The forgetful living entities or conditioned souls have forgotten their relationship with the Supreme Lord, and they are engrossed in thinking of material activities. Just to transfer their thinking power to the spiritual sky, Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Vyāsa has given a great number of Vedic literatures. First he divided the Vedas into four, then he explained them in the Purāṇas, and for less capable people he wrote the Mahābhārata. In the Mahābhārata there is given the Bhagavad-gītā. Then all Vedic literature is summarized in the Vedānta-sūtra, and for future guidance he gave a natural commentation on the Vedānta-sūtra, called Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. We must always engage our minds in reading these Vedic literatures. Just as materialists engage their minds in reading newspapers, magazines and so many materialistic literatures, we must transfer our reading to these literatures which are given to us by Vyāsadeva; in that way it will be possible for us to remember the Supreme Lord at the time of death. That is the only way suggested by the Lord, and He guarantees the result: "There is no doubt."
Commentation (BG and SB)
Expressions researched:
"comment"
|"commentated"
|"commentating"
|"commentation"
|"commentations"
|"commented"
|"commenting"
|"comments"
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Preface and Introduction
BG Chapters 1 - 6
Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
The injunction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, is the essence of all Vedic wisdom and therefore is eternally true without exception. As the Vedas are eternal, so this truth of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is also eternal. One should have firm faith in this injunction, without envying the Lord. There are many philosophers who write comments on the Bhagavad-gītā but have no faith in Kṛṣṇa. They will never be liberated from the bondage of fruitive action. But an ordinary man with firm faith in the eternal injunctions of the Lord, even though unable to execute such orders, becomes liberated from the bondage of the law of karma. In the beginning of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one may not fully discharge the injunctions of the Lord, but because one is not resentful of this principle and works sincerely without consideration of defeat and hopelessness, he will surely be promoted to the stage of pure Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
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.
BG Chapters 7 - 12
Some of those who deride Kṛṣṇa and who are infected with the Māyāvādī philosophy quote the following verse from the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.29.21) to prove that Kṛṣṇa is just an ordinary man. Ahaṁ sarveṣu bhūteṣu bhūtātmāvasthitaḥ sadā: "The Supreme is present in every living entity." We should better take note of this particular verse from the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas like Jīva Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura instead of following the interpretation of unauthorized persons who deride Kṛṣṇa. Jīva Gosvāmī, commenting on this verse, says that Kṛṣṇa, in His plenary expansion as Paramātmā, is situated in the moving and the nonmoving entities as the Supersoul, so any neophyte devotee who simply gives his attention to the arcā-mūrti, the form of the Supreme Lord in the temple, and does not respect other living entities is uselessly worshiping the form of the Lord in the temple. There are three kinds of devotees of the Lord, and the neophyte is in the lowest stage. The neophyte devotee gives more attention to the Deity in the temple than to other devotees, so Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura warns that this sort of mentality should be corrected. A devotee should see that because Kṛṣṇa is present in everyone's heart as Paramātmā, every body is the embodiment or the temple of the Supreme Lord; so as one offers respect to the temple of the Lord, he should similarly properly respect each and every body in which the Paramātmā dwells. Everyone should therefore be given proper respect and should not be neglected.
In this verse it is clearly indicated that Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the only means of being delivered from the clutches of this contaminated material world. Sometimes unscrupulous commentators distort the meaning of what is clearly stated here: that all devotional service should be offered to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Unfortunately, unscrupulous commentators divert the mind of the reader to that which is not at all feasible. Such commentators do not know that there is no difference between Kṛṣṇa's mind and Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is not an ordinary human being; He is Absolute Truth. His body, His mind and He Himself are one and absolute. It is stated in the Kūrma Purāṇa. As it is quoted by Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī in his Anubhāṣya comments on Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Fifth Chapter, Ādi-līlā, verses 41-48), deha-dehi-vibhedo 'yaṁ neśvare vidyate kvacit. This means that there is no difference in Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord, between Himself and His body. But because the commentators do not know this science of Kṛṣṇa, they hide Kṛṣṇa and divide His personality from His mind or from His body. Although this is sheer ignorance of the science of Kṛṣṇa, some men make profit out of misleading people.
The Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, can be known by persons who are in a relationship with Him through the discharge of devotional service, like Arjuna and his followers. Persons of demonic or atheistic mentality cannot know Kṛṣṇa. Mental speculation that leads one away from the Supreme Lord is a serious sin, and one who does not know Kṛṣṇa should not try to comment on Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā is the statement of Kṛṣṇa, and since it is the science of Kṛṣṇa, it should be understood from Kṛṣṇa as Arjuna understood it. It should not be received from atheistic persons.
This form was manifested by Kṛṣṇa through His internal potency, which is inconceivable by human speculation. No one had seen this universal form of the Lord before Arjuna, but because the form was shown to Arjuna, other devotees in the heavenly planets and in other planets in outer space could also see it. They had not seen it before, but because of Arjuna they were also able to see it. In other words, all the disciplic devotees of the Lord could see the universal form which was shown to Arjuna by the mercy of Kṛṣṇa. Someone has commented that this form was shown to Duryodhana also when Kṛṣṇa went to Duryodhana to negotiate for peace. Unfortunately, Duryodhana did not accept the peace offer, but at that time Kṛṣṇa manifested some of His universal forms. But those forms are different from this one shown to Arjuna. It is clearly said that no one had ever seen this form before.
BG Chapters 13 - 18
He is also localized in every individual heart. He awards the different fruitive results. He is worshipable not only as the impersonal Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the localized Paramātmā, but as the form of the incarnation of the Vedas as well. The Vedas give the right direction to people so that they can properly mold their lives and come back to Godhead, back to home. The Vedas offer knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, and Kṛṣṇa in His incarnation as Vyāsadeva is the compiler of the Vedānta-sūtra. The commentation on the Vedānta-sūtra by Vyāsadeva in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam gives the real understanding of Vedānta-sūtra. The Supreme Lord is so full that for the deliverance of the conditioned soul He is the supplier and digester of foodstuff, the witness of his activity, and the giver of knowledge in the form of Vedas and as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the teacher of the Bhagavad-gītā. He is worshipable by the conditioned soul. Thus God is all-good; God is all-merciful.
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. There is no possibility of faithless persons' understanding Bhagavad-gītā and Kṛṣṇa. Without understanding Kṛṣṇa from the authority of a pure devotee, one should not try to comment upon Bhagavad-gītā.
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Preface and Introduction
The Lord agreed to take lessons from Bhaṭṭācārya on the Vedānta, and they sat together in the temple of Lord Jagannātha. The Bhaṭṭācārya went on speaking continually for seven days, and the Lord heard him with all attention and did not interrupt. The Lord's silence raised some doubts in Bhaṭṭācārya's heart, and he asked the Lord how it was that He did not ask anything or comment on his explanations of Vedānta.
"Śrī Vyāsadeva very kindly compiled the Vedic knowledge in his Vedānta-sūtra, but if one hears the commentation of the Māyāvāda school (as represented by the Śaṅkara-sampradāya) certainly he will be misled on the path of spiritual realization.
"Vedānta-sūtra consists of transcendental words or sounds uttered by the transcendental Personality of Godhead. As such, in the Vedānta there cannot be any human deficiencies like mistake, illusion, cheating or inefficiency. The message of the Upaniṣads is expressed in the Vedānta-sūtra, and understanding the direct meaning of what is said there is certainly glorious. Whatever interpretations have been given by Śaṅkarācārya have no direct bearing on the sūtra, and therefore such commentation spoils everything.
SB Canto 1
Over and above this, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a personal commentation on the Vedānta-sūtra by Śrī Vyāsadeva. It was written in the maturity of his spiritual life through the mercy of Nārada. Śrī Vyāsadeva is the authorized incarnation of Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead. Therefore, there is no question as to his authority. He is the author of all other Vedic literatures, yet he recommends the study of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam above all others. In other Purāṇas there are different methods set forth by which one can worship the demigods. But in the Bhāgavatam only the Supreme Lord is mentioned. The Supreme Lord is the total body, and the demigods are the different parts of that body. Consequently, by worshiping the Supreme Lord, one does not need to worship the demigods. The Supreme Lord becomes fixed in the heart of the devotee immediately. Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu has recommended the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the spotless Purāṇa and distinguishes it from all other Purāṇas.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is a natural commentation on the Brahma-sūtra, or the Bādarāyaṇi Vedānta-sūtras. It is called natural because Vyāsadeva is author of both the Vedānta-sūtras and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, or the essence of all Vedic literatures. Besides Vyāsadeva, there are other sages who are the authors of six different philosophical systems, namely Gautama, Kaṇāda, Kapila, Patañjali, Jaimini and Aṣṭāvakra. Theism is explained completely in the Vedānta-sūtra, whereas in other systems of philosophical speculations, practically no mention is given to the ultimate cause of all causes. One can sit on the vyāsāsana only after being conversant in all systems of philosophy so that one can present fully the theistic views of the Bhāgavatam in defiance of all other systems. Śrīla Sūta Gosvāmī was the proper teacher, and therefore the sages at Naimiṣāraṇya elevated him to the vyāsāsana. Śrīla Vyāsadeva is designated herein as the Personality of Godhead because he is the authorized empowered incarnation.
Any man from any social status becomes a well-known man in human society within a very short time if he is simply glorified truly or falsely in the daily newspapers. Sometimes political leaders of a particular party are also advertised by newspaper propaganda, and by such a method of glorification an insignificant man becomes an important man—within no time. But such propaganda by false glorification of an unqualified person cannot bring about any good, either for the particular man or for the society. There may be some temporary reactions to such propaganda, but there are no permanent effects. Therefore such activities are a waste of time. The actual object of glorification is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has created everything manifested before us. We have broadly discussed this fact in our comments on the "janmādy asya" (SB 1.1.1) śloka, at the beginning of the Bhāgavatam. The tendency to glorify others or hear others must be turned to the real object of glorification-the Supreme Being. And that will bring happiness.
Killing of animals before the advent of Lord Buddha was the most prominent feature of the society. People claimed that these were Vedic sacrifices. When the Vedas are not accepted through the authoritative disciplic succession, the casual readers of the Vedas are misled by the flowery language of that system of knowledge. In the Bhagavad-gītā a comment has been made on such foolish scholars (avipaścitaḥ). The foolish scholars of Vedic literature who do not care to receive the transcendental message through the transcendental realized sources of disciplic succession are sure to be bewildered. To them, the ritualistic ceremonies are considered to be all in all. They have no depth of knowledge.
It is a qualification of the great thinkers to pick up the best even from the worst. It is said that the intelligent man should pick up nectar from a stock of poison, should accept gold even from a filthy place, should accept a good and qualified wife even from an obscure family and should accept a good lesson even from a man or from a teacher who comes from the untouchables. These are some of the ethical instructions for everyone in every place without exception. But a saint is far above the level of an ordinary man. He is always absorbed in glorifying the Supreme Lord because by broadcasting the holy name and fame of the Supreme Lord, the polluted atmosphere of the world will change, and as a result of propagating the transcendental literatures like Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, people will become sane in their transactions. While preparing this commentation on this particular stanza of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam we have a crisis before us.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentation on the Brahma-sūtras compiled by the same author. This Brahma-sūtra, or Vedānta-sūtra, is meant for those who are already engaged in self-realization. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is so made that one becomes at once engaged in the path of self-realization simply by hearing the topics. Although it is especially meant for the paramahaṁsas, or those who are totally engaged in self-realization, it works into the depths of the hearts of those who may be worldly men. Worldly men are all engaged in sense gratification. But even such men will find in this Vedic literature a remedial measure for their material diseases.
Here is an authority speaking about Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the original Personality of Godhead and the first Nārāyaṇa. Even such an impersonalist as Ācārya Śaṅkara has said in the beginning of his commentation on the Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead, is beyond the material creation. The universe is one of the material creations, but Nārāyaṇa is transcendental to such material paraphernalia.
While commenting on this particular verse, we have in our presence the statement of a great modern politician who has recently died and left his will, which discloses his poor fund of knowledge of the codes of God mentioned by Mahārāja Parīkṣit. The politician was so ignorant of the codes of God that he writes: "I do not believe in any such ceremonies, and to submit to them, even as a matter of form, would be hypocrisy and an attempt to delude ourselves and others... I have no religious sentiment in the matter."
SB Canto 2
As stated in the beginning of this book, it is the essence of the Vedic desire tree and the natural commentation on the Brahma-sūtras, the topmost philosophical thesis on the subject matter of Brahman. Vyāsadeva appeared at the end of Dvāpara-yuga as the son of Satyavatī, and therefore the word dvāpara-ādau, or "the beginning of Dvāpara-yuga," in this context means just prior to the beginning of the Kali-yuga. The logic of this statement, according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, is comparable to that of calling the upper portion of the tree the beginning. The root of the tree is the beginning of the tree, but in common knowledge the upper portion of the tree is first seen. In that way the end of the tree is accepted as its beginning.
The supply source is complete, and only a little energy by the human being is required to get his necessities into the proper channel. There is no need of machines and tools or huge steel plants for artificially creating comforts of life. Life is never made comfortable by artificial needs, but by plain living and high thinking. The highest perfectional thinking for human society is suggested here by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, namely, sufficiently hearing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. For men in this age of Kali, when they have lost the perfect vision of life, this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the torchlight by which to see the real path. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī Prabhupāda has commented on the kathāmṛtam mentioned in this verse and has indicated Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to be the nectarean message of the Personality of Godhead. By sufficient hearing of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the polluted aim of life, namely lording it over matter, will subside, and the people in general in all parts of the world will be able to live a peaceful life of knowledge and bliss.
In pursuance of the specific utterance vedhase, or "the compiler of the system of transcendental knowledge," Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī has commented that the respectful obeisances are offered to Śrīla Vyāsadeva, who is the incarnation of Vāsudeva. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has agreed to this, but Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has made a further advance, namely that the nectar from the mouth of Lord Kṛṣṇa is transferred to His different consorts, and thus they learn the finer arts of music, dance, dressing, decorations and all such things which are relished by the Lord. Such music, dance and decorations enjoyed by the Lord are certainly not anything mundane, because the Lord is addressed in the very beginning as para, or transcendental.
