Gita 08.23 – The Gita unifies diverse Vedic concepts in a devotional framework
yatra kāle tv anāvṛttim
āvṛttiṁ caiva yoginaḥ
prayātā yānti taṁ kālaṁ
vakṣyāmi bharatarṣabha (Bg 8.23)
Word-for-word:
yatra — at which; kāle — time; tu — and; anāvṛttim — no return; āvṛttim — return; ca — also; eva — certainly; yoginaḥ — different kinds of mystics; prayātāḥ — having departed; yānti — attain; tam — that; kālam — time; vakṣyāmi — I shall describe; bharata-ṛṣabha — O best of the Bhāratas.
Translation:
O best of the Bhāratas, I shall now explain to you the different times at which, passing away from this world, the yogī does or does not come back.
Explanation:
yatra kāle tv anāvṛttim: At the time (kāla) when one does not return (anāvṛtti),
āvṛttiṁ caiva yoginaḥ: and also the time when yogis do return (āvṛtti),
prayātā yānti taṁ kālaṁ: Those who depart at those times attain that particular destination or result,
vakṣyāmi bharatarṣabha: O best of the Bharatas (Arjuna), I shall explain that to you.
Kṛṣṇa continues the earlier thread about the two kinds of departure—one that leads to returning and one that does not. He links this with another important Vedic theme: āvṛtti and anāvṛtti. Kṛṣṇa spoke of āvṛtti in 8.15 when He said:
ā-brahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥ
punar āvartino ’rjuna
mām upetya tu kaunteya
punar janma na vidyate
He explains that from the lowest to the highest planets, one must return again (punar āvartino ’rjuna). But if one attains His abode, then there is no return (punar janma na vidyate).
After stating this, He now explains how a similar pattern of returning or not returning applies when other factors are taken into account. Throughout the section from 8.14 to 8.22, Kṛṣṇa has been analyzing how worshipping Him and aiming for His abode ensures that one does not return, whereas going to any other abode inevitably results in returning.
In the broader Vedic tradition, it was understood that departing at one particular time leads to returning, whereas departing at another time leads to not returning. These two paths are known as devayāna and pitṛyāna. The question that naturally arises is how this traditional analysis of devayāna and pitṛyāna relates to Kṛṣṇa’s explanation here. Although Arjuna does not raise this question directly or explicitly, Kṛṣṇa anticipates this concern, since it is closely connected to the subject He is discussing.
For example, suppose someone tells us that taking a particular treatment will cure us, and doing something else will not. But earlier, we had heard an entirely different instruction—that doing a certain action will cure us, and not doing it will leave things unchanged or even make them worse. Naturally, we would seek clarification: how does what you are telling me now relate to what I heard earlier?
Similarly, during that time, there was a well-known understanding about devayāna and pitṛyāna. Arjuna might naturally wonder how this traditional framework relates to what Kṛṣṇa has just explained. Kṛṣṇa therefore summarizes the paths of devayāna and pitṛyāna, and then concludes by showing how the path of bhakti supersedes the technicalities of both.
One of the defining features of the Bhagavad-gītā is that it integrates the wide variety of methods found across the broad Vedic tradition. The Gītā brings all these diverse approaches together within a theistic, devotional framework. A Western Indologist once remarked that Hinduism is not a religion but a museum of religions—meaning that the diversity within it is so vast and varied that it could fill an entire museum. Indeed, the range of practices and beliefs under the umbrella of today’s Hinduism is immense, although much of what currently goes by that name has little to do with scriptural antecedents.
However, even within scriptures itself, there is a wide spectrum of diversity, meant to accommodate people of different natures. The broad Vedic culture recognizes that individuals function within different modes—sattva-guṇa (mode of goodness), rajo-guṇa (mode of passion), and tamo-guṇa (mode of ignorance)—and accordingly provides customized methods for their gradual elevation. Within this variegatedness, certain practices are recommended for those situated at a particular level. For instance, those in tamo-guṇa may be offered a specific form of worship or a particular kind of sādhana by which they can rise, even if only gradually, from their current state to a higher one.
That kind of worship may seem incomprehensible—or even odd and abhorrent—to those in sattva-guṇa if they lack a sympathetic and holistic understanding of the Vedic program. Therefore, Kṛṣṇa now explains how all these diverse practices relate to what He has been discussing. The manner in which the broad variety of Vedic paths can be integrated within the framework of Kṛṣṇa-bhakti is something Kṛṣṇa addresses at several places throughout the Bhagavad-gītā.
Thus, Kṛṣṇa goes far beyond the specifics of Arjuna’s question. Arjuna had asked whether it was right for him to fight, but he framed it more generically as: What is my dharma? In Bhagavad-gītā 2.7, he says:
kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ
pṛcchāmi tvāṁ dharma-sammūḍha-cetāḥ
His question is about dharma, and the very question “What is dharma?” is the defining question of the Mahābhārata itself. Therefore, while addressing Arjuna’s query on dharma, Kṛṣṇa also addresses the various themes and concepts that are connected with dharma.
The living Gītā tradition goes even further by addressing the universal principles of action, the consequences of action, and how one should decide what is the right thing to do. These themes are what make the Bhagavad-gītā a living text. When we study the Gītā today, we see that it takes a specific question and expands it to its universal dimensions. And it is these universal dimensions that, in turn, speak back to us and illuminate our own specific situations. This is how the Bhagavad-gītā remains an enduringly relevant book.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment