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.