Prabhupäda: If there is historical facts, do you take it as symbolism? Suppose somebody is describing the World War number two. Is it symbolism?

Young man (6): (laughs) Well, I suppose not.

Prabhupä da: Then? So similarly, this Bhagavad-gé tä is described in the history of India, Mahä bhä rata. So how you can take it symbolism? Mahä bhä rata is the history. Mahä means great; great history of India, Mahä bhä rata. It is historical fact. How you can take a symbolism? Just like in the Bhagavad-gé tä... [break]...verse is dharma-kñ etre kuru-kñ etre [Bg. 1.1]. [break]...in the battlefield. That Kurukñ etra is still lying in India from very old time. So how you call it symbolism? And it is dharma-kñ etra. In the Vedic literature the injunction is kuru-kñ etre dharmam ä caret. And still people go to Kurukñ etra for religious, performing religious rituals. Still they go. That Kurukñ etra battlefield is there. It is being treated as the place of pilgrimage. How you can say that it is symbolic? This is all nonsense. Historical facts is still being, I mean to say, followed. The Pä ë ò avas, that is historical. Still there is one old fort. People say this fort belonged to the Pä ë ò avas. The Indraprastha, New Delhi is called Indraprastha. Everything is historical. How you take symbolical?

(Lecture Seattle, October 9, 1968)

India is land of tapasya, but we are forgetting that. We are forgetting. Now we are making it the land of technology. It is surprising that India has gone so down, forgetting its tapasya, the land of tapasya, the land of dharma. Dharma-kñ etre kuru-kñ etre [Bg. 1.1]. Dharma-kñ etre.

(Address to Indian Association, Columbus, May 11, 1969)

In the Vedic scriptures, Kathopaniñ ad, it is said, tad-vijï ä nä rthaà sa gurum eva abhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. Upaniñ ad, whatever is spoken in the Upaniñ ad that is gospel truth. That is the system of understanding transcendental knowledge, veda-pramä ë a, evidence from the Vedas. According to Vedic system, amongst the learned scholars, if one presents Vedic evidences, then his position is strong. Just like in law court, two lawyers are arguing. One lawyer who quotes from the lawbook various bona fide quotations, the judgment is given in his favor because that is authorized. Similarly, a Vedic statement is accepted in Indian spiritual society. There are hundreds and thousands of men who are still dedicated. Practically the whole population of India, they are dedicated to spiritual life. Perhaps you may not know, but anyone who has taken birth in India, he has got a natural inheritance of spiritual life. Unfortunately, at the present moment the leaders are under wrong impression that in India, being too much spiritually inclined, its material advancement has been checked. But material advancement does not become hampered by spiritual knowledge. That is a wrong impression. Rather, if you become spiritually advanced, your material necessities will be very nicely adjusted. That is the injunction, …..

So this paramparä system, the subject I was discussing, that how I become the representative of Kå ñ ë a, it is not very difficult. Everyone can become a representative of Kå ñ ë a provided he exactly presents what Kå ñ ë a says. That's all. Just like a peon, he is also representative of the postal department, ordinary peon. How he becomes representative of the whole postal system? If he delivers your letter or money order without mishandling it, as it is. You have... Some friend has sent you some money order. He gives you the paper, you sign, and he pays you. But if he pilfers the method(?), then he is no longer representative. He becomes thief, rogue. So representative of Kå ñ ë a is also in the same way. If you present Kå ñ ë a's word as it is, without pilfering, without any adulteration, then you become Kå ñ ë a's representative. There is no difficulty. But, unfortunately, people want to show their scholarship, that " I understand Bhagavad-gé tä from this angle of vision." Why should you try to understand Bhagavad-gé tä 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-gé tä and misrepresent it? That is the fun. You see? There are about six hundred different types of editions commenting on Bhagavad-gé tä. But according to Bhagavad-gé tä, 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 gaì gä yaà ghoñ apalli. Gaì gä yam: " On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as Ghoñ apalli." 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 Ghoñ apalli? On the water how there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation? " You can question that. Gaì gä yaà ghoñ apalli. 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-gé tä. That is their business.

Therefore people have been misled. There is no question. Just like in the beginning Bhagavad-gé tä says,

dharma-kñ etre kuru-kñ etre

samavetä yuyutsavaù

mä makä ù pä ë ò avä ç caiva

kim akurvata saï jaya

[Bg. 1.1]

This is very clear. Dharma-kñ etre kuru-kñ etre. Kurukñ etra 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-kñ etre dharmam ä caret, dharma yajet, like that, that " If you want to perform some religious rituals, better go to Kurukñ etra." So Kurukñ etra is from the Vedic age. Millions of years, from time immemorial, it is a dharma-kñ etra. And still it is there. There is a station, railway station, called Kurukñ etra 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-kñ etra is... Kurukñ etra is dharma-kñ etra, and historical fact is mä makä ù pä ë ò avä ç caiva yuyutsavaù [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, " kñ atriyas. Why the public should suffer? So in this way Kurukñ etra was selected to fight between the two parties. And still it is existing. It is a great field. And dharma-kñ etre... Just try to understand that there is no need of our imperfect comments on the Bhagavad-gé tä. That is my point.

So dharma-kñ etre kuru-kñ etre samavetä yuyutsavaù [Bg. 1.1]. Yuyutsavaù. This yuyutsavaù word is now used in Japanese language also. That artificial fight, what is called? Yuyutsavaù?