I am just trying to explain that the purpose of a book must be known to the author, and he knows it better than others. There is an instructive story to show this. It is not only a story, it is a fact. In Calcutta a great dramatist, Mr. Rath, who was also a very well known government official, wrote a book, Shah Jahan. Shah Jahan means the emperor Shah Jahan. The title on the book is the name of the book’s hero. So one of the friends of Mr. Rath inquired, ‘In your book, Shah Jahan, the actual hero is Aurangzeb. Why have you given the book the title Shah Jahan?’ He could not understand it.
“The author replied, ‘My dear friend, the actual hero is Shah Jahan, not Aurangzeb.’ Yet the Shah Jahan book is full of activities of Aurangzeb. But the fact is that Shah Jahan was the emperor. He had four or five sons, and when his wife died at an early age, he built her a memorial. Those who have gone to India, who have seen the Taj Mahal building, that was constructed in the memory of Shah Jahan’s wife, Mumtaz, by Shah Jahan. He spent all his money constructing that building. It is one of the seven wonders of the world.
Shah Jahan was a very affectionate father also. He did not chastise his sons much. He spent all of his money constructing for the memory of his wife. But when the sons grew up, the third son, Aurangzeb, came out very crooked and he made a plan how to usurp the empire. He killed his brothers, and he arrested his father, Shah Jahan. So this is the plot of the book Shah Jahan. But the author says that Aurangzeb is not the hero. The hero is Shah Jahan. Then he explained.
“Why? Because Shah Jahan was living, sitting in the Agra fort as a prisoner, and all the reactions of Aurangzeb’s activities — the killing of his other sons, the usurping of the empire — all these things were beating on the heart of Shah Jahan. Therefore he was suffering and he is the hero.
“This is an example that the author of a book knows very well what is the purpose of that book. That is my statement. Similarly, these Vedanta-sutras were compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, or Krsna’s incarnation, or Krsna Himself. So He knows what is the Vedanta-sutra. Therefore, if you want to understand the Vedanta sutra, you must understand Krsna. And Srila Vyasadeva explains the Vedanta-sutra in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Many rascals will comment in different ways, but the author of Vedanta personally wrote a commentary, Srimad-Bhagavatam.”
Lecture, May 21, 1972, Los Angeles
Wow ……… I find this in the Lecture, May 21, 1972, Los Angeles when HDG. Srila Prabhupada says ;
” This is an example that the author of a book knows very well what is the purpose of that book. ………… ”
Similarly, Radhanath Swami’s new book: ” The Journey Home: Autobiography of an American Swami ” as well as Satsvarupa’s Lilamrta, the respective authors know very well its purpose of these books.
So what are the purpose of these books or credentials to Radhanath Swami as the author of his own biography or to any others such as Satsvarupa’s Lilamrta and so on who claim to be SAGES amongst the Iskcon Leaders, one may ask ?
It is none other than the authors’ own glory of being a SAGE in the present Iskcon.
Isn’t it ?
Whereas the defination of a SAGE is described by Sanatana Goswami quotes Devala Muni’s definition of a sage ;
“A sage is one who is celibate, very austere, who eats little, controls his senses, speaks the truth, and has the power both to curse and to forgive.”
Do these authors have these qualities of a SAGE described above ?
Hari BOL. AGTSP.
Mr Rath may have thought that Shah Jahan was ”the hero” but that is only because he himself is a fool. Neither Shah Jahan nor Aurangzeb were hero’s (why do people think there always has to be a hero!)
Shah Jahan was a great fool because he spent all his money on a ‘dead body’ (his departed wife) rather than the living inhabitants of his realm and as a Kshatriya he should have been vigilant to counter threats against his authority. Because he ‘let down his guard’ probably amongst other things, being pre-occupied in building a mausoleum, he neglected his post and allowed Aurangzeb (his son) to take over an murder
multitudes of people (including his other brothers) and destroy many Krishna temples.
Aurangzeb was one of the biggest demons India has ever produced. Shah Jahan was no ‘hero’ in my estimate because he was ‘sleeping on watch’ and as a result all of his subjects were under the rule of Aurangzeb who was a tyrannical madman. Well that’s my take on it anyway. History is just yesterdays politics, just like some of the Scottish people like to see William Wallace as a hero also but he was a ‘butcher’ just like his opposition. What a delusional place is this material world!
Daso Smi
Sudarsana