Category:Interpretation: Difference between revisions
m 1 revision(s) |
m Pywikibot v.2 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
interpret | interpretated | interpretation | interpretations| interpreted | interpreter | interpreters | interpreting | interpretive | interprets | interpret | interpretated | interpretation | interpretations| interpreted | interpreter | interpreters | interpreting | interpretive | interprets | ||
[[category:Meanings and Explanations - Umbrella Category]] | |||
[[Category:All Categories - Vaniquotes]] | |||
Latest revision as of 10:39, 25 June 2017
interpret | interpretated | interpretation | interpretations| interpreted | interpreter | interpreters | interpreting | interpretive | interprets
Subcategories
This category has the following 13 subcategories, out of 13 total.
I
M
N
P
W
Pages in category "Interpretation"
The following 262 pages are in this category, out of 262 total.
1
- Interpretation (BG)
- Interpretation (CC)
- Interpretation (Conversations 1968 - 1973)
- Interpretation (Conversations 1974)
- Interpretation (Conversations 1975)
- Interpretation (Conversations 1976)
- Interpretation (Conversations 1977)
- Interpretation (Lectures, BG)
- Interpretation (Lectures, Other)
- Interpretation (Lectures, SB)
- Interpretation (Letters)
- Interpretation (Other Books)
- Interpretation (SB)
3
A
- A man with defect in knowledge cannot impart instructions. Therefore the whole Vedic process is parampara system. Parampara system means that I cannot deviate. I cannot make any interpretation
- A new type of religion created by one who is falsely proud and who opposes the principles of the Vedas is called upadharma. And interpretation by one's jugglery of words is called chala-dharma
- 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
- 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
- Acarya Sankara's philosophy of "pantheism," which has spread a perverted interpretation of the Vedanta maxim that the Supreme Spirit is omnipresent, nonetheless has a practical bearing on the above verse of Bhagavad-gita
- Actually there is no fault on the part of Sankaracarya. He simply carried out the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He had to imagine some kind of interpretation, and therefore he presented a kind of Vedic literature that is full of atheism
- After hearing the direct interpretation, one of the sannyasis immediately declared, O Caitanya, whatever You have explained of the indirect interpretation of omkara is most useful. Only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one
- After hearing the direct interpretation, one of the sannyasis immediately declared, We shall be very glad to hear You (Caitanya) further explain the Vedanta-sutra by direct interpretation
- After Lord Caitanya explained the Vedanta-sutra by directly interpreting the verses, the chief disciple of Prakasananda Sarasvati stood up in the assembly and began to praise Lord Caitanya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana
- Aham has a specific meaning; it is not a vague term that can be whimsically interpreted. Aham, when spoken by Krsna, refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and nothing else
- All the interpretations of Sankaracarya are imaginary. Such imaginary interpretations are verbally accepted by learned scholars, but they do not appeal to the heart
- All these mantras confirm that the Absolute Truth is personal, but the Mayavadis, throwing away the direct meaning, interpret the Absolute Truth as impersonal
- Almost anyone expert in studying grammar interprets the sastras in many ways by changing the root meanings of their words. A student of grammar can sometimes completely change the meaning of a sentence by juggling grammatical rules
- Although the evidence may be correct, the person himself is in danger of being misled due to his material defects. Apart from the direct presentation, there is a chance that an interpretation may not be perfect
- An opponent may say, "This is your interpretation, but actually the Supreme Lord is Narayana, who is in the transcendental realm"
- Another interpretation put forward by the Mayavadis is that in every millennium different types of bodies are manifest, and when the millennium is closed all the different bodies or expansions of Brahman automatically become one
- Anyone who wants to establish his own opinion or philosophy certainly cannot explain any scripture according to the principle of direct interpretation
- Artha-vada (interpretation) is one of the ten offenses at the lotus feet of the holy name of the Lord
- As far as Lord Caitanya was concerned, He said that He did not understand the explanation of Bhattacarya not because it was too difficult for His understanding but because He did not approve of the Mayavadi interpretation
- As soon as I am engaged in Krsna's service, then I will be satisfied, Krsna will be satisfied, and the whole world will be satisfied. So nobody should interpret any other way. This is direct meaning
- At the present moment there are many interpreters and translators of this sublime dialogue who care nothing for Lord Krsna or Arjuna
- Atheists try to interpret different meanings of the words dharma-ksetra and kuru-ksetra. Therefore Srila Jiva Gosvami has warned us not to depend on any kind of interpretation. It is better to take the verses as they are, without interpretation
B
- Bala means spiritual strength not physical. Some less intelligent persons interpret bala as the strength of the body. But no one can have spiritual realization by physical strength
- Because in the mundane philosophers, mundane scholars, they want to give his own interpretation of everything. That is their habit. They don't accept the interpretation of the higher authorities
- Because Sankaracarya wanted to establish the doctrine of monism, he had no alternative but to interpret the Vedanta-sutra in a different way
- Because the whole aim was to get away the existence of God, therefore all the Vedic literature was . . . were interpreted by Sankaracarya in his own way. Still it is going on
- By accepting such a secondary word (tat tvam asi) and leaving aside the principal vibration (omkara), he (Sankara) has given up a direct interpretation of the scripture in favor of his own indirect interpretation
- By interpreting the Vedic version one minimizes the value of Vedic evidence. When one quotes from Vedic literature, it is understood that the quotations are authoritative
