Interpretation (Other Books)

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

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter Prologue:

Caitanya heard with silence what the great Sārvabhauma uttered with gravity for seven days, at the end of which the latter said, "Kṛṣṇa Caitanya! I think You do not understand the Vedānta, for You do not say anything after hearing my recitation and explanations."

The reply of Caitanya was that He understood the sūtras very well but could not make out what Śaṅkarācārya meant by his commentaries.

Astonished at this, Sārvabhauma said, "How is it that You understand the meanings of the sūtras but do not understand the commentaries which explain the sūtras? All well! If You understand the sūtras, please let me have Your interpretations."

Mahāprabhu thereupon explained all the sūtras in His own way, without touching the pantheistic commentary of Śaṅkara. The keen understanding of Sārvabhauma enabled him to see the truth, beauty and harmony of the arguments in the explanations given by Caitanya, and Sārvabhauma was obliged to utter that it was the first time he had found one who could explain the Brahma-sūtras in such a simple manner.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 12:

There are ten kinds of offenses in the matter of chanting the holy name: (1) to blaspheme a devotee of the Lord, (2) to consider the Lord and the demigods on the same level or to think there are many gods, (3) to neglect the orders of the spiritual master, (4) to minimize the authority of the scriptures (the Vedas), (5) to interpret the holy names of God, (6) to commit sins on the strength of chanting, (7) to instruct the glories of the Lord's names to the unfaithful, (8) to compare the chanting of the holy name to material piety, (9) to be inattentive while chanting the holy name, and (10) to remain attached to material things in spite of chanting the holy names. These ten offenses against the holy name should be avoided.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 14:

There are many improper explanations of scriptural passages describing the last portion of Lord Kṛṣṇa's pastimes (such as the explanation of descriptions of Kṛṣṇa as the incarnation of a hair), but Lord Caitanya properly explained these passages and gave them the right interpretation. As far as Kṛṣṇa being the incarnation of a hair is concerned, this is mentioned in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa and the Mahābhārata. In the Mahābhārata it is stated that Lord Viṣṇu snatched a gray hair and a black hair from His head and that these two hairs entered into the wombs of two queens of the Yadu dynasty, namely Rohiṇī and Devakī. It is also stated there that Lord Kṛṣṇa descends to the material world in order to vanquish all the demons.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

Unfortunately, Śaṅkara has abandoned this chief word, oṁkāra, and has whimsically accepted tat tvam asi as the supreme vibration of the Vedas. By accepting such a secondary vibration and leaving aside the principal vibration, he has given up the direct interpretation of the scripture in favor of his own indirect interpretation.

Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has unceremoniously obscured the Kṛṣṇa consciousness described in the puruṣa Vedānta-sūtra by manufacturing an indirect interpretation and abandoning the direct interpretation. Unless we take all the statements of the Vedānta-sūtra as self-evident, there is no point in studying the Vedānta-sūtra. Interpreting the verses of the Vedānta-sūtra according to one's own whim is the greatest disservice to the self-evident Vedas.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

He is unlimitedly expanded and has unlimited form. By understanding oṁkāra one can become free from the duality of the material world and attain absolute knowledge. Therefore oṁkāra is the most auspicious representation of the Supreme Lord. Such is the description given by the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. One should not foolishly interpret an Upaniṣadic description and say that it is because the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot appear Himself in this material world in His own form that He sends His sound representation (oṁkāra) instead. Due to such a false interpretation, oṁkāra has come to be considered something material, and consequently oṁkāra is misunderstood and eulogized as being simply an exhibition or symbol of the Lord. Actually oṁkāra is as good as any other incarnation of the Supreme Lord.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

Such an incarnation or representation is as good spiritually as the Supreme Lord. Oṁkāra is therefore the ultimate representation of all the Vedas. Indeed, the Vedic mantras or hymns have transcendental value because they are prefixed by the syllable om. The Vaiṣṇavas interpret oṁkāra, a combination of the letters a, u and m, as follows: By the letter a, Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is indicated; by the letter u, Kṛṣṇa's eternal consort, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, is indicated; and by the letter m, the living entity, the eternal servitor of the Supreme Lord, is indicated. Śaṅkara has not given such importance to oṁkāra. But such importance is given in the Vedas, the Rāmāyaṇa, the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata, from beginning to end. Thus the glories of the Supreme Lord, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are declared.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21:

