View source for Interpretation is required when things are not clear

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret"|"Interpretation is required when the meaning is not clear"|"Interpretation is required when the things are not clear"|"Interpretation is required when there is no understanding"|"Interpretation is required when things are not very clear"|"Interpretation is required when you cannot understand one statement"|"Interpretation is required where things are not clear"|"Interpretation will be required when the meaning is not clear"|"Interpretation you can give in your own way to support your business"|"So this interpretation between the two lawyers are there when the subject matter is not very clear"|"When a thing is not properly understood, at that time, interpretation is required"|"interpretation is required when things are not clear"|"interpretation is required when things are not understood clearly"|"interpretation is required when things are not understood very clearly"|"interpretation required when the things are not clear"|"interpretation required when things are not very clear"|"the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear"|"when it is not distinct then interpretation required"}}
{{notes|VedaBase query: "interpretation clear"@25}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|03Mar11}}
{{last|08Mar11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=10|Con=10|Let=0}}
{{total|20}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Interpretation Is Required When Things Are Not Clear|1]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG21AhmedabadDecember61972_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="29" link="Lecture on BG 2.1 -- Ahmedabad, December 6, 1972" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.1 -- Ahmedabad, December 6, 1972">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.1 -- Ahmedabad, December 6, 1972|Lecture on BG 2.1 -- Ahmedabad, December 6, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Now, sometimes Bhagavad-gītā is misinterpreted that this battle, I mean to say, dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra means "this body." We do not misinterpret in that way. There is no question of misinterpretation. We are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We do not change by our whimsical imagination, concoction. We do not interpret the words of the Bhagavad-gītā according to our own desire. No. Actually, from literary point of view, interpretation is required when things are not understood very clearly. The interpretation required. In the law court, when the lawyers try to interpret before the judge, when the terms are not very clear... That is the same way, in, in, amongst the associates and society of learned scholars. Interpretation is not required when the things are very clear. Just like the sun, sunshine, sunlight. There is no need of a lamp to show the sun. The sun is self-effulgent. It is already there. Light is there. Why one should take a lamp to show the sun? This misinterpretation has killed the spirit, the real essence, of Bhagavad-gītā.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG212NewYorkMarch71966_1" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="52" link="Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966|Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG213HyderabadNovember191972_2" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="63" link="Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 19, 1972" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 19, 1972">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 19, 1972|Lecture on BG 2.13 -- Hyderabad, November 19, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">If we do not accept Bhagavad-gītā in terms of the statements given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then it is useless. It is simply waste of time. You cannot make any commentary of your poor knowledge. There is nothing very difficult to understand in the Bhagavad-gītā. It is written in very simple Sanskrit word, and things are very clear. As clear as the sunlight. Where is the question of showing the sunlight or the sun-god with your lamp? Suppose now here is sunlight, sufficient light. We can see the sun and everything very clearly. If somebody brings some lamp and says, "Now I shall show you what is sun," it is useless. Bhagavad-gītā is clear itself. Just like the sunlight. It does not require any lamp-bearer to show the Bhagavad-gītā or Kṛṣṇa. It does not require. You try to see Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then you will be benefited. Otherwise, you'll be misled.</p>
<p>Just like in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ, māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva kim akurvata sañjaya ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). It is very clear. Dharma-kṣetre. Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra. Still. There is Kurukṣetra. All of you know. And it is dharma-kṣetra. People go for pilgrimage. And in the Vedas also it is stated that kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. One should go to Kurukṣetra and perform religious rituals there. So it is dharma-kṣetra by Vedic version, by practical example. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). But somebody's interpreting Kurukṣetra as this body. From which dictionary he can get this meaning, that Kurukṣetra means this body? This kind of interpretation is going on. But our proposition is that if you want to be benefited by reading Bhagavad-gītā, don't read such malinterpretation. Read Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then you will be benefited. Kuru-kṣetre dharma-kṣetre. It is a fact. Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra. Samavetā yuyutsavaḥ: ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]) And the persons assembled there, namely, the Pāṇḍavas and the Kauravas, they wanted to fight. Yuyutsavaḥ. That's all right. Where is the interpretation? They wanted to fight. They selected a nice place, dharma-kṣetra, Kurukṣetra, and there they fought. So it is, meaning is clear. Why there should be interpretation that "The Pāṇḍava means the five senses and the Kurukṣetra means this body"? Why? Why? Where is the necessity of such interpretation? Interpretation is required where things are not clear. Actually, we do interpret. Just like in the law court, if some clause is not very clear, the lawyers interpret: "It may be like this, it may be like that." But when the things are clear, there is no question of interpretation. That is the system. Amongst the scholars, if things are clear, there should be no interpretation.</p>
<p>So Bhagavad-gītā, in each and every verse, the things are very, very clear, as clear as the sunshine. So there is no question of interpretation. Our, this publication of Bhagavad-gītā, we have therefore mentioned: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Because there are six hundred and forty different editions of Bhagavad-gītā, and almost every one of them has got a different interpretation. That is the system going on now. Therefore, before me, many persons, many swamis, went to Western countries and they presented Bhagavad-gītā in their own way, but not a single person became a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Throughout the whole history. Now Bhagavad-gītā is being presented as it is, and thousands of them are becoming devotee of Kṛṣṇa. Practical. Thousands of them. The simple thing. I presented Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and they accepted it, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and by following the principles, within the four years, so many devotees of Kṛṣṇa have come out. Because there was no adulteration. So our request is try to understand Bhagavad-gītā without adulteration. Try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is presented. Then you will get knowledge. Otherwise, you will remain in the same ignorance, before reading Bhagavad-gītā and after reading Bhagavad-gītā. This is our proposal.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG1322HyderabadAugust171976_3" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="371" link="Lecture on BG 1322 -- Hyderabad, August 17, 1976" link_text="Lecture on BG 1322 -- Hyderabad, August 17, 1976">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 1322 -- Hyderabad, August 17, 1976|Lecture on BG 1322 -- Hyderabad, August 17, 1976]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Anyway, this movement is strictly based on the śāstra and the Vedic knowledge, and the essence of Vedic knowledge is the Bhagavad-gītā. And we are presenting as it is. We do not explain Kurukṣetra as this body. There is no meaning. There is no dictionary which means Kurukṣetra this body. So Kurukṣetra is a place. Dharmakṣetra, it is a place of religion or as our Vedic instruction, kurukṣetre dharmān yajayet. You go to Kurukṣetra and perform ritualistic ceremonies, that is recommended. So there is no question of interpreting Kurukṣetra Dharmakṣetra when you can understand it very easily and directly.</p>
<p>There is no use of interpretation. Interpretation is required when you cannot understand one statement. In the law court if one statement is ambiguous then two parties argue on it. "I think it is this," "I think..." But when it is clear there is no question of interpretation. Unfortunately the Bhagavad-gītā is being interpreted by unauthorized persons unnecessarily, and people are kept into darkness. We are trying to protest against this process.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB6114BombayNovember101970_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="609" link="Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970" link_text="Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970|Lecture on SB 6.1.14 -- Bombay, November 10, 1970]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes. One difficulty is that we go to some saintly person, we hear and we challenge whether the saintly person corroborated my idea. If he does not, then he's not good.</p>
<p>Guest: That is not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If it is against my conviction, "Oh, he is not good."</p>
<p>Guest: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, I am speaking not of you. I know what you are doing. But we should corroborate. But as a preacher we should simply speak the real truth. There is no question of corresponding with your ideas and another idea, no. We... Whatever we know, whatever we have heard from our authorities we'll speak. That's all. It may be somebody may know better than me. That is another thing. But I have to present what I have learned from the authority. That's all. And our authority is Kṛṣṇa, mainly. Yāre dekha tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upa... That is the spiritual master. Who does not add or subtract from the talks of Kṛṣṇa, he is spiritual master. One who adds and subtracts according to his whims, he is not spiritual master. He is not bona fide spiritual master. "I, my opinion..." "I give this interpretation..." He is not authorized. You are lawyer, you know better than me. In your law court you cannot change the law by your opinion. That is not possible.</p>
<p>Guest: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is another thing, but that is judged by the expert lawyer that your interpretation is right. And when interpreted. Not ordinarily interpret everything. When it is not distinct. The law point, when it is not distinct then interpretation required. When it is distinct, is there any necessity of interpretation? It is clear. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa says, "I am God. I am the Supreme." So how you can interpret that "No, no, not Kṛṣṇa. Something within Kṛṣṇa." Dr. Radhakrishnan says like that. Yes. That is foolishness. Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad... ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65 (1972)|BG 18.65]]).</p>
<p>Guest: That is something within Kṛṣṇa?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is his idea, foolish idea. Because he is nirviśeṣavādi, he cannot accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Person, therefore how he can avoid the version of Kṛṣṇa unless he pushes something extra out of his foolishness?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB6122IndoreDecember131970_1" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="631" link="Lecture on SB 6.1.22 -- Indore, December 13, 1970" link_text="Lecture on SB 6.1.22 -- Indore, December 13, 1970">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 6.1.22 -- Indore, December 13, 1970|Lecture on SB 6.1.22 -- Indore, December 13, 1970]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Those who believe in Bhāgavata, they do not interpret. Those who do not believe in Bhāgavata, they interpret.</p>
<p>Guest (3): But its meaning has to be understood.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Meaning is clear. There is nothing to be understood. But the rascals, they draw their own meaning. Just like Bhagavad-gītā. What is the difficulty to understand this:</p>
:dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
:samavetā yuyutsava
:māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
:kim akurvata sañjaya
:([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]])
<p>What is the difficulty to understand Kurukṣetra is a religious place, acknowledged by the Vedas, and it is going on still? Why do they interpret, "Kurukṣetra means this body"? Is it not rascal? Why there is interpretation when you understand a thing very clearly? Eh?</p>
<p>Guest (3): Because Kurukṣetra is to be taken as a particular place.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not taken. It is still there. Why do you interpret that this is body? Is it not rascaldom? No devotee, no ācārya has done this, but these modern so-called scholars and leaders, they have done it. Are they not rascals? What do you think? Eh?</p>
<p>Guest (3): No, rascals... My representative (?) orders that "The people listen to me..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So, why they should say? Now, you are a lawyer.</p>
<p>Guest (3): We do not know (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And why do they...? What is the difficulty? Dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra, is that a very difficult Sanskrit? Now, there is no question. Even in... If you do not understand Sanskrit, what is the difficulty to understand dharma-kṣetra? Is it not a Hindi word? Kurukṣetra is a name of place. So what is the difficulty? Why do you interpret that Kurukṣetra means this body? This rascaldom has killed the whole spiritual atmosphere of India. They are responsible, these rascal politicians, the rascal scholars, so-called. Actually if we want good of the people, these rascals should be disclosed and people should come back. We should... Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Why we should interpret? You know, you, as a lawyer. When there is legal point, if it is not clear, one lawyer is trying to extract some meaning and the other lawyer is extract... It is... After all, the judges (indistinct) give the judgment. So this interpretation between the two lawyers are there when the subject matter is not very clear. Is it not?</p>
<p>Guest (3): ...amongst the judges now they have passed a...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But judges are not perfect, and the law is also not perfect. But I am simply speaking of the procedure. The law is not perfect because it is man-made, and judges, because he is human, he is also not perfect. So that imperfectness you must find. But I am speaking of the procedure. You have to speak on the lawbooks. You cannot... In the law court you cannot speak beyond the lawbooks. And the lawbooks... Suppose one section is not very clear. You fight: "This should be interpreted like this. This should be interpreted..." I am taking that procedure. But when it is clear, do you interpret?</p>
<p>Guest (3): It is not possible.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's not possible. Similarly, Bhagavad-gītā, it is clear, dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra. Why these rascals say that Kurukṣetra means body?</p>
<p>Guest (3): Even according to the rules of interpretation, in the books it is stated, "When the words are clear, you should..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is eternally fact.</p>
<p>Guest (3): (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes.</p>
