CHAPTER 1, TEXTS 21-22: Arjuna said: O infallible one, please draw my chariot between the two armies so that I may see those present here, who desire to fight, and with whom I must contend in this great trial of arms.
Srila Prabhupad offers an astounding line of logic in his commentary on this verse. First, he notes that Krishna, the Supreme Lord, is serving as a charioteer, which is a humble service in a time of war - certainly no martial glory goes to a chariot driver. Prabhupad mentions that "[Krishna] was engaged in the service of His friend" (45). If Krishna and Arjuna are friends, this must mean that there is affection between them. So not only is Krishna - The Supreme Lord - offering service to someone else, there is also friendship between them. This is a very unusual dynamic in all of world theology.
God is great. God is powerful. God is omniscient.
God is... a servant? God is... a friend?
This is very unusual.
Then, Prabhupad notes that Arjuna orders Krishna - The Supreme Lord - to do his bidding. What is fascinating about this interaction is not so much that a soul like Arjuna orders God to do his bidding - after all, I would imagine that most of the world makes demands and requests and prayers addressed to God all day and all night long. What's wondrous is that Krishna does not hesitate to comply (45). The fact that Krishna complies with the request of his friend without hesitation is why Prabhupad reasons that "He is addressed as infallible" (45). According to Google dictionary, the secondary definition of "infallible" is "never failing; always effective" so in this context, this makes very clear sense. Krishna does not fail in his duty, he is effective.
The primary definition of infallible, though, is "being incapable of making mistakes or being wrong" (Google dictionary). Naturally, this definition has many religious overtones - after all, to make mistakes is very, very human. To be completely free of mistakes must mean that one transcends this human condition. In the Catholic tradition, "papal infallibility" means that the pope "cannot err when he teaches in matters of faith and morals" (britannica.com) and in Islam, ismah means "incapable of making mistakes or errors" (al-islam.org). All of these contexts of being infallible are connected to the divine, either attributed to God Himself or someone empowered by God (such as the pope or a prophet).
In this verse, Prabhupad translates the word acyuta as "O infallible one" and according to the Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary, acyuta may also be translated as "not fallen." This is significant because one may draw the conclusion that The Supreme Lord has "fallen" and lowered Himself in order to be a mere chariot driver and to be ordered about by, technically, an ordinary soul.
Thus we can go in two different philosophical directions. The first is that Krishna is simply an ordinary man in history who played an interesting part in this epic story of the Pandavas. This would reconcile the mystery that Krishna would take on the role as a chariot driver, a menial servant.
The second direction is that Krishna never existed and his personality is a metaphor for God and the Bhagavad-gita is an extended analogy of the soul inquiring about divine truth. This would reconcile the mystery that Krishna is repeatedly addressed as infallible. (Regarding the possibility that Krishna was a prophet, later in the Bhagavad-gita Krishna is addressed as Jagatpati, the ruler of the worlds, and Bhuta Bhavana, the origin of all beings, as well as other divine titles that show that He is not simply empowered by God but IS God.)
How to reconcile these two seemingly opposing ideas? Krishna is submitting to menial service - a very human task; Krishna is addressed as infallible?
Maybe there's a third option: What if Krishna is submitting to a menial service AND He's infallible? That's what the Bhagavad-Gita states after all, As It Is, right here is verses 21 and 22. This brings us back to how we started this post: Krishna a) is a servant, b) is a friend, and now c) does not hesitate to follow Arjuna's orders. This all implies a deeply loving, trusting relationship. And a loving relationship means reciprocation.
No loving relationship can be sustained without reciprocation. Prabhupad emphasizes that in fact, "[Krishna] takes greater pleasure in His pure devotee's assuming the advantageous position of ordering Him than He does in being the giver of orders" (45). We can safely conclude Krishna actually feels greater pleasure to be ordered about (by His pure devotee), which is shown by his lack of hesitation to follow those orders, than to be at the helm of the chariot giving orders to Arjuna.
Thus, we now have a third direction, which is that Krishna IS a man in order to facilitate a loving relationship with his friend, Arjuna. At the same time, He is the Supreme Lord who has come in the form of a man in order to serve not only Arjuna but all souls who are inquiring about God and the nature of divine truth.
This means that we may all cultivate a loving friendship with Krishna, with God, a real person with a face and a smile. The goal, of course, would never be to order Him about. After all, Prabhupad writes that "The servitor is always ready to render service to the Lord, and, similarly, the Lord is always seeking an opportunity to render some service to the devotee" (45). This shows that in my eagerness to serve the Lord, there is simply a deep and natural reciprocation for God to be eager to serve me.
How wondrous that if I choose to serve Krishna, I am not emptying my soul and endeavors into a bottomless pit of "divine service" to an invisible God. Service means that I have a relationship with a person, and God actually takes pleasure in reciprocating with my heart.
