- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hare Krsna Prabhuji
Dandavat Pranam
Prabhuji in the purport for verse BG 2.1 Srila Prabhupada explains why Sañjaya addresses Krsna as Madhusūdanaḥ.
The word “Madhusūdana” is significant in this verse. Lord Kṛṣṇa killed the demon Madhu, and now Arjuna wanted Kṛṣṇa to kill the demon of misunderstanding that had overtaken him in the discharge of his duty.
I was still wondering, Krsna killed many demons, so why not use the name of some other demon and specifically only Madhu? Prabhuji if you could please elaborate on the nuances of the word usage?
YS
Madhu and Kaitabha are two demons that stole the Vedic knowledge from Brahma and hid it. The incarnation of the Lord named Hayagriva then killed these demons.
Whenever we use Vedic texts to argue for a point contrary to the purpose of the Vedas then it is considered stealing and hiding Vedas. For example, many people wrote commentaries on Bhagavad-Gita arriving at impersonal conclusions. This is stealing the Veda and hiding the Veda and then telling something else contrary to the Veda.
Arjuna was also giving moralistic arguments about kindness, sacrifice, charity, and austerity. In some place or other, we can find Vedic statements that substantiate the claims. But the conclusion is contrary to the Veda as a whole. There is a place for kindness and there is a place for aggression. Kindness and aggression are not universal truths. In some situations we have to use kindness and in other situations we have to use aggression. When the kindness statement is used in places where aggression must be used, then it is like stealing and hiding the Veda. It means that the correct meaning has been stolen and hidden and some fake meaning has become prominent.
Since Krishna appeared as Hayagriva to kill Madhu and Kaitabh, He is being asked to come again as Hayagriva and retrieve the true Veda and kill the false interpretation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
