Interpretation of the scriptures

Expressions researched:
"A scripture should not be interpreted" |"accepting the authorized statements of bona fide scripture without mental speculation or fashionable interpretation" |"an interpretation of a scripture" |"cannot explain any scripture according to the principle of direct interpretation" |"firmly believe what Krsna says, not interpretation. This is called astikyam" |"imperfect person interpreting means whatever he interprets, that is imperfect" |"interpret any scripture in his own way" |"interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture" |"interpretation of the scripture" |"interpretation of the scriptures" |"interpretations of Vedanta-sutra" |"interpreting scripture" |"make their own interpretations" |"never interpret in the scriptures" |"never make any interpretation" |"no interpretation. That is wanted" |"no scriptures should be defiled" |"poke their noses into the scripture and interpret it in a deceptive way" |"scriptures are interpreted by devotees" |"scriptures are interpreted" |"so many doubts, so many interpretations" |"they are interpreting in their own way" |"when it is interpreted by speculation"

BG Chapters 13 - 18

Among the demons, one interpretation of the scriptures is as good as another, for they do not believe in a standard understanding of the scriptural injunctions.

BG 16.8, Purport:

They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust."

The demonic conclude that the world is phantasmagoria. There is no cause and effect, no controller, no purpose: everything is unreal. They say that this cosmic manifestation arises due to chance material actions and reactions. They do not think that the world was created by God for a certain purpose. They have their own theory: that the world has come about in its own way and that there is no reason to believe that there is a God behind it. For them there is no difference between spirit and matter, and they do not accept the Supreme Spirit. Everything is matter only, and the whole cosmos is supposed to be a mass of ignorance. According to them, everything is void, and whatever manifestation exists is due to our ignorance in perception. They take it for granted that all manifestation of diversity is a display of ignorance. Just as in a dream we may create so many things which actually have no existence, so when we are awake we shall see that everything is simply a dream.

But factually, although the demons say that life is a dream, they are very expert in enjoying this dream. And so, instead of acquiring knowledge, they become more and more implicated in their dreamland. They conclude that as a child is simply the result of sexual intercourse between man and woman, this world is born without any soul. For them it is only a combination of matter that has produced the living entities, and there is no question of the existence of the soul. As many living creatures come out from perspiration and from a dead body without any cause, the whole living world has come out of the material combinations of the cosmic manifestation. Therefore material nature is the cause of this manifestation, and there is no other cause. They do not believe in the words of Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad-gītā: mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram. "Under My direction the whole material world is moving." In other words, among the demons there is no perfect knowledge of the creation of the world; every one of them has some particular theory of his own. According to them, one interpretation of the scriptures is as good as another, for they do not believe in a standard understanding of the scriptural injunctions.

SB Canto 2

The Lord spoke Bhagavad-gītā, and thereby Arjuna achieved self-realization, and even today anyone who follows the path of Arjuna can also attain the same benefit as Śrī Arjuna. The scriptures are meant for this purpose. Foolish, unintelligent persons make their own interpretations by imagination and thus mislead their followers, causing them to remain in the dungeon of material existence.

SB 2.7.3, Purport:

The instructions of Lord Kapila to His mother Devahūti are fully described in the Third Canto (Chapters 25-32) of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and anyone who follows the instructions can achieve the same liberation obtained by Devahūti. The Lord spoke Bhagavad-gītā, and thereby Arjuna achieved self-realization, and even today anyone who follows the path of Arjuna can also attain the same benefit as Śrī Arjuna. The scriptures are meant for this purpose. Foolish, unintelligent persons make their own interpretations by imagination and thus mislead their followers, causing them to remain in the dungeon of material existence. However, simply by following the instructions imparted by Lord Kṛṣṇa or Lord Kapila, one can obtain the highest benefit, even today.

SB Canto 3

The impersonalists take the activities mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Bhagavad-gītā and other Vedic literatures as fictitious stories, and therefore they interpret them most mischievously. The have no idea of the Personality of Godhead. They unnecessarily poke their noses into the scripture and interpret it in a deceptive way in order to mislead the innocent public.

SB 3.25.34, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs accept the description of the pastimes of the Lord as stories, but actually they are not stories; they are historical facts. Pure devotees accept the narrations of the pastimes of the Lord not as stories but as Absolute Truth. The words mama pauruṣāṇi are significant. Devotees are very much attached to glorifying the activities of the Lord, whereas the Māyāvādīs cannot even think of these activities. According to them the Absolute Truth is impersonal. Without personal existence, how can there be activity? The impersonalists take the activities mentioned in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Bhagavad-gītā and other Vedic literatures as fictitious stories, and therefore they interpret them most mischievously. The have no idea of the Personality of Godhead. They unnecessarily poke their noses into the scripture and interpret it in a deceptive way in order to mislead the innocent public. The activities of Māyāvāda philosophy are very dangerous to the public, and therefore Lord Caitanya warned us never to hear from any Māyāvādī about any scripture. They will spoil the entire process, and the person hearing them will never be able to come to the path of devotional service to attain the highest perfection, or will be able to do so only after a very long time.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 2.73, Translation:

To such a misguided interpreter we may reply, "Why should you suggest such fallacious logic? An interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture."

CC Madhya-lila

If everyone is an authority, or if everyone accepts his own intelligence as the ultimate criterion—as is presently fashionable—the scriptures will be interpreted in many different ways, and everyone will claim that his own philosophy is supreme. This has become a very great problem, and everyone is interpreting scripture in his own way and setting up his own basis of authority.

CC Madhya 9.49, Purport:

According to the Buddhists' fifth principle, Lord Buddha is the only source for the attainment of knowledge. We cannot accept this, for Lord Buddha rejected the principles of Vedic knowledge. One must accept a principle of standard knowledge because one cannot attain the Absolute Truth simply by intellectual speculation. If everyone is an authority, or if everyone accepts his own intelligence as the ultimate criterion—as is presently fashionable—the scriptures will be interpreted in many different ways, and everyone will claim that his own philosophy is supreme. This has become a very great problem, and everyone is interpreting scripture in his own way and setting up his own basis of authority. Yata mata tata patha. Now everybody and anybody is trying to establish his own theory as the ultimate truth. The Buddhists theorize that annihilation, or nirvāṇa, is the ultimate goal. Annihilation applies to the body, but the spirit soul transmigrates from one body to another. If this were not the case, how can so many multifarious bodies come into existence? If the next birth is a fact, the next bodily form is also a fact. As soon as we accept a material body, we must accept the fact that that body will be annihilated and that we will have to accept another body. If all material bodies are doomed to annihilation, we must obtain a nonmaterial body, or a spiritual body, if we wish the next birth to be anything but false. How the spiritual body is attained is explained by Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.9):

janma karma ca me divyam evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ

tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so ’rjuna

"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."

CC Madhya 25.49, Translation:

"Anyone who wants to establish his own opinion or philosophy certainly cannot explain any scripture according to the principle of direct interpretation."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

By accepting such a secondary word and leaving aside the principal vibration, he has given up a direct interpretation of the scripture in favor of his own indirect interpretation.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

That the sound vibration of the Supreme Lord is identical with the Supreme Lord is a fact. This is confirmed in the Nārada-pañcarātra:

vyaktaṁ hi bhagavān eva

sākṣān-nārāyaṇaḥ svayam

aṣṭākṣara-svarūpena

mukheṣu parivartate

"When the transcendental sound vibration is practiced by a conditioned soul, the Supreme Lord is present on his tongue." In the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad it is said that when oṁkāra is chanted, whatever is seen as material is seen perfectly as spiritual. In the spiritual world or in spiritual vision there is nothing but oṁkāra, or the one alternate, om. Unfortunately, Śaṅkara has abandoned this chief word, oṁkāra, and has whimsically accepted tat tvam asi as the supreme vibration of the Vedas. By accepting such a secondary word and leaving aside the principal vibration, he has given up a direct interpretation of the scripture in favor of his own indirect interpretation.

Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has unceremoniously obscured the Kṛṣṇa consciousness described in the puruṣa-vedānta-sūtra by manufacturing an indirect interpretation and abandoning the direct interpretation. Unless we take all the statements of Vedānta-sūtra as self-evident, there is no point in studying Vedānta-sūtra. Interpreting the verses of Vedānta-sūtra according to one's own whim is the greatest disservice to the self-evident Vedas.

Śaṅkara has abandoned this chief word, oṁkāra, and has whimsically accepted tat tvam asi as the supreme vibration of the Vedas. By accepting such a secondary word and leaving aside the principal vibration, he has given up a direct interpretation of the scripture in favor of his own indirect interpretation.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

That the sound vibration of the Supreme Lord is identical with the Supreme Lord is a fact. This is confirmed in the Nārada-pañcarātra:

vyaktaṁ hi bhagavān eva

sākṣān-nārāyaṇaḥ svayam

aṣṭākṣara-svarūpena

mukheṣu parivartate

"When the transcendental sound vibration is practiced by a conditioned soul, the Supreme Lord is present on his tongue." In the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad it is said that when oṁkāra is chanted, whatever is seen as material is seen perfectly as spiritual. In the spiritual world or in spiritual vision there is nothing but oṁkāra, or the one alternate, om. Unfortunately, Śaṅkara has abandoned this chief word, oṁkāra, and has whimsically accepted tat tvam asi as the supreme vibration of the Vedas. By accepting such a secondary word and leaving aside the principal vibration, he has given up a direct interpretation of the scripture in favor of his own indirect interpretation.

Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī said, "Śaṅkarācārya's interpretations of Vedānta-sūtra are all figments of his imagination. You have not explained the codes of the Vedānta-sūtra and Upaniṣads according to Your own imagination but have presented them as they are."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 22:

After talking in this way, both Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī and Lord Caitanya sat together. "Whatever You have said concerning discrepancies in the Māyāvādī philosophy is also known by us," Prakāśānanda said. "Indeed, we know that all the commentaries on Vedic scriptures by Māyāvādī philosophers are erroneous, especially those of Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya's interpretations of Vedānta-sūtra are all figments of his imagination. You have not explained the codes of the Vedānta-sūtra and Upaniṣads according to Your own imagination but have presented them as they are. Thus we are all pleased to have heard Your explanation. Such explanations of the codes of Vedānta-sūtra and the Upaniṣads cannot be given by anyone but the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Since You have all the potencies of the Supreme Lord, please explain the Vedānta-sūtra further so that I may be benefited."

Knowledge is scientific when it is gathered from the scriptures through the bona fide spiritual master, but when it is interpreted by speculation, it is mental concoction.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

Knowledge is information gathered from the scriptures, and science is practical realization of that knowledge. Knowledge is scientific when it is gathered from the scriptures through the bona fide spiritual master, but when it is interpreted by speculation, it is mental concoction. By scientifically understanding the scriptural information through the bona fide spiritual master, one learns, by one's own realization, the actual situation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from material manifestations, and it is above the reactions of matter. Unless one scientifically understands the spiritual form of the Personality of Godhead, one becomes an impersonalist. The sunshine in itself is illumination, but that illumination is different from the sun. Yet the sun and the sunshine are not differently situated, for without the sun there can be no sunshine, and without sunshine there is no meaning to the word sun.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

A scripture should not be interpreted. A scripture should be taken as it is, as it is. And besides that, interpretation... When interpretation is required? When a thing is not properly understood, at that time, interpretation is required. Otherwise, there is no necessity of interpretation.

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966:

Now, you are Americans. You are also keeping this Bhagavad-gītā, and not only in America, in other countries also, in Germany. In Germany there are great, great scholars, in England, in Japan, in all countries. So why? Because it is spoken by a great personality. Apart from... We may... We Hindus, we accept Him the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but others, even not accepting Him the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they accept it as, at least, that He was a great personality. Therefore, besides the Hindu community, others, they are also consulting the knowledge. Now, my point is that when such a great personality, and when a..., we accept Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then His version is right. What He says, that from our practical experience we can conclude that every individual persons who were in the past individuals, they are also individuals at the present, and they'll continue to be individuals, and this is by our common sense, but it is confirmed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa, whom we call the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He is accepted as a great personality. He says, na tu eva ahaṁ jātu nāsam: "Don't think that I was not in existence." That means "I was in existence," not that "Just now I have come before you as God, as Śrī Kṛṣṇa. I was Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the past also, and I am Śrī Kṛṣṇa at the present. So also yourself, and so also others—all individuals. So and at the present we are." Na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ: "And don't think that we shall not remain." Sarve. This sarve means "we all," not that... Sarve is plural number. Janādhipāḥ is plural number. "So they are all individual souls." So the individual soul continues. That is the version. That is the version of the Bhagavad-gītā, and we... It is better to accept this version without unnecessarily commenting it or interpreting it in a different way so that one... Interpretation is very bad. You see? A scripture should not be interpreted. A scripture should be taken as it is, as it is. And besides that, interpretation... When interpretation is required? When a thing is not properly understood, at that time, interpretation is required. Otherwise, there is no necessity of interpretation. Just like you..., that "Such and such village" or "such and such town is on the sea." Somebody says. Now, the person who hears that "Such and such town is on the sea," and he may be confused: "How is that? On the, on the water, how there can be a town?" So there is explanation required. Now that explanation is that " 'On the sea' does not mean 'in the midst of the sea,' but 'on the bank of the sea.' " Here is an interpretation. So similarly, a thing which is very clear to everyone, so there is no necessity of interpretation. Here the, the statement of Bhagavad-gītā as by, spoken by Lord Kṛṣṇa, is very clear, that "Myself, yourself and all these people who have assembled here, they are all individual persons. And they were individual persons in the past, and at the present moment, we see that they are individual persons, and they will continue. They will continue." I may not know what they will become in the future, but because He is God, because He is the Supreme Personality, His statement should be accepted. That makes my knowledge perfect. Just like I give you one very simple example. Now, if a little boy asks his mother that "Who is my father?" The mother says that "Here is your father." Now, if the child says, "I don't believe it, that he is my father," is it possible to convince him in any other way than the statement of the mother? Is it possible? No. That is the final. That is the final. And if he says, "I don't believe it," that is his foolishness. Similarly, a thing which is beyond our conception, beyond our limit of knowledge, that should be taken from the authority.

