|
Our Original Position Śrīla Prabhupāda and the Vaiṣṇava Siddhānta
Section One: The Siddhanta
<< 11. The Boundaries of Interpretation >>
 | |
| The authors believe that Śrīla Prabhupāda sometimes presented to his disciples a view of the origin of the jīva that did not represent the true siddhānta. The authors, accepting this as true, offer a rationale for why Prabhupāda did it, and why they themselves have decided to overturn this alleged strategy of Prabhupāda. As to why Prabhupāda behaved as they allege, they quote Lord Kṛṣṇa’s statement in the Bhagavad-gītā (3.26), “A learned person should not disrupt the minds of ignorant men attached to fruitive activities.”* Lord Kṛṣṇa rather advises a learned person to engage all the activities of the ignorant in the proper way. This verse does not explicitly talk about changing the true philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We shall see why shortly. The authors also quote Śrī Vidura’s statement in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.5.12)(166).
| | "Your friend the great sage Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Vyāsa has already described the transcendental qualities of the Lord in his great work the Mahābhārata. But the whole idea is to draw the attention of the mass of people to kṛṣṇa-kathā (Bhagavad-gītā) through their strong affinity for hearing mundane topics." (Leaves, pp. 90–91)
| | This statement does not say that the Mahābhārata has actually changed the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Rather, Vyāsadeva has discussed mundane topics in order to gradually draw the reader’s attention to the pastimes of the Lord.
| | Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta does mention that in the Mahābhārata there are “illusory stories opposed to the conclusions of Kṛṣṇa consciousness,” and these include “the destruction of the Yadu dynasty, Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance, the story that Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma arise from a black hair and a white hair of Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and the story about the kidnapping of the queens.” (Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 23.117-118) In his commentary on this statement, which Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu made to Sanātana Gosvāmī, Prabhupāda states:
| | "Actually these [pastimes] are not factual but are related for the bewilderment of the asuras who want to prove that Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary human being. They are false in the sense that these pastimes are not eternal, nor are they transcendental or spiritual. There are many people who are by nature averse to the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu. Such people are called asuras. They have mistaken ideas about Kṛṣṇa. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, the asuras are given a chance to forget Kṛṣṇa more and more, birth after birth. Thus they make their appearance in a family of asuras and continue this process, being kept in bewilderment about Kṛṣṇa. Asuras in the dress of sannyāsīs even explain Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in different ways according to their own imaginations. Thus they continue to remain asuras birth after birth."
| | It is significant here that the Mahābhārata teaches “illusory stories” to bewilder the asuras, and not to attract people from other cultures to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The authors give the examples of Lord Buddha and Śaṅkarācārya, both of whom certainly taught a distorted picture of the Absolute Truth for the purpose of leading Vedic culture in a particular direction for purposes that are well-known to the members of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Since neither Lord Buddha nor Śaṅkara appeared as Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, their activities are not directly analogous to our discussion at hand. We shall also not consider Sadāputa dāsa’s comments in Back to Godhead on Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s preaching strategy, as provided by the authors, since there is insufficient evidence or information given to evaluate this argument.
| | In all of the examples the authors give, one recognized ācārya corrects another ācārya. Thus Śaṅkara corrects Buddha, Lord Caitanya corrects Śaṅkara, Jīva Gosvāmī comments on Śrīdhara Svāmī, and in the Second Wave, Chapter Four, we learn that Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura sought to correct some statements by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. In fact, the authors have given us not a single example of a disciple who is not an ācārya who is authorized to correct statements by the ācārya, or to declare some of these statements to be false and meant only for preaching. Thus to attempt to correct Prabhupāda’s statements, according to the examples given, means that one now considers oneself an ācārya capable of correcting another ācārya.
