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

[theist]

SB 9.4.30: In the month of Kartika, after observing that vow for one year, after observing a fast for three nights and after bathing in the Yamuna, Maharaja Ambarisha worshiped the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, in Madhuvana.

 

 

SB 9.4.31-32: Following the regulative principles of mahabhisheka, Maharaja Ambarisha performed the bathing ceremony for the Deity of Lord Krishna with all paraphernalia, and then he dressed the Deity with fine clothing, ornaments, fragrant flower garlands and other paraphernalia for worship of the Lord. With attention and devotion, he worshiped Krishna and all the greatly fortunate brahmanas who were free from material desires.

 

 

SB 9.4.33-35: Thereafter, Maharaja Ambarisha satisfied all the guests who arrived at his house, especially the brahmanas. He gave in charity sixty crores of cows whose horns were covered with gold plate and whose hooves were covered with silver plate. All the cows were well decorated with garments and had full milk bags. They were mild-natured, young and beautiful and were accompanied by their calves. After giving these cows, the King first sumptuously fed all the brahmanas, and when they were fully satisfied, he was about to observe the end of Ekadasi, with their permission, by breaking the fast. Exactly at that time, however, Durvasa Muni, the great and powerful mystic, appeared on the scene as an uninvited guest.

 

 

SB 9.4.36: After standing up to receive Durvasa Muni, King Ambarisha offered him a seat and paraphernalia of worship. Then, sitting at his feet, the King requested the great sage to eat.

 

 

SB 9.4.37: Durvasa Muni gladly accepted the request of Maharaja Ambarisha, but to perform the regulative ritualistic ceremonies he went to the River Yamuna. There he dipped into the water of the auspicious Yamuna and meditated upon the impersonal Brahman.

 

 

SB 9.4.38: In the meantime, only a muhurta of the Dvadasi day was left on which to break the fast. Consequently, it was imperative that the fast be broken immediately. In this dangerous situation, the King consulted learned brahmanas.

 

 

SB 9.4.39-40: The King said: "To transgress the laws of respectful behavior toward the brahmanas is certainly a great offense. On the other hand, if one does not observe the breaking of the fast within the time of Dvadasi, there is a flaw in one's observance of the vow. Therefore, O brahmanas, if you think that it will be auspicious and not irreligious, I shall break the fast by drinking water." In this way, after consulting with the brahmanas, the King reached this decision, for according to brahminical opinion, drinking water may be accepted as eating and also as not eating.

 

 

SB 9.4.41: O best of the Kuru dynasty, after he drank some water, King Ambarisha, meditating upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead within his heart, waited for the return of the great mystic Durvasa Muni.

 

 

SB 9.4.42: After executing the ritualistic ceremonies to be performed at noon, Durvasa returned from the bank of the Yamuna. The King received him well, offering all respects, but Durvasa Muni, by his mystic power, could understand that King Ambarisha had drunk water without his permission.

 

 

SB 9.4.43: Still hungry, Durvasa Muni, his body trembling, his face curved and his eyebrows crooked in a frown, angrily spoke as follows to King Ambarisha, who stood before him with folded hands.

 

 

SB 9.4.44: Alas, just see the behavior of this cruel man! He is not a devotee of Lord Vishnu. Being proud of his material opulence and his position, he considers himself God. Just see how he has transgressed the laws of religion.

 

 

SB 9.4.45: Maharaja Ambarisha, you have invited me to eat as a guest, but instead of feeding me, you yourself have eaten first. Because of your misbehavior, I shall show you something to punish you.

 

 

SB 9.4.46: As Durvasa Muni said this, his face became red with anger. Uprooting a bunch of hair from his head, he created a demon resembling the blazing fire of devastation to punish Maharaja Ambarisha.

 

SB 9.4.47: Taking a trident in his hand and making the surface of the earth tremble with his footsteps, that blazing creature came before Maharaja Ambarisha. But the King, upon seeing him, was not at all disturbed and did not move even slightly from his position.

 

SB 9.4.48: As fire in the forest immediately burns to ashes an angry snake, so, by the previous order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, His disc, the Sudarsana cakra, immediately burnt to ashes the created demon to protect the Lord's devotee.

 

 

SB 9.4.49: Upon seeing that his own attempt had failed and that the Sudarsana cakra was moving toward him, Durvasa Muni became very frightened and began to run in all directions to save his life.

 

 

SB 9.4.50: As the blazing flames of a forest fire pursue a snake, the disc of the Supreme Personality of Godhead began following Durvasa Muni.

 

 

Durvasa Muni saw that the disc was almost touching his back, and thus he ran very swiftly, desiring to enter a cave of Sumeru Mountain.

 

 

SB 9.4.51: Just to protect himself, Durvasa Muni fled everywhere, in all directions -- in the sky, on the surface of the earth, in caves, in the ocean, on different planets of the rulers of the three worlds, and even on the heavenly planets -- but wherever he went he immediately saw following him the unbearable fire of the Sudarsana cakra.

 

 

SB 9.4.52: With a fearful heart, Durvasa Muni went here and there seeking shelter, but when he could find no shelter, he finally approached Lord Brahma and said, "O my lord, O Lord Brahma, kindly protect me from the blazing Sudarsana cakra sent by the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

SB 9.4.53-54: Lord Brahma said: At the end of the dvi-parardha, when the pastimes of the Lord come to an end, Lord Vishnu, by a flick of His eyebrows, vanquishes the entire universe, including our places of residence. Such personalities as me and Lord Siva, as well as Daksha, Bhrigu and similar great saints of which they are the head, and also the rulers of the living entities, the rulers of human society and the rulers of the demigods -- all of us surrender to that Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu, bowing our heads, to carry out His orders for the benefit of all living entities.

