View source for One may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghosapalli?" Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. 'On the Ganges' means 'on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"one may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli"|"Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. 'On the Ganges' means 'on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Soham}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2024-07-22T07:51:28.000Z}}
{{last|2024-07-22T07:51:28.000Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:One May]]
[[Category:Question]]
[[Category:River]]
[[Category:Ganges]]
[[Category:Water]]
[[Category:How Can]]
[[Category:There Be]]
[[Category:Neighbor]]
[[Category:Which Is]]
[[Category:Known As]]
[[Category:Interpretation]]
[[Category:Should Be]]
[[Category:Not On]]
[[Category:Means]]
[[Category:Banks]]
[[Category:Nice]]
[[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">
One may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli? On the water, how there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation?" You can question that. Gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. 'On the Ganges' means 'on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:720414 - Lecture at Town Hall - Auckland|720414 - Lecture at Town Hall - Auckland]]
</div>
<div class="text">
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. So one may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli? On the water, how there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation?" You can question that. Gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. 'On the Ganges' means 'on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice.

When one cannot understand clearly, there is interpretation. But when the matter is clear . . . just like sunlight. The sunlight, sunshine, does it require your lamp to show the sunlight? The sunlight is itself so illuminous that everyone can understand, "This is sunlight." If somebody brings some lamp, "I will show you the sun," sun is already visible. Why your lamp is required? So these unauthorized commentators, they bring some lamp to show the sunlight of Bhagavad-gītā. That is their business. Therefore people have been misled. There is no question.
</div>
</div>
</div>