Bhagavad Gita without Krishna ?

The third paragraph to the Preface of the Bg reads as such:

“If personally I have any credit in this matter, it is only that I have tried to present Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any adulteration. Before my presentation of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, almost all the English editions of Bhagavad-gītā were introduced to fulfill someone's personal ambition. But our attempt, in presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, is to present the mission of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa.”

The key point here is that Bg was presented As It Is in order to present the ‘mission’ of Krsna.

Prabhupada wanted to get across Krsna’s instructions – unadulterated – to the world.

He did not want Krsna’s words to be sullied by personal opinion.

“Our business is to present the will of Kṛṣṇa, not that of any mundane speculator like the politician, philosopher or scientist, for they have very little knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, despite all their other knowledge.”

This is true as most of these men are not devotees of Krsna wanting to promote Krsna but are wanting to promote themselves.

In this respect they do not care to carefully scrutinize the words of Krsna in order to seek to understand what He has to say.

When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māḿ namaskuru [Bg. 18.65], etc., we, unlike the so-called scholars, do not say that Kṛṣṇa and His inner spirit are different. Kṛṣṇa is absolute, and there is no difference between Kṛṣṇa's name, Kṛṣṇa's form, Kṛṣṇa's qualities, Kṛṣṇa's pastimes, etc. This absolute position of Kṛṣṇa is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa in the system of paramparā (disciplic succession).

Prabhupada says that not only do you have to be a devotee of Krsna to understand Him but that you have to be in the parampara succession also.

Why?

Well how can we know someone if we are not favorably disposed towards them?

We will criticize, minimize or make judgments of him/her whom we do not know so well and do not seek to know.

The parampara can be compared to being favorably situated in someone’s family or friend circle.

These people will vouch for you and not interpret what you are all about but rather act as well wishers.

The difference being that in the parampara system all acknowledge that Krsna is the Supreme Lord … a fact that might not so easily rest among one’s own mundane family or friends about us !

Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svāmīs, without perfect knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, try to banish or kill Kṛṣṇa when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gītā is known as Māyāvāda-bhāṣya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gītā from the Māyāvādī point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gītā will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead.

It seems that non-devotees of Krsna do not want Krsna in the Bg as He gets in the way of their so-called knowledge and motives.

But how can you bump off the chief protagonist of the movie and write a review?

Where would ‘The Wizard of Oz’ be without us mentioning Dorothy in the write up? Silly example I know but the point is that those who push aside Krsna in their presentation of the Bg only serve to reveal that a) they have not understand the purpose of Krsna and b) that they are not willing to accept His Supreme Position.

In the Bg it is this man called Krsna who reveals the Universal Form, this man goes onto instruct Arjuna on life and death, karma, material energy, time etc. and keeps coming back to the point that He – Krsna – is the source of everything.  That means that this man called Krsna who is the person talking to Arjuna is God.

At least if you do not accept Krsna as God than at least you can ‘interpret’ you reading of this book by theoriically accepting it as such.

Just as if I read the Bible and write a review I have to acknowled the personality called Jesus – if I do not and make him out to be a myth or an ordinary man – that would mean I am motivated in some way.

At least some basic respect for the protagonist of the Bible should be there and he should not be dismissed just as a mundane film critic will write up a rewiew about a movie and acknowledged the presnce of the ‘hero’ in the film.

If he did not mention him than that critic would not be seen as a very good critic as he has obviously missed the point .. or not even seen the movie and just wrote whatever he wanted to.