Srila Prabhupad offers an astounding line of logic in his commentary on this verse. First, he notes that Krishna, the Supreme Lord, is serving as a charioteer, which is a humble service in a time of war - certainly no martial glory goes to a chariot driver. Prabhupad mentions that "[Krishna] was engaged in the service of His friend" (45). If Krishna and Arjuna are friends, this must mean that there is affection between them. So not only is Krishna - The Supreme Lord - offering service to someone else, there is also friendship between them. This is a very unusual dynamic in all of world theology.
God is great. God is powerful. God is omniscient.
God is... a servant? God is... a friend?
This is very unusual.
Then, Prabhupad notes that Arjuna orders Krishna - The Supreme Lord - to do his bidding. What is fascinating about this interaction is not so much that a soul like Arjuna orders God to do his bidding - after all, I would imagine that most of the world makes demands and requests and prayers addressed to God all day and all night long. What's wondrous is that Krishna does not hesitate to comply (45). The fact that Krishna complies with the request of his friend without hesitation is why Prabhupad reasons that "He is addressed as infallible" (45). According to Google dictionary, the secondary definition of "infallible" is "never failing; always effective" so in this context, this makes very clear sense. Krishna does not fail in his duty, he is effective.
The primary definition of infallible, though, is "being incapable of making mistakes or being wrong" (Google dictionary). Naturally, this definition has many religious overtones - after all, to make mistakes is very, very human. To be completely free of mistakes must mean that one transcends this human condition. In the Catholic tradition, "papal infallibility" means that the pope "cannot err when he teaches in matters of faith and morals" (britannica.com) and in Islam, ismah means "incapable of making mistakes or errors" (al-islam.org). All of these contexts of being infallible are connected to the divine, either attributed to God Himself or someone empowered by God (such as the pope or a prophet).
In this verse, Prabhupad translates the word acyuta as "O infallible one" and according to the Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary, acyuta may also be translated as "not fallen." This is significant because one may draw the conclusion that The Supreme Lord has "fallen" and lowered Himself in order to be a mere chariot driver and to be ordered about by, technically, an ordinary soul.
Thus we can go in two different philosophical directions. The first is that Krishna is simply an ordinary man in history who played an interesting part in this epic story of the Pandavas. This would reconcile the mystery that Krishna would take on the role as a chariot driver, a menial servant.
The second direction is that Krishna never existed and his personality is a metaphor for God and the Bhagavad-gita is an extended analogy of the soul inquiring about divine truth. This would reconcile the mystery that Krishna is repeatedly addressed as infallible. (Regarding the possibility that Krishna was a prophet, later in the Bhagavad-gita Krishna is addressed as Jagatpati, the ruler of the worlds, and Bhuta Bhavana, the origin of all beings, as well as other divine titles that show that He is not simply empowered by God but IS God.)
How to reconcile these two seemingly opposing ideas? Krishna is submitting to menial service - a very human task; Krishna is addressed as infallible?
Maybe there's a third option: What if Krishna is submitting to a menial service AND He's infallible? That's what the Bhagavad-Gita states after all, As It Is, right here is verses 21 and 22. This brings us back to how we started this post: Krishna a) is a servant, b) is a friend, and now c) does not hesitate to follow Arjuna's orders. This all implies a deeply loving, trusting relationship. And a loving relationship means reciprocation.
No loving relationship can be sustained without reciprocation. Prabhupad emphasizes that in fact, "[Krishna] takes greater pleasure in His pure devotee's assuming the advantageous position of ordering Him than He does in being the giver of orders" (45). We can safely conclude Krishna actually feels greater pleasure to be ordered about (by His pure devotee), which is shown by his lack of hesitation to follow those orders, than to be at the helm of the chariot giving orders to Arjuna.
Thus, we now have a third direction, which is that Krishna IS a man in order to facilitate a loving relationship with his friend, Arjuna. At the same time, He is the Supreme Lord who has come in the form of a man in order to serve not only Arjuna but all souls who are inquiring about God and the nature of divine truth.
This means that we may all cultivate a loving friendship with Krishna, with God, a real person with a face and a smile. The goal, of course, would never be to order Him about. After all, Prabhupad writes that "The servitor is always ready to render service to the Lord, and, similarly, the Lord is always seeking an opportunity to render some service to the devotee" (45). This shows that in my eagerness to serve the Lord, there is simply a deep and natural reciprocation for God to be eager to serve me.
How wondrous that if I choose to serve Krishna, I am not emptying my soul and endeavors into a bottomless pit of "divine service" to an invisible God. Service means that I have a relationship with a person, and God actually takes pleasure in reciprocating with my heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment