View source for 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

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Vyāsadeva is the writer of Vedānta philosophy, and he has written a comment personally, so that in future, rascals may not misrepresent Vedānta. There are so many bhāṣyas, but that is not commentary. Real commentary . . . The author knows what he wants to speak"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Nabakumar}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2022-10-09T07:53:11Z}}
{{last|2022-10-09T07:53:11Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Vyasadeva]]
[[Category:Writer]]
[[Category:Vedanta Philosophy]]
[[Category:He Has]]
[[Category:Commentaries]]
[[Category:Personally]]
[[Category:So That]]
[[Category:Future]]
[[Category:Rascal]]
[[Category:May Not]]
[[Category:Misrepresent]]
[[Category:Vedanta]]
[[Category:There Are Many]]
[[Category:So Many]]
[[Category:That Is Not]]
[[Category:Real Commentary on the Vedanta-sutra]]
[[Category:Author]]
[[Category:Know]]
[[Category:What]]
[[Category:Want To]]
[[Category:Speak]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - NABAKUMAR]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
It is the natural comment by Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva is the writer of Vedānta philosophy, and he has written a comment personally, so that in future, rascals may not misrepresent Vedānta. There are so many bhāṣyas, but that is not commentary. Real commentary . . . The author knows what he wants to speak. So Vedānta is the compilation by Vyāsadeva. So he knows what, what he wants to speak. What others have got the right? Just like Bhagavad-gītā. The purpose of Bhagavad-gītā is known by Kṛṣṇa. Why the rascals comment in different way? They may write their rascal philosophy, other. Why they touch Bhagavad-gītā and give different interpretation? They have no right. I have written a book; I have got my purpose.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:760521 - Lecture SB 06.01.21 - Honolulu|760521 - Lecture SB 06.01.21 - Honolulu]]
</div>
<div class="text">
Svanuṣṭhitasya dharmasya. Everyone is executing his occupational duty. I give this meaning, "Dharma means occupational duty." It is not a sentiment, faith. Occupational duty. That is called dharma. Brahmācāri's dharma, gṛhastha's dharma, vānaprastha's dharma—occupational duty. So by discharging one's occupational duties very nicely—not as a machine regulation, no—the result will be dharmaḥ svanuṣṭhitaḥ puṁsāṁ viśvaksena kathāsu yaḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.2.8|SB 1.2.8]]): he will gradually be interested to understand Kṛṣṇa. Vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyam ([[Vanisource:BG 15.15 (1972)|BG 15.15]]). That is Vedic study. Not that after studying Vedas he becomes nirviśeṣavādī, impersonalist, or śūnyavādī. Then useless. Śrama eva hi kevalam. Vedas means knowledge, and Vedānta . . . Anta means last status, or the end, end of. Everything has got some end, that "This is final, end." End means final. So Veda means knowledge, and anta means end. So what is that end? That Vedānta is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore you'll find in every . . . at the end of every chapter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, brahma-sūtra-bhāṣye. Brahma-sūtra means Vedānta.

So it is the natural comment by Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva is the writer of Vedānta philosophy, and he has written a comment personally, so that in future, rascals may not misrepresent Vedānta. There are so many bhāṣyas, but that is not commentary. Real commentary . . . The author knows what he wants to speak. So Vedānta is the compilation by Vyāsadeva. So he knows what, what he wants to speak. What others have got the right? Just like Bhagavad-gītā. The purpose of Bhagavad-gītā is known by Kṛṣṇa. Why the rascals comment in different way? They may write their rascal philosophy, other. Why they touch Bhagavad-gītā and give different interpretation? They have no right. I have written a book; I have got my purpose. Why you should poke your nose and make it a different purpose? This is very mischievous rascaldom. So we want to stop this. We present Bhagavad-gītā as it is, as Kṛṣṇa says. We don't allow any rascal to comment upon Bhagavad-gītā in a different way. That is our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. This is very natural. If you have got a different type of philosophy, you can write. Why you should touch Bhagavad-gītā and misrepresent it? So because they are śūdras—their business is to cheat—they do that. But a brāhmaṇa will not do that. Yathānugītānām. Yathānugītānām. Brāhmaṇa means as it is, they will describe. That is brāhmaṇa. And if one has got some motive, that "Bhagavad-gītā is popular book. Let me utilize it and make my rascal philosophy popular . . ." This is going on. Big, big politician, big, big mental speculator . . . No. That is wrong. That is śūdra. A brāhmaṇa should present as it is. Yathānugītānām. This word is used.
</div>
</div>
</div>