Won’t atheists use the concept of artistic license in depciting Krishna-lila to say that his supernatural pastimes are poetic exaggerations?

From Raja Parikshita Prabhu:
Answer Podcast:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna question from Raj Parikshit Prabhu isn’t the idea of artistic license an ammunition for atheists to say that Krishna’s supernatural pastimes are just an imagination that Krishna’s Krishna’s the lifting of the Govardhan Hill is just a artistic license that Krishna actually did not do that. In this way Krishna’s pastimes can be reduced entirely if if one takes the concept of artistic license answer yes, that can be a possibility but it’s not a necessity when we talk about artistic license, there are some fundamental principles that have to be kept in mind that there is the tattva and there is the rasa and that means in the tattva, that is the philosophical truth that Krishna is omnipotent and Krishna can do anything and that scripture does give us a broad record of Krishna’s activities now the rasa is that Krishna does his activities for the reciprocation of love for enhancing rasa between him and his devotees so now when these four principles are to be kept in mind then we see that the Govardhan Leela is firstly it’s according to the tattva definitely that Krishna can do anything so he can lift the Govardhan Hill also and further that from the rasa point of view actually we know that Krishna was able to reciprocate love with all different devotees in different rasas at the same time in the Govardhan Leela the devotees Akhya, Madhurya Vatsalya, all of them were there at that time under Govardhan Hill together so it was it is a unique it is a distinct flowering of all the rasas so it is fully according to tattva and rasa when when mundane scholars or atheists use the concept of poetic license or artistic license their foundational framework is different they don’t accept the as a foundation Krishna’s omnipotence instead the foundation that they accept is scientific acceptability according to the current fashionable notions of scientific acceptability so therefore according to that standard they evaluate and whatever they find is not acceptable then they try to reduce it to poetic license and then they dismiss it so for example yes atheists or mundane scholars can say that Krishna’s Govardhan Leela is just a poetic exaggeration but so what we should recognize is that we are not accepting their foundational reasoning or the foundation of their reasoning when we are giving room for artistic license so the difference between the atheistic approach and the devotee approach to artistic license is that the artistic license for devotees is based on a foundation of tattva and rasa whereas for the mundane scholars and atheists it is the notion of artistic license is based primarily on logic that draws from science or currently accepted science so because the foundations are different and it is not that when we accept the idea of artistic license we are we are accepting the entire structure of thought of the atheists so that’s why the way they use poetic license and the way we use artistic or poetic license are significantly different and we shouldn’t confuse these two and we shouldn’t think that we by including the concept of poetic license are actually rejecting the whole concept or except are buying into their concept of poetic license the concept of poetic license is not something which atheists have a monopoly over and their reasoning is different our reasoning is different and shastras do talk about artistic license and it is used by the great saints and we need to recognize that it is not the concept of artistic license is not a rejection of Krishna’s supernatural power it is just an accommodation of the human artistic impulse in the service of Krishna thank you