 

 

SB 9.4.55: When Durvasa, who was greatly afflicted by the blazing fire of the Sudarsana cakra, was thus refused by Lord Brahma, he tried to take shelter of Lord Siva, who always resides on his planet, known as Kailasa.

 

 

SB 9.4.56: Lord Siva said: My dear son, I, Lord Brahma and the other demigods, who rotate within this universe under the misconception of our greatness, cannot exhibit any power to compete with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for innumerable universes and their inhabitants come into existence and are annihilated by the simple direction of the Lord.

 

 

SB 9.4.57-59: Past, present and future are known to me [Lord Siva], Sanat-kumara, Narada, the most revered Lord Brahma, Kapila [the son of Devahuti], Apantaratama [Lord Vyasadeva], Devala, Yamaraja, Asuri, Marici and many saintly persons headed by him, as well as many others who have achieved perfection. Nonetheless, because we are covered by the illusory energy of the Lord, we cannot understand how expansive that illusory energy is. You should simply approach that Supreme Personality of Godhead to get relief, for this Sudarsana cakra is intolerable even to us. Go to Lord Vishnu. He will certainly be kind enough to bestow all good fortune upon you.

 

 

SB 9.4.60: Thereafter, being disappointed even in taking shelter of Lord Siva, Durvasa Muni went to Vaikuntha-dhama, where the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, resides with His consort, the goddess of fortune.

 

 

SB 9.4.61: Durvasa Muni, the great mystic, scorched by the heat of the Sudarsana cakra, fell at the lotus feet of Narayana. His body trembling, he spoke as follows: O infallible, unlimited Lord, protector of the entire universe, You are the only desirable objective for all devotees. I am a great offender, my Lord. Please give me protection.

 

 

SB 9.4.62: O my Lord, O supreme controller, without knowledge of Your unlimited prowess I have offended Your most dear devotee. Very kindly save me from the reaction of this offense. You can do everything, for even if a person is fit for going to hell, You can deliver him simply by awakening within his heart the holy name of Your Lordship.

 

 

SB 9.4.63: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said to the brahmana: I am completely under the control of My devotees. Indeed, I am not at all independent. Because My devotees are completely devoid of material desires, I sit only within the cores of their hearts. What to speak of My devotee, even those who are devotees of My devotee are very dear to Me.

 

 

SB 9.4.64: O best of the brahmanas, without saintly persons for whom I am the only destination, I do not desire to enjoy My transcendental bliss and My supreme opulences.

 

 

SB 9.4.65: Since pure devotees give up their homes, wives, children, relatives, riches and even their lives simply to serve Me, without any desire for material improvement in this life or in the next, how can I give up such devotees at any time?

 

 

SB 9.4.66: As chaste women bring their gentle husbands under control by service, the pure devotees, who are equal to everyone and completely attached to Me in the core of the heart, bring Me under their full control.

 

 

SB 9.4.67: My devotees, who are always satisfied to be engaged in My loving service, are not interested even in the four principles of liberation [salokya, sarupya, samipya and sarshti], although these are automatically achieved by their service. What then is to be said of such perishable happiness as elevation to the higher planetary systems?

 

 

SB 9.4.68: The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them.

 

 

SB 9.4.69: O brahmana, let Me now advise you for your own protection. Please hear from Me. By offending Maharaja Ambarisha, you have acted with self-envy. Therefore you should go to him immediately, without a moment's delay. One's so-called prowess, when employed against the devotee, certainly harms he who employs it. Thus it is the subject, not the object, who is harmed.

 

 

SB 9.4.70: For a brahmana, austerity and learning are certainly auspicious, but when acquired by a person who is not gentle, such austerity and learning are most dangerous.

 

 

SB 9.4.71: O best of the brahmanas, you should therefore go immediately to King Ambarisha, the son of Maharaja Nabhaga. I wish you all good fortune. If you can satisfy Maharaja Ambarisha, then there will be peace for you.

 

 

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

This is how I hear this story.

 

 

 

SB 9.4.46

: As Durvasa Muni said this, his face became red with anger. Uprooting a bunch of hair from his head, he created a demon resembling the blazing fire of devastation to punish Maharaja Ambarisha.

 

Personally I don't read this creating a demon from his hair as a literal happening. I know the majority do. My belief is that these Truths of the SB are however literal. To me this is a story that draws us to read it and while doing so gain true appreciation and understanding of how the Lord loves and honors his devotees.

 

 

 

SB 9.4.47

: Taking a trident in his hand and making the surface of the earth tremble with his footsteps, that blazing creature came before Maharaja Ambarisha. But the King, upon seeing him, was not at all disturbed and did not move even slightly from his position.

 

 

Devotee is dhira or undisturbed. He is fixed in Krsna consciousness and so like Prahlada unmoved even when facing the greatest of material dangers.

 

 

 

SB 9.4.48

: As fire in the forest immediately burns to ashes an angry snake, so, by the previous order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, His disc, the Sudarsana cakra, immediately burnt to ashes the created demon to protect the Lord's devotee.

 

 

The Lord is always ready to provide protection to His devotees. "Declare it boldly My devotee is never vanquished."

 

 

 

To me it makes no difference at all if someone else takes even what I call the storyline as a literal happening in this world. 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.

 

 

 

So a difference like this should not lead us into argument for then we all lose by taking our eyes off the truth being offered to us. I respect the right of others to hold a more "traditional" view and I am not challenging that view, just stating my own that's all.

 

 

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

For some reason the software insists on adding an extra quote box for the verse number. I just repaired it and it did it again. So that is why it looks so strange.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

To me it makes no difference at all if someone else takes even what I call the storyline as a literal happening in this world. 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.

