and supremacy of Brāhmins. Hence their title Nastik.

In 298 B. C. E. Chandragupta Maurya, the ruler of the largest empire India had ever seen, abandoned Brāhmanism as well as his throne and became a Jain Sramana. He retired to a Jain hermtage in Sramana Belagola in what is today Karnataka state and starved himself to death in the manner of Jain Sramanas. Chandragupta’s son Bindusāra abandoned Brāhmanism and embraced Ajivika sect, which believed that everything in this world is predetermined. Ashōka the Great succeeded Bindusāra after a bloody struggle with his half-brothers. Around 262 B. C. E. Ashōka waged war against Kalinga, his neighbor to the east. The carnage was so terrible that Ashōka suffered from severe remorse and grief (Shōkam) and fickleness of mind on the battlefield and decried the consequences (Karmaphalam) of the same. He renounced all warfare and became the follower of Buddhist philosophy. He abandoned Brāhmanism and condemned most aspects of it, including animal sacrifices and othe rituals. He sent his emissaries throughout the length and breadth of India to spread the message of his brand of Dharma, which basically consisted of being a good person endowed with kindness, generosity, piety, love and compassion. He even sent messengers to many other countries to spread the message of the Buddha. He had his Edicts carved in stone in numerous rocks around the country.

Brāhmins hated Ashōka for abandoning theit Dharma and promoting Buddhism. They considered him as one suffering from a terminal case of Ahamkāra (egoism). Around 250 B. C. E., threatened with extinction, Brāhmanism came up with an ingenious method to shore up their sagging stature. In an attempt to stymie the abandonment, the pro-Brāhmanism lobby inserted into the ever-expanding and hugely popular text of the Mahābhārata the parable of an aggrieved Kshatriya prince, Arjuna. In a sense this parable was the “Policy Paper” of Brāhmanism during its most trying times. There is no doubt that they used a grieving Ashōka, paralyzed by Dwandwam and concerns about consequences (Karmaphalam) of war, as the model for Arjuna overwhelmed by Shokam, Dwandwam and worry about Karmaphalam of war before the battle began. In this parable, Arjuna, the quintessential Kshatriya prince of Brāhmanic society, wishes to abandon his Kshatriya Dharma (warrior class duty) due to Ahamkāra (egoism, delusion of “I” and “Mine”) and his friend prince Krishna, a staunch defender of Brāhmanic Dharma, reminds him of his duty as per the Varna Dharma rooted in the Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. The story of Arjuna’s Grief in the Mahābhārata epic is the Mahābhārata context of the Original Gita. The historical reason why the episode of Arjuna’s Grief was inserted into the text of the Mahābhārata epic is the historical context of the Original Gita. Using Arjuna as the symbol of renegade Kshatriyas such as Ashōka, the Brāhmanic seers sent a stern message to them, “Give up your Ahamkāra, remember your duty as per Varna Dharma and return to the fold of Brāhmanism.”

0.5: Three fundamental issues: Shōkam, Dwandwam and Karmaphalam

The Original Gita is about an episode in the Mahābhārata epic which takes place when the Great War was about to begin. At the prospect of killing Swajanam -”my own people” -: teachers, fathers, sons, maternal uncles, grandfathers- to regain his lost kingdom, prince Arjuna is paralyzed on the battlefiled by Shōkam, anticipatory grief arising from the impending death of his adversaries (1:47); Dwandwam (fickleness of mind and doubt arising from his attachment to his own people, 1:31, 32, 35, 37, 46); and by a massive panic attack (1:28-30) due to fear of incurring great sin (mahat pāpam) or bad Karmaphalam for killing his elders and family members (1:36, 45). Prince Krishna, his best friend, brother-in-law, and presently his charioteer, comes to his rescue. Obviously, Arjuna’s attachment to his own people, and his egoism of “I and mine” had made him forget the paramount Brāhmanic dictum: Duty as per Varna Dharma above all else.

[Note here that throughout the entire text of the Bhagavad Gita, these three issues -Shōkam, Dwandwam and Karmaphalam- are recurring themes. As we read above, these were the very three issues the people of post-Vedic society suffered from due to decadence of Brāhmanism. Whereas Brāhmanism considered these three issues as resulting from delusion of Ahamkāra (3:27; 18:59), the revolutionary Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha seers identifed these three issues as products of the Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. They gave their own doctrines (2:39-40; 18:64-66) -Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga in the first stage and Lord Krishna and Bhaktiyoga in the second- as replacement doctrines. Unfortunately, none of the three great Brāhmanic commentators -Shankarāchārya, Rāmānujāchārya and Madhvāchārya- comment on Chapter One of the Bhagavad Gita in which these three fundamental issues are first raised. They neither identify these three issues as the foundation on which the entire superstructure of the Bhagavad Gita was constructed, nor do they admit to the fact that the revolutionaries used the pretext to address these three issues to overthrow Brāhmanism.]

0.6: In the Original Gita prince Krishna enlightens prince Arjuna on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, and his duty as per Varna Dharma

In the Original Gita, prince Krishna reminds Arjuna that his obligation to fight (perform action, Karma) as per Kshatriya Dharma (warrior class duty as defined by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, 18:41, 43) surpasses all other personal considerations.

1. Addressing Arjuna’s Shōkam prince Krishna says that his behavior is shameful, impure, unmanly, heaven-barring and it is a sign of faint-heartedness not befitting a Kshatriya of noble class (2:2-3). Besides, his reluctance to fight might be misconstrued by his enemies and the society as cowardice and he could lose his honor (2:35-36) in their eyes. To the honored such dishonor is worse than death (2:34).

2. His Dwandwam (confusion, ambivalence, doubt) related to performing his socially obligatory duty (Kshatriya Dharma) -should I fight or just walk away? Should I kill them or should they kill me?- is caused by his ignorance of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma engendered by his Ahamkāra (egoism, 3:27). Arjuna’s assertion, “I will not fight and I will not kill my own people,” is the evidence of his Ahamkāra of “I” and “Mine.” So he should give up his Ahamkāra and regain his memory of his duty.

3. Addressing Arjuna’s worry about incurring sin -bad Karmaphalam- for killing his own people, prince Krishna says that when one performs faithfully and free from egoism his socially designated duty (Karma) as per Varna Dharma (rooted in the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma), he does not earn any bad Karmaphalam (18:17).

Prince Krishna then goes on to explain to Arjuna the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. Everyone, including Vedic gods, is subject to the force of the Gunas (18:40). Everyone’s class-designated duty (Varna Dharma) is dictated by his inherent Quality (Guna) assigned to his particular class (18:41). Man attains perfection (Samsiddhim) by faithfully adhering to the duty assigned to his class (18:45). The force of the Guna is so irressitible that everyone performs his duty helplessly under its dictates (3:5; 18:60), and it is pointless even to attempt to repress it (3:33). One’s egoism blinds him to the fact that the Gunas perform all action and so he deludes himself that he has power to direct his own actions (3:27) or refuse to do it (18:60). He should welcome the unsought opportunity to fight a righteous war which might give him heaven as a reward (2:31-32). Even if he decided out of egoism not to fight, the force of his Guna and doctrine of Karma would compel him to act (18:60). If he still refused to fight, forfeiting his class-designated duty he would suffer dishonor among his peers here on earth, and incur sin and go to hell hereafter (2:33). On the contrary, if he fought and won in battle he would enjoy life here on earth; if he died fighting in the line of duty he would gain heaven (2:37) hereafter. Prince Krishna then goes on to give Arjuna a crash course on the duty of each class as per Varna Dharma (18:40-45, 47-48; 18:59-60) rooted in the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma.

Thus reminded of the Brāhmanic dictum ‘Duty as per Varna Dharma above all else’ Arjuna regains his memory of his duty as per the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, overcomes his Shōkam, Dwandwam and fear of bad Karmaphalam, and resumes fighting (18:73). This, in a nutshell, is the Mahābhārata epic context of the Original Gita. The Original Gita was essentially a stern Brāhmanic lecture and it contains neither the thought-provoking Upanishadic dialogue nor the mind-numbing Bhāgavatha proselytizing. Prince Arjuna and prince Krishna (Achyutha 1:21; 18:73) remain equals throughout the entire Original Gita. Arjuna’s surrender is only to the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, and not to prince Krishna. He merely acknowledges prince Krishna’s grace (18:73). I have posted the entire 76 shloka long Original Gita in Chapter Five.

It is obvious from the above that the petty gods of Brahmanism were not real gods as they were subjects to the laws of the Gunas and Karma. Real God is not subject to any laws. Since the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma were considered as irresistible and beyond all other powers, the true Gods of Brahmanism were Prakriti manifesting itself as the Gunas in the body, and its Karma (action), manifesting itself as Yajna earning Karmaphalam. It is to destroy these twin gods that the Upanishads conceived Brahman and Buddhiyoga.

0.7: Evolution of the Original Gita

The current text of the Bhagavad Gita has only 76shlokas from the Original Gita in it. As we go along, we will study how the Original Brāhmanic Gita gradually evolved into the Upanishadic Gita and then the Brāhmanic Gita once again, and finally, the Bhāgavatha Gita. Hidden in the Bhagavad Gita is the story of how the Sanātana Dharma of India evolved from polytheism (Indra, Vāyu, Agni, etc.) of Brāhmanism to monism (Brahman) of Upanishadism to montotheism (Lord Krishna/Parameshwara) of Bhāgavathism and finally back to polytheism (Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, Ganesha, etc.) of Hinduism. One can deduce from this that most of the shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita have absolutely nothing to do with Arjuna’s predicament on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. The real battle of the Bhagavad Gita was fought on palm leaves. On that battlefield, the allied forces of the reform-minded Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha seers fought a theological battle with their orthodox Brāhmanic cousins for the soul of the Sanātana Dharma. Even though the allied forces won the battle of the Gita as evidenced by the Original Gita’s new title ‘The Bhagavad Gita-Upanishad’, they lost the war for the soul of the Sanātana Dharma as evidenced by the fact that the clever Brāhmamic seers and Acharyas succeeded by means of interpolations of pro-Brāhmanic shlokas, extreme editing and obfuscating and verbose commentaries in converting the very manifesto of the anti-Brāhmanic revolution into the handbook of Brāhmanism! Such is the genius of Brāhmanic mind!

0.8: The 700 piece jigsaw puzzle

Our goal is to unravel the whole mystery surrounding the riddle of the Bhagavad Gita. Imagine a jigsaw puzzle box holding 700 pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Originally there were 64 pieces in the box. Shortly thereafter Brāhmanic loyalists added twelve shlokas to it, bringing the total to 76. Later on various people kept adding more pieces into that box. The person claiming ownership of the box insists that all the pieces in the box are original. However, no matter what tricks one indulges in, one is not able to assemble them to make one coherent picture. However, one can make perfect sense of the whole picture if one recognizes the fact that the 700 pieces belong to three different boxes. To assemble these 700 pieces into a sensible and coherent picture, one must first identify the pieces belonging to the three different boxes. Then he must retrace by deductive logic the historical processes by which they came to be in one box. The historical context -who put in what pieces into the box, when and why?- is the missing jigsaw piece that connects the pieces from three different boxes to make sense of the final picture. Without that missing connecting piece, it is not possible to make sense of the whole picture.

0.9: The Rule of Three

Likewise, it is impossible for one to understand the true purpose and spirit of the shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita unless one recognizes that there are three distinct Gitas -Brāhmanic, Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha- embedded in the text of the Bhagavad Gita representing three distinct Dharmas resting on three distinct pairs of doctrines: Brāhmanism resting on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma; Upanishadism resting on the doctrines of Knowledge of Atmān/Brahman; and Bhāgavatha Dharma, resting on the doctrines of Lord Krishna as the avatāra of Parameshwara and Bhaktiyoga. Even though Brāhmanic lobby claims that the Bhagavad Gita was composed in one stretch by the great sage Vyāsa Mahārishi, careful analysis of the text reveals that it was successively composed by the seers of three distinct Dharmas (sects) during three different post-Vedic periods between 3rd and 1st century B. C. E. All the three Gitas are geared toward addressing the three issues raised by Arjuna: Shōkam, Dwandwam and Karmaphalam. Brāhmanism recognized three Gunas: Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. To make proper sense of the Bhagavad Gita one must clearly understand the contextual meaning of three words relevant to Brāhmanism : Varna, Karma and Guna; three words relevant to Upanishadism: Atma, Brahman, Yoga; three words relevant to Bhāgavathism: Ishwara, Bhakti and Mōksha. There are three Yogas opposing the three Gunas: Jnāna, Karma and Bhakthi. In this book we will study commentaries on selected shlokas by the three great midieval Brāhmanic commentators: Shankarāchārya, representing Advaita creed; Rāmānujāchārya, representing Vishistādvaita creed, and Madhvāchārya, representing Dvaita creed. All these three commentators seemed to be completely unaware of the historical-revolutionary context of the Bhagavad Gita, as evidenced by their nonsensical commentaries, or, if they did, they cleverly avoided acknowledging it. All three of them promoted Brāhmanism at the expense of the true purpose, spirit and wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita.

1.0: Through the prism of dispassionate scrutiny

If we pass the Bhagavad Gita through the prism of dispassionate scrutiny, three distinct Gitas emerge as shown below. These three distinct Gitas were superimposed on, and intricately interwoven with, each other by means of clever and extreme editing by some ancient Brāmanic seers. Without identifying the respective shlokas of these three distinct Gitas and without understanding their specific purposes in the historical contexts -who added which shlokas and why?- it is impossible to make proper sense of the Bhagavad Gita. In other words, we need to study the evolution of the Original Gita into the Bhagavad Gita in the context of the Upanishadic and the Bhāgavatha revolutions to overthrow Brāhmanism.

A. Brāhmanism, the most ancient social order of Aryan society, rested on the ancient doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (3:5, 27, 33;18:59-60). Its four pillars were the sanctity of ancient, orally transmitted scriptures known as the Vedas, sacrificial rites known as Yajna or Karma (”the Works”) dedicated to various Vedic gods, the hierarchical class system known as Varna Dharma, which divided the society into four great classes (Brāhmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra) and supremacy of Brāhmin, the priestly class, over the other three classes. In its pure form Brāhmanism worshiped various nature-gods -Indra, Agni, Vāyu, etc.-by means of sacrificial rites known as Karma or Yajna (14:12; 17:4, 14). By means of these selfless Yajnas they returned their debt of gratitude (RNa) to the gods for their benevolence, mostly the rains for their crops (3:10-14). In a sense Yajna was a “Return of Debt” ritual (3:10-12).

In its corrupted form, the upper classes of Brāhmanism performed desire-driven Yajnas, known as Kāmya Karma (18:2), to gain wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter (2:43) for themselves. By claiming Karmaphalam for themselves, which should have gone to the gods, they became thieves (3:12). This type of Yajna promoted the cycle of birth, death and rebirth known as Samsāra (9:20). Kāmya Karma had four basic elements in it: desire (Kāma) for, attachment (Sangas) to, and possessiveness (Mōha) of, sense objects; and Sankalpa (desire or design) for fruits of Yajna known as Karmaphalam. A fifth element, jealous rage (Krōdha) against enemy kings, often motivated Kāmya Karma.

Brāhmanism not only promoted the hierarchical Varna Dharma (class system), but also promoted Jāti Dharma (caste system) and Kula Dharma (clan system) (1:38-44). The pernicious caste system that divides India today into thousands of castes vying for supremacy over each other, and caste-based politics that is ruining India today, are the curse of Brāhmanism. Brāhmanism hated Varnasankara, admixture of classes resulting from upper class women marrying lower class men (1:41; 3:24). The tradition of frowning upon inter-caste marriage even in modern India is rooted in this ancient Brāhmanic taboo.

The Brāhmanic shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita can be recognized by the fact that they promote all aspects of Brāhmanism: The doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (3:5, 27, 33; 18:59-60), the Vedas (17:23-24), the Varnāshrama Dharma (18:41-44), Yajnas (17:1-4; 7-28) and supremacy of Brāhmins (17:14; 18:42). In the Bhagavad Gita, their Yajnas are dedicated to Vedic Devas (4:12; 17:4, 14) and never to Lord Krishna. They believed in life hereafter (18:42). Chapter Two of this book deals with Brāhmanism in greater detail.

The Wisdom of the Brāhmanic Gita: When a person performs, free from egoism, his duty designated to him by his Varna Dharma, he does not suffer Shōkam and Dwandwam; nor does he incur sin or bad Karmaphalam. By faithfully and helplessly performing one’s Varna Dharma-designated duty, one earns wealth, pleasure, honor and perfection here on earth and heaven hereafter.

B. Upanishadism rested on the doctrines of the Knowledge of Brahman/Atmān and Buddhiyoga (2:39-40). Its two pillars were Sanyāsa (detachment from sense objects) and Tyāga (giving up fruits of action) (18:2). This Dharma evolved mainly as a reaction to corruption and decadence of Brāhmanism. This Dharma promoted equality of all people and rejected the hierarchical class system based on the fact that the same Supreme Deity -Brahman- resides in the heart of all living beings in the form of Atmān (5:18-19). Upanishadism “worshiped” Atmān/Brahman, by means of Buddhiyoga (Sanyāsa and Tyāga) to achieve Bliss (Sukham) here on earth (5:21) and attain Nirvāna (liberation of Atmān from Samsāra -the cycle of birth, death and rebirth- and its final merger with Brahman) hereafter (6:15). In a true sense, Yoga in not a form of worship, but a means to liberate oneself from the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. The end result is merger of Atmn with Brāhman.

Upanishadism attempted to shift the focus of the ancient Dharma from ritualism to spiritualism. Upanishadism declared that Kāma, Sangas, Mōha and Krōdha were products of the doctrine of the Gunas (3:37); and Sankalpa (design of Yajna for fruits or gain) was promoted by the doctrine of Karma. These common human weaknesses rooted in the Gunas induced people to commit evil acts (3:37-40), such as Kāmya Karma, and suffer self-ruin due to loss of wisdom (2:62-63). They declared that both these Brāhmanic doctrines merely promoted misery here on earth (2:66) and incurred sin (3:13) resulting in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth, known as Samsāra, hereafter. For one to free himself from pain, decay and the cycle of death and rebirth and attain immortality one must cross over the Gunas (14:20). Upanishadism considered the ritual-centered Vedas as “lower knowledge” and declared that to the one who has been enlightened by the knowledge of Atmān, Vedas are useless (2:46). They also said that the Vedas, Yajnas (sacficial rites), Dāna (charity) and Tapas (austerity) are useless in attaining Brahman (8:28). They considered Vedic ritualists as thieves, unwise, ignorant, dullards and fools. In the Bhagavad Gita, they gave Knowledge of Atmān and Brahman (Jnānayoga, Sanyāsa, detachment from sense objects) to Brāhmins (Chapter Four of BG) because they believed that Brāhmins had lost touch with that knowledge due to their entanglement with gold, cows and other sense objects which they received as fees for performing Kāmya Karma. They gave Karmayoga (Tyāga, renouncing fruits of action) to Kshatriyas (Chapter Three of BG) because they believed that their attachment to fruits of action (victory, progeny, power, pleasure, heaven) led to their obsession with evil acts (Kāmya Karma).

Brāhmanic seers did everything within their power to conceal the anti-Brāhmanic message in the Upanishads. They added into the Upanishads pro-Brahmanic and irrelevant stuff, made them part of sacred Shrutis, Vedic literature titled Vedanta, and declared them as top secret -Rahasya. It is this Top Secret that was finally revealed to the general public by the revolutionaries in Gita, a Smriti, which can be read and listened to by people of all classes.

The Upanishadic shlokas can be recognized in the Bhagavad Gita by the fact that in them Brahman/Atmān is the Supreme Deity (4:24), and they mercilessly condemn all aspects of Brāhmanism (2:41-53; 8:28; 15:1-5). Lord Krishna, taking over the title of ‘Lord of beings’ from Prajāpati of Brāhmanism, identifies Brahman as the Supreme Deity (5:20-21). In the Upanishadic GIta He is merely the instrument to establish Upanishadic Dharma (4:6-8) centered on Brahman, and to reform corrupt Brāhmins (Chapter Four of BG) and Kshatriyas (Chapter Three of BG). Chapters Seven and Eight of this book deal with Upanishadism in greater detail.

The Wisdom of the Upanishadic Gita: When a person, deluded by his Guna-rooted weaknesses, becomes entangled with sense objects (wealth, power, pleasure and heaven), his mind becomes disconnected from his wisdom (Buddhi) and he commits evil acts and destroys himself. When a person gives up his (Guna-rooted) desire (Kāma) for, attachment (Sangas) to and possessiveness (Mōha) of these sense objects, and when he gives up selfish motive (Sankalpa) and jealous rage (Krōdha) in his actions, his mind reconnects with Buddhi and becomes steady (Buddhiyukta), and he becomes immune to Shōkam and Dwandwam (attains Bliss) here on earth and he is liberated from all Karmaphalam hereafter (attains Nirvāna). A person who has achieved such a steady state of mind conducive to Self-realization is said to be Sthithaprajnya.

C. Bhāgavatha Dharma rested on the doctrine that Lord Krishna is the avatāra of Parameshwara (Supreme Lord) and Bhakti (personal devotion) as the mode of worship (9:26-33; 18:64-66). When the Upanishadic Gita was taken over by the Bhāgavatha Dharma, it replaced Brahman of the Upanishads with Parameshwara (10:12; 11:3, 18); and it put forward Bhaktiyoga as the mode of worship by combining Bhakti with Buddhiyoga. Lord Krishna became the Ultimate Dharma (14:27). The goal of Bhaktiyoga was to attain Peace (Shanti, 9:31) here on earth (by means of liberation from the doctrine of the Gunas) and Mōksha (liberation from doctrine of Karma) hereafter (9:28; 12:7; 18:66). In contrast to class and caste-obsessed Brāhmanism, Bhāgavathism promoted equality of all people who took refuge in Him regardless of his class, caste or clanship (9:27-33), and declared that one cannot attain Lord Krishna by means of the study of the Vedas, performance of sacrificial rituals, practice of austerity and giving charity (11:48, 53). Bhāgavathism considered Vedic ritualists as conceited, demomiacal and worst among men. The main goal of Bhāgavatha Dharma as well as the Bhagavad Gita was to demolish all Dharmas of the land including Brāhmanism and its sub-Dharmas, and all heterodox Dharmas and replace them with Lord Krishna Himself as announced by Lord Krishna in 18:66: Abandon all Dharma and surrender unto Me alone; I shall liberate you from all sin, do not grieve.

The Bhāgavatha shlokas can be recognized in the Bhagavad Gita by the fact that in them Lord Krishna identifies Himself as the Supreme Deity and Bhaktiyoga as the mode of His worship. Chapter Fourteen of this book deals with Bhāgavathism in greater detail.

We will read in a separate chapter how Brāhmanic seers and commentators carefully concealed the Bhāgavatha revolution by means of extreme editing and obfuscating commentaries while praising Lord Krishna to the skies.

The Wisdom in the Bhāgavatha Gita: When a person surrenders to Lord Krishna alone and no one else he overcomes the force of the Gunas, becomes immune to Shōkam and Dwandwam and attains Shanthi (peace of mind) here on earth. When he dedicates all his deeds to Him alone, he earns no Karmaphalam and so he attains liberation from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth hereafter (attains Mōksha).

1.1: Brāhmanism warns against class admixture

The parable of grief-stricken Arjuna in the Mahābhārata did not stop the exodus of Kshatriyas from Brāhmanism. As more people defected to heterodox Dharmas, Brāhmanic seers added more pro-Brāhmanic shlokas to the Original Gita. 1. They issued dire warning against Varnasankara -admixture of classes- resulting from destruction of time honored traditions related to Varna (class), Jāti (caste) and Kula (clan) Dharmas (1:38-44). They warned that people responsible for Varnasankara would go to hell (1:44). 2. They declared that the upper classes were suprerior and worthy of worship even if they were desirous of wealth (2:5). 3. They inserted shloka 2:4 in which Arjuna threatens to become a beggar (read, a Bhikku) and in response prince Krishna warns that death while performing one’s own Dharma imperfectly was better than death while performing another’s Dharma perfectly because the practice of another’s Dharma was full of fear of going to hell (3:35; 18:47). However, the decadence of Brāhmanism was so deep and systemic that its decline continued and an internal revolution was urgently needed to save what little was left of it or to overthrow it entirely, and establish a New Dharma in its place based on entirely new set of doctrines.

1.2: Basic thesis of the Upanishadic revolution

The Upanishads were composed mostly by Kshatriya philosophers during highly turbulent times of post-Vedic India. They basically saw the world as a miserable place and being born again and again as more of a curse than a blessing. They were disgusted by the turmoil in the society brought on by the greed and corruption of the upper classes. The Upanishadic seers shrewdly noticed that the upper classes of the Brāhmanic society of the post-Vedic India suffered from the same three maladies Arjuna suffered in the Gita episode of the Mahābhārata: Shōkam, Dwandwam and obsession with Karmaphalam. They concluded that the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma were to be blamed for these three maladies in the society. The Upanishadic seers declared that desire (Kāma) for, attachment (Sangas) to and possessiveness (Mōha) of sense objects, such as wealth. pleasure and power here on earth were rooted in the doctrine of the Gunas; and desire (Sankalpa) to obtain heaven hereafter by means of Yajna was rooted in the doctrine of Karma. When these weaknesses grip one’s mind, it becomes disconnected from Wisdom (Buddhi) leading to Dwandwam (unsteadiness, restlessness, fickleness) (2:14, 41, 44), evil acts (3:37-40) such as Kāmya Karma and finally to self-ruin (2:62-63). Obsession with sense objects also leads to disconnection of mind from Knowledge of Atmān, leading to Shōkam. Therefore, if one wishes to overcome Shōkam and Dwandwam, he must recognize the Gunas as the enemy (3:28, 39) and he must slay them (3:41) or cross over them (2:45; 14:19-27).  One must give up Sankalpa for power, wealth and heaven when he performs any action if he wishes not to earn Karmaphalam (6:1-4). Performing pompous Yajnas to earn wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter (2:43) earns one Karmaphalam leading to perpetuation of the cycle of birth, death and rebirth (Samsāra) (9:20-21). If one wishes to avoid being born again and again on this miserable earth, he must perform Yajna without Dwandwam, meaning without desire or aversion, pleasure or pain, and gain or loss (2:51), and without Sankalpa for fruits. The main goal of all Yajna must be to liberate oneself from the debt to the gods for their benevolence (4:15), and not for any personal gain of Karmaphalam (2:47).

How can one overcome the irressitible force of the Gunas and inevitable destiny of Karma? The Upanishadic seers put forward Atmān as the force greater than the Gunas (3:43). Atmān is the immanent part of Brahman, the all-pervasive Universal Spirit. They gave Buddhiyoga as the tool to counter Guna-rooted weaknesses such as desire, attachment, delusion and jealous rage; and to counter desire for fruits in action (2:48-51) rooted in the doctrine of Karma. The Sanyāsa part of Buddhiyoga countered the desire, attachment and delusion part of Kāmya Karma (18:2). The Tyāga part of Buddhiyoga countered the desire for fruit part of Kāmya Karma (18:2). Buddhiyoga thus became the tool for one to overcome Dwandwam, by becoming Buddhiyukta, steady-minded (2:48-50); to overcome Shōkam by gaining the knowledge that Atmān is deathless (2:25); and to avoid earning Karmaphalam (and to attain Nirvāna, 2:51) by performing Yajna without Sankalpa. Buddhiyoga leads to Evenness, Equilibrium and Equanimity of mind.

0.13: The first stage: The Upanishadic revolution

The first stage of the revolution was spearheaded by the Upanishadic seers. They used the Gita as the vehicle to further their Dharma and retained prince Krishna as their spokesperson to initiate their revolution. Whereas in the Original (Brāhmanic) Gita Arjuna symbolized Kshatriyas abandoning Brāhmanism, in the Upanishadic Gita Arjuna, suffering from Shōkam, Dwandwam and fear of Karmaphalam, became the metaphor for the the Brāhmanic upper classes suffering from Dwandwam due to desire for Karmaphalam; and for the defectors who suffered from Shōkam due to the decadence of Brāhmanism. The brilliant Upanishadic seers used code words and phrases, metaphors, simile, double entendre, and words with multiple meanings to bring about their revolution.

The Upanishadic revolution took place in four steps

A. The first step of the Upanishadic revolution: They reintroduced Shōkam to show that the two rewards of Brāhmanism did not offer remedy for it: 2:8: I do not find any remedy to the Shōkam that is drying up my senses, even  if I were to gain unrivalled prosperity and power here on earth and sovereignty over gods hereafter. They reintroduced Dwandwam to show that attachment to sense objects causes the mind to suffer from it: 2:6: Whether we should conquer them or they should conquer us -I do not know. 2:7: My nature is weighed down with the taint of feeble-mindedness; my mind is confused as to my duty. They reintroduced Karmaphalam: 2:6: These very sons of Dhritharashtra stand before us, after slaying whom we should not care to live (because of pervasive sense of sinfulness).

On the pretext of resolving Arjuna’s Shōkam, Dwandwam and concerns about bad Karmaphalam, the the Upanishadic revolutionaries addressed these very three issues manifest in the post-Vedic society resulting from decadence of Brāhmanism. Their solution was to replace Brāhmanism with Upanishadism. They countered the doctrine of the Gunas (desire and attachment) which causes Shokam and Dwandwam with the doctrine of Knowledge of Atmān/Brahman; and replaced the doctrine of Karma (gaining Karmaphalam by action) with doctrine of Nishkama Karma rooted in Buddhiyoga (2:39-40). Whereas the goal of Kāmya Karma and Brāhmanism was wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter, the goal of Yoga and the Upanishadic Dharma was to attain Bliss (Sukham) here on earth and Nirvāna (end of Samsāra) hereafter.Here is the outline of the Upanishadic revolution:

1. Prince Krishna becomes Guru Krishna: The Upanishadic seers elevated prince Krishna to the position of an Upanishadic Guru: 2:7: Arjuna says “I surrender unto you. Make me your pupil, correct me and tell me for certain what is good for me. Now Guru Krishna could impart to Arjuna, now his disciple, the Knowledge of Atmān in the Upanishadic format: 4:34: Seek that enlightenment (Knowledge of Atmān/Brahman) by prostrating, by questions and by service; the wise, the seers into the True (Brahman) will instruct you in that knowledge.

2. Guru Krishna imparts Knowledge of Atmān to counter Shōkam: Guru Krishna then instructed Arjuna (and the Brāhmanic society) with the theoretical Knowledge of Atmān in shlokas 2:11-30: Atmān is eternal, deathless, indestructible, immutable, unthinkable, and immeasurable. Because It cannot be slashed by weapon, wetted by water, blown away by wind and burnt by fire, It is a force superior to the Vedic gods Indra, Varuna, Vayu and Agni. Atmān is a force greater than the Gunas (14:19). 2:25: This Atmān (unlike the Gunas) is said to be unmanifested, unthinkable and immutable. Therefore, knowing as such, you should not suffer Shōkam.

3. Guru Krishna imparts Buddhiyoga to counter Dwandwam and Karmaphalam: Guru Krishna followed this theoretical knowledge by instructions in the practice of Buddhiyoga which would counter Dwandwam as well as Karmaphalam, while simultaneously condemning Brāhmanism’s Kāmya Karma in the same shlokas, a classic example of double entendre. Buddhiyoga would break the bonds of Karma. 2:39-40: This (Knowledge of Atmān) has been declared to you as per Sānkhya philosophy (in shlokas 11-30). Hear now how (acting with your mind) yoked to Buddhi you can break the bonds of Karma (avoid earning Karmaphalam). Having declared the two doctrines of the Upanishadic Dharma, Guru Krishna compares it with Brāhmanism: 2:40: In this (practice of this Dharma), there is no loss of effort (since no fruit was desired, and so there is no Shōkam); nor is there any adverse effect (such as Dwandwam and Karmaphalam since there was no desire for and attachment to sense objects). Even a little practice of this Dharma (resting on the doctrines of Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga, in contrast to Brāhmanic Dharma) would protect one from great fear (of going to hell for abandoning Brahmanism).

4. Guru Krishna attacks Vedic ritualists: Then Guru Krishna came out swinging at Brāhmanic ritualists and he lambasted them as infirm in mind (2:41), ignorant (2:42), desire-ridden and addicted to pompous sacrificial rites with the goal of earning Karmaphalam such as power and pleasure here on earth and heaven hereafter (2:43), and fickle in mind due to their attachment to sense objects (2:44). He compared the Buddhiyukta (steady-minded) Yogi to Dwandwa-ridden ritualists:

2:41-44: To the one (Yogi) whose mind has been steadied by Buddhiyoga there is only one goal (attaining the Bliss of Atmān). Many branching and endless are the goals (lordship, wealth, heaven, etc.) of irresolute in mind (Dwandwa-ridden Vedic ritualists). The ignorant (ritualists who are deluded by the Gunas), who delight in the flowery words disputing about the Vedas, say that there is nothing other than this (attaining worldly pleasures by Kāmya Karma). They are desire-ridden, who hold attainment of heaven (hereafter) as the goal of birth and its activities; and who are addicted to specific sacrificial rites bringing pleasure and lordship (here on earth). There is no steadiness of mind for them (the Dwandwa-ridden Vedic ritualists), who are entangled with pleasure and power and whose wisdom is stolen away.

Guru Krishna warned them how their attachment to wealth and power leads to ruin: 2:62-63: Obsessing over the sense objects, man develops attachment (Sangas) to them; from attachment comes desire (Kāma); from desire sprouts forth anger (Krōdha); from anger proceeds delusion (Mōha); from delusion confused memory (Smritivibhrama); from confused memory the ruin of Buddhi; due to the ruin of Buddhi he perishes.

5. Guru Krishna replaces the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma: Guru Krishna then said that for one to become enlightened, he must become free from the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma: 2:45: The Vedas enumerate the three Gunas. You must cross over these three Gunas, O Arjuna. Be free from Dwandwam (by giving up attachment); be established in goodness (by giving up Guna-rooted weaknesses such as Kāma and Krōdha); do not be concerned about getting (give up Sankalpa for Karmaphalam) and keeping (give up Mōha for sense objects); instead be centered in the Atmān.

6. Guru Krishna downgrades the Vedas: Reflecting the Upanishadic sentiment that one cannot gain Atmān/Brahman by the Vedas, Guru Krishna declared: 2:46: To an enlightened Brāhmin (one who has attained Atmān/Brahman), all the Vedas are as useful as a well when there is flood of water everywhere! 2:52-53: When your Buddhi transcends the taint of delusion (engendered by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and Kāmya Karma rooted in them), then shall you be disgusted by Shruthis yet to be heard as well as Shrutis you have already heard (the three Vedas). When your Buddhi, disregarding Vedic doctrines (of the Gunas and Karma), is firmly steadied in equilibrium (by Buddhiyoga), then you shall achieve the transcendental state of Yoga (Samādhi).

7. Guru Krishna condemns Kāmya Karma: Recommending that all Yajnas be performed in the spirit of Buddhiyoga (2:47-53), meaning without Dwandwam (engendered by attachment to sense objects) and desire or design (Sankalpa) for Karmaphalam, Guru Krishna laid down the Law: 2:47: Your entitlement is only to perform Karma (Yajna) and never to its fruits (for fruits belong to the Devas as per 3:10-12); never be motivated by Karmaphalam (when you perform Yajna), and never become attached to inaction either (do not become a monk of heterodox Dharma). He recommended that all Yajnas be performed with evenness of mind engendered by Buddhiyoga, to avoid suffering Dwandwam and earning Karmaphalam: 2:48-49: Perform Karma (Yajna), O Dhananjaya, being fixed in Buddhiyoga, renouncing attachments (to power, wealth, heaven, etc.), and steady-minded (without Dwandwam). Equilibrium in success and failure (being steady-minded) is verily Yoga. Motivated Karma (Kāmya Karma) is, O Dhananjaya, far inferior to that performed with equanimity of mind (”If I get it, fine; if I don’t, that is fine, too”) engendered by Buddhiyoga. Take refuge in Buddhiyoga (when you perform Yajna). Wretched are those (ritualists) who hanker for Karmaphalam (when they act/perform Yajna).

In this shloka, the epithet “Dhananjaya”, meaning conqueror of wealth, is the code word for all Kshatriyas.

8. Guru Krishna explains how acting in the spirit of Buddhiyoga one frees himself from the bondage of Karma: 2:50-51: The one whose mind is stabilized by Buddhiyoga frees himself from good as well as bad Karmaphalam while acting. Yoga is skillful action (which avoids side-effects such as Karmaphalam). The wise, acting in the spirit of Buddhiyoga frees himself from the fetters of births (because he does not earn any Karmaphalam when he acts) and verily goes to painless state (attains Nirvāna)

B. The second step of the Upanishadic revolution:

1. Guru Krishna is promoted to Lord of beings: The Upanishadic seers now elevated Guru Krishna to the position of Lord of beings (4:6), -a position equal to that of Prajāpati, the Lord of beings of Brāhmanism- to establish the Upanishadic Dharma (4:7-8); to protect it from being destroyed by Brāhmanic zealots; to punish performers of Kāmya Karma (4:8) and to reform them. When Lord Krishna declared: 4:7: Whenever there is decay of Dharma and rise of Adharma I take birth, He was referring to the decadence of Brāhmanism and rise of Adharma as a consequence thereof. When Lord Krishna said in 4:8: For the protection of the good (Sādhus), He was referring to the protection of the good people in the fold of Brāhmanism who wanted to preserve its purity. When He said: and destruction of doers of evil deeds, He was referring to Vedic ritualists who had corrupted Brāhmanism by indulging in Kāmya Karma (evil deeds). When He said in the same shloka, for the establishment of Dharma I am born again and again, He was referring to the fact that He was born to establish the Upanishadism, which was free from Kāma, Krōdha, Sangas, Mōha and Sankalpa, to replace Brāhmanism, which was infected with these very maladies . #4 below further confirms this.

2. Lord Krishna explains the original purpose and method of Yajna: Explaining that the original purpose of the Yajnas was for Devas and people to cherish each other (3:10-11), Lord Krishna scolds the ritualists indulging in Kāmya Karma: A thief verily is he who enjoys what is given by the Devas (rains, etc.) without returning anything to them (3:12). The good who eat only the remains of Yajna (and give the main portion to the gods) are freed from all sins (bad Karmaphalam); but the sinful ones who cook food only for themselves (who perform Yajna only for power, wealth, pleasure and heaven), they verily eat sin (earn bad Karmaphalam) (3:13). Scolding Vedic ritualists as fools, ignorant, fallen men, arrogant, deluded and whatnot Lord Krishna declars: A person who merely wishes to be a Yogi is superior to Vedic ritualists (6:44).

3. Lord Krishna divides Buddhiyoga: Furthermore, in an effort to reform corrupt Brāhmins and Kshatriyas, Lord Krishna divided  Buddhiyoga into Jnānayoga and Karmayoga: 3:3: The two fold path (of Self-realization) I taught to the world in the beginning, O sinless: The path of Jnānayoga as per Sānkhya philosophy and Karmayoga as per the discipline of Yoga. Note here that Lord Krishna refers to Arjuna as sinless. This is His way of saying that these shlokas are not meant for him but to the sinful Kshatriyas and Brāhmins indulging in Kāmya Karma. This is akin to a father soundly scolding his noble son within the earshot of his errant nephew. The scolding was not meant for the noble son but for the waywardly nephew.

4. Lord Krishna gives Jnānayoga to Brāhmins: Telling ritualists to give up Kāmya Karma, He gave Jnānayoga (Sanyāsa, Knowledge of Atmān, detachment from sense objects) to the brainy Brāhmins (Chapter Four of the Bhagavad Gita) who had lost touch with Atmān due to their entanglement with sense objects. Telling Brāhmins to liberate themselves from the debt they owed to the gods by performing selfless Yajna like the ancients did in the olden times (4:15), Lord Krishna gave them a crash course on the right way to perform Yajna (4:16-42). He replaces Kāmya Karma with Jnānayoga: 4:33: Knowledge sacrifice (Jnānayoga), O Scorcher of foes, is superior to wealth sacrifice (Kāmya Karma). All Karma (Knowledge Yajna, Jnānayoga) in its entirety culminates in Knowledge (of Atmān).

5. Lord Krishna gives Karmayoga to Kshatriyas: Telling Kshatriyas to give up desire for Karmaphalam, Lord Krishna gave Karmayoga (Tyāga, selfless action) to the brawny Kshatriyas (Chapter Three of the Bhagavad Gita): 3:25: As the unenlightened (ritualists indulging in Kāmya Karma) act from attachment to fruits of action, so should the enlightened (Karmayogi) act without attachment (to fruits) desirous of the guidance of the multitude. Lord Krishna declared that Yajnas are useless for people whose mind is focused on Atmān (3:17-18). Read Chapters Nine and Ten of this book for more information on this topic.

6. Guru Krishna identifies Rajas Guna of Kshatriyas as the enemy: Arjuna wants Lord Krishna to explain how the compelling force of the Gunas induces people to commit sinful acts (Kāmya Karma) (3:36). Lord Krishna thunders: 3:37-40: It is Kāma, it is Krōdha, arising from Rajas Guna -all consuming (like the fire of Yajna), and very injurious. Know this as the enemy here. As the fire is enveloped by smoke, as mirror is covered by dust and as the embryo is wrapped by the womb, so is this (Atmān) covered by that (Guna). Knowledge (of Atmān) is veiled, O son of Kunti, by this insatiable fire of desire (Rajas Guna), the constant foe of the wise. The Senses, the Mind and the Intellect are said to be its seat; by deluding these it veils man’s Knowledge (of Atmān).

7. Lord Krishna goes on to explain how Rajas Guna should be dealt with: 3:41-43: Mastering the Senses (desire, attachment and possessiveness), slay it (Rajas Guna) -the sinful, the destroyer of Knowledge (of Atmān) and its realization. The Senses are said to be superior (to the Body and sense objects); the Mind is superior to the Senses; the Intellect is superior to the Mind; and what is superior to the Intellect is Atmān. Knowing Him as superior to Intellect, restraining the self (Intellect, Mind and Senses) by Atmān, slay, O mighty armed, the enemy (Guna) in the form of desire, which is difficult to overcome.

8. Lord Krishna counters every pro-Guna shloka with anti-Guna shloka: While the Upanishads acknowledge that Gunas cause all action (13:29), they point out that when action is tainted by the Senses, the function of the Gunas, all hell breaks loose. No one is helpless in the face of the Gunas if he resorts to Yoga to control the Senses. Prince Krishna of Brāhmanic Gita says: 3:5: None can ever remain really actionless even for a moment; for everyone is helplessly driven to action by the Gunas, born of Prakriti. Lord Krishna of the Upanishads responds: 3:7: But he excels, O Arjuna, who, restraining the senses by the mind, unattached, (willfully) directs his organs of action to the path of work (meaning no one is helpless). Prince Krishna of Brāhmanism says: 3:27: The Gunas of Prakriti perform all Karma. With the understanding clouded by egoism, man thinks, “I am the doer.” Lord Krishna of the Upanishads replies: 3:28-29: But, O mighty armed, the one intuitive into the nature of Guna and Karma knows that Gunas as senses (desire, attachment and possessiveness) merely abide with Gunas as objects (wealth, pleasure, heaven, etc.), and does not become entangled. Those deluded by the Gunas of Prakriti get attached to the functions of the Gunas (desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects). The man of perfect knowledge (one who has attained Knowledge of Atmān) should not unsettle the mediocre (ritualists) whose knowledge is imperfect (due to ignorance engendered by the Gunas). Prince Krishna of Brāhmanism says: 3:33: Even a wise man (one learned of the Vedas) behaves in conformity with his own nature; being follow nature; what shall restraint avail? Lord Krishna of the Upanishads replies: 3:34: Attachment and aversion of the senses (Dwandwam) for their respective objects are natural (they are rooted in the Gunas); let none come under their domination; they are verily his enemies.

9. Lord Krishna replaces Vedic Devas with Brahman as the object of Yajnas

3:15: Know Karma to have risen from Brahma; Brahma from the Imperishable (Brahman). The all-pervading Brahma(n) is therefore, ever centered in Yajna. 4:24: The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes who cognizes Brahman alone in his action (Yajna). I have given explanation on these two shlokas later in this chapter.

C. The third step of the Upanishadic revolution: The Upanishadic seers now tackled the hierarchical Varna Dharma. They said that by transcending the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, one can overcome the inequality of the hierarchical Varna Dharma rooted in those doctrines. When Lord Krishna declared in 5:18: Men who have gained Knowledge of Atmān (by crossing over the Gunas=true Yogis) are same-sighted on a Brāhmin imbued with learning and humility, a cow (the animal of Brāhmins), an elephant (the animal of Kshatriyas), a dog (the animal of Sudras) and a dog-eater (outcaste), He was condeming the hiearchical Varna Dharma, in which Brāhmins claimed superiority over other classes, and telling them that they were not superior to outcastes or even animals by virtue of the fact that the same Brahman resided in the hearts of all living beings. He declared that Self-realized people consider all people as equal (5:19) and delight in the welfare of all beings (5:25), not just the upper classes. They see themselves in all beings and all beings in themselves (6:29). We can imagine how enlightened our Gita-preaching Swāmis and Gurus have been over the centuries knowing how they would not let into the temples of Lord Krishna even Mahātmas such as Santa Kanakadāsa and Santa Chokāmele just because they were “born in low class.” Such narrow-mindedness characterizes Hinduism even today, being deluded by Brāhmanic orthodoxy.

