To what extent is metaphorical understanding of scripture acceptable or unacceptable?

Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Well.
Okay. So. How much you say what I spoke on.
Based on acharyas or is it contemporary understanding. And. Many people try to give allegorical understanding.
Of scripture where they don’t. They don’t focus on the point that it is historical. And some people say.
That this is actually not history. This is just allegory. So how do we respond to these.
Concerns. Okay. Madhvacharya.
In his brahma sutra bhashya. Says that the itihasas. Can be understood at three levels.
He talks about literal. Ethical. And metaphoric.
So literal means. This is what happened. And just hearing it.
Reciting it. Is purifying. About the Ramayana it is said that.
Just reciting the Ramayana. Can purify us. So literally this is how it happened.
Now we could say. Equate literal with historical. Now.
Actually the word literal. Is also. We could say a post Newtonian word.
What do you mean by that. That. Whenever history was told.
It’s only. In the modern scientific world view. That.
History is all about precise. Recapitulation of facts. In the past.
Whether it is India. Or if you say. Homer’s Odyssey or other books.
In the Greco-Roman tradition they were written. Even if you see Julius Caesar. What Shakespeare wrote.
The point of. Giving a historical narrative. Was not to just give a literal.
Replication of facts. The point of studying history. Was moral edification.
Was to learn. Something worthwhile from history. Of course I think Will Durant.
Was a famous historian said that. What we learn from history. Is that we don’t learn from history.
That is people keep committing the same mistakes. Again and again and again. But the point is.
That in the past. The focus was not so much on. Giving literal facts.
So are the scriptures. Historical. Of course.
But is that history in the same sense. As we talk about history today. Not necessary.
Nowadays history. Is simply about giving facts. The scriptures focus.
Is not on giving facts. Is not that they are not giving facts. The focus is on giving lessons.
Giving wisdom. And that’s why. We don’t.
Of course we don’t deny the historicity of scripture. But it is not that. Every single thing.
That is told in scripture. Has to necessarily be literal. Because scripture is poetry.
If you see the Bhagavad Gita. Is saying. That is 269.
Which says that. That which is night for all living beings. Is a day for self realized.
That which is day for all living beings. Is night for the self realized. Now day and night are the same.
For everyone. If you take it literally. Unless you want to say that.
All self realized people are in India. All materialistic people are in North America. So when it is day in India.
Night in North America. That would be quite a stretched interpretation. Isn’t it.
So here day and night are not literal. Day and night refer to. Area of knowledge and area of activity.
When can we see clearly. Where we are going to function actively. So there is definitely.
Poet artistic license. In scripture. Now we won’t go into which part is historical.
Which is not. But the principle is. Although scripture is history.
It is not like history in today’s world. It is history presented poetically. So if somebody says that.
There are poetic exaggerations. Or poetic. The word exaggeration is negative.
But Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Uses the word that. He says that the great poets.
Have glorified Krishna in various ways. Using figures of speech. Such as hyperbole.
The specific word in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Atishvayakti. Atishvayakti is hyperbole.
So now. We don’t say that. Everything in scripture is hyperbole.
But it is poetry. And. Poetry includes hyperbole.
But that is for a poetic purpose. So. That’s the first point.
When we say that it’s historical. It’s not history like it is right now. And getting caught in the pedantic debates.
Is it like this? Is it like that? We shouldn’t get too much caught in it. Now Prabhupada in the first canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam says that. Krishna has gone.
Returning from Hastinapur to Dwarka. And the Bhagavatam describes the path which he took. He went to this kingdom, this kingdom, this kingdom, this kingdom.
And then he comes. And he says that. Some historians may try to retrace the path of Krishna.
Which he took. It is the earth surface. Because of geology keeps changing constantly.
And retracing the path can be quite a difficult task. As far as we are concerned. We are simply satisfied.
That Krishna has reached Dwarka. And is going to perform pastimes with Dwarka devotees. So what is Prabhupada is focused.
This is not to deny the importance or the validity of some research into Krishna’s historicity. But the point is keep things in perspective. That is secondary.
The primary thing in studying the Ramayana, the Ramabhata is to learn the devotional and the ethical values where you can remember the Lord. So I am taking it from. It’s literal.
It’s historical. If you want to use the word historical. But it’s not just historical.
There are ethical lessons. The primary purpose of history in the past was to teach ethical lessons. What to do and what not to do.
And beyond that. It’s because it’s poetry. Some metaphorical things might also be there.
So what is the matter of concern. Especially for Srila Prabhupada was. When the metaphorical was used.
Not to supplement the historical. But to supplant the historical. To replace it.
