I shall simply put them forward for what they are worth. They are the results of my own investigations into various systems of philosophy and no higher authority is alleged to them. It is only with this view that I mean to put forward the few remarks I have to make.
You will remember that I gave an introductory lecture the last time we met here, and pointed out to you the fundamental notions which ought to be borne in mind in trying to understand the Bhagavad-Gita. I need not recapitulate all that I then said; it will be simply necessary to remind you that Krshna was intended to represent the Logos, which I shall hereafter explain at length; and that Arjuna, who was called Nara, was intended to represent the human monad.
The Bhagavad-Gita, as it at present stands, is essentially practical in it character and teachings, like the discourses of all religious teachers who have appeared on the scene of the world to give a few practical directions to mankind for their spiritual guidance. Just as the sayings of Christ, the discourses of Buddha, and the preachings of various other philosophers which have come down to us, are essentially didactic in character and practical in their tone, so is the Bhagavad-Gita. But these teachings will not be understood—indeed, in course of time they are even likely to be misunderstood—unless their basis is constantly kept in view. The Bhagavad-Gita