In the Bhagavad-Gita,
the personal deity Krishna explains to Arjuna to process by which Krishna
becomes embodied. This raises the question, what is Krishna unembodied?
Although one candidate is Brahma, the personal god of creation, I contend that
the answer is Brahman, which is being, consciousness, and bliss. Brahman is
unmanifest, so how is it that being itself, even if conscious, can have
a will and a creative agency, or ability, to manifest as a personal deity? The
notion of Brahman is completely foreign to the Abrahamic religions, wherein a
personal deity is the creator and has perfect being. So it is worth
thinking about how, and even whether, a personal deity like Krishna can
manifest by the will and creative force (maya) of Brahman.
“Although [I am] unborn, the immutable Self, [and] although being the Lord of [all] beings—[yet] by governing My own nature (prakriti), I come-to-be through the creative-power (maya) of Myself.”[1] (Gita 4.6) Is “come-to-be” a good translation of smbhavamy? If so, the prime facie implication is that “the immutable Self,” which is “unborn” and “the Lord of [all] beings,” has no being (i.e., existence), for it comes-to-be when it is embodied, or born. Shakara describes brahman as unmanifest and immutable being, so there seems to be a contradiction, although Lord of [all] creatures (which can perhaps be finessed as “beings”) is used in the Upanishads for Brahma.
As described by Malinar, Krishna “makes the power of creation (prakrti 4.6) act according to his will and produce an outward form for him: ‘Although I am unborn and imperishable and the Lord of creatures indeed, I transform nature who is mine and take birth through (or as) an appearance of myself. The creative process described in this verse draws on two concepts: (1) prakrti, nature, the agent of creation according to Samkhya; and (2) maya, the exceptional power and capacity of gods and other beings to produce forms and disguises for themselves.”[2] Unlike the Feuersteins, Malinar uses “creatures” rather than “beings.” Also, prakriti is “the agent of creation” and maya pertains to “gods and other beings.” All this inclines me to conclude that Brahma rather than Brahman is the unembodied referent.
In Warrier’s translation of
Shakara’s commentary, the verse as: “Though unborn and though the immutable
Self and the Lord of all living beings, resorting to My power of becoming,
through My Maya, I take birth.”[3]
The use of the word, “becoming,” rather than coming-into-being obviates
problematic implication of no unembodied existence. Furthermore, the
problematic notion that the unembodied Krishna is Brahma, another personal
deity, can be tossed out because the unembodied Krishna is “the master of all
beings from Brahma down to a tuft of grass”.[4]
Also, “My power of becoming is all-pervasive,” which also fits with the nature
of the unmanifest Brahman becoming manifest.[5]
It is not as though unmanifest Brahman does not exist; in fact, it is being
(as well as consciousness and bliss, though Shankara denies the latter
attribute). But how can being and even consciousness itself have a will
and “cognitive power,” which “never wanes”?[6]
These attributes are more fitting for a personal deity, such as Brahma and an
embodied Krishna. I would expect Shankara to have done so, and regard them as maya
rather than having the reality of being.
1. Gita
4.6. Georg and Brenda Feuerstein, The Bhagavad-Gita: A New Translation
(Boston: Shambhala, 2011), p. 137.
2. Angelika
Malinar, The Bhagavadgita: Doctrines and Contexts (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), p. 95.
3. Shankara, Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhasya of Sri Samkaracarya. Trans. A. G.
Warrier (Madras, IN: Sri Ramakrishna Math), pp. 137-38.
4. Ibid., p. 138.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
