Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Interpretation (CC)

Expressions researched:
"interpret" |"interpretated" |"interpretation" |"interpretations" |"interpreted" |"interpreter" |"interpreters" |"interpreting" |"interpretive" |"interprets"

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 1.52, Purport:

The transcendental personal forms of the Lord are a mystery, and the symptoms of these forms, which are absolutely different from anything made of mundane elements, are also mysterious. The innumerable forms of the Lord, such as Śyāmasundara, Nārāyaṇa, Rāma and Gaurasundara; the colors of these forms (white, red, yellow, cloudlike śyāma and others); His qualities, as the responsive Personality of Godhead to pure devotees and as impersonal Brahman to dry speculators; His uncommon activities like lifting Govardhana Hill, marrying more than sixteen thousand queens at Dvārakā, and entering the rāsa dance with the damsels of Vraja, expanding Himself in as many forms as there were damsels in the dance—these and innumerable other uncommon acts and attributes are all mysteries, one aspect of which is presented in the scientific knowledge of the Bhagavad-gītā, which is read and adored all over the world by all classes of scholars, with as many interpretations as there are empiric philosophers.

CC Adi 1.53, Purport:

Aham means "I"; therefore the speaker who is saying aham, "I," must have His own personality. The Māyāvādī philosophers interpret this word aham as referring to the impersonal Brahman. The Māyāvādīs are very proud of their grammatical knowledge, but any person who has actual knowledge of grammar can understand that aham means "I" and that "I" refers to a personality. Therefore the Personality of Godhead, speaking to Brahmā, uses aham while describing His own transcendental form. Aham has a specific meaning; it is not a vague term that can be whimsically interpreted. Aham, when spoken by Kṛṣṇa, refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and nothing else.

CC Adi 2.71, Translation:

An opponent may say, “This is your interpretation, but actually the Supreme Lord is Nārāyaṇa, who is in the transcendental realm.

CC Adi 2.73, Translation:

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.

CC Adi 5.40, Purport:

In considering the quadruple forms of the absolute Personality of Godhead, known as Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, the impersonalists, headed by Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, have interpreted the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra in a way suitable for the impersonalist school. To provide the intrinsic import of such aphorisms, however, Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, the leader of the six Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, has properly replied to the impersonalists in his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, which is a natural commentary on the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has misleadingly explained the quadruple form (catur-vyūha) in his interpretation of the forty-second aphorism of Chapter Two of the second khaṇḍa of the Vedānta-sūtra (utpatty-asambhavāt). In verses 41 through 47 of this chapter of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī answers Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's misleading objections to the personal feature of the Absolute Truth.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Actually, the explanation of the quadruple forms in the Vedic literature cannot be understood by the speculation of a conditioned soul. The quadruple forms should therefore be accepted just as They are described. 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. In his Śārīraka-bhāṣya, however, Śaṅkarācārya has increased the misunderstanding of the monists.

CC Adi 7.73, Purport:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra must be understood to be devoid of all offenses. The ten offenses against the holy name are as follows: (1) to blaspheme a devotee of the Lord, (2) to consider the Lord and the demigods to be on the same level or to think that there are many gods, (3) to neglect the orders of the spiritual master, (4) to minimize the authority of scriptures (Vedas), (5) to interpret the holy name of God, (6) to commit sins on the strength of chanting, (7) to instruct the glories of the Lord's name to the unfaithful, (8) to compare the chanting of the holy name with material piety, (9) to be inattentive while chanting the holy name, and (10) to be attached to material things in spite of chanting the holy name.

CC Adi 7.127, Purport:

The falsity of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's explanation of vivarta-vāda and pariṇāma-vāda has been detected by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, especially Jīva Gosvāmī, whose opinion is that actually Śaṅkara did not understand the Vedānta-sūtra. In Śaṅkara's explanation of one sūtra, ānanda-mayo ’bhyāsāt, he has interpreted the affix mayaṭ with such word jugglery that this very explanation proves that he had little knowledge of the Vedānta-sūtra but simply wanted to support his impersonalism through the aphorisms of the Vedānta philosophy. Actually, however, he failed to do so because he could not put forward strong arguments.

