View source for No question of interpretation

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"interpret, from the very beginning there is no question"|"no question of interpretation"|"no question of interpreting"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika|MadhuGopaldas|Visnu Murti}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|29Oct09}}
{{last|29Sep12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=16|Con=7|Let=0}}
{{total|23}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:No Question of Interpretation|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">
<div class="heading">Still people go for pilgrimage in Kurukṣetra, and the station is there, Kurukṣetra, and the place is there. People go there. Kurukṣetra. Why one should interpret that kuru-kṣetra means this body and Pāṇḍavas means these pañca-indriyas, so many things? There is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<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;">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>
<p>So there was so many editions and so many misinterpretation. Our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, our proposition is that we are, I mean to say, presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We do not misinterpret. So dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra. Kurukṣetra is dharma-kṣetra, the place where religious ritualistic performances are done. Kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. That is the Vedic version. So Kurukṣetra is always... Still people go for pilgrimage in Kurukṣetra, and the station is there, Kurukṣetra, and the place is there. People go there. Kurukṣetra. Why one should interpret that kuru-kṣetra means this body and Pāṇḍavas means these pañca-indriyas, so many things? There is no question of interpretation.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG213HyderabadNovember191972_1" 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">
<div class="heading">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.
</div>
<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;">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. 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>
</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">
<div class="heading">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. This publication of Bhagavad-gītā, we have therefore mentioned: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is.
</div>
<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;">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="LectureonBG412ColumbusMay91969_3" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="134" link="Lecture on BG 4.1-2 -- Columbus, May 9, 1969" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.1-2 -- Columbus, May 9, 1969">
<div class="heading">Such a great personality, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He told something which is to be understood by the interpretation of a mundane scholar? Do you think it is reasonable? No. Whatever he spoke, that is all right. And that is clear. There is no question of interpreting in a different way.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.1-2 -- Columbus, May 9, 1969|Lecture on BG 4.1-2 -- Columbus, May 9, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So Bhagavad-gītā is not a new thing, a new adventure. And the person who spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god, does it mean that He left something to be commented by some, these mundane men to understand the meaning of the Bhagavad-gītā? Such a great personality, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He told something which is to be understood by the interpretation of a mundane scholar? Do you think it is reasonable? No. Whatever he spoke, that is all right. And that is clear. There is no question of interpreting in a different way. Just like here, "The Blessed Lord said, 'I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god Vivasvān.' " What is difficulty there? Is there any word which you cannot understand? Is anyone here who cannot understand these lines? It is clear. "The Blessed Lord said, 'I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god whose name is Vivasvān.' " It is clear. How you can interpret?</p>
<p>Now, the thing is, unless I think of Kṛṣṇa that "He is an ordinary man. How He could say to the sun-god Vivasvān?" Then the interpretation is required. But that sort of thinking is not bona fide because if you want to study Bhagavad-gītā, you have to take the words of Bhagavad-gītā. The Blessed Lord. He is Lord. He can say. The Lord is not like ordinary man. That "Because we cannot say to the sun-god, therefore Kṛṣṇa cannot say," that is our foolishness. Why should we calculate Kṛṣṇa's activity with my activities? Therefore all the commentaries who think Kṛṣṇa as ordinary man, they are null and void. Such commentaries should not be accepted.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG436NewYorkJuly181966_4" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="138" link="Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966">
<div class="heading">There is no question of interpretation. We have to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. If we cannot understand, that is a defect in me, not in the Bhagavad-gītā. So we have to find out the defect in me.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966|Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So we should always remember that we are reading Bhagavad-gītā and we should understand it as it is. We should not make any interpretation. That is a wrong thing. And if there was some necessity of interpretation, we should not think that Kṛṣṇa left the matter for being interpreted by in later age by some scholar. Oh, He could have disclosed it Himself. He was quite competent. No. There is no question of interpretation. We have to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. If we cannot understand, that is a defect in me, not in the Bhagavad-gītā. So we have to find out the defect in me.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG13812BombaySeptember301973_5" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="357" link="Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973">
<div class="heading">But there is no question of interpretation. When the things are clear, in the Brahma-sūtra, all the sūtras are very clear. So you don't require any interpretation. You can expand, explain very elaborately. That is another thing. But you cannot go beyond the sutra.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973|Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">If you do not take your initiation mantra from the sampradāya, then it is useless. Now, there are so many apasampradāya. They do not come in disciplic succession, but becomes guru, teacher. Therefore everything is topsy-turvied. Nobody has got fixed idea what is God. Everyone has created his own philosophy. The whole thing is now confused. Therefore Kṛṣṇa specifically mentions, Brahma-sūtra. Brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumadbhir viniścitaiḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 13.5 (1972)|BG 13.5]]). The sampradāya must have understanding of the Brahma-sūtra, Vedānta-sūtra. So all the sampradāyas, they have got their commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra and... Even Śaṅkarācārya. But his commentary is not accepted by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas because he has tried to derive some meaning, interpretation. But there is no question of interpretation. When the things are clear, in the Brahma-sūtra, all the sūtras are very clear. So you don't require any interpretation. You can expand, explain very elaborately. That is another thing. But you cannot go beyond the sutra.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG1322HyderabadAugust171976_6" 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">
<div class="heading">. 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.
