Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Misinterpretation (Books)

Bhagavad-gita As It Is

BG Preface and Introduction

Lord Kṛṣṇa first spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. We have to accept this fact and thus understand the historical significance of Bhagavad-gītā, without misinterpretation, on the authority of Kṛṣṇa.
BG Preface:

Our only purpose is to present this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is in order to guide the conditioned student to the same purpose for which Kṛṣṇa descends to this planet once in a day of Brahmā, or every 8,600,000,000 years. This purpose is stated in Bhagavad-gītā, and we have to accept it as it is; otherwise there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad-gītā and its speaker, Lord Kṛṣṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa first spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. We have to accept this fact and thus understand the historical significance of Bhagavad-gītā, without misinterpretation, on the authority of Kṛṣṇa. To interpret Bhagavad-gītā without any reference to the will of Kṛṣṇa is the greatest offense. In order to save oneself from this offense, one has to understand the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as He was directly understood by Arjuna, Lord Kṛṣṇa's first disciple. Such understanding of Bhagavad-gītā is really profitable and authorized for the welfare of human society in fulfilling the mission of life.

BG Chapters 1 - 6

Arjuna, therefore, wanted to clear up these apparently confusing matters so that any common man could accept them without misinterpretation.
BG 3.2, Purport:

In the previous chapter, as a prelude to the Bhagavad-gītā, many different paths were explained, such as sāṅkhya-yoga, buddhi-yoga, control of the senses by intelligence, work without fruitive desire, and the position of the neophyte. This was all presented unsystematically. A more organized outline of the path would be necessary for action and understanding. Arjuna, therefore, wanted to clear up these apparently confusing matters so that any common man could accept them without misinterpretation. Although Kṛṣṇa had no intention of confusing Arjuna by any jugglery of words, Arjuna could not follow the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness—either by inertia or by active service. In other words, by his questions he is clearing the path of Kṛṣṇa consciousness for all students who seriously want to understand the mystery of the Bhagavad-gītā.

Srimad-Bhagavatam

SB Canto 1

When the living being desires to be an enjoyer of material energy (illusory phenomena), the Lord covers the living being in the mystery of forgetfulness, and thus the living being misinterprets the gross body and subtle mind to be his own self.
SB 1.3.33, Purport:

In the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord says that He is present in everyone's heart, and from Him only all knowledge, remembrance or forgetfulness take place. When the living being desires to be an enjoyer of material energy (illusory phenomena), the Lord covers the living being in the mystery of forgetfulness, and thus the living being misinterprets the gross body and subtle mind to be his own self. And by culture of transcendental knowledge, when the living being prays to the Lord for deliverance from the clutches of forgetfulness, the Lord, by His causeless mercy, removes the living being's illusory curtain, and thus he realizes his own self. He then engages himself in the service of the Lord in his eternal constitutional position, becoming liberated from the conditioned life.

SB Canto 2

Vedic knowledge is misinterpreted by those who are not qualified brāhmaṇas.
SB 2.2.27, Purport:

It is said that one should become a brāhmaṇa before one can understand the Vedic statements, and this stricture is as important as the stricture that no one shall become a lawyer who has not qualified himself as a graduate. Such a stricture is not an impediment in the path of progress for anyone and everyone, but it is necessary for an unqualified understanding of a particular science. Vedic knowledge is misinterpreted by those who are not qualified brāhmaṇas. A qualified brāhmaṇa is one who has undergone strict training under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master.

