Bhagavad Gita controversy

[leyh]

Originally posted by Pritesh01:

PAMHO. AGTSP.

It's these kind of arguments given by this A.L. Basham person

which are why nondevotees should never speculate on Krishna conscious

philosophy. To hear such speculation has a poisonous effect and leads

one to the darkest regions of delusion. What is this business that a

'noted historian' has any authority to denounce that Krishna is the

Supreme Personality of Godhead and not an ordinary man or politician?

For Bhagavad-Gita to be understood as it is it must be heard from a

bona fide representative in parampara disciplic succession and not

based on the manufactured interpretations that suit the whimsy of

one's sense of history and neglects actual spiritual instuction.

Bhakti yoga means prioritizing Krishna's desires over our own, so no

one broadcasting some nonsense that Krishna is an ordinary mortal

blatantly advertises his complete ingorance in the matter. University

scholorships have no value in determining matters relating to the

Absolute. Krishna has very carefully laid out a clear path to Him and

for some mundane scholar to attempt to sully that instruction for the

sake of increasing his own name and fame is certainly an offense. It

is important to learn to avoid these kinds of Vaishnava aparadhas.

Hi Pritesh01 Prabhu:

 

Please accept my humble obeisances.All Glories to Srila Prabhupada

 

I am not an authority on Bhagavad-gita and I'm afraid I can't make any substantial contribution to this discussion,however I would like to point out that although from a Krsna Conscious point of view,it is not appropriate for non-devotees to speculate about Bhagavad-gita,such speculations do exist --- both within and without the academic world,and it is not enough to dismiss them as "Vaisnava aparadha" and pretend that they do not exist.Because people who are potential devotees might eventually ask speculative questions about Bhagavad-gita like:"How could it be possible for Krsna to give a discourse of seven hundred verses to Arjuna even though a battle was about to begin?"

 

IMHO,Devotees should be exposed,or at least have some idea of what the mundane scholars say about Bhagavad-gita and other transcendental literatures,because like it or not,these scholars do carry some influence in this world and we need to understand the nature and the specifics of this influence to transform it.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 05-15-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Very nice points Leyh prabhuji. I said something on similar lines, but your words are more apt. Avinash prabhuji and J N Das prabhuji, thanks for the references. I will present the 3rd argument tomorrow. Till then other viewpoints on argument # 2 are welcome.

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

For someone to be a devotee, he has to atleast assume,

 

1. There was a Krishna.

2. Krishna was an incarnation of God.

3. The BG is authentic scripture free of any interpolation.

 

 

Let me go from point # 3 backwards. One can certainly say with authority that BG is without interpolation because we don't have 2 conflicting recensions. Interpolations always result in multiple recensions, as can be seen in the case of Ramayana or Mahabharata. So, any historian who claims that BG was interpolated should substantiate sucha claim by producing 2 conflicting recensions. The same for vedas too. Every Indologist is at loss to explain as to why they have been preserved intact, in every corner of India. Generally, they avoid discussing that as it would sabotage their very existence.

 

Now a theist has a strong case. He can certainly argue that while puranas were interpolated, BG and vedas were untouched as they were the spoken words of God and revelations respectively. This doesn't prove that to be so, but their stance is intrinsically stronger than that of Indologists. Otherwise, nothing on earth can explain as to why these were preserved in the original form everywhere. As a corollary, this lends credence to a theist's argument that Krishna is Supreme. This again, is not a proof, but inherently stronger and more logical than the argument of Indologists.

 

 

[shvu]

 

Karthik,

 

There are multiple recensions of the BG. The Kashmiri BG has some verses different from the standard version. Also, the Brahma-sutra reference in the BG is 13.4 in some editions and 13.5 in other editions. While variations may be minor, it still goes to show that the BG is not free of interpolation, per se. If the Mahabharata was reworked time and again, it is possible the BG also was, at an earlier point of time.