 

There are actually three options, not just LITERAL and ALLEGORICAL.

 

The third is that in "the mind" or in the astral realm strange events can take place which are recorded in the Bhagavatam. Stories such as this story of Durvasa. Durvasa was able to zoom all the way to Shivaloka and Brahmaloka. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he had a body made of earth. He was in another place different from the earth we inhabit. We are earthly beings (the world is in your mind, as Srila Sridhar Maharaj said) but there are other beings whose mind is filled with more subtle thoughts than what we possess.

 

This issue gets more complex when you realize that places such as Prayaga, the Himalayas and other tirthas (not to mention transcendental Puri Dham and Vraja Dham) are also partially visible in the "earthly" plane. Durvas may have been on "the earth" in a manner of speaking, but he wasn't necessarily walking in the same space we see when we go to Varanasi or other tirthas.

[Guest guest]

The thing that makes my blood boil and really gets a bee under my bonnet is when people say that rising seas are caused by global warming.

 

When in actuality it is caused by Dvidvida gorilla smashing his fists into the ocean and flooding nearby towns and villages.

 

Everytime I have to see an ad for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" then I think, "Yah, you inconveniently left out the part about Dvidvida Gorilla smashing his fists into the ocean, you fool!"

 

Just really rattles my cage. Or maybe it is Dvidvida Gorilla doing it. Help! It is the Dvidvida Gorilla. Oh well, never mind then. At least he is showing me his....teeth! What were you thinking?!!! His teeth. And he's moving his eyebrows, too.

[theist]

 

There are actually three options, not just LITERAL and ALLEGORICAL.

 

The third is that in "the mind" or in the astral realm strange events can take place which are recorded in the Bhagavatam. Stories such as this story of Durvasa. Durvasa was able to zoom all the way to Shivaloka and Brahmaloka. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he had a body made of earth. He was in another place different from the earth we inhabit. We are earthly beings (the world is in your mind, as Srila Sridhar Maharaj said) but there are other beings whose mind is filled with more subtle thoughts than what we possess.

 

This issue gets more complex when you realize that places such as Prayaga, the Himalayas and other tirthas (not to mention transcendental Puri Dham and Vraja Dham) are also partially visible in the "earthly" plane. Durvas may have been on "the earth" in a manner of speaking, but he wasn't necessarily walking in the same space we see when we go to Varanasi or other tirthas.

 

That is a possible explanation. But this is also what I meant by anything being possible in a dream. Gross matter or subtle matter, both are still dream substance.

 

Nevertheless if we accept this as a third option I would say it still doesn't matter if it happened in some astral plane way or not. I believe the real truth is to be found in the lesson learned by Durvasa. That is what is universally applicable and that is where we find our own spiritual benefit. Afterall why would it matter to us if he went in a gross body or a subtle body or if he was just used as a literary character. We can believe in any of these three options and still not get any spiritual benefit. The spiritual benefit is in learning how the Lord Himself honors His devotees and will not tolerate their being vilified. This is a lesson to us about offending the devotee while trying to approach the Lord Himself.

 

Also,

 

SB 9.4.60: Thereafter, being disappointed even in taking shelter of Lord Siva, Durvasa Muni went to Vaikuntha-dhama, where the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, resides with His consort, the goddess of fortune.

 

Durvasa Muni is said to have gone farther than Shivaloka. he is said to entered into Vaikuntha and personally had audeience with Narayana over the matter.

 

How would that be possible in a gross or subtle body. This is another reason I take it as allegorical.

[Guest guest]

It is strange to think Durvasa, who committed Vaishnava-aparadha, was able to enter Vaikuntha.

[Guest guest]

Durvasa is Shiva, so he can go anywhere he likes. Shiva stands guard at the four corners of Braja Mandala and makes sure no unworthy person can eneter there. And Parvati as Paurnamasi forbids Radha and Krsna to wed. So Shiva and Parvati controlling what is happening even who can enter Braj and what can happen there.

[Gaea]

 

Nevertheless if we accept this as a third option I would say it still doesn't matter if it happened in some astral plane way or not. I believe the real truth is to be found in the lesson learned by Durvasa. That is what is universally applicable and that is where we find our own spiritual benefit. Afterall why would it matter to us if he went in a gross body or a subtle body or if he was just used as a literary character. We can believe in any of these three options and still not get any spiritual benefit. The spiritual benefit is in learning how the Lord Himself honors His devotees and will not tolerate their being vilified. This is a lesson to us about offending the devotee while trying to approach the Lord Himself.

 

Not just the lesson... I don't, well I can't believe that words of SB or any other scripture are wasted in any way. Whether allegorical or literal or somewhere in between, what is the meaning of those actions? In other words, making of a demon from the hair - what is that a metaphor for? What is the meaning? I think this type of enquiry is encouraged by SB and we can get something meaningful for our lives and bhakti out of it.

[theist]

 

Not just the lesson... I don't, well I can't believe that words of SB or any other scripture are wasted in any way. Whether allegorical or literal or somewhere in between, what is the meaning of those actions? In other words, making of a demon from the hair - what is that a metaphor for? What is the meaning? I think this type of enquiry is encouraged by SB and we can get something meaningful for our lives and bhakti out of it.

That is exactly what I am saying Gaea. The point is to capture the deeper meaning which will enhance our own understanding of bhakti as you said.

 

It could be that the actions of creating a demon from his hair has some deeper meaning in and of itself but this is where I don't dig. My approach is not to try to analyze each part of a certain story for some hidden meaning. To me that would be like finding a diamond field with precious gems lying on the surface of the ground and instead of gathering them up I start digging in the ground because I think there must be more below the surface. I am lazy. Why use a shovel when we only need a sack. Besides there is also the chance that I will imagine something as truth that really isn't there. Best to allow the Lord in the heart illuminate the sastra for us and not have faith in our digging ability.