In this way Lord Caitanya condemned attempts at indirect interpretation of the Vedānta-sūtra, and all the sannyāsīs present were struck with wonder by His explanation. After hearing the direct interpretation, one of the sannyāsīs immediately declared, “O Śrīpāda Caitanya, whatever You have explained in Your condemnation of the indirect interpretation of oṁkāra is not at all a useless argument. Still, only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one. Actually, every one of us now knows that the interpretations given by Śaṅkara are all artificial and imaginary, but because we belong to his sect, we took it for granted that his interpretation was the right one.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21:

We shall be very glad to hear You further explain the Vedānta-sūtra by direct interpretation.”

Being so requested, Lord Caitanya explained each and every aphorism of the Vedānta-sūtra according to the direct interpretation. He began by explaining the word "Brahman," indicating that "Brahman" means "the greatest," the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The word "Brahman" indicates that the greatest is full with six opulences; in other words, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the reservoir of all wealth, all fame, all strength, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21:

After Lord Caitanya explained the Vedānta-sūtra by directly interpreting the aphorisms, the chief disciple of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī stood up in the assembly and began to praise Lord Caitanya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa. The chief disciple not only very much appreciated the explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra by Lord Caitanya, but he publicly stated, “The direct explanation of the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra is so pleasing that we forget ourselves and also forget that we belong to the Māyāvādī sect. We must admit that Śaṅkarācārya's explanations of the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra are all imaginary.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21:

We simply engage in nonsensical talk. Māyāvādī philosophers who are serious about attaining benediction should engage in the devotional service of Kṛṣṇa, but instead they take pleasure in useless argument only. We hereby admit that the explanation of Śaṅkarācārya hides the actual import of Vedic literature. Only the explanation given by Caitanya is acceptable. All other interpretations are useless.”

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21:

After thus explaining his position, the chief student of Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī began to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. When Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī saw this, he too admitted the fault of Śaṅkarācārya and said, “Because Śaṅkarācārya wanted to establish the doctrine of monism, he had no alternative but to interpret the Vedānta-sūtra in a different way. Once one accepts the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the doctrine of monism cannot be established. Therefore by mundane scholarship Śaṅkarācārya has tried to obscure the actual meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra. Not only has Śaṅkarācārya done this, but all authors who attempt to give their own views must misinterpret the Vedānta-sūtra.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 22:

After talking in this way, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī and Lord Caitanya sat together. "Whatever You have said concerning discrepancies in the Māyāvāda philosophy is also known by us," Prakāśānanda said. “Indeed, we know that all the commentaries on Vedic scriptures by Māyāvādī philosophers are erroneous, especially those of Śaṅkarācārya. Śaṅkarācārya's interpretations of the Vedānta-sūtra are all figments of his imagination. You have not explained the aphorisms of the Vedānta-sūtra and verses of the Upaniṣads according to Your imagination but have presented them as they are. Thus we are all pleased to have heard Your explanation. Such explanations of the Vedānta-sūtra and Upaniṣads cannot be given by anyone but the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Since You have all the potencies of the Supreme Lord, please explain the Vedānta-sūtra further so that I may be benefited.”

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 22:

Lord Caitanya protested against being called the Supreme Lord: "My dear sir, I am an ordinary living entity. I cannot know the real meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra, but Vyāsadeva, who is an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa, knows its real meaning. No ordinary living entity can interpret the Vedānta-sūtra according to his mundane conceptions. In order to curb commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra by unscrupulous persons, the author himself, Vyāsadeva, has already commented upon the Vedānta-sūtra by writing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." In other words, the best explanation of a book is written by the author himself. No one can understand the author's mind unless the author himself discloses the meaning of his words. Therefore the Vedānta-sūtra should be understood through Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the commentary written by the author of the Vedānta-sūtra.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

Knowledge is information gathered from the scriptures, and science is practical realization of that knowledge. 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. By scientifically understanding the scriptural information through the bona fide spiritual master, one learns, by one's own realization, the truths of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is different from material manifestations, and it is above the reactions of matter. Unless one scientifically understands the spiritual form of the Personality of Godhead, one becomes an impersonalist. The example comparing the Lord and the material manifestations to the sun and the sunshine is often given.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

Although they listen, they do not understand anything. As far as Lord Caitanya was concerned, the reason He said He did not understand the explanation of the Bhaṭṭācārya was not because it was too difficult for Him to understand but because He did not approve of the Māyāvādī interpretation.

