Literal, yes or no? Who cares ....take the essence.

[Guest guest]

This post is mine.

 

 

Pranams Theist. yes, it seems we posted at the same time.

 

Anyways, it doesn't affect me much if someone doesn't take it literally. To each, his own. As long as one chants and follows the 4 regulative principles, these kind of differences should not matter. For example, if one takes all of it to be literal or all of it allegorically, but doesn't chant Krsna's names, what is the purpose of his reading the Bhagavatam?

[Guest guest]

 

Ok if that is your faith then so be it. To me that sounds like blind faith and in the Gita Prabhupada says "blind faith is condemned." perhaps it is not blind faith for you.

 

There is no difference between faith and blind faith. The Padma Purana provides a brief description of each Purana. Its description of the Bhagavata is

That in which ample details of duty are described, and which opens with (an extract from) the Gáyatri; that in which the death of the Asura Vritra is told, and in which the mortals and immortals of the Sáraswata Kalpa, with the events that then happened to them in the world, are related; that, is celebrated as the Bhágavata, and consists of eighteen thousand verses

It is striking that it makes no mention of Krishna and does not appear to be describing the Bhagavata we know. There are other leads too which indicate the Bhagavata was written just a thousand years ago by an accomplished unknown scholar. This means the Bhagavata is of human origin which greatly undermines its value in my eyes.

In this way, if I take the critical approach, then the thousands of questions that pop up will send me down the fox-hole of atheism. I find it too laborious and unconvincing to find a position in between like you have which leaves me the only choice of a literal interpretation.

[Guest guest]

Those who are endowed with sufficient good fortune will worship the Lord who has descended in this world, in our historical epoch, as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

On the shore of the ocean in Puri, Sri Chaitanya relished the words of Srimad Bhagavata spoken by Gadadhar Pandit, who understood the moods of His heart.

 

Those who try to understand the Bhagavata in the light of the teachings of the true followers of Sri Chaitanya will find it illuminating. Those whose intelligence is bewildered will never be able to understand the real message of the Bhagavata, even if they read Bhagavata and chant Krishna's name for hundreds of lifetimes.

 

Thakura Bhaktivinode:

 

===============

In the common-place books of the Hindu religion in which the rajo and

tamo-guna have been described as the ways of religion, we have descriptions of a

local heaven and a local hell; the Heaven as beautiful as anything on earth and

the Hell as ghastly as any picture of evil. Besides this Heaven we have many

more places, where good souls are sent up in the way of promotion! There are

84 divisions of the hell itself, some more dreadful than the one which Milton

has described in his 'Paradise Lost' . These are certainly poetical and were

originally created by the rulers of the country in order to check evil deeds of

the ignorant people, who are not able to understand the conclusions of

philosophy. The religion of the Bh.gavata is free from such a poetry. Indeed, in

some of the chapters we meet with descriptions of these hells and heavens, and

accounts of curious tales, but we have been warned somewhere in the book, not

to accept them as real facts, but as inventions to overawe the wicked and to

improve the simple and the ignorant. The Bhqgavata , certainly tells us a state of

reward and punishment in future according to deeds in our present situation.

<B>All poetic inventions, besides this spiritual fact, have been described as

statements borrowed from other works in the way of preservation of old

traditions in the book which superseded them and put an end to the necessity of

their storage</B>. If the whole stock of Hindu theological works which preceded the

Bhagavata were burnt like the Alexandrian library and the sacred Bhaagavata

preserved as it is, not a part of the philosophy of the Hindus except that of the

atheistic sects, would be lost. The Bhagavata therefore, may be styled both as a

religious work and a compendium of all Hindu history and philosophy.

 

==========

 

Someone may choose to follow literalism and some may choose to follow Bhaktivinoda. It is just a matter of sukriti and realization. T

[Guest guest]

The previous poster quoted BVT but did not reference the source or book. It would be nice if you reference the source, if possible, so others can check to verify and/or read more in depth on their own.

 

I'm surprised that BVT said that some portions of the Bhagavatam were just made-up. What was the point of the previous acharyas saving things in the Bhagavatam that were just put there to scare people? That would be like writing a science book about a law like gravity and then interspersing myths about the Boogie Man and The Wicked Witch of the West. Why would anyone do that? It doesn't even make any sense.