</div>
<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. 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="LectureonSB126CalcuttaFebruary261974_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="41" link="Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Calcutta, February 26, 1974" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Calcutta, February 26, 1974">
<div class="heading">Try to hear about Kṛṣṇa from Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't mal-interpret by your whimsical way. Then you will lose the opportunity. Don't follow these rascals who interpret Bhagavad-gītā. There is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Calcutta, February 26, 1974|Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Calcutta, February 26, 1974]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So Kṛṣṇa is open for everyone. And He is father of all forms of life. Sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya ([[Vanisource:BG 14.4 (1972)|BG 14.4]]). He is neither Indian nor Hindu nor Muslim. He is Kṛṣṇa. He is Supreme Person. So our only request is that you try to love Kṛṣṇa. Then your religious life will be perfect. Yato bhaktir adhokṣaje. Adhokṣaje, He is beyond the sense perception, akṣaja. Akṣaja-jñāna means sensual perception. He is beyond that, transcendental. But you have to love. So this loving process is the devotional service. First of all... (break) ...try to hear about Kṛṣṇa from Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't mal-interpret by your whimsical way. Then you will lose the opportunity. Don't follow these rascals who interpret Bhagavad-gītā. There is no question of interpretation. Take Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja ([[Vanisource:BG 18.66 (1972)|BG 18.66]]). Accept that. And the Caitanya-caritāmṛta kaṛacā says, kṛṣṇe bhakti kaile sarva-karma kṛta haya: "Simply by serving Kṛṣṇa you do all of your other duties." So such a nice thing, Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Take it very seriously and do the needful.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB126RomeMay241974_1" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="43" link="Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974">
<div class="heading">The Vedas says, without any argument, you accept it. That is called theism. You cannot change. You cannot comment. That is called theism. And unless you have got such faith in the Vedic knowledge, you cannot make any progress. That is not possible. If you, with your poor fund of knowledge, you want to interpret, from the very beginning there is no question of progress.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974|Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Theism means to have faith, full faith in the Vedic knowledge. That is called theism.</p>
<p>That I have given you several times the example. Just like the cow dung is the stool of an animal, but the Vedic literature confirms that cow dung is pure. Now, you cannot argue, "It is stool of an animal. In one place you have condemned that if you touch the stool of an animal, you have to take bath thrice, and now you say cow dung, which is also stool of an animal, it is pure. Where is your argument?" You have to accept. That is called theism. Because the Vedas says, without any argument, you accept it. That is called theism. You cannot change. You cannot comment. That is called theism. Āstikyam. Brahma-karma svabhāva-jam ([[Vanisource:BG 18.42 (1972)|BG 18.42]]). And unless you have got such faith in the Vedic knowledge, you cannot make any progress. That is not possible. If you, with your poor fund of knowledge, you want to interpret, from the very beginning there is no question of progress.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB552HyderabadApril121975_2" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="528" link="Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 12, 1975" link_text="Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 12, 1975">
<div class="heading">The meaning is clear, very clear. No question of interpretation.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 12, 1975|Lecture on SB 5.5.2 -- Hyderabad, April 12, 1975]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: ...interpretation... First thing is that why interpretation if the meaning is straight? Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kurukṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]), and somebody's interpreting dharmakṣetra means this body. Why this interpretation? Eh? The dharmakṣetra, Kurukṣetra, is still existing, the station is there, people are going as dharmakṣetra. Kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret, this is the Vedic instruction, that everyone should go to Kurukṣetra and perform ritualistic duties. That is being done, and it is written dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre, why interpretation? (exchange with a guest in Hindi) You are more than Kṛṣṇa? You are so... You have got capacity to speak more than Kṛṣṇa? (exchange in Hindi) Interpretation... (exchange in Hindi) We are discussing the same thing. We go or not go. (everyone laughs) You are a young man. Therefore I'm requesting you, "Don't be misled by these blind leaders. Take Bhagavad-gītā as it is and you'll be happy." (exchange in Hindi) The meaning is clear, very clear. No question of interpretation.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB6122IndoreDecember131970_3" 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">
