Commentaries (Other Books)

Expressions researched:
"commentaries" |"commentary"

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter Prologue:

I think you do not understand the Vedānta, for you do not say anything after hearing my recitation and explanations." The reply of Caitanya was that he understood the sūtras very well, but he could not make out what Śaṅkarācārya meant by his commentaries. Astonished at this, Sārvabhauma said, "How is it that you understand the meanings of the sūtras and do not understand the commentaries which explain the sūtras? All well! If you understand the sūtras, please let me have your interpretations." Mahāprabhu thereon explained all the sūtras in his own way without touching the pantheistic commentary of Śaṅkara. The keen understanding of Sārvabhauma saw the truth, beauty and harmony of arguments in the explanations given by Caitanya and obliged him to utter that it was the first time that he had found one who could explain the Brahma-sūtras in such a simple manner. He admitted also that the commentaries of Śaṅkara never gave such natural explanations of the Vedānta-sūtras as he had obtained from Mahāprabhu. He then submitted himself as an advocate and follower.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter Prologue:

At this interview, Caitanya shewed a miracle which attracted all the sannyāsīs to him. Then ensued reciprocal conversation. The sannyāsīs were headed by their most learned leader Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī. After a short controversy, they submitted to Mahāprabhu and admitted that they had been misled by the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya. It was impossible even for learned scholars to oppose Caitanya for a long time, for there was some spell in him which touched their hearts and made them weep for their spiritual improvement. The sannyāsīs of Benares soon fell at the feet of Caitanya and asked for his grace (kṛpā). Caitanya then preached pure bhakti and instilled into their hearts spiritual love for Kṛṣṇa which obliged them to give up sectarian feelings. The whole population of Benares, on this wonderful conversion of the sannyāsīs, turned Vaiṣṇavas, and they made a master saṅkīrtana with their new Lord. After sending Sanātana to Vṛndāvana, Mahāprabhu went to Purī again through the jungles with his comrade Balabhadra.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 4:

Concerning man's search for the ultimate goal of life, Caitanya Mahāprabhu relates a story from the commentary of Madhva which occurs in the Fifth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (Madhva-bhāṣya) Sarvajña to a poor man who came to him to have his future told. When Sarvajña saw the horoscope of the man, he was at once astonished that the man was so poor, and he said to him, "Why are you so unhappy? From your horoscope I can see that you have a hidden treasure left to you by your father. However, the horoscope indicates that your father could not disclose this to you because he died in a foreign place, but now you can search out this treasure and be happy." This story is cited because the living entity is suffering due to his ignorance of the hidden treasure of his Supreme Father, Kṛṣṇa.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 5:

To help us understand the difference between the spiritual and material energies, there is a clear analysis of the two in the Second Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīdhara Svāmī also gives a clear analytical study in his commentary on the first verse of the Tenth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīdhara Svāmī was accepted by Lord Caitanya as an authorized commentator on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and Caitanya Mahāprabhu quoted his writings and explained that in the Tenth Canto of Bhāgavatam the life and activities of Kṛṣṇa are described because Kṛṣṇa is the shelter of all manifestations. Knowing this, Śrīdhara Svāmī worshiped and offered his obeisances unto Kṛṣṇa as the shelter of everything.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 16:

Sūta Gosvāmī explained or answered the six questions in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. There is a verse in the Vedic literature in which Lord Śiva says, "As far as Bhāgavatam is concerned, I may know it, or Śukadeva or Vyāsadeva may know it, or we may not know it—but actually Bhāgavatam is to be understood by devotional service and from a devotee, and not by one's own intelligence or by academic commentaries." At the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.23) the sages of Naimiṣāraṇya asked,

brūhi yogeśvare kṛṣṇe

brahmaṇye dharma-varmaṇi

svāṁ kāṣṭhām adhunopete

dharmaḥ kaṁ śaraṇaṁ gataḥ

"My dear Sir, kindly tell us whether the principles of religion have gone with the Lord, after His departure for His own abode. How can we find such principles after His departure?"

