Looking at the Cultural Background 83

PURPORT

Sripada Sankaracarya was an impersonalist from the materialistic point
of view. But he never denied the spiritual form known as sac-cid-dnanda-
vigraha, or the eternal, all-blissful form of knowledge which existed
before the material creation. When he spoke of Supreme Brahman as im-
personal, he meant that the Lord’s sac-cid-dnanda form was not to be
confused with a material conception of personality. In the very beginning
of his commentary on the Gitd, he maintains that Narayana, the Supreme
Lord, is transcendental to the material creation. The Lord existed before
the creation as the transcendental personality, and He has nothing to do
with material personality. Lord Krsna is the same Supreme Personality,
and He has no connection with a material body. He descends in His
spiritual, eternal form, but foolish people mistake His body to be like
ours. Sankara’s preaching of impersonalism is especially meant for teach-
ing foolish persons who consider Krsna to be an ordinary man composed
of matter.

No one would care to read the Gita if it had been spoken by a material
man, and certainly Vydsadeva would not have bothered to incorporate it
mto the history of the Mahdbharata. According to the above verses,
Mahabharata is the history of the ancient world, and Vydsadeva is the
writer of this great epic. The Bhagavad-gita is identical with Krsna; and
because Krsna is the Absolute Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is
no difference between Krsna and His words. Therefore the Bhagavad-gita
is as worshipable as Lord Krsna Himself, both being absolute. One who
hears the Bhagavad-gitd ‘‘as is’’ actually hears the words directly from the
lotus lips of the Lord. But unfortunate persons say that the Gitd is too an-
tiquated for the modern man, who wants to find out God by speculation
or meditation.

—3-

I salute Thee, O Krsna,

O Thou who art the refuge
Of ocean-born Laksmi
And all who take refuge
At Thy lotus feet.

Thou art indeed

The wish-fulfilling tree
For Thy devotee.
