Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


If the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting; if the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret

Expressions researched:
"if the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting" |"if the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret" |"interpretation is required when the meaning is not clear" |"interpretation will be required when the meaning is not clear" |"opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear" |"when the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret"

Lectures

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. 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.
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:

So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Vedānta, Upaniṣad—these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge—then Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these books should be studied from the direct meaning. Don't try to interpret. According to ordinary, I mean to say, dealings, suppose in the law court there are two parties. Two lawyers are fighting on the principle of one clause or section in the lawbook. One is interpreting in a different way, one is interpreting in a different way, and the judges give their judgment. Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. A very good example is given by the grammarians, or Sanskrit scholars, that gaṅgayaṁ ghoṣapali, that "There is a neighborhood which is called Ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now somebody may ask, "How there can be a quarter on the Ganges? Ganges is water." So there is interpretation required. So somebody says, " 'On the Ganges' means on the bank of the Ganges." That makes it clear. "On the Ganges" does not mean that in the middle water there is a, I mean to say, residential quarter. No. "On the Ganges" means on the bank of the Ganges.

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.

General Lectures

Interpretation is required when the meaning is not clear. But if the meaning is clear, why should you interpret it unnecessarily? That is malinterpretation, and that is going on.
Address to Rotary Club -- Chandigarh, October 17, 1976:

Now this Kurukṣetra... Everyone knows there is a place Kurukṣetra. From time immemorial in the Vedic literature it is mentioned about Kurukṣetra. Kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret: "Go to Kurukṣetra and perform ritualistic ceremonies there." So it is dharmakṣetra. So how you can interpret Kurukṣetra as the body? Where is that dictionary, and where is the necessity of interpreting like that? There is no necessity. Interpretation is required when the meaning is not clear. But if the meaning is clear, why should you interpret it unnecessarily? That is malinterpretation, and that is going on. Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but somebody says, "He is fictitious. There was no fight like Kurukṣetra. There was no such person as Kṛṣṇa," and "Kṛṣṇa is a person from the black aborigines," so on, so on, so many interpretation. What is the benefit? The benefit is that we have lost our Vedic culture. This is the benefit.

Conversations and Morning Walks

1973 Conversations and Morning Walks

There is example in Sanskrit grammar, gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa bali(?). The neighborhood of ghoṣa family is on the Ganges. Now, on the Ganges-Ganges is water—how there can be a village? So when the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret. But when the meaning is clear...
Room Conversation -- February 26, 1973, Jakarta:

Prabhupāda: If you interpret Bhagavad-gītā in your own way, then you'll miss the point. Just like in our country, in India, Bhagavad-gītā has been interpreted in so different ways that people are now bewildered. They do not know what is actually Bhagavad-gītā. Take, for example... Just like in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā, it is said, dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). I think you know Sanskrit. Samavetā yuyutsavaḥ māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva kim akurvata sañjaya (BG 1.1). Even a great leader, political leader, he has interpreted kurukṣetra as this body. So where is the dictionary where kurukṣetra means this body? But because he's a big political leader that gītā is going on. Kurukṣetra means this body. Pāṇḍava means the five senses. In this way (break) ...they cannot (indistinct) I may tell you frankly. Just like Mahatma Gandhi, he wanted to prove nonviolence from Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā is spoken in the battlefield, and how he can prove nonviolence from Bhagavad-gītā? Then he has to drag some interpretation out of his own way. But because he's a big leader the people are misled.

Similarly, all... at present moment in India the Bhagavad-gītā has becoming a plaything that anyone can interpret in his own way and do all nonsense. But I'll request you, because you are so much interested, and you have already approved Bhagavad-gītā, you have translated. Amongst the leading personalities, you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is and spread it, it will have immediate effect. That is already experimented. Just like in western countries, before me, hundreds and thousands, swamis and yogis went there. But not a single person could understand what is Bhagavad-gītā, and what is Kṛṣṇa. Now hundreds and thousands of these boys in Europe, America, Canada, Africa, everywhere, Australia, everywhere, they are now become devotees... So they're intelligent persons, they're coming from rich family. Why they have taken seriously? Because they have understood Bhagavad-gītā nicely.

