Are scriptural descriptions of huge numbers of people in lilas literal?

So, now, Chaitanya Chakraborty, there are past times where it is said that all the three worlds were dancing and millions of people were there.
So, are such things to be taken literally or is it offensive if we don’t take them literally? First of all, you have to understand that many of the scriptures are poetic works. They are poetic form. And poetry has one particular form of figure of speech called as atishoyakti.
Atishoyakti is exaggeration. That’s a rough translation, but it’s a poetic ornament. We use the word exaggeration in a negative sense.
But actually, in poetry, atishoyakti is used to heighten the drama or the emotion that is to be conveyed. And in fact, Chaitanya Chakraborty himself quotes that Lord Chaitanya is saying that the Asadeva and the other great sages have described various past times with literary ornaments like atishoyakti. So, Chaitanya Chakraborty himself is saying that this is a literary ornament.
That literary ornaments have been used. So, now, which are the literary ornaments and which are the literal statements? How do we know the difference? First of all, we have to look at the acharyas. What do the acharyas say? Now, somehow in ISKCON, many devotees have a phobia for any non-literal statements.
But there are many non-literal statements in the scriptures. Prabhupada was very strong about reducing Kurukshetra to a metaphor and saying that the battle didn’t take place. But there are many places where non-literal statements are used by Prabhupada also.
For example, Prabhupada in the second initiation ceremony, where in the High Guru Prabhu got initiated. This is described in the Hare Krishna Explosion by High Guru Prabhu. So, he says that actually Prabhupada says that now that you are getting initiated, that means you are making Krishna the charioteer of the chariot of your life.
Now, in the battlefield of life, do not ever grieve. No matter what calamity comes in your life. What is Prabhupada doing over here? He is comparing life.
He is giving a metaphorical reading of the whole thing. So, the problem is not the metaphorical reading. The problem is the metaphorical reading replacing the literal reading.
We say the metaphorical reading can supplement, not supplant, literal reading. Supplement means I give some additional meaning. Supplant means replace it.
Bhakya Nathakur gives these metaphorical readings when he talks about what Krishna’s killing the demons represents. But he is not saying the pastimes didn’t occur. He says pastimes did occur, but they also have a significance in terms of what will happen in our heart, which particular anarthas will be killed.
So, first of all, we should not be paranoid about non-literal readings. Non-literal readings also are an important part. Madhvacharya describes in the Mahabharata Atthar Nirnay that the epics can be understood at three levels.
There is the literal, the ethical, and the metaphorical. Literal means that we just hear the pastimes and just hearing the pastimes will purify us because they are connected with the Lord. Ethical means we look at the issues and understand, okay, this decision was right, this decision was wrong.
We should act like this, we should not act like this. Ethical. And third is metaphorical.
Metaphorical means that we can also draw some metaphorical meanings from the pastimes. But as long as those metaphorical meanings don’t militate against the literal meanings. So, for example, we have the Lakshman Rekha that is drawn by Lakshman.
Now, we consider that metaphorically as referring to what? The guidelines, the protective instructions which are given by the spiritual master. When the devotee steps out of that, the devotee is carried away by illusion, just as Sita was abducted by Ravana. So, this is a metaphorical reading.
So, metaphorical readings have a rich history within the Vaishnava literature also. But what has happened is, what Vaishnava Prabhupada was very critical was, when the metaphorical readings are used to replace the literal readings. So, that’s with respect to, that’s one example of non-literal readings.
Now, another example of non-literal readings is, say, I’ll give two examples of this now. The first is from the scripture itself. Now, it is said Chitra Ketu had 10 million wives.
Now, is this a literal statement? Now, if we think about it, now some devotees, sometimes some devotees rake up this kind of statement and say, Krishna’s pastimes are Achinitya. They are inconceivable. This is not Krishna’s pastime.
This is a person who is not even a devotee, at least at that time. So, you know, we should not, there is one famous, very respected philosopher of Indian history, or rather historian of Indian philosophy. So, he says that this Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s philosophy, initially it is very good.
But afterwards, they use this concept of Achinitya to descend into illogicality. That means anything you can’t explain, call it Achinitya. Actually, I’ll go a little technical in this answer, because it’s a very important concept.
