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.
Commentaries (BG and SB)
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Preface and Introduction
Bhagavad-gītā is also known as Gītopaniṣad. It is the essence of Vedic knowledge and one of the most important Upaniṣads in Vedic literature. Of course there are many commentaries in English on the Bhagavad-gītā, and one may question the necessity for another one. This present edition can be explained in the following way. Recently an American lady asked me to recommend an English translation of Bhagavad-gītā. Of course in America there are so many editions of Bhagavad-gītā available in English, but as far as I have seen, not only in America but also in India, none of them can be strictly said to be authoritative because in almost every one of them the commentator has expressed his own opinions without touching the spirit of Bhagavad-gītā as it is.
BG Chapters 1 - 6
There are two classes of men, namely the devotee and the demon. The Lord selected Arjuna as the recipient of this great science owing to his being a devotee of the Lord, but for the demon it is not possible to understand this great mysterious science. There are a number of editions of this great book of knowledge. Some of them have commentaries by the devotees, and some of them have commentaries by the demons. Commentation by the devotees is real, whereas that of the demons is useless. Arjuna accepts Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and any commentary on the Gītā following in the footsteps of Arjuna is real devotional service to the cause of this great science. The demonic, however, do not accept Lord Kṛṣṇa as He is. Instead they concoct something about Kṛṣṇa and mislead general readers from the path of Kṛṣṇa's instructions. Here is a warning about such misleading paths. One should try to follow the disciplic succession from Arjuna, and thus be benefitted by this great science of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā.
There are two classes of sannyāsīs, or persons in the renounced order of life. The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are engaged in the study of Sāṅkhya philosophy, whereas the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs are engaged in the study of Bhāgavatam philosophy, which affords the proper commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras. The Māyāvādī sannyāsīs also study the Vedānta-sūtras, but use their own commentary, called Śārīraka-bhāṣya, written by Śaṅkarācārya. The students of the Bhāgavata school are engaged in the devotional service of the Lord, according to pāñcarātrikī regulations, and therefore the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs have multiple engagements in the transcendental service of the Lord. The Vaiṣṇava sannyāsīs have nothing to do with material activities, and yet they perform various activities in their devotional service to the Lord. But the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs, engaged in the studies of Sāṅkhya and Vedānta and speculation, cannot relish the transcendental service of the Lord.
The word avajānanti, used in this verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, is also found in the Bhagavad-gītā. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ: (BG 9.11) "Only the fools and rascals deride the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Kṛṣṇa." Such fools take it upon themselves to write commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā without an attitude of service to the Lord. Consequently they cannot properly distinguish between the word bhajanti and the word "worship."
The culmination of all kinds of yoga practices lies in bhakti yoga. All other yogas are but means to come to the point of bhakti in bhakti-yoga. Yoga actually means bhakti-yoga; all other yogas are progressions toward the destination of bhakti-yoga. From the beginning of karma-yoga to the end of bhakti-yoga is a long way to self-realization. Karma-yoga, without fruitive results, is the beginning of this path.
BG Chapters 7 - 12
However, Kṛṣṇa can be known only by persons who are in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Other transcendentalists may achieve impersonal Brahman realization, for this is easier than understanding Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Person, but at the same time He is beyond the knowledge of Brahman and Paramātmā. The yogīs and jñānīs are confused in their attempts to understand Kṛṣṇa. Although the greatest of the impersonalists, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, has admitted in his Gītā commentary that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his followers do not accept Kṛṣṇa as such, for it is very difficult to know Kṛṣṇa, even though one has transcendental realization of impersonal Brahman.
Those who attain the highest material planets, the planets of the demigods, are again subjected to repeated birth and death. As persons on earth are elevated to higher planets, people on higher planets such as Brahmaloka, Candraloka and Indraloka fall down to earth. The practice of sacrifice called pañcāgni-vidyā, recommended in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, enables one to achieve Brahmaloka, but if, on Brahmaloka, one does not cultivate Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then he must return to earth. Those who progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness on the higher planets are gradually elevated to higher and higher planets and at the time of universal devastation are transferred to the eternal spiritual kingdom. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, in his commentary on Bhagavad-gītā, quotes this verse:
The Sanskrit word anasūyave in this verse is also very significant. Generally the commentators, even if they are highly scholarly, are all envious of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Even the most erudite scholars write on Bhagavad-gītā very inaccurately. Because they are envious of Kṛṣṇa, their commentaries are useless. The commentaries given by devotees of the Lord are bona fide. No one can explain Bhagavad-gītā or give perfect knowledge of Kṛṣṇa if he is envious. One who criticizes the character of Kṛṣṇa without knowing Him is a fool. So such commentaries should be very carefully avoided. For one who understands that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the pure and transcendental Personality, these chapters will be very beneficial.