 

The Shukla Yajur is also available in two recensions, Kanva and Maadhyandina. Among other differences, some verses of the Brhadaaranyka are different between these two recensions. Kanva is more prominent in South India with the other one being common the North. Shankara et al., commmented on the Kanva recension.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

A L Basham's argument # 2:

 

"Only chapters 1 and 2 are related to the context of Kurukshetra war. The remaining chapters are out of context. The moral quandary of Arjuna is directly answered with verse 38 of chapter 2. These 2 chapters pose the moral dilemma of whether to fight or not and Krishna gives a convincing answer in these 2 chapters. So, only these 2 chapters formed the original BG.

There are references to the war even up to the last verse in the Gita. So this relevance argument is irrelevant.

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

A L Basham's argument # 2 (contd.):

 

There is further evidence to this. In the Asvamedha parvan of Mahabharat, there is an Anu Gita. This describes events that happened long after Mahabharat. Here the Pandavas are ruling peacefully. Krishna visits them and Arjuna tells him that he has forgotten all that taught by Krishna in the battlefield and requests Him to repeat them. Krishna says that He can't repeat everything and adds "I already declared the highest Brahman to you". Then He gives a discourse that talks about Brahman, guna and Samkhya philosophy. Yet there is not one reference to Bhakti. Nor is there any mention of Krishna's divinity.

 

All these prove that Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 and 2 of BG, was original and all the other chapters of BG were later interpolations."

Krishna's divinity can be established with just the first two words of the Gita. What to speak of the first two chapters ? If we take the first two chapters, we have ample evidence to establish His divinity. The concept of surrender (prappatti) - the key element of bhakti yoga - is established when Arjuna says, "sAdhi mAm tvAm prapannam". If Anu Gita is in line with Gita's 1 st and 2 nd chapters, then it must also talk of Krishna's divinity and bhakti. It is paradoxical to say that Anu Gita is in line with the first two chapters of the Gita and say that it does not talk of divnity of the Lord and bhakti.

 

The first two chapters address the moral dilemma relevant to the battlefied. Is it not ridiculous that the Anu Gita which is no where connected to the battlefield talks of the same topics ?

 

I dont mind continuing the discussion. But can we call it Bhashyam's jokes ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-16-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-16-2002).]

[shvu]

It's these kind of arguments given by this A.L. Basham person which are why nondevotees should never speculate on Krishna conscious philosophy.

I wonder why. But we will move on for now.

 

To hear such speculation has a poisonous effect and leads one to the darkest regions of delusion. What is this business that a 'noted historian' has any authority to denounce that Krishna is the

Supreme Personality of Godhead and not an ordinary man or politician?

 

Because he is a historian and is trying to recreate what may have happened based on whatever evidence is available. btw, the devotee is speculating too. For someone to be a devotee, he has to atleast assume,

 

1. There was a Krishna.

2. Krishna was an incarnation of God.

3. The BG is authentic scripture free of any interpolation.

 

Given the above, how is the devotee better than the historian? At least the historian uses the word probably, thus showing he is more realistic by acknowledging he may be wrong.

 

For Bhagavad-Gita to be understood as it is it must be heard from a bona fide representative in parampara disciplic succession and not based on the manufactured interpretations that suit the whimsy of

one's sense of history and neglects actual spiritual instuction.

 

Says who, may I ask? Anyway, even if it were so, there is no Parampara from Krishna - Arjuna continuing down to any modern day Guru and hence claims of following a Parampara hold no meaning, whatsoever.

 

Bhakti yoga means prioritizing Krishna's desires over our own, so no one broadcasting some nonsense that Krishna is an ordinary mortal blatantly advertises his complete ingorance in the matter.

 

FYI, Basham is not establishing Bhakti Yoga. As an historian he is dating/assessing the authenticity of ancient works.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by Ram:

If Anu Gita is in line with Gita's 1 st and 2 nd chapters, then it must also talk of Krishna's divinity and bhakti. It is paradoxical to say that Anu Gita is in line with the first two chapters of the Gita and say that it does not talk of divnity of the Lord and bhakti.

 

The first two chapters address the moral dilemma relevant to the battlefied. Is it not ridiculous that the Anu Gita which is no where connected to the battlefield talks of the same topics ?

 

I dont mind continuing the discussion. But can we call it Bhashyam's jokes ?