- "By present some imaginary interpretations of Vedic literatures in order to divert people from the actual purpose of the Vedas you will attempt to make them atheists," the Lord said. "After that, they can produce more population"
C
- Can you change the lawbook according to your interpretation? Then what is the meaning of that lawbook? That is not lawbook. You cannot change
- Considering the quadruple forms of the absolute PG, known as Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna & Aniruddha, the impersonalists, headed by Sankaracarya, have interpreted the aphorisms of the Vedanta-sutra in a way suitable for the impersonalist school
D
- Devananda Pandita was a professional reciter of Srimad-Bhagavatam, but Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu did not like his interpretation of it
- Don't make any amendment, interpretation. As Krsna says, you do it; then your life is successful. The instruction is there. It is not that we are manufacturing some ideas
- Due to such a false interpretation, omkara comes to be considered something material, and consequently omkara is misunderstood and praised as being simply an exhibition or symbol of the Lord
- Durvasa Muni used the word nr-samsasya to indicate that the King was cruel, but Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura interprets it to mean that the King's character was glorified by all the local people
E
- Every point is very clear. In the Bhagavad-gita, every point is very clear, unless you interpret it in the wrong way
- Every sastra has been interpreted wrongly, and therefore people are misguided. They could not take advantage of the instruction of Bhagavad-gita because all through, the Bhagavad-gita has been misinterpreted
- Everyone has got the right to interpret in a different way, but we have to accept parampara, the disciplic succession. Just like I have given one burfi. Everyone knows it is burfi, and if somebody interprets, "It is stone," so it will not be accepted
- Everyone is interpreting scripture in his own way and setting up his own basis of authority. Yata mata tata patha. Now everybody and anybody is trying to establish his own theory as the ultimate truth
F
- Foolish, unintelligent persons make their own interpretations by imagination and thus mislead their followers, causing them to remain in the dungeon of material existence
- For each sutra the direct meaning must be accepted without interpretation. However, you simply abandon the direct meaning and proceed with your imaginative interpretation
H
- He (Maitreya Rsi) did not manufacture anything or add interpretation, but explained whatever he had heard from his spiritual master. Thus he accepted as bona fide the system of parampara, or receiving the transcendental message in disciplic succession
- He (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) warned all others not to hear the Mayavada philosophy: mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa. Simply by hearing the Mayavada interpretation of the sastras, one is doomed - CC Madhya 6.169
- He (the person presenting a hypothesis, reading the Vedic version, perceiving or interpreting by his experience) is subject to committing mistakes, to becoming illusioned, to cheating and to having imperfect senses
- He is actually acting for my benefit, although I interpret His actions as insults. This is exactly like the incident in which Lord Krsna cut down Indra, the great, puffed-up fool, to correct him
- Hearing's so important. Even amongst the Mayavadi school, they hear Vedanta-sutra. We also hear, but we hear, hear real Vedanta-sutra. Because they falsely interpret, their hearing is spoiled, but we don't interpret. We hear actually
- Here the statement of self-realization aham brahmasmi, which is interpreted by the Mayavada philosophy to mean "I am the Supreme Lord," is explained. The Supreme Lord is the original seed of everything
I
- I am an ignorant fool, for I interpret as an insult what is meant for my benefit. In this way I am just like King Indra, who out of ignorance tried to surpass Krsna, the Supreme Lord
- I have got this personal experience in my Guru Maharaja's institution. Different Godbrothers took the words of Guru Maharaja in different interpretations for sense gratification and the whole mission disrupted
- I showed opinion on your book? If I have got opinion, I publish another book. Why should I interpret? Why shall I poke my nose in your business
- If it is interpreted to mean Sanatana Gosvami, then it is because he is so greatly favored by Rupa Gosvami, being always served by him, and because he is the annihilator of all kinds of sinful activities
- If one does not come to this stage, simply by academic education he says: "It should be like this. The interpretation should be like this," he's simply wasting time. Frog philosopher
- If one purposely continues this professional begging, he is supposed to be dead while breathing, or, according to another interpretation, such a man of falsity should be killed while still breathing
- If one tries to explain the Vedic literature in a different way, he is indulging in imagination. Any interpretation of the self-evident Vedic version is simply imaginary
- If the SP of Godhead is formless, how can He be said to walk very fast and accept everything offered to Him? Rejecting the direct meaning of the Vedic mantras, the Mayavadi philosophers interpret them and try to establish the Absolute Truth as formless
- If we accept the words of Arjuna and Krsna, it may be possible for us to understand Bhagavad-gita, but if we want to interpret it in our own way, the results will be nonsensical
- If we do not try to understand the real purpose of Bhagavad-gita, and if we theorize, "Bhagavad-gita means nonviolence. BG means to become patriot," these are materialism. We should avoid this wrong interpretation, misguiding direction of blind leaders
- If we follow Arjuna, then we understand Bhagavad-gita as it is. But if we don't follow Arjuna, if we follow somebody, Dr. Frog, or create our own interpretation, then we remain impure
- If we try artificially to explain sastra in our own words, there is every danger of interpretation and speculation
- If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. We set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost
- If you are over-intelligent then you will interpret in a different way, then you go to hell and other places. Don’t do that. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Don’t interpret foolishly
- If you interpret (the Bhagavad-Gita) you spoil the whole thing. Because interpretation is required when the things are not clear. If everything is clear, why should you interpret?