<div class="heading">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, the sutra, that janmādy asya yataḥ: "The Absolute Truth must be the original source of everything." There is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<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:  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? Absolute Truth must be that which is the source of everything and reservoir of everything and who is maintaining everything.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB761MontrealJune101968_4" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="738" link="Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968" link_text="Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968">
<div class="heading">In the Bhagavad-gītā there is no question of interpretation. In the beginning it is said "My dear Sañjaya," Dhṛtarāṣṭra is asking his private secretary, Mr. Sañjaya, "my sons and my brother's sons, Pāṇḍava..." His brother's name was Pandu, therefore they are Pāṇḍava. Māmakāḥ means "my sons." Where is the scope for interpretation?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968|Lecture on SB 7.6.1 -- Montreal, June 10, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So Vedic literature does not say like that. It is order. You have to accept it. If you do not understand, try to understand it. That is a different thing. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā there is no question of interpretation. 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>"My dear Sañjaya," Dhṛtarāṣṭra is asking his private secretary, Mr. Sañjaya, "my sons and my brother's sons, Pāṇḍava..." His brother's name was Pandu, therefore they are Pāṇḍava. Māmakāḥ means "my sons." Where is the scope for interpretation? Kuru-kṣetre. There is still one place, you know better, you are Indian, there is place Kurukṣetra still existing. Dharmakṣetra, that is a religious place, place of pilgrimage. Still, people go for religious performances. In the Vedas it is stated, kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. One should perform religious rituals in the Kurukṣetra. So where is the scope for interpretation? Interpretation means when you cannot understand something. Then you can interpret. But here Kurukṣetra you can understand, dharma-kṣetra you can understand, māmakāḥ you can understand, pāṇḍava you can understand, they assembled for fighting you can understand. Why do you interpret? What is the necessity of interpretation? That means he wants to show that he has got some better intelligence than the speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā. We do not accept such things, nonsense.</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">
<div class="heading">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.
</div>
<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 style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">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="Cornerstone_Ceremonies" class="sub_section" sec_index="9" parent="Lectures" text="Cornerstone Ceremonies"><h3>Cornerstone Ceremonies</h3>
</div>
<div id="CornerstoneLayingBombayJanuary231975_0" class="quote" parent="Cornerstone_Ceremonies" book="Lec" index="1" link="Cornerstone Laying -- Bombay, January 23, 1975" link_text="Cornerstone Laying -- Bombay, January 23, 1975">
<div class="heading">"I accept all the words, my dear Keśava, whatever You have said. I accept them in toto, without any change." This is understanding of Bhagavad-gītā, not that I take advantage of the Bhagavad-gītā and I interpret in my foolish way so that people will accept my philosophy. This is not Bhagavad-gītā. There is no question of interpretation in the Bhagavad-gītā.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Cornerstone Laying -- Bombay, January 23, 1975|Cornerstone Laying -- Bombay, January 23, 1975]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Our present movement is based on Bhagavad-gītā—Bhagavad-gītā as it is. We don't interpret. We do not interpret foolishly because... I say purposefully this word "foolishly," that why should we interpret Kṛṣṇa's words? Am I more than Kṛṣṇa? Or did Kṛṣṇa leave some portion to be explained by me by interpretation? Then what is the importance of Kṛṣṇa? If I give my own interpretation, thinking myself more than Kṛṣṇa, this is blasphemy. How I can become more than Kṛṣṇa? If actually we want to take advantage of this Bhagavad-gītā, then we must take Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Just like Arjuna took. Arjuna, after hearing Bhagavad-gītā, he said, sarvam etam ṛtaṁ manye: "I accept all the words, my dear Keśava, whatever You have said. I accept them in toto, without any change." This is understanding of Bhagavad-gītā, not that I take advantage of the Bhagavad-gītā and I interpret in my foolish way so that people will accept my philosophy. This is not Bhagavad-gītā. There is no question of interpretation in the Bhagavad-gītā. Interpretation is allowed when you cannot understand. When the things are clearly understood... If I say, "This is microphone," everyone understands this is microphone. Where is the necessity of interpreting it? There is no necessity. This is foolishness, misleading. There cannot be any interpretation in the Bhagavad-gītā. It is... Everything is clear to the point. Just like Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa says... Kṛṣṇa does not say that "You all become sannyāsī and give up your occupational duty." No. Kṛṣṇa says, sva-karmaṇā tam abhyarcya saṁsiddhiḥ labhate naraḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 18.46 (1972)|BG 18.46]]). You remain in your business. You remain your occupation. There is no need of changing. But still, you can become Kṛṣṇa conscious and make your life successful. This is the message of Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā is not going to make any topsy-turvy of the social order or spiritual order. No. It should be standardized according to the authority. And the best authority is Kṛṣṇa.</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="LectureSeattleOctober21968_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="20" link="Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968" link_text="Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968">
