Re: Ramayana- A Real historic narration?
Pranams,
Originally Posted by
JayaRadhe
Exactly. He is using a metaphor, something often done in poetry.
No, He is listing His vibhUtis, as mentioned earlier in the chapter in BG 10.16. You are assuming that we must assume it is a metaphor without context to support it. My point is that the context clearly indicates that He is listing His vibhUtis, so we have a clear basis for employing a slightly non-literal interpretation of chapter 10. Whereas, in the other examples you mentioned, there is no contextual support given by the author for using a non-literal interpretation.
Where in the Bhagavatam is it specifically stated that its statements about the sun should be taken metaphorically? Since it doesn't expressly state that it is intended to be a metaphor, should we just accept it as literal fact that the sun is pulled by seven horses across the sky in a one-wheeled chariot, simply because the Bhagavatam states it?
The answer is, it does not give context to suggest that the statements were to be taken metaphorically. So, we are meant to believe that the author is describing a reality which we cannot perceive. Just FYI, the exact same astronomical paradigm is given in viShNu purANa which was authored by parAshara muni. The details are exactly the same, which is odd for something that we were supposed to just know was merely a poetic metaphor.
Also, the idea that the devas act in ways which cannot be perceived by the unpurified senses is mentioned in viShNu purAna 5.2.6.
Do you also find it ridiculous that Indra would command storm clouds to rain a deluge on the govardhana-puja, and therefore take it as merely a metaphor for a really bad storm that had nothing to do with the devas? Because, if you read the these astronomical descriptions carefully, it is evident that they drive home the point that all these natural phenomena are controlled by intelligent beings (devas), and that even these devas are minute sparks compared to the glory of Sri Krishna parabrahman. In other words, describing the astronomical phenomena as the work of servants of the Supreme Lord is an indirect way of further driving home His majesty and omnipotence. Claiming that they are metaphors is very contrary to the context of the statements. Please remember the opening verses of the Bhagavatam which state that the scripture will deal with the highest truth: dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam. Did you ever wonder what a "metaphor" whose purpose was to teach astronomy was doing in the Bhaagavatam? It makes no sense to say that the Bhaagavatam deals with the highest truth and then devote entire chapters to discussing time and astronomy. Unless, the point of those chapters is to emphasize how worshipable Bhagavaan is. The chapter on units of time does this by pointing out the immense life span of devas and then Brahmaa, and then pointing out that these are nothing compared to the Supreme Lord who is beyond time. And the chapter on astronomy does this by showing us that even the Lord's servants are immeasurably powerful and glorious, as they are involved in things like arranging the orbits, etc - yet even this is nothing compared to the greater power of the Lord Himself, which we cannot conceive of directly. But we can begin to understand it by understanding the immense powers of His servants in this world.
They are called Vanaras, which has been taken to mean many things, such as that they are men inhabiting the forest (vana-nara). It can also mean that they are animals like men (va-nara). Then again, of course, it can also mean monkey or ape (vanara).
See above for my opinion of the vanaras. As far as Jambavan is concerned, I already told you that I don't think he is a literal bear. I think the bear was a symbol of his clan or something along those lines. When Buddha is referred to as the Lion of the Shakyas, no one actually assumes he's a lion. Same for Jambavan. If you want to believe that Krishna married a talking bear's human daughter, go for it.
"vAnara" traditionally is understood to mean monkey. That the "vAnaras" in Raamaayanam were monkeys as opposed to human forest-dwellers is obvious from the descriptions of them as having tails. You may be aware for example that humans don't have tails. Hence, you cannot get away from the idea that the vAnaras are monkeys, and therefore you cannot get away from the idea that Jaambavaan was described as a bear in the very same context in which the creation of the monkeys was mentioned.
One of the most highly respected Vaishnava acharyas, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur in his commentary on the Bhagavatam, has said that no book is without its errors and we should not accept everything in any book simply because its author is highly esteemed. So, I'll go with what he said, since that is the only logical position in regards to the scriptures. Now, if you can find me a respectable acharya who has said to take absolutely everything that's not explicitly stated to be a metapor literally, then I'll take that into consideration.
The above statements are crass sectarianism at its worst. First, the "most highly respected" Bhaktivinod Thakur is actually only respected in the Gaudiya sampradaya, Bengal, and in ISKCON and its sister organizations. Hardly any Vaishnva Vedaantins outside these circles know much about him or even care to know. Second, he did not write a commentary on the Bhaagavatam. The comments you alluded to came from a work of his known as Sri Krishna-samhita, which he wrote as a way of bridging the gap between theistic Vaishnavas and nAstika academic scholars. Third, Bhaktivinod Thakur himself was employed by the British Government and grew up being heavily influenced by Christianity and Western thought - all of this is mentioned in his own biography and is not disputed by anyone. Of course, one can be a collaborator in an occupation and still repent, and that is not the point. The point is, there was historical context for him to say some very non-traditional things, whether they were really his views or merely for utilitarian purposes. There is no reason to take his opinion as an example of traditional Vaishnavism, while at the same time ignoring the followers of Raamaanuja, Madhva, et. al.
Where in the Bhagavatam does it say she's a human? The most literal way of looking at it would be to assume that she's also a bear, since, after all, her whole family are bears and she is a princess of bears. Since we have to accept everything at face-value, we should just accept that she was a bear and Lord Krishna married her and had ten bear-human sons with her.
The Bhaagavatam does not mention that she was a bear or a princess of bears. It only mentions that she was Jaambavaan's daughter. It does not say how exactly this could be; I gave two possible explanations previously. But the point is, Jaambavaan is traditionally understood to be a bear (and this is clearly confirmed in shAstra as quoted previously) and Jaambavatii is traditionally understood to be human (as is evident from the fact that she bore 10 sons to Sri Krishna).
Yes, it does state this. And, he also appeared as black rain cloud. He was actually a black rain cloud with twenty arms and ten heads.
No, the words used are "niila jiimuuta sannibhaH" which is clearly adjectival. Used as a substantive meaning that he transformed into a storm cloud would contradict the description that he was "dasha aasyo vi.mshati bhujo" (having 10 heads and 20 arms)
"Suspend disbelief"? So, we should just lie to ourselves when we read strange statements in the scriptures and not try to dig any deeper. We should read the Ramayana and the Bhagavatam in the exact same way we would read a fictional children's book by Rudyard Kipling. Anything, so long as you don't question it!
These are bizarre words, coming as they are from someone who rejects Manu-Samhita as a corrupted text of recent origin, and yet accepts without question the authority of Chaitanya Upanishad and the Bible.
regards,
Last edited by philosoraptor; 04 August 2012 at 09:41 PM.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Bookmarks