There is no need of interpretation

Expressions researched:
"interpretation" |"need"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: "no* need interpret*"@10

SB Canto 3

The Vedas are spiritual sound, and therefore there is no need of material interpretation for the sound vibration of the Vedic literature.

SB 3.12.47, Purport:

In Sanskrit there are thirteen vowels and thirty-five consonants. The vowels are a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ṛ, ṟ, ḷ, e, ai, o, au, and the consonants are ka, kha, ga, gha, etc. Amongst the consonants, the first twenty-five letters are called the sparśas. There are also four antaḥ-sthas. Of the ūṣmas there are three s's, called tālavya, mūrdhanya and dantya. The musical notes are ṣa, ṛ, gā, ma, dha, and ni. All these sound vibrations are originally called śabda-brahma, or spiritual sound. It is said, therefore, that Brahmā was created in the Mahā-kalpa as the incarnation of spiritual sound. The Vedas are spiritual sound, and therefore there is no need of material interpretation for the sound vibration of the Vedic literature. The Vedas should be vibrated as they are, although they are symbolically represented with letters which are known to us materially. In the ultimate issue there is nothing material because everything has its origin in the spiritual world. The material manifestation is therefore called illusion in the proper sense of the term. For those who are realized souls there is nothing but spirit.

CC Madhya-lila

There is no need for interpretation of the Vedic version, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost.

CC Madhya 6.137, Translation and Purport:

"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."

Out of four main types of evidence—direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas—Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost.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.

Śrīla Madhvācārya, commenting on the aphorism dṛśyate tu (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:

ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam

mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ

purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ

svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ nātra kiñcid vicāryate

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.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't interpret in a foolish way. Everything is clear. There is no need of interpretation.

Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Delhi, November 12, 1973:

Therefore our request is that you read Bhagavad-gītā, try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't interpret in a foolish way. Everything is clear. There is no need of interpretation. The foolish people simply unnecessarily interpret. Everything is clear. Where is the difficulty to understand when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru... (BG 18.65)? But one scholar is saying, "Yes, this is not to Kṛṣṇa the person." Kṛṣṇa says that "You become My devotee," and the scholar says, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." This is interpretation. This is going on, simply misleading people. You take Bhagavad-gītā as it is and try...

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

We don't interpret. There is no need of interpretation; then there is no authority of Bhagavad-gītā. If I am a third-class man, if I interpret Bhagavad-gītā, then Bhagavad-gītā has no authority. Bhagavad-gītā should be preached as it is.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.100 -- Washington, D.C., July 5, 1976:

What is already there, kṛṣṇa-upadeśa, you teach them, that's all. He'll be delivered. You'll be delivered, he'll be delivered. It is not at all difficult. Not that I have to manufacture some transcendental means. No. The already instruction is there, kṛṣṇa-upadeśa. Yāre dekha, tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa (CC Madhya 7.128). Then you deliver yourself, you deliver others also. That is the mission. So what we are doing? We are not discovering anything. We are simply presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. That's all. Kṛṣṇa said, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). We are teaching all over the world the same thing, that "Here is Kṛṣṇa. You always think of Him, you just offer your obeisances, you just become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī, worship." So we are teaching. So there is no discovery. It is already there. So that we are carrying simply. Yāre dekha tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa (CC Madhya 7.128). Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 18.65). We don't interpret. There is no need of interpretation; then there is no authority of Bhagavad-gītā. If I am a third-class man, if I interpret Bhagavad-gītā, then Bhagavad-gītā has no authority. Bhagavad-gītā should be preached as it is. Then you become guru, you can deliver others. This is the process.

General Lectures

Everything is clear. There is no need of interpretation. Simply you have to take the teachings. Then you will be benefited.

