Literal understanding of Bhagavatam

[Kulapavana]

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Srimad Bhagavatam 4.10.5

gatvodicim disam raja

rudranucara-sevitam

dadarsa himavad-dronyam

purim guhyaka-sankulam

SYNONYMS

gatva -- going; udicim -- northern; disam -- direction; raja -- King Dhruva; rudra-anucara -- by followers of Rudra, Lord Siva; sevitam -- inhabited; dadarsa -- saw; himavat -- Himalayan; dronyam -- in a valley; purim -- a city; guhyaka -- ghostly persons; sankulam -- full of.

TRANSLATION

Dhruva Maharaja went to the northern direction of the Himalayan range. In a valley he saw a city full of ghostly persons who were followers of Lord Siva.

PURPORT

In this verse it is stated that the Yakshas are more or less devotees of Lord Siva. By this indication the Yakshas may be taken to be the Himalayan tribes like the Tibetans.

 

---------------------------

 

Yakshas are not usually understood as Himalayan tribes - even from other references that Srila Prabhupada made in his books (for example SB 3.20.19 says: "Out of disgust, Brahmā threw off the body of ignorance, and taking this opportunity, Yakṣas and Rākṣasas sprang for possession of the body, which continued to exist in the form of night. Night is the source of hunger and thirst").

 

If we read the rest of the chapter it is hard to imagine that mere human tribesmen posessed mystic skills needed to fight Dhruva Maharaja in a way described there. Why then is SP suggesting in his purport that these particular Yakshas might have been the Tibetans? It is somewhat similar to statements made by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his Sri Krsna Samhita where he presents very unorthodox interpretation of the shastric accounts.

[Guest guest]

It's hard to understand a lot of these things.

 

However, the Dhruva Maharaja incident happened millions of years ago.

 

It's really hard to try and draw any comparisons to the Tibet of today or any other of the places and peoples mention in the Bhagavat texts.

 

Sometimes things are balanced in the Bhagavat controversies when acharyas say that the incident spoken of actually happened in another kalpa or day of Brahma.

 

Even the Moon issue could have some inconsistencies due to the fact that the Bhagavatam is a history of the universe that reaches back for many kalpas.

 

I have heard that Lord Brahma is about half-way through his lifespan, so there are many kalpas in the history of the universe that have already passed.

[Kulapavana]

 

However, the Dhruva Maharaja incident happened millions of years ago.

 

It's really hard to try and draw any comparisons to the Tibet of today or any other of the places and peoples mention in the Bhagavat texts.

 

I am not sure that this is it. Vedic literature describes Yakshas in very consistent terms, regardles of kalpa. Here Srila Prabhupada seems to suggest Yakshas are just another mountain tribe of people. People in general are not described in the Vedas as endowed with this level of mystic powers, even people of previous kalpas, save perhaps in Satya yuga - but that is clearly not satya yuga as there are kings, cities and wars.

[Guest guest]

 

I am not sure that this is it. Vedic literature describes Yakshas in very consistent terms, regardles of kalpa. Here Srila Prabhupada seems to suggest Yakshas are just another mountain tribe of people. People in general are not described in the Vedas as endowed with this level of mystic powers, even people of previous kalpas, save perhaps in Satya yuga - but that is clearly not satya yuga as there are kings, cities and wars.

 

 

This is what I don't understand. How can someone who's supposedly enlightened only offer up IDEAS on what the scriptures mean or who the scriptures refer to?

[Guest guest]

questioning the literality of Srimad Bhagavatam or any scripture is always a very risky undertaking.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam was originally spoken by the Lord himself.

 

To represent it as some allegorical stories that teach lessons is not something that any of the previous acharyas have described.

 

Ther are some allegorical stories in Srimad Bhagavatam, but the allegorical parts have ment mentioned as such by the previous acharyas and we should not dare to try and represent Srimad Bhagavatam as an allegorical treatise like Aesops Fables or other such tales of the story makers.

 

We should discuss the literality of Srimad Bhagavatam only in terms of how the issue has been dealt with by Srila Prabhupada and the previous acharyas.

 

Can anyone present any reference from Srila Prabhupada in discussion of the literal or allegorical features of Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

Or, are we just concocting some allegorical allegations against Srimad Bhagavatam because our little conditioned minds have such a hard time getting it's arms around Srimad Bhagavatam?

[theist]

Well then please clear up Kulapavana's doubt by supplying the answer to his questions. "Just believe brothers" is not enough.

[Guest guest]

 

Well then please clear up Kulapavana's doubt by supplying the answer to his questions. "Just believe brothers" is not enough.

 

the truth be told, sometimes "just believe" is the only thing we can do.

 

"Just believe" is another word for FAITH.