 

Please don't think I think the stories or historical accounts, whichever one prefers, are useless. I do not. I consider them just the opposite. They draw the minds of the people of this age who are attracted to read them and then the absolute truth that is woven in will be read/heard also.

 

Take the example of verses 63-71. Here Lord Narayana explains to Durvasa how He feels towards His devotees. Those verses are the obvious gems on the ground. The stories are like some interesting or even beautiful thing on the ground that attracts our attention. Like walking in a field and seeing a pretty flower. When we bend down to examine it we see the gem lying next to it. The flower or the storyline in this case is actually spiritual because it's purpose was to help attract our kali-yuga minds to the transcendental reality, the Gem.

 

If we allow ourselves to get hung up on meaningless controveries of whether humans went to the moon or not or if the moon is farther away than the sun or not then we will miss that which is really valuable in SB.

 

Hare Krsna

[Gaea]

i understand... thanks!

if we are all comfortable like this then we can all concentrate on the bhakti bit instead of arguing about the nitty gritty of every word. Still, i think the "hidden meanings" should be sought - otherwise, what's the point in having them there? i guess we have to have faith that Krsna gives us the tools we need to find those meanings, if indeed we are worthy.

[theist]

 

i understand... thanks!

if we are all comfortable like this then we can all concentrate on the bhakti bit instead of arguing about the nitty gritty of every word. Still, i think the "hidden meanings" should be sought - otherwise, what's the point in having them there? i guess we have to have faith that Krsna gives us the tools we need to find those meanings, if indeed we are worthy.

Yes no more squabbling of trifles. There may be hidden meaningss. I believe there are certainly different levels of understanding even within the same verse. We are certainly on the same page as to how to uncover them....Grace.

[theist]

 

TRANSLATION SB 1.3.40

This Srimad-Bhagavatam is the literary incarnation of God, and it is compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, the incarnation of God. It is meant for the ultimate good of all people, and it is all-successful, all-blissful and all-perfect.

 

PURPORT

Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu declared that Srimad-Bhagavatam is the spotless sound representation of all Vedic knowledge and history. There are selected histories of great devotees who are in direct contact with the Personality of Godhead. Srimad-Bhagavatam is the literary incarnation of Lord Sri Krishna and is therefore nondifferent from Him. Srimad-Bhagavatam should be worshiped as respectfully as we worship the Lord. Thereby we can derive the ultimate blessings of the Lord through its careful and patient study. As God is all light, all bliss and all perfection, so also is Srimad-Bhagavatam. We can have all the transcendental light of the Supreme Brahman, Sri Krishna, from the recitation of Srimad-Bhagavatam, provided it is received through the medium of the transparent spiritual master. Lord Caitanya's private secretary Srila Svarupa Damodara Gosvami advised all intending visitors who came to see the Lord at Puri to make a study of the Bhagavatam from the person Bhagavatam Person Bhagavatam is the self-realized bona fide spiritual master, and through him only can one understand the lessons of Bhagavatam in order to receive the desired result. One can derive from the study of the Bhagavatam all benefits that are possible to be derived from the personal presence of the Lord. It carries with it all the transcendental blessings of Lord Sri Krishna that we can expect from His personal contact.

 

Does a literary incarnation of God need to be historically accurate for it to be a literary incarnation of God? Is there some reason why the Lord cannot be present in the form of an allegory?

 

It seems to me the presence of the Lord is sufficent to make somtehing an incarnation of God. The Diety for example. Prasadam for another.

 

 

TRANSLATION SB 1.3.41

Sri Vyasadeva delivered it to his son, who is the most respected among the self-realized, after extracting the cream of all Vedic literatures and histories of the universe.

 

PURPORT

Men with a poor fund of knowledge only accept the history of the world from the time of Buddha, or since 600 B.C., and prior to this period all histories mentioned in the scriptures are calculated by them to be only imaginary stories. That is not a fact. All the stories mentioned in the Puranas and Mahabharata, etc., are actual histories, not only of this planet but also of millions of other planets within the universe. Sometimes the history of planets beyond this world appear to such men to be unbelievable. But they do not know that different planets are not equal in all respects and that therefore some of the historical facts derived from other planets do not correspond with the experience of this planet. Considering the different situation of different planets and also time and circumstances, there is nothing wonderful in the stories of the Puranas, nor are they imaginary. We should always remember the maxim that one man's food is another man's poison. We should not, therefore, reject the stories and histories of the Puranas as imaginary. The great rishis like Vyasa had no business putting some imaginary stories in their literatures.

In the Srimad-Bhagavatam historical facts selected from the histories of different planets have been depicted. It is therefore accepted by all the spiritual authorities as the Maha-Purana. The special significance of these histories is that they are all connected with activities of the Lord in a different time and atmosphere. Srila Sukadeva Gosvami is the topmost personality of all the self-realized souls, and he accepted this as the subject of studies from his father, Vyasadeva. Srila Vyasadeva is the great authority, and the subject matter of Srimad-Bhagavatam being so important, he delivered the message first to his great son Srila Sukadeva Gosvami. It is compared to the cream of the milk. Vedic literature is like the milk ocean of knowledge. Cream or butter is the most palatable essence of milk, and so also is Srimad-Bhagavatam, for it contains all palatable, instructive and authentic versions of different activities of the Lord and His devotees. There is no gain, however, in accepting the message of Bhagavatam from the unbelievers, atheists and professional reciters who make a trade of Bhagavatam for the laymen. It was delivered to Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, and he had nothing to do with the Bhagavata business. He did not have to maintain family expenses by such trade. Srimad-Bhagavatam should therefore be received from the representative of Sukadeva, who must be in the renounced order of life without family encumbrance. Milk is undoubtedly very good and nourishing, but when it is touched by the mouth of a snake it is no longer nourishing; rather, it becomes a source of death. Similarly, those who are not strictly in the Vaishnava discipline should not make a business of this Bhagavatam and become a cause of spiritual death for so many hearers. In the Bhagavad-gita the Lord says that the purpose of all the Vedas is to know Him (Lord Krishna), and Srimad-Bhagavatam is Lord Sri Krishna Himself in the form of recorded knowledge. Therefore, it is the cream of all the Vedas, and it contains all historical facts of all times in relation with Sri Krishna. It is factually the essence of all histories.