At the present moment, there are so many commentaries and people have taken that anybody can interpret in his own way. This is the modern view. Everyone is perfect and he can interpret any scripture in his own way. But so far we are concerned, we are not agreeable to that point.

Lecture on BG 10.1 -- New York, December 30, 1966:

In, in the market you'll have so many commentaries of the Bhagavad-gītā. In India we have counted, there are about six hundred and forty-five different commentaries of Bhagavad-gītā. One Dr. Rele(?) of Bombay, he has interpreted Bhagavad-gītā as the talks between the patient and the medical practitioner. Yes. He has imposed on Kṛṣṇa as the physician and Arjuna as the patient. And in his commentary he has tried to, I mean to say, interpose all the meanings of anatomy, physiology, everything in his own imagination.

Similarly, at the present moment, there are so many commentaries and people have taken that anybody can interpret in his own way. This is the modern view. Everyone is perfect and he can interpret any scripture in his own way. But so far we are concerned, we are not agreeable to that point. We agree to read Bhagavad-gītā in terms of the instruction as it is given in the Bhagavad-gītā. The Bhagavad-gītā says that this knowledge has to be taken by the paramparā system or the disciplic succession. It is not that anyone can interpret. This viewpoint no bona fide student of Bhagavad-gītā will accept.

So this Bhagavad-gītā is being taught by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to Arjuna. He says again the same thing. He's repeating that yat te 'haṁ prīyamāṇāya vakṣyāmi hita-kāmyayā. "Because you are My dear friend, I desire that you become prosperous, you become happy. Therefore I am speaking to you." Do you think that Kṛṣṇa is not interested with others? To make them happy and prosperous? No. He's, He's equally disposed. He wants everyone to be happy and peaceful and prosperous. But they do not want it. That is the difficulty.

This demonic conclusion will not help us. Then we shall remain in ignorance; there is no knowledge.

Lecture on BG 16.8 -- Tokyo, January 28, 1975:

Nitāi: "In other words, amongst the demons there is no perfect knowledge of the creation of this world; every one of them has a particular theory of his own. According to them, one interpretation of the scriptures is as good as another, for they do not believe in a standard understanding of the scriptural injunctions."

Prabhupāda: This is demonic. Now any question? (pause) This demonic conclusion will not help us. Then we shall remain in ignorance; there is no knowledge. Any question? Can you put any question on behalf of the demons? (laughter)

Trivikrama: Well, I am very expert at the demon mentality, but I'm afraid you've destroyed all arguments that I might put forth.

Initiation Lectures

Never interpret in the scriptures or in the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Initiation of Bali-mardana Dasa -- Montreal, July 29, 1968:

You should avoid chanting, every one of you, ten kinds of offenses. The first offense is to decry the scriptures, Vedas. To accept authority of Vedas. Not to accept or decrying scriptures. Vedas means the book of transcendental knowledge. Not only Bhagavad-gītā, even Bible or Koran, they are also, although Bhagavad-gītā... Higher or secondary or primary, that is different. But whenever there is information of God, that is scripture, recognized. So we are concerned with the Vedas. So anyway, other scripture which is giving information of God scientifically or accepted by persons, that is also Vedas. One should not blaspheme the Vedas. This is first offense, to blaspheme. And satāṁ nindā, those who are preaching the message of God, they should not be blasphemed. And then never interpret in the scriptures or in the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa. And sāmya śubha-kriyā mati-pramādaḥ. This chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa should not be executed as something auspicious activities. People generally go to church, to temple, to counteract their sinful activities. Somebody thinks actually that "If I go to church or temple, if I confess before God, then my sinful activities will be counteracted." But hari-nāma should not be taken in that way. If we think that "I am chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa; therefore I am free to commit all kinds of nonsense," then no. Then we will not be able to make progress. Sāmya śubha-kriyā mati-pramādaḥ. And nāmna artha-vāda. And while chanting, to think of ahaṁ mameti (SB 5.5.8), moha, this world as "mine," "I am this body," and without attention, inattentive, to become inattentive... While chanting, you must hear. Hare Kṛṣṇa—you must give attention to hear. In this way there is paper. You will take from your Godbrothers ten kinds of offenses. If you avoid the offenses, then you make very good progress of chanting. You get good result. The first stage is chanting with offenses. That is natural, because nobody is expert. The second stage is without offenses. When one can chant without offenses, then he becomes liberated. And the third stage is to achieve in the transcendental platform in the loving service of the Lord. So this chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa is so powerful that it will gradually elevate you to the highest position. Chant Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Satāṁ-nindaṁ śruti-śāstra-nindanam, no scriptures should be defiled. Satāṁ-nindaṁ śruti-śāstra-nindanam tathārtha-vādo hari-nāmni kalpanam. And never make any interpretation. Just like we are chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, somebody may make interpretation. There is no interpretation.

