# Cc. Madhya 6.137 ## Text > 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of the Vedas is immediately lost."** ## Purport Out of four main types of evidence-direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the *Vedas*-Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost.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.