How to Present Bhagavad-gétä As It Is

From Preface, Bhagavad-gétä As It Is

If personally I have any credit in this matter, it is only that I have tried to present Bhagavad-gétä as
it is, without any adulteration. Before my presentation of Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, almost all the English
editions of Bhagavad-gétä were introduced to fulfill someone’s personal ambition. But our attempt, in
presenting Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, is to present the mission of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kåñëa.
Our business is to present the will of Kåñëa, not that of any mundane speculator like the politician,
philosopher or scientist, for they have very little knowledge of Kåñëa, despite all their other knowledge.
When Kåñëa says, man-manä bhava mad-bhakto mad-yäjé mäà namaskuru [Bg. 18.65], etc., we, unlike the
so-called scholars, do not say that Kåñëa and His inner spirit are different. Kåñëa is absolute, and there is no
difference between Kåñëa’s name, Kåñëa’s form, Kåñëa’s qualities, Kåñëa’s pastimes, etc. This absolute
position of Kåñëa is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of Kåñëa in the system of
paramparä (disciplic succession). Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svämés,
without perfect knowledge of Kåñëa, try to banish or kill Kåñëa when writing commentary on Bhagavad-
gétä. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gétä is known as Mäyäväda-bhäñya, and Lord
Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to
understand Bhagavad-gétä from the Mäyävädé point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such
a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gétä will certainly be bewildered on the path of
spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead.
Our only purpose is to present this Bhagavad-gétä As It Is in order to guide the conditioned student
to the same purpose for which Kåñëa descends to this planet once in a day of Brahmä, or every
8,600,000,000 years. This purpose is stated in Bhagavad-gétä, and we have to accept it as it is; otherwise
there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad-gétä and its speaker, Lord Kåñëa. Lord Kåñëa first
spoke Bhagavad-gétä to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. We have to accept this fact
and thus understand the historical significance of Bhagavad-gétä, without misinterpretation, on the authority
of Kåñëa. To interpret Bhagavad-gétä without any reference to the will of Kåñëa is the greatest offense. In
order to save oneself from this offense, one has to understand the Lord as the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, as He was directly understood by Arjuna, Lord Kåñëa’s first disciple. Such understanding of
Bhagavad-gétä is really profitable and authorized for the welfare of human society in fulfilling the mission
of life.

From Introduction, Bhagavad-gétä As It Is

Bhagavad-gétä is also known as Gétopaniñad. It is the essence of Vedic knowledge and one of the
most important Upaniñads in Vedic literature. Of course there are many commentaries in English on the
Bhagavad-gétä, and one may question the necessity for another one. This present edition can be explained in
the following way. Recently an American lady asked me to recommend an English translation of Bhagavad-
gétä. Of course in America there are so many editions of Bhagavad-gétä available in English, but as far as I
have seen, not only in America but also in India, none of them can be strictly said to be authoritative because
in almost every one of them the commentator has expressed his own opinions without touching the spirit of
Bhagavad-gétä as it is.
The spirit of Bhagavad-gétä is mentioned in Bhagavad-gétä itself. It is just like this: If we want to
take a particular medicine, then we have to follow the directions written on the label. We cannot take the
medicine according to our own whim or the direction of a friend. It must be taken according to the directions
on the label or the directions given by a physician. Similarly, Bhagavad-gétä should be taken or accepted as
it is directed by the speaker Himself. The speaker of Bhagavad-gétä is Lord Çré Kåñëa. He is mentioned on
every page of Bhagavad-gétä as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Bhagavän. Of course the word
bhagavän sometimes refers to any powerful person or any powerful demigod, and certainly here bhagavän
designates Lord Çré Kåñëa as a great personality, but at the same time we should know that Lord Çré Kåñëa
is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is confirmed by all great äcäryas (spiritual masters) like
Çaìkaräcärya, Rämänujäcärya, Madhväcärya, Nimbärka Svämé, Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu and many other
authorities of Vedic knowledge in India. The Lord Himself also establishes Himself as the Supreme
Personality of Godhead in the Bhagavad-gétä, and He is accepted as such in the Brahma-saàhitä and all the
Puräëas, especially the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, known as the Bhägavata Puräëa (kåñëas tu bhagavän svayam

