Can scripture be understood in multiple ways? – The Monk’s Podcast 108 with Radhika Raman Prabhu

Podcast: Summary podcast: Video:

Welcome back to the Monks Podcast. We are eagerly waiting for your association. Last time, we had a very… very deep, as well as a very illuminating discussion.

So, I look forward to something similar today also. Thank you. Thank you, Jaipeni Charan Prabhu.

It's always such a pleasure to be in your association, to have a conversational partner on these wonderful topics. And I really appreciate the service you do to the Vaishnav community in terms of making these podcasts available. I can't tell you how many people have mentioned to me how much they gain from these podcasts.

So, it's a pleasure and an honour to be with you again here today. Thank you, Prabhu. I think the podcasts have any value.

It's primarily because of the devotees who come here and we discuss thoughts. So, thank you for joining. So, I thought last time we had discussed elaborately about broadly faith and reason, the academic and the devotional approaches to studying the tradition.

So, as a continuation of that, but from a slightly different perspective, I thought we could discuss about hermeneutics. What it is? Why is it needed? The word itself can seem very unfamiliar to those who approach scripture from a traditional perspective. But for those who approach it from an academic perspective, they feel it's indispensable.

So, it's almost a collision. What is considered indispensable is considered completely, almost non-essential. But, it is a part of the tradition also.

And understanding that is quite helpful in learning how to appreciate and apply scripture. So, would you like to start with basically explaining about hermeneutics? What it is? And why is it needed? And we can take it forward from there. Yes.

I think you're very right, Prabhu, that the word itself is often the biggest barrier. And once you understand what the word means, it's actually a very it's not a difficult concept to grasp. And it's something that everyone uses and engages with, sometimes without realising it.

So, the word hermeneutics simply comes from a Greek word, which means to express, or translate, or explain, or interpret. And so, hermeneutics, usually as a field of study, it describes both the theory and the method of how to explain or interpret scriptural texts. Any text, really.

But in our context, it would be the words of Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra. So, broadly speaking, that category that we think of as the shabda pramana. And so, hermeneutics is to express or to translate, basically, or to interpret.

Now, the word interpretation is sometimes a sticky point for devotees because Shila Prabhupada speaks many times, he says, we do not interpret. We take it as it is. Right? And so, this word interpretation then gets a negative field for it.

But usually when Shila Prabhupada is using the word interpret in a negative sense, he means to say we do not misinterpret because in other places, less frequently, but nevertheless, in several places, he uses the word interpret in a positive sense. So, for example, in the Leela where the, I think it's the when I'm forgetting, I think it's when Krishna is drinking milk from putana or poison, rather, or when the flowers are falling off of Mother Yashoda's hair as she's running behind Krishna to catch him in Damodar Leela. Prabhupada uses the word interpret several times.

He says, some acharyas interpret this to mean that this is happening and other acharyas interpret this scene like this way. And so, he's describing how the acharyas are interpreting different things. So, simply to say that the word is not negative in itself.

Basic point of hermeneutics is that we, hermeneutics gives us guidelines and principles by which we can understand how to properly interpret or explain Shastra and how to not misinterpret Shastra, right? So, it's just a simple thing. And if the word interpret is distasteful for some people, then we can simply use the word explain. That's also fine.

How to explain Shastra properly and how to not improperly explain Shastra. So, yeah. Going back, so you said, we use it in a way that is, sorry, the idea of hermeneutics is not limited necessarily to spiritual texts or scriptures.

So, would we have something like say hermeneutics for reading Shakespeare today or hermeneutics for reading Homer and Iliad and Odyssey also? So, is it that, so what is the need for hermeneutics? It seems to be like almost a universal need. So, is it just the difference in time and culture and context? So, for example, if I read the New York Times or you read the Times of India, do we also have hermeneutics involved in reading that? Or when something is very much within a part of our culture, then hermeneutics doesn't come in? Or is it implicit over there and in some other places it has to be explicit? Yeah, that's a really good question, Prabhu. Hermeneutics is there implicitly anytime we try to understand language.

And most of the time it's implicit. Most of the time we don't need to think about it. Like reading the newspaper, no one wants to do a hermeneutical analysis or interpretation of what's being said.

We have a common sense of what these words mean in a particular context and we apply it. But the hermeneutics becomes important. It becomes a field of study when we are dealing with texts whose meanings are not easy to understand and when there are significant consequences to our understanding of their meaning.

And this is why every religious tradition has some sort of implicit or explicit hermeneutics in terms of understanding their sacred texts, in terms of understanding their scripture. Because in that context every word will make a huge difference. Sometimes a single word can have a seismic impact on what is on the lives of the followers, on the maintenance, the preservation of the institution.

So in context like that, that's when hermeneutics becomes particularly important or crucial. That's when we speak about it and study it. It's there in everything.

It's there even when we read the newspaper. But no one really cares about hermeneutics in such situations because the consequences are low and it's quite simple text also to understand. There's usually not a huge controversy.

So complexity and consequentiality, two things would come in. Yes. So in Krishna book, Prabhu, in chapter 6 of Krishna book, the story of Putana and Prabhupada says here, Krishna showed the nature of a small baby and closed his eyes as if to avoid the face of Putana.

This closing of the eyes is interpreted and studied in different ways by the devotees. Some say that Krishna closed his eyes because he did not like to see the face of Putana who had killed so many children and who had now come to kill him. Others say that Putana hesitated to take the baby on her lap because something extraordinary was being dictated to her from within and in order to give her assurance, Krishna closed his eyes so that she would not be frightened and yet others interpret in this way.

Krishna appeared in order to kill the demons and give protection to the devotees as stated in Bhagavad Gita. The first demon to be killed was a woman according to Vedic rules, the killing of a woman, a brahmana, cows or a child is strictly forbidden. Krishna was obliged to kill the demon Putana and because of the killing of a woman, forbidden according to Vedic Shastra, he could not help but close his eyes.

Another interpretation is that Krishna closed his eyes because he simply took Putana to be his nurse. So we can see here it's a profile, I mean this is a wonderful example of hermeneutics, right? So a single statement in Srimad Bhagavatam which says Krishna closed his eyes while drinking milk and the it offers so many layers of meaning, so many interpretations of that one event and this is basically what this is a fine example of what hermeneutics is and why it's so important and how it's actually there in everything we read even though we may not be conscious of it. So again this is also an example of applying hermeneutics to Prabhupada's statements.

Prabhupada says there's no need for interpreting so what does he mean by that? So we need an interpretation to understand Prabhupada's use of the word interpret. Yes. So Prabhu, before we go into further details of hermeneutics, I want to give you an example of the importance of hermeneutics by using an example from the Bible.

Now the reason I want to give you an example from the Bible is because it's sometimes a whole lot easier to see something at work in a tradition that is very different from our own. If it's something very close to home then it's usually very touchy. It's a little more sensitive but we can see things in a more detached fashion when it's happening in another tradition.

So this example in particular it comes from the New Testament the Gospel according to Matthew in chapter 5 and it's from a section called the Sermon on the Mount which is Jesus is speaking to many followers in the general public and his disciples also and it's a beautiful section in the Bible, very very famous where Jesus has many nice statements. One of these statements in particular it goes like this Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Now suppose I knew nothing about Christianity and I thought let me interpret this statement so I took the sentence Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth and I thought oh what this means is that if I am humble that I can expect that when I wake up in the morning someday I shall be king of the earth.

The whole world will be mine. Now that interpretation would be a completely foolish interpretation because no Christian actually believes that particular statement that idea. The way most Christians think of this statement is in a sense of eschatology over time that right now at this point in history if you if you inherit if you are humble you won't rise in politics you won't inherit anything but over time when Jesus comes, the second coming of Jesus when he returns to earth and everything is made proper and nice then and the world becomes a heavenly place and at that time those who are humble, those who are devoted they shall have everything at their fingertips.

Everything shall be theirs. So that's a typical theological interpretation of that passage. Now to understand the passage better to apply hermeneutics let's add some historical context to that statement.

If I give you a historical interpretation here's what happens. When Jesus says blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth what is happening at that time in Israel in the Middle East? The Jews are subjugated and he is speaking to a group of people who have been harassed and subjugated by the Roman powers and they are expecting someone to come and liberate them from that the Messiah, the Saviour and at that time most of them are expecting someone who will lead them militarily to fight and get out of that subjugation that colonisation. And here is someone standing in front of them in public saying you should be humble instead that you should turn the other cheek if someone hits you on this cheek give them the other cheek.

