Battlefield Fancy

Danavir Goswami

I AM CONCERNED about a new translation and commentary of the

Bhagavad-gita advertised via email and the internet. Note this

version is not produced in ISKCON or by the Bhaktivedanta Book

Trust. The promotional materials tell of the new Gita’s “charming”

attempt to interpret Krsna and Arjuna’s dialogue prior to the battle

of Kuruksetra in terms of “Vraja bhakti.” Please pardon me for not

explicitly identifying the author and the title of this new book, as I

prefer to address the philosophy that they espouse.

Written subsequent to His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is, the new Vraja version

dispenses with His Divine Grace’s translations, word meanings, and

purports. For example, in chapter 10 verse 9, Lord Krsna uses the

word ramanti meaning, according to Bhagavad-gita As It Is, “enjoy

transcendental bliss” but in the Vraja translation ramanti means

“conjugal love.” Within the Vraja Gita commentary, there seems to

be an underlying implication that Srila Prabhupada did not reveal

everything that Krsna wanted to say in the As It Is version of the

Bhagavad-gita.

The Vraja version claims itself to be within the Gaudiya line, yet

there are significant reasons to doubt its authenticity. Thus, this

paper discusses what I perceive, to be eight major transgressions of

Vaisnavism present in the Vraja edition. We humbly submit our

thoughts to the community of Krsna devotees.

1. Gita Opportunism

If there was one thing that displeased Srila Prabhupada no end, it

was when ambitious, unqualified persons wrote Bhagavad-gita

translations and commentaries as a cover for promoting their own

philosophies. “Write your own book,” he charged.

Who are you? If you have got any opinion, then you write your own

book. Why do you touch Bhagavad-gita? Because Bhagavad-gita is

very well-known book all over the world, these rascals take

advantage of Bhagavad-gita and interpret it in their own way.

(Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.19- Bombay, April 8, 1974)

His Divine Grace told how when he was in America in 1966, an

American woman asked him to recommend an English edition of

Bhagavad-gita so she could read it. Although he estimated the

number of such unauthorized commentaries to exceed 600, he

could not recommend any one of them on account of their whimsical

explanation. The woman’s question however gave him further

impetus to write Bhagavad-gita As It Is, which was meant to silence

all so-called scholars and swamis who misused the great Song of

God by interpreting it in their own way.

If someone interprets Bhagavad-gita according to his own

imagination, that is not Bhagavad-gita. The meaning must not be

changed to suit the commentator’s whim. If he differs from the

standard Vaisnava conclusion of the Bhagavad-gita, he should write

his own book and give his own thesis. Why you are, I mean to say,

killing others and yourself by interpreting Bhagavad-gita? You give

your own thesis in a different way. But these people, they take

advantage of the popularity of Bhagavad-gita and interpret in a

different way according to their own whims. (Lecture on Bhagavad-

gita 7.1 - Hyderabad, April 27, 1974)

The present new version interpreting the Gita in terms of Vraja

Bhakti does indeed take advantage of Bhagavad-gita’s popularity to

present its opinion. His Divine grace explains that personal

realization does not mean that one should, out of vanity, attempt to

show one’s own learning by trying to surpass the previous acarya.

He must have full confidence in the previous acarya, and at the

same time he must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can

present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable

manner. The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No

obscure meaning should be screwed out of it.

Although no obscure meanings should be screwed out of it, Gandhi

used Bhagavad-gita to preach non-violence. Dr. Radhakrishna used

it to advocate Mayavada philosophy. A physician theorized that

Krishna was a doctor and Arjuna a patient. Another interpreted that

the five Pandavas actually meant the five senses and Kuruksetra

meant the body. This Vraja version promotes raganuga bhakti for

beginners, if you will. “Write your own book,” means do not attach

your philosophy to the Bhagavad-gita as a commentary. Give your

own theory in a separate book.

Everyone is taking advantage of Bhagavad-gita and he’s preaching

in his own way, foolish way. “Own way” means foolish way. This is

going on. (Conversation with Indian Guests - April 12, 1975,

Hyderabad)

Srila Prabhupada compared using Bhagavad-gita for preaching one’s

own philosophy to smoking ganja through another man’s hand to

avoid the discoloration and bad smell adhering to one’s own hand.

At least if someone wants to do some activity, he should take the

responsibility himself and not attribute it to another. In this case,

Krsna’s Bhagavad-gita is specifically meant to explain the basic

science of bhakti and its value is not enhanced by contorting the

verses with imagined interpretations from Vraja-lila.

Although shallow preoccupation with gopi bhava appears to be the

qualification of the Vraja-imagined Gita commentary, Sri Krsna’s

song becomes appropriated as a non-consenting accomplice. The

Vraja Gita interpretation falls into the same trap as previous

opportunistic attempts, which also could not resist capitalizing on

the popularity of the Gita. As concealing one’s purloiner appearance

with the dress of a policeman does not spare the mischief, neither

does using Gaudiya Vaisnava appellations conceal one’s clandestine

mischief. If you take Bhagavad-gita, then you must present it as it

is. Don’t distort it. You may have got some idea, but you explain

that idea in your different book. But don’t place it as the explanation

of Bhagavad-gita. That is not very good. If you have got different

theory, you can write in a different book. But we cannot permit or do

not like that as the commentary of Bhagavad-gita you will place

something different. That is not very honest. You put your own

theory. Why should you try to put your theory through Bhagavad-

gita? That we protest. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gita

As It Is. (Room Conversation with Yoga Student - March 14, 1975,

Iran)

Since the Gaudiya commentary has already been presented in the

form of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, what need is there for another?

