Dr. Radhakrishnan (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"radhakrishnan" |"radhakrishnan's" |"radhakrishnans"

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is -- Los Angeles, November 23, 1968 :

Devotee: The Bhagavad-gītā also should be accepted as it is directly by the speaker Himself. The speaker is Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He is mentioned on every page as the Supreme Personality of Godhead or Bhagavān. Bhagavān sometimes means any powerful person or demigod, but here it means Kṛṣṇa."

Prabhupāda: Most of you must have read some editions of Bhagavad-gītā. I will give you instances. One of the English translations, commentaries by Dr. Radhakrishnan, in the Ninth Chapter the Lord says,

man-manā bhava mad-bhakto

mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru

mām evaiṣyasi kaunteya

asaṁśaya...

The Lord says that "You, you just always remain thinking of Me." That means always remain in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Simply this Kṛṣṇa consciousness means some way or other you have to think of Kṛṣṇa always.

Lecture on BG 1.20 -- London, July 17, 1973:

You should understand, the so-called yogis, they are first-class rascal because they do not understand Kṛṣṇa. The jñānīs they are also second-class rascal. Even a big scholar like Dr. Radhakrishnan, he is how, I mean to say, deforming the meaning of Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa says man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "You always think..." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, man-manā: "Always think of Kṛṣṇa, Me, about Me," Kṛṣṇa says. And they will make meaning that you can say also. "Kṛṣṇa says that you always think of Him; you can say also, Think of me." This meaning, they are distorting. So Kṛṣṇa says man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65), and this Dr. Radhakrishnan says, "It is not to the Kṛṣṇa person." Just see. Just a big scholar, doctor of philosophy, he cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says directly, man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ (BG 9.34). He is interpreting in a different way.

Lecture on BG 2.1-10 and Talk -- Los Angeles, November 25, 1968:

"You are speaking learned words, but your behavior shows that you are not learned because you are lamenting on a subject which no learned man laments." Politely He says that "You are not learned, but you are talking just like a learned man." That you will find. Dr. Frog, (laughs) speaking like a very great philosopher. Just like here, that Dr. Radhakrishnan, that says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa but within Kṛṣṇa." That fool does not know that there is no within or without of Kṛṣṇa. Rather, Kṛṣṇa is within and without. That he does not know. And he's accepted as a very great learned man. Dr. Frog, or Dr. Radhakrishnan. You see? This is going on in the world. They are posing themself as very learned, but... This can be detected by devotees, who is learned and who is not learned. Others cannot detect. Others will be misled. The devotees, they have got such eyes to see that they can immediately discriminate who is a fool, who is learned.

Lecture on BG 2.1-10 and Talk -- Los Angeles, November 25, 1968:

Just like we are also following the instruction of our spiritual master. I don't claim that I am pure devotee or perfect, but my only qualification is that I am trying to follow the instruction of the perfect. Similarly... This is called disciplic succession. Just like here it is stated that Kṛṣṇa is the original spiritual master and Arjuna is the original student. So Arjuna said that sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yad vadasi keśava (BG 10.14). "My dear Kṛṣṇa, whatever You are saying, I accept in toto," in the Tenth Chapter. Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa, it is something else." He does not accept in that way. He says that "Whatever You are saying, I accept it. You are saying that You are the Supreme, I accept it. I don't say that You have got a separate thing within. That is Supreme, You are not Supreme, as person." This is impersonalist. They do not know that Kṛṣṇa has no such... A conditioned soul... Just like we are, I am different from my soul. "I am" means my body, or I am soul, different from the body. So Kṛṣṇa has no such differentiation. He does not know that. Because he's not following Kṛṣṇa, the perfect spiritual master. He's following some rascal spiritual master. Therefore he has this mistake.