D. The fourth step the Upanishadic revolution: In this step, the Upanishadic seers gave Brāhmanism a final blow in four coded shlokas in which they urged people to chop down the metaphoric upside-down Ashvattha tree of Brāhmanism promoting Samsāra with the metaphoric axe of Upanishadic Yoga promoting Nirvāna:

15:1-4: They speak of an eternal Ashvattha tree (a metaphor for Brāhmanism) with its root above (in heaven, 9:20) and branches below (on earth). Its leaves are Vedic hymns (uttered during Kāmya Karma); he who knows it is the knower of the Vedas (Brāhmins and Kshatriyas). Below (in the world of men) and above (in heaven) spread its branches (2:41), nourished by the Gunas (desire, attachment and possessiveness, 3:28-29); sense objects (wealth, lordship and heaven) are its buds (2:43); and below in the world of men stretch forth the roots engendering (Kāmya) Karma. Its real form is not perceived as such in this world, neither its end, nor its beginning, nor its existence (everyone is thoroughly bewildered by it). Having chopped asunder this firm-rooted Ashvattha tree with the strong axe of non-attachment (the Upanishadic doctrine of Buddhiyoga), then that Goal (Abode of Brahman) should be sought for, going whither, they do not return again (one attains Nirvāna). I seek refuge in the Primeval Purusha (Brahman) whence streamed forth Eternal Activity.

The main intent of these four shlokas is to chop down the eternal tree of Brāhmanism obsessed with Samsāra-promoting Kāmya Karma with Nirvāna-promoting Buddhiyoga of Upanishadism. As can be expected, these coded anti-Brāhmanism shlokas have been misinterpreted by every Brāhmanic commentator in such a way that it is impossible to make much sense. In fact, they have been converted into pro-Brāhmanic shlokas. Shankarāchārya describes this tree as rooted in Brahman and even names it “Brahman tree.” If this is true, what is the need to chop it down? As space does not permit me to reproduce here pages after pages of obscure, bewildering, duplicitous and mind-boggling commentares by Brāhmanic Achāryas, I recommend the reader to find time to read them. In any case, just in case the dull-witted Vedic ritualists did not get it, Lord Krishna summarized the above in the next shloka: 15:5: Free from arrogance (engendered by power) and delusion (engendred by the Gunas), with the evil of attachment (to sense objects) conquered, ever dwelling in the Self (instead of sense objects), their desires (for Karmaphalam) being completely turned away, liberated from Dwandwam, known as pleasure and pain, the undeluded (Yogis who have thus overcome the force of the Gunas and Karma) reach that Goal Imprerishable. The Upanishadic seers then consolidated their revolution by elaborating various Upanishadic teachings, which are found in BG Chapters Eight, Thirteen, Fifteen and Eighteen.

0.14: Brāhmanic counter-revolution to cancel-out the Upanishadic revolution

It should be noted here that the Upanishadic revolution did not go unchallenged. Brāhmanism initiated a counter-revolution in which Brāhmanic seers added many pro-Brāhmanism shlokas as uttered by Lord Krishna Himself to cancel out the Upanishadic revolution. They added shlokas to embellish the doctrine of the Gunas (14:5-18; 17:1-4; 7-28) and reintroduced Yajna (Karma) dedicated to Vedic gods (17:4, 14; 18:1-39) even if it meant going against the ordinances of scriptures (17:1), meaning the Upanishadic Gita. Instead of making Brahman the object of worship by Yajna as recommended by Lord Krishna in 4:24, they rededicated the Yajnas to Vedic gods (17:4, 14) and merely invoked Brahman during these sacrifices (17:23-28) dedicated to the Vedic gods. They issued another warning against Varnasankara, this time around coming straight out of Lord Krishna’s mouth (3:24) and inserted it between a Bhāgavatha (3:23) and Upanishadic (3:25) shlokas to sound as if Lord Krishna Himself was warning against Varnasankara. They inserted an Upanishadic-like shloka (18:46) between Brāhmanic shlokas 18:45 and 18:47 that embellished the class system to legitimize Varna Dharma. This shloka made one believe that one attains perfection by worshipping Brahman by performing one’s duty as per his Guna. They transposed four Upanishadic shlokas (14:1-4) before the doctrines of the Gunas (14:5-18) to legitimize the doctrine of the Gunas. They even assigned three Gunas to Yogic concepts such as renunciation, action, knowledge, etc. (18:1-39) disregarding the fact that Yoga and the Gunas are diametrically opposite forces and the essential goal of Yoga is to overcome the force of the Gunas. Assigning Gunas to various Yogic elements was the worst thing one could do to the Upanishadic doctrine of Yoga. The natural result of such devious Brāhmanical reaction to the Upanishadic revolution was utter confusion and bewilderment typical of Brāhmanism. At this point the Bhāgavathas entered the fray.

0.15: The second stage: The Bhāgavatha revolution to overthrow Brahmanism

In the second stage of the revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism:

1. the Bhāgavatha seers replaced Brahman with Parameshwara. An exuberant Arjuna proclaims: 10:12: You are the Suprem Brahman, the Supreme Abode, the Supreme Purifier, the Eternal, Divine Purusha, the Primeval Deity, the Unborn, the Omnipresent. Parameshwara became the Atmān in the heart of man: 10:20: I am Atman, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings.

2. Lord Krishna declared Himself as the power above the Gunas: 7:14: Verily this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the Gunas, is hard to overcome; but those who take refuge in Me alone, they can cross over this illusion. He then countered the Gunas by offering Himself as the force above the Gunas: 14:19: When the seers perceives no agent other than the Gunas, and knows Him (Ishwara) who is higher than the Gunas, he enters into My Being.

4. Any action dedicated to Him does not earn any Karmaphalam, and therefore he would transcend the doctrine of Karma. He told them: 9:26-28: Whoever offers Me with Bhakti a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I accept that, the pius offering of the pure in heart (who are doing so without desire for anything in return). Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer in sacrifice, whatever you gift away, whatever austerity you practice, O Kaunteya, do it as an offering to Me. Thus shall you be free from bondage of Karma yielding good and bad results.

5. Furthermore, Lord Krishna downgraded all aspects of the Vedas and Yajna: 11:48, 53: Neither by the study of the Vedas, nor by Yajnas, nor by gifts, nor by rituals, nor by severe penances, can this form of Mine be seen in the word of men by anyone else but you, O hero of the Kuru. He declared Himself as the Lord of all Yajna (9:24); absorbed all Vedic gods within himself (11:39), pronounced that worshiping Vedic gods was in reality worshiping Him but by wrong method (9:23). He absorbed all Brāhmanic icons into Himself (10:21-42).

6. They combined Bhakti (personal devotion) with Buddhiyoga and came up with Bhaktiyoga (9:26-30; 18:57, 65) as the means to attain Peace (Shānti) here on earth and Mōksha hereafter.

7. Finally Lord Krishna declared Himself as the Eternal Dharma: 14:27: I am the abode of Brahman, the Immortal, the Immutable, the Eternal Dharma and Absolute Bliss.

8. Then Lord Krishna explained the true purpose and spirit of His revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism, which are enshrined in the Ultimate Shloka of the Bhagavad Gita:

18:66: Sarva Dharmān parithyajya māmaekam sharanam vrija; Aham tvā sarva pāpebhyo mōkshayishyami; mā suchah.

Abandon all Dharmas and surrender unto Me alone; I shall deliver you from all sins; do not grieve.

First of all, Lord Krishna replaced all Dharmas: The phrase ‘all Dharmas’ in this shloka refers to Brāhmanism and its Guna/Karma rooted sub-Dharmas such as Varnāshrama (4:13), Jāti and Kula Dharmas (1:43); as well as Buddhism, Jainism and other assorted Dharmas of the land, which had arisen in revolt against the decadent Brāhmanism. Those who take refuge in Lord Krishna alone do not need any other Dharma whatsoever. Taking refuge in Lord Krishna does not mean worshiping him with ostentatious rituals, but identifying with His virtues (BG Chapter Ten) and emulating Him.

Second, Lord Krishna tackled the doctrine of the Gunas: By surrendering to Him alone -who is above the Gunas (4:6; 7:13)- one can overcome Shōkam and Dwandwam associated with attachment to sense objects engendered by the doctrine of the Gunas (14:19-27).

Third, Lord Krishna tackled the doctrine of Karma: The phrase ‘all sins’ referred to by Lord Krishna in this shloka is Karmaphalam incurred due to Kāmya Karma. By surrendering the fruits of all action to Lord Krishna alone can one avoid incurring Karmaphalam and thus overcome the cycle of birth, death and rebirth (Samsāra) associated with the doctrine of Karma and thus attain Mōksha (9:26-28).

Fourth, Lord Krishna consoled people who suffered Shōkam due to decay of Brāhmanism and abandoned it: “ma suchah” -Do not grieve. Why? Well, they now have a New Dharma in its purest form to which they can return.

Finally, once one has overcome the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma by surrendering to Lord Krishna, he is no longer subject to the hierarchical Varna Dharma which is rooted in these two doctrines (4:13). By realizing that in His eyes all people are equal (9:29-33), and that He, who resides in everyone’s heart (10:20; 15:15) is the equalizer of all people. One who recognizes this truth will free himself from the inequity and injustice of the hierarchical class and caste system.

[Every Brahmanic commentator, not knowing the historical-revolutionary context of this shloka, has been baffled by Lord Krishna's call in this shloka to abandon all Dharma. Thinking that Lord Krishna was asking Arjuna to abandon all Dharma, they tried their best to make sense of the reason for such a drastic advice. They wrote such convoluted and mind-numbing commentaries that it is impossible to make any sense of them. Shankarāchārya wrote fourteen pages of commentary giving twelve different alternative opinions. All Brāhmanic commentators claimed that the word Dharma meant Karma! So Arjuna is supposed to give up all Karma, exactly opposite of what the essence of Lord Krishna's message was to him in the Original Gita. Even if we are to take that Karma was meant to be abandoned, it was selfish Yajna (Kāmya Karma) of Brāhmanism, which Lord Krishna wanted people to abandon, not selfless Karma as in Karmayoga. All of them completely missed the point that the call to "Abandon all Dharma" was directed towards followers of all the existing Dharmas of the tumultuous post-Vedic India. He was asking them to give up their Dharmas and join His Dharma.]

Thus in two decisive stages, using Lord Krishna as their spokesperson, the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha seers overthrew every single aspect of Brāhmanism: its very foundation: the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (2:45; 14:19; 9:27-28); and its four pillars: the Vedas (2:46, 52-53; 8:28; 11:48, 53); corrupted sacrificial rites (Kāmya Karma) dedicated to Vedic gods (2:47-49; 3:17-18; 9:20-25); Varnāshrama Dharma (5:18-19; 6:29), and supremacy of Brāhmins (5:18; 9:29).

0.16: Brāhmanism reacts once again!

Since Brāhmanism could not counter or destroy what was supposedly said by the Supreme Lord Himself, they resorted to other tactics to make it mighty hard for anyone to detect anti-Brāhmanic intent of both the Upanishadism and Bhāgavathism. Their main goal was to project all three Dharmas as part of one whole Dharma. They accomplished this incredible feat by means of masterful editing of the text; shifting virulently anti-ritualist shlokas to Chapter Sixteen innocently titled ‘The Yoga of Division between Divine and Demoniac’; switching around chapters as in the case of Chapter Three and Four and placing the Bhāgavatha chapters (Seven, Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve before the Brāhmanic chapters (Fourteen, Seventeen, part of Eighteen) even though they were added to the text the last; scattering Upanishadic shlokas through several chapters, and many other similar duplicitous tactics. The result is that the text of the Bhagavad Gita appears disjointed, contradictory and confusing: sometimes Lord Krishna tells His audience to obey the laws of the Gunas and Karma, at other times he tells them to cross over them; sometimes He asks them to worship Brahman, and at other times to worship Him alone. This is how the dictum “One should study the Bhagavad Gita only under the tutelage of a Brāhmanic Guru” came into being, which gave all Brahmanic Gurus ample opportunity to brainwash the students. I have given details of this extreme editing in Chapter Fifteen of this book.

0.17: Lord Krishna Himself was attacked by Brāhmanic resurgents!

Even Lord Krishna did not go unchallenged. Lord Krishna Himself must have been attacked by Brāhmanic vested interests as clearly evidenced by His repeated counter-attacks against them in many shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita. He never missed an opportunity to condemn them. In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna mercilessly scolds the Vedic ritualists as infirm (2:41), unwise (2:42) selfish (2:43), fickle-minded (2:44, 66), deluded (2:52), thieves (3:12), vain (3:16), unwise (3:25), egoistic (3:27), dullards (3:29), ignorant (4:40), evil doers, deluded, lowest of men (7:15), misguided (7:20), idiots (7:23), stupid (7:24), fools (9:11), men who fall or perish (9:24), demoniacal (9:12), hypocritical, proud and arrogant (16:10), self-conceited, stubborn and ostentatious (16:17), insolent and egoistic (16:18); worst among men (16:19), so on and so forth. He even declared that a person who merely wishes to know of Yoga is superior to the performer of Vedic rites (6:44)!  Here are a few examples of Lord Krishana’s rage against Vedic ritualists:

3:32: But those who carp at My teachings (Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga) and act not thereon, deluded in all knowledge (ignorance due to the force of the Gunas) and devoid of discrimination (due to Dwandwam caused by attachment to sense objects), know them to be ruined. 4:40: The ignorant (one who is deluded by the Gunas), the man devoid of Shraddha (for My Dharma), the doubting self (one who doubts about Atmān), goes to destruction. The doubting self has neither this world, nor the next, nor happiness.

7:15: The evil-doers (preformers of Kāmya Karma), the deluded (by the Gunas), the lowest of men, deprived of wisdom by Māya (illusion engendered by the Gunas) and following the ways of Asuras (demons), do not seek refuge in Me. 9:3: Men devoid of Shraddha for this Dharma (resting on the doctrines of Lord Krishna as the avatāra of Ishwara and Bhaktiyoga) do not attain Me (Mōksha), O oppressor of foes, but return to the path of the mortal world (are born again and again as per the doctrine of Karma). 9:11-12: (Ritualist) Fools disregard Me as one clad in human form, not knowing My higher nature as the Great Lord of Beings. They are of vain hopes (for wealth, power and heaven), of vain actions (Kāmya Karma), of vain knowledge (of the Vedas), devoid of discrimination (due to Dwandwam), partaking verily of delusive nature of Rākshasas and Asuras. 16:18-20: Given over to egoism, power, insolence, lust and wrath (epithets designated to the upper classes of decadent Brāhmanism), these malicious people (Brāhmanic attackers) hate Me in their own bodies and those of others. Those cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evil-doers (indulging in Kāmya Karma) forever into the wombs of the demons only. Entering into demoniac wombs, the deluded ones (the ones deluded by the Gunas), in birth after birth (as per the doctrine of Karma) without ever reaching Me (Mōksha), they thus fall, O Kaunteya, into a condition still lower.

As we will read in the subsequent chapters, however, such dire warnings and counter-attacks did not stop the Brāhmanic forces from destroying Lord Krishna’s revolution by cleverly using the Bhagavad Gita itself as the weapon.

0.18: Duplicitous Brāhmanic commentaries continue Brāhmanic counter-revolution to eternity!

The disjointed and incoherent nature of the Bhagavad Gita text due to revolutions and counter-revolutions suited Brāhmanic commentators in the Upanishadic garbs just fine. Now they can take full advantage of the confusion. They resorted to such tactics as deliberately misinterpreting, misrepresenting and obfuscating the true meaning of shlokas; explaining away glaring contradiction by verbosity and obscure terms; asserting that their doctrines and those of the Upanishadism and Bhāgavathism are complementary rather than contradictory; explaining anti-Brāhmanic shlokas as pro-Brāhmanic shlokas; applying all anti-Brāhmanic shlokas to Arjuna’s predicament only, even though they have nothing to do with it, justifying their conclusions by quoting various Puranas which were written several centuries after the Bhagavad Gita was composed, and many other ingenious and duplicitous tactics. What they could not win fair and square, they won by devious means. While they praised Lord Krishna to the skies, they sabotaged by duplicitous means every law laid down by Him against Brāhmanism. When the main goal of the Upanishadic and the Bhāgavatha revolution in the Bhagavad Gita was to destroy Brāhmanism and establish a New Dharma centered on One God; and the Brāhmanic lobby’s main goal was to preserve itself, inevitably they must resort to every devious tactic possible in interpreting the text to hide and destroy the Upanishadic revolution. Their real motive? To preserve the class and caste system in which they occupied the uppermost status, and to make a living by means of mindless rituals based on the Vedas. All nonsensical commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita today are due to ignorance of or denial of or attempts to conceal and obfuscate its historical-revolutionary context. Here is an example of how Brāhmanic commentators attempted to obfuscate the Upanishadic Dharma by means of blatantly false interpretation:

3:15: Know Karma to have risen from Brahma; Brahma from the Imperishable (Brahman). The all-pervading Brahma(n) is therefore, ever centered in Yajna.

This shloka follows four shokas in which Lord Krishna, the Lord of beings of the Upanishads, explains to Kshatriyas steeped in Kāmya Karma the original purpose of Yajna. 3:10-14: Having created mankind in the beginning together with Yajna, the Prajapati said: “By this shall you propagate; this shall be the milch cow of your desires. Cherish the Devas with this; and may those Devas cherish you; thus cherishing one another, you shall reap the supreme good. Cherished by Yajna, the Devas shall bestow on you the enjoyments you desire.” A thief verily is he who enjoys what is given by them without returning them anything. The good who eat the remains of Yajna are freed from all sins; but the sinful ones who cook food only for themselves, they verily eat sin. From food beings become; from rain is food produced; from Yajna rain proceeds; Yajna is born of Karma. The purport of these shlokas is that Brahma (Prajāpati) gave birth to Karma (ritual activity 3:10); Karma manifested itself in Yajna (sacrificial rites); Yajna pleased the Vedic Devas (Indra, Varuna, Vāyu, Māruts); so Devas produced rains; rains produced food; food produced people; people performed Yajna to thank the gods for their benevolence. Thus the cycle went on, that is, till it was thoroughly corrupted by the nexus of Brāhmins and Kshatriyas by means of Kāmya Karma rooted in the Vedic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. Obsession with Kāmya Karma turned the desire-ridden Brāhmins and Kshatriyas into thieves. Now, in the above shloka, Lord Krishna decides to eliminate Vedic gods completely as the objects of Yajna. Instead, He establishes “all-pervading” Brahman the Supreme as the object of worship. Why? Because, Brahman has everything and He desires nothing. When Yajnas are centered on Devas, one earns Karmaphalam and suffers rebirth. Since Brahman-centered Yajnas are desireless, one does not earn Karmaphalam and so he attains Nirvāna. So He says: 3:15: Know Karma to have risen from Brahma; Brahma from the Imperishable (Brahman). The all-pervading Brahma(n) is therefore, ever centered in Yajna. Lord Krishna did exactly this in 4:24: when He said: The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes (attains Nirvāna) who cognizes Brahman alone in his action (Yajna). These two shlokas recommending that Brahman, not the Vedic Devas shoud be the center of Yajna are part of the overall Upanishadic revolution to replace Brhmanism, as we read above.

Let us see how Brāhmanic scholars mislead the reader as to its true meaning. The author made a crucial mistake in the above shloka. The phrase “all-pervading Brahma” should have been “all-pervading Brahman.” In the Upanishads, the term “all-pervading” applies only to Brahman, and never to any other entity. Neither Brahma (Prajapati) nor the Vedas are “all-pervading.” In fact, the Upanishads repeatedly refer to the sacrifice-centered Vedas an “lower knowledge” by means of which no one can attain Brahman. Even the Bhagavad Gita says this repeatedly (2:46; 52, 53; 11:48, 53).

Shankarāchārya: “Know that this work is born of the Vedas, and that the Vedas are born of the Imperishable Reality. Therefore, the all-pervading Veda is eternally rooted in sacrificial work.” He follows this incredibly duplicitous interpretation by saying, “Work is born of Brahman, Brahman is the Vedas. Work, in this context, is of this description. Again, Brahman or Veda is born of the Imperishable or Brahman, the supreme Self. That Brahman here means the Veda is the sense.”

Note: Nothing can be as duplicitous as this in interpreting this shloka. Work is born of Brahma (3:10), not Brahman. Brahman is completely actionless (13:29). Brahma is born of Brahman. Only Brahman is “all-pervading.” Neither Brahma nor the Vedas are “all-pervading.”

Rāmānujāchārya: “Know that activity springs from ‘Brahman’, i. e., the physical body, ‘Brahman’ arises from the imperishable (self); therefore the all-pervading ‘Brahman’ is ever established in sacrifice.” He follows this by one half page of wholly nonsensical explanation as to why the term Brahman stands for the physical body.

Note: The Upanishads repeatedly declare that Brahman is beyond the senses as well as free from action. Both senses and action are properties of the Gunas. The statement ‘Brahman arises from imperishable (self)” is utter nonsense. Brahman and the imperishable are one and the same. BG:13:29: He verily sees, who sees that all actions are done by Prakriti alone and that the Atmān (Brahman) is actionless.

Madhvāchārya: “Know the action to be born from Brahman and Brahman is revealed by the immutable (Vedas). Consequently, all-comprehending Brahman is eternal, established in sacrifice.” He follows this by nearly two pages of inscrutable explanations.

For those independent scholars, who do not wish to be bamboozled by such Brāhmanic spin, intrigue and deception, it takes unflinching dedication, dogged persistence, and tireless quest for truth to solve the jigsaw puzzle and reveal the Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita.

0.19: The revolutionaries won the battle but lost the war for the Soul of Sanātana Dharma

Even though the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha revolutionaries won the battle of the Gita as evidenced by the Gita’s new title ‘The Bhagavad Gita-Upanishad,’ they lost the war for the Soul of the Sanātana Dharma (11:18) as evidenced by the fact that the very manifesto to overthrow Brāhmanism was converted by the clever Brāhmanic counter-revolutionaries into the handbook of Brāhmanism! Not only did Brāhmanism survive the coup d’état, but also it grew from strength to strength over the next two thousand years.Completely under the hypnotic power of Brāhmanic forces, today’s Hindus have no idea whatsoever that most of what they practice as Hinduism is nothing but disguised form of decadent and discredited Brāhmanism of ancient times, which Lord Krishna attempted to destroy in the Bhagavad Gita. Most Hindus do not know that Brāhmanism and Bhāgavathism are mutually exclusive concepts. Caste system and untouchability, to mention but only two worst aspects of Hinduism, were vigorously promoted by Brāhmanism using the Bhagavad Gita as the vehicle, completely ignoring and concealing Lord Krishna’s anti-class and anti-caste message in it (5:18-19; 6:29; 9:29-33). The entire class and caste system that divided India into thousands of different castes vying for supremacy over each other was based on false interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita. The caste-based politics that we witness in India even today, with its caste-based political parties, is the curse of Brāhmanism. It is said that Muslims demanded a separate nation for themselves because they saw themselves as more enlightened and superior to the caste-obsessed Hindus. We are yet to assess the role Brāhmanism played in the thousand years of foreign rule over class and caste-divided India.

Thanks to Brāhmanic manipulations of the true purpose and spirit of the Bhagavad Gita, today Hindus worship hundreds of gods with thousands of mindless rituals, fueled by countless superstitions cleverly promoted by Brāhmanic priests in complete disregard to Lord Krishna’s order: “Surrender unto Me alone!” This order has fallen in the dustbin of Brāhmanism. Hindus all over the world are busy building ostantatious temples to various gods, the walls of some of which are covered with gold. They build silver chariots, diamond neckleaces, gold vests, etc. to the idols. They offer to these idols of gods ostentations Poojas, Yajnas, Abhishekas while ringing bells and drums, all of which are disguised form of Brāhmanic rituals. Hinduism is following the same ruinous path of decadence Brāhmanism did two thousand five hundred years ago. Lord Krishna hated every single Brāhmanic trapping, which has infiltrated Hinduism of today in disguised forms. False Babas, Gurus and Swamis, who claims to be godmen, are busy deluding the innocent masses. Today we can see thousands of deluded people pulling obscenely decorated chariots carrying these charatans. Compare these stupid practices to the simplicity of what Lord Krishna asked people to do: 9:26: Whoever offers Me with Bhakti a leaf, a flower, a fruit or just water, I accept that as the pious offering of the pure in heart.

0.20: Corruption in India has deep roots in Brāhmanism

It is an unfortunate reality that today Indian government is considered by the rest of the world as one of the most corrupt in the world. Go to any of the government offices of India today and you will find plaques on the wall declaring, “Service of the People is service of the Lord.” And yet, you will never find one honest person who is willing to give you service without a hefty bribe. We can directly trace the deep-rooted tradition of rampant corruption we see in the nexus of crooked politicians (modern day Kshatriyas) and corrupt bureaucrats and babus (modern day Brāhmins) in today’s India to that seen in the nexus of greedy Kshatriyas and corrupt Brāhmins in ancient India, which Lord Krishna attempted to root-out in the Bhagavad Gita. Whereas the nexus of Brāhmins and Kshatriyas in ancient India forgot the real purpose of Yajna and stole Karmaphalam from Vedic gods by means of Kāmya Karma, the nexus of politicians and bureaucrats of modern India have forgotten the real purpose of their employment and have been stealing money from the public by extortion and corruption. These corrupt politicians and babus, declaring themselves as staunch Hindus, put on big ‘namas’ on their foreheads, read or quote the Bhagavad Gita now and then, offer ostentatious Poojas to various gods and donations to various temples while continuing to indulge in their usual despicable acts without any compunction.

Talibanization of Hinduism is Brahmanism’s gift

The burgeoning fundamentalism, extremism, goondaism and terrorism against people of Para-Dharmas we witness today among Hindu fanatics in the name of Hindutva can be traced directly to the pernicious influence of narrow-minded and decadent Brāhmanism on essentially broad-minded and tolerant Hindu Dharma. These misguided and lawless miscreants build paramilitary outfits named after Hindu gods (Ram Sena, Shiv Sena, Bajarang Dal, etc.) and go on mindless rampage against anyone who questions their sanity. They are overtly or covertly encouraged by the saffron-clad Brāhmanic leaders as well as politicians of Brāhmanic leanings. While they loudly decry fundamentalism of Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they are following the same narrow-minded self-destructive and treasonous path themselves. Talibanization of Hinduism has begun in earnest and the blame should be placed squarely on the heads of Brāhmanic religious leaders and their brainless followers. Such  extremism must be considered as treasonous since it breeds hatred in the hearts of the adherents of Para Dharmas leading to retaliation and turmoil. Sooner or later, due to the ignorance and hatred of a few Hindu fanatics, the whole Indian nation could be engulfed with communal disharmony. I have no hesitation in saying that these extremists are Deshadrohis -enemies of the Indian Nation.

Lord Krishna is weeping silently in our temples.

Those Hindus who go to temples to offer prayers should know that most probably Lord Krishna left those temples long time ago, unable to tolerate the corruption, ostentation and falsehood that are perpetrated in these temples. If he is still there, those who have eyes to see will see Lord Krishna weeping silently at the state of affairs with Hinduism.

0.21: All reformers in history were attacked by Brāhmanic fanatics

Attacks against new ideas, reforms and reformers are nothing new in India. Both the Buddha and Mahāveera, the great reformers of ancient India, and countless other reform-minded Mahātmas that followed them, such as Basavanna and  Kanakadāsa, had to endure attacks from Brāhmanic vested interests. More recently, even Mahātma Gandhi, the greatest Indian of modern age, was attacked relentlessly by backward-looking Brāhmanic forces because of his heroic fight against untouchability and his tolerance for adherents of other religions. In fact, he was assassinated by a gang of ignorant and narrow-minded Brāhmanic fanatics. Gandhi is still being vilified by the entrenched Brāhmanic forces in India. To them secularism is a dreadful concept. Not only is the Bhagavad Gita secular, but also it is supra-sectarian. The same Supreme Lord mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita is worshipped by Muslims, Christians and Jews. Both Lord Krishna and His teachings belong to the world. Hindus have no exclusive rights over them. I dare say that Hindus are His least ardent followers.

0.22: Exposing Brāhmanic injustice and fraud against the Bhagavad Gita

Aside from disentangling these three distinct Gitas from each other, this book systematically exposes the Brāhmanic injustice and fraud against one of the greatest religious and spiritual texts ever written, which, over the centuries, has resulted in disastrous consequences to India in general and Hindus in particular. This book merely attempts to reveal and restore the true purpose and spirit of Lord Krishna’s Revolution in the Bhagavad Gita, which have been destroyed by Brāhmanic forces. Properly understood, this revelation might have far-reaching positive consequences to India in general and Hinduism in particular. It is time all Hindus consider all other peoples as their equals. It is time for all Hindus to recognize that the same Lord resides in all of our hearts. All the multi-crore rupee businesses of temples and gods are the evidences of how Brāhmanism has bewildered everyone no different than during the post-Vedic time.

0.23: The five roles of Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita

In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna plays five different roles. It is essential for readers to understand these roles if they wish to follow the logic of the Bhagavad Gita as well as this book. 1. Prince Krishna: In the Original Gita, he is prince Krishna, who lectures Arjuna on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and Varna Dharma. 2. Guru Krishna: In Chapter Two of the BG, He is the Upanishadic Guru (2:7) initiating the Upanishadic revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism (2:41-53) and teaching us the doctrines of Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga (2:39-40). 3. Lord of beings: In BG Chapters Three and Four, He is the Upanishadic Lord of beings (4:6-8) born to establish Upanishadic Dharma and to give Jnānayoga to Brāhmins and Karmayoga to Kshatriyas. He identifies Brahman as the Supreme Deity. 4. Brāhmanic Lord Krishna: In the first part of Chapter Fourteen, Chapter Seventeen and the first part of Chapter Eighteen, prompted by Brāhmanic seers, He is the promoter of Brāhmanic Dharma once again, who reintroduces the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and all pillars of Brāhmanism. 5. Lord Krishna the Parameshwara of the Bhāgavathas: In Chapters Seven, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve and second half of Chapter Fourteen, Chapter Sixteen and second half of Chapter Eighteen, He is the very embodiment of Dharma, the earthly manifestation of Parameshwara, full of wondrous virtues (Saguna), whose main goal is to replace all Dharmas of the land.

Why prince Krishna was chosen as the protagonist of the Revolution

1. Firstly, even though until the Gita episode in the original Mahābhārata Krishna was merely a prince of Vrishni clan without any superhuman qualities, he was noted to be person of exceptional virtues. In the Mahābhārata, Kings and princes of both sides revered him. Of all the people in the epic, none came even close to him in terms of possessing profound charisma and wisdom. In the Mahābhārata, prince Krishna was a staunch defender of Brāhmanism and the class system which excluded Sudras from listening to the Vedas. By elevating him first to Guruhood (2:7) and then to Godhood (4:6-7), opposition to newer ideas by various vested interests could be greatly minimized. The power of pro-Vedic lobby was so great that no less a person than the God Himself would be needed to say what must be said and get away with it! Brāhmins dared not destroy shlokas said to have come out of God’s mouth.

2. Secondly, whereas Buddhists looked up to the Buddha and Jains worshipped Mahāveera as demigods, Vedic religion had no great hero to look up to. Vedic scholars could not decide which of their elusive Vedic gods was the Supreme. From time to time they appointed one god or another as the Supreme. Long time ago it was Dyaus the wise; then Varuna the Solemn reigned supreme; then came ferocious Rudra; then sauntered in Prajāpati (3:10); then rose the boisterous and sensuous Indra (9:20). Aggrieved people of all classes badly needed a steady credible local hero in flesh and blood they could look up to. Even though prince Krishna died about seven hundred years before the Upanishadic revolution, he was very much “alive” in the popular imagination of people, who were transfixed by the ever-expanding great epic Mahābhārata. It was like an on-going soap-opera. Prince Krishna’s stature was growing leaps and bounds in the epic. By a stroke of genius the revolutionary authors voted for prince Krishna, a local hero born and raised in the region of Mathura, the heart of Aryavarta. He belonged to the tribe of Yādavas who were said to have descended from Sudras, the lowest of the four classes. He was raised by a clan of cowherds, Vaishyas. By virtue of his being a prince of Yadava clan, he was a Kshatriya. And they called him Krishna, the Black One, the color the elite of Brāhmanism detested! What did He use to replace mindless sacrificial rites of Brāhmanism? -Yoga, the long-lost art and science of an ancient civilization that thrived along the Indus River for several thousand years before the Arya people entered India. This art and science known by the royal sages decayed (4:2) because it was declared as secret (Rahasya) and hidden from the public by vested interests. Now the Upanishadic seers decided to reveal this royal (Kshatriya) secret to the world (4:3; 9:1-2) in the Bhagavad Gita by using Krishna as their spokesperson.

3. Thirdly, in the ancient Vedas, the Vedic supreme god Indra’s favorite enemy was a person by the name of Krishna who belonged to a local Krishna tribe. The choice of a person by the name of Krishna to replace Indra, the Vedic supremo was certainly not accidental. In the Upanishadic Gita, Krishna was merely Lord of beings (4:6), a position equal to that of Brāhmanic Lord of beings, Prajāpati. It is only in the Bhāgavatha Gita that He was elevated to the avatāra of Supreme Lord (11:3). In the later parts of the Mahābhārata, the five Pāndava princes, supposedly born from the boon of Vedic gods Yama, Vāyu, Indra, and Ashwins, meekly surrender to Lord Krishna and become His ardent followers. Discerning students of the Gita cannot fail to see the symbolism in the choice of Krishna as the Supreme God to replace Vedic god Indra.

4. Finally, by the time the Bhāgavathas took over the Gita a century or so later, their cult of Vāsudeva was already popular in the western part of north India. Somewhere along the way the identity of Vāsudeva and Krishna merged (7:19; 10:37; 11:50) resulting in rapid enlargement of the base of the New Dharma, which later came to be known as Vaishnavism.

0.24: Truth is the only God

The only God I know is Truth. Lord Krishna embodies that Truth. This book is the story of my discovery of that Truth in the Bhagavad Gita. My allegiance is to that Truth alone and to no one else and nothing else -not to Hinduism, not to Brāhmanism, not to any Varna (class), Jāti (caste) or Kula (clan) Dharma. The original purpose of all religions was to teach people morality. This being the case, no religion should be based on falsehood or concealment of truth. A true Brāhmin does not swerve from truth as exemplified by the story of the young man Satyakāma Jabālā in Chandogya Upanishad 4:4:1-5. When asked by the prospective Guru what family he belonged to, Satyakāma, the illegitimate child of a housemaid by the name of Jabālā, told the truth that even his mother did not know who his father was. The enlightened Guru said, “No one but a true Brāhmin would thus speak out (the truth). Go fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from truth.” I have laid bare in this book the Truth I discovered in and about the Bhagavad Gita. Swāmis and Gurus who knowingly or out of ignorance mislead the public about the true purpose and spirit of the Bhagavad Gita; and people bewildered by ignorance or blind faith, might find this book unpalatable or even objectionable. This book is for thinking people in the tradition of the Upanishads. Open-minded, reasonable, and secure people, who are well-grounded in their sense of righteousness; who are not befuddled by fanaticism, or deluded by Swāmis and Gurus; and who are thirsty for new knowledge and hungry for new insights, should have nothing to worry about. This book should bring them some breath of fresh air. Truth shall set us all free.

0.25: Please understand the thesis thoroughly before you react!

This book is meant for open-minded students capable of critical thinking and scholars who are in search of the true purpose, spirit and wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita, and not for people bogged down by blind faith. Fifteen years of reverential study and careful research into the Gita, the Upanishads and history of India has gone into its creation. I have noticed a tendency among Hindu fanatics to react violently to new ideas before understanding them correctly. A familiar tactic of fanatics is to attack the author personally when they have nothing at all to contribute to or argue against his thesis. Sensible critics will fearlessly reveal their identities when commenting one way or another on the contents of this book and engage me in scholarly debate to rebut my thesis point by point. I am merely bringing to the public Lord Krishna’s true teachings, which have been hidden from the public and destroyed by Brāhmanic vested interests by devious means. Let us have a sensible and civil debate on the merits or demerits of the message of this book. I recognize and respect everyone’s right to remain totally ignorant and deluded.

Inevitably questions will arise: Who am I to write this book? Who authorized me to do so? Have I obtained permission and blessings of religious authorities before writing this book? What makes me think I am right? In the following chapter titled A Personal Note I have addressed these and other related issues. I welcome the curious reader to an exciting journey into the Soul of the Bhagavad Gita.

____________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement

Essential Glossary

Chapter One: A Personal Note

Chapter Two: Brāhmanism and the Doctrines of the Gunas and Karma

Chapter Three: Decay of Dharma and Rise of Adharma

Chapter Four: The Great Nāstik Revolt

Chapter Five: The Original Gita: Brāhmanism’s Policy Paper

Chapter Six: Brāhmanism Warns about the Consequences of Abandonment

Chapter Seven: The Upanishadic Dharma

Chapter Eight: The Upanishadic Revolution is Launched: Chapter Two of the Bhagavad Gita

Chapter Nine: Reforming Brāhmins: Jnānayoga: Chapter Four of the Bhagavad Gita

Chapter Ten: Reforming Kshatriyas: Karmayoga: Chapter Three of the Bhagavad Gita

Chapter Eleven: Brahman the Equalizer: Chapter Five of the Bhagavad Gita

Chapter Twelve: Yoga the Liberator: Chapter Six of the Bhagavad Gita

Chapter Thirteen: Brāhmanic Counter-revolution

Chapter Fourteen: The Bhāgavatha Revolution

Chapter Fifteen: The Brāhmanic Subterfuge

Chapter Sixteen: The Legacy of Brāhmanism

——————————————————

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This book is a commentary on the contents of the Bhagavad Gita and not a translation of it. Excellent English translations of the Bhagavad Gita by various well-known authorities were relied upon to comment on specific issues. The information about ancient India was collected from various historical works of repute. The following is a partial list of books I have referred to while writing this book:

1. The Bhagavad Gita with Sanskrit Text, by Swāmi Chidbhavānanda. Published by Sri Rāmakrishna Tapovanam, Tirupparaitturai. 1976.
2. Bhagavad Gita Bhāsya of Shankarāchārya, translated by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier. Published by Sri Rāmakrishna Math, Madras-600004
3. Sri Rāmānuja Gita Bhāsya translated by Swāmi Adidevānanda, Rāmakrishna Math, Madras, 600004
4. Bhagavad Gita As It Is by Sri Bhaktivedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda, Published by ISCON, P. O. Box 34074, Los Angeles, CA 90034. 1989
5. Bhagavad Gita Home-Study-Course by Swāmi Dayānanda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya Gurukulam (Sruti Seva Trust), Anaikatti, Coimbatore, 641 08, 2001
6. The Gita As It Was by Phulgenda Sinha, Published by Rupa & Co, 1997
7. The Bhagavadgīta in the Mahābhārata by J. A. B. van Butenen, The University of Chicago Press, 1981
8. The Bhagavad Gita by Winthrop Sargent, State University of New York Press, 1994.
9. The Bhagavad Gita by Sri Paramahamsa Yogānanda, Yogoda Satsanga Society of India, 2002.
10. The Upanishads by F. Max Muller, Part I and Part II, Dover Publications, Inc. New York.
11. History of India Part I by Romila Thapar, Penguin Books, 1982.
12. The Wonder That Was India, by A. L. Basham, Grove Press Inc. New York 1954.
13. The Story of Our Civilization, Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant, Simon @ Schuster, New York.
14. Outlines of Indian Philosophy by M. Hiriyanna, Kavyalaya Publishers, 1994
15. INDIA, A History by John Keay, Grove Press, New York, 2000.
16. INDIA by Al-Biruni, National Book Trust, India.
17.The Bhagavad Gita Bhāshya and Tātparyanirnaya of Sri Madhvāchārya. Translated by Nāgesh Sonde. Vasantik Prakāshan. 1995

Cover art: Purnima Pai, Mount Pleasant, SC

Essential Glossary

The following is the partial list of Sanskrit words used in this book. Many of these words have multiple meanings. Knowing this well, various authors of the Bhagavad Gita cleverly used them to convey their messages without coming across as indulging in frontal attacks against other sects. This left room for much ambiguity in the interpretation of the shlokas, a situation which authors with opposing views took full advantage of. Ancient Sanskrit scholars were masters of double entendre . Serious students of the Bhagavad Gita should familiarize themselves with these words to make the best use of this book.

