View source for Indirect interpretation

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"indirect interpretation"|"indirect interpretations"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|}}
{{goal|0}}
{{first|28Mar11}}
{{last|28Mar11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=2|CC=0|OB=3|Lec=0|Con=0|Let=1}}
{{total|6}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Indirect]]
[[Category:Interpretation]]
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" class="section" sec_index="1" parent="compilation" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2>
</div>
<div id="SB_Preface_and_Introduction" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam" text="SB Preface and Introduction"><h3>SB Preface and Introduction</h3>
</div>
<div id="SBIntroduction_0" class="quote" parent="SB_Preface_and_Introduction" book="SB" index="1" link="SB Introduction" link_text="SB Introduction">
<div class="heading">The Lord thus attacked all Vedāntists who interpret the Vedānta-sūtra fashionably, according to their limited power of thinking, to serve their own purpose. Such indirect interpretations of the authentic literatures like the Vedānta-sūtra are hereby condemned by the Lord.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:SB Introduction|SB Introduction]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">The Lord posed Himself before the Bhaṭṭācārya as a foolish student and pretended that He heard the Vedānta from him because the Bhaṭṭācārya felt that this was the duty of a sannyāsī. But the Lord did not agree with his lectures. By this the Lord indicated that the so-called Vedāntists amongst the Śaṅkara-sampradāya, or any other sampradāya who do not follow the instructions of Śrīla Vyāsadeva, are mechanical students of the Vedānta. They are not fully aware of that great knowledge. The explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra is given by the author himself in the text of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One who has no knowledge of the Bhāgavatam will hardly be able to know what the Vedānta says.</p>
<p>The Bhaṭṭācārya, being a vastly learned man, could follow the Lord's sarcastic remarks on the popular Vedāntist. He therefore asked Him why He did not ask about any point which He could not follow. The Bhaṭṭācārya could understand the purpose of His dead silence for the days He heard him. This showed clearly that the Lord had something else in mind; thus the Bhaṭṭācārya requested Him to disclose His mind.</p>
<p>Upon this, the Lord spoke as follows: "My dear sir, I can understand the meaning of the sūtras like janmādy asya yataḥ, śāstra-yonitvāt, and athāto brahma jijñāsā of the Vedānta-sūtra, but when you explain them in your own way it becomes difficult for Me to follow them. The purpose of the sūtras is already explained in them, but your explanations are covering them with something else. You do not purposely take the direct meaning of the sūtras but indirectly give your own interpretations."</p>
<p>The Lord thus attacked all Vedāntists who interpret the Vedānta-sūtra fashionably, according to their limited power of thinking, to serve their own purpose. Such indirect interpretations of the authentic literatures like the Vedānta-sūtra are hereby condemned by the Lord.</p>
<p>The Lord continued: "Śrīla Vyāsadeva has summarized the direct meanings of the mantras in the Upaniṣads in the Vedānta-sūtra. Unfortunately you do not take their direct meaning. You indirectly interpret them in a different way.</p>
<p>"The authority of the Vedas is unchallengeable and stands without any question of doubt. And whatever is stated in the Vedas must be accepted completely, otherwise one challenges the authority of the Vedas.</p>
<p>"The conchshell and cow dung are bone and stool of two living beings. But because they have been recommended by the Vedas as pure, people accept them as such because of the authority of the Vedas."</p>
<p>The idea is that one cannot set his imperfect reason above the authority of the Vedas. The orders of the Vedas must be obeyed as they stand, without any mundane reasoning. The so-called followers of the Vedic injunctions make their own interpretations of the Vedic injunctions, and thus they establish different parties and sects of the Vedic religion. Lord Buddha directly denied the authority of the Vedas, and he established his own religion. Only for this reason, the Buddhist religion was not accepted by the strict followers of the Vedas. But those who are so-called followers of the Vedas are more harmful than the Buddhists. The Buddhists have the courage to deny the Vedas directly, but the so-called followers of the Vedas have no courage to deny the Vedas, although indirectly they disobey all the injunctions of the Vedas. Lord Caitanya condemned this.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="SBIntroduction_1" class="quote" parent="SB_Preface_and_Introduction" book="SB" index="1" link="SB Introduction" link_text="SB Introduction">
<div class="heading">"The word Brahman indicates the greatest of all, which is full with transcendental opulences, superior to all. Brahman is ultimately the Personality of Godhead, and He is covered by indirect interpretations and established as impersonal."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:SB Introduction|SB Introduction]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">"The word Brahman indicates the greatest of all, which is full with transcendental opulences, superior to all. Brahman is ultimately the Personality of Godhead, and He is covered by indirect interpretations and established as impersonal. Everything that is in the spiritual world is full of transcendental bliss, including the form, body, place and paraphernalia of the Lord. All are eternally cognizant and blissful. It is not the fault of the Ācārya Śaṅkara that he has so interpreted Vedānta, but if someone accepts it, then certainly he is doomed. Anyone who accepts the transcendental body of the Personality of Godhead as something mundane certainly commits the greatest blasphemy."</p>
<p>The Lord thus spoke to the sannyāsī almost in the same way that He spoke to the Bhaṭṭācārya of Purī, and by forceful arguments He nullified the Māyāvāda interpretations of the Vedānta-sūtra.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Other_Books_by_Srila_Prabhupada" class="section" sec_index="3" parent="compilation" text="Other Books by Srila Prabhupada"><h2>Other Books by Srila Prabhupada</h2>
</div>
<div id="Teachings_of_Lord_Caitanya" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Other_Books_by_Srila_Prabhupada" text="Teachings of Lord Caitanya"><h3>Teachings of Lord Caitanya</h3>
</div>
<div id="TLC20_0" class="quote" parent="Teachings_of_Lord_Caitanya" book="OB" index="26" link="TLC 20" link_text="Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20">
<div class="heading">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.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:TLC 20|Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">That the sound vibration of the Supreme Lord is identical with the Supreme Lord is a fact. This is confirmed in the Nārada-pañcarātra:</p>
:vyaktaṁ hi bhagavān eva
:sākṣān-nārāyaṇaḥ svayam
:aṣṭākṣara-svarūpena
:mukheṣu parivartate
<p>"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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="TLC21_1" class="quote" parent="Teachings_of_Lord_Caitanya" book="OB" index="27" link="TLC 21" link_text="Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21">
<div class="heading">After hearing the direct interpretation, one of the sannyāsīs immediately declared, "O Śrīpāda Caitanya, whatever You have explained in Your condemnation of the indirect interpretation of oṁkāra is most useful. Only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:TLC 21|Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">In this way Lord Caitanya condemned attempts at indirect interpretation of the Vedānta-sūtra, and all the sannyāsīs present were struck with wonder by His explanation. After hearing the direct interpretation, one of the sannyāsīs immediately declared, "O Śrīpāda Caitanya, whatever You have explained in Your condemnation of the indirect interpretation of oṁkāra is most useful. Only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one. Actually, every one of us now knows that the interpretations given by Śaṅkara are all artificial and imaginary, but because we belong to Śaṅkarācārya's sect, we take it for granted that his interpretation is the right one. We shall be very glad to hear You further explain the Vedānta-sūtra by direct interpretation."</p>
<p>Being so requested, Lord Caitanya explained each and every verse of Vedānta-sūtra according to the direct interpretation.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="TLC24_3" class="quote" parent="Teachings_of_Lord_Caitanya" book="OB" index="30" link="TLC 24" link_text="Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24">
<div class="heading">Lord Caitanya protested against misinterpretations of the Upaniṣads, and He rejected any explanation which did not give the direct meaning of the Upaniṣads. The direct interpretation is called abhidhā-vṛtti, whereas the indirect interpretation is called lakṣanā-vṛtti, The indirect interpretation serves no purpose.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:TLC 24|Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Lord Caitanya protested against misinterpretations of the Upaniṣads, and He rejected any explanation which did not give the direct meaning of the Upaniṣads. The direct interpretation is called abhidhā-vṛtti, whereas the indirect interpretation is called lakṣanā-vṛtti, The indirect interpretation serves no purpose. There are four kinds of understanding, called: (1) direct understanding (pratyakṣa), (2) hypothetical understanding (anumāna), (3) historical understanding (aitihya) and (4) understanding through sound (śabda). Of these four, understanding from the Vedic scriptures (which are the sound representations of the Absolute Truth) is the best method. The traditional Vedic students accept understanding through sound to be the best.</p>