 

Just because one library might burn down in the future, so we can have Hans Christian Anderson and Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales saved along with the The First Law of Thermodynamics? What would be the point of that? We were often told that "KC is very scientific". But how scientific is it to put facts mixed up with legends? Scholars seem to be able to do that, i.e. in college there are different departments of Science and Humanities which have subcategories like Literature with further sub category of Fiction.

 

Why couldn't anyone who wrote the Bhagavatam just cut to the chase and write a scripture that is the 100% true facts? Why? Because some humans are not too bright so then everyone else must suffer? Was it a type of entertainment and oral history that they had instead of television?

 

Do you mean that Bhagavatam is like a Spongebob Squarepants cartoon that is written for 3 year old audience in mind but knows that anyone from older kids to an adult is handling the remote control? If so then where is the spiritual programming for the PhD adult students then?

[Guest guest]

I see my reply to guest got wiped out in the transfer of urls or something.

 

On the above statement in question by Bhaktivinode I have also read it and in fact wanted to post it on this thread but I had forgotten where it was. I know it is factual but am hoping the referrence can posted so I can note it down.

 

theist

[Guest guest]

 

Do you mean that Bhagavatam is like a Spongebob Squarepants cartoon that is written for 3 year old audience in mind but knows that anyone from older kids to an adult is handling the remote control? If so then where is the spiritual programming for the PhD adult students then?

 

If you can ask a question like this then I am sorry to say you have not even been touched once by the Srimad Bhagavatam's essence.

[Guest guest]

The quote of Bhaktivinode Thakur you asked about is from "The Bhagavat Lecture".

 

He says similar things, about different topics, in his other books too.

 

In Sri Krishna Samhita he says that the monkeys who were serving Rama were men who were called "monkeys" by Valmiki, because of the "Aryan" people's prejudices against South Indians.

 

He also describes in detail how the different asuras represent "states of mind" that Krishna defeats, such as Putana being the bogus guru.

 

This way of reading the Bhagavatam, where the story of Putana can be seen as a story of God destroying the archetypal false guardian or Guru, is also talked about in Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur's article about Putana. Certainly Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur also supported the idea that the stories in Bhagavatam can be seen as something more than "physical events". The birth of Krishna, Janmastami, according to Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur, is not just a calendar day but a psychic experience - Janmastami is the celebration of the birth of Krishna into our life.

 

Be this as it may, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada chose to portray the Krishna book stories plainly as events that are to be taken literally. He heavily condemned Jamadagi and Kanapriya for their suggestion that the events in Bhagavatam are not to be taken as literal facts. Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada strongly asserted that all the events in Bhagavatam are to be taken as literal facts and that it is wrong to "speculate" about things. Just take the words of the Bhagavatam "As It Is" was his approach. Which makes us wonder, why didn't he present the message passed down through disciplic succession by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur? Why did he present this literalist approach instead of giving devotees the teachings his own Guru had presented? Very peculiar, this is....

[Guest guest]

 

There is no difference between faith and blind faith.

 

I disagree. I believe in what I call sighted faith.

 

TRANSLATION Madhya 22.66

 

"'One who is expert in logic and in understanding the revealed scriptures, and who always has firm conviction and deep faith that is not blind, is to be considered a topmost devotee in devotional service."

 

PURPORT

 

This verse appears in the Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu (1.2.17), by Srila Rüpa Gosvämi.

 

 

The Padma Purana provides a brief description of each Purana.

 

Its description of the Bhagavata is:

 

That in which ample details of duty are described, and which opens with (an extract from) the Gáyatri; that in which the death of the Asura Vritra is told, and in which the mortals and immortals of the Sáraswata Kalpa, with the events that then happened to them in the world, are related; that, is celebrated as the Bhágavata, and consists of eighteen thousand verses.

 

It is striking that it makes no mention of Krishna and does not appear to be describing the Bhagavata we know. There are other leads too which indicate the Bhagavata was written just a thousand years ago by an accomplished unknown scholar. This means the Bhagavata is of human origin which greatly undermines its value in my eyes. In this way, if I take the critical approach, then the thousands of questions that pop up will send me down the fox-hole of atheism. I find it too laborious and unconvincing to find a position in between like you have which leaves me the only choice of a literal interpretation.

 

I feel the same way about a purely critical approach. It is not the path to transcendental understanding.

 

My position on the date of the Bhagavata and even if it has a series of authors is again, "I don't care". As I like to say I don't care if it fell from the clouds yesterday. It is so filled with Absolute Truth that I cannot even begin to drink it all in. Why waste even more time on non-essential considerations.