CC Adi 7.127, Purport:

In explaining this verse, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya interpreted various Sanskrit words in such a way that he implied, according to Jīva Gosvāmī, that Vyāsadeva had very little knowledge of higher logic. Such unscrupulous deviation from the real meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra has created a class of men who by word jugglery try to derive various indirect meanings from the Vedic literatures, especially the Bhagavad-gītā. One of them has even explained that the word kurukṣetra refers to the body. Such interpretations imply, however, that neither Lord Kṛṣṇa nor Vyāsadeva had a proper sense of word usage or etymological adjustment. They lead one to assume that since Lord Kṛṣṇa could not personally sense the meaning of what He was speaking and Vyāsadeva did not know the meaning of what he was writing, Lord Kṛṣṇa left His book to be explained later by the Māyāvādīs. Such interpretations merely prove, however, that their proponents have very little philosophical sense.

CC Adi 7.132, Translation:
“The self-evident Vedic literatures are the highest evidence of all, but if these literatures are interpreted, their self-evident nature is lost."
CC Adi 7.132, Purport:

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. In other words, 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. How can one bring the authority under his own control? That is a case of principiis obsta.

CC Adi 7.133, Purport:

Unfortunately, the Śaṅkarite 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. We have therefore begun by presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, and we propose to present all the Vedic literature in terms of the direct meaning of its words.

CC Adi 10.77, Translation:

Devānanda Paṇḍita was a professional reciter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but by the mercy of Vakreśvara Paṇḍita and the grace of the Lord he understood the devotional interpretation of the Bhāgavatam.

CC Adi 10.77, Purport:

In the Caitanya-bhāgavata, Madhya-khaṇḍa, Chapter Twenty-one, it is stated that Devānanda Paṇḍita and Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya's father, Viśārada, lived in the same village. Devānanda Paṇḍita was a professional reciter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not like his interpretation of it. In the present town of Navadvīpa, which was formerly known as Kuliyā, Lord Caitanya showed such mercy to him that he gave up the Māyāvādī interpretation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and learned how to explain Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in terms of bhakti. Formerly, when Devānanda was expounding the Māyāvādī interpretation, Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura was once present in his meeting, and when he began to cry, Devānanda's students drove him away. Some days later, Caitanya Mahāprabhu passed that way, and when He met Devānanda He chastised him severely because of his Māyāvāda interpretation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. At that time Devānanda had little faith in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as an incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa, but one night some time later Vakreśvara Paṇḍita was a guest in his house, and when he explained the science of Kṛṣṇa, Devānanda was convinced about the identity of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Thus he was induced to explain Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam according to the Vaiṣṇava understanding.

CC Adi 13.90, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, who was previously a great astrologer, explains this verse as follows: The ṣaḍ-varga (six divisions) are technically called kṣetra, horā, drekkāṇa, navāṁśa, dvādaśāṁśa and triṁśāṁśa. According to Jyotir-vedic astrology, when the relationship between the planets and the rulers of these six divisions is determined, the auspiciousness of the moment of birth can be calculated. In the book named Bṛhaj-jātaka and other books there are directions for interpreting the movements of the stars and planets. One who knows the process of calculating the aṣṭa-varga (eight divisions) can predict auspicious and inauspicious events. This science is known especially by persons who are called horā-śāstra-vit, or those who know the astrological scriptures. On the strength of astrological calculations from the horā scriptures, Nīlāmbara Cakravartī, the grandfather of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, had ascertained the auspicious moment when the Lord would appear.

