Did Bhaktivinoda Thakura give a nonliteral understanding of Bhagavatam cosmology and chronology just to appease his British audience?
Podcast:
Hare Krishna.
So the question is: Is the explanation of the Bhagavatam given basically for the British audience or only for the anglicized Bengali Bhadraloka audience?
I will address this in three broad points:
First, there is a hazard in trying to read the mind of an exalted soul beyond their words, and the humility required in any such approach. Bhaktinath Thakur did write that book, and he never retracted it. It did arouse controversy at the time, and he was ready to live with that controversy. In his autobiography, he mentions that nobody really understood the purpose of that book.
Since he persisted with it despite criticism, and none of the subsequent acharyas have explicitly said that the book was written simply to appease Western audiences, it is hazardous for any of us to claim definitively why he wrote it. We have a right to our opinions, but imposing them on others is objectionable.
So rather than saying “this is the right understanding,” we could say that this is also an understanding that has some basis in the tradition.
Moreover, when it came to depicting the planetarium and cosmology, even Prabhupada said to consult experts because it is not easy to depict these matters literally. I don’t see that a literal understanding is automatically the authoritative one, nor that a non-literal understanding is unauthorized.
When Bhaktinath Thakur spoke about those who get caught in literalism, I’m not sure he was referring only to the literal reading of Bhagavatam cosmology. He was also addressing sectarianism—those who get caught in externals of religious differences and do not progress spiritually. From my broad understanding, that was his primary concern. Of course, this also applies to chronology and cosmology, since that was part of what he discussed in his book.
Second, our purpose when approaching shastra (scripture) is clear: to learn how we can develop our consciousness, live a more meaningful and purposeful life, love Krishna, and ultimately attain Him. This is also the purpose of the shastra itself.
Prashid Maharaj, in the last seven days of his life, was not interested in earning a PhD in cosmology—his focus was on remembering Krishna and progressing towards Krishna. At the beginning of the Bhagavatam, the focus is also on remembering Krishna. It says that by reading it, our remembrance of Krishna can increase.
If that is the focus of the tradition, why should we get bogged down by other details? There are many things in the Bhagavatam that are difficult to understand, and it is impossible to have an exhaustive understanding of everything.
Third, devotees—even senior devotees—will often have differences in understanding theological matters and life. My understanding is that this is acceptable as long as two conditions are met:
- Devotees do not reject shastra when giving their interpretation.
- Devotees do not reject or condemn other devotees simply because they hold different interpretations, especially when those other understandings are also scripturally based, at least to some extent.
This is often where problems arise.
With these three points, I believe we can find space to have our own understanding of the difficult sections of the Bhagavatam, find interpretations that resonate with both our head and heart, and continue in our sincere pursuit of bhakti.
Thank you. Hare Krishna.