This work mainly presents a hardcore moral criticism of the Bhagavad-gita, the criticism that the Gita in fact implies that

1. Krishna—the preacher of yoga—is not in the least a yogi himself,
2. Krishna alone is satanic (or evil), and
3. Krishna—for reasons other than the ones for which he is considered evil—is nothing short of a terrorist and the Gita is Hindu terrorism.

And, as a matter of necessity, it attempts to systematically dig into the Gita's metaphysical foundations, further examining the gravity of each criticism through monistic and dualistic metaphysical interpretations (or perspectives).

Finally, as a matter of example, it also cites some of the verses of the Quran that appear similar in meaning to the Gita’s satanic verses, thereby drawing parallels between the two seemingly antithetical religious texts. The work thus points out that although the Gita may not seem to be as directly and explicitly terroristic as the Quran, terrorism—the one against unbelievers, for instance—is equally inherent in the Gita and the Gita can be fairly interpreted as a book of terrorism.

The Criticism

1. Krishna—the preacher of yoga—is himself not a yogi

In the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna is hailed several times as not only a yogi but also as the Lord (or the God) of yoga, the great Lord of yoga, etc. And he demands Arjuna, and in fact every other mortal, to be a yogi, while contradictorily enticing him with material prospects and benefits. However, Krishna could not in fact be considered a yogi, basically because he claims to create the (painful) manifested world (Vyakta Prakriti), when, as a yogi, he, as Paramatman (i.e. Supreme Soul or Supersoul), would quite simply be expected to be content within himself (i.e. to be in the state of self-realization), and not to have any desire, including the desire for the action of creation, as it seems absurd that there can be a conscious action without any underlying desire whatsoever. Krishna is not the God of yoga but the "God of desire and hypocrisy"!

In other words, the idea of Nishkam Karma (or desireless action; i.e. conscious action with no underlying desire)—the principal tenet of Karma yoga—seems to be paradoxical and unmeaning. Karma yoga may make sense only to the extent that an aspiring yogi attempts to be as much desireless as possible while doing any conscious (material) action. Once the aspiring yogi becomes a (true) yogi, it would be perfectly meaningful that he has no desire left in him other than the desire for self-realization (Atma-sakshatkar) or God-realization (Krishna-sakshatkar) and thus performs no conscious action other than the one which is essential for the goal of self-realization or God-realization. The idea that Krishna is a true (or ultimate), self-realized yogi is thus contradictory to the idea that he creates the manifested world as a Karma yogi. Krishna’s supposed (conscious) act of perpetual creation of the manifested world cannot be without some underlying desire which is unworthy of a true yogi.

2. Krishna alone is satanic (or evil)

According to the Gita, it is Krishna who does everything, it is he who is responsible for every good as well as evil that exists in the world, and yet he proclaims to make it—the prospects of yoga—worse for evil people, asserts to annihilate miscreants, while contradictorily claiming to be the friend of every being. Krishna alone possesses free-will. Krishna alone creates delusion (or ignorance) and causes (unfathomable) suffering. Krishna—and Krishna alone—is evil.

So, for example, the Gita in fact implies that it is Krishna who created Duryodhana, the Mahabharata’s arch-antagonist; it is Krishna who is the actual doer of each of his evil deeds; and it is Krishna, and only Krishna, who prearranged the dreadful Kurukshetra War.

Sometimes it seems to be argued that Krishna lets pain and evil exist so that Man can understand the value of good. I disagree with such argument. First of all, if self-realization or God-realization is the only good, the only thing to be cherished, Krishna, the so called ultimate yogi, should only let the state of self-realization exist (i.e. should only be in the state of self-realization). It would be preposterous for a true yogi to be interested in anything other than self-realization or God-realization. Secondly, it appears impossible to appreciate that the unfathomable suffering in the “fatalistic” world exists just so that few “puppets” can understand the “value” of God-realization. The eternally blissful state of God-realization would in fact entail the understanding of its value irrespective of the way that state is attained. A deterministic world in which a lion, for example, must make a living by killing a weaker animal must be the work of an incalculable evil.

3. Krishna is nothing short of a terrorist and the Gita is Hindu terrorism

As per the Gita, a lot many modern women would be miscreants and thus would be on Krishna’s hit-list—threatened to death by him—since Krishna says that even women, vaisyas (i.e. merchants), sudras (i.e. low-level workers), or any people of sinful birth go to the highest goal, if they take his shelter; he further says that then how much more righteous brahmanas and devout King-sages!; which means that Krishna does not consider women to belong to the category of “righteous brahmanas”; so women are either unrighteous brahmanas or not brahmanas at all; if they are unrighteous brahmanas, they are unrighteous anyway, and if they are not brahmanas at all, then the women who do the works of brahmanas—e.g. the works of professional teachers—would be unrighteous, miscreants, for Krishna asks everyone from a division to do work only assigned for their division. It is in fact not only many of the modern women but people of other faiths too—people who do not believe in Krishna—such as atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., that could be supposed to be threatened with death by Krishna. Krishna—especially for most of the modern people—is therefore nothing short of a terrorist; and the Bhagavad-gita is “Hindu terrorism”!

This, of course, does not mean that anyone who preaches the Bhagavad-gita is necessarily a terrorist (or an accomplice of a terrorist), for they may be completely unaware of the terroristic message hidden in the Gita.

Note:

The full version of this work is available at SelectedWorks and at the Internet Archive. It includes vital references and explanatory notes, a section on the relationship between the metaphysics of the Gita and the moral criticism, the Gita’s parallelism with the Quran, as well as my review of the commentaries on the Gita. The full work shows, for instance, how verses 16:6–9, 4:8, and 9:11–13 in the Gita collectively imply that the Gita is in fact terroristic towards people of other faiths.

Let me also mention that I am not anti-Hindu; I am in fact an ardent believer and practicer of Hindu astrology and am an impassioned devotee of Lord Rama. Hindu astrology has appeared to me to be so profoundly and minutely true that I am on the verge of conviction that the ultimate truth is not beyond Hinduism, though that does not discourage me from questioning the morality of the Bhagavad-gita. Also, notwithstanding my harshest criticism of the Gita, I profoundly love the Gita for the very transcendental nature of its metaphysics and the beautiful language in which it has been expressed. And I deeply appreciate the noble spirit of Islam too. How beautiful and humane the Quranic verse 2:177 is, for example!