View source for 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

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"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-gītā and misrepresent it? That is the fun"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Soham}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2024-07-22T07:19:08.000Z}}
{{last|2024-07-22T07:19:08.000Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:If You Want To]]
[[Category:Speak]]
[[Category:Something]]
[[Category:Side]]
[[Category:Write]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Why Should]]
[[Category:Take Advantage]]
[[Category:Popular]]
[[Category:Bhagavad-gita]]
[[Category:Misrepresent]]
[[Category:Fun]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - SOHAM]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>General Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
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-gītā and misrepresent it? That is the fun.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:720414 - Lecture at Town Hall - Auckland|720414 - Lecture at Town Hall - Auckland]]
</div>
<div class="text">
If you present Kṛṣṇa's word as it is, without pilfering, without any adulteration, then you become Kṛṣṇa's representative. There is no difficulty. But, unfortunately, people want to show their scholarship that, "I understand Bhagavad-gītā from this angle of vision." Why should you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā 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-gītā and misrepresent it? That is the fun. You see?

There are about six hundred different types of editions commenting on Bhagavad-gītā. But according to Bhagavad-gītā, all these six hundred edition in different . . . studied from different angle of vision, they are all absurd and nonsense. It is very difficult. People have been misled by these 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 examples—that gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Gaṅgāyam: "On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli." Now, this statement is in your front.
</div>
</div>
</div>