<div class="heading">There is no question of interpretation. Then the authority is gone. As soon as you interpret, then there is no authority.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968|Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Everyone is interpreting in his own way. The Bhagavad-gītā, there are thousands of editions, and they have tried to interpret in their own way, all nonsense. They should be all thrown away. Simply you have to read Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then you'll understand. There is no question of interpretation. Then the authority is gone. As soon as you interpret, then there is no authority. Lawbook. Do you mean to say in the court if you say before the judge, "My dear lord, I interpret this passage in this way," will it be accepted? The judge will at once say, "Who are you to interpret? You have no right." Then what is the authority of this lawbook if everyone comes, "I interpret in this way"? And interpretation when required? When a thing is not understood. If I say, "It is watch," and everyone understands that "This is watch, yes," then where is the opportunity of interpreting that this is spectacle? If anyone can understand the clear passage... Just like in the Bible, "God said, 'Let there be creation,' and there was creation." Where is the question of interpretation? Yes, God created. You cannot create. Where is the opportunity of interpretation? So unnecessary interpretation is not required and that is not bona fide, and those who are interpreting unnecessarily, they should be rejected immediately. Immediately, without any consideration.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureatInternationalStudentSocietyBostonMay31969_1" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="53" link="Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969" link_text="Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969">
<div class="heading">You have to learn Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't interpret in your own way. There is no possibility. But people do it, and foolish persons, they accept it. No, there is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969|Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So we have got this literature printed in English. Bhagavad-gītā is already printed in so many editions, but unfortunately, those Bhagavad-gītās are interpreted in their own interest. You see? Therefore we have published this Bhagavad-gītā. It is the essence of all Vedic literature, Bhagavad-gītā as it is. You have to learn Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't interpret in your own way. There is no possibility. But people do it, and foolish persons, they accept it. No, there is no question of interpretation.</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="RadioInterviewFebruary121969LosAngeles_0" class="quote" parent="1969_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="2" link="Radio Interview -- February 12, 1969, Los Angeles" link_text="Radio Interview -- February 12, 1969, Los Angeles">
<div class="heading">When things are understood directly, there is no question of interpretation. When things are not understood, then you can interpret, I can interpret. So the verses of Bhagavad-gītā are so simple that there is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Radio Interview -- February 12, 1969, Los Angeles|Radio Interview -- February 12, 1969, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Interviewer: In what... Are there fundamental differences between, or is it simply a difference in approach between your awareness and interpretations and, for example, those of the people who are involved with Zen? With some of the other Eastern concepts? Would you like to...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, of course, I do not know what is Zen conception, or Eastern conception, but we agree with many of them, just like we agree with the concept of God presented by Bible or Koran. That is recognized. And Bhagavad-gītā is so simple that it does not require any interpretation. When things are understood directly, there is no question of interpretation. When things are not understood, then you can interpret, I can interpret. So the verses of Bhagavad-gītā are so simple that there is no question of interpretation. Unfortunately I have seen that in Bhagavad-gītā, commented by a great scholar like Dr. Radhakrishnan, the verse is translated very nicely and that is done by an Englishman, but he interprets in a different way. So when we can understand the thing very nicely, there is no question of interpretation. You see?</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">
<div class="heading">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.
