If you can, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, it’s speculation and sentimentality, neither of which have a place in spiritual discussions of this nature.

I await your reply.

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada. PAMHO.

Unless the Guru authorises his disciples to write such commentaries, only then is there a potency present in such books. What i notice from the Bhagavad-Gita written by the so-called disciples will not have any impact, so why are they required to write such books? Srila Prabhupada authorized his disciples to contribute to BTG, that’s fine. I can’t understand what need is there to again give a commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita as it is. Is it to prove that they are better than Srila Prabhupada? Did Ramanujacharya or Madhvacharya’s disciples also do the same thing?

You mention Narayana Maharaja, I do not know whether you are aware that this so-called well wisher of ISKCON, is openly ridiculing Srila Prabhupada, by commenting all kinds of nonsense about HDG. Do you really think that it will help anyone, when they read such literatures of such people, whose consciousness is on a steep roadway to Hell?

Such literatures are as Srila Prabhupada commented, “Sarpochistam va payah” Milk touched by the lips of the serpent.

Haribol,
In the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Arun Ramakrishnan.

Thanks a bunch!

The influence of Radhakrishnan’s Gita (which was rather popular) on Prabhupada’s is quite strong. In several places where Prabhupada criticises impersonalist readings of the text, he is really reacting against Radhakrishnan’s reading of the text. For example, Radhakrishnan is the one who said one should not surrender to Krsna, but to “the unborn within Krsna”. Srila Prabhupada directly argues against this idea in several places.

Hayagriva Prabhu writes in “The Hare Krishna Explosion” at great length how Srila Prabhupada’s Gita came about, and how Prabhupada at one point even told him to just copy Radhakrishnan’s translations, as the main reason for his own Gita was the commentary, not the translation!