Commentary by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Expressions researched:
"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura gives the following commentary" |"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura gives the following commentary" |"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura in his commentary" |"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura writes in his Anuvrtti commentary" |"In his Anubhasya commentary, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati" |"In his commentary on this occasion, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati" |"commentaries by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati" |"commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati" |"commentary of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati" |"in his Anubhasya commentary Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati"

CC Adi-lila

In his Anubhāṣya commentary Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura describes the Pañca-tattva.

CC Adi 7.5, Purport:

In his Anubhāṣya commentary Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura describes the Pañca-tattva as follows: The supreme energetic, the Personality of Godhead, manifesting in order to enjoy five kinds of pastimes, appears as the members of the Pañca-tattva. Actually there is no difference between them because they are situated on the absolute platform, but they manifest different spiritual varieties as a challenge to the impersonalists to taste different kinds of spiritual humors (rasas). In the Vedas it is said, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate: (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport) "The varieties of energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are differently known." From this statement of the Vedas one can understand that there are eternal varieties of humors, or tastes, in the spiritual world. Śrī Gaurāṅga, Śrī Nityānanda, Śrī Advaita, Śrī Gadādhara and Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura are all on the same platform, but in spiritually distinguishing between them one should understand that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the form of a devotee, Nityānanda Prabhu appears in the form of a devotee’s spiritual master, Advaita Prabhu is the form of a bhakta (devotee) incarnation, Gadādhara Prabhu is the energy of a bhakta, and Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura is a pure devotee. Thus there are spiritual distinctions between them. The bhakta-rūpa (Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu), the bhakta-svarūpa (Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu) and the bhakta-avatāra (Śrī Advaita Prabhu) are described as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, His immediate manifestation and His plenary expansion, and They all belong to the Viṣṇu category. Although the spiritual and marginal energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead Viṣṇu, they are predominated subjects, whereas Lord Viṣṇu is the predominator. As such, although they are on the same platform, they have appeared differently in order to facilitate tasting of transcendental mellows. Actually, however, there is no possibility of one being different from the other, for the worshiper and the worshipable cannot be separated at any stage. On the absolute platform, one cannot be understood without the other.

There is a descriptive statement by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura in his commentary on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata giving the biographical details of the life of Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura.

CC Adi 11.55, Translation and Purport:

Śrīla Vyāsadeva described the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The Vyāsa of the pastimes of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu was Vṛndāvana dāsa.

Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura was an incarnation of Vedavyāsa and also a friendly cowherd boy named Kusumāpīḍa in kṛṣṇa-līlā. In other words, the author of Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata, Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura, the son of Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura’s niece Nārāyaṇī, was a combined incarnation of Vedavyāsa and the cowherd boy Kusumāpīḍa. There is a descriptive statement by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura in his commentary on Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata giving the biographical details of the life of Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura.

CC Madhya-lila

Both the Brahma-saṁhitā and Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta are available in print with commentaries by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.

CC Madhya 1.120, Purport:

In the olden days there were no presses, and all the important scriptures were handwritten and kept in large temples. Caitanya Mahāprabhu found the Brahma-saṁhitā and Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta in handwritten texts, and knowing them to be very authoritative, He took them with Him to present to His devotees. Of course, He obtained the permission of the temple commander. Now both the Brahma-saṁhitā and Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta are available in print with commentaries by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.

In his commentary on this occasion, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura quotes from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa.

CC Madhya 4.62, Translation and Purport:

After the mahā-snāna was finished, the Deity was again massaged with scented oil and His body made glossy. Then the last bathing ceremony was performed with scented water kept within a conchshell.

In his commentary on this occasion, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura quotes from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. Barley powder, wheat powder, vermilion powder, urad dhal powder and another powder preparation called āvāṭā (made by mixing banana powder and ground rice) are applied to the Deity’s body with a brush made from the hair at the end of a cow’s tail. This produces a nice finish. The oil smeared over the body of the Deity should be scented. To perform the mahā-snāna, at least two and a half mānas (about twenty-four gallons) of water are needed to pour over the body of the Deity.

According to the commentary of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the purpose of the janmādy asya verse in the Vedānta-sūtra is to establish that the cosmic manifestation is the result of the transformation of the potencies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

CC Madhya 6.171, Purport:

According to the commentary of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the purpose of the janmādy asya verse in the Vedānta-sūtra is to establish that the cosmic manifestation is the result of the transformation of the potencies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Lord is the master of innumerable eternal energies, which are unlimited. Sometimes these energies are manifested, and sometimes they are not. In any case, all energies are under His control; therefore He is the original energetic, the abode of all energies. A common brain in the conditioned state cannot conceive of how these inconceivable energies abide in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, how He exists in His innumerable forms as the master of both spiritual and material energies, how He is the master of both manifest and potential powers, and how contradictory potencies can abide in Him. As long as the living entity is within this material world, in the condition of illusion, he cannot understand the activities of the inconceivable energies of the Lord. Thus the Lord’s energies, though factual, are simply beyond the power of the common brain to understand.

In his Anubhāṣya commentary, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that this stage—devotional service mixed with speculative knowledge—is also external and not within the jurisdiction of pure devotional service as practiced in Vaikuṇṭhaloka.

CC Madhya 8.66, Purport:

In his Anubhāṣya commentary, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that this stage—devotional service mixed with speculative knowledge—is also external and not within the jurisdiction of pure devotional service as practiced in Vaikuṇṭhaloka. As soon as there is some conception of materialistic thought—be it positive or negative—the service is not spiritual. It may be free from material contamination, but because there is mental speculation the devotional service is not pure and freed from the contamination of material life. A living entity who wants to be completely pure must be above this material conception.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives the following commentary on this verse.