Whenever the Lord incarnates, He does so in His full internal potency (ātma-māyā), and less intelligent persons mistake Him to be one of the material creations. Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī, therefore, rightly commenting on this verse, says that the Brahmaloka mentioned here is Vaikuṇṭha, the kingdom of God, which is sanātana, or eternal, and is therefore not exactly like the material creations described above. The virāṭ universal form of the Lord is an imagination for the material world. It has nothing to do with the spiritual world, or the kingdom of God.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam can be legitimately discussed only among the devotees of the Lord. As the Bhagavad-gītā was authoritatively discussed between Lord Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna (the Lord and the devotee respectively), similarly Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the postgraduate study of the Bhagavad-gītā, can also be discussed between the scholars and devotees like Śukadeva Gosvāmī and Mahārāja Parīkṣit. Otherwise the real taste of the nectar cannot be relished. Śukadeva Gosvāmī was pleased with Mahārāja Parīkṣit because he was not at all tired of hearing the topics of the Lord and was more and more anxious to hear them on and on with interest. Foolish interpreters unnecessarily tackle the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam when they have no access to the subject matter. There is no use in nondevotees' meddling with the two topmost Vedic literatures, and therefore Śaṅkarācārya did not touch Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam for commentation. In his commentation on the Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but later on he commented from the impersonalist's view. But, being conscious of his position, he did not comment on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
Executing bhakti-yoga is exactly like sitting on the lotus sprouted out of the abdomen of the transcendental Personality of Godhead, for Lord Brahmā was seated there. Brahmājī was able to please the Lord, and the Lord was also pleased to show Brahmājī His personal abode. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, in the comments of his Krama-sandarbha annotation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, cites quotations from the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Vedic evidence. It is said that Yājñavalkya described the transcendental abode of the Lord to Gārgī, and that the abode of the Lord is situated above the highest planet of the universe, namely Brahmaloka. This abode of the Lord, although described in revealed scriptures like the Bhagavad-gītā and the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, remains only a myth for the less intelligent class of men with a poor fund of knowledge. Herein the word sva-dṛṣṭavadbhiḥ is very significant.
The form of the Lord, as seen by Brahmā, existed before the creation of Brahmā, and the material manifestation with all the ingredients and agents of material creation are also energetic expansions of the Lord, and after the exhibition of the Lord's energy comes to a close, what remains is the same Personality of Godhead. Therefore the form of the Lord exists in all circumstances of creation, maintenance and annihilation. The Vedic hymns confirm this fact in the statement vāsudevo vā idam agra āsīn na brahmā na ca śaṅkara eko nārāyaṇa āsīn na brahmā neśāna, etc. Before the creation there was none except Vāsudeva. There was neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara. Only Nārāyaṇa was there and no one else, neither Brahmā nor Īśāna. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya also confirms in his comments on the Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, or the Personality of Godhead, is transcendental to all creation, but that the whole creation is the product of avyakta. Therefore the difference between the created and the creator is always there, although both the creator and created are of the same quality.
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī Prabhupāda therefore comments on the words sarvatra sarvadā in the sense that the principles of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service to the Lord, are apt in all circumstances; i.e., bhakti-yoga is recommended in all the revealed scriptures, it is performed by all authorities, it is important in all places, it is useful in all causes and effects, etc. As far as all the revealed scriptures are concerned, he quotes from the Skanda Purāṇa on the topics of Brahmā and Nārada as follows:
- saṁsāre 'smin mahā-ghore
- janma-mṛtyu-samākule
- pūjanaṁ vāsudevasya
- tārakaṁ vādibhiḥ smṛtam
In the material world, which is full of darkness and dangers, combined with birth and death and full of different anxieties, the only way to get out of the great entanglement is to accept loving transcendental devotional service to Lord Vāsudeva. This is accepted by all classes of philosophers.
The Vedānta philosophy mentions that Brahman is the fountainhead of all creation, maintenance and destruction, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the natural commentation on the Vedānta philosophy, says, janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ (SB 1.1.1), etc.
Inert matter is undoubtedly energy with potential to interact, but it has no initiative of its own. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam therefore comments on the aphorism janmādy asya by saying abhijñaḥ and svarāṭ, i.e., the Supreme Brahman is not inert matter, but He is supreme consciousness and is independent. Therefore inert matter cannot be the ultimate cause of the creation, maintenance and destruction of the material world. Superficially material nature appears to be the cause of creation, maintenance and destruction, but material nature is set into motion for creation by the supreme conscious being, the Personality of Godhead.
SB Canto 3
The Lord's family members were either incarnations of His plenary expansions or demigods from the heavenly planets, and thus before His departure He separated them by His internal potency. Before being dispatched to their respective abodes, they were sent to the holy place of Prabhāsa, where they performed pious activities and took food and drink to their heart's content. It was then arranged for them to be sent back to their abodes so that others could see that the powerful Yadu dynasty was no longer in the world. In the previous verse, the word anujñāta, indicating that the whole sequence of events was arranged by the Lord, is significant. These particular pastimes of the Lord are not a manifestation of His external energy, or material nature. Such an exhibition of His internal potency is eternal, and therefore one should not conclude that the Yadus and Bhojas died in a drunken state in an ordinary fratricidal war. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī comments on these incidents as magical performances.
They unnecessarily take shelter of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, but he was not so drastic as to commit an offense at the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa. According to Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya preached the Māyāvāda philosophy for a particular purpose. Such a philosophy was necessary to defeat the Buddhist philosophy of the nonexistence of the spirit soul, but it was never meant for perpetual acceptance. It was an emergency. 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.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura elucidates the meaning of ākṛtim as pastimes. A means complete, and kṛtim means transcendental pastimes. Since the Lord is identical with His transcendental body, there is no question of His changing or quitting His body. To act in accordance with the rules and customs of the material world, the Lord seems to take His birth or leave His body, but the pure devotees of the Lord know well the actual fact. It is necessary, therefore, for the serious students of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to follow the notes and comments of the great ācāryas like Jīva Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī. To others, who are not devotees of the Lord, the comments and explanations of such ācāryas may appear to he grammatical jugglery, but to the students who are in the line of disciplic succession, the explanations of the great ācāryas are quite fit.
Śrīdhara Svāmī, commenting on this verse, states that although the demon wanted to deride the Personality of Godhead in the form of a boar, actually he worshiped Him in several words. For example, he addressed Him as vana-gocaraḥ, which means "one who is a resident of the forest," but another meaning of vana-gocaraḥ is "one who lies on the water." Viṣṇu lies on the water, so the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be properly addressed in this way. The demon also addressed Him as mṛgaḥ, indicating, unintentionally, that the Supreme Personality is sought after by great sages, saintly persons and transcendentalists. He also addressed Him as ajña. Śrīdhara Svāmī says that jña means "knowledge," and there is no knowledge which is unknown to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Indirectly, therefore, the demon said that Viṣṇu knows everything.
The demon used the word abhavāya, which means "for killing." Śrīdhara Svāmī comments that this "killing" means liberating, or, in other words, killing the process of continued birth and death. The Lord kills the process of birth and death and keeps Himself invisible. The activities of the Lord's internal potency are inconceivable, but by a slight exhibition of this potency, the Lord, by His grace, can deliver one from nescience. Śucaḥ means "miseries"; the miseries of material existence can be extinguished by the Lord by His potential energy of internal yogamāyā. In the Upaniṣads (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8) it is stated, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport). The Lord is invisible to the eyes of the common man, but His energies act in various ways. When demons are in adversity, they think that God is hiding Himself and is working by His mystic potency.