Since there is a great need of an edition of the Gita in English, as it

is received by the parampara (disciplic succession) system, an

attempt is made herewith to fulfill this great want. Bhagavad-gita-

accepted as it is-is a great boon to humanity. (Bhagavad-gita 4.2

Purport)

2. Maryada-Vyatikrama (Impertinent Over-Stepping)

In Sanskrit, maryada-vyatikrama means impertinently attempting to

surpass a greater personality. The new Vraja Gita version seeks to

surpass the exalted acaryas of the disciplic succession by declaring

its new imaginative Vraja-bhakti interpretation of Bhagavad-gita to

be deeper and higher than the accepted understanding. Although in

particular, Srila Prabhupada and his Bhagavad-gita As It Is are

slighted, the Vraja interpretation also oversteps all the previous

acaryas who never ventured into describing Bhagavad-gita in terms

of Vraja bhakti.

So we must follow the principle. The Subodhini-tika was made by

Vallabhacarya, but because he presented himself more than

Sridhara Swami to Caitanya Mahaprabhu... He requested Caitanya

Mahaprabhu to read his comment on Srimad-Bhagavatam when He

was at Puri. But he was little proud of his nice commentary, that he

said “It is better than Sridhara Swami.” So that was not tolerated by

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and He did not hear that Subodhini-tika. He

remarked, svami jiva nahi mane (indistinct). So this is not the way.

We cannot approach Krsna directly. We must go through the

parampara system, vande rupa-sanatanau raghu-yugau sri-jiva

gopalakau . (The Nectar of Devotion - Bombay, January 8, 1973)

The historical example given above is sadly appropriate because the

author of Subodhini-tika wished to supersede authorized previous

acaryas. His commentary was rejected however, by Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu and not allowed in Gaudiya Vaisnava circles. A writer

should never feel himself qualified to go beyond the realization of

his predecessors.

Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one

should be careful about the offense of or impertinently surpassing a

greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be

very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama

because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence,

fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed

in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the

techniques of spiritual science. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.4.26 Purport)

The Vraja version announces that besides the general meaning of

the Gita’s verses (supposedly for rank sadhakas), the verses also

have “an esoteric meaning relative to Krsna’s devotees of Vraja and

the gopis in particular.” Oddly enough we do not hear of this

realization anywhere within the teachings of Sri Krsna, Srila

Vyasadeva, Srila Sukadeva Goswami, Srila Madhvacarya, Lord Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami, or Srila Rupa

Goswami. Surely, such elevated personalities would not deprive

their followers of the Gita’s so-called higher Vraja bhakti truth.

Perhaps most importantly, ISKCON devotees consider that His Divine

Grace Srila Prabhupada condemned such attempts.

When one who does not understand the Bhagavad-gita writes a

commentary on it, he is cheating the innocent public. Someone has

a title as a scholar, so he takes advantage of the popularity of the

Bhagavad-gita and writes a commentary. (The Way of Knowing God)

That Vraja bhakti is the highest attainment in spiritual life is not

disputed. Surely the gopis’s love for Krsna is unparalleled as stated

by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu: ramya kacid upasana vrajavadhu-

vargena ya kalpita-there is no better form of worship than was

conceived by the damsels of Vraja. The issue of contest is whether

the Bhagavad-gita is to be interpreted in terms of Vraja bhakti or

not. The characteristic of maryada-vyatikrama or impertinent one-

upmanship is especially prominent in the Vraja Gita’s word

meanings, translations, and commentary. By overestimating one’s

own importance and not recognizing the unparalleled importance of

empowered Vaisnava acaryas, one becomes offensive.

3. Sahajiya

There is a class of pseudo-devotees called sahajiyas who take

devotional service very cheaply. They imagine themselves to be

elevated Vaisnavas but they are actually immature devotees.

The prakrta-sahajiya depict themselves as the most advanced,

transcendentally blissful devotees, deeply absorbed in devotional

service and mad to taste transcendental mellows. They also

describe themselves as the most advanced devotees in

spontaneous love, as knowers of transcendental mellows, as the

topmost devotees in conjugal love of Krsna, and so on. Not actually

knowing the transcendental nature of love of God, they accept their

material emotions to be indicative of advancement. In this way they

pollute the process of devotional service. To try to become writers of

Vaisnava literature, they introduce their material conceptions of life

into pure devotional service. Because of their material conceptions,

they advertise themselves as knowers of transcendental mellows,

but they do not understand the transcendental nature of devotional

service. (Caitanya Caritamrta, Antya 20.29 Purport)

The above statement summarizes the sahajiya mentality. On the

surface, the Vraja Gita aligns itself with Srila Prabhupada’s

Bhagavad Gita As It Is even as it coyly offers the imagined higher

transcendental mellows.