1
[SB 1.3.28]). Therefore we should take Bhagavad-gétä as it is directed by the Personality of Godhead
Himself. In the Fourth Chapter of the Gétä (4.1–3) the Lord says:
[Sanskrit omitted]
Here the Lord informs Arjuna that this system of yoga, the Bhagavad-gétä, was first spoken to the
sun-god, and the sun-god explained it to Manu, and Manu explained it to Ikñväku, and in that way, by
disciplic succession, one speaker after another, this yoga system has been coming down. But in the course of
time it has become lost. Consequently the Lord has to speak it again, this time to Arjuna on the Battlefield of
Kurukñetra.
He tells Arjuna that He is relating this supreme secret to him because Arjuna is His devotee and His
friend. The purport of this is that Bhagavad-gétä is a treatise which is especially meant for the devotee of the
Lord. There are three classes of transcendentalists, namely the jïäné, the yogé and the bhakta, or the
impersonalist, the meditator and the devotee. Here the Lord clearly tells Arjuna that He is making him the
first receiver of a new paramparä (disciplic succession) because the old succession was broken. It was the
Lord’s wish, therefore, to establish another paramparä in the same line of thought that was coming down
from the sun-god to others, and it was His wish that His teaching be distributed anew by Arjuna. He wanted
Arjuna to become the authority in understanding the Bhagavad-gétä. So we see that Bhagavad-gétä is
instructed to Arjuna especially because Arjuna was a devotee of the Lord, a direct student of Kåñëa, and His
intimate friend. Therefore Bhagavad-gétä is best understood by a person who has qualities similar to
Arjuna’s. That is to say he must be a devotee in a direct relationship with the Lord. As soon as one becomes
a devotee of the Lord, he also has a direct relationship with the Lord. That is a very elaborate subject matter,
but briefly it can be stated that a devotee is in a relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in one
of five different ways:
1. One may be a devotee in a passive state;
2. One may be a devotee in an active state;
3. One may be a devotee as a friend;
4. One may be a devotee as a parent;
5. One may be a devotee as a conjugal lover.
Arjuna was in a relationship with the Lord as friend. Of course there is a gulf of difference between
this friendship and the friendship found in the material world. This is transcendental friendship, which
cannot be had by everyone. Of course everyone has a particular relationship with the Lord, and that
relationship is evoked by the perfection of devotional service. But in the present status of our life, not only
have we forgotten the Supreme Lord, but we have forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord. Every
living being, out of the many, many billions and trillions of living beings, has a particular relationship with
the Lord eternally. That is called svarüpa. By the process of devotional service, one can revive that svarüpa,
and that stage is called svarüpa-siddhi—perfection of one’s constitutional position. So Arjuna was a
devotee, and he was in touch with the Supreme Lord in friendship.
How Arjuna accepted this Bhagavad-gétä should be noted. His manner of acceptance is given in the
Tenth Chapter (10.12–14):
[Sanskrit omitted]
“Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the
Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great
sages such as Närada, Asita, Devala, and Vyäsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are
declaring it to me. O Kåñëa, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me. Neither the demigods nor the
demons, O Lord, can understand Your personality.”
After hearing Bhagavad-gétä from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Arjuna accepted Kåñëa as
paraà brahma, the Supreme Brahman. Every living being is Brahman, but the supreme living being, or the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the Supreme Brahman. Paraà dhäma means that He is the supreme rest
or abode of everything; pavitram means that He is pure, untainted by material contamination; puruñam
means that He is the supreme enjoyer; çäçvatam, original; divyam, transcendental; ädi-devam, the Supreme
Personality of Godhead; ajam, the unborn; and vibhum, the greatest.
Now one may think that because Kåñëa was the friend of Arjuna, Arjuna was telling Him all this by
way of flattery, but Arjuna, just to drive out this kind of doubt from the minds of the readers of Bhagavad-
gétä, substantiates these praises in the next verse when he says that Kåñëa is accepted as the Supreme
Personality of Godhead not only by himself but by authorities like Närada, Asita, Devala and Vyäsadeva.
These are great personalities who distribute the Vedic knowledge as it is accepted by all äcäryas. Therefore
Arjuna tells Kåñëa that he accepts whatever He says to be completely perfect. Sarvam etad åtaà manye: “I