Atmān: The Self, the Essence or the Soul of man. It represents Brahman, the Universal Spirit, residing in the heart of man. It is said to be the seat of Absolute Bliss. It is eternal, deathless and indestructible. Knowledge of Atmān counters ignorance-born Shōkam (Grief) engendered by death.
Ahamkāra: Egoism. Self-centeredness. This, according to Brāhmanism, causes one to become ignorant of his duty as designated by his Guna (inborn Quality). Accusing its critics as suffering from Ahamkāra became the ultimate weapon of Brāhmanism against any upstart who opposed its doctrines.
Ajnāna: To Brāhmanic seers this word meant loss of knowledge of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. To the Upanishadic seers, this word meant ignorance of Atmān caused by the Mind’s bewilderment due to attachment to sense objects. The ignorance in this case is due to the power of the Gunas to delude man’s mind. This is the cause of Grief.
Ānanda: The ecstatic state of mind enjoyed by Self-realized Yogis.
Avidya: Same as Ajnāna. It also means the ignorance of Atmān engendered by one’s preoccupation with sacrificial rites.
Bhagavān: The Lord.
Bhāgavatha: Pertaining to Bhagavān, the Lord.
Bhāgavathas: Followers of the creed centered on Lord Krishna, also known as Vāsudeva.
Bhaktha: Ardent devotee of Lord Krishna.
Bhakthi: Worshipping of Lord Krishna by means of single-minded devotion.
Bhakthiyoga: Bhakthiyoga means worshipping Lord Krishna or Ishwara with single-minded devotion in the spirit of Yoga. Bhakthiyoga consists of two elements: Bhakthi of the Bhāgavatha Dharma and Yoga of the Upanishadic Dharma. Yoga consists of yoking the mind to inner Buddhi and withdrawing attachments to sense objects such as wealth, power and heaven. In the Gita Yoga consists of two elements: Sanyāsa (detachment from sense objects) and Tyāga (renunciation of fruits of action).
Brahma: The Vedic god, also known as Prajāpati, the originator of beings as well as Yajna (Karma, sacrificial rites).
Brahman: This is the all-pervading Universal Spirit, which is found everywhere and in everything. The part of Brahman residing in the heart of man, as his divine essence, is known as Atmān. Brahman is without any Nature-born Qualities, known as the Gunas, hence It is known as Nirguna (Guna-less). Brahman is beyond the perception of the Senses. Hence it is said to be “Not this; not this! (Naeti, Naeti). In the Vedic times, Brahman was known as a mysterious magical force invoked by Brāhmins during sacrificial rites. This entity became the main divinity of the Upanishadic Dharma in the post-Vedic period.
Brāhmanism: This Dharma was the instrument of Law and Social Order in the ancient Indian society. It is also known as Orthodox Vedic Dharma. The Brāhmanic Dharma rested on the bedrock of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. The four pillars on which its superstructure stood were: sanctity of the Vedas; sacrificial rites known as Karma or Yajnas dedicated to Vedic gods; hierarchical class system known as Varna Dharma, and supremacy of Brāhmin class over the other three classes (Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras). Brāhmanism controlled the society by means of Varna Dharma. In the course of time several other sub-Dharmas such as Jāti (caste) Dharma and Kula (clan) Dharma arose.
Brāhmin or Brāhmana: The priestly class that dominated the Brāhmanic society. They were the most learned of the four classes, and they monopolized all ancient sacred scriptures. This, combined with their mastery of Sanskrit language, gave them tremendous power over the society, which they often used and abused to their own advantage. The term Brāhmin or Brāhmana meant he who possessed Brahman, the mysterious magical force. Brāhmana also stands for Vedic texts written by Brāhmins that expound sacrificial rites.
Buddhi: Intellect or wisdom. It is that part of mind which stands for discriminatory powers, judgment, reasoning, insight, moral values, noble virtues, memory, knowledge, etc. This is the Superego or the parental part in the Freudian psychology. Its main function is to say ‘No’ to desires engendered by the Senses and Mind.
Buddhiyoga: It is the method by which one’s mind is steadied by yoking it with Buddhi (Wisdom). When the mind controls its Senses (gives up desires for and attachment to sense objects) it becomes connected with Buddhi. The mind then operates as per the dictates of Buddhi. The mind thus steadied by yoking with Buddhi is known as Buddhiyukta mind. A person who has achieved this is known as the Buddha, the Enlightened. Opposite of Buddhiyukta is Dwandwam, unsteadiness or fickleness of mind engendered by desire for and attachment to sense objects. Buddhiyoga counters Dwandwam of mind. All actions performed in the spirit of Buddhiyoga earn neither good nor bad Karmaphalam (fruit of deed). A person of Buddhiyukta Mind always does the right thing.
Buddhiyukta: See above.
Deva: Vedic gods representing the forces of Nature: Indra, Agni, Varuna, Vāyu, Ashwins, etc. They were the principal deities of Brāhmanism. All Brāhmanic sacrifices were dedicated to them.
Dhananjaya: Conqueror of wealth. This is the code name for Kshatriyas. By referring to Arjuna by this epithet, the Upanishadic seers hinted that that shloka was not meant for Arjuna but for corrupt Kshatriyas.
Dharma: The literal meaning is “that which holds.” In practice, it stands for righteousness, religion, Law, system, duty, order, a discipline of knowledge, and what aught to be done. Opposite of Dharma is Adharma (irreligion). Para-Dharma stands for alien or heterodox Dharma, such as Buddhism.
Dwandwam: Pairs of opposites the mind experiences when it comes into contact with sense objects: likes and dislikes; pleasure and pain; gain and loss; honor and dishonor; virtue and vice, and the like. It also means stress, unsteadiness of mind, fickleness of mind, ambivalence, doubt, restlessness, mood swings, confusion, mental conflict, obsession, indecisiveness, loss of focus and loss of discrimination. The practical meaning of Dwandwam is stressed state of mind in which one loses his wisdom or discriminating faculty. Opposite of Dwandwa-ridden mind is Buddhiyukta (steady) mind. Dwandwam is one of three maladies Arjuna suffered from on the battlefield, the other two being Shōkam (grief) and fear of bad Karmaphalam (sin) resulting from his actions. The entire Bhagavad Gita is geared toward addressing these three issues: Shōkam, Dwandwam, and Karmaphalam.
Guhyam: Secret. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna uses this word several times to hint that the Upanishadic doctrines were declared as secret by Brāhmanism to stifle them. Lord Krishna finally reveals them in the Bhagavad Gita.
Guna: This is an inborn ‘Quality’ of a person, which is rooted in Nature (Prakriti). Brāhmanism claimed that all action arose from the Guna and no one, including gods, could resist their force. Ancient scriptures recognized three Gunas: Sattva (Good), Rajas (Passion) and Tamas (Ignorance). These Gunas affect the quality of all actions. Brāhmanism divided society into four great classes based on these three Gunas. The doctrines of the Gunas and Karma became the foundation of Brāhmanism. However, the Upanishadic seers claimed that the Gunas were the sources of lust, jealous rage, attachment, delusion, and the like, and must be crossed over in order to attain enlightenment. The Gunas express themselves by means of Senses (desires) and Organs of Action (Karmaendriyas) such as hands, legs, mouth and genitals. To overcome the force of the Gunas, one must become Buddhiyukta and take refuge in Atmān or Brahman or the Supreme Lord, all of which are superior to the Gunas in power.
Indriyāni: The Senses: Vision, hearing, tasting, touch and smell. The Senses not only represent the functions of these five Senses, but also the raw drive and impulses that promote desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects. They represent the Id in modern psychiatry.
Ishwara: The Lord. Parameshwara: The Supreme Lord.
Jīva: Same as Atmān.
Jnāna: Knowledge. In the Upanishadic Gita this term refers to Knowledge of Atmān. The knowledge that Atmān is deathless gives man immunity to Shōkam (grief).
Jnānayoga: This is the art and science of Yoga by which one renounces his desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects and progressively attains the Knowledge of Atmān. In the Bhagavad Gita this Yoga was given to Brāhmins to counter their Kāma (hankering) for sense objects while performing Kāmya Karma (desire-driven sacrifices). The Yoga element in Jnānayoga is Sanyāsa -detachment from sense objects.
Kāma: Selfish desire for a sense object, or, in plain language, lust.
Karma: This word has multiple meanings: Action; Yajna; any sacrificial ritual (”the Works” or “Kriya”); obligatory duty designated by one’s social class; fruit of one’s action known as Karmaphalam.
Kāmya Karma: In the Bhagavad Gita this refers to sacrificial rites performed by Brāhmins and Kshatriyas to gain wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter. Kāmya Karma became the supreme symbol of corruption of Brāhmanism. The Upanishadic Gita’s main goal was to condemn Kāmya Karma, its performers and Brāhmanism as a whole.
Karmaphalam: Consequence or fruit of one’s action. The Brāhmanic theory said that all actions, except for selfless Yajna, lead to earning Karmaphalam. The fruits of one’s actions accumulate. When one dies, he would go to hell or heaven depending upon the quality of his Karmaphalam. After exhausting his merit or demerit, he would be reborn on earth in a higher or lower class of people. This cycle of birth, death, and rebirth is known as Samsāra. This theory of Karma motivated people to do good works in life. This theory also explained to them the cause of their current misery in life. The goal of Brāhmanism was to earn as much good Karmaphalam as possible by means of Yajna. The goal of Upanishadism was to earn no Karmaphalam at all in action. Upanishads considered all Karmaphalam as sin because it leads to perpetuation of Samsāra.
Karmayoga: This is the Yoga of Selfless Action. In the Gita this was given to Kshatriyas to replace their Sankalpa (desire, intention) for Karmaphalam (lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter) while performing Kāmya Karma. The Yoga element in Karmayoga is Tyāga -giving up fruits of action.
Krōdha: Jealous rage Kshatriya royals harbored in their hearts against their rival kings. Krōdha is often misinterpreted as anger. In the Mahābhārata, Kauravas felt jealous rage against Pāndavas.
Kshatriya: The warrior class; also, a warrior belonging to that class. This is second of the two upper classes in the four-tier Varna Dharma. Many of them were brilliant philosophers. Most Upanishadic philosophy was their creation. Kshatriyas spearheaded the revolt against the decadent Brāhmanism as well as the revolution to overthrow it. In fact, the revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism in the Bhagavad Gita was led by them.
Mana: The Mind, the middle of three components of the mental apparatus. Its three functions are thinking, feeling and acting. Dwandwam is experienced in this part of the mind. Mana is superior to the Senses (Indriyāni) and inferior to the Buddhi (Intellect). This represents the Ego part of Freudian psychology. Its main job is to mediate between the impulses, drives and desires of the Senses and restraints (‘No’) of the Buddhi.
Matham: Doctrine, creed, religion, sect. The Bhagavad Gita contains the doctrines of three distinct sects: Brāhmanism, Upanishadism and Bhāgavatha.
Mōha: Delusion. Bewilderment of mind caused by its attachment to sense objects.  Common usage includes possessiveness and delusion of “me and mine.”
Mōksha: The Bhāgavatha concept of liberation of Atmān from Samsāra (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth), culminating in reunion with the Supreme Lord. In the Bhagavad Gita, one surrendering to Lord Krishna alone and dedicating all actions to Him alone attains Mōksha.
Nirvāna: The Upanishadic concept of liberation from Samsāra and the final reunion of Atmān with Brahman.
Pāpam: Sin. According to Brāhmanism one earns sin when he acts against the dictates of Dharma. This is also known as bad Karmaphalam. Pāpam could be earned by not performing one’s duty prescribed by one’s Dharma; by being responsible for the decline of Dharma or its sub-Dharmas, and by abandoning one’s Dharma. The Upanishadism considered any Karmaphalam as sin as it promoted Samsāra.
Paranthapa: Enemy burner or terror of foes. In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna uses this term when he is warning his foes.
Prajāpati: The Vedic Lord of beings; also known as Brahma. He originated both people and Yajnas.
Prakriti: Nature, which manifests itself in the form of three Gunas (Qualities): Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.
Prāna: Life breath. This term often stood for Atmān/Brahman.
Punyam: Merit earned by doing one’s duty as per Brāhmanic Dharma. Also known as good Karmaphalam. Upanishadism was indifferent to it.
Purāna: Religious texts containing ancient history, probably written in 3rd to 4th century A. D.
Purusha: Literally, a person, the same as Atmān, the Self, the essence of Man. This is an Upanishadic concept.
Rahasyam: Secret. In the Gita, the Upanishadic doctrines are referred to as Rahasyam.
Rishi: A sage; an ascetic, a performer of sacrifices.
Samādhi: Deep concentration during meditation. It is the ultimate goal of Yoga. It is a mystical experience in which one experiences the Absolute Bliss of Atmān by means of the Mind’s direct contact with It.
Sangas: Attachment to sense objects. This causes the mind to experience Dwandwam of likes and dislikes, pleasure and pain, gain and loss.
Sankalpa: Design, intention, desire, will of sponsor of Yajna for a specific sense object, such as wealth, power, children, longevity, success, etc.
Sānkhya: One of six ancient systems of Indian philosophy. The literal meaning is “the Count.” According to this system man is made up of twenty-five elements. Originally this was an atheistic system. In its modified form, Purusha (the Self, Atmān) became the embodied part of Supreme Purusha or Brahman.
Sanyāsa: Renouncing attachment to sense objects, the first of two pillars of Yoga. In the Bhagavad Gita it also means giving up Kāmya Karma. This is also known as Jnānayoga.
Shishya: An Upanishadic disciple who surrenders to his Guru and learns from him the Truth (Knowledge of Atmān) by service and inquiry.
Shānthi: Peace engendered by mind’s contact with Atmān. This is a Bhāgavatha concept.
Shruthi: Ancient “revealed” scriptures. Literal meaning is “that which was heard.” The Vedas and the Upanishads are considered as Shruthis. They were orally passed on from generation to generation for nearly 2,000 years. In ancient India, women and Sudras were not allowed to hear these.
Smrithi: Ancient epics that are rooted in Shruthis. Literal meaning is “remembered” scriptures. The great epic Mahābhārata is a Smrithi. By means of Smrithis, Brahmanism brought to the general public the essence of Brāhmanic Dharma. In contrast to the Shruthis, everyone could hear Smrithis.
Sthithaprajnya: This is the blissful state of Buddhiyukta Mind, which has attained Atmān due complete elimination of desires. In this state of mind one is immune to both Dwandwam and Shōkam. This is also known as the state of Self-realization. A person who acts in this state of mind earns no Karmaphalam whatsoever. Attaining this state of mind is the ultimate goal of the Upanishadic Gita.
Sudra: The labor class of people, who did menial tasks in the society. They were not allowed to hear the Shruthis.
Sukham: The happiness one experiences when Buddhiyoga stills one’s mind. Opposite of Sukham is Dukham (sorrow), or Shōkam (grief). This is an Upanishadic concept.
Shōkam: Grief one experiences when one loses someone he is emotionally attached to. According to the Upanishads, this happens because one’s attachment to people leads to loss of knowledge that Atmān is deathless. This is one of three maladies Arjuna suffers on the battlefield.
Tyāga: Renouncing the fruit of one’s action, the second of two pillars of Yoga. In the Bhagavad Gita it stands for giving up desire for fruits while performing Yajna. It also stands for Karmayoga (selfless action).
Upanishads: These are also “revealed” scriptures, which are basically opposed to Brāhmanism. However, Brāhmanism renamed them as Vedānta, the end of the Vedas, and incorporated them into the Vedic literature. The Upanishads are considered as the “higher knowledge.” Most of the Upanishads were the creation of Kshatriyas.
Vaishya: The third of four classes of people, whose professions were farming, business and raising cattle.
Varna Dharma: This is the hierarchical class system by which the Brāhmanic society was divided into four classes: Brāhmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. Then there were outcastes, who were outside the pale of the society.
Varnāshrama Dharma: This is the system by which one goes through four stages of life: student, householder, retirement and renunciation.
Veda: Literal meaning is knowledge. Revealed, orally transmitted ancient scriptures known as Shruthis -that, which was heard. There are four Vedas: Rig Veda; Yajur Veda; Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda. Brāhmanism was based on the teachings of the first three Vedas. Upanishadism considered the Vedas as “the lower knowledge” because they were mostly about sacrificial rites.
Vedānta: The Upanishads.
Vishayān: Sense objects such as money, wealth, people, power, etc.
Yoga: This word stems from the word “yoke.” It means harnessing oneself to a specific task with single-minded concentration. In the Bhagavad Gita, it consists of two elements: Sanyāsa (detachment from sense objects) and Tyāga (giving up fruits of action).

—————————————————————-

The Apparatus of the Mind

To understand the essential wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita, we must first thoroughly understand the hierarchy of the apparatus of mind. It is impossible to understand the Bhagavad Gita without first mastering the following information:

3:42: The Indriyāni (Senses) are superior (to the body and Sense Objects); the Manas (Mind) is superior to the Indriyāni; Buddhi (Intellect/Wisdom) is superior to the Manas; and that which is superior to the Buddhi is He (Atmān).

1. The Mind (Manas, self) is the large oval in the center of the above picture. Its three functions are thinking (likes and dislikes); feeling (pleasure and pain), and action (gain and loss). The wavy line in the center of the Mind illustrates these Dwandwams (pairs of opposites). The Manas represents the Ego of Freudian psychology. The mantra of the Mind is, “What is the right thing to do?”

2. The Senses (Indriyāni) are the five udder-like projections hanging from the lower part of the Mind in the picture above. Their main functions are to desire sense objects such as food, drinks, wealth, power, land, etc., and to get attached to them. The Senses also represent raw impulses and drives. The Senses represent the Id part of Freudian psychology. When the Senses come into contact with sense objects, the Mind experiences Dwandwam: I like this, I don’t like this; I am happy, I am not happy; I gained this, I lost this (2:14). The Senses have seven allies, which are rooted in the Gunas: lust, jealous rage, hubris, possessiveness, greed, jealousy, and insecurity. When these weaknesses infect the Senses, the Mind’s Dwandwam becomes more severe and one indulges in evil acts (3:37-40). This leads to self-destruction (2:62-63). The mantra of the Senses is, “I want this and I want that.”

3. Sense objects (Vishayān) are shown as five small circles at the very bottom of the picture. These represent various objects, both tangible and intangible. Tangible sense objects are wealth, food, drinks, etc. Intangible sense objects are power, honor, heaven, etc. The Senses desire for, get attached to and become possessive of them by the force of the Gunas. In the picture above, the broken lines connecting the Senses to sense objects represent attachments of the Senses to sense objects. The mantra of the Sense Objects is, “Hey, here I am. Come and get me!”

4. The Intellect (Buddhi) is the medium-sized oval over the Mind. It represents one’s discriminating powers or Wisdom. The seven components of Buddhi are: memory, knowledge, judgment, insight, reasoning, moral values and noble virtues. The Intellect has a stabilizing effect on the Mind. The more the Mind girdled or yoked with Wisdom, less Dwandwam it suffers. When the Mind firmly yokes itself with Buddhi, it becomes Buddhiyukta, or steadied, meaning wise. This part of the mind represents Superego of Freudian psychology. The mantra of Buddhi is, “Always do the right thing!”

5. Atmān is the small circle above the Intellect. This is the Self, the essence of man, the divinity within him. It is the Brahman in the body. It is deathless, eternal and indestructible. It is also free from desire, attachment, possessiveness and action. In this desireless state, It is the seat of Absolute Bliss (Sukham or Shanti). When the Buddhiyukta Mind merges with Atmān after giving up all desire, attachment and possessiveness, it attains even a higher steady state of Mind that is absolutely peaceful and immune to stress. This state of Mind is known as Sthithaprajnya (2:54). This is when one is said to have attained Self-realization. Samādhi is the ultimate transcendental state of Mind in which one is totally oblivious to the world around him and his Atmān has merged with Brahman.

—————————————————————–

The Mind’s Balancing Act

The Mind (Manas) is constantly caught between the Senses (desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of money, power, people, fame, etc.) on one side and Intellect (Buddhi, discriminating powers) on the other. Seven Guna-rooted human weaknesses are the allies of the Senses (Indriyani): lust, greed, arrogance, possessiveness, envy, jealous rage and fear (insecurity). Buddhi’s allies are: knowledge, memory, judgment, insight, reasoning, moral values and noble virtues. A person who surrenders to the power of the Senses loses touch with Buddhi and indulges in evil acts (3:37-40) and destroys himself (2:62-63). A person who acts under the guidance of Buddhi becomes Buddhiyukta and he indulges in selfless acts and attains Self-realization. This is illustrated in the diagram below.

———————————————————————

From Mediocrity to Self-realization

The picture below illustrates the progression of the Mind toward Self-realization. The first picture represents the mind of a non-Yogi. The second picture represents the mind of a practicing Yogi. The Mind is firmly yoked with Buddhi; the Senses are withdrawn (desires are controlled, attachments are decreased); and sense objects have become less important. One’s actions become increasingly selfless. The third picture represents the mind of the Self-realized Yogi. The Mind is firmly yoked with Buddhi and centered on Atmān. The Senses (desires) are withdrawn; attachments are almost gone, and the sense objects are not important at all.

CHAPTER ONE

A Personal Note

1.1: Legitimate questions regarding the author

I have been asked by several of my Hindu friends, none of whom had read even one shloka of the Bhagavad Gita, “Who are you to analyze and comment on the Bhagavad Gita? Who is your Guru, anyway? Have you sought the approval and blessing of our religious Gurus for your book? What makes you think you are right?” These questions are natural and inevitable and must be adequately addressed when someone who is not a Hindu Swāmi or Guru or a Sanskrit language scholar dares to comment on such a lofty and seemingly inscrutable a scripture as the Bhagavad Gita. I owe all of them answers even though their questions merely reflected their knee-jerk defense of the revered text which they held in highest regard. Whether that high regard for the text was blind, or one rooted in proper understanding of the sacred text, is altogether another matter. What I have found to be even more dangerous and disturbing is the blind faith majority of Hindus place in whatever saffron-clad people tell them about the Bhagavad Gita, or for that matter about the Hindu Dharma.

1.2: Question: Who are you to analyze the Bhagavad Gita?

Answer: Almost all Hindus I know are under the impression that the Bhagavad Gita is essentially a religious text, and therefore only religious leaders are qualified to comment on it. So when a psychiatrist practicing his trade in the United States comments on the Bhagavad Gita, his conclusions are suspect regardless of how strong his commitment to understanding it, how long his research into it, and how deep his study of it has been. To such skeptics I have only this to say: The mere fact that this book was written by a psychiatrist without the religious indoctrination or brainwashing by a Brāhmanic Guru should make its conclusions, far from being suspect, worth examining. It might surprise the reader to know that the most important and useful insights in the text are psychological and not religious, even though, I admit, the theological battle between Brāhmanism and its opponents is far more interesting. For example, the most practical of all Upanishadic insight that desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of money, power and people causes the mind to become disconnected from wisdom (2:60, 67), and leads to evil acts (3:37-40) and self-ruin (2:62-63) has nothing to do with religion. This profound insight has to do with psychology as well as morality. And yet, none of the currently available commentaries deals with psychological insights. Almost all of their focus is exclusively on religious aspects of the text namely to worship Lord Krishna. In other words, their religious agenda has obscured the moral as well as psychological insights of the Bhagavad Gita.

I have been practicing psychiatry in the United States since 1974. During this period I have treated countless people afflicted with the same three maladies prince Arjuna suffered from on the battlefield of Kurukshetra: Shōkam (grief due to actual or impending death of a loved one), Dwandwam (fickleness of mind engendered by its entanglement (excessive attachment) with people, power and wealth) and fear of sin or bad Karmaphalam arising as a consequence of one’s actions. Add to this list people suffering bad consequences (Karmaphalam) arising from their selfish acts, such as divorce and abandoning one’s family for whatever reason. Everyday I treat people suffering from the same kind of panic attacks Arjuna suffered on the battlefield, due to intolerable fear of loss, or consequences of their impending action forced upon them by circumstances completely beyond their control. Gazing at the throng of his adversaries -teachers, elders, cousins and others, Arjuna is overwhelmed with choking compassion (1:27). Next thing he knows he has a massive panic attack: 1:28-30: Seeing these kinsmen of mine gathered here for war, my limbs fail me, O Krishna, and my mouth dries up. My body quivers and my hair stands on end. My bow Gandiva slips from my hand and my skin burns all over. I am unable to stand; my mind whirls as it were; and Keshava, I see adverse omens. These are the exact symptoms a person in modern times suffers when he or she is facing a major crisis in life.

Space does not permit me to go into the details of how one or more of these these three issues can be identified in just about every psychiatric case I have treated over thirty eight years. Properly understood, the entire text of the Bhagavad Gita is a psychological manual par excellence, geared to resolve these three issues faced by Arjuna on the battlefield, and by millions of people in the ancient as well as the modern world, who were and are deluded by their entanglements with various sense objects such as people, power and wealth. Everyday we read in newspapers or see on television examples of people who have serious legal, financial, health or family problems as a result of their entanglement with one sense object or another fueled by seven Guna-rooted human weaknesses such as lust, jealous rage, greed, arrogance, possessiveness, envy and insecurity. Entanglement simply means excessive attachment to sense objects resulting in disconnection of mind from seven elements of wisdom: Judgment, reasoning, moral values, noble virtues, insight, memory and knowledge. These people are just not able to walk away from the sense objects they are entangled with. Without the benefit of wisdom, man’s behavior would be more like that of uncivilized humans. I believe that I have something original to contribute to our understanding of the true purpose and spirit, and practical application of the essential wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita.

1.3: Each of the three Dharmas of ancient India had their own unique explanations and solutions to these three psychological issues raised by Arjuna.

1. Shōkam: Grief is a reaction to loss of someone or something one is attached to. Loss of sense objects leads to breaking down of the bonds followed by grief. The modern man’s response to the loss of love objects is to cry, sob, sigh and talk out grief-related emotions. Healing follows after a while and he moves on with life. Or, he must rise above grief by knowing the inevitability of death (2:27). Some people hide their grief by drowning their sorrow in alcohol or drugging themselves into oblivion. Some people just bury their emotions in an act of self-deception and pay for such indescretion later on with serious psychiatric syndromes such as depression or anxiety disorder. The modern society, increasingly deluded by materialism, suffers from more grief than ever before as more and more people are becoming entangled with more and more sense objects. Obviously, the modern society as well as psychiatry has a lot to learn from the Upanishadic philosophy.

To Brāhmanism, one’s attachment to his socially designated duty (Dharma) should be greater than his attachment to people. One’s security and survival is tied to Dharma. Nothing exemplifies this better than the statement, “Dharmo rakshathi rakshatah” which means Dharma will protect him who protects it. A Kshatriya’s duty is to fight his enemies and to defeat them or kill them regardless they are his friends, relatives or teachers. Once a Kshatriya is convinced of the righteousness of his action, he should not waver. To grieve over their death is unmanly, heaven-barring, dishonorable, shameful and indicative of faint-heartedness (2:2-3). Such display of emotion does not befit a noble Kshatriya prince.

The primary preoccupation of the Upanishadic seers was how the mind works. They were superb psychologists. They figured out the structure of the mind 2800 years before Freud, and with greater clarity. They described the hierarchy of the mind: 3:42: The Senses (impulses of desire, attachment, etc.) are superior to sense objects (body, money, etc.). The Mind is superior to the Senses. The Intellect (higher faculties such as wisdom) is superior to the Mind. And That whih is superior to the Intellect is Atmān. When the Mind surrenders to the Senses and becomes entangled with sense objects, it becomes disconnected from Intellect (the seat of Wisdom) as well as Atmān. To them, grief is indicative of absence of knowledge that the eternal, indestructible Atmān resides within them. In the Upanishadic Gita, Guru Krishna’s solution to Shōkam was simple: You will be immune to grief if you realize that it is the body that dies and not Atmān (2:21, 25).

The Bhāgavatha solution was even more simple than the Brāhmanic one. Simply surrender to Lord Krishna and you will not grieve anymore (18:66). Why? Well, when one takes refuge in Lord Krishna, he transcends the Gunas which are the cause of entanglement with people. How can there be grief if you were not attached to anyone who died?

2. Dwandwam: Another psychological concept that the Upanishadic seers came up with which has great relevance to modern world is Dwandwam. The literal meaning of this term is “pair of opposites” such as likes and dislikes, related to mind’s thinking function; pleasure and pain, having to do with mind’s feeling function; gain and loss, having to do with mind’s acting function. The Bhagavad Gita mentions several other pairs of opposites: honor and dishonir, love and hate, virtue and vice, victory and defeat, heat and cold.  2:14: The contacts of the senses with their respective objects, O son of Kunti, create feelings of heat and cold, of pain and pleasure. They come and go and are impermanent. Bear them patiently O Bharata.

In the picture above, the wavy lines represent the “pairs of opposites” of Dwandwam engendered by mind’s contact with sense objects. The lower oval with a straight line represents Buddiyukta mind.

The word Dwandwam, however, has far deeper implication than the phrase “pair of opposites.” It stands for the unsteadiness of mind engendered by mind’s attachment to sense objects such as money, gold, power, honor, title, etc. It also stands for stress one experiences when he is entangled with these sense objects. It is the ‘mental fever’ (3:30) often seen in people who suffer from Money Disorder, a condition in which one is totally obsessed with money. In the modern world, Dwandwam often manifests itself as severe racing of the mind, agitation, mood swings, feverish state of mind (3:30), obsessional behavior, indicisiveness, self-doubting, etc. In extreme cases, we see these people displaying a syndrome which closely resembles a serious mental disorder known as bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness. I have treated countless people suffering from this disorder in which one has severe mood swings -extremely high mood and extremely low mood. During the high spells, the patient is hyperactive, overtalkative, expansive and grandiose. During his lows, he is depressed, hopeless, dejected and often times suicidal. Many of these so-called bipolar people are not suffering from bipolar disorder at all. They suffer from extreme Dwandwam brought on by their obsession with money, gold, power, etc. I have noted this Dwandwam manifesting itself in two common disorders, frequently seen among well-to-do people.

A. Money Disease (M. D.). In this disorder one is constantly obsessed with making money. In other words, he suffers from Kāma (3:37), hankering, for money. He is so preoccupied with making money that he neglects everything else in his life. He is always busy engineering a new scheme to increase his wealth. He does not enjoy the wealth he already has. His conversations are all about money. He is constantly into buying gold, diamonds, real estate, stocks and other stuff. Since his attachment to money disconnects his mind from his wisdom he does stupid things, and often times ends up in jail. Because his mind loses touch with his pleasure centers in his brain, he is unable to experience happiness from money he already has. He does not give away money for any worthy cause. Most of his money is lost sooner or later in misadventures. So he strives to make even more money only to make him more miseable and insecure. Almost all people with Money Disease suffer from severe Dwandwam. Very often they are given a diagnosis of Biploar Disorder. Many end up losing their fortunes, family, freedom and even their lives. The economic recession of 2008 was as a result of actions of a handful of Dwandwam-ridden CEOs running huge organizations in America. Due to loss of wisdom, they made stupid decisions resulting in disastrous consequences to the whole world. The incredible amount of turmoil seen in the post-Vedic society was squarely due to the actions of Dwandwam-ridden upper classes of Brāhmanism who corrupted it beyond repair leading to the great Nastik revolt. Lord Krishna condemns and scolds these people mercilessly in the Bhagavad Gita (16:10-20).

B. Comparing and Competing Disorder (C & C Disorder). In this potentially serious disorder, one constantly compares his wealth, house, vehicle and the like to others’ and makes himself utterly miserable. This disorder is rooted in Krōdha (jealous rage). If his best friend’s house has 26 feet high ceiling, he wants to build a house with 28 feet high ceiling. He wants to buy a more expensive car than the one his friend or enemy has. Instead of feeling happy for others’ success he is constantly thinking how he could best them. There were people with C & C disorder even in ancient times (16:14). This disorder is rampant in upwardly mobile Indian community in America as well as in India.

In the Original Gita, Arjuna’s Dwandwam shows up as him wishing to give up everything he had worked for all these years and questioning the fundamental tenets of Brāhmanism. The following shlokas show how confused Arjuna was due to his attachment to his own people: 1:31-32: I do not foresee any good (pleasure and power here on earth and heaven hereafter) ensuing from the slaughter of my kinsmen in battle. O Krishna, I hanker for neither victory nor empire, nor pleasure (here on earth). Of what avail to us is kingdom or enjoyment or even life, Govinda?  1:35-37: Though myself slain by them, I would not, O Madhusudana, seek to slay them even for the sake of domination over three worlds (hereafter), how then for the earth? What delight can we derive, O Janārdana, by doing away with these sons of Dhritharashtra? Sin only will accrue to us by slaying these desperadoes. 1:46: Should the sons of Dhritharashtra with weapons in hand slay me, unresisting and unarmed in battle, that would indeed be better for me. We see such confusion, indecisiveness and self-doubt in people who are excessively attached to people, power, title, money and other sense objects.

In the Original Gita, Brāhmanism’s solution to Arjuna’s Dwandwam was simple: “Your egoism has disconnected your mind from your sense of duty (3:27). So, give up your “I” and “Mine” and remember the Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and perform your bounden Karma as per Varna Dharma. Accept the reality that you are helpless in the face of the force of the Gunas. Yield to them and do what comes naturally to you as a Kshatriya”: 18:59-60: If filled with egoism you think, “I will not fight!” vain is your resolve; your nature (Guna) will compel you to fight. Bound by your own Karma born of your nature (Guna), that which from delusion you wish not to do, even that you shall do helplessly against your own will, O Kaunteya. Thus thoroughly dressed down, a chastened Arjuna yields: My delusion (of Ahamkāra) is destroyed. I have regained my memory (of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma) through your grace, O Achyuta. I am firm (free from Shōkam); free from doubt (Dwandwam). I shall act (without fear of incurring bad Karmaphalam) according to your word.

The Upanishadic explanation for Dwandwam was that it is attachment to sense objects that brings on Dwandwam (2:14). So, if one reduced his desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects (”withdrawing senses from sense objects like a tortoise withdrawing its limbs into the shell”), the mind yokes itself to Buddhi and becomes steady. Dwandwa disappears. Such a steady mind is known as Buddhiyukta mind (2:48-51, 68). The Upanishadic solution for Arjuna’s Dwandwam was: 3:38: Treating alike pain and pleasure, gain and loss, victory and defeat, engage yourself in the battle. Of course, this Upanishadic solution for Dwandwam was not meant for Arjuna at all. How could Arjuna go to battle without desire for victory and determination to gain back his lost kingdom? Obviously this shloka was meant for those Brāhmanic ritualists in the historical context who were suffering from a terminal case of Dwandwam due to their obsession with earning Karmaphalam by means of Kāmya Karma. How do we know this to be the case? Well, Guru Krishna introduces Buddhiyoga in the very next shloka (2:39) and immediately lauches a frontal attack against Brāhmanism in 2:40-52. Buddhiyoga -giving up attachment to sense objects and giving up fruits of action- was their solution to the unsteady-minded ritualists (3:28-29).

The Bhāgavatha solution for Dwandwam was for one to fix his mind on Lord Krishna, detach from sense objects and dedicate all deeds to Lord Krishna (18:57-58). Obviously Bhāgavatha seers wanted to give people of all classes a simple way to conquer Dwandwam. Complicated psychological methods were not their cup of tea.

3. Karmaphalam is the consequence of one’s actions. In the modern times, we see the result of our actions in our own life as well as in the life of others. Since we don’t know what happens to us after death, we can only concern ourselves with consequences of our actions in our lifetime. In general, all actions motivated by our Weaknesses rooted in the Gunas (lust, greed, arrogance, hatred, jealousy, possessiveness and insecurity) lead to serious short-term as well as long-term negative consequences both for the person acting and others affected by his actions. Most patients I see for treatment are suffering from disorders brought on by the fruit of their own Karma or that of someone else. Here is an example: An old man succumbs to his lust and molests his seven year old granddaughter. When the granddaughter complains to her mother, she does nothing because she herself was molested by him when she was a child. The child carries her rage and resentment into adulthood. She becomes depressed. Her rage is so bad that she does not respond to medication and psychotherapy. She then goes for electric shock treatment. While in the hospital, she falls off the bed and receives serious head injury. Becoming a vegetable, she spends the rest of her life in a nursing home. Here, the grandfather’s Karmaphalam is eaten by his granddaughter.

In contrast, when one does the right thing as dictated by his Wisdom (judgment, reasoning, insight, knowledge, memory, morals and noble virtues) the negative consequences are almost nil. Whatever positive consequences there are last for a long time and many people would benefit from such actions.

In the Original Gita, prince Krishna allays Arjuna’s worry about earning sin by declaring: 18:17: He who is free from the notion of Amahkāra and whose Buddhi is not tained -though he kills these people (his own people), he kills not, nor is he bound (by his Karma). Furthermore, prince Krishna turned the tables on Arjuna by saying: 3:33: But if you will not wage this righteous warfare, then forfeiting your own duty and honor, you will incur sin. On the other hand, if Arjuna did his socially designated duty -Karma as per his Dharma- 3:37: Salin you will gain heaven; victorius you will enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse up, O son of Kunti, resolved to fight.

The Upanishadic Guru Krishna’s solution for this is that when one performs his action without desire or aversion (Dwandwam), he earns neither good not bad Karmaphalam: 2:15: That man, O best of men, is fitted for immortality (because of not earning any Karmaphalam in his deeds), whom Dwandwam does not torment, and who is balanced in pain and pleasure, and is steadfast (Buddhiyukta). 2:51-52: The one (acting) with Buddhiyukta mind frees himself in this life (here on earth) from the result of doing good deeds as well as bad. Therefore, devote yourself to doing work in the spirit of Yoga. Work done skillfully (without the side-effect such as Karmaphalam) is verily Yoga. The wise, acting in the spirit of Buddhiyoga, renouncing the fruits of action, are freed from the fetters of births (hereafter) and they attain painless state (Nirvāna). The Upanishadic Lord Krishna’s way of not earning any Karmaphalam is to dedicate all deeds to Brahman:5:10: He who acts without attachment to fruits, and dedicates his deeds to Brahman, is untainted by sin (Karmaphalam) just as a lotus leaf is untainted by water.

The Bhāgavatha solution for not earning Karmaphalam was for one to dedicate all deeds to Lord Krishna (”Krishnārpana”): 9:27-28: Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer in Yajna, whatever you gift away, whatever austerity you practice, O Kaunteya, do it as an offering to Me. Thus you shall be free from the bondage of actions yielding good and bad results. With the mind firmly set in the Yoga of renunciation (Sanyāsa) and liberated, you shall come to Me.

All the above mentioned facts should prove to the reader that the main thrust of Bhagavad Gita’s wisdom is psychology and morality, and not religion. All religions, including Hinduism, started out with psychology and morality and ended with mindless rituals performed by the priests with enlightened self-interest. Hinduism, as it is practiced all over the world today, has degenerated into the potpourri of hundreds of mindless rituals, the meanings of which are not known to either the sponsors or even the priests officiating them. In Hindu temples, the same gods are offered hundreds of different rituals for a schedule of fees consistent with their complexity. These rituals are disguised forms of desire-driven sacrificial rites (Kāmya Karma) performed by the upper classes of decadent Brāhmanism of ancient India (2:43): “God, give me wealth! Give me power! Give me heaven!” I have never heard anyone ask God, “Give me the strength to overcome my weaknesses rooted in the Gunas and the wisdom to do the right thing.” It is about time that we reveal to the public the profound psychological and moral insights in the Bhagavad Gita instead of focusing on mindless rituals promoted by vested interests. It is no use for us to worship Lord Krishna with Poojas, Abhishekas, and whatnot if we do not constantly strive to be like Him.

1.4: Question: Who is your Guru, anyway?

Answer: My Guru is none other than Lord Krishna Himself. I did not need a Brāhmanic Guru to (mis)interpret to me what Lord Krishna said in plain language, or what He really meant to say. I have read numerous commentaries written by various Brāhmanic Gurus and Swāmis, not to mention many western authors who blindly followed their thinking, and I am quite familiar with what they all have to say. I have given several examples of blatant misinterpretation by Brāhmanic commentators below. I believe that I would not have discovered the truths I have revealed in this book had I been tutored, indoctrinated, -or should I say brainwashed? -by a Brāhmanic Guru. A Brāhmanic Guru can teach us only what his Guru taught him. And that Guru passed on to him what his Guru taught him. There is no room for dispassionate inquiry and original thinking simply because the main goal of all Brāhmanic Gurus is to preserve Brāhmanism at any cost and not the quest for truth. Just as a copying machine faithfully reproduces the original document, including stray ink-spots and blemishes in it, Gurus also repeat faithfully to their students everything they learned from their Guru, including misinterpretations. For example, many Brāhmanic commentators blindly repeat the commentary of Sri Shankārchārya. Besides, no Swāmi or Guru I have ever known over the years has been free from some vested interest in maintaining his financial security and personal status in the society.

During my fifteen years of incessant study of the Bhagavad Gita, I gained new insights even in my dreams. If you read this book you will realize that I could not have revealed the Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita without genuine interest in the subject. Besides, I am pretty certain that Lord Krishna will not demand fingers of my right hand as his fee (Dakshina) for writing this book, like Guru Drōnāchārya did Ekalavya his right thumb for learning his archery skill without his permission and blessings! [2]

1.5: Question: Have you sought the approval and blessing of our religious leaders for your book?

Answer: I must answer this question as follows: If you were to write a book that exposes to the public wholesale corruption and fraud by certain government officials, would you send a rough draft of your book to them for their approval and blessing? The main purpose of this book is to expose how Brāhmanism hid the true purpose, destroyed the true spirit and obfuscated the true context of the wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita. No Brāhmanic religious leader would ever face that truth no matter what irrefutable proof I provide him. Besides, the Bhagavad Gita is a World Heritage Scripture. It does not belong to just a group of people who unjustly claim hegemony over it on account of their mastery of Sanskrit language or their allegiance to a particular religion. In fact, because of their mastery over Sanskrit language and ignorance of their audience, they were able to get away with whatever they claimed the Bhagavad Gita stood for.

1.6: Question: What makes you think you are right?

Answer: Whether I am right or not is for the readers to decide. I have given a barebone summary of my thesis in the previous chapter. Also I have given my commentary on all shlokas of BG Chapters Two to Six in which the Upanishadic revolution to overthrow Brāhanism was intiated and carried out. If these proofs are not enough to convince the reader that my observations are correct, I am afraid there is not a whole lot more I can add to convince him or her. One cannot argue with those who do not want to acknowledge facts. This book is not meant for people bogged down by blind faith, deluded by Brāhmanic duplicity or afraid to know the truth. It might take some time for the curious ones to reorient their mind to a new way of looking at the Bhagavad Gita. I have searched for truth and the True in the Bhagavad Gita on a daily basis for over fifteen years with a great deal of reverence and single-minded devotion. For a long time, I blindly believed everything Brāhmanic commentators said or wrote. However, after a while the scientist in me simply could not ignore the glaring obfuscation, misinterpretation and misrepresentation in their commentaries. In this book I have explained in plain language what I have discovered in the Bhagavad Gita. I have not resorted to convoluted logic, obfuscation and distortion to convey my conclusions. No one can and should judge this book without first thoroughly studying the Bhagavad Gita itself, and then reading this book in its entirety. I am fully aware of the risk of being branded as one deluded by Ahamkāra (egoism) by Brāhmanic Gurus. This accusation has always been the Ultimate Weapon -Brahmmāstra- of Brāhmanism to shame and browbeat its critics and reformers into silence.

1.7: The story behind this book

Several people have asked me the question, “How did you, a psychiatrist, get interested in this project?” Well, it was purely accidental. About twenty years ago, as I was hurrying toward the baggage claim area of airport in St. Louis, Missouri, a middle-aged American man accosted me with a book in his hand. He offered me a hard-bound “free copy” of ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ by Bhakti Vedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda in return for a ten dollar donation. The book promptly went on the bookshelf in my family room, where it stayed unopened for the next few years. Little did I know then that a more appropriate title for this book would have been, ‘The Bhagavad Gita As It Is Not.’

Then, one day an American doctor friend of mine asked me if I had a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. I lent him the book. After a few months, he returned the book with a terse note, “tough going.” Since then I have talked with innumerable Indians about the Bhagavad Gita, and every single one of them said that it was mighty hard to understand commentaries written by various authorities, leave alone its text. In fact, I have met Indians who have attended regular discourses on the Bhagavad Gita by various Gurus and Swāmis for over ten years and yet have gained little understanding of its true intent, spirit and wisdom. Words such as “tough, confusing, contradictory, disjointed, and incomprehensible” frequently cropped up in conversations regarding the Bhagavad Gita. One ardent student of the Bhagavad Gita said laconically, “It is like the blind leading the blind!” Another said humorously, “The story of six blind men and the elephant comes to my mind.” Indeed, one can find different explanations for the same shloka in six different commentaries simply because the authors were unaware of the either historical contexts of the shlokas or the correct meanings of the terms used by the Upanishadic seers. Reminds me of the following statement regarding Brāhmanic seers in Mundaka Upanishad 1:2:8: Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge (of the Vedas), go round and round staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind (also Katha Upa. 2:5).

My initial interest in the Bhagavad Gita was merely to examine Arjuna’s mental conflict: Should I kill my own people to regain my kingdom, or should I just walk away from it all? As a psychiatrist, it is my business to examine mental conflicts of my patients. Often this boils down to detecting inconsistency in what a person says and what he does. As I began to study the Bhagavad Gita in greater detail, I was struck by the fact that Lord Krishna, not Arjuna, said to Arjuna one thing at one point and exactly opposite in the very next moment. It became obvious to me that this internal conflict in the Bhagavad Gita was due to the fact that two opposing sides were continually putting words in Lord Krishna’s mouth to further their own agendas. Challenged by this discovery, I started to read the Bhagavad Gita in earnest. The first chapter was easy enough. When I went to the second chapter, I found it so confusing, incoherent, and self-contradictory that I had to resist the temptation to throw the book across the room. Only my utmost regard for the sanctity of the book prevented me from doing so. Over the next two years, I kept reading the book again and again without making any headway. I often wondered, “Why should a holy book be so difficult to understand? Why should I need a Guru to understand the message in it?”

1.8: Why is it so hard to follow the text and Brāhmanic commentaries?

When I read the text of the Bhagavad Gita and commentaries by various Brāhmanic Gurus, three things struck me repeatedly:

1. Shlokas often contradicted each other. For example, in 2:37, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna: If you died fighting you will gain heaven; if you won you will enjoy the earth. Therefore, you must fight. This is absolutely the best advice anyone can give to a warrior. However, in the very next shloka, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna exactly the opposite: 2:38: You should fight without worrying about pain and pleasure, gain and loss, victory and defeat. By doing so, you will incur no sin (bad Karmaphalam). In 3:27, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna: Gunas perform all Karma. Due to ignorance arising from egoism, man thinks he is the doer. In the very next two shlokas, Lord Krishna says that one must not be deluded by the force of the Gunas and an enlightened person who has not become deluded by the Gunas should not unsettle those (ritualists) who are deluded by them. In 3:33, Lord Krishna says that one behaves according to his Guna and it is pointless to resist it. In the very next shloka, Lord Krishna says that one must not be dominated by the Dwandwam of desire and aversion caused by the Gunas, for they are verily his enemies. Again, In 18:59-60, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that he is totally helpless to do anything against the dictates of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. In 18:61-63, however, He tells Arjuna that the Lord dictates all actions (not the Gunas) and he should take refuge in Him (in order to transcend the force of the Gunas); and he should reflect on the profound knowledge (of Atmān and Buddhiyoga) given to him and act as he chooses (instead of helplessly submitting to the Gunas and Karma). Such blatant contradictions were too numerous to ignore. Obviously, there was an argument going on here between two opposing parties! One side told Arjuna to submit to the Gunas and the other side wants him to transcend them. Whereas the pro-Guna shlokas represented Brāhmanic thinking, anti-Guna shlokas represented the  Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha thinking. It dawned on me that the Bhagavad Gita was not a monolithic text written by one person as claimed by all Brāhmanic commentators, unless, of course, the author suffered from multiple personality disorder! Commentators who were not aware of this fact indulged in long-winded explanations and convoluted logic to reconcile the two diametrically opposite views. If the commentator knew this fact, he was obviously indulging in deceptive explanation to hide the fact.

2. Very often the commentary of the Brāhmanic author had little to do with the actual content in the shloka. The author frequently brought in the Lord, Bhakti, Vishnu, Lakshmi or some other topic into the commentary even when neither the shloka under study, nor the shlokas preceding it or following it, made any mention of it. For example in 2:50 and 2:51, the word Buddhiyukta simply refers to the Mind that has disconnected itself from the Senses (desire for and attachment to sense objects) and yoked itself to Buddhi (Wisdom, Intellect) and thus steadied by it. Buddhiyukta mind counters Dwandwam resulting from mind’s attachment to sense objects (2:14). The Buddhiyukta mind is the springboard for attaining Knowledge of Atmān. Neither Atmān nor the Lord nor Bhakti is part of the equation here; at least, not yet. Atmān is added to this equation only after 2:54. Swāmi Prabhupāda interprets the term Buddhiyukta as “devotional service to the Lord.” In other words, according to him Buddhiyukta means Bhaktiyoga. Nothing is farther from truth than this. In the evolutionary path of the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna is declared as the Lord of being only in 4:6, and Bhakti is not introduced till the Bhāgavathas took over the Upanishadic Gita in Chapter Seven. Even Karmayoga and Jnānayoga were introduced only in 3:3.