 

From this purport we can see that my view of the Bhagavatam being greatly allegorical is not exactly the same as Srila Prabhupada's who states they are all historical but from other planets so they may seem fantasical to us. This goes to support Guest above and his third option of astral plane occurences. Although Srila Prabhupada was not so strict at other times by saying that the stories in the SB are sometimes allegorical.

 

To me in the end it doesn't matter but to remain honest to myself I must admit I just cannot accept as factual history all that I read concerning the history of this earth that is in the SB. King Ugrasena simply could not have accomodated 4 biilion bodyguards in Mathura. And there are many more accounts just like it.

 

To come to a position differnt than Srila Prabhupada's does not set easily into the mind. It may indeed make me a heretic in some peoples mind but I am tired of dancing around the issue for fear of bringing wrath down up myself from others.

 

So I am asking for tolerance from you who disagree with me. I certainly do not wish to fight it out with anyone in an effort to change their minds to my way of thinking but I do want to bring it to the forefront to where it can be respectfully discussed.

 

In this regard I was hoping for more participation, pro or con. Thank you to those that have so far and I am still hoping for others to join in as I feel they may be others struggling over these issues and leaving doubts buried in the subconscious can only manifest as weak faith somewhere down the line. And possiblly prevent faith from really developing all together.

 

We must search our minds and confront hidden doubts. Arjuna confronted his honestly before Krsna and that is our example.

 

I don't feel a need to argue over it though becasue as I see it one can appreciate the presence of transcendence Himself in the SB while holding contrary views on this point of historical vs. allegorical.

 

What do you think dear Vaisnavas?

[Guest guest]

The question is, if you thought it might bring the wrath of some members upon you to say that it's allegorical, why start a thread about it?

 

 

Does a literary incarnation of God need to be historically accurate for it to be a literary incarnation of God? Is there some reason why the Lord cannot be present in the form of an allegory?

It seems to me the presence of the Lord is sufficent to make somtehing an incarnation of God. The Diety for example. Prasadam for another.

From this purport we can see that my view of the Bhagavatam being greatly allegorical is not exactly the same as Srila Prabhupada's who states they are all historical but from other planets so they may seem fantasical to us. This goes to support Guest above and his third option of astral plane occurences. Although Srila Prabhupada was not so strict at other times by saying that the stories in the SB are sometimes allegorical.

To me in the end it doesn't matter but to remain honest to myself I must admit I just cannot accept as factual history all that I read concerning the history of this earth that is in the SB. King Ugrasena simply could not have accomodated 4 biilion bodyguards in Mathura. And there are many more accounts just like it.

To come to a position differnt than Srila Prabhupada's does not set easily into the mind. It may indeed make me a heretic in some peoples mind but I am tired of dancing around the issue for fear of bringing wrath down up myself from others.

So I am asking for tolerance from you who disagree with me. I certainly do not wish to fight it out with anyone in an effort to change their minds to my way of thinking but I do want to bring it to the forefront to where it can be respectfully discussed.

In this regard I was hoping for more participation, pro or con. Thank you to those that have so far and I am still hoping for others to join in as I feel they may be others struggling over these issues and leaving doubts buried in the subconscious can only manifest as weak faith somewhere down the line. And possiblly prevent faith from really developing all together.

We must search our minds and confront hidden doubts. Arjuna confronted his honestly before Krsna and that is our example.

I don't feel a need to argue over it though becasue as I see it one can appreciate the presence of transcendence Himself in the SB while holding contrary views on this point of historical vs. allegorical.

What do you think dear Vaisnavas?

[Avinash]

I have no problem in taking the story of Durvasa creating a demon from his hair as literal. I am not saying that it must be literal. May be it is. May be it is allegorical. But it is possible. However I do not believe that Ugrasena had billions of followers. Considering the amount of space so many followers will require, it is just not possible.

[theist]

 

The question is, if you thought it might bring the wrath of some members upon you to say that it's allegorical, why start a thread about it?

 

I thought I had explained that in the post you quoted itself. I have most often looked the other way on these issues for 35 years. During that time I can't count how many times I have heard from others that these issues, like the moon being farther from the sun etc., have caused a crisis of faith within them towards this process and even the Holy Name. There are internet debates/arguments all the time on the internet about this and I view it as a drag, as a distraction from Krsna consciousness.

 

So my hope in bringing it out into the open for discussion is to show that we can still take the essence truths in the SB without believing or disbelieving in the parts that are beyond our sense of feasibility. They simply are not that important.

 

As far as any wrath goes I don't fear it for myself but it makes for a dead end discussion. The pleasant surprise is I have only received mature responses. But I still want to hear from those that disagree with me so we can air it all out.

 

Literalists please make your case.

[theist]

 

I have no problem in taking the story of Durvasa creating a demon from his hair as literal. I am not saying that it must be literal. May be it is. May be it is allegorical. But it is possible. However I do not believe that Ugrasena had billions of followers. Considering the amount of space so many followers will require, it is just not possible.