I don't know from where you got the idea that Anu Gita is in line with the 1st and 2nd chapters of BG. A L Basham doesn't state so anywhere. Please read his remarks again. Even to call someone a joker, you need to have fitting responses. Otherwise, we end up as jokers. An Indologist can very well argue that BG itself is of a very late interpolation, perhaps as late as 8th century CE. No work written before that even mentions BG. None of the writings of Azhwars even mention BG. If BG is indeed the words of Krishna and also a prime scripture, how come all Azhwars are oblivious to its existence? The same Azhwars are also completely oblivious to the existence of SB. I wonder as to why such proponents of Bhakti will ignore a treatise like SB which glorifies Vishnu through out. Even Adi Sankara makes no mention of SB, though he comments on Vishnu Purana. Even Ramanujacarya makes no mention of SB, though he also references VP. Are these some indications that SB was compiled as late as 10th century CE? If an Indologist poses this question, may I know how you will respond? You can sure ignore him, but that doesn't mean you have convinced many unbiased readers. Also, are you aware of some contradictions in the different puranas, even regards the relationship between Radha and Krishna? In some, they are married, in some they are not. In some, Radha is married to Krishna's uncle. How do I reconcile with these contradictions?

 

[shvu]

 

Ramanujacarya makes no mention of SB, though he also references VP. Are these some indications that SB was compiled as late as 10th century CE?

Even if Shankara not quoting SB can be discounted, one wonders why Ramanuja who was favorable to Bhagavata Dharma, never quoted from this work. Al-Beruni (10th century) mentions the Bhagavatam as a work extolling the greatness of Vaasudeva. I feel, the SB was around during the time of Shankara and Ramanuja, but was not treated as an authoritative scripture owing to it's digression from the Mahabharata. This reputation of SB may be why Maadhva took up the task of composing his Taatparya to reconcile the differences between the two.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

Karthik,

 

There are multiple recensions of the BG. The Kashmiri BG has some verses different from the standard version. Also, the Brahma-sutra reference in the BG is 13.4 in some editions and 13.5 in other editions. While variations may be minor, it still goes to show that the BG is not free of interpolation, per se. If the Mahabharata was reworked time and again, it is possible the BG also was, at an earlier point of time.

 

The Shukla Yajur is also available in two recensions, Kanva and Maadhyandina. Among other differences, some verses of the Brhadaaranyka are different between these two recensions. Kanva is more prominent in South India with the other one being common the North. Shankara et al., commmented on the Kanva recension.

 

Cheers

 

 

Shvu, thanks for pointing out that BG has multiple recensions. Could you please write in detail as to what these different recensions are and how they differ, if time permits? I know typing from a book is quite arduous, as compared to copying & pasting from a CD. But, it will help the discussion if you can.

 

Regarding Shukla Yajur, I was reading from the writings of Witzel that the differences are only eith regards to the phonetics, as Shakalya defined a few rules. Otherwise, he agrees that the vedas are a tape recording from the days of compilation/composition.

[paul108]

Originally posted by shvu:

For someone to be a devotee, he has to atleast assume,

 

1. There was a Krishna.

2. Krishna was an incarnation of God.

3. The BG is authentic scripture free of any interpolation.

 

 

That is not true. Imagine that a sincere soul may have been at an important crossroad in life, wanting to know whether it is better to pursue the impersonal or personal path. At that time he may have felt that Krishna should be able to very easily set the person on the personal path if that is the best, and assume that if Krishna does not show up, then He must be an ordinary person. Krishna is certainly free to give whatever proof is required, and He does this from time to time. His Gita serves His purpose flawlessly, and no one can change that. His Gita is not merely words on paper. It is spiritual.

 

I would also like to stand by the argument that time can do some very very strange things when Krishna is talking. Krishna is in complete control over time. I don't know why this is controversial. Krishna does whatever He wants.

 

One more thing, Krishna was not an incarnation of God. He is eternally the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His activities are not just to be thought of in the past tense as if they're done and over with, and He's long since dead. He is speaking Bhagavad-gita to Arjuna right now, somewhere, and He will also be speaking it in the future.