We cannot use Achinitya as an intellectual escape way. Achinitya has a very specific meaning. And in fact, Achinitya is very superior to Anirvachaniya.
Anirvachaniya is the philosophical category which is used by the Mayavadis. So, what is Anirvachaniya? Anirvachaniya is that which is indescribable. So, I have got a PowerPoint presentation on this.
If you don’t understand the specifics of this, just focus on the principle. What happens is the Mayavadis are always faced with this big question, if everything is Brahman, then where did Maya come from? Where did Mithya come from? And how did Brahman go into Mithya? So, initially they say that because we are in illusion, we can’t know that. So, that unknowability, Mayavadis, the unknowability of where illusion came from and how Brahman went into illusion, that unknowability they call as Anirvachaniya.
So, this Anirvachaniya is epistemological uncertainty. That means we cannot know it. But soon from epistemological uncertainty, they make Anirvachaniya an ontological category.
That means Anirvachaniya is like a box in which things exist. So, then they say this world is Anirvachaniya, the Jiva is Anirvachaniya, Maya is Anirvachaniya, everything becomes Anirvachaniya. So, Anirvachaniya, what happens is, first of all the Mayavadis, they impose their philosophy on scripture.
Scripture has statements about how we are one with God, but scripture also has statements about how we are different from God. They impose their philosophy on scripture, saying that we are all one with God. Now, their philosophy has some huge logical problems.
And to deal, to run, to evade their logical problems, they bring this illogical category called as Anirvachaniya. And anything that we can’t answer, they say it’s indescribable, Anirvachaniya. Now, the Vaishnavas, especially Gaudiya Vaishnavas, it’s a very different thing.
The Achintya, which is used by especially Yogaswami’s writings, what does he say? He says that scriptures say that God is a person. And scriptures talk about Brahman also being impersonal. So now, we, he says, when we start, we don’t impose our philosophy on scripture.
We look at what scripture says. Scripture contains both these statements. Now, how can something be both personal and impersonal? This is something which is almost impossible for us to understand.
And this impossibility to understand scriptural truth is what is Achintya. So, Achintya is not a device used to explain away illogicality. It is, Achintya is a device that is used to reconcile scriptural statements that are not reconcilable by the mental intellect.
Whereas, Anirvachaniya is what in Mayavada? It is to wish away, to explain away the problems in their philosophy. The big difference, I hope the difference is clear. One is a problem created by your philosophy and then a device created to deal with the problems.
Whereas the other, Achintya is what? We accept the authority of scripture and when the scriptural statements are not understandable to us, then we say that is because one of the features of the Supreme Lord is also Achintya. He is beyond human intelligence. So, in the case of Mayavada, what they say is beyond intelligence is not the Brahman.
It is the philosophy that is beyond intelligence, beyond human intelligence. Whereas, what we say is the scripture and the Lord who is beyond human intelligence. And that is why Achintya is there.
So, we should not use Achintya as an intellectual escape way for explaining, as a explanation for, as a one stop explanation for everything which is not explainable. The Acharyas have used a lot of philosophy to explain things also. So now, is, can, is Achintya a valid category to apply to 10 million wives of Chitraketu? Now, if we look at, so my point is some devotees, I have talked about Achintya, some devotees rake up such controversial figures from scripture and they say therefore you cannot understand scripture with logic and therefore you have to surrender.
Now, this is not the mood of scripture. Scripture actually appeals to our intelligence. Now, Arjuna asks intelligent question, Krishna gives intelligent answers.
When Arjuna asks Krishna, you know, how did you speak to the sun god? Krishnadeva says, Achintya. He says, Aparambhavato janma param janma vivasvata. So, scripture appeals to intelligence, scripture respects human intelligence and of course points out that there is some point in scripture which will be beyond human intelligence.
So, now, I will talk about Prabhupada’s approach and then I will come to this 10 million question. There is one devotee, now in the 10th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, he described that Maharaj Ugrasen had some astronomical number of bodyguards. So, there is one conversation, I think in Hawaii, some devotees come and ask Prabhupada, Prabhupada, when we talk with the scholars and we tell them that Ugrasen had his millions and millions and millions of bodyguards, they start laughing.