 

Same with me Avinash. Afterall if Krsna can empower a jiva to be a secondary creator of the universe certainly He can give a jiva enough mystic power to creat a demon from his hair. But rather it happened like that I can't say but tend to think not.

[Guest guest]

The literalist case:

 

With your imperfect senses, you are incapable of evaluating a text like the Bhagavatam and dismiss certain portions as allegory. You cannot understand the mood of the author and how people may have lived in other yugas including how Ugrasena could still have had billions of followers – something inconceivable for people in Kali-yuga with imperfect senses.

 

In the absence of analytical ability, one has no recourse except to treat the whole text as literal. This was Prabhupada’s position.

[theist]

 

The literalist case:

 

With your imperfect senses, you are incapable of evaluating a text like the Bhagavatam and dismiss certain portions as allegory. You cannot understand the mood of the author and how people may have lived in other yugas including how Ugrasena could still have had billions of followers – something inconceivable for people in Kali-yuga with imperfect senses.

 

In the absence of analytical ability, one has no recourse except to treat the whole text as literal. This was Prabhupada’s position.

 

OK.That is your position but do you hold it cleanly without harboring hidden doubts?

[theist]

Letter to: Krsnadasa

—

Vrindaban

7 November, 1972

72-11-07

 

 

 

My Dear Krsnadasa,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 30, 1972, and I have noted the contents. It appears that you are again constantly disturbed by the same nonsense doubts. These things are not very important, we may not waste our time with these insignificant questions. If we are seeking to find out some fault, maya will give us all facility to find any small thing and make it very big, that is maya. But such questions as yours: why there is so-called discrepancy between the views of Bhagavat and modern scientists regarding the moon and other planets, and whether Hitler is good or bad man, these are most insignificant matters, and for anyone who is sincerely convinced that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for him these questions do not arise. Our information comes from Vedas, and if we believe Krishna, that

vedaham samatitani

vartamanani carjuna

bhavisyani ca bhutani

mam tu veda na kascana

[bg. 7.26]

that He knows everything, and "vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham [bg. 15.15],'' that Krishna is non-different from Vedas, then these questions do not arise.

But because you have asked me, I am your spiritual master, I must try to answer to your satisfaction. Yes, sometimes in Vedas such things like the asura's decapitated head chasing after Candraloka, sometimes it is explained allegorically. Just like now we are explaining in 4th Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam the story of King Puranjana. Just like the living entity is living within this body, and the body is described there as city with nine gates, the intelligence as the Queen. So there are sometimes allegorical explanations. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krishna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavat, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam. But this is a fact that in each and every planet there is a predominant deity, as we have got experience in this planet there is a president, so it is not wonderful when the predominating deity fights with another predominating deity of another planet. The modern science takes everything as dead stone. We take it for granted that everything is being manipulated by a person in each and every affair of the cosmology. The modern scientists however could not make any progress in the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore we do not accept modern science as very perfect. We take Krishna's version:

gam avisya ca bhutani

dharayamy aham ojasa

pusnami causadhih sarvah

somo bhutvah rasatmakah

[bg. 15.13]

"I become the moon,'' and "yac chandramasi yac cagnau,'' (ibid, 12) "I am the splendor of the moon,'' and "jyotisam api taj jyotis,'' [bg. 13.18] "I am the source of light in all luminous objects,'' so no one is able to give us the correct information than Krishna, that you should know.

Regarding Hitler, so Hitler may be good man or bad man, so what does he help to our Krishna Consciousness movement? But it is a fact that much propaganda was made against him, that much I know, and the Britishers are first-class propagandists. And I have heard that his officers did everything without informing him, just like in our ISKCON there are so many false things: "Prabhupada said this, Prabhupada said that.'' But we have nothing to do with Hitler in our Krishna Consciousness. Do not be deviated by such ideas "Jnanam jneyam jnana-gamyam,'' (ibid), Krishna is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, He is the goal of knowledge, and

you mam evam asammudho

janati purusottamam

sa sarva-vid bhajati mam

[bg. XV, 19]

"Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is to be understood as the knower of everything, and he engages himself therefore in devotional service''—this is the understanding of advanced devotee, so my best advice to you is to agree to come to this understanding.

Your ever well wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

[Guest guest]

 

OK.That is your position but do you hold it cleanly without harboring hidden doubts?

 

Yes. Here is why.

 

If you take the allegory position, then anything inside the Bhagavatam can be treated as allegory including events related to Krishna. Where do you draw the line and what is your qualification that you consider yourself capable of providing such categorization?

 

If you take the literalist position, then you are better off. There are things we do not understand like the billion followers. But as we are not qualified to dismiss selective portions of the text as unreal, we do not do that. We accept the situation as is - we do not understand certain portions of the text, but we do not dismiss them as false based on our limited understanding of life in Kali-yuga and use that knowledge to anaylze events from other yugas.

 

It is about the source. For the text to have any value, it should come from a higher source. If we accept this, then categorization of the text matter should also come from a higher source.

[Guest guest]

Krishna the Demon Slayer

In reading of Krishna's exploits, we can find valuable lessons for killing the demons within all of us.

By Vineet Chander

 

 

Each year on Janmashtami, the Hindu holiday celebrating Krishna's birthday, my family and I read together from the Bhagavata Purana, a sacred text recounting Krishna's pastimes. These stories talk of Lord Krishna as a disarmingly human-like boy who tends cows, charms his family and friends, and plays his flute. He spends most of his childhood, however, killing demon after demon, humorously re-routing their plans to destroy him so that they end up sealing their own doom.