 

However I think I have not explained my position well enough. I do not feel in any way that I have found an in-between position through some laborious mental process. Just the opposite in fact. I feel my position is one that let's me be above the fray in a zone of ease over the matter. Simply I do not stress over these things like the Moon's position or cosmology. The Moon is temporary so who cares where it is in relation to this temporary Earth. They are both just prop's in the cosmic play. When I see the Moon I just want to appreciate it's beauty and how it represents Krsna as we are taught in the Gita. No 'fox-hole of doubt or atheism' can enter in to my mind as long as I keep that vision (which admittedly is not often enough).

 

And it is these little moments of revelation that I believe are the basis for sighted faith over blind faith. If we get a glimpse of Krsna in/as the Sun and Moon then we have more faith that He is also the taste in water, the ability in man and everything else He says He is in sastra. To me this is a living growing faith based on knowledge...a sighted faith.

[Guest guest]

 

Be this as it may, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada chose to portray the Krishna book stories plainly as events that are to be taken literally. He heavily condemned Jamadagi and Kanapriya for their suggestion that the events in Bhagavatam are not to be taken as literal facts. Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada strongly asserted that all the events in Bhagavatam are to be taken as literal facts and that it is wrong to "speculate" about things. Just take the words of the Bhagavatam "As It Is" was his approach. Which makes us wonder, why didn't he present the message passed down through disciplic succession by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur? Why did he present this literalist approach instead of giving devotees the teachings his own Guru had presented? Very peculiar, this is....

 

I have often wonder this myself. My speculation is that he didn't think we could handle any version other than than a literalist understanding at the time. Perhaps for the same reason it was authored in the way it was.

 

Have we not been told that the Mahabharata was written to attract those with a perhaps simpler mindset thanthat of a strict vedantist? This is kali-yuga ,the time of the not interested, distracted and generally unqualified which is most of us. What a difficult fielf to introduce Krsna consciousness into.

 

Like I say just my speculation but I think we could have handled it even then.

 

I wonder though if he was the only one of Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples or grand disciples to teach it in such a literalist fashion. It seems Narayana Maharaja teaches the Puranas in even a more literalist fashion. My apologies to the followers of Narayan Maharaja if I am incorrect in this assetment due to my poor fund of knowledge.

 

Anyway, I believe if we could drop the insistence that others take it literally at all times we could find it easier to attract people to the study of the Bhagavat even if we happen to believe the literalists version ourselves.

 

No need to set up blocks in peoples path as we try to induce them towards Krsna consciousness. Maya already has constructed plenty of them.

[Shakti-Fan]

In Govardhan during Kartik 2006, Narayana Maharaja was talking about renunciates avoiding the association of women. Then he said this means that anyone who is trying to practice Krsna Consciousness should try to avoid the association of the opposite sex. Then he quipped that "it is told like this, (to avoid the association of women) because the scriptures were written by male renunciates; and that if they were written by ladies (renunciates) it would say to avoid the association of men". In a way this is similar to the angle of vision given by Sridhar Maharaja about the scriptures. I don't ever remember seeing or hearing such a thing from Prabhupada.

[Guruvani]

 

In Govardhan during Kartik 2006, Narayana Maharaja was talking about renunciates avoiding the association of women. Then he said this means that anyone who is trying to practice Krsna Consciousness should try to avoid the association of the opposite sex. Then he quipped that "it is told like this, (to avoid the association of women) because the scriptures were written by male renunciates; and that if they were written by ladies (renunciates) it would say to avoid the association of men". In a way this is similar to the angle of vision given by Sridhar Maharaja about the scriptures. I don't ever remember seeing or hearing such a thing from Prabhupada.

 

But, the sages behind the scriptures were supposed to be above and beyond the bodily conception of life, so how is it that they wrote the scriptures from a "male" point of view?

The idea that the shastra was written by men who identified with a particular material gender seems to contradict the very qualifications they are supposed to have to be qualified to propound religious practices.

 

The Vedic sages were liberated souls on the spiritual platform.

 

To say that the shastras were written by persons with a male bias seems to disqualify the shastra as transcendental knowledge.

[Guest guest]

 

But, the sages behind the scriptures were supposed to be above and beyond the bodily conception of life, so how is it that they wrote the scriptures from a "male" point of view?

The idea that the shastra was written by men who identified with a particular material gender seems to contradict the very qualifications they are supposed to have to be qualified to propound religious practices.