It is understood that once Hanumān, the great devotee of Lord Rāmacandra, said that he knew that Nārāyaṇa, the husband of Lakṣmī, and Rāma, the husband of Sītā, are one and the same, and that there is no difference between Lakṣmī and Sītā, but as for himself, he liked the form of Lord Rāma. In a similar way, some devotees worship the original form of Kṛṣṇa. When we say "Kṛṣṇa" we refer to all forms of the Lord—not only Kṛṣṇa, but Rāma, Nṛsiṁha, Varāha, Nārāyaṇa, etc. The varieties of transcendental forms exist simultaneously. That is also stated in the Brahma-saṁhitā: rāmādi-mūrtiṣu. .. nānāvatāram. He already exists in multiforms, but none of the forms are material. Śrīdhara Svāmī has commented that arūpiṇaḥ, "without form," means without material form. The Lord has form, otherwise how can it be stated here, tāny eva te 'bhirūpāṇi rūpāṇi bhagavaṁs tava: "You have Your forms, but they are not material.
The word ca is significant. Bhakti-yoga is direct, and the other process is indirect. But even if the indirect process is taken, there is no success unless one comes fully to the direct process of hearing and chanting the glories of the Lord. Therefore the word satyena is used here. In this connection Svāmī Śrīdhara comments that satyena means niṣkapaṭena, "without duplicity." The impersonalists are full of duplicity. Sometimes they pretend to execute devotional service, but their ultimate idea is to become one with the Supreme. This is duplicity, kapaṭa. The Bhāgavatam does not allow this duplicity. In the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is clearly stated, paramo nirmatsarāṇām: (SB 1.1.2) "This treatise Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is meant for those who are completely free from envy." The same point is again stressed here. Unless one is completely faithful to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and engages himself in the process of hearing and chanting the glories of the Lord, there is no possibility for liberation.
Śrīdhara Svāmī comments in this connection that by association with material nature alone one does not become conditioned. Conditional life begins only after one is infected by the modes of material nature. If someone is in contact with the police department, that does not mean that he is a criminal. As long as one does not commit criminal acts, even though there is a police department, he is not punished. Similarly, the liberated soul is not affected, although he is in the material nature. Even the Supreme Personality of Godhead is supposed to be in association with material nature when He descends, but He is not affected. One has to act in such a way that in spite of being in the material nature he is not affected by contamination. Although the lotus flower is in association with water, it does not mix with the water.
Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, who is supposed to be the leader of the impersonalist school of philosophers, has admitted in the beginning of his comments on Bhagavad-gītā that Nārāyaṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond the material creation; except for Him, everything is within the material creation. It is also confirmed in the Vedic literature that before the creation there was only Nārāyaṇa; neither Lord Brahmā nor Lord Śiva existed. Only Nārāyaṇa, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa, is always in the transcendental position, beyond the influence of material creation.
SB Canto 4
Sometimes a sonless person offers his daughter to a husband on the condition that his grandson be returned to him to be adopted as his son and inherit his property. This is called putrikā-dharma, which means that by execution of religious rituals one gets a son, although one is sonless by one's own wife. But here we see extraordinary behavior in Manu, for in spite of his having two sons, he handed over his first daughter to Prajāpati Ruci on the condition that the son born of his daughter be returned to him as his son. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments in this connection that King Manu knew that the Supreme Personality of Godhead would take birth in the womb of Ākūti; therefore, in spite of having two sons, he wanted the particular son born of Ākūti because he was ambitious to have the Supreme Personality of Godhead appear as his son and grandson. Manu is the lawgiver of mankind, and since he personally executed the putrikā-dharma, we may accept that such a system may be adopted by mankind also. Thus, even though one has a son, if one wants to have a particular son from one's daughter, one may give one's daughter in charity on that condition. That is the opinion of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī.
Thus in the Bhāgavatam we find that Mahābhārata was specifically compiled by Vyāsadeva for strī-śūdra-brahma-bandhu (SB 1.4.25). Strī means women, śūdra means the lower class of civilized human society, and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brāhmaṇas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully. All of these three classes are called less intelligent; they have no access to the study of the Vedas, which are specifically meant for persons who have acquired the brahminical qualifications. This restriction is based not upon any sectarian distinction but upon qualification. The Vedic literatures cannot be understood unless one has developed the brahminical qualifications. It is regrettable, therefore, that persons who have no brahminical qualifications and have never been trained under a bona fide spiritual master nevertheless comment on Vedic literatures like the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other purāṇas, for such persons cannot deliver their real message. Ruci was considered a first-class brāhmaṇa; therefore he is mentioned here as brahma-varcasvī, one who had full prowess in brahminical strength.
Because of this curse, Śiva was deprived of his share in the oblations of Vedic sacrifices. It was due to the curse of Dakṣa, Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments in this connection, that Lord Śiva was saved from the calamity of taking part with other demigods, who were all materialistic. Lord Śiva is the greatest devotee of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it is not fitting for him to eat or sit with materialistic persons like the demigods. Thus the curse of Dakṣa was indirectly a blessing, for Śiva would not have to eat or sit with other demigods, who were too materialistic. There is a practical example set for us by Gaurakiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja, who used to sit on the side of a latrine to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. Many materialistic persons used to come and bother him and disturb his daily routine of chanting, so to avoid their company he used to sit by the side of a latrine, where materialistic persons would not go because of the filth and the obnoxious smell. However, Gaurakiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja was so great that he was accepted as the spiritual master of such a great personality as His Divine Grace Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja. The conclusion is that Lord Śiva behaved in his own way to avoid materialistic persons who might disturb him in his prosecution of devotional service.
Thus one who is always in meditation upon the Supreme Lord is always offering Him obeisances. But since Dakṣa was not very elevated, he thought that obeisances were offered to the material body, and because Lord Śiva did not offer respect to his material body, Dakṣa became envious. Such persons, being unable to rise to the standard of self-realized souls like Lord Śiva, are always envious. The example given here is very suitable. Asuras, demons or atheists, are always envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; they simply want to kill Him. Even in this age we find some so-called scholars commenting on Bhagavad-gītā who are envious of Kṛṣṇa. When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ (BG 18.65)—"Always think of Me, become My devotee, and surrender unto Me"—the so-called scholars comment that it is not to Kṛṣṇa that we have to surrender. That is envy. The asuras or atheists, the demons, without reason or cause, are envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Similarly, instead of offering respect to self-realized persons, foolish men who cannot approach the highest standard of self-realization are always envious, although there is no reason.
According to Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, that Satī quit her body means that she gave up within her heart her relationship with Dakṣa. Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura also comments that since Satī is the superintendent deity of the external potency, when she quit her body she did not get a spiritual body but simply transferred from the body she had received from Dakṣa. Other commentators also say that she immediately transferred herself into the womb of Menakā, her future mother. She gave up the body she had received from Dakṣa and immediately transferred herself to another, better body, but this does not mean that she got a spiritual body.
In this verse Dakṣa has been described as mahātmā. The word mahātmā has been commented upon by different commentators in various manners. Vīrarāghava Ācārya has indicated that this word mahātmā means "steady in heart." That is to say that Dakṣa was so stronghearted that even when his beloved daughter was prepared to lay down her life, he was steady and unshaken. But in spite of his being so stronghearted, he was perturbed when he saw the various disturbances created by the gigantic black demon. Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura remarks in this connection that even if one is called mahātmā, a great soul, unless he exhibits the symptoms of a mahātmā, he should be considered a durātmā, or a degraded soul.