 

Of course, Krishna is more than a mere comic book hero. All Hindus honor Krishna, and followers of the Vaishnava denomination especially revere him as the one Supreme Personality of Godhead. I am captivated by stories of his feats, and yet these stories force me to confront a debate raging within me. The devotee in me, the bhakta, wants to embrace these stories as literal truth and celebrate Krishna's wonders. The skeptic in me, the jnani, points out how irrational a literal adherence to these stories seems to be.

My head and heart would be forever deadlocked were it not for a 19th-century theologian named Bhaktivinode Thakura. Bhaktivinode was a renowned devotee of the Lord, and his poetry in praise of Krishna is sung faithfully in temples to this day. However, Bhaktivinode was also a man of this world--a husband and father, a government magistrate, and a Hindu scholar in an India ruled by the British. If anyone could reconcile intellect and devotion, and do justice to both, it is Bhaktivinode.

On one level, Bhaktivinode speaks of Krishna's slaying the demons as symbolic representations of his removing impediments--in Sanskrit called anarthas--that stand in the way of our attaining love of God. These anarthas root themselves in the heart of aspiring devotees, preventing our faith from growing at all. Thus, Bhaktivinode recommends, even if we have a hard time accepting Krishna's killing the demons as literal fact, merely appreciating it in a metaphoric way can help us advance towards higher levels of spiritual realization.

 

On another level, though, Bhaktivinode explains that Krishna can certainly do things which stretch the bounds of our limited, material intellect. If his activities sound incredible, unbelievable, or far-fetched, don't worry: they're supposed to. After all, Bhaktivinode reminds us, we're talking about the Supreme. By definition, he is the most extraordinary unique being there is. We may not understand precisely how he accomplishes his feats. But through the agency of faith, Bhaktivinode insists, we can know them.

 

For Bhaktivinode, there is ultimately no conflict. Krishna's activities are divine play, lila. Fittingly, Krishna is anything but predictable. That Krishna can kill demons is wonderful; that such feats can speak to our own lives is more wonderful still.

 

Take, for instance, the first demon that Krishna faced--a witch named Putana. Adept in black magic, this ghastly hag specialized in murdering babies. Her supernatural abilities allowed her to change her hideous form into that of a beautiful nurse; incognito, she easily gained entrance into the room where the infant Krishna was sleeping and took him to her breast, which she had smeared with deadly poison. All-knowing--even as a seemingly helpless baby--Krishna accepted her tainted offering, but it had the reverse effect. Putana herself soon fell to the ground dead, her body restored to its true ugliness.

 

Bhaktivinode explains that Putana represents hypocrisy, particularly the hypocrisy that arises from superficial displays of devotion. To accomplish her nefarious mission, Putana had ostensibly came to nourish Krishna with her milk. Similarly, warns Bhaktivinode, we may make a show of piety while still harboring hidden motives, including the desire to be flattered and worshipped ourselves. Remembering Krishna's effortless slaying of Putana, we can pray to the Lord to accept our offerings--however contaminated they may yet be--and at the same time expose the hypocrisy in our hearts for what it is, so that we may develop humility.

 

Cultivating humility is, of course, easier said than done. Challenging us at every step of the way is false pride. To overcome this anartha, Bhaktivinode recommends that we meditate on Krishna's slaying the demon Trinavarta. This crooked yogi studied the mystic arts extensively and had learned to manipulate the wind. Taking the shape of a powerful tornado, he kidnapped baby Krishna, and spun him high into the sky. Trinavarta began to laugh at how easily he would be able to kill Krishna and, just to show off, flew higher and higher up into the sky.

 

Krishna enjoyed the ride for some time, but understanding the demon's true intent, made himself unbearably heavy. Trinivarta's massive body came crashing down, and with it his hopes of killing Krishna. The demon's limbs and pride were both smashed to pieces by the transcendent baby Krishna, who emerged without a scratch.

 

Similarly, excessive pride often causes us to become "puffed-up." Like the whirl-wind of Trinavarta, we spin higher and higher up, eager to show off our vast learning or mundane achievements, forgetting that these talents are gifts from a higher power. Inevitably, though, the harsh lessons of our own limitations bring us crashing down. Better to remember Krishna's instructive pastimes with Trinavarta; with both feet solidly on the ground, we are in the best position to appreciate that our accomplishments should serve to enhance humility, not steal it away.

When Krishna grew a bit older, he took up the role of a cowherd boy. Every day he went to tend his herd and play with the other cowherd boys in the woods and groves of Vraja. One day, a warlock named Agha saw Krishna and his friends in the forest. Agha was Putana's younger brother, and remembering how Krishna had killed his sister, Agha began to burn with anger. Moreover, Agha was cruel by nature, and so the mere sight of others happy enraged him. Agha transformed himself into a snake and expanded his serpentine body into a massive tunnel and his gaping mouth into a cave. Excited to explore this new cave, the innocent cowherd boys marched into Agha's mouth.

Krishna, however, could not tolerate any danger to his friends and devotees, and he rushed in after them. Within the cavernous throat of Agha, Krishna expanded himself until the demon couldn't breathe anymore and suffocated to death.

 

According to Bhaktivinode, Agha symbolizes cruelty. "The American Heritage Dictionary" notes that being cruel means finding pleasure in the sufferings of others. Cruelty demands that we first separate out the other from ourselves. We see fault in the other, and allow that fault-finding to mature into hatred, and, eventually, act on that feeling to cause harm. Under the plea of avenging his sister's well-deserved death, Agha saw an opportunity to act on his seething hatred. Similarly, when we justify hatred or intolerance as righteous, we willingly plant a seed of cruelty within our hearts. The seed fructifies into a fast-growing weed, choking our ability to love, forgive, and grow.

