Should Puranas be taught as Theology or Mythology?

[Guest guest]

What is your opinion! Are the puranas meant to be taken literally? Why or why not? The Gaudiya Vaishnava branch does have theological discourse. But I've also seen it refered to as mythology. So which is it? In vaishnava religious schools how would it be taught, mythology or theology?

 

Vaishnava Theology

Krishnology

Hindu mythology

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Within Vaishnava schools they are always taught as theology as well as history.

[Guest guest]

The choice suggests theology cannot exist within mythology.

 

As far as history goes that is a different thing. Just watch how Sanatan Gosvami's Sri Brhad Bhagavatamrta will be treated as history by most. Were the Purana's also written as stories?

 

It doesn't matter to me if the truth comes to me in so-called accurate historical form or from the imagination of a realized soul. I consider the imagination of the realized soul to be absolute and the history from this phantasmagoria as fanciful even if correct.

 

Why can't Krsna advent Himself in the literarily through the mind of His devotee? Does that become less real somehow than if He actually walked on this mirage like image called Earth?

 

To label something as mythology is most often used by people that want to impose their mind's interpretation on to it.

 

The danger of emphasising the historical viewpoint is we can become emmeshed in trying to prove the Reality by uncovering facts that prove our point.

 

Is the Reality in the Bhagavad-gita dependent on finding artifacts that prove the battle of Kurukshtra actually took place as described?

 

Will we only believe in Krnsa if we find evidence of Dvaraka off some coast?

 

And if no such can be proven do we lose our faith?

 

There are grave dangers from either position.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"The choice suggests theology cannot exist within mythology."

 

Naturally. Theology is about belief in God, and how God actually relates to us. Mythology on the other hand, is perceived as a primitive way to explain our existence, but one that is creative, yet not necessarily true. Mythology has no basis in actual science or spirituality, it's just a creative story that has no basis on anything relatable to this world, either subtle or gross. It's just a story passed down from father to son, and has no true weight as far as reality is concerned.

 

 

"As far as history goes that is a different thing. Just watch how Sanatan Gosvami's Sri Brhad Bhagavatamrta will be treated as history by most. Were the Purana's also written as stories?"

 

Some probably were, some probably weren't. It's never a clear-cut case, and if there are alternate dimensions and planes of consciousness that truly exist, then they probably all were true in one plane of consciousness or another. However, that is dependent upon if there are actually other dimensions and other planes of consciousness. That is dependent upon if realized souls actually are realized and their experiences are valid. If not, then we are all deluded, and there truly is no reason for hope or life other than the fact we were born.

 

"It doesn't matter to me if the truth comes to me in so-called accurate historical form or from the imagination of a realized soul. I consider the imagination of the realized soul to be absolute and the history from this phantasmagoria as fanciful even if correct."

 

Why is that? Just what is your perception of what is Real? If you think willful delusion is Real, then there really is no point to anything is there? Everything is real simply because we wish it to be then. And then again, what is the qualification for a realized soul if all he writes turns out to be untrue as far as what is concerned with this world? Including his perception of Reality? He becomes nothing but a good writer who inspires others to live life.

 

Of course, I believe that realized souls are realized, and I do believe in different planes of consciousness and other dimensions. I've had enough experiences to at least believe that God is not some imaginary figure that we created to protect us from the harsh realities of this world.

 

"Why can't Krsna advent Himself in the literarily through the mind of His devotee? Does that become less real somehow than if He actually walked on this mirage like image called Earth?"

 

Yes, because then he has no real relation to this world other than as an idealistic conception. If he doesn't exist, after all, how could he have an actual relationship with anyone? As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

 

"To label something as mythology is most often used by people that want to impose their mind's interpretation on to it."

 

To a certain extent, that is true. But some stories are simply myth and cannot be discounted as anything but, since they have no basis in any natural laws, discovered or undiscovered (of course, if they're undiscovered, can't necessarily be dispelled as myth if they might violate KNOWN laws, yet are consistent with unknown laws. Well, they can, be counted as myth at least until there's some proof that the myth occurred or that it could have occurred). Of course, if thoughts create reality as we Hindus believe, then just about everything is truly real, although not necessarily relatable to this world. Unfortunately, not much we can do to prove or disprove this other than to follow the path and see the result at the end. But then, is that willful delusion all over again, or is that an honest search for Truth?

 

"The danger of emphasising the historical viewpoint is we can become emmeshed in trying to prove the Reality by uncovering facts that prove our point."

 

Don't you mean disprove? And if we disprove our point, it'll damage us emotionally, psychologically and spiritually (assuming there is such a thing as spirit). And if we live and let live, not caring to prove or disprove we can lead harmonious lives until our end, and never be the wiser for it. Of course, if your faith is so firm about your beliefs, you could also act on those firm beliefs and be gravely mistaken about them which ultimately ends up harming someone or yourself. It's a delicate balance that has to be walked between faith and disbelief.