When the Lord said that He was an uneducated fool and could not follow the expositions, the Bhaṭṭācārya replied: “If You do not follow what I am saying, why don’t You inquire? Why do You simply sit silently? It appears that You do have something to say about my explanations.”

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

We think it is because there are 108 Upaniṣads containing full knowledge of the Absolute Truth. On the other hand, some Vaiṣṇava transcendentalists think that the 108 beads represent the 108 companions of Lord Kṛṣṇa in His rāsa dance.

Lord Caitanya protested against misinterpretations of the Upaniṣads, rejecting any explanation which did not give their direct meaning. The direct interpretation is called abhidhā-vṛtti, whereas the indirect interpretation is called lakṣaṇā-vṛtti. The indirect interpretation serves no purpose. There are four kinds of understanding: (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, the sound representations of the Absolute Truth, is the best method. Traditional Vedic students accept understanding through sound to be the best.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

Apparently these statements are contradictory, but because cow dung and conch shells are considered pure by the Vedas, they are accepted as pure by the followers of the Vedas, without argument. If we try to understand the statements by indirect interpretation, creating some hypothesis, then we challenge the evidential authority of the Vedic statements. In other words, Vedic statements cannot be accepted according to our imperfect interpretations; they must be accepted as they are. If they are not accepted in this way, there is no authority in the Vedic statements.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

According to Lord Caitanya, those who try to give some personal interpretation to 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-samājists, who say that they accept the original Vedas only and reject all other Vedic literature. 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.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 26:

The Lord then quoted some verses from the Purāṇas by which He established that Śaṅkarācārya was ordered to teach Māyāvāda philosophy by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He quoted a verse from the Padma Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 62.31) in which it is stated that the Lord ordered Mahādeva, Lord Śiva, to present some imaginary interpretation of the Vedic literature to divert people from the actual purpose of the Vedas. "In this way try to make them atheists," the Lord said. "After that, they can be engaged in producing more population." It is also stated in the Padma Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 25.7) that Lord Śiva explained to his wife Pārvatī that in the Age of Kali he would come in the form of a brāhmaṇa to preach an imperfect interpretation of the Vedas known as Māyāvāda, which in actuality is but a second edition of atheistic Buddhist philosophy.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 7:

Therefore his philosophy is meant for bewildering the atheists and should not be accepted. If someone asks, "Why should Kṛṣṇa propagate atheistic principles?" the answer is that it was the desire of the Supreme Personality of Godhead to end the violence which was then being committed in the name of the Vedas. 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. Also, for the atheists Lord Buddha preached atheism so that they would follow him and thus be tricked into devotional service to Lord Buddha, or Kṛṣṇa.

Nectar of Devotion 8:

Therefore, if someone thinks that he can chant "Kālī, Kālī!" or "Durgā, Durgā!"and it is the same as Hare Kṛṣṇa, that is the greatest offense.) (3) To disobey the orders of the spiritual master. (4) To blaspheme the Vedic literature or literature in pursuance of the Vedic version. (5) To consider the glories of chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa to be imagination. (6) To give some interpretation on the holy name of the Lord. (7) To commit sinful activities on the strength of the holy name of the Lord. (It should not be taken that because by chanting the holy name of the Lord one can be freed from all kinds of sinful reaction, one may continue to act sinfully and after that chant Hare Kṛṣṇa to neutralize his sins. Such a dangerous mentality is very offensive and should be avoided.) (8) To consider the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa one of the auspicious ritualistic activities offered in the Vedas as fruitive activities (karma-kāṇḍa).

