When everything in The Vedas is said to be true, how can we interpret some Vedic statements to be non-literal?

There is one statement that says that whatever is written in the Vedas has to be taken as truth. Either you like it or you don’t like it. So I tried to understand in the Srila Bhaktivinoda Goswami’s statement and Srila Prabhupada in which take it literally and the other one, it’s not that important.

See, actually whatever is written has to be taken as truth. That is, there is a statement like that. At the same time, there is a clear understanding of context.

So for example, in the Bhagavad Gita itself, in 2.17, Krishna says, avinashita tad viddhi, that the soul cannot be destroyed. The soul is indestructible. And yet, in the same Bhagavad Gita, in the 16th chapter, 9th verse, 16th chapter, 21st verse, Krishna says that these things will destroy your soul.

etam drstim avashtabhyah nashtatmano alpabuddhaya This will destroy your soul. or trividham narkasyedam dvaram nashanam atmana So these will, these are soul destroyers. So now there is just no way both of these statements can be taken literally and they will be true.

So then we have to look at the bigger picture. So what is Krishna saying? That here, it’s non-literal. That Krishna is saying the soul’s spiritual tendency, the soul’s spiritual awareness, that will be destroyed.

So we have to look at the context. And that’s why, while shabda is the highest, but pratyaksha and anumana are also required. Jiva Goswami gives the example of Sandarbhas, that if somebody says that he lives, ganga abhyam graha, that his house is on the Ganga, then nobody can have his house on the Ganga, unless we are going to make a whole stretch of imagination and say this person is a mystic yogi who has built a house which floats on the Ganga.

This is a way to tell me to finish the class, no? So, the thing is that we have to use our intelligence. So pratyaksha and anumana, by pratyaksha, we know that there cannot be any house on the Ganga. Then it means it’s on the banks of the Ganga.

So we have to, Prabhupada said we have to make, we don’t want to do mental speculation, but philosophical speculation is required. So, there are clearly sections in the Bhagavatam, which are in the scriptures, which just cannot be taken literally. So, I would say it is, that’s why studying scripture requires faith, but it also requires intelligence.

And if it were only based on faith, just take it literally true, everything as it is, then why do we even need commentators? Just, this is it, that’s all there is. In fact, that is one of the big split between the Catholics and the Protestants. Some of the Protestants say that the scripture is self-evident, we don’t need any commentary.

But then when it’s self-evident, which part are you going to accept? Because even in the Bible also there are contradictory statements. So we need an approach. That’s why when we would say, whatever is said in scripture is true, that is true.

But there are two ways to approach. One is with faith, and the other is with intelligence. And both are important.

It is not only faith. If you have only faith, you can become fanatical. If we have only intelligence, we will become sceptical or even cynical.

So we don’t want to go in either directions. We want to have a balance of faith and intelligence.