- If you want to become overintelligent, to present something, to interpret something, whatever over you have heard from your spiritual master you can make some further addition, alteration, then you'll spoil whole thing
- Impersonalists interpret this word nirguna as "having no quality." Because they are unable to estimate the qualities of the Lord in transcendental realization, they conclude that the Supreme Lord has no qualities. But that is actually not the position
- In India there is a class of men known as arya-samaja who say that they accept the original Vedas only and reject all other Vedic literatures. The motive of these people, however, is to give their own interpretation
- In my books I have tried to explain clearly this simultaneously one and different philosophy acinta beda beda tattva propounded by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. But sometimes it happens that this philosophy is given a self-interested interpretation
- In order to present their (Mayavadi atheists) false, imaginary meanings, they must adopt so much word jugglery and grammatical interpretation that they finally become ludicrous
- In Sankara’s explanation of one sutra, ananda-mayo ’bhyasat, he has interpreted the affix mayat with such word jugglery that this very explanation proves that he had little knowledge of the Vedanta-sutra but simply wanted to support his impersonalism
- In the book named Brhaj-jataka and other books there are directions for interpreting the movements of the stars and planets. One who knows the process of calculating the asta-varga (eight divisions) can predict auspicious and inauspicious events
- In the Brahma-sutra, all the sutras are very clear, so you don't require any interpretation. You can expand the . . . explain very elaborately. That is another thing. But you cannot go beyond the sutra
- In the present age of quarrel the chain has been broken here and there, and thus the Veda is now interpreted by unauthorized men who have no realization
- In this second division of Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu the author offers his respectful obeisances unto "Sanatana." This Sanatana can be interpreted as either Sri Krsna Himself or as Sanatana Gosvami, the elder brother and spiritual master of Rupa Gosvami
- Indeed, we know that all the commentaries on Vedic scriptures by Mayavadi philosophers are erroneous, especially those of Sankaracarya. Sankaracarya's interpretations of Vedanta-sutra are all figments of his imagination
- Indirectly Sripada Sankaracarya admitted that what he had preached in the flowery grammatical interpretations of the Vedanta-sutra cannot help one at the time of death
- Interpreting the verses of Vedanta-sutra according to one's own whim is the greatest disservice to the self-evident Vedas
- It has become a fashion that, "If I can interpret in my own way, I become a big scholar." This is going on
- It is interpreted that "rich family" refers to a big mercantile family because generally people who engage in trades and mercantile business are very rich
- It is necessary to follow carefully in the footsteps of Arjuna. In previous ages, due to interpretation and mental speculation, the real purport of Bhagavad-gita was lost; therefore Krsna re-established the teachings by giving them to Arjuna - BG 4.2-3
- It is not the fault of the Acarya Sankara that he has so interpreted Vedanta, but if someone accepts it, then certainly he is doomed
- It is very clear to understand the science of God. Why you should neglect and by, mislead ourself by understanding some misleading interpretation? That is my mission. I want to establish throughout the world that krsnas tu bhagavan svayam
J
- Just like an expert lawyer, he can get out of the entanglement of law by jugglery of words and interpretation, he is called a big lawyer, similarly, there are philosophers who can put different theories and not admit the existence of God
- 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
K
- Knowledge is scientific when it is gathered from the scriptures through the bona fide spiritual master, but when it is interpreted by speculation, it is mental concoction
- Krsna is giving the instruction, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. What business you have got to poke your nose and give interpretation? Are you bigger than Krsna
- Krsna is very kind. He has given us little independence; thus people interpret fully independent. But according to our proportionate existence we have to use that independence
- Krsna says that "I am the Supreme." We accept it. That is hearing. And if you interpret, "Oh, Krsna means this, Kuruksetra means this," that mean you're spoiling your time. Why this, that? As it is, hear as it is
- Kuruksetra continues to exist since the Vedic age, and it is sheer foolishness when interpreters ignore or deny the existence of Kuruksetra
L
- Lord Caitanya explained each and every verse of Vedanta-sutra according to the direct interpretation. He also explained the word Brahman, indicating that Brahman means the greatest, the Supreme Personality of Godhead
- Lord Caitanya quoted a verse from the Padma Purana (62.31) in which it is stated that the Lord ordered Mahadeva, Lord Siva, to present some imaginary interpretations of Vedic literatures in order to divert people from the actual purpose of the Vedas
- Lord Jesus Christ said: "Thou shall not kill," and now they are interpreting, "Killing means murdering, human being." But that is not in the Bible