If someone asks for your coat give them your shirt also. The whole idea in the context of what people the Jews are expecting is radical and when we understand the historical context our appreciation for Jesus' statement it grows even more goes deeper you see because now we can understand that his statement is actually not just theologically, religiously very deep but in that historical context it was actually very very powerful. He was taking a great risk by making a statement like this that we have to be humble even in the face of so much violence.

Challenging the preconceptions of his audience about what role he is expected to play or what role they think he should be playing. Exactly. So he is really challenging his audience.

So the normal theological interpretation that most people who know the Bible would be able to give you but if you added some historical knowledge to it look at how it transforms your appreciation for that particular statement. Okay. So this is two.

Well we did a wrong interpretation then a basic interpretation, a religious theological one, then we did a historical one and they're not contradictory. I mean the first one is wrong but these two are not contradictory they're just layers on top of each other. The historical doesn't contradict the religious one, the theological one, it just increases our appreciation for it.

Now suppose we do yet another one okay and this time let's choose a slightly more radical interpretation and do a Marxist interpretation of that passage. Now as you probably know Karl Marx was not very fond of religion and he had a lot of criticisms of what religion does and particularly its effect on the weak, on the poor. And he sees this passage I mean I'm channelling him okay but any Marxist thinker who sees this passage would say blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

So Marx would say you see this is precisely what is wrong with religion. You tell the poor you stay quiet oh and make sure you're also humble because if you're humble in this life and you let people rule over you and you let you stay in your position don't revolt, don't cause a revolution, don't object, don't be angry then in the future in heaven you will get your rewards right. So religion promises great rewards to those who are humble now in this way the rich and the powerful they can keep their positions without much trouble.

I think this is also what Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche also said the same thing, it was slave morality and he said that is what has weakened the western culture and he was very critical of things. I think he didn't have as much influence sociologically as Karl Marx had in terms of dismantling religious structures actually in society. Yes, yes, so no, you're right, this is a perennial criticism of religion, it tries to keep people in its place, it keeps the status quo.

So from a Marxist interpretation this passage would essentially be seen as a power play of the rich to keep the poor in their position. Now again let's keep our focus on hermeneutics, look at the radical change the completely different meaning now that we have from the passage as a result of using a different hermeneutical system different hermeneutical frame. Now I've got one more, one final example, we've done a misinterpretation, we've done a a proper theological one, a basic one we've done a historical interpretation we've done a Marxist one and the last one let's try to salvage the statement from Marx.

So in a branch of Christianity which arose in South America but is popular all over the world now called liberation theology. It's a form of theology that focusses on helping those who are poor and who are downtrodden against systemic injustice. So in liberation theology they would take this statement and turn Marxist interpretation on its head saying yes this is about the poor and the weak.

But what it tells us when Jesus says blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth he is teaching us, he is showing us how he stands along with those who are the weakest and the poorest and the most downtrodden in society and he is instructing all Christians to stand with the poor and to make it happen that they inherit the earth. Make it happen that the poor get their fair share in our society that they do not remain in that downtrodden. So he's giving a call to action not a call to passivity which is what Marx's argument was that you have to be passive.

He's giving a call to action. So just see the power of a hermeneutical system, of hermeneutical frame. A single statement, one line can have such consequential effects on how we act as Christians if we were Christians.

It would make a huge difference in our life, right? What hermeneutic frame. So the point being hermeneutics matters. Sometimes people think hermeneutics is just the the playground of intellectuals who have their head in the clouds and who have nothing better to do when in fact things are actually really simple.

But the point is we think that it doesn't matter. It's usually because we have accepted some hermeneutical principle without really realising that we've taken it, right? So some, one of these interpretations that I gave you of this statement from the Bible may be obvious to someone. Oh yeah, of course it means this but it's not obvious if you look at the course of history and all the different ways in which it's been interpreted.

So we really have to do hermeneutics consciously and we have to understand and select what we're doing. We have to have proper guidelines for hermeneutics. Otherwise we can end up everywhere from Marx to theology to history.

We can end up anywhere and we won't even know what we're doing. You know, that's very striking what you said. I remember long ago I read an article in a newspaper from a newspaper and a well-known Indian author.

He says all of India's problems are because India is not following the Bhagavad Gita. Very interesting. I read it.

So his reading was that if India had followed the Bhagavad Gita within five minutes of the creation of Pakistan India would have attacked Pakistan and annexed it into its own kingdom. Just as Krishna fought against Adharma. And because we did not do it, that's why we have so many problems.

So that was his interpretation of what applying the Bhagavad Gita means. So this is such a fine example you gave, Prabhu. If we take it now to our own tradition, the Gita is an excellent example, right? The Bhagavad Gita has been used to preach both non-violence and to preach violence.

Both, right? To stop war and to actively promote a war. And in the same time period, during the period of India's independence, Gandhi was teaching non-violence, non-violent resistance from Gita. And others at the same time were using the Gita to say, no, this means we have to fight.

We have to pick up arms and fight. And opposite meanings taken from the same text, from the same book, from the same passage. So you're giving a very good example of this, bringing it closer to home.

From the Bible, we can now say, okay, the Gita also, depending on and of course, Srila Prabhupada speaks of this in his introduction to the Gita, how there are so many hundreds of translations of Bhagavad Gita and everyone has their own way of interpreting the Gita or misinterpreting the Gita. And this is a hermeneutical example. It's a hermeneutical problem.

So, I'm just thinking about it that if we don't have hermeneutics, then what you talk about Marx, that actually people can then become puppets in the hands of the powerful. Because whoever has power, they may interpret it and they may mandate that interpretation of the right interpretation and that can lead to people being misled. So, if there is no hermeneutics, then the idea would become that one person says this is the meaning and that is what everyone has to accept.

And if that person is well-intentioned, maybe it is good. But if that person is not well-intentioned, then it could lead to a lot of severe consequences. Yes.

Every chance we will slip into misinterpretation. That's sort of the default. In order to interpret properly, you have to work very hard to interpret according to siddhanta, according to the lines of siddhanta given to us by the acharyas.

That takes a lot of work. One has to constantly purify our intention and understand what is our intention and our interpretation. We have to constantly look very carefully.

And to slip into misinterpretation, there's a thousand ways. There's a thousand ways to get it wrong. It's easy.

It's easy to just go off in a particular direction. We see this in Chaitanya Charita Amrita. Damodar used to be the guard, the hermeneutical guard before Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

You remember the story when one poet came, I'm forgetting his name, he came and gave some verse about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Jagannath. That's what he's referred to. So Jagannath is the body and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the Atma, is the soul.

All the devotees, not all, but many of them were saying, very nice, very nice, beautiful. So Damodar heard it and he very strongly rejected that idea. You don't understand anything about Alankara.

You don't understand anything about Rasa. Basically, you don't understand what is the appropriate way of interpreting, of offering prayers and so you're giving this novel interpretation and this is displeasing and then he explains why it's wrong. So there's a thousand ways to get it wrong.

It's really easy to misinterpret and if we're not conscious and properly understanding of what is the hermeneutical principles of our Acharyas, what is the hermeneutical principles that Shila Prabhupada has given us, what are the hermeneutical principles of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya, then, you know, sky is the limit for misinterpretation. And one of the ways in which you can slip into interpretation is to think that there is no need for interpretation. So, I was thinking that about the interpretation.

In fact, Prabhupada uses the word explanation but the 61 explanations of Atmarama verse which Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu does, that is clearly, at one level of interpretation, this word can mean this or this or this. So, if we just avoid the negative connotation of the word interpretation, then we see multiple explanations given throughout our tradition. The Atmarama verse or there is this Tektvasu-Stija verse in the 11th canto, the same verse refers to Ram, Krishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as explained by So, I think, in general, in the domain of rasa, even where Putana's pastime is there, in the domain of rasa, having multiple interpretations or multiple explanations seems to be quite acceptable because it's just ways in which we relish different aspects of the Lord and relish different aspects of His glories.

Now, when it comes to something beyond rasa, so, for example, a verse that has a different philosophical meaning or a verse that has a significantly different practical application. So, can we, are we having some examples of that? So, basically, before we go into examples, is there some word for hermeneutics in Sanskrit? I know Mimamsa is the, Mimamsa has developed a lot of a lot of, I think, strategies for interpretation within that. And Nyaya also had an aspect of logic and how to present it logically.