Lord Rudra, Śiva, was properly worshiped with his share of the remnants of the yajña. Yajña is Viṣṇu, and whatever prasāda is offered to Viṣṇu is offered to everyone, even to Lord Śiva. Śrīdhara Svāmī also comments in this connection, svena bhāgena: the remnants of the yajña are offered to all the demigods and others.
The Lord assured Dhruva that he would exist beyond the partial dissolution of this universe. Thus at the end of the complete dissolution, Dhruva Mahārāja would go directly to Vaikuṇṭhaloka, to a spiritual planet in the spiritual sky. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments in this connection that Dhruvaloka is one of the lokas like Śvetadvīpa, Mathurā and Dvārakā. They are all eternal places in the kingdom of Godhead, which is described in the Bhagavad-gītā (tad dhāma paramam) and in the Vedas (oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ). The words parastāt kalpa-vāsinām, "transcendental to the planets inhabited after the dissolution," refer to the Vaikuṇṭha planets. In other words, Dhruva Mahārāja's promotion to the Vaikuṇṭhalokas was guaranteed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
In this verse the word nāvartate is very significant. The Lord says, "You will not come back to this material world, for you will reach mat-sthānam, My abode." Therefore Dhruvaloka, or the polestar, is the abode of Lord Viṣṇu within this material world. Upon it there is an ocean of milk, and within that ocean there is an island known as Śvetadvīpa. It is clearly indicated that this planet is situated above the seven planetary systems of the ṛṣis, and because this planet is Viṣṇuloka, it is worshiped by all other planetary systems. It may be questioned here what will happen to the planet known as Dhruvaloka at the time of the dissolution of this universe. The answer is simple: Dhruvaloka remains, like other Vaikuṇṭhalokas beyond this universe. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented in this connection that the very word nāvartate indicates that this planet is eternal.
One should accept the instructions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead by bowing down at the lotus feet of the Lord. This means that anything spoken by the Personality of Godhead should be taken as it is, with great care and attention and with great respect. It is not our business to amend the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or make additions or alterations, as it has become a custom for many so-called scholars and svāmīs who comment on the words of Bhagavad-gītā. Here the practical example of how to accept the instruction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is shown by Pṛthu Mahārāja. This is the way to receive knowledge through the paramparā system.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that these karma-kāṇḍa ritualistic ceremonies, although contaminated, contain touches of devotional service because whenever there is a performance of any yajña, Lord Viṣṇu is given a central position. This is very important because even a little endeavor to please Lord Viṣṇu is bhakti and is of great value. A tinge of bhakti purifies the material nature of the performances, which by devotional service gradually come to the transcendental position. Therefore although such yajñas are superficially material activities, the results are transcendental. Such yajñas as Sūrya-yajña, Indra-yajña and Candra-yajña are performed in the names of the demigods, but these demigods are bodily parts of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The word brahmaṇi used in this verse is commented upon by the impersonalists or professional reciters of Bhāgavatam, who are mainly advocates of the caste system by demoniac birthright. They say that brahmaṇi means the impersonal Brahman. But they cannot conclude this with reference to the context of the words bhaktyā and guṇābhidhānena. According to the impersonalists, there are no transcendental qualities in the impersonal Brahman; therefore we should understand that brahmaṇi means "in the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as admitted by Arjuna in Bhagavad-gītā; therefore wherever the word brahma is used, it must refer to Kṛṣṇa, not to the impersonal Brahman effulgence. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate (SB 1.2.11). Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān can all be taken in total as Brahman, but when there is reference to the word bhakti or remembrance of the transcendental qualities, this indicates the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not the impersonal Brahman.
In this verse the word ātma-medhasā is commented upon by Śrīpāda Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, who says that ātmani means "unto Lord Kṛṣṇa, paramātmani." Lord Kṛṣṇa is Paramātmā. Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Therefore one whose mind is acting fully in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is called ātma-medhāḥ. This may be contrasted to the word gṛha-medhī, which refers to one whose brain is always engrossed with thoughts of material activities. The ātma-medhāḥ is always thinking of Kṛṣṇa's activities in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Since Sanat-kumāra, who was a son of Lord Brahmā, was fully Kṛṣṇa conscious, he could point out the path of spiritual advancement. The word ātma-gatiḥ refers to that path of activities by which one can make progress in understanding Kṛṣṇa.
In this verse Vidura is addressed as rājan, which means "O King." In this regard, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that a dhīra never becomes angry because he is always situated in devotional service. Advanced devotees can control their senses; therefore a devotee can be addressed as rājan. A king controls and rules in various ways among citizens; similarly, one who can control his senses is the king of his senses. He is a svāmī or gosvāmī. The svāmīs and gosvāmīs are therefore sometimes addressed as mahārāja, or king.
SB Canto 5
"A scholarly brāhmaṇa expert in all subjects of Vedic knowledge is unfit to become a spiritual master without being a Vaiṣṇava, but a person born in a family of a lower caste can become a spiritual master if he is a Vaiṣṇava." These brāhmaṇas were certainly very expert in chanting the Vedic mantras. They were competent in the performance of the Vedic rituals, and over and above this they were Vaiṣṇavas. Therefore by their spiritual powers they could call on the Supreme Personality of Godhead and enable their disciple, Mahārāja Nābhi, to see the Lord face to face. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that the word ojasā means "by dint of devotional service."
When males and females touch each other's bodies, their lusty desires naturally awaken. It appears from this verse that there are similar sensations in spiritual bodies. Both Lord Ananta and the women giving Him pleasure had spiritual bodies. Thus all sensations originally exist in the spiritual body. This is confirmed in the Vedānta-sūtra: janmādy asya yataḥ (SB 1.1.1). Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented in this connection that the word ādi means ādi-rasa, the original lusty feeling, which is born from the Supreme. However, spiritual lust and material lust are as completely different as gold and iron. Only one who is very highly elevated in spiritual realization can understand the lusty feelings exchanged between Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, or between Kṛṣṇa and the damsels of Vraja. Therefore, unless one is very experienced and advanced in spiritual realization, he is forbidden to discuss the lusty feelings of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs. However, if one is a sincere and pure devotee, the material lust in his heart is completely vanquished as he discusses the lusty feelings between the gopīs and Kṛṣṇa, and he makes quick progress in spiritual life.
SB Canto 6
In this regard, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī comments that bhakti may be divided into two divisions: (1) santatā, devotional service that continues incessantly with faith and love, and (2) kādācitkī, devotional service that does not continue incessantly but is sometimes awakened. Incessantly flowing devotional service (santatā) may also be divided into two categories: (1) service performed with slight attachment and (2) spontaneous devotional service. Intermittent devotional service (kādācitkī) may be divided into three categories: (1) rāgābhāsamayī, devotional service in which one is almost attached, (2) rāgābhāsa-śūnya-svarūpa-bhūtā, devotional service in which there is no spontaneous love but one likes the constitutional position of serving, and (3) ābhāsa-rūpā, a slight glimpse of devotional service. As for atonement, if one has caught even a slight glimpse of devotional service, all needs to undergo prāyaścitta, atonement, are superseded.
The order carriers of Yamarāja, the Yamadūtas, are explaining the factual position of piety and impiety and how a living entity is entangled in this material world. Describing the history of Ajāmila's life, the Yamadūtas relate that in the beginning he was a learned scholar of the Vedic literature. He was well behaved, neat and clean, and very kind to everyone. In fact, he had all good qualities. In other words, he was like a perfect brāhmaṇa. A brāhmaṇa is expected to be perfectly pious, to follow all the regulative principles and to have all good qualities. The symptoms of piety are explained in these verses. Śrīla Vīrarāghava Ācārya comments that dhṛta-vrata means dhṛtaṁ vrataṁ strī-saṅga-rāhityātmaka-brahmacarya-rūpam. In other words, Ajāmila followed the rules and regulations of celibacy as a perfect brahmacārī and was very softhearted, truthful, clean and pure. How he fell down in spite of all these qualities and thus came to be threatened with punishment by Yamarāja will be described in the following verses.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that the chanting of the holy name of the Lord has special significance that distinguishes it from the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies of atonement for severe, more severe or most severe sinful actions. There are twenty types of religious scriptures called dharma-śāstras, beginning with the Manu-saṁhitā and Parāśara-saṁhitā, but herein it is stressed that although one may become free from the reactions of the most sinful activities by following the religious principles of these scriptures, this cannot promote a sinful man to the stage of loving service to the Lord.
"My dear Uddhava, the supreme religious system for human society is that by which one can awaken his dormant love for Me." Commenting on this verse, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura describes the word bhakti by saying premaivoktaḥ. Kaḥ anyaḥ arthaḥ asya: in the presence of bhakti, what is the necessity of liberation?
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura also quotes this verse from the Padma Purāṇa:
- nāmāparādha-yuktānāṁ
- nāmāny eva haranty agham
- aviśrānti-prayuktāni
- tāny evārtha-karāṇi ca
Even if in the beginning one chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra with offenses, one will become free from such offenses by chanting again and again. Pāpa-kṣayaś ca bhavati smaratāṁ tam ahar-niśam: one becomes free from all sinful reactions if one chants day and night, following the recommendation of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that this verse is especially meant for the impersonalist, who thinks that he himself is the Supreme because there is no difference between the living being and God. The Māyāvādī philosopher thinks that there is only one Supreme Truth and that he is also that Supreme Truth. Actually this is not knowledge but foolishness, and this verse is especially meant for such fools, whose knowledge has been stolen by illusion (māyayāpahṛta jñānāḥ (BG 7.15)). Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura says that such persons, jñāni-māninaḥ, think themselves very advanced, but actually they are unintelligent.
"That which is prescribed in the Vedas constitutes dharma, the religious principles, and the opposite of that is irreligion. The Vedas are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, and are self-born. This we have heard from Yamarāja."
In this connection, Śrīla Madhvācārya comments:
- tapo 'bhimānī rudras tu
- viṣṇor hṛdayam āśritaḥ
- vidyā rūpā tathaivomā
- viṣṇos tanum upāśritā
- śṛṅgārādy-ākṛti-gataḥ
- kriyātmā pāka-śāsanaḥ
- aṅgeṣu kratavaḥ sarve
- madhya-dehe ca dharma-rāṭ
- prāṇo vāyuś citta-gato
- brahmādyāḥ sveṣu devatāḥ
The various demigods are all acting under the protection of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and according to their various actions the demigods are differently named.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that Nārada Muni had delivered the entire family of Svāyambhuva Manu, beginning with Priyavrata and Uttānapāda. He had delivered Uttānapāda's son Dhruva and had even delivered Prācīnabarhi, who was engaged in fruitive activities. Nevertheless, he could not deliver Prajāpati Dakṣa. Prajāpati Dakṣa saw Nārada before him because Nārada had personally come to deliver him. Nārada Muni took the opportunity to approach Prajāpati Dakṣa in his bereavement because the time of bereavement is a suitable time for appreciating bhakti-yoga. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (7.16), four kinds of men—ārta (one who is distressed), arthārthī (one in need of money), jijñāsu (one who is inquisitive) and jñānī (a person in knowledge)—try to understand devotional service. Prajāpati Dakṣa was in great distress because of the loss of his sons, and therefore Nārada took the opportunity to instruct him regarding liberation from material bondage.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that Bhūta had two wives. One of them, Sarūpā, gave birth to the eleven Rudras, and the other wife gave birth to the associates of the Rudras known as the ghosts and hobgoblins.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments:
- saptame guruṇā tyaktair
- devair daitya-parājitaiḥ
- viśvarūpo gurutvena
- vṛto brahmopadeśataḥ
"This Seventh Chapter describes how Bṛhaspati was offended by the demigods, how he left them and the demigods were defeated, and how the demigods, following the instructions of Lord Brahmā, accepted Viśvarūpa as the priest to perform their sacrifice."
Thus one will board a boat of stone. which will sink and drown all its passengers. Unfortunately. although the American people are extremely eager to get out of materialistic chaos, they are sometimes found to patronize the makers of stone boats. That will not help them. They must take the proper boat offered by Kṛṣṇa in the form of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Then they will be easily saved. In this regard Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments: aśmamayaḥ plavo yeṣāṁ te yathā majjantaṁ plavam anumajjanti tatheti rāja-nīty-upadeṣṭṛṣu sva-sabhyeṣu kopo vyañjitaḥ. If society is guided by political diplomacy, with one nation maneuvering against another, it will certainly sink like a stone boat. Political maneuvering and diplomacy will not save human society. People must take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness to understand the aim of life, to understand God, and to fulfill the human mission.
"Since I am very intelligent, why should I give this fool material prosperity? Instead I shall induce him to take the nectar of the shelter of My lotus feet and make him forget illusory material enjoyment." If one sincerely prays to God for material possessions in exchange for devotional service, the Lord, who is not foolish like such an unintelligent devotee, shows him special favor by taking away whatever material possessions he has and gradually giving him the intelligence to be satisfied only by rendering service to His lotus feet. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments in this regard that if a foolish child requests his mother to give him poison, the mother, being intelligent, will certainly not give him poison, even though he requests it. A materialist does not know that to accept material possessions means to accept poison, or the repetition of birth and death. An intelligent person, a brāhmaṇa, aspires for liberation from material bondage. That is the real self-interest of a human being.
Vṛtrāsura insulted the demoniac soldiers by comparing them to the stool of their mothers. Both stool and a cowardly son come from the abdomen of the mother, and Vṛtrāsura said that there is no difference between them. A similar comparison was given by Tulasī dāsa, who commented that a son and urine both come from the same channel. In other words, semen and urine both come from the genitals, but semen produces a child whereas urine produces nothing.
In this connection Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments:
brahmeśendrādaya iti; indrasya sva-dhiṣṇya-gamanaṁ nopapadyate vṛtra-vadha-kṣaṇa eva brahma-hatyopadrava-prāpteḥ; tasmāt tata ity anena mānasa-sarovarād āgatya pravartitād aśvamedhāt parata iti vyākhyeyam.
Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva and the other demigods returned to their respective abodes, but Indra did not, for he was disturbed at having killed Vṛtrāsura, who was actually a brāhmaṇa. After killing Vṛtrāsura, Indra went to the Mānasa-sarovara Lake to become free from sinful reactions. When he left the lake, he performed an aśvamedha-yajña and then returned to his own abode.