Misinterpretation of the word aham by the word jugglery of the impersonalist should not disturb the mind of the strict followers of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
SB 2.9.37, Purport:

There are many grammarians and nondevotee material wranglers who have tried to present false interpretations of these four verses of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam but the Lord Himself advised Brahmājī not to be deviated from the fixed conclusion the Lord had taught him. The Lord was the teacher of the nucleus of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in four verses, and Brahmā was the receiver of the knowledge. Misinterpretation of the word aham by the word jugglery of the impersonalist should not disturb the mind of the strict followers of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the text of the Personality of Godhead and His unalloyed devotees, who are also known as the bhāgavatas, and any outsider should have no access to this confidential literature of devotional service. But unfortunately the impersonalist, who has no relation to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, sometimes tries to interpret Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by his poor fund of knowledge in grammar and dry speculation. Therefore, the Lord warns Brahmā (and, through Brahmā, all future devotees of the Lord in the disciplic succession of Brahmā) that one should never be misled by the conclusion of the so-called grammarians or by other men with a poor fund of knowledge, but must always fix the mind properly, via the paramparā system.

SB Canto 3

The word aham is misinterpreted by the Māyāvāda school into meanings which no one but the interpreter can understand.
SB 3.5.23, Purport:

The great sage here begins to explain the purpose of the four original verses of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Although they have no access to the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the followers of the Māyāvāda (impersonalist) school sometimes screw out an imaginary explanation of the original four verses, but we must accept the actual explanation given herein by Maitreya Muni because he, along with Uddhava, personally heard it directly from the Lord. The first line of the original four verses runs, aham evāsam evāgre. The word aham is misinterpreted by the Māyāvāda school into meanings which no one but the interpreter can understand. Here aham is explained as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not the individual living entities. Before the creation, there was only the Personality of Godhead; there were no puruṣa incarnations and certainly no living entities, nor was there the material energy, by which the manifested creation is effected. The puruṣa incarnations and all the different energies of the Supreme Lord were merged in Him only.

The impersonalists misinterpret the theory a reflection, and thus they wrongly accept the individual consciousness as the supreme consciousness.
SB 3.5.45, Purport:

The greatest offense is to deny the existence of the Lord as separate from the individual souls or to accept the Lord and the individual soul as one and the same. The impersonalists misinterpret the theory a reflection, and thus they wrongly accept the individual consciousness as the supreme consciousness.

In Bhagavad-gītā the Personality of Godhead always says mām, "unto Me," but the rascals misinterpret the clear meaning. Mām is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
SB 3.24.39, Purport:

People are very anxious to understand the Absolute Truth in various ways, especially by experiencing the brahmajyoti, or Brahman effulgence, by meditation and by mental speculation. But Kapiladeva uses the word mām to emphasize that the Personality of Godhead is the ultimate feature of the Absolute Truth. In Bhagavad-gītā the Personality of Godhead always says mām, "unto Me," but the rascals misinterpret the clear meaning. Mām is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If one can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead as He appears in different incarnations and understand that He has not assumed a material body but is present in His own eternal, spiritual form, then one can understand the nature of the Personality of Godhead.

Sometimes the word bhāvana is misinterpreted as "imagination." But bhāvana does not mean "imagination;" it means giving actual shape to the description of Vedic literature.
SB 3.26.46, Purport:

Sometimes the word bhāvana is misinterpreted as "imagination." But bhāvana does not mean "imagination;" it means giving actual shape to the description of Vedic literature. Earth is the ultimate transformation of all living entities and their respective modes of material nature.

SB Canto 4

Here one word, saṅgatātmā, is misinterpreted by the Māyāvādī philosophers, who say that the self of Dhruva Mahārāja became one with the Supreme Self, the Personality of Godhead.
SB 4.8.82, Purport:

Here one word, saṅgatātmā, is misinterpreted by the Māyāvādī philosophers, who say that the self of Dhruva Mahārāja became one with the Supreme Self, the Personality of Godhead. The Māyāvādī philosophers want to prove by this word that the Supersoul and the individual soul become united in this way and that after such unification the individual soul has no separate existence. But here it is clearly said by the Supreme Lord that Dhruva Mahārāja was so absorbed in meditation on the thought of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that He Himself, the universal consciousness, was attracted to Dhruva. In order to please the demigods, He wanted to go Himself to Dhruva Mahārāja to stop him from this severe austerity. The Māyāvādī philosophers' conclusion that the Supersoul and the individual soul become united is not supported by this statement. Rather, the Supersoul, the Personality of Godhead, wanted to stop Dhruva Mahārāja from this severe austerity.