 

And then again, what if the Christian viewpoint, God forbid, was true in totality, and we were following a "Satanic" religion? What if our moral compass was somehow skewed and we could not truly discern right from wrong as far as true religion is concerned? I'm talking about universally here, what if nobody had a true concept of right and wrong to determine truth from fiction as far as spirituality goes? Then we would suffer in the afterlife wouldn't we? Having history prove many of our religious stories as true or have some basis in truth gives us some reason for faith and conviction in something. You may not need it, but I do and I know lots of other people do.

 

"Is the Reality in the Bhagavad-gita dependent on finding artifacts that prove the battle of Kurukshtra actually took place as described?"

 

Depends on whether you're talking about allegorical reality or historical reality or spiritual reality. And yes, it still helps to have some basis in historical or scientific reality to provide us with some faith and conviction that we are following the right path.

 

"Will we only believe in Krnsa if we find evidence of Dvaraka off some coast?"

 

Honestly, if Krsna's just another name for God, then there's no need for evidence, since all we're doing is giving God a personality whether real or unreal, but if you're talking about the actual personality of God, and his need to help mankind, yes, there is a need for evidence.

 

"And if no such can be proven do we lose our faith?"

 

No, not necessarily, for some yes, for others not so much. But if such things are DISproven, then yes, I think many will lose their faith.

 

"There are grave dangers from either position."

 

In your opinion, willful ignorance seems to be the more pleasant alternative, and yet, I disagree with that position. We have to hang our hats on something, something tangible has to be there for us to believe in it. Blind faith is only good for fools.

 

As I've stated above, I still believe in Krsna, and many of the Puranic stories, etc. as allegory or historical reality in some plane of consciousness. The key issue is how can we prove it? And unfortunately it seems only subjective proof is possible and that is through yoga, bhakti, etc. In other words, follow the path you've chosen and you'll find out by the end.

[Guest guest]

"Why can't Krsna advent Himself in the literarily through the mind of His devotee? Does that become less real somehow than if He actually walked on this mirage like image called Earth?"

 

Yes, because then he has no real relation to this world other than as an idealistic conception.<<<

 

Idealistic conception? I did say through the mind of His devotee. Surely you are not suggesting that which comes from the mind of Krishna's devotee is just and idealistic conception.

 

You have misunderstood me on so many points that I feel it is not worth it to try to explain each one. I apologize for my not being able to express myself properly. However if you catch what I am saying above that may straighten some of the others out.

 

I have no need to make you see it my way. This can be a touchy subject in many peoples minds.

 

But since you said I chose to be delude rather than understand reality as it is perhaps you would explain that reality as it is in regards to the question at hand.

 

 

If he doesn't exist, after all, how could he have an actual relationship with anyone? As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

 

[Guest guest]

 

If he doesn't exist, after all, how could he have an actual relationship with anyone? As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

 

 

I wrote the post above but I did NOT write this line. How did it appear in my post?

 

[Guest guest]

The fourth post in this series is where the statement "If he doesn't exist..." first appears. This individual does not have the same IP address as you. The post that follows this one copied part of this post but you must not have edited this portion out. Here is the portion in its entirety:

 

"Yes, because then he has no real relation to this world other than as an idealistic conception. If he doesn't exist, after all, how could he have an actual relationship with anyone? As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. "

 

You responded to "Yes, because then he has no real relation to this world other than as an idealistic conception." but it would seem that you forgot to delete out:

 

"If he doesn't exist, after all, how could he have an actual relationship with anyone? As the saying goes, it takes two to tango."

[Guest guest]

Thanks. I see what I did now. I am now 54 and when you get past 50 senility becomes a worry. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Time for my brahmi and ginkgo tonic I think.

[theist]

I noticed this exchange from above and I think it merits further examination.

 

"As far as history goes that is a different thing. Just watch how Sanatan Gosvami's Sri Brhad Bhagavatamrta will be treated as history by most. Were the Purana's also written as stories?"

Some probably were, some probably weren't. It's never a clear-cut case, and if there are alternate dimensions and planes of consciousness that truly exist, then they probably all were true in one plane of consciousness or another....

So my question is how does one distinquish between them? If it is "never a clear-cut case" or they "probably all were true in one plane of consciousness or another" then how do you distinquish between them? You are certainly then are in no position to advise someone on either position, so how can you teach they are literal vs. stories or stories vs. literal.

So my position of making a non-decision doesn't seem like I am choosing to be deluded by ignorance but rather I am admitting the ignorance that deludes me instead of blinding throwing my faith in one direction or the other and then dogmatically and fraudulently teaching it to be the truth.

So I see my position as one of simply choosing to wait upon the Lord's revelation into my heart of the reality of the situation and until that comes I admit my ignorance

You say we need something tangible, well for me my position is tangible.

[akshar]

truthology

[Guest guest]

I believe them to be mythology. But that doesn't mean they don't contain some history. So we can learn from them but they cannot be taken literally. The Sruti's are more important to us. If you look at ALL the ancient cultures in the world (Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persian, etc) they all have mythology but which does contain some historical fact within them. So Indian mythology is no different.

But let's not forget in the case of the Itihasa (Ramayana and Mahabharata) these contain more historical fact as they are referred to as histories and they are written in poetry form, which means they contain similies, metaphors and allegories, so they are meant to be interpreted, rather than being taken word-for-word literally.