A learned scholar who has studied the Vedas perfectly and has information from authorities like Lord Caitanya and who knows how to apply these teachings can understand that Kṛṣṇa is the origin of everything in both the material and spiritual worlds, and because he knows this perfectly he becomes firmly fixed in the devotional service of the Supreme Lord. He can never be deviated by any amount of nonsensical commentaries or by fools. All Vedic literature agrees that Kṛṣṇa is the source of Brahmā, Śiva and all other demigods. In the Atharva Veda (Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.24) it is said, yo brahmāṇaṁ vidadhāti pūrvaṁ yo vai vedāṁś ca gāpayati sma kṛṣṇaḥ: "It was Kṛṣṇa who in the beginning instructed Brahmā in Vedic knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the past." Then again the Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad (1) says, atha puruṣo ha vai nārāyaṇo 'kāmayata prajāḥ sṛjeyeti: "Then the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa desired to create living entities."
Lord Kṛṣṇa is the source of all generations, and He is called the most efficient cause of everything. He says, "Because everything is born of Me, I am the original source of all. Everything is under Me; no one is above Me." There is no supreme controller other than Kṛṣṇa. One who understands Kṛṣṇa in such a way from a bona fide spiritual master, with references from Vedic literature, engages all his energy in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and becomes a truly learned man. In comparison to him, all others, who do not know Kṛṣṇa properly, are but fools. Only a fool would consider Kṛṣṇa to be an ordinary man. A Kṛṣṇa conscious person should not be bewildered by fools; he should avoid all unauthorized commentaries and interpretations on Bhagavad-gītā and proceed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness with determination and firmness.
That is the way of pure devotional service. How one can attain the highest devotional perfection of association with the Supreme Personality of Godhead has been thoroughly explained in this chapter. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, a great ācārya in disciplic succession from Kṛṣṇa, concludes his commentary on this chapter by saying,
- yac-chakti-leśāt suryādyā
- bhavanty aty-ugra-tejasaḥ
- yad-aṁśena dhṛtaṁ viśvaṁ
- sa kṛṣṇo daśame 'rcyate
From Lord Kṛṣṇa's potent energy even the powerful sun gets its power, and by Kṛṣṇa's partial expansion the whole world is maintained. Therefore Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is worshipable.
If Kṛṣṇa is like an ordinary human being, then how is it possible for Him to show the universal form and again to show the four-handed Nārāyaṇa form? So it is very clearly stated in Bhagavad-gītā that one who thinks that Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary person and who misguides the reader by claiming that it is the impersonal Brahman within Kṛṣṇa speaking is doing the greatest injustice. Kṛṣṇa has actually shown His universal form and His four-handed Viṣṇu form. So how can He be an ordinary human being? A pure devotee is not confused by misguiding commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā because he knows what is what. The original verses of Bhagavad-gītā are as clear as the sun; they do not require lamplight from foolish commentators.
The word na, used repeatedly in the previous verse, indicates that one should not be very much proud of such credentials as an academic education in Vedic literature. One must take to the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa. Only then can one attempt to write commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā.
Kṛṣṇa changes from the universal form to the four-handed form of Nārāyaṇa and then to His own natural form of two hands. This indicates that the four-handed forms and other forms mentioned in Vedic literature are all emanations of the original two-handed Kṛṣṇa. He is the origin of all emanations. Kṛṣṇa is distinct even from these forms, what to speak of the impersonal conception. As far as the four-handed forms of Kṛṣṇa are concerned, it is stated clearly that even the most identical four-handed form of Kṛṣṇa (which is known as Mahā-Viṣṇu, who is lying on the cosmic ocean and from whose breathing so many innumerable universes are passing out and entering) is also an expansion of the Supreme Lord.
So in practically every chapter the conclusion has been that one should be attached to the personal form of Kṛṣṇa, for that is the highest spiritual realization.
Nevertheless, there are those who are not attached to the personal form of Kṛṣṇa. They are so firmly detached that even in the preparation of commentaries to Bhagavad-gītā they want to distract other people from Kṛṣṇa and transfer all devotion to the impersonal brahmajyoti. They prefer to meditate on the impersonal form of the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the reach of the senses and is not manifest.
And so, factually, there are two classes of transcendentalists. Now Arjuna is trying to settle the question of which process is easier and which of the classes is most perfect. In other words, he is clarifying his own position because he is attached to the personal form of Kṛṣṇa. He is not attached to the impersonal Brahman.