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 16:

This is confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam when Nārada speaks of the different symptoms characterizing the four divisions of social life. Nārada therein summarizes that brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras should be selected by their individual qualifications. In his commentary, Śrīdhara Svāmī has noted that birth in a family of brāhmaṇas does not necessarily mean that one is a brāhmaṇa. One must be qualified with the symptoms of a brāhmaṇa, as the symptoms are described in the śāstras. In the disciplic succession of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya, there are two great ācāryas (Ṭhākura Narottama and Śyāmānanda Gosvāmī) who were not born in brāhmaṇa families but were accepted as spiritual masters by many brāhmaṇas of fame, including Gaṅgānārāyaṇa, Rāmakṛṣṇa, etc.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 18:

On the other hand, there are many so-called devotees who think Vedānta is not meant for devotees. Such people are ignorant of the fact that Vedānta is the only platform of pure devotees. All the great ācāryas of the four Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas have made commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra, but the so-called devotees known as prākṛta-sahajiyā carefully avoid the study of Vedānta-sūtra. The prākṛta-sahajiyā mistakenly take the pure devotees and Vaiṣṇava ācāryas to be mental speculators or fruitive actors. Consequently they themselves become Māyāvādīs and leave the service of the Supreme Lord.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 18:

Lord Caitanya explained all this to Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī and told him that He had heard all this from His spiritual master. He further informed Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī that His spiritual master had taught Him that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the actual commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, as stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by Vyāsadeva, the author of Vedānta-sūtra.

A student is to be considered perfected when he understands the identity of the holy name and the Supreme Lord. Unless one is under the shelter of a realized spiritual master, his understanding of the Supreme is simply foolishness. However, one can fully understand the transcendental Lord by service and devotion. When Lord Caitanya offenselessly chanted the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, He declared that the mantra could at once deliver a conditioned soul from material contamination. In this age of Kali there is no alternative to chanting this mahā-mantra.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 19:

"Dear sir, what You have spoken is all true. A person who attains love of Godhead is certainly very fortunate, and undoubtedly You are very fortunate to have attained this stage. But what is the fault in Vedānta? It is the duty of a sannyāsī to read and understand Vedānta. Why do You not study it?"

According to Māyāvādī philosophers, Vedānta refers to the Śārīraka commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. When impersonal philosophers refer to Vedānta and the Upaniṣads, they are actually referring to the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya, the greatest teacher of Māyāvādī philosophy. After Śaṅkarācārya came Sadānanda-yogī, who claimed that the Vedānta and Upaniṣads should be understood through the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya. Factually, this is not so. There are many commentaries on Vedānta and the Upaniṣads made by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, and these are preferred to those of Śaṅkarācārya. However, the Māyāvādī philosophers influenced by Śaṅkarācārya do not attribute any importance to the Vaiṣṇava understandings.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 19:

There are four different sects of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas—the Śuddhādvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaitādvaita and Acintya-bhedābheda. All the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas in these schools have written commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra, but the Māyāvādī philosophers do not recognize them. The Māyāvādīs distinguish between Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa's body, and therefore they do not recognize the worship of Kṛṣṇa by the Vaiṣṇava philosophers. Thus when the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs asked Lord Caitanya why He did not study the Vedānta-sūtra, the Lord replied, "Dear sirs, you have asked why I do not study Vedānta, and in answer to this I would speak something, but I am afraid that you would be sorry to hear it."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 19:

We must understand that the incarnation of God is transcendental to all these defects. Thus whatever has been spoken and written by Vyāsadeva is considered to be perfect. The Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra aim at the same goal: the Supreme Absolute Truth. When we accept the import of Vedānta-sūtra and the Upaniṣads directly as they are stated, we become glorified. The commentaries made by Śaṅkarācārya, however, are indirect and are very dangerous for the common man to read, for by understanding the import of the Upaniṣads in such an indirect, disruptive way, one practically bars himself from spiritual realization.

