Looking for perfection is an utopia. 

Sometimes you can say one thing, and another time its opposite. It depends on the circumstances. When we refer to the Srimad-Bhagavatam, the situations, the heroes and the saints are all perfect. Prabhupada taught by constantly using the Srimad-Bhagavatam to inspire us on how we should conduct ourselves so that we model our lives on the ideal of perfection, a transcendental perfection, of course. He wanted his disciples to become pure devotees. So most of them believed in this utopia; that one meat-eater, born in a mleccha family, could become a first class devotee and preach following his example. He was an Acarya and a Mahabhagavat. We are trying to understand... One day we say the process and the philosophy are simple, and another day, we say it is most difficult. Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva is very subtle.

This morning I was listening to Prabhupada explaining the reason for which Vyasa was not satisfied with his transcendental writing work. In short, it was not perfect. Perfect, according to vaishnavism in the person of Narada Muni, otherwise Vyasa was a great and wonderful writer, universally recognized. On top of that, he was a perfect yogi; he knew past, present and future. Therefore, "not perfect" should be relativized. The expression should be understood in the sense that he had not described Krishna's more intimate pastimes in Vrindavan. Mahabharata and Bhagavad-gita could not fill the void left in his soul since he neglected these poetic aspects. 

You see, here Prabhupada recognizes the importance of perfect writing. Vyasa was a poet par excellence. Prabhupada also wanted his books to be edited to academic standards. He knew that the intellectual and cultured class of society would not take him seriously if his writings were not up to the standard. Like it or not, good writing plays a big role in the reader's perception. It is the same for any art.

A few days ago I heard Prabhupada explaining that we don't have to be particularly qualified to preach, or to be perfect. That will do even if we are not good. He was going to say "even poorly accomplished", but he immediately came back on his thought: "And we are also imploring you to take this preaching work. So this preaching work… I mean to say, poorly we do… Poorly—it is not poor. But suppose I am not very much educated. Just like this boy. If I send him for preaching work, he is not very educated now. He's not a philosopher. He's not a scholar. But he can also preach. He can also preach."

It is our experience. All book distributors have gone through this evolution. We will distribute the books without having been acquainted with their content, without having mastering the philosophy. (One way or another, we didn't become perfect.)

It is way much better when the book distributor knows what he is distributing; it is better when he reads the books and knows the content. Prabhupada have insisted on this point so many times.

Better is always superior to mediocre. Even in this same lecture he says it: "So Nārada Muni says uttama-ślokasya guṇānuvādāt. It means the Supreme Lord who is described by transcendental literature or very fine, scholarly language. He's called Uttama-śloka. That will save all conditioned souls from being implicated in the clutches of māyā." ■