Lecture at International Student Society -- Boston, May 3, 1969:

So we have got this literature printed in English. Bhagavad-gītā is already printed in so many editions, but unfortunately, those Bhagavad-gītās are interpreted in their own interest. You see? Therefore we have published this Bhagavad-gītā. It is the essence of all Vedic literature, Bhagavad-gītā as it is. You have to learn Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Don't interpret in your own way. There is no possibility. But people do it, and foolish persons, they accept it. No, there is no question of interpretation. The first verse of Bhagavad-gītā is,

dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre

samavetā yuyutsavaḥ

māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva

kim akurvata sañjaya

(BG 1.1)

So these are plain truths. Kurukṣetra... Still there is a place of the name Kurukṣetra near Delhi. And people interpret, " 'Kurukṣetra' means this body." We do not know wherefrom he gets this meaning, what is that dictionary. Now, how he can establish? Kurukṣetra is still existing, and it is called dharma-kṣetra; it is a place of religious pilgrimage. So everything is clear. There is no need of interpretation. Simply you have to take the teachings. Then you will be benefited.

Bhagavad-gītā was spoken by Kṛṣṇa. He did not leave it for being interpreted by an ordinary man. There is no need of explaining Bhagavad-gītā in a different way.

Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, March 31, 1971:

If we accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is, if we believe in the words of Bhagavad-gītā, or Kṛṣṇa, then Bhagavad-gītā is the oldest. It is not a new thing. It was long, long ago spoken to the sun-god Vivasvān. The sun-god, the president or the predominating Deity in the sun planet, is known as Vivasvān. So we have to study Bhagavad-gītā as it is by the paramparā system. As Śrī Kṛṣṇa says, evaṁ paramparā-prāptam (BG 4.2). Not that whimsically somebody purchases a book from the market and he takes his pleasure to make an interpretation of his own intelligence. Bhagavad-gītā was spoken by Kṛṣṇa. He did not leave it for being interpreted by an ordinary man. There is no need of explaining Bhagavad-gītā in a different way.

Just like in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā we understand the statements very clearly:

dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre

samavetā yuyutsavaḥ

māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva

kim akurvata sañjaya

(BG 1.1)

The meaning is very clear. Dharma-kṣetre: the land of pilgrimage, the holy land of pilgrimage; kuru-kṣetre: the land which is known as Kurukṣetra. It is not fictitious. It is actual fact. Still there is Kurukṣetra, and people go there to perform religious ritualistic ceremonies. And in the Vedas it is written clearly, kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret. That is the statement of the Vedas. So from time immemorial this Kurukṣetra, land of Kurukṣetra is known as dharma-kṣetra. So what is the difficulty to understand dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre (BG 1.1)? There is no difficulty. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous commentator says that "Kurukṣetra means this body." Where is the chance of interpreting like that, "Kuru-kṣetre is meaning body"? In no dictionary you will find that kuru-kṣetra is meant by body. Neither there is any chance. Interpretation is required when you cannot understand the word very clearly. In that case you can interpret. Just like the example is gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣapali: "There is a neighborhood which is known as ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now one may question how on the Ganges, Ganges is water, there can be a neighborhood? Then you can interpret that "It is not on the Ganges water, but it is on the bank of the Ganges." Then there is chance of interpretation. But when you can clearly understand that "The thing is like this: Kurukṣetra is a place, and that is a place of pilgrimage," why should you interpret that Kurukṣetra means the body? In this way Bhagavad-gītā is being misinterpreted.

Āstikyam means to accept the Vedic instruction as it is. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. There is no need of interpreting. If we accept it, the truth, as it is, then we are benefited.

Rotary Club Lecture -- Ahmedabad, December 8, 1972 'The Present Need of Human Society':

