Adhunika Vada (again) - Discussion of Krishna Kirti article

Comments on the article "Shri Krishna Samhita and Iskcon's Future" by Krishna Kirti Das can be made here.

FWIW, I asked Satya Narayana about some of the modern challenges to the Bhagavatam. He responded that he would like to learn more about them when he had more time. I'd be interested in compiling a list of the primary arguments against the age and authorship of the Bhagavatam and presenting them to him--and anyone else open to the challenge--as his perspective should be quite interesting.

As far as the Rampant Literalist campaign goes, I'm glad to see the issues being discussed, even if the conclusions are a little wacky--"it's only for preaching," "there are many dimensions," etc. I once saw someone "defend" Prabhupada's japa tape using that one--when Prabhupada skips some names while chanting he was flipping thru to the spiritual world. (Personally, I don't think his japa needed defending. Just pointing out the convolutions people sometimes go to when defending their Truth.)

It has been a while since I've read the work Krishna-kirti is discussing, but I can offer a couple of quick thoughts.

First, the idea of adhunika vada is presented in the introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita. I think that it's better to be precise about this. I don't remember anything like this in sri Krishna Samhita proper.

Krishna-kirti is correct that Bhaktivinoda's purpose in writing that introduction was to try to renew or instill some faith in young Bengalis whose western "sophisitication" moved them to disregard anything that came from their own tradition. It may also be useful for presenting the Bhagavatam to Westerners, who would, due to their cultural conditioning, find some of the things discussed there exotic, quaint, and superstitious. Bhaktivinoda's idea is not, as Krishna-kirti points out, a way for practitioners whose faith is weakened by bad association, neglect, or aparadha to understand the Bhagavatam. He's suggesting it as one way to present the Bhagavatam to others, based on a saragrahi's perspective. Bhaktivinoda's point is not that the Bhagavatam is only 1,000 years old, or that it wasn't written by Vedavyasa; his point is that, even if you can't accept those, or that the moon is farther from the Earth than the sun, or that brahamanas killed Daksha and revived him by transplanting a goat's head, or whatever, don't worry about them. Why? Because the Bhagavatam is not about cosmology, mundane history,etc. It is about Krishna bhakti. He had faith that once someone understands the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam, he or she will be less concerned about whether or not some of the assertions or incidents in the Bhagavatam can be confirmed empirically or understood rationally. Krishna is, after all, adhokshaja, beyond empiricism and reason. We see that Bhaktivinoda's life became progressively one of traditional Gaudiya practice as he got older and, perhaps, as his bhajan deepened.

Anyway, that's my nickel's worth for now. More later, perhaps, when I get home and open up the book again.

Fast reply: The Krishna-samhita is full of allegorical interpretations, e.g. the killing of demons representing the destruction of anarthas.

I found this essay stimulating until I reached his conclusions. I have been thinking along similar lines recently.

I received a very liberal, Christian seminary education at the Graduate Theological Union (GTU) in Berkeley, CA. I was taught by Christian professors to look at the Bible and teachings of the church using the critical analytical method. To not accept everything at face value. These techniques were taught to those who were preparing to enter ordained ministry and preach the faith to the congregations. I feel this type of understanding of scripture gives a better perspective from which to preach. One is better able to see the gray areas in life and not be as heavy handed as a literal, fundamentalist may be. My internship mentor told me to always remember my "truth" was truth with a small "t." The GTU includes Protestants, Catholics and Jews who share a common understanding.

Some pastors try to bring some of this thinking to their congregations, while others feel this is too risky. However, the public is getting this knowledge from the Jesus Seminar, books and even television. I do not feel an enlightened, post-modern view of scripture and tradition is detrimental to devotion. I feel such an approach will help our preachers reach educated Westerners who are more open to this approach than "Believe it because it's in this old book and my guru said it's true." Therefore, I think it would be helpful for preachers to be conversant with such knowledge.

Also, it makes it difficult to make adjustments to the teachings and practices of devotion in order to adapt to various times and places when they are said to be writen by an incarnation of God or an eternally liberated soul who just popped in from the spiritual world to give us this message. If we can see the scriture authors and gurus as persons who are giving us their best understanding of spiritual life at the time they lived, and that it is up to us in each generation to further adapt and develop the teachings for current circumstances, we would be much better able to present a living faith rather than a dead faith that is stuck in the past.

Where can I get a copy of Shri Krishna Samhita?

So the question becomes of where does one's allegorical interpretation stop and bhakti begin or are the two inextricably woven? Can one seemlessly JosephCampbellize the Bhagavata with mythos throughout the world? And what then would keep Vaisnava siddhanta held as absolute statements of Truth from becoming statements of faith?

But then again, isn't it all about that "Govinda is just so beautiful and charming!"

In commenting on the adhunika-vAda in the context of those who have already set foot on the devotional path, the author writes:

I'd like to point out that one of my professors said that it is possible to return to a "second naivete" after doing an analytical study of the scriptures and theology. We can still relish the pastimes and chant the names and mantras blissfully. We can still bathe in the ocean of rasa for that is what's real. That's what keeps us going.

A myth "builds world." Whatever you can imagine is real on some level. With so many people imagining Goloka for so many years, it must be "real" for that reason alone if not for the reason that it is the eternally existing spiritual world. I'm staking my life (and the next) on that.

However, having a post-modern view of things allows me to discuss and teach bhakti without asking people to believe the unbelievable or do something that is deterimental to their life path.

Brief, but excellent.

"second naiveté" = "finding my inner kanistha"

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Interesting article. Personally it is hard for me to really "pick a side" in such a discussions as I believe you really need a very deep understanding of the author to have any real indication on what is the absolute message and inclination of the author. Without that relationship or innate understanding I believe, just as ISKCON does with Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami's writings, you can tend to shape the points to ones inclination as opposed to simply capture the message of the author. I can't claim to have such with Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

On the surface I think Babrhu's take seems reasonable. I would tend to defer to those who have a very rich background and relationship with Bhaktivinoda through either the total of his library and life as well as a direct relationship with those that were direct followers and associates of Bhaktivinoda. Of course this doesn't guarantee one to be correct in their assumptions or beliefs but I believe it would contain more of a context in which to form such an opinion. For example in reading Jagat’s piece on the authenticity of some of the works discovered by Bhaktivinoda’s work I am sure there may be some followers of Bhaktivinoda that may strongly disagree.

Personally I don’t have the psychological make up which encourages me to qualify each statement made in the Bhagavatam. There have been some areas in which I had/have struggled to reconcile to my experience but nothing major. Details, as critical as they may be to some, such as the actual age of the Bhagavatam, distance of the Sun or the exact number of bodyguards just never really occurred to me as something I needed to reconcile. I have the inclination to see scripture as a guide to the service of Sri Radhika and Krsna which allows room for areas in which we are not always fully comfortable as individuals are of course different which leads to different elements being attractive. So if and whn I run up against something which doesn’t jive I tend to write it off as being something beyond my method of reasoning. If it is something I deem as critical then I search out a better understanding from someone I have faith in but I must admit that is few and far between for me. All in all I tend to be very ‘simple’ in my faith which may hurt me at different points but it is what it is.

Jagat – what is your take on this point? Was this something ever discussed you’re your Guru and if so can you share his thoughts?

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Some time back I was on a business trip and spent a long night discussing philosophy with one of my business partners. He is a computer programmer with a background in Greek philosophy. (Interestingly, his thesis was on animal consciousness.) He made a point regarding faith that really struck me. He told me how impressed he was with several of the professors in the philosophy department but it wasn't till he starting interacting with them in his senior years that he realized that most of them were Christians. To him that was monumental--that they retained their faith while not being afraid to deal with the world of philosophy and science. It gave him an avenue to theism.

Isn't that a better approach than frantic attempts to scan all the science and pseudo-science around in an effort to find support for the sun being closer to the earth than the moon, carrots having greater consciousness than fish or whatever? Why seek absolutes in a relative world? Even if you prove some aspect the Vedas or whatever, how much influence will that ultimately have?