They say, how is it possible? Where would they live? Where were their toilets? How could it be possible? Now, at one level, for somebody who has faith in God’s potency, we can say that God, he can sustain millions of people on just one tip of needle or whatever, we can say that and that is good. But our goal is not just to communicate truths to those who have faith. We should be able to communicate our philosophy to those who don’t have faith also, so that they can develop faith.
So, what is Prabhupada’s answer over here? Prabhupada’s answer is, among the thousands of verses in the Bhagavatam, was that the only thing that you found to speak to scholars? Was that the thing you found to speak to scholars? That is not a very important point in the scripture. The central message of scripture is what? That we are meant to serve Krishna, we are souls and by spiritually loving Krishna, we are going to go back to Godhead. So, why rake up unnecessary controversies? So, all such figures, when we are preaching to new people, there is no need to bring such figures into the picture.
We have to speak in such a way. You see, one of the offences against the holy name is what? To instruct faithless people in the glories of the holy name. One understanding of this offence is that to instruct people in things in which they will not be able to put faith.
So, when we talk to people about things in which they will not be able to put faith, then actually we are committing an aparadha. Why? Because we are destroying those people’s spiritual prospects. Because they will start thinking, oh, these scriptures are all mythological, exaggerated, this, that, that and they will give up faith.
So, we have to present very intelligently. So, now coming to this 10 million wives of Chitraketu. So, then I had an elaborate discussion with several ISKCON scholars.
I am a part of a body of ISKCON scholars. So, I presented this question and I also came from this background where we have to take everything literally. So, I also said, you know, how do we understand this literally? So, this is a confidential scholar forum.
So, I won’t mention the names of the scholars, but they are all Prabhupada disciples, sannyasis, gurus. So, one of them said, where does Prabhupada say that we have to take it literally? Where does Prabhupada say we have to take 10 million wives literally? I said, the very fact that Prabhupada does not say anything contrary, doesn’t that mean we have to take it literally? Then we went over the full chapter and then at one particular place, it says, Prabhupada says, Chitraketu had tens and thousands of wives. Now, Prabhupada is saying tens and thousands, not tens of thousands.
That means tens and thousands means a large number. Tens of thousands would go towards the million figure. So, he says, Prabhupada is not going towards the literal figure very much.
And again, we have to look at the whole philosophical past tense context. Now, Chitraketu, Krishna, we can say, he had 16,000 wives and he described that he is God, he has the power to expand into so many forms and described specifically that he expanded into those forms also. Now, did Chitraketu have any mystic powers by which he could expand into so many forms? There is no description of anything like that.
It is not described that he had any mystic powers. In fact, we see that he did not even have any mystic power by which he could beget one son. So, certainly begetting a son does not require as mystic power as expanding into, say, 10 million forms, which actually even a very elevated yogi will be very difficult to do for him.
Another point is that it is said that Chitraketu, after he got a son through one of his wives, started neglecting his other wives. That means he was paying attention to his other wives earlier also. Now, for one person to be with 10 million wives, how is it possible? How much time? Even if he decides to spend one hour, one wife will get 10 million turns afterwards.
When will his wife get any time with him? So, now, there is nothing to indicate that Chitraketu had any extraordinary mystic powers. And most importantly, now whether this 10 million, if it is taken literally or non-literally, does it make any difference to the essential message of the past time? The essential message of the past time is not Chitraketu’s glory that he had 10 million lasses. The essential message of the past time is what? That in spite of having so many wives, he could not beget a child.
So, the point is that at the material level, one cannot be happy. And even after he got a child, then he lost his child and that is how again he became miserable. So, whether that figure 10 million is taken literally or non-literally, it makes no difference to the essential message of the past time.
And if you look at the overall context of past time, there are many reasons why one can take these figures non-literally. So, now, some hardline devotees may say, no, unless you get a specific praman that we should take it non-literally, we should not take it non-literally. Fine.
So, my attitude would be, we should leave this to individual devotees. I wouldn’t say that you have to take it literally, nor would I say we have to take it non-literally. This is not a very important point in the past.