BG Chapters 13 - 18
In Vedic literature there are some difficult passages, but the meaning or the purpose should be learned from a bona fide spiritual master. That is the process for understanding the Vedas. Śruti means that one should hear from the authority. One should not construe some interpretation for his personal interest. There are so many commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā that misinterpret the original text. The real import of the word should be presented, and that should be learned from a bona fide spiritual master.
Akrodha means to check anger. Even if there is provocation one should be tolerant, for once one becomes angry his whole body becomes polluted. Anger is a product of the mode of passion and lust, so one who is transcendentally situated should check himself from anger. Apaiśunam means that one should not find fault with others or correct them unnecessarily.
It is, however, sometimes found that even demoniac persons who are envious of Kṛṣṇa, worshiping Kṛṣṇa in a different way, take to the profession of explaining Bhagavad-gītā in a different way to make business, but anyone who desires actually to understand Kṛṣṇa must avoid such commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā. Actually the purpose of Bhagavad-gītā is not understandable to those who are sensuous. Even if one is not sensuous but is strictly following the disciplines enjoined in the Vedic scripture, if he is not a devotee he also cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. And even when one poses himself as a devotee of Kṛṣṇa but is not engaged in Kṛṣṇa conscious activities, he also cannot understand Kṛṣṇa. There are many persons who envy Kṛṣṇa because He has explained in Bhagavad-gītā that He is the Supreme and that nothing is above Him or equal to Him. There are many persons who are envious of Kṛṣṇa. Such persons should not be told of Bhagavad-gītā, for they cannot understand.
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Preface and Introduction
Over and above this, the reader will be able to convert others to accepting God as a concrete principle.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins with the definition of the ultimate source. It is a bona fide commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra by the same author, Śrīla Vyāsadeva, and gradually it develops into nine cantos up to the highest state of God realization. The only qualification one needs to study this great book of transcendental knowledge is to proceed step by step cautiously and not jump forward haphazardly like with an ordinary book. It should be gone through chapter by chapter, one after another. The reading matter is so arranged with its original Sanskrit text, its English transliteration, synonyms, translation and purports so that one is sure to become a God-realized soul at the end of finishing the first nine cantos.
Such men with a poor fund of knowledge are misled by many nondevotees. Thus the teachings of the Bhagavad-gītā were misinterpreted even by great scholars. After the disappearance of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa there were hundreds of commentaries on the Bhagavad-gītā by many erudite scholars, and almost every one of them was motivated by self-interest.
Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the selfsame Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. This time, however, He appeared as a great devotee of the Lord in order to preach to the people in general, as well as to religionists and philosophers, about the transcendental position of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the primeval Lord and the cause of all causes. The essence of His preaching is that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who appeared at Vrajabhūmi (Vṛndāvana) as the son of the King of Vraja (Nanda Mahārāja), is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and is therefore worshipable by all.
SB Canto 1
Under the circumstances, there is no doubt about the authority of the Bhāgavatam. Within the past five hundred years, many erudite scholars and ācāryas like Jīva Gosvāmī, Sanātana Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Vallabhācārya, and many other distinguished scholars even after the time of Lord Caitanya made elaborate commentaries on the Bhāgavatam. And the serious student would do well to attempt to go through them to better relish the transcendental messages.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura specifically deals with the original and pure sex psychology (ādi-rasa), devoid of all mundane inebriety. The whole material creation is moving under the principle of sex life. In modern civilization, sex life is the focal point for all activities. Wherever one turns his face, he sees sex life predominant. Therefore, sex life is not unreal. Its reality is experienced in the spiritual world. The material sex life is but a perverted reflection of the original fact.
In this prayer, Śrīla Sūta Gosvāmī practically summarizes the complete introduction of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural supplementary commentary on the Vedānta-sūtras. The Vedānta-sūtras, or the Brahma-sūtras, were compiled by Vyāsadeva with a view to presenting just the cream of Vedic knowledge. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on this cream. Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī was a thoroughly realized master of the Vedānta-sūtra, and consequently he also personally realized the commentary, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And just to show his boundless mercy upon bewildered materialistic men who want to cross completely over nescience, he recited for the first time this confidential knowledge.
