Critical Analysis on “My Gita”

By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

“My Gita” by Shri Devdutt Pattanaik : Some issues with that. 

As rightly pointed out by Sri Nityanand Misra, there are several translation errors. In this, I am not covering those mentioned by him. Having granted that such errors are present, I am going to focus on the conceptual and other kinds of errors. 

1. Firstly Ramakrishna Paramahamsa points out that by reversing the word gItA, we get tAgI, which in Bengali means tyAgI or renouncer. He told that gItA teaches us to become unselfish and tyAgI. He never said that the essence of The Gita can be deciphered simply by the word ‘tyAgI’. Certainl ‘tyAgI’ is not the essence of gItA. It is one of the several messages of Gita. 

2. “TyAgi” is not defined as “one who lets go of possessions”. Lord Krishna specifically defines “tyAga” in verse 18-2 at the request of Arjuna in 18-1. 

“sarvakarmaphalatyAgaM prAhustyAgaM vichaxaNAH || 18-2||” 

(“The wise said that forsaking/renouncing/relinquishing the fruits of all the actions is tyAga.”)

 So, TyAgi is one who renounces the fruits of all the actions.

3. Arjuna poses his questions and problems not just in Chapter 1, but all through Gita.

4. One cannot say that Chapters 1 to 6 are Karma yoga, Chapters 7 to 12 are Bhakti yoga, and Chapters 13 to 18 are j~nANa yoga. All are covered in all. Even if one tries to think of any prominence, it can be said as follows.

    First six are “j~nAna upAya”. Second six are “tatsAdhya j~nAna” and third six are elaboration of what was told.

Note the broad naming of adhyAyAs itself.

1 -  arjunaviShAdayogaH       (Despondency of Arjuna)

2 -  sAN^khyayogaH            (Rational intellect or intellectual deliberation)

3 -  karmayogaH               (Action)

4 -  j~nAnayogaH              (Knowledge or wisdom)

5 -  saMnyAsayogaH            (Renunciation)

6 -  AtmasaMyamayogaH         (Self-restraint)

7 -  j~nAnavij~nAnayogaH   (Knowledge/wisdom and distinguished Knowledge/ wisdom)

8 -  akSharabrahmayogaH    (Imperishable Brahma)

9 -  rAjaguhyayogaH        (Sovereign mystery or chief secret knowledge)

10 - vibhUtiyogaH          (Special might power)

11 - vishvarUpadarshanaM   (Universal pervasive form)

12 - bhaktiyogaH           (Devotion)

13 - kShetrakShetraj~navibhAgayogaH (Universal field of action and its knower)

14 - prakR^itiguNatrayavibhAgayogaH (Trifurcation of Natural attributive qualities)

15 - puruShottamayogaH              (All-Supreme-Being)

16 - daivAsurasaMpadvibhAgayogaH    (Distinction of Divine and Demonic opulence)

17 - shraddhAtrayavibhAgayogaH      (Trifurcation of trustfulness)

18 - mokShasaMnyAsayogaH            (Liberation and Renunciation)

Note how the stress is on j~nAna or wisdom. A true j~nAni also realizes the importance of action. Another important thing to note is that a karma-yogi also needs j~nAna and a j~nAna-yogi also needs karma. The notation is based on prAchurya or ‘moreness’. For example, even though the tattvAbhimAni Devatas perform enormous amount of karma as they do “tattvAbhimAni kArya” for all the living beings, their own j~nAna is more than their own karma and so they are considered as “j~nAna-yogis”. Similarly, even though King Janaka, et al. are great j~nAnis, their own karma is more than their own j~nAna and so they are considered as “karma-yogis”.

5. It is not true that traditionally only some verses in a chapter are taken at a time and no emphasis is given to Gita in its entirety. There are verses like GitAsAroddhAra and in traditional gurukulas, lot of discussions are also made to grasp the heart of Gita. That is why a traditionally learnt person can analyze the haphazard conclusions made by random writers. Not only Gita, no philosophy is linear as such. That is the basic characteristic of philosophical thinking.