Initiation of Rukmini Dasi -- Montreal, August 15, 1968:

So the first offense is satāṁ-nindā. No devotee shall be blasphemed. Satāṁ-nindaṁ śruti-śāstra-nindanam, no scriptures should be defiled. Satāṁ-nindaṁ śruti-śāstra-nindanam tathārtha-vādo hari-nāmni kalpanam. And never make any interpretation. Just like we are chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, somebody may make interpretation. There is no interpretation. The direct meaning is that we are praying Kṛṣṇa and His energy to accept me in the society of His service. This is the simple... There is no other interpretation. Or artha-vādaḥ. And sāmya-śubha-kriyā-pramādaḥ, one should not accept chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa with some, something śubha-kriyā. Just like generally the materialist persons, they go to churches or temple just to become purified of their sinful activities. Just like in Christian religion it is the custom, what is called? Confession. So we should not (be) like that. It is not confession. Confession means I confess that I have done this sinful act, and as soon as I come out from the church I do it again. No. We should know that all sinful activities are washed off by chanting, but that does not mean we shall commit it again. Whatever we have done, that is washed off. Now we should be careful. And that four principles—no illicit sex life, no meat-eating, and no gambling, no intoxication—you try and follow. You must follow. As you are taking this mantra, you must now follow. Whatever is done is done. Finished. And we, we allow marriage. So there is no restriction. One can marry. But no illicit sex. So these four principles should be followed, and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and be pleased. Be more beautiful within and without.

Āstikyam means to believe firmly in the scriptures. Just like Bhagavad-gītā we are studying, or Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. We should firmly believe what Kṛṣṇa says, not interpretation. This is called āstikyam.

Brahmana Initiation Lecture -- New Vrindaban, May 25, 1969:

Satyaṁ śaucaṁ śamo dama titikṣa ārjavam. Ārjavam means simplicity, no duplicity. Simplicity, ārjavam. Jñānaṁ vijñānam, knowledge and practical application in life. Jñānaṁ vijñānam āstikyam. Āstikyam means to believe firmly in the scriptures. Just like Bhagavad-gītā we are studying, or Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. We should firmly believe what Kṛṣṇa says, not interpretation. This is called āstikyam. And nāstikyam means not firm belief, atheism. Just like Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha simply said that "I don't believe in the Vedas." Therefore he is immediately calculated as atheist, nāstikyam. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika: "The followers of Buddha, they did not accept Vedic, I mean to say, direction; therefore they are nāstika." What is that Vedic direction? In the Dāsavatāra-stotra by Jayadeva Gosvāmī, he says, nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam. In the śruti, in the Vedas, there is prescription of sacrifice, and in some of the sacrifice there is recommendation for sacrifice of some animals, goats. So that is... But Lord Buddha says, "No. I want to introduce nonviolence, no animal killing. So even there is Veda, prescription, I don't accept Vedas." Therefore he became nāstika. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that veda nā māniyā bauddha haila nāstika: "Because Lord Buddha did not accept the authority of the Veda, therefore he was considered nāstika, atheist." He was Indian. He was Hindu. His forefathers were kṣatriyas, Vedic. He revolted. So therefore he was called nāstika. But a brāhmaṇa should not be nāstika; he should be āstik. Āstikyam: "He must believe in the scriptural injunction." These are brahminical qualifications.

No interpretation of the scripture.

Initiation Sri Ranga, Romaharsana, Sridhara Dasas -- Los Angeles, July 3, 1970:

Devotee: Minimizing the authority of the scripture or...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Scriptural injunction we should not minimize. We should not think contradictory. We should accept as it is. Then it will be good for us. Or interpretation. Scriptural interpretation is not required. Therefore, we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any false interpretation. As it is. Kṛṣṇa-Kṛṣṇa. Kurukṣetra-Kurukṣetra. Pāṇḍava-Pāṇḍava. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā (BG 1.1). Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān uvāca: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead said." And we should not add here that... What is called? Paramātmā uvāca. No. Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Paramātmā is feature. In the Gītā Press edition you will see "Paramātmā." They never say Kṛṣṇa. They're so much afraid that "If I say 'Kṛṣṇa,' He will at once capture me." You see? (chuckles) So in a different way. "Paraṁ Brahman," "Caitanya," like this, so many impersonal ways they will say. But that is not required. Bhagavān uvāca means Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Sometimes they say, "Blessed Lord said." No. Why you say? The Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa said. Then, what is that next? No interpretation of the scripture. Next? What is the next item?

