CC Madhya 6.137: Difference between revisions
m (1 revision(s)) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | [[Category:Sri Caitanya-caritamrta - Madhya-lila Chapter 06|C137]] | ||
<div style="float:left">'''[[Sri Caitanya-caritamrta|Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta]] - [[CC Madhya|Madhya-līlā]] - [[CC Madhya 6|Chapter 6: The Liberation of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya]]'''</div> | |||
<div style="float:right">[[File:Go-previous.png|link=CC Madhya 6.136|Madhya-līlā 6.136]] '''[[CC Madhya 6.136|Madhya-līlā 6.136]] - [[CC Madhya 6.138|Madhya-līlā 6.138]]''' [[File:Go-next.png|link=CC Madhya 6.138|Madhya-līlā 6.138]]</div> | |||
{{CompareVersions|CC|Madhya 6.137|CC 1975|CC 1996}} | |||
{{RandomImage}} | |||
==== TEXT 137 ==== | ==== TEXT 137 ==== | ||
<div | <div class="verse"> | ||
svataḥ-pramāṇa veda satya yei kaya | :svataḥ-pramāṇa veda satya yei kaya | ||
‘lakṣaṇā’ karile svataḥ-prāmāṇya-hāni haya | :‘lakṣaṇā’ karile svataḥ-prāmāṇya-hāni haya | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 16: | ||
==== SYNONYMS ==== | ==== SYNONYMS ==== | ||
<div | <div class="synonyms"> | ||
svataḥ- | ''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. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 23: | ||
==== TRANSLATION ==== | ==== TRANSLATION ==== | ||
<div | <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> | </div> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 30: | ||
==== PURPORT ==== | ==== PURPORT ==== | ||
<div | <div class="purport"> | ||
Out of four main types of evidence—direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the | Out of four main types of evidence—direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the ''Vedas''—Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost.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 | :''ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam'' | ||
:mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ | :''mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ'' | ||
:purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ | :''purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ'' | ||
:svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ nātra kiñcid vicāryate | :''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. | 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-gita As It Is (1972)|''Bhagavad-gītā'']] is also within the ''Mahābhārata''; therefore all the statements of the [[Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1972)|''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. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
__NOTOC__ | |||
<div style="float:right; clear:both;">[[File:Go-previous.png|link=CC Madhya 6.136|Madhya-līlā 6.136]] '''[[CC Madhya 6.136|Madhya-līlā 6.136]] - [[CC Madhya 6.138|Madhya-līlā 6.138]]''' [[File:Go-next.png|link=CC Madhya 6.138|Madhya-līlā 6.138]]</div> | |||
__NOTOC__ | |||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | |||
Revision as of 09:58, 29 July 2021
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.