According to the Skanda and Vāyu Purāṇas, the word sūtra refers to a condensed work which carries meaning and import of immeasurable strength without mistake or fault. The word vedānta means "the end of Vedic knowledge." In other words, any book which deals with the subject matter indicated by all the Vedas is called Vedānta.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 19:

Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas, especially Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Mahā-Purāṇa) are called smṛti-prasthāna. From Vedic literatures we understand that the Vedas originated from the breathing of Nārāyaṇa. Vyāsadeva, who is an incarnation of the power of Nārāyaṇa, has compiled the Vedānta-sūtra (nyāya-prasthāna), but according to Śaṅkara's commentaries, Apāntaratamā Ṛṣi is also accredited with having compiled the codes of Vedānta-sūtra. According to Lord Caitanya, the codes of the Pañcarātra and the codes of Vedānta are one and the same. Since the Vedānta-sūtra is compiled by Vyāsadeva, it should be understood to be spoken by Nārāyaṇa Himself. From all descriptive literatures dealing with Vedānta-sūtra, it appears that there were many other ṛṣis contemporary with Vyāsadeva who also discussed Vedānta-sūtra. These sages were Ātreya, Āśmarathya, Auḍulomi, Kārṣṇājini, Kāśakṛtsna, Jaimini, Bādarī and other sages such as Pārāśarī and Karmandī.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 19:

Actually in the first two chapters of Vedānta-sūtra the relationship between the living entities and the Supreme Lord is explained, and in the Third Chapter the discharge of devotional service is explained. The Fourth Chapter deals with the relationship which results from discharging devotional service. The natural commentary on Vedānta-sūtra is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The great ācāryas of the four Vaiṣṇava communities (sampradāyas)—namely, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī and Nimbārka—have also written commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra by following the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. At present the followers of all the ācāryas have written many books following the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the commentary on the Vedānta. Śaṅkara's commentary on Vedānta-sūtra, known as Śārīraka-bhāṣya, is very much adored by the impersonalist scholars, but commentaries written on the Vedānta written from the materialistic point of view are completely adverse to the transcendental service of the Lord. Consequently Lord Caitanya said that direct commentaries on the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra are glorious, but that anyone who follows the indirect path of Śaṅkarācārya's Śārīraka-bhāṣya is certainly doomed.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 22:

After talking in this way, both Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī and Lord Caitanya sat together. "Whatever You have said concerning discrepancies in the Māyāvādī philosophy is also known by us," Prakāśānanda said. "Indeed, we know that all the commentaries on Vedic scriptures by Māyāvādī philosophers are erroneous, especially those of Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya's interpretations of Vedānta-sūtra are all figments of his imagination. You have not explained the codes of the Vedānta-sūtra and Upaniṣads according to Your own imagination but have presented them as they are. Thus we are all pleased to have heard Your explanation. Such explanations of the codes of Vedānta-sūtra and the Upaniṣads cannot be given by anyone but the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Since You have all the potencies of the Supreme Lord, please explain the Vedānta-sūtra further so that I may be benefited."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 22:

Lord Caitanya protested against being called the Supreme Lord, and He said, "My dear sir, I am an ordinary living entity. I cannot know the real meaning of Vedānta-sūtra, but Vyāsadeva, who is an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa, knows its real meaning. No ordinary living entity can interpret Vedānta-sūtra according to his mundane conceptions. In order to curb commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra by unscrupulous persons, the author himself, Vyāsadeva, has already commentated upon the Vedānta-sūtra by writing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." In other words, the best explanation of a book is written by the author himself. No one can understand the author's mind unless the author himself discloses the purpose behind his writing. Therefore Vedānta-sūtra should be understood through Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the commentary written by the author of Vedānta-sūtra.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 22:

There are four verses written in this connection, and these are explained to Brahmā by Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself. In his turn, Brahmā explains them to Nārada, and Nārada explains them to Vyāsadeva. In this way the purport of the verses of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam come down through disciplic succession. It is not that anyone and everyone can make his own foolish commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra and mislead readers. Anyone who wants to understand Vedānta-sūtra must read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam carefully. Under the instructions of Nārada Muni, Vyāsadeva compiled Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam with the purpose of explaining the Vedānta-sūtra. In writing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Vyāsadeva collected all the essence of the Upaniṣads, the purpose of which was also explained in Vedānta-sūtra. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is thus the essence of all Vedic knowledge. That which is stated in the Upaniṣads and restated in Vedānta-sūtra is explained very nicely in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

Mahārāja Ambarīṣa was advised to read Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam regularly if he at all desired liberation from material bondage. Under these circumstances, there is no doubt regarding the authority of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. For the past five hundred years many scholars have made elaborate commentaries upon Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and have displayed unique scholarship. The serious student will do well to attempt to go through them in order to more happily relish the transcendental messages of the Bhāgavatam.

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura specifically deals with original and pure sex psychology (ādi-rasa) devoid of all mundane inebriety. The entire material world turns due to the basic principle of sex life. In modern human civilization, sex is the central point of all activities; indeed, wherever we turn our face we see sex life prominent.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

In an attempt to dominate material nature, the living entity is forced to offer his service to relative material energy. When this service is transferred to the Lord in pure consciousness of spiritual identity, the living entity at once becomes free from the encumbrances of material affection.

Over and above this, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the personal commentary on Vedānta-sūtra made by Vyāsadeva when he had attained maturity in spiritual realization. He was able to write it by the help of Nārada's mercy. Vyāsadeva is also an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead; therefore there is no question about his authority. Although he is the author of all Vedic literature, he specifically recommends the study of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In other purāṇas various methods for worshiping demigods are mentioned, but in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam only the Supreme Personality of Godhead is mentioned. The Supreme Lord is the total body, and the demigods are different parts of that body.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 25:

Because it is disguised as Vedānta philosophy, Māyāvādī philosophy is more dangerous than Buddhism or atheism.

Vedānta-sūtra is compiled by Vyāsadeva for the benefit of all living entities. It is through Vedānta-sūtra that the philosophy of bhakti-yoga can be understood. Unfortunately, the Māyāvādī commentary, Śārīraka-bhāṣya, has practically defeated the purpose of Vedānta-sūtra. In the Māyāvādī commentary, the spiritual, transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead has been denied, and the Supreme Brahman has been dragged down to the level of the individual Brahman, the living entity. Both the Supreme Brahman and the individual Brahman have been denied spiritual form and individuality, although it is clearly stated that the Supreme Lord is the one supreme living entity and the other living entities are the many subordinate living entities. Thus reading the Māyāvādī commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra is always dangerous. The chief danger is that through these commentaries one may come to consider the living entity to be equal to the Supreme Lord.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 27:

When Lord Caitanya visited this temple, He praised the Deity and quoted a verse from Śrīdhara Svāmī's commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.9.1):

ugro 'py anugra evāyaṁ

sva-bhaktānāṁ nṛkeśarī

keśarīva svapotānām

anyeṣām ugra-vikramaḥ

"Although Lord Nṛsiṁha is very severe to demons and nondevotees, He is very kind to His submissive devotees like Prahlāda." Lord Nṛsiṁha appeared as a half-man, half-lion incarnation of Kṛṣṇa when Prahlāda, a boy devotee of the Lord, was harassed by his demoniac father Hiraṇyakaśipu. Just as a lion is very ferocious to other animals but very kind and submissive to his cubs, so Lord Nṛsiṁha appeared ferocious to Hiraṇyakaśipu and very kind to His devotee Prahlāda.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 1:

I now consider the happiness of brahmānanda to be no more than the water in the impression left by a cow's hoof in the earth, compared to this ocean of bliss." Similarly, it is confirmed in the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, Śrīdhara Svāmī's commentary on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, "My dear Lord, some of the fortunate persons who are swimming in the ocean of Your nectar of devotion, and who are relishing the nectar of the narration of Your pastimes, certainly know ecstasies which immediately minimize the value of the happiness derived from religiousness, economic development, sense gratification and liberation. Such a transcendental devotee regards any kind of happiness other than devotional service as no better than straw in the street."

Nectar of Devotion 35:

The basic principle of their impersonal attitude does not allow them the transcendental pleasure which is relished by a devotee whose basic principle of understanding is the Supreme Person. The impersonalistic commentary on Bhagavad-gītā is therefore disastrous, because without understanding the transcendental pleasure of the Gītā, the impersonalist wants to interpret it in his own way. If an impersonalist can, however, come in contact with a pure devotee, his transcendental position can be changed for greater elevation. Great sages are therefore recommended to worship the form of the Lord in order to achieve that highest transcendental pleasure.

Without worshiping the arcā-vigraha, the form or Deity of the Lord, one cannot understand such literature as Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Nectar of Instruction

Nectar of Instruction 2, Purport:

This spiritual association offered by our ISKCON movement is increasing day by day. Many people from different parts of the world are joining this Society to awaken their dormant Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

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.

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna Book 90:

Why Arjuna was puzzled by Kṛṣṇa's going to see Kāraṇārṇavaśāyī Viṣṇu in the spiritual world is fully discussed in the commentaries of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, as follows. It is understood from the speech of Mahā-Viṣṇu that He was very eager to see Kṛṣṇa. It may be said, however, that since Mahā-Viṣṇu took away the brāhmaṇa's sons, He must certainly have gone to Dvārakā to do so. Therefore, why did He not see Kṛṣṇa there? A possible answer is that unless Kṛṣṇa gives His permission, He cannot be seen even by Mahā-Viṣṇu, lying in the Causal Ocean of the spiritual world. Thus Mahā-Viṣṇu took away the brāhmaṇa's sons one after another just after their births so that Kṛṣṇa would come personally to the Casual Ocean to retrieve them, and then Mahā-Viṣṇu would be able to see Him there. If that is so, the next question is this: Why would Mahā-Viṣṇu come to Dvārakā personally if He were not able to see Kṛṣṇa? Why did He not send some of His associates to take away the sons of the brāhmaṇa? A possible answer is that it is very difficult to put any of the citizens of Dvārakā into trouble in the presence of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, because it was not possible for any of Mahā-Viṣṇu's associates to take away the brāhmaṇa's sons, He personally came to take them.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.2:

The Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, accepts the authority of the Vedānta-sūtra and considers the philosophical presentation proper. Up till the present day, every spiritual line, even in the impersonalist school, has based its philosophical authority on the Vedānta-sūtra. And the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural and faultless commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. This is Lord Caitanya's opinion.

Learned circles consider a disciplic line bereft of a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra to be unauthorized and useless. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's Vedānta commentary, entitled Śārīraka-bhāṣya, is the main commentary of the impersonal, monistic school. Among the Vaiṣṇavas, besides Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya's commentary, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa's Govinda-bhāṣya is the main commentary in the line of Lord Caitanya, known as the Mādhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

Once one of the brahmacārīs of our āśrama met Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, who is a spiritualist of sorts and an erudite scholar. Dr. Radhakrishnan is the vice-president of India as I write this essay. On meeting him, our brahmacārī received from him a copy of his Bhagavad-gītā as a gift. Dr. Radhakrishnan had translated this Gītā into English and written a commentary on it, and it sold well in the market for ten rupees in those days (1954).

The brahmacārī read the book and came to us a little dissatisfied, though the book itself was deeply esoteric. The reason for his dissatisfaction was that Dr. Radhakrishnan's writing lacked spiritual insight: in many places he had mishandled and misinterpreted the text, and thus he had made his book unacceptable to spiritualists in the line of pure devotion. This is a perfect example of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's statement (1.1.1) that "by Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion" (muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ).

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

An intelligent opponent will present reasonable rebuttals, but an ignorant friend may bring about disaster with his floundering. Therefore we feel no compunction about strongly arguing against the points Dr. Radhakrishnan makes in his Bhagavad-gītā commentary.

A well-known Bengali saying goes, "After reading the whole Rāmāyaṇa, you want to know whose father Sītā is?" This question is ludicrous, since Sītā is Lord Rāma's wife, and thus such a query will naturally invite quips and laughter. We find the same absurdity in Dr. Radhakrishnan's English commentary on the Gītā. He writes that we do not have to surrender to the person Kṛṣṇa but to "the Unborn, Beginningless, Eternal" within Kṛṣṇa. This implies that Lord Kṛṣṇa and His "inner self" are two separate identities.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

Is it possible to surrender to everyone? Surrender should be directed toward the Supreme Lord alone. Dr. Radhakrishnan's proposal is impractical, and indeed impossible. Long before Dr. Radhakrishnan wrote his commentary, many realized spiritual preceptors, including the famous Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, explained that the words ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ mean that one should render transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, favorably. No genuine scholar would be willing to disregard all other spiritual authorities and accept Dr. Radhakrishnan's version.