| | "Here it should be noted again that statements made in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letters cannot override those in his commentaries. His books are mostly commentaries on recognized authoritative works in our line. They are śāstra—either śruti or smṛti. His commentaries are to be regarded as primary evidence. His letters and other statements are secondary evidence. Books are for everyone and letters and conversations are personal. To be accepted as absolute, the philosophy in his letters must follow the siddhānta in his books, and not the other way around. If he made statements in his letters that do not follow the siddhānta, those must be considered as his strategy for preaching." (Leaves, p. 93)
| | We may note the following here:
| | 1. Śrīla Prabhupāda did write in his books that the soul was originally with Kṛṣṇa and then fell down to the material world. Such preaching is a feature of all of Prabhupāda’s preaching, whether in books, articles, conversations, or public lectures. Indeed, many of Prabhupāda’s statements affirming that the soul can, and sometimes does, fall down from the association of the Lord are found in public lectures in which Prabhupāda, as the recognized ācārya of the world, was explaining the revealed scriptures. I personally experienced that Śrīla Prabhupāda was very anxious that his lectures be recorded so that the devotees and people in general could listen to them. Thus they were not merely “personal.”
| | 2. The underlying assumption in this and many similar arguments of the authors is that apparent contradictions must be resolved into a single conclusion in which Prabhupāda’s statements are seen as opposing one another. Thus one class of statements, in this case to the effect that the jīva falls down from the Lord’s association, must simply be rejected as “preaching strategy,” since such statements do not agree with the “siddhānta” of the previous ācāryas.
| | Maryada-vyatikrama
| | In Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, Chapter Seven, entitled “Lord Caitanya Meets Vallabha Bhaṭṭa,” we find the following statements:
| | "Knowing that Vallabha Bhaṭṭa’s heart was full of pride, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu spoke these words, hinting at how one can learn about devotional service. ‘I am a great Vaiṣṇava. Having learned all the conclusions of Vaiṣṇava philosophy, I can understand the meaning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and explain it very well.’"(167).
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta Antya 7.53-54)
| | The pride which Lord Caitanya detected in the heart of Vallabha Bhaṭṭa was specifically the notion that “I know all the siddhānta of devotional service” and “I can understand the meaning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and explain it very well.” Of course, every loyal follower of Śrīla Prabhupāda feels that he or she can explain the Bhāgavatam nicely by strictly following in Prabhupāda’s footsteps. The defect in Vallabha Bhaṭṭa’s attitude was that he felt that by his own scholarship he could surpass the previous commentator, in this case Śrīdhara Svāmī. Indeed, later in this chapter, Vallabha Bhaṭṭa says to Lord Caitanya:
| | "In my commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,’ he said, ‘I have refuted the explanations of Śrīdhara Svāmī. I cannot accept his explanations. Whatever Śrīdhara Svāmī reads he explains according to the circumstances. Therefore he is inconsistent in his explanations and cannot be accepted as an authority.’"(168).
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta Antya 7.113-114)
| | We should clearly understand that the authors feel that in order to save our sampradāya from deviation they must refute many of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct statements. They feel this is not offensive because they claim that Prabhupāda himself did not believe what he was saying. In any case, it is very difficult to understand the mind of a mahā-bhāgavata. But the fact remains that in order to establish that Prabhupāda said certain things merely for “preaching strategy,” the authors have dedicated themselves to refuting many of Prabhupāda’s explanations of the origin of the jīva’s conditioned existence.
| | We shall also examine in detail Vallabha Bhaṭṭa’s specific criticism of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentaries, which he, Vallabha, felt that he had refuted. Vallabha Bhaṭṭa claimed that Śrīdhara Svāmī simply accepted whatever he read in the Bhāgavatam and did not establish absolute consistency. Therefore Vallabha Bhaṭṭa did not accept Śrīdhara Svāmī as an authority. So important is this statement that we shall provide Śrīla Prabhupāda’s synonyms and then discuss them:
| | sei—he; vyākhyā karena—explains; yāhāṅ—wherever; yei—whatever; paḍe—reads; āni’—accepting; eka-vākyatā—consistency; nāhi—there is not; tāte—therefore; svāmī—Śrīdhara Svāmī; nāhi māni—I cannot accept.
| | The term eka-vākyatā is especially significant. Eka, of course, means “one”; vākya, a common Sanskrit word, is translated in the Bengali dictionary as “speech, language, word, etc.” Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta is a learned work, and therefore we may also examine some of the original Sanskrit meanings of this term, which were undoubtedly extremely familiar to the author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. As a Sanskrit word, vākya indicates “speech, saying, assertion, statement, command, words, declaration, etc.” Thus eka-vākya means a single statement, a single proposition or declaration or assertion, i.e. consistent language. The suffix tā in eka-vākyatā forms an abstract substantive much like the English suffix”-ness.” Thus eka-vākyatā means “single-language-ness” or “single-assertion-ness,” etc. Thus Prabhupāda translates this term simply as “consistency,” meaning here of course consistency in argument, speech, or explanation.
| | Ironically, those who simply accept whatever they read in Prabhupāda’s books, even when there are apparent contradictions, would be guilty, in the eyes of the authors, of the same fault for which Vallabha Bhaṭṭa criticized Śrīdhara Svāmī. Vallabha is claiming that “whatever Śrīdhara Svāmī reads, he accepts, and then makes an explanation on that basis.” Similarly, the authors criticize those who simply accept everything that Prabhupāda says as true. Ironically, although the authors constantly tell us that we must reject Prabhupāda’s statements that we fell from Vaikuṇṭha, they then assert that if we don’t reject these statements we are committing the fault of ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya, that is, accepting only half of the chicken. This is astonishing, since the authors themselves say that half of Prabhupāda’s statements are true and the other half false. And yet they accuse those who take all the statements as true as rejecting half of the truth.
| | In any case, Vallabha accused Śrīdhara Svāmī of simply accepting whatever he read, without resolving all statements into a single claim: eka-vākya-tā. Similarly, because Prabhupāda repeatedly said that the soul has free will and at times falls from Vaikuṇṭha, most disciples simply take this to be true, even though other true statements claim that no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha. Thus rather than try to reduce all the statements to a single assertion, they simply leave the variety intact, much as Śrīdhara Svāmī did, to the dissatisfaction of Vallabha Bhaṭṭa. This does not mean that Śrīdhara Svāmī is not a philosopher or that the devotees who accept all of Prabhupāda’s statements as true are not capable of intelligent analysis of the scriptures.
| | For example, there are many statements from Śrīla Prabhupāda to the effect that the soul never actually falls down from its real position but rather dreams that he, the soul, has become the enjoyer of the material world. Accepting all of Prabhupāda’s statements as true, some disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda have used these statements to reconcile the apparently contradictory statements Prabhupāda made about the jīva. The jīva does not fall but thinks he is fallen. In this way, accepting all of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements as true, some have tried to reconcile them on the basis of other statements by Prabhupāda, also accepted as true.
| | Śrīla Prabhupāda said that a Vaiṣṇava may engage in “philosophical speculation.” He gave an example of this:
"For example, we know from Bhagavad-gītā that Krishna says He is the taste in water. Now try to understand just how Lord Krishna is the taste in water, that is the high-class education."
(Letter to Hṛdayānanda dāsa Goswami, July 9, 1972)
| | In mental speculation one speculates about if Lord Kṛṣṇa is actually the taste in water, whereas in philosophical speculation one simply tries to understand how Lord Kṛṣṇa is the taste in water. Similarly, a Vaiṣṇava follower of Śrīla Prabhupāda may speculate on how all of Prabhupāda’s statements are true. But when we speculate that some of the statements are not true, this is a different category of speculation.
| | Only an Ācārya Can Correct an Ācārya
| | One may argue that, after all, Jīva Gosvāmī did not accept some of Śrīdhara Svāmī’s statements as true. The authors have thus quoted Jīva Gosvāmī’s statement in Tattva-sandarbha to that effect. However, Jīva Gosvāmī is a great Vaiṣṇava ācārya, who may correct another ācārya, just as Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura disputed some of the points given by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī concerning parakīya-rasa and svakīya-rasa. The conclusion is not that a disciple may correct his spiritual master who is a great ācārya. The conclusion is that the ācāryas may adjust the ācāryas. After all, Śrīla Prabhupāda stated that the entire Vedic culture is going on under the authority of the ācāryas. So if someone presumes to correct Śrīla Prabhupāda, that person must believe himself or herself to be the next ācārya, because who else but an ācārya could correct an ācārya?