<p>Guest (3): If the language is absolutely clear, the language should be interpreted... (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So when the language is clear it is... Just like anything you take, all these Vedic literatures, simply by interpretation they have played havoc. Now, this Vedānta-sūtra, Vedānta, is accepted as the supreme authority of Vedic literature. Janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]), the sutra,  that janmādy asya yataḥ: ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]) "The Absolute Truth must be the original source of everything." There is no question of interpretation. This is the clear meaning. Janmādi. Janma means birth and... Janma, sthiti and laya. There are three words in this material world. The things come out, just like this body has come out from the womb of my mother. It stays for some time, it grows, it gives some by-products, then it becomes old and again vanishes. So therefore janmādy asya: ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]) "Beginning from birth up to the annihilation, everything is emanation from the Absolute Truth." So is not that very clear?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="3" parent="Lectures" text="Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures"><h3>Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonCCAdilila7109114SanFranciscoFebruary201967_0" class="quote" parent="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta_Lectures" book="Lec" index="36" link="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967" link_text="Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967|Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: (chants maṅgalācaraṇa prayers) So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Vedānta, Upaniṣad—these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge—then Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these books should be studied from the direct meaning. Don't try to interpret. According to ordinary, I mean to say, dealings, suppose in the law court there are two parties. Two lawyers are fighting on the principle of one clause or section in the lawbook. One is interpreting in a different way, one is interpreting in a different way, and the judges give their judgment. Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. A very good example is given by the grammarians, or Sanskrit scholars, that gaṅgayaṁ ghoṣapali, that "There is a neighborhood which is called Ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now somebody may ask, "How there can be a quarter on the Ganges? Ganges is water." So there is interpretation required. So somebody says, " 'On the Ganges' means on the bank of the Ganges." That makes it clear. "On the Ganges" does not mean that in the middle water there is a, I mean to say, residential quarter. No. "On the Ganges" means on the bank of the Ganges.</p>
<p>So when there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt—everyone can understand clearly the meaning—there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's stressing, that gauṇa-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya. Therefore each and every aphorism and verse of Vedānta-sūtra has been indirectly interpreted by the Śārīraka-bhāṣya. Such interpretation, if somebody hears, then his future is doomed. Just like our Gandhi, he wanted to prove, from Bhagavad-gītā, nonviolence. The Bhagavad-gītā is being preached in the battlefield, and it is completely violence. How he can prove? Therefore he is dragging the meaning out of his own con... It is very troublesome, and anyone who will read such interpretation, he is doomed. He is doomed because the Bhagavad-gītā is meant for awakening your Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If that is not awakened, then it is useless waste of time. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu embraced the brāhmaṇa who was illiterate, but he took the essence of Bhagavad-gītā, the relationship between the Lord and the devotee. Therefore, unless we take the real, I mean to say, essence of any literature, it is simply waste of time.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="General_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="11" parent="Lectures" text="General Lectures"><h3>General Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="TownHallLectureAucklandApril141972_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="108" link="Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972" link_text="Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972|Town Hall Lecture -- Auckland, April 14, 1972]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">If you present Kṛṣṇa's word as it is, without pilfering, without any adulteration, then you become Kṛṣṇa's representative. There is no difficulty. But, unfortunately, people want to show their scholarship, that "I understand Bhagavad-gītā from this angle of vision." Why should you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā from a different angle of vision? The first preference should be given to the author. The author has given you some knowledge, so he has got some particular aim and objective. So why should you change that? You have no right to change that. If you want to speak something from your side, you write your own book. Why should you take advantage of the popular book of Bhagavad-gītā and misrepresent it? That is the fun. You see? There are about six hundred different types of editions commenting on Bhagavad-gītā. But according to Bhagavad-gītā, all these six hundred editions in different, studied from different angle of vision, they are all absurd and nonsense. It is very difficult. People have been misled by the so-called commentaries. There is no need of unnecessarily commenting on certain things. There is no necessity. Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest, "The meaning may be like this." But when the things are clear, why should you comment? There is no necessity of comment. Just like, for example—this is also from Sanskrit scholar's example—that gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Gaṅgāyam: "On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli." Now, this statement is in your front. So one may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghoṣapalli? On the water how there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation?" You can question that. Gaṅgāyaṁ ghoṣapalli. Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. 'On the Ganges' means 'on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice. When one cannot understand clearly, there is interpretation. But when the matter is clear... Just like sunlight. The sunlight, sunshine, does it require your lamp to show the sunlight? The sunlight is itself so illuminous that everyone can understand, "This is sunlight." If somebody brings some lamp, "I will show you the sun," sun is already visible. Why your lamp is required? So these unauthorized commentators, they bring some lamp to show the sunlight of Bhagavad-gītā. That is their business.</p>
<p>Therefore people have been misled. There is no question. Just like in the beginning Bhagavad-gītā says,</p>
:dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
:samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
:māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
:kim akurvata sañjaya
:([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]])
<p>This is very clear. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre. Kurukṣetra is a place which is still a place of pilgrimage. The Hindus, those who are followers of Vedic rites, they go there. They perform religious rituals. And there is Vedic injunction, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret, dharma yajet, like that, that "If you want to perform some religious rituals, better go to Kurukṣetra." So Kurukṣetra is from the Vedic age. Millions of years, from time immemorial, it is a dharma-kṣetra. And still it is there. There is a station, railway station, called Kurukṣetra near Delhi, about hundred miles away from Delhi. So these are facts. Why there should be interpretation? These are facts. Why there should be... It is clear.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LecturewithTranslatorSanandDecember271975_1" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="166" link="Lecture with Translator -- Sanand, December 27, 1975" link_text="Lecture with Translator -- Sanand, December 27, 1975">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture with Translator -- Sanand, December 27, 1975|Lecture with Translator -- Sanand, December 27, 1975]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: ...śrī-bhagavān uvāca means the supreme authority. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]). If you learn from the supreme authority without any deficiency, then the knowledge is perfect. Ordinary person, they have got four deficiencies: they commit mistake, they are illusioned, their senses are imperfect, and with imperfect knowledge they try to speak—that is cheating. Therefore we have to receive knowledge from the person who knows past, present, and future. So the best personality—there are so many others—Kṛṣṇa and His representative, both of them are perfect because Kṛṣṇa is perfect, there is no doubt, and one who speaks according to Kṛṣṇa, he is also perfect. A human being or a living being is not expected to become as perfect as Kṛṣṇa. That is not possible. Therefore, if a person sticks to the instruction of Kṛṣṇa, does not make any addition and alteration, he is also perfect. Unfortunately, at the present moment especially... It was done formerly also five thousand years, that they make addition and alteration on the version of Kṛṣṇa. Just like Bhagavad-gītā is misinterpreted by so-called scholars and politicians. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). Somebody interprets, "This dharma-kṣetra is this body." Why? Why one should interpret in that way? Interpretation is required when things are not very clear. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre is still there. People go to Kurukṣetra for executing religious rituals. And in the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. So why it should be interpreted as "body"? And where is the dictionary where dharma-kṣetra means "body"? So in this way, if we interpret Bhagavad-gītā, then we spoil the whole thing. I spoil myself and spoil others. Therefore the conclusion is we shall accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is, as it is spoken by Kṛṣṇa.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="AddresstoRotaryClubChandigarhOctober171976_2" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="176" link="Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976" link_text="Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976|Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">From the Bhagavad-gītā, any question you can raise, the answer is there. Political, social, religious, philosophical, cultural—any way you study Bhagavad-gītā, the complete answer is there. Therefore our request is that let Kṛṣṇa speak for Himself. Don't try to misinterpret the words of Kṛṣṇa or the words in the Bhagavad-gītā. That will spoil it. Just like in the beginning it is said,</p>
:dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
:samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
:māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
:kim akurvata sañjaya
:([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]])
<p>Now this Kurukṣetra... Everyone knows there is a place Kurukṣetra. From time immemorial in the Vedic literature it is mentioned about Kurukṣetra. Kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret: "Go to Kurukṣetra and perform ritualistic ceremonies there." So it is dharmakṣetra. So how you can interpret Kurukṣetra as the body? Where is that dictionary, and where is the necessity of interpreting like that? There is no necessity. Interpretation is required when the meaning is not clear. But if the meaning is clear, why should you interpret it unnecessarily? That is malinterpretation, and that is going on. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but somebody says, "He is fictitious. There was no fight like Kurukṣetra. There was no such person as Kṛṣṇa," and "Kṛṣṇa is a person from the black aborigines," so on, so on, so many interpretation. What is the benefit? The benefit is that we have lost our Vedic culture. This is the benefit.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1969_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="2" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1969 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1969 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationWithJohnLennonYokoOnoandGeorgeHarrisonSeptember111969LondonAtTittenhurst_0" class="quote" parent="1969_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="20" link="Room Conversation With John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison -- September 11, 1969, London, At Tittenhurst" link_text="Room Conversation With John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison -- September 11, 1969, London, At Tittenhurst">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation With John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison -- September 11, 1969, London, At Tittenhurst|Room Conversation With John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison -- September 11, 1969, London, At Tittenhurst]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">John Lennon: I've read bits of the Bhagavad-gītā. I don't know which version it was. There's so many different translations.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There are different translations. Therefore I have given this edition, Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. There are interpretations. In many translations they have got interpretations. Not only in other parts of the world, but in our own country also. Just like Mahatma Gandhi. He was a great man. He has also interpreted. But the point is interpretation where required. Now, here is a fountain pen box. Everyone knows this is a fountain pen box. But if I say, "No, this is something else." That is my interpretation. Is that very nice thing? (Chuckling) Similarly, interpretation is required when things are not understood clearly. If everybody can understand this box is a fountain pen box, where is the necessity of interpretation? This is the first thing. So Bhagavad-gītā is so clear. It is just like sunlight. Sunlight does not require any other lamp. For example, I'll give you, in the first verse,</p>
:dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
:samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
:māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
:kim akurvata sañjaya
:([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]])
<p>The, dhṛtarāṣṭra uvāca. The father of Duryodhana is asking his secretary, Sañjaya. His secretary's name was Sañjaya. "Sañjaya, my boys..." Māmakaḥ. Māmakaḥ means "my sons," and pāṇḍava, "the sons of my younger brother." His younger brother's name was Pāṇḍu, and therefore his sons are known as Pāṇḍava. So mamaka, pāṇḍava. "My sons and my younger brother's sons, they assembled together for fighting." Yuyutsava. Yuyutsava means "with fighting spirit." And dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]), on the place known as Kurukṣetra, which is a place of pilgrimage, dharma-kṣetra. Kim akurvata: "After assembling there, what did they do?" That was his question. Now, this Kurukṣetra place is still existing in India. You have been in India? No.</p>
<p>John Lennon: Have I been there?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You have been there?</p>
<p>John Lennon: Yes. Not to that place. Hrishikesh we went to.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, Hrishikesh. Hrishikesh is also one of the pilgrimage. And there is similarly Kurukṣetra near Delhi. Still that place is there. And that is a place of pilgrimage from the Vedic times. In the Vedas also it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam yajayet. If you want to function in a religious ceremony, just go to Kurukṣetra. So it is a place of pilgrimage. Now the name is there. The adjective dharma-kṣetra, it is from Vedic age. Then the Pāṇḍavas and the Kauravas, they are historical persons. The history is there, Mahābhārata. Then where is the question of interpreting Kurukṣetra as "this body," and the Pāṇḍavas as "the senses"? Where do you get this opportunity to interpret? So these things are going on. But we object, "Why should you interpret in that way when the facts are there?" That means Bhagavad-gītā is very popular book. One has got his own philosophy. He wants to prove it through Bhagavad-gītā. This is going on. There are so many interpretations, 664. Everyone thinks that "I can interpret in my own way." Why? Why this should be? We say, "No. You cannot interpret." Then what is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? The author of Bhagavad-gītā did not leave it for being interpreted by a third-class man. He is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord. He said everything clearly. Why an ordinary man should interpret His word? That is our objection. Therefore we present Bhagavad-gītā As It Is.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="6" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1973 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1973 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationFebruary261973Jakarta_0" class="quote" parent="1973_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="2" link="Room Conversation -- February 26, 1973, Jakarta" link_text="Room Conversation -- February 26, 1973, Jakarta">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- February 26, 1973, Jakarta|Room Conversation -- February 26, 1973, Jakarta]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So I request that God is neither Indonesian, neither Indian, neither African, God is God. And He claims that all living entities, in any form... The form is superficial. The form is taken as dress. Just like you are dressed in a different way, I am dressed in a different way. But we are not talking to the dress, we are talking to the man who is putting on the dress. Similarly, this bodily distinction is material. But spiritually we are all one. There is no question of becoming Indian or Indonesian or African or Asian or this or that. And that is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. You know. Paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ. Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brāhmaṇe gavi hastini śuni caiva śvapāke ca paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 5.18 (1972)|BG 5.18]]). Because paṇḍita does not see the outward dress, paṇḍita sees the inside, who is putting on the dress. Therefore, without misinterpreting Bhagavad-gītā, or being misled by so-called big, big leaders, if you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, it will be very nice, beneficial to everyone. That is my, not opinion, but is the fact. Things should be taken as it is. Call a spade a spade. Now, interpretation is required when things are not clear. When things are not very clear, not easily understood... There is example in Sanskrit grammar, gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa bali(?). The neighborhood of ghoṣa family is on the Ganges. Now, on the Ganges-Ganges is water—how there can be a village? Now, here interpretation required. When the matter is (break) ...on the water but on the bank of the Ganges. So when the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret. But when the meaning is clear... Just like Bhagavad-gītā: dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). Now Kurukṣetra is still there, in..., about 90 miles away from Delhi. Perhaps you have been there. The station is there, Kurukṣetra. Now how one can interpret that kurukṣetra means this body? This is going on. In spite of clear understanding, they interpret in their own way so that they have got their own philosophy, they want to support. This is going on. So if you kindly avoid this misleading interpretation, and if you take Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then you get the science of God, science of religion, which is applicable either to Indonesian or Indian or African or American, everyone.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril111974Bombay_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="60" link="Morning Walk -- April 11, 1974, Bombay" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 11, 1974, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 11, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- April 11, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Water comes from your body, perspiration. So why not from Kṛṣṇa's body? Simple reasoning. (break) ...ānanda-vigrahaḥ. (break) ...tap produces water. An inanimate object, a small material thing, it produces water. And Kṛṣṇa cannot produce such water? (break) ...potency. They are explained. But because we do not go to the right teacher, we do not understand. That is the difficulty.</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): But the teachers give different interpretation of the same thing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. The same thing means he is a rascal teacher. He is not teacher. He is cheater. When a cheater takes the place of a teacher, he explains differently. And when a teacher is there, he will explain rightly. Where is the difficulty? I have several times said that "Where is the difficulty to understand Bhagavad-gītā?" There is not a single line which is very difficult to understand. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam: ([[Vanisource:BG 4.1 (1972)|BG 4.1]]) "I first of all said this philosophy to Vivasvan, the sun-god." So where is the difficulty to understand this line? Where is the difficulty?</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): No difficulty in understanding. Interpretation...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why they should interpret? Interpretation is required when there is no understanding. If the matter is clearly understood, why interpretation? This is rascaldom. Everyone understands this is called glass. And what is the use of interpretation? Here is a glass. Everyone can understand. Or spectacle. No, no. This is meaning this. Why? If the thing is clearly understood, there is no question of interpretation. You cannot give. Suppose if you go to the court, if the thing is clearly understood that "This man has committed this criminal activity, he should be punished," so where is the difficulty? No. If somebody... "No no. This 'He should be punished' means not now, after three hundred years he should be punished." Is that interpretation? He should be punished immediately. That's all.</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): It's not like that. The material thing we can see from our...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You are material, not spiritual. You are a material fool. Why do you interpret foolishly?</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): There's no doubt about it.</p>
<p>Indian Man (2): According to their brain and knowledge, they must have...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That means rubbish brain, rubbish brain. You go, interpret and change the law. You go in the law court and you interpret in your own way. Can you interpret in the law court? "Sir, I have got a different interpretation." "Get out. Get out, rascal, from this..."</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): No, no. Even the judges in the Supreme Court in India, they go after the interpretations, they go and they become also one with the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. That is extraordinarily. When the meaning of the law is not very clear, that takes place. But when the thing is very clear, there is no question of interpretation.</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): Why there is a fight? Because both the things, both the lawyers, they take it in different way and so they come to the judge.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's right. But it is not different in such a way that you call a spectacle a something else.</p>
<p>Indian Man (4): Bhagavad-gītā is really...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, but it said in the Bhagavad-gītā clearly, it is said clearly, imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān: "I told this philosophy to Vivasvān." Where is the difficulty to understand? Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ: ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]) "In the dharma-kṣetre, kuru-kṣetre, two parties willing to fight, they assembled." Where is the difficulty to understand? Why these rascals should interpret in a different way?</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): These are all... They are not interpreting that particular word.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They are doing.</p>
<p>Yaśomatīnandana: There is nothing like Kurukṣetra, they say.</p>
<p>Indian man (4): That is another group of people, their own brain creation. That we should not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What right you have got to interpret?</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): Whatever it is they are saying, but the real thing we should not interpret and we cannot.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But you are, after all, material. You are not spiritual. In order to get you on the spiritual platform, things are being spoken by Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Indian Man (4): And to understand something we must have...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: How you become all of a sudden spiritual? What is that spiritual? You do not understand what is spiritual, and you say, "It is spiritual."</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): Well, something which we cannot see by our own eyes, something which we cannot...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why do you interpret if you cannot see with your own eyes? You are blind. Why should you interpret? A blind man is interpreting? What is this nonsense? The blind man is just, "Oh, the elephant is big pillar."</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): Same thing will say that elephant is only trunk.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's it. This kind of interpretation, what is the meaning?</p>
<p>Indian: They don't have that complete view of the whole.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If you are blind, you accept that "I am blind man. I cannot study what is this elephant," that is another thing. That is good. And if you are blind and by blind eyes you, "Oh, elephant is a pillar."</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): Some other blind will say the trunk...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So the blind man has no right to interpret. That is the point. Blind man... You are blind man. Remain as a blind man. Don't talk nonsense. That is our protest. Why should you interpret? You are blind man.</p>