- Lord Siva explained to his wife, Parvati, that in the age of Kali he would come in the form of a brahmana to preach an imperfect interpretation of the Vedas, known as Mayavadism, which in actuality is but a second edition of atheistic Buddhist philosophy
M
- Mayavadi philosophers, they also accept Vyasadeva as their original spiritual master, but they have interpreted Vyasadeva's views; therefore they are not considered to be bona fide disciples
- Mayavadis interpret this word "separatist" in a different way. They say that while worshiping the Lord, one should think himself one with the Supreme Lord. This is another adulterated form of devotion within the modes of material nature
- Most dangerous interpretation
N
- No one needs a lamp to see the sun. Everyone can see it. But if the sun is covered by a cloud, it is very difficult to see. Similarly, the Vedanta-sutra is like the sun, but the Mayavada interpretations cover the real meaning
- No one should try to give a new interpretation by dint of mundane knowledge. The first step in pursuance of the system of knowledge received by Brahma, is to approach a bona fide guru who is the representative of the Lord following the parampara system
- No ordinary living entity can interpret Vedanta-sutra according to his mundane conceptions
- Nobody is competent to interpret on the Shastras by one's whim. It is science it has to be learnt from the proper sources
- Nobody requires any lamp to see the sun. Everyone can see. But if it is covered by the cloud, it is very difficult to see. So this Mayavada interpretation is, explanation, means covering the real meaning. That's all
- Not like the rascals - we interpret. No. No interpretation. The rascals, they interpret. He (Professor Dimmock) is a rascal, as if Krsna left Bhagavad-gita for this rascal's interpretation. How much rascaldom it is
O
- One may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghosapalli?" Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. 'On the Ganges' means 'on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice
- One must become a Vaisnava. Otherwise, his so-called ideas and interpretation has no value. Has no value. Just like in your country, South India, Dr. Radhakrishnan, he has done so many works. But to tell you frankly, it is useless labor
- One of the sannyasis declared, Actually, every one of us now knows that the interpretations given by Sankara are all artificial and imaginary, but because we belong to Sankaracarya's sect, we take it for granted that his interpretation is the right one
- One should always remember that all Vedic literatures are self-evident. No one is allowed to interpret the Vedic verses. If one does so, he indulges in imagination, and that has no value
- One should not foolishly interpret an Upanisadic description and say that because the Supreme Personality of Godhead "cannot" appear Himself in this material world in His own form, He sends His sound representation (omkara) instead
- One should receive the message of Bhagavatam from Suta Gosvami or from his representative and not from any irrelevant interpreter
- One thing is that you have to become intelligent. Just like Bhagavad-gita it is said, dharma-ksetre kuru-ksetre samaveta yuyutsavah (BG 1.1). Now why I shall accept interpretation on these plain words? That is my foolishness
- One thinks, Why should I read Bhagavad-gita? I know everything. I have my own interpretation. Brahma, however, was able to understand that the Supreme Personality is Krsna. Isvarah paramah krsnah (BS 5.1). Another of Krsna's names is paramesvara
- Only a direct presentation can be considered evidence. An interpretation cannot be accepted as evidence, but may be considered proof of evidence
- Others interpret in this way: Krsna appeared in order to kill the demons and give protection to the devotees. The first demon to be killed was a woman. According to Vedic rules, the killing of a woman, a brahmana, cows or a child is strictly forbidden
- Our most successful program is to begin preaching with the help of an interpreter from the local people and later train up some intelligent men who speak English
- Our system, if you do not accept the Vedic knowledge through guru-parampara system, it is useless. You cannot manufacture an interpretation of the Vedic language
P
- Pandavas and the Kauravas, they wanted to fight. Yuyutsavah. That's all right. Where is the interpretation? They wanted to fight. They selected a nice place, dharma-ksetra, Kuruksetra, and there they fought. So it is, meaning is clear
- People are very against us: "No, I am a scholar. I am a philosopher. I can interpret in any way." We say, "No, sir, you cannot do that." This is our propaganda. Veda-pranihito dharmah
- Persons who are not pure devotees, must have an impure heart full with dirty things of mundane affairs, will not only try to defend Rasaleela by interpretations or decry the dealings but also shall be ruined as by drinking poison a man goes to hell
- Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Cover Me in such a way that people will take more interest in advancing material civilization just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge
- Preach this Bhagavad-gita as it is. People will be benefited. You'll be benefited. Don't make unnecessary interpretation, misguide others and spoil your own life. That is very unfortunate. What is the difficulty to accept Bhagavad-gita?