6. The words Dehi, Brahman and PuruSha can be grouped, but not BrahmaNa.

7. I am not sure as to what is meant by “soul instead of atma”. What is the difference between soul and atma? Of course there is no exact word for atma, but in real life, there is no choice, but to use soul for Atma and people understand that.

8. Just as Itihasic texts or Puranic texts are understood from the background of Vedic and Upanishadic texts, the vedas are to be understood from Itihasas and Puranas. “itihAsapurANAbhyAM vedaM samupabR^iMhayet”.

9. It is not true that many ideas are constantly repeated. Many times they seem so. But they have either different meaning or there was a need to repeat some small segments to stress different concepts.

10. When Sri Ramanujacharya came, he had an interpretation for Gita, which is quite different from existing Advaita interpretation. Sri Ramanujacharya did not call it “My Gita”. When Sri Madhvacharya came, he had an interpretation for Gita, which is quite different from existing Advaita or VishishTAdvaita interpretation. Sri Madhvacharya did not call it “My Gita”. It is quite possible that people come up with varied interpretations.

11. Just because an interpretation or commentary is linear, which is a natural process, it is not mandatory that traditionalists refrain from a multi-type approach.

12. It is not true that Sanjaya composed Gita. The author of “My Gita” seemed to have either forgotten or ignored how Sanjaya got that “infinite sight”. It is incidental that Lord Krishna temporarily gave “infinite sight” to Dhritarashtra during his “Rayabhara (messenger role)” and Sri Vedavyasa gave “infinite sight” to Sanjaya and so Sri Vedavyasa is quite aware of the exact message.

13. Quote:

“Krishna and Sanjaya may speak exactly the same words, but while Krishna knows what he is talking about, Sanjaya does not.”

Unquote.

This is completely wrong. It is quite presumptuous on the part of the author to think so. If Sanjaa could not grasp it, where is the guaranty that this author can grasp it.

14. Quote:

Krishna is the source, while Sanjaya is merely a transmitter.

Unquote.

Surely, he is the transmitter, but to whom? He is the transmitter to Dhritarashtra, but not to Sri Vedavyasa, who composed Mahabharata. Note that it is very ridiculous that Sri Vedavyasa grants divine vision or “infinite sight” to Sanjaya and then has to rely on Sanjaya’s words for composing Gita, while He could compose entire Mahabharata without any help from Sanjaya.

15. Quote:

Likewise, what Sanjaya hears is different from what Arjuna hears and what Dhritarashtra hears.

Unquote.

How does the author know this? If he does not give an authentic source for this, it is simply “svakapolakalpita(one’s own wild imagination)”. Is it supposed to be different from what Sri Vedavyasa could write as well? Further if Sri Krishna says one thing and Arjuna hears something else, that is a big issue. This seems to imply that Arjuna has hearing problem, Sanjaya has “infinite sight” problem and Dhritarashta has hearing problem as well. In fact Dhritarashtra, being blind, had extra-ordinary hearing faculty that he could recognize people from their foot steps itself.

16. Quote:

Sanjaya hears the words, but does not bother with the meaning.

Unquote.

This is completely wrong. This is the fate of analyzing the Gita from “cover to cover”, or rather lack of it.

The verse 18-75, Sanjaya says that he heard directly the words from Lord Krishna’s mouth due to the grace of Sri Vedavyasa. That means no transmission, hearing or divine sight issue.

The verse 18-76 says that he is thrilled recollecting the virtuous and sublime, meritorious and magnificient conversational dialogue between Sri Krishna and Arjuna. If he did not bother with the meaning, why would he say that? He even predicts the outcome of the war in the verse 18-78. He not only bothered with the meaning, he even absorbed it effectively.

17. Quote:

Arjuna is a seeker and so he decodes what he hears to find a solution to his problem.

Unquote.