 

The Vedic sages were liberated souls on the spiritual platform.

 

To say that the shastras were written by persons with a male bias seems to disqualify the shastra as transcendental knowledge.

 

In Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.5.11

 

tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo

yasmin prati-ślokam abaddhavaty api

nāmāny anantasya yaśo 'ńkitāni yat

śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti sādhavaḥ

 

On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.

 

The qualification of the sages is that they are sadhus or sādhavaḥ — the purified men who are honest. So sadhu here means, "thoroughly honest". In The Bhagavat: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology by Srila Bhaktivnode Thakur he states, "Our sastras, or in other words , books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the Infinite Father. No book is without its errors." He further states, "Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and and try to get further truths, which are still undiscovered. In the Srimad Bhagavatam (11.21.23) we have been advised to take the spirit of the sastras, and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unimixed truth, and absolute love." When Sukadeva was walking with his father, Vyasa and they came upon the maidens who were bathing, the maidens did not cover themselves when they saw the naked sixteen year old Sukadeva, but they did cover themselves when they saw Vyasa because they detected some small amount of purusa bhava or male self conception. So in certain passages of sastra there may be some relativity due to the gender of the speaker, writer or compiler and that is an example of how although "such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest."

[Shakti-Fan]

Last post was by Shakti-fan.

[Guest guest]

 

Afterall such a thing as a powerful yogi creating a demon from his hairs could happen no doubt. Afterall, what is impossible in a dream.

 

 

I remember seeing this in the film Agnivarsha which is based on a story in the Mahabharata. So maybe this is common in a number of Hindu stories. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but I tend not to believe it. But who knows what could or couln't happen in the previous yugas. All the ancient stories of the world, not just from India is referred to as mythology, I'm talking about the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc because they appear far-fetched to a modern mind. But since this was such a long times ago, before kali yuga had started we are told that such events could've happened then but not now.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for providing the source of the BVT quote and for the information supplied in post #32.

 

 

 

Is there any historical evidence that perhaps ACBSP did not read all of the books of BVT and so he was unaware that BVT had a different worldview of the scriptures than ACBSP did?

 

I don't mean that ACBSP would have been derelict in his duty not to read the books of BVT; perhaps back in the day people could not get hold of books as easily as we can now. Limited funds, limited resources, limited travel time to actually transport the huge quantity of texts [bVT wrote over 100 books].

 

 

 

From what you have described in post #32 then, it sounds like the worldview of ACBSP [as opposed to BVT] in regards to the scriptures would be termed fundamentalist in nature.

 

FUNDAMENTALIST BELIEFS: [from Hinduism's Contemporary Catechism p. 581]

1. I believe that there is only one acceptable perception of truth and it is stated in our scriptures and all those who do not accpet this doctrine are following false paths...

 

2. I believe that the gospel was spoken at one point in time...by the true representative of God and is not subject to or in need of adaptation...

 

3. I believe that the members of our faith have been divinely commissioned by God and are duty-bound to spread His holy word throughout the world.

 

4. I believe that the government should reflect and embody the beliefs of my faith...

 

5. I believe that in this world there is a battle between the believers, representing the forces of light, and the non-believers, representing the forces of darkness, and that ultimately good will conquer evil.

 

7. I believe that free inquiry and the questioning of our religious doctrine is the first step to heresy and should be guarded against...

 

8. I believe that our codes of morality are God's absolute commandments...

 

9. I believe that education for our children should consist of strict and exclusive learnings of our teachings and careful censorship of other forms of thought and belief.

 

 

 

By examining the tenets of Fundamentalism as elucidated above, it sounds like ACBSP could be termed a fundamentalist in his orientation, esp in regards to literalism in the scriptures.

 

Also, was/is there any teacher in the Gaudiya lineage who had/has the same focus as BVT, i.e. gave instructions to take the Bhagavatam as allegory?

[Guest guest]

 

Also, was/is there any teacher in the Gaudiya lineage who had/has the same focus as BVT, i.e. gave instructions to take the Bhagavatam as allegory?

 

 

Yes

 

Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura and most of his disciples - that is the short answer to your question.

 

All the books of Bhaktivinode Thakura was available to everyone in the Gaudiya Math. Books such as Sri Krishna Samhita which are even more radically "modern" in the world view presented were read and studied by almost all of the educated disciples of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura. Why Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada didn't choose to follow the things taught in Sri Krishna Samhita is very puzzling indeed.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes

 

Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura and most of his disciples - that is the short answer to your question.