The Vedānta-sūtra is directed to such jñānīs. But Śrīla Vyāsadeva, being the incarnation of the Supreme Lord, could foresee the misuse of the Vedānta-sūtra by unscrupulous men, and, therefore, he personally supplemented the Vedānta-sūtra with the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. It is clearly said that this Bhāgavatam is the original commentary on the Brahma-sūtras. Śrīla Vyāsadeva also instructed the Bhāgavatam to his own son, Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī, who was already at the liberated stage of transcendence. Śrīla Śukadeva realized it personally and then explained it. By the mercy of Śrīla Śukadeva, the Bhāgavata-vedānta-sūtra is available for all those sincere souls who want to get out of material existence.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the one unrivaled commentary on Vedānta-sūtra. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya intentionally did not touch it because he knew that the natural commentary would be difficult for him to surpass. He wrote his Śārīraka-bhāṣya, and his so-called followers deprecated the Bhāgavatam as some "new" presentation. One should not be misled by such propaganda directed against the Bhāgavatam by the Māyāvāda school. From this introductory śloka, the beginning student should know that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the only transcendental literature meant for those who are paramahaṁsas and completely freed from the material disease called malice. The Māyāvādīs are envious of the Personality of Godhead despite Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's admission that Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead, is above the material creation. The envious Māyāvādī cannot have access to the Bhāgavatam, but those who are really anxious to get out of this material existence may take shelter of this Bhāgavatam because it is uttered by the liberated Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī. It is the transcendental torchlight by which one can see perfectly the transcendental Absolute Truth realized as Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān.
SB Canto 3
The disappearance of the Kṛṣṇa sun may be explained as follows, according to the commentary of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura. Vidura was struck with great sorrow when he got the hint of the annihilation of the great Yadu dynasty as well as of his own family, the Kuru dynasty. Uddhava could understand the grief of Vidura, and therefore he first of all wanted to sympathize with him by saying that after the sunset everyone is in darkness. Since the entire world was merged in the darkness of grief, neither Vidura nor Uddhava nor anyone else could be happy. Uddhava was as much aggrieved as Vidura, and there was nothing further to be said about their welfare.
Thus Lord Kṛṣṇa was accepted by Śaṅkarācārya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his commentation on Bhagavad-gītā. Since he was a great devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa, he did not dare write any commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam because that would have been a direct offense at the lotus feet of the Lord. But later speculators, in the name of Māyāvāda philosophy, unnecessarily make their commentary on the catuḥ-ślokī Bhāgavatam (SB 2.9.33/34/35/36) without any bona fide intent.
The monistic dry speculators have no business in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam because this particular Vedic literature is forbidden for them by the great author himself. Śrīla Vyāsadeva has definitely forbidden persons engaged in religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and, finally, salvation, from trying to understand Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is not meant for them (SB 1.1.2).
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī and Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura have very elaborately explained this incident of the Lord's disappearance in their commentaries, quoting various authentic versions of Vedic literatures. We purposely do not include them all here to avoid an increase in the volume of this book. The entire matter is explained in Bhagavad-gītā, as quoted above: the Lord reserves the right of not being exposed to everyone. He always keeps Himself out of the vision of the nondevotees, who are devoid of love and devotion, and thus He puts them still further away from the Lord. The Lord appeared on the invitation of Brahmā, who prayed before the Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and therefore when the Lord appeared, all the forms of Viṣṇu amalgamated with Him, and when the mission was fulfilled, all of them disintegrated from Him in the usual course.
Here it is clearly said (samyak śraddhāya) that with great faith one should receive knowledge from the spiritual master and with great faith execute the performance of service. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, in his commentary on Bhagavad-gītā, has especially stressed the instruction of the spiritual master. One should accept the instruction of the spiritual master as one's life and soul. Whether one is liberated or not liberated, one should execute the instruction of the spiritual master with great faith. It is also stated that the Lord is situated in everyone's heart. One does not have to seek the Lord outside; He is already there. One simply has to concentrate on one's worship in good faith, as instructed by the bona fide spiritual master, and one's efforts will come out successfully. It is also clear that the Supreme Personality of Godhead does not appear as an ordinary child; He appears as He is.
SB Canto 4
First of all let us offer our respectful obeisances unto our spiritual master, Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Prabhupāda, by whose order I am engaged in this herculean task of writing commentary on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the Bhaktivedanta purports. By his grace we have finished three cantos already, and we are just trying to begin the Fourth Canto. By his divine grace let us offer our respectful obeisances unto Lord Caitanya, who began this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Bhāgavata-dharma five hundred years ago, and through His grace let us offer our obeisances to the six Gosvāmīs, and then let us offer our obeisances to Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, the spiritual couple who enjoy eternally in Vṛndāvana with Their cowherd boys and damsels in Vrajabhūmi. Let us also offer our respectful obeisances to all the devotees and eternal servitors of the Supreme Lord.