 

Some people are pure and have faith. I, having practically no faith, somehow got some mercy. (AGTSP!) The proof is that I have gotten some association of Krishna's devotees, something I never would've done had Krishna not advised it. I could not accept Krishna's mercy very well on account of my foolishness, so He left and said to get some association of His devotees. On account of that association, I'm getting a little faith. Now my fear is that what little faith I have will be broken by witnessing Vaishnavas insulting each other. So everyone, before you type that insult, please consider the effect it may have on those of us who are trying to get a little faith. Humility is glorious.

 

Hare Krishna

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Are these some indications that SB was compiled as late as 10th century CE? If an Indologist poses this question, may I know how you will respond?

That there are references to the 18 Puranas by name in various other Puranas is sufficient proof for the authenticity of the Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada answers this doubt in his purport to the first verse of Srimad Bhagavatam, quoting Sri Sridhara Swami, the original commentator of the Bhagavatam:

 

"Some Mayavadi scholars argue that Srimad-Bhagavatam was not compiled by Sri Vyasadeva. And some of them suggest that this book is a modern creation written by someone named Vopadeva. In order to refute such meaningless arguments, Sri Sridhara Svami points out that there is reference to the Bhagavatam in many of the oldest Puranas. This first sloka of the Bhagavatam begins with the Gayatri mantra. There is reference to this in the Matsya Purana, which is the oldest Purana. In that Purana, it is said with reference to the Gayatri mantra in the Bhagavatam that there are many narrations of spiritual instructions beginning with the Gayatri mantra. And there is the history of Vrtrasura. Anyone who makes a gift of this great work on a full moon day attains to the highest perfection of life by returning to Godhead. There is reference to the Bhagavatam in other Puranas also, where it is clearly stated that this work was finished in twelve cantos, which include eighteen thousand slokas. In the Padma Purana also there is reference to the Bhagavatam in a conversation between Gautama and Maharaja Ambarisa. The king was advised therein to read regularly Srimad-Bhagavatam if he desired liberation from material bondage. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt about the authority of the Bhagavatam. Within the past five hundred years, many erudite scholars and acaryas like Jiva Gosvami, Sanatana Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, Vallabhacarya, and many other distinguished scholars even after the time of Lord Caitanya made elaborate commentaries on the Bhagavatam. And the serious student would do well to attempt to go through them to better relish the transcendental messages."

 

Also, are you aware of some contradictions in the different puranas, even regards the relationship between Radha and Krishna? In some, they are married, in some they are not. In some, Radha is married to Krishna's uncle.

None of these are contradictions. In one pastime Radha secretly married Lord Krishna, though she was already married to someone else.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-16-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

In South India Radha Kalyanam is a very common festival.

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by J N Das:

That there are references to the 18 Puranas by name in various other Puranas is sufficient proof for the authenticity of the Bhagavatam.

Is it not being argued, with valid reasons, that all puranas have been interpolated? If indeed SB is very old, why do you think the Azhwars don't even mention that? Has any acarya before 10th century CE even mentioned about SB?

 

Originally posted by J N Das:

None of these are contradictions. In one pastime Radha secretly married Lord Krishna, though she was already married to someone else.

I understand that the very earliest reference to Radha is found in a collection of poems written in a Prakrit, called Gatha Saptasati. It is a lone reference and doesn't describe her in any detail. In Bhagavata Purana, Radha is not Krishna's wife, but His beloved. In Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Radha is depicted as His wife. In Gita Govindam, again She is depicted only as a beloved of Krishna and not His wife. Other commentators like Vanamali Bhatta who followed, depict Her as Krishna's aunt, who remains married to His uncle, but still performs Rasa lila with Krishna who is Her nephew.

 

Now, we can say that all of these are different lilas, but personally that doesn't convince me. I am also considering the opposing argument that holds that there have been many interpolations. This seems to have some validity due to 2 reasons: One, the internal contradictions that I pointed above. Two, other traditional schools such as Advaita, Dvaita and Vishistadvaita don't treat any of these puranas as the Supreme text. If indeed SB is the Supreme text, I wonder why Ramanujacarya or Adi Sankara didn't accept so.

[Jagat]

I can't believe a scholar like Basham wasted his time with this argument. From the scholarly point of view: It's a piece of literature, for God's sake!