<p>Indian Man (4): They should not try to, just around, create the meaning of it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Devotee: Śrīla Prabhupāda, how can we tell the difference between the blind man and one who can see?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Anyone can understand. Any foolish man can understand, "Here is a blind man; here is a man with eyes." It is not very difficult. Why do you question this? One cannot see, that is blind man. Everyone knows it.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithPaterEmmanuelABenedictineMonkJune221974Germany_1" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="128" link="Room Conversation with Pater Emmanuel (A Benedictine Monk) -- June 22, 1974, Germany" link_text="Room Conversation with Pater Emmanuel (A Benedictine Monk) -- June 22, 1974, Germany">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Pater Emmanuel (A Benedictine Monk) -- June 22, 1974, Germany|Room Conversation with Pater Emmanuel (A Benedictine Monk) -- June 22, 1974, Germany]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: The first commandment is "Thou shall not kill." But they are killing. The first point is disobedient. Then where is love of God?</p>
<p>Pater Emmanuel: (German) It is in the relation of man. "Don't kill," it says, the Christianity understands...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why they understand like that? That means that Lord Christ was not sufficiently educated to use the right word, "murder"? Does it mean so? There are two words, killing and murder. Murder is especially meant for the human being. So do you think that Christ was not learned enough to use the word murder instead of "killing"? "Killing" means any kind of killing, especially animal killing. Otherwise you should have frankly openly used the word, "Thou shall not murder." Even if it is meant like that, so does it mean that he was preaching amongst the murderers? They are very first-class men? They are all murderers? Therefore the injunction. This kind of interpretation does not appeal to us. (German)</p>
<p>German devotee: He said, Śrīla Prabhupāda, that this commandment, "Thou shall not kill," is found in the Old Testament, and when Jesus was talking...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I do not know many testament, but I see in the Ten Commandments these words are there. If you want to support it by many testaments, that is, of course, your business, but we take the direct meaning, "Thou shall not kill"—the Christians should not kill. Interpretation you can give in your own way to support your business, but we see openly. If we can understand openly, there is no need of interpretation. (German)</p>
<p>Pater Emmanuel: No, I understand.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why should we interpret? Interpretation is required when the things are not clear. Here it is clear, "Thou shall not kill," plainly advised. Why should we interpret? (German)</p>
<p>German devotee: (translating for Pater Emmanuel:) To eat plants, is it not killing? To eat vegetables, is it not killing?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then vegetable killing and animal killing is the same?</p>
<p>Pater Emmanuel: It's not the same. Not the same. But human killing and animal killing is also the same.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So we are not killing. Our Vaiṣṇava philosophy, we do not kill even vegetable because our Kṛṣṇa says... Find out this verse. Patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati ([[Vanisource:BG 9.26 (1972)|BG 9.26]]). (German)</p>
<p>German devotee: Should I read this in Sanskrit, Śrīla Prabhupāda?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati, tad aham aśnāmi bhakty-upahṛtam.</p>
<p>German devotee: (reads translation in German)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So we offer Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa wants: "Give me this foodstuff," so we offer the foodstuff to Kṛṣṇa, and we take it. Therefore, if for killing this patraṁ puṣpam there is sin, that is Kṛṣṇa's sin, not my sin.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="9" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1976 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1976 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="AnswerstoaQuestionnairefromBhavansJournalJune281976Vrndavana_0" class="quote" parent="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="169" link="Answers to a Questionnaire from Bhavan's Journal -- June 28, 1976, Vrndavana" link_text="Answers to a Questionnaire from Bhavan's Journal -- June 28, 1976, Vrndavana">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Answers to a Questionnaire from Bhavan's Journal -- June 28, 1976, Vrndavana|Answers to a Questionnaire from Bhavan's Journal -- June 28, 1976, Vrndavana]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Can I ask another question, Śrīla Prabhupāda?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hm. Yes. The Vedantists they have come from the impersonal explanation of Śaṅkarācārya. Śārīraka-bhāṣya. But they simply give stress on the Śārīraka-bhāṣya, but there are other bhāṣyas. Bhāṣyas means commentary. And the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary by the author himself. Besides that, there are Vedānta-bhāṣyas written by the Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, and all the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas. Unfortunately, they do not care to read all these Vedānta-bhāṣyas. They simply take Śārīraka-bhāṣya and become impersonalist and call themselves as Vedantist.</p>
<p>Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: What is the reason for that?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Reason means people do not know. They cheat. Suppose I present something, a misconception, and if there are others also who can speak something on the... There are two lawyers. One is speaking one point of law, another lawyer is speaking. So if you take one side only, then how you will understand? So they are simply reading this Śārīraka-bhāṣya. They are not reading other bhāṣyas, just like the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is natural. And they are cheating people. That's all. Why there are two lawyers? Two opposite parties, there are two lawyers. One lawyer says this law is like this, and the other party says, "No, it is this." And the judge is there, he will take what is the real meaning. But this interpretation is required when things are not clear. Now the Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]), "The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything comes in, emanates." Now, here is... In the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa said that ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate ([[Vanisource:BG 10.8 (1972)|BG 10.8]]). Clearly. That "I am the origin of everything, and everything comes from Me." So why don't you take it? Why simply you remain theoretically understood that Absolute Truth is that from which everything emanates. But when the Absolute Truth comes before you and says that "I am the origin of everything. Everything comes from Me." Why don't you accept Kṛṣṇa as Absolute Truth? Why do you take the so-called impersonalist view only, that God has no form? Here is God speaking, person. Why don't you take it? If you want to be cheated, then who can stop you?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="EveningDarsanAugust101976Tehran_1" class="quote" parent="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="253" link="Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran" link_text="Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran|Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: We want to become bigger than Kṛṣṇa, than Arjuna. This is our folly. But the process is, as recommended in the Bhagavad-gītā, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 4.2 (1972)|BG 4.2]]). You have to understand from the higher authorities.</p>
:imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ
:proktavān aham avyayam
:vivasvān manave prāha
:manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt
:([[Vanisource:BG 4.1 (1972)|BG 4.1]])
:evaṁ paramparā-prāptam
:imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ
:sa kāleneha mahatā
:yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa
:([[Vanisource:BG 4.2 (1972)|BG 4.2]])
