Bhagavatam inconceivable but true

[Airicky 0]

by Ananta Purusottama das

 

Posted on Chakra News site May 21, 2005

 

I am not entirely sure what the gist of Subhadra Mayi prabhu's article is ("Are we in darkness", Nov. 1, 2004), but as far as her example of the story of Rahu, I can offer my own realisation on such seemingly far-out events.

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam is written by Srila Vyasadeva, and within it are many wonderful prayers and pastimes of the Lord. It is not written by fools, and they would have no time for stories.

 

By Lord Krsna's various potencies, many wonderful phenomena occur in the world, such as a spider weaving a web, a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, and countless other wonders.

 

Whilst I don't fully understand such wonders, still I have no real good reasons not to accept them, except my own conditioning, partly influenced by atheists who cannot accept what they cannot see. I think we all know the arguments to defeat that, however. What gain is there for me not taking the Srimad Bhagavatam as it is, 100 percent, and accepting only the parts I like? What will I lose by accepting every word of Srimad Bhagavatam as it is? Nothing but my pride and vanity.

 

I can't explain how it is Lord Brahma has four heads, but centipedes have 100 legs, so we can see many amazing things already. I listen to recordings of Srila Prabhupada a lot, and I like the way he said, regarding those who do not believe in so many incredible stories: "They should disprove; we do not have to prove," or words to that effect. In other words, the scriptures were written before I was born in this body. What use is my intellect in trying to fully comprehend them? What audacity do I have to say they are not true, but only myths written by some uneducated people from times gone by.

 

Taking a closer look, what about the wonderful verses contained within scripture, predictions, wonderful prayers, great characters and so forth? How could all that be written by some third-class fools?

 

At the end of the day, I guess it's up to us what we are able to accept. On one morning walk, Srila Prabhupada told the devotees that they have to accept "acintya-sakti", inconceivable power, as they cannot understand the Lord's potencies. I think it is only faith to accept or not accept, but perhaps it is not right even to try to guess what might be meant by some event or pastime.

 

 

 

[jagatpurush 0]

"The Sanskrit statements of Srimad-Bhagavatam are all transcendental sounds. Srila Vyasadeva revealed these statements after perfect realization, and therefore they are perfect, for liberated sages like Vyasadeva never commit errors in their rhetorical arrangements. Unless one accepts this fact, there is no use in trying to obtain help from the revealed scriptures." (Prabhupada CC Adi 2.86 purport)

[theist 1]

An allegory is not an error but simply another way of transmitting a truth.

[Guest guest]

and it's not all fact, either, in the literal sense.

 

I do believe in the miracles and Krsna's displays of his power and many of his exploits and that they literally happened though.

[Guest guest]

and turn it into an allegory. Really, allegories are everywhere around us, events that speak towards a larger truth. Does that mean the events never happened? Of course not. In the same way, to take ancient literature to be merely allegory and not historical fact at all is myopic, and the other way around too.

 

I take most of the Bhagavatham to be true, even the miraculous events narrated therein.

 

I think it is foolish to choose only the mundane as the truth and discard the rest as mere allegory. Because your selective interpetation of the text stems from the arrogance that you have experienced everything and that anything you haven't experienced can't be true. It's a reality that our own selves are subject to very limited experiences in this universe. Many truly extraordinary things happen to people around us, maybe not all to one person, but they do happen, and even if they do not happen to us, that does not mean they never happen.

 

In that same way, it is possible, and PROBABLE that the Bhagavatham narrates the true miraculous events around God. To say that miracles don't happen around God, or to be foolish enough to call the mundane a miracle, is hardly spiritual. These narrated events are hardly simple allegory, but speak towards the human condition, towards hope, and at the same time speak to what is the Truth.

[theist 1]

Prabhupada said it was an allegory.

[theist 1]

 

 

I think it is foolish to choose only the mundane as the truth and discard the rest as mere allegory.

 

 

Another way to see that is that it is foolish to see the truth as mundane. I am losing faith in the existence of the mundane. I am sensing that the only thing mundane has been my perception of the truth.

 

 

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

(Albert Einstein / 1879-1955)