If personally I have any credit in this matter, it is only that I have tried to present Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any adulteration. Before my presentation of Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, almost all the English editions of Bhagavad-gītā were introduced to fulfill someone's personal ambition. But our attempt, in presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, is to present the mission of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Our business is to present the will of Kṛṣṇa, not that of any mundane speculator like the politician, philosopher or scientist, for they have very little knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, despite all their other knowledge. When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), etc., we, unlike the so-called scholars, do not say that Kṛṣṇa and His inner spirit are different. Kṛṣṇa is absolute, and there is no difference between Kṛṣṇa's name, Kṛṣṇa's form, Kṛṣṇa's qualities, Kṛṣṇa's pastimes, etc. This absolute position of Kṛṣṇa is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of Kṛṣṇa in the system of paramparā (disciplic succession). Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svāmīs, without perfect knowledge of Kṛṣṇa, try to banish or kill Kṛṣṇa when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gītā is known as Māyāvāda-bhāṣya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gītā from the Māyāvādī point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gītā will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead.
Banish (BG and SB)
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Preface and Introduction
BG Chapters 7 - 12
When Kṛṣṇa appeared as the son of Vasudeva and Devakī, He first of all appeared as four-armed Nārāyaṇa, but when He was requested by His parents, He transformed Himself into an ordinary child in appearance. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa knew that Arjuna was not interested in seeing a four-handed form, but since Arjuna asked to see this four-handed form, Kṛṣṇa also showed him this form again and then showed Himself in His two-handed form. The word saumya-vapuḥ is very significant. Saumya-vapuḥ is a very beautiful form; it is known as the most beautiful form. When He was present, everyone was attracted simply by Kṛṣṇa's form, and because Kṛṣṇa is the director of the universe, He just banished the fear of Arjuna, His devotee, and showed him again His beautiful form of Kṛṣṇa. In the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.38) it is stated, premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena: only a person whose eyes are smeared with the ointment of love can see the beautiful form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Preface and Introduction
The Lord maintained that it is dangerous for a sannyāsī to be in intimate touch with worldly money-conscious men and with women. The Lord was an ideal sannyāsī. No woman could approach the Lord even to offer respects. Women's seats were accommodated far away from the Lord. As an ideal teacher and ācārya, He was very strict in the routine work of a sannyāsī. Apart from being a divine incarnation, the Lord was an ideal character as a human being. His behavior with other persons was also above suspicion. In His dealing as ācārya, He was harder than the thunderbolt and softer than the rose. One of His associates, Junior Haridāsa, committed a great mistake by lustfully glancing at a young woman. The Lord as Supersoul could detect this lust in the mind of Junior Haridāsa, who was at once banished from the Lord's association and was never accepted again, even though the Lord was implored to excuse Haridāsa for the mistake. Junior Haridāsa afterwards committed suicide due to being disassociated from the company of the Lord, and the news of suicide was duly related to the Lord. Even at that time the Lord was not forgetful of the offense, and He said that Haridāsa had rightly met with the proper punishment.
SB Canto 1
Mahārāja Pāṇḍu died at an early age, for which Kuntī was so aggrieved that she fainted. Two co-wives, namely Kuntī and Mādrī, decided that Kuntī should live for the maintenance of the five minor children, the Pāṇḍavas, and Mādrī should accept the satī rituals by meeting voluntary death along with her husband. This agreement was endorsed by great sages like Śataśṛṅga and others present on the occasion. Later on, when the Pāṇḍavas were banished from the kingdom by the intrigues of Duryodhana, Kuntī followed her sons, and she equally faced all sorts of difficulties during those days.
In a civilization where God is conspicuously banished, and there is no devotee warrior like Arjuna, the associates of the age of Kali take advantage of this lawless kingdom and arrange to kill innocent animals like the cow in secluded slaughterhouses. Such murderers of animals stand to be condemned to death by the order of a pious king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. For a pious king, the culprit who kills an animal in a secluded place is punishable by the death penalty, exactly like a murderer who kills an innocent child in a secluded place.
The King thus said: We have inherited the fame of Arjuna; therefore since you have surrendered yourself with folded hands you need not fear for your life. But you cannot remain in my kingdom, for you are the friend of irreligion.