But maybe you could, before we come to the specific Gaudiya tradition, you could talk about the broader Vedic tradition and its own schematics for hermeneutics. Yeah, so, hermeneutics is an English word, of course, derived from the Greek word. But hermeneutics is not something that is foreign at all to the Vedic tradition.

In fact, a lot of the debates that happen on questions between different sampradayas, for example, all focus on questions of hermeneutics. And we, there's multiple words that are used for that purpose. I think Mimamsa is a very nice general word.

Of course, Mimamsa refers to a specific tradition of philosophy also. So Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa are there. But in general, Mimamsa referring to detailed enquiry into any subject is a very nice generic term that one can use for hermeneutical activity.

And then, as you mentioned, in traditions of Nyaya and in traditions of Vedanta, all of these have very nice descriptions. Sometimes also what we speak of as hermeneutics comes in the area of Pramana also, and understanding what is Pramana and epistemology. So, you know, for one very nice example of this debate in the broader tradition is, for example, in the conversation between Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and both Prakashananda Saraswati and Sava Bhaumatacharya.

So, one question is, well, how do you properly interpret the words of Vyasadeva, of the Vedanta Sutra and the Vedas? And there's a question there, specifically a hermeneutical question. Should you take the direct meaning or should you take the indirect meaning? And Mahaprabhu's point is that first you have to accept the direct meaning. And that's the starting point.

And basically only if the direct meaning does not work at all, then we have to look at the indirect meaning. Or if we can fully accept the direct meaning, then we might also add an indirect meaning to it to supplement the direct meaning. But the direct meaning should be our first point of departure.

Now, this is a key hermeneutical principle that is common to the Vaishnava traditions. Ramanujacharya also says the same thing, that in the Shastra, there is statements promoting dvaita and advaita, bheda and abheda. Between the living being and God, there's statements of unity and there's statements of difference.

Both of those statements have to be accepted at face value and have to be accepted fully. And we agree with Ramanujacharya on this point. Whereas Shankaracharya has a very different hermeneutical principle approach where he says, no, no, no, not all statements have equal value.

Some statements have overarching strength and value over every other statement. And these statements he calls the mahavakyas. Like tattvam asi, ekam eva dvitiyam.

And all of those mahavakyas are typically moving towards non-duality, towards oneness, towards impersonalism. So he says those statements have greater power and they will overcome statements about difference that must be reinterpreted, that must be explained in terms of the mahavakyas, in terms of those statements of oneness. And Ramanujacharya comes back and he says, if Shastra is saying X and Shastra is saying Y, then both X and Y have to be properly respected and given the weight that Shastra itself applies to X and Y. And therefore he comes up with the idea of vishishtadvaita, that both oneness and difference are important.

And of course we agree with that point in Achintya Veda as well. So this is an example of how hermeneutics has been at play. I mean, not just at play, it's been the centre of debate and argument in the Vedic traditions, in the Vaishnav traditions, in the Orthodox Vedic traditions for centuries.

This has been so important. It's not some newfangled idea that certain intellectual devotees are bringing into ISKCON from outside, from Western academia. It's not like that.

The word, of course, is new, because you and I were speaking in English, so we're using English words. But ISKCON's hermeneutics, Vaishnav hermeneutics, Gaudiya Vaishnav hermeneutics, is and must be based on a long, long and very proud, very rich heritage we have of Shastric analysis and interpretation in our own tradition. I cannot tell you how many times the Acharyas, they give their commentaries on a verse and then after they give the explanation, they will say Yadva, but then, or else, this sentence can mean this.

On both matters of Rasa and matters of Tattva, both, they'll give different understandings of the same verse, the same statement. Sometimes 61 different explanations as you mentioned, which were all on Tattva point, right? Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was all speaking on philosophical matters, not on Rasa there. Rasa is a wonderful playground for the Acharyas who are commenting.

They really relish giving different understandings of Krishna's Leela, but also Tattva is matters of philosophy. They show the depth that is there. So then, if you consider that there's such a, as you said, rich and proud heritage we have got of that has to be, scripture needs to be understood carefully.

So, if you consider there are two things, there is a road and there are rails to the road. So till now, we discussed the need for a road. We need to interpret.

In general, what I observed is that maybe Prabhupada emphasised the rails more. And that is why within our movement, sometimes the idea that the rails are what is important and that has become mainstream. And of course, both are important.

So, could you explain a little bit, why the idea that apart from the Prabhupada's hesitation to use the word interpret or not even hesitation because it's approval, but apart from that, why is there the idea that there is no need for hermeneutics? Is that also something present in every tradition? I remember I was in Texas and I saw a person on a t-shirt probably he was an evangelical Christian or something. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. So, and they were putting it very proudly.

So, is it that there are always in every tradition, people who just reject the need for hermeneutics? So, is it something distinctive to our tradition or is it something our tradition is something distinctive to our movement or is it just a matter of universal psychology? Yeah. So, this is a wonderful, wonderful question and issue that you raised through. Actually, hopefully, it's clear by this point why hermeneutics is both necessary and also inevitable.

So, it's not only necessary, but it's inevitable. You take that statement, God said it. I think the question is, what is it? What is it that God said? And if we take that statement, blessed are the meek, then we can see, well, what is it that God said? Well, that's the question.

So, it's inevitable and even that person who says that there's no need for hermeneutics has a hermeneutical system in mind. It's just implicit. That's all.

It's just assumed. It's there. It may be under the surface, but it's there.

The point, however, is that if we're conscious of what are those guidelines, so what you pointed out, Chaitanya Charan Prabhu, very nicely, is that we need real guards for hermeneutics and this is exactly what hermeneutics is. Hermeneutics is a system that provides us with two things. One is the boundaries within which explanation, interpretation, etc.

can take place. The freedom to make that interpretation, to explore and explain within those boundaries. Let me give you an example.

Two things. It gives us the boundaries and by creating the boundaries, what happens when you create boundaries? You basically demarcate a space, a safe space. Within those boundaries, then you can play, no problem.

If my children go out to play, then I give them clear boundaries. You stay within the yard, within the backyard of the house, right? And there's a fence there. And what is that fence doing? It's giving restrictions.

But what is the purpose of the restriction? So that they have a safe space to play. Within that fence, they can jump and run and tumble as much as they want. No problem, without worry.

Another example. If, say, you play tennis. This example comes from my Guru Maharaj, Hanumat Peshak Swami.

He likes to give this example. If you're playing a game of tennis, then suppose two people are playing tennis and a third person who knows nothing about tennis, he's watching them. And at some point, he comes into the court and he says, okay, you guys stop.

Stop. Both of you stop. Let me give you a suggestion.

You see this net in the middle? If you take down the net, your life will be much easier. But what is the point? The net and the boundaries of the court itself, they create a space where the game can happen. That is why the boundaries make the game possible, isn't it? Without the net and without the boundaries of the court, there's no tennis.

In the same way, hermeneutics, the most important thing about hermeneutics is the boundaries. This is why when Srila Prabhupada emphasises the rail guards, when he emphasises the boundaries, that is the most important thing. That's where you have to start.

But when you create those boundaries and when you understand what those boundaries are, then it provides you the freedom to play inside those boundaries. And by play, I mean that hermeneutics gives you the ability to then take what is in Shastra and to apply it in different contexts, in different parts of the world, in different places. You can extend the application, the relevance, the boundaries of Shastra.

You can see its relevance much better. And this is what allows our Acharyas to do both of these things at the same time and allows us to do it as well. That yes, we can be faithful to the sampradaya and yet we can practise Krishna consciousness living in the United States, like I'm living.

Otherwise, if Prabhupada didn't do that for us, he didn't apply the Vedic teachings in this new context that I'm living in, how could the tradition grow? So hermeneutics does two things. It protects the tradition and it allows it to grow. Both of those things hermeneutics does when it's done well.

By setting up the right guidelines, we create safety, we protect the tradition and we prevent us from misinterpretation, committing violence to the scriptures and it allows us the freedom to inspire, to help the tradition grow so that it does not become just a museum piece in someone's closet. That it's always, it's not just an artefact of history. Yes, 500 years ago, one saint, he said this.

No, it's something that is alive. It's relevant to our times today. When you said hermeneutics allows you to practise Krishna consciousness, bhakti yoga in America, can you explain that? If you say bhakti yoga is chanting chanting the holy names, studying the scriptures.