2
accept everything You say to be true.” Arjuna also says that the personality of the Lord is very difficult to
understand and that He cannot be known even by the great demigods. This means that the Lord cannot even
be known by personalities greater than human beings. So how can a human being understand Lord Çré
Kåñëa without becoming His devotee?
Therefore Bhagavad-gétä should be taken up in a spirit of devotion. One should not think that he is
equal to Kåñëa, nor should he think that Kåñëa is an ordinary personality or even a very great personality.
Lord Çré Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So according to the statements of Bhagavad-gétä or
the statements of Arjuna, the person who is trying to understand the Bhagavad-gétä, we should at least
theoretically accept Çré Kåñëa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and with that submissive spirit we
can understand the Bhagavad-gétä. Unless one reads the Bhagavad-gétä in a submissive spirit, it is very
difficult to understand Bhagavad-gétä, because it is a great mystery.

From lecture on Bhagavad-gétä 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 19, 1972

So actually knowledge is coming from Kåñëa. So our proposal is, we are receiving knowledge, this
Bhagavad-gétä, Kåñëa is directly giving you the knowledge. So we have to accept it as it is. We cannot
interpret Bhagavad-gétä in my own way. That is not Bhagavad-gétä. That is something else. They take
advantage of the Bhagavad-gétä and put their own conclusion. That is not Bhagavad-gétä. If you want to
study Bhagavad-gétä, then you have to study as it is. Then it is nice.
In the Bhagavad-gétä it is said, Kåñëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Aham ädir hi
devänäm [Bg. 10.2]. Ahaà sarvasya prabhavo mattaù sarvaà pravartate [Bg. 10.8], mäm eva ye
prapadyante mäyäm etäà taranti te, nänyat parataram [Bg. 7.14]. So these are the statements in the
Bhagavad-gétä. Sarva-dharmän parityajya mäm ekaà çaraëaà vraja [Bg. 18.66]. If we do not accept
Bhagavad-gétä in terms of the statements given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then it is useless. It
is simply waste of time. You cannot make any commentary of your poor knowledge. There is nothing very
difficult to understand in the Bhagavad-gétä. It is written in very simple Sanskrit word, and things are very
clear. As clear as the sunlight. Where is the question of showing the sunlight or the sun-god with your lamp?
Suppose now here is sunlight, sufficient light. We can see the sun and everything very clearly. If somebody
brings some lamp and says, “Now I shall show you what is sun,” it is useless. Bhagavad-gétä is clear itself.
Just like the sunlight. It does not require any lamp-bearer to show the Bhagavad-gétä or Kåñëa. It does not
require. You try to see Bhagavad-gétä as it is. Then you will be benefited. Otherwise, you’ll be misled.
Just like in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gétä it is said, dharma-kñetre kuru-kñetre samavetä
yuyutsavaù, mämakäù päëòaväç caiva kim akurvata saïjaya [Bg. 1.1]. It is very clear. Dharma-kñetre.
Kurukñetra is dharma-kñetra. Still. There is Kurukñetra. All of you know. And it is dharma-kñetra. People
go for pilgrimage. And in the Vedas also it is stated that kuru-kñetre dharmam äcaret. One should go to
Kurukñetra and perform religious rituals there. So it is dharma-kñetra by Vedic version, by practical
example. Dharma-kñetre kuru-kñetre [Bg. 1.1]. But somebody’s interpreting Kurukñetra as this body. From
which dictionary he can get this meaning, that Kurukñetra means this body? This kind of interpretation is
going on. But our proposition is that if you want to be benefited by reading Bhagavad-gétä, don’t read such
malinterpretation. Read Bhagavad-gétä as it is. Then you will be benefited. Kuru-kñetre dharma-kñetre. It is
a fact. Kurukñetra is dharma-kñetra. Samavetä yuyutsavaù: [Bg. 1.1] And the persons assembled there,
namely, the Päëòavas and the Kauravas, they wanted to fight. Yuyutsavaù. That’s all right. Where is the
interpretation? They wanted to fight. They selected a nice place, dharma-kñetra, Kurukñetra, and there they
fought. So it is, meaning is clear. Why there should be interpretation that “The Päëòava means the five
senses and the Kurukñetra means this body”? Why? Why? Where is the necessity of such interpretation?
Interpretation is required where things are not clear. Actually, we do interpret. Just like in the law court, if
some clause is not very clear, the lawyers interpret: “It may be like this, it may be like that.” But when the
things are clear, there is no question of interpretation. That is the system. Amongst the scholars, if things are
clear, there should be no interpretation.
So Bhagavad-gétä, in each and every verse, the things are very, very clear, as clear as the sunshine.
So there is no question of interpretation. Our, this publication of Bhagavad-gétä, we have therefore
mentioned: Bhagavad-gétä As It Is. Because there are six hundred and forty different editions of Bhagavad-
gétä, and almost every one of them has got a different interpretation. That is the system going on now.
Therefore, before me, many persons, many swamis, went to Western countries and they presented
Bhagavad-gétä in their own way, but not a single person became a devotee of Kåñëa. Throughout the whole
history. Now Bhagavad-gétä is being presented as it is, and thousands of them are becoming devotee of