 

We cannot prove or disprove transcendental reality with our dull material senses.

 

when we refuse to "believe" and demand that God and all the siddhanta come and pay homage to my material senses of sight and touch etc., then we have not accepted the first principle of becoming Krishna conscious which is "FAITH".

 

Faith is all we have.

 

If we can't accept the premise of faith then we are no better than atheists.

[Guest guest]

 

Or, are we just concocting some allegorical allegations against Srimad Bhagavatam because our little conditioned minds have such a hard time getting it's arms around Srimad Bhagavatam?

Allegorical but not against. I suggest that you read Krsna Samhita by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

[suchandra]

 

Well then please clear up Kulapavana's doubt by supplying the answer to his questions. "Just believe brothers" is not enough.

 

http://www.indiaheritage.org/rendez/article1.htm#age

We are presently in the Kali-yuga of the 28th Maha-yuga - one Maha-yuga is 4,320,000 years and just one day (kalpa) of Brahma's life consists of 1000 Maha-yugas. His night is equally long. At the beginning of every day creation starts and 360 such days and nights make one year of Brahma.

According to the Puranas, Brahma just had his 50th birthday.

On just one day of Lord Brahma there're 1000 appearances of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu but do we know about the courses of the Sankirtan Mission of other yugas?

Presently we are in the 28th Maha-yuga of 1000 Maha-yugas of Lord Brahma's fiftieth year, so, whenever sastra makes historical mention without further detail the importance is to understand the principle and NOT the date of that incident. Same with the biblical Flood, it is mentioned together with important lessons but when exactly this huge Flood took place no one knows. But people tend to push the lessons aside and focus on what is not mentioned.

[theist]

suchandra what does that have to do with the yakshas being a Himalayan tribe like the Tibetans?

 

My feeling is that the "another kalpa" thing is just an excuse. I view the Bhagavatam as the revelation of perfect and flawless knowledge. That perfect knowledge does not include the cosmology of this temporary world IMO. I really don't care if the Bhagavatam says the universe is six billion miles across or whatever the number was and that has been proven to be woefully small compared to the actual facts.

[suchandra]

 

suchandra what does that have to do with the yakshas being a Himalayan tribe like the Tibetans?

 

My feeling is that the "another kalpa" thing is just an excuse. I view the Bhagavatam as the revelation of perfect and flawless knowledge. That perfect knowledge does not include the cosmology of this temporary world IMO. I really don't care if the Bhagavatam says the universe is six billion miles across or whatever the number was and that has been proven to be woefully small compared to the actual facts.

 

sorry prabhu, this wasnt actually a reply to your post but to the main topic in general:

At "Online Vegetarian Restaurants Guide", http://www.naturalnirvana.com/Braja-Mandala/Braja-Mandala/Madhuvana-Forest.htm we find:

 

 

 

"Krishna appeared in Madhuvana in all four yugas. In Satya-yuga He appeared before Dhruva Maharaja. In Treta-yuga He came as Satrughna and killed the demon Lavanasura. He came as Lord Krishna in Dwapara-yuga and as Lord Caitanya in Kali-yuga."

 

 

 

But do we know which Satya-yuga from the 1000 Satya-yugas of this Kalpa (one day of Lord Brahma)?

Or was it a Satya-yuga of the 1000x360x49 Satya-yugas from the past 360x49 Kalpas (days) of our present Lord Brahma who just became 50?

[Guest guest]

 

I really don't care if the Bhagavatam says the universe is six billion miles across or whatever the number was and that has been proven to be woefully small compared to the actual facts.

 

Not to change the subject but since you brought it up, when it says the Universe could it just be speaking about our Solar System?

 

We know the Universe has billions of galaxies, and our milky way galaxy is just one of many.. but to us Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy is most important. It's our section of the Universe.

 

The Bhagavatam and Vedic astrology are probably most concerned with our Solar System and Galaxy.. other solar systems and galaxies will not be as of much importance to the people on Planet Earth. Other solar systems have their own "sun-god", planetary influences, etc, I would assume..?

 

Tho I know the Pleiades (seven rishi stars are mentioned..) in the Vedic scriptures, and I believe they are outside our Milky Way Galaxy.

[Avinash]

 

Not to change the subject but since you brought it up, when it says the Universe could it just be speaking about our Solar System?

 

Even then the dimensions in Bhagavatam are not correct if we take the terms given in Bhagavatam the same as we normally use those. Kulpavana (one of the posters in this forum) says that Bhagavatam talks not only of our dimensions but also of higher dimensions. That is a possibility and that can even reconsile the measurements given in Bhagavatam with what we observe. But I always wonder why Sukdeva was explaining to Parikshit higher dimensions when it is said that Bhagavata Purana is for common folks.