Āstikyam means to accept the Vedic principle as truth. That is called āstikyam. Theism. It is translated as "theism," but it is not. Āstika, āstikya means to have firm faith in the Vedic instruction. That is called āstikyam. But that is a fact. What is stated in the Vedas, they are true. We can save our time. For example, just like the cow dung. The cow dung is said in the Vedas as pure. So if we accept cow dung as pure, we don't require to make research. But actually it is pure. The other day I was passing through a cow shed in Hyderabad. So, so much cow dung stocked there. So I was asking my students, "Suppose so much human stool was stocked here. Could we pass through it?" No, it is not possible. But it was pleasant to pass through. So this is a fact. If we argue that animal stool... (aside:) Stop. Stop him. Don't make noise. ...the animal stool is impure, but when the Vedas says the animal stool of the cow is pure, so this is, this true. Similarly conchshell. Conchshell is the bone of an animal. So according to Vedic instruction, if you touch the bone of an animal, you become impure. But the bone of an animal which is conchshell, it is kept in the Deity room. So Vedic instruction is so perfect. Why this animal bone is pure, why this stool of animal is pure, that is already known. You don't require to make any research. You simply accept and get the fact. This is Vedic truth.

So that is called āstikyam. Āstikyam means to accept the Vedic instruction as it is. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. There is no need of interpreting. If we accept it, the truth, as it is, then we are benefited.

Philosophy Discussions

Generally, every word in the scripture there is literal meaning, but one who cannot understand properly because one does not hear from the proper person, he makes some interpretation. But there is no need of interpretation in the words of God. It may be that the words of God sometimes cannot be understood by ordinary person; therefore he requires to understand through the via-media of transparent guru.

Philosophy Discussion on Origen:

Hayagrīva: As far as seeming contradictions and seeming absurdities in scripture are concerned, Origen considered these as stumbling blocks allowed by God to exist in order for man to go beyond the literal meaning. He says, "In some cases no useful meaning attaches to the obvious interpretation, but everything in scripture has a spiritual meaning, but not all of it has a literal meaning."

Prabhupāda: Literal... Generally, every word in the scripture there is literal meaning, but one who cannot understand properly because one does not hear from the proper person, he makes some interpretation. But there is no need of interpretation in the words of God. It may be that the words of God sometimes cannot be understood by ordinary person; therefore he requires to understand through the via-media of transparent guru. Guru is fully cognizant of the words spoken by God. One has to accept, therefore, a guru to go through the scripture properly. Generally there is no ambiguity in the words of God, but due to our lack of perfect knowledge we sometimes cannot understand and try to interpret. But this is, this interpretation is not at all feasible, because imperfect person interpreting means whatever he interprets, that is imperfect. So the proper import of the words of scripture or words of God should be understood from a person who has realized God.

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

When there is no difficulty in understanding, then why there is interpretation? There is no need of interpretation.

Morning Walk -- April 5, 1974, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: ...when require first of all. If you... (Hindi) Interpretation when required, when you cannot understand. But if you understand, why should you interpret?

Indian man (2): No, he has interpreted.

Prabhupāda: No, no, first of all, let us understand where interpretation is required.

Dr. Patel: When there is a difficulty in understanding.

Prabhupāda: Yes. No. When there is difficulty in understanding. But when there is no difficulty in understanding, then why there is interpretation? (break) ...by Kṛṣṇa in the Eleventh Chapter, where is the difficulty to understand? (break) There is no need of interpretation. Now, suppose Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī mām (BG 18.65).

Indian man (2): Then why these ācāryas have interpretated Gītā?

Prabhupāda: No, no, real ācārya will not interpret. The one who is false ācārya, he will interpret.

We take the direct meaning, "Thou shall not kill"—the Christians should not kill. Interpretation you can give in your own way to support your business, but we see openly. If we can understand openly, there is no need of interpretation.

Room Conversation with Pater Emmanuel (A Benedictine Monk) -- June 22, 1974, Germany:

German devotee: He said, Śrīla Prabhupāda, that this commandment, "Thou shall not kill," is found in the Old Testament, and when Jesus was talking...

Prabhupāda: I do not know many testament, but I see in the Ten Commandments these words are there. If you want to support it by many testaments, that is, of course, your business, but we take the direct meaning, "Thou shall not kill"—the Christians should not kill. Interpretation you can give in your own way to support your business, but we see openly. If we can understand openly, there is no need of interpretation. (German)

Pater Emmanuel: No, I understand.

