On misinterpretation of Hinduism, and on Vatapatrasaayi

First, an apology. My knowledge of Sankrit genders is limited. Hence while I will try to present a correct transliteration, those who know better must forgive me for my apses.

There are many reasons that Hinduism is not doing as well as it could be or should be. I will elaborate over a few posts. One simple reason is misinterpretation - either wilful or by mistake.

There have been many who have set out to present Hindu thought to the world - from the old authors of the bhashyaas or commentaries, to the much later colonial Indologists, to the Devdutt Pattanaiks of today's world, to spiritual speakers like Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma and Sri Chaganti Koteswara Rao. The reasons also have been many, genuine intellectual curiosity, intention to make money, to get fame, dissemination of knowledge to seekers, a drive to remove misconceptions etc.

In an open letter to DP that I had written earlier I mentioned how he seemed to be lacking in basic Sanskrit knowledge. Now, reporting what has been read is one thing. However, trying to interpret the basic meaning of Hindu scriptures without the necessary knowledge is like trying to do a surgery by reading a manual - the patient will end up dead.

Knowledge of Sanskrit, while being a necessary and basic prerequisite is not sufficient. To truly interpret and understand the Vedas a person needs to be an expert in the Vedaangaas. There are six of these - shiksha (शिक्षा ), chandas (छन्दस), vyaakaran (व्याकरण), jyotish (ज्योतिष), nirukta (निरुक्त) and kalpa (कल्प). All these are needed to correctly interpret Vedic slokas. 

Further, even words can have multiple meanings.

For example the word go (गो) can mean a cow, the 5 sense organs or even the sun's rays. Thus Govinda (गोविंद) can be a protector of cows (Krishna), ruler of the senses (God) or even the Sun God as he is the Lord of the rays.

Similarly, giri (गिरि) can refer to both slokas of the Veda, and to mountains.

Hence, trying to do a literal interpretation of a Vedic sloka will not give the complete meaning. 

Additionally, Hinduism is rich in symbolism. There is a tale where after the pralaya (प्रलय), i.e. dissolution of creation, only the primordial waters were left. Markandeya is said to have seen Vishnu or Krishna come floating on a banyan tree leaf on these waters. He was in the form of an infant. As infants tend to do, he had his toes and fingers in his mouth. What is the symbolism? We do our actions using the hand. Thus the hand is a symbol of creation. We walk with our legs, which indicate movement. This indicates the movement of this world, what Hinduism calls sthiti (स्थिति) after creation. This is basically a state of maintaining the world as it is. We use the mouth to eat. For the Lord, the mouth indicates where he takes in creation when he decides to end it. Thus it signifies dissolution (I prefer not to use the word destruction). Thus the image of an infant is used to explain the concept of the almighty God who is responsible for creation, maintenance and dissolution.

Now, tell me if any person who does not know about these multiple layers of meanings should ever try to interpret Hinduism!