Xena's "Krishna" - To Glorify Or Condemn

[Guest guest]

Clearly some people do not understand the problem with Xena producers portraying Krishna as a fictional character. What they don't understand is that once Xena producers and Hollywood in general feel they have a green light to treat Krishna as a fictional character, putting words in His mouth, having him engage in fictional activities and so forth, then there is no limit to the words they'll be putting in His mouth and the activities they'll have Him engaging in.

 

The producers of Xena/Hercules and Universal Studios essentially want to do with Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva, that is the Supreme Lord and the demigods who are described in the Vedas, what they've done to the so-called "gods" of Greek mythology. For the past several years they've been having their heroes interact with the so-called Greek gods. Sometimes the Greek gods are being kind and good and are allies of the heroes, and sometimes the gods are portrayed as being envious, lustful, or whatever, and acting as the opponents of the heroes. It's all left up to the speculation and the whims of the writers and producers as to what they think will attract an audience.

 

Some so-called devotees have claimed that there is no harm in having Krishna treated as a fictional character and having words put into His mouth and having Him engaged in fictional activities, because somehow this will be good for society. They think that this will somehow make people Krishna conscious. Of course, just the opposite is true. People will "learn" through this mass media, through these TV shows, that Krishna is a mythical, fictional character on the level of Xena and Hercules.

 

Therefore, instead of concluding that devotees of Krishna are sober, intelligent people, viewers will automatically conclude that devotees of Krishna are no more intelligent than those who would worship Xena, Zeus, Hercules, or for that matter, Star Trek characters. (Remember "Heaven's Gate," a cult that developed around the Star Trek television series and which ended up with its followers committing suicide.)

 

It is essential that Hollywood get the message that devotees of Krishna will not accept the hijacking of Krishna's name and form and let them put whatever words they want into His mouth and have Him engage in whatever fictional activities they desire.

 

They need to know that Krishna is real, and even if they do not realize or believe that Krishna is real, they have to at least know that devotees of Krishna are real and that we will not stand for their treating Him as a fictional character without standing up for the reality of Krishna's existence.

 

Those who want to fictionalize Krishna are as bad as the worst of impersonalists in that they are claiming that Krishna does not really exist. To treat Krishna as a fictional character is to say that Krishna does not really exist. Therefore anyone who claims that it's no big deal for Krishna to be portrayed as a fictional character, with words being put into His mouth, is essentially rejecting the importance of preaching against impersonalism and atheism by our great Vaishnava acharyas. It is the duty of Vaishnava preachers to preach strongly against impersonalism and atheism, especially when those people directly claim that Krishna does not exist, i.e. that He is a fictional character.

 

Bhaktivinode dedicated decades of his life to challenging the sahajiya concept of Krishna as presented by low-class songsters, minstrels, dramatic performers, etc. And Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur continued to carry this torch, with which he scorched the mundane concepts of the Absolute Person Sri Krishna. And Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad's criticisms of impersonalists are legendary. And while I was with him in India (1970-1972) he turned down invitations to watch dramatic performances of Krishna lila because he knew they were not accurate.

 

Can we really believe such stalwart devotees would be happy that Krishna is being portrayed fictionally on public TV? Lord Chaitanya would not hear or read anything that even had rasabhasa or a mixture of conflicting rasas. He severely criticized Vallabhacharya, who wanted to present a wrong conception of Bhagwatam. Can we really accept that Lord Chaitanya would be thrilled that Krishna is being featured as a fictional character and that He gives His very easy darshan to scantily-clad persons who are not his devotees? That He is at their beck and call? Rubbish!

 

No one who is sincerely engaged in the loving service of Krishna would feel comfortable with, or consider positive, the portrayal of Krishna, their Supreme Beloved, their Supreme Friend, the most real person in all of existence, as being fictional, i.e. nonexistent or a figment of the imagination of superstitious, backward people.

 

And finally, devotees shouldn't see this as one isolated episode. We have to see this as a precedent. Essentially Xena and their crew are doing stories on India and yoga and so forth, and there is every indication that they plan to continue to do stories where they are treating Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva, Lord Brahma and Vedic philosophy, etc., as fictional – as nothing more than fodder for fictional stories for the fictional characters Xena and Hercules to be proven as heroes.

 

If we endorse and praise this, Xena and Hercules will become part of so-called Vedic mythology. And Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva will be fictionalized. One will be no more real than the other (i.e., Xena and Krishna). Either Xena's Krishna and her exploits will be considered to portray the real Krishna, or Krishna will be considered to be as unreal as the fictional Xena. We sincerely hope devotees will not let this happen.