3. I noticed another quirk: all anti-Vedic shlokas were interpreted either literally or glossed over; or they were even interpreted as though they were pro-Vedic, disregarding the fact that Lord Krishna condemns all aspects of Brāhmanism for a specific purpose: to replace it with the Upanishadic Dharma. For example, Guru Krishna expresses disgust with the Vedas in 2:52 and in 2:53 recommends complete disregard for it in order to attain Samādhi, using the word Shruti when referring to the Vedas. Many Brāhmanic commentators interpret this word as ‘what you hear’ and not the Vedas. Often the commentator went in a tangent, and said pages after pages of totally inscrutable things. Most commentaries on the anti-Brāhmanism shlokas were too brief, or too long, or extremely confusing. Take, for instance, shlokas 15:1-4 in which, using an Ashvattha tree as metaphor for Brāhmanism, the Upanishadic seers recommend that one should cut the tree asunder with the strong axe of Yoga to attain the Abode of Brahman (liberation from Samsāra). Read any Brāhmanic commentary on these four shlokas and see if any of them make any sense. For that matter, take any anti-Brāhmanic shloka and read Brāhmanic commentary on it, and you will know what I am talking about. Later in this book, we will study commentaries by Brāhmanic seers on some of the shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita.

1.9: A classic example of misinterpretation of anti-Brāhmanic shlokas by Brāhmanic commentators

2:46: To an enlightened Brāhmana (one who has gained the Knowledge of Atmān and Brahman), all the Vedas are as useful as a well when there is flood all around.

Let us first look at the context of this shloka in the Bhagavad Gita. In 2:39 and 2:40 Guru Krishna introduced the doctrines of Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga to replace the Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas as Karma, followed by thirteen virulently anti-Brāhmanism shlokas (2:41-53). In 2:41, Guru Krishna compares a Dwandwa-ridden ritualists to a steady-minded Yogi. In 2:42-44 he condemns the ritulists as ignorant, desire-ridden and fickle-minded. In 2:45, he says that one must transcend the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and focus his mind on Atmān. Guru Krishna then compares the puny, ritual-ridden knowledge of the Vedas to the vast Knowledge of Atmān in 2:46: “The limited knowledge of sacrifice-centered Vedas is of little use to a Brāhmin who has been enlightened by the vast Knowledge of Atmān gained by the practice of Buddhiyoga, just as a small tank of water is of little use when the area is flooded with water.“ This is consistent with what the Upanishads repeatedly say: One cannot attain Atmān by means of the lower knowledge of the Vedas (Mundaka Upanishad 3:2:3). I have discussed this particular issue in greater detail in Chapter Seven and Eight, which deal with the Upanishadic Dharma.

This shloka that openly belittles “all the Vedas” as useless is explained away by Sri Shankarāchārya to mean: “For a knower of Brahman who has realized the ultimate Truth, there is as much profit from all the Vedas as there is profit from reservoirs when all around there is inundation.” He then goes on to say, “Just as in the world, various purposes like bathing and drinking are served by reservoirs of water like a well, a tank and so forth, and they are all, in the same measure, served by widespread flood, so too is the case as regards the purpose of the Vedas…..Therefore before acquiring the fitness for practicing the discipline of Knowledge (of Atmān) those who are called upon to work (perform sacrificial rites), must do such works as promote limited ends, like served by well, tanks, and so forth.”

What Sri Shankarāchārya is saying here is that to a Self-realized person, the Vedas are as useful as Knowledge of Brahman. This interpretation is exactly opposite of what was said in the shloka. He goes on to say that one must keep performing Yajnas as directed by Brāhmanism in order to qualify himself for the Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga. In other words, first one must become addicted to mindless Yajna to “purify himself.” Then only can he strive to realize Atmān. This means only Brāhmins and Kshatriyas are eligible to gain Knowledge of Atmān and practice Buddhiyoga. This directly contradicts the true spirit of the Upanishadic Gita as enunciated by the Upanishadic Lord Krishna: 3:17-18: But the man who rejoices in Atmān, is satisfied with the Atmān, and is centered in Atmān, for him verily there is no need for sacrificial rites. For him there is in this world no object to acquire by doing it; nor is there any loss by not doing it; nor has he to depend on anybody or anything!” “Give up Yajna,” says Lord Krishna. “They serve no useful purpose for one who has trained his mind on Atmān by the practice of Buddhiyoga.” Again, 6:44: Even he who merely wishes to know of Yoga rises superior to performer of Vedic rites.

And the Bhāgavatha Lord Krishna affirmed the same when he declared: 11:48, 53: Neither by the study of the Vedas, nor by Yajnas, nor gifts, nor by severe penances, can this form of Mine be seen in the world of men by any one else but you, O hero of the Kurus.

Sri Rāmānuja explains shloka: “What use a thirsty person has for water reservoir when all sides of it are flooded -that much alone is the use of all the Vedas for Brāhmana who knows. He goes on to say, “Whatever in all the Vedas for the means for release (Mōksha) to a knowing Brāhmana, i.e., one who is established in the study of the Vedas and who aspires for release (Mōksha) only to that extent is it to be accepted by him and not anything else.”

In his commentary Sri Rāmānuja explains the phrase enlightened Brāhmin as a person who is established in study of the Vedas! In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna describes the Vedic scholars as ignorant (2:42) and deluded (2:52) men. Sri Rāmānuja explains that one should not accept the Vedas for any other purpose than to attain Mōksha. However, as we read above both the Upanishads and Lord Krishna always declared that the Vedas are useless as vehicle for Mōksha since their goal was to attain wealth here on earth (4:12) and heaven hereafter (2:43). During the Upanishadic period they did not know the concept of Mōksha of the Bhāgavathas; nor did they accept Nirvāna of the Upanishads. The only “release” they could have obtained from performance of Yajnas, which they ignored to their own peril, was release from the debt of the gods for their benevolence (3:12-13; 4:15). Lord Krishna labels these elfish rituaists as thieves (3:12). The Upanishads call those indulging in sacrificial rites as conceited, blind fools (Mundaka Upanishad 1:2:7-10).

Sri Madhvāchārya explains this shloka as follows: “Even as the use of the lake is for the one surrounded by sea, even so is the use of all the Vedas for one who knows Brahman.” He follows this interpretation by the following paragraph. See what sense you can make of it: “Therefore, the fruits available to performers of desire-bound actions (Kāmya Karma) are not available to the men of wisdom. But even there is similarity, thus He says in this verse. Similarly all the benefits which accrue from the well are also available from water surrounded from all sides. Similarly whatever fruits are in the Vedas, the same will also be available to the men of wisdom, because in Brāhmana all benefits are included. He knows the Brahman, therefore, he is called a Brahmana. He alone goes to Brahman. ‘vijanata’ suggests having fruits of Wisdom.” Sri Madhvāchārya generously grants to Self-realized Brāhmins fruits of Kāmya Karma also, namely pleasure and lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter!!!!! Obviously it never occured to him that the goal of all Self-realized Brāhmins was to obtain Bliss of Atmān here on earth and Nirvāna hereafter.

It is pointless to quote modern commentators. Their explanations are even more bizarre.

None of the above commentators seemed to be aware of the historical/revolutionary context of the Bhagavad Gita. I can give the reader any number of such examples of misinterpretation to suite the commentator’s whim. It became evident to me while reading all these obfuscating commentaries that all Brāhmanic commentators were indulging in serious kind of spinning, distortion and duplicity to hide the true intent of these shlokas and to further their own agendas; or simply filling the gaps in their own knowledge or even ignorance. Later in this book I have given side by side commentaries by five Brāhmanic seers on three anti-Brāhmanic shlokas (18:66; 2:47; 4:15) to illustrate this point further. As I studied these Brāhmanic commentaries, I felt like the innocent child at the naked emperor’s procession that shouted at the top of the voice, “Look mom! The emperor is not wearing any clothes!”

We will study in detail in the future chapters similar misinterpretation of anti-Brāhmanic shlokas by pro-Brāhmanic lobby.

1.10: Shloka 3:42: A treasure

I found a treasure of wisdom when I stumbled upon the shloka 3:42: The Indriyāni (Senses) are superior (to the body and Sense Objects); the Manas (Mind) is superior to the Indriyāni; Buddhi (Intellect/Wisdom) is superior to the Manas; and that which is superior to the Buddhi is He (Atmān).

No student of the Bhagavad Gita can expect to understand the true essence of the Bhagavad Gita without first thoroughly understanding this shloka. This seminal shloka described the hierarchy of various components of the apparatus of mind. Clearly, this Upanishadic shloka (Kathā Upanishad 2:6:7) was at least 2500 years ahead of Sigmund Freud. At once it threw the doors wide open for psychological insights in the text. When I studied the following chapters of the Bhagavad Gita it became evident to me that the psychological part of the Gita was mostly in Chapters Two to Six, which are of the Upanishadic origin. It became clear that the Upanishadic seers were thinkers and philosophers, and Brāhmanic seers were mindless ritualists, whose main goals were self-enrichment and perpetuation of class system. After several more years of study, I wrote a small guide on the stress management aspects of the Bhagavad Gita based on the Upanishadic insights. I also offered some classes on this topic to Indian audiences in the U. S. A. Being a psychiatrist I restricted my observations only to psychological and secular aspects of the Bhagavad Gita.

1.11: In search of the Lord

The course of my inquiry changed when I met Swāmi Dayānanda Saraswati at his Ashram in Pennsylvania in the Fall of 2005. We discussed the need to spread the psychological message of the Bhagavad Gita. Swāmi Dayānanda gave me four massive volumes of his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. He seemed to approve my psychological insights into the Bhagavad Gita but made a recommendation that changed the course of my inquiry into it. He said that I must bring Ishwara, the Supreme Lord, into the text. According to him no commentary on the Bhagavad Gita was authentic until it had the element of Ishwara in it. Obviously he wanted to preserve the religious tenor of the Bhagavad Gita in any commentary on it. My idea was to bring the true wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita to the masses and his goal was to further the interests of Hindu Dharma. Even though I did not agree with him, I went in search of the Supreme Lord in the Bhagavad Gita.

As I got deeper into the Bhagavad Gita in search of Ishwara, however, I discovered that the real purpose of Ishwara in it was not to persuade Arjuna to resume fighting, -which prince Krishna of the Brāhmanic Original Gita had succeeded in doing so brilliantly- but to establish a New Dharma worshipping one Supreme God to destroy the decaying Brāhmanic Dharma worshipping many nature gods. After carefully reading the actual text over fifty times I concluded that 636 of the 700 shlokas had nothing to do with Arjuna’s dilemma whatsoever. I suspected that there must be another context to the Bhagavad Gita than the Mahābhārata alone. In-depth study of India’s ancient history and the Upanishads uncovered the Historical context of the Bhagavad Gita. I realized that the essential teaching of the Upansiahds was diametrically opposed to Brāhmanic teaching, even though Brāhmanism claimed the Upanishads as Vedic knowledge. It dawned on me that the Bhagavad Gita was, in fact, the manifesto of a grand socio-religious revolution, engineered by the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha scholars, to overthrow the decadent Brāhmanism centered on corrupt sacrificial rites known as Kāmya Karma. It became clear that both Brāhmanic Old Guard and the Revolutionaries opposing them were battling each other in the Bhagavad Gita using Arjuna’s Shōkam, Dwandwam and fear of bad Karmaphalam on the battlefield as a mere pretext. I had unwittingly stumbled upon The Secret Code of the Bhagavad Gita. It took me over one hundred careful readings of the actual text, and study of over twenty commentaries by various Brāhmanic as well as Western authors of the Bhagavad Gita, before the jigsaw puzzle of the Bhagavad Gita was more or less put together. By means of this book I humbly submit to the discriminating readers my findings and conclusions.

1.12: The Battle for the Soul of the Sanātana Dharma

In the sizzling drama of the Bhagavad Gita, played robustly on the grand stage of the Mahābhārata epic, Lord Krishna and prince Arjuna are mere puppets playing out their metaphoric roles and singing whatever shlokas the Brāhmanic directors on the one side of the stage, and the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha directors on the other, prompted them to from behind the scenes. The backdrop of this stage is the tumultuous history of post-Vedic India. The naïve in the audience are fooled by the Brāhmanic faction into believing that their dialogue was, indeed, meant to resolve only Arjuna’s predicament at the critical moment on the battlefield of Kurukshetra: should he kill his own people to regain his kingdom, or should he just walk away from the battlefield? What the shrewd in the audience perceive is that the entire philosophical discourse in the Bhagavad Gita was meant to resolve an infinitely greater quandary the Indian society faced in the decisive post-Vedic period of her history: Should decadent Brāhmanism be saved or should it be destroyed and be replaced with a New Dharma? The result was an epic struggle between the proponents of the decaying Old Dharma and revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow it in order to establish a New Dharma.

Whereas in the Mahābhārata epic context the cousins of Bharata clan fought a civil war on the sacred battlefield of Kurukshetra for the domination of a kingdom, in the Historical context the cousins of the Brāhmanic Dharma fought a socio-religious war on the sacred battlefield of the Bhagavad Gita for the Soul of the Sanātana Dharma. In the process, the 64 shloka long Original Gita burgeoned to its current size of 700 shlokas. No wonder the text of the Bhagavad Gita appears as chaotic as the battlefield. Sadly, even though the Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha seers won the battle of the Gita as evidenced by its new title ‘the Bhagavad Gita-Upanishad’ they lost the war for the Soul of the Sanātana Dharma to their orthodox Brāhmanic cousins as evidenced by Brāhmanism’s continued stranglehold on all aspects of Hindu society -cultural, social, religious and psychological.

1.13: Brāhmanism made Lord Krishna its Precious Prisoner and Poster Person!

In the final analysis, however, Hinduism, as we see it today, is the supreme symbol of how Brāhmanism prevailed through invasions, conquests, revolutions, revolts and occupations; tenaciously hung on to its hollow cultural traditions and mindless rituals; promoted the class and caste system just to maintain the superiority of Brāhmins; destroyed entirely, or engulfed completely, all religious reformers and adversaries into its ever-resilient body; and inexorably dug its powerful nails deep into the body of the ever-assimilating and all-inclusive Hindu Dharma which succeeded it. It is also a testament to the infinite sustaining power of Brāhmanism, whose iron hand has had such ruthless grip on the psyche of a whole Indian nation for over three thousand and five hundred years. But alas, it is also the ironic story of how, in the process, Brāhmanism made Lord Krishna, the Hero of that very revolution to uproot it, its Precious Prisoner as well as its Poster Person!

1.14: Myths versus reality

It is next to impossible to understand the Bhagavad Gita unless we first debunk the following five myths.

Myth # 1: The Bhagavad Gita is a monolithic text representing one Dharma.
Reality: The Bhagavad Gita has three distinct Gitas hidden in its text, each superimposed on and intricately interwoven with the other. They represent three distinct pairs of doctrines representing three different sects. It is impossible to make proper sense of the Bhagavad Gita without accepting this reality.

Myth # 2: The Bhagavad Gita was written in one stretch by one author named Mahārishi Vyāsa.
Reality: The Bhagavad Gita was written by many unknown authors over two centuries promoting three diverse pairs of doctrines. Without separating the shlokas written by seers of three distinct Dharmas, it is impossible to make proper sense of the Bhagavad Gita.

Myth # 3: The Bhagavad Gita’s only context is the Mahābhārata epic (Arjuna’s predicament).
Reality: Most of the shlokas of The Bhagavad Gita are related to the Historical/Revolutionary context and they have nothing to do with Arjuna’s predicament in Mahābhārata context. When one tries to interpret shlokas related to the revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism as applicable to Arjuna’s predicament, the result is utter nonsense.

Myth # 4: The Bhagavad Gita is a quintessentially Brāhmanic text.
Reality: The Original Gita was Brāhmanic. Most shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita are anti-Brahmanic. All commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, on the other contrary, are pro-Brāhmanic.

Myth # 5: The Vedas and the Upanishads are one single entity.

Reality: The Upanishads had little regard for ritual-oriented Vedas. Brāhmanic commentators have obfuscated the distinction between these two resulting in utter confusion. When Brāhmanic commentators use the term ‘Vedic’ they mean Vedas and the Upanishads. The truth is that the Vedas mostly focus on rituals; the Upanishads focus on philosophy.

_____________________________________________________________

[2] Ekalavya, the forest-dwelling outcaste boy of superlative archery skills, revealed to Drōnāchārya, the martial arts Guru of the Pāndava princes, that after he was turned down discipleship by the Guru, he learned his skills by practicing archery before the Guru’s mud idol. The ruthless Guru demanded his right thumb as his teacher’s fee. Disregarding the consequences thereof, the noble Ekalavya immediately cut off his right thumb and offered it as teacher’s fee to the shameless Drōnāchārya, which deprived him of any benefit from the archery skill he had learned by the sweat of his brows. The Guru was merely protecting his favorite student Arjuna from being bested by an outcaste boy. This kind of discrimination is rampant even today in India. Harijans are routinely rejected from jobs even when they are more qualified than “upper caste” candidates. Thanks to the iron grip of Brāhmanism on Hindu society, not much has changed since the days of post-Vedic era.

CHAPTER TWO

Brāhmanism and the Doctrines of the Gunas and Karma

2.1: The Arya

Let us now review in some detail the circumstances leading to the creation of the 64 shloka long Original Gita. Around 1500 B. C. E. northern India was dominated by a group of elite people who called themselves as the Arya. Most probably the Arya people were fair-skinned and of Central Asian origin. They spoke an archaic form of a language that later came to be known as Sanskrit. Their preeminence in northern India was by virtue of the force of their arms, superiority of their culture and vastness of their vocabulary. They rode chariots drawn by horses and they raised cows. They considered themselves as the nobility of the ancient Indian society, and so the term Arya came to mean nobleman. Much of the information we have about the Arya people, their language, culture, and religion comes to us from Rig Veda, a collection of sacred hymns composed by their bards probably between 1500 and 1000 B. C. E., a period known as the Vedic period. Arya people disparagingly referred to the darker-skinned locals as Dāsyus -slaves. Shortly after they settled down amidst the local people a primitive class system based on the color (Varna) of skin -not unlike the apartheid system in 20th century South Africa and the U. S. A.- came into being.

2.2: Evolution of the Aryan society

In the course of time, by necessity, Aryan men co-mingled with local women and produced children of varying hues of skin color, and the Varna system, based on white skin versus black, no longer made as much sense. As the society became more complex, a new class system evolved based on one’s profession. However, the term “Varna”  continued to be applied to the new class system, and it no longer carried the connotation of skin color. This is akin to the term Yajamāna, which originally meant ‘one who sponsored a Yajna’, later came to mean the head of the household even though he never sponsored Yajna. Gradually the society stratified itself into four broad classes: Kshatriyas, the warrior class; Brāhmins, the priestly class; Vaishyas, the trading, farming and cattle-raising class, and Sudras, the labor class (18:41-44). In this class system, known as Varna Dharma, Kshatriyas and Brāhmins, who were referred to as Dvija (twice-born) became the upper classes (17:14). Vaishyas, Sudras and women were considered inferior in birth (Pāpayonaya 9:32). Those who were beyond the pale of this class system were considered as uncultured out-castes. People who were products of class admixture (Varnasankara, 1:41) -union between the upper class women and lower class men- were also condemned as out-castes. The upper classes abhorred Varnasankara (1:38-44) and did their best to keep the purity of each class intact. Somewhat later in the Vedic period, as the society became even more complex, it developed Jāti Dharma (1:43), caste system, based on sub-specialization of hereditary professions and endogamy, developed. For example, Brāhmin class (Varna) came to have many castes (Jātis) based of their sub-specialties, language and the like. Even amidst the specific castes, a system of distinct families, practicing their own specific rituals, (Kula Dharmas, 1:43), evolved. In any case, even though the class and caste system transcended the skin color, the Indian society continued to place a great deal of importance to the color of one’s skin. To this day in India people with dark skin color are looked down upon and fair colored people, especially women, are highly valued.

2.3: Kingdoms and Republics

In the beginning of Vedic period, the Arya were semi-nomadic people who grazed their cattle from pasture to greener pasture. Then they began to settle down in the region of the Punjab. As settlements took roots, they became civilized and their culture became more refined. Over the next five centuries the Aryan culture gradually spread in the southeasterly direction, along the rivers Yamuna and Ganga. The Aryan aristocracy formed various ancient kingdoms (1:4-7) -Kuru, Panchala, Matsya, Chedi, Kashi, Kosala- and republics such as Shakyas, Koliyas, Mallas, and the like. Human nature being what it is, these kingdoms often fought amongst themselves for territory, cows, and supremacy. The great epic Mahābhārata, often referred to as the fifth Veda, is about a Great War that allegedly took place, perhaps around 1000 B. C. E. on the ancient battlefield of Kurukshetra (1:1) about one hundred miles north of New Delhi, India, in which all these kingdoms fought on one side or the other. There is no material evidence to prove that the Mahābhārata war, as it was depicted in the epic, was an actual historical event. It is very likely, however, that the core of the Mahābhārata epic was based on an actual war that took place in that region sometime during the Vedic period.

2.4: Brāhmanism

The social order of the Arya people was known as Orthodox Vedic Dharma or Brāhmanism. The Brāhmanic Dharma rested on the foundation of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, and was held up by four pillars: 1. Sanctity of ancient, orally transmitted scriptures known as the Vedas or Shrutis (17:23-24). 2. Hierarchical class system known as the Varnāshrama Dharma (4:13), which divided the Brāhmanic society into four great classes -Brāhmins (priests of Sāttvic Guna), Kshatriyas (warriors of Rājasic Guna), Vaishyas (agriculturists, traders, cattle ranchers, of Tāmasic Guna), and Sudras (laborers, of Tāmasic Guna) (14:5-18; 18:41-45). 3. Sacrificial rites (Yajna, Karma) dedicated to the Vedic gods (4:12; 17:4, 14); and 4. Supremacy of Brāhmins over the other three classes (18:42) by virtue of their monopoly over the sacred texts and the art of sacrificial rites.

2.5: The doctrine of the Gunas (Qualities)

To consolidate their status in the society, the upper classes developed an ingenious doctrine known as the Gunas. The doctrine of the Gunas said that one’s “natural quality” or “natural disposition” or “innate nature” (Svabhāva, 18:42) he is born with, or “natural temperament” known as the Guna, drove all his actions (Karma) (3:5); and no one, including gods, is capable of defying its force (18:40). The Gunas are rooted in Prakriti (Nature). A simple example would be the Guna of a tiger. It is tiger’s nature to attack other animals and kill them. A tiger which grew up in wilderness cannot be entirely tamed to be docile. Even circus tigers do not give up their innate nature to kill. Likewise, a full-blooded Kshatriya, raised in the household of fine Kshatriya parents cannot easily give up his innate Kshatriya bravery and ferocity. Brāhmanism recognized three Gunas (Qualities): Sattva (goodness, happiness, knowledge); Rajas (passion, action, greed); and Tamas (ignorance, laziness, sleep). Brāhmins assigned themselves the Sāttvic Guna and designated Rājasic Guna to the Kshatriyas. The rest were given the Tāmasic Guna. Everything in the Brāhmanic world were straight-jacketed into these three Gunas (Chapters Seventeen and first half of Chapter Eighteen). The three Gunas and their functions are explained in the Brāhmanic Gita as follows:

14:5-18: Sattva, Rajas, Tamas -these Gunas, O mighty armed, born of Prakriti, bind the indestructible (Atman) embodied one fast in the body. Of these, Sattva, being stainless, is luminous and un-obstructive. It binds, O sinless one, by creating attachment to happiness and knowledge. Know Rajas to be of nature of passion, of source of thirst and attachment (to sense objects and action); it binds fast, O Kaunteya, the embodied one to attachment to action. But know Tamas to be born of ignorance, deluding all embodied beings; it binds fast, O Bharata, by heedlessness, indolence and sleep. Sattva binds one to happiness, and Rajas to action, O Bharata, while Tamas verily veils knowledge and binds one to heedlessness. Sattva asserts itself, O Bharata, by predominating over Rajas and Tamas; and Rajas over Sattva and Tamas; and Tamas over Sattva and Rajas. When the light of knowledge beams through all the gateways of the body, then it may be known that Sattva is predominant. Greed, activity, the undertaking of actions, unrest, longing -these arise, O best of the Bharatas, when Rajas is predominant. Indiscrimination, inertness, heedlessness and delusion -these arise, O joy of the Kurus, when Tamas is predominant. If the embodied one meets with death when Sattva is predominant, then he goes to the pure worlds of those who know the highest. Meeting death in Rajas, he is born among those attached to action; and, dying in Tamas, he is born in the womb of the deluded. The fruit of good action, they say, is Sāttvika and pure; verily the fruit of Rajas is pain, and ignorance is the fruit of Tamas. From Sattva arises wisdom; from Rajas arises greed; and from Tamas arise heedlessness, error and ignorance. Those who are fixed in Sattva go upwards; the Rajasikas remain in the middle; and the Tamasikas, abiding in the functions of the lowest Guna, go downwards.

Brāhmanism focused entirely on the Action part of the Gunas (3:5, 27, 33; 18:59-60) as its main goal in the Original Gita was to motivate Arjuna to fight. All actions were mediated by means of organs of action such as hands, legs, mouth and genitals. However, there is another aspect of the Gunas which the Brāhmanic seers failed to deal with: The Senses. The Upanishadic seers had no quarrel with the fact that all action was driven by the Gunas and Atmān was entirely actionless (13:29). However, they pointed out that the Gunas were the hotbed of various human weaknesses such as Kāma, Krōdha (3:37), Sangas and Mōha (2:62-63). When man’s actions are tainted by these weaknesses, he indulges in evil acts such as Kāmya Karma (3:36-43) and ruins himself (2:62-63). They blamed the Gunas as the cause of Shōkam because they destroyed awareness of Atmān (3:40). They blamed the Gunas as the cause of Dwandwam as the they promoted attachment to sense objects (3:34). They blamed the Gunas for incurring Karmaphalam and thus perpetuating Samsāra. Therfore, they said, the Gunas were truly enemies of man (3:34, 39) and they must be slain (3:43). So the Upanishadic seers repeatedly exhorted readers to transcend all three Gunas (2:45; 14:19). They gave Buddhiyoga as the tool to overcome the force of the Gunas.

2.6: The doctrine of Karma (Action, behavior)

Every action (Karma) resulted in a fruit (phalam), unless, of course, it was done selflessly (3:9). The Brāhmanic doctrine of Karma explained the consequences of one’s actions based on his Guna. If one did good deeds as dictated by his Guna, he gained good Karmaphalam (Punyam, merit) and if one did bad deeds in defiance of his Guna, he earned bad Karmaphalam (pāpam, sin, 1:36). One who earned good Karmaphalam enjoyed life and attained ‘perfection’ (Samsiddhim 18:45) here on earth and his spirit went to heaven hereafter. One who earned bad Karmaphalam suffered misery here on earth and his spirit went to hell hereafter (1:44). After exhausting one’s Karmaphalam in heaven or hell, one’s spirit returns to earth to begin another cycle of birth, death and rebirth, known as Samsāra (2:26-27; 6:40-41; 9:20-21). This doctrines explained why one suffered misery in life here on earth even though he/she had done nothing in this lifetime to deserve it. Because Brāhmanism believed in this cycle of birth, death and rebirth, its main concerns were quality of life here on earth and the fate of the spirit hereafter (18:42). The reader should take note of these two frequently mentioned Brāhmanic terms in the Bhagavad Gita: here and hereafter. During the post-Vedic period, the primary method of earning Karmaphalam was to perform Yajnas in an ostentatious way to earn wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter (2:43).

The Upanishadic seers claimed that earning Karmaphalam as per the doctrine of Karma meant one would be born again and again on this miserable earth. Their goal was peace of mind here on earth engendered by detachment from sense objects

2.7: How Brāhmanism controlled the society

By means of these two doctrines, Brāhmanism regulated the behavior of members of its society. Everyone was brainwashed into believing that the force of the Gunas is such that no one, including gods, could resist it. Accordingly, everyone helplessly performed his assigned duty in the society based on his Guna and Karma (3:5; 18:59-60), and by doing so he earned honor and respectability in the society, especially with his peers (2:34-35), and attained heaven after death (2:32). It was pointless to try to repress the Gunas (3:33). There was no room for any “personal choices” when it came to action. Anyone who thought that he was acting independently of his Guna and Karma was considered as one blinded by Ahamkāra (egoism) (3:27; 18:59). Being branded as an egoistic person was the worst shame one could feel in the shame-oriented Brāhmanic society. In fact, dishonor in the society was considered as worse than death (2:34). The right action meant doing what the society thought was right, and not a person thought was right.

There is no being on earth, or again in heaven among the Devas (Vedic gods), that is liberated from the three Gunas, born of Prakriti (nature) (18:40). The Gunas of Prakriti perform all Karma (action). With the understanding clouded by Ahamkāra (egoism), man thinks, “I am the doer!” (3:27). None can ever remain actionless even for a moment; for everyone is helplessly driven to action by his Gunas born of Prakriti (3:5). Even a wise man behaves in conformity with his own nature (Guna); beings follow nature; what shall restraint avail? (3:33). He, who is free from the notion of egoism, and whose understanding is not tainted (by it), though he kills these people, he kills not, nor is he bound (by sin, bad Karmaphalam) (18:17). Devoted each to his own (Guna-designated) duty, man attains the highest perfection (Samsiddhim).

Brāhmanism controlled the society by drumming up this belief system in all classes of society. Those who defied the system were declared as suffering from Ahamkāra and shunned. This was no different than dissenters in Communist countries being ostracized and branded as mentally ill. Controlling the behavior of members of the society by means of shame is still widely prevalent in India. The pervasive sense of helplessness, lack of initiative, approval seeking behavior, sychophancy, and false humility we commonly see in Hindus in general, especially when they deal with authority figures, are rooted in this self-serving indoctrination. Common adages we often hear in India, “What would ten people think of you if they found out what you did?” or “What you are doing doesn’t look good in the eye of ten people” are rooted in these doctrines. You rarely hear anyone say, “Don’t worry what others think of your actions. Just do what your conscience dictates you to do.” It took Gandhi to point this out to Indians when he united them to fight against the British.

The Upanishadic seers, on the contrary, simply disagreed with this idea. According to them, one should act without the Dwandwam of honor and dishonor (14:25) and desire and aversion (3:34). Instead of being the slave of the Gunas, one should transcend them (2:45; 14:19); restrain them and act (3:7) without attachment to fruit, and “reflect fully and act as you choose” (18:63)

2.8: 1. Shrutis and Smritis

Two more Vedas, mostly related to sacrificial rites dedicated to various nature gods -Indra, Agni, Vāyu, Nāsatyas, Varuna- were composed during the last centuries of the Vedic period, which is generally known as the Vedic period. These Vedas, or treasures of knowledge, were orally transmitted by special class of priests through brilliant feats of memory from generation to generation. The Vedas were considered as divinely revealed, and were known as Shruti, meaning that which was heard (2:52-53). Only men of the upper classes were allowed to hear the Vedas. Brāhmanism considered the Vedas as a direct product of Brahman (17:23). The Bhagavad Gita refers to only three Vedas.

In contrast to the Shrutis, which are considered revealed (heard) knowledge, the Mahābhārata epic was considered as Smriti, a remembered scripture. Like all other secular texts of ancient India, the Mahābhārata epic, too, was thoroughly worked over and “Brāhmanized.” This was not much different from attempts by Hindutva fanatics in modern India to rewrite history of India to suit their self-interest. For example, the five noble Pāndava princes were declared as born from the boons granted to their mother Kunti by various Vedic gods. Just about every major character in the great epic was given some genetic connection with a Vedic divinity. In fact, even after the Original Brāhmanic Gita was converted into the anti-Brāhmanic Upanishadic Gita, Brāhmanic seers “re-Brahmanized” even the Upanishadic concepts (18:1-39). Unlike the Shrutis, people of all classes could listen to the Smritis, a fact which was later capitalized by the Upanishadic seers in their attempt to overthrow Brāhmanism. This is how the Gita, a Smriti, became the vehicle to bring to the public the wisdom of the Upanishads, which had been declared by Brāhmanic seers as Shruti as well as secret (Rahasyam 4:3), to hide their revolutionary intent to overthrow Brāhmanism.

2.9: 2. Yajnas as the means to return the debt to gods

Essential to understanding the Bhagavad Gita is to note the crucial role sacrificial rites known as Karma or Yajna played in the Brāhmanic society. Originally Aryan aristocracy performed various Yajnas to thank various nature gods for their benevolence, such a rains and protection from natural calamities: 3:10-12: Having created mankind in the beginning together with Yajna, Prajāpati (the Vedic Lord of beings) said: “By this shall you propagate; this shall be the milch cow of your desires. Cherish the Devas with this (Yajna); and may they cherish you; thus cherishing one another, you shall reap the supreme good (of the society). Cherished by Yajna, the Devas shall bestow on you the enjoyment you deserve.” 3:14: From food beings become; from rain is food produced; from Yajna rain proceeds; Yajna is born of Karma (prescribed sacrificial “works”). They burnt surplus grains, butter and animal flesh in the sacrificial fire, which was their way of returning the debt (Rna) they owed the gods for granting them rains. It was something like a Thanksgiving ritual. The main portion of the sacrificed materials went to the gods, carried to them by the smoke of Yajnas, and the remnant was considered as nectar (4:31), the Prasādam of modern times, and consumed by the performers as a sign of their humility and gratitude. Yajnas performed in this spirit of selflessness liberated the performer from his debt to the gods (4:15), and thus earned him no sin (bad Karmaphalam).  

Brāhmanism considered the Yajnas as the direct product of Brahman (17:23). Vedic sacrifices consisted of four elements: Singing Vedic hymns in praise of Vedic gods, Yajna (fire worship of gods), Dāna (gift-giving) and Tapas (austerity) (17:24; 8:28; 11:48, 53). Brāhmanism encouraged the upper classes to worship Vedic Devas by Yajna to gain quickly whatever they desired (4:12) here on earth and attain heaven hereafter (9:20). While performing these Yajnas, Brāhmins and Kshatriyas drank a hallucinogenic drink known as Soma (9:20). In this highly ecstatic state of mind, they “communicated” and “mingled” with Vedic Devas.

2.10: 3. Varnāshrama Dharma: Duty above all else

As we read above, this was the sub-Dharma of Brāhmanism which divided the society into four great classes based on the distribution of the Gunas (4:13). According to this system, there was no room for individualism or personal choice. Meekly and helplessly performing one’s socially designated task (Karma) as determined by one’s Guna-bound Dharma (bounden duty). The doctrines of the Gunas and Karma and the class system based on them are eloquently explained to prince Arjuna in the following shlokas uttered by prince Krishna in the Brāhmanic Original Gita:

18:45: Devoted each to his own duty, man attains the highest perfection. How engaged in his own duty, he attains perfection, that do you hear. 18:41-44: The duties of Brāhmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also of Sudras, O scorcher of foes, are distributed according to the Gunas born of their own nature. Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, and also uprightness, knowledge, realization, belief in a hereafter -there are the duties of the Brāhmanas, born of their own nature (Sattva Guna). Heroism, vigour, firmness, resourcefulness, not fleeing from battle, generosity and lordliness are the duties of the Kshatriyas born of their own nature (Rajas Guna). Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishyas (common folks), born of their own nature (Tamas Guna). And action consisting of service (of the upper classes) is the duty of the Sudras born of their own nature (Tāmasic).

What are the rewards for a Kshatriya who performs his duty (fighting) helplessly, faithfully and obediently according to the dictates of his Guna and Karma? 2:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorious you will enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse up, O son of Kunti, resolved to fight. What happens to an egoistic Kshatriya who refuses to perform his Dharma as per the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma? 2:33-35: But if you do not wage this righteous warfare, then forfeiting your own duty and honor, you will incur sin (earn bad Karmaphalam and go to hell). People will forever recount your infamy. To the honored, infamy is surely worse than death.  The great chariot-warriors will view you as one who fled from war out of fear; you who were highly esteemed by them will be lightly held. Why would a Kshatriya not earn bad Karmaphalam if he killed his own people? 18:17: He who is free from the notion of egoism and whose understanding (about his Guna-bound duty) is not tainted (by Ahamkāra), though he kills these (his own) people, he kills not, nor is he bound (by bad Karmaphalam). If any ignorant Kshatriya is still defiant of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, he better know how puny his resolve is: 18:59-60: If filled with Ahamkāra, you think, “I will not fight,” vain is this, your resolve; your nature (Guna) will compel you. Bound by your own Karma (comeuppance) born of your nature (Guna), that, which from delusion (of your Ahamkāra) you wish not to do, even that you shall do helplessly against your will, O Kaunteya.

Brāhmanic Dharma indoctrinated this belief system so well in all classes of people that even to this day Indian society shuns people who show any degree of initiative or individuality. “Do not show your Adhikaprasangam (one-upmanship)” is the one mantra most people who grew up in India are quite familiar with. A person who projects an image of passivity, blind obedience, false humility and docile subservience, is rewarded with approval by his superiors, especially at work places.

2.11: 4. Brāhmins go to the top of the heap

In the beginning of the Vedic period, Brāhmins played second fiddle to Kshatriyas in the hierarchy of the class system, being merely the priestly class, which was on the dole of Kshatriyas. As people settled down and began to cultivate agricultural crops, sacrificial rites to appease nature gods for rain and protection from natural calamities became more important and widespread even among the less prosperous and lower classes. Naturally Brāhmins gained the upper hand by virtue of their mastery over Sanskrit language, monopoly over the Vedas, expertise over increasingly complicated and mysterious art of Vedic sacrifices. Gradually they gained authority over the masses. Now Brāhmins became less dependent on Kshatriyas for their livelihood. This gave them the opportunity to declare their superiority over Kshatriyas in the hierarchy of the Aryan society as well as to become powerful and wealthy themselves.

The Brāhmin superiority over Kshatriyas was repeatedly drummed in by means of various oral as well as written texts composed by the former. Gradually Brāhmins became the uppermost class in the hierarchy of Varnāshrama Dharma (18:41-42). Endowed with brilliant literary skills, they created myths that they possessed supernatural powers by virtue of severe austerities they performed to please and win over the gods. Displeased, they could lay dreadful curses and bring on disaster even on powerful kings who offended them. They claimed superhuman powers such as being able to see the future events; read people’s mind; be at two places at the same time; burn down people to ashes by merely staring at them, and the like. They even claimed power over Vedic gods by means of their knowledge of magical shlokas known as mantras. They claimed that they possessed a mysterious force known as Brahman by means of which they could communicate with Vedic gods. They invoked Brahman during Yajnas dedicated to Vedic gods by the designation, Om Tat Sat (17:23-27). They considered themselves as one of three direct products of Brahman, the other two being Yajnas and the Vedas (17:23). This is how they came to be known as Brāhmana or Brāhmin. In the course of time Brāhmins became the power behind every throne in north India. In fact, the very first all-India empire, known as Maurya, was the creation of a wily Brāhmin by the name of Chānakya. Not a blade of grass moved without the approval and blessing of Brāhmins. They declared themselves as incarnation of Brahma, Vishnu, Maheshwara and Brahman. Throughout India’s long history Brāhmins did whatever they needed to do to maintain their supremacy over other classes. This is as true even today as it was in ancient India as evidenced by the throngs of people who vie with each other to lunge at the feet of even most fraudulent Sādhus, Swāmis, Babas and Gurus in saffron, and sometimes, white clothes. It takes just a little slight of hand to convince the gullible to grab their feet or roll over on the ground in obeisance.

Now something happened that drastically changed the course of history of India.

CHAPTER THREE

Decay of Dharma and Rise of Adharma

3:1: Voyage to heaven came with a return ticket!

In the course of time, both Brāhmins and Kshatriyas set aside the true purpose of the Yajna, namely return of debt to the gods, and began to use it for personal gains. Coveting wealth for themselves in the form of rich fees, Brāhmins composed mantras and induced Kshatriyas to sacrifice animals and even humans to gain Karmaphalam. Brāhmins told Kshatriyas that if they wanted quick success here on earth, they must worship Vedic gods by performing Yajna: Lord Krishna explains this Brāhmanic theory: 4:12: Longing for success in action (Karma, Yajna) on earth, they worship gods; for quickly is success born of Yajna in this world of man. When the question arose as to what if one earned more Karmaphalam than one could use in this life time, the clever Brāhmins had a ready answer: Don’t worry, you will go to heaven and enjoy the company of gods hereafter. Lord Krishna explains again: 9:20: The knowers of the three Vedas, the drinkers of Soma (purified from sin, worshipping Me by sacrifices) pray for the way to heaven. They reach the holy world of the Lord of Devas and enjoy in heaven the celestial pleasures of Devas. That assurance calmed the nerves of Kshatriyas immediately. So, Brāhmins and Kshatriyas drank the inebriating Soma and performed ostentatious sacrificial rites against the oridinances of Shastras to gain wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter (16:12-24). (The above shloka’s true intent was completely destroyed thoughtlessly by some later authors who added the two phrases I have struck across in the parenthesis. If a Yajna earned Karmaphalam, that Karma does not purify the performer. Only Yajnas which earn no Karmaphalam purify the performers. Worshipping Lord Krishna by sacrifice does not earn one entrance to heaven. Worshiping Lord Krishna by sacrifice leads to Mōksha. The authors were more interested in converting this shloka into a Bhāgavatha and Brāhmanic shloka than to preserve its true spirit and integrity). Little did the ritualists realize that the voyage to heaven always came with a return ticket. Earning Karmaphalam this way merely condemned them to be born again on this miserable earth. Again, Lord Krishna exposes the problem with this Brāhmanic thinking: 9:21: Having enjoyed the vast world of heaven, they return to the world of mortals on exhaustion of their merits. Thus abiding by the injunctions of the three Vedas, craving objects of desires they come and go.

3.2: Nexus of Brahmins and Kshatriyas develops

To legitimize their rule, consecrate their success, and promote their power, prosperity, health, and longevity here on earth and heaven hereafter, the kings, prompted by Brāhmins, performed various highly elaborate and pompous Yajnas by Adhikāra (entitlement 2:47): Rājasooya, Vājapeya, Ashvamedha, Jyotisthoma, etc. Their Adhikāra was granted to them by various Vedic scriptures such as the Brāhmanas composed by the ritual-obsessed Brāhmins. Not anyone could perform any Yajna he liked. Priests trained in the art of Yajnas performed these increasingly complex and exacting rituals and were richly rewarded for their services. Very often petty jealousies between kings manifested themselves in the form of ever more grandiose sacrificial rites. Inevitably, such ostentatious Yajna created unnecessary jealous rage -Krōdha- among the intensely competitive kings (16:18). [3] Out of this Krōdha arose even more pompous Yajnas. Condemning these Dwandwa-ridden doers of evil deeds (4:8) an outraged Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita: 16:12-20: Bound by hundreds of ties of hope, given over to lust and jealous rage, they strive to secure by unjust means hoards of wealth for sensual enjoyment. “This today has been gained by me; this desire I shall fulfill; this is mine, and this wealth also shall be mine in the future. That enemy has been slain by me, and others also shall I slay. I am the lord, I enjoy, I am successful, powerful and happy. I am rich and well-born. Who else is equal to me? I will sacrifice, I will give alms, I will rejoice.” Thus deluded by ignorance, bewildered by many a fancy, enmeshed in the snare of delusion, addicted to the gratification of lust, they fall into foul hell. Self-conceited, stubborn, filled with the pride and intoxication of wealth, they perform sacrifice in the name of ostentation, disregarding ordinance. Given over to egoism, power, insolence, lust and wrath, these malicious people hate Me in their own bodies and those of others. These cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evil-doers forever into the wombs of the demons only. Entering into demonica wombs, the deluded ones, in birth after births, without ever reaching Me, they fall, O Kaunteya, into a condition still lower. Since they needed each other in this whole sacrificial farce there developed a quid pro quo -I scratch your back and you scratch mine- relationship between Kshatriyas and Brāhmins. The roots of corrupt nexus between politicians (pudhāris) and bureaucrats (bābus) in independent India can be traced directly to the ancient Kshatriya-Brāhmin unholy nexus. As a result, today the Government of India enjoys the unenviable title of one of the most corrupt bureaucracies in the world.