So if somebody says the Kurukshetra war never took place. Kurukshetra just represents the body. You can say Kurukshetra represents the body.
And you can say that. Okay. The Kauravas more than the Pandavas.
Unholy desires are more than the holy desires. That is okay. But when somebody uses that to say Kurukshetra is not historical at all.
That is where Prabhupada’s strong concern was. Prabhupada also in his works. He is not very common.
But he has used metaphorical explanation. He has talked about how Devaki’s womb represents our heart. And how the first six children came and were killed.
Balram is the Guru coming in and cleaning the heart. And then Krishna appears over there. So we shouldn’t be paranoid about the metaphorical explanations.
But we shouldn’t make metaphorize everything. And certainly scripture itself is not to be metaphorized. There may be some things in the scripture which are metaphorical.
And what it is that can be specifically discussed. So that is I would say the balance of understanding that people who say that this is just poetic, myths. We don’t have to immediately go on the war path with them.
Understand where they are coming from. Yes, it is poetry. There may be exaggerations.
We don’t have to conceive that everything is an exaggeration. But ultimately our point is to get them to accept the wisdom. If somebody says I can’t believe that demons exist.
I am going to say that unless you believe that demons exist, you shouldn’t chant Hare Krishna. If you tell me I have to accept demons exist, I will not chant Hare Krishna. Better start chanting and then gradually as purification happens things will grow.
Prabhupada once asked that in Hawaii some devotees asked him. I was just in Hawaii a few months or two ago. So I was talking with a devotee who happened to be there at that time.
Some devotee said Prabhupada when we talk with the scholars and we tell the scholars that that in Dwaraka King Ugrasen had like astronomical number of bodyguards. They start laughing at us. They say that where did they all live? Where were their houses? Where were their toilets? How would they live? Now Prabhupada could have said that Krishna can do anything.
But Prabhupada chose a completely different time. Thousands of verses in the Bhagavatam did you find only that verse to talk about to people? The scholars? We have limited time with people and we want to give the most important message that we have. So we need to we don’t want to compromise but we don’t want to create confrontation also.
So somehow or the other inject the seed of Krishna Bhakti in people. So even if somebody is initially not ready to accept that this is all historic. If somebody is saying everything is mythological or metaphorical that’s a matter of consideration.
What do they mean by mythological? But if somebody just starts taking the principles and applying them gradually understanding will come. And as far as the explanations which I gave were they based on traditional commentaries? It depends on what we are talking about. In general Prabhupada said that realization means to present things in a way that is interesting to the audience.
So we take scriptural concepts and use contemporary examples to illustrate those concepts. So that now explicitly the idea of a mainframe computer may not be there in scripture. So that metaphor will not be there in scripture.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that that metaphor is not serving the purpose of scripture. The idea is that we need to not just get it right. We need to get it across.
If somebody comes and gives a perfect class in Sanskrit and nobody understands that class. You got everything right you got nothing across. Isn’t it? Prabhupada’s stress in general was on getting it across.
So for example in 15.6 Parpot The literal translation says that in that spiritual world there is no need for the spiritual world is not illuminated by sun, moon or electricity. That’s not there in the actual translation. Fire.
But Prabhupada adds electricity over there. Somebody who might be a very literalist again a literalist over there. Where is electricity over there? There is no electricity over here.
See the point is if you look at that verse this is 15.6 and the same thing comes later in 15.12 that Krishna is saying the same three placed objects He says that this world is illuminated by the sun, moon and fire and their capacity to illuminate comes from me. So the stress over there is to contrast the material and the spiritual world and to stress that the spiritual world is self effulgent. It doesn’t require any external source of illumination.
Now to get this point across most people live today in such an artificial world. There is some survey done that if you ask a 5 year old western child where does milk come from? It’s from the fridge. They don’t even know milk comes from a cow.
So for most people if you ask where does light come from? It comes from electricity. If there is no electricity, there is no light. If there is electricity, light comes.
So to convey the point that the spiritual world is not self effulgent it doesn’t depend on any external source of light. So Prabhupada to get that point across adds electricity over there. So what is he doing? The important thing is not just to get it right.
The important thing is to get it across. So as long as Prabhupada talks about realizing three things. He said first thing is that no unscrupulous meaning should be screwed out.
The purpose of the scripture should be served and the message should be presented in a way that is interesting to the audience. So as long as by giving certain examples, if people’s understanding of Krishna Bhakti, appreciation of Krishna Bhakti, interest to try to explore and practice Krishna Bhakti is increased then that is serving the purpose. So thank you very much.
Prabhupada ki Gaur Bhakta Vrindaki Dai Gaur Premanande Do we have books here