S
- Sa gunan samatityaitan brahma-bhuyaya kalpate (BG 14.26). For every item in the yoga system there is a parallel activity in bhakti-yoga, but practice of bhakti-yoga is easier for this age. What was introduced by Lord Caitanya is not a new interpretation
- Sankara has interpreted by his limited knowledge. So that is not perfect knowledge. Therefore we don't accept Sankara's philosophy
- Sankaracarya interpreted various Sanskrit words in such a way that he implied, according to Jiva Gosvami, that Vyasadeva had very little knowledge of higher logic
- So far Vedic literature is concerned, God is person and accepted by the acaryas. We have to follow the acaryas; otherwise our own interpretation, our own tiny brain, we cannot conceive
- So Krsna is teaching personally just like Kapiladeva is teaching personally. So you take Kapiladeva's philosophy, Sankhya philosophy, Krsna's philosophy, Bhagavad-gita, but try to understand as He says. Don't interpret in the wrong way
- Some of our big sannyasis, he took it that unless you become very strong and stout by eating meat and exercise, gymnastics, you cannot understand spiritual life. This is their interpretation. But that is not the fact
- Sometimes the texts are interpreted fashionably to suit their own purposes. Therefore, first one should select a competent and bona fide speaker and then hear from him
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued, "The Brahma-sutra, compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, is as radiant as the sun. One who tries to interpret its meaning simply covers that sunshine with a cloud"
- Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura interprets this verse (Vidagdha-madhava 1.10) in two ways, for Lord Krsna and for Srimati Radharani. When interpreted for Srimati Radharani, it is considered to have been a full-moon night
- Srila Jiva Gosvami interprets the word gata-vyalikaih as projjhita-kaitavaih, or those who are freed from all pretensions - the unalloyed devotees only
- Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura interprets these words (sriya-unmattasya) to mean that although Maharaja Ambarisa was such an opulent king, he was not mad after money, for he had already surpassed the madness of material opulence
- Sripada Sankaracarya has given his interpretation and imaginary meaning. It does not actually appeal to the mind of any sane man. He has done this to convince the atheists and bring them under his control
- Sripada Sankaracarya has misleadingly explained the quadruple form (catur-vyuha) in his interpretation of the forty-second aphorism of Chapter Two of the second khanda of the Vedanta-sutra - utpatty-asambhavat
- Sripada Sankaracarya has unceremoniously obscured the Krsna consciousness described in the purusa-vedanta-sutra by manufacturing an indirect interpretation and abandoning the direct interpretation
- Sripada Sankaracarya wanted to establish the predominance of one's spiritual identity; therefore he wanted to convert the atheists through an imaginary interpretation of the Vedic literatures
- Sruti-sastra-nindanam, and to decry the Vedic literature. And third, to interpret the holy name in different way according to our own whims. This is also offense
- Such interpreters (who care nothing for Lord Krsna or Arjuna) explain the verses of the Bhagavad-gita in their own way and postulate all sorts of rubbish in the name of the Gita. Such interpreters believe neither in Sri Krsna nor in His eternal abode
- Suppose I have written one book. So I have got some intention. So why should you interpret my intention with your intention? What right you have got? You have no right
T
- That (Interpretation) is judged by the expert lawyer, that "Your interpretation is right." And when interpreted. Not ordinarily he interprets everything. The law point, when it is not distinct, then interpretation required
- That is my preaching. What Krsna said, you say as it is. Don't change. How you can give interpretation?