What is this supposed to mean? Is it not the purpose of the Gita? How could Arjuna decode without understanding the meaning? If he understood the meaning and found a solution to his problem, what is the problem?

18. Quote:

Dhritarashtra is not interested in what Krishna has to say.

Unquote.

Krishna said that to Arjuna, but not to Dhritarashtra. We do not even know of Dhritarashtra’s interest regarding Gita. It is immaterial if he had interest or not.

19. Quote:

While Arjuna asks many questions and clarifications, ensuring the ‘discourse’ is a ‘conversation’, Dhritarashtra remains silent throughout.

Unquote.

This does not make any sense. If the conversation is between Sri Krishna and Arjuna, where is the scope for Dhritarashtra to ask questions? One may think “Oh, he can ask Sanjaya the questions”. Sanjaya is just narrating the dialogue. No point in Dhritarashtra interjecting and asking Sanjaya the questions.

20. Quote:

In fact, Dhritarashtra is fearful of Krishna who is fighting against his children, the Kauravas. So he judges Krishna’s words, accepting what serves him, dismissing what does not.

Unquote.

Of course, Dhritarashtra is fearful. Even so, who is he to judge Sri Krishna’s words? Where is this mentioned? What serves Dhritarashtra and what does not? is this all not some wild imagination?

21. Dhritarashtra is not judge. The author or the reader or any of us are not getting Gita from Sanjaya, the transmitter. We are getting it from Sri Vedavyasa, who enabled transmission and not dependent on Sanjaya or his transmission.

22. Even a news-reader understands the news that he transmits. It is a pity that Sanjaya is not even granted that much importance and he is depicted as a dumb transmitter, who is simply a dimwitted, incapable of understanding even as much as these modern day scholars.

23. I am very skeptical if this author read any authentic commentaries or understood them. God knows which translations he picked up. It does not matter how much time one spends. What matters is whether the understanding has any serious issues. The need is not just correcting someone else but correcting oneself too.

24. There is no such thing as subjective truth or objective truth. If fire burns or not means the truth is fire burns. No one would say “May be the fire burns for you. But for me, the fire does not burn.”. The truth is always one. The understanding can be different. Subjectivity is only with respect to the understanding. Thus “My Gita” translates to “My understanding of Gita” and one must be open to receive corrections if the understanding is not right.

25. One cannot approach as Arjuna as that person is not in that situation. One cannot approach as Dhritarashtra as that person is not in that situation. Not only the situation, but the abilities vary too and each one will have his own or her own understanding.

26. sam-vaad is just a conversation and vi-vaad can be argument or discussion. It can always be an open-mind discussion. The goal need not be “one tries to prove that one's understanding is the truth”. The goal can be “one tries to improve one's own understanding”. This can happen only when there is vi-vaad and mistakes are pointed out. If they are not mistakes, the “vaad vi-vaad” can take place and if there is open-mindedness, then there are no issues. How can one expand one’s own understanding if corrections are not offered? Note one’s own understanding, but not one’s own truth. No one owns truth. There is only one “Bhagavadgita” and various understandings - no various “Bhagavadgitas”. There are many Gitas - Bhagavadgita, Bhramara Gita, VeNu Gita, Gopi Gita, etc. They have different contexts and different contents.

27. Lot of confusion is created around this play of words like subjectivity and objectivity. Neither monotheism is bad nor mythology. God is one, but the understanding of that “One God” varies. People try to own God forgetting that He owns it all and no one owns Him.

28. Many layers of truth are presented. Truth is always one - vastusthiti - or the way the things are. Surely the understandings vary. Note the difference between fact and perception. Truth corresponds to fact. Understanding is perception. Similarly there is no such thing as qualitative truth and quantitative truth. Truth is just the fact. One may perceive qualitatively or quantitatively. That is all just understanding. Perceptions can never change the facts.

29. There is no such thing as limited truth or limitless truth. The entities can be limited or limitless. A pot or a hill or an ocean or even the Earth is limited. The God, space, and time are all limitless. Only difference is that God is Independent and even the space and time are dependent on God, if one accepts the Superpower.