3.3: Kāmya Karma

In the course of time the upper classes became so obsessed with gaining Karmaphalam for themselves that they completely forgot their original purpose, namely to repay the debt to the gods for their benevolence (3:12). This was equivalent to modern day politicians and bureaucrats abusing their authority to enrich themselseve, forgetting the fact that they are servants of taxpayers. In private sectors, we can see such behavior in the unscrupulous CEOs of businesses. Yajnas based on various Vedic scriptures such as Brāhmanas, became the means by which they attempted to obtain desires of their hearts here on earth and heaven hereafter (2:43). Brāhmins, their hearts full of Kāma (hankering) for hefty fees, performed various grandiose Vedic sacrifices against the ordinances of scriptures for the benefit of vain Kshatriya nobles, whose Sankalpa (intention/goal of the Yajna, 6:1-4) was to invoke Vedic gods to reward them with pleasure and lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter. Yajnas meant to liberate one from the burden of debt to the Vedic gods became merry, drunken barbecue parties. These desire-driven Yajnas based on Vedic teachings came to be known as Kāmya Karma (18:2) [4]. The net result of all this was that epithets such as Kāma, Krōdha, Sangas, Mōha and Sankalpa came to be associated with Brāhmanic Dharma in general and performers of Kāmya Karma in particular. Lord Krishna tirelessly condemns these epithets throughout the text of the Bhagavad Gita. When Lord Krishna said, “decay of Dharma” in 4:7, He was referring to the corruption of Brāhmanism due to its obsession with Kāmya Karma. When Lord Krishna said “the doers of the evil deeds” in 4:8, He was referring to the Kāma-ridden Brāhmins and Sankalpa-ridden Kshatriyas who were performing Kāmya Karma. When Lord Krishna said, “rise of Adharma” He was also referring to the Adharma of decadent Brāhmanism in addition to the rise of heterodox Dharmas such Lokāyata.Kāmya Karma became the outstanding symbol of corruption and degradation of Brāhmanism. Lord Krishna mercilessly scolds the greedy Brāhmins who performed sacrifices against the ordinance of scriptures: 16:21-24: Triple is the gate of hell, destructive of the self -lust, anger and greed; therefore should one abandon these three. The man who is liberated from these three gates to darkness, O Kaunteya, practices (selfless Yajna) what is good for him and thus goes to the Supreme Good. He who acts (performs sacrifices) on the impulse of desire by casting aside the ordinances of scriptures (which say that Yajna must be performed selflessly) does not attain perfection. Nor does he attain happiness (here on earth), or the Supreme Goal (Nirvāna hereafter). Therefore, let the scriptures be your authority in deciding what ought to be done (selfless Yajna) and ought not to be done (Kāmya Karma). Having known what is said in the ordinances of scriptures you should act here.

3.4: Further degradation of Yajnas

There came a time when the greedy priests gave so much importance to the performance of the increasingly complicated Yajnas in violation of their original intent that they claimed that without their performance the universe itself would be destabilized! The performance of sacrificial rites became more important than even the gods for whom they were supposed to be dedicated! For every affliction of society, there was only one cure: performance of sacrifices (2:42); more sacrifices, and more elaborate, expensive, vulgar and pompous sacrifices (2:43; 16:15). To top it all, gruesome animal sacrifices became rampant and important part of Vedic sacrificial rites. Thousands of innocent horses, cows, buffaloes, bulls, goats, and birds were slaughtered mercilessly every year all over the country. In the words of the Buddha, “They composed mantras then and there, approached Okkaka (king) and said, ‘Your riches are abundant. Sacrifice, you have much wealth. Sacrifice, you have much money!’ Prompted by the Brāhmins, that king, a bull among warriors, sacrificed up horses, humans, and animals and offered Vājapeya in unbridled fashion; and he gave riches to the Brāhmins: cows, beds, clothes, finely decked women, etc. “ As described in Suttanipāta, “cows sweet as lamb, filling pails with milk, never hurting anyone with foot or horn -the king had them seized by the horns and slaughtered by the sword.” This is how “Kshatriyas and self-styled Brāhmins and others protected by rank destroyed the repute of their caste and fell prey to desires.” Gradually the sacred Vedic Dharma degenerated into despicable irreligion (Adharma 4:7).

3.5: Lord Krishna’s rage

In the Bhagavad Gita an outraged Lord Krishna mercilessly chastises these corrupt Vedic ritualists: 3:12-13: A thief verily is he who enjoys what is given by them (Vedic gods) without returning them anything. The good who eat the remains of Yajna are freed from all sins (Karmaphalam); but the sinful who cook food only for themselves, they verily eat sin (earn bad Karmaphalam). In other words, those who indulged in Kāmya Karma were earning (sin) bad Karmaphalam, since they were literally stealing Karmaphalam of the Yajnas from the Devas. Even if they thought they earned good Karmaphalam, they would merely perpetuate the cycle of birth, death and rebirth after their Karmaphalam was exhausted (9:20-21). Elsewhere in the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna mercilessly scolds the Vedic ritualists as vain (3:16), unwise (3:25), egoistic (3:27), dullards (3:29), ignorant (4:40), evil doers, deluded, lowest of men (7:15), misguided (7:20), idiots (7:23), stupid (7:24), fools (9:11), men who fall or perish (9:24), demoniacal (9:12), hypocritical, proud and arrogant (16:10), self-conceited, stubborn and ostentatious (16:17), insolent and egoistic (16:18); worst among men (16:19), so on and so forth.

3.6: Varnāshrama Dharma degenerates

There was another issue which symbolized corruption of Brāhmanism. Because Kshatriya needed Brāhmins to perform elaborate Yajnas and Brāhmins needed Kshatriyas to pay them rich fees in gold and cows, they developed an unholy alliance. The nexus of these two upper classes developed pathological vested interest in perpetuating the class system. They even demanded to be worshipped by the lower classes (2:4; 17:14). The upper classes became progressively alienated from the rest of the society. The lower classes suffered untold injustice in the hands of the upper classes. To no small extent this elitism led to the revolt and establishment of egalitarian Dharmas such as Buddhism and Jainism. Buddhism insisted that one must be judged by his conduct and character, not his birth class. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna tirelessly advocates equality of all beings (5:18-19) and recommends that one strive for the “welfare of all beings” (5:25; 6:29, 31), not just the upper classes.

3.7: The stage is set for revolt against Brāhmanism

As the Brāhmanic Dharma decayed the prestige of the sacred Vedas and the moral authority of Brāhmins steadily declined. There arose much disaffection and antipathy for Brāhmanism in the society. Loss of nobility and purity in the practice of the Ancient Dharma (11:18) led to much turmoil in the post-Vedic society resulting in disastrous consequences. As the upper classes suffered Dwandwam of mind in pursuit of Karmaphalam by means of Kāmya Karma, millions of Shōkam-ridden people began to abandon Brāhmanism and join heterodox Dharmas that had arisen in revolt.

______________________________________________
[3] The beginning of the Mahābhārata war could be traced to the Rājasooya Yajna performed by Yudhistira, the eldest Pāndava prince, to consecrate his ascendance to the throne of Indraprastha.
[4] In the Mahābhārata, Drupada, the king of Pānchāla performs Kāmya Karma to obtain a son who would destroy his arch enemy Drona.

CHAPTER FOUR

The Great Nāstik Revolt

4.1: Intellectual ferment of post-Vedic period

By 600 B. C. E. a great intellectual ferment was brewing across the Indo-Gangetic plain the like of which India has not seen since. Countless different Kshatriya-inspired philosophies sprang up from the agitated intellect of the Indo-Gangetic civilization. Disgusted and disenchanted by the decadence of Brāhmanism a number of reactionary groups opposed to it arose over the centuries following the Vedic period. These people who lost faith in the Vedas or Vedic sacrifices came to be known as Nāstik -unbelievers or naysayers. Most of these groups were led by Kshatriya nobles. Thousands of wandering sophists known as Parivrājaka crisscrossed the country questioning anything and everything, including the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, the Vedas, Vedic sacrificial rites, Varnāshrama Dharma, and supremacy of Brāhmins. They engaged each other in robust public debate on every topic on earth. They challenged their adversaries to win them over or to follow them. The public halls all over the country were packed with curious people eager to learn and experiment with new ideas to cope with life and its vicissitudes. New Age Philosophies thrived everywhere.

4.2: Kshatriyas lead the exodus

Soon massive winds of change began to blow through India resulting in the overthrow of the decaying old social, political, and religious orders. Aggrieved by the decadence of Brāhmanism, a large number of dissenting Brāhmins and Kshatriyas began to abandon it en masse. Lord Buddha (563-483 B. C.) and Lord Mahāveera (599-527 B. C. E.), both Kshatriya princes, were the products of this revolt. Over the next few centuries, heterodox religious orders, Buddhism and Jainism, both ascetic and Nāstik in nature, began ascendancy under the sponsorship of disillusioned ruling clans and support of even lower social classes. Emperor Bimbisara, a contemporary of the Lord Buddha, patronized the him if only to protect his favorite goats from being slaughtered on the sacrificial alters. Emperor Chandrgupta Maurya (ruled 321-297 B. C.), the first great emperor of India and protege of Chānakya, the quintessential Brāhmin genius, abandoned Brāhmanism, embraced Jainism, became an ascetic, and starved himself to death in the manner of Jain monks in South India. Abandonment of Brāhmanism by the first great emperor of India in the 4th century B. C. E. must have been a great shock to Brāhmanism. It is likely, though we have no evidence to prove it, that the Original Gita was inserted into the Mahabharata epic after this incident. His son Bindusāra abandoned Brāhmanism and became an Ajīvika, a creed which believed in predetermined destiny. His grandson emperor Ashōka the Great (r. 268-233 B. C.), gave up violence as well as Brāhmanism, and became an ardent supporter of Buddhism, then known simply as Dhamma. He even sent emissaries abroad to spread Buddhism. While Brāhmanism was on death bed, Buddhism became a World Religion. Patronized by the royals, Buddhism spread all over India like wild fire. Buddhist monasteries and Stupas sprang up all over the country. Royal patronage of Buddhism continued over the next few centuries. The Indo-Greek king Menander (Milinda) (r. 155-130 B. C.) and Kushana emperor Kanishka (r. 78-114 B. C.) also became Buddhist. Royal patronage of Buddhism made it the dominant religion of even with the rise of Hinduism around 4th century A. D. under the patronage of Gupta emperors. Even Emperor Harshavardhana (7th century A. D.) patronized Buddhist creed, much to the displeasure of resurgent Brāhmanic lobby, which attempted to assassinate him for this grave indiscretion. It should be noted that not only did Kshatriyas lead the revolt against Brāhmanism, but also they led the Upanishadic revolution to overthrow it. Lord Krishna refers to the Upanishadic doctrines as ”Royal Secret” (9:2) handed down by royal sages (4:1-2) and He, representing them, claims authorship of the Upanishads (15:15).

4.3: Two Nāstik reactionary groups arise

1. The first of these two Nāstik groups resorted to Sanyāsa- literally, “throwing down”- and renounced not only all material comforts but also all socially obligated duties (Karma). In other words, not only did they reject the Vedas, but also they abandoned Varnāshrama Dharma. Sanyāsa became synonymous with the word inaction (Akarma 2:47). Within this group, which came to be known as Sramanas, three distinct subgroups emerged:

A. The first subgroup, following the teachings of Gautama Buddha, later developed into Buddhism. This was essentially a rational religion that emphasized right thinking and conduct. Buddhists rejected all aspects of Brāhmanism except for the doctrine of Karma. Right conduct, not birth-class, should decide one’s status on life, they said [5]. The Buddhist monks were known as Bhikkus as they made their living by begging. The Buddha became a demigod. Beggars became holy and begging became fashionable in India. Buddhist teachings were not much different from the Upanishadic teachings, except for the concept of Brahman.

B. The second subgroup, following the philosophy of Vardhamāna Mahāveera, later on formed Jainism. The hallmark of this religion was absolute nonviolence toward all living things. This religion was clearly reacting to the horror of animal sacrifices rampant in Brāhmanism. Some of these monks walked around naked as an expression of their complete renunciation of material things and violence. Mahāveera became a demigod.

When Guru Krishna said in 2:47: “Do not become attached to inaction” He was pleading with defecting Kshatriyas not to give up their responsibilities and become monks or Sramanas. Criticizing the above two ascetic groups who had given up all action including Yajnas, and also had become Sanyāsins, Lord Krishna says: 3:4: Man cannot avoid earning Karmaphalam merely by abstaining from activity, nor does he gain Self-realization by renouncing attachment (to sense objects). 3:6: That deluded man is called a hypocrite who sits controlling the organs of action, but dwelling his mind on the objects of the senses.

C. The third subgroup consisted of individual Ascetics (Munis), who renounced everything and wandered in search of the Ultimate Reality (Brahad. Up. 4:4:22). They practiced severe austerities (Tapas) in the form of self-denial and self-torture as the means of mastering their senses to achieve personal liberation from Samsāra (17:5-6). Half-naked Sadhus and Sanyāsins who wander all over India even now belong to this subgroup.

Condemning this group of people Lord Krishna says: 17:5-6: Those men who practise violent austerities (Tapas) not enjoined by the scriptures, given to hypocrisy and egoism, impelled by the force of lust and attachment (to supernatural powers); fools that they are, they torture their bodily organs, and Me, too, who dwell within the body -know that they are Asurika (demoniacal) in their resolve.

2. The second major Nāstik reactionary group, known as Materialists or Lokāyatas, went in the opposite direction (Maitra. Up.: 8:9). The leading subgroup in this category was Chārvakas, who, declaring Vedic teachings as humbug, taught that pursuit of happiness should be the only goal in life. This was a largely rational philosophy which the priests of Brāhmanism hated with passion. [6] All of their revolutionary literature was destroyed by the pro-Vedic fanatics. What little we know of this philosophy comes to us from quotes in various Brāhmanic scriptures condemning them. Anti-Brāhmanic shlokas survived in the Bhagavad Gita only because the revolutionaries declared them as uttered by the Supreme Lord Himself. Since they could not destroy them, Brāhmins buried them in heaps of interpolated shlokas and bewildering commentaries.

Condemning the Lokāyata followers as demoniac, Lord Krishna says: 16:8-9: They say, “the universe is unreal, without a moral basis, without a God, born of mutual union, brought about by lust; what else? Holding this view, these ruined souls of small intellect, of fierce deeds, rise as the enemies of the world for its destruction.

4.4: The Upanishads

The revolt against Brāhmanism was not restricted to those who abandoned it. During the post-Vedic period (1000-200 B. C.) an internal revolt against Brāhmanic excesses was initiated by some great philosophers, most of whom were Kshtriaya royals (BG:9:2; Chandogya Up.: 1:9:2-4) who wrote treatises known as the Upanishads (”sitting devotedly near” a Guru), which were essentially anti-Brāhmanic in spirit. The Upanishadic Dharma was distinct from Brāhmanism and was based on the doctrines of Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga. Knowledge of Atmān countered the doctrine of the Gunas and Buddhiyoga countered the doctrine of Karma. Besides, the Upanishads insisted on equality of all people by virtue of the fact that Brahman is the same in all (5:18-19). Like Buddhists, the Upanishadic seers asserted that a person should be judged not by his birth but by his character (Chandogya Up.: 4:4:1-5). The Upanishads posed a grave threat to Brāhmanism. As we will study in Chapter Seven of this book, Brāhmanic seers dealt with this threat by declaring them as Shruti (divinely revealed) as well as Rahasyam (secret). It took some very bold and clever Upanishadic seers to reveal the secrets of the Upanishads in Gita, a Smriti, so everyone could know about the New Dharma.

4.5: Brāhmanism faces total annihilation

The net result of this ominous trend was that by 4th century B. C. E. a large number of people of all classes, especially Kshatriyas, were abandoning the elitist Brāhmanism and embracing egalitarian heterodox Dharmas such as Buddhism and Jainism. This was no different than the disgusted “lower castes” and “outcastes” abandoning Brāhmanized Hinduism, and embracing Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism in the modern times. Becoming a monk or ascetic not only meant giving up material comforts but also abandoning Brāhmanism and socially designated duty ordained by Varnāshrama Dharma. To Brāhmanism, dissolution of Varnāshrama Dharma or class system meant class confusion (Varnasankara 1:41) and its consequences, namely birth of unwanted progeny and decimation of elite class (3:24). Now Brāhmanism faced imminent demise.

4.6: The age of invasions

This also happened to be the time when Aryavarta experienced threat of fresh invasions from both the west and the east. By 520 B. C. the empire of Darius I of Persia extended up to the Punjab. The emperors that followed him were an ever present threat to the land. On the eastern front, the great non-Aryan kingdom of Magadha had always been a threat to kings of Aryavarta. Mahāpadma Nanda of Magadha, a Sudra by origin, declared war against every Kshatriya clan on Aryavarta. Nanda entertained the ambition of establishing his empire under one umbrella. In 327 B. C. E. Alexander the Great crossed Indus river and defeated the brave king Porus. Porus was probably of the proud and ancient Paurava clan, a branch of the Bharatas. Within twenty years after this, Chandragupta Maurya, emperor of the first great empire of India abandoned Brāhmanism. Kshatriyas abandoning their Dharma could not have come at a worse time. If all aggrieved Kshatriyas gave up their duty, embraced nonviolence, and became monks who would protect Aryavarta against the invaders? Facing imminent disaster for Brāhmanism as well as the land of the Arya, Brāhmanism seers sprang into action. They inserted into the ever-expanding and immensely popular Mahābhārata epic the brief parable of Arjuna’s Grief by means of which they conveyed to the public the need to strengthen Varnāshrama Dharma rooted in the Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. This 64 shloka long Original Gita, which we will study next, became the Policy Paper of Brāhmanism at its most critical moment.
__________________________________________________

[5] In the Buddha’s Words, Bhikku Bodhi, Wisdom Publication, Boston, 2005, page 132.

[6] The Mind of India, Edited by William Gerber, Southern Illinois University Press 1977, page 102.

CHAPTER FIVE

The Original Gita: Brāhmanism’s Policy Paper

5.1: The Mahābhārata epic

So far, we studied the historical/revolutionary context of the Bhagavad Gita. Let us now study its Mahābhārata epic context. The original version of the Mahābhārata epic, known simply as Jaya (Victory), was said to have been composed by a great sage by the name of Vyāsa probably between 900 and 500 B.C. E. It had about 9,000 shlokas in it. Over the ensuing centuries the epic Jaya grew to about ten times its original length and acquired the title, the Mahābhārata, the story of the Great Bharatas. The current version of the Mahābhārata has nearly 100,000 shlokas in it, and it is longest epic ever written! Mahābhārata epic is quintessentially Brāhmanic text. The seven hundred verse long Bhagavad Gita is embedded in the Bheeshma Parva of the great epic.

The Mahābhārata epic is primarily about a Great War between two sets of cousin princes over the inheritance of their ancestral kingdom of Kuru in northwest India about three thousand years ago. These cousin princes of Kuru family at war were collectively known as the Bharatas, being the descendents of the great legendary king Bharata who lived several generations earlier. The conflict begins when the five virtuous Pāndava princes, sons of the late king Pāndu, demand their share of kingdom from their cousins, the Kauravas. The legitimacy of their demand comes under cloud because their father had abdicated his throne and retired to the forest when he was still young. The Pāndava princes were born and raised in the forest. The blind older brother of king Pāndu, Dhritharāshtra by name, took over the kingship and appointed his one hundred sons, the Kauravas, as his legitimate successors. When the Pāndavas demand their share of the kingdom, the Kauravas decide to get rid of them by hook or by crook. However, failing to assassinate the Pāndavas by various devious means, the Kauravas finally agree to divide the kingdom under pressure from the elders of the clan.

As the mighty and noble Pāndavas expand their kingdom and prosper, the Kauravas become consumed with jealous rage (Krōdha) for their success. Unable to annihilate the Pāndavas cousins by force the Kauravas now resort to stratagem to recover what they had lost through settlement. They invite the Pāndavas to play dice with them. Their fraudulent maternal uncle rigs the game. In the heat of the game, the Pāndavas, led by their naïve oldest sibling Yudhistira, lose their head and gamble away their kingdom, themselves, and finally, even their common wife, Draupadi. The Kauravas humiliate the vanquished Pāndavas in public court. The elders intervene again, and a compromise is reached according to which the Pāndavas must spend thirteen years in exile, one of which incognito, before getting back their kingdom.

The Pāndavas return from their thirteen year long exile stronger than ever due to their alliance with powerful neighboring kings. Chief among their allies is a wise prince of Yadava tribe and Vrishni family, known as Krishna. When they demand the return of their lost kingdom, now firmly in power, the Kauravas refuse to oblige. All attempts at mediation, including the one by prince Krishna, for a fair settlement fail. The Kauravas even refuse to concede just five villages to the Pandavas. The Great War becomes inevitable. Rulers of various kingdoms of India polarize to one side or the other. On the designated day, both sides meet face to face on the great battlefield of Kurukshetra.

5:2: The Mahabharata context of the Gita: The parable of aggrieved prince

At the critical juncture when the Great War was about to begin, anticipating the death of his own people in his own hands (1:28), prince Arjuna, the greatest warrior among the Pāndavas, experiences grief (Shōkam) (1:27, 47). Also He suffers from doubt, fickleness and confusion (Dwandwam) (1:31-32). At the prospect of earning grave sin (bad Karmaphalam) by killing his own people (Swajanam) (1:45), he suffers a severe panic attack (1:28-30). Overwhelmed by these three maladies, he refuses to fight. Prince Krishna, his friend, philosopher and guide, and presently his charioteer, comes to his rescue. The 64 shloka-long parable of the distraught prince Arjuna, then known simply as the Gita, begins at this point in the Mahābhārata. Note here that Krishna was just a prince of Yādava clan in the Original Gita, and equal to Arjuna in status from the beginning to the end.

5.3: The Original Gita is embedded in the Brāhmanic Gita

As we read in an earlier chapter, the apparent agenda of the Original Gita was to discourage Arjuna from abandoning his duty as dictated by Varnāshrama Dharma. Its hidden agenda was to impress upon the renegade Kshatriyas of the post-Vedic period not to abandon their Kshatriya Dharma. In other words, Arjuna, wishing to give up his Kshatriya Dharma, was a metaphor for Kshatriyas who were abandoning Brāhmanism out of grief over  Brāhmanism’s decadence. In a sense the Original Gita was a brief refresher course for the aggrieved Kshatriyas on the Varnāshrama Dharma, rooted in the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. There are only 64 shlokas from the Original Gita in the current text of the Bhagavad Gita. The remaining Brāhmanic shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita were added later in stages by Brāhmanic seers to counter Varnasankara (admixture of classes: 1:38-44; 3:24); to further strengthen Varnāshrama Dharma (2:4-5; 3:35; 18:46-48); to reestablish the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (14:5-18; 17:1-4; 7-28); and to re-Brāhmanize Upanishadic concepts (18:1-39).

The first 19 shlokas of the Original Gita, introducing various heroes participating in the Great War and dealing with preparation for the war, have been excluded here for the sake of brevity. The following 45 shlokas, invoking the Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma constitute the essence of the Original Gita. It is unfortunate that none of the three great Brāhmanic teachers made any comment on Chapter One of the Bhagavad Gita, which is the anchor of the entire text. It is obvious that they missed the fact that the three fundamental psychological issues Arjuna faced were introduced in this chapter.

5.4: Arjuna gets ready for the battle

1:20: Sanjaya said to Dhritharāshtra: O Lord of the Earth, viewing the army of Dritharāshtra thus arrayed battle-ready against him, Pāndava (Arjuna), whose flag adorned Hanumān (monkey God, the symbol of strength and loyalty), lifted his bow and said the following words to Hrishikesa (Krishna).

In the above shloka, Arjuna lifts his bow as a symbol of his self-confidence and battle-readiness. He was resolved to kill his enemies and gain back his kingdom.

5.5: Arjuna wishes to take a last look at his adversaries

1:21-23: Place my chariot, O Achyuta, between the two armies so that I may behold the war-minded that stand here, with whom I must wage this war. I desire to look at those that throng here to fight, intent on pleasing in battle the evil-minded son of Dhratarashtra.

A supremely confident Arjuna asks prince Krishna to park his chariot in the demilitarized zone between the two armies so that he can assess his enemies before the battle ensues. Considering what follows, I can hardly resist the temptation to interpret this shloka as a metaphor for Arjuna requesting prince Krishna to, “establish my mind in the Dwandwa-free zone!”

5.6: Arjuna experiences anticipatory Shōkam (grief)

1:24-27: Thus requested by Gudākesha (Arjuna), Hrishikesha, O Bharata, having placed the best of chariots in between the two armies; facing Bheeshma and Drōna and all the rulers of earth, spoke, “O Pārtha, behold all the Kurus gathered together.” Standing there Pārtha then saw in both the armies, paternal uncles, grandfathers, teachers, maternal uncles, cousins, sons, grandsons, comrades, fathers-in-law and benefactors. He, the son of Kunti, gazing at those kinsmen posted in positions spoke thus in sadness, filled as he was with choking compassion.

When one expects to lose someone he is emotionally attached to, he suffers from anticipatory grief. This grief would certainly be heightened greatly if one must kill his own people by his own hands. Now Arjuna feels sorry for his adversaries. Arjuna faces a new concern: what are the consequences of his violence against his own people?

In the historical context, many Kshatriyas, still in the Brāhmanic fold, must have felt confused as to how to deal with their own people abandoning Brāhmanic Dharma and even attacking it.

5.7: Fear of earning bad Karmaphalam brings on a panic attack

1:28-30: Seeing my kinsmen, collected here prompted by war, my limbs fail me, O Krishna, and my mouth is parched up. My body quivers and my hairs stand on end. The bow Gandiva slips from my hand and my skin burns all over. I am unable to stand; my mind whirls as it were; and Kesava, I see adverse omens.

The thought of killing his own people arrayed against him, Arjuna suffers a panic attack. Panic attack is an emotional distress with many severe physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral symptoms brought on by one’s mind flooding with fear. What was Arjuna afraid of? Based on all we know of him from the Mahābhārata, his fear is highly unlikely to be that of fear of dying in battle. Rather, his fear was that of incurring grave sin by killing his hapless relatives, teachers and friends -his own people. Committing sin means earning bad Karmaphalam by doing something wrong in the eye of one’s Dharma. According to Brāhmanism, one who commits sin goes straight to hell after death (1:44). Here the Brāhmanic authors attempt to show how Arjuna’s egoism -my own people- has made him forget the Brāhmanic dictum that when one is performing his socially obligated duty, there is no room for “I”, “me” and “mine.” In fact, it is sinful not to kill one’s own people when one’ Dharma dictated it (2:33).

1:36: What delight can we derive, O Janārdana, by doing away with these sons of Dritharāshtra? Sin (bad Karmaphalam) only will accrue to us by slaying these desperados.

1:45: Goaded by greed of pleasures of a kingdom we are, alas, bent on perpetrating the great sin of killing our kinsmen.

In the above two shlokas, Arjuna expresses grave concern about earning sin or bad Karmaphalam by killing his cousins even though they were wicked. The authors attempt to show how Arjuna’s loss of knowledge of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma has impaired his judgment.

5.8: Arjuna suffers from Dwandwam due to attachment to his own people

1:31-32: I do not foresee any good ensuing from the slaughter of my own people in battle. O Krishna, I hanker not for victory or empire or even pleasure. Of what avail to us is kingdom or enjoyment or even life, O Govinda?

In the above two shlokas, a fickle-minded Arjuna questions the first of two basic premises of Brāhmanism: perform your duty and gain victory, empire and pleasure here on earth.

1:35: Though myself slain by them, I would not, O Madhusūdana, seek to slay them even for the sake of domination over three worlds, how then for the earth?

In the above shloka, Arjuna questions the second of two basic premises of Brāhmanism: perform your duty, earn good Karmaphalam and attain heaven hereafter. In these three shlokas Arjuna expresses doubts about the fundamental teachings of Brāhmanism.

1:37: We should not therefore slay the sons of Dhratarāshtra, our kinsmen; for how can we, O Mādhava, killing our own kinsmen be happy?

Thus, forgetting the rewards of victory, pleasure, kingdom, heaven, etc. for fighting, Arjuna wrongly concludes that he should not kill his relatives and friends. He wonders: How can I be happy when I have live with the gnawing sense of sin the rest of my life? His attachment to his own people makes him think that killing them was more sinful than not doing his socially designated duty.

5.9: Now Arjuna expresses his disgust with the whole situation

1:33-34: Those for whose sake we seek kingdom, enjoyment and pleasures, they stand here in battle, staking life and property: Teachers, fathers, sons as well as grandfathers, brothers-in-law and other relatives.

Arjuna expresses disgust at the fact that his own people, for whose sake he was waging the war, are willing to give up everything to fight him! Who are these people who are getting ready to fight giving up their attachment to life and wealth? Well, I suspect that in the Historical context this enigmatic shloka refers to Sramanas, the ascetics of the heterodox Dharmas, who gave up all attachment to worldly things and families and opposed Brāhmanism tooth and nail.

1:46: Should the sons of Dhratarāshtra with weapons in hand slay me, unresisting and unarmed in the battle that would indeed be better for me.

A Dwandwa-stricken Arjuna conjures up a rather bizarre scenario in which he, unarmed and unresisting, is slain by his cousins! This shloka was meant to illustrate Arjuna’s pitiable unsteady state of mind. In the historical context, Arjuna is saying that he would rather be non-violent like Buddhist and Jains, who not only gave up their weapons but also became totally non-violent. They would rather be killed than kill.

1:47: So saying, overwhelmed with Shōkam in the battlefield, Arjuna sat on the seat of his chariot, abandoning his bow and arrows.

Unable to find an acceptable solution to his predicament, a Shōka-stricken and Dwandwa-ridden Arjuna resorts to renouncing his claim for his own kingdom in return for avoiding earning bad Karmaphalam. In effect, Arjuna decides to abandon his bounden duty as dictated by Varnāshrama Dharma. Note here the contrast between shloka 1:20, in which Arjuna lifts his bow, symbolic of performing his Dharma (duty), and shloka 1:47, in which he abandons it, symbolic of his abandoning his Dharma. If this shloka were to be the summary of the BG Chapter One, it would read as follows:

“So saying, overwhelmed by Shōkam; his mind befuddled and enfeebled by Dwandwam; and paralyzed by the fear of earning bad Karmaphalam, Arjuna threw down his bow and arrows and threatened to abandon his Kshatriya Dharma.”

In the Historical context this was exactly what many dissenting Kshatriyas were doing in the post-Vedic period of India. Disgusted (2:52) and aggrieved by the obsession of the upper classes with earning Karmaphalam by means of sacrificial rites (2:43), they were giving up their Kshatriya Dharma and becoming Sramanas, inactive monks (Akarmani: 2:47) of heterodox Dharmas. So, 1:47 is the crucial shloka that instigates prince Krishna’s scolding and stern lecture on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma.

5.10: Prince Krishna tackles Shōkam by chastising and shaming Arjuna

2:1-3: Sanjaya said to Dhritharāshtra: Madhusūdana spoke these words to Arjuna who was overwhelmed with compassion and was grieving with eyes full of tears: “Arjuna, how could you have these impure, ignoble (Unarya), heaven-barring and dishonorable thoughts at this critical juncture? Do not yield to this impotence! It does not befit you. Give up this petty feeble-heartedness and stand up!”

Prince Krishna chastises Arjuna by pointing out to him that his behavior is unbecoming of a Aryan Kshatriya prince. Arjuna’s behavior is impure because it is tainted with feeble-heartedness and unmanliness. His refusal to fight is not befitting an Arya, and it would certainly bring dishonor to him here on earth and disbarment from heaven hereafter. Shame has always been a powerful motivator in India where conforming to social norms and expectations has always been of paramount importance. Shame is an emotion one feels when he believes that he is looked down upon by the society for doing something wrong in its eyes. Brāhmanism controlled the society by means of shaming the dissenters. “When you do something, always keep in mind what ten people in the society think of you!” has always been the message of Brāhmanism. Besides, “Just who do you think you are to question the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma?”

In the Historical context, by means of these three shlokas Brāhmanism scholars try to shame all those Kshatriyas who were abandoning it to embrace Para-Dharmas. Note here that manliness, heroism, honor, nobility, gaining wealth and heaven are the hallmarks of Kshatriyas as per the dictates of Brāhmanism. In the Upanishadic Gita that follows immediately, these goals are entirely discarded. The message of the Upanishadic Krishna is that Arjuna should act without regards to victory or defeat (2:38), honor or dishonor (14:25), gain or loss (2:38), good Karma or bad (2:50-51), heaven or hell. “Do the right thing after appropriate reflection, and don’t worry about what others think of you! You are not helpless at all!” is the message of the Upanishads (18:63). We will read later how this Upanishadic advice was not meant for Arjuna at all.

5.11: Prince Krishna reminds Arjuna about his Kshatriya duty to overcome his Dwandwam

2:31-32: Prince Krishna continued: Looking at your own duty as well, you should not waver; for there is nothing more welcome to a Kshatriya than righteous war. Happy are the Kshatriyas, O Partha, who obtain such warfare that comes unsought as an open gateway to heaven.

Every Kshatriya should eagerly seek to perform his duty to fight a righteous war, and he should look at it as an opportunity to gain wealth and power here on earth and heaven hereafter. Once again, wealth and power here on earth were a very desirable sense objects as far as Brāhmanism was concerned.

5.12: Shame here on earth and hell hereafter!

2:33-36: Prince Krishna continued: If you will not wage this righteous warfare, then forfeiting your own duty and honor, you will incur sin (earn bad Karmaphalam and go to hell). People will forever recount your infamy. To the honored, infamy is certainly worse than death. The great chariot-warriors will view you as one who fled the war out of fear; you that were highly esteemed by them will be lightly held. Your enemy will also slander your strength and speak many unseemly words. What could be more painful than that?

Nothing is worse than shame in the society for an honorable Kshatriya. Infamy for abandoning his bounden duty would make life a hell here on earth, and guarantees one hell hereafter. What can be worse than this? On the contrary…..

2:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorious you will enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse up O son of Kunti and be resolved to fight.

This shloka explains the two fundamental concerns of Brāhmanism: Enjoying life here on earth and heaven hereafter by faithfully performing one’s duty.

5.13: Prince Krishna explains the doctrine of the Gunas and Karma

Now prince Krishna explains to Arjuna the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, which direct all actions. Since the Original Gita was not an Upanishad, Arjuna does not ask Krishna a question to instigate the following lecture. it is possible that several shlokas in which Arjuna beseaches Krishna to teach him the basics of doctrines of the Gunas and Karma are lost. Arjuna might have asked prince Krishna: “Achyuta, tell me, why is my mind so befuddled about my sense of duty? What determines my duties?” Prince Krishna might have answered: “Arjuna, let me start by telling you about the doctrine of the Gunas, which determines all our actions.”

3:5: None can remain really actionless even for a moment; for everyone is helplessly driven to action by the Gunas born of Prakriti.

According to Brāhmanism, the Gunas are irresistible force of nature (Prakriti) within us that relentlessly drives all our actions. The word ‘helplessly’ is invariably associated with the force of the Gunas. It was the view of the Brāhmanical seers that no one could defy it even if he wished to (18:60). Aside from making everyone believe that they were mere puppets in the hands of the Gunas, this doctrine gave no hope of redemption for anyone who indulged in evil behavior. Even a thief could justify his behavior as his duty (Dharma) driven by his Guna! However, there is some truth in this statement. Well-established patterns of behavior are almost impossible to change.

3:27: The Gunas of Prakriti perform all Karma (action). With the understanding clouded by Ahamkāra (egoism), man thinks, “I am the doer.”

As we read earlier, whenever a man resisted the dictates of Brāhmanism, he was branded as deluded by egoism (Ahamkāra). One must meekly submit to the dictates of the society and not “make waves.” Any dissent or self-assertion is considered as the sign of ignorance engendered by Ahamkāra. One must always be humble and obedient. This doctrine kept people of all four classes in their proper place. Upstarts had no place in Brāhmanical society. Due to this rigid tendency, all innovative ideas were stifled, and dissenters had no choice but to abandon Brāhmanism when it became thoroughly corrupted.

5.14: Prince Krishna tackles Arjuna’s fear of bad Karmaphalam

18:17: He who is free from the notion of egoism (Ahamkāra) and whose understanding (of the doctrines of the Gunas) is not tainted (by Ahamkāra), though he kills people, he kills not; nor is he bound (by his actions and so he earns no Karmaphalam).

One earns sin only when he does something against the dictates of his Dharma. One who acts without the ignorance engendered by Ahamkāra is acting according to his Guna assigned to him by Brāhmanic Dharma. And therefore, he does not earn any bad Karmaphalam (sin) even if he kills his own people. How can a warrior killing enemies in the line of duty earn sin? In fact, he would earn honor here on earth and heaven hereafter.

3:33: Even a wise man (one who is well-versed in the Vedas) behaves in conformity with his own nature (Guna); beings follow nature (the Gunas); what shall restraints avail?

Who is a wise man according to Brāhmanism? A wise man is one who is knowledgeable of the Vedas and who conforms to the dictates of his Guna. He is one who attains perfection (Samsiddhim) by faithfully performing his designated duty (18:45). Prince Krishna reminds Arjuna that it is pointless to resist the force of the Gunas. He should just do what comes naturally to him. Again the operative word here is helplessness.

5.15: Prince Krishna explains the Varnāshrama Dharma

18:40: There is no being on earth, or again in heaven among the Devas, that is liberated from the three Gunas, born of Prakriti.

When even the Devas are under the spell of the Gunas, how can mere mortal like Arjuna resist its force?

18:41: The duties of Brāhmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also of Sudras, O scorcher of foes, are distributed according to the Gunas born of their own nature.

One’s duty is dictated by the class in which one is born. This, in turn, is determined by the Gunas assigned to that class.

18:45: Devoted each to his own duty, man attains the highest perfection. How engaged in his own duty, he attains perfection, that do you hear.

What is it that one attains by doing his own duty? It is the status of highest perfection (Samsiddhim). This merely means one has attained the highest social status in his class by being an ideal member of the Brāhmanic society. It is like being given Padma Shri title to a person who has earned it by distinguished public service. This is not the state of Self-realization of the Upanishadic seers. Atmān and Brahman are not in this equation.

18:42: Serenity, self-restraint, austerity, purity, forgiveness, and also uprightness, knowledge, realization, belief in a hereafter- these are the duties of Brāhmanas, born of their own nature.

As can be seen, the Brāhmins assigned themselves the highest Guna, namely, Sattva. Note here that the belief in the hereafter was essential to Brāhmanism. This belief was rooted in the doctrine of Karma: when one earns enough Karmaphalam, he would attain heaven or go to hell, depending upon the nature of his deeds.

18:43: Heroism, vigor, firmness, resourcefulness, not fleeing from battle, generosity and lordliness are the duties of the Kshatriyas born of their own nature.

These qualities rooted in Rajas Guna defined the behavior of Kshatriyas.

18:44: Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishyas, born of their own nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudras born of their own nature.

The lower classes were assigned the Guna which defined their respective professions.

5.16: Prince Krishna finally browbeats Arjuna with Brāhmanism’ Ultimate Shlokas

18:59-60: If filled with Ahamkāra, you think, “I will not fight,” vain is this, your resolve; your nature (Guna) will compel you. Bound by your own Karma(phalam) (comeuppance) born of your nature (Guna), that, which from delusion (of your Ahamkāra) you wish not to do, even that you shall do helplessly against your will, O Kaunteya.

In these Ultimate Brāhmanic Shlokas, prince Krishna finally browbeats Arjuna with the ultimate weapon of Brāhmanism: Ahamkāra. He reminds Arjuna how helpless he is in the face of the overwhelming force of the Gunas and Karma. Well, if this were true, there was no need at all for prince Krishna to intervene and give Arjuna a lecture on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. All he had to do was to sit tight in his chariot and wait for Arjuna to helplessly resume fighting.

Compare the advice given to Arjuna by the Brāhmanic prince Krishna in these two shlokas to that given by the Upanishadic Lord Krishna after He gave Arjuna Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga:

18:63: The Lord (who is more powerful than the Gunas 3:43; 14:19) dwells in the hearts of all beings (15:15), O Arjuna, and by His Māya (by which He overcame his own Prakriti, 4:6) causes all beings to revolve as though mounted on a machine. Seek refuge in Him alone (in order to transcend the force of the Gunas) with all your heart (in which resides your Atmān), O Bharata. By His grace you will gain Supreme Bliss (here on earth) and Eternal Abode (of Brahman hereafter). Thus has wisdom more profound than all profundities been declared to you by Me. Reflect upon it fully and act as you choose.

Whereas the Brāhmanic shlokas tell Arjuna that he is totally helpless in the face of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, the Upanishadic shlokas tell Arjuna that he is free to act as he chooses after appropriate reflection. Back to the Brāhmanic Gita:

18:72: Has this been heard by you, O Pārtha, with an attentive mind? Has the delusion of your ignorance (engendered by your Ahamkāra) been destroyed, O Dhananjaya?

The reader should note here that the delusion of ignorance prince Krishna refers to in this Brāhmanic shloka is that of Ahamkāra. What this means is that when a man becomes egoistic -bewildered by “I” “Me” and “Mine”- his mind becomes disconnected from his inner sense of duty as dictated by Brāhmanic Dharma. In contrast, the delusion of ignorance mentioned in the Upanishadic Gita that follows is that engendered by the Gunas themselves, and not by Ahamkāra. Note here that prince Krishna refers to Arjuna as Dhananjaya, conqueror or wealth. This was the code word to indicate that this shloka was directed to Kshatriyas in general, whose main task was to conquer wealth.

5.17: A meek Arjuna surrenders to the doctrine of the Gunas and Karma

Thus humbled by prince Krishna’s merciless scolding, shaming and stern lecture on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, Arjuna says:

18:73: My delusion (engendered by my Ahamkāra) is destroyed. I have regained my memory (of my duty) through your grace, O Achyuta. I am firm (free from panic and grief); I am free from doubt (Dwandwam). I shall act (to win the war and enjoy the earth, or die in battle and attain heaven) according to your word (regarding the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma).

It should be noted here that the Original Gita was not in the form of a thoughtful and investigative dialogue characteristic of the Upanishadic Gita that succeeded it. In the Original Gita prince Arjuna simply expresses his misgiving about the war and prince Krishna issues a sharp scolding for it and delivers a stern lecture on the necessity, virtue, and benefit of performing his Kshatriya Duty (Dharma) as per the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. He tackles Arjuna’s shōkam by telling him to be manly; Dwandwam by telling him to regain the knowledge of his Dharma; and fear of bad Karmaphalam by enlightening him that when one kills in the line of socially designated duty, he does not earn bad Karmaphalam. Prince Krishna uses the ultimate weapon of Brāhmanism -accusation of one suffering from Ahamkāra- to shame Arjuna into resuming fighting. Arjuna refers to prince Krishna as Achyuta both in the first shloka (1:21) and the last (18:73). The word Achyuta roughly means one who is not tainted; not fallen; steady; firm, and the like. The whole episode is about Achyuta lifting one who had become unsteady and infirm because his Ahamkāra (”I” and “Mine”) made him forget his socially designted duty as per the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. Brāhmanism’s solution for all three maladies of Arjuna is simple: Do your duty!

5.18: In the Original Gita princes Krishna and Arjuna remain equals

In the Original Gita, from the beginning to the end the relationship between prince Arjuna and prince Krishna remains that of equals. Prince Krishna is neither the Guru (2:7) of the Upanishads nor the Lord of beings (4:6) of the later additions; nor is He the Supreme Lord of the Bhāgavatha Dharma (11:3). Arjuna’s surrender is only to the doctrine of the Gunas and Karma, and not to prince Krishna. He merely acknowledges prince Krishna’s grace and agrees to act according to his advice (18:73).

CHAPTER SIX

Brāhmanism Warns about
Consequences of Abandonment

6.1: Ascendancy of Buddhism and other egalitarian Dharma threatened Brāhmanism

We do not know exactly how effective the Original Gita was in stopping the exodus of Kshatriyas. One thing was for sure: for three centuries following the death of the Buddha in 483 B. C. Buddhism rose in leaps and bounds and the prestige of Brāhmanism continued to decline steadily. Large number of Kshatriya men left their families and became Bhikkus of Buddhism, munis of Jainism and Ascetics of other creeds. As Buddhism became the dominant Dharma of India, Brāhmanism felt a great threat to its very existence. Buddhism had little regard for the Varnāshrama Dharma as its main motto was equality of all human beings based on right conduct and not their class of birth. This meant free admixture (Varnasankara) of the upper class women with the lower class men. To make matters even worse, even “lower classes” began to abandon Brāhmanism. Brāhmanism chronically worried that admixture of upper class women with the lower class men would lead to the birth of unwanted progeny (1:38-44) and decimation of elitist class (3:24). By now the Mahābhārata epic, the quintessentially Brāhmanic text, was very popular with the masses. The Original Gita, dealing with Arjuna’s Grief on the battlefield and prince Krishna’s lecture enunciating the Brāhmanism doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, was already part of the Mahābhārata epic. Taking advantage of the Mahābhārata’s popularity with the masses, some later Brāhmanic scholars seem to have decided to warn people about the serious consequences to individuals as well as the Brāhmanic society due to admixture of classes.