<p>As soon as you give up this line of understanding, then it is lost. Yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa. Then you are dealing in not Bhagavad-gītā, something else, something rubbish. Yogo naṣṭaḥ, it is naṣṭaḥ, it is spoiled. As soon as you interpret, it is spoiled. First of all, why you should interpret? If the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting. If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]) is clear. Why should you interpret? Baliye (Hindi) If dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra is clear, why would you interpret? When things are clear, interpretation means you are playing joke. So our, this movement presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. So they are being accepted all over the world, and we are getting good devotees, sincere devotees. All parts of the world.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationDecember201976Bombay_2" class="quote" parent="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="348" link="Room Conversation -- December 20, 1976, Bombay" link_text="Room Conversation -- December 20, 1976, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation -- December 20, 1976, Bombay|Room Conversation -- December 20, 1976, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Every point is very clear. In the Bhagavad-gītā, every point is very clear, unless you interpret it in the wrong way. ("Kṛṣṇa Meditations" is recorded on this tape also, making it indistinct)</p>
<p>Guest: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But how it can be called? If you interpret in your own way, interpret in your own way, interpretation, then where is Bhagavad-gītā? Best thing is that take Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then there will be (indistinct). Why you should interpret? You have no right to interpret on the words of Bhagavad-gītā?</p>
<p>Guest: But Swamiji, you have also given so much (indistinct). That is interpretation.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that is not interpretation. That is explanation. Interpretation, if I change Kurukṣetra into something else, that is interpretation. That is wisdom. That is wisdom.</p>
<p>Guest: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, I mean to say instead of collecting so many hundreds and thousands of literature on the Bhagavad-gītā, why not take Bhagavad-gītā as it is? What is the difficulty? Kurukṣetra is this position is fact. Mahābhārata, Mahābhārata means greater India. And that is, it is itihasa. It is called itihāsa. Itihāsa, if you don't believe that there was a battle in the Kurukṣetra... But that is the fact. It is the history. Then how you can finish (?) Bhagavad-Gītā? Every point of Bhagavad-gītā, it is clear. It is clear. There is no need of interpretation. That is the first thing. If you interpret you spoil the whole thing. Because interpretation is required when the things are not clear. If everything is clear, why should you interpret?</p>
<p>Guest: No, it is explanation I think.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Explanation, you cannot explain that Kurukṣetra means this, dharmakṣetra means this, Pāṇḍava means this. Why?</p>
<p>Guest: No, no.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Take Sanskrit. Take Sanskrit. Dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre. do not interpret to any other language. Take Sanskrit. Kurukṣetra is clear, dharmakṣetra is clear, Pāṇḍava is clear. Then why should we interpret? Why not take the particular verse. Everything, when there is a (indistinct), then please do not try to cut, or (indistinct) your (indistinct). If there is... (indistinct) ...but by translating the whole thing you mistake then what is the use of such translation? (indistinct)</p>
<p>Guest: (indistinct)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Then you first of all learn Sanskrit, then you (indistinct). If there is (indistinct). This practice should be stopped. If you want to preach Bhagavad-gītā, and if you want to preach your own philosophy through Bhagavad-gītā, don't do this preaching. You preach your philosophy, your (indistinct). You can preach any philosophy you like, but don't take Bhagavad-gītā and (indistinct) on it. (?) That is my (indistinct). That is being done. That is being done.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithLifeMemberMrMalhotraDecember221976Poona_3" class="quote" parent="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="350" link="Room Conversation with Life Member, Mr. Malhotra -- December 22, 1976, Poona" link_text="Room Conversation with Life Member, Mr. Malhotra -- December 22, 1976, Poona">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Life Member, Mr. Malhotra -- December 22, 1976, Poona|Room Conversation with Life Member, Mr. Malhotra -- December 22, 1976, Poona]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: When one surrenders to Kṛṣṇa, understanding that Kṛṣṇa is everything, that mahātmā is sudurlabha, very rare. Somebody knows only impersonal Brahman, the jñānīs. Somebody knows the Paramātmā, īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hṛd-deśe ([[Vanisource:BG 18.61 (1972)|BG 18.61]]). And one who knows Kṛṣṇa he is perfect. (break) ...this stage of understanding Kṛṣṇa, your knowledge is imperfect. (break) ...śāstras, but unfortunately we do not refer to the authority of the śāstras. We manufacture our own way.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: No actually what has happened is that there has been too many interpretations.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There cannot be interpretations.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: No, there are certain people...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is foolishness.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: That is what I said, huh. So there are so many interpretations that you get confused. Because of the same thing, some interpret it a different way.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: One thing is that you have to become intelligent. Just like Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). Now why I shall accept interpretation on these plain words? That is my foolishness. If somebody says dharma-kṣetra means this body and Pāṇḍava means the five senses, why this nonsense interpretation? If you are not intelligent, then you will accept such rascals interpreting unnecessarily. Interpretation is required when things are not very clear. But when the things are clear, why you should accept interpretation? That is my foolishness. There is no need of interpretation. (break) ...is it still there? Why, if the rascal interprets Kurukṣetra means this body, why shall I accept it? Kurukṣetra is still there. There is no difficulty to understand. And if somebody interprets... (break) ...interpretation, in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that as soon as you interpret, the whole thing is lost. So why shall I be so foolish, I shall accept something which is lost.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: No. Rather Kṛṣṇa had His own interpretation.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That may be but why shall I accept?</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: ...had his own interpretation rather. All the people who show...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You have, interpretation, you have to refer to the Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā says as soon as you accept interpretation it is lost.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: Then the meaning is lost.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Bas. So under the circumstances... That means I am also foolish. Any rascal gives any interpretation—I accept. That is my foolishness. So why should I become foolish? Radhakrishnan may be very big man, but if he does something wrong, he will be hanged.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: No, he, ślokas are there. All the Bhagavad-gītā ślokas are there.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But I must have intelligence that why this rascal is interpreting in a different way.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: And Sanskrit is the language. So it has got the same...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, it is not very difficult. Just like in the Ninth Chapter, Kṛṣṇa says man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65 (1972)|BG 18.65]]). And Radhakrishnan says, "It is not to the person Kṛṣṇa." Why? Kṛṣṇa says, "Just think—of Me, man-manāḥ, just become My devotee, and just offer Me obeisances, worship Me." It is plain language. And if some rascal says, "No no, it is not to Kṛṣṇa," why shall I accept it?</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: It is not the personified Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You have read it?</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, you see. I shall immediately detect that here is a rascal. Because Kṛṣṇa says personally, and he says it is not to the person. Just see.