There are also so-called Vedāntists who advertise themselves as followers of Vedānta philosophy but who misinterpret Vedānta.
SB 4.12.41, Purport:

There are also so-called Vedāntists who advertise themselves as followers of Vedānta philosophy but who misinterpret Vedānta. The expression veda-vāda-ratāḥ is also found in the Bhagavad-gītā, referring to persons who are attached to the Vedas without understanding the purport of the Vedas.

SB Canto 5

There is a class of men akin to Māyāvādī philosophers who misinterpret the ahaṁ brahmāsmi and so’ham Vedic mantras to mean, "I am the Supreme Brahman" and "I am identical with the Lord." This kind of false conception, in which one thinks himself the supreme enjoyer, is a kind of illusion.
SB 5.25.1, Purport:

There is a class of men akin to Māyāvādī philosophers who misinterpret the ahaṁ brahmāsmi and so’ham Vedic mantras to mean, "I am the Supreme Brahman" and "I am identical with the Lord." This kind of false conception, in which one thinks himself the supreme enjoyer, is a kind of illusion.

SB Canto 6

One who misinterprets Bhagavad-gītā, twisting out some meaning for his sense gratification, is a non-Āryan. Therefore commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā by such persons should be immediately rejected. One should try to follow Bhagavad-gītā as it is.
SB 6.16.43, Purport:

When Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65)—"Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me"—they comment that it is not Kṛṣṇa to whom we must surrender. Thus they derive imaginary meanings from Bhagavad-gītā. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, however, strictly follows bhāgavata-dharma, the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam for the complete welfare of human society. One who misinterprets Bhagavad-gītā, twisting out some meaning for his sense gratification, is a non-Āryan. Therefore commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā by such persons should be immediately rejected. One should try to follow Bhagavad-gītā as it is.

SB Canto 7

Misinterpretation of Bhagavad-gītā is chala-dharma, a religious system of cheating—or śabda-bhit, a jugglery of words.
SB 7.15.13, Purport:

Misinterpretation of Bhagavad-gītā is chala-dharma. When Kṛṣṇa directly says something and some rascal interprets it to mean something different, this is chala-dharma—a religious system of cheating—or śabda-bhit, a jugglery of words. One should be extremely careful to avoid these various types of cheating systems of religion.

SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13

The causeless mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is neglected by such demoniac persons, who cannot understand the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā and who therefore misinterpret them.
SB 10.1.21, Purport:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is invisible even to Lord Brahmā, yet He descends on this earth and becomes visible to people in general. This is certainly an act of His causeless mercy, but fools and nondevotees think that Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary historical person. Because they think that the Lord is an ordinary person like them, they are described as mūḍha (avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ). The causeless mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is neglected by such demoniac persons, who cannot understand the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā and who therefore misinterpret them.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 2.90, Translation:

“Kṛṣṇa, in the same way, is the cause of all causes and all incarnations. Please hear another verse to defeat all misinterpretations.

By misinterpreting tādṛśīḥ krīḍāḥ, the sahajiyās want to indulge in sex while pretending to imitate Lord Kṛṣṇa. But one must actually understand the imports of the words through the intelligence of the authorized gosvāmīs.
CC Adi 4.34, Purport:

The activities of the Supreme Lord can never be understood by irresponsible persons who think the pastimes of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa to be ordinary affairs. The rāsa dance is arranged by Kṛṣṇa's internal potency yogamāyā, and it is beyond the grasp of the materially affected person. Trying to throw mud into transcendence with their perversity, the sahajiyās misinterpret the sayings tat-paratvena nirmalam (CC Madhya 19.170) and tat-paro bhavet. By misinterpreting tādṛśīḥ krīḍāḥ, they want to indulge in sex while pretending to imitate Lord Kṛṣṇa. But one must actually understand the imports of the words through the intelligence of the authorized gosvāmīs.