This is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (7.20). Kāmais tais tair hṛta jñānāḥ prapadyante 'nya-devatāḥ. Persons who are impelled by lust and desire go to the demigods to derive some material benefit. In his commentary on this Bhagavad-gītā verse, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura uses the very specific words naṣṭa-buddhayaḥ, meaning "persons who have lost their sense or intelligence." Only such persons care for demigods and want to derive material benefit from them. Of course, this does not mean that one should not show respect to the demigods; but there is no need to worship them. One who is honest may be faithful to the government, but he does not need to bribe the government servants. Bribery is illegal; one does not bribe a government servant, but that does not mean that one does not show him respect.
According to the commentary called Śrī-Bhāgavata-candra-candrikā, the water in which Satī used to bathe was Ganges water. In other words, the Ganges flowed through the Kailāsa-parvata. There is every possibility of accepting such a statement because Ganges water also flows from the hair of Lord Śiva. Since Ganges water rests on the head of Lord Śiva and then flows to the other parts of the universe, it is quite possible that the water in which Satī bathed, which was certainly very nicely scented, was Ganges water.
If someone does go and preach, taking all risks and allowing all considerations for time and place, it might be that there are changes in the manner of worship, but that is not at all faulty according to śāstra. Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Ācārya, an ācārya in the disciplic succession of the Rāmānuja-sampradāya, has remarked in his commentary that caṇḍālas, or conditioned souls who are born in lower than śūdra families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The formalities may be slightly changed here and there to make them Vaiṣṇavas.
Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommends that His name should be heard in every nook and corner of the world. How is this possible unless one preaches everywhere? The cult of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu is bhāgavata-dharma, and He especially recommends kṛṣṇa-kathā, or the cult of Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. He recommends that every Indian, considering this task to be para-upakāra, or welfare activity, take the Lord's message to other residents of the world.
As explained before, this means meeting the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the instruction of the spiritual master. This is technically called vāṇī-sevā. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura states in his Bhagavad-gītā commentary on the verse vyavasāyātmikā buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana (BG 2.41) that one should serve the words of the spiritual master. The disciple must stick to whatever the spiritual master orders. Simply by following on that line, one sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Paramātmā, appeared before the Queen as a brāhmaṇa, but why didn't He appear in His original form as Śrī Kṛṣṇa? Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura remarks that unless one is very highly elevated in loving the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one cannot see Him as He is.
SB Canto 5
The Vaiṣṇavas in the Gauḍīya-sampradāya belong to the disciplic succession stemming from Lord Brahmā. Lord Brahmā is the spiritual master of Nārada, Nārada is the spiritual master of Vyāsadeva, and Vyāsadeva wrote the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. Therefore all devotees in the Gauḍīya-sampradāya accept the activities of Lord Ananta related in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as authentic, and they are thus benefited by going back home, back to Godhead. The contamination in the heart of a conditioned soul is like a huge accumulation of garbage created by the three modes of material nature, especially the modes of rajas (passion) and tamas (ignorance). This contamination becomes manifest in the form of lusty desires and greed for material possessions. As confirmed herein, unless one receives transcendental knowledge in disciplic succession, there is no question of his becoming purified of this contamination.
SB Canto 6
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura's commentary to texts nine and ten of this chapter form a dialogue concerning how one can become free from all sinful reactions simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord.
Someone may say, "It may be accepted that by chanting the holy name of the Lord one becomes freed from all the reactions of sinful life. However, if one commits sinful acts in full consciousness, not only once but many, many times, he is unable to free himself from the reactions of such sins even after atoning for them for twelve years or more. How is it possible, then, that simply by once chanting the holy name of the Lord one immediately becomes freed from the reactions of such sins?"
Smārta-brāhmaṇas and Māyāvādīs do not believe that one can achieve liberation in this way, but the truth of Haridāsa Ṭhākura's statement is supported by many quotations from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
In his commentary on this verse, for example, Śrīdhara Svāmī gives the following quotation:
sāyaṁ prātar gṛṇan bhaktyā
duḥkha-grāmād vimucyate
"If one always chants the holy name of the Lord with great devotion in the evening and in the morning, one can become free from all material miseries." Another quotation confirms that one can achieve liberation if one hears the holy name of the Lord constantly, every day with great respect (anudinam idam ādareṇa śṛṇvan). Another quotation says:
In his commentary to this verse, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura uses the word durvijñeyam, which means "very difficult to realize." The pure stage of existence is described in Bhagavad-gītā (7.28), wherein Kṛṣṇa says:
- yeṣāṁ tv anta-gataṁ pāpaṁ
- janānāṁ puṇya-karmaṇām
- te dvandva-moha-nirmuktā
- bhajante māṁ dṛḍha-vratāḥ
"Persons who have acted piously in previous lives and in this life, whose sinful actions are completely eradicated and who are freed from the duality of delusion, engage themselves in My service with determination."