Sometimes they say, "Blessed Lord said." No. Why you say? The Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa said. Then, what is that next? No interpretation of the scripture.

Initiation Sri Ranga, Romaharsana, Sridhara Dasas -- Los Angeles, July 3, 1970:

Devotee: Minimizing the authority of the scripture or...

Prabhupāda: Yes. Scriptural injunction we should not minimize. We should not think contradictory. We should accept as it is. Then it will be good for us. Or interpretation. Scriptural interpretation is not required. Therefore, we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without any false interpretation. As it is. Kṛṣṇa-Kṛṣṇa. Kurukṣetra-Kurukṣetra. Pāṇḍava-Pāṇḍava. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā (BG 1.1). Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān uvāca: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead said." And we should not add here that... What is called? Paramātmā uvāca. No. Kṛṣṇa uvāca. Paramātmā is feature. In the Gītā Press edition you will see "Paramātmā." They never say Kṛṣṇa. They're so much afraid that "If I say 'Kṛṣṇa,' He will at once capture me." You see? (chuckles) So in a different way. "Paraṁ Brahman," "Caitanya," like this, so many impersonal ways they will say. But that is not required. Bhagavān uvāca means Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. Sometimes they say, "Blessed Lord said." No. Why you say? The Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa said. Then, what is that next? No interpretation of the scripture.

Whatever is said is all right. You have to accept that. Even it is contradictory, you have to accept. That is called no interpretation. That is wanted.

Initiation Lecture -- Los Angeles, July 13, 1971:

Dayānanda: "Interpreting... Minimizing the authority of scriptures or Vedas." The authority of scriptures or Vedas are also absolute. This is the literary incarnation of the Lord. The Vedas or the scriptures are literary incarnation of the Lord.

Prabhupāda: The example is the same, just like the conchshell. In the Vedic injunction is that you should not touch dead animal's bone. If you touch, you become impure. But Vedas say the conchshell is pure. So that is being practically observed. We followers of Vedic injunction, we are using conchshell in the Deity room because Vedas says it is pure. You cannot argue, "Oh, one place you said that conch..., the bone is impure. Oh, here I can show you the book. You have said like that." Oh, that nonsense will not do. Whatever is said is all right. You have to accept that. Even it is contradictory, you have to accept. That is called no interpretation. That is wanted. There is meaning, but through your brain at the present moment you cannot understand. That is another thing. But you cannot say like that: "Oh, one place you have said this conch, yes, bone of an animal is impure, and now you are saying the conchshell is pure. It is contradictory." So that will not do. Therefore it is said you cannot interpret in that way. That is offense. Then you will not be able to make progress.

Philosophy Discussions

Generally there is no ambiguity in the words of God, but due to our lack of perfect knowledge we sometimes cannot understand and try to interpret. But this is, this interpretation is not at all feasible, because imperfect person interpreting means whatever he interprets, that is imperfect. So the proper import of the words of scripture or words of God should be understood from a person who has realized God.

Philosophy Discussion on Origen:

Hayagrīva: As far as seeming contradictions and seeming absurdities in scripture are concerned, Origen considered these as stumbling blocks allowed by God to exist in order for man to go beyond the literal meaning. He says, "In some cases no useful meaning attaches to the obvious interpretation, but everything in scripture has a spiritual meaning, but not all of it has a literal meaning."

Prabhupāda: Literal... Generally, every word in the scripture there is literal meaning, but one who cannot understand properly because one does not hear from the proper person, he makes some interpretation. But there is no need of interpretation in the words of God. It may be that the words of God sometimes cannot be understood by ordinary person; therefore he requires to understand through the via-media of transparent guru. Guru is fully cognizant of the words spoken by God. One has to accept, therefore, a guru to go through the scripture properly. Generally there is no ambiguity in the words of God, but due to our lack of perfect knowledge we sometimes cannot understand and try to interpret. But this is, this interpretation is not at all feasible, because imperfect person interpreting means whatever he interprets, that is imperfect. So the proper import of the words of scripture or words of God should be understood from a person who has realized God.

Not many meaning. Meaning is one, but if one is not realized, then he can make many meanings. Otherwise meaning is one.