| | One might argue that we, following the line of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, also assert that parakīya-rasa is higher than svakīya-rasa, and thus we are daring to correct Jīva Gosvāmī. The answer to this is that we are not correcting Jīva Gosvāmī; we are simply repeating the words of Śrīla Prabhupāda and Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, both of whom are ācāryas. No ācārya has corrected Śrīla Prabhupāda. In fact, we must see the previous ācāryas through Prabhupāda. We cannot jump over Prabhupāda and then look back at him through the eyes of the previous ācāryas. If we say that Prabhupāda himself stated that the souls do not fall down from Vaikuṇṭha, then we may note that Prabhupāda also said that we were originally with Kṛṣṇa. If we feel that these two statements cannot stand side by side, then we are making the same criticism of Śrīla Prabhupāda that Vallabha Bhaṭṭa made of Śrīdhara Svāmī, namely that there is no eka-vākyatā,”single-assertion-ness.” In text 113 of Chapter Seven of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, Vallabha Bhaṭṭa claims that he has refuted the explanations of Śrīdhara Svāmī. Literally, he claims that he has broken these explanations. Similarly, those who patiently read the authors’ book cannot help but be struck by the relentless vigor with which the authors attempt to break Prabhupāda’s numerous statements to the effect that the living being was originally with Kṛṣṇa. Of course, they constantly tell us that they are doing this in the service of Prabhupāda and to save ISKCON from becoming an apa-sampradāya. Nevertheless, they relentlessly seek to break Prabhupāda’s statements. The authors say:
| | "A preacher has to tailor his preaching according to the audience so that nothing vital is lost in the transmission; but even more important in the beginning is that people become attracted to the practice of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This purifies their hearts and gives them the opportunity to progress to higher understanding." (Leaves, p. 116)
| | Here the authors strike a theme which we have heard repeatedly from devotees who have left Prabhupāda’s ISKCON to associate with other Vaiṣṇava organizations. The common theme is that Prabhupāda’s normal preaching does not represent the highest Kṛṣṇa consciousness but rather a mere preaching strategy. Indeed, we have heard this from several representatives of the Gauḍīya Maṭha. Now, by the grace of a Gauḍīya Maṭha representative, or by the grace of the authors of the book under discussion, we will discover the higher truth which Prabhupāda did not present in his normal preaching activities. Thus to go to the higher stages of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one must go beyond Prabhupāda’s normal preaching and hear from this or that speaker the intimate truths of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Of course, such speakers normally tell us that these higher truths are in Prabhupāda’s books, but Prabhupāda simply did not present them in his preaching, and so we must now go beyond Prabhupāda’s direct preaching.
| | On pages 137 and 138, the authors recount a well-known story from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad in which both Lord Indra, King of the demigods, and Virocana, King of the demons, approached Prajāpati desiring to learn about the self. Both of these lords served Prajāpati and practiced celibacy for thirty-two years until Prajāpati inquired from them about their purpose. When both declared their desire to learn about the self, Prajāpati gave them what appears to be a superficial, if not misleading, answer. Virocana was satisfied with this imperfect answer, but Indra came back twice until he finally got the story straight. This incident from the Upaniṣads is supposed to be analogous with our relationship with Prabhupāda in which he has first given us a superficial, if not misleading, explanation of the origin of the soul’s conditioned life. The disanalogy here, unfortunately, is that in Prabhupāda’s physical absence, we cannot personally approach him and ask for a better answer, but rather we must approach the authors of the book. This is precisely the point. If the story from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad is to be taken as a strict analogy, then the only conclusion is that the authors of the book now stand in the place of Prabhupāda as the theological ācāryas, and it is them we must approach to get the real understanding after having received an imperfect answer from Śrīla Prabhupāda. After all, whenever Prabhupāda was directly asked about this issue, he tended to favor the explanation that the soul falls down from the Lord’s service. Now we must approach the authors of this book to get a better answer than Prabhupāda gave us.