CC Adi 14.29, Purport:

"Anyone who engages in spiritual devotional service without motivation, rendering such service for the satisfaction of the Lord, is elevated immediately to the spiritual platform, and all his activities are spiritual." Brahma-bhūyāya refers to Brahman (spiritual) activities. Although Māyāvādī philosophers are very eager to merge into the Brahman effulgence, they have no Brahman activities. To a certain extent they recommend Brahman activities, which for them means engagement in studying the Vedānta and Sāṅkhya philosophies, but their interpretations are but dry speculation. Lacking the varieties of spiritual activity, they cannot stay for long on that platform of simply studying Vedānta or Sāṅkhya philosophy.

CC Adi 16.32, Purport:

Almost anyone expert in studying grammar interprets the śāstras 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. Keśava Kāśmīrī indirectly taunted Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu by implying that although He was a great teacher of grammar, such grammatical jugglery of root meanings did not require great expertise. This was a challenge to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Because it was prearranged that Keśava Kāśmīrī would have to discuss the śāstras with Nimāi Paṇḍita, from the very beginning he wanted to bluff the Lord. Thus the Lord replied as follows.

CC Adi 17.53, Purport:

Atheists are punishable, whereas devotees are to be protected. To maintain this principle is the mission of all avatāras, or incarnations. One must therefore identify an incarnation by His activities, not by popular votes or mental concoctions. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu gave protection to devotees and killed many demons in the course of His preaching work. He specifically mentioned that the Māyāvādī philosophers are the greatest demons. Therefore He warned all others not to hear the Māyāvāda philosophy: māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa. Simply by hearing the Māyāvāda interpretation of the śāstras, one is doomed (CC Madhya 6.169).

CC Adi 17.72, Translation:

Once when the Lord explained the glories of the holy name to the devotees, some ordinary students who heard Him fashioned their own interpretation.

CC Adi 17.73, Translation:

When a student interpreted the glories of the holy name as a prayer of exaggeration, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, greatly unhappy, immediately warned everyone not to see the student's face henceforward.

CC Adi 17.73, Purport:

Once when Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu explained the glories of the transcendental potency of the Lord's holy name, the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, one unfortunate student said that such glorification of the holy name was an exaggeration in the śāstras to induce people to take to it. In this way the student interpreted the glories of the holy name. This is called artha-vāda, and it is one of the ten offenses at the lotus feet of the holy name of the Lord. There are many kinds of offenses, but the offense known as nāma-aparādha, an offense at the lotus feet of the holy name, is extremely dangerous.

CC Adi 17.73, Purport:

This is the absolute position of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore one who distinguishes between the Lord and His name is called a pāṣaṇḍī, or nonbeliever, an atheistic demon. Glorification of the holy name is glorification of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should never attempt to distinguish between the Lord and His name or interpret the glories of the holy name as mere exaggerations.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 6.130, Translation and Purport:
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu then revealed His mind, saying, “I can understand the meaning of each sūtra very clearly, but your explanations have simply agitated My mind."
The factual meaning of the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra is as clear as sunshine. The Māyāvādī philosophers simply try to cover the sunshine with the clouds of interpretations imagined by Śaṅkarācārya and his followers.
CC Madhya 6.132, Purport:

This is typical of all Māyāvādīs or atheists who interpret the meaning of Vedic literature in their own imaginative way. The real purpose of such foolish people is to impose the impersonalist conclusion on all Vedic literature. The Māyāvādī atheists also interpret the Bhagavad-gītā. In every verse of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā it is clearly stated that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In every verse Vyāsadeva says, śrī-bhagavān uvāca, "the Supreme Personality of Godhead said," or "the Blessed Lord said." It is clearly stated that the Blessed Lord is the Supreme Person, but Māyāvādī atheists still try to prove that the Absolute Truth is impersonal. In order to present their false, imaginary meanings, they must adopt so much word jugglery and grammatical interpretation that they finally become ludicrous. Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu remarked that no one should hear the Māyāvādī commentaries or purports to any Vedic literature.