Why would we need hermeneutics to do that? According to the letter of the law for sanyasis, they should not cross the ocean, they should not wear sewn cloth, they should not fly in an aeroplane. But Prabhupada, what did he do? He said, no, no, no, that's not the principle. That's just a, that was an application of the principle.

What was the principle? Simplicity. Austerity. That he should not be living like a king.

He should be performing a walking from one place to another. The traditional mode of conveyance for a sanyasi is to walk. So he said the principle is simplicity.

The principle is austerity. But another overarching principle is that, that everyone is a servant of Krishna and should have the opportunity to love Krishna. So if I can maintain my austerity and simplicity while climbing onto an aeroplane and flying across the sea or getting on a ship and coming to America, then it is okay.

Too many people at that time, we know, they did not have that ability to distinguish between principle and detail. But Prabhupada did. And so he brought Krishna consciousness to the world.

And this is why I am a devotee today. You know, sometimes now because the world has become so interconnected that we may not realise the radicalness of Prabhupada and in actually going to the West. Before I was introduced to Krishna consciousness, I was quite fascinated by science and scientists.

So I had read the biography of this Indian mathematician who won the Nobel Prize. Ramanujan? Yes. Was it Ramanujan you were speaking of? He was a Brahmin and actually when he went, he was invited to London to further his math studies and actually was rejected from his caste at that time.

He lost his caste. So it seems that it was quite a serious principle even for a Brahmin, I want to speak for a Sanyasi. So Prabhupada so now Prabhupada was radical in that sense.

So Prabhupada so hermeneutics is not just about the interpretation of scripture but it also applies to it also holds true for application of scripture in terms of practically how one will, what one is, when scripture says do this or don't do this, what does it mean? So that's when it starts having real world consequences. Yes. You know, you mentioned about how Prabhupada was so radical.

One of the things that I appreciate about Srila Prabhupada so much is that he is he was so conservative and so liberal. He was so conservative and so radical at the same time. I mean honestly speaking Prabhupada is the most conservative person I know.

He sticks to the principles of Krishna consciousness so strictly and so minutely that we have to, I mean, of all the different gurus who came during that time, he's the only one who encouraged his disciples to wear dhotis and kurtas and do murti seva. No one thought of introducing murti seva to non-Indians because that was like totally you know, it was difficult culturally it was so difficult for people who have grown up in the Abrahamic traditions which all reject murti seva. Prabhupada is the only one who insisted on all the details of the upacharas and gradually he introduced them in our movement, right? So he's the most conservative and yet the most radical person I know.

He transformed the tradition in ways that no one could have even dreamed of. No one could have dreamed of at that time coming to the West and making brahmanas out of non-Indians and giving women such significant roles in his movement. No one could have dreamed of that and yet at the same time he was so conservative.

So this is why Prabhupada's example, this hermeneutical example, is so amazing and so beautiful. It's because you cannot put Prabhupada in a box. The idea that Prabhupada was conservative is something which he himself emphasised quite often and he says, you know, I'm postman, I'm simply delivering what was given to me.

So the idea that Prabhupada was liberal, that may come off as a little bit of questionable or discomforting idea for some people. You give the example of Prabhupada engaging women in service and distribution. That is what you are saying as liberal or what was the exact example you are saying? So these words conservative and liberal in general are problematic because they signify political positions and immediately people go into camps.

Which is why in general I don't like to use those words so much, but rather say that Prabhupada was faithful and loyal to tradition. At the same time, he was willing to adapt and apply it in many, many contexts. And in terms of the adaptation and application, everything from crossing the ocean to giving Brahmin deeksha to those who are not of Indian background, what to speak of Brahmin background, of giving women roles of preaching and public outreach and Brahminical deeksha and so many things to women in the movement to making adjustments in terms of diet and food and ashram life.

So many different areas. One nice purport which Prabhupada gives in Chaitanya Chaitanya Paramita, he has this wonderful line where he says, the acharya is not stereotyped. And it's very clear in that purport he's speaking about himself that people criticise that this is how an acharya must be.

But he says an acharya is not stereotyped. So Prabhupada, he describes both aspects, both sides. And I have found that it's impossible to put Prabhupada in a box.

He's like a multifaceted jewel. And everyone appreciates that jewel from a different side. And their appreciation of Prabhupada is true.

It's genuine. It's not actually possible. It's like Krishna entering the assembly of the wrestling arena.

And each one sees Krishna in a different light, in a different way. Some as a beautiful little boy, some as a powerful king and ruler. So people appreciate Prabhupada in different ways.

And their appreciations are not wrong. Prabhupada has so many different facets and sides to him. But I think we're off topic a little bit.

I think it's important still. I had prepared a schemata for this. What you mentioned about Prabhupada being resourceful.

Can I share that a little bit? Yeah, please. That would be wonderful. So see, here I talk about this as the tradition and this is the contemporary world below.

It's a living tradition. The living tradition connects with the past through fidelity and it connects with the present through flexibility. So we need both.

And we can say in a sense, if I move it forward, what happens is, we can say that liberals are more concerned with the flexibility, conservatives are concerned more with the fidelity. And as you said, if there's only fidelity without flexibility, we'll end up with a museum exhibit. Yes.

Without fidelity, we'll end up as a fashion trend. We'll have no potency. So it is when both of them are together, fidelity and flexibility, that's when we are a living tradition.

So I think Prabhupada embodies both. And in one sense, I like the point that Acharya cannot be stereotyped. We cannot put one label on the Acharya.

So in one sense, Prabhupada did hermeneutics in the way he presented Krishna Consciousness, both the philosophy and the practise. Yes. Yes.

And that's actually, Prabhu, what I want to discuss next is what are some of the basic guidelines, those guardrails that we spoke about? What are those guidelines that are born from our own tradition from Srila Prabhupada himself? I think it's important to make things theoretical, to make them concrete. But I want to say first, I really like these two words, fidelity and flexibility. I've always thought that you're the king of language.

You always come up with such nice, memorable phrases and ways of thinking, organising thought. I really appreciate it. I think that's something worth remembering.

Fidelity and flexibility, both have to be there. And hermeneutics, the purpose of hermeneutics is that when done well, when done properly, it's supposed to provide for both fidelity, flexibility, the boundaries, and the space to play within the boundaries. And I want to point to two specific principles that Srila Prabhupada gives us that are, I think, that he gives us so frequently and commonly.

I think they make this point very well. One of the most fundamental hermeneutical principles that Prabhupada gives us again and again, Prabhupada's hermeneutics is not just hidden somewhere. He explicitly, repeatedly points out what are his hermeneutical principles.

One of the most fundamental that we hear again and again is that famous verse, यस्यदेवे पराभक्तित् यतादेवे ततागरो तस्याइते कतिताः यार्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मण That the truths, the meaning of the scriptures are revealed to one who has full faith, implicit faith, Prabhupada says, in the Lord, and just as much faith in the Lord as also in Guru. यस्यदेवे पराभक्तित् यतादेवे तताः गरो Then all knowledge is revealed तस्याइते कतिताः यार्थाः प्रकाशन्ते It's revealed to that person. So certain very foundational hermeneutical principles are present within it.

Namely, that the number one guardrails, the boundaries for hermeneutics for us is that hermeneutics must be done within the range given to us by Guru Parampara and by our spiritual master Shila Prabhupada. So यस्यदेवे पराभक्तित् यतादेवे तताः गरो So if that's the first hermeneutical principle, that the range of meanings that we can find within scripture, the boundaries to those meanings are laid out by Guru Parampara, by Shila Prabhupada as he is presenting it to us. And so we have to work within those boundaries.

So me saying that Krishna's chariot, Arjuna's chariot represents the five, the horses represent the five senses and Arjuna is the individual person and Krishna is the conscience and the chariot is the body and all of that, that's beyond, if I take a purely metaphorical explanation of the Gita, that is outside the boundaries of what our Acharyas permit us to do. So that's the first. That's an example of the guardrails.

There's many guardrails, many, many. I mean this is, you and I have both spent a long time working on the Shastric Advisory Council, working on the hermeneutics project that the GBC has given us. So we know that there are many guardrails but here's like a very common, very fundamental.

Now let me give you an example of a very fundamental hermeneutical principle that allows us to play within those boundaries. And again, by play I mean application that we can apply Shastra within different circumstances. So that's the principle of Desha, Kala and Patra, right? Time, place and circumstance or time, place and audience is another way to take Patra.

So Prabhupada mentions this principle so many times and describes it as so important that we need to apply the eternal ideas of scripture in particular time, place and circumstance as is appropriate. And this is how he is able to spread Krishna Consciousness all over the world. It is by applying those eternal principles of Shastra in a variety of different ways but within the bounds of what is according to our Siddhan.

So another way of taking this Desha, Kala, Patra is also another expression is a beautiful verse in Bhagavatam where Suta Goswami says, that I'm going to present to all of you sages what I have learned from Shukadeva Goswami as I have learned it. So there's the, this is the two, the guard rails and the space within it, right? As I have learned it at the boundary and as I have understood it, as I have applied it, as I have seen its relevance. So according to my own understanding, it is I'm going to present it.

So this is examples of two principles. One is providing us guard rails, and one is providing us with space within those guard rails to apply, to adapt, and to create relevancy. Desha, Kala and Patra.

Okay, makes sense. So in one sense, what we can say is that these are, we may not within the tradition call these as hermeneutical principles, but these are all well-known points. So, it's, these are, basically we are, we are revealing what is already there, not just in the tradition, but we are also showing how many of us are already doing it.

But we may not just be conscious that it is, that we are actually doing hermeneutical work. Yes. We may not call it that.

We're even conscious of it. I mean, both of these principles I gave you, every, practically every devotee is conscious of these two points, right? Yasyadeva Parabhakti and Desha Kala Patra. But we may not just call it that.

We may not, we may not name it in that way. Hermeneutics is a new name. It's a new term.

It's a foreign term. But the, all that hermeneutics is asking us to do is to dig and to extract those principles which are already there, given to us by Srila Prabhupada and the Vaishnava Acharyas, in terms of what are the proper boundaries and what is the resulting space that we have for understanding, explaining Shastra. When we talk about these principles, again, Prabhupada himself has, as you said, not only given but also applied the principles.

So, can you give some examples of, say, both these boundaries and spaces, space within the boundaries, as might be relevant for us in, say, we are in the 21st century. Prabhupada is not with us 30-40 years away from him now. So, when we are trying to practise and share Bhakti, how might we need to use hermeneutics in our applying and sharing of Bhakti? Yes.

Yes. So, let me outline a few more practical principles that are there. I think this will answer your question as to how we might actually use hermeneutics in our own context and in our own lives.

So, I'll give you here two really foundational and very practical principles. The first two that I already gave you, they're very broad and they're, like, basically the bedrock of everything we do in hermeneutics in our tradition. Yasyadeva Parabhaktir and Deshakala Bhaktir.

But, let me give you now some more that are more personal in terms of our daily practise and study and understanding and application of Shastra. So, one very simple and foundational one is a hermeneutical principle is to read something repeatedly. Right? Again and again and again.

And, not just once through and then to draw conclusions. To read repeatedly and in its entirety. Okay? By entirety I mean that we read a statement from Prabhupada or from scripture again and again to understand deeper its meaning.

And, we read broadly all the statements on that topic that Shastra and Prabhupada have given. So, why are these two principles so important? When we read repeatedly, over and over again, then each time, when we read a particular text, any text, like Shastra, we read, then we come to that scripture with certain preconceived notions. Some preconceptions that come from my own background.

For example, that I tend to understand Shastra in this way because I grew up in America or because I'm of Indian background or I have certain preconceptions. When we read scripture and we read it carefully, those preconceptions are modified. We change as a result.

And then we read it again with our new, our broader intelligence. We read it again and we see something fresh in Shastra that we did not see before. And that further modifies our own understanding, our own mental conceptions, our own conditioning.

And because we're all conditioned beings. So, as we then free ourselves from that conditioning, then we again read and we get something more deeply. So over time, in different circumstances, and as our situation changes, our life situation changes, we read again and again, we get more and more out of scripture.

And my favourite example in this regard is Arjun in Bhagavatam, right? He hears Bhagavad Gita the first time around and Krishna's instruction is to fight. And he goes on to fight. He wants to give up the world and go to the forest and be a sadhu, but Krishna says, no, your duty is to fight.

So he fights. When Krishna departs this world and first comes to Bhagavatam, he's there in front of Maharaja Yudhishthira and he's in deep grief because his dear friend Krishna has left this world. So how does he give himself solace from that grief? He remembers Krishna's teachings in Bhagavad Gita.

And as a result of re-reading, it's not actually reading, he's reading in his mind, but by re-reading Bhagavad Gita, what is the conclusion that Arjun comes to and Maharaja Yudhishthira? That they must give up the world and go to the forest. Same instruction in different times in their life, in different contexts, completely different results. The first time he wanted to go to the forest, Krishna says, uh-uh, misapplication of my teachings.

You have to fight. And later on in life, he's ready to fight. He is in the world and Krishna is in the proper interpretation of that teaching now, is that now you can go to the forest and retire from everything.

So re-reading is something that is crucial because by reading, we change. And when we change, we read again. This is called a hermeneutical circle.

A hermeneutical circle means I read carefully and I understand something from the text. As a result, I change. And when I change and I read again, I get new meaning from Shastra.

Shastra doesn't change, but I get new meaning from it. And as I get new meaning from it, I change some more. And when I change some more, I get new meaning from Shastra.

This is called a hermeneutical circle. Right? And it's very, very powerful. This is the system of reading scripture is again and again.

Along with that, not only do you read again and again, but you read all of what you read completely. You read all of what Shastra or Prabhupada has to say about a particular topic rather than taking simply one statement and just deploying that. This principle is called Samanvaya in Sanskrit.

That Samanvaya means that we are able to take everything that is said in Shastra, even when they look so different, and we're able to harmonise it. We're able to see the single intention behind it. Even they say so many different things.

So this is one principle. There's a second one I want to explain, but let me pause here. This is one principle that I wanted to highlight.

It's actually two principles hidden in one. To read repeatedly and to read fully, to read completely. So many of our problems in terms of understanding scripture come from arguments and debates and so on within the society, come from people pulling one quote out of context and taking that as being the whole you know the whole the sum, the be all and end all of what Shastra or what Prabhupada has to say on this particular topic.

Whereas this principle encourages us, no, you have to read everything fully and completely and repeatedly. That is to go and read fully, read repeatedly. And in one sense they said, like they said, too little little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

So quite often that's what happened for us also when we study scripture, we know some quotes and we think I know everything now. So I think that read repeatedly, read fully also includes the principle of humility. Isn't it that it may be just because I know a few quotes doesn't mean I know the essence of scripture or I don't know the scripture either even essentially intuitively or even exhaustively both ways.

So two things, two qualities that the person who is doing hermeneutics has to have or person who is studying Shastra, two qualities that person has to have. They have to have humility and part of that humility is openness to changing our own selves. So humility, I don't understand what is fully there.

I don't fully understand what is there in Shastra that this is something given by the Lord himself. It's revealed. It's something much, much beyond me.

And so I'm just going to scratch at the surface like a child trying to reach for the moon. That is my position. So that humility has to be there and an openness that because I don't know everything that is there therefore I may be surprised.

I may be changed as a result of reading Shastra. I may go into reading scripture saying this is what scripture says and I just all I need to do is do a search in Vedabase to find the right quote to support my point. And then you actually do a search and you realise well yes my point is supported but also my point is denied.

My opponent's point is also supported. Maybe it's more complicated. Maybe I was taking it too simplistically.

And so that openness has to be there. This is again that point that Shastra is not stereotyped. That we have to be open to being changed ourselves in the process.

So both of those qualities are very important. I'm glad you brought that up. So this brings us to one point within hermeneutics or which may make people uncomfortable.

Do you want to talk about some other principles? Just one more. One more principle I wanted to point out because I think it's very crucial and that is that context is crucial for understanding. We should always pay attention to the context.

Now what does context mean? One context is simply the statement within the text itself. Who is speaking this at what time? Just like when Krishna is preaching this Karma Mimamsa philosophy to his father, Nanda Maharaj. So we have to know the context.

If I take one of Krishna's statements there and I say, give it to someone and say, see, Sri Bhagavan Uvacha. Krishna says, and here, you should practise this. And I don't tell the person the context in which Krishna made that statement.

I can mislead, isn't it? Krishna made that statement according to the Acharyas as a way to convince his father, but not because that is Siddhanta. He's using a technique basically to convince his father, not in a Siddhanta. Or I take Narada Muni's statement to Mrigadi, you should kill the animals fully.

And I take that as my guiding principle for my life. Kill animals. That would be wrong because I have now ignored the context of the statement.