6.2: Brāhmanism warns against class admixture

The following seven shlokas, warning of the evil consequences of Varnasankara -upper class women producing children with lower class men- were interpolated later in the Original Gita between 1:37 and 1:45 by the proponents of Brāhmanism in a desperate attempt to shore up the weakening Varnāshrama Dharma in the face of ascendance of Buddhism and Jainism. Children of such union, being uncultured, would fail to perform proper rituals to appease ancestral souls. The result would be, they claimed, wholesale condemnation of everyone responsible for Varnasankara to hell. One clue to the later addition of these seven shlokas is the term Jāti Dharma -caste system (1:43). The caste system, in contrast to class system, evolved later in the post-Vedic period. In the following seven shlokas Brāhmanic seers issue a dire warning by means of Arjuna’s lamentation: 1:38-44: Arjuna said: Even though they (the Kauravas), goaded by greed, neither feel guilt in destroying their own family nor perceive crime in treachery to friends, why should we not have the wisdom to refrain from such a sin, O Janārdana, knowing well the evil in the destruction of the family? When families decline, their eternal family laws (Kula Dharma) perish; with the demise of sacred rites, impiety overtakes the entire family. The decline in family values leads to women becoming unchaste; corruption of women leads, O Vārshneya, to admixture of Varnas (classes). Varnasankara (admixture) leads to deprivation of manes-cakes and libations to ancestral souls, causing the souls to fall, which guarantees hell to families as well as to the family destroyers. The eternal caste virtues (Jāti Dharma) and family merits (Kula Dharma) become destroyed due to Varnasankara caused by the family destroyers. We have heard repeatedly, O Janārdana, that hell is verily the long-lasting abode of those men whose family religious practices have been ruined.

In the above shlokas, the Kauravas are the metaphor for the post-Vedic Kshatriyas who destroyed families by becoming Bhikkus. Brāhmanism put forth the argument here against Varnasankara as this leads to destruction of ancient rituals and traditions enshrined in various sub-Dharmas of Brāhmanism such as the Varnāshrama Dharma, Jāti Dharma (caste system), Kula Dharma (family traditions), etc. The bottom line is that Brāhmanism feared loss of elite status for the upper classes.

6.3: Brāhmanism glorifies and defends the upper classes

The following two shlokas with four hidden agendas were added by Brāhmanic seers to shore up Brāhmanism: 2:4-5: Arjuna pleads with Krishna: O Madhusūdana, slayer of foes, how can I counter-attack with arrows Bheeshma and Drōna who are worthy of worship? It is better to live in the world eating beggar’s food (be a Bhikku) than to kill these great masters. Even though they are desirous of wealth, they are my superiors. If I kill them, my enjoyment of wealth and desires will be tainted with blood.

The superficial meaning of the first shloka, of course, is that Arjuna feels guilty for having to counter-attack when attacked by two great sages whom he worships ardently. Therefore, he asks Madhusūdana (killer of demon Madhu), an expert in killing enemies, for some guidance. His alternative is to give up his Kshatriya Dharma and make his living by begging. The superficial meaning of the second shloka is that he can forgive their desire for wealth because they are both his superiors. Besides, if he won the war by killing them both, he would not be able to enjoy his blood-stained gains due to his sense of sinfulness over killing them.

6.4: Four hidden agendas

There are at least four hidden Brāhmanic agendas in these two shlokas all of which must be examined in the context of India’s history between 400 and 200 B. C.

1. The first hidden agenda: The phrase two “great sages worthy of worship” are most certainly the code words for Lord Buddha and Lord Mahāveera, both of whom were worshipped as great sages (Mahānubhavan) even by a large section of the Brāhmanic society. Both these great men were, as it were, “attacking” the corrupted Brāhmanism by their Nāstik philosophies. Both these teachers rejected just about everything Brāhmanism stood for: The Vedas, Vedic sacrifices, Varnāshrama Dharma, and supremacy of Brāhmins. Brāhmanism, now in precipitous decline, was in a rather precarious position of having to “counter-attack” both these leaders of the heterodox Dharmas. On the one hand, pro-Brāhmanism authors knew that there was great merit in the conduct-oriented teachings of the Buddha as well as Mahāveera. On the other hand, Brāhmanism wanted to hang on to its ritual-oriented ancient traditions. Brāhmanic seers were at a loss as to how they could counter-attack these opponents. For the record, the phrase “how can I counter-attack” (Katham Prathiyothsyāmi) cannot be applied at all in the Mahābhārata context. The attackers were Pāndavas, not Kauravas. So this shloka has no Mahābhārata context at all.

2. The second hidden agenda: Arjuna poses the question: Why should I not abandon Kshatriya Dharma and make my living by begging instead? This statement must be examined in the context of rise of Buddhism. A large number of Kshatriyas were becoming Bhikkus or begging monks of Buddhism, Digambaras of Jainism, and Sādhus of Asceticism around this time, disgusted by the decadence of Brāhmanic Dharma. Arjuna says rhetorically, in effect, “If I can’t lick them why can’t I join them!” By means of this shloka, Brāhmanism seers set the stage to counter Arjuna’s desire to abandon his Dharma in the following fateful shloka, which has been drummed into the minds of Hindus for over two thousand years: 3:35: Prince Krishna says: It is better to perform one’s own Dharma, however imperfectly, than to perform another’s Dharma perfectly. Better destruction in one’s own Dharma; the Dharma of another is full of fear.

It is interesting to note here that Brāhmanic seers admitted in this shloka that Brāhmanism was performing its own Dharma imperfectly, Kāmya Karma being the prime example of that imperfection, and yet it perversely defends its faulty performance by implying that death or destruction while imperfectly performing one’s own Dharma leads to heaven, and death while performing perfectly Para Dharma leads to hell. The fear mentioned is obviously that of going to hell for abandoning one’s socially designated duty (2:33), or for being responsible for Varnasankara (1:38-44). The Brāhmanic seers do not bother to stop for a minute to reflect, “Why are so many people abandoning Brāhmanism? What are we doing wrong?” Instead they attempt to promote their own decadent Dharma by perversely fear-mongering another’s Dharma, and by implying that death while performing Kāmya Karma leads to attainment of heaven (9:20). This type of perverse logic and fear-mongering afflicts the minds and actions of most Brāhmanic (Hindutva) leaders as well as their fanatic followers even today.

3. The third hidden agenda: The second of these two shlokas shores up the position of Brāhmins (represented by Drōna) and Kshatriyas (represented by Bheeshma) in the post-Vedic society when the prestige of these two upper classes was taking a good deal of beating due to their hankering for wealth, pleasure, and heaven (2:43) by means of Kāmya Karma. Brāhmanism considered the upper classes as worthy of worship (17:14). In these shlokas they are both described as “superiors worthy of worship even though they are desirous of wealth.” The fact is that in the Mahābharāta epic neither the patriarch Bheeshma nor Guru Drōna was desirous of any wealth whatsoever. They both had nothing personally to gain from this dreadful war. Bheeshma was a disillusioned old Kshatriya on his last leg, and Drōna was an old Guru waiting for his last breath. They were both on the dole of Kauravas and were merely returning, though reluctantly, the debt they owed them. In other words, they were both merely performing their bounden duty even though they were on the wrong side. Therefore, the phrase “even though they are desirous of wealth” cannot be justified in the Mahābhārta context. The real and hidden intent of these shlokas is: So what if Brāhmins and Kshatriyas have become selfishly desirous of wealth? Remember that they are the elite of the society and worthy of worship as per the dictates of Brāhmanic Dharma (17:14).

4. The fourth hidden agenda: How could one enjoy the wealth and desires tainted with blood? In the Mahābhārata context, the sin of killing the two great sages -Bheeshma and Drōna- could rob Arjuna of the enjoyments of gains he made by his deeds (Karma). The ensuing sense of guilt and sinfulness could defeat the very purpose of the deed.

In the Historical context, however, the reference to tainting with blood one’s enjoyment refers to rampant animal sacrifices sponsored by Brāhmanism and opposed by both the Buddha and Mahāveera. Both these Mahātmas abhorred animal sacrifices and questioned: How could one enjoy anything earned by violent means? Brāhmanism maintained that animal sacrifices were legitimate in the process of Yajnas (Karma) prescribed by the Vedas to attain wealth, pleasure, and heaven, and there is no need to feel any guilt or sin for enjoying the Karmaphalam ensuing from them. They had already addressed this issue in the Original Gita by explaining how the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma determined every person’s class and duty; and why one should perform his duty faithfully as dictated by them; and how by doing so one does not earn bad Karmaphalam. Once again, they buttress their own Dharma by their perverse logic: 18:47-48: Better is one’s own Dharma, though imperfectly performed, than the Dharma of another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature (Guna) incurs no sin (bad Karmaphalam). One should not abandon, O Kaunteya, the duty (Karma/action) to which (Varna) one is born, though it is attended with evil (such as sacrificing animals); for all undertakings are enveloped by evil, as fire by smoke.

In these two shlokas, Brāhmanism seers argued that all undertakings have something unpleasant about them, which they are totally helpless to change (3:5, 27, 33; 18:59-60). Everyone must helplessly perform his duty as dictated by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma even if it means Kshatriyas killing their “own people” in the line of their duty, and Brāhmins killing animals in the performance of Yajnas. If a Brāhmin must sacrifice animals in the course of a Yajna he performs as per his priestly duty, he must do so accepting it as the dictates of his Dharma. There is no need to stigmatize such actions as evil or sinful. Any gain made in the course of such actions, say, a kingdom gained by Kshatriyas or priestly remuneration gained by the Brāhmins, is not tainted since they both were merely performing their respective socially designated duties as dictated by their Dharma.

These appeals to all classes of people not to abandon Brāhmanism Dharma did not help in stopping the wholesale desertion. As Buddhism began its ascendance, the fortunes of Brāhmanism continued to decline steadily. Soon Brāhmanism was in danger of disappearing altogether.

CHAPTER SEVEN
The Upanishadic Dharma

7.1: Uncertain times

As we read earlier, the post-Vedic period of 1000-400 B. C. was one of great tumult, uncertainty, and insecurity. The situation was something like the uncertainties we are experiencing in 21st century related to global warming, ice caps and glaciers melting, sectarian terrorism, religious conflicts, rampant pollution of air, water and land, rapid globalization, deep economic recession, political corruption, business leaders committing fraud and the like. There was much political and social instability in the land. Kings were being dethroned, kingdoms were being swallowed-up, and tribes were breaking up. Old orders were being replaced with new ones. There was a deep sense of disillusionment and insecurity in the air. The world was seen as a miserable place to live. During this period numerous great texts known as the Upanishads were composed by some great thinkers, most certainly many of them royal sages (BG 4:1-2; 9:2; Chandogya Upanishad: 5:11:5-7; Brahadāranyaka Upanishad: 2:1:1-15; 6:2:1). No one knows the exact meaning of this term, but scholars think it means “sitting devotedly near” an enlightened Guru. The Upanishads, later came to be known as confidential discourses or secrets (Rahasyam 4:3) mainly because the Brāhmanism considered them as anti-establishment rhetoric. Reflecting the uncertain and disillusioning mood of the time the Maitrāyani Upanishad (1:4) went so far as to say:

“What is the use of the enjoyment of pleasures in this offensive, pithless body -a mere mass of bones, skin, sinews, marrow, flesh, seed, blood, mucus, tears, phlegm, ordure, water, bile, and slime! What is the use of enjoyment of pleasures in this body which is assailed by lust, hatred, greed, delusion, fear, anguish, jealousy, separation from what is loved, union with what is not loved, hunger, thirst, old age, death, illness, grief and other evils! ……There is drying up of other great oceans, falling of mountains, the moving of pole-star, cutting of wind-ropes (that hold the stars), submergence of the earth, and the departure of the gods from their place… In such a world as this, what is the use of the enjoyment of pleasures, if he who has fed on them is seen to return again and again. We are all like a frog in the dry well!”

7.2: Intellectuals question Brahmanic doctrines

As can be discerned from the above shlokas, the intellectuals began to see the world as a miserable place for people to live in (BG: 9:33). They saw around them people who suffered from the mental fever (BG 3:30) of Dwandwam due to their preoccupation with wealth, power, heaven and pleasure, no different than what is happening now in modern India. They concluded that being born again and again as per the doctrine of Karma was more a curse than a blessing. They must somehow find a way to end mental stress (Dwandwam), decay, pain, death, grief, and find a way to end the cycle of birth, death and birth, known as Samsāra, and attain immortality. Disgusted intellectuals of India, especially Kshatriya philosophers (Chandogya Up: 1:9:2-4), were not satisfied by the mindless and intellectually sterile Kāmya Karma as a panacea for all the ills and miseries of life as claimed by Brāhmanic ritualists (BG 2:42). Gradually it dawned on them that the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma of Brāhmanism, as symbolized by Kāmya Karma, themselves had a terribly corrupting influence on the society:

Mundaka Upanishad: 1:2:5-10: If a man performs his sacred works (Yajnas) when these flames are shining, and oblations follow at the right time, then they lead him as sun-rays to where the one Lord of the Devas (Indra) dwells (BG: 9:20). “Come hither, come hither!” the brilliant oblations say to him, and carry the sacrificer on the rays of the sun, while they utter speech and praise him, saying, “This is Brahma-world (Svarga, heaven), gained by the good works (Yajnas).” But frail, in truth, are those boats, the sacrifices, the eighteen, in which this lower ceremonial has been told. Fools who praise this as the highest good, are subject again and again to old age and death (BG: 9:21). Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge (of the Vedas) (Kathā Up: 2:1:5; BG 2:42), go round and round staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind. Children, when they have long lived in ignorance, consider themselves happy. Because those who depend on their good works are, owing to their passions, improvident, they fall and become miserable when their life (in the world which they had gained by sacrifices) is finished. Considering sacrifices and good works as the best, these fools know no higher good, and having enjoyed (their reward) on the height of heaven, gained by good works, they enter again this world or a lower one (BG: 9:21).

They concluded that the world being so full of misery, being born again and again as per the doctrine of Karma was more a punishment than reward. For one not to be born again and again, he must give up unmindfulness and impure thought (desire and attachment) (Kathā. Up: 1:3:7). For one to be eternal he must know Atmān: Kathā Up: 1:3:15: He who has perceived that (Brahman) which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay, without taste, eternal, without smell, without beginning, without end, beyond the Great, and unchangeable, is freed from the jaws of death.

7.3: Focus shifts from the mindless ritual to the spiritual

The intellectuals of India frantically searched for new solutions for pressing life-problems. They began to contemplate on the structure and functions of the mind. They came up with the idea of the Self, Atmān, the indestructibe essence or spirit of man. They claimed that Atmān is nothing but a portion of Brahman, the all-pervading Universal Spirit, within the body (BG 8:3). They concluded that the Self is a part of one’s body and mind: Kathā Upanishad: 1:3:10: Beyond the Senses there are (sense) objects; beyond the objects there is the mind; beyond the mind there is the intellect, the Great Self is beyond the Intellect (BG: 3:42). Using the metaphor they are most familiar with, they compared the mind to a horse-drawn chariot, metaphor befitting the Gita: Kathā Upanishad: 1:3:3-4: Know the Self to be sitting in the chariot, the Body to be the chariot, the Intellect (Buddhi) the charioteer, and the Mind the reins. The Senses they call the horses, the objects of the Senses their roads. When He (the Highest Self) is in union with with the body, the Senses, and the Mind, then the wise people call him the Enjoyer (Self-realized).

7.4: The Upanishads versus the Vedas

Many of the Upanishads were blatantly skeptical about or hostile to Brāhmanism in general and sacrifices in particular in the prevalent spirit of the day. Some of them even ridiculed the greedy priests mercilessly. Chāndogya Upanishad (1:12:1-5) compared the orthodox priests to a procession of dogs holding the tail of the dog in front chanting piously: “Om, let us eat! Om, let us drink! Om, may divine Varuna, Prajāpati, Sāvitri bring us food! Lord of food, bring hither food, bring it, Om!”

The Upanishadic seers relegated Vedic knowledge to lower level than the Knowledge of Atmān (Mundaka Upanishad: 1:4). They branded indulgence in Vedic sacrifices as a sign of ignorance (Avidya) and delighting in Vedic knowledge (BG 2:42) led to greater darkness (Brahadāranyaka Upanishad: 4:4:10; Isopanishad: 9, 12). They condemned desire-driven sacrifices in no uncertain terms (Mundaka Upanishad: 1:2-10). They declared that Atmān cannot be attained by the Vedas (Mundaka Upanishad: 3:2:3; Svetāsvatara Upanishad: 3:13; Maitrāyani Upanishad: 2:5; Kathā Upanishad: 1:2:23). When a person has attained Atmān, he is no longer concerned about one’s Varna or Kula or status in life (Brahadāranyaka Upanishad: 4:3:22; Chandogya Up. 4:4:1-5).

7.5: The Upanishadic remedy

There is no doubt that the Upanishadic doctrines arose in reaction to decadence of Brāhmanism. The Upanishadic seers had no quarrel with the fact that the Gunas are the cause of all action (BG 3:5) by their influence on Karmendriyas (Organs of Action such as hands, feet, mouth, genitals, etc.). However, the problem with the Gunas, they said, was that by means of the Senses, they promote desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects such as power, people, wealth and heaven, and induce people to hanker after them. This creates three problems: 1. All actions, except for Yajnas performed selflessly, earn one Karmaphalam (3:9), and therefore, the Gunas promote the cycle of birth, death and rebirth (Samsāra) hereafter. 2. When the mind comes into contact with sense objects and gets attached to them, it suffers from Dwandwam (stress) of mind (2:14; 3:28-29): I like this, I hate this; this makes me feel good, this makes me sick; I got it, I lost it. In other words, people who are into money, power, title, honor, wealth, etc. have neither peace of mind nor happiness here on earth (2:66). 3. When the mind becomes entangled with sense objects, it loses touch with Atmān within. This results in one suffering from Shokam (grief) when someone they are attached to dies.

So they concluded that the solution for all the three miseries (Tāpatraya) on earth -Shōkam (grief), Dwandwam (stress) and Karmaphalam resulting in Samsāra (cycle of birth, death and rebirth)- was to eliminate the doctrine of the Gunas, which promotes Kāma (desire), Sangas (attachment), Mōha (delusion) for sense objects; and cancel-out doctrine of Karma, which promotes desire for fruits (Sankalpa) when one acts. They realized that to counter the force of the Gunas, they must offer people a force greater than the Gunas. The force they came up with was Atmān (BG 3:43). To counter desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects, they concluded, they must come up with a technique. The technique to overcome the force of the Gunas and eliminate Karmaphalam when one acts, was Yoga. The technique of Yoga conisists of withdrawing the Senses (desire, attachment, possessiveness) by girdling the mind with Buddhi (Intellect, Wisdom). This eliminates Dwandwam immediately. When one acts without desire for fruits (Sankalpa) and with steadiness of mind, he avoids earning both good and bad Karmaphalam (BG 2:50-51). Furthermore, they claimed, once one intuitively gains the knowledge that Atmān is eternal and deathless, he becomes immune to Shōkam (2:25). Thus Yoga became the tool to end Shōkam and Dwandwam here on earth; and eliminate Karmaphalam and thus end Samsara hereafter. This is how Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga became the fundamental doctrines of the Upanishads.

7.6: The doctrine of the Knowledge of Atmān and Brahman: That thou art

In contrast to the ritual-oriented Vedas, Upanishads were thought-provoking discourses that dealt with truly mind-boggling concepts of all-pervading Brahman, the Imperishable Universal Spirit and Atmān, the Self, the indestructible essence of that spirit in man’s heart (Kathā Upanishad 2:6:1-15). Brahman was described as an immortal  “terrifying force like a drawn sword” before which all the Vedic gods ran away in terror (Katha Up. 2:6:1-3). Superiority of Brahman over Vedic gods was conveyed in the two coded shlokas in the Bhagavad Gita: 2:23-24: Weapon (Indra) cannot cleave Atmān, fire (Agni) cannot burn It, water (Varuna) cannot wet It, wind (Vayu) cannot dry it. Brahman, being distinct from the Senses (desires and attachment, the cause of grief), was identified as the seat of Absolute Bliss (Sukham) (BG: 5:21, 24-26) and was without any Gunas (Nirguna BG:13:31). Brahman was beyod pain, grief, decadence, death, estruction and mutation. He cannot be perceived by the Senses. Because Brahman was beyond the reach of the Senses, It could only be described in negative terms: Not this, not this: Naeti, Naeti: (Brahadāranyaka Upanishad: 4:4:22). The central theme of the Upanishads was “Tat tvam asi” (Chāndogya Upanishad: 6:9:4): That thou art, meaning the Atmān within the body and all-pervading Brahman are one and the same. Another way of putting this was: “Aham Brahmāsmi”: I am Brahman (Mundaka Upanishad: 3:2:9). Brahman could be obtained only through abstinence from sense objects (Chāndogya Upanishad: 8:5:1-3); and by truth and penance (Mundaka Upanishad: 3:1:5). Unlike Prakriti (the body and the Gunas) Brahman was free from old age, death, pain, grief, desire, etc. (Chāndogya Upanishad: 8:7:3; BG:14:20) and he who knows Brahman obtains everything (Chāndogya Upanishad: 8:7:3). He who knows Atmān overcomes Shōkam (Chāndogya Upanishad: 7:1:3). Those who know Atmān become immortal (Svetāsvatara Up.:4:20). The ultimate goal of Atmān was Nirvāna -end of Samsāra - by means of merger with Brahman. How can one achieve this goal?

7.7: The doctrine of Yoga: The disconnection of Mind from the Senses and sense objects

The root word for Yoga is yoke. Yoga consists of arduous practice by which one controls his Senses and yokes his mind to his Buddhi (Intellect). Thus stabilized, the mind becomes immune to  Dwandwam. This is known as Buddhiyoga. What is the ultimate goal of Buddhiyoga? To obtain the bliss of Brahman. Katha Upanishad describes the basic idea of Buddhiyoga (2:6:10-11): When the five instruments of knowledge (Senses) stand still together with the Mind, and when Intellect does not move, that is called the highest state (Buddhiyoga). This, the firm holding back of the Senses (from its desire for and attachment to sense objects) is called (Buddhi)Yoga. How can one achieve the immortality of Brahman? Kathā Up. 2:6:14-15: When all desires that dwell in his heart cease, then the mortal becomes immortal, and obtains Brahman. When all ties of the heart are severed here on earth, then the mortal becomes immortal -here ends the teaching (of Yoga) (Also BG: 2:55-59).

7.8: The Gunas are the cause of Shōkam and Dwandwam

If Atmān resides in the body, why is it that we do not know It? Well, the Upanishadic seers blamed it on the force of the Gunas (Natural Qualities) (Maitrāyani Upanishad: 3:2). The best way to explain this force is that it is like gravity. Just as gravity of earth attracts all objects to it, Guna attracts Atmān and binds it to the body (BG:14:5). By means of the same magnetic attraction, the Gunas induce the Mind to get attracted to sense objects and get attached to them (BG: 3:27-28). The Mind’s attachment to sense objects creates the following problems:

1. Dwandwam: When the Senses become entangled with sense objects (people, money, power, etc.) the Mind experiences pairs of opposites such as likes and dislikes, pleasure and pain, gain and loss, honor and dishonor, etc. The term Dwandwam also has many other meanings: doubt, mood swings, obsession, loss of judgment, and the like. When the mind becomes entangled with sense objects it becomes disconnected from Wisdom and suffers from unsteadiness, loss of judgment, doubt and other symptoms of stress (Maitrāyani Upanishad:3:3; BG: 2:14). A person who experiences the Dwandwam of pain and pleasure has not found Brahman (Chandogya Up. 8:12:2). The upper oval in the picture below shows a restless and unsteady mind. The lower oval shows a steady (Buddhiyukta mind)

2. Shōkam: Once the mind becomes deluded by its entanglement with sense objects, it becomes ignorant of Atmān in the body. When one loses awareness of the immortal nature of Atmān, he suffers Shōkam (Grief) upon the death of loved one by failing to recognize that Atmān is deathless (Maitrāyani Upanishad:3:2). He who knows Atmān grieves no more (Kathā Upanishad:2:4:4; Brahadāranyaka Upanishad: 4:3:21; BG:2:25).

7.9: Doctrine of Karma promotes Karmaphalam and Samsāra

3. Karmaphalam: The doctrine of Karma (Chandogya Upanishad: 5:10:7) evolved over several centuries before the Original Gita was composed. Whereas Brāhmanic Dharma encouraged the upper classes to earn as much Karmaphalam as possible to enjoy wealth and lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter (BG:2:43), the Upanishadic Dharma claimed that earning Karmaphalam merely promoted the cycle of birth-death-rebirth ( Kathā Up: 5:10:3-5; BG:9:21). The goal of life should be to enjoy peace of mind here on earth (BG: 5:21) and Nirvāna hereafter (BG: 6:15), meaning ending the cycle of Samsāra once and for all. The Upanishads declared that whereas the study of the Vedas and practice of charity (Dāna) and austerity (Tapas) might obtain one heaven, to attain immortality one must know Brahman (Chandogya Upanishad 2:23:1-2).

7.10: Two elements of Buddhiyoga: Sanyāsa and Tyāga

1. Sanyāsa means giving up desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects. This is exactly opposite of what the Gunas do. In practice this meant giving up performing Kāmya Karma (18:2). When one achieves this goal, his mind connects with Buddhi, his inner wisdom, and becomes Buddhiyukta (BG:2:49-51). Because detachment from sense objects connects the mind to its inner wisdom (Buddhi), this Yoga is known as Buddhiyoga or Yoga of Wisdom. The mind thus stabilized by wisdom (Buddhiyukta mind) not only overcomes Dwandwam, but also gains Knowledge of Atmān after all desire is conquered (2:55-59). Knowledge that Atmān is eternal and deathless counters Shōkam. In practice, Sanyāsa countered Kāma (hankering for hefty fees) evident in the priests officiating Kāmya Karma (18:2). In Chapter Four of the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna assigned Sanyāsa, also known as Jnānayoga, to the Kāma-ridden Brāhmin class, in an attempt to wean them away from Kāmya Karma.

2. Tyāga means renouncing fruits of action (BG: 18:2). All selfless actions earn neither good nor bad Karmaphalam, and thus they break the bonds of Karma (2:39-40). In practice, Tyāga countered Sankalpa, the desire for fruits (6:1-4), evident in Kshatriyas sponsoring Kāmya Karma. In Chapter Three of the Bhagavad Gita, Tyāga, also known as Karmayoga, was given by Lord Krishna to the Sankalpa-obsessed Kshatriyas (3:3) in an attempt to wean them away from Kāmya Karma.

The Upanishadic seers proposed a combination of philosophy of Sānkhya (Knowledge of Atmān) and practice of Yoga to replace the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma: “He who has known that Cause (Atmān) which is to be apprehended by Sānkhya philosophy and discipline of Yoga, he is freed from all fetters of (Samsāra)( (Svetasvatara Up:6:13). It is this philosophy of Sānkhya and practice of Yoga which was revealed by Guru Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita: 2:39: This wisdom (Knowledge of Atmān) has been given to you as per the philosophy of Sānkhya (by which you can overcome the doctrine of the Gunas and attain Knowledge of Atmān); now hear from me how by the arduous practice of Buddhiyoga you can break the bonds of (doctrine of) Karma.

The reader should note here that neither Jnānayoga nor Karmayoga had any relevance to Arjuna’s predicament. No one can go to war with an attitude that he is detached from sense objects and he is not desiring victory and honor. These two Yogas were meant for corrupt Brāhmins and greedy Kshatriyas of Brāhmanic Dharma in the historical context, who had corrupted Brāhmanism beyond repair by indulging in Kāmya Karma. Lord Krishna gives a hint to this effect by addressing Arjuna as “sinless” in 3:3 in which he divides Buddhiyoga into Jnānayoga and Karmayoga. Furthermore, these two Yogas are mighty difficult for ordinary people in the modern world to practice.

Basic tactics of the Upanishadic revolution

The Upanishadic seers chose their words carefully in launching the revolution. They used various tactics to express their views, leaving room for ambiguity. Most of their revolutionary shlokas superficially appear to be applicable to Arjuna’s predicament. As we will read in the next chapter, deeper analysis would prove this not to be the case. This gave Brāhmanic scholars enough room to save face. We will study all these tactics in detail when we review each chapter.

1. Clever use of multiple meanings of words Karma and Dharma: These words have multiple meanings, depending upon the context and intent of their use (4:15).
2. Using metaphors to convey the message (2:22-24; 4:37; 15:1-4).
3. Double entendre: Using the same shloka to give dual meanings, one with reference to the Mahābhārata context and the other the Historical (2:47-49). As we will read later, their shlokas did not fit the Mahābhārata context as well as they did the Historical context.
4. Using pun (2:29; 52-53) to convey the hidden message. They used words such as Karma, Dharma, Shruthi, Nirveda and Veda in such a way that the discerning reader would know their hidden, anti-Brāhmanism intent.
5. Pretending as if the anti-Brāhmanic shlokas were meant for Arjuna when, in fact, they were meant for errant ritualists (2:38; 18:63). They gave a clue to this fact by addressing Arjuna as ‘sinless’ (3:3; 15:20), and a person with divine qualities (16:5) meaning, these shlokas did not apply to him. It is a like a good scolding given by a father to his noble son within the earshot of his errant nephew. The scolding given was meant for the waywardly nephew, not for the noble son.

Is there a scientific basis for the Upanishadic theory of the Gunas as the source of human weaknesses?

The question may arise here if there is any scientific basis for the claim by the Upanishadic theory that common human weaknesses arise from the Gunas. I believe there is. The Gunas can be roughly compared to Id, the aggressive and sexual impulses. Guna-rooted human weaknesses that civilized society shuns such as Kāma (lust), Krōdha (jealous rage), Mada (arrogance), Mōha (delusion), Mātsarya (envy), Lōbha (greed) and Bhaya (fear/insecurity) were essential survival tools once upon a time on man’s evolutionary path. As man evolved in the wilderness over millions of years Mother Nature, Prakriti, gave him many survival tools: fear for his safety, lust for food and sex, hatred for his enemies, arrogance to dominate others, possessiveness and greed to ensure his survival in lean times and jealousy that forced him to compete with others for the same natural resources such as food and water. Over millions of years these survival tools became hard-wired into the brain and embedded into the genes of all humans. The basic goal of these survival tools was to further man’s personal safety and interests in the harsh environment of wilderness. In other words, the primitive man was basically a “Me, I and Mine” person.

When man gradually became civilized about ten thousand years ago, in order to bring peace and order in human society he attempted to control these traits by means of laws (Dharma), morals (Neethi), social etiquettes (Niyama), traditions (Sampradāya) etc. Man was forced to suppress his basic survival instincts and tools in return for being part of the peaceful, civilized society. In other words, man was forced to give up his selfishness and other negative traits as the price for belonging to the society. He was forced comply with the dictates of Dharma and to work (perform Karma) not only for himself but also for the welfare of the society in return for the privilege of belonging to the society. Paying taxes is an example. Every person’s Karma was ordained by the dictates of his Dharma. In the Brāhmanic society of ancient India the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma dictated a man’s Dharma as well as his Karma as dictated by it. This is the basis of Brāhmanic dictum, “Duty above all else.” The problem was that one was more or less straight-jacketed into his Guna/Karma destiny. The lower classes performed their obligatory duty to serve the upper classes. Those who opposed the system were hooted down with the label of Ahamkāra.

These ancient hard-wired survival tools remain just under the surface within the modern man’s mind as defects or personality weaknesses such as Bhaya (fear, insecurity), Kāma (lust), Krōdha (jealous rage), Mada (arrogance); Mōha (delusion), Lōbha (greed) and Mātsarya (jealousy). The more recently cultivated (soft-wired) laws, moral values, social etiquettes and noble virtues, all of which represent Buddhi (Superego/Wisdom), merely cover up these hard-wired survival tools. Under right circumstances these relics of our prehistoric past, rooted deeply into our Nature, resurface in the mind and excite the Senses and Organs of Action both of which are the functions of the Gunas. The civilized man then behaves like the primitive man. This is exactly what happened to people performing Kāmya Karma. In modern times, we see this behavior in all crooked businessmen who rip off their clients; CEOs of various banks and financial institutions who loot the shareholders; politicians and bureaucrats who take bribes and steal public funds. Once the mind becomes entangled with money, power and women, it becomes disconnected from the wisdom and one begins to do stupid things (2:62-63). Once these Guna-rooted drives became manifest in them, the upper classes of Brāhmanism became that “Me, I and Mine” primitive persons and began to indulge in evil acts (3:37-40). It is the contention of the Upanishadic Gita that in the civilized society there is no room for “Me, I and Mine” as exemplified by Kāmya Karma. Detachment from sense objects (Jnānayoga, 4:23) and selflessness in action (Karmayoga), especially by the ruling classes (3:19-21), is the Upanishadic Gita’s antidote to man’s attachment to sense objects and selfish acts rooted in primitive instincts and impulses we call the Gunas. Recognizing the deleterious role of Guna-based human weaknesses in the society, the Bhagavad Gita repeatedly exhorts (2:45; 14:19-20) one to “cross over all three Gunas.” In fact, the main purpose of Yoga is to control the power of the Gunas and withdraw the Senses; detach the mind from sense objects and to perform all action selflessly.

We will study every shloka of Chapters Two to Six in the next five chapters to expose the Upanishadic revolution.

7.11: The Upanishadism versus Brāhmanism

1. Whereas Brāhmanism worshipped many Vedic gods, Upanishadism worshipped only one divinity: Atmān/Brahman.
2. Whereas Brāhmanism worshipped Vedic gods by means of Yajna seeking sense objects, Upanishadism worshipped Brahman by means of Yoga seeking Atmān.
3. Whereas Brāhmanism promoted attachment to lordship and wealth here on earth, Upanishadism promoted detachment from these sense objects.
4. Whereas Brāhmanism promoted hierarchal class system, Upanishadism promoted equality of all people.
5. Whereas Brāhmanism promoted action in accordance with one’s social class to gain wealth, honor and status in the society, the Upanishadism advocated doing the right thing after appropriate reflection regardless of gain or loss; honor or dishonor; and success or failure.
6. Whereas Brāhmanism promoted Samsāra in which one’s Atmān was born again and again based on the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (BG:2:26; 18:42), the Upanishads condemned Samsāra and promoted Nirvāna (15:1-4).
7. Whereas Brāhmanism looked upon the Vedas as the ultimate religious authority, Upanishadism looked upon the Vedas as the “lower knowledge” when compared to the Upanishads (BG:2:46).
8. Whereas Brāhmanism considered Brāhmins superior to all other classes, Upanishadism considered Brāhmins as equal to common animals and dog-eating outcaste (5:18).
9. Whereas Brāhmanism considered ignorance (of the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma) as caused by one’s Ahamkāra, Upanishadism declared that ignorance of Knowledge of Atmān was caused by the Gunas themselves.
10. Whereas Brāhmanism considered Vedic ritualists as the most enlightened of all classes of people, Upanishadism considered them as ignorant, fools, crass, greedy and fallen men.

7.12: The Upanishads pose a grave threat to sacrifice-obsessed Brāhmanism

Intellectually, these Upanishadic insights were eons ahead of the sterile and mindless sacrificial rites promoted by Brāhmanism. However, to the Yajna-addicted Brāhmins and Kshatriyas, it was easier to admit that their practice of Brāhmanism was imperfect (3:35; 18:47) than to give up their mindless rituals performed against the ordinances of ancient scriptures (16:21-24; 17:1-4). To them the very intent (Sankalpa, 6:1-4) of performing various Yajnas was to earn Karmaphalam (4:12). The Upanishadic teachings of detachment from sense objects; selfless Karma, and freedom from Shōkam, Dwandwam, and Karmaphalam (2:47-51) struck at the very root of the Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, and they posed grave internal threat to its very existence. For once Brāhmanism was confronted with both external (Buddhism, Jainism, Asceticism and Lokāyata) and internal (the Upanishadic Dharma) threats.

7.13: Brāhmanism declares the Upanishads as “Top Secret.”

Brāhmanism could do little to thwart the external threat except to declare that Buddha was born to mislead nonbelievers to hell. In order to neutralize the internal threat from Kshatriya intellectuals the clever Vedic priests did to the Upanishads what modern businesses do to whistle-blowers: promote them to oblivion and declare their discovery a Rahasyam or ‘Top Secret.’ First they declared the Upanishads as integral part of the Vedas even though the Vedic and Upanishadic doctrines were diametrically opposed to each other, and the latter were meant to replace doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. Then they interpolated into the texts of the Upanishads whatever pro-sacrifice stuff that served their purpose (Traittiriya Up: 1:1-9). Incredible amounts of obscure, irrelevant and inappropriate materials (E.g. Brahadāranyaka Upanishad: 4:4:2-10) were added to the original texts till no ordinary person could comprehend what was already a rather complex concept. The essential elements of the Upanishadic philosophy were buried in the avalanche of irrelevant garbage. Then they incorporated them into the Vedic corpus as the Vedānta, the end of the Vedas, and gave them the sacred status of Shruthi, that which was heard. The net result was that the Upanishads became, more or less, that which you won’t hear any more. This was how the explosive new thought, diametrically opposed to Brāhmanism, was contained and kept under wraps away from any busybody curious to know more about it. Even though the literal meaning of the word Upanishad was “sitting near devotedly,” it came to mean “a Rahasya no one should hear” (4:3). This is no different from a corrupt government classifying some damning information adverse to it as “Top Secret.” Witholding essential information from general public is still the hallmark of greedy politicians and corrupt bureaucrats in today’s India.

7.14: Lord Krishna reveals the Upanishadic secret in the Bhagavad Gita

It is this Royal (Kshatriya) Secret -Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga- that was finally revealed by some bold Upanishadic and Bhāgavatha seers in the modified Original Gita, a Smriti, which could be heard and studied by anyone, including a Sudra. It was like someone putting on the front page of a popular newspaper that the emperor, in fact, wore no clothes. They elevated Prince Krishna to the position of Upanishadic Guru (2:7) and then the Lord of beings (4:6). Once the secret was revealed by Lord Krishna in a Smriti, no one could declare it a secret anymore.

4:1-2: This imperishable (Buddhi)Yoga, I (the Upanishadic Lord of beings) declared to Vivasvat (the Sun god); Vivasvat taught it to Manu; Manu told t to Ikshvaku (the king). Thus transmitted in regular succession the royal sages knew it. This Yoga, by long efflux of time (being stashed away as a secret) decayed in this world, O scorcher of foes. 4:3: The same ancient Yoga (of the Upanishads) has been today told you by Me, for you are My devotee and friend; and this secret is supreme indeed. 9:1-3: To you who do not cavil, I shall surely declare this, the most profound knowledge combined with realization by knowing which you will be liberated from sin (bad Karmaphalam of Kāmya Karma and consequent Samsāra). The sovereign (Kshatriya) science, the sovereign secret, the supreme purifier is this; directly realizable, in accord with (My) Dharma, very easy to practice and imperishable. Men devoid of faith in this Dharma do not attain Me (Mōksha), O oppressor of the foes, but return to the path of the mortal world (Samsāra, as per Brāhmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma).

How earnest and thrilling are His words! It is significant to note here that Lord Krishna repeatedly asserts that the secret of the Upanishads was known by the royal sages -Kshatriyas (4:2; 9:2), not Brāhmanic priests. The Upanishads also give the credit for these doctrines to the Kshatriyas. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna claims that He is the author of the Vedānta (15:15) but not that of the Vedas, which were composed by Brāhmanic priests. He distances Himself from the Vedas by simply stating that He is the knower of the Vedas. Elsewhere, He openly downgrades the Vedas (2:46, 52-53; 8:28; 11:48, 53).

7.15: How Brāhmanic seers destroyed the Upanishads in the Bhagavad Gita

As we will study in Chapter Fifteen of this book, Brāhmanic seers continued to destroy the essence of the Upanishads even in the Bhagavad Gita while declaring that the Gita was an Upanishad. Not only did Brāhmanic seers add pro-Brāhmanism shlokas embellishing the Gunas and Yajna (Karma) (Chapters Fourteen, Seventeen and Eighteen), but also they assigned Gunas to all aspects of Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga (18:1-39), completely disregarding the fact that the very purpose of these two Upanishadic doctrines was to overcome the destructive effects of the Gunas (2:45; 3:28-29; 3:43; 14:19-20).

Brāhmanic Swāmis, such as Sri Shankarāchārya, continued this practice in their commentaries while claiming the Gita as an Upanishad. A case in point: In Chapter Three, the Upanishadic Lord Krishna attempts to make Brahman the focus of all Yajnas just as He did in 4:24 when he was reforming Brāhmins. The purpose both Chapter Three and Four was to replace Vedic Devas with Brahman as the object of worship, and to replace Yajna with Yoga as the mode of worship. He starts by explaining in 3:10-11 how Prajāpti (Brahma) created people and Yajnas so that they could cherish the Devas and be cherished by them in return. In 3:12-13 He scolds greedy Kshatriyas as thieves and sinful because they have kept the fruits of Yajna for themselves. Then in 3:14-15 the Upanishadic Lord Krishna explains the revolving wheel of Yajna: Brahman (all-pervading imperishable Supreme Deity) gives rise to Brahma (Prajāpati, the Vedic Lord of beings); Brahma creates Yajna; Yajna brings on rains; rain produces food; food gives rise to people; people worship Brahman with selfless Yajna (Yoga). In 3:16 he once again scolds ritualists who do not follow this wheel made up of Brahman-Brahma-Karma-Yajna-rain-food-people-Brahman, as living a sinful and vain life, because they are “rejoicing in the senses (3:16)” instead of worshiping Brahman. They are committing sinful acts by making satisfaction of their vanity the main goal of Yajna rather than thanking Brahman.

The exact words of 3:15: are as follows: Karma (Yajna) Brahmodbhavam (arose from Brahma, that is Prajāpati) viddhi (know); brahmāksharasamudbhavam (Brahma arose from the Imperishable)/ Tasmāt (therefore) sarvagatam (all-pervading) Brahma (Brahman) nityam (ever) yajnye (Yajnas) pratistitham (established)//

Note a small but crucial mistake in the above shloka. The original author of this shloka says that Brahma, the Vedic Lord of beings arose from Imperishable, meaning all-pervading Brahman. Then he goes on to say that all pervading Brahma is ever centered on Yajna. He should have said, “All-pervading Brahman” and not Brahma. The phrase “all-pervading” applies only to Brahman. Either the original author made a crucial mistake, or some later author played mischief with this shloka. Here is how Sri Shankaracharya plays even greater mischief in translating this shloka: 3:15: Know that this work is born of the Vedas, and that the Vedas are born of the Imperishable Reality. Therefore, the all-pervading Veda is eternally rooted in sacrificial work. He goes on to comment, “Work is born of Brahman, Brahman is the Veda!” The real purport of this shloka is: Know that Yajna arose from Brahma (Prajapati 3:10); Brahma arose from the Imperishable (Brahman). Therefore, the all-pervading Brahman (not the Devas) should ever be at the center of all Yajna. Far from being “all pervading,” the Upanishads considered the Vedas as “lower knowledge” by which Brahman cannot be obtained. How do we know that this is the correct interpretation? Lord Krishna follows this shloka by saying: 3:17-18: For a man who delights solely in the Self (Atmān/Brahman), who is content with the Self, who finds satisfaction in the Self alone, there is no need to perform any sacrificial rites. He has nothing to gain from doing such rituals nor lose by not doing them; nor has he to depend on anybody (Devas or their brokers, the priests) for anything. Both the Upanishadic Lord Krishna and the Bhāgavatha Lord Krishna repeatedly declare that one cannot obtain Brahman (8:28) or Lord Krishna (11:48, 53) by the Vedas, Yajna, Dāna or Tapas. Incredible amount of duplicity, misinterpretation, misrepresentation and obfuscation such as the above are found throughout every Brāhmanic commentary on the Bhagavad Gita available in bookstores.

7.16: Misdeeds of the upper classes yield bad Karmaphalam

Pretty soon the misdeeds of the ritualist Brāhmins and Kshatriyas began to yield Karmaphalam here on earth. As the bloody sacrifices flourished, anti-Brāhmanism sentiment in society mounted; abandonment of Brāhmanism escalated; heterodox Dharmas flourished; and Brāhmanism slipped into a moribund condition. In spite of these developments, the sacrifice-obsessed Vedic Brāhmins and Kshatriyas kept performing Kāmya Karma, blissfully indifferent to the graffiti on the walls.

CHAPTER EIGHT

The Upanishadic Revolution is Launched:
Chapter Two of the Bhagavad Gita

In this chapter we will examine Chapter Two of the Bhagavad Gita in which the Upanishadic revolution to overthrow Brāhmanism was launched. There are many coded shlokas in this chapter. The revolution begins with BG 2:6. BG 2:1-3 were already explained in the chapter dealing with the Original Gita, and BG 2:4-5 were explained in the chapter titled ‘Brāhmanism Warns about the Consequences of Abandonment’. Below I have realigned some shlokas to facilitate the flow of the Upanishadic reasoning.