<p>The stool and bone of any living entity are considered to be impure according to Vedic literatures, yet the Vedic literatures assert that cow dung and conchshells are pure. Apparently these statements are contradictory, but because cow dung and conchshells are considered pure by the Vedas, they are accepted as pure by the followers of the Vedas. If we want to understand the statements by indirect interpretation, then we have to challenge the Vedic statements. In other words, Vedic statements cannot be accepted by our imperfect interpretations; they must be accepted as they are. If they are not accepted in this way, there is no authority in the Vedic statements.</p>
<p>According to Lord Caitanya, those who try to give personal interpretations to the Vedic statements are not at all intelligent. They mislead their followers by inventing their own interpretations. In India there is a class of men known as ārya-samāja who say that they accept the original Vedas only and reject all other Vedic literatures. The motive of these people, however, is to give their own interpretation. According to Lord Caitanya, such interpretations are not to be accepted. They are simply not Vedic. Lord Caitanya said that the Vedic statements of the Upaniṣads are like sunlight. Everything is clear and very distinct when it is seen in the sunlight; the statements of the Vedas are similarly clear and distinct. The Māyāvādī philosophers simply cover the sunlight with the cloud of misinterpretation.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Correspondence" class="section" sec_index="6" parent="compilation" text="Correspondence"><h2>Correspondence</h2>
</div>
<div id="1947_to_1965_Correspondence" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Correspondence" text="1947 to 1965 Correspondence"><h3>1947 to 1965 Correspondence</h3>
</div>
<div id="LettertoMrBaileyAllahabad2October1951_0" class="quote" parent="1947_to_1965_Correspondence" book="Let" index="12" link="Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 2 October, 1951" link_text="Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 2 October, 1951">
<div class="heading">Bhagavad-gita is mostly read by almost all classes of people of the world but unfortunately they are accepted in an independant choice of indirect interpretation. That is a deviation and for that reason only they cannot derive the direct benefit.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 2 October, 1951|Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 2 October, 1951]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Philosophical ways are practical and it is no use simply by indulging in speculation without any practical result just like to keep a cow without any milk. We must always seek a practical value from philosophy for the benefit of all. The mission with which you have started your service inspired me to help you as far as possible and I thought it fit to inform you that your mission can be well guided by the practical philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita. If you do not wish to have it that is a different question. If you put up a programme acceptable to one and all there is no necessity of patronizing a particular ism. A common formula can be of practical use both for India or others. As such you can have practical solutions of all problems such as social, religious, cultural, political, economic as well as agricultural and industrial—from the Bhagavad-gita. It is possible only simply by assimilating it by direct perception. It is meant for all living being. Indirect perception will mislead far away from the truth and I am afraid many such indirect misinterpretations in a speculative mood by various commentators, have done more harm than good to the humanity in general</p>
<p>In all humility I beg to differ with you that all men should be free to make their choices and interpretations in all things. Less intelligent men are always guided by those who are superior in knowledge in all spheres of life. This principle is applicable everywhere but the guidance must be right and bona fide. But it depends always on the sweet will of the guided to accept this principle or reject it.</p>
<p>I am glad that you have a copy of Gita with you. Apart from the Swamijee's learned interpretations—you can see for yourself what is written in the 18th Chapter 67th sloka. Empiric philosophers may call it a sophistry but is a fact substantiated after all human reasoning offered by Arjuna. It is clearly said here that one should follow Sri Krishna alone. If any body makes his choice not to follow him surely he will have relative result.</p>
<p>Bhagavad-gita is mostly read by almost all classes of people of the world but unfortunately they are accepted in an independant choice of indirect interpretation. That is a deviation and for that reason only they cannot derive the direct benefit.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>