And I would say that overall, whichever line somebody wants to go, one can defend that. And where the Acharyas have not taken a clear specific position on it, devotees can take varieties of positions based on other statements from scriptures, based on an understanding of the overall context of scripture. So, in general, things which we cannot explain with logic, things which are not very important within our philosophy, if we make them faith issues, if we make them faith issues, we will simply alienate intelligent people.
And we don’t have to do that. The scriptures have a very rational, reasonable, intelligent approach. They respect the human intelligence and they speak to intelligent people.
So, don’t make this into a faith issue. Now, with respect to Chaitanya describing, whether there were millions of people. Now, first thing is, when Krishna descends, it’s very different from Chintaketu’s pastime.
When Krishna descends, it’s possible that He can bring millions of people also. He has Chinta powers. Now, whether He did that in this specific occasion, we don’t know.
We have Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami’s statement. Now, Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami, you have to see that, he is a Vaishnavacharya writing to Vaishnavas. Not just Vaishnavas, he is writing to Gaudiya Vaishnavas, specifically.
And we have to understand his mood, his tone. Now, there is a statement in Chaitanya Charita Amritsar, which says that, if somebody accepts Krishna as Vishnu Tattva, but does not accept Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as Vishnu Tattva, then such a person will go to hell. Now, is this a philosophical statement? What about Sri Vaishnavas? What about Madhava Vaishnavas? Are they going to go to hell? We can’t expect them to accept Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as God.
And if we see inside the book, he deals with them very respectfully also. So, now, every scripture has statements which are made with particular moods. So, here, if you look at the overall context, the context is, he is condemning people who do not, he is through this statement, his primary purpose is not to condemn faithlessness, it is to inspire faithfulness among those who have accepted Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Don’t hesitate, accept Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, we should not make devotional statements into philosophical statements. We should not make statements which are conveying devotional emotion into philosophical statements.
So, for example, when Raghunatha Goswami is offered some little bit of buttermilk on a leaf that is brought from Sakistani, the place of Chandravali, what does he do? He throws it away. He says, we are from Radharani’s party. How can we take anything from Chandravali’s party? He throws it away.
Now, you may say, what kind of religious fanaticism is it? You know, you are worshipping the same Lord, same mood, same rasa, and still you cannot tolerate. Now, you know, we should not, this is something which is so spiritually exalted, we cannot bring it down to this level, where we talk about religious intolerance. That sort of statement indicates what? It indicates the intensity of the devotion and the intensity, statements about the intensity of the devotion, they are meant to, they are meant to convey the glory of the devotion.
We should not take them as philosophical statements and impose them on others. For devotees, Sakistani is also a very sacred place, because Chandravali is also a very exalted devotee. In fact, Jiva Goswami describes that Chandravali is actually Rukmini Devi and Radharani is Satyabhama.
So, Rukmini Devi is a very important, is actually the consort of the Lord. So, we cannot minimize Chandravali also. So, important point is that we should not take statements which are made in a devotional mood as philosophical, factual statements.
So, they are meant to inspire single-mindedness in devotion. So, for example, suppose, you know, a patient goes to a doctor and the patient is doctor, doctor says, okay, this is your disease and take this to get cured. Now, the patients are saying, but I went to that doctor and the doctor said, do this.
I went to that doctor and doctor said, do this. I went to that doctor and that doctor said, do this. Now, that doctor will say, just forget what all other doctors have told you and just take this medicine, you’ll become cured.
Now, when he says this and the doctor says it, it doesn’t mean the doctor is saying all those other doctors are bogus. All that he is saying is, right now for you, you don’t have to bother about what all other doctors have said. Just take this medicine, you’ll become cured.
So, similarly, when Krishna Das Goswami is saying that, actually, you should not, except Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is God, don’t bother about other incarnations. What does it mean? It is not that there are no other incarnations. It is that you have already come to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
It’s like this patient has already come to the doctor. Now, except the doctor, put faith in Lord Chaitanya and then you will become elevated. So, these statements, they are a part of poetry.
So, they may or may not be taken literally depending on the mood, depending on the understanding and the disposition of different devotees. Any other questions, quickly?