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Aquinas:

Hayagrīva: Well this is rather strange, because Aquinas, his writings form the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church has always emphasized one meaning, which is interpreted by the Pope, by the head of the Church. The meaning is given by the Pope, of scripture, because...

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is...

Hayagrīva: But here he says that the scriptures may contain many meanings according to one's degree of realization.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Not many meaning. Meaning is one, but if one is not realized, then he can make many meanings. Otherwise meaning is one. What can be any other meaning? Suppose God created this universe. This is stated in the Bible, or in the Bhagavad-gītā the same thing is expressed in a different way, ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate (BG 10.8): "From Me everything emanates." So that's a fact, that everything is coming out from God's energy, so why there should be second meaning and second interpretation unless one is godless? What is the possible second meaning?

Hayagrīva: That means...

Prabhupāda: God created, that's all accepted. God created. What the second meaning?

Hayagrīva: Well, he would give the example of the creation of God walking through... In the Bible it's stated that God walks through Paradise in the afternoon. He would cite this...

Prabhupāda: No, no, God...

Hayagrīva: ...as having an interior meaning.

Prabhupāda: If God can create, He can walk also, He can speak also, He can touch also, He can see also. God is a person. So where is the second meaning? What is the possible second meaning?

Hayagrīva: The second meaning, as far as I could see, would be based on an impersonal interpretation.

Prabhupāda: So God cannot be impersonal. If He is creator, how He can be impersonal? He must be person; otherwise there is no meaning.

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

That is because it is legitimate.

Room Conversation with Catholic Cardinal and Secretary to the Pope -- May 24, 1974, Rome:

Prabhupāda: A Kṛṣṇa devotee interpreting on Kṛṣṇa, and a nondevotee interpreting on Kṛṣṇa. There is far difference.

Cardinal Pignedoli: Oh, yes, oh, yes.

Prabhupāda: So mostly the editors are by nondevotee. So they cannot interpret.

Monsignor Verrozano: Oh, yes. The same problem we have with our scriptures, because when the scriptures are interpreted by devotees, by believers, they are very faithful translated.

Prabhupāda: That is because it is legitimate.

Monsignor Verrozano: Yes, it's very important.

Just like in the Bible it is said, "There was only word in the beginning." So in the beginning, there was word. That means that word is not the word of this material creation.

Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris:

Yogeśvara: He says that's very good that so many stayed to find out more information, to ask, to discuss.

Prabhupāda: Yes, any reasonable man will find subject matter interesting. There is a statement of Caitanya-caritāmṛta, śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-dayā karaha vicāra: (CC Adi 8.15) "Just consider and then give your judgement after studying the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu." It is never recommended to take it blindly. Karaha vicāra: "Just judge with reason and argument." And vicāra karile citte pābe camatkāra: "If you consider it with logic and judgement, then you'll find it is sublime." (French)

Bhagavān: So an interpretation of a scripture, whether it be Bible or Bhagavad-gītā, cannot simply be an opinion, but it must be based on logic and reason.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Just like in the Bible it is said, "There was only word in the beginning." So in the beginning, there was word. That means that word is not the word of this material creation.

Yogeśvara: Just like these Guru Maharajis. They say you cannot chant the name Kṛṣṇa because it's simply a material sound. They say the name is material.

Prabhupāda: That's it. The rascal does not understand what is this sound. He does not see that there was word before creation.

Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Also in Revelation in the Bible it states that in the spiritual world there is no need for sun and moon...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: ...because the body of God is giving off light.

Prabhupāda: No, the residents also, they are bright.

Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: Yes, illuminating.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Bhagavad-gītā is coming without any contradiction, change, for the last five thousand years. You accept it. Other scriptures are (unclear), and there are so many doubts, so many interpretations. So, if you want real religious system, this is the scripture spoken directly by God, and accepted by all the ācāryas, so take it.

Room Conversation with Carol Cameron -- May 9, 1975, Perth:

Paramahaṁsa: That's the problem. That's why there are so many hundreds of branches of Christianity, literally hundreds. So many divisions of Christianity. Some people accept this, some people accept this.

Prabhupāda: Therefore we should advocate that Bhagavad-gītā is not like that. It is coming in the same form as it was taught to Arjuna. If you challenge that "How you know that it has not been changed?" the ācāryas are there. The ācāryas are there, and they are accepting. Therefore it is correct. We have to follow the ācāryas. So when we see the ācāryas have accepted, then we accept. All the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, before that other ācāryas also, they accept. They never say that "This was not in the original scripture. It has been changed." You don't find any such statement of the ācāryas. The best thing, therefore, if you want a religious system, Bhagavad-gītā is coming without any contradiction, change, for the last five thousand years. You accept it. Other scriptures are (unclear), and there are so many doubts, so many interpretations. So, if you want real religious system, this is the scripture spoken directly by God, and accepted by all the ācāryas, so take it. If you are really after God, so you take enlightenment from this perfect scripture. If you want truth, it doesn't matter wherefrom it is coming. I must accept the truth.