To a hunter who was half-killing animals. So killing animals fully in that context is good. It's a positive thing.

But not in my context, it's not. I should be vegetarian. So understanding the context of Shastric statements within the text itself, within the book itself, is crucial.

But also historical context is also very important to understanding the impact and power of what is being said. Just like the statements in Bhagavatam saying that a brahmachari should wear bark or should wear deer skin, should go like this and live in the forest. So these are all valuable statements.

But we have to understand them in the proper context. That these are statements made for an earlier yuga, an earlier age, and today wearing bark skin is not recommended for brahmacharis or vanaprasthas or sannyasis. That we're in a different context.

The principle is still true. That we should be simple and austere. Every brahmachari should be simple and austere.

Not wear lavish clothing. But the exact application of it is contextual. So much in our shastras is relevant, is better appreciated when we understand the historical context.

Bhagavatam, basically the entire Srimad Bhagavatam is a response to a historical context. Isn't it? The sages are there in Naimisharanya and they're worried about the Kali Yuga and what's going to happen in this dark age. How are people going to achieve perfection? And Bhagavatam emerges as a result.

Krishna Svabhama Upagate Dharmajnana Divisa. So Bhagavatam is a response to a historical context. Every avatar descends to earth as a response to a historical context.

Right? Paritranaya Sadhunam Vinashaya Chudish Kutham. There's a historical context which needs to be addressed. Yada Yada Hi Dharmasya Glani.

Yada. It's when. That's a historical question.

When is this happening? The Acharya's preaching is always a response to a historical context where he's addressing a particular group of people at a specific time and applying those eternal principles to those specific group of people. Prabhupada's prayers on the Jaladuta are so beautiful. They're a response to the historical context that he is facing.

Look at these people, the geographical, the cultural context. These people are overcome with the modes of passion and ignorance. My dear Krishna, please make my words suitable for their understanding.

What is he asking for? A way to make his words suitable for the cultural, geographical, historical context in which he is operating. So our appreciation for Shastra and for the words of Guru can grow. Their impact can grow when we recognise what is the context in which it is being said.

And by understanding that context we may come to recognise that this statement that is being made is eternal, it's applicable at all times and all historical contexts. On the other hand, this statement was applicable only to Treta Yuga and is no longer applicable to Kali Yuga. By understanding the context, it is possible to recognise the applicability of a particular statement.

And once again, Shila Prabhupada and the Acharyas do this repeatedly in their commentary and writing. But then it would be wrong, it would be foolish for us to then take Prabhupada's statements and to also not recognise that. To just say, to ignore that contextual aspect to Prabhupada's statements.

That there are some statements that Shila Prabhupada is saying that are Siddhanta, that are present for all times and all places. Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. We are His servants.

There's no change over context. And there are other statements that today is a cloudy day that is applicable to a particular time and particular group of people, etc. So many things that he says in his letters, for example, that are contextual instructions for a particular group of people.

And it would be harmful for us to take them out of context or at least not to recognise the context that is present there. This was the other principle I wanted to mention. Contextual understanding.

Yeah, I think this is so critical. Again, the point comes up that when somebody says there's no need for interpreting, then we may be universalising the statement and it would be not just presumptuous saying beautiful. On one level we say it's presumptuous to contextualise scripture or acharya statements but it could be preposterous to universalise them.

Say, for example, Prabhupada said when the gurukul teachers asked him, how much should children eat? He says, two, three chapatis. And if they made it into absolute rule, no child should eat more than three chapatis. And no child should eat less than two chapatis.

So we can have that the danger is not just on one side of contextualising. By contextualising we might minimise but by universalising also we might misinterpret, we might misapply. So I think it's important to be aware of dangers on both sides.

Very, very well stated. I really like that. It's a double-edged sword.

Universalising something that is not meant to be universalised is a danger and diminishing or minimising something that is universal and making it narrowly applicable to a little context that is also a danger. So minimising and universalising both are equally problematic. So now we will talk about context.

I think this brings us back to the earlier point I was making, I was planning to make. So when scripture speaks that scripture gives universal statements spoken in a particular context and if we are to say look at the Prabhupada's statements and the previous Acharya's statements, his scriptural statements isn't there a certain level of self-appointed authority to think that I will decide which is universal and I will decide which is contextual or it's not a self-appointed authority. It's basically a common sense.

Prabhupada also said that Krishna consciousness means common sense. So how do we again it means how do you use the boundaries to decide what is contextual? Yeah, I think you raise a very crucial question about hermeneutics, which is who does hermeneutics? Who is the appropriate interpreter, explainer, commentator of Shastra? And this is a very crucial question. I mean, if you look at the history of Christianity, the whole Catholic-Protestant split, one of the major elements of that split is based on this question that who has the ability to interpret the Bible? Only the priest who is well-educated in the whole history of theology in the church going in their parampara or is it every reader of the Bible has the ability to understand it in their own way? And that question, I mean, leads the question of who has Adhikara? The word in Sanskrit is Adhikara, right? So who has I mean, this is such a crucial point it this this is practically I mean, it's what causes splits between traditions, between religions is just this question of who has Adhikara to appreciate and understand Scripture to interpret Scripture.

And so this question is very much important. It's part of the question of boundaries. Our original discussion of boundaries is part of that, that not only what are the boundaries, but who gets to decide what are those boundaries and how big they can be and how much you can play within them, etc.

So that's something that I'm very glad you brought up because I think it's very important for us to discuss and to unpack. Now, ultimately, the so we can start all the way back, right? And we can say the first the first I think here also that two extremes to mention Christianity that if only the priests who can interpret then I just trying to elaborate this point that then it means that the priests get almost unilateral authority and they can abuse the authority. But then if we say it's just every reader then we know Protestants are also divided endlessly based on because their very foundation doesn't accept authority.

So there are almost like 55,000 Protestant denominations. So within our tradition we have this concept of Adhikar and so is Adhikar related with what we often talk about as Kanishka Adhikari, Madhyam Adhikari, Uttam Adhikari? Or those are words in a different context? Yeah, we can take it like that in terms of who has Adhikar but typically in terms of understanding Shastra the main boundaries of Adhikar are laid out by Parampara and then by Guru. Within the context of the tradition when we ask our question who has the ability to interpret Shastra for me? Then typically we say the first is the spiritual master.

So for us it would be Srila Prabhupada who is universally the primary interpreter of scripture for any devotee who is a member of ISKCON that he provides those boundaries within which we can understand but of course Srila Prabhupada is not working in isolation he said many many times his only, he said my only credit is that I have not invented something new that I faithfully followed the instructions of my Guru Maharaj. So he is working within a very prestigious heritage of Acharyas in our Guru Parampara who have each served to function in this capacity. Now our role in all of this okay we have the boundaries the space created for us by Srila Prabhupada but within that space then we have to develop our own understanding that is personal to us.

We have to appreciate Shastra and make it, we have to have an individual personal relationship with Srila Prabhupada through his books and through his scriptures and that means like I was saying earlier that Shastra Prabhupada, they are multifaceted jewel we'll each understand the jewel in different ways and apply them in our own context in our different parts of the world and different cultures and yet we have to still play in the same playground right? So that's the challenge that we have before us that you know we have to stay in the same playground because the fences for that playground Prabhupada has given up for us and yet we have our different games to play right? We have our different roles to do, different applications to make in our own and everyone doesn't have to do exactly the same thing like some sort of army marching right? We have different ways of expressing our Krishna consciousness and this is what makes the Krishna consciousness movement so beautiful and so powerful is that all over the world devotees are so creative in the ways that they present Krishna and the ways in which they appreciate Krishna in their own world and in their own context those aspects of Krishna that mean a lot towards them. So we can play our own games, we can be creative and so many games are there but we have to stick in the same playground right? That's Prabhupada's playground that he's made for us by understanding and properly applying hermeneutics this process becomes easier of staying within the boundaries and yet allowing for creativity and growth within those boundaries. It becomes easier because we have a common understanding of what the boundaries are and we have a common understanding of what is the proper way, the nicest way to play right? How should we engage in conversation in sambhada that is kind and generous at the same time very sharp and intelligent.

So hermeneutics provides us with those tools basically to be able to do that because we have a shared understanding and unity within a tradition can be maintained to the extent that there is a shared hermeneutics. As soon as there's the hermeneutics diverges then a tradition splits. If we have a shared understanding of what are the boundaries of interpretation and what is the proper means method of doing interpretation then even with diversity we can get along and we can work together.