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: But Kṛṣṇa had been on this earth in flesh and bones.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is history, Mahābhārata. And all the ācāryas, they have accepted, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārka. Svayaṁ caiva bravīṣi me. Arjuna accepts Him, Paraṁbrahman. You are Paraṁbrahman. Not that "Because I am your friend and I am accepting You as Paraṁbrahman, but all the ācāryas they have accepted." (break) ...mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam. Because I am talking with you as a human being, only rascals, they think I am human being." If you think Kṛṣṇa as having flesh and bone, then you become a rascal, immediately. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam, paraṁ bhāvam ajānantaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 9.11 (1972)|BG 9.11]]), "I am not made of this bone and flesh. I am cinmaya, I am fully spirit soul." So one who does not know it, he is a rascal. So as soon as you will say that He is made of bone and flesh, that means you are rascal. (laughter) Why shall I hear you?</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: When Lord Kṛṣṇa came into being, I mean...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That does not mean that... Suppose I am here. I am driving with you. But there is difference between you and me. So Kṛṣṇa comes as human being, that does not mean He is human being. Why don't you understand this?</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: That is okay. But from the normal, you know...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is your study. That is foolish study. Therefore He says avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 9.11 (1972)|BG 9.11]]). The rascals think that I am one of the human beings. If he is one of the human beings, how he can say mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]). In the human society, there are big men, you are big man, I am small man, he is still more, he is still more, he is still bigger. There are so many varieties. But He says "No more superior than Me." That is God.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: No one is supreme than Him.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: That He says, of course.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He says everything but because we are foolish we do not hear Him. That is the difficulty.</p>
<p>Mr. Malhotra: We don't understand Him.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, we understand. But we do not accept it. What is the difficulty to understand? God is superior. Everyone knows it. But I will not accept, he will not accept. Unless one is superior, how He can be God? (break) ...sevayā. Therefore you have to find out somebody who knows Him. Otherwise you will be in darkness.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1977_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="10" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1977 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1977 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="InterviewwithMrKoshiAsstEditorofTheCurrentWeeklyApril51977Bombay_0" class="quote" parent="1977_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="130" link="Interview with Mr. Koshi (Asst. Editor of The Current Weekly) -- April 5, 1977, Bombay" link_text="Interview with Mr. Koshi (Asst. Editor of The Current Weekly) -- April 5, 1977, Bombay">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Interview with Mr. Koshi (Asst. Editor of The Current Weekly) -- April 5, 1977, Bombay|Interview with Mr. Koshi (Asst. Editor of The Current Weekly) -- April 5, 1977, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: What Kṛṣṇa says, that is a fact. They are completely under the grip of material nature. Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi ([[Vanisource:BG 3.27 (1972)|BG 3.27]]). They are declaring independence. Ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate ([[Vanisource:BG 3.27 (1972)|BG 3.27]]). False, ahaṅkāra, egotism. Nature in one slap, crack! Indira Gandhi is so powerful, one slap, "Get out." What can you do? One slap is sufficient. They do not understand. Jump. They do not know. They are completely under the control of prakṛti, and prakṛti is under the control of Kṛṣṇa. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram ([[Vanisource:BG 9.10 (1972)|BG 9.10]]). They do not discuss this. Still they are scholar in Bhagavad-gītā. Simply picking up some words, they become scholar. Is that scholarship? They do not read even the whole Bhagavad-gītā, neither they understand. This is going on.</p>
<p>Mr. Koshi: Is interpretation necessary or not?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why interpretation?</p>
<p>Mr. Koshi: Some passages, they do not know to understand it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just like if they do not know this is a tape recorder. What is interpreting? Everyone knows that this is a tape recorder. So what is interpretation? Interpretation required when you do not understand.</p>
<p>Mr. Koshi: Is it that simple and clear for everybody?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that is the way of interpretation. Amongst the learned circle, interpretation required when the things are not clear. If the things are clear, why nonsense interpretation? There is no need of interpretation. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). Kurukṣetra is still there, and people go there for pilgrimage. And in the Vedas it is stated kuru-kṣetre dharmān ācaret. "Go to Kurukṣetra and perform ritualistic ceremonies." What is the difficulty? Why should I interpret, "Kurukṣetra means this, and means this, that"? Why? To mislead others and mislead himself. This is not required. But they are doing it. That is misleading. If you can interpret Bhagavad-gītā by your own interpretation, then what is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? Everyone can do like that. Everyone can say "It is my interpretation." Then where is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? These things should be stopped. Real Bhagavad-gītā should be studied. People should make life Bhagavad-gītā and preach all over the world. This is our movement.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="EveningDarsanaMay91977Hrishikesh_1" class="quote" parent="1977_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="166" link="Evening Darsana -- May 9, 1977, Hrishikesh" link_text="Evening Darsana -- May 9, 1977, Hrishikesh">
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Evening Darsana -- May 9, 1977, Hrishikesh|Evening Darsana -- May 9, 1977, Hrishikesh]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Indian man (8): What is to world Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolence or...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I do not wish to discuss nonviolen... But we are talking of philosophy, that you cannot stop violence. That is not possible.</p>
<p>Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Kṛṣṇa says, mām anusmara yudhya ca ([[Vanisource:BG 8.7 (1972)|BG 8.7]]).</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Yudhya ca. (Hindi conversation) There is some word; the meaning is not clear. Then you can suggest that "Meaning may be like this." But when it is clear, there is no, I mean to say, chance of interpreting.</p>
<p>Indian man (1): As, for example, vicāra, those such words which requires some clarification or..., these can be interpreted...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, when it is clear, why it should be interpreted?</p>
<p>Indian man (1): No, for other words...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Other words... (Hindi) ...that when it is clear-yudhya ca—then why should you interpret? The example is there in the Sanskrit grammar. Just like... The example is given, where interpretation required. It is said, example is given like, gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa-pāli, that "There is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali on the Ganges." So then you can ask that "Gaṅgā is water. How there is a neighborhood?" Then the interpretation: "Not on the Ganges water but on the bank." Then interpretation. But when it is clear that "On the bank of the Ganges there is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali," then where is interpretation? Interpretation will be required when the meaning is not clear. Otherwise, if the meaning is clear, that is (Hindi), to interpret. But in Bhagavad-gītā, in the first line, the word is used, yuyutsvaḥ, "desiring to fight." So desiring to fight, they assembled; they must fight. So where is the question of interpretation?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>