 

All the books of Bhaktivinode Thakura was available to everyone in the Gaudiya Math. Books such as Sri Krishna Samhita which are even more radically "modern" in the world view presented were read and studied by almost all of the educated disciples of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura. Why Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada didn't choose to follow the things taught in Sri Krishna Samhita is very puzzling indeed.

 

Along the same lines that I spoke to in an earlier post there is one more to consider. Anyone who was in their late teens or early twenties during the late

sixties and to any degree involved in new age hippyism can understand that if Srila Prabhupada opened the door by pointing out certain things as allegorical all hell would have broken loose with every other new recruit coming up with his own LSD inspired intrepretations of what he was reading. Pure chaos. Our lives in those times were not at all structured and we even openly opposed structure. Structural learning by being guided to one level after another in a progressive manner is important in developing Krsna consciousness.

 

Srila Prabhupada acted in the time, place circumstance and understanding level of the people to whom he was sent by Nitai Gaura. He very much wanted to distance his program from the hippy "believe what you want, it's all oneif it feels good do it" generation.

 

As I said before I believe many would have taken it correctly but I also feel many would not have. Again just my speculations.

 

It should be noted that many who accepted strict literalness in the beginning are still around to accept perhaps a deeper view now. Maybe they would not have been otherwise, I can't say.

 

I do know that there are those that have not taken to Krsna consciousness due to having literalness forced down upon them in the beginning. When new folks and bhaktas come around they should be more protected than challenged. So these often divisive controversies should not confront them and the basics of sambandha-jnana should remain the focus. They will have plenty of time to form their own views on the matter.

[Guruvani]

me

Yes

 

Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura and most of his disciples - that is the short answer to your question.

 

All the books of Bhaktivinode Thakura was available to everyone in the Gaudiya Math. Books such as Sri Krishna Samhita which are even more radically "modern" in the world view presented were read and studied by almost all of the educated disciples of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakura. Why Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada didn't choose to follow the things taught in Sri Krishna Samhita is very puzzling indeed.

 

Show some specific examples of what you mean.

Don't make sweeping allegations without supporting evidence.

You have anonymously made charges and allegations without showing any example of what you are trying to show.

 

If you can't show examples and demonstrate what you are trying to say, then really you are just talking shit.

 

Put-up or shut-up.

 

That is the only honest way.

[Guest guest]

Put-up or shut-up???

 

Well, can you show me even one place in the books of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami mention that Putana can be seen as the representative of the bogus guru?

 

But his own Guru even wrote a widely known article about that. And that topic, Putana the bogus guru, is elaborately described in Sri Krishna Samhita.

[Guruvani]

 

Put-up or shut-up???

 

Well, can you show me even one place in the books of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami mention that Putana can be seen as the representative of the bogus guru?

 

But his own Guru even wrote a widely known article about that. And that topic, Putana the bogus guru, is elaborately described in Sri Krishna Samhita.

 

Can you show me anywhere in the original texts of Srimad Bhagavatam where Putana witch is an allegorical figure said to represent the bogus guru?

 

Maybe Bhaktivinode was trying to present Bhagavatam conceptions to people who could not accept the literal meaning, so he devised a way to get them to accept it as some sort of allegorical teachings?

 

Maybe the alleogorical meanings are a device to bring in the faithless who cannot accept the literal meanings?

 

Maybe it was not allegory at all, but simply presented as such by Bhaktivinode as a preaching device?

 

Will we ever know for sure?

[Guest guest]

Haribol, with all due respect, you gotta get rid of this theme that the vaisnava acaryas use "Devices" to try to reach people. In the nectar of devotion, one of the most prominant descriptions of vaisnava character is straightforwardness. The acaryas do not use devices, to not try to trick others into believing something. They speak straight absolute truth, this is what your handle actually means the vani of guru is not a device, and i really have trouble with your repetitive theme here.

 

A vaisnava acarya is not about tricking someone in order to increase their disciple base, they shoot from the hip, always, period, end of sentence, what they say is bankable, always as guruvani.

 

Hare Krsna, Again, with all due respect, and submitted in a humble way, your servant, mahaksadasa

[Guruvani]

 

Haribol, with all due respect, you gotta get rid of this theme that the vaisnava acaryas use "Devices" to try to reach people. In the nectar of devotion, one of the most prominant descriptions of vaisnava character is straightforwardness. The acaryas do not use devices, to not try to trick others into believing something. They speak straight absolute truth, this is what your handle actually means the vani of guru is not a device, and i really have trouble with your repetitive theme here.

