~ When one authority speaks differently from another ~

The tenth verse of the first chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā is an interesting one to study:
aparyāptaṁ tad asmākaṁ
balaṁ bhīṣmābhirakṣitam
paryāptaṁ tv idam eteṣāṁ
balaṁ bhīmābhirakṣitam
Translation (by Srila Prabhupada): “Our strength is immeasurable, and we are perfectly
protected by Grandfather Bhīṣma, whereas the strength of the Pāṇḍavas, carefully protected
by Bhīma, is limited.”
In this verse, Duryodhana is describing his army and the Pāṇḍava army to Dronacharya. For
describing his own army he uses the adjective: "aparyāptam." For describing the Pāṇḍava
army, he uses another adjective: "paryāptam".
Both these adjectives are examples of contronyms. According to language theory, a
contronym is a term that can take two meanings that are complete opposites of each other.
For example, in English, the phrase — 'to dust' can mean 'to remove dust' as well as 'to
sprinkle dust'. Another example is the term 'sanction', which can mean — 'to approve' as well
as 'to boycott'.
Contronyms are thus also sometimes known as 'auto-antonyms'.
Coming back to the verse, the term used by Duryodhana to describe his army is —
aparyāptam. This term is a contronym and can mean 'insufficient' as well as 'unlimitedly
sufficient'.
Similarly, Duryodhana describes the opposing Pāṇḍava army using the adjective —
paryāptam. This term is also a contronym, which can mean 'sufficient' as well as 'limited and
insufficient'.
While commenting upon this specific verse, Srila Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura and Srila
Baladeva Vidyabhusana take interpretations that are complete opposites of each other.
Srila Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura interprets aparyāptam as 'aparipūrṇam' (insufficient)
whereas Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana interprets it as 'aparimitam' (unlimitedly sufficient).
Similarly, Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakura interprets paryāptam as 'paripūrṇam'
(complete and sufficient) whereas Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana interprets it as 'parimitam'
(limited and insufficient).
Thus, according to Srila Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura's commentary, the interpretation of
the verse will be completely different from the interpretation taken by Srila Baladeva
Vidyabhushan and Srila Prabhupada.
According to Srila Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura, the verse should be interpreted as follows
— “Our strength is insufficient, even though we are perfectly protected by Grandfather
Bhīṣma, whereas the strength of the Pāṇḍavas, carefully protected by Bhīma, is sufficient.”
Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakura and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan are related to each
other as śikṣā-guru and disciple. From this example, a few things can be understood:
(1) A variety of interpretations of śāstra are possible, and sometimes these interpretations
may be total opposites of each other.
(2) All these interpretations are justified as long as they are strictly in line with grammar,
lexicons and other branches of Vedic knowledge.
(3) Mahaprabhu emphatically declares in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya, 24.318) that
every verse of the Bhāgavatam can have various interpretations.
(4) One can take a different interpretation from one's predecessors, provided that one's
intentions are holistic and not antagonistic to them.
(5) Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusan knew that his interpretation was different from his guru's. Yet
his mood is not to falsify the interpretation of his guru. He knew perfectly well that the other
interpretation is also correct. His purpose in interpreting differently is to show another angle
of understanding the verse.
Conclusion by Srila Prabhupada: “I am very much stressing at this point that all of my
students shall be very much conversant with the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness, and
that they should read our books very diligently at least one or two hours daily and try to
understand the subject matter from varieties of angles. We are holding our morning class
here in Los Angeles in the temple and I am speaking from 7 to 8 am, and the process is that
we are going through some chapters of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam by taking one śloka each day, and
reading the Sanskrit aloud, each word is pronounced by me and repeated by the students and
then altogether we chant the śloka several times until we have learned it. And then we
discuss the subject matter very minutely and inspect it from all angles of approach and savor
the new understandings.” (Letter to Madhudvisa, 16 June 1972)