So I request that God is neither Indonesian, neither Indian, neither African, God is God. And He claims that all living entities, in any form... The form is superficial. The form is taken as dress. Just like you are dressed in a different way, I am dressed in a different way. But we are not talking to the dress, we are talking to the man who is putting on the dress. Similarly, this bodily distinction is material. But spiritually we are all one. There is no question of becoming Indian or Indonesian or African or Asian or this or that. And that is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. You know. Paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ. Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brāhmaṇe gavi hastini śuni caiva śvapāke ca paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ (BG 5.18). Because paṇḍita does not see the outward dress, paṇḍita sees the inside, who is putting on the dress. Therefore, without misinterpreting Bhagavad-gītā, or being misled by so-called big, big leaders, if you try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, it will be very nice, beneficial to everyone. That is my, not opinion, but is the fact. Things should be taken as it is. Call a spade a spade.

Now, interpretation is required when things are not clear. When things are not very clear, not easily understood... There is example in Sanskrit grammar, gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa bali(?). The neighborhood of ghoṣa family is on the Ganges. Now, on the Ganges-Ganges is water—how there can be a village? Now, here interpretation required. When the matter is (break) ...on the water but on the bank of the Ganges. So when the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret. But when the meaning is clear... Just like Bhagavad-gītā: dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Now Kurukṣetra is still there, in..., about 90 miles away from Delhi. Perhaps you have been there. The station is there, Kurukṣetra. Now how one can interpret that kurukṣetra means this body? This is going on. In spite of clear understanding, they interpret in their own way so that they have got their own philosophy, they want to support. This is going on. So if you kindly avoid this misleading interpretation, and if you take Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then you get the science of God, science of religion, which is applicable either to Indonesian or Indian or African or American, everyone.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

First of all, why you should interpret? If the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting. If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret.
Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran:

Prabhupāda: You have to understand from the higher authorities.

imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ
proktavān aham avyayam
vivasvān manave prāha
manur ikṣvākave 'bravīt
(BG 4.1)
evaṁ paramparā-prāptam
imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ
sa kāleneha mahatā
yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa
(BG 4.2)

As soon as you give up this line of understanding, then it is lost. Yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa. Then you are dealing in not Bhagavad-gītā, something else, something rubbish. Yogo naṣṭaḥ, it is naṣṭaḥ, it is spoiled. As soon as you interpret, it is spoiled. First of all, why you should interpret? If the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting. If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre (BG 1.1) is clear. Why should you interpret? Baliye (Hindi) If dharma-kṣetra kuru-kṣetra is clear, why would you interpret? When things are clear, interpretation means you are playing joke. So our, this movement presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. So they are being accepted all over the world, and we are getting good devotees, sincere devotees. All parts of the world.

1977 Conversations and Morning Walks

Other words, when it is clear-yudhya ca—then why should you interpret? The example is there in the Sanskrit grammar. Interpretation will be required when the meaning is not clear. Otherwise, if the meaning is clear, it is not required to interpret.
Evening Darsana -- May 9, 1977, Hrishikesh:

Prabhupāda: I do not wish to discuss nonviolen... But we are talking of philosophy, that you cannot stop violence. That is not possible.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Kṛṣṇa says, mām anusmara yudhya ca (BG 8.7).

Prabhupāda: Yes. Yudhya ca. (Hindi conversation) There is some word; the meaning is not clear. Then you can suggest that "Meaning may be like this." But when it is clear, there is no, I mean to say, chance of interpreting.

Indian man (1): As, for example, vicāra, those such words which requires some clarification or..., these can be interpreted...

Prabhupāda: No, no, when it is clear, why it should be interpreted?

Indian man (1): No, for other words...

Prabhupāda: Other words... (Hindi) ...that when it is clear-yudhya ca—then why should you interpret? The example is there in the Sanskrit grammar. Just like... The example is given, where interpretation required. It is said, example is given like, gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa-pāli, that "There is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali on the Ganges." So then you can ask that "Gaṅgā is water. How there is a neighborhood?" Then the interpretation: "Not on the Ganges water but on the bank." Then interpretation. But when it is clear that "On the bank of the Ganges there is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali," then where is interpretation? Interpretation will be required when the meaning is not clear. Otherwise, if the meaning is clear, that is (Hindi), to interpret. But in Bhagavad-gītā, in the first line, the word is used, yuyutsvaḥ, "desiring to fight." So desiring to fight, they assembled; they must fight. So where is the question of interpretation?

Page Title:If the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting; if the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret
Compiler:Labangalatika
Created:01 of May, 2009
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=0, OB=0, Lec=2, Con=3, Let=0
No. of Quotes:5