 

But the above is not really relevant to what Theist is saying. According to him, we should not read Bhagavatam to learn material science but to learn spirituality. Therefore, it should not concern us whether the material science given in Bhagavatam is right or wrong.

 

I also will not rely on Bhagavatam to learn Cosmology but I will rely on modern science for this. And I will not refer to modern science to know anything about God, soul etc. But, of course, because of curiosity, I will definitely participate if some discussion goes on the Cosmology given in Bhagavatam.

 

 

Tho I know the Pleiades (seven rishi stars are mentioned..) in the Vedic scriptures, and I believe they are outside our Milky Way Galaxy.

 

You have mentioned seven rishi stars. These stars belong to an asterism known as Big Dipper or Saptarshi Mandala. But I do not understand why you mentioned Pleiades. Pleiades is also known as 'the seven sisters', but its stars are not what we call us seven rishi stars; Pleiades is a star cluster.

[Guest guest]

 

You have mentioned seven rishi stars. These stars belong to an asterism known as Big Dipper or Saptarshi Mandala. But I do not understand why you mentioned Pleiades. Pleiades is also known as 'the seven sisters', but its stars are not what we call us seven rishi stars; Pleiades is a star cluster.

 

Sorry, I should have said that the 7 Pleiades stars are considered the wives of the 7 Rishi stars.

 

7 is a very important esoteric number, as I am sure you aware. For example, there are 7 major chakra centers in the sushumna channel. I do not think it is a coincidence that we see this number 7 staring at us as we look into Outer Space, just like we find when we look into Inner Space.

[suchandra]

Actually Dhruva Maharaja appeared in the first manvantara of this day of Brahma which is called Svayambhuva. Each of the 14 manvantaras on one day of Brahma consist of 71 maha-yugas. Right now we are in the 28th maha-yuga of the 7th manvantara which is called Vaivasvata. Dhruva Maharaja appeared in a Satya-yuga of the first manvantara but since each manvantara consists of 71 maha-yugas in which maha-yuga of the Svayambhuva manvantara Dhruva appeared. Any suggestions?

[suchandra]

 

Sorry, I should have said that the 7 Pleiades stars are considered the wives of the 7 Rishi stars.

 

7 is a very important esoteric number, as I am sure you aware. For example, there are 7 major chakra centers in the sushumna channel. I do not think it is a coincidence that we see this number 7 staring at us as we look into Outer Space, just like we find when we look into Inner Space.

 

 

This disc (efficient luminaries compass) was recently found, they say it was made 1600 B.C. The seven Pleiades stars are seen together between Sun and Moon. They say that the Pleiades announce the proper time for sowings and crops.

[Guest guest]

 

Allegorical but not against. I suggest that you read Krsna Samhita by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

if you have something from Sri Krishna Samhita of Bhaktivinode, then why haven't you posted it?

Otherwise, it just sounds like so much bluster without substance?

 

Why make hollow statements without supporting your claims?

 

If you have something, then show it and explain it.

 

I'm supposed to read a whole book I don't have because some anonymous person on the forum makes hollow statements?

 

As well, can you show any corrresponding teachings in the words of Srila Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta?

 

the founder-acharya of ISKCON was Srila Prabhupada.

 

I am not so excited to jump over him and read Gaudiya Matha versions of the books of Bhaktivinode.

[bija]

 

I am not so excited to jump over him and read Gaudiya Matha versions of the books of Bhaktivinode. quote by guest

 

For your pleasure a copy is available. It is such a sweet book.

 

Translation by Bhumipati dasa

Edited and published by Vidyanidhi dasa

 

Vrajraj Press

c/o Iskcon Vrindavan

[Guest guest]

 

For your pleasure a copy is available. It is such a sweet book.

 

Translation by Bhumipati dasa

Edited and published by Vidyanidhi dasa

 

Vrajraj Press

c/o Iskcon Vrindavan

 

That would be Pundarika Vidyanidhi das.

I spent some time in Las Vegas with him in 1975 when were were stationed there out of L.A. for working the airport with book distribution.

 

He was a very bright, young brahmacary back then.

I have the highest regard for him.

It's devotees like him that should be ISKCON gurus intead of the prestige and power seekers who become gurus because they know how the fight their way into the circles of the ISKCON elite.

 

It's unfortunate that ambition has more reward in ISKCON than does brahminical character.

[Kulapavana]

 

We should discuss the literality of Srimad Bhagavatam only in terms of how the issue has been dealt with by Srila Prabhupada and the previous acharyas.

 

 

this is precisely what I am trying to do.

 

how should we understand Yakshas in that context? are they just a mountain tribe of people, or are they a completely separate species of somewhat supernatural beings or ghosts?