If you accept the principles of Bhagavad-gita, that is the preliminary

study, A-B-C-D of dharma, and if you accept this principle, that to

surrender to Krsna, saranam saranyam...(Lecture on Srimad-

3.25.11 - Bombay, November 11, 1974)

It is not required or desired to apologize for Krishna’s philosophy of

bhakti presented in the Gita. Bhagavad-gita is the preliminary study

of spiritual life and to endeavor to remake it into a discussion about

the gopis of Vrndavana is the work of sahajiyas. Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura said that when our men,

meaning the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, become sahajiyas, “Oh, they’ll be

more dangerous.” Consider the following statement from Srila

Prabhupada:

Therefore the sahajiyas, they do not read Bhagavad-gita. They say,

“We have nothing to do with Bhagavad-gita.” They jump over to the

Srimad-Bhagavatam, Tenth Canto, Krsna’s rasa-lila, as if Krsna is

connected with rasa-lila and not with this lila. They make distinction.

(Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 1.4 - London, July 10, 1973)

At first glance, it may appear that this statement describing

sahajiyas does not apply to the present Vraja Gita interpretation

since it indeed deals with Bhagavad-gita. However, if we look more

closely we find the sahajiya mentality is fully present because the

Vraja edition does not accept the Bhagavad-gita as it actually is but

rather jumps right to the Tenth Canto’s rasa-lila exactly as

Prabhupada described. While covertly claiming to accept Bhagavad-

gita, the Vraja interpretation deceptively rejects the true Bhagavad-

gita and replaces it with a concocted interpretation of rasa-lila.

Here in Los Angeles, we have found that there is a group of about

40 devotees who privately meet to discuss the intimate pastimes

artificially thinking that they can enter into the understanding of the

gopis prematurely. This will create havoc in our society, and the

result will be that if this is allowed to go on, our preaching work will

be greatly hampered. This premature desire to understand the lila of

Krishna is due to mundane sex-life desire as we have seen amongst

many of the babajis and sahajiyas in Vrindaban. (Letter to: Nitai -

Los Angeles 7 June, 1976)

Sahajiyaism should not be allowed to prosper in ISKCON. Srila

Prabhupada vigilantly protected his society from its influence during

his presence and he scrupulously trained us to recognize sahajiya

when it appears and how to reject it. The primary symptom of

sahajiyas is that they deprecate Krsna’s activities outside of

Vrndavana, not understanding that all of the Lord’s activities are on

a transcendentally equal platform. By refusing to allow Bhagavad-

gita As It Is to stand as the accurate portrayal for all time, the Vraja

interpretation reveals its sahajiya motives.

So sometimes a class of devotees known as sahajiya, they say that

“What we have got to do with the narration of Kuruksetra battle?”

They immediately jump to the krsna-lila, directly with the gopis. And

Krsna’s activities in other field, they think it is useless. But that is

not the fact. Anywhere Krsna is acting, that is transcendental-the

Battlefield of Kuruksetra, historical references, description, so

superficially it appears that what a devotee has got to do with this

battlefield? But battlefield or no battlefield, wherever there is Krsna,

that is transcendental. This has to be understood. Otherwise,

Sukadeva Gosvami, why he should indulge in describing how

Uttara’s pregnancy was saved by Krsna, how the brahmastra was

thrown by Asvatthama? So Sukadeva Gosvami is liberated person.

Why he should indulge in these material things? No. Those who are

advanced, they know that Krsna’s dancing with the gopis, that lila

and Krsna’s playing as the leader of the battlefield of Kuruksetra is

the same. It is all transcendental. One should not make any

distinction between the two. Samstham ca pandu-putranam vaksye

krsna-kathodayam. Pandu-putranam, the pandu-putras, or the

Pandavas, son of Pandu, they’re all devotees. Even their political

affairs, because there is connection with Krsna, it is krsna-katha.

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.12 - Vrndavana, September 11, 1976)

The new Vraja Gita edition may be among the most dangerous

attempts of sahajiyasism to date because it uses the authoritative

and famous Vedic literature, Bhagavad-gita, to substantiate its

unauthorized, notorious misconceptions.

Prabhupada: These sahajiyas will come out of so many devotees.

What can be done? From my Guru Maharaja’s disciples, so many

sahajiyas came. These are called sahajiyas. (Room Conversation -

January 28, 1977, Bhubaneshwar)

We know of one sahajiya gentleman who said that when a real

devotee of Krsna hears a discussion about Krsna’s pastimes not

performed in Vrndavana, the real devotee politely leaves the room.

According to Srila Prabhupada the contrary is true, i.e. Vaisnavas

relish Krsna’s bellicose activities as much as His rasa-lila dancing.

Therefore those who are sahajiyas, they simply go to the pastimes

of Lord Krsna with the gopis. Other things, “Oh, no, no. That is not

Krsna’s pastimes. That is not Krsna’s pastimes.” That is, they

differentiate the absolute activities of the Absolute. That is called

sahajiya. The sahajiyas will never read Bhagavad-gita, will never

read. (sarcastic:) Because they have been elevated to the mellows

of conjugal love. Therefore they have no interest in Bhagavad-gita.

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.3.20-23 - Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971)

In one ironical sense, we must be grateful that the sahajiya affront

has appeared in such a noticeable fashion through the new Vraja-

fancy Gita. Let us observe carefully that the new edition fulfills the

sahajiya characteristic of “never reading Bhagavad-gita” by

attempting to change the entire mood to Vrndavana pastimes. The

Vraja edition does not hear Bhagavad-gita due to the loudness of its

own mental volume.

So it is not that like sahajiyas that we are interested in Krsna’s rasa

dance, not with this fighting in the Battlefields of Kuruksetra. This is

sahajiya-bhava. This is not wanted. ( Bhagavad-gita 1.4 - London,

July 10, 1973)

The sahajiyas simply create disturbances within the realm of pure

devotional service because their understanding of Vraja-lila is

contaminated. Sahajiyas cannot be equal to advanced devotees

(paramahamsas). Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has warned

not to mix with the professional so-called Vaisnavas known as

sahajiyas. Their words describing Krsna-katha are compared to the

poison emitted by serpents when they drink milk. One who drinks

such so-called Krsna-katha becomes poisoned and loses his life of

pure devotional service. Aside from this, the discussion of rasa lila

and the intimate dealings between the Lord and the Vrndavana

vasis is not to be publicly discussed. This has been taught by Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Srila Prabhupada cautions us not to accept a

cheap guru.

Don’t try to understand Radha-Krsna very quickly. It is a very big

subject. If we want to understand Radha-Krsna very quickly, then

there will be so many prakrta-sahajiyas. In India there are prakrta-

sahajiya. Just like Radha-Krsna dancing. Radha-Krsna has become a

plaything. The painting Radha-Krsna, Krsna is kissing Radha, Radha

is kissing. These are all nonsense. Radha-Krsna philosophy has to be

understood by the liberated person, not by the conditioned soul. So

we shall await for the fortunate moment when we are liberated,

then we shall understand radha-krsna-pranaya-vikrtir. (Radhastami

Srimati Radharani’s Appearance Day - Montreal, August 30, 1968)

The Vraja version of Gita invents what Krsna is thinking and

transmits this as if it were higher, esoteric realizations. It may be

appropriate to make some references to the exalted position of the

residents of Vrndavana in studying Bhagavad-gita verses, however

to fantasize the entire Bhagavad-gita as a treatise on Vraja bhakti is

invalid.

4. Tenth Canto Opportunism

The Bhagavad-gita presents the summary of primary Vedic

philosophical wisdom. That is its glory and there are no indications

from Lord Krsna that He intended it to be otherwise. Srila

Prabhupada and the Vaisnava acaryas have all explained this

principle in their teachings.

Bhagavad-gita is also part of the Mahabharata, and it is full of the

Lord’s instruction for the less intelligent class of men. Some less

intelligent men say that Bhagavad-gita is not meant for

householders, but such foolish men forget that Bhagavad-gita was

explained to Arjuna, a grhastha (family man), and spoken by the

Lord in His role as a grhastha. So Bhagavad-gita, although

containing the high philosophy of the Vedic wisdom, is for the

beginners in the transcendental science, and Srimad-Bhagavatam is

for graduates and postgraduates in the transcendental science.

(Srimad Bhagavatam 2.3.14 Purport)

In addition to exploiting the popularity of Bhagavad-gita, the new

Vraja version of the Gita also takes unfair advantage of the Srimad

Bhagavatam’s most sacred Tenth Canto rasa lila pastimes of Krsna

and the gopis. The Gita edition under discussion cleverly employs

both Lord Krishna’s words and His confidential rasa-lila activities for

its own objectives.

The First Canto or Second Canto of Bhagavad-gita are the two lotus

feet of Krsna. So from the very beginning we should hear Srimad-

Bhagavatam. Gradually, we shall come to the face. That is real

understanding of Krsna.

And without understanding of the other nine cantos of Bhagavad-

gita, er, Srimad-Bhagavatam, if we simply jump over the Tenth

Canto, and especially to the Thirty-fifth Chapter, the five chapters,

Rasa-pancadhyaya, this is not very favorable. Of course, it is

favorable. Krsna’s lila, you hear any way, this way or that way... But

if we misunderstand Krsna, then there is fall down. That is instructed

by Sri..., Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, that don’t try to understand

Krsna’s lila all of a sudden without understanding Krsna. Tattvatah.

So regulative principle-to serve, as it is stated in the sastras or as it

is enjoined by the spiritual master. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.5.30 -

Vrndavana, August 11, 1974)

Today, it is still quite common for professional Bhagavata reciters to

earn their livelihood by skipping the first nine cantos of Srimad

Bhagavatam and jumping to the most confidential topics of Srimad

Bhagavatam’s Tenth Canto.

If it is incorrect for Bhagavata reciters to jump up from the First

Canto to the Tenth Canto, then how much more improper it is to

jump from the Bhagavad-gita up to the Tenth Canto! Consider the

following mock debate between Srila Prabhupada and some of his

disciples:

Prabhupada: You say that. In the sastra does not say. Sastra says

that after you have studied all the nine cantos of Bhagavatam, then

enter into the tenth. Sahajiya means they take very easily. “I am....

Everything is all right. Now I am perfect.” That is sahajiya. Krsna

says, “To understand Me, it will take millions of years.” And they

understand Krsna immediately. That is their.... That is called

prakrta-sahajiya.

Ramesvara: Krsna’s incarnation is to attract the living entities to

Krsna. So let me read about rasa-lila, because I’m feeling some

attraction.

Prabhupada: Then why not Kuruksetra-lila? What...? Kuruksetra-lila...

Krsna’s lila is the same, absolute. You are attracted to rasa-lila

means you have got sex desire. That’s all.

Ramesvara: I may still have sex desire, but this will purify me.

Prabhupada: No, no, no. This will purify. You are not purified.

Tamala Krsna: Putrefied.

Prabhupada: That is.... The, this rasa-lila is for the person who is

completely purified. When one is impure, he should not think of.

That is stated in the Bhagavatam. ( Morning Walk - June 7, 1976, Los

Angeles)

5. Infidelity

The Vraja version claims that Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas have

interpreted the Gita in terms of Vraja bhakti. If this is correct and

truly one or several Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas have, as advertised

in the Vraja Gita, actually provided entire commentary on the

Bhagavad-gita, then let that work be presented in its entirety.

However, the readers of the Gita caricature are not given a Gaudiya

acarya’s Bhagavad-gita expounding Vraja Bhakti but rather a

present-day estimation of what such a book might look like. A

modern-day Vraja interpretation of the Bhagavad-gita, composed

with all the frailties of Kali-yuga, is a long way from a Gaudiya

acarya commentary. The Vraja Gita commentary forms a peculiar

picture from pieced-together misinterpretations of fragmented out-

of-context comments. Although beguiling, the Vraja edition fails to

present a Gaudiya acarya translation and commentary for a reason

conspicuous by its absence: none exists.

We learn from Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.25:

stri-sudra-dvijabandhunam

trayi na sruti-gocara

karma-sreyasi mudhanam

sreya evam bhaved iha

iti bharatam akhyanam

krpaya munina krtam

Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise that this would

enable men to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled

the great historical narration called the Mahabharata for women,

laborers and friends of the twice-born.

The Bhagavad-gita found within the Mahabharata, is compiled for

beginners on the spiritual path. But the Vraja Gita commentary

asserts that, “the devotees of the Krsna of Vraja perceive him, the

dhira-lalita of Radha, in the princely Krsna’s words.” Understanding

Radha and Krsna pastimes constitutes the summum bonum

conclusion taught within the Tenth Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam.

Deception alone suggests that Bhagavad-gita is other than the

preliminary study to the Bhagavatam.

From an abandoned asrama amid troubled waters, the new Vraja

Gita version germinated its unfaithful character.

And as soon as he thinks that “I am beyond this chastisement, I am

liberated,” he’s a rascal. Why Caitanya Mahaprabhu says guru more

murkha dekhi’ karila sasan? This is sahajiya-vada. He is thinking,

“Oh I have become liberated. I don’t require any direction of my

guru. I’m liberated.” Then he’s rascal. Why this Gaudiya Matha

failed? Because they tried to become more than guru.

(Room Conversation - August 16, 1976, Bombay)

Trying to become more than one’s guru is the qualification of the

new Vraja bhakti Gita fiasco. Having made a mockery of the

Bhagavad-gita, the new Vraja commentary marketing department

furtively suggests, “This book has been such a pleasure to read side

by side with Srila Prabhupada’s.” How absurd. The marketing

department of the Vraja Gita has evidently lost sight of Srila

Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is long ago otherwise it could

never have produced such a book blunder.

The Vraja commentary’s promotional material reminds the potential

readers that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to write books.

That is agreed, but he did not desire that his disciples present

Bhagavad-gita in such a fanciful and whimsical manner.

You cannot go beyond the Vedic conclusion. Then it is useless

writing. Vedic conclusion must be there. The guide must be there.

On that conclusion, if you write something, that is right, and if you

deviate from that conclusion, then it is wrong. So we want to read

authorized, right books. Not by imagination. You can write so many

nonsense things by imagination. That is useless. You must

remember what is the Vedic conclusion. So sruti-smrti-pancaratra-

vidhim. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.3.24 - Los Angeles, June 22, 1972)

6. Misinterpretation

Bhagavad-gita As It Is translated and commented upon by His Divine

Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada accurately presents

the true conversation and meaning between Lord Krsna and His

friend Arjuna. There is no need for a divergent interpretation.

You will see Dr. Radhakrishnan says. When this, he is making

comment on it, he said, “It is not to Krsna.” Krsna says, man-mana

bhava mad-bhakto mam namaskuru, and Dr. Radha..., he says “not

to Krsna.” How he is misleading people! He is a great scholar, and

he says “It is not to Krsna, to the person.” Just see. This dishonesty

is going on. What right he has got to say like that? Did He, did He,

Krsna, left His Bhagavad-gita to be interpreted by a rascal, “Not to

Krsna”? This is rascaldom. You cannot say. You must say what Krsna

says, if you take Bhagavad-gita. But if you have got a different

views, then you write your own book. (Room Conversation with Srila

Prabhupada speaking to Dr. Copeland, Professor of Modern Indian

History - May 20, 1975, Melbourne)

In the room conversation excerpt above, Srila Prabhupada

establishes that the Bhagavad-gita is forever meant to indicate what

Krsna intended. That intended meaning is accurately communicated

to the world in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. New translations or

commentaries disagreeing with the As It Is edition are faulty and

misleading.

A commentary or interpretation is required only when the meaning

is unclear. If you want to speak something from your side, you write

your own book. Why should you take advantage of the popular book

of Bhagavad-gita and misrepresent it? That is the fun. You see?

There are about six hundred different types of editions commenting

on Bhagavad-gita. But according to Bhagavad-gita, all these six

hundred editions in different, studied from different angle of vision,

they are all absurd and nonsense. It is very difficult. People have

been misled by the so-called commentaries. There is no need of

unnecessarily commenting on certain things. There is no necessity.

Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very

clear. Then you can suggest, “The meaning may be like this.” But

when the things are clear, why should you comment? There is no

necessity of comment. Just like, for example-this is also from

Sanskrit scholar’s example-that gangayam ghosapalli. Gangayam:

“On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as

Ghosapalli.” Now, this statement is in your front. So one may

question that “The river Ganges is water. How there can be a

neighborhood which is known as Ghosapalli? On the water how

there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation?” You

can question that. Gangayam ghosapalli. Then the interpretation

should be, “No, not on the Ganges. ‘On the Ganges’ means ‘on the

bank of the Ganges.’” This interpretation is nice. When one cannot

understand clearly, there is interpretation. But when the matter is

clear... Just like sunlight. The sunlight, sunshine, does it require your

lamp to show the sunlight? The sunlight is itself so illuminous that

everyone can understand, “This is sunlight.” If somebody brings

some lamp, “I will show you the sun,” sun is already visible. Why

your lamp is required? So these unauthorized commentators, they

bring some lamp to show the sunlight of Bhagavad-gita. That is their

business.(Town Hall Lecture - Auckland, April 14, 1972)

Srila Prabhupada made the meaning of Bhagavad-gita so clear that

thousands and millions of people from all cultures of the world are

able to understand its sublime and straightforward message. The

new interpretation attempts to turn the As It Is edition upside down.

In the Bhagavad-gita, Krsna does not speak anything about His

pastimes with Radharani. That is strictly prohibited. You never find

Krsna is speaking about His pastimes with the gopis or with

Radharani. No. He’s officially speaking about Himself, “I am this, I

am that.” Mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya. Mam

eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te. (Lecture on Sri

Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 1.6 - Mayapur, March 30, 1975)

In the lecture above Srila Prabhupada emphatically proclaims that

within Bhagavad-gita Krsna gives preliminary knowledge about

Himself and He is not speaking about His pastimes with Radharani

and the gopis. “That is strictly prohibited.” To interpret that the

Bhagavad-gita is about Krsna’s “preoccupation with His Vrndavana

pastimes” as the Vraja Gita version does, blatantly contradicts Srila

Prabhupada’s warning.

Hundreds of unauthorized interpretations of the Gita have wreaked

havoc on the world and the Vraja version only adds to the damage.

The Vraja interpretation explains: “Setting foot in that holy place

again, [Kuruksetra] for the purpose of instructing Arjuna, Prince

Krsna was surely reminded of Vraja bhakti, the highest spiritual love

that he had discussed with the gopis that day.” This is an example

of mere conjecture. Lord Krsna instructed the same science of

Bhagavad-gita to the sun-god Vivasvan millions of years before He

spoke at Kuruksetra referring neither to Vraja Bhakti nor to meeting

the gopis.

He said to Arjuna, puratanam yogam proktavan, that “I am speaking

to you

same old philosophy, puratanam yogam, which I spoke to the sun-

god.” We must stick to this, that a spiritual understanding is never

changed. Now the modern days, we have to adjust things. No. That

is not spiritual. There is no question of modern and old. Nitya, that is

nitya, eternal. We should always remember that. The... Millions and

millions of years ago, what was spoken by Krsna to the sun-god, the

same thing was spoken to Arjuna. He said that “I am speaking to

you the same old, puratanam yogam, but because the parampara

system is now broken, so I am making again the parampara system

through you, beginning from you.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.6.8 - New

Vrindaban, June 24, 1976)

The Bhagavad-gita is exactly what it says it is. Lord Krsna is

speaking to His friend Arjuna on the battlefield of Kuruksetra before

millions of soldiers poised for war. Arjuna, overwhelmed with

confusion and affection for his family members refuses to proceed in

the fight. As a last resort, Arjuna accepts Krsna as his spiritual

master and requests Him to tell him what to do. Krsna tells him how

the soul is different from the body and how one must tolerate the

dualities of the material world such as happiness and distress,

victory or defeat. Arjuna and the conditioned souls he represents,

are advised to perform their work as an offering to the Lord and in

that way become free from material bondage.

Krsna explains that formerly He taught this science to the sun-god

Vivasvan but the disciplic line had become broken. Meditational

yoga techniques are discussed but Arjuna, feeling himself

incompetent, declines to practice them. Krsna establishes that the

goal of yoga is to remember Him at the time of death and

devotional service (Krsna bhakti) is the best method to success.

Upon request, Krsna displays His universal form and His four-handed

Narayana feature. To help Arjuna disentangle himself from illusion,

the Lord elucidates on the modes of nature, consciousness, divine

and demoniac natures, and ultimately, full surrender to the lotus

feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. Arjuna

understands everything and accepts the instructions.

arjuna uvaca

nasto mohah smrtir labdha

tvat-prasadan mayacyut

sthito ‘smi gata-sandehah

karisye vacanam tava

Arjuna said: My dear Krsna, O infallible one, my illusion is now gone.

I

have regained my memory by Your mercy. I am now firm and free

from doubt and am prepared to act according to Your instructions.

This brings us to a crucial point. The Bhagavad-gita is to be

understood in the line of Arjuna, who is the recent link in disciplic

succession. Whatever understanding Arjuna gets from hearing

Bhagavad-gita is what we should get from hearing Bhagavad-gita.

So one has to receive the knowledge of Bhagavad-gita by the

parampara system. Just like Arjuna. Arjuna heard Bhagavad-gita.

And how he understood Bhagavad-gita? He understood Krsna as a

person. Param brahma param dhama pavitram paramam bhavan,

purusam sasvatam adyam. That is real Bhagavad-gita

understanding. And Arjuna said, sarvam etam rtam manye yan mam

vadasi kesava. As Krsna says that sarva-dharman parityajya mam

ekam saranam vraja, so he accepted that. That is Bhagavad-gita

reading, not that “It is not to person Krsna; it is to His self,” and this

and that. No. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 6.149-50 - Gorakhpur,

February 13, 1971)

Arjuna never said that the Bhagavad-gita was a treatise on Krsna’s

Vrndavana pastimes, nor did Srila Prabhupada ever say such a

thing. I am sorry, but the Vraja Gita version has misinterpreted the

entire text of Bhagavad-gita and misled those unfortunate readers

who accept it. Vedavyasa never indicated that Mahabharata was

speaking about the gopis. Unfortunately, people want to show their

scholarship, that “I understand Bhagavad-gita from this angle of

vision.”

Why should you try to understand Bhagavad-gita from a different

angle of vision? The first preference should be given to the author.

The author has given you some knowledge, so he has got some

particular aim and objective. So why should you change that? You

have no right to change that. If you want to speak something from

your side, you write your own book. Why should you take advantage

of the popular book of Bhagavad-gita and misrepresent it? That is

the fun. You see? There are about six hundred different types of

editions commenting on Bhagavad-gita. But according to

Bhagavad-gita, all these six hundred editions in different, studied

from different angle of vision, they are all absurd and nonsense. It is

very difficult. People have been misled by the so-called

commentaries. There is no need of unnecessarily commenting on

certain things. There is no necessity. Commentary or interpretation

required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest, “The

meaning may be like this.” But when the things are clear, why

should you comment? There is no necessity of comment. (Town Hall

Lecture - Auckland, April 14, 1972)

What is unclear about Bhagavad-gita that requires such

interpretation? There is no Gaudiya Vaisnava Acarya commentary

on the Bhagavad-gita stating that Krsna’s paramount purpose in

speaking to Arjuna was to delineate Vraja bhakti.

The new commentary assigns creative definitions with so-called

deeper meanings to Krsna’s words. Why was Srila Prabhupada not

able to understand those words in the deeper light of Krsna’s Vraja

lila? Or did he understand but not reveal it? Although the new

commentary may not supply answers to these questions, readers

must accept the new commentary’s explanation of what Srila

Prabhupada wasn’t able to say. The commentary found in the new

Vraja Gita, full of hidden, esoteric, or higher meanings is clever, no

doubt, but what is the guarantee that such interpretations are not

merely the concoction of the new interpretation?

Consider Srila Prabhupada’s translation and purport to 10.10:

tesam satata-yuktanam

bhajatam priti-purvakam

dadami buddhi-yogam tam

yena mam upayanti te

tesam-unto them; satata-yuktanam-always engaged; bhajatam-in

rendering devotional service; priti-purvakam-in loving ecstasy;

dadami-I give; buddhi-yogam-real intelligence; tam-that; yena-by

which; mam-unto Me; upayanti-come; te-they.

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give

the understanding by which they can come to Me.

PURPORT: In this verse the word buddhi-yogam is very significant.

We may remember that in the Second Chapter the Lord, instructing

Arjuna, said that He had spoken to him of many things and that He

would instruct him in the way of buddhi-yoga. Now buddhi-yoga is

explained. Buddhi-yoga itself is action in Krsna consciousness; that

is the highest intelligence. Buddhi means intelligence, and yoga

means mystic activities or mystic elevation. When one tries to go

back home, back to Godhead, and takes fully to Krsna

consciousness in devotional service, his action is called buddhi yoga.

In other words, buddhi-yoga is the process by which one gets out of

the entanglement of this material world. The ultimate goal of

progress is Krsna. People do not know this; therefore the

association of devotees and a bona fide spiritual master are

important. One should know that the goal is Krsna, and when the

goal is assigned, then the path is slowly but progressively traversed,

and the ultimate goal is achieved. (Bhagavd-gita 10.10)

Why must the gopis and Vrndavana be brought into the discussion

of Bhagavad-gita? It is simply speculation. An advertisement says

that the Vraja commentary “calls our attention to our princely Lord’s

preoccupation with his Vrndavana pastimes, and the true battle at

Kuruksetra against the ego.” That is not the purpose of Bhagavad-

gita at all. To declare such a misinterpretation is misleading the

public and devotees.