There can be unity and diversity and as soon as those hermeneutic principles are not shared, the fundamental principles of hermeneutics are not shared then there's a split just like we see in the Catholic and Protestant traditions. There are so many instances in the Vedic tradition as well. So we could say that what you talked earlier about Shankaracharya and Ramacharya that is a foundational hermeneutical disagreement that what is the that are all statements of scripture more or less of equal value or some statements are of far higher value.

Now with respect to Prabhupada what you said because this is one way of understanding Prabhupada said that he built a house in which the whole world can live. That means we can have we can have intellectual diversity within our movement also. To some extent we can understand the aspects of say, I would say just to put it in a hierarchy that there is practical diversity in the sense of say the architecture of temples that is something which is a very easily understandable fact that's essential.

Then if I take it from above from the practical, each temple may have its own architecture each temple may have its own particular way of entering, the way the deities are dressed and the way the deities are there in the temple but beyond practical diversity there is say cultural diversity which makes some people little more uncomfortable and then we could say intellectual diversity it makes even more uncomfortable many people. Now it depends for people for some people cultural diversity may be more uncomfortable but in general intellectual diversity is is it something which is a practical requirement because we all are of different natures or is it a essential aspect of the tradition itself. That means is it because we are different so for accommodating us we have all these different views or is it scripture itself intrinsically readable in different ways.

So is it a concession or is it an inbuilt feature. So in ideal world would we not need hermeneutics at all if at all we had ideal world. No even in the spiritual world hermeneutics is something wonderful because everyone understands Krishna in different ways.

Isn't it? I mean the example this was of course Krishna's Leela in the mature world but the example we started with Krishna closing his eyes when drinking milk. So these are all liberated pure devotees who are explaining Krishna's closing of the eyes in different ways. If we go to Braj then everyone sees Krishna in a different way.

Some see him as Cupid personified and others see him as a sweet little boy who is very charming. So their conceptions are not wrong. I mean if Shastra was reducible to a single intellectual stance then it would not be Shastra anymore.

Where would its value be? The reason Shastra is so amazing is because everyone from the Atmaramas to the conditioned soul is able to read Bhagavatam and gain so much from it for their benefit. Their individual benefit. Isn't it? So everyone from me a conditioned soul who is reading and thinking oh I have to give up my anarthas to Atmaramas who is Nirgrantha who has given up all his anarthas already all of them are benefiting from Shastra clearly not because they read it exactly the same way.

The don't eat meat is not going to strike the Nirgrantha Atmarama devotee as particularly relishable. It'll be something that's a given but for me it may be oh yeah I have to be careful with what I eat. So this is the very nature of Shastra is that it is a well that never stops giving water that never goes dry.

It is a gold mine that never empties of gold. It is something that is always fresh and always giving more and more and more regardless of what level we are at and what position we are at. So I would say it's both.

It's based on the fact that we are different but it's also the very nature of reality itself. It's the very nature of who Krishna is and naturally therefore Shastra is that way also. Beautiful.

Shastra is a Kalpataru isn't it? Yes. So not just because we are diverse but Krishna is also unlimited and I was thinking there are so many instances see when Krishna comes in Kamsa's wrestling arena, it's described how different people see him differently and Bhagavatam doesn't say these people are wrong and these people are right. They see it differently.

And we understand from a philosophical perspective that some understandings may be higher and some understandings may be not. But it's interesting that when we consider that scripture itself is so you are in this thing did you equate scripture with Krishna? Is scripture like a mind that keeps giving gold? Are you saying that scripture are not different? You're saying in that sense or is it that because we approach we approach from different perspectives that's why? No but I'm saying it's both. The fact that we are at different levels and therefore when we read Shastra we get different things out of it.

That is point number one. But point number two is also Shastra itself is multi-faceted because it is I mean and by Shastra I'm referring here to the highest of Shastras like Srimad Bhagavatam Bhagavad Gita that is truly Krishna Katha and this is Krishna Svadhamo Bhagate Dharma Jnana Kalonashtadrishamesha Purana This is Krishna's avatar in Kali Yuga is Srimad Bhagavatam. He appears in this form so therefore like Krishna this Bhagavatam will be appreciated in so many different ways by different people just like Krishna was appreciated by so many and yes some understandings may be more elementary and some understandings may be more advanced.

It's not that everything is the same or it's all relative no there may be differences but the point is that it is not incorrect to appreciate Shastra in different ways. In fact it is practically a necessity. It is inevitable.

