When non-literal interpretations often lead to misinterpretations why do scripture contain them – and how much should we use them?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
so since non-literal interpretations are popular in today’s world and spirituality often is filled with zen-like things which can be interpreted in multiple ways and that creates confusion so how much should we use it and why do the Vedic scriptures contain it at all it’s not that inherently multiple interpretations are bad in fact, if something can be understood in multiple ways that can also convey the richness of the writer’s thoughts or the richness of the text itself so for example, one reason why poetry is very attractive to some people is that as compared to prose poetry can have multiple layers of meaning prose can have, but poetry all the more so poetry conveys things in an indirect way and the opportunity for using alankaras for ornaments, literary devices, figures of speech is much more in poetry so this is a feature of language itself and we cannot minimize it or deny it it’s just a fact of language and it conveys the richness of language in fact, according to linguists, it’s almost like every 5 to 10 sentences we use a metaphor so that’s why metaphors are just a part of our life and metaphors are one example of non-literal usage so when they are present in scripture, they are just reflecting the reality of how we communicate and they are also reflecting the richness of scriptural communication of scriptural wisdom basically as far as multiple interpretations being concerned there is there is a modern school of thought called deconstructionism deconstructionists argue that actually a text has no inherent meaning and the entire meaning of the text depends on who is reading it and how they are interpreting it now of course the standard refutation of this is well, your assertion itself has no inherent meaning when you say that the sentences have no inherent meaning they say this sentence has no inherent meaning so that is extreme and there is a strong strong reaction to that, response to that also that deconstructionism is being opposed, not even, not just by theists, but even atheists because atheists also want to categorically say that god doesn’t exist so if the statements have no inherent meaning, then it’s almost like nobody can have any philosophy at all so that is extreme, now what happens with respect to spirituality because for many people spirituality cannot have any empirical evidence like what you can have from science so that’s why spirituality is often the domain of greater vagueness so most post-modern people are very interested in what is called as pragmatic spirituality pragmatic spirituality is not philosophical spirituality philosophical spirituality is what is the nature of reality pragmatic spirituality is what works for me, so whatever works for me, I am fine with that and then if it has some logical intellectual understanding, that’s an add-on but that’s not the basis so I’ll say that when I was about 5-7 years ago I was very very categorical about right and wrong interpretation of scripture but now I have understood that sometimes even a wrong interpretation of scripture can create interest in scripture among the audience and then people are more open to right understanding of scripture when I was editing Radha and Maharaj’s journey within book so there is a section where Maharaj talks about a spiritual master and then I had suggested that Maharaj you can add something a little more clear over here that one should not approach a spiritual master like a shopper one should be a seeker not that I like this, I like that, I like that you should be like a seeker, so Maharaj told me I cannot write that because most of the people who will be reading this book will be reading it because they are shoppers that shopper means I try a little from here, I try a little from there I try a little from there and whatever makes sense I take that so I would say that when the siddhant is to be conveyed we have to be clear that this is right siddhant, this is wrong siddhant but for people who come to a particular path the siddhant, the philosophy is only one part and that to a very small part of why they come to a particular path it is because what kind of people they meet, it is because of what kind of atmosphere they perceive, it is because of what kind of experiences they have and even before they consider a path they actually have certain preconceptions about that path and because of that itself they decide to approach that path or not approach that path so at one level yoga in today’s world has been completely misrepresented you could say traditionally yoga was practiced by male ascetics for renouncing the world now most yoga practitioners are females who want to make their body more healthy and attractive so that it can attract attention in the world so you could say the purpose of yoga is not only different but its opposite but in spite of that whatever reason they practice yoga that has created some appreciation for yoga and that has created some openness for the tradition from which yoga has come and that’s how they have come towards spirituality so I would say that for when there are forums for systematic philosophical education at that time clear cut understanding of siddhanta is important but even if because of some non literal meaning somebody comes gets an appreciation for a text and that is also good because at least they become a little interested they become a little open and because most people are interested in pragmatic spirituality not philosophical spirituality so even if they get a non literal meaning of the text and later on they are told a literal meaning they are quite open to giving up the non literal meaning and accepting the literal meaning but if that non literal meaning was never there at all then they might never even be interested in the text so I would say that there is a forum for black and white for clear cut emphasis on siddhanta correct and wrong understanding and there is a time for just encouraging people to become interested in spirituality and if by that gradually they come then eventually they will get a clear understanding so certainly we cannot have unlimited interpretations of scriptural text but at the same time we don’t have the resources to police society at all if somebody is giving a interpretation that is you could say wrong but then what can we do about it do we have the resources to go about refuting it and how many wrong things can we refute so if something creates makes people favorable to scripture that is good they may not necessarily all of them come towards Krishna because of that but at least they get a favorable conception and it is also true that not everybody is likely to practice bhakti sadhana as seriously as we would like them to it is manushyanaam sahasreshu so it is better that we have a pyramid where some people are serious practitioners and others are favorable instead of some people practicing seriously and other people thinking that this is just crazy what are these people doing like I was at a I was at a conference there there was this Christian monk I was at an interfaith meeting and this Christian pastor was telling me that how the situation was about 15 years ago and now it is now so he said that he had done a survey just like sometimes we have icebreakers so in his pastoral meeting he said what is the craziest thing you have ever heard in your life so he said three of my congregation members came and told me that Hare Krishna approached me and told me on the street that Krishna is God this is the craziest thing we have heard in our life so that is where people are coming from so now at least people don’t think like that the Krishna bhakti tradition is recognized as a reasonably as a valid tradition within Hinduism and that way things are changing ok