If Bhagavatam and Mahabharata tell incidents from different perspectives are they histories or historical fictions?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question, how if Mahabharata and Bhagavatam say, tell the same story from different perspectives, then how do we counter the idea of the Indrologist that these are just historical fictions? Answer, the word Itihas is often translated as history. And that is a fine enough translation, but Itihas is not history in the modern sense of the world history.
See, in the modern sense of history, the modern sense actually came primarily in the post-Newtonian era, when history became more about facts and figures, dates and data basically. Prior to that, whether you look in India or whether you look in the West, for example, when Shakespeare retold some of Julius Caesar and other stories, or even before that, Homer wrote about the Greek historians, the purpose of the study of history was moral instruction. The purpose of study of history was never just a factual replication.
This happened, this happened, this happened, this happened. No, that was not the perfect focus. It is only now that there is very great emphasis on factual content that has come up now.
So, now, what do I mean by this emphasis on factual content? That if we consider even Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s timings, for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s time itself, there are significant differences between Chaitanya Bhagwat, Chaitanya Amrit, Chaitanya Mangal. I won’t go into the technicalities, but nobody took that very seriously. The post-Chaitanya era, all these commentaries were used and they were relished.
The point was the emphasis was never on whether you are literally accurate or not. The emphasis was on whether there is a particular rasa that is being conveyed, there is a particular lesson that is being taught, that lesson is being highlighted or not. So, similarly, when we talk about itihasas, the purpose of the itihasa is not to give literal facts in an absolutely factual, precise way.
The purpose is to present events in a way that convey a particular rasa, that teach a particular lesson. So, that purpose if we keep in mind, then we won’t get too caught in this whole issue of the factuality of scripture. So, for example, now, particular stories may be told in two different ways.
So, I’ll give you an example from a contemporary perspective. There was recently a survey about population, I think 2011 census or something like that, data was released. So, this is two newspapers, one reported as Muslim population growth rate, still the highest in India.
And the other same report was given by another newspaper, Muslim population growth rate decreases. Now, what does it mean? Actually, both are true. As compared to other religions, something like the Muslim population growth rate was 13 percent and others were 7 percent, 8 percent, 9 percent, something like that.
So, from 14 percent, so as compared to others, it was 13 percent and that is the highest. But as compared to the earlier 14 percent, it comes to 13 percent. So, depending on whether the newspaper’s agenda is to whip up religious frenzy or to bring it down, they may both emphasize different things.
This is, or another example I gave is that, sometimes you may say, if you want to promote a particular person, he had problems earlier, but he is steady now. If you want to put down the person, you may say, he is steady now, but he had problems earlier. So, it is a small change in order, but a big change in the emphasis.
So, like that, every communication has a certain intention to it. That is just the nature of communication. And that intention cannot be, and according to that intention, facts will be told.
So, the facts are not wrong over there. When, either way I say, he has problems now, but he had problems in the past, he is stable now, or he is stable now, but has problems in the past. In both cases, the facts are right, same only.
But the emphasis is so different as it may appear as if we are saying two contradictory things only. So, I would say that in different Puranas, depending on the particular purpose of that Purana, different facts will be presented with a particular intention. And accordingly, things may appear different.
Now, if you go into specifics, I am storing it It’s not just a matter of emphasis. The story itself is different. If that is the case, then we may have to look at Acharya’s commentaries.
It may be Kalpabhed, as Shanchiketa Upadhyay sometimes, two different Kalpas it has happened. So, we may go into specific details, but my point is that we focus on the purpose and see how a particular story serves a particular purpose. If we do that, then we won’t get caught in legalities.
Now, it is like this over here, it is like this over here. Getting caught in legalities just wastes time. It just wastes time and it doesn’t lead to anywhere.
Prabhupada in the first canto of Parbhupada, I think 1.10, in Parbhupada he says that there is a path given, how Krishna went from Dwaraka to, no, from Astinapur to Dwaraka. And then there in Parbhupada, Prabhupada says, geologists may try to retrace the path, but it is almost an impossible task because the surface of the earth keeps changing. And as far as we are concerned, we are simply satisfied that Krishna has come to Dwaraka and is going to perform pastimes now.
I would say, Prabhupada has in a purport said that. Don’t get into these things too much. So, I feel that way.
That is a matter of geography. Same way with matter of history. There may be specialists who may get into that, but I feel that we don’t have to make it a pressing issue in our preaching.
Now, mainstream preaching has to focus primarily on values, on inspiring people to practice certain values and inspiring them to become better devotees, better human beings, become elevated in their consciousness. For some people who are into the technical research, they can go into how the works. But others don’t need to do that.
Sure. Question from Devati Vallabh Prabhu.