30. Having said that this strange concept of “Limited truth is mithya” becomes meaningless, as there is no such thing as Limited truth. When we talk about Limited entities, the next question arises - Limited by space or limited by time. This gives rise to four possibilities.

L1. Limited by space and limited by time.

L2. Limited by space and not limited by time.

L3. Not limited by space and limited by time.

L4. Not limited by space and not limited by time.

Similarly, limitless by space or limitless by time gives rise to four possibilities.

U1. Limitless by space and limitless by time.

U2. Limitless by space and not limitless by time.

U3. Not limitless by space and limitless by time.

U4. Not limitless by space and not limitless by time.

A little bit insight actually shows that the above two sets being identical in one way. L1 is U4, L4 is U1, L2 is U3, and L3 is U2.

Example for L1 - a pot, a hill, etc.

L2 - An individual soul, which exists at all times, but does not pervade all space.

L3 - No such thing exists.

L4 - God, space, time, etc. Note that space is there at all times and time is there in all space.

Just because something is transient or temporary, one cannot say that it is mithya. 

31. Another confusion is between bhaga and bhaaga. One of the meanings for the word bhaga is “ShaDguNaishvarya (six kinds of opulence - PurNa-j~nAna, PurNa-aishvarya, PurNa-prabha, PurNa-Ananda, PurNa-teja, PurNa-shakti)” . bhagavAn is one who has all these. On the other hand, bhaaga is part, or slice, which is totally different.

32. Another confusion is between brahman and braahmaNa. One has to be careful in using Sanskrit words. There has to be distinction between, “a” and “aa”. Similarly one must note the difference between ”n” and “N”. When there is scope for confusion, one must carefully specify. When one uses “brahmana”, it is not clear. It seems that he meant “brahman”. Then the last “a” must be dropped.

  33. Satya is about including everything and being whole (PurNam) - This statement is very ambiguous. Including everything in what? If the whole is satya, then its parts should also be satya. It is untenable that the parts are illusory and the whole is real.

34. YathechChasi tathA kuru - the superficial meaning does not hold good. It conflicts with other statements in Gita - like -

“mayaivaite nihatAH pUrvameva

        nimittamAtraM bhava savyasAchin || 11-33||”

(All these ones have been killed by me already. You just be a mere instrument.)

Note that “past,present and future are applicable to us. For him, Who is beyond time, every thing is like presnet. That is why He is also called “satyasaMkalpa”.

“yadahaN^kAramAshritya na yotsya iti manyase |

mithyaiSha vyavasAyaste prakR^itistvAM niyoxyati || 18-59||”

(Being driven by the ego that you are independent, you are thinking that you will not fight. That thought is futile, as the will of God(through PrakRuti) will instigate you to fight.) How it is done is explained in the next verse.

“svabhAvajena kaunteya nibaddhaH svena karmaNA |

kartuM nechchhasi yanmohAtkariShyasyavashopi tat || 18-60||”

(Oh Arjuna, being bound by the actions arising out of your prior saMskAra, you will be driven to perform, beyond your control, the act of war, even if you desire to desist due to deluded attachment to your kins.)

“IshvaraH sarvabhUtAnAM hR^iddeshe.arjuna tiShThati |

bhrAmayansarvabhUtAni yantrArUDhAni mAyayA || 18-61||”

(The Lord is present in the secret hidden place of the heart of all the beings, mounted in the machine-like bodies and makes them engage in various actions.)

In lieu of all these, the expression “Do as you desire” has to be taken as a remark of challenge or objection. “Let me see if you can do as you desire.”. This is the contextual meaning.

35. Sanjaya never gave his view on what Krishna’s discourse potentially offers. His expression “matirmama” is quoted out-of-context and interpreted wrongly that it is Sanjaya’s opinion on Sri Krishna’s discourse.