The personality of Kali, who is the friend of all kinds of irreligiosities, may be excused if he surrenders, but in all circumstances he cannot be allowed to live as a citizen in any part of a welfare state. The Pāṇḍavas were entrusted representatives of the Personality of Godhead, Lord Kṛṣṇa, who practically brought into being the Battle of Kurukṣetra, but not for any personal interest. He wanted an ideal king like Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira and his descendants like Mahārāja Parīkṣit to rule the world, and therefore a responsible king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit could not allow the friend of irreligiosity to flourish in his kingdom at the cost of the good fame of the Pāṇḍavas. That is the way of wiping out corruption in the state, and not otherwise. The friends of irreligiosity should be banished from the state, and that will save the state from corruption.
The principles of Mahārāja Parīkṣit can be still continued, and human society can still be improved if there is determination by the authorities. We can still purge out from the state all the activities of immorality introduced by the personality of Kali if we are determined to take action like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. He allotted some place for Kali, but in fact Kali could not find such places in the world at all because Mahārāja Parīkṣit was strictly vigilant to see that there were no places for gambling, drinking, prostitution and animal slaughter. Modern administrators want to banish corruption from the state, but fools as they are, they do not know how to do it. They want to issue licenses for gambling houses, wine and other intoxicating drug houses, brothels, hotel prostitution and cinema houses, and falsity in every dealing, even in their own, and they want at the same time to drive out corruption from the state. They want the kingdom of God without God consciousness. How can it be possible to adjust two contradictory matters? If we want to drive out corruption from the state, we must first of all organize society to accept the principles of religion, namely austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfulness, and to make the condition favorable we must close all places of gambling, drinking, prostitution and falsity.
SB Canto 2
The impersonalists recommend that one should become desireless, and others recommend banishing desires altogether. That is impossible; no one can banish desires altogether because desiring is the living symptom. Without having desires a living entity would be dead, which he is not. Therefore, living conditions and desire go together. Perfection of desires may be achieved when one desires to serve the Lord, and the Lord also desires that every living entity banish all personal desires and cooperate with His desires. That is the last instruction of the Bhagavad-gītā. Brahmājī agreed to this proposal, and therefore he is given the responsible post of creating generations in the vacant universe. Oneness with the Lord therefore consists of dovetailing one's desires with the desires of the Supreme Lord. That makes for the perfection of all desires.
SB Canto 3
Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira and his grandson, Mahārāja Parīkṣit, were typical kṣatriya kings, for they gave protection to all men and animals. When the personification of Kali attempted to kill a cow, Mahārāja Parīkṣit at once prepared himself to kill the miscreant, and the personification of Kali was banished from his kingdom. That is the sign of puruṣa, or the representative of Lord Viṣṇu. According to Vedic civilization, a qualified kṣatriya monarch is given the respect of the Lord because he represents the Lord by giving protection to the prajās. Modern elected presidents cannot even give protection from theft cases, and therefore one has to take protection from an insurance company. The problems of modern human society are due to the lack of qualified brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas and the overinfluence of the vaiśyas and śūdras by so-called general franchise.
SB Canto 4
The King replied: O best of the brāhmaṇas, I am very much addicted to my wife, and I am so fallen that I have abandoned all merciful behavior, even to my son, who is only five years old. I have banished him and his mother, even though he is a great soul and a great devotee.
Although as a father the King was affectionate toward his son, he minimized his affection for Dhruva Mahārāja because he was too much addicted to the second wife. Now he was repenting that both Dhruva Mahārāja and his mother, Sunīti, were practically banished. Dhruva Mahārāja went to the forest, and since his mother was being neglected by the King, she was therefore almost banished also. The King repented having banished his boy, for Dhruva was only five years old and a father should not banish his wife and children or neglect their maintenance. Repentant over his neglect of both Sunīti and her son, he was morose, and his face appeared withered. According to Manu-smṛti, one should never desert his wife and children. In a case where the wife and children are disobedient and do not follow the principles of home life, they are sometimes given up. But in the case of Dhruva Mahārāja this was not applicable because Dhruva was very mannerly and obedient. Moreover, he was a great devotee. Such a person is never to be neglected, yet the King was obliged to banish him. Now he was very sorry.