CC Madhya 6.134, Translation:
“For each sūtra the direct meaning must be accepted without interpretation. However, you simply abandon the direct meaning and proceed with your imaginative interpretation."
CC Madhya 6.135, Purport:

In his book Sarva-saṁvādinī, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has noted that although there are ten kinds of evidence—direct perception, the Vedic version, historical reference, hypothesis and so on—and although they are all generally accepted as evidence, the person presenting a hypothesis, reading the Vedic version, perceiving or interpreting by his experience is certain to be imperfect in four ways. That is, he is subject to committing mistakes, to becoming illusioned, to cheating and to having imperfect senses. 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. Therefore the conclusion is that only a direct presentation can be considered evidence. An interpretation cannot be accepted as evidence, but may be considered proof of evidence.

CC Madhya 6.135, Purport:

The statements of the Bhagavad-gītā are themselves proof that there is a place of religious pilgrimage named Kurukṣetra where the Pāṇḍavas and Kurus met to fight. After meeting there, what did they do? This was Dhṛtarāṣṭra's inquiry to Sañjaya. Although these statements are very clear, atheists try to interpret different meanings of the words dharma-kṣetra and kuru-kṣetra. Therefore Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has warned us not to depend on any kind of interpretation. It is better to take the verses as they are, without interpretation.

CC Madhya 6.137, Translation:

"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."

CC Madhya 6.137, Purport:

Out of four main types of evidence—direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas—Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost. If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, 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.

CC Madhya 6.137, Purport:

The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature. The Purāṇas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa) are especially meant for Vaiṣṇavas and are also Vedic literature. As such, whatever is stated within the Purāṇas, Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. The Bhagavad-gītā is also within the Mahābhārata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gītā are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost.

CC Madhya 6.138, Translation:
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu continued, “The Brahma-sūtra, compiled by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, is as radiant as the sun. One who tries to interpret its meaning simply covers that sunshine with a cloud."
CC Madhya 6.151, Translation:
“All these mantras confirm that the Absolute Truth is personal, but the Māyāvādīs, throwing away the direct meaning, interpret the Absolute Truth as impersonal."
CC Madhya 6.152, Purport:

If the Supreme Personality 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 Māyāvādī philosophers interpret them and try to establish the Absolute Truth as formless. Actually, the Supreme Lord has an eternal personal form full of all opulence. The Māyāvādī philosophers try to interpret the Absolute Truth as being without potency. However, in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (6.8) it is clearly said, parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate: (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport) "The Absolute Truth has multipotencies."

CC Madhya 6.172, Translation:
“Śaṅkarācārya's theory states that the Absolute Truth is transformed. By accepting this theory, the Māyāvādī philosophers denigrate Śrīla Vyāsadeva by accusing him of error. They thus find fault in the Vedānta-sūtra and interpret it to try to establish the theory of illusion."
CC Madhya 6.179, Translation:
“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."
CC Madhya 6.179, Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers, however, consider the central point of relationship to be the impersonal Brahman, the function of the living entity to be the acquisition of knowledge of Brahman, resulting in detachment from material activity, and the ultimate goal of life to be liberation, or merging into the existence of the Supreme. All of this, however, is simply due to the imagination of the conditioned soul. It simply opposes him to material activities. 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.

CC Madhya 6.180, Translation:
“Actually there is no fault on the part of Śaṅkarācārya. 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."
CC Madhya 6.181, Translation:
“(Addressing Lord Śiva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead said:) "Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Also, 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."
CC Madhya 9.49, Purport:

One must accept a principle of standard knowledge because one cannot attain the Absolute Truth simply by intellectual speculation. If everyone is an authority, or if everyone accepts his own intelligence as the ultimate criterion—as is presently fashionable—the scriptures will be interpreted in many different ways, and everyone will claim that his own philosophy is supreme. This has become a very great problem, and 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. The Buddhists theorize that annihilation, or nirvāṇa, is the ultimate goal.