 

A vaisnava acarya is not about tricking someone in order to increase their disciple base, they shoot from the hip, always, period, end of sentence, what they say is bankable, always as guruvani.

 

Hare Krsna, Again, with all due respect, and submitted in a humble way, your servant, mahaksadasa

 

Well, the use of devices started with Mahaprabhu taking Mayavada sannyasa as a device for his preaching.

 

Srila Prabhupada suggests the concept of transcendental fraud:

SB 1.13.37 purport

 

 

To satisfy the Lord, anything is good, for it is in relation with the Absolute Truth. We also had the same opportunity to cheat the family members and leave home to engage in the service of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Such cheating was necessary for a great cause, and there is no loss for any party in such transcendental fraud.

 

Anyway, when a Vaishnava preacher cheats people for their own good, it is a transcendental fraud and is completely spiritual.

 

I don't think it is openly admitted by Srila Prabhupada, but I think there are several examples of this transcendental fraud, especially the fraud of promoting Jesus as a pure devotee of Krishna.

Now, that is a good one that convinces me beyond all doubt that Srila Prabhupada used transcendental fraud on more than one occasion.

 

Of course the acharyas used devices in preaching.

It is very naive to think that they didn't.

[Guest guest]

My experience is what BVNM is sharing is curious combo of literal Puranas and the metaphorical/ allegorical.

 

Examples: on one hand he kind of freak out alot of people that he introduce in GM that is bad to eat carrots, eggplant, and urad dahl. The devotees were kind of, "What the --?" Because ACBSP allowed carrots, eggplant, and urad dahl to be offered. Then BVNM told story about a somebody wanted to eat a piece of cow and the piece of cow turned into garlic, onions, carrot, urad dahl and that is why no one should eat it. So that is an example of literalism.

 

On the other hand when he was doing the seven day lecture series on SB and he starts at the First Canto and up to the Tenth, then some people were really tripping out he is giving discourse a kla BVT, such as "Putana stands for this" and each and every demon that Krsna killed stand for some Vaisnava-aparadha. So some people, alot of people seemed like, were all like "Oh wow, I never heard that before isn't that interesting, that is a deeper meaning and a level to the stories. Oh now it makes more sense to me why is he killing this and that."

 

But I forget or don't know if he attribute to BVT. I assumed was a twist of traditional oral story-telling of the Braja Mandala area. Like some stories in a preliterate society they do not write down the stories. Such as in Africa or Oceania or Australasia: some place with no written language until only 200 years ago. The stories, the creation myths, were transmitted orally from one

story-teller to another. Even we have heard in Kali Yuga only is when people had to write things down, formerly the people in a society with a good memory they were in charge of to remember all of the chants and the mantras and the stories.

 

So is there a precedent that these stories with the allegories even before BVT? Such as the Radha-Kunda Babajis? Is/was there a group of people in Braja they were the guardians of the oral traditions? I had heard that BVNM he went and heard from the Babajis these stories that is how he knows them. But this is the first time I heard that BVT knew of these "conventional wisdom" allegorical interpretations also.

 

Just curious what is the history of these allegorical interpretations? Came from BVT? Came from the Radha-Kunda Babjis? Came from the Six Goswamis? Little bit from here and there? Elsewhere? I know is difficult to trace the beginning of stories but like in some cultures a certain family was responsible for the purity of the inner meaning of the stories. That family could trace their lineage back to original God or Goddess. I am thinking like in Oceania this happens. And so those people keep a tight lid on who can hear the stories and in what context.

 

But then when the culture is dying out then they allowed the stories to be put into writing. So that someone would take an interest and the continuity keep on going somehow. So I am wondering in the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition the history of when the allegorical interpretations first appear? And is there any scholarly evidence of this where the allegorical interpretations originated?

[Guruvani]

 

Ms. Nixon:

No, I agree with you one hundred percent.... One thing I'm very curious about: can the Vedas be taken symbolically as well as literally?

 

Srila Prabhupada:

No. They must be taken as they are, not symbolically. That is why we are presenting the Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

 

[Guest guest]

Interesting question on the origen of non-literal or meanings behind the pastimes.

 

There is always the possiblity that they are literal events that hold deeper meanings also although I do not think it to be the case or at least not always the case.