3
Kåñëa. Practical. Thousands of them. The simple thing. I presented Kåñëa as the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, and they accepted it, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and by following the principles, within
the four years, so many devotees of Kåñëa have come out. Because there was no adulteration. So our request
is try to understand Bhagavad-gétä without adulteration. Try to understand Bhagavad-gétä as it is presented.
Then you will get knowledge. Otherwise, you will remain in the same ignorance, before reading Bhagavad-
gétä and after reading Bhagavad-gétä. This is our proposal.

From lecture on Bhagavad-gétä 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966

It is better to accept this version without unnecessarily commenting it or interpreting it in a different way so
that one... Interpretation is very bad. You see? A scripture should not be interpreted. A scripture should be
taken as it is, as it is. And besides that, interpretation... When interpretation is required? When a thing is not
properly understood, at that time, interpretation is required. Otherwise, there is no necessity of interpretation.
Just like you..., that “Such and such village” or “such and such town is on the sea.” Somebody says. Now,
the person who hears that “Such and such town is on the sea,” and he may be confused: “How is that? On
the, on the water, how there can be a town?” So there is explanation required. Now that explanation is that “
‘On the sea’ does not mean ‘in the midst of the sea,’ but ‘on the bank of the sea.’ ” Here is an interpretation.
So similarly, a thing which is very clear to everyone, so there is no necessity of interpretation. Here the, the
statement of Bhagavad-gétä as by, spoken by Lord Kåñëa, is very clear . . . .

Room Conversation With John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison -- September 11, 1969,
London, At Tittenhurst

Prabhupäda: There are different translations. Therefore I have given this edition, Bhagavad-gétä As It Is.
There are interpretations. In many translations they have got interpretations. Not only in other parts of the
world, but in our own country also. Just like Mahatma Gandhi. He was a great man. He has also interpreted.
But the point is interpretation where required. Now, here is a fountain pen box. Everyone knows this is a
fountain pen box. But if I say, “No, this is something else.” That is my interpretation. Is that very nice thing?
(Chuckling) Similarly, interpretation is required when things are not understood clearly. If everybody can
understand this box is a fountain pen box, where is the necessity of interpretation? This is the first thing. So
Bhagavad-gétä is so clear. It is just like sunlight. Sunlight does not require any other lamp.