Nectar of Devotion 20:

In this second division of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu the author offers his respectful obeisances unto "Sanātana." This Sanātana can be interpreted as either Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself or as Sanātana Gosvāmī, the elder brother and spiritual master of Rūpa Gosvāmī. In the case where "Sanātana" is accepted to mean Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the obeisances are offered to Kṛṣṇa because He is naturally so beautiful and because He is the killer of the demon Agha. If it is interpreted to mean Sanātana Gosvāmī, then it is because he is so greatly favored by Rūpa Gosvāmī, being always served by him, and because he is the annihilator of all kinds of sinful activities. In this division of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu the author wants to describe the general symptoms of the transcendental mellow (loving mood) of discharging devotional service.

Nectar of Devotion 35:

The basic principle of their impersonal attitude does not allow them the transcendental pleasure which is relished by a devotee whose basic principle of understanding is the Supreme Person. The impersonalistic commentary on Bhagavad-gītā is therefore disastrous, because without understanding the transcendental pleasure of the Gītā, the impersonalist wants to interpret it in his own way. If an impersonalist can, however, come in contact with a pure devotee, his transcendental position can be changed for greater elevation. Great sages are therefore recommended to worship the form of the Lord in order to achieve that highest transcendental pleasure.

Nectar of Instruction

Nectar of Instruction 5, Purport:

This confident, firm faith, favorable to the discharge of devotional service, is called śraddhā." Śraddhā, faith in Kṛṣṇa, is the beginning of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Faith means strong faith. The words of Bhagavad-gītā are authoritative instructions for faithful men, and whatever Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā is to be accepted as it is, without interpretation. This was the way Arjuna accepted Bhagavad-gītā. After hearing Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna told Kṛṣṇa: sarvam etad ṛtaṁ manye yan māṁ vadasi keśava. "O Kṛṣṇa, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me." (BG 10.14)

This is the correct way of understanding Bhagavad-gītā, and this is called śraddhā. It is not that one accepts a portion of Bhagavad-gītā according to his own whimsical interpretations and then rejects another portion.

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna Book 6:

Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even from the beginning of His appearance in the house of Vasudeva and Devakī.

Kṛṣṇa showed the nature of a small baby and closed His eyes, as if to avoid the face of Pūtanā. This closing of the eyes is interpreted and studied in different ways by the devotees. Some say that Kṛṣṇa closed His eyes because He did not like to see the face of Pūtanā, who had killed so many children and who had now come to kill Him. Others say that Pūtanā hesitated to take the baby on her lap because something extraordinary was being dictated to her from within, and that in order to give her assurance Kṛṣṇa closed His eyes so that she would not be frightened. And yet others interpret in this way: Kṛṣṇa appeared in order to kill the demons and give protection to the devotees, as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām (BG 4.8).

Krsna Book 6:

The first demon to be killed was a woman. According to Vedic rules, the killing of a woman, a brāhmaṇa, cows or a child is strictly forbidden. Kṛṣṇa was obliged to kill the demon Pūtanā, and because the killing of a woman is forbidden according to Vedic śāstra, He could not help but close His eyes. Another interpretation is that Kṛṣṇa closed His eyes because He simply took Pūtanā to be His nurse. Pūtanā came to Kṛṣṇa just to offer her breast for the Lord to suck. Kṛṣṇa is so merciful that even though He knew Pūtanā was there to kill Him, He took her as His nurse or mother.

Krsna Book 14:

As described in the beginning of the Vedānta-sūtra, the Supreme Person is the origin of all qualities. He is generally called nirguṇa. Nirguṇa means "whose qualities are beyond estimation." Guṇa means "quality," and nir means "beyond estimation." But impersonalists interpret this word nirguṇa 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. The real position is that He is the original source of all qualities. All qualities are emanating constantly from Him. How, therefore, can a limited person count the qualities of the Lord? One may estimate the qualities of the Lord at one moment, but the next moment the qualities have increased; so it is not possible to make an estimation of the transcendental qualities of the Lord. He is therefore called nirguṇa.

Krsna Book 87:

The significant word used in this connection is yan-maya, or cin-maya. In Sanskrit grammar, the word mayaṭ is used in the sense of "transformation," and also in the sense of "abundance." The Māyāvādī 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, mayaṭ, is used for "abundance" or for "transformation." The living entity never possesses anything exactly in the same proportion as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, this mayaṭ affix cannot be used to mean that the individual living entity is quantitatively equal with the Lord. The individual living entity never has complete knowledge; otherwise, how could he have come under the control of māyā, or the material energy?