- The authorities speak, and the people in general believe them. But in the case of Vedic truths, they have been taught not to believe. Even if they accept them they give a different interpretation
- The authority of the Vedas is such that even if one does not understand something by his limited perception, he should accept the Vedic injunction and not create interpretations to suit his imperfect understanding
- The Bhagavad-gita can be understood in the association of pure devotees only, and not by the interpretations of politicians or dry philosophical speculators
- The Bhagavad-gita is within the Mahabharata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gita are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost
- The Bhagavad-gita says that this knowledge has to be taken by the parampara system or the disciplic succession. It is not that anyone can interpret. This viewpoint no bona fide student of Bhagavad-gita will accept
- The Bhagavad-gita, Fourth Chapter explains that you cannot understand Bhagavad-gita by your own interpretation. You must follow the instruction of the original speaker of Bhagavad-gita
- The dangerous ways of interpretations by the nondevotee class of men have played havoc in understanding the Srimad-Bhagavatam, and the careful student should be always alert in this matter if he at all wants to learn the science of Godhead
- The deluded interpreters do not surrender unto the lotus feet of Sri Krsna, nor do they teach others to follow this principle. BG 1972 purports
- The difficulty is sometimes things are interpreted in a manner dovetailing one's own sense gratification
- The direct interpretation is called abhidha-vrtti, whereas the indirect interpretation is called laksana-vrtti, The indirect interpretation serves no purpose
- The direct meaning is that we are praying Krsna and His energy to accept me in the society of His service. This is the simple . . . there is no other interpretation
- The explanation of Sankaracarya hides the actual import of Vedic literature. Only the explanation given by Caitanya is acceptable. All other interpretations are useless
- The factual meaning of the aphorisms of the Vedanta-sutra is as clear as sunshine. The Mayavadi philosophers simply try to cover the sunshine with the clouds of interpretations imagined by Sankaracarya and his followers
- The first commandment, they give some interpretation: "It is meant for murdering human." Why? How you are killing - not only killing animals, they are now killing children, and they are proud of becoming Christian. This is going on. Simply disobeying
- The first line of the original four verses runs, aham evasam evagre. The word aham is misinterpreted by the Mayavada school into meanings which no one but the interpreter can understand
- The God has begotten many sons. The only worthy son was Jesus Christ - you can interpret it like that - because he was giving service to the Lord, to the father. He brought the message of father
- The impersonal interpretation of the mundane wranglers is completely refuted in this verse because it is clearly stated here that the Supreme Lord has His qualities, form, pastimes and everything that a person has
- The impersonalists have no idea of the Personality of Godhead. They unnecessarily poke their noses into the scripture and interpret it in a deceptive way in order to mislead the innocent public
- The impersonalists take the activities (activities of the Lord) mentioned in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita and other Vedic literatures as fictitious stories, and therefore they interpret them most mischievously
- The Indians are not cow worshippers as others wrongly interpret it, but the Indians are gratitudeful to the species of cow for supplying milk
- The interpretation is that the Lord as isvara, or the Supersoul in the hearts of both King Yudhisthira and Vyasa, performed still more superhuman action because the Lord desired it
- The interpretations of this great book of knowledge have so grossly been distorted that every student of the Bhagavad-gita is still in the same darkness of glaring material reflections. Such students are hardly enlightened by the Bhagavad-gita
- 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
- The Lord (Caitanya) thus spoke to the sannyasi almost in the same way that He spoke to the Bhattacarya of Puri, and by forceful arguments He nullified the Mayavada interpretations of the Vedanta-sutra
- The Mayavadi philosopher's presentation is that the living entity enjoys his pastimes by accepting the body of a hog. This theory is not acceptable because the word "pastime" implies voluntary acceptance for enjoyment. This interpretation is misleading
- The Mayavadi philosophers interpret that the word yan-maya, or cin-maya, indicates that the living entity is always equal to the Supreme. But one has to consider whether this affix, mayat, is used for "sufficiency" or for "transformation"
- The Mayavadi philosophers interpret this word aham as referring to the impersonal Brahman
- The Mayavadis call themselves Vedantists but do not at all understand the purport of Vedanta philosophy. Not being properly educated, people in general think that Vedanta means the Sankarite interpretation
- The Mayavadis explained that the word kuruksetra refers to the body. Such interpretations imply, however, that neither Lord Krsna nor Vyasadeva had a proper sense of word usage or etymological adjustment
- The offenses (to the holy names) are: (f) to interpret the holy name in a deviant way, (g) to commit sinful activities on the strength of chanting the holy name, (h) to compare the chanting of the holy name to pious activities
- The person presenting a hypothesis, reading the Vedic version, perceiving or interpreting by his experience is certain to be imperfect in four ways
- The rasa dance is misunderstood by the foolish class of men. Some of them take this to be immoral, while others try to cover it up by their own stupid interpretations. They have no desire to follow in the footsteps of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami
- The relationship of the living entities with matter and that of the Supreme Lord with matter are certainly not on the same level, although the Mayavadis may interpret it in that way
- The self-evident Vedic literatures are the highest evidence of all, but if these literatures are interpreted, their self-evident nature is lost