Māyāvādī sannyāsīs always misinterpret all the śāstras with their word jugglery and grammatical compositions. Śaṅkarācārya warned his disciples that if they concerned themselves only with the principles of grammar, not worshiping Govinda, they were fools who would never be saved.
CC Adi 7.64, Purport:

Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are always very puffed up because of their knowledge of Sanskrit and because they belong to the Śaṅkara-sampradāya. They are always under the impression that unless one is a brāhmaṇa and a very good Sanskrit scholar, especially in grammar, one cannot accept the renounced order of life or become a preacher. Māyāvādī sannyāsīs always misinterpret all the śāstras with their word jugglery and grammatical compositions, yet Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya himself condemned such jugglery of words in the verse prāpte sannihite kāle na hi na hi rakṣati ḍukṛñ karaṇe. Ḍukṛñ refers to suffixes and prefixes in Sanskrit grammar. Śaṅkarācārya warned his disciples that if they concerned themselves only with the principles of grammar, not worshiping Govinda, they were fools who would never be saved. Yet in spite of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's instructions, foolish Māyāvādī sannyāsīs are always busy juggling words on the basis of strict Sanskrit grammar.

CC Madhya-lila

When one does not touch the direct meaning but tries to divert attention by misinterpretation, he engages in chala.
CC Madhya 6.177, Purport:

The word vitaṇḍā indicates that a debater, not touching the main point or establishing his own point, simply tries to refute the other person's argument. When one does not touch the direct meaning but tries to divert attention by misinterpretation, he engages in chala. The word nigraha also means always trying to refute the arguments of the other party.

Sometimes Kṛṣṇa's activities and attractive features are misinterpreted by gross materialists who accuse Him of being immoral because He danced with the gopīs, but such an accusation results from not knowing that Kṛṣṇa is beyond this material world.
CC Madhya 8.139, Purport:

Sometimes Kṛṣṇa's activities and attractive features are misinterpreted by gross materialists who accuse Him of being immoral because He danced with the gopīs, but such an accusation results from not knowing that Kṛṣṇa is beyond this material world.

The prākṛta-sahajiyā-sampradāya misinterpret the words gaura aṅga nahe mora, we can understand that Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. Both are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead.
CC Madhya 8.288, Purport:

Without Rādhārāṇī, one cannot taste the transcendental pleasure of Kṛṣṇa's conjugal love.” In this regard, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments on the prākṛta-sahajiyā-sampradāya, which considers Kṛṣṇa and Lord Caitanya to possess different bodies. They misinterpret the words gaura aṅga nahe mora in text 287. From that verse and the present verse we can understand that Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. Both are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Other Books by Srila Prabhupada

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

The Māyāvādī philosophers are very fond of Vedānta, and they misinterpret it in their own way. Instead of understanding their own position, they criticized Lord Caitanya as an unauthorized sannyāsī, arguing that because He was a sentimentalist, He was not actually a bona fide sannyāsī.
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 17:

The Māyāvādī philosophers are very fond of Vedānta, and they misinterpret it in their own way. Instead of understanding their own position, they criticized Lord Caitanya as an unauthorized sannyāsī, arguing that because He was a sentimentalist, He was not actually a bona fide sannyāsī.

The Māyāvādī philosophers simply cover the sunlight with the cloud of misinterpretation.
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

Lord Caitanya said that the Vedic statements of the Upaniṣads are like sunlight. Everything is clear and very distinct when it is seen in the sunlight; the statements of the Vedas are similarly clear and distinct. The Māyāvādī philosophers simply cover the sunlight with the cloud of misinterpretation.

Lord Caitanya protested against misinterpretations of the Upaniṣads, and He rejected any explanation which did not give the direct meaning of the Upaniṣads.
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

Lord Caitanya protested against misinterpretations of the Upaniṣads, and He rejected any explanation which did not give the direct meaning of the Upaniṣads. The direct interpretation is called abhidhā-vṛtti, whereas the indirect interpretation is called lakṣanā-vṛtti, The indirect interpretation serves no purpose. There are four kinds of understanding, called: (1) direct understanding (pratyakṣa), (2) hypothetical understanding (anumāna), (3) historical understanding (aitihya) and (4) understanding through sound (śabda). Of these four, understanding from the Vedic scriptures (which are the sound representations of the Absolute Truth) is the best method. The traditional Vedic students accept understanding through sound to be the best.

