Commentaries: Difference between revisions
Visnu Murti (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 09:17, 8 April 2008
commentaries|commentary
Subcategories Pages in category
This category has the following 16 subcategories, out of 16 total.
C
J
N
P
S
V
Pages in category "Commentaries"
The following 136 pages are in this category, out of 136 total.
1
2
A
- A learned scholar who has studied the Vedas perfectly can never be deviated by any amount of nonsensical commentaries or by fools. BG 1972 purports
- According to Mayavadis, Vedanta refers to the Sariraka commentary of Sankaracarya. When impersonal philosophers refer to Vedanta & the Upanisads, they are actually referring to the commentaries of Sankaracarya, the greatest teacher of Mayavadi philosophy
- According to the commentary called Sri-Bhagavata-candra-candrika, the water in which Sati used to bathe was Ganges water. In other words, the Ganges flowed through the Kailasa-parvata
- According to the commentary of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the purpose of the janmady asya verse in the Vedanta-sutra is to establish that the cosmic manifestation is the result of the transformation of the potencies of the SP of Godhead
- After Sankaracarya came Sadananda-yogi, who claimed that the Vedanta and Upanisads should be understood through the commentaries of Sankaracarya. Factually, this is not so
- All the great acaryas of the four Vaisnava sampradayas have made commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra, but the so-called devotees known as prakrta-sahajiya carefully avoid the study of Vedanta-sutra
- All the sannyasis of the Sankara-sampradaya enjoy seriously studying the Vedanta-sutra with the Sariraka-bhasya commentary. It is said, vedanta-vakyesu sada ramantah: "One should always enjoy the studies of the Vedanta-sutra"
- All the so-called scholars' and politicians' commentary is to banish Krsna or to kill Krsna - the Kamsa's policy. The Kamsa was always thinking of Krsna, how to kill Him. This is called demonic endeavor
- Among all commentaries, Sridhara Svami's is given the first position. This parampara has existed for a very long time. It was also accepted during Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's time, but Sri Vallabhacarya violated the system
- Anyone who listens to the commentary of the Mayavadi philosopher, then his fate is doomed. He is finished. He will never be able to understand bhakti philosophy
- Asuras, instead of accepting these instructions directly, make commentaries according to their own whimsical ways and mislead everyone, without profit even for themselves. One should therefore be very careful of demoniac, godless persons
- At present there are many commentaries on the revealed scriptures, but most of them are not in the line of disciplic succession coming from Srila Vyasadeva, who originally compiled the Vedic wisdom
B
- Baladeva Vidyabhusana, with the order of Govindaji at Jaipur, he wrote the commentary on Brahma-sutra. That name is Govinda-bhasya. So the Gaudiya-Brahma Sampradaya, they have got also commentary on Brahma-sutra
- Because we are doubtful, we are presenting Krsna in a different way. And there are so many commentators, so many swamis, they put Krsna in a different way. But Krsna is Krsna. Law of identity. You cannot comment on the Krsna's personality
C
- Caitanya Mahaprabhu has declared, Anyone who hears commentary on the Vedanta-sutra from the Mayavada school is completely doomed
- Caitanya said that direct commentaries on the Upanisads and Vedanta-sutra are glorious, but that anyone who follows the indirect path of Sankaracarya's Sariraka-bhasya is certainly doomed
- Commentaries of the previous acaryas
- Commentaries written by the acaryas
- Commenting on the word parama-vaisnava (in CC Antya 13.92), Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that anyone who desires to merge into the existence of the Lord cannot be a pure Vaisnava
- Concerning Arabic translations, someone has already done one. He came to me in Bombay. Also, there is no need to give commentary on the Koran
E
- English translation of Caitanya Caritamrta by Nogen Roy have been seen by me. There is no commentary and therefore it can be read
- Even authorities like Sri Jiva Goswami and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura mention in their commentaries, svami caranat, as we have learned it from the lotus feet of Sridhara Svami
- Every word of sastra has volumes of meanings. Udga... Therefore sometimes right commentary required
F
- Factually, the devotional service of the Lord is described in the Vedanta-sutra, but the Mayavadi philosophers, the Sankarites, prepared a commentary known as Sariraka-bhasya, in which the transcendental form of the Lord is denied
- First of all let us offer our respectful obeisances unto our spiritual master, Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada, by whose order I am engaged in this herculean task of writing commentary on the SB
- For a detailed refutation of Sankaracarya’s arguments attempting to prove Sankarsana an ordinary living being, one may refer to Srimat Sudarsanacarya’s commentary on the Sri-bhasya, which is known as the Sruta-prakasika
H
- He (Caitanya) says, 'artha-vyasta' likhana sei. Commentaries written according to one's own philosophical way are never accepted; no one will appreciate such commentaries on the revealed scriptures
- He soon became so expert in commenting on the Panji-tika that He could win victory over all the other students, although He was a neophyte
I
- I am glad you are so enthusiastic for making our plan of a daily world newspaper a success. It is a very large task. To publish a daily newspaper requires a huge establishment and the editor must be very well versed so that he can comment on all fields
- I never studied different philosophy or science but Krishna has given me the intelligence how to defeat their nonsensical proposals. Soon these commentaries on the Western philosophies will be transcribed and published in a book entitled Thus They Talked
- If one becomes a bookworm, reading many books and scriptures and hearing many commentaries and the instructions of many men, this will produce doubt within his heart. One cannot in this way ascertain the real goal of life
- In his Anubhasya commentary, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura says that this stage - devotional service mixed with speculative knowledge - is also external and not within the jurisdiction of pure devotional service as practiced in Vaikunthaloka
- In his commentary on the Laghu-bhagavatamrta, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana has said that the above energies are also known by nine names: (1) vimala, (2) utkarsini (3) jnana, (4) kriya, (5) yoga, (6) prahvi, (7) satya, (8) isana and (9) anugraha
- In his commentary, Sridhara Svami has noted that birth in a family of brahmanas does not necessarily mean that one is a brahmana. One must be qualified with the symptoms of a brahmana, as the symptoms are described in the sastras
- In reply to the commentary of Sankaracarya on the forty-fourth aphorism, it may be said that no pure devotees strictly following the principles of the Pancaratra will ever accept the statement that all the expansions of Visnu are different identities
- In the Gaudiya-sampradaya there is a Vedanta commentary called the Govinda-bhasya, but the sahajiyas consider such commentaries to be untouchable philosophical speculation, and they consider the acaryas to be mixed devotees
- In the Mayavadi commentary, the spiritual, transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead has been denied, and the Supreme Brahman has been dragged down to the level of the individual Brahman, the living entity
- In this regard (CC Madhya 18.109), Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments that jangama-narayana means that the impersonal Brahman takes a shape and moves here and there in the form of a Mayavadi sannyasi. The Mayavada philosophy confirms this
- Indeed, we know that all the commentaries on Vedic scriptures by Mayavadi philosophers are erroneous, especially those of Sankaracarya. Sankaracarya's interpretations of Vedanta-sutra are all figments of his imagination
- It is a defect of Mayavada commentaries that they make one statement in one place and a contradictory statement in another place as a tactic to refute the Bhagavata school
L
- Later in life, Caitanya dasa became a very learned Sanskrit scholar and wrote many books. Among these books, his commentary on Krsna-karnamrta is very famous
- Lord Siva says, As far as Bhagavatam is concerned, I may know it, or Sukadeva or Vyasadeva may know it - but actually Bhagavatam is to be understood by devotional service and from a devotee, and not by one's own intelligence or by academic commentaries
N
- Nondevotees cannot understand even the preliminary study of transcendental knowledge, Bhagavad-gita. They simply speculate and present commentaries with absurd distortions
- Nonetheless, Srimad-Bhagavatam can be understood by everyone, as well as by advanced devotees who study the Sanskrit commentaries. Why, then, will people not understand the Caitanya-caritamrta
- Now this Arjunacarya...that's a very nice story. When he was writing commentaries, oh, he thought, "How is that Lord will come Himself and deliver the goods? Oh, it is not possible. He might be sending through some agents"
O
- One should always think about and describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for this is recommended in both the Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavata Purana, which are two authorized commentaries upon the Vedas
- One who criticizes the character of Krsna without knowing Him is a fool. So such commentaries should be very carefully avoided. BG 1972 purports
P
- People have been misled by these so-called commentaries. There is no need of unnecessarily commenting on certain things. Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest - "The meaning may be like this."
- Please send me immediately one copy of Bhakti Sutra (with original Sankrit text). I shall immediately begin the commentary. Yes you can edit on the tapes of Teachings of Lord Caitanya
S
- Sankara is the incarnation of Lord Siva. He has no fault. He has simply executed the order of the Supreme Lord. But the way in which he has presented the commentary, one should not hear it
- Sankaracarya's commentary on the forty-second (that the Personality of Godhead can expand Himself variously) aphorism and his commentary on the forty-fourth (that all the expansions of Visnu are different identities) aphorism are contradictory
- Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya intended to convert Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who was a Vaisnava sannyasi, into a Mayavadi sannyasi. He therefore made this arrangement to instruct Him in the Vedanta-sutra according to the Sariraka commentary of Sankaracarya
- Sivananda Sena's nephew, Srikanta, the son of his sister, felt offended, and he commented on the matter when his uncle was absent
- Someone commented that this form (Krsna's Universal Form) was shown to Duryodhana also when Krsna went to Duryodhana to negotiate for peace. Unfortunately, Duryodhana did not accept the peace offer. BG 1972 purports
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu approved of a sannyasi’s reading the Vedanta-sutra, or Brahma-sutra, but He did not approve the Sariraka commentary of Sankaracarya
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu remarked that no one should hear the Mayavadi commentaries or purports to any Vedic literature
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, mukhya-vrttye sei artha parama mahattva: To teach the Vedic literature according to its direct meaning, without false commentary, is glorious
- Sridhara Svami gives a clear analytical study (of the spiritual and material energies) in his commentary on the first verse of the Tenth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sridhara Svami was accepted by Lord Caitanya as an authorized commentator on SB
- Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments that in the Goloka planet there are three divisions: Gokula, Mathura and Dvaraka
- Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura gives the following commentary on this passage (CC Madhya 17.185). A sadhu, or honest man, is called a mahajana or a mahatma. The mahatma is described thus by Lord Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita - BG 9.13
- Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura says that sometimes these smarta caste gosvamis write books on Vaisnava philosophy or commentaries on the original scriptures, but a pure devotee should cautiously avoid reading them
- Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura comments that in all Vedic scriptures the jiva-tattva, the truth of the living entities, is mentioned to be one of the energies of the Lord
- Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura comments that serving Vaisnavas is most important for householders
- Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura says there was a commentary on grammar named Panji-tika that was later explained very lucidly by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
- Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura have very elaborately explained this incident of the Lord's disappearance in their commentaries, quoting various authentic versions of Vedic literatures
- Srila Madhvacarya passed from this material world at the age of eighty while writing a commentary on the Aitareya Upanisad. For further information about Madhvacarya, one should read Madhva-vijaya, by Narayanacarya
- Srila Rupa Gosvami, commenting upon the Lord’s transcendental position beyond the material qualities, says that Visnu, as the controller and superintendent of material nature, has a connection with the material qualities. That connection is called yoga
- Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments in this connection that King Manu knew that the Supreme Personality of Godhead would take birth in the womb of Akuti
- Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments in this regard (SB 6.9.49) 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
- Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments that the word ojasa means by dint of devotional service
- Srila Vyasadeva presented the Vedanta philosophy for the deliverance of conditioned souls, but if one hears the commentary of Sankaracarya, everything is spoiled
- Sripada Sankaracarya, in his commentary on the forty-second aphorism, has accepted that the Personality of Godhead can automatically expand Himself variously