8.1: Shōkam, Dwandwam, and Karmaphalam are reintroduced

The Upanishadic seers set the stage for their revolution by reintroducing three issues shared by both Arjuna in the Mahābhārata context and the post-Vedic society in the Historical context: Shōkam, Dwandwam, and obsession with Karmaphalam.

2:6: Whether we should conquer them or they should conquer us -I do not know which is better (my Dwandwa-ridden mind is unable to decide). These cousins of ours are standing before us in this battlefield, killing whom we should not care to live (death is better than living with the burden of sinfulness -bad Karmaphalam- caused by killing one’s own relatives).

Arjuna’s Dwandwa-ridden mind is unable to decide whether he should conquer his adversaries or they should conquer him. Besides, killing them would certainly earn him sin -bad Karmaphalam. In the ancient society, death was preferred to living with a gnawing sense of sinfulness.

2:8: I do not find any relief from the Shōkam that is drying up my senses, even if I were to gain unrivalled and prosperous monarchy (here) on earth or even supremacy in heaven (hereafter).

In this shloka Arjuna expresses profound Shōkam, which neither Karmaphalam of Kāmya Karma -prosperous monarchy here on earth and even supremacy in heaven hereafter- could assuage. Note here that in the Original Gita 2:2 prince Krishna chides Arjuna that his behavior was shameful here on earth and heaven-barring hereafter. The message is that Kāmya Karma has no remedy for Shōkam. In fact, it is the cause of Shōkam and Dwandwam due to the loss of Knowledge of Atmān engendered by the Gunas (desire and attachment).

2:7: Arjuna continues: My nature (fighting spirit -the natural disposition of a Kshatriya to perform his duty) is weighed down with the taint of feeble-mindedness (not feeble-heartedness you accused me of in 2:3). My understanding is bewildered as to my duty (due to the combined effect of Shōkam, Dwandwam and fear of earning bad Karmaphalam).

Note here that in the Original Gita 2:3 prince Krishna accuses Arjuna of suffering from feeble-heartedness (Hridayadaurbalyam). In the Upanishadic Gita, Arjuna switches the focus from feeble-heartedness to feeble-mindedness (Kārpanyadoshopahataswabhāva). Whereas Brāhmanism obsessed with heroism, bravery and honor and heaven, Upanishadism obsessed with happiness of mind engendered by its contact with the inner peace. In the second sentence Arjuna says that his Shōkam, Dwandwam and fear of Karmaphalam have bewildered him about his duty.

8.2: The Upanishadic format is set up: Prince Krishna becomes Guru Krishna

2:7: I entreat you; say definitely what is good for me (enlighten me with what can get rid of my three maladies). I am your disciple. Do instruct me who have taken refuge in you.

In this second part of shloka 2:7: the Upanishadic seers set up the Upanishadic format (4:34) which elevates prince Krishna to the status of Arjuna’s Guru, which authorizes him to impart to him and the errant Brāhmins and Kshatriyas Knowledge of Atmān (2:11-13; 16-30) and Buddhiyoga (2:48-53). These two doctrines will replace the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, while appearing to address Arjuna’s Shōkam, Dwandwam and concern about earning bad Karmaphalam.

2:9: After addressing Hrishikesha thus, Gudākesha, the Scorcher of foes, said to Gōvinda, “I shall not fight,” and held silence.

The ‘thick-haired Scorcher of Foes’ said to ‘the bristled-haired Chief of Cowherds’ that he shall not fight, and he fell silent. This shloka might be a code for something profound such as the upper class warrior seeking wisdom from a person of a somewhat lower social status. Cowherds belonged to Vaishya class (18:44). In any case, Arjuna’s silence was a cue to Guru Krishna to begin his discourse on the Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga,  which would address his Shōkam, Dwandwam and fear of Karmaphalam.

2:10: Sanjaya said to Dhritharāshtra: O Bharata, smiling as it were, Hrishikesha spoke these words to the despondent one stationed between the two armies:

Guru Krishna is smiling perhaps because he is amused by the little Upanishadic game he and Arjuna are playing, giving him the opportunity to overthrow the decadent Brāhmanism.

8.3: Guru Krishna explains that Knowledge of Atmān counters Shōkam

2:11: You grieve for those who should not be grieved for; yet you spell words of wisdom. The wise (who have gained the Knowledge of Atmān) grieve neither for the living nor for the dead.

In the Mahābhārata context, prince Krishna tells Arjuna that there is no need for him to grieve over the impending death of Kauravas who, by virtue of their wickedness, deserve to die.

In the Historical context, Guru Krishna teaches his listeners that grief (Shōkam) is indicative of ignorance of Atmān. On the pretext of addressing Arjuna’s grief, Guru Krishna teaches his listeners the doctrine of Knowledge of Atmān: wise people, who know the eternal and indestructible nature of Atmān, know that when someone dies his Atmān does not die, and so they do not grieve. One’s attachment to people, engendered by the nature of his Guna, makes one lose touch with Knowledge of Atmān. But a person who is wise, unattached to people does not feel the need to grieve either for the living or the dead. They are beyond grief. “He who knows the Self overcomes grief.” (Chandogya Up.: 7:1:3).

2:12-13: Nor I, nor you, nor any of these ruling princes was ever non-existent before; nor is it that we shall cease to be in the future. As the Atmān in the (present) body experiences childhood, youth and old age, He also passes on to another body (after death). The wise one is not deluded about this.

If one knows that Atmān is deathless and it passes through various stages of life after which it enters another body, he does not suffer Shōkam. To get in touch with Atmān, however, one must first overcome three functions of the Gunas: desire for, attachment to, and possessiveness of sense objects. A person who has gained Knowledge of Atmān become immune to grief.

2:16: The unreal (body) has no (permanent) existence; the real (Atmān) never ceases to be (it is permanent). The truth about both these has been realized by the (Upanishadic) seers.

A distinction must be made between the impermanent body and permanent Atmān. He who knows this is an enlightened man who never grieves.

2:17-18: Know That (Atmān/Brahman) to be verily indestructible by which all this (the body as well as the world) is pervaded. No one can destroy the Immutable. These bodies of the Indweller (Atmān), who is eternal, indestructible and immeasurable, are said to have an end. Fight therefore, O Bharata (without worrying about death of people you are attached to).

Whereas Atmān occupies the body Brahman pervades the whole universe. Human body changes shape as it gets old, and it can be destroyed. Atmān is immutable and indestructible (unlike the body formed by Prakriti). How can one grieve over something that never gets old, changes shape or dies?

2:19: He who holds Atmān as slayer and he who considers It as the slain, both of them are ignorant. It slays not, nor is It slain.

Whereas the Gunas are the cause of all action (3:5, 27 and 33), Atmān is completely actionless (13:29). Not only is it indestructible, but also it does not slay anyone (Katha Up.:1:2:19). A person who does not know the difference between the two is ignorant of Atmān. The second sentence of this shloka might be a veiled reference to the Vedic god Indra, the slayer of Vrtra, the demon. The author wants to stress the difference between the supreme Vedic divinity Indra, who is the very personification of the Gunas, and the Upanishadic divinity Atmān, which is free from the Gunas. In the Vedic literature, Indra is described as hard-drinking, lustful god, who wields his Weapon Vajrāyudha to kill his enemies. The word Indriyāni (Senses) is related to the word Indra, who is described as sensuous.

2:20-21: The Atmān is neither born nor does it die. Coming into being and ceasing to be do not take place in it. Unborn, eternal, constant and ancient, It is not killed when the body is slain. He who cognizes the Atmān as indestructible, eternal, unborn and changeless, how can he slay or cause another to slay?

This shloka describes various characteristics of Atmān as explained throughout the Upanishads. One who fully comprehends the true nature of Atmān recognizes that Atmān does not kill because It is actionless; nor is it killed because it is indestructible. The Upanishadic seers are setting the stage to appoint Atmān as the Supreme Divinty to replace the Vedic gods (4:24). The terms constant, eternal and changeless might be meant to compare the Atmān to Vedic gods such as Indra, the slayer of Vrtra; Vāyu (wind god) who blows; Agni (fire god) that lights now and dies later, and the like. Atmān is unlike anything anyone has been able to experience by his five Senses. And unlike the Vedic gods who, in the Vedas, are elevated to the position of supreme divinity now and demoted later; enthroned now and dethroned the next day; made vulnerable now and invulnerable the next moment, Atmān is stable, eternal, changeless and everlasting.

8.4: Guru Krishna hints of a New Dharma with new divinity: Atmān

2:22: As a man casting off worn-out garments puts on new ones, so the embodied Atmān, casting off worn-out bodies enters into others that are new.

The superficial, literal meaning of this shloka needs no elaboration. All Brāhmanic commentators safely stick to this explanation. However, there is a hidden meaning to this shloka. This shloka is a metaphor for the entity of Atmān discarding the worn-out Brāhmanism centered on the Vedic gods- Indra, Agni, Varuna, Mārutas, etc. and entering into the body of New Dharma of the Upanishads. The code words here are ‘worn-out’ and ‘new.’ In the Vedic times Brahman represented only a mysterious magical force to be invoked by means of Mantra at the time of Yajna dedicated to the Vedic gods. The priestly class was known as Brāhmin because it was believed that they possessed the knowledge of this magical force by means of which they communicated with Vedic gods. In the post-Vedic times, Brahman came to mean the all-pervading Universal Spirit -the Supreme Deity. So there was a paradigm shift in the concept of Brahman. As we will read in the next two chapters, the Upanishadic seers promote Brahman as the center of all Yajna (4:24). How do we know that the true purpose of this shloka was to replace the Vedic gods with Atmān? The next two shlokas support this view.

8.5: Atmān is superior to the Vedic gods and the Gunas (Senses)

2:23: Weapons do not cleave Atmān, fire burns It not, water wets It not, wind dries It not.

The literal meaning of this shloka is that, in contrast to the body that experiences the forces of nature by means of the Senses, Atmān is immune to them. Not only does Atmān not act, it is also immune to sensory perception unlike the human body. All Brāhmanic commentaries just stick to this simple literal meaning. The hidden meaning of this shloka, however, is that Atmān is invulnerable to the powers of the leading Vedic gods Indra, who wields his weapon Vajrāyudha; Agni, the fire god who burns; Varuna the water god who wets, and Māruta, the wind god who dries. The power of Atmān is superior to the power of the Vedic gods (Talavakāra Upanishad 3:4-11; Kathā Upanishad: 2:6: 3). There are frequent references in the Upanishads to Vedic gods “running away” in fear from Brahman. In the Upanishads, the Devas also stand for the Senses. Weapon, fire, wind, and water are felt by the Senses. Atmān is superior to the Senses, which are the functions of the Gunas (desire, attachment, etc.). In other words, Atmān is more powerful than the Vedic Devas as well as the Gunas. As we will read later, all Vedic gods will be retired soon and Atmān/Brahman will become the Supreme Deity. Just in case the dull-witted ritualists did not get the hidden message in the above shloka, Guru Krishna repeats himself:

2:24: This Atmān is un-cleavable, incombustible and neither wetted nor dried. It is eternal, all pervading, stable, immovable and everlasting.

8.6: Knowledge of Atmān counters Shōkam

2:25: This Atmān is said to be un-manifested, unthinkable and immutable. Therefore, knowing It as such, you should not grieve.

In the shloka above, Atmān is compared with the Gunas and the Devas. The Gunas manifest themselves in the quality of one’s actions; they can be thought of a Sāttvic, Rajāsic or Tāmasic; and they manifest as one Guna now and another next moment. Atmān has no such qualities. Atmān can be perceived only through intuition. In the Vedic literature, various gods mutate freely from one shape to another. Besides, the body grows, shrinks, withers and becomes part of earth. Atmān does not undergo any such mutations or changes. Once a person intuitively knows Atmān as none of the above, he will never grieve again because how can one grieve if he does not lose it?

2:30: This indweller in the bodies of all is ever invulnerable, O Bharata. Therefore you should not grieve for any being.

What is Atmān ever invulnerable to? It is invulnerable to old age, death, grief, pain, destruction, etc. (Cha. Up.: 8:7:3; BG: 14:20), which are the products of the Gunas (14:20). Once a person intuitively recognizes this fact, he has attained the Knowledge of Atmān. He then goes beyond grief. As we will read below, there is another reason why the Upanishadic seers introduce Atmān here: to establish It as the Divinity of the Upanishadic Dharma in order to replace the Vedic gods (BG: 4:24).

8.7: Guru Krishna tackles the doctrine of Karma with reasoning

2:26-28: Or, if you conceive of Atmān as given to constant births and deaths (as per the doctrine of Karma), even then, O mighty armed, you should not sorrow. Death is certain of that which is born; birth is certain of that which is dead. You should not therefore lament over the inevitable. Beings are all, O Bharata, un-manifested in their origin (before entering the body), manifested in their mid-state (during its life in the body) and un-manifested again in the end (after death). What is the point then for anguish?

In these three shlokas, Guru Krishna tackles the doctrine of Karma, which says that everyone must go through the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Here Guru Krishna tries to tap into Arjuna’s Buddhi, the seat of reasoning. His argument is simple: If you know that births and deaths are inevitable, why would you suffer anguish? Even here, the fact that Atmān is recycled means it is indestructible. The reader should note here that the ultimate goal of the Upanishadic Gita, in contrast to the Brāhmanic Gita, is to completely end this cycle of birth, death and rebirth, and attain Nirvāna.

8.8: Guru Krishna chides Vedic scholars

2:29: One beholds the Atmān as wonderful; another mentions of It as marvelous; another hears of It as amazing; while others, even after hearing, know It not at all.

The hidden meaning of this shloka is that even Vedic scholars, who have heard about Atmān by listening to Shruthi (that which is heard -the Vedas and Upanishads), still know It not at all: shruthvāpyenam veda na chaiva kashchit. Why? Well, their obsession with Kāmya Karma, promoted by their Gunas, has prevented them from knowing Atmān. Here the words shranothi, shruthva and veda have been cleverly used as puns. This shloka is a modified form of the Upanishadic shloka in the Katha Up.: 1:2:7.

8.9: Guru Krishna explains Dwandwam and how Dwandwa-free action leads to freedom from bondage of Karma

2:14: The contacts of the senses with their objects create, O son of Kunti, feelings of heat and cold, of pain and pleasure (Dwandwam). They come and go and are impermanent. Bear them patiently, O Bharata.

In this shloka Guru Krishna explains what Dwandwa is. When the five Senses come into contact with sense objects, the Mind experiences Dwandwam: I like this, I dislike this; this makes me feel good, this makes me feel bad; I want to gain this, I am afraid of losing it. A Dwandwa-ridden mind loses touch with Buddhi and Atmān. However, unlike Atmān, Dwandwam is impermanent. If one can control his Senses (desire for and attachment to sense objects) he can eliminate Dwandwam. This leads to the mind becoming steady (Buddhiyukta). This is the first step toward attaining the Knowledge of Atmān. This shloka is the essence of Sanyāsa, the first of two pillars of Yoga.

2:15: That man, O the best of men, is fitted for immortality (he is freed from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth), whom these (pairs of opposites engendered by attachment) do not torment (when he acts), who is balanced in pain and pleasure and steadfast (has become Buddhiyukta).

If one acts with Buddhiyukta (steady) mind, and without Dwandwam of pain and pleasure, gain and loss, honor and dishonor, he earns no Karmaphalam, and so he breaks the bonds of Karma and attains immortality (becomes one with Brahman). This shloka is the essence of Tyāga, the second of two pillars of Yoga.

(Shlokas 2:31-37 are part of the Brāhmanic Original Gita, which we studied in Chapter Five of this book.)

8.10: Guru Krishna introduces the principles of Buddhiyoga

2:38: Treating alike pain and pleasure, gain and loss, victory and defeat, engage yourself in the battle. Thus you will incur no sin (bad Karmaphalam).

How can a Kshatriya avoid earning sin (bad Karmaphalam) when he kills? Prince Krishna of the Brāhmanic Gita said in 18:17: “If you fight according to your Dharma -socially obligated duty detrmined by your Guna and Karma- free from Ahamkāra, you will incur no sin (18:17). In fact, 2:33: If you don’t fight, forfeiting your duty and honor, you will incur sin. Furthermore, 2:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorious you will enjoy earth. Therefore rouse up, O son of Kunti, resolved to fight! (2:37). In contrast, Guru Krishna of the Upanishadic Gita said, 2:38: “If you don’t want to earn sin, fight with a Dwandwa-free mind! Don’t worry about gain and loss; victory and defeat; heaven or hell! Thus you will not earn any bad Karmaphalam!”

In effect, the Upanishadic Guru Krishna says to Arjuna in 2:38: “Forget what I said as prince Krishna of Brāhmanism in 2:37! That is Brāhmanic thinking. Here is what the Upanishadic thinking is: Don’t engage yourself in any action with the desire to gain either the earth or the heaven. Instead, engage yourself in action without Dwandwam (gain and loss, victory and defeat, pain and pleasure, honor and dishonor), and desire for Karmaphalam (lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter). You should fight with evenness, equilibrium and equanimity of mind characterized by Buddhiyoga. Your attitude should be: If I win, I gain no Karmaphalam as I did not hanker for it. If I die, I will die without gaining any Karmaphalam, and so I will not go to either heaven or hell. Since I am not concerned with gaining anything from my action, I earn no Karmaphalam.”

The question is which Krishna’s advice is the right one for a hero ready for war?

It should be obvious to even half-witted warriors, leave alone Arjuna, that this Upanishadic advice is not appropriate for any real warrior. Every warrior must go to war with Brāhmanic determination to win the war, enjoy the glory here on earth or die and attain heaven hereafter (2:31-37). No right-thinking person wages war against his enemies unless he has something to gain from it. No one should go to war with the attitude: I will be indifferent to the outcome of this war; I will not care if I win or lose; I don’t care if I gain honor or dishonor. The main reason for adding this shloka here was to introduce the basic principle of Buddhiyoga, which the Upanishadic seers did in the shlokas 2:39 that follows it immediately. The Upanishadic shloka 2:38, added to counter 2:37, therefore, is not appropriate for Arjuna’s predicament at all, even though all Brāhmanic commentators pretend as though it is by means of convoluted logic. In reality it applies only to the Vedic ritualists in the Revolutionary context, wherein Guru Krishna is trying to reform Vedic ritualists performing desire-driven Karma, as we will read in 2:41-53. He wants them to perform Yajna (Karma) in the spirit of Buddhiyoga, free from Dwandwam and without hankering for Karmaphalam. How do we know this to be true? Read on.

8.11: Now Guru Krishna introduces Buddhiyoga as a way to overcome the doctrine of Karma

2:39: This Knowledge of the Atmān (2:11-13; 16-30, which overcomes Shōkam and Dwandwam, and counters and replaces the doctrine of the Gunas) has been described to you from Sānkhya (philosophy) point of view. Listen now as I explain to you Buddhiyoga, by the single-minded practice of which you will breakthrough the bonds of Karma (meaning, you will earn neither good nor bad Karmaphalam when you act, and so you will transcend the doctrine of Karma).

Guru Krishna spelled-out theoretical Knowledge of Atmān in 18 shlokas above. From now onwards, this doctrine of Knowledge of Atmān will replace the doctrine of the Gunas. To attain Atmān, however, one must overcome the force of the Gunas by the practice of Buddhiyoga -detachment from sense objects (Sanyāsa) and renouncing fruits of action (Tyāga). First, one must practice Sanyāsa (detachment from sense objects), which eliminates Dwandwam and reconnects the Mind with Buddhi. These two actions take place simultaneously. This makes one Buddhiyukta (2:48-49). In addition, when one acts with Buddhiyukta state of mind (without Dwandwam) he does not earn any Karmaphalam (2:15; 50-51). In other words, from now onwards, the doctrine of Buddhiyoga will be the tool to overcome the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma. Having introduced these two doctrines, Guru Krishna now compares them to the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma as exemplified by Kāmya Karma.

8.12: Guru Krishna compares Brāhmanic Dharma to the Upanishadic Dharma

2:40: In this endeavor (the practice of Buddhiyoga to attain Atmān) there is no loss of attempt (since nothing was desired in the first place, hence no Shōkam); nor is there any adverse effect (such as Dwandwam). The practice of even a little of this Dharma (unlike the Brāhmanic Dharma,) protects one from great fear (of earning sin or bad Karmaphalam resulting in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth).

1. Regarding the phrase ‘Abhikrama nāsha’ -‘loss of effort’-: By means of this phrase, Guru Krishna is trying show the reader the advantages of Buddhiyoga over Kāmya Karma.

While performing Kāmya Karma for wealth, power, children, heaven, etc. the sponsor might not obtain any of these sense objects and thus his effort might be a total loss, leading to disappointment and grief. In contrast, while practicing Buddhiyoga, there is no scope for loss of effort and consequent disappointment or grief, as all actions are performed without the Dwandwam of gain and loss. Absolutely nothing was desired in the effort, and so nothing was lost.

2. Regarding the phrase ‘Pratyavāyas’ -‘adverse effect’-: What could be the adverse effect of an action? It is Karmaphalam. All actions earn Karmaphalam except in the case of Yajna performed selflessly (3:9). According to Upanishadic thinking, Kāmya Karma produces the adverse effect of Karmaphalam. Why is Karmaphalam an adverse effect?  Because it promotes Samsāra: Lord Krishna explains:

BG: 9:20-21: The knowers of the three Vedas (Brāhmins and Kshatriyas), the drinkers of Soma, pray for the way to heaven. They reach the holy world of the Lord of the Devas and enjoy in heaven the celestial pleasures of the Devas. Having enjoyed the vast world of heaven (after gaining Karmaphalam from Yajna), they (Vedic ritualists) return to the world of mortals on exhaustion of their merits; thus abiding by the injunction of the three Vedas (=the doctrine of Karma), desiring objects of desires they come and go (born again and again).

In contrast, when one acts with his mind yoked to Buddhi (without Dwandwam), he earns no Karmaphalam, hence no adverse effect (2:15). Guru Krishna explains:

BG: 2:50: The one who acts with his mind stabilized by Buddhiyoga frees himself from both good and bad Karmaphalam. Therefore devote yourself to Buddhiyoga. Action done skillfully (avoiding Karmaphalam) is Yoga.

In fact, even if one gave up Buddhiyoga after practicing it for a while , there is no adverse effect. Lord Krishna explains this to Arjuna:

6:41-45: Having attained the worlds of the righteous and having lived there for countless years, he who falls from Yoga is born in the house of the pure and prosperous. Or he is born in a family of wise Yogis only. A birth like this is verily very difficult to obtain in this world. There he regains the knowledge acquired in his former body, and he strives more than before for perfection, O joy of the Kurus. By that very former practice he is led on in spite of himself. Even he who merely wishes to know Yoga rises above the performer of Vedic rites. The Yogi, who strives with assiduity, purified from sins (Karmaphalam) and perfected through many births reaches then the Supreme Goal (Nirvāna).

What this means is that over several births, the fallen Yogi keeps decreasing his accumulated Karmaphalam and finally, after it is all exhausted, attains Nirvāna.

3. Regarding the phrase, “The practice of even a little of this Dharma”: the phrase ‘asya Dharmasya’ -this Dharma- refers to the Upanishadic Dharma as a whole and not just to the discipline of Yoga as claimed by Brāhmanic commentators. Why? Well, for one thing, in the following thirteen shlokas Guru Krishna condemns almost all aspects of Brāhmanism: Vedic ritualists (2:41-44, 49), doctrines of the Gunas and Karma (2:45), Kāmya Karma (2:43, 47-49), and the Vedas themselves (2:46, 52-53). Second, he follows these shlokas with shlokas elaborating the fundamental principles of Upanishadic Dharma (2:54-72). Obviously, the purpose of Chapter Two was to replace Brāhmanism with Upanishadism.

4. Regarding the phrase ‘protects one from great fear ‘Mahato Bhayāt’: What great fear could the Upanishadic Dharma protect one from? The author of this shloka does not spell out the ‘great fear,’ which this Dharma protects one from. Therefore, we need to search for clues given in other shlokas.

Both Shankarāchārya and Rāmānujāchārya explain this as fear of transmigration of Atmān -being born again and again. It is true that the Upanishadic seers abhorred Samsāra resulting from Kāmya Karma. However, this shloka’s goal was to convert Vedic ritualists into Upanishadic Yogis. What could be the ‘great fear’ of the Vedic ritualists, which the Upanishadic Dharma could protect them from? It could not be fear of transmigration of Atmān as Vedic ritualists were never afraid of Samsāra. In fact, they indulged in Kāmya Karma to earn as much Karmaphalam as possible, go to heaven after death, enjoy life there, and return to earth for another birth (read 2:43 below). So, what ‘great fear’ of the Vedic ritualists that the Upanishadic Dharma could protect them from?

The clue can be found in the Brāhmanic shloka 3:35, which chronologically preceded 2:40. This shloka warned those who abandoned Brāhmanism to join heterodox Dharmas such as Buddhism and Jainism:

BG: 3:35: One’s own Dharma, though imperfect (due to such things as Kāmya Karma), is better than the Dharma of another well discharged. Better death in one’s own Dharma (for one would go to heaven); the Dharma of another is full of fear (because one would go to hell).

It is implied in this Brāhmanic shloka that if one died performing one’s own Dharma, however imperfectly, as exemplified by Kāmya Karma, he would attain heaven (9:20). If one died performing Para Dharma, however perfectly, one would go to hell. Why? Abandoning Brāhmanism was fraught with serious consequences to Brāhmanism and so Brāhmanism considered it a great sin. Brāhmanism warned everyone who abandoned it and joined the order of Buddhism and Jainism that they would go to hell for being responsible for destruction of family, corruption of women and consequent Varnasankara (class-admixture), destruction of Jāti Dharma and Kula Dharma (1:42-44). In fact, Brāhmanism declared that even the great Buddha was born to mislead Nastiks to hell. In the Brāhmanic Original Gita: 2:33, prince Krishna warns Arjuna that he would incur sin (and go to hell) if he abandoned his Dharma.

So in shloka 2:40, Guru Krishna of the Upanishadic Dharma assures Vedic ritualists that they need not fear going to hell for abandoning decadent Brāhmanism and joining the Upanishadic Dharma because practicing even a little of this Dharma protects them from the great fear of going to hell for abandoning Brāhmanism.

Shankarāchārya: “Here in the sphere of Karmayoga there is no loss of good beginnings; nor is there any sin involved. Even a little of this righteous law delivers one from great peril. Here, in Karma Yoga, the path leading to liberation, there is no loss of the good beginnings one makes; unlike in the case of agriculture, etc. the effects of these beginnings are conserved. And unlike what may happen in undergoing a medical treatment adverse reactions will not result from the practice of Karma Yoga. On the other hand, even a little of this Yogic discipline delivers one from the great peril of transmigratory life with its birth, deaths and so forth.”

Note: The Yoga under study is Buddhiyoga, which has two elements in it: Sanyāsa, also known as Jnānayoga, and Tyāga, also known as Karmayoga. Only later, in 3:3, does Lord Krishna divide Buddhiyoga into Jnānayoga and Karmayoga. The Achārya never catches the drift of the shloka’s hidden intent to knock down Brāhmanism by comparing it unfavorably with Upanishadism. Instead he resorts to applying ‘loss of effort’ to failure of crops, and ‘adverse effect’ to complications in medical treatment. He misses the real agenda of this shloka, namely to replace Brāhmanism with Upanishadism. His interpretation that the great fear referred to is the fear of rebirth does not make sense in the historical context.

Rāmānujāchārya: “Here, there is no loss of effort, nor any accrual of evil. Even a little of this Dharma (called Karma Yoga) protects a man from the great fear. Here in Karma Yoga, there is no loss of ‘Abhikrama’ or of effort that has been put in; ‘loss’ means the loss of efficacy to bring about the fruits. In Karma Yoga if work is begun and left unfinished, and the continuity is broken in the middle, it does not remain fruitless, as in the case of works undertaken for fruits. No evil result is acquired if the continuity of work is broken. Even a little bit of this Dharma known as Karmayoga or Nishkama karma (unselfish action without desire for any reward) gives protection from great fear, i. e., the fear of transmigratory existence.”

Note: This is a fairly accurate literal interpretation. However, Rāmānujāchārya also mistakes Buddhiyoga for Karmayoga even though the latter is one of two elements of Buddhiyoga. He mistakes the purpose of Yoga as gaining fruit when he says, “it does not remain fruitless.” The goal of Yoga is “not to gain any fruit at all.” He interprets this shloka literally and fails to recognize that this shloka’s real intent is to replace Brāhmanism with Upanishadism. He does not have a clue of the true intent of this shloka.

Madhvāchārya: “In this path (of devotion to the Lord) the beginning is never faulted nor the obstacles in the middle. Even a little effort in the righteous path will deliver you from great fear. Where even without any intention of propitiating Sri Vishnu whatever righteous act, through performance or non-performance, come to be performed, there comes about Righteousness to followers of Sri Vishnu. These Perennial Principles (Dharma) were initiated in Krita Era as Pancharatra and Veda. Except for His pleasure neither a drop of water nor a grain of rice is desirable to be given….”

Note: The Achārya goes on and on like this for another page, extolling Vishnu, the Vedas, etc.  Just about everything he writes is totally irrelevant to the shloka under study.

Swāmi Chidbhavānanda: “If a wrong medicine be administered to a patient, instead of it healing the disease, it may lead to the decease of the person. The practice of Yoga is not fraught with any danger of this kind. Any little practice of it, gives to that extent a glimpse into the nature of Atman. The fear of death is the greatest of all. As Atman is being understood this fear ceases.”

Note: The Swāmi misses the point that the sole purpose of this shloka was to replace Brāhmanism with Upanishadism. He identifies the fear as the fear of death. The upper classes of Brāhmanism developed the doctrine of Karma, in part, to overcome their fear of death. The real fear of Brāhmanism was fear of going to hell, not fear of dying.

Bhaktivedānta Swāmi: “Activity in Krishna consciousness, or acting for the benefit of Krishna without expectation of sense gratification, is highest transcendental quality of work.”

Note: The Swāmi goes on and on like this even though this shloka has nothing to do with either Lord Krishna or Krishna consciousness.

This single shloka is the proof that this is a revolution, not an evolution.

8.13: Guru Krishna condemns Vedic ritualists

2:41: To the one whose mind has been steadied by Buddhiyoga there is only one goal (attaining the Bliss of Atmān). Many branching and endless are the goals (lordship, wealth, heaven, etc.) of irresolute in mind (Dwandwa-ridden Vedic ritualists indulging in Kāmya Karma).

A Yogi’s mind is steadied by his Buddhi and is focused solely on Atmān. A Vedic ritualist’s mind is Dwandwa-ridden due to desire for, attachment to, and possessiveness of power, wealth, and heaven (read 2:43 below). How do we know that Guru Krishna is attacking the Vedic ritualists? Read the next shloka.

2: 42: The ignorant (Vedic ritualists who are deluded by the Gunas) who delight in the flowery words disputing about the Vedas say that there is nothing other than this (Kāmya Karma).

The Vedic ritualists loved to engage each other in debate about the Vedic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma that promoted Kāmya Karma. The phrase “nothing other than this” refers to the fact that for every malady in the society Brāhmanism had only one remedy: “Perform Kāmya Karma to get whatever you want! And give us food, cows, and gold!” The Upanishadic seers claimed that ignorance engendered by “delighting in the disputations” as far worse than that arising from performing Kāmya Karma itself (Brahadāranyaka Upanishad: 4:4:10; Isopanishad: 9, 12). The phrase “nothing other than this” could also represent material things here on earth.

2:43: They (the Vedic ritualists) are desire-ridden, who hold attainment of heaven as the goal of birth and its activities; and who are addicted to pompous sacrificial rites bringing pleasure and lordship.

Guru Krishna attacks the two fundamental goals of Kāmya Karma: pleasure and lordship here on earth and heaven hereafter, and lambastes the Vedic ritualists indulging in them. Note here that Guru Krishna derides the fact that attainment of heaven is the goal of these rituals, the very goal prince Krishna of Brāhmanism repeatedly recommended to Arjuna in the Original Brāhmanic Gita (2:3; 32, 37)! As we will read soon, the end of Samsāra, not heaven, is the goal of this Dharma. What happens to those who are entangled with these sense objects? They suffer Dwandwam.

2:44: There is no steadiness of mind for them (Vedic ritualists), who are entangled with pleasure and power and whose wisdom is stolen away.

When the mind is entangled with sense objects, Dwandwam is the result (2:14). The Dwandwa-ridden Mind is unsteady because it is deprived of the steadying effect of Buddhi. Another way of putting this is: He, who’s Mind is guided by Buddhi, becomes the Buddha (wise); he whose mind is entangled with sense objects becomes the Buddhu (stupid)!

8.14: Guru Krishna condemns the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma

2:45: The Vedas enumerate three Gunas (which promote desire, attachment, and delusion). Be free from the three Gunas, O Arjuna. Be free from Dwandwam (by giving up attachment). Being of goodness of mind (being free of Guna-rooted weaknesses such as desire and jealous rage), unconcerned with getting (earning Karmaphalam from your actions) and keeping (becoming attached to them), be centered on Atmān (which, gives Bliss here on earth and Nirvāna hereafter).

This single shloka forms the anthem of the Upanishadic Gita as well as the revolution: Get over the Gunas, all three of them; eliminate Dwandwam; cultivate goodness by giving up common human weaknesses rooted in the Gunas such as greed, lust and rage (3:37-43); become detached from sense objects and give up fruits of action (Karmaphalam), and be centered on Atmān (to overcome Shōkam). The word Nityasatvasto here stands for eternally fixed in goodness or truth. It does not represent Sāttvic Guna as some Brāhmanic commentators claim. The bottom line is: Instead of submitting to the power of any of the Gunas, one should take refuge in Atmān, the power higher than the Gunas (14:19-20). Instead of yielding to doctrine of Karma and craving Karmaphalam, one should renounce it and act in the spirit of Buddhiyoga. And by knowing Atmān, one overcomes Shōkam. Even though Guru Krishna seems to address this shloka to Arjuna, clearly he is addressing Vedic ritualists steeped in Kāmya Karma.

8.15: Guru Krishna downgrades the Vedas

2:46: To an enlightened Brāhmin (who has attained Knowledge of Atmān by means of Buddhiyoga) all the Vedas are as useful as a well when there is a flood everywhere.

In this shloka Guru Krishna attacks Vedas themselves. What use is a small tank of water (the limited and “lower knowledge” of all the Vedas, Mundaka Up: 1:1: 5) when there is water overflowing all around (the infinite Knowledge of Atmān)? The Upanishads repeatedly say, “One cannot know Brahman by the Vedas” (Katha Up.:1:2:23; Mundaka Up: 2:2:3). Why? The Vedic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma promote desire, attachment, possessiveness, ignorance of Atmān, and Samsāra. This also means that a ritualist who performs Kāmya Karma based on Vedic knowledge is ignorant, and cannot hope to attain Self-realization.

8.16: Shaking his finger at the Vedic ritualists, Guru Krishna lays down the Law

2:47: Your entitlement (Adhikāra) is only to the performance of Karma (Yajna); never to its fruits (for fruits belong to the Devas, as per 3:10-13). Fruits should never be the motive of your action (Do not indulge in Kāmya Karma); never become attached to inaction either (do not become an inactive monk of one of those heterodox Dharmas, who does absolutely nothing except begging).

In this seminal shloka Guru Krishna lays down the Law to the Vedic ritualists who obsessively perform Kāmya Karma desiring one sense object or another. The word Adhikāra in this shloka refers to the entitlement claimed by various Kshatriyas to perform certain Yajnas by virtue of their accomplishments in war and expansion of their territory. For example, to perform Ashvamedha Yajna (horse sacrifice), kings were first required to prove their entitlement by virtue of their accomplishments and conquests. These entitlements were based on Vedic scriptures and were granted to them by various priests on their payroll.

The correct meaning of this verse is that the Vedic ritualists’ entitlement is only to the selfless performance of Yajnas, and not to its fruits, because, according to the true intent of Prajāpati, the fruits belong to the Vedic Devas: Lord Krishna explains: 3:10-13: Having created mankind in the beginning together with Yajna, the Prajāpati said: ‘By this shall you propagate; this shall be the milch cow of your desires. Cherish the Devas with this (Yajna); and may those Devas cherish you; thus cherishing one another, you shall reap supreme good. Cherished by Yajna, the Devas shall bestow on you the enjoyment you desire. A thief verily is he who enjoys what is given by them without returning them anything. The good who eat the remains of Yajna are freed from all sins; but the sinful ones who cook food for themselves, they verily eat sin.” In other words, Yajnas were supposed to be the means for quid pro quo. In effect, Yajnas were thanksgiving rituals meant to return the debt (RNa) to the Vedic gods. Those who stole Karmaphalam from the Vedic gods and used it to fulfill their own desires are thieves. Yajnas were not meant to be grand barbecue parties in which one got drunk on Soma and sacrificed animals desiring power and pleasure here on earth and heaven hereafter! However, once the selfish motive was removed from the ritual of Yajna, one might totally lose interest in performing any Karma and become attached to inaction (akarmani). In other words, one might become a Buddhist Bhikku, a Jain Muni or an Ascetic, who does nothing at all. Guru Krishna does not want this undesirable side-effect from his verdict either. So he tells them, “Do not become inactive once you give up performance of Kāmya Karma.” As we will read in the next two chapters, Lord Krishna gives Jnānayoga to Brāhmins and Karmayoga to Kshatriyas in the place of Kāmya Karma.

Every Brāhmanic commentary on this shloka explains it in the context of Arjuna’s predicament even though it has absolutely no relevance to it whatsoever. Not only did Arjuna have the entitlement (Adhikāra) to wage the war but also he had every right to expect fruit of his action as prince Krishna declared to him in 2:37: Slain you will gain heaven; victorius you will enjoy the earth. Therefore rouse up, O son of Kunti, resolved to fight! The whole purpose of the ghastly war was to gain back his kingdom. Furthermore, as the Brāhmanic seers said in 2:33: “It is your bounden duty to fight to gain back your kingdom, failing which he would incur dishonor and sin.” He would be a hypocrite, if not a fool, to say, “I will wage this dreadful war against my own people without desiring to regain my kingdom!” War is not just a ritual like a Yajna. In this particular case, war was a dreadful way of correcting an injustice. Indifference to its results would certainly lead to disaster. Therefore, this shloka has no Mahābhārata context whatsoever, and applies only to the Vedic ritualists who hankered for fruits while performing Karma (Yajna), which were originally supposed to be without any selfish motive (3:9; 4:15-17). Now the question is whether this dictum could be applied in our daily lives. The fact is, contrary to the claim made by Brāhmanic commentators it is impossible for ordinary people to live up to this dictum when performing any action, except perhaps when one does volunteer work. Even here, most volunteers expect recognition for their work!

8.17: Perform Yajna without attachment to sense objects: Sanyāsa

2:48: Perform Karma (Yajna), O Dhananjaya, being fixed in Buddhiyoga, renouncing attachments (to wealth, lordship and heaven), and steady-minded (without Dwandwam). Equilibrium in success and failure (being of steady mind) is verily Yoga.

In this shloka, Guru Krishna introduces the first of two elements of Buddhiyoga: Sanyāsa -giving up attachment for sense objects (18:2). Once the Mind detaches itself from sense objects, it immediately connects with Buddhi and becomes Buddhiyukta and free from Dwandwam. A person of Buddhiyukta mind is steady in the face of success as well as failure. An attempt is made in this shloka to change Kāmya Karma into Nishkāma Karma.

8.18: Perform Yajnas without desiring fruits: Tyāga

2:49: Motivated Karma is, O Dhananjaya, far inferior to that performed with equanimity of mind engendered by Buddhiyoga. Take refuge in the evenness of the Buddhiyoga (when you act). Wretched are those (ritualists) who hanker for Karmaphalam (when they act/perform Yajna).

In this shloka Guru Krishna introduces the second element of Buddhiyoga: Tyāga -giving up Sankalpa -desire for fruits- when performing Yajna (18:2). Guru Krishna stresses the importance of performing Yajna without expecting anything in return. He says that Yajna performed in the spirit of Buddhiyoga is superior to the one with desire for fruits. Those ritualists who desire fruits are wretched, indeed as they suffer Dwandwam and earn Karmaphalam. By recommending giving up desire for fruits Guru Krishna at once pulled the rug from under Kāmya Karma and the Gunas in which they were rooted. If there is nothing to be gained by performing Yajna, what is the point of performing Yajna at all?

8.19: One does not earn Karmaphalam when he performs Karma in the spirit of Buddhiyga

2:50: The one whose mind is stabilized by Buddhiyoga frees himself in this life from good deeds (good Karmaphalam) as well as evil deeds (bad Karmaphalam); therefore girdle yourself to Yoga; work done skillfully (without suffering the side-effects such as Dwandwam and Karmaphalam) is verily Yoga.

Once the mind is stabilized by Buddhi, it becomes free from the Dwandwam of desire and aversion, and so one’s actions become free from both good and bad Karmaphalam here on earth. Yoga is nothing but work done skillfully, meaning done in such a way that one neither suffers Dwandwam nor earns Karmaphalam as its side-effect. Just as a skillful surgeon avoids complications such as infection and bleeding while performing surgery, a skillful Yogi avoids Dwandwam and Karmaphalam while performing action.

2:51: The wise with Buddhiyukta mind, renouncing selfishness in action, freed from the fetters of birth, verily go to the stainless state.

When one gives up attachment and selfishness while performing any Karma, he earns no Karmaphalam. By not earning Karmaphalam, one overcomes Samsāra hereafter. This means, when one performs selfless action he breaks the bonds of Karma and thus defies the doctrine of Karma. Note here that thus far Atmān is not part of the equation in Buddhiyoga.

8.20: Guru Krishna directly attacks the Vedas

2:52: When your Buddhi transcends the taint of delusion (bewilderment engendered by the Gunas), then shall you be disgusted by things you will hear (Shruthis yet to be heard) as well as that you have already heard (the Vedas).

In this shloka Guru Krishna says that when a Buddhiyogi has raised himself above the bewilderment engendered by desire and attachment associated with Kāmya Karma rooted in the Vedas, he would be disgusted with Shruthis yet to be revealed (Shrotavyasya) as well as the Vedas (Shrutasya), which promote them. Here the Upanishadic seers use the word Nirvedam as pun to express disgust with the Vedas. This word means disgust as well as Vedalessness. What are the Shruthis yet to be revealed? I believe they were referring to the newer Shruthis that were being churned out around this time promoting sacrificial rites, such as Taittiriya Upanishad. All Brāhmanism commentators simply gloss over this shloka which expresses disgust with the Vedas that promote Kāmya Karma.

2:53: When your Buddhi, disregarding the Vedic doctrines (of the Gunas and Karma), is firmly steadied in equilibrium (by Buddhiyoga), then you shall achieve the transcendental state of Yoga (Samādhi).

Once again Guru Krishna uses the word Shruthi as pun. The word Shruthiviprathipanna means disregarding the Shruthi. For one to achieve the transcendental state of mind known as Samādhi, the highest state of Yogic steadiness and concentration one could hope to achieve in life, he must disregard the temptations of the Vedic doctrines, such as the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, that promote desire, attachment and delusion. Once again, Brāhmanic commentators either gloss over this shloka or obfuscate its true meaning altogether. Rāmānujāchārya goes a little further: He pointedly says that the word Shruthi in this shloka does not mean the Vedas, and that, “Intellect, which hearing from us, has become specially enlightened, having for its object the eternal, unsurpassed and subtle self -which belongs to a class different from all other entities-, then the intellect is firmly fixed, i. e., in a single psychosis, and stands unshaken.” Note here that the Upanishadic concept of Samādhi, which stands for the absolute tranquility of mind due to its contact with Atmān, is very different from the Brāhmanic concept of Samsiddhim (18:45), which stands for the highest level of perfection a person can attain in the Brāhmanic society by dutifully performing actions as per his Guna and Karma.

8.20: The concept of Sththaprajnya state of mind is introduced

2:54: Arjuna asks: What is the mark of the man of steadfast wisdom, O Keshava, who is steeped in Samādhi? How does the man firm in wisdom speak, sit and walk?

The answer to this question actually lies in shloka 5:8-9: That sage centered in the Self should think, “I do nothing at all” -though seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping, breathing, speaking, emptying, holding, opening and closing the eyes -firm in the thought that the senses move among sense-objects. Based on the answers Guru Krishna gives in the following shlokas, a more appropriate question might have been, “What does it take for a man, O Keshava, to achieve the Sthithaprajnya state of mind conducive to achieving Samādhi (contact with Atmān)?” Therefore, it is safe to assume that this shloka was inappropriately placed here by some later editor, who had not fully grasped the Upanishadic concepts.

