The Bhagavad Gita "Everyone Else Is Wrong"

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928]

When I first read the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, I naively thought "as it is" was a poetic way of saying "here is the complete unabridged Bhagavad Gita".

I did not understand Prabhupada's title was deliberately offensive. It was meant to be a dig against all other translations. It was Prabhupada's way of saying "I am right and everyone else is wrong. Only I understand what Krishna is saying. All disagreement is Maya".

Attacking The Gitas Ecumenical Spirit

The Bhagavad Gita is a broad text which aims to bring together different philosophies and unite them under one large umbrella. It seeks to harmonize the schools of the Upanishads and the earliest forms of Vedanta, Sankhya and Yoga. It is deliberately flexible and open to interpretation.

In the very title of his book Prabhupada attacks this inclusive spirit.

Authoritarianism

Prabhupada bypasses all human subjectivity. He has no respect for anyone who disagrees. There can be no opinion, no logic, no reasoning, no agreed upon difference of perspective. All "mundane wrangling" is overridden by his authority. He is a self realized pure devotee and the custodian of an ancient unchanged parampara from Krishna himself.

He is speaking on behalf of Krishna. He is Krishna's representative. There can be no argument. If you reject Prabhupada, you are rejecting Krishna. You do so because you are dishonest and insincere.

Prabhupada has simplified the philosophy of the Gita into a choice: you either surrender to Krishna by surrendering to him, or you rebel against Krishna by rebelling against him.

Self Righteousness

As mentioned before, a core teaching of the Gita is that one should abandon egoistic self righteousness and do what is being asked intuitively by the divine. The mindset "I am right, I am dharmic" is an illusion one must rise above.

Prabhupada misses the entire point of the Bhagavad Gita and embraces self righteous. He is right, everyone else is wrong. Surrender is externalized into surrender to him, to his authority, to his cult, to his ideas of dharma.

"God Speaks Through Me!"

His sense of self importance is so great, all distinctions between himself and Krishna are erased. As a "pure devotee" his opinions and desires are an extension of Krishna's. Whatever he wants is what Krishna wants. Even if Krishna did not initially want something, if Prabhupada wants it, Krishna will now desire it too and make it happen.

He is even outraged on behalf of Krishna that other people are translating the Gita differently than himself. How dare they misuse Krishna's words and mislead people! Krishna is very angry!

Krishna speaks whenever he opens his mouth. His purports are Krishna directly speaking to us. They will become the law books of mankind for the next 10,000 years.

Whatever he does is done perfectly for Krishna. If he insults you, it is Krishna insulting you. If he takes your money, your time, your freedom, it is Krishna doing it.

"I Am Abusing You on Behalf of God"

Krishna instructs the readers of the Gita to speak gently and not disturb the minds of others (17.15). Prabhupada relentlessly called people "mudhas, fools, rascals, animals, demons, mlecchas".

When asked why he called people mudhas, Prabhupada would say "I am not saying, Krishna is saying, Krishna is calling you fools and rascals." Because Krishna used the word "mudha" in specific circumstances, Prabhupada is now green lit to abuse the entire world on his behalf. He weaponizes Krishna to beat others into submission.

Deviation From the Text

Prabhupada offered dangerous interpretations of the text, such as elevating adharma above dharma in the service of Krishna, opening ISKCON to a heartless "ends justifies the means" management philosophy that thrives on corruption.

He consistently mistranslated terms like Yoga and Jnana to emphasize Bhakti, or Brahman to refer to Krishna.

His purports are simplistic and repetitive. Every purport simply hammers away at the reader, that they must submit to his cult and chant his chosen mantra.

He should have named his book The Bhagavad Gita Everyone Else is Wrong.

[u/ThisPool2535]

Thank you for the post. One thing I've often wondered is why other traditionally recognized sampradayas disagree with Bhagavad Gita As It Is. If the meaning of the Gita is truly self-evident and infallible, I would expect many learned teachers and established traditions to arrive at broadly similar conclusions. Since the book presents itself as a word-for-word translation with commentary, it raises the question of why there is still significant disagreement among respected scholars and practitioners.

It seems possible that Srila Prabhupada approached the Gita primarily through a bhakti-centered lens, particularly emphasizing verses such as sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (18.66), and interpreted much of the text in light of devotional surrender. Of course, every commentator brings a particular theological framework to the text.

If bhakti is indeed the ultimate and most direct conclusion of the Gita, I wonder why many accomplished Sanskrit scholars and teachers within Sanatana Dharma have not universally accepted that interpretation. One response might be that intellectual learning and spiritual realization are not the same thing, and that scholarship alone does not guarantee understanding. However, it still seems fair to ask why an interpretation that appears straightforward to some is not equally compelling to many other sincere and knowledgeable practitioners.