- The sixth offense (against the holy name) is to interpret the holy name
- The so-called followers of the Vedic injunctions make their own interpretations of the Vedic injunctions, and thus they establish different parties and sects of the Vedic religion
- The so-called religionists were falsely using the Vedas to justify such violent acts as meat-eating, and Lord Buddha came to lead the fallen people away from such a false interpretation of the Vedas
- The SP 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
- The title Ph.D. can also be interpreted as Plough Department, a title meant for the tillers in the paddy field
- The Vaisnavas actually hear Vedanta-sutra, because they do not interpret it. When Krsna says, "I am the Supreme," the Vaisnavas accept it, and that is the proper way of hearing
- The Vaisnavas, the devotees of Krsna, also hear Vedanta-sutra, but not from the Mayavadis, who falsely interpret it and spoil the process of hearing
- The Vedanta is the medium of philosophical interpretations, and thus the Vedanta cannot be the absolute property of any Particular class of philosopher. A sincere seeker of the Absolute Truth is called a Vedantist. Veda means "knowledge"
- The Vedas are spiritual sound, and therefore there is no need of material interpretation for the sound vibration of the Vedic literature
- The Vedas. It is not a thing to be understood by one's erudite scholarship or by the fashionable interpretations of mundane scholars. There is nothing to be added and nothing to be subtracted, because the truth is the truth
- The Vedic injunctions are self-authorized, and if some mundane creature adjusts the interpretations of the Vedas, he defies their authority. It is foolish to think of oneself as more intelligent than Srila Vyasadeva
- The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost
- The Visnu forms of worship in great temples of India are not arrangements of idol worship, as they are wrongly interpreted to be by a class of men with a poor fund of knowledge
- The word isa-maninah is interpreted to mean that he (Maharaja Ambarisa) was so respectful to the Supreme Personality of Godhead that he did not transgress the laws for observing Ekadasi-parana, despite the thinking of Durvasa Muni, for he only took water
- The word mayamayam used in this verse (SB 5.18.17) should not be understood according to the interpretations of the Mayavadis. Maya means affection as well as illusion. When a mother deals with her child affectionately, she is called mayamaya
- The word tirthanam is sometimes interpreted to mean the places of pilgrimage, but Srila Jiva Gosvami says that it means the reception of the Vedic transcendental knowledge. The propounders of the Vedic knowledge are also known as the tirthas
- Their (Mayavadi sannyasis's) study of the Srimad-Bhagavatam becomes troublesome. Dry speculations and impersonal interpretations by artificial means are all useless for the Mayavadi sannyasis. BG 1972 purports
- There are also the Bible and the Koran. According to so many different men, there are so many interpretations. One philosopher defeats another philosopher on the basis of scripture
- There are different interpretations of tri-yuga, but it is accepted by all learned scholars that tri-yuga means Visnu
- There are many improper explanations of the last portion of Lord Krsna's pastimes (such as descriptions of the incarnation of Krsna's hair), but Lord Caitanya properly described these pastimes and gave them the right interpretation
- There are others who interpret this paramesvaram to be the Supersoul. BG 1972 purports
- There is a class of men known as arya-samaja who say that they accept the original Vedas only. The motive of these people is to give their own interpretation. According to Caitanya, such interpretations are not to be accepted. They are simply not Vedic
- There is a station, railway station, called Kurukshetra near Delhi, about hundred miles away from Delhi. So these are facts. Why there should be interpretation?
- There is a stricture that no one should try to learn the Vedas who is not a qualified brahmana. This stricture has been wrongly interpreted in so many ways
- These Vedantists, so-called Vedantists, they do not read Srimad-Bhagavatam. Even read, they make a different interpretation, because to make them popular they have to go through Bhagavata sometimes
- They (Christians) want to support their killing process in so many ways. They'll never agree that, "Yes, Christ says not to kill. We should stop it." No. They want to support it by various interpretation
- They (fools) create instead their own interpretations, which are as foolish as they themselves, and thereby only help to put a stumbling block on the path of real understanding, misdirecting the innocent followers who are less intelligent, or the sudras
- They (Suta Gosvami and members of the assembly) were not interested in hearing it from a bogus person who would interpret in his own way to suit his own purpose
- They (the Mayavadi philosophers) thus find fault in the Vedanta-sutra and interpret it to try to establish the theory of illusion
- They usually plunge into the subject matter of the rasa dance, which is misunderstood by the foolish class of men. Some of them take this to be immoral, while others try to cover it up by their own stupid interpretations
- This (CC Madhya 6.132) is typical of all Mayavadis or atheists who interpret the meaning of Vedic literature in their own imaginative way
- This (Daksa saying that Siva is yaso-ghna, which means "one who spoils name and fame") can also be interpreted to mean that he was so famous that his fame killed all other fame
- This fight of interpretation will not save you. Better from the very beginning you worship Govinda. That will save you. - This is his (Sankaracarya's) instruction. Bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha-mate
- This is the secret of modern fashionable interpretation. Suppose you have got some conviction, and if you want to establish it by evidence of an approved literature
- This Mayavada interpretation is, explanation, means covering the real meaning. That's all. They do so like that. They'll never accept the direct meaning
- Throughout Bhagavad-gita we find this word mam stressed. Mam means "unto Me," meaning unto Krsna. But there are many miscreants who are interpreting this mam to mean - everyone