CC Madhya 15.163, Translation and Purport:

"My dear Lord, let me suffer perpetually in a hellish condition, accepting all the sinful reactions of all living entities. Please finish their diseased material life."

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives the following commentary on this verse. In the Western countries, Christians believe that Lord Jesus Christ, their spiritual master, appeared in order to eradicate all the sins of his disciples. To this end, Lord Jesus Christ appeared and disappeared. Here, however, we find Śrī Vāsudeva Datta Ṭhākura and Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura to be many millions of times more advanced even when compared with Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ relieved only his followers from all sinful reactions, but Vāsudeva Datta is here prepared to accept the sins of everyone in the universe. So the comparative position of Vāsudeva Datta is millions of times better than that of Lord Jesus Christ. A Vaiṣṇava is so liberal that he is prepared to risk everything to rescue the conditioned souls from material existence. Śrīla Vāsudeva Datta Ṭhākura is universal love itself, for he was willing to sacrifice everything and fully engage in the service of the Supreme Lord.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives the following commentary on this passage. A sādhu, or honest man, is called a mahājana or a mahātmā.

CC Madhya 17.185, Translation and Purport:

"A devotee’s behavior establishes the true purpose of religious principles. The behavior of Mādhavendra Purī Gosvāmī is the essence of such religious principles."

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives the following commentary on this passage. A sādhu, or honest man, is called a mahājana or a mahātmā. The mahātmā is described thus by Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.13):

mahātmānas tu māṁ pārtha daivīṁ prakṛtim āśritāḥ

bhajanty ananya-manaso jñātvā bhūtādim avyayam

"O son of Pṛthā, those who are not deluded, the great souls, are under the protection of the divine nature. They are fully engaged in devotional service because they know Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, original and inexhaustible."

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives the following commentary on the words bhāgavata vicāra.

CC Madhya 19.17, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gives the following commentary on the words bhāgavata vicāra. As confirmed in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (1.1.4–5), there are two kinds of educational systems:

dve vidye veditavya iti, ha sma yad brahma-vido vadanti—parā caivāparā ca. tatrāparā ṛg-vedo yajur-vedaḥ sāma-vedo "tharva-vedaḥ śikṣā kalpo vyākaraṇaṁ niruktaṁ chando jyotiṣam iti. atha parā yayā tad akṣaram adhigamyate.

"There are two kinds of educational systems. One deals with transcendental knowledge (parā vidyā) and the other with material knowledge (aparā vidyā). All the Vedas—the Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda and Atharva Veda, along with their corollaries, known as śikṣā, kalpa, vyākaraṇa, nirukta, chanda and jyotiṣa—belong to the inferior system of material knowledge (aparā vidyā).

CC Antya-lila

One interested in studying Vedānta philosophy properly must study the commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra written by the four sampradāya-ācāryas, especially if he is a Vaiṣṇava. These commentaries are always adored by Vaiṣṇavas. The commentary by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī is elaborately given in the Ādi-līlā.

CC Antya 2.95, Purport:

A Vaiṣṇava should study the commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra written by the four sampradāya-ācāryas, namely Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī and Nimbārka, for these commentaries are based upon the philosophy that the Lord is the master and that all living entities are His eternal servants. One interested in studying Vedānta philosophy properly must study these commentaries, especially if he is a Vaiṣṇava. These commentaries are always adored by Vaiṣṇavas. The commentary by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī is elaborately given in the Ādi-līlā, Chapter Seven, text 101. The Māyāvāda commentary Śārīraka-bhāṣya is like poison for a Vaiṣṇava. It should not be touched at all. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura remarks that even a mahā-bhāgavata, or highly elevated devotee who has surrendered himself unto the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, sometimes falls down from pure devotional service if he hears the Māyāvāda philosophy of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. This commentary should therefore be shunned by all Vaiṣṇavas.

Nectar of Instruction

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura writes in his Anuvṛtti commentary that too much endeavor to acquire knowledge on the part of mental speculators or dry philosophers falls within the category of atyāhāra (collecting more than needed).

Nectar of Instruction 2, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura writes in his Anuvṛtti commentary that too much endeavor to acquire knowledge on the part of mental speculators or dry philosophers falls within the category of atyāhāra (collecting more than needed). According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the endeavor of philosophical speculators to write volumes of books on dry philosophy devoid of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is entirely futile. The work of karmīs who write volumes of books on economic development also falls within the category of atyāhāra. Similarly, those who have no desire for Kṛṣṇa consciousness and who are simply interested in possessing more and more material things—either in the shape of scientific knowledge or monetary gain—are all included under the control of atyāhāra.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

We may read herewith one commentary by my Guru Mahārāja Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.5 -- Mayapur, March 7, 1974:

So we may read herewith one commentary by my Guru Mahārāja Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. "In his Anubhāṣya commentary Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura describes the Pañca-tattva as follows: The supreme energetic, the Personality of Godhead, manifesting in five kinds of pastimes, appears as the Pañca-tattva. Actually there is no difference between them because they are situated on the absolute platform, but they manifest different spiritual varieties as a challenge to impersonalists to taste different kinds of spiritual humors, rāsas..." Because they do not accept the different tastes. The Māyāvāda philosophy and Vaiṣṇava philosophy, the only difference is... Although the aim is one, Absolute Truth, but the difference is that they do not accept varieties, varieties of taste. Therefore they fall down. It is not our version, but it is stated in the Vedic literature, āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ patanty adho 'nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ: (SB 10.2.32) "By severe penance and austerities, these Māyāvādīs, they go up to the Brahman effulgence, but from there they fall down, fall down." Because for want of varieties. You cannot live without varieties.