You are studying Bhagavad-gita, talk of that. In the Bhagavad-gita

the gopis’ saris are not mentioned. So why you are bringing gopis’

saris now? This is our fault. No, no. This is our fault. There is no

mention of gopis’ saris. We are talking of Bhagavad-gita, why you

are bringing gopis’ saris? Again because. There is no subject matter

there. You have no right to bring that. That is our fault. To bring a

horse before a cart. We are talking of Bhagavad-gita. There is no

mention of Krsna and gopis’ saris there. So let us talk. Finish that.

(Room Conversation - December 29, 1976, Bombay)

In the room conversation above Srila Prabhupada had been

explaining about the authenticity of Mahabharata and the

Bhagavad-gita within it. The Battle of Kuruksetra was real, he said,

and the place Kuruksetra is not to be taken figuratively as a so-

called scholar had done in his commentary on Bhagavad-gita. There

is no need to interpret the Bhagavad-gita unless one has a motive

and if one has a motive it spoils the entire Bhagavad-gita just as

rotten, decomposed food gives no benefit. No sane man should read

such interpretations.

Then a guest asked Srila Prabhupada about the direct meaning of

Krsna’s stealing the saris of the gopis while they were bathing. The

question was inappropriate, of course, because the guest was

belittling the Lord’s pastimes, thinking them to be immoral. Putting

that impropriety aside, however, His Divine Grace chose to

emphasize the lesson that one should not bring the topics of Krsna’s

Vrndavana pastimes into the battlefield discussion of Bhagavad-gita.

“We are talking of Bhagavad-gita. There is no mention of Krsna and

gopis’ saris there.” That instruction remains exceedingly appropriate

today with regard to the new Vraja bhakti Gita commentary.

7. Rasabhasa

Srila Prabhupada translated into English and commented on every

verse of Bhagavad-gita and spoke on many verses numerous times.

Yet he never, ever, interpreted that the Lord Krsna’s immortal Gita

was actually discussing Vraja lila. Krishna’s words are meant to be

taken literally. Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of

your letter dated May 25, 1976, along with samples of the Gitar-gan

and the cover in for the Bhagavat-darsana. No, the printing of the

Gitar-gan cover this fashion is not at all approved by me. You have

done most nonsensically. Why change the cover? When people look

to see the Bhagavad-gita they expect to see Krishna and Arjuna, not

the picture of Krishna with cow. You have done a great mistake by

changing the front picture and it will hamper the sale. In future you

don’t do any changes without asking me first. Simply because there

is no stock of books, we can do anything whimsically??? Is this

logic? Gita is not spoken in Vrindaban, it is spoken on the battlefield

of Kuruksetra, but this is Vrindaban picture. That chariot drive by 4

horses, that is the real Kuruksetra picture. It is not that because

there is no stock we can do whimsically as we like and lose the idea,

that is rasa-bhasa. Because there is no bread, you take stone to

eat? There is no stock of bread so you will take stone??? The front

picture is most important thing and you have changed it. It must

remain standard, and not change. Also, the lettering is not nice on

the cover. You could have taken a color picture of Krishna and

Arjuna and used it black and white (one color) on the front cover.

Just as you did with the inside back cover of the Bhagavat darsana,

the original picture of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was in color but you

have printed it in black and white. You could have done this on the

front cover with Krishna and Arjuna on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra,

but the cover must not be changed. Do not do anything whimsically

in future, and you can write me if you have questions concerning

the printing. (Letter to:

Bhargava - Honolulu 29 May, 1976)

The important letter above is most pertinent to our discussion.

Gitar-gan is Srila Prabhupada’s own Bengali Poetic Edition of

Bhagavad-gita As It Is. He said, “Introduce the recitation of Gitar-gan

in every school.” Here is a sample of the Gitar-gan:

dharma-ksetre kuru-ksetre haiya ekatra

yuddhakami mamaputra pandava sarvatra

ki karila tarpar kahata sanjay

dhrtarastra jijnasaye sandigdha hrday

Chapter 1 Text 1: Dhrtarastra said: O Sanjaya, after my sons and

the sons of Pandu assembled in the place of pilgrimage at

Kuruksetra, desiring to fight, what did they do?

deha dehi bhed dui nityanitya sei

kaumar youvan jara parivartan yei

deher svakarya hay dehi nitya rahe

tatha dehantar-prapti panditera kahe

Chapter 2 Text 13: As the embodied soul continuously passes, in

this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly

passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered

by such a change.

Gitar-gan verses are translated exactly the same as those found in

Bhagavad-gita As It Is because Gitar-gan is an exact translation of

the Bhagavad-gita. In Gitar-gan every verse of the Bhagavad-gita is

perfectly translated into Bengali by our beloved kaviraja Srila

Prabhupada so that the couplets rhyme-making it easy to sing. In

short, Gitar-gan is the Bhagavad-gita. Therefore it is significant that

Srila Prabhupada disapproved when his disciples had whimsically

replaced the traditional cover picture of Krsna and Arjuna on the

battlefield of Kuruksetra with a picture showing a Vrndavana scene

of Krishna with a cow. This is described as rasabhasa by Lord Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

bhakti-siddhanta-viruddha, ara rasabhasa

sunite na haya prabhura cittera ullasa

SYNONYMS: bhakti-siddhanta-conclusive statements about the

science of devotional service; viruddha-opposing; ara-and; rasa-

abhasa-overlapping of transcendental mellows; sunite-to hear; na-

not; haya-becomes; prabhura-of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu;