In chapter 11 of the Bhagavad-Gita,
Krishna reveals his real form to Arjuna. The chapter seems like a departure
from the surrounding chapters, which focus on bhukti (i.e., devotion to
Krishna). For example, in chapter 9, Krishna gives Arjuna the following
imperative: “Always think of Me and become my devotee.” Unlike seeing the deity
as he really is, sincere devotion to that which is based beyond the limits of
human cognition, perception, and emotion is possible without being given “divine
eyes.” The metaphysically, ontologically real is an attention-getter in the
text, but it is the devotion, or bhukti, that is more important from a
practical standpoint. Even theologically, the experience of transcendence, of
which the human brain is capable, can be said to be more important than “seeing”
divinity as it really is because the latter, unlike the former, lies beyond our
grasp. In fact, seeing Krishna as he really exists is not necessary, for in
chapter 10, Krishna says, “Here are some ways you can recognize and think of Me
in the things around you [in the world].” This is yet another reason why the
devotion rather than seeing Krishna as he really is, ontologically, should be
the attention-getter in the Gita.
A movie focusing on chapter 11
would highlight special effects, and indeed at least one does this to gaudy excess,
whereas a movie based on the compassion of Krishna and devotion of Arjuna would
be a melodrama, at least if Ramakrishna, a Hindu mystic who lived in the
nineteenth century, is any indication. His devotion was so intense that a guru
allowed Ramakrishna to perform ritual as he intuited. I contend that this,
rather than hoping to see the divine as it really is, ought to be the goal of a
religious person.
Benkata Bhatta, speaking at a
Bhakti Yoga Conference in 2025, asked why, given that Krishna tells Arjuna when
he is seeing Krishna as the deity really is, “Now see for yourself how
everything in creation is within Me,” why does Arjuna request to see Krishna as
the deity really is? Bhatta’s answer was that we are visual creatures. Hence, Jesus
says in the Gospels, blessed are those who do not see me yet believe. Yet even
in the case of Jesus, the incarnated Logos, he is not seen by even his
disciples as the Word itself, by which God created the world. In contrast, Krishna
is giving Arjuna a way of accessing something that is already there in front of
us, only Arjuna needs divine eyes to see Krishna as the deity really is. Just
before revealing Himself, Krishna tells Arjuna, “but you cannot see Me with our
present eyes. Therefore, I give you divine eyes.” Although Jesus’s disciples do
not see Jesus as the Logos, they do not need divine eyes to see Jesus ascending
to heaven as resurrected. The resurrected body is itself at least how the
incarnated Logos really is, even if it does not show the Logos as it is before being
incarnated by God’s self-emptying, or lowering, of itself. Paul’s vision of
Jesus, as well as that of the disciples when they see Jesus next to Elijah and Moses,
can also be said to be transcendent and thus as Jesus really is, as
incarnated. Nevertheless, it can be argued that seeing the Logos as it
really is, sans being incarnated, requires “divine eyes.”
In his talk, Bhatta said that
vision defies enumeration, and is brighter than “hundreds of thousands of suns.”
All living being. No beginning, middle or end; without limit or boundaries. How
can this be encapsulated in the vision?
A person would need divine eyes, which Krishna gives to Arjuna to see
Krishna as that Supreme Person is. Simultaneous unity and unending
multiplicity. Innumerable arms, faces, mouths, bellies, and many terrible
teeth. This is, I submit, intentionally overwhelming, and this can be treated
as an indication that being provided such a vision goes too far for us mere
mortals.
In The Idea of the Holy, Rudolf Otto’s
descriptors of terrifying, fancinating, mysterious pertaining to the human experience
of the holy aptly describe Arjuna’s reaction to seeing Krishna. For instance,
Arjuna says, “Oh great one, seeing this wondrous and terrible form. . . . Your
many terrible teeth; and as they are disturbed, so am I. . . . my mind is perturbed
by fear. I can no longer maintain my steadiness or equilibrium of mind.” Arjuna
sees the soldiers on both sides, their heads smashed by Krishna’s teeth. He is
bewildered, terrified, and humbled. “What are you?” Arjuna asks. Krishna
answers, “Time (or death) I am, the great destroyer of all worlds.” This ontological
basis of Krishna is the metaphysical basis of the Gita’s main ethical teaching
for Arjuna, who is in a confused state ethically on whether to fight against some
of his relatives on the battlefield in a civil war: death is already fated, so an
instrument. Don’t worry about the ethics of killing your former teachers and
even some of your relatives. Yet even as destiny exists, there is still space
for free will. Arjuna can decide to walk away from the battlefield.
Arjuna calls Krishna the god
of gods. Arjuna begs forgiveness for having been so informally friendly with the
supreme deity. “You are my dear friend, but simultaneously you are so much
greater than I am,” Arjuna now realizes. Krishna forgives Arjuna, and thus
treats the latter as a friend. Arjuna says, “I am gladdened, but at the same
time my mind is disturbed with fear . . .” According to Bhatta, Arjuna is
grateful for being shown the divine vision, but is also afraid—too much so, in
fact. The fear is making it difficult for Arjuna to love Krishna. So, Arjuna
asks to see the four-armed Narayana form of Krishna. The four-arms reminds him
that Krishna is the Supreme Person and yet is less terrifying. Krishna grants
this wish. To encourage Arjuna, Krishna further withdraws to a two-armed
human-like form. This is divinity seen as human-like, just as Jesus is the
Logos in human form. Just as seeing the Logos as it is may be too terrifying for
mere mortls, Arjuna tells Krishna, “Seeing this beautiful human-like form, now
I am myself . . .” Krishna sympathizes with the confused warrior, saying during
the vision, “this form of Mine you are now seeing is very difficult to behold.
The form you are seeing you’re your transcendental eyes cannot be understood
simply by studying the Vedas, or by undergoing serious penances, nor by
charity, nor by worship.” Lest this line be construed as privileging the ontological
vision over bhukti, Krishna goes on to say, “only by undivided
devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and thus
be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My
understanding . . .” Krishna appears to
be saying that only by bhukti can He not only be understood as he is, but
also seen, thus in a way that does not require divine eyes. To be sure, Arjuna
is able to see Krishna in human form (i.e., with only two arms) differently
after having seen the deity as He really is, but, according to Bhatta, the source
of divine power is coming down to a loving relationship with Arjuna. Even
though there is admittedly a power to having a healthy kind of fear if it
facilitates a fuller, personal, intimate relationship, for otherwise such a
relationship may be taken for granted, seeing Krishna as He really exists is
not necessary to be even intensely devoted to the deity and even
understanding and seeing the deity as it really is.
Therefore, reading the Gita
as if the vision in chapter 11 is the most important part may be a mistake
borne in part from the sensationalism of how the vision is described in the
text. The descriptors theorized by Otto, especially that of tremendum, can
and should be tempered, and this can be done by focusing on loving devotion
instead of a vision of a deity as it really is. It is not as if we have divine
eyes, whereas devotion to a transcendent entity or object is within our purview.
