The Problem of Interpretation: A Response to Danavir Maharaja
By Janaki-Rama dasa

I want to say a word in regard to the recent talks about sports and Krishna Consciousness. Although to me the topic itself seems rather innocuous, I believe it brings out a greater point about the history of religion and the “problem of interpretation.” If one looks at any major world religion one can find, roughly speaking, various phenomena such as (1) a body of literature which is recognized by followers of that religion as self-evidentially true (2) over the course of time numerous interpretations of that literature by, theologians, preachers, mystics, priests, swamis, etc. In ISKCON we are fortunate that we do not have to debate about what Srila Prabhupada said, however there remains the burning question of what Srila Prabhupada meant by what he said. Genuine followers of Srila Prabhupada accept his words as truth, thus fulfilling the conditions of (1), and genuine followers of Srila Prabhupada also disagree as to what Srila Prabhupada meant by his words, thus fulfilling the conditions of (2). The essay I read by His Holiness Danavir Goswami seems to be a textbook version of the problem I have just invoked, i.e., the problem of interpretation.

Maharaja seems to interpret “no idle sports” to mean that “vaisnavas should not engage in sporting activities (e.g., ball games) for health and fitness,” and from what little I read of the responses on CHAKRA as well as talking with other senior devotees in good-standing, others take this very differently. For instance, they may understand “no idle sports” to mean: “no sports that do not help one remain healthy for Krishna's service.” Again, genuine followers, different interpretations. Often, the obvious rejoinder to this point is that we should not interpret, rather we should simply accept. Such people may feel that their understanding is not an interpretation, rather it is a direct explication of Srila Prabhupada's thoughts and desires. That is all well and good; genuine followers of Srila Prabhupada do agree that we should accept his words prima facie and as they are, however, how can we know which understanding is not an interpretation? Could it be the case that our own desires, concepts, culture and previous experiences affect how we interpret certain statements? For instance, could our personal understanding of Srila Prabhupada's statements about sports be influenced by our own previous experience's with sports or our own concept of what a “sport” is? Again, the issue of sports seems rather harmless, but as devotees we may want to consider how we have come to understand Srila Prabhupada's teachings in a particular way.

© CHAKRA 6-January-2000

Go to the “Letters Page”