Kṛṣṇa does not say that you change your occupation. Just like Arjuna. He is a kṣatriya. His business is to fight. The division of human society, Brāhmin, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra, is very scientific. A Kṣatriya is meant for fighting. A Brāhmin is meant for intelligent work. A Vaiśya is meant for business. A Śūdra is meant for labor.
But because there is no such division, people are not trained from the very beginning. Therefore a Śūdra is called by the draft board, "Come on," to fight. Now, how he can fight? He is not a Kṣatriya. So they are flying away. They're taking visa for another country and going away. How he can fight? He is not Kṣatriya.
So Kṛṣṇa said Arjuna that, "You are Kṣatriya." He did not say . . . Kṛṣṇa wanted . . . Arjuna wanted to become a false Brāhmin. He said: "Oh, I shall become nonviolent, and even though I don't get my kingdom I shall beg like a Brāhmin and shall live away. Kṛṣṇa, don't ask me to fight." This is false Brāhminism. "Oh," Kṛṣṇa said: "you are Kṣatriya. You must fight." It cannot imitate a Brāhmin’s business. This is false.
So anyone has got a particular duty, as I explained in the beginning, so he, let him do that particular duty. He doesn't require to change. Sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarcya (BG 18.46). But try to see whether by execution of your particular type of duty you have satisfied God. That is your perfection.
(break) . . . life. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we do not say that you give up all your engagements, come here in the temple and simply go on chanting. Consciousness . . . you must come to the perfection of consciousness that, "I am eternally related with Kṛṣṇa . . ."
(break) So Vedic literature does not say like that. It is order. You have to accept it. If you do not understand, try to understand it. That is a different thing. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā there is no question of interpretation. In the beginning it is said:
- dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
- samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
- māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
- kim akurvata sañjaya
- (BG 1.1)
"My dear Sañjaya," Dhṛtarāṣṭra is asking his private secretary, Mr. Sañjaya, "my sons and my brother's sons, Pāṇḍava . . ." His brother's name was Pandu, therefore they are Pāṇḍava. Māmakāḥ means "my sons." Where is the scope for interpretation? Kuru-kṣetre. There is still one place—you know better; you are Indian—there is place Kurukṣetra still existing. Dharmakṣetra, that is a religious place, place of pilgrimage. Still, people go for religious performances. In the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret: one should perform religious rituals in the Kurukṣetra.
So where is the scope for interpretation? Interpretation means when you cannot understand something. Then you can interpret. But here, kurukṣetra you can understand; dharma-kṣetra you can understand; māmakāḥ you can understand; pāṇḍava you can understand; they assembled for fighting, you can understand. Why do you interpret? What is the necessity of interpretation? That means he wants to show that he has got some better intelligence than the speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā. We do not accept such things, nonsense.
(break) If you have to learn Bhagavad-gītā, then you have to learn Bhagavad-gītā as Kṛṣṇa speaks or as Arjuna understands. Just like if you take a medicine bottle. The direction, as it is stated in the bottle, you have to take medicine in that way. You cannot make your own direction, interpretation.
(break) Nonsense. We don't accept.
(break) We are publishing one book, Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. It has been taken by one great publisher, Macmillan Company, and we'll have it by the month of October. Don't interpret. We explain things as they are. That should be the attitude. Why? Why interpretation? By interpretation, there are 664 editions of Bhagavad-gītā. Simply by . . . one medical man, he has interpreted Bhagavad-gītā: Kṛṣṇa is a physician and Arjuna is a patient.
And he has tried to explain through Bhagavad-gītā all anatomic philosophy . . . er, physiology, not this. Gandhi, he wanted to prove nonviolence from Bhagavad-gītā. The Bhagavad-gītā is being spoken in the battlefield, full of violence, and he is trying to prove that the Bhagavad-gītā is nonviolent. These are all artificial attempts. These explanations will never give you the real light from Bhagavad-gītā. You try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is.