Krsna Book 87:

There are, however, many hundreds and thousands of species of life in different standards of living conditions, such as human beings, demigods, animals, birds and beasts, and if all of them were plenary expansions of the Supreme Absolute Truth, then there would be no question of liberation, because Brahman would already be liberated. Another interpretation put forward by the Māyāvādīs 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, ending all different manifestations. Then in the next millennium, according to this theory, Brahman again expands in different bodily forms. If we accept this theory, then Brahman becomes subject to change. But this cannot be accepted. From the Vedānta-sūtra we understand that Brahman is by nature joyful. He cannot, therefore, change Himself into a body which is subject to so many painful conditions.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.9:

When the Vedic phrase sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma is interpreted in this way, it is acceptable. In other words, when one invokes the spiritual or transcendental or absolute in everything, then matter loses its mundaneness, and then only can one realize the perfect meaning of the phrase sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. The Vaiṣṇavas say that anything connected with the Lord in devotional service is transcendental. In other words, it is nondifferent from the Supreme Lord Himself, Mādhava. Just as iron in long and constant touch with fire loses the characteristics of iron and becomes fiery, so everything offered in sacrifice to the Absolute, or the Transcendence, becomes absolute, or transcendental.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.1:

Only a liberated, highly evolved soul can utter the Lord's name purely and thus achieve the highest realization, untainted love of Godhead. The speculative philosopher brāhmaṇa, who was very much addicted to sophism, could not fathom the saint's instructions and so ended up offending him. The foolish brāhmaṇa tried to impose his own interpretations on the excellences of the holy name and concluded that Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura was a mere sentimentalist. He insolently rebuked the saint in public and tried to ridicule his explanations and character.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.1:

Real knowledge means to discriminate between truth and illusion. Jñāna-yoga is the process by which one becomes eternally fixed on the path of transcendental devotional service to the Supreme Lord, who is the source of the Supersoul and Brahman. Jñāna-yoga should never be interpreted to mean the ascending process of enquiry, the inductive method, through which one aims only at separating reality from illusion by gradually rejecting the unreal. It is impossible to attain perfect knowledge without serving the Supreme Lord, who is full with all opulences and potencies, whose bodily luster is the Brahman effulgence, and whose partial expansion is the Supersoul. The brāhmaṇa Gopāla Cakravartī believed that jñāna, perfect knowledge, is far superior to devotional service of the Lord. But as recorded in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (CC Antya 3.201):

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.2:

A good example of such philosophical jargon meant to bewilder the public is Dr. Radhakrishnan's translating ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ as "good will to all" instead of "surrendering to the Supreme Lord," its proper meaning. Such an interpretation is what we can expect from a mundane scholar.

The first word in devotional service is surrender. The only meaning of surrender is to accept that one is a servant of God. Even great scholars and philosophers like Dr. Radhakrishnan will have to perform heaps of austerities and penances before they will yield to the process of surrender. This is the conclusion of Bhagavad-gītā. Dr. Radhakrishnan's explanation of the six limbs of surrender is superficial. Originally defined in a Vaiṣṇava text, these six limbs of surrender pertain to Lord Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa. Ānukūlya means "loving devotion to Lord Kṛṣṇa."

Message of Godhead

Message of Godhead 2:

The truth about Śrī Kṛṣṇa does not easily enter into the perverted brain of such mundaners infected with the empiric approach to philosophy. But a devoted person faithfully understands just what is actually stated in the pages of Bhagavad-gītā and does not resort to imagination, or the empiric philosophical approach, generally called "spiritual interpretation." Only such a devoted person can accept the logic of fully surrendering unto Kṛṣṇa and can thus adopt the process of karma-yoga to escape the dangerous bondage of work.

Message of Godhead 2:

It is explained there that through performance of work with transcendental results, everything becomes spiritualized. Ācārya Śaṅkara's philosophy of "pantheism," which has spread a perverted interpretation of the Vedānta maxim that the Supreme Spirit is omnipresent, nonetheless has a practical bearing on the above verse.

