Gita 04.06 – Don’t presume familiarity with concepts due to familiarity with terms
ajo ’pi sann avyayātmā
bhūtānām īśvaro ’pi san
prakṛtiṁ svām adhiṣṭhāya
sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā (Bg 4.6)
Word-for-word:
ajaḥ — unborn; api — although; san — being so; avyaya — without deterioration; ātmā — body; bhūtānām — of all those who are born; īśvaraḥ — the Supreme Lord; api — although; san — being so; prakṛtim — in the transcendental form; svām — of Myself; adhiṣṭhāya — being so situated; sambhavāmi — I do incarnate; ātma-māyayā — by My internal energy.
Translation:
Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, by My internal energy I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.
Explanation:
Kṛṣṇa is here speaking the essential truth about His nature—how He is transcendental to matter and material existence, and how He appears within it.
ajo ’pi sann avyayātmā: Although I am unborn and imperishable.
Ajah (unborn) and avyayātmā (imperishable) are characteristics that apply even to the soul, but the next line describes a quality that is universal.
bhūtānām īśvaro ’pi san: Being the Lord of all living beings.
prakṛtiṁ svām adhiṣṭhāya: Still, I appear in My own original, transcendental nature.
sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā: I manifest Myself through My internal potency (ātma-māyā).
Kṛṣṇa manifests His appearance in this world through His internal potency. He appears by His own internal potency.
The concept of incarnation is found not only in the Vedic tradition but also in the Christian tradition. In fact, the English word “incarnation” was first used to describe the appearance of Jesus in this world. In the Christian worldview, God is often seen as remote and inaccessible. The idea is that the unknowable God became knowable through the personality of Jesus.
In the Nicene Creed of the Catholic Church, it is stated that the divinity of God manifested in the humanity of Jesus. This means that Christians acknowledge Jesus came as a human being. He had a physical body that bled when He was crucified—the nails pierced His body, and blood flowed out. In that sense, He had a material body.
Therefore, the word “incarnation” is appropriate. The root “carna” means “flesh.” We see this in terms like carnal desires—desires of the flesh, or desires for sense gratification—and carnivorous animals—those that eat flesh. So, “incarnation” literally means “to come in flesh.”
Unlike the conception of incarnation in which someone who is divine manifests within a material form, the Bhagavad-gītā presents a different understanding of the Lord’s appearance. Although the word “incarnation” is sometimes used to describe the Lord’s manifestation in this world, it is not the most appropriate term—because Kṛṣṇa does not assume a material form.
In fact, this is one of the defining differences between the impersonalist and the personalist views regarding Kṛṣṇa’s form. The impersonalists claim that when Brahman comes into contact with the mode of goodness, it manifests as Bhagavān. In their view, the very conception and manifestation of Bhagavān are products of illusion—something that must ultimately be transcended. For them, even the personal form of the Lord is temporary and illusory.
How do we go beyond this illusion? According to the impersonalist view, it is by realizing the impersonal Brahman—the formless, undifferentiated truth—as the highest reality. But Kṛṣṇa, in future verses, clearly states: mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat—“There is no truth higher than Me.”
Nowhere in this section does Kṛṣṇa suggest that there is some higher truth beyond Himself. On the contrary, He emphasizes that He manifests through material nature by His internal potency—prakṛtiṁ svām adhiṣṭhāya.
Although Kṛṣṇa appears in the material world, He does not assume a material form—He remains fully transcendental. He retains this transcendence through His miraculous internal potency.
This can be understood through an analogy: just as a person in charge of an electric power generator sees the same electricity being used for different purposes—whether it heats through a heater or cools through a cooler—from the generator’s perspective, it is the same current flowing. If the device at the receiving end is adjusted, then even the same output point—where earlier a cooling effect was produced—can now produce a heating effect.
Similarly, we understand that from Kṛṣṇa’s point of view, His material energy and His spiritual energy are both simply His energies. Material energy, in one sense, covers us with forgetfulness, while spiritual energy illuminates and clarifies our understanding. But from Kṛṣṇa’s perspective, both are acting under His will, fulfilling His purpose, according to the desires of the individual soul.
When Kṛṣṇa so desires, He can effortlessly adjust the workings of both material and spiritual energies. He can manifest within the material world without being touched by its influence.
By His inconceivable potency, even those with material vision are able to see Him when He appears. Yet, although they see Him with their eyes, they fail to grasp His true identity. That realization requires divine grace—a special blessing.
Kṛṣṇa is stating here that it is He who manifests according to His own nature. When we say that the word “incarnation” is not fully appropriate to describe the divine descent, a natural question arises: then why did Śrīla Prabhupāda use it?
Śrīla Prabhupāda faced the formidable task of presenting a profound philosophy to an audience vastly different—culturally, intellectually, religiously, linguistically, and educationally—from the original audience of the Bhagavad-gītā. Conveying the Gītā’s message to such a diverse and unfamiliar audience was an extraordinary challenge, and Śrīla Prabhupāda succeeded remarkably in that endeavor. That success, in itself, is truly noteworthy.
Śrīla Prabhupāda sought to keep things as simple and accessible as possible. That is why, when presenting the Gītā’s message in English, he often chose familiar terms that were intelligible to his audience—even if those terms carried the risk of being misunderstood. He used such words deliberately and then clarified or redefined their meanings in accordance with the principles of our philosophy.
Imagine there is a large suitcase that needs to be lifted—but it has no visible handle. Without a handle, lifting it becomes extremely difficult. And if the handle is not only hidden but also undetectable, the task becomes even more challenging.
In the same way, the concept we are trying to grasp—the inner understanding of the term “avatāra,” the descent of the Divine into this world as explained in the Gītā and Vedic literature—is like that heavy suitcase. Intellectually lifting it, or comprehending its depth, is not easy.
Just as a handle makes it easier to lift a suitcase, similarly, having a familiar term to describe a complex concept helps us access it—it becomes easier to analyze, comprehend, and articulate. Śrīla Prabhupāda offered familiar “handles” for unfamiliar ideas.
Instead of overwhelming his audience with both an unfamiliar concept and an unfamiliar term, he chose to simplify one aspect—the verbal—so the intellectual could be more approachable. Concepts are internal—they must be processed mentally or intellectually—whereas terms are external and verbal. When both the terminology and the ideas are unfamiliar, it creates a double unfamiliarity that can be overwhelming. Readers might put the book down, thinking, “I can’t understand any of this—there are too many unfamiliar Sanskrit words.”
Hence, Śrīla Prabhupāda kept the terms familiar by providing accessible handles for people to grasp the concepts. But he didn’t stop there—he offered detailed commentaries in which he clarified and redefined the meanings in line with the Vedic worldview. In this way, he made a message that is otherwise difficult to understand not only accessible but deeply meaningful. That is the mark of his sheer genius.
We too can use the word “incarnation,” as long as we take care to clarify its meaning. Another suitable word is “descent.” That which exists in the transcendent realm—the Absolute Truth—manifests in this world. Avatārati iti avatāra—He who descends is called an avatāra.
Of course, nowadays the word “avatar” has also become common, thanks to video games and other entertainment platforms where people create their own avatars. In such contexts, the term is not used in its philosophically precise sense. However, because the word has entered common usage and become familiar, we can use the word avatar as well—while offering clarification when needed.
The important point to understand is that even when Kṛṣṇa descends into this world, He remains unaffected. He is never touched by material nature—He always remains transcendental. The details of when He descends, and why He descends, will be explained in the next verse.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment