These people or this revolution is meant for killing the sinful resultant action of the people. This revolution. Janatā agha. Agha means resultant action of sinful life. So janatā agha viplavaḥ. Viplavaḥ means revolution. This very word is used.
- tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo
- yasmin prati-ślokam abaddhavaty api
- (SB 1.5.11)
Such revolutionary literature, even they are not properly composed, yasmin prati-ślokam abaddham, not according to the grammatical rules and other rhetorical rules, but the, I mean to say, thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature is required. Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with the grammatical. But those who are actually worker, they are concerned with the thoughts. What is the thought is there? Therefore, it is said that:
- tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo
- yasmin prati-ślokam abaddhavaty api
- nāmāny anantasya yaśo 'nkitāni yat
- (SB 1.5.11)
If there is simply the attempt is there how to glorify the Supreme Lord. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether it is written in correct language or incorrect language. It doesn't matter. If the whole thought is targeted to glorify the Supreme Lord, then nāmāny anantasya yaśo 'nkitāni yat gṛṇanti gāyanti śṛṇvanti sādhavaḥ. Then those who are actually sādhu, even in spite of all these defects, because the only attempt is to glorify the Lord, then those who are sādhu, those who are devotee, they hear it. Śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti. Not only hear, they chant also the same thing. And not only chant, but gṛṇanti, they apply in their actual life. This is the Bhāgavata śloka. Is it clear now? Yes.
Tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo. If the thought is revolutionary for transcendental realization, even it is not properly composed from grammatical and literary point of view, because the attempt is there for glorifying the Supreme Lord, all devotee, all great sages, saintly persons, sādhavaḥ, gṛṇanti, they accept. Yes. Gṛṇanti śṛṇvanti, hear with attention, and gāyanti, and chant also. This is the principle. The only center is whether it is meant for awakening God consciousness. That is the central point, not the language. But it does not mean that it should not be correctly written. Correctly or incorrectly, if it is spoken by realized soul, that is important. Śṛṇvanti gāyanti. Some way or other, if the attempt is to glorify the Supreme Lord.
Otherwise, if the attempt is to kill the Supreme Lord . . . just like Dr. Radhakrishnan: what is the value of such erudition? A rascal. That is called vāk-cāturyam, jugglery of words. It has no value. Anyone who is trying to present . . . just like Aurabindo, he has no idea what is Kṛṣṇa, and writing so many nonsense things. Vivekananda, he has no idea. Dr. Radhakrishnan. Rabindranath Tagore, he has no idea what is God, but he is writing Gītāñjali. That should be tested by life. Caitanya Mahāprabhu speaking, āpani ācari prabhu jīvere śikhāya: He behaves Himself perfectly, and then teaches how to become a devotee. He is mad after Kṛṣṇa; He is falling down in the sea. You see? So that is wanted. And the Bhāgavata also says, sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir . . . (SB 1.2.6), how one has increased his devotion and love for Kṛṣṇa, that is the test of it. Not these formalities.