There are various kinds of sacrifices that will be examined later on, but we should understand that the ultimate goal of all sacrifices is to please the Supreme Godhead, Viṣṇu. During our material existence, we have to deal with material objects, if only to keep body and soul together. But in all such material activities we can evoke the spiritual atmosphere, in terms of the Vedantic truth that the Supreme Spirit is omnipresent.

Light of the Bhagavata

Light of the Bhagavata 1, Purport:

Above these two classes of philosophers is the philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda tattva, or the truth of simultaneous oneness and difference. This philosophy was propounded by Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in His explanation of the Vedānta-sūtras. The Vedānta is the medium of philosophical interpretations, and thus the Vedānta 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." Any department of knowledge is called a part of the Vedic knowledge, and vedānta means the ultimate conclusion of all branches of knowledge. As philosophy is called the science of all sciences, Vedānta is the ultimate philosophy of all philosophical speculations.

Light of the Bhagavata 5, Purport:

The Vedic knowledge comes in a tradition from the spiritual master through the chain of disciplic succession, and the knowledge must be acquired through this chain, without deviation. 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. The so-called followers of the Vedas deny the existence of God, as in the darkness of a cloudy evening the glowworms deny the existence of the moon and stars. Saner people should not be waylaid by such unscrupulous men. Bhagavad-gītā is the summary of all Vedic knowledge because it is spoken by the same Personality of Godhead who imparted the Vedic knowledge into the heart of Brahmā, the first created being in the universe. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was especially spoken for the guidance of the people of this age, which is darkened by the cloud of ignorance.

Sri Isopanisad

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

Ladies and gentlemen, today's subject matter is the teachings of the Vedas. What are the Vedas? The Sanskrit verbal root of veda can be interpreted variously, but the purport is finally one. Veda means knowledge. Any knowledge you accept is veda, for the teachings of the Vedas are the original knowledge. In the conditioned state, our knowledge is subjected to many deficiencies. The difference between a conditioned soul and a liberated soul is that the conditioned soul has four kinds of defects. The first defect is that he must commit mistakes. For example, in our country, Mahatma Gandhi was considered to be a very great personality, but he committed many mistakes. Even at the last stage of his life, his assistant warned, "Mahatma Gandhi, don't go to the New Delhi meeting.

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

In India if one person tells another, "You must do this," the other party may say, "What do you mean? Is this a Vedic injunction, that I have to follow you without any argument?" Vedic injunctions cannot be interpreted. But ultimately, if you carefully study why these injunctions are there, you will find that they are all correct.

The Vedas are not compilations of human knowledge. Vedic knowledge comes from the spiritual world, from Lord Kṛṣṇa. Another name for the Vedas is śruti. Śruti refers to that knowledge which is acquired by hearing. It is not experimental knowledge. Śruti is considered to be like a mother. We take so much knowledge from our mother. For example, if you want to know who your father is, who can answer you? Your mother. If the mother says, "Here is your father," you have to accept it. It is not possible to experiment to find out whether he is your father.

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

So Kṛṣṇa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it. Our source of knowledge in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is the Bhagavad-gītā, which comes directly from Kṛṣṇa. We have published Bhagavad-gītā As It Is because we accept Kṛṣṇa as He is speaking, without any interpretation. That is Vedic knowledge. Since the Vedic knowledge is pure, we accept it. Whatever Kṛṣṇa says, we accept. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That saves much time. If you accept the right authority, or source of knowledge, then you save much time. For example, there are two systems of knowledge in the material world: inductive and deductive. From deductive, you accept that man is mortal. Your father says man is mortal, your sister says man is mortal, everyone says man is mortal—but you do not experiment. You accept it as a fact that man is mortal.

Sri Isopanisad 13, Purport:

Arjuna was His devotee and friend that he could understand the principles of the Bhagavad-gītā. In other words, only the Lord's devotee and friend can understand the Gītā. This also means that only one who follows the path of Arjuna can understand the Bhagavad-gītā.

At the present moment there are many interpreters and translators of this sublime dialogue who care nothing for Lord Kṛṣṇa or Arjuna. Such interpreters explain the verses of the Bhagavad-gītā in their own way and postulate all sorts of rubbish in the name of the Gītā. Such interpreters believe neither in Śrī Kṛṣṇa nor in His eternal abode. How, then, can they explain the Bhagavad-gītā?