 

the explanation: "sometimes they are people, sometimes they are ghosts" is OK too provided that it is clearly stated by the acharyas.

 

I have no problem believing in either version. Just make it clear what I am supposed to believe in...

 

and I am also not sure that our acharyas are unanimous on that issue. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura caused quite a stirr among ALL groups of Vaishnavas with his ideas presented in Sri Krsna Samhita. Even today there are several quite different takes on this issue within the Gaudiya Vaishnava community.

 

SP usually insisted on quite literal interpretation of Bhagavatam and that is precisely why his commentary to this verse is so different.

[Guest guest]

 

this is precisely what I am trying to do.

 

how should we understand Yakshas in that context? are they just a mountain tribe of people, or are they a completely separate species of somewhat supernatural beings or ghosts?

 

the explanation: "sometimes they are people, sometimes they are ghosts" is OK too provided that it is clearly stated by the acharyas.

 

I have no problem believing in either version. Just make it clear what I am supposed to believe in...

 

and I am also not sure that our acharyas are unanimous on that issue. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura caused quite a stirr among ALL groups of Vaishnavas with his ideas presented in Sri Krsna Samhita. Even today there are several quite different takes on this issue within the Gaudiya Vaishnava community.

 

SP usually insisted on quite literal interpretation of Bhagavatam and that is precisely why his commentary to this verse is so different.

 

 

Well, the Tibetan tribes of nowadays might just be descendents of Yakshas but not having all the mystic powers of Yakshas from a previous age.

 

Just like the descendents of Brahmans and Ksatriyas of today have none of the great powers that Brahmans and Ksatriyas has in the previous ages.

[theist]

The other possibility is that Srila Prabhupada may have been just wrong. I have no idea myself on what is or isn't a yaksha. Nor do I care. He is right on the transcendental knowledge of the self and Superself so I can accept that from him without worry about being mislead. Next to that what else matters?

 

It is not just knowledge that makes one a vaisnava guru. It is specifically transcendental knowledge. And not eveK that alone. What we can and should pick up from Srila Prabhupada is a divine drop of his absolutely pure and ever increasing love for Sri krsna which includes all other living entities. It is that oceanic love and compassion for the fallen (us) and his tirelessly effort to spread the chanting to whole world that makes him really stand out among all other teachers. He was especially empowered in this way and we need to open up to that as well as opening his books.

[Guest guest]

 

The other possibility is that Srila Prabhupada may have been just wrong. I have no idea myself on what is or isn't a yaksha. Nor do I care. He is right on the transcendental knowledge of the self and Superself so I can accept that from him without worry about being mislead. Next to that what else matters?

 

It is not just knowledge that makes one a vaisnava guru. It is specifically transcendental knowledge. And not eveK that alone. What we can and should pick up from Srila Prabhupada is a divine drop of his absolutely pure and ever increasing love for Sri krsna which includes all other living entities. It is that oceanic love and compassion for the fallen (us) and his tirelessly effort to spread the chanting to whole world that makes him really stand out among all other teachers. He was especially empowered in this way and we need to open up to that as well as opening his books.

 

Well, Believer in God (theist), if you dont care ("Nor do I care"), why take so much devoted care to overhasty comment "Prabhupada may have been just wrong"? If this is your level of understanding then you clearly cement that if this is wrong other things might very likely be also wrong. If other statements Prabhupada made could be also wrong then why dont you reject Prabhupada's literature alltogether and draw a clear conclusion? Isnt it exhausting to judge upon every statement Prabhupada made, this is ok, oh wait, this sounds strange?

IMO actually you dont need a spiritual master, why bother?

[Guest guest]

What benefit is there in having doubts in Srila Prabhupada, his statements and his books?

What benefit do we get by putting our faith in sceintists and finding fault in Srila Prabhupada's teachings?

 

What benefit is there in just having faith in Srila Prabhupada and not second-guessing so many things he has said?

 

There is clearly no benefit (spiritually) in putting our faith in scientists and saying "Prabhupada was just wrong".

 

There is clearly much benefit in putting our faith in Srila Prabhupada and NOT second-guessing him and accusing him of so many erroneous statements and opinions.

 

Most usually the arguments against things Srila Prabhupada said really have no spiritual benefit and open the gate to finding fault in Srila Prabhupada.

 

There is no harm in putting our faith in Srila Prabhupada and rejecting scientific speuclations.

 

There can be MUCH harm in putting our faith in scientists and thinking that we know better than Srila Prabhupada and so many things he commented on.

[Guest guest]

Is the Guru all-knowing? If my Spiritual Master tells me the moon is closer, and your Spiritual Master tells you the moon is farther, who is right? and does this mean one of them is not a true Spiritual Master, since they contradicted each other on the moon distance?