</div>
<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: Paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto mama-bhūta maheśvaram. Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam ([[Vanisource:BG 9.11 (1972)|BG 9.11]]). (break) ...says, bhūmir āpo analo vayuḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 7.4 (1972)|BG 7.4]]). This water is Kṛṣṇa's energy. So how can you refute it? Kṛṣṇa says, "It is My energy."</p>
<p>Indian Man (3): It is somebody's energy. That is definite. Because somebody is controlling it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, not controlling.</p>
<p>Indian Man (1): You have to believe or imagine some entity. It may be Kṛṣṇa or it...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, how can you disbelieve? First of all, thing is how can you disbelieve? Believe or not believe, that is another question. How you can... This water has come from some source. So what is that source?</p>
<p>Yaśomatīnandana: By our logical research we can come to Bhagavad-gītā and find out Kṛṣṇa is the only person in the whole world who says that "This comes from Me."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. 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>
</div>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril111974Bombay_1" 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">
<div class="heading">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..." 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.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 11, 1974, Bombay|Morning Walk -- April 11, 1974, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">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>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="ConversationwithIndianGuestsApril121975Hyderabad_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="52" link="Conversation with Indian Guests -- April 12, 1975, Hyderabad" link_text="Conversation with Indian Guests -- April 12, 1975, Hyderabad">
<div class="heading">The meaning is clear, very clear. There is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Conversation with Indian Guests -- April 12, 1975, Hyderabad|Conversation with Indian Guests -- April 12, 1975, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: (Hindi) You are a young man therefore I am requesting you: don't be misled by these blind leaders. Take Bhagavad-gītā as it is, and you'll be happy.</p>
<p>Guest: (Hindi)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The meaning is clear, very clear. There is no question of interpretation.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithTwoLawyersandGuestMay221975Melbourne_1" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="88" link="Room Conversation with Two Lawyers and Guest -- May 22, 1975, Melbourne" link_text="Room Conversation with Two Lawyers and Guest -- May 22, 1975, Melbourne">
<div class="heading">You cannot interpret the word water. Everyone knows what is water means. Where is the question of interpreting? Therefore sometimes reference to the teacher is necessary. Otherwise every word is clear. There is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Two Lawyers and Guest -- May 22, 1975, Melbourne|Room Conversation with Two Lawyers and Guest -- May 22, 1975, Melbourne]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: These are different words. You can understand what is the meaning of śamaḥ. Śamaḥ means controlling the mind. So damaḥ means controlling the senses. If you first of all control the mind, then you can control the senses. Then śamo damaḥ sattvam.</p>
<p>Amogha: Tapaḥ śaucam.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Tapaḥ. Tapaḥ, tapasya, austerity. Austerity. Then you have to consult what is the austerity? The austerity is, beginning of austerity is the sex control. That is austerity, brahmacarya. Tapasā brahmacaryeṇa ([[Vanisource:SB 6.1.13-14|SB 6.1.13]]). And that brahmacarya you can observe by following certain rules and regulations, Just like these people are following. In this way everything is there, clear. There is no interpretation. You cannot interpret the word water. Everyone knows what is water means. Where is the question of interpreting? Therefore sometimes reference to the teacher is necessary. Otherwise every word is clear. There is no question of interpretation. Now they are irrelevantly interpreting the first verse of Bhagavad-gītā. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1 (1972)|BG 1.1]]). So they are interpreting Kurukṣetra means this body. And where is the chance of such interpretation? Kurukṣetra, the land, is still there. Just before coming here I went to Kurukṣetra. So why you should interpret, "Kurukṣetra means this body"?</p>
<p>This is wrong interpretation. The law of interpretation is there when you cannot understand directly. Then you are allowed to interpret. Otherwise there is no necessity of interpretation. But they are unnecessarily interpret for their own purpose. That has become a fashion, to interpret Bhagavad-gītā in his own way. Where is the chance?</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="EveningDarsanAugust101976Tehran_0" 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">
