View source for Just try to understand that there is no need of our imperfect comments on the Bhagavad-gita. That is my point

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Just try to understand that there is no need of our imperfect comments on the Bhagavad-gita. That is my point"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|06Dec10}}
{{last|06Dec10}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Just Try]]
[[Category:Try to Understand]]
[[Category:There Is No Need]]
[[Category:Imperfect]]
[[Category:Commentation]]
[[Category:Bhagavad-gita]]
[[Category:My Point Is (Prabhupada)]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="General_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="11" parent="Lectures" text="General Lectures"><h3>General Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="TownHallLectureAucklandApril141972_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="108" link="Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972" link_text="Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972">
<div class="heading">Just try to understand that there is no need of our imperfect comments on the Bhagavad-gītā. That is my point.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972|Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">There are about six hundred different types of editions commenting on Bhagavad-gītā. But according to Bhagavad-gītā, all these six hundred editions in different, studied from different angle of vision, they are all absurd and nonsense. It is very difficult. People have been misled by the 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 example—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.</p>
<p>Therefore people have been misled. There is no question. Just like in the beginning Bhagavad-gītā says,</p>
:dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
:samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
:māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
:kim akurvata sañjaya
:([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]])
<p>This is very clear. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre. Kurukṣetra is a place which is still a place of pilgrimage. The Hindus, those who are followers of Vedic rites, they go there. They perform religious rituals. And there is Vedic injunction, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret, dharma yajet, like that, that "If you want to perform some religious rituals, better go to Kurukṣetra." So Kurukṣetra is from the Vedic age. Millions of years, from time immemorial, it is a dharma-kṣetra. And still it is there. There is a station, railway station, called Kurukṣetra near Delhi, about hundred miles away from Delhi. So these are facts. Why there should be interpretation? These are facts. Why there should be... It is clear. Dharma-kṣetra is... Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra, and historical fact is māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]). Two groups of cousin brothers, they wanted to fight to settle up. Formerly the war was declared—the leader of the war, if he is killed, then the other party is victorious. Not that unnecessarily killing the civil citizens, no. This was nonsense. If there was fight between two kings, the citizens, they were unaffected, not that there is fight now between two parties, there is immediately siren, (imitates siren:) gaw, gaw, gaw, gaw, now bomb and the civil..., the most uncivilized way of war. In those days—those days means at least five thousand years ago—they selected a place, and "Let us fight and decide our fate," kṣatriyas. Why the public should suffer? So in this way Kurukṣetra was selected to fight between the two parties. And still it is existing. It is a great field. And dharma-kṣetre... Just try to understand that there is no need of our imperfect comments on the Bhagavad-gītā. That is my point.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>