In the Bhagavad-gītā everything is clearly explained.

Room Conversation -- October 21, 1975, Johannesburg:

Guest: We've started practicing that Transcendental Meditation. We have found that by practicing the meditation we have had a change in consciousness. It has led us into further inquiry, so we've found that it has been valuable in a certain way, and that's the only actual practice. We have been reading things like Muktananda and kundalini-yoga and that sort of stuff, the haṭha-yoga. So it's just been an inquiry of our own which we've never done before. We've only been exposed to our own Christian scriptures. And we find in bhakti-yoga and Christianity a lot of similarities. They are the same, as far as we can see. It's difficult, though, to understand our scriptures in...

Prabhupāda: No, in the Bhagavad-gītā everything is clearly explained.

Guest: That's right. Our scriptures are interpreted, and we've been taught to interpret them in a certain way, and it hasn't been very clear.

Prabhupāda: What scripture you are... Bible?

Guest: Well, the Bible. But we only know the Bible as we've been told it, and it's been told to us by unrealized men, and we ended up being virtually atheistically inclined, until that led to...

Prabhupāda: So in Bible what is the conception of God?

Guest: It's very unclear.

Prabhupāda: That I was speaking. In every religion...

Woman: To identify with it.

Prabhupāda: There is no clear conception.

Guest: That's right. And I think this is the reason that leads you away. We've been led away from the Bible because of that. There is nothing clear, and everybody who has read it to us has read it to us in a different way. But I would say that the finest book we have read is Bhagavad-gītā. There's no question.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

This is going on. "This is Hindu scripture." What do you mean by Hindu scripture? So they are interpreting in their own way. So Kṛṣṇa is not for the Hindus or the Musselmans or Christians. He is God. He is everyone.

Conversation with News Reporters -- March 25, 1976, Delhi:

Prabhupāda: So just see. He was Hindu gentleman, belonging to the Arya-samaj. So three times he said, "Is it Hindu faith?" And what do you mean by Hindu faith? When Kṛṣṇa said, dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ (BG 2.13), is it meant for the Hindus that a child becomes..., a baby becomes a child, a child becomes a boy, a boy becomes a young man, a young man becomes an old man, and the old man dies, changes this body? Is it meant for the Hindus? The Mohammedans do not become old men or young men?

Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: The Christians don't become old men?

Prabhupāda: So such fools there are that Bhagavad-gītā is speaking, tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati (BG 2.13)—"It is meant for the Hindus." Just see. Such fools there are. And Kṛṣṇa said, annād bhavanti bhūtāni: (BG 3.14) "If you have got enough food grains, then all the living entities are satisfied." Is it meant for the Hindus? So this is going on. "This is Hindu scripture." What do you mean by Hindu scripture? So they are interpreting in their own way. So Kṛṣṇa is not for the Hindus or the Musselmans or Christians. He is God. He is everyone. He is for everyone. And it is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-yonīṣu kaunteya mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ: (BG 14.4) "In all species of life, as many forms of life are there, ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ, I am the seed-giving father of all of them." So where is the question of Hindus? This is going on.

1970 Correspondence

Because every living entity is the eternal fragmental part and parcel of God, it is practical that by simply accepting the authorized statements of bona fide scripture without mental speculation or fashionable interpretation one fulfills the mission of human life very easily and goes back to home, back to Godhead.

Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970:

The next point is philosophy without religion is mental speculation. No one can manufacture a system of religion. Religion is the Law of God and no one but God or empowered representatives of God can put forward religious formulas. Therefore, because every living entity is the eternal fragmental part and parcel of God, it is practical that by simply accepting the authorized statements of bona fide scripture without mental speculation or fashionable interpretation one fulfills the mission of human life very easily and goes back to home, back to Godhead. "There is another eternal nature which is transcendental to this manifest and nonmanifest matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is." (B.G. 8.20) "It is the highest destination, going, no one ever returns from that, My Supreme Abode." (B.G. 8.21) So although the Russians may be very much advanced by throwing sputniks into the outer space, they are missing the real point—Krsna Consciousness, the science of God. Although there are so many departments of knowledge, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, etc., the science of God is still to be introduced. When the scientist philosopher medical man will get the opportunity to study systematically what is God, what are His energies, what is my relationship, how to approach Him, then only there will be paradise. But paradise in the present condition of life in ignorance of God is parasite in temporary paradise.