Everything is clear and very distinct when it is seen in the sunlight; the statements of the Vedas are similarly clear and distinct. The Māyāvādī philosophers simply cover the sunlight with the cloud of misinterpretation.
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

According to Lord Caitanya, those who try to give personal interpretations to the Vedic statements are not at all intelligent. They mislead their followers by inventing their own interpretations. In India there is a class of men known as ārya-samāja who say that they accept the original Vedas only and reject all other Vedic literatures. The motive of these people, however, is to give their own interpretation. According to Lord Caitanya, such interpretations are not to be accepted. They are simply not Vedic. Lord Caitanya said that the Vedic statements of the Upaniṣads are like sunlight. Everything is clear and very distinct when it is seen in the sunlight; the statements of the Vedas are similarly clear and distinct. The Māyāvādī philosophers simply cover the sunlight with the cloud of misinterpretation.

Nectar of Devotion

Unless one is fully situated in the transcendental position, the relationship of the gopīs with Kṛṣṇa is very difficult to understand. But because it appears to be just like ordinary dealings of young boys and girls, it is sometimes misinterpreted to be like the ordinary sex of this material world.
Nectar of Devotion 15:

Unless one is fully situated in the transcendental position, the relationship of the gopīs with Kṛṣṇa is very difficult to understand. But because it appears to be just like ordinary dealings of young boys and girls, it is sometimes misinterpreted to be like the ordinary sex of this material world.

After Brahman realization, when a liberated soul comes in contact with a pure devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa and submissively accepts the teachings of Lord Kṛṣṇa without misinterpretation, he becomes situated in this neutral stage of devotional service.
Nectar of Devotion 35:

This stage of śānta-rasa can be attained by the impersonalists only when they are in association with pure devotees. Otherwise it is not possible. After Brahman realization, when a liberated soul comes in contact with a pure devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa and submissively accepts the teachings of Lord Kṛṣṇa without misinterpretation, he becomes situated in this neutral stage of devotional service.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

In many places Dr. Radhakrishnan's writing lacked spiritual insight, he had mishandled and misinterpreted the text, and thus he had made his book unacceptable to spiritualists in the line of pure devotion.
Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

The brahmacārī read the book and came to us a little dissatisfied, though the book itself was deeply esoteric. The reason for his dissatisfaction was that Dr. Radhakrishnan's writing lacked spiritual insight: in many places he had mishandled and misinterpreted the text, and thus he had made his book unacceptable to spiritualists in the line of pure devotion.

The brahmacārī was especially shocked and hurt by Dr. Radhakrishnan's misinterpretation of Text 34 of Chapter 9, which appears in his book on page 254. He came to us very depressed, wanting to discuss this passage.
Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

The brahmacārī was especially shocked and hurt by Dr. Radhakrishnan's misinterpretation of Text 34 of Chapter 9, which appears in his book on page 254. He came to us very depressed, wanting to discuss this passage. The following words were found in the book:

It is not the personal Kṛṣṇa to whom we have to give ourselves up utterly but the Unborn, Beginningless, Eternal who speaks through Kṛṣṇa.

We have not the slightest intention of confronting a world-famous philosopher like Dr. Radhakrishnan with arguments, yet on the brahmacārī's repeated request we have to scrutinize the text and point out the discrepancies. We have great respect for Dr. Radhakrishnan, not only because he is the vice-president of our country but also because of his scholarship and his position as an erudite master of Hindu philosophy. Furthermore, he is faithful to the brahminical tradition he hails from and is a follower of the Māyāvāda school.

Page Title:Misinterpretation (Books)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Caitanyadev
Created:16 of Dec, 2008
Totals by Section:BG=2, SB=13, CC=6, OB=8, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:29