Did Krishna left Bhagavad-gita to be commented?

[suchandra]

Did Krishna speak Bhagavad-gita in such a way that Krishna thought while speaking Bhagavad-gita, some learned scholars will come and explain what I'm just speaking?

 

Prabhupada, Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972: "As if Krishna left Bhagavad-gītā to be commented by some rascals to understand! Why? He said Bhagavad-gītā clearly. Why it is to be interpreted by some rascals? Did Krishna mean that “I leave Bhagavad-gītā ambiguous and some learned scholar will come. He will explain”? What is this nonsense? Everything is clear.

...But because one has got some whims, he wants to fulfill his whims on the authority of Bhagavad-gītā, he interprets in a different way."

"So if you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then we get some benefit. Not some benefit: the ultimate benefit."

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/721208BG.AHM.htm?i=1972

 

Similiarly, people think that Prabhupada left this world and leaving behind everything not clear but confused?

[Guest guest]

 

Similiarly, people think that Prabhupada left this world and leaving behind everything not clear but confused?

 

So why did Prabhupada write his own commentary to the Gita? If Bhagavad Gita's meaning is so clear, why did he write hundreds of pages about it?

 

Now his disciples are writing hundreds of pages about Prabhupada's commentaries.

 

Such is the nature of a written word. It is in some sense "dead" and has to be periodically revived by people who understand it's meaning and can put it in a fresh perspective. That is why many great Vaishnava acharyas wrote commentaries to Gita and other scriptures.

[mahak]

I applaud the idea that Srila Prabhupada did NOT miss anything, omit essential truth because of our immaturity, etc. Such ideas come from only disciples, others cannot know. We have come to understand that what he has given is perfect and complete.

 

It is unfortunate the receptical of such absolute truth still feel the need to do such mad searching, trying to find someone with more to give, such mad searching for hidden messages gleaned from documents of dubious authenticity, etc. Srila Prabhupada is as he is, fully giving what he has been given, presenting complete parampara and the Supreme Bhagavatam, Lord Vyasadeva, and his disciple will deliver him as he is, this is parampara.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Krishna_Shakha_Dasa]

Similiarly, people think that Prabhupada left this world and leaving behind everything not clear but confused?

[suchandra]

 

So why did Prabhupada write his own commentary to the Gita? If Bhagavad Gita's meaning is so clear, why did he write hundreds of pages about it?

 

Now his disciples are writing hundreds of pages about Prabhupada's commentaries.

 

Such is the nature of a written word. It is in some sense "dead" and has to be periodically revived by people who understand it's meaning and can put it in a fresh perspective. That is why many great Vaishnava acharyas wrote commentaries to Gita and other scriptures.

If you consider Prabhupada as ordinairy man on the street who wrote his, "my personal hundreds pages opinion", commentary on Bhagavad-gita your point might be correct and that everybody else can write their commentaries as they like follows your logic. Since all the members on this board seem to agree with your point that Prabhupada's purports are "dead" and have to be freshly updated by any guy who comes along, main point that he's alive and not "dead", what next? We're this body, there's no soul and Charles Darwin is right? That many great Vaishnava acharyas wrote commentaries was done out of actual nessecity and order of previous acarya and not what you think, predominance and competitive megalomania.

[theist]

 

Did Krishna speak Bhagavad-gita in such a way that Krishna thought while speaking Bhagavad-gita, some learned scholars will come and explain what I'm just speaking?

 

Prabhupada, Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972: "As if Krishna left Bhagavad-gītā to be commented by some rascals to understand! Why? He said Bhagavad-gītā clearly. Why it is to be interpreted by some rascals? Did Krishna mean that “I leave Bhagavad-gītā ambiguous and some learned scholar will come. He will explain”? What is this nonsense? Everything is clear.

...But because one has got some whims, he wants to fulfill his whims on the authority of Bhagavad-gītā, he interprets in a different way."