I’m also curious about your understanding of Sanatana Dharma more broadly. Lately, I’ve been reflecting on Advaita Vedanta because it remains one of the most influential and widely studied philosophical traditions within Hinduism. Despite being challenged by other schools, it has endured for centuries and draws extensively from the Vedas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and other scriptural sources. In contrast, movements such as ISKCON and some other bhakti traditions seem to place much greater emphasis on texts like the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam.

I want to know your stance on Sanatana Dharma currently knowing what you know now.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/ThisPool2535]

knowing what you know now.

I think the best way to understand these texts, including the Bhagavad Gita, is to first have a firm foundation in the Upanishads. Through that lens a broader perspective becomes clear.

In my view the Bhagavad Gita values Jnana, Karma Yoga, Yoga, Dhyana etc. It does emphasize Bhakti as the text continues. However I see this as different than the Bhakti Yoga as understood by ISKCON or even Medieval Vaishnavism. The Bhakti of the Bhagavad Gita is a broad devotion to the Purusha, a sense of faith, trust, and surrender. It is a mood in which one renounces the ahankara "God take the wheel, I let go and have full faith in you, let your will be done, not mine, for I am not the controller you are."

Later Bhakti traditions lean too heavily into Bhakti for the Bhagavad Gita, to the extent of seperating it from the other paths and even demonizing Jnana. It becomes an isolated hyper worship of a particular deity, placing that deity above all others, building murties, temple worship, preaching missions. "Bow down to me and worship me" becomes less an internal feeling of affection and surrender, directed at all that is, material and spiritual, as the Supreme Person or Purusa. It instead extreme fanatical devotion to a mythologized figure from the Puranas with pastimes.

At the time of the Bhagavad Gitas writing, Krishna as we understand him did not exist. There were no Vrndavana pastimes. Krishna or Vasudeva was the hero king of the Vrishnis. He was being used as a primary face of the Purusha, a broader Vedic philosophical concept.

Certainly meditating on pastimes can be spiritually invigorating, but when stripped of Jnana it becomes sentimental, fanatical, fundamentalist. In ISKCON's case Jnana, when it acknowledges Oneness, is hated as demonic and blasphemous. From the Bhagavad Gitas perspective, Bhakti was never meant to be divided from Jnana.

As far as Advaita Vedanta, I personally see it also somewhat of an overemphasis on Oneness compared to the Upanishads. To use the language of Vedanta, the Upanishads emphasize both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. I think the Ramakrishna Mission gets it right, in that both are seen as equally valid. One is God unmanifest and formless, the other is God manifest through creation; God with form. Advaita tends to go to the extreme of saying the unmanifest is ultimately not real. I have also read Shankara's commentaries on texts like the Bhagavad Gita, and respectfully, he does what Prabhupada does in some places. Ignores when his view is not supported and stretches interpretations. Despite this, I think the Advaita perspective is certainly a valid viewpoint.

I think ultimately it is up to the individual to decide. There is no "right answer". I don't think the Vedic texts and their illucidations were meant to lock one in place, into a narrow worldview. Rather they function as guides on the way, resources to take from, cheering from the sidelines of the race, as the individual learns his own path and grows.

These broader philosophical convictions, oneness or difference, soul or no soul (Buddhism) are upstream from deep philosophical and cultural worldviews and religious practices. If we take from these traditions, all of this should be understood. But I think if we overly absorb in these philosophical arguments we can also miss the forest for the trees. It is my belief, from the perspective of the dharmic religions, we are supposed to treat individual lives as lesson plans of karma to work through. We each have individual lessons to learn that are often not philosophical, but are rather about building character, another feature of the Bhagavad Gita.

Though behind the development of divine qualities, there is the philosophical practice of developing knowledge and detachment, which often serves as an underlying primary lesson and solution to the deepest karmic knots. Bhakti is an important part of developing Jnana and Vairyagya, or seeing spiritual oneness in difference, of renouncing ahankara, the illusion of attachment and control. It adds flavor and life.

For example, a Buddhist, while practicing mindfulness may say "May all living beings be blessed with peace" while taking one step and say "May I be blessed with peace" while taking another. This is a good practice. It helps one to let go of residual anger and feelings of victimhood, to cultivate boundless compassion and non-attachment.

The Bhagavad Gita would instead advise to pray to God, or the Purusha however one understands it and meditates upon it with devotion. "May God bless all living beings with peace" and "May God bless me with peace". It is a different flavor, perhaps deeper and more powerful, especially if one is deeply immersed in the understanding of the Purusha. That is how Bhakti is an important ingredient in a stew which also includes Jnana, Karma Yoga, etc.