Contents of the Gita Summarized
Chapter 2: Verse-12
The Mäyävädi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of mäyä, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krsna, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein.krsnaclearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanisads, will continue eternally. This statement of Krsna’s is authoritative because krsna cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then krsna would not have stressed it so much—even for the future. The Mäyävädi may argue that the individuality spoken of by krsnais not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Krsna’s individuality?krsna affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him.krsna has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gitahas no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gita is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gita. When one accepts krsnaas an ordinary man, the Gitaloses all importance. The Mäyävädi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for krsna to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great äcäryas like Sri Rämänuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gita that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to the teachings of the Gitais something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gitacan be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gitabe touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Mäyävädi explanation of the Gitais a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Mäyävädis and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Mäyävädi philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gita. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.