"So if you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then we get some benefit. Not some benefit: the ultimate benefit."

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/721208BG.AHM.htm?i=1972

 

Similiarly, people think that Prabhupada left this world and leaving behind everything not clear but confused?

 

 

Bhagavad gita is not to be explained by rascals, even if they appear to be very learned academics and sanskrit scholars. Krsna spoke Bhagavad gita to Arjuna because Arjuna was His friend and devotee. But within that realm of Krsna revealed Bhagavad gita there is room for unlimited angles of vision which do not contradict each other and are reveal by Satra & Guru as explained by Srila Prabhupada below. So unlimted angles of understanding the nature of Krsna descends and not just some dry one answer fits all. Krsna is unlimited.

 

 

 

Letter to: Chaturbhus

—

Bombay

21 January, 1972

72-01-21

 

[...]

 

 

As for the difference between mental speculation and philosophical speculation, we take it that everything is known by the psychological action of the mind, so that philosophical speculation is the same as mental speculation if it is merely the random or haphazard activity of the brain to understand everything and making theories, "if's" and "maybe's." But if philosophical speculation is directed by Sastra and Guru, and if the goal of such philosophical attempts is to achieve Visnu, then that philosophical speculation is not mental speculation. It is just like this: Krishna syas in Bhagavad-gita that "I am the taste of water." Philosophical speculation in the accepted sense then means to try to understand, under the direction of Sastra and Guru, just how Krishna is the taste of water. The points of Bhagavad-gita, though they are simple and complete, can be understood from unlimited angles of vision. So our philosophy is not dry, like mental speculation. The proper function of the brain or psychological activity is to understand everything through Krishna's perspective or point-of-view, and so there is no limit to that understanding because Krishna is unlimited, and even though it can be said that the devotee who knows Krishna, he knows everything (15th Chapter), still, the philosophical process never stops and the devotee continues to increase his knowledge even though he knows everything. Try to understand this point, it is a very good question.

[...]

Your ever well-wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

[Guest guest]

 

Bhagavad gita is not to be explained by rascals, even if they appear to be very learned academics and sanskrit scholars. Krsna spoke Bhagavad gita to Arjuna because Arjuna was His friend and devotee. But within that realm of Krsna revealed Bhagavad gita there is room for unlimited angles of vision which do not contradict each other and are reveal by Satra & Guru as explained by Srila Prabhupada below. So unlimted angles of understanding the nature of Krsna descends and not just some dry one answer fits all. Krsna is unlimited.

 

Theist,

 

All the other commentators had spiritual goals too. Unless you define the Gaudiya way as the only spritual way and everything else as a farce.

 

Prabhupada says the BG is clear as it is and yet writes pages of purports.

 

Can anyone explain that? Not explain it in public, but to yourself...as long as you can come up with an answer that satisfies you, then everything is just fine.

 

Cheers

[theist]

 

Theist,

 

All the other commentators had spiritual goals too. Unless you define the Gaudiya way as the only spritual way and everything else as a farce.

 

Prabhupada says the BG is clear as it is and yet writes pages of purports.

 

Can anyone explain that? Not explain it in public, but to yourself...as long as you can come up with an answer that satisfies you, then everything is just fine.

 

Cheers

 

Shiv, I thought that was what I addressed in my post.

 

No I do not define the Gaudiya way as the only angle of vision. That is precisely my point. The mountain is viewed different from all angles. The only thing is the view of the mountain must be actual and not a product of the mundane mind.

[Guest guest]

 

Shiv, I thought that was what I addressed in my post.

 

No I do not define the Gaudiya way as the only angle of vision. That is precisely my point. The mountain is viewed different from all angles. The only thing is the view of the mountain must be actual and not a product of the mundane mind.

 

OK...Btw, I wanted to have a discussion with you on freewill....not to challenge your beliefs or anything, but just to be able to obtain a satisfactory definition and scope for the concept from a theistic perepective.

 

I am a little pressed for time these days, I will send you a PM when I am free. If you are willing, we can talk about it via e-mail or something.

 

Cheers

[theist]

Sure Shiv,

 

I'll do my best but there are things about free will that mystify me also.

[suchandra]

 

Sure Shiv,

 

I'll do my best but there are things about free will that mystify me also.

Once, Gandhi told the British authorities, "We want freedom." They replied, "You are not fit to have self-government. When you are fit, we shall give it to you." But finally, Gandhi told them, "We want the freedom to do wrong." So, freedom does not guarantee only acting in the right way; freedom has its value independent of right and wrong.

[theist]

 

Once, Gandhi told the British authorities, "We want freedom." They replied, "You are not fit to have self-government. When you are fit, we shall give it to you." But finally, Gandhi told them, "We want the freedom to do wrong." So, freedom does not guarantee only acting in the right way; freedom has its value independent of right and wrong.

 

That quote nicely illustrates the marginal nature of the soul.

[Guest guest]

 

If you consider Prabhupada as ordinairy man on the street who wrote his, "my personal hundreds pages opinion", commentary on Bhagavad-gita your point might be correct and that everybody else can write their commentaries as they like follows your logic. Since all the members on this board seem to agree with your point that Prabhupada's purports are "dead" and have to be freshly updated by any guy who comes along, main point that he's alive and not "dead", what next? We're this body, there's no soul and Charles Darwin is right? That many great Vaishnava acharyas wrote commentaries was done out of actual nessecity and order of previous acarya and not what you think, predominance and competitive megalomania.

 

First you raise a point that just like Bhagavad Gita does not need a commentary, Prabhupada's purports dont need a commentary either. I showed you that Prabhupada himself wrote a commentary on the Gita and you and hundreds of his other disciples are writing commentaries on your guru's words. Thus you are wrong on both counts.

 

Commentaries are needed, but they must be written in the proper way: to explain the intent of the original speaker. If they simply present come concoctions of the comentator, they are a waste of time.

[suchandra]

 

Commentaries are needed, but they must be written in the proper way: to explain the intent of the original speaker.

 

Excuse me sir, but this each and every commentator affirms - "my commentary is written in proper way and explains the intent of the original speaker". Which commentator would say otherwise? On the other hand, if there's a medicine that works fine, why change it?

 

Prabhupada (Preface Bhagavad-gita): "Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and swamis, without perfect knowledge of Krsna, try to banish or kill Krsna when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gita. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gita is known as Mayavada-bhasya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gita from the Mayavadi point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gita will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead.

Our only purpose is to present this Bhagavad-gita As It Is in order to guide the conditioned student to the same purpose for which Krsna descends to this planet once in a day of Brahma, or every 8,600,000,000 years. This purpose is stated in Bhagavad-gita, and we have to accept it as it is; otherwise there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad-gita and its speaker, Lord Krsna. Lord Krsna first spoke Bhagavad-gita to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. We have to accept this fact and thus understand the historical significance of Bhagavad-gita, without misinterpretation, on the authority of Krsna. To interpret Bhagavad-gita without any reference to the will of Krsna is the greatest offense. In order to save oneself from this offense, one has to understand the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as He was directly understood by Arjuna, Lord Krsna’s first disciple. Such understanding of Bhagavad-gita is really profitable and authorized for the welfare of human society in fulfilling the mission of life."

[Guest guest]

 

Excuse me sir, but this each and every commentator affirms - "my commentary is written in proper way and explains the intent of the original speaker". Which commentator would say otherwise? On the other hand, if there's a medicine that works fine, why change it?

 

Why then would Prabhupada feel the need to write his commentary on the Gita? And why do you find it neccessary to comment on what Prabhupada says? These are real questions - please answer them.

[Guruvani]

I don't know of any commentary that Srila Prabhupada wrote on the Bhagavad-gita.