Śrīla Vyāsadeva, Mahāmuni, compiled the Vedic literature for the benefit of all human society. If one wants to be protected from the reactions of ignorance even in this age of Kali, one may consult the books left by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, Upaniṣads, Vedānta-sūtra (Brahma-sūtra), Mahābhārata, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam Mahā-Purāṇa (Vyāsadeva's commentary on the Brahma-sūtra) and the other seventeen Purāṇas. Only by the mercy of Śrīla Vyāsadeva do we have so many volumes of transcendental knowledge to save us from the clutches of ignorance.
In this verse, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, is ascertained to be the original cause of creation. Śrīdhara Svāmī, in his commentary Bhāvārtha-dīpikā, replies to the idea that prakṛti and puruṣa are the causes of the cosmic manifestation. As stated herein, paraṁ pradhānaṁ puruṣaṁ viśvam anyam: "He is the supreme cause, represented as the male and female creative energies. Although different from this universe, He exists in His universal form (virāṭ rūpa)." The word prakṛti, which is used to indicate the source of generation, refers to the material energy of the Supreme Lord, and the word puruṣa refers to the living entities, who are the superior energy of the Lord. Both the prakṛti and puruṣa ultimately enter the Supreme Lord, as stated in Bhagavad-gītā (prakṛtiṁ yānti māmikām).
The following story is narrated by many ācāryas in their commentaries:
niśamyātharvaṇaṁ dakṣaṁ pravargya-brahmavidyayoḥ; dadhyañcaṁ samupāgamya tam ūcatur athāśvinau; bhagavan dehi nau vidyām iti śrutvā sa cābravīt; karmaṇy avasthito 'dyāhaṁ paścād vakṣyāmi gacchatam; tayor nirgatayor eva śakra āgatya taṁ munim; uvāca bhiṣajor vidyāṁ mā vādīr aśvinor mune; yadi mad-vākyam ullaṅghya bravīṣi sahasaiva te; śiraś-chindyāṁ na sandeha ity uktvā sa yayau hariḥ; indre gate tathābhyetya nāsatyāv ūcatur dvijam; tan-mukhād indra-gaditaṁ śrutvā tāv ūcatuḥ punaḥ; āvāṁ tava śiraś chittvā pūrvam aśvasya mastakam; sandhāsyāvas tato brūhi tena vidyāṁ ca nau dvija; tasminn indreṇa sañchinne punaḥ sandhāya mastakam; nijaṁ te dakṣiṇāṁ dattvā gamiṣyāvo yathāgatam; etac chrutvā tadovāca dadhyaṅṅ ātharvaṇas tayoḥ pravargyaṁ brahma-vidyāṁ ca sat-kṛto 'satya-śaṅkitaḥ.
As it is quoted by Śrīdhara Svāmī in his Bhāgavatam commentary:
- svāmy-amātyau janapadā
- durga-draviṇa-sañcayāḥ
- daṇḍo mitraṁ ca tasyaitāḥ
- sapta-prakṛtayo matāḥ
A king is not alone. He first has his spiritual master, the supreme guide. Then come his ministers, his kingdom, his fortifications, his treasury, his system of law and order, and his friends or allies. If these seven are properly maintained, the king is happy. Similarly, as explained in Bhagavad-gītā (dehino 'smin yathā dehe (BG 2.13)), the living entity, the soul, is within the material covering of the mahat-tattva, ego and pañca-tanmātrā, the five objects of sense gratification. When these seven are in proper order, the living entity is in a mood of pleasure. Generally when the associates of the king are quiet and obedient, the king can be happy. Therefore the great sage Aṅgirā Ṛṣi inquired about the King's personal health and the good fortune of his seven associates.
At night when we dream of tigers and snakes, they are not actually present, but we are afraid because we are affected by what we envision in our dreams. Everything material is like a dream because it actually has no permanent existence.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura writes as follows in his commentary: arthena vyāghra-sarpādinā vinaiva dṛśyamānāḥ svapnādi-bhaṅge sati na dṛśyante tad evaṁ dārādayo 'vāstava-vastu-bhūtāḥ svapnādayo 'vastu-bhūtāś ca sarve manobhavāḥ mano-vāsanā janyatvān manobhavāḥ. At night one dreams of tigers and snakes, and while dreaming he actually sees them, but as soon as the dream is broken they no longer exist. Similarly, the material world is a creation of our mental concoctions. We have come to this material world to enjoy material resources, and by mental concoction we discover many, many objects of enjoyment because our minds are absorbed in material things. This is why we receive various bodies.
"Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me"—they comment that it is not Kṛṣṇa to whom we must surrender. Thus they derive imaginary meanings from Bhagavad-gītā. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, however, strictly follows bhāgavata-dharma, the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam for the complete welfare of human society. One who misinterprets Bhagavad-gītā, twisting out some meaning for his sense gratification, is a non-Āryan. Therefore commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā by such persons should be immediately rejected. One should try to follow Bhagavad-gītā as it is. In Bhagavad-gītā (12.6-7) Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa says:
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has accepted parā-śakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent viṣṇu-tattva."
In the Kānti-mālā commentary on the Prameya-ratnāvalī there is this statement: nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jīvatvaṁ lakṣmyāḥ svīkṛtaṁ, tatrāha-prāheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyāpti-kathanena kalākāṣṭhety ādi-padya-dvaye, śuddho 'pīty uktā ca mahāprabhunā svaśiṣyān prati lakṣmyā bhagavad-advaitam upadiṣṭam. kvacid yat tasyās tu dvaitam uktaṁ, tat tu tad-āviṣṭa-nitya-mukta jīvam ādāya saṅgatamas tu. "Although some authoritative Vaiṣṇava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jīvas) in Vaikuṇṭha, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, has described Lakṣmī as being identical with the viṣṇu-tattva.
SB Canto 8
Āsuraṁ bhāvam refers to not accepting the existence of God or the transcendental instructions of the Personality of Godhead. Bhagavad-gītā clearly consists of transcendental instructions imparted directly by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But asuras, instead of accepting these instructions directly, make commentaries according to their own whimsical ways and mislead everyone, without profit even for themselves. One should therefore be very careful of demoniac, godless persons. According to the words of Lord Kṛṣṇa, even if a godless demon is very well educated, he must be considered a mūḍha, narādhama and māyayāpahṛta jñāna.
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
As for Keśava, ka means Brahmā, and īśa means Lord Śiva. The Personality of Godhead captivates both Lord Brahmā and Lord Mahādeva, or Śiva, by His transcendental qualities. Therefore He is called Keśava. This opinion is given by Sanātana Gosvāmī in his Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī commentary.
It is said that all the demigods, accompanied by Tri-nayana, Lord Śiva, went to the shore of the ocean of milk and offered their prayers through the mantra known as puruṣa-sūkta. From this statement it is understood that the demigods cannot directly approach Lord Viṣṇu, who lies on the ocean of milk, or enter His abode. This is also clearly stated in the Mahābhārata, Mokṣa-dharma, and the next chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has His abode in Goloka (goloka-nāmni nija-dhāmni tale ca tasya (Bs. 5.43)).
Even without the execution of sacrifices, the Lord can still enjoy the supermost comforts of the heavenly planets. The statement that Puruṣottama, Jagannātha, would appear in the house of Vasudeva distinguishes the Supreme Personality of Godhead from ordinary persons. The statement that He personally appeared indicates that He did not send His plenary expansion. The word priyārtham indicates that the Lord appeared to please Rukmiṇī and Rādhārāṇī. Priyā means "the most beloved."
In the commentary of Śrī Vīrarāghava Ācārya, the following extra verse is accepted after text twenty-three:
Śūrasenāṁś ca. The son of Kārtavīryārjuna was Śūrasena, and the countries he ruled were also called Śūrasena. This is noted by Sanātana Gosvāmī in his Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī commentary.
In regard to Mathurā, we find this quotation:
- mathyate tu jagat sarvaṁ
- brahma-jñānena yena vā
- tat-sāra-bhūtaṁ yad yasyāṁ
- mathurā sā nigadyate
When a self-realized soul acts in his transcendental position, his situation is called Mathurā. In other words, when one acts in the process of bhakti-yoga, he may live anywhere, but actually he lives in Mathurā, Vṛndāvana. Devotion to Kṛṣṇa, the son of Nanda Mahārāja, is the essence of all knowledge, and wherever such knowledge is manifested is called Mathurā. Also, when one establishes bhakti-yoga, excluding all other methods, one's situation is called Mathurā. Yatra nityaṁ sannihito hariḥ: the place where Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, lives eternally is called Mathurā. The word nitya indicates eternality. The Supreme Lord is eternal, and His abode is also eternal.