 

Cruelty is such an insidious trait that Agha is also the Sanskrit word for "sin" itself. Bhaktivinode advises us to meditate on Krishna's entering into the mouth of Agha, and pray for him to likewise rush into our hearts and slay the agha of cruelty there, replacing it with the powers of tolerance and forgivingness. It may be frightening; we are never more vulnerable than when we choose to forgive. In such circumstances, we can also pray that Krishna award us the simple yet profound faith that his cowherd friends possessed, so that we may be as fearless as they were under his protection.

 

These are just a few of the many stories in the Bhagavata Purana of Krishna slaying demons. And like the demons in the stories I've recounted here, each of these enemies illustrates an obstacle to be overcome within us.

 

But, come on, the skeptic in me still asks. Is this stuff even relevant today?

 

As I type the end of this article, I listen to a radio broadcaster speak about the arrest of more than 20 would-be terrorists in the U.K. If they did what they are accused of doing, then these people almost murdered thousands of innocent men, women, and children. And they would have done it, on some skewed twisted level, in the name of religion, as an offering to God.

 

The radio announcer continues, mentioning that the U.S. Embassy is warning India of possible terrorist attacks in that country, especially on India's Independence Day, August 15th, and on August 16th--Janmashtami, a day when families will be gathered in worship, many recounting these same stories of Krishna, some still mourning a loved one lost to last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

 

Are there demons present today--actual, literal murderous beings? Perhaps. Perhaps they use their mystic powers to disguise themselves as masked bombers and hide in clandestine terrorist cells.

 

Following Bhaktivinode's analysis, though, the most treacherous demons may be hiding closer to home. Seated comfortably within our own hearts, they terrorize us from the inside out. Hypocrisy, pride, cruelty, envy--these are our 21st-century Putanas and Aghas. Yes, we glimpse them peeking out at us from the evening news. But we also might see them, if we try, in the face that stares back at us in the mirror. May Krishna grant us the courage to look hard enough.

[theist]

 

Yes. Here is why.

 

If you take the allegory position, then anything inside the Bhagavatam can be treated as allegory including events related to Krishna. Where do you draw the line and what is your qualification that you consider yourself capable of providing such categorization?

 

Due to the timing of your post and my having posted the letter from Srila Prabhupada to Krsnadasa showing that even Srila Prabhupada said the asura's head (rahu) chasing after chandraloka was allegorical and that we should not bother about the sometimes allegorical staements of the Bhagavatam, that is if they are right or wrong.

 

On Krsna please read my previous posts where I stated that I accept the Srimad Bhagavatam as the Literary Incarnation of Godhead. I believe that the Bhagavatam not only refers to Krsna but that Krsna Himself in the most literal way possible is present in the Srimad Bhagvatam, exatly like He is present as the Deity on the temple altar.

 

How can I tell if something is an allegory or not you ask? Please try to catch this; I don't try to figure it out. That is my point. Srila Prabhupada advizes us to not bother whether modern science is correct or if the Bhagavatam is correct. He instructs us to take the essence.

 

For instance I doubt the Varaha story as being literal. It could be true as written but I don't think so. Considering this I take no position on Varaha as being an incarnation or myth. Since there is no way for me to come to an understanding of the matter I will have to wait for the Lord to clue me in if He so chooses. I have no need to waste thoughts and time on trying to resolve it within my own mind or by trying to study archelogical evidence to proove it which is obviously impossible. So I file it and never obsess on it.

 

 

 

If you take the literalist position, then you are better off. There are things we do not understand like the billion followers. But as we are not qualified to dismiss selective portions of the text as unreal, we do not do that. We accept the situation as is - we do not understand certain portions of the text, but we do not dismiss them as false based on our limited understanding of life in Kali-yuga and use that knowledge to anaylze events from other yugas.

 

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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

OK, thanks for the clarification

 

I believe in all of it literally and with 100% certainty. The guest who wrote post #19 has summed it up very well. "If you take the allegory position, then anything inside the Bhagavatam can be treated as allegory including events related to Krishna. Where do you draw the line and what is your qualification that you consider yourself capable of providing such categorization?"

 

Also, other incidents such as Mother Yasoda looking into Krishna's mouth and seeing the whole universe. If the whole universe can fit in a little mouth, why not billions of soldiers on a much bigger tract of land?!

 

But ultimately, I agree that the objective should not be lost upon us. That is, surrender to the Supreme Personality in loving devotional service.

 

 

I thought I had explained that in the post you quoted itself. I have most often looked the other way on these issues for 35 years. During that time I can't count how many times I have heard from others that these issues, like the moon being farther from the sun etc., have caused a crisis of faith within them towards this process and even the Holy Name. There are internet debates/arguments all the time on the internet about this and I view it as a drag, as a distraction from Krsna consciousness.

 

So my hope in bringing it out into the open for discussion is to show that we can still take the essence truths in the SB without believing or disbelieving in the parts that are beyond our sense of feasibility. They simply are not that important.

 

As far as any wrath goes I don't fear it for myself but it makes for a dead end discussion. The pleasant surprise is I have only received mature responses. But I still want to hear from those that disagree with me so we can air it all out.

 

Literalists please make your case.

[theist]

Nice article, Krsna the demon slayer.

[theist]

Guestdet, it seems we were composing at the same time and some of your questions were addressed in my post.

 

I've got to run off for a Dr. exam and will have to play catch up this evening. I am hoping there will be even more devotees chiming in.

 

pranams

[Guest guest]

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?

 

 

Guestdet, it seems we were composing at the same time and some of your questions were addressed in my post.

 

I've got to run off for a Dr. exam and will have to play catch up this evening. I am hoping there will be even more devotees chiming in.

 

pranams