CC Madhya 6.137 (1975): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 18:32, 27 January 2020

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1975) - Madhya-līlā - Chapter 6: The Liberation of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya

Madhya-līlā 6.136 - Madhya-līlā 6.138

Compare Versions: CC 1975 with CC 1996

His Divine Grace
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

TEXT 137

svataḥ-pramāṇa veda satya yei kaya

'lakṣaṇā' karile svataḥ-prāmāṇya-hāni haya

SYNONYMS

svataḥ-pramāṇa—self-evidence; veda—Vedic literature; satya—truth; yei—whatever; kaya—say; lakṣaṇā—interpretation; karile—by making; svataḥ-prāmāṇya—self-evidential proof; hāni—lost; haya—becomes.

TRANSLATION

"The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost."

PURPORT

Out of four main types of evidence-direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas-Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost. If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, we set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost.

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

ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca

bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam

mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva

veda ity eva śabditāḥ

purāṇāni ca yānīha

vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ

svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ

nātra kiñcid vicāryate

The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature. The Purāṇas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa) are especially meant for Vaiṣṇavas and are also Vedic literature. As such, whatever is stated within the Purāṇas, Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. The Bhagavad-gītā is also within the Mahābhārata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gītā are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost.

Madhya-līlā 6.136 - Madhya-līlā 6.138

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 <div style="float:left">'''[[Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (1975)|Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1975)]] - [[CC Madhya (1975)|Madhya-līlā]] - [[CC Madhya 6 (1975)|Chapter 6: The Liberation of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya]]'''</div>
 <div style="float:right">[[File:Go-previous.png|link=CC Madhya 6.136 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 6.136]] '''[[CC Madhya 6.136 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 6.136]] - [[CC Madhya 6.138 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 6.138]]''' [[File:Go-next.png|link=CC Madhya 6.138 (1975)|Madhya-līlā 6.138]]</div>
+{{CompareVersions|CC|Madhya 6.137|CC 1975|CC 1996}}
 {{RandomImage}}
-''Below is the 1996 edition text, ready to be substituted with the 1975 one using the compile form.''
 ==== TEXT 137 ====
@@ Line 11: / Line 10: @@
 <div class="verse">
 :svataḥ-pramāṇa veda satya yei kaya
-:‘lakṣaṇā’ karile svataḥ-prāmāṇya-hāni haya
+:'lakṣaṇā' karile svataḥ-prāmāṇya-hāni haya
 </div>
@@ Line 25: / Line 24: @@
 <div class="translation">
-“The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.”
+"The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost."
 </div>
@@ Line 32: / Line 31: @@
 <div class="purport">
-Out of four main types of evidence—direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas—Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost. If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, we set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost.
+Out of four main types of evidence-direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas-Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost. If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, we set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost.
+:Śrīla Madhvācārya, commenting on the aphorism dṛśyate tu (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:
-Śrīla Madhvācārya, commenting on the aphorism dṛśyate tu (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:
+:ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca
+:bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam
+:mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva
+:veda ity eva śabditāḥ
-:ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam
+:purāṇāni ca yānīha
-:mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ
+:vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ
-:purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ
+:svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ
-:svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ nātra kiñcid vicāryate
+:nātra kiñcid vicāryate
 The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature. The Purāṇas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa) are especially meant for Vaiṣṇavas and are also Vedic literature. As such, whatever is stated within the Purāṇas, Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. The Bhagavad-gītā is also within the Mahābhārata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gītā are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost.