Imagined Interpretation

Imagined Interpretation

Reading scripture for its own sake is one thing, and reading it for what one wants to find in it is entirely different. But traditionally, ‘systematization’ and ‘interpretation’ have been tools for ‘text torture.’ As a (sincere) student of scriptures, while it always amuses me when I read or hear speakers impose their own message on certain texts of scripture, it also always causes concern for those who read or listen to such teachers without any critical spirit. Without interpretation, we cannot understand the scriptures, but if we ignore the context and impose our personal views, it becomes more an ‘imagined interpretation’ than real exegesis.

This morning (May 15th, 2009), I heard an interview with a Vaishnavite speaker about Divyaprabandam (Sri Varadhacharyiyar on Jaya T.V.). He, as others also do, claimed that everything that other religious scriptures say is already found in the Bhagavad Gita. Then he quoted the Gita, saying ‘Krishna is fire (agni),’ and suggested that ‘this is what Jesus says in Genesis 1:14, “let there be light.”‘ At the end of the program, he expressed his desire to write comparing other religious scriptures with Divyaprabandam also.

Well, he is not the first and won’t be the last in such an endeavor. Such people are there in every religion. For example, in a television talk, a Tamil Christian went to the extent of saying that Adam was a Tamilian (Dr. Daivanayagam’s speech on Podigai channel, April 16th, 2007, 11:00 pm to 11:15 pm). He was not the only Tamil Christian, as there are a few like him. What is really shocking is that during the time of the Ram Sethu controversy (see [http://www.khabarexpress.com/tag/Ram-Sethu.htm](http://www.khabarexpress.com/tag/Ram-Sethu.htm) for details), one Tamil Christian went to the extent of saying that ‘Ram Sethu is another evidence to show that Adam was from South (Tamil) India as his descendant is also called “Seth”.’ (I either read or heard this, but I don’t have the evidence at hand.) But he forgot the fact that ‘sethu’ in Hindi means ‘bridge’. So ‘Ramsethu’ is actually what we call in Tamil ‘Ramar Paalam’ and has nothing to do with Seth, the descendant of Adam.

When, through Arjuna, the Gita says that Krishna is ‘fire’ (11:39), it has nothing to do with the Bible saying ‘let there be light’ (as per Varadhachariyar, Jesus said this!). What Arjuna says after seeing Krishna’s vishvarupa (universal form) is part of worship, whereas what is said in Genesis 1:14 is in the context of the creation story. Similarity of ‘words’, ‘(ethical and moral) teaching’, ‘terms’, ‘doctrines’, even ‘philosophies’ doesn’t mean that one scripture borrowed from another or one influenced the other. When even within one scripture, a single word can mean different things according to the context, it is oversimplistic to say that one particular scripture is the foundation from which other people borrowed all views. As there are several similarities to the longing and need of humanity, irrespective of place and time, we expect to find several parallel expressions through terms and words. But reading one’s own message into them merely exposes our limitation in understanding other scriptures rather than serving any positive purpose. The following one will demonstrate this even more clearly:

Oak is best known, perhaps, for his continued efforts to prove that the Taj Mahal was originally a Siva temple. Oak’s books attempt to argue that everything of value in the world originally came from India or was part of a greater India. His etymologizing and general level of scholarship are astounding, even in the context of this genre of literature. For example, (Oak, p.343) England was originally pronounced as Angulisthan, since “ancient Hindu explorers and administrators who fanned over a virgin Europe looked across the English Channel and called the British Isles ‘Anguli’ (‘sthan’ or ‘desh’), i.e., a finger-size, finger-length land. If one imagines Europe to be a palm-size, palm-shaped continent, Great Britain appears to be ‘anguli,’ namely the (extended) finger” (Oak P.N. 1984. World Vedic Heritage. New Delhi 984, p. 842). I was informed by a professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University that even the RSS, which previously had cultivated Oak, has since completely distanced itself from his views. Oak’s insistence that all other cultures from all over the world in all historical epochs ultimately originated in Vedic India, however, does parallel some of the scholarship of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in Europe. Attempts were made to accommodate the newly discovered Eastern traditions within a biblical narrative by suggesting etymologies such as Brahman being the Sanskrit for Abraham and Sarasvati for Sarah. – Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition, notes 6, pp.343-44.

Gurukulam, May 21, 2009