When Dr. Radhakrishnan uses the words "faith in the Lord," he definitely refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By what logic does he say "Lord" but mean the impersonal Brahman? Arjuna certainly means the person Kṛṣṇa when he says (BG 2.7), śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam: "Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me." With these words he addresses Kṛṣṇa at the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.3:

If this esoteric concept were false, then Kṛṣṇa would not be worshiped throughout India, practically in every home. He is worshiped not as a historical figure but as the Supreme Lord. Kṛṣṇa's position as the Supreme Godhead is firmly established by the authoritative text Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the natural commentary on and essence of the Vedānta-sūtra and the Gāyatrī mantra. Many scholarly Māyāvādīs far more erudite than Dr. Radhakrishnan have tried to shake the faith of the general populace, but since time immemorial Kṛṣṇa temples have mushroomed by the millions—a slap in the face for the Māyāvādīs and atheists, who claim the Lord Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary mortal. In the future also, more Kṛṣṇa temples will be built to frustrate the agnostics and nonbelievers. All Viṣṇu temples are authorized by the scriptures and ācāryas. It hardly seems likely that, just for the sake of Dr. Radhakrishnan, the entire Indian population is going to strike a compromise with Māyāvāda philosophy.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 5.1:

The Vedic literature consists of the śruti (the Vedas and Upaniṣads) and the smṛti (the Vedānta-sūtra, the Puraṇas, Itihāsas like the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa, the Pañcarātras, and finally the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam). The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra and offers solid education on how to conduct life perfectly. In recent ages the smṛti texts have become prominent and influenced human thought and action. All these scriptures fully support the varṇāśrama system of four social and four religious orders. But what is today being labeled varṇāśrama is an atheistic concept totally unsupported by the scriptures. Real varṇāśrama is based not on birth but on people's qualities and activities. One cannot reach the goal of the scriptures by practicing today's demoniac caste system. Only the introduction of daivī-varṇāśrama, the transcendental varṇāśrama system, will serve the purpose of the scriptures. This will move humanity toward liberation.

Message of Godhead

Message of Godhead 2:

If we are at all able to grasp this genuine message of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the teacher of Bhagavad-gītā, then and only then can we perfectly appreciate the teachings of Bhagavad-gītā. Otherwise, we can go on reading Bhagavad-gītā life after life, and we may write a thousand and one commentaries on it, but all such attempts will prove futile.

What the Personality of Godhead is, He Himself has explained in Bhagavad-gītā. How many common men have written their autobiographies, and how enthusiastically we have read and accepted them. But when the Personality of Godhead Himself tells about Himself, we cannot take it as it is. This is nothing but our misfortune. On the other hand, we try to drag concocted meanings out of the simple passages of Bhagavad-gītā to establish some man-made idea which is never supported by Bhagavad-gītā.

Light of the Bhagavata

Light of the Bhagavata Preface:

For example, the dark, cloudy evening of the rainy autumn season when no stars are visible is compared to the present materialistic, godless civilization when the bright stars of the Bhāgavata's wisdom (the devotees and scriptures) are temporarily obscured. Altogether Śrīla Prabhupāda composed forty-eight commentaries to go along with the verses of the chapter.

Śrīla Prabhupāda's plan was that the organizers of the conference should find a qualified Oriental artist to illustrate each verse, and he wrote directions from which the artist could design each painting. He hoped that the paintings and their accompanying explanations would make an impressive display for visitors to the conference. If possible, he wished that there might be published a book containing the illustrations and the texts.

Light of the Bhagavata Preface:

Those who prefer to gaze with poetic imagination will appreciate the first section which contains the beautiful color reproductions of Madame Li's work, forty-eight paintings completed in less than a year's time, meticulous in their detail despite her advanced age and sometimes failing eyesight. Undoubtedly, this collection presents the culmination of her long distinguished career as one of the great artists of modern China. Her Gongbi style of painting together with Śrīla Prabhupāda's poetic descriptions which appear along side make for a unique blending of the world's two oldest cultural traditions—India and China.

Those readers who wish to go more deeply into the philosophy of the Light of the Bhāgavata may turn to the black and white section of the book. There they will find the complete commentaries written by Śrīla Prabhupāda along with small miniature reproductions of the paintings to help identify the painting being described.