A karmī's material opulence and a devotee's material opulence are not on the same level. Śrīla Madhvācārya comments in this way:
- anyāntaryāmiṇaṁ viṣṇum
- upāsyānya-samīpagaḥ
- bhaved yogyatayā tasya
- padaṁ vā prāpnuyān naraḥ
By worshiping Lord Viṣṇu one can get whatever he desires, but a pure devotee never asks Lord Viṣṇu for any material profit. Instead he serves Lord Viṣṇu without material desires and is therefore ultimately transferred to the spiritual kingdom. In this regard, Śrīla Vīrarāghava Ācārya comments, yatheṣṭa-gatir ity arthaḥ: by worshiping Viṣṇu, a devotee can get whatever he likes. Mahārāja Citraketu wanted only to return home, back to Godhead, and therefore he achieved success in that way.
This is the meaning of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We are therefore presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is and kicking out all kinds of mental concoction. Fools and rascals interpret Bhagavad-gītā in their own way. When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65)—"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.
The Lord is very kind and affectionate toward His devotees, and therefore a devotee, in any condition, is not subjected to the results of karma. A devotee never aspires for the heavenly planets. The heavenly planets, liberation and hell are nondifferent for a devotee, for he does not discriminate between different positions in the material world. A devotee is always eager to return home, back to Godhead, and remain there as the Lord's associate. This ambition becomes increasingly fervent in his heart, and therefore he does not care about material changes in his life. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that Mahārāja Citraketu's being cursed by Pārvatī should be considered the mercy of the Lord. The Lord wanted Citraketu to return to Godhead as soon as possible, and therefore he terminated all the reactions of his past deeds. Acting through the heart of Pārvatī, the Lord, who is situated in everyone's heart, cursed Citraketu in order to end all his material reactions. Thus Citraketu became Vṛtrāsura in his next life and returned home, back to Godhead.
SB Canto 7
Trīn guṇān vṛṇoti: Lord Brahmā takes advantage of the three modes of material nature. prakṛti, material nature, is described here as tri-vṛtā, the source of the three material modes. Śrīla Madhvācārya comments in this connection that tri-vṛtā means prakṛtyā. Thus Lord Kṛṣṇa is the original creator, and Lord Brahmā is the original engineer.
While chanting the holy name of the Lord, one should be careful to avoid ten offenses. From Sanat-kumāra it is understood that even if a person is a severe offender in many ways, he is freed from offensive life if he takes shelter of the Lord's holy name. Indeed, even if a human being is no better than a two-legged animal, he will be liberated if he takes shelter of the holy name of the Lord. One should therefore be very careful not to commit offenses at the lotus feet of the Lord's holy name. The offenses are described as follows: (a) to blaspheme a devotee, especially a devotee engaged in broadcasting the glories of the holy name, (b) to consider the name of Lord Śiva or any other demigod to be equally as powerful as the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (no one is equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, nor is anyone superior to Him), (c) to disobey the instructions of the spiritual master, (d) to blaspheme the Vedic literatures and literatures compiled in pursuance of the Vedic literatures, (e) to comment that the glories of the holy name of the Lord are exaggerated, (f) to interpret the holy name in a deviant way, (g) to commit sinful activities on the strength of chanting the holy name, (h) to compare the chanting of the holy name to pious activities, (i) to instruct the glories of the holy name to a person who has no understanding of the chanting of the holy name, (j) not to awaken in transcendental attachment for the chanting of the holy name, even after hearing all these scriptural injunctions.
Atheistic men sometimes criticize a devotee by saying, "If you do not want to take any benediction from the Lord and if the servant of the Lord is as opulent as the Lord Himself, why do you ask for the benediction of being engaged as the Lord's servant?" Śrīdhara Svāmī comments, bhagavattvāya bhagavat-samān aiśvaryāya. Bhagavattva, becoming as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, does not mean becoming one with Him or equal to Him, although in the spiritual world the servant is equally as opulent as the master. The servant of the Lord is engaged in the service of the Lord as a servant, friend, father, mother or conjugal lover, all of whom are equally as opulent as the Lord. This is acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. The master and servant are different yet equal in opulence. This is the meaning of simultaneous difference from the Supreme Lord and oneness with Him.
"That gift which is given out of duty, at the proper time and place, to a worthy person, and without expectation of return, is considered to be charity in the mode of goodness." One should give charity to the brāhmaṇas and Vaiṣṇavas, for thus the Supreme Personality of Godhead will be worshiped. In this connection, Śrīla Madhvācārya comments:
- brahmādi-sthāvarānteṣu
- na viśeṣo hareḥ kvacit
- vyakti-mātra-viśeṣeṇa
- tāratamyaṁ vadanti ca
Beginning from Brahmā down to the ant, everyone is conducted by the Supersoul (īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe 'rjuna tiṣṭhati (BG 18.61)). But because of a particular person's advancement in spiritual consciousness, he is considered to be important. Therefore, the brāhmaṇa Vaiṣṇava is important, and, above all, the Supersoul, the Personality of Godhead, is the most important personality.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented that because the words "bow" and "arrow" are used in this verse, one might argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity have become enemies. However, although the Supreme Personality of Godhead may become the so-called enemy of the living being, this is His chivalrous pleasure. For example, the Lord fought with Bhīṣma, and when Bhīṣma pierced the Lord's body on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, this was a kind of humor or relationship, of which there are twelve. When the conditioned soul tries to reach the Lord by hurling an arrow at Him, the Lord takes pleasure, and the living entity gains the profit of going back home, back to Godhead. Another example given in this regard is that Arjuna, as a result of piercing the ādhāra-mīna, or the fish within the cakra, achieved the valuable gain of Draupadī. Similarly, if with the arrow of chanting the holy name of the Lord one pierces Lord Viṣṇu's lotus feet, by dint of performing this heroic activity of devotional service one receives the benefit of returning home, back to Godhead.
SB Canto 8
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that the word anvāha means that he chanted or murmured to himself, not that he lectured to anyone.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that those who seek gold and silver can worship Lord Śiva for material opulences. Lord Śiva lives under a bael tree and does not even construct a house in which to dwell, but although he is apparently poverty-stricken, his devotees are sometimes opulently endowed with large quantities of silver and gold. Parīkṣit Mahārāja later asks about this, and Śukadeva Gosvāmī replies.
This particular devastation actually took place not during the night of Lord Brahmā but during his day, for it was during the time of Cākṣuṣa Manu. Brahmā's night takes place when Brahmā goes to sleep, but in the daytime there are fourteen Manus, one of whom is Cākṣuṣa Manu. Therefore, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that although it was daytime for Lord Brahmā, Brahmā felt sleepy for a short time by the supreme will of the Lord. This short period is regarded as Lord Brahmā's night. This has been elaborately discussed by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta. The following is a summary of his analysis. Because Agastya Muni cursed Svāyambhuva Manu, during the time of Svāyambhuva Manu a devastation took place. This devastation is mentioned in the Matsya Purāṇa. During the time of Cākṣuṣa Manu, by the supreme will of the Lord, there was suddenly another pralaya, or devastation. This is mentioned by Mārkaṇḍeya Ṛṣi in the Viṣṇu-dharmottara. At the end of Manu's time there is not necessarily a devastation, but at the end of the Cākṣuṣa-manvantara, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by His illusory energy, wanted to show Satyavrata the effects of devastation. Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī also agrees with this opinion.