Kaṁsa would also attain salvation from his nefarious activities, and this too would very much please the demigods and their followers. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura remarks in this connection that Nārada Muni sometimes did things that were beneficial to the demigods and the demons simultaneously. Śrī Vīrarāghava Ācārya, in his commentary, has included the following half-verse in this regard: asurāḥ sarva evaita lokopadrava-kāriṇaḥ. Asuras are always disturbing elements for human society.
"For those who worship Me with devotion, meditating on My transcendental form, I carry to them what they lack and preserve what they have." The devotees have no anxiety over what will happen next, where they will stay or what they will eat, for everything is maintained and supplied by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has promised, kaunteya pratijānīhi na me bhaktaḥ praṇaśyati: "O son of Kuntī, declare it boldly that My devotee never perishes." (BG 9.31) From all angles of vision, therefore, in all circumstances, if one fully surrenders unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is no question of one's struggling for existence. In this connection, the commentary by Śrīpāda Madhvācārya, who quotes from the Tantra-bhāgavata, is very meaningful:
Because foolish mūḍhas do not awaken their spiritual nature, they do not understand Kṛṣṇa or Rāma (avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam (BG 9.11)). Even big academic scholars, not considering the endeavors of the ācāryas who have recommended devotional service in many elaborate commentaries and notes, think that Kṛṣṇa is fictitious. This is due to a lack of transcendental knowledge and a failure to awaken Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One should have the common sense to ask why, if Kṛṣṇa or Rāma were fictitious, stalwart scholars like Śrīdhara Svāmī, Rūpa Gosvāmī, Sanātana Gosvāmī, Vīrarāghava, Vijayadhvaja, Vallabhācārya and many other recognized ācāryas would have spent so much time to write about Kṛṣṇa in notes and commentaries on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
Even big scholars who are nondevotees think that Kṛṣṇa is fictitious. Yet although so-called scholars and commentators do not believe that Kṛṣṇa was factually a historical person whose presence on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra is recorded in the history of Mahābhārata, they feel compelled to write commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā and other historical records. Sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ: (Brs. 1.2.234) Kṛṣṇa's transcendental name, form, attributes and activities can be revealed only when one engages in His service in full consciousness. This confirms Kṛṣṇa's own words in Bhagavad-gītā (18.55):
The Purāṇas are old, authentic histories, but nondevotees cannot understand them, especially Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the essence of Vedic knowledge. Nondevotees cannot understand even the preliminary study of transcendental knowledge, Bhagavad-gītā. They simply speculate and present commentaries with absurd distortions. In conclusion, unless one elevates himself to the transcendental platform by practicing bhakti-yoga, one cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead or His name, form, attributes or activities. But if by chance, by the association of devotees, one can actually understand the Lord and His features, one immediately becomes a liberated person. As the Lord says in Bhagavad-gītā (4.9):
One should not give up the process of devotional service, which is performed in nine different ways (śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam, etc. (SB 7.5.23)). The most important process is hearing (śravaṇam) from the guru, sādhu and śāstra-the spiritual master, the saintly ācāryas and the Vedic literature. Sādhu-śāstra-guru-vākya, cittete kariyā aikya. We should not hear the commentaries and explanations of nondevotees, for this is strictly forbidden by Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī, who quotes from the Padma Purāṇa:
- avaiṣṇava-mukhodgīrṇaṁ
- pūtaṁ hari-kathāmṛtam
- śravaṇaṁ naiva kartavyaṁ
- sarpocchiṣṭaṁ yathā payaḥ
We should strictly follow this injunction and never try to hear from Māyāvādīs, impersonalists, voidists, politicians or so-called scholars. Strictly avoiding such inauspicious association, we should simply hear from pure devotees. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī therefore recommends, śrī-guru-padāśrayaḥ: one must seek shelter at the lotus feet of a pure devotee who can be one's guru.
The word kukṣi-gataḥ, meaning "within the womb of Devakī," has been discussed by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī in his Krama-sandarbha commentary. Since it was said at first that Kṛṣṇa was present within the heart of Vasudeva and was transferred to the heart of Devakī, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī writes, how is it that Kṛṣṇa was now in the womb? He replies that there is no contradiction. From the heart the Lord can go to the womb, or from the womb He can go to the heart. Indeed, He can go or stay anywhere. As confirmed in the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.35), aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-sthaṁ govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi. The Lord can stay wherever He likes. Devakī, therefore, in accordance with the desire of her former life, now had the opportunity to seek the benediction of having the Supreme Personality of Godhead as her son, Devakī-nandana.
| Page Title: | Commentaries (BG and SB) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, RupaManjari |
| Created: | 06 of Nov, 2012 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=16, SB=37, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 53 |