 

If Salman Rushdie writes about the Prophet running a house of prostitution with all his wives, does this tell us anything about the real Mohammed? Or about time or anything else?

 

From the devotee point of view: Krishna can stop the sun if he likes, he can kill Hiranyakashipu though he cannot be killed inside or out, by man or by beast. He can transmit the knowledge of a thousand Bhagavad Gitas in the blink of an eye.

 

The "interpolations in the Gita" theory has dozens of versios. Any inconsistency, and change in mood, any contradiction is taken as proof of multiple authorship. I am not convinced.

[Guest guest]

I love this discussion.

It gets to the heart of many reasons

why people accept or reject Mahaprabhu's

teachings.

 

Why did Siddharta Gautama appear according to Vaisnava theology?

Why did Sankara, Mahdhavacarya, Ramanuja,

and Mahaprabhu appear in the order that they did?

Krsna clears this up, "whenever and wherever irreliogiosity has become dominant, I reappear to bring Dharma".

 

The scholars can debate about when or who wrote something, the realized soul knows that the sastras are eternal.

You cannot disproove the existence of the Bhagavad-Gita some 5000 years ago.

Just because there is no record that has been unearthed, doesn't mean it did not exist.

The same for the Bhagavatam, you can speculate as to the actual source and date of it's conception, yet history is gone, and what is left, is shattered like a piece of glass into thousands of pieces.

 

Trying to reconstruct history is a fallible occupation. Any good historian knows that all of his theory's are most likely off, and can never really be pronounced as accurate.

 

So to say that because there is no record of this or that in existence today, prooves nothing. Time has a way of hiding things.

 

This is why there is the need for a continual succesion of authors, of Vedic knowledge.

The scholars can debate all they want,the sincere seeker is led on a different path.

To him the realization of knowledge is imparted through the Parampara.

The succession of authors empowered from the relevant source, is important due to the influence of time.

 

The Vedic sastras state that the sastras are originally coming from an infinitly long time ago,whether or not they are manifest at any point in time,on earth, is irrelevent to their authenticity.

 

Whether or not any proof can be found,for their terrestrial source, is irrelevent.

 

[This message has been edited by shiva (edited 05-16-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Great post Jagat prabhuji. You are absoultely correct. The reason I started this thread is to come up with logical answers for each of his points. Whether or not we like it, it is his views that are taught to kids in schools - even in India - not that of the acaryas. I also get an immense kick deconstructing those Indologists who take pleasure in "disproving" our scriptures

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I don't know from where you got the idea that Anu Gita is in line with the 1st and 2nd chapters of BG. A L Basham doesn't state so anywhere. Please read his remarks again. Even to call someone a joker, you need to have fitting responses. Otherwise, we end up as jokers.

The following quote is from your post presenting Bhashyam's argument :

 

All these prove that Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 and 2 of BG, was original and all the other chapters of BG were later interpolations."

 

So it is sufficient for me to establish that the first two chapters of Bhagavad Gita establishes Krishna's divinity and bhakti, which I do in my post. Then Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 nad 2 of BG, cannot be said to skirt Krishna's divinity and bhakti. Please read my post thourougly and let me know two things :

 

1. does it answer his arguments ?

2. who is the joker ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-16-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by ram:

The following quote is from your post presenting Bhashyam's argument :

 

All these prove that Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 and 2 of BG, was original and all the other chapters of BG were later interpolations."

 

So it is sufficient for me to establish that the first two chapters of Bhagavad Gita establishes Krishna's divinity and bhakti, which I do in my post. Then Anu Gita, as it is in line with chapters 1 nad 2 of BG, cannot be said to skirt Krishna's divinity and bhakti. Please read my post thourougly and let me know two things :

 

1. does it answer his arguments ?

2. who is the joker ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-16-2002).]

Sorry for answering without reading in full. Yet, please tell me where in chapters 1 & 2 the personal divinity of Krishna is established?

