While understanding scripture according to time-place-circumstance which factors need to be considered?

Anwser Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, while understanding Shastra, I talked about three things. There is principle and there is preference.
There is central and there is peripheral. And then there is prescriptive and descriptive. So, while there is fluidity in the tradition, there is adjustment according to time, place and circumstance.
So, which of these criteria can be applied or are there other criteria? I just gave three frames of looking at things. There can be others also. Now, with respect to principle and preference, one simple thing is did Shrila Prabhupada himself adjust things at different places? If he adjusted, he did things in a particular way here, different way there.
Then we can understand that’s a preference. For example, while doing good distribution, should devotees wear dhoti kurta or should they wear civil clothes? It’s a preference. Prabhupada is okay for both.
Now, if Prabhupada himself has adjusted some things, then it’s a preference. We can clearly see that. And whether something is central or peripheral, then we can see whether that is what, if Prabhupada has said something, is that what he has said repeatedly or is that what is also being said by sadhu and shastra? Prabhupada said guru, sadhu, shastra.
That is the hermeneutic. So, now Prabhupada made many statements on various issues. Prabhupada, on the morning conversation, sometimes would comment on political issues, sometimes on social issues, sometimes would speak about certain leaders, certain other spiritual leaders or other political leaders.
Now, we will not find anything about that in shastra. We will not find about that in sadhu. These are incidental comments.
In fact, there is a letter of Srila Prabhupada to one disciple. One disciple asks him that at that time none of Prabhupada’s lectures have been transcribed. And this devotee asks Srila Prabhupada, Prabhupada, in order to understand your message better, I want to transcribe all your lectures.
And surprisingly, Prabhupada says, that will be prayas. It’s too much endeavor. It’s not necessary.
Whatever I want to teach, I have given in my books. You study my books, you will understand everything. And the point is not that Prabhupada did not want lectures to be transcribed.
The point is Prabhupada’s central message is given in the books. So, in his lectures and what to speak of in his conversations. So, in his conversations, we may find many controversial things which may not be there in sadhu or in shastra.
So, if something is becoming controversial or something is very sensitive, which is going to alien a lot of people and we see, okay, Prabhupada said this, but is this said in shastra? Is it said by sadhus? If it is not, then we can say that Prabhupada said it. So, there is value to it. But there may not be absolute value to it.
Now, we have example in shastra that in shastra itself that sometimes even what Krishna speaks is not considered authoritative. What is that example? In the Govardhan Leela, Krishna speaks karmamimamsa. So, we have an example of the absolute truth speaking.
And our acharya says the absolute truth is not speaking the absolute truth. So, context is so important to understand anything. There is central, there is peripheral.
So, that brings us to the third point also. There is prescriptive and there is descriptive. So, Bhakti Maldividya Moksha and in his Govinda Bhashya, he says that, like in English there is an imperative tense.
Imperative tense means go and do this. So, he says scriptural statements in the imperative are instructions. So, Bhakti Maldividya Bhashya says that whenever there are scriptural statements in the imperative, sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja.
This is an imperative statement. Whereas, dehinosmi nitha dehe kaumaram yavanam jara. This is an informative statement.
Now, I can draw some instruction from this also. Okay, my body changes, I should not be disturbed. So, we can draw instruction from all statements, from many statements of scripture.
But they themselves may not be directly instructive. So, for example, the 11th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. It’s Vishwaroopadarshan.
It’s primarily descriptive. What is the instruction in that? There is one verse in Krishna Sairaja, Therefore Arjuna fight. Tasmapam uptishta yashola basva.
Therefore arise and fight. That is an instruction. That is an imperative.
But otherwise most of it is descriptive. So instructive and prescriptive are the same things. So broadly speaking, if we see the scriptural context, something is said in the sense that you should do it.
Then that is prescriptive. But when it is not in that mood that you should do it and also when you say you should do it, we also have to see in what context scripture is saying it. Is it that it is a universal instruction for everyone? For example, the second cantor Srimad Bhagavatam it is mentioned.
For this problem you can worship this devata. For this problem you can worship this devata. For this problem you can worship this devata.
You can say it is prescriptive. But in the Bhagavatam itself is giving us a higher prescription. It is saying worship Krishna.
So even when there is something which is directly instructive, whether it is instructive for all times or not, that is something which has to be carefully considered. So that’s why we need to understand shastra through those who have lived the shastra. Those who have lived the shastra, those who are living the shastra.
So you can talk personally.