CC Madhya 17.96, Purport:

Lord Kṛṣṇa says, vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham: "I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas." Vyāsadeva is an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, and consequently Kṛṣṇa is the compiler of Vedānta philosophy. Therefore Kṛṣṇa clearly knows the purport of Vedānta philosophy. As stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, whoever hears Vedānta philosophy from Kṛṣṇa is actually aware of the real meaning of Vedānta. The Māyāvādīs call themselves Vedāntists but do not at all understand the purport of Vedānta philosophy. Not being properly educated, people in general think that Vedānta means the Śaṅkarite interpretation.

CC Madhya 20.146, Translation:
“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 Kṛṣṇa."
CC Madhya 24 Summary:

According to Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī’s request, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu explained the well-known Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam verse beginning ātmārāmāś ca munayaḥ. He explained this verse in sixty-one different ways. He analyzed all the words and described each word with its different connotations. Adding the words ca and api, He described all the different meanings of the verse. He then concluded that different classes of transcendentalists (jñānīs, karmīs, yogīs) utilize this verse according to their own interpretation, but if they would give up this process and surrender to Kṛṣṇa, as indicated by the verse itself, they would be able to comprehend the real meaning of the verse. In this regard, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu narrated a story about how the great sage Nārada converted a hunter into a great Vaiṣṇava, and how this was appreciated by Nārada's friend Parvata Muni.

CC Madhya 25.26, Translation:
“Giving up the direct meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra and the Upaniṣads, Śaṅkarācārya imagines some other interpretation.
CC Madhya 25.27, Translation:
“All the interpretations of Śaṅkarācārya are imaginary. Such imaginary interpretations are verbally accepted by learned scholars, but they do not appeal to the heart."
CC Madhya 25.42, Translation:
“Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya 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."
CC Madhya 25.42, Purport:

Although Lord Buddha was an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, he did not speak about God, for the people were unable to understand. He simply wanted to stop animal-killing. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya 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. These are the secrets of the ācāryas. Sometimes they conceal the real purport of the Vedas and explain the Vedas in a different way. Sometimes they enunciate a different theory just to bring the atheists under their control. Thus it is said that Śaṅkara's philosophy is for pāṣaṇḍas, atheists.

CC Madhya 25.45, Translation:

"Whatever meaning Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu gives is perfect. Any other interpretation is only a distortion."

CC Madhya 25.49, Translation:
“Anyone who wants to establish his own opinion or philosophy certainly cannot explain any scripture according to the principle of direct interpretation."

CC Antya-lila

CC Antya 1.136, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura interprets this verse (Vidagdha-mādhava 1.10) in two ways, for Lord Kṛṣṇa and for Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. When interpreted for Kṛṣṇa, the night is understood to have been a dark-moon night, and when interpreted for Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, it is considered to have been a full-moon night.

CC Antya 7.124, Translation:

"He is actually acting for my benefit, although I interpret His actions as insults. This is exactly like the incident in which Lord Kṛṣṇa cut down Indra, the great, puffed-up fool, to correct him."

CC Antya 7.128, Translation:
“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 Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord."
CC Antya 7.134, Purport:

The false pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous ācāryas will make one's comments faulty. At the present moment it has become fashionable for everyone to write in his own way, but such writing is never accepted by serious devotees. Because of false pride, every scholar and philosopher wants to exhibit his learning by interpreting the śāstras, especially the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in his own way. This system of commenting in one's own way is fully condemned by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Therefore He says, "artha-vyasta" likhana sei. Commentaries written according to one's own philosophical way are never accepted; no one will appreciate such commentaries on the revealed scriptures.

Page Title:Interpretation (CC)
Compiler:Visnu Murti, Serene
Created:20 of Dec, 2011
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=53, OB=0, Lec=0, Con=0, Let=0
No. of Quotes:53