- To a certain extent they (Mayavadi philosophers) recommend Brahman activities, which for them means engagement in studying the Vedanta and Sankhya philosophies, but their interpretations are but dry speculation
- To imagine some meaning. No imagination. It is all direct interpretation or direct meaning
- To learn this science one should take shelter of the representative of Sri Sukadeva and follow in the footsteps of Maharaja Pariksit without foolishly attempting to interpret, thereby committing a great offense at the feet of the Lord
- To such a misguided interpreter we may reply, "Why should you suggest such fallacious logic? An interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture"
U
- Unfortunately so-called scholars and saintly persons have misguided the people by making different interpretations of the divine instruction unnecessarily. That is the cause of the ruination of our culture in India
- Unfortunately, the Sankarite interpretation has covered almost the entire world. Therefore there is a great need to present the original, easily understood natural import of the Vedic literature
- Unfortunately, there are so many interpreters, they interpret the verses in their own way. That is the nonsense of the whole thing. But if Bhagavad-gita understood as it is, oh, it is a great boon to the human society
- Unscrupulous persons, however, deviate from the actual narration and interpret the text in their own way with grammatical jugglery. Such deviations are to be avoided
W
- We are already fallen. Now if we want to save ourselves from this fallen condition, take instruction from Krsna and do not try to deviate, do not try to interpret in your own whimsical way, in a rascal way
- We are presenting Bhagavad-gita as it is. We do not change by our whimsical imagination, concoction. We do not interpret the words of the Bhagavad-gita according to our own desire
- We quote Vedic evidence to support our statements, but if we interpret it according to our own judgment, the authority of the Vedic literature is rendered imperfect or useless
- We should better take note of this particular verse (SB 3.29.21) from the Vaisnava acaryas like Jiva Gosvami instead of following the interpretation of unauthorized persons who deride Krsna. BG 1972 purports
- We should not take Vedas as ordinary, mental speculation book. No. It is perfect knowledge. It is perfect knowledge. And one has to take as it is, without any adulteration, interpretation
- What is this interpretation? How demonic this Western civilization. "Because Jesus Christ, the God, has given the animals to our care, therefore we shall kill and eat." Anyway, try to introduce a renovation of civilization
- Whatever interpretations have been given by Sankaracarya have no direct bearing on the sutra, and therefore such commentation spoils everything
- Whatever is stated within the Puranas, Mahabharata and Ramayana is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation
- Whatever meaning Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives is perfect. Any other interpretation is only a distortion
- When a student interpreted the glories of the holy name as a prayer of exaggeration, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, greatly unhappy, immediately warned everyone not to see the student's face henceforward
- When Devananda was expounding the Mayavadi interpretation, Srivasa Thakura was once present in his meeting, and when he began to cry, Devananda's students drove him away
- When I say, "Bring me a glass of water," does it mean that I want you to bring everyone a glass of water? The individuality is there, but by jugglery of words they interpret "me" or "I" to mean - everyone
- When interpreted for Krsna, the night is understood to have been a dark-moon night, and when interpreted for Srimati Radharani, it is considered to have been a full-moon night
- When Krsna directly says something and some rascal interprets it to mean something different, this is chala-dharma - a religious system of cheating - or sabda-bhit, a jugglery of words
- When one accepts the Vedic literature by interpretation or even by dictionary meaning, directly or indirectly the ultimate declaration of Vedic knowledge points to Lord Krsna
- Who is spiritual master? Who abides by the disciplic succession. He does not change. He does not interpret. He presents things as they are. Just like we are doing. We are presenting Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead
- Why one should interpret that kuru-ksetra means this body and Pandavas means these panca-indriyas, so many things? There is no question of interpretation
- Why should we interpret Krsna's words? Am I more than Krsna? Or did Krsna leave some portion to be explained by me by interpretation? Then what is the importance of Krsna?
- Why should you interpret? Gopis prayed Krsna and all the Katyayani devi that "Let Krsna become our husband." So Krsna fulfilled their desire because a woman can become naked only before husband. That is the purport, no other interpretation
- Why the rascals comment in different way? They may write their rascal philosophy. Why they touch Bhagavad-gita and give different interpretation? They have no right. I have written a book; I have got my purpose. Why you should poke your nose
- Why they should interpret? Interpretation is required when there is no understanding. If the matter is clearly understood, why interpretation? This is rascaldom
- Why you have interpreted the picture as one has to be naked before the Lord to become perfect? We have no interpretation in any one of the verses in the Gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam
- Without personally motivated interpretations
Y
- You are depending on this verbal root, that verbal root, and interpreting your meaning in a different way. All this is nonsense. This grammatical jugglery of words, will not save you at the time of death. You rascal, you just worship Govinda
- 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
- You should read Bhagavad-gita very carefully, with attention, as it is, without malinterpretation, with rascal interpretation. Try to understand; make your life successful. This is our propaganda, Krsna consciousness
- You simply repeat, recite, the instruction of Krsna. That is preaching. That is preaching. And we are doing the same thing. We are doing. We are not introducing any new interpretation. Whatever Krsna has said, bas, finished