1. Interpretation

    Out of four main types of evidence — direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas — Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost.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.

    Srila Madhvacarya, commenting on the aphorism drsyate tu (Vedanta-sutra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhavisya Purana as follows:

    rg-yajuh-samatharvas ca bharatam pancaratrakam
    mula-ramayanam caiva veda ity eva sabditah
    puranani ca yaniha vaisnavani vido viduh
    svatah-pramanyam etesam natra kincid vicaryate

    The Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pancaratra and original Ramayana are all considered Vedic literature. The Puranas that are especially meant for Vaisnavas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Naradiya Purana, Visnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana) are also Vedic literature.

    Therefore, whatever is stated in such Puranas or in the Mahabharata and Ramayana is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. The Bhagavad-gita is also within the Mahabharata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gita are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost.

    Srila Prabhupada’s purport to Cc Madhya 6.137