Prabhupāda: Why should we interpret? Interpretation is required when the things are not clear. Here it is clear, "Thou shall not kill," plainly advised. Why should we interpret?

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

Every point of Bhagavad-gītā, it is clear. It is clear. There is no need of interpretation. That is the first thing. If you interpret you spoil the whole thing.

Room Conversation -- December 20, 1976, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: Every point is very clear. In the Bhagavad-gītā, every point is very clear, unless you interpret it in the wrong way. ("Kṛṣṇa Meditations" is recorded on this tape also, making it indistinct)

Guest: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: But how it can be called? If you interpret in your own way, interpret in your own way, interpretation, then where is Bhagavad-gītā? Best thing is that take Bhagavad-gītā as it is. Then there will be (indistinct). Why you should interpret? You have no right to interpret on the words of Bhagavad-gītā?

Guest: But Swamiji, you have also given so much (indistinct). That is interpretation.

Prabhupāda: No, that is not interpretation. That is explanation. Interpretation, if I change Kurukṣetra into something else, that is interpretation. That is wisdom. That is wisdom.

Guest: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: No, I mean to say instead of collecting so many hundreds and thousands of literature on the Bhagavad-gītā, why not take Bhagavad-gītā as it is? What is the difficulty? Kurukṣetra is this position is fact. Mahābhārata, Mahābhārata means greater India. And that is, it is itihasa. It is called itihāsa. Itihāsa, if you don't believe that there was a battle in the Kurukṣetra... But that is the fact. It is the history. Then how you can finish (?) Bhagavad-Gītā? Every point of Bhagavad-gītā, it is clear. It is clear. There is no need of interpretation. That is the first thing. If you interpret you spoil the whole thing. Because interpretation is required when the things are not clear. If everything is clear, why should you interpret?

Guest: No, it is explanation I think.

Prabhupāda: Explanation, you cannot explain that Kurukṣetra means this, dharmakṣetra means this, Pāṇḍava means this. Why?

Guest: No, no.

Prabhupāda: Take Sanskrit. Take Sanskrit. Dharmakṣetre kurukṣetre. do not interpret to any other language. Take Sanskrit. Kurukṣetra is clear, dharmakṣetra is clear, Pāṇḍava is clear. Then why should we interpret? Why not take the particular verse. Everything, when there is a (indistinct), then please do not try to cut, or (indistinct) your (indistinct). If there is... (indistinct) ...but by translating the whole thing you mistake then what is the use of such translation? (indistinct)

Guest: (indistinct)

Prabhupāda: Yes. Then you first of all learn Sanskrit, then you (indistinct). If there is (indistinct). This practice should be stopped. If you want to preach Bhagavad-gītā, and if you want to preach your own philosophy through Bhagavad-gītā, don't do this preaching. You preach your philosophy, your (indistinct). You can preach any philosophy you like, but don't take Bhagavad-gītā and (indistinct) on it. (?) That is my (indistinct).

If you are not intelligent, then you will accept such rascals interpreting unnecessarily. Interpretation is required when things are not very clear. But when the things are clear, why you should accept interpretation? That is my foolishness. There is no need of interpretation.

Room Conversation with Life Member, Mr. Malhotra -- December 22, 1976, Poona:

Mr. Malhotra: No actually what has happened is that there has been too many interpretations.

Prabhupāda: There cannot be interpretations.

Mr. Malhotra: No, there are certain people...

Prabhupāda: That is foolishness.

Mr. Malhotra: That is what I said, huh. So there are so many interpretations that you get confused. Because of the same thing, some interpret it a different way.

Prabhupāda: One thing is that you have to become intelligent. Just like Bhagavad-gītā it is said, dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre samavetā yuyutsavaḥ (BG 1.1). Now why I shall accept interpretation on these plain words? That is my foolishness. If somebody says dharma-kṣetra means this body and Pāṇḍava means the five senses, why this nonsense interpretation? If you are not intelligent, then you will accept such rascals interpreting unnecessarily. Interpretation is required when things are not very clear. But when the things are clear, why you should accept interpretation? That is my foolishness. There is no need of interpretation. (break) ...is it still there? Why, if the rascal interprets Kurukṣetra means this body, why shall I accept it? Kurukṣetra is still there. There is no difficulty to understand. And if somebody interprets... (break) ...interpretation, in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that as soon as you interpret, the whole thing is lost. So why shall I be so foolish, I shall accept something which is lost.