“yatra yogeshvaro kR^iShNaH yatra pArtho dhanurdharaH |

tatra shrIrvijayo bhUtirdhruvA nItirmatirmama || 18-78||”

(It is my conviction that where the Lord of all means of knowledge, Sri Krishna and the bow-wielding Arjuna are present, on that side of the army reside firmly the kingdom, victory, prosperity, and propriety.) The word mati can mean many things. Cologne Dictionary gives following meanings.

mati  devotion, prayer, worship, hymn, sacred utterance, thought, design, intention, resolution, determination, inclination, wish, desire, wit, knowledge, awareness, purpose, heart, resolution, determination, idea, opinion, notion, idea, belief, conviction, view, creed, will, the mind, perception, understanding, intelligence, sense, judgment, esteem, respect, regard, memory, remembrance.

Here of all the meanings, the meaning “conviction” is the most appropriate one and also it is about the final outcome and not about Gita teaching.  

36. Quote:

Traditionally, The Gita has been presented as a text that focusses on self-realization (atma-gyana). This suits the hermit who isolates himself from society.

Unquote.

This is completely berserk. If this were true, then Arjuna should have given up war and gone to some hermitage. Gita never advocated the hermit’s ways or monastic approach as a universally applicable code. Sri Krishna taught Arjuna to fight the war and not to go for hermit’s way of life. Atma-gyAna is needed for every walk of life, not just for a hermit. That is what differentiates man from animals.

37. In Gita, the word saMnyAsa or saMnyAsi is used not to mean hermitage or hermit. They are meant to convey

“(kAmya)karmasaMnyAsa (5-2, 18-49)(Renouncing the desire-filled actions)” or “kAmanAtyAga(na kAN^xati - 5-3)(Renouncing the desires)” or

“dveShAdi tyAga( na dveShTi - 5-3)(Renouncing hatred, etc.)” or

“dvandvAtItatva (nirdvandvo - 5-3)(Treating duals like sorrow/happiness, defeat/victory, loss/gain alike)” or

“kartR^itvAbhimAnatyAgaH (5-13 and 5-14)(Renouncing the feeling of independent doership)” or

“karma-phala-tyAga(6-1)(Renouncing attachment to the fruits of action)” or

“sarva-saMkalpa-saMnyAsaM(6-4)(Renouncing intention, pursuation and purpose, meaning realizing that they are under Lord’s control)” or

“harau karma samarpaNam(3-30, 12-6, 18-57) (Dedicating all actions to God)” or

“kAmyAnAM karmaNAM nyAsaM(18-2)(Renouncing desire-filled actions)”.or

one who has these.

Note that these are not completely detachment, but detached attachment. It is not the hermit’s way or monastic approach of renouncing the saMsAra, but being in it and being aware of the working of God. Such noblest thoughts are emphasized in our scriptures like DharmavyAdha, who is a butcher and yet a great wise person that many wise people visit him for instructions.

It is further emphasized that “niyatakarmasaMnyAsa(Renouncing the prescribed duties)” is bad (18-7)

38. The wrong notion that Gita teaches hermit’s way of Atma-gyAna is justified by saying that most of the early commentators like Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa and Dyaneshwara, chose not to be householders. The message of a work is determined not by the lifestyle of the commentators, but the contents of the commentaries themselves. The exalted souls are not influenced by their Ashrama. They convey purely based on what their thoughts are on the work. None of them even remotely hinted that Gita teaches hermit’s ways. If that were true, Dhritarashtra would have been happy that it would make Arjuna to give up war and go for hermit’s life.

39. Even any slight hint that hermit’s way of Atma-gyAna is recommended by Sri Krishna, Arjuna would have grabbed on it at that moment. Note that when Sri Krishna said -

“dUreNa hyavaraM karma buddhiyogAddhanaJNjaya |

buddhau sharaNamanvichchha kR^ipaNAH phalahetavaH || 2-49||”

(Oh Arjuna, the karma or action is far inferior to the puruShartha-j~nAna-sAdhana and so take refuge in tattva-j~nAna as those who resort to action only for getting the fruits end up in sorrowful state.)