This commentation has been finished in our New Delhi center today, the first of September, 1976, the day of Rādhāṣṭamī, by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the ācāryas. Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, tāṅdera caraṇa sevi bhakta-sane vāsa janame janame haya, ei abhilāṣa. I am attempting to present Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in the English language by the order of my spiritual master, Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, and by his grace the work of translation is gradually progressing, and the European and American devotees who have joined the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement are helping me considerably. Thus we have expectations of finishing the great task before my passing away. All glories to Śrī Guru and Gaurāṅga.
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
"You have given up my association and have gone to worship Lord Brahmā," he said, "and therefore I no longer have any affection for you. You have tried to save yourselves from the hands of the demigods, but I curse you in this way: Your father will take birth as Kaṁsa and kill all of you because you will take birth as sons of Devakī." Because of this curse, the grandsons of Hiraṇyakaśipu had to take birth from the womb of Devakī and be killed by Kaṁsa, although he was previously their father. This description is mentioned in the Hari-vaṁśa, Viṣṇu-parva, Second Chapter. According to the comments of the Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, the son of Devakī known as Kīrtimān was the third incarnation. In his first incarnation he was known as Smara and was the son of Marīci, and later he became the son of Kālanemi. This is mentioned in the histories.
The words bhagavān api viśvātmā viditvā kaṁsajaṁ bhayam are commented upon by Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī. Bhagavān svayam is Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28)). He is Viśvātmā, the original Supersoul of everyone, because his plenary portion expands as the Supersoul. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (13.3): kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata. Lord Kṛṣṇa is the kṣetra jña, or Supersoul, of all living entities. He is the original source of all expansions of the Personality of Godhead. There are hundreds and thousands of plenary expansions of Viṣṇu, such as Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Vāsudeva, but here in this material world, the Viśvātmā, the Supersoul for all living entities, is Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (18.61), īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe'rjuna tiṣṭhati: "The Supreme Lord is situated in the heart of all living entities, O Arjuna." Kṛṣṇa is actually Viśvātmā by His plenary expansion as viṣṇu-tattva, yet because of His affection for His devotees, He acts as Supersoul to give them directions (sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca (BG 15.15)).
After receiving the orders of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Yogamāyā twice confirmed her acceptance by saying, "Yes, sir, I shall do as You order," and then saying oṁ. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that oṁ signifies Vedic confirmation. Thus Yogamāyā very faithfully received the Lord's order as a Vedic injunction. It is a fact that whatever is spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is a Vedic injunction that no one should neglect. In Vedic injunctions there are no mistakes, illusions, cheating or imperfection. Unless one understands the authority of the Vedic version, there is no purpose in quoting śāstra. No one should violate the Vedic injunctions. Rather, one should strictly execute the orders given in the Vedas.
In this way, Devakī became the residence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is one without a second and the cause of all creation. Devakī became the residence of the Absolute Truth, but because she was within the house of Kaṁsa, she looked just like a suppressed fire, or like misused education. When fire is covered by the walls of a pot or is kept in a jug, the illuminating rays of the fire cannot be very much appreciated. Similarly, misused knowledge, which does not benefit the people in general, is not very much appreciated. So Devakī was kept within the prison walls of Kaṁsa's palace, and no one could see her transcendental beauty, which resulted from her conceiving the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Commenting upon this verse, Śrī Vīrarāghava Ācārya writes, vasudeva-devakī jaṭharayor hṛdayayor bhagavataḥ sambandhaḥ. The Supreme Lord's entrance into the womb of Devakī from the heart of Vasudeva was a heart-to-heart relationship.
This instruction by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to His father and mother, who are eternally connected with Him, is especially intended for persons eager to return home, back to Godhead. One should never think of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as an ordinary human being, as nondevotees do. Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, personally appeared and left His instructions for the benefit of all human society, but fools and rascals unfortunately think of Him as an ordinary human being and twist the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā for the satisfaction of their senses. Practically everyone commenting on Bhagavad-gītā interprets it for sense gratification. It has become especially fashionable for modern scholars and politicians to interpret Bhagavad-gītā as if it were something fictitious, and by their wrong interpretations they are spoiling their own careers and the careers of others.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has commented on this verse as follows. When Lord Kṛṣṇa was of a very tender age, His hands and legs resembled soft new leaves, yet simply by touching the handcart with His legs, He made the cart fall to pieces. It was quite possible for Him to act in this way and yet not exert Himself very much. The Lord in His Vāmana avatāra had to extend His foot to the greatest height to penetrate the covering of the universe, and when the Lord killed the gigantic demon Hiraṇyakaśipu, He had to assume the special bodily feature of Nṛsiṁha-deva. But in His Kṛṣṇa avatāra, the Lord did not need to exert such energy. Therefore, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam: (SB 1.3.28) Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. In other incarnations, the Lord had to exert some energy according to the time and circumstances, but in this form He exhibited unlimited potency. Thus the handcart collapsed, its joints broken, and all the metal pots and utensils scattered.
The word svakārthānām refers to great desires. As mentioned in this verse, the glance of Lord Viṣṇu creates the desires of the devotees. A pure devotee, however, has no desires. Therefore Sanātana Gosvāmī comments that because the desires of devotees whose attention is fixed on Kṛṣṇa have already been fulfilled, the Lord's sidelong glances create variegated desires in relation to Kṛṣṇa and devotional service. In the material world, desire is a product of rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa, but desire in the spiritual world gives rise to a variety of everlasting transcendental service. Thus the word svakārthānām refers to eagerness to serve Kṛṣṇa.
Śrī Vīrarāghava Ācārya comments that each of the items mentioned in the first half of this verse is a cause for material entanglement. Kāla, or the time factor, agitates the modes of material nature, and svabhāva is the result of association with these modes. Therefore Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, bhakta-sane vāsa. If one associates with bhaktas, then one's svabhāva, or nature, will change. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is meant to give people good association so that this change may take place, and we actually see that by this method people all over the world are gradually becoming devotees.
In the beginning the boys, the calves and Kṛṣṇa Himself had been covered by yogamāyā, which later displayed the second set of calves and boys, who were Kṛṣṇa's expansions, and which then displayed so many four-armed forms. Now, seeing Brahmā's bewilderment, Lord Kṛṣṇa caused the disappearance of that yogamāyā. One may think that the māyā taken away by Lord Kṛṣṇa was mahāmāyā, but Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that it was yogamāyā, the potency by which Kṛṣṇa is sometimes manifest and sometimes not manifest. The potency which covers the actual reality and displays something unreal is mahāmāyā, but the potency by which the Absolute Truth is sometimes manifest and sometimes not is yogamāyā. Therefore, in this verse the word ajā refers to yogamāyā.
Brahmā, being very joyful, began to shed tears, and he washed the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa with his tears. Repeatedly he fell and rose as he recalled the wonderful activities of the Lord. After repeating obeisances for a long time, Brahmā stood up and smeared his hands over his eyes. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura comments that the word locane indicates that with his two hands he wiped the two eyes on each of his four faces. Seeing the Lord before him, Brahmā began to offer prayers with great humility, respect and attention.
| Page Title: | Commentation (BG and SB) |
| Compiler: | Visnu Murti, Mayapur |
| Created: | 17 of Aug, 2011 |
| Totals by Section: | BG=10, SB=80, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0 |
| No. of Quotes: | 90 |