Mr. Malhotra: No. Rather Kṛṣṇa had His own interpretation.

Prabhupāda: That may be but why shall I accept?

Mr. Malhotra: ...had his own interpretation rather. All the people who show...

Prabhupāda: You have, interpretation, you have to refer to the Bhagavad-gītā. Bhagavad-gītā says as soon as you accept interpretation it is lost.

Mr. Malhotra: Then the meaning is lost.

Prabhupāda: Bas. So under the circumstances... That means I am also foolish. Any rascal gives any interpretation—I accept. That is my foolishness. So why should I become foolish?

1977 Conversations and Morning Walks

There is no need of interpretation. Explanation also not very much required because the explanation is already there, and we are not so intelligent that we can explain.

Morning Darsana and Room Conversation Ramkrishna Bajaj and friends -- January 9, 1977, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: (Hindi) But why do you take Bhagavad-gītā? You are free to do whatever you like. That freedom is given. Kṛṣṇa has given. Ye yathā māṁ prapadyante (BG 4.11). That you have got. But when you speak of Bhagavad-gītā, then you speak what Kṛṣṇa wants.

Guest (7): You should take Bhagavad-gītā as it is. You explain it but not interpret it.

Prabhupāda: There is no need of interpretation.

Indian man: You can explain it in the language which people can understand.

Prabhupāda: Explanation also not very much required because the explanation is already there, and we are not so intelligent that we can explain. But we take it, the words of the Bhagavad-gītā, that Kṛṣṇa says, na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ (BG 7.15). If we see that one is not surrendered to Kṛṣṇa, he comes to this group: duṣkṛtina, narādhamāḥ and mūḍha. That's all. This is our conclusion. We are fools and rascal. We take the words of Kṛṣṇa.

Amongst the learned circle, interpretation required when the things are not clear. If the things are clear, why nonsense interpretation? There is no need of interpretation.

Interview with Mr. Koshi (Asst. Editor of The Current Weekly) -- April 5, 1977, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: They are completely under the control of prakṛti, and prakṛti is under the control of Kṛṣṇa. Mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram (BG 9.10). They do not discuss this. Still they are scholar in Bhagavad-gītā. Simply picking up some words, they become scholar. Is that scholarship? They do not read even the whole Bhagavad-gītā, neither they understand. This is going on.

Mr. Koshi: Is interpretation necessary or not?

Prabhupāda: Why interpretation?

Mr. Koshi: Some passages, they do not know to understand it.

Prabhupāda: Just like if they do not know this is a tape recorder. What is interpreting? Everyone knows that this is a tape recorder. So what is interpretation? Interpretation required when you do not understand.

Mr. Koshi: Is it that simple and clear for everybody?

Prabhupāda: No, that is the way of interpretation. Amongst the learned circle, interpretation required when the things are not clear. If the things are clear, why nonsense interpretation? There is no need of interpretation. Dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre (BG 1.1). Kurukṣetra is still there, and people go there for pilgrimage. And in the Vedas it is stated kuru-kṣetre dharmān ācaret. "Go to Kurukṣetra and perform ritualistic ceremonies." What is the difficulty? Why should I interpret, "Kurukṣetra means this, and means this, that"? Why? To mislead others and mislead himself. This is not required. But they are doing it. That is misleading. If you can interpret Bhagavad-gītā by your own interpretation, then what is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? Everyone can do like that. Everyone can say "It is my interpretation." Then where is the authority of Bhagavad-gītā? These things should be stopped. Real Bhagavad-gītā should be studied. People should make life Bhagavad-gītā and preach all over the world. This is our movement.