So far Buddhiyoga consisted of the Mind withdrawing from its attachment to sense objects and being steadied by Buddhi (Intellect). A Buddhiyogi’s ultimate goal is to attain Atmān. The term Samadhi -transcendental state of Yoga- stands for the Absolute Bliss a Buddhiyogi experiences by his mind’s direct contact with Atmān. The steady state of mind in which one’s mind has attained the Bliss of Atmān is known as Sthithaprajnya, the mind of steadfast wisdom. One can achieve the Absolute Bliss associated with the transcendental state of mind only when he is able to maintain steadiness of concentration and singleness of purpose even as his Buddhi is caught in the cross currents of the Vedic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma.

8.21: To attain the Sthithaprajnya state, one must give up all Guna-rooted weaknesses

2:55: When a man abandons all desires of the heart and is satisfied in Atmān and by Atmān, then he is said to have achieved the Sthithaprajnya State.

The answer is simple: Give up all desires of the heart and be satisfied with the Bliss of Atmān. Desire is rooted in the Gunas (3:37). The moment one gives up all his desires, his Mind will connect with his Buddhi as well as Atmān.

2:56: He whose mind is not perturbed by adversity, who does not crave for happiness, who is free from fondness, fear and anger (Guna-rooted weaknesses), is the Muni (sage) of transcendental wisdom.

If one does not harbor desire, he is not frustrated by adversity. If one does not crave happiness by sense objects, he does not experience Dwandwam. When one overcomes the Guna-rooted weaknesses such as desire for and attachment to sense objects; fear of losing them, and jealous rage for other’s possessions, his mind gets in touch with Atmān. The basic idea is that one must give up all human weaknesses rooted in the Gunas.

2:57: He who is unattached everywhere, who is not delighted at receiving good nor dejected by receiving evil, he is poised in wisdom.

When one is not attached to Karmaphalam, he does not worry about gaining or losing them when he acts. The steadiness of Mind thus achieved becomes the stepping stone to achieve Sthithaprajnya state of mind. Such a person does not jump in joy when he receives a fortune, nor sink into despair when he suffers a misfortune. Basically it is Buddhiyukta Mind that has achieved evenness, equilibrium, equanimity, and also Absolute Bliss of Atmān.

8.22: Warning: Do not underestimate the power of the Senses

2:60: The excited senses (desires), Arjuna, impetuously carry away the mind of even a wise man who is striving for perfection.

Is it easy to give up desire, attachment and possessiveness and achieve the Sthithaprajnya state of Mind? Not at all, says Guru Krishna. Even wise people often fall prey to their desires and get entangled with sense objects. A mind which falls prey to the Senses loses touch with Wisdom.

2:67: Just as the gale of wind pushes a ship on the waters, the mind that yields to the roving Senses (desires) breaks away from its wisdom.

The Mind is constantly caught between the Senses (desires and attachment) on the one hand and Buddhi (doing the right thing) on the other. Very often, the Senses win and even wise people do stupid things.

8.23: To steady one’s Mind he must say ‘No’ to desires and withdraw attachments

2:58: When also, like a tortoise withdrawing its limbs into its body, one withdraws his senses from sense objects, his wisdom is set steady.

Withdrawing Senses simply means saying “No!” to one’s desires for sense objects and reducing attachments to them. It is a long and arduous task. Once the Mind has controlled its desires, it connects with Buddhi (Wisdom) and becomes steady. In the picture below, the Senses have shrunk in size; attachments to sense objects are almost gone, and the sense objects have become insignificant. The Mind is girdled with Buddhi and centered on Atmān.

2:59: Sense objects drop out for the abstinent man though not the longing for them. However, his longing also ceases when he intuits the Supreme (Atmān).

Merely abstaining from sense objects does not mean the desire for them is completely gone. However, once one gets in touch with Atmān, even those residual cravings disappear. Why? Well, Atmān enjoys the Bliss associated with not wanting or needing anything.

8.24: A Bhāgavatha shloka suddenly pops up!

2:61: The Yogi, having controlled them all, sits focused on Me as the supreme goal. His wisdom is constant whose Senses (desire and attachment) are subjugated.

In the Bhagavad Gita Guru Krishna declares himself as Lord of beings only in BG Chapter Four, which is the second of the four step Upanishadic revolution. This shloka, 2:61, in which Guru Krishna suddenly claims himself to be God, is inappropriately interpolated into this Upanishadic chapter by a later Bhāgavatha scholar or editor. This is but one of many examples of how the Gita has been recklessly corrupted by various well-meaning authors who cared little for the integrity of the text in their exuberance to promote their own religious agendas. If I were Arjuna I would ask Guru Krishna in true Upanishadic spirit, “Why should the Yogi sit focused on you, Guruji? Are you God or something?”

8.25: Guru Krishna warns ritualists about the danger of attachment to sense objects

2:62-63: Brooding on the objects of senses (people, wealth, power, heaven, etc.) man develops attachment to them; from attachment comes hankering (”I must have it”); from hankering sprouts forth jealous rage (I hate my rival because he has it and I don’t); from jealous rage proceeds delusion (bewilderment due to disconnection of mind from wisdom); from delusion confused memory (of right thing to do); from confused memory the ruin of reason (one’s actions become irrational); due to the ruin of reason he perishes (he indulges in self-destructive behavior).

The above two shlokas are meant to warn the Vedic ritualists about the consequences of attachment to sense objects while performing Yajna. The summary of the above two shlokas is that the Guna-rooted weaknesses of desire, attachment, and possessiveness disconnect the mind from Buddhi leading to one indulging in stupid and ruinous behavior. This is fundamental wisdom of the Upanishadic Gita.

The above picture illustrates the consequences of Mind’s entanglement with sense objects. The Senses, the five ovals hanging down from the large over, are powerful. Their attachment to sense objects are very strong. Sense objects have become very important. The Mind is suffering from severe Dwandwam (the zigzag in its center) and it is disconnected from Buddhi. Buddhi is disconnected from Atmān. What is the solution for this problem?

2:64-66: But the disciplined Yogi, moving among objects with his Senses (desires) under control, and free from attraction and aversion (Dwandwam), gains tranquility. In tranquility, all his sorrow is destroyed. For the Buddhi of the tranquil-minded is soon established in equilibrium (becomes Buddhiyukta). There is no wisdom in the fickle-minded (who is Dwandwa-ridden due to his attachment to sense objects); to the one with unsteady mind, there is no peace. And how can the mind without peace enjoy happiness (of Atmān here on earth)?

What is the secret of gaining tranquility and overcoming sorrow? One should freely move among various sense objects without desire and attachment. By controlling these, one prevents Dwandwam. Such a mind achieves evenness, equilibrium, and equanimity associated with Buddhiyoga even while enjoying life. For one to enjoy happiness and peace, his mind must first be steadied.

2:68: Therefore, Arjuna, his cognition is well-poised, whose Senses are completely restrained from their objects.

Complete control over one’s Senses (desires and attachments) is essential for one’s mind to become absolutely steady and stress-free. Once the Senses are controlled, the Mind connects with Buddhi, yokes itself to it, and becomes Buddhiyukta. The main goal of Buddhiyoga is to achieve steadiness of Mind by controlling one’s desires and attachment to sense objects as well as the fruit of actions.

2:69: That which is night to all beings, in that the disciplined man wakes; that in which all beings wake, is night to Atmān-cognizing Muni.

This enigmatic shloka perhaps means as follows: When all people around him are living in darkness (ignorance) engendered by their desire for and attachment to sense objects, the Yogi wakes up to the enlightenment of Atmān due to his detachment from sense objects. When everyone around him is entangled in the mundane day to day materials, the Yogi who has attained Atmān is completely detached from it as if he is fast asleep. In other words, a Yogi marches to a different tune from the ritualists.

8.26: Attaining the Bliss of Atmān here on earth

2:70-71: Not the desirer of desires, but that man attains Peace (of Atmān), in whom all desires merge even as rivers flow into the ocean which is full and unmoving. That man attains Peace (here on earth) who is devoid of cravings, freed from all desires and without the feeling of “I” and “mine.”

This shloka shows how Yoga of detachment promotes Bliss here on earth in contrast to Kāmya Karma which promotes Shokam and Dwandwam here on earth. To achieve the absolute Bliss of Atmān even during one’s lifetime, one must give up all aspects related to Kāmya Karma: desire for, and attachment to, and possessiveness (delusion of “I” and “mine”) of sense objects. In these shlokas Guru Krishna is clearly referring to the Vedic ritualists who were obsessed with accumulating Karmaphalam by means of Kāmya Karma and enjoying life here on earth. These shlokas have no relevance to Arjuna’s predicament.

8.27: Attaining Nirvāna hereafter

2:72: This, O Pārtha, is the Brahman state. Attaining this none will be bewildered (by the doctrines of the Gunas and Karma). Being established in It even at the hour of death, a man gets into oneness with the Brahman (attains Nirvāna hereafter).

Whereas the goal of Kāmya Karma of Brāhmanism was to earn Karmaphalam and attain heaven hereafter (2:37, 43), the goal of the Upanishadic Yoga was to earn no Karmaphalam and attain Nirvāna hereafter. Note here that the Upanishadic seers declare that Atmān and Brahman are one and the same. The man who attains Atmān has attained the state of Brahmanirvāna -reunion of Atmān with Brahman.

Summary: This chapter represents the first step of the Upanishadic revolution. In this chapter, Guru Krishna of Upanishadism replaces the doctrine of the Guna with the doctrine of Knowledge of Atman; the doctrine of Karma with Buddhiyoga; Kāmya Karma with Nishkāma Karma (desireless Karma). And he brings about a paradigm shift in the Brāhmanic concerns about the issue of here and hereafter. In the place of Brāhmanic goal of pleasure and wealth here on earth, he recommends Bliss of Atmān here on earth. Instead of Brāhmanic goal of attainment of heaven hereafter, he recommends end of Samsāra and attainment of Nirvāna hereafter. Let us now study how the Upanishadic seers go about consolidating their revolution and reforming Brāhmins and Kshatriyas.

CHAPTER NINE
Reforming Brāhmins
Chapter Four of the Bhagavad Gita

Every revolution, whether military, social, political or religious, is followed by two early developments: one, protecting the revolution from the well-entrenched vested interests; and two, reforming the recalcitrant Old Guard. This chapter deals with the second step of the Upanishadic revolution.

9.1: Guru Krishna is declared as Lord of beings to protect the revolutionary shlokas from being destroyed

Having condemned the decadent Brāhmanic Dharma and established the Upanishadic Dharma in Chapter Two, the Upanishadic seers must have recognized soon enough that if they did not protect the revolutionary shlokas quickly, they would suffer the same fate as the Lokayata philosophy did in the hands of Brahmanic lobby -total destruction. Addition of anti-Brāhmanic shlokas into a quintessentially Brāhmanic text must have created great concern, debate and even conflict between the two sects. The evidence to this can be found in the Bhagavad Gita itself. The Upanishadic seers warn Brāhmanic seers using Lord Krishna as their spokesperson: 3:32: But those who carp at My teaching and act not thereon, deluded in all knowledge and devoid of discrimination, know them to be ruined. They moved very quickly to protect the revolutionary shlokas from being destroyed by Brāhmanic forces by declaring Guru Krishna as the Lord of beings (4:6), a position equal to that of the Vedic Lord of beings, Prajāpati (3:10), and made all future revolutionary shlokas come out of His mouth. This guaranteed that none of the shlokas uttered by Lord Krishna so far and in the future could be destroyed by Brāhmanic reactionaries. They declared that the purpose of Lord Krishna’s birth was to establish Dharma whenever there is decay of Dharma and rise of Adharma; and to protect the good and destroy the doers of evil deeds (Kamya Karma) (4:7-8). In passing, note that whereas Prajāpati and all other Vedic gods were subject to the force of the Gunas (18:40), Lord Krishna was above them (4:6; 7:13); and whereas Prajapati was the originator of Yajna (3:10-11), Lord Krishna declared Himself as the originator of Yoga (4:1-2)

9.2: Reforming the Old Guard

In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna condemns Vedic ritualists mercilessly as infirm in mind (2:41), ignorant (2:42; 3:26), desire-ridden and addicted to sacrificial rites (2:43), devoid of discrimination (2:44), despicable (2:49), thieves (3:12), sinful (3:13; 4:36), vain (3:16), unwise (3:25), egoistic (3:27), dullards (3:29), men of small intellect (7:23), men who fall or perish (9:24), hypocritical, proud and arrogant (16:10), self-conceited, stubborn and ostentatious (16:17), insolent and egoistic (16:18); worst among men (16:19), so on and so forth. Of course, He describes the selfless Yogis in exactly the opposite epithets. In fact, He says that one who merely wishes to know of Yoga is superior to Vedic ritualists (6:44). Referring to corrupt Brāhmins and Kshatriyas, Kathā Upanishad says (1:2:24-25): But he who has not turned away from his wickedness, who is not tranquil, and subdued, or whose mind is not at rest (Dwandwa-ridden), he can never obtain Atmān even by Knowledge (of the Vedas). Who then knows where He (Brahman) is, He to whom the Brāhmins and Kshatriyas are (as it were) but food, and death itself a condiment?”

Now, Lord Krishna as their spokesperson, the Upanishadic seers went about reforming the Old Guard: Brāhmin and Kshatriya ritualists. They further divided the “Imperishable” Buddhiyoga into Jnānayoga (Sanyāsa) and Karmayoga (Tyāga) (3:3). They assigned Jnānayoga -the Yoga of the Knowledge of Atmān- to the Kāma-ridden Brāhmins, and Karmayoga -Yoga of Action- to the Sankalpa-ridden Kshatriyas:

3:3: Lord Krishna said: The twofold path (Jnānayoga and Karmayoga) was given by Me, O sinless one, to the world in the beginning- the path of Knowledge (of Atmān) to the discerning (Brāhmin class) and the path of Karma (Yoga of Action) to the active (Kshatriya class).

Note here that Lord Krishna refers to Arjuna as “sinless” thus hinting that whatever follows does not apply to him, but only to Brāhmins and Kshatriyas, who were busy earning sin (Karmaphalam) by means of Kāmya Karma.

9.3: The need to study Chapter Four of the Bhagavad Gita before Chapter Three

In the Bhagavad Gita as it exists now, Lord Krishna declares Himself as the Lord of beings not in Chapter Three but in Chapter Four. In that chapter Lord Krishna declares that it was He who instructed the Imperishable Buddhiyoga of BG Chapter Two to the Sun god and through him to various royal sages. However, in BG Chapter Three, Lord Krishna talks to Arjuna as if He is already the Lord (3:3; 22-23; 30), besides referring to issues raised in Chapter Four (3:1) which followed it. Therefore, before the Bhagavad Gita suffered extreme editing before reaching its current form, Chapter Four dedicated to reforming Brāhmins must have come before Chapter Three dedicated to reforming Kshatriyas. Some ancient editor must have switched these chapters around deliberately for a specific purpose. If the editor was a Brāhmanic scholar, his intention was to dilute the revolution by confusing the readers, or to push Kshatriyas ahead to take the beating first! If the editor was an Upanishadic scholar, his motive was to convert the text into an Upanishadic dialogue, however badly he accomplished this feat. This is another example of how the text of the Bhagavad Gita has been repeatedly manipulated -mangled might be a better term- by various vested interests to serve their own ends resulting in incredible amount of unnecessary confusion.

9.4: Lord Krishna claims authorship of Buddhiyoga

4:1-2: This Imperishable Yoga (Buddhiyoga of BG Chapter Two) I declared to Vivasvat (Sun god); Vivasvat taught it to Manu (the Lawgiver); Manu told it to Ikshvāku (the king). Thus transmitted in regular succession the royal sages (Kshatriyas, not the Vedic priests) knew it. This Yoga, by long efflux of time decayed in this world, O scorcher of foes.

Guru Krishna starts out in this chapter by declaring that He is the Guru of Sun god. The Sun god gave the doctrine of Buddhiyoga to Manu, his son; and Manu gave it to Ikshvāku, the founder of Ikshvāku or Sun dynasty. The Imperishable Yoga Lord Krishna refers to here is, of course, Buddhiyoga he taught to Arjuna in BG Chapter Two (2:40, 47-51; 64-68). This Yoga is “Imperishable” because the Imperishable Atmān was introduced into its equation in 2:55-59, or because Lord Krishna revived it and so it shall not perish anymore. It decayed over time because it was declared as a ‘Top Secret’ -Rahasya, a Shruthi- and kept away from the public by Brāhmanic vested interests. Now the Upanishadic seers have revived it, and by means of Guru Krishna, revealed it to Arjuna and the public at large by including it in the Mahābhārata, a Smriti to which everyone has access. It was transmitted in regular succession by royal sages (Kshatriyas), not Vedic priests. It is no longer a Top Secret. Note here that Lord Krishna claims authorship of the Upanishads and not the Vedas in 15:15.

9.5: A Bhāgavatha shloka is interpolated

4:3: The same ancient Yoga has been today told to you by Me, for you are My devotee and friend; and this secret is supreme indeed.

This shloka referring to Arjuna as His Bhakta (devotee) is clearly a later addition by the Bhāgavatha scholars who attempted to convert the Upanishadic Gita into the Bhāgavatha Gita. Like this and shloka 2:61, we will encounter such later Bhāgavatha interpolations from time to time, especially toward the end of chapters. Lord Krishna refers to His Yoga as Supreme Secret over six times in the text of the Bhagavad Gita. Why? Obviously He is referring to the fact that the doctrines of Knowledge of Atmān and Buddhiyoga were declared top secret (Rahasya) by Brāhmanic vested interests. Now, however, the days of secrecy and Brāhmanic intrigue are over. Now Arjuna gives Lord Krishna the opportunity to declare His Divinity.

9.6: Lord Krishna declares His supremacy over Prakriti (the Gunas)

4:4: Arjuna said: Later was Your birth, earlier was the birth of Vivasvat; how then am I to understand that You told it (to him) in the beginning?

Here Arjuna faithfully plays his role of the humble, eternally perplexed and curious disciple in the Upanishadic tradition (4:34), thus giving Lord Krishna the opportunity to declare His incarnation and its true purpose. Note here that Arjuna’s question reflects that, contrary to the claim made by 4:3, Arjuna is not yet prince Krishna’s Bhakta. He is merely a Shishya of Guru Krishna. It is clear that 4:4: followed 4:2 before 4:3 was inserted by the Bhāgavathas.

4:5-6: Many are the births taken by me and you, O Arjuna. I know them all while you know not, O scorcher of foes. Though I am unborn, imperishable and the Lord of beings, yet subjugating My Prakriti, I come into being by My own Māya.

Arjuna does not remember his many births because he is deluded by his entanglement with sense objects, engendered by the Gunas (Prakriti). Lord Krishna subjugated His own Prakriti (Gunas) and was born on earth by his own Māya (illusion, magic). Lord Krishna is telling His audience that He is more powerful than Prakriti (the Gunas), and therefore, being free from delusion of the Gunas, He can remember His prior births. This fact alone made Him superior even to Brāhmanic Lord of being, Prajāpati, who was subject to the force of the Gunas (18:40). Unlike all the Vedic gods who are subject to the power of the Gunas (18:40), He alone is more powerful than the Gunas, and so He is even more powerful than the Vedic gods. Since He is unborn, He is also above the doctrine of Karma. And now He will teach us all how we, too, can cross over the Gunas and Karma. As we will read later, the Upanishadic seers said that one can overcome the force of the Gunas by taking refuge in Atmān (3:43) and Brahman (14:19). Later in the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhāgavatha seers replaced Brahman with Lord Krishna and said that the only way to overcome the force of the Gunas is to take refuge in Lord Krishna (18: 62, 66). Note here that at this stage of evolution of the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna claims Himself to be only the Lord of beings born to establish the Upanishadic Dharma, not Parameshwara, the Supreme Lord. So He endorses Brahman as the Supreme Deity.

9.7: Lord Krishna explains the true purpose of His birth

4:7: Whenever there is decay of Dharma and rise of Adharma, then I embody myself.

The decay of Dharma and rise of Adharma Lord Krishna is referring to in this shloka is clearly that of Brāhmanism, which was in a moribund condition during this period (3rd century B. C.) due to corruption of Vedic sacrifices. As the Adharma of Kāmya Karma grew, so did the decay of Brāhmanism. Brāhmanic seers admit to these themselves (3:35; 18:47). The question that needs to be answered is why does it take God to do this feat? Well, the nexus of Brāhmins and Kshatriyas held Brāhmanism in such a strong death-grip (no different than it is today) that no less a person than God Himself was needed to do what was needed to be done, and protect the revolution from reactionaries. Any person who challenged the perversion of Brāhmanism was immediately declared as heretic and one deluded by Ahamkāra. Brāhmanism vilified even the great reformers, the Buddha and Mahāveera, as upstarts who tried to destroy Brāhmanism. They even declared that the Buddha was an avatara born to lead all non-believers to hell. It is possible that the term Adharma refers to various Nāstik anti-Vedic Dharmas of the time which, having arisen in revolt against Brāhmanism, were in ascendance during this time, chief among which was the Lokāyata.

4:8: I take birth age after age for the protection of the good (the Upanishadic revolutionaries) and the destruction of the doers of evil deeds (Vedic ritualists performing Kāmya Karma) and for the establishment of (the Upanishadic) Dharma.

The doers of evil deeds are those who recklessly indulged in desire-driven sacrifices -Kāmya Karma. It is clear from this shloka that the Upanishadic seers elevated Guru Krishna to the position of Lord of being for a specific purpose: To overthrow the decadent Brāhmanism and to establish a New Dharma to replace it.

9.8: Three interpolated Bhāgavatha shlokas

4:9: He who thus knows My divine birth and action in true light, having dropped the body, comes not to birth again, but comes unto Me, O Arjuna.

This is a Bhāgavatha shloka as evidenced by the fact that Lord Krishna offers Himself as the goal of Mōksha -end of Samsāra and final reunion with the Lord. Up to this point Lord Krishna is merely the Lord of beings, whose main purpose of birth is to establish Upanishadic Dharma centered on Atmān/Brahman. He is not yet the Supreme Lord of the Bhāgavathas (11:3) worshipping whom one attains Mōksha (18:66). In any case, the author of this shloka wants everyone to acknowledge Lord Krishna’s divine birth and to know His action in the true light: to destroy doers of evil deeds and establish a New Dharma. One who follows His Dharma overcomes the doctrine of Karma, and thus attains freedom from Samsāra. Why?

4:10: Freed from passion, fear and jealous rage (engendered by the Gunas), filled with Me, taking refuge in Me (which would counter the power of the Gunas), purified by penance (Yoga) in the fire of Knowledge (of Atmān), many have entered into My Being (attained Mōksha).

This shlokas was also interpolated by a later Bhāgavatha seer as evidenced by the fact that Lord Krishna has taken over the position of Brahman the Supreme. This, in fact, does not take place in the Bhagavad Gita until after the Bhāgavathas had taken over the Gita in Chapter Seven. This shloka also raises the issue of Mōksha, which is a Bhāgavatha concept. In any case, to attain Mōksha, one must give up Guna-rooted weaknesses; surrender to Lord Krishna, and take up Buddhiyoga to attain Knowledge of Atmān.

4:11: In whatever way men identify with Me, in the same way do I carry out their desires; men pursue My path, O Partha, in all ways.

In this Bhāgavatha shloka, Lord Krishna asks Brāhmins to identify with Him upon which He would fulfill their desires. The real intent in this shloka is, “There is no need for you to worship Vedic gods with Kāmya Karma to fulfill your desires. Just identify with Me and worship Me, and I will carry out your desires.” (Read 9:20-26).

9.9: An incongruous Brāhmanic shloka

4:12: Longing for success in action on earth, they worship the gods; for quickly is success born of action in this world of man.

There are two possible explanations for this rather incongruous shloka, which promotes Yajna dedicated to the Vedic gods. The first possibility is that this shloka was added here later by the Brāhmanism scholars to counter the previous shloka in which Lord Krishna promises to fulfill desires of His followers. The word action in this shloka means sacrificial rite. In effect they are telling people: “Forget what Lord Krishna said in 4:11 about identifying with Him and fulfilling your desires through Him. Worshiping the Vedic gods Indra, Agni, Varuna, and Vayu by sacrifices leads to quick success in this world of man. Don’t give up performing Kāmya Karma!” In the Brāhmanic shlokas of the Bhagavad Gita, Yajnas are dedicated to Vedic Devas, not to Lord Krishna (17:4, 14). A casual reader, not familiar with the battle between Brāhmanism and Upanishadic revolutionaries, could easily become confused by this shloka and believe that Lord Krishna is endorsing Kāmya Karma dedicated to the Vedic gods. Exactly opposite is true (3:17-18).

The second possibility is that this shloka was the first of seven shlokas (4:12; 9:20-25) by means of which Lord Krishna explains why one should give up sacrificial rites dedicated to the Vedic gods and worship Him alone instead. In these seven shlokas Lord Krishna admits that worshipping Vedic gods brings quick success here on earth (4:12) and heaven hereafter (9:20). However, upon the exhaustion of Karmaphalam, one takes birth on earth again (9:21). Those who worship Lord Krishna alone are rewarded with gain and security here on earth (9:22). Those who worship Vedic gods are worshipping Lord Krishna, but by wrong method (9:23). Lord Krishna, not the Vedic gods, is the Lord of Yajnas (9:24). Those who worship Lord Krishna attain Mōksha (9:25).

9.10: Lord Krishna offers Himself as a model for Brāhmins to emulate

4:13: The fourfold Varna was created by Me by the different distribution of Guna and Karma. Though I am the author thereof, know Me to be eternal non-doer (my actions are performed so selflessly that I never earn any Karmaphalam).

If you look carefully, this shloka logically followed 4:8 above before shlokas 4:9-12 were interpolated. For, in this shloka, Lord Krishna explains how to perform a deed without selfish motive. Now Lord Krishna offers Himself as a model for Brāhmins to emulate. He explains His stance whenever He does any deed. For example, when He created the fourfold Varna Dharma according to the distribution of the Gunas and Karma, He neither desired any fruits nor gained any by that act. He is the eternal non-doer, meaning, no matter what He does, He does it so selflessly that it is as if he did nothing at all, and so He earns no Karmaphalam whatsoever (5:8-9). If anything good came out of Varna Dharma, Lord Krishna did not earn any good Karmaphalam thereof. If anything bad ensued from it, he did not earn any bad Karmaphalam for it either. In this shloka, Lord Krishna is not promoting Varna Dharma. He is merely giving it as an example of selflessness in action.

4:14: Nor do (My) actions taint Me (I earn no bad Karmaphalam), nor is the fruit of action desired by Me (I act without any Sankalpa for fruits). He, who thus knows Me (identifies with me and follows my example of selfless action), is not bound by action (does not earn any Karmaphalam).

Lord Krishna wants Brāhmins to follow His example and perform their deeds (Yajnas) like He does - neither desiring fruits nor gaining them. He is asking them to perform Yajna in such a way that they are not tainted by Karmaphalam. In other words, give up Kāmya Karma and perform all Karma is the spirit of Buddhiyoga (2:47-49).

9.11: Lord Krishna offers Brāhmins a crash course on proper ways of performing Yajnas.

4:15: Having known thus (that Yajna should be performed without desiring fruits nor gaining them) even the ancient seekers after liberation (from the debt or Rna) performed action (sacrifice); therefore do you perform action, as did the ancients in olden times.

This shloka explains that the ancient seers performed Yajna in the spirit mentioned above: neither desiring the fruits nor gaining them. The ancient seers performed sacrifices seeking liberation. The question is: what were they seeking liberation from? Well, they were seeking liberation from indebtedness (Rna) to the Devas for their benevolence. If one did not return to the Vedic gods something for their benevolence, it was considered a theft, a sinful act: 3:12-13: …A thief verily is he who enjoys what is given by them (gods) without returning them anything. The good who eat the remains of Yajna are freed from all sins; sinful ones who cook food only for themselves, they verily eat sin. The sin referred to could also be the sin attached to killing sacrificial animals. Such sins are expiated when the main portion of the flesh is used as burnt offering and the remaining food is eaten as Prasādam. Lord Krishna urges Brāhmins to perform sacrifices, if they must, like the ancient sages did and not like the contemporary greedy priests did. Now Lord Krishna gives these sages a refresher course on performing Yajna in the right manner.

4:16-17: Sages (Brāhmins of the present time) too are perplexed as to what action is (proper way to perform Yajna) and what inaction (non-performance of Yajna, Sanyāsa) is. Therefore I shall tell you what action (right way to perform Yajna) is, by knowing which you shall be freed from evil (of Karmaphalam). It is needful to discriminate (proper) action, forbidden action (Kāmya Karma) and inaction (being a monk or Sanyāsin); inscrutable is the way of Karma.

The contemporary sages are confused as to what is the proper way to perform a sacrifice as well as to abstain from it because, in the case of corrupt Brāhmins Dwandwam (engendered by their attachment to wealth) has disconnected their mind from their wisdom; and in the case of Sramanās (monks of heterodox Dharmas who left Brāhmanism) Shōkam has confused their comprehension. Its ways are too deep for these dull-witted ritual-obsessed Brāhmins to understand. Therefore, Lord Krishna will have to explain the three kinds of sacrifices: desireless sacrifices (the original, 4:15), desire-driven sacrifices (Kāmya Karma of decadent Brāhmanism 2:43), and non-performance of sacrifices (as is the case with Ascetics and Buddhist monks). What does it take for such a bewildered Brāhmin ritualist to be a Jnānayogi, the one who strives for the Knowledge of Atmān?

4:18: He who sees inaction (absence of Karmaphalam) in action (sacrifice), and action (earning Karmaphalam) in inaction (Sanyāsa), he is wise among men; he is a Yogi although he is engaged in all kinds of activities.

A person who performs sacrifices will not earn any Karmaphalam when he gives up his desire for fruit. On the other hand, a person who has given up performing sacrifices could still earn Karmaphalam by not giving up his desire for fruit. A person who is perceptive of this truth is wise (Yogi). Such a Yogi, who perfectly understands this fundamental truth about action, inaction, and forbidden action, could freely engage himself in all kind of activities, including sacrificial rites, without earning any Karmaphalam. So what should Brāhmins do to become wise (attain enlightenment of Atmān)?

9.12: Lord Krishna explains how to perform Yajna perfectly

4:19: He whose doings are all devoid of design (Sankalpa to gain fruit) and desire for personal gains (”I want gold, cows”), and whose actions are all burnt (purified) by the fire of (Yoga of) Knowledge (of Atmān), him the sages call wise (Yogi).

Lord Krishna urges Brāhmins to give up Sankalpa (design, motive, desire or intent to earn Karmaphalam, 6:1-4), and attachment to fruits of sacrifices, both of which immediately free them from Karmaphalam. So instead of earning Karmaphalam by fire sacrifice, Lord Krishna tells Brāhmins to burn their Karmaphalam in the metaphoric fire of Knowledge of Atmān (Jnānayoga). To attain Knowledge of Atmān, one must give up his Guna-rooted weaknesses, which means he is purified. The message of this shloka is, “Give up Kāmya Karma and take up Jnānayoga.”

4:20: Having abandoned attachment to Karmaphalam, ever content, depending on nothing (such as fee), though engaged in Karma (Yajna), verily he does not do anything (does not earn any Karmaphalam).

“Give up attachment to Karmaphalam” exhorts Lord Krishna. Absence of Karmaphalam means one has overcome the doctrine of Karma and one no longer suffers rebirth. Absence of rebirth means attainment of Nirvāna. So what is the proper way to perform sacrifices, if one must?

9.13: The Anthem of Jnānayoga

4:21: Hoping for nothing (without hankering for cows and gold), his mind and self controlled (being Buddhiyukta), having abandoned all possessions (giving up attachments), performing Karma (sacrifices) by body alone (without Kāma and Sankalpa for fruit), he incurs no sin (Karmaphalam).

Lord Krishna tells Brāhmins, “If you must perform sacrificial rites, do so in the spirit of Yoga: without desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects, and without any desire for fruits of action. Perform it as mere physical ritual without any emotional element.” Lord Krishna has just converted Kāmya Karma into Nishkāma Karma.

4:22: Content with what he obtains without effort (manipulations and coercion), free from Dwandwam (”I like this, I don’t like that; I want this, I don’t want that”), without envy (”why does he have more cows and gold than I”), balanced in success and failure (”if I have it fine, it I don’t, that is that is fine too”), though acting (performing sacrifices) he is not bound (does not earn Karmaphalam).

The Yajna should be performed with a steady state of mind, and only as an obligatory ritual. There should be no room for any desire, attachment, greed, coercion, or envy.

4:23: Of one unattached (to sense objects), liberated (from the weaknesses rooted in the Gunas), with mind absorbed in Knowledge (of Atmān), performing work for Yajna (worship) alone (and not for personal gains), his entire Karmaphalam (sin/merit) melts away.

The above three shlokas form the anthem of Jnānayoga. They convey the message that when a priest performs sacrifices without hankering (Kāma) for fruits, without design (Sankalpa), without pairs of opposites (Dwandwam), without attachment (Sangas), without possessiveness (Mōha), and with his mind focused on the Self/Atmān, he does not earn any Karmaphalam. In other words, one must give up Guna-rooted weaknesses in all actions. Any personal action or sacrifice thus performed with Buddhiyukta-Sthithaprajnya mind is known as the Yajna of Knowledge of Atmān. For it is free from all the negative aspects of Kāmya Karma. This is Jnānayoga. What are various constituents of the Knowledge Sacrifice in contrast to Kāmya Karma?

9.14: Yoga replaces Yajna; Brahman replaces Devas

4:24: The oblation is Brahman, the clarified butter is Brahman, offered by Brahman in the fire of Brahman; unto Brahman verily he goes who cognizes Brahman alone in his Karma (sacrifice).

How is the Yajna of the Knowledge of Atmān different from the Kāmya Karma of Brāhmanism? Unlike in Kāmya Karma, all the constituents of the Yajna of Knowledge -oblation, ghee (clarified butter), the offering person, fire, object of sacrifice- are made up of all-pervading Brahman. The Lord recommends Brāhmins to recognize “Brahman alone in the sacrifice.” There is a paradigm shift of the object of Yajna from Vedic gods to Brahman. In other words, Lord Krishna “Upanishadizes” the Vedic sacrifices. All selfless acts, with or without a fire, shall be known as Jnānayoga from now onwards. What are various selfless sacrifices done in the spirit of Jnānayoga?

4:25-30: Some Yogis perform sacrifices to Devas alone (4:12; 17:4), while others (Yogis) offer the self (ego) as sacrifice in the fire of Brahman (Knowledge Sacrifice). Some offer hearing and other Senses as sacrifice in the fire of restraint (they say ‘no’ to the delights of their Senses), while others offer sound (such as blowing conches or ringing bells) and other sense-objects as sacrifice in the fire of senses. Others again offer actions of the Sense Organs (such a speech, eating, sex, etc.) and other functions of the life-energy, as a sacrifice in the fire of self-control, kindled by Knowledge (of Atmān). Yet others offer wealth, austerity and Yoga as sacrifice, while still others, of self-denial and extreme vows (fasting), offer sacred study and Knowledge as sacrifice. Yet others offer as sacrifice the outgoing breath in the incoming, and the incoming in the outgoing, restraining the flow of the outgoing and incoming breath, solely absorbed in the regulation of life-energy (Prānāyāma). Still others of regulated food habit offer in the pranās the functions thereof. All these are knowers of Yajna, having their sins destroyed by (selfless) Yajna.

The word Yajna is rooted in the word Yaj, meaning ‘to worship.’ Any sacrifice of tangible (money, materials) or intangible (honor, title, power) sense objects, done selflessly is a Yajna of Knowledge of Atmān, for it connects the Mind with Buddhi and Atmān. Such a Yajna is known as Yoga. A Yajna does not have to have the fire burning in a sacrificial altar. People who attempt to control their Mind (Dwandwam) and the Senses (desires); people who control their Organs of Action, say mouth, hands, sex organs (refrain from acts that fulfill desires); people who give up attachment to sense objects (people, power, wealth); people who practice Prānāyāma; people who practice austerity (Tapas), etc. are sacrificing something, and are thus performing a Yajna on the altar of Self-realization. The point is, the moment one gives up something he desires to have or do, his mind connects with his Atmān, and his sins (Karmaphalam) arising from his actions are destroyed. In effect, these fireless Yajnas are Jnānayoga.

4:32: Various Yajnas such as these are spread out from the mouth of Brahman. Know them all to be born of (selfless) Karma; and thus knowing you shall be free (from bondage of doctrine of Karma).

This tricky shloka has been interpreted variously by different authors because the phrase “Brahmano mukhe” might mean mouth of Brahman, mouth of Brahma, or mouth of Brāhmanas (Vedas). Shankarāchārya interprets Brahmano mukhe as meaning the Vedas. The real meaning is “mouth of Brahman.” The various fireless “Yajnas” noted above were meant to gain Knowledge of Atmān/Brahman. In other words, they are Jnānayoga.  All these sacrifices made in the spirit of Yoga (selflessness) lead to liberation from Karmaphalam because they involve giving up desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of various sense objects and the functions of the Organs of Action. Performers of Kāmya Karma go to the Devas (9:20); performers of Yajna of Knowledge of Atmān go to Brahman.

4:31: The eaters of the nectar, the remnants of (Knowledge) Yajna go to Eternal Brahman; (the happiness of) this world is not for non-sacrificers (people who are not giving up sense objects and desire for fruits of action), how then the other (the Abode of Brahman), O best of Kurus?

In the course of proper performance of Vedic sacrifices, whatever food remains after the Yajna is consumed as the nectar (Prasadam of modern times) by the sacrificer. The main portion goes to the Vedic gods. This is how he liberates himself from the debt of gratitude to the Devas. In the case of Yajna of Knowledge of Atmān (Jnānayoga), in contrast, the Yajna is dedicated to Brahman. What is the nectar that remains after sacrifice of Knowledge? Well, after one has given up desire, attachment, possesiveness and fruit of action, what remains is Atmān. The eater of that nectar enjoys Bliss of Atmān here on earth and goes to the Abode of Brahman hereafter. Once again selfless sacrifice is used as a metaphor for Yoga. The phrase, “This world is not for the non-sacrificer” means, for one to achieve happiness (Sukham) here on earth, he must sacrifice whatever he is attached to, in the spirit of shlokas 4:25-30. If one is not willing to do so he will neither have Bliss here on earth nor Nirvāna hereafter.

What can be the nectar of selfless Yajna known as Yoga of Knowledge? The hidden meaning of the above shloka is that one, who sacrifices all the above noted (4:25-30) sense objects; functions of the Senses; the functions of Organs of Action; the Mind, the self, and the Intellect in the fire of Knowledge (of Atmān), is left with only Atmān. The one who obtains that nectar -Atmān- attains Bliss here on earth and attains Nirvāna hereafter. This shloka has been misinterpreted by all Brahmanic scholars to mean that one should keep performing Vedic sacrifices. In reality, it refers to various Yogic sacrifices noted in shlokas 4:25-30 above in order to gain Knowledge of Atmān as evidenced by the following shloka.

9.15: Perform Knowledge sacrifice (Jnānayoga) not material sacrifice (Kāmya Karma)

4:33: Knowledge sacrifice (sacrificing attachment to sense objects and fruit of action to achieve the Knowledge of Atmān=Jnānayoga), O scorcher of foes, is superior to wealth sacrifice (sacrificing grains, ghee and animals). All Karma (performed in the spirit of Yoga) in its entirety, O Pārtha, culminates in Knowledge (of Atmān).

What is the nature of sacrifice one has to make to gain the Knowledge of the Atmān? Well, one has to give up desire for, attachment to and possessiveness of sense objects; and he must also give up desire for fruits of action. The moment one does these, his Mind connects with his Buddhi and ultimately with his Atmān. How does one go about acquiring that enlightenment?

9.16: All right. How does one go about obtaining the Knowledge of Atmān?

4:34: Seek that enlightenment by prostrating, by questions and by service; the wise, the (Upanishadic) seers into the True (Knowledge of Brahman) will instruct you in that Knowledge.

One seeks that Knowledge of Atmān from the seers in the format of Upanishadic instructions (2:7), not by submitting to a Vedic priest performing a sacrifice or uttering a Vedic hymn. Lord Krishna is redirecting Brāhmins to the wisdom of the Upanishads, away from the rituals of Vedic sacrifices. Upanishads frequently state that one cannot gain Knowledge of Atmān by the Vedas.

4:35: Knowing this (True, Atmān/Brahman), O Pāndava, you will not again fall into this confusion (of Kāmya Karma); by this (Knowledge of Atmān) you will see the whole of creation in your Self and in Me.

What is that confusion or delusion one can avoid? It is the delusion engendered by the Gunas which makes one get attached to sense objects and to Kāmya Karma. By discarding Kāmya Karma, one’s Mind connects with his Buddhi and Atmān. He becomes one with Brahman. When this happens, he sees the whole creation in himself: Aham Brahmāsmi -I am Brahman. Note here that the word Me at the end is meant to equate Lord Krishna with Brahman. Clearly, either the word Brahman was replaced by the word Me, or this shloka was added later by the Bhāgavatha seers.

9.17: Fire of Knowledge will burn all Karmaphala to ashes

4:36: Even if you be the most sinful of all sinners, yet shall you cross over all (river of) sin by the raft of Knowledge (of Atmān).

Even the worst kind of priests who have indulged in sinful acts can cancel-out their accumulated Karmaphalam by attaining the Knowledge of Atmān. Here the metaphoric “raft of Knowledge” is used to cross of the river of sin, Karmaphalam. There is a hidden agenda in this shloka. According to the Brāhmanic doctrine of the Gunas, one’s actions are forever determined by his Guna, which one is not able to repress or change (3:33; 18:59-60). This means, when a man is of evil Guna, he has no redemption except by suffering in hell after death, and being reborn on earth to pay for his sins. Lord Krishna says that even worst kind of sinner can redeem himself by taking refuge in Atmān. After the Bhāgavathas take over the Gita, Lord Krishna declares that He is the Atmān in the heart of all people (10:20; 15:15).

4:37: As the blazing fire (of Yajna) reduces fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire (of Yoga) of Knowledge (of Atmān, Jnānayoga) reduce all Karmaphalam to ashes.

In the case of Kāmya Karma, the blazing fire merely reduces the fuel to ashes while gaining Karmaphalam. In contrast, the fire of Yoga of Knowledge burns all Karmaphalam to ashes without burning to ashes all Guna rooted weaknesses.

4:38: Verily there is no purifier in the world like Knowledge of Atmān (Jnānayoga). He, who is perfected in Jnānayoga realizes it (Atmān) in his own heart in due time.

The Knowledge of Atmān is a purifier of all sin (bad Karmaphalam). For, in order to attain that Knowledge, one must give up impurities such as desire, attachment, possessiveness, greed, hate, jealousy, and the like. The Jnānayogi realizes Atmān in his heart. (The Upanishadic seers believed that Atmān resided in the heart.)

9.18: Lord Krishna recommends the Brāhmin class Shraddha (Faith) to counter their doubt about Atmān

4:39-42: The man of Shraddha (Faith), devoted to that Knowledge (of Atmān), the master of Senses (desire and attachment) obtains the Knowledge (of Atmān). Having obtained that Knowledge he goes promptly to Peace Supreme (here on earth and Brahman hereafter). The ignorant (one deluded by the Gunas), the man devoid of Shraddha, and the doubting (Dwandwa-ridden) self goes to destruction. The doubting self has neither (the Bliss of) this world, nor the next (Abode of Brahman). With work absolved in Yoga, and doubts (Dwandwa) rent asunder by Knowledge (of Atmān), O Dhananjaya, actions do not bind him (he earns no Karmaphalam) who is poised in Atmān (and thus overcome the force of the Gunas). Therefore, severing with the sword of Knowledge this ignorance-born doubt (”Is Atmān real or not?”) about Atmān (which is) dwelling in your heart, be established in Jnānayoga. Stand up, O Bharata.

These four shlokas aim to ward off doubts in the mind of Brāhmin class about the concept of the Knowledge of Atmān and the benefit of gaining it. Brāhmins were the most learned of four social classes of the ancient society. Even today the most Doubting Toms come from the intellectual class of society in India. The ignorance-born doubt (Dwandwam-Is Atmān real or not? ) Lord Krishna is referring to here is due to the delusion of the Gunas. Lord Krishna urges Brāhmins to give up their entanglement with wealth and take shelter in Yoga to regain their Jnāna or Knowledge of Atmān.

In these shlokas, Lord Krishna introduces a new term: Shraddha -Faith. He wants Brāhmins to cancel-out their doubts about Atmān by means of Faith. Doubters have neither the happiness of this world (because they are afflicted by Shokam due to ignorance of Atmān and Dwandwam due to mind’s disconnection from Buddhi), nor the peace of the Abode of Brahman (due to on-going cycle of Samsāra engendered by Karmaphalam). Talking like a true Kshatriya, He asks them to “sever with the sword of Knowledge (of Atmān) this ignorance-born doubt about Atmān (which is) dwelling in your heart.” And then he tells them to stand up, for they are, in Lord Krishna’s esteem, fallen men (2:62-63; 9:24). Note here that whereas the term Shraddha is used by the Upanishadic seers with reference to Atmān, the term Bhakti (devotional worship) is used by the Bhagavatha seers with reference to Lord Krishna.