Lord Rāmacandra's kingdom is still existing, and recently there was a political party in India named the Rāmarājya party, which wanted to establish a kingdom resembling the kingdom of Rāma. Unfortunately, modern politicians want the kingdom of Rāma without Rāma Himself. Although they have banished the idea of God consciousness, they still expect to establish the kingdom of Rāma. Such a proposal is rejected by devotees.
SB Canto 7
Impersonalists and atheists always try to circumvent the form of Kṛṣṇa. Great politicians and philosophers of the modern age even try to banish Kṛṣṇa from Bhagavad-gītā. Consequently, for them there is no salvation. But Kṛṣṇa's enemies think, "Here is Kṛṣṇa, my enemy. I have to kill Him." They think of Kṛṣṇa in His actual form, and thus they attain salvation. Devotees, therefore, who constantly think of Kṛṣṇa's form, are certainly liberated. The only business of the Māyāvādī atheists is to make Kṛṣṇa formless, and consequently, because of this severe offense at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, they cannot expect salvation. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says in this connection: tena śiśupālādi-bhinnaḥ pratikūla-bhāvaṁ didhīṣur yena iva narakaṁ yātīti bhāvaḥ. Except for Śiśupāla, those who go against the regulative principles cannot attain salvation and are surely destined for hellish life. The regulative principle is that one must always think of Kṛṣṇa, whether as a friend or enemy.
SB Canto 9
The son of Manu was Ikṣvāku, who had one hundred sons, of whom Vikukṣi, Nimi and Daṇḍakā were the eldest. The sons of Mahārāja Ikṣvāku became kings of different parts of the world. Because of violating sacrificial rules and regulations, one of these sons, Vikukṣi, was banished from the kingdom. By the mercy of Vasiṣṭha and the power of mystic yoga, Mahārāja Ikṣvāku attained liberation after giving up his material body. When Mahārāja Ikṣvāku expired, his son Vikukṣi returned and took charge of the kingdom. He performed various types of sacrifices, and thus he pleased the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This Vikukṣi later became celebrated as Saśāda.
When Rāmacandra entered the forest and Lakṣmaṇa was also absent, the worst of the Rākṣasas, Rāvaṇa, kidnapped Sītādevī, the daughter of the King of Videha, just as a tiger seizes unprotected sheep when the shepherd is absent. Then Lord Rāmacandra wandered in the forest with His brother Lakṣmaṇa as if very much distressed due to separation from His wife. Thus He showed by His personal example the condition of a person attached to women.
In this verse the words strī-saṅgināṁ gatim iti indicate that the condition of a person attached to women was shown by the Lord Himself. According to moral instructions, gṛhe nārīṁ vivarjayet: when one goes on a tour, one should not bring his wife. Formerly men used to travel without conveyances, but still, as far as possible, when one leaves home one should not take his wife with him, especially if one is in such a condition as Lord Rāmacandra when banished by the order of His father. Whether in the forest or at home, if one is attached to women this attachment is always troublesome, as shown by the Supreme Personality of Godhead by His personal example.
Lord Rāmacandra subsequently dressed Himself like an ordinary person and began wandering within the capital to understand what impression the citizens had of Him. By chance, one night He heard a man talking to his wife, who had gone to another man's house. In the course of rebuking his wife, the man spoke suspiciously of the character of Sītādevī. The Lord immediately returned home, and, fearing such rumors, He superficially decided to give up Sītādevī's company. Thus He banished Sītādevī, who was pregnant, to the shelter of Vālmīki Muni, where she gave birth to twin sons, named Lava and Kuśa.
SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)
Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, seeing that the Yamunā River had been contaminated by the black snake Kāliya, desired to purify the river, and thus the Lord banished him from it.
Great kings such as Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira and Mahārāja Parīkṣit engaged the entire earth, and other Vaiṣṇavas have engaged the entire universe in the service of Kṛṣṇa. But they completely gave up the sense of their personal proprietorship. That is the point made in this verse. Just as one becomes very much concerned about any pain in one's own body, one should be concerned with bringing the conditioned souls to the platform of devotional service so that all of their suffering will be banished forever. That is the actual purport of not distinguishing between one body and another.
| Page Title: | Banish (BG and SB) |
| Compiler: | Labangalatika, Kanupriya |
| Created: | 11 of Aug, 2009 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=2, SB=15, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 17 |