Sri Isopanisad

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

Śaṅkarācārya is supposed to be an impersonalist who preached impersonalism, impersonal Brahman, but it is a fact that he is a covered personalist. In his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā he wrote, "Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this cosmic manifestation." And then again he confirmed, "That Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, is Kṛṣṇa. He has come as the son of Devakī and Vasudeva." He particularly mentioned the names of His father and mother. So Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it. Our source of knowledge in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the Bhagavad-gītā, which comes directly from Kṛṣṇa. We have published Bhagavad-gītā As It Is because we accept Kṛṣṇa as He is speaking, without any interpretation. That is Vedic knowledge. Since the Vedic knowledge is pure, we accept it. Whatever Kṛṣṇa says, we accept. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That saves much time. If you accept the right authority, or source of knowledge, then you save much time.

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

Kṛṣṇa says that throughout all the Vedas one has to understand Him: vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. Kṛṣṇa also says, vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham: "I am the compiler of the Vedānta-sūtra, and I am the knower of the Vedas." Therefore the ultimate objective is Kṛṣṇa. That is explained in all the Vaiṣṇava commentaries on Vedānta philosophy. We Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas have our commentary on Vedānta philosophy, called Govinda-bhāṣya, by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Similarly, Rāmānujācārya has a commentary, and Madhvācārya has one. The version of Śaṅkarācārya is not the only commentary. There are many Vedānta commentaries, but because the Vaiṣṇavas did not present the first Vedānta commentary, people are under the wrong impression that Śaṅkarācārya's is the only Vedānta commentary. Besides that, Vyāsadeva himself wrote the perfect Vedānta commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Sri Isopanisad 6, Purport:

Formerly there was no need to record the messages of the Vedas, because people in earlier ages were more intelligent and had sharper memories. They could follow the instructions simply by hearing once from the mouth of a bona fide spiritual master.

At present there are many commentaries on the revealed scriptures, but most of them are not in the line of disciplic succession coming from Śrīla Vyāsadeva, who originally compiled the Vedic wisdom. The final, most perfect and sublime work by Śrīla Vyāsadeva is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. There is also the Bhagavad-gītā, which was spoken by the Lord Himself and recorded by Vyāsadeva. These are the most important revealed scriptures, and any

commentary that contradicts the principles of the Bhagavad-gītā or Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is unauthorized. There is complete agreement among the Upaniṣads, Vedānta-sūtra, Vedas, Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and no one should try to reach any conclusion about the Vedas without receiving instructions from members of Vyāsadeva's disciplic succession, who believe in the Personality of Godhead and His diverse energies as they are explained in Śrī Īśopaniṣad.

Sri Isopanisad 13, Purport:

According to the Vedānta-sūtra, sambhūta is the source of birth and sustenance, as well as the reservoir that remains after annihilation (janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1)). The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra by the same author, maintains that the source of all emanations is not like a dead stone but is abhijña, or fully conscious. The primeval Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, also says in the Bhagavad-gītā (7.26) that He is fully conscious of past, present and future and that no one, including demigods such as Śiva and Brahmā, knows Him fully. Certainly half-educated "spiritual leaders" who are disturbed by the tides of material existence cannot know Him fully. They try to make some compromise by making the mass of humanity the object of worship, but they do not know that such worship is only a myth because the masses are imperfect. The attempt by these so-called spiritual leaders is something like pouring water on the leaves of a tree instead of the root. The natural process is to pour water on the root, but such disturbed leaders are more attracted to the leaves than the root.

Narada-bhakti-sutra (sutras 1 to 8 only)

Narada Bhakti Sutra 2, Purport:

In the Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa stresses in many verses that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But despite Lord Kṛṣṇa's stressing this point, many so-called scholars and commentators still deny the personal conception of the Lord. One famous scholar wrote in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gītā that one does not have to surrender to Lord Kṛṣṇa or even accept Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but that one should rather surrender to "the Supreme within Kṛṣṇa." Such fools do not know what is within and what is without. They comment on the Bhagavad-gītā according to their own whims. Such persons cannot be elevated to the highest stage of love of Godhead. They may be scholarly, and they may be elevated in other departments of knowledge, but they are not even neophytes in the process of attaining the highest stage of perfection, love of Godhead. Niṣṭhā implies that one should accept the words of Bhagavad-gītā, the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as they are, without any deviation or nonsensical commentary.