1947 to 1965 Correspondence

Let Bhagavad-gita be understood as it is because it is just like the Sun. The Sun does not require to be helped by other light. So there is no need of interpreting Bhagavad-gita by any indirect meaning.

Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 14 September, 1951:

The great Philosophy of Bhagavad-gita is the authoritative book to guide us in this respect. We have nothing to drag in it by forcing empiric interpretations. Let it be understood as it is because it is just like the Sun. The Sun does not require to be helped by other light. So there is no need of interpreting Bhagavad-gita by any indirect meaning. Let us understand that Kuruksetra is Kuruksetra and it is still a sacred place of Hindu pilgrimage. The Pandavas are the sons of Pandu as it is stated in the history of Mahabharata. The Pandavas and the Kurus met at the battlefield of Kuruksetra and the philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita was told by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna.

Let Bhagavad-gita be understood as it is because it is just like the Sun. The Sun does not require to be helped by the light. So there is no need of understanding Bhagavad-gita by indirect interpretation.

Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 7 July, 1953:

The present smokey material or sensual civilization has to be kindled into the fire of reality or spiritual civilization. It is neither difficult nor impossible. It is just a simple process of fanning the fire in order to get rid of the disturbing smoke. The fanning process is eternally the same & one and the empiric speculators have nothing to invent new in it. It must be actually a fanning in spiritualised process & nothing else. The great philosophy of Bhagavad-gita is the authoritative book to guide us in this respect. We have nothing to drag in it by foreign empiric interpretation. Let it be understood as it is because it is just like the Sun. The Sun does not require to be helped by the light. So there is no need of understanding Bhagavad-gita by indirect interpretation. Kuruksetra is Kuruksetra. Dharmaksetra is Dharmaksetra. The Pandavas are Pandavas or the sons of Pandu and nobody else. The Pandavas & Kauravas not actually at the battlefield of Kuruksetra and the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita was told by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna.

I wish that your people may try to understand Bhagavad-gita in terms of its direct meaning. Let it not be unnecessarily misunderstood by the empiric speculative method. For making others of the vanity of so called learning without any living experience. Such academic erudity has nothing to do with the living reality.

1967 Correspondence

The only defect is that picture which is wrongly put there without asking me. There was no need of interpretations, and why you have interpreted the picture as one has to be naked before the Lord to become perfect? We have no interpretation in any one of the verses in the Gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. They were not fictitious and therefore there is no need of interpretation.

Letter to Rayarama -- San Francisco 28 February, 1967:

Please accept my blessings and offer the same to all your Godbrothers for your doing the respective duties nicely. I am in due receipt of the copy of Back to Godhead dated 15th February 1967 and I am glad that it is nicely done. The only defect is that picture which is wrongly put there without asking me. There was no need of interpretations and why you have interpreted the picture as one has to be naked before the Lord to become perfect? We have no interpretation in any one of the verses in the Gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. They were not fictitious and therefore there is no need of interpretation. Krishna actually took away the dresses of the Gopis and actually He saw the girls naked. There is no interpretation there. The girls of Vrindaban of the same age like Krishna wanted Krishna as their husband. In India the girls are married earlier by ten years at least and thus the girls who were of the same age were married although they wished Krishna as their husband. Krishna fulfilled their wishes by this pastime. Nobody can ask any woman or girl to become naked except the husband. That is the moral etiquette of Vedic culture. Krishna is actually husband of every woman. There was no necessity of formal marriage. But still Krishna played like husband by asking them to become naked. In the spiritual world there is no cohabitation; simply by such emotion in transcendental ecstasy the desire is fulfilled.

These pictures of Krishna and the Gopis are not understandable by a layman who has no idea of Krishna. Therefore, this picture was wrongly put without asking me. Please, therefore, consult me before putting any such picture or interpretations. One must understand first Krishna from the Bhagavatam by reading the first nine chapters. Otherwise Krishna would be taken as ordinary man and His pastimes will be wrongly understood. Besides that a Brahmacari should not see any kind of naked picture. That is violation of Brahmacari law.