Oh So this is so now since maybe we could conclude by talking is there sufficient say education about hermeneutics or as a movement is it something which we neglected or is it because we are a new movement of course the tradition is very vast but as an institution we are new so we are gradually solidifying that because considering how important hermeneutics is it is it is a matter of surprise or concern that so many so few of so few devotees are even aware of it so is it something naturally is it something natural in the new movement and as it evolves it will grow so for example we had this discussion and we also were a part of the Shastrika Radhey Council where we helped write the paper so as an academic scholar and as also a devotee the lack of hermeneutics knowledge about hermeneutics how do you see it and how do you see a change in what is happening? So I think it's just a matter of education over time it's particularly important at this point in the history of our movement this is why the GBC has asked for this development of hermeneutics for now many years it's been a decade I think since the very first hermeneutics committee was formed by the GBC particularly with concern about the moment we are in now in the history of this global Krishna Consciousness movement namely that we are at a point when the generation that was witness to Srila Prabhupada directly the founder Acharya of our movement that and his approach to understanding and applying Shastra those people are now growing much older and as a result a lot of the intuitive and historical knowledge that these devotees have about Prabhupada himself and what he meant in a particular situation when he said it what was the context of that statement so you bring up a statement and some devotee senior devotee will tell you oh yeah Prabhupada at that time he was speaking to such and such person and you know what had just happened is he had gotten a letter from and this is why he was saying this they'll immediately tell you the whole context what was the mood at that time who was he that historical knowledge and also that intuitive knowledge that is there Srila Prabhupada himself is in danger of being lost right and when you don't have eyewitnesses who are present then one has to have very clear principles in place hermeneutical principles tools qualities need to be in place so that the future fences for the playground and we so again you're saying that maybe the hermeneutics that was implicit needs to be explicated or articulated so that it is so that it is better understood so yeah I think that's a very important point that many statements especially if we look at them in context of as you say we hear from those who were in who heard them they can they come off as very different from what they come off in isolation so you see that part of a natural growth and it is it's on a healthy trajectory where we are moving forward yes yes it's it's it's a very healthy process it's a very natural process also and and I don't think people should worry that oh we didn't do this before why are we doing something new now because we did do it before it just was implicit and why does it need to be made explicit now when it was implicit in the past because now we are in a unique moment in the development of our movement when all those who are personally present at the founding of the movement are growing older and this is for people of my generation this is a very very risky time right it's a very challenging time most religious traditions encounter their greatest challenges when the first generation leaves not just in the founder it's in the first generation founder leaves that's crisis number one okay no question about it because the charisma that inspired the entire movement is now gone and so the question then is how do you take that charisma and how do you make it routine how do you create an institution that that can embody the best things about that charisma even in the absence of a single person who can inspire charismatic so that is the first challenge the first crisis is always the departure of the founder but then the second is naturally there's a whole generation of people who have wisdom who have authority who have intuitive knowledge who have historical context because they were eyewitnesses right because they were the apostles because they were the associates of the leader of the founder the Messiah whoever it might be in any religious tradition right and once they leave then this is challenge number two because now you have a whole generation not a generation everyone who is there has never been eyewitness to the founder that point is very very so we might think of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's departure from this world right and what that meant to his associates the grief the challenge it caused and then we might think of the generation of Srila Jiva Goswami where he was faced with the prospect of losing even the associates of Mahaprabhu and how would the movement go on effectively this is why he wrote the Shat Sandal right this is why Chaitanya Charitamrita was written to lay down there's so much philosophy in Chaitanya Charitamrita much more than in other biographies of Mahaprabhu because by that point all of this needed to be written down nicely so that the boundaries the theology of the tradition was crystal clear for a time when not a single person on this planet would be able to say that they had seen Mahaprabhu with their own eyes so we're faced with a similar moment in our history with Srila Prabhupada's departure which was of course we know a great challenge for the movement but we've come through quite nicely but then another great challenge coming forward is going to be the time when none of Srila Prabhupada's associates his eyewitnesses are going to his disciples are going to be there and it is that eventuality that the GBC and the Vaishnav community is wanting to prepare for and this is one of those initiatives so many things have to be done for that but this is one of those initiatives to make sure that the philosophical guardrails are there. Beautiful So although it's sobering it's also uplifting to see even the even the developments of our movement in the historical context and so do you want to speak some concluding about say the hermeneutics paper or what is the plan or should we keep that for a separate podcast with some of the other members of the Shastrik Advisory Council No I think this was a good this would be a good point to mention just what has been done so far thank you for asking about that because so I've been indicating it already but at this point basically the Shastrik Advisory Council has put together a very nice course on hermeneutics a basic course that is basically focused on three things the qualities that one needs to do hermeneutics the Vaishnav qualities the principles the key principles of hermeneutics and the tools that you use to apply those hermeneutics those hermeneutical principles so qualities principles and tools and all of these have been are produced after doing a lot of very thorough research into Srila Prabhupada's teachings his books into our acharyas the parampara into the broader Vaishnav tradition so that everything is grounded in in our tradition in Shastra all these hermeneutical principles and tools and the entire paper itself is I don't know maybe 150 pages something like that maybe more it's massive I mean if you see the amount of hermeneutical thinking that is there in the Vaishnav tradition it is jaw dropping it's amazing how many tools are there given by great acharyas given by Prabhupada I mean it's really a lot so none of this is invented it's really quite amazing but anyway that is quite overwhelming it's there for those who want to dive deep into it but also we've tried to condense it into a several day course where these are the basic method for how to do hermeneutics is there so that as devotees we are going to face these questions all the time sometimes people say well you know if the acharyas have done hermeneutics why do we need to do it if Prabhupada has done it why do we need to do it because we are faced with these questions practically every day like we have to read and we have to explain we have to understand Prabhupada says this why does he say this what did he mean when he says this there's controversial statements by Srila Prabhupada that we are constantly faced with there are controversial statements in Shastra that we are faced with there are controversies that did not exist a hundred years ago that exist today there are challenges and new issues and technologies where devotees are asked to say what are your views on this new technology on this new medical procedure that did not exist a hundred years ago right and we have to give some Shastric understanding so how do we do this how do we deal with controversies how do we apply Shastra to current contexts current applications this is this is the heart of what hermeneutics is and this is why this course has been developed so that we can appreciate what Prabhupada has given and apply it properly again within those boundaries but with still with space for creativity so the course is there and it's the pilot has been done and it's been revised and now hopefully it is going to be offered more broadly to different groups of devotees whoever is interested in this but especially those who teach Shastra especially those who are in leadership positions who have to deal with the most difficult questions on a regular basis for them it would be especially valuable to study this more deeply and our idea is that that the Shastric Advisory Council has hopefully done a lot of the hard work for devotees by mining by sifting through our Vaishnav literature and finding those principles and tools which will be useful to devotees in these ways okay wonderful so should I try to summarise and then okay so today it is a very important discussion on hermeneutics first we discussed what hermeneutics means and why it is essential so it is basically the understanding explaining interpreting reading and Prabhupada uses doesn't approve the word interpret but then he is concerned about misinterpreting and he also uses the word interpret in Krishna book and we need to when we say what is the need to interpret that is often because we have unconsciously adopted some frame of interpreting and we think that is a normative one that is a standard one so we talked about interpretation and our understanding scripture in various ways so with respect to Rasa we have many examples of say Krishna's closes eyes but you give the example from the Bible of of how hugely different the same statement can be so the meek shall inherit the earth so we had the historical meaning but before that we had theological meaning so you talked about the eschatological eschatological meanings and then the Marxist meaning and the liberation theology so Marxist and liberation theology are exactly opposite so we say that in one sense hermeneutics is needed even for reading a newspaper but it is so implicit and two things the consequentiality and the complexity of say scriptural text because of them hermeneutics needs to be more clearly understood and articulated and then we discussed in our own tradition say the Bhagavad Gita's explanation is the Bhagavad Gita to be literal call for violence? It was used in the Indian struggle both ways and then you mentioned about how you mentioned about several principles for doing hermeneutics so the metaphor we used was of how there is a boundaries and then there is a playground that is created by the boundaries so the tradition itself gives us the boundaries and just as children have a safe zone to play so we all have the room for say creative explanation or using our intelligence within the boundaries and just like in a tennis if you remove that nets there is no game so the boundaries make the game possible the boundaries make the game possible and then so we discussed about how this idea of hermeneutics is there, the word might not be there but the principle is there so we talk about mamsa as being a detailed study of an object, nyaya as logic and then of course pramanas the epistemology which source has how much authority and then within that we discussed about the the contradictory hermeneutics of advaitavad and adaitavad so of all scriptural statements have equal value or need to be properly understood or certain statements have paramount value, what Shankaracharya said and then in our tradition also with example of Lord Shaitanya Mahaprabhu giving multiple explanations of atmaram verse which are example of and it is not just rasik, it is philosophical so the idea is that when we do hermeneutics, it is it is what enables us to understand scripture otherwise it is easy to slip into, there are thousand ways to slip into misunderstanding and of course one way to is that there is no need it is self-evident, no need to understand and then while discussing about the boundaries and the room to play we discuss certain principles so think one is read scripture repeatedly, read scripture fully and before that and then and then before that and then afterwards of course context, we discuss that elaborately how within context without context in a small statement can something which is contextual might be made universal or sometimes something universal might be made, reduced down to might be minimised so we discussed several examples of how context changes things and then lastly we discussed about two things, Adhikar who has the right to actually do hermeneutics and that is defined by the Guru Parampara for us broadly and within that each of us has our intellectual space and hermeneutics is not so we have the example of how Prabhupada himself the Acharya doesn't stick to stereotypes so the Acharya transcends stereotypes so we could say Prabhupada was both very conservative and very liberal conservative in the sense that he introduced Murti Puja to people whose very culture was against or equated with the idolatry which is considered to be terrible at the same time Prabhupada also was liberal in the sense that he he looked beyond the letter of the law that don't cross the ocean that is meant for purity that don't wear sewn clothes for sanyasi, that is meant for simplicity and so like that if you consider the essential principle ultimately is elevate people's consciousness and scripture itself responds to context, Bhagavatam is spoken in a particular context the Avataras come in a particular context, Prabhupada's Jal Doodha prayers are in a particular context so when we understand this that the Guru and the Parampara we follow them properly then we get the Adhikar, so we discussed about humility and openness as virtues and with that Adhikar we understand and apply scripture in our space and then lastly we discussed about the history of hermeneutics within our movement it was implicit when we had those who lived with Prabhupada those who were the first generation followers they could immediately provide the context and nuance statements which might be read in multiple ways but now with the first generation and coming to its end this is the crisis number two, crisis number one for a religious movement would be the charismatic founder departing and the charisma needing to be routinised but the crisis number two would be the first generation departing and the preparation of the hermeneutics paper with its values, tools and resources and tools, that is something which is a significant, you could say a landmark which is now being taught and made available for devotees and overall as we understand hermeneutics more and more then we can ensure that say we can all live more cooperatively we don't have to insist that we can actually fulfil Prabhupada's mandate that live cooperatively live within the same house so we can say that there will be that the intellectual diversity is not just a concession because we are conditioned souls but because it is integral because we are all individuals and Krishna is unlimited so in fact it enhances the beauty of Krishna consciousness and we see the we see both the diversity and the unity together and so a shared hermeneutical understanding is vital for this unity and diversity otherwise the unity will fracture and that's how schisms happen in the same Christianity so who has the adhikar to interpret so is it only the priests or is it every biblical reader so the importance of understanding the importance of hermeneutics and having a shared shared understanding of hermeneutics is foundational for both our movement as well as for us as individuals in practising bhakti so anything you would like to add in this conclusion to me even last time I was so amazed by your abilities to bring everything together at the end I think you covered it quite thoroughly if someone doesn't watch want to watch the full length of our conversation just this past five minutes I think would suffice you did a such a wonderful overview of everything we discussed so thank you actually the points you made were very striking and I think this is an important discussion for everyone so thank you very much for sparing your time and sharing your both wisdom as well as your realisations I look forward to having you again in your future thank you I always appreciate my time with you and conversations are always so enjoyable and effortless it doesn't feel like all this time has passed it just feels like it was a good conversation so I really appreciate the spirit in which you do these and thank you so much for having me again on this podcast I really appreciate thank you.