T
- That is the characteristic of devotee. What the Lord says, the devotee will say. He will not make any addition, alteration, and amalgamate and comment
- The commentaries made by Sankaracarya are indirect and are very dangerous for the common man to read, for by understanding the import of the Upanisads in such an indirect, disruptive way, one practically bars himself from spiritual realization
- The commentary of Madhva on SB mentions that the following sixteen spiritual energies are present in the spiritual world: sri, bhu, lila, kanti, kirti, tusti, gir, pusti, satya, jnanajnana, jaya utkarsini, vimala, yogamaya, prahvi, isana and anugraha
- The demonic people, they do not have the truth. Only a false theory, the Darwin's theory. We have commented upon Darwin's theory also in our book Scientific Basis of Krsna Consciousness
- The entire system of Vaisnava activities is based on Vedanta philosophy. Vaisnavas do not neglect Vedanta, but they do not care to understand Vedanta on the basis of the Sariraka-bhasya commentary
- The false pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous acaryas will make one’s comments faulty
- The gopis felt separation from Krsna before the rasa dance, as mentioned in Srimad-Bhagavatam, and the Gita-govinda expresses such feelings. There are many commentaries on the Gita-govinda by many Vaisnavas
- The Mayavada philosophy presents such a jugglery of words that even a highly elevated devotee who has accepted Krsna as his life and soul changes his decision when he reads the Mayavada commentary on the Vedanta-sutra
- The Mayavadi Vedantists follow the impersonal commentary of Sankaracarya, Sariraka-bhasya. But there are other commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra
- The meaning of the Vedanta-sutra is present in Srimad-Bhagavatam. The full purport of the Mahabharata is also there. The commentary of the Brahma-gayatri is also there and fully expanded with all Vedic knowledge
- The parampara system does not allow one to deviate from the commentaries of the previous acaryas
- The philosophers known as kevaladvaita-vadis generally occupy themselves with hearing the Sariraka-bhasya, a commentary by Sankaracarya advocating that one impersonally consider oneself the Supreme Lord
- The reason (the Mayavadi Vedantists read only one commentary named Sariraka-bhasya but not Vaisnava Vedanta-bhasyas) is that they want to read something that will confirm their illusion that they are God
- The sannyasis must read the Vedanta-sutra to establish their final conclusions concerning Vedic knowledge. Here (in CC Madhya 6.120), of course, the Vedanta mentioned is the commentary of Sankaracarya, known as Sariraka-bhasya
- The Sanskrit word anasuyave in this verse (BG 9.1) is also very significant. Generally the commentators, even if they are highly scholarly, are all envious of Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. BG 1972 purports
- The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Visnu, is ascertained to be the original cause of creation. Sridhara Svami, in his commentary Bhavartha-dipika, replies to the idea that prakrti and purusa are the causes of the cosmic manifestation
- Their (Mayavadi philosophers) commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra are completely opposed to the principle of devotional service. Caitanya Mahaprabhu therefore warns us to avoid these commentaries
- There are 4 different sects of Vaisnava acaryas - the Suddhadvaita, Visistadvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Acintya-bhedabheda. All Vaisnava acaryas in these schools have written commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra, but Mayavadi philosophers do not recognize them
- There are eight commentaries on the very authoritative, very large commentaries on the Srimad-Bhagavatam of these Vaisnavas, and all of them accept Krsna
- There are many commentaries in English on the Bhagavad-gita, and one may question the necessity for another one. This present edition can be explained in the following way. BG 1972 Introduction
- There are many practical experiences, and so many scholars, books we have studied, and their commentary is all nonsense because they are not bhakta. They try to understand Bhagavad-gita simply by their academic qualification. That is not possible
- There are many so-called scholars and philosophers who read the Bhagavad-gita in a scholarly way. They simply waste their time and mislead those who read their commentaries
- There are other Vedanta commentaries, written by Vaisnava acaryas, none of whom follow Sri Sankaracarya or accept the imaginative commentary of his school. Their commentaries are based on the philosophy of duality
- There are worshipers of other demigods, but they have been described in the Bhagavad-gita as hrta-jnanah. Hrta-jnanah. Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments, nasta buddhayah, "one who has lost his intelligence." These are the verdict of the sastra
- These commentaries, comments by the Mayavadi school, is simply rascaldom. And if one hears such commentary by the Mayavadis, the result will be he'll be doomed
- These ISKCON publications are very attractive to the public, they are nicely brought out, printed on the very best presses of America and Japan, and they are translated with commentary just to our line
- These rascal leaders, they'll not allow. They will be represent Krsna as something else. The, the only business is to kill Krsna. That's all. Not to accept Krsna is fact. All the big commentaries on Bhagavad-gita, you'll see
- They do not know what is the truth, and still, they write books, they write commentaries unauthorizedly and mislead public. This is going on
- This (CC Madhya 19.140) is quoted from the commentary on the portion of Srimad-Bhagavatam wherein the Vedas personified offer their obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead
- This book (Krsna-karnamrta) was composed by Bilvamangala Thakura in 112 verses. There are two or three other books bearing the same name, and there are also two commentaries on Bilvamangala's book
- This is a quotation (of CC Madhya 25.156) from Sankaracarya’s commentary on the Nrsimha-tapani Upanisad
- Two authorized commentaries
U
V
- Vedanta is the compilation by Vyasadeva. So he knows what, what he wants to speak. What others have got the right? Just like Bhagavad-gita. The purpose of Bhagavad-gita is known by Krsna. Why the rascals comment in different way?
- Vyasadeva explains Vedanta-sutra in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Because He knew that - Vedanta-sutra, being authoritative version of Vedic literature, so many rascals will comment in different way. Therefore I must leave
- Vyasadeva is the writer of Vedanta philosophy, & he has written a comment personally, so that in future, rascals may not misrepresent Vedanta. There are so many bhasyas, but that is not commentary. Real commentary. The author knows what he wants to speak
- Vyasadeva, who is an incarnation of the power of Narayana, has compiled the Vedanta-sutra (nyaya-prasthana), but according to Sankara's commentaries, Apantaratama Rsi is also accredited with having compiled the codes of Vedanta-sutra
W
- We cannot manufacture our own comments. There are many commentaries made in this way, and they are all useless. They have no effect
- We should not hear the commentaries and explanations of nondevotees, for this is strictly forbidden by Srila Sanatana Gosvami
- What is the difficulty to understand dharma-ksetre kuru-ksetre (BG 1.1)? There is no difficulty. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous commentator says that "Kuruksetra means this body." In this way Bhagavad-gita is being misinterpreted
- Whatever prasada is offered to Visnu is offered to everyone, even to Lord Siva. Sridhara Svami also comments in this connection, svena bhagena: the remnants of the yajna are offered to all the demigods and others
- When impersonalist philosophers refer to the Vedanta and the Upanisads, they are actually referring to these works as understood through the commentaries of Sankaracarya, the greatest teacher of Mayavada philosophy
- When we accept the import of Vedanta-sutra and the Upanisads directly as they are stated, we become glorified. The commentaries made by Sankaracarya, however, are indirect and are very dangerous for the common man to read
- Why Arjuna was puzzled by Krsna's going to see Karanarnavasayi Visnu in the spiritual world is fully discussed in the commentaries of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, as follows
- Why the rascals comment in different way? They may write their rascal philosophy. Why they touch Bhagavad-gita and give different interpretation? They have no right. I have written a book; I have got my purpose. Why you should poke your nose
Y
- You say Maharshi belongs to the Sankara sampradaya. Sankaracarya accepts Krsna. Not as authority . . . he says: "Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." He says this very word in his commentary
- Your comment is well taken that you have little or no knowledge of the politics. So you remain uninvolved and just continue to simply follow the authorities and concentrate on improving the Deity worship