View source for Arjuna is direct disciple of Krsna. So if you take Bhagavad-gita as it was understood by Arjuna, then you get the right knowledge. And if you take the knowledge of Bhagavad-gita explained by some so-called scholar and politician, then it is rascaldom

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Arjuna is direct disciple of Krsna. So if you take Bhagavad-gita as it was understood by Arjuna, then you get the right knowledge. And if you take the knowledge of Bhagavad-gita explained by some so-called scholar and politician, then it is rascaldom"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|08Oct12}}
{{last|14Oct12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Krsna and Arjuna]]
[[Category:Direct Disciples]]
[[Category:Krsna's Disciples]]
[[Category:Arjuna As a Disciple of Krsna]]
[[Category:if You]]
[[Category:take]]
[[Category:Arjuna and the Bhagavad-gita]]
[[Category:Understanding the Bhagavad-gita]]
[[Category:Right (Correct)]]
[[Category:Knowledge of the Bhagavad-gita]]
[[Category:Explaining the Bhagavad-gita‎]]
[[Category:some]]
[[Category:so-called Scholars]]
[[Category:politicians]]
[[Category:rascaldom]]
[[Category:Prabhupada Speaks - Lectures, 1966 - 1977]]
[[Category:Prabhupada Speaks - Lectures, 1974]]
[[Category:Prabhupada Speaks - Lectures, Bhagavad-gita As It Is]]
[[Category:Prabhupada Speaks - in India, Hyderabad]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG133HyderabadApril191974_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="348" link="Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974" link_text="Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974">
<div class="heading">Arjuna is direct disciple of Kṛṣṇa. So if you take Bhagavad-gītā as it was understood by Arjuna, then you get the right knowledge. And if you take the knowledge of Bhagavad-gītā explained by some so-called scholar and politician, then it is rascaldom only. It has no meaning. It has no meaning.
</div>

<mp3player>https://vanipedia.s3.amazonaws.com/clip/740419BG-HYDERABAD_clip3.mp3</mp3player>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974|Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Hyderabad, April 19, 1974]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">In the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is also stated, tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). Ādi-kavi is Lord Brahmā, and brahma means the Vedic knowledge. So there was nobody to teach Brahmā. Brahmā is called prapitāmaha ([[Vanisource:BG 11.39 (1972)|BG 11.39]]), the first-class knower of the Vedic knowledge, ādi-kavi. But wherefrom he got the knowledge? He got the knowledge form Kṛṣṇa. Tene brahma hṛdā ādi-kavaye. And Brahmā distributed it to Nārada. Nārada distributed it to Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva distributed it to other ācāryas. In this way, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 4.2 (1972)|BG 4.2]]). So there is paramparā. The knowledge is the same. There is no alteration. But it is coming through disciplic succession, one after an... So one who receives the knowledge from the disciplic succession...</p>
<p>Just like at the present moment we see that Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, they are talking. Arjuna is direct disciple of Kṛṣṇa. So if you take Bhagavad-gītā as it was understood by Arjuna, then you get the right knowledge. And if you take the knowledge of Bhagavad-gītā explained by some so-called scholar and politician, then it is rascaldom only. It has no meaning. It has no meaning.</p>
<p>That is the process. You try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as Arjuna understood. Arjuna is asking Kṛṣṇa. So what Kṛṣṇa is answering, you take it. Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa, paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ bhavān ([[Vanisource:BG 10.12-13 (1972)|BG 10.12]]). These are all statement in the Bhagavad-gītā. So our only request is that if you want knowledge as it is inquired by Arjuna, you take it from Kṛṣṇa or one who has accepted Kṛṣṇa as guru, the original. Then your knowledge is perfect. Otherwise you are cheated. You will not get the right knowledge. It is not possible. Evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 4.2 (1972)|BG 4.2]]).</p>
<p>So therefore Kṛṣṇa says that kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi. Kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata ([[Vanisource:BG 13.3 (1972)|BG 13.3]]). First of all He gave knowledge that "This body is kṣetra." Kṣetra means field of activities. Just like a cultivator. He has got a field, and he is working with plow. So according to his labor he is getting the fruit. Similarly, we have got this field, this body, and we are working—you, me, and everyone—according to our knowledge, according to my understanding capacity. So therefore... I am not this body; I am the owner of the body. I am working with this body. This is the position. Kṣetra-kṣetra-jña.</p>
<p>You study yourself. You take your finger. Ask yourself, "Am I this finger?" No. The answer will be "I am not this finger. It is my finger." "I am this head?" So... Just like you ask one child, "What is this, my boy?" "Oh, my finger, father." No child will say, "I finger." Even a child will not say that "I finger." But the whole material civilization is going on, "I body." That's all. "I am Indian," "I am American." Therefore this is foolishness.</p>
:yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke
:sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu bhauma ijya-dhīḥ
:yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile na karhicij
:janeṣv abhijñeṣu sa eva go-kharaḥ
:([[Vanisource:SB 10.84.13|SB 10.84.13]])
<p>Yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke. This bag of bones and flesh and blood and urine and stool... This is the bag. This is body. What is this body? You dissect this body. You will find these things. You will find blood, muscles, bones, urine, stool and so many other things. Does it mean that such a great intelligent man is combination of urine, stool, blood, bone? So why don't you create another intelligent man with these ingredients? But the so-called scientists and philosophers say that this body is everything. They have discovered some cellular theory, this theory... But that is not the fact.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>