| | "Our explanation of Prabhupāda’s strategy on the jīva issue is supported from the example of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta. Although he clearly wrote in his books that the jīva’s bondage is anādi, in his dialogues with foreigners he spoke as if we fell down." (Leaves, p. 118)
| | We find, however, that even in books distributed to the Indian public, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura speaks of the soul falling down from the association of the Lord, as we have shown.
| | "The conclusion is that in his letters and conversations Prabhupāda used a preaching technique, whereas in his books, which are the primary evidence in all matters of the philosophy, he states the true siddhānta." (Leaves, p. 120)
| | Interestingly, the authors discuss books, letters and conversations. They do not mention Prabhupāda’s public lectures, in which he explained the śāstras. In such lectures, Prabhupāda often explained that we were originally with Kṛṣṇa. Since these lectures are not merely “personal” but rather public discourses on śāstra, giving the purports to revealed scriptures, and since in such lectures Prabhupāda consistently said that we were with Kṛṣṇa, the authors consistently leave out this source of evidence and prefer to contrast books versus letters and conversations.
| | It is well known that no one can understand the mind of a great devotee of the Lord—no one, that is, except the authors of the book:
| | "Similarly, on the jīva-bondage question there was only one answer in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s mind—the śāstric version, which is no fall-down." (Leaves p. 139)
| | Here again we have a brilliant example of circular reasoning. The circular reasoning goes as follows: 1. We know that the scriptures, even when speaking about remembering Kṛṣṇa, returning to Kṛṣṇa or rejecting Kṛṣṇa, etc., actually mean something else, since all of the ācāryas state that we were never with Kṛṣṇa. 2. Whenever the ācāryas state that we have fallen down from the Lord’s personal service, these statements must be taken in a different way in order to agree with the scriptures.
| | Prabhupāda’s Statements “Don’t Change Anything”
| | On page 139 the authors state that if we simply, faithfully accept Prabhupāda’s statements, we risk the destruction of our devotional service. After all, they state:
| | "To take those statements explaining the fall theory as ultimate siddhānta is to risk ending up in the same situation as the followers of Śaṅkarācārya."
| | It is well known that Lord Caitanya declared that those who hear Śaṅkara’s explanation of the scriptures will lose everything: māyāvāda bhāśya śunile haya sarva nāśa. It is well known that Śrīla Prabhupāda often stated that we fell down from devotional service to Kṛṣṇa. If we hear these statements with faith and devotion, without speculating about them, then we “risk ending up in the same situation as the followers of Śaṅkarācārya.” And according to Lord Caitanya, the followers of Śaṅkarācārya will lose all of their spiritual assets. Thus Prabhupāda’s literal statements are actually dangerous for the practice of bhakti-yoga according to the authors. Although later in the book they try to mitigate such offensive statements, the damage is done, and one must be responsible for what one states in a printed book. Indeed, the authors state on page 139 that Śaṅkara’s “followers stuck to his Māyāvāda doctrine, however, and ruined their lives.” Thus if we stick to Prabhupāda’s statements that the soul falls down from Kṛṣṇa’s association, we will presumably ruin our lives.
| | Indeed, on page 140 the authors, attempting to soften their stance, state: “While the followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda may not ruin their lives [by accepting Prabhupāda’s statements]...” But how are we to take their previous statement, “to take those statements explaining the fall theory as ultimate siddhānta is to risk ending up in the same situation as the followers of Śaṅkarācārya”? There is a saying in Brazil that one cannot suck sugarcane and whistle at the same time.
| | The authors themselves raise the question:
"One may argue that if Śrīla Prabhupāda felt it necessary to sometimes say that the jīvas fell from Vaikuṇṭha, the same need still exists, so why change the well-tested strategy of our ācārya?" (Leaves, p. 140)
| | They then answer that the circumstances are different and thus “we have to adjust our preaching accordingly.” Unfortunately, the notion of changing Prabhupāda’s teachings is so heavy, and the two evidences given for the different circumstances are so flimsy, that one must conclude that something questionable is going on.
