How scriptures are popularly understood, not their literal text, determines social effect

Evidence

It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is no use telling people that the shastras do not say what they are believed to say, if they are grammatically read or logically interpreted. What matters is how the shastras have been understood by the people. You must take the stand that Buddha took. You must take the stand which Guru Nanak took. You must not only discard the shastras, you must deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak. You must have courage to tell the Hindus that what is wrong with them is their religion—the religion which has produced in them this notion of the sacredness of caste. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 954

Categorization

• QUESTION: This is a notable reversal from orthodox reform — worth contrasting with Ambedkar’s own later willingness to cite shastras selectively against Brahminism.
• XREF: connects to: Biblical literalism reflects fear of change more than theology — Katherine Stewart, The Power Worshippers: Inside the…, 93; the MOC “The Word Is a Fence: Language as Battleground, Property, and Partition”