Technically, the Gaudiyas follow the commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

Srila Prabhupada translated and explained the Bhagavad-gita as it was commented on by Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakur also wrote his rasik commentary on the Gita.

 

Srila Prabhupada dedicated his Gita to Baladeva Vidyabhusana who wrote the Govinda Bhasya commentary on Vedanta philosophy.

[Guest guest]

 

I don't know of any commentary that Srila Prabhupada wrote on the Bhagavad-gita.

Technically, the Gaudiyas follow the commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

Srila Prabhupada translated and explained the Bhagavad-gita as it was commented on by Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

 

To some extent that is true. Most of the verse translations are not his either. Hayagriva "borrowed them" mostly from Dr. Radhakrishnan's translation on Prabhupada's request. Still, there is a lot more than just BV commentary there. About 50% of the comentary is undoubtedly Srila Prabhupada's, and thus the question stil stands.

[Guruvani]

 

To some extent that is true. Most of the verse translations are not his either. Hayagriva "borrowed them" mostly from Dr. Radhakrishnan's translation on Prabhupada's request. Still, there is a lot more than just BV commentary there. About 50% of the comentary is undoubtedly Srila Prabhupada's, and thus the question stil stands.

 

Srila Prabhupada's purports are not considered a commentary on the Gita.

Srila Prabhupada's purports follow the commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

I think your accusations that Srila Prabhupada plagiarized Dr. Radhakrishnan is offensive and wrong.

You shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of allegation publicly unless you can prove it with something other than your foolish hearsay.

[Guest guest]

 

I think your accusations that Srila Prabhupada plagiarized Dr. Radhakrishnan is offensive and wrong.

You shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of allegation publicly unless you can prove it with something other than your foolish hearsay.

 

you have very little knowledge of how the original McMillan Gita was produced. I know these things from Bhaktivedanta Archives. You can ask them for yourself.

[Guest guest]

Jayadvaita confirms what Hayagriva wrote in his book here:

chakra.org/discussions/BMMay08_03.html

 

"Swamiji finally tires of my consulting him about Bhagavad-gita verses.

 

"'Just copy the verses from some other translation,' he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. 'The verses aren't important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It's my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports. There are so many nonsense purports like Dr. Radhakrishnan's, and Gandhi's, and Nikhilananda's. What is lacking are these Vaishnava purports in the preaching line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That is what is lacking in English. That is what is lacking in the world.'

 

"'I can't just copy others,' I say.

 

"'There is no harm.'

 

"'But that's plagiarism.'

 

"'How's that? They are Krishna's words. Krishna's words are clear, like the sun. Just these rascal commentators have diverted the meaning by saying, 'Not to Krishna.' So my purports are saying, 'To Krishna.' That is the only difference.'"

[Guruvani]

 

Jayadvaita confirms what Hayagriva wrote in his book here:

chakra.org/discussions/BMMay08_03.html

 

"Swamiji finally tires of my consulting him about Bhagavad-gita verses.

 

"'Just copy the verses from some other translation,' he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. 'The verses aren't important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It's my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports. There are so many nonsense purports like Dr. Radhakrishnan's, and Gandhi's, and Nikhilananda's. What is lacking are these Vaishnava purports in the preaching line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That is what is lacking in English. That is what is lacking in the world.'

 

"'I can't just copy others,' I say.

 

"'There is no harm.'

 

"'But that's plagiarism.'

 

"'How's that? They are Krishna's words. Krishna's words are clear, like the sun. Just these rascal commentators have diverted the meaning by saying, 'Not to Krishna.' So my purports are saying, 'To Krishna.' That is the only difference.'"

sorry pal, but this secondhand story attributed to a deceased devotee cannot ever be used as any sort of credible evidence.

 

that just shows how sorry Jayadvaita Swami is that he would repeat such offensive crap.

 

Jayadvaita Swami uses that story to justify his tampering with the verses of the Bhagavad-gita by claiming that they are not Srila Prabhupada's words but the words of Dr. Radhakrishnan.

 

Jayadvaita Swami is not a credible person in this regard.

 

He has his own ass to cover and this story serves his purposes quite well.

 

If we accept this poisonl then we have to accept that Srila Prabhupada is a liar because he says in the Gita himself that there verses are his.

 

Preface, Bhagavad-gita As It Is

 

the system is that I give the original verse, its English transliteration, word-for-word Sanskrit-English equivalents, translations and purports.

Srila Prabhupada wrote in his Gita that HE gave the the translations.

 

Jayadvaita Swami says Srila Prabhupada is a liar.

 

He should be excommunicated from ISKCON for saying spewing such poison.

[ksbh]

I have heard of the translations being taken from Dr. Radhakrishnan's book (with minor modifications)and I think it is a credible story.

 

Ultimately, it's the purports that matter most and those are Srila Prabhupada's.

 

 

Jayadvaita confirms what Hayagriva wrote in his book here:

chakra.org/discussions/BMMay08_03.html

 

"Swamiji finally tires of my consulting him about Bhagavad-gita verses.

 

"'Just copy the verses from some other translation,' he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. 'The verses aren't important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It's my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports. There are so many nonsense purports like Dr. Radhakrishnan's, and Gandhi's, and Nikhilananda's. What is lacking are these Vaishnava purports in the preaching line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That is what is lacking in English. That is what is lacking in the world.'

 

"'I can't just copy others,' I say.

 

"'There is no harm.'

 

"'But that's plagiarism.'

 

"'How's that? They are Krishna's words. Krishna's words are clear, like the sun. Just these rascal commentators have diverted the meaning by saying, 'Not to Krishna.' So my purports are saying, 'To Krishna.' That is the only difference.'"

[Kulapavana]

 

I have heard of the translations being taken from Dr. Radhakrishnan's book (with minor modifications)and I think it is a credible story.

 

Ultimately, it's the purports that matter most and those are Srila Prabhupada's.

 

Devotees at Bhaktivedanta Archives are thinking about making public a lot of original documents relating to how the books were put together, including samples of various stages of editing. There are many myths circulating in Iskcon regarding these issues.

[Guruvani]

Whatever happened in the editing and publishing of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Jayadvaita Swami shouldn't be going around blabbing something based on a couple of sentences of Hayagriva who is not around anymore to confirm or deny anything.

The internal matters of what occured in the publishing of the Gita should be kept internal and NOT blabbed all over the internet so Jayadvaita Swami can cover his ass for tampering with the authorized version of Bhagavad-Gita As It Is.

 

At this point the whole issue hinges on about two sentences written by a deceased devotee.

A cloud of suspicion and doubt should not be cast over the Bhagavad-gita As It Is for the purposes of defending the ego of Jayadvaita Swami.

 

Internal affairs between the editors and Srila Prabhupada should not be broadcast openly when neither Srila Prabhupada nor Hayagriva are here to confirm or deny anything.

 

Jayadvaita Swami is butchering the reputation of Bhagavad-Gita As It Is in an attempt to defend his own ego and pride.

 

I personally think it is disgusting.

[Kulapavana]

 

Whatever happened in the editing and publishing of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Jayadvaita Swami shouldn't be going around blabbing something based on a couple of sentences of Hayagriva who is not around anymore to confirm or deny anything.

The internal matters of what occured in the publishing of the Gita should be kept internal and NOT blabbed all over the internet so Jayadvaita Swami can cover his ass for tampering with the authorized version of Bhagavad-Gita As It Is.

 

At this point the whole issue hinges on about two sentences written by a deceased devotee.

 

That is not true at all. Pretty much all BBT devotees involved in the production of that book knew that. I have learned about it from a fellow BBT editor long time ago. Hayagriva was probably the first one to publically acknowledge what happened, and Jayadvaita was second - at least as far as "official" Iskcon goes.