Note that here what is put down is “desire-filled action”.

Arjuna, however, grabs on and poses the question -

“jyAyasI chetkarmaNaste matA buddhirjanArdana |

tatkiM karmaNi ghore mAM niyojayasi keshava || 3-1||”

(Oh Janardana, if you think that Atma-gyAna is superior to action, then Oh Keshava, why are you engaging me in this dreadful action of war?)

Then Lord Sri Krishna answers that in 3-3 and the following verses. He says that there are two kinds of approach in this world - j~nAnayogis tread the path of j~nAna and Karmayogis the path of Karma. The ones like Sanaka went through the path of j~nAna and the kings like Janaka had lot of Atma-gyana and yet went through the path of karma. These paths are determined by the prAchurya or which ever is more. Even j~nAnayogis must perform actions as it is impossible to desist from the action even for a fraction of time. The karmayogis must have Atma-gyAna, without which their karmas become meaningless. Then He goes on explaining the “yaj~nachakra” or the “cycle of actions dedicated unto God” and that all the people must participate in their own capacity.

Thus Gita is a universal process-yielding tool. To degenerate it to a work for hermit’s way or monastic approach is nothing short of a grave mistake.

40. The author picks up the word “Param-atma” and tries to define its etymology. Actualy it is “parama + Atma”. He initially dropped “a” and made it “param” and then dropped “m” also and made it “para” and took the meaning “the other”. This is completely wrong etymology. “parama” means “Supreme or the greatest or highest or most excellent”. This describes the Lord perfectly. Why run away with some wrong etymology and lose all the significance that too by dropping some letter(s)?

Quote:

Krishna speaks of brahma-nirvana as an expansion of the mind (brahmana) that leads to liberation (moksha) while ironically also enabling union (yoga), indicating a

shift away from monastic isolationism.

Unquote.

41. Which part of Gita says that brahma-nirvana as an expansion of the mind? What is “brahmana” referring to - the mind or expansion of the mind? Where is it mentioned that such an expansion of mind leads to mokSha?

42. Where is it mentioned that yoga refers to union? If yoga means union, then what does “karmayoga”, “j~nAnayoga”, “bhaktiyoga”, etc mean? If one ventures to say that “karmayoga” means “union through Karma” and “j~nAnayoga” means “union through j~nAna”, etc., then it gets even worse. What does “yogi” mean? It has to mean one who acquired union. Then what does it mean “karmaogena yoginAm”? - The ones who acquired union with God have to go through the path of union through karma so that that person can acquire (one more time?) union with God? It is the ridiculousness at its peak.

43. The word “yoga” has many meanings and contextually here it means “a device or stratagem or means or method”. It is j~nAnopAya. Then lot of pieces fall in place.

44. This is a strawman as well as going from frying pan to fire. Gita was never a promoter of monastic isolationism to start with. If an argument is made that Gita was not that, but the monks have used Gita to promote monastic isolationism, that is also not true. None of the commentators had brought such a twist to Gita. If that were the case why pick up a situation that never existed - strawman. Having brought in a phantom notion, a shift away from it is made by depicting that Gita talked about enabling union(yoga), which is much worse - from frying pan to fire.

Just the introduction part had so many errors. I did not even go into main one. I note that there are several errors in there as well. These are not just nitpicking, but serious errors.

Shri Krishnarpanamastu !!

👉Smt.Shubha Rao page for 1000+ dasarapadas

Other Websites of Tadipatri Gurukula:
sites.google.com/site/madhwaprameyaqa/
Follow on: https://soundcloud.com/shriharivayu-gurugalu 
Paata recordings also available at 
http://www.sujnanaprapti.org/portal/tiki-list_file_gallery.php
Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE-8TjZt6JQ3pQwyp6kEOjw
Facebook grp- https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416358585310116/
Join Telegram grp: https://t.me/joinchat/SJkC7fPy4D6Y6pvM