[karthik_v]

A L Basham's argument # 3:

 

Take chapter 5 for example. Verses 24 - 28 deal with the ultimate goal of a yogi which is described as Brahmanirvana. The sages who achieve this goal are those dvelve deep within and control their breath and their senses. All taints and imperfections are destroyed in them. Their joy wells up from the Brahman within. Such a sage is truly liberated. Yet verse 29 says that such a yogi, affter attaining Brahmanirvana: "Then he learns to know me..the great Lord of all worlds and then he reaches peace". The last verse couldn't have been written by the same hand that wrote the first 5 verses. First we are told that impersonal Brahman is the goal of the sage, the highest perfection and then the verse 29 takes a u-turn and declares that it a personal God in the form of Krishna. So, I submit that while both arguments can be wrong, both can't be true. Nobody with a sound mind could have compiled verses 24 - 28 and then negated them as an afterthought in verse 29.

[karthik_v]

My counter-argument:

 

A L Basham's premise is that a scripture can only deal with one path of liberation. This could be true of the semitic religions. But sanatana dharma has always demonstrated many paths in the same scripture. For example Rg veda says: Ekam sad vipra bahauddha vadanti [the truth is One; the sages realize it many ways]. If we assume that BG follows the same premise of RV, then we should not be surprised to find multiple paths to realization in it. We find the same in other upanishads as well. Take Svetasvatara upanishad. In the First adhyaya, while discussing the Conjectures concerning the First cause, the Upanishad declares that the impersonal Brahman is Supreme. Then while in the Third Adhyaya, it declares Shiva to be the One Supreme God beyond the Brahman. If we look at Tirumantiram by sage Tirumular, it deals with both monism and duality in the same breath. Now Basham will have to declare that all Indian scriptures have been interpolated. But, that requires a more credible explanation as to why no conflicting recensions are to be found in most cases. Second, the rivalry between the Shaivites and Vaisnavites from time immemorial is well known. Ancient Tamil poems reveal that. Suppose a treatise gives a Vaisnava viewpoint, why will a Shaivite bother to interpolate his views into that? Assuming he somehow does, why would a Vaishnava incorporate those interpolations in his versions? Given the rivalry, logically we should expect 2 BGs, one with impersonal Brahman as the goal and another with Krishna as the goal. Yet, that is not the case. This is a week argument from Basham.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Yet, please tell me where in chapters 1 & 2 the personal divinity of Krishna is established?

Maybe the words "sri bhagavan uvaca..."

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Now, we can say that all of these are different lilas, but personally that doesn't convince me.

Actually I said they were all the same lila. At one point in time, Radha wanted to have a marriage with Lord Krishna, so the gopis arranged it in secret, kind of like a game.

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by jndas:

Maybe the words "sri bhagavan uvaca..."

2:2, 2:11? An indologist may counter that the term Bhagavan has been used in puranas to denote Shiva, Narada and even Indra at times. Is ther any place in Chapters 1 & 2 where Krishna talks of Himself as the personal form of the Supreme personality of Godhead?

 

We have seen other arguments on why Basham is wrong, but this is not a very strong one.

 

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by jndas:

Actually I said they were all the same lila. At one point in time, Radha wanted to have a marriage with Lord Krishna, so the gopis arranged it in secret, kind of like a game.

OK. that means it is the same lila presented in parts in 3 books. Makes sense to me. It would be the equivalent of having Ramayana split into 2 books one before His exile and one after. Viewed in isolation, they make sound like talking of 2 different persons. What about the mention of Radha being married to Krishna's uncle and Krishna actually being her nephew? Is that accepted by Vaisnava acaryas?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Yet, please tell me where in chapters 1 & 2 the personal divinity of Krishna is established?

You are right. The term bhagavan is used for Siva etc. Then Bhasham should atleast accept Krishna's divinity in advaitic conception. Advaitins dont consider Krishna as an ordinary person as these indologists do. An ordinary person or even great kings are not addressed as bhgavan.

 

Also Arjuna addresses Krishna as Janardana in two places. Janardana literally means maintainer of people. This could literally mean a king and also God. In line with the above explanation, you can eliminate the king meaning because no king is called bhagavan. So here it means Krishna is God.

 

Arjuna says sAdhi mAm tvAm prapannam - i surrender unto you. This principle of prappatti or surrender is the central principle of bhakti.

 

There are more. But this is enough to establish the truth.