<div class="heading">The law of interpretation is like this: when the things are not distinct, then you can interpret in your own way, I can interpret in my own way, but when the things are distinct, there is no question of interpretation.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran|Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Mrs. Sahani: We interpret it according to our own design.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh? You cannot, if you have own design, don't touch Bhagavad-gītā. You make your own design and preach otherwise. Why you take advantage of the Bhagavad-gītā? This is criminal. If you have got a different philosophy, you preach. Everyone has got the right. But why you misinterpret Bhagavad-gītā? When you take advantage of the popularity of Bhagavad-gītā and you speak nonsense, that is not good. That has murdered the whole thing. And practically we see that. Bhagavad-gītā as it is, you try to understand, you get the benefit and you life is successful. Besides that, interpretation when it is required. When things are understood directly, there is no question of interpretation. The law of interpretation is like this: when the things are not distinct, then you can interpret in your own way, I can interpret in my own way, but when the things are distinct, there is no question of interpretation.</p>
<p>Mrs. Sahani: If that's so, then we don't understand because we don't want to understand.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the folly. You don't want to understand.</p>
<p>Mrs. Sahani: Because we have so many desire, we don't want to surrender.</p>
<p>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>
</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="MorningDarsanaandRoomConversationRamkrishnaBajajandfriendsJanuary91977Bombay_0" class="quote" parent="1977_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="25" link="Morning Darsana and Room Conversation Ramkrishna Bajaj and friends -- January 9, 1977, Bombay" link_text="Morning Darsana and Room Conversation Ramkrishna Bajaj and friends -- January 9, 1977, Bombay">
<div class="heading">If we want to advance actually, you take every word of Bhagavad-gītā and try to apply in life. Then everyone will be happy. That is a fact. The instruction is there. There is no difficulty to understand. There is no question of interpretation. Simply take it as it is and try to apply it in life—you'll be happy.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Darsana and Room Conversation Ramkrishna Bajaj and friends -- January 9, 1977, Bombay|Morning Darsana and Room Conversation Ramkrishna Bajaj and friends -- January 9, 1977, Bombay]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Guest (4): We are the victims of the British Empire who ruled us.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh? No, you are victims of yourself. Why...? British is not here now.</p>
<p>Guest (8) (Indian man): We are indoctrined.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: British is not here now.</p>
<p>Guest (8): No, they have indoctrined such a philosophy.</p>
<p>Guest (2): But what was there before British came? This is human weakness of our own.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is... You... You have been taught that Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary person, maybe little more in knowledge. That you are taking like that. Kūpa-maṇḍuka-nyāya. Kūpa-maṇḍa, the toad in the well, he is informed, "Oh, I have seen one Atlantic Ocean." So he is thinking "Atlantic Ocean may be.... This well is three feet. It may be four feet. Or five. Come on, ten." These rascals are thinking like that—avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā ([[Vanisource:BG 9.11 (1972)|BG 9.11]])—that "Kṛṣṇa may be more intelligent by one feet or two feet. Let us compromise-ten feet." This is going on. And Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat: ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]) "I am the Supreme." They won't believe. They'll manufacture their ideas. This is going on. Aham ādir hi devānām (Bg 10.2). They won't believe that. And still, they'll declare, "I am student of Bhagavad-gītā." They won't believe a word of Kṛṣṇa, and they'll say, "I am student of Bhagavad-gītā." This is going on. This is our position. In India everyone says, "I have read Bhagavad-gītā three hundred times," but he does not know even a word. So this should be stopped. If we want to advance actually, you take every word of Bhagavad-gītā and try to apply in life. Then everyone will be happy. That is a fact. The instruction is there. There is no difficulty to understand. There is no question of interpretation. Simply take it as it is and try to apply it in life—you'll be happy. And your human life will be successful. Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti ([[Vanisource:BG 4.9 (1972)|BG 4.9]]). Up to this human form of life, we have passed through so many evolutionary process, but if you understand Kṛṣṇa, then, after leaving this body, no more material body.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>