| | The first evidence that “circumstances are different,” so different that we must change Prabhupāda’s teachings, is simply that Drutakarmā dāsa wrote a letter to the GBC arguing that only Prabhupāda’s literal statements about the jīva should be taught. Believe it or not, that constitutes the first reason that demonstrates a significantly changed historical situation.
| | The second reason is that “the project to translate the Sandarbhas makes it unavoidable that the version of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī will come to light,” and thus Prabhupāda’s false teachings will be exposed. In answer to this we may say that it is very unlikely that Jīva Gosvāmī mentions that the souls do not fall down from Vaikuṇṭha more often than Śrīla Prabhupāda mentions it in his own books. The authors are at pains to show us that Prabhupāda himself has many times said that no one falls down from Vaikuṇṭha. However, these statements did not cause a crisis within the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Rather, they provided an opportunity for “philosophical speculation” in which one accepts the statements of the ācārya as true but tries to understand how they are true.
| | Indeed, because Śrīla Prabhupāda is our Founder-ācārya, we must reconcile everything to his statements and not change Prabhupāda to fit something else. Unless, of course, we ourselves are ācāryas on the same level as Prabhupāda and thus have the authority to correct him as one great ācārya can differ from another great ācārya. Thus the publication of the Sandarbhas does not in any way change the historical situation, since we will read therein that Jīva Gosvāmī Prabhupāda simply mentions what Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda had already stated himself many times.
| | Of course, this is not at all the first nor even the second time that someone has tried to persuade us that so few years after Prabhupāda’s disappearance the world historical situation has so vastly changed that Prabhupāda’s specific teachings or style are no longer adequate for the current world situation. We have been told in the past that the dress style Prabhupāda gave us is no longer appropriate for spreading this movement. We have been told that we must now perform sādhana-bhakti in the English language, or with a much greater emphasis on rasa, or that we must give up our attachment to the institutional framework of ISKCON and merge into the “wider world” of Vaiṣṇavism.
| | Now we are told that Prabhupāda is theologically outdated. A letter from Drutakarmā dāsa and the publication of a work by Jīva Gosvāmī have totally altered the historical situation of the planet. We must abandon Prabhupāda’s clearly stated preaching strategy, and even abandon our faith in the literal truth of his words on an important topic, and let the authors guide us to the real siddhānta of spiritual life.
| | The first evidence that “circumstances are different,” so different that we must change Prabhupāda’s teachings, is simply that Drutakarmā dāsa wrote a letter to the GBC arguing that only Prabhupāda’s literal statements about the jīva should be taught. Believe it or not, that constitutes the first reason that demonstrates a significantly changed historical situation.
|
NOTAS
| 165 | | na buddhi-bhedaṁ janayed ajñānāṁ karma-saṅginām
joṣayet sarva-karmāṇi vidvān yuktaḥ samācaran | | 166 | | munir vivakṣur bhagavad-guṇānāṁ
sakhāpi te bhāratam āha kṛṣṇaḥ
yasmin nṛṇāṁ grāmya-sukhānuvādair
matir gṛhītā nu hareḥ kathāyām | | 167 | | bhaṭṭera hṛdaye dṛḍha abhimāna jāni’
bhaṅgī kari’ mahāprabhu kahe eta vāṇī
āmi se ‘vaiṣṇava’,—bhakti-siddhānta saba jāni
āmi se bhāgavata-artha uttama vākhāni | | 168 | | bhāgavate svāmīra vyākhyāna kairāchi khaṇḍana
la-ite nā pāri tāṅra vyākhyāna-vacana
sei vyākhyā karena yāhāṅ yei paḍe āni’
eka-vākyatā nāhi, tāte ‘svāmī’ nāhi māni |
|
| |
|---|
English
Español
Pусский
Português