The philosophy of Thakur Bhaktivinode, broadcast by Srila Saraswati Thakur

The realizations Thakur Bhaktivinode expressed in his books have brought about a revolution in the thinking of great numbers of people around the world. Those ideas became widely known largely because of the efforts of Srila Saraswati Thakur, Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami, who broadcast the teachings of Thakur Bhaktivinode through the print media. Sadly, however, some of the teachings of Thakur Bhaktivinode have been minimised or even cast aside by leaders and Acharyas of some institutions, particularly where his thinking appears to contradict readings of scripture that are firmly established within those institutions.

In the opening paragraphs of the Introduction to his book Sri Krishna Samhita, we find Thakur Bhaktivinode explaining that many seemingly fantastic stories found in books such as Srimad Bhagavatam can seem fanciful to new readers. Ordinary people, particularly educated people, reject philosophies that require them to place blind faith in questionable ideas. An example of this is mentioned in The Bhagavata Lecture, where Thakur Bhaktivinode pointed out the hard-to-believe teaching that under our feet, beneath the Earth, there are hells where dead people are punished for their sins.

Bhaktivinode wrote: “Indeed, in some of the chapters (of the Bhagavata) we meet with descriptions of these hells and heavens, and accounts of curious tales, but we have been warned somewhere in the book not to accept them as real facts but as inventions to overawe the wicked and to improve the simple and ignorant.”

It is exactly this kind of thinking that Acharyas of some institutions reject.

When Thakur Bhaktivinode used expressions such as “poetic imagination” and “poetic inventions” in reference to statements found in scripture, he was not introducing a foreign idea. The Sanskrit literary concept of utpreksa, or poetic supposition, has been employed by important Vaishnava Acharyas to explain scriptural passages whose surface wording is not intended to be a straightforward statement of literal fact.

But beyond that, the unavoidable problem Vaishnavas need to face is this: if new readers of scripture are introduced to Krishna through stories that seem like fairy tales, new readers naturally begin to think Krishna is a fairy-tale character. A charismatic preacher might be able to amass crowds of followers willing to believe everything they are told because it is “the literal truth written in the Bhagavatam,” but that preacher is likely to soon discover that many of their disciples are not deep thinkers, but gullible. This is one matter to be considered. A second matter is that it becomes very difficult to speak meaningfully about Krishna to a newcomer who thinks Krishna exists only in the realm of fantasy. Many of the faithful who adhere to this form of faith are drawn to membership in the “Krishna-cult” because it provides them with a community to belong to. Then when they go home they will do anything and everything – they are not Vaishnavas.

For madhyam-adhikari Vaishnavas, that is to say, thoughtful and learned Vaishnavas, these issues are serious problems. The fact that many people think Krishna is a fantasy figure is not usually because newcomers tend to be faithless. Rather, the problem is being created by preachers of Krishna-bhakti themselves, through the art, cartoons, YouTube videos, and literature they produce, depicting Hanuman, Rama, and Krishna-lila in ways that automatically encourage people to think Krishna belongs to the world of fantasy.

It was precisely this problem that Thakur Bhaktivinode took great pains to address. After him, Srila Saraswati Thakur took up that same work, seeking to create genuine faith in the hearts of people rather than mere sentimental faith.

Indeed, some Gaudiyas feel troubled merely hearing that Thakur Bhaktivinode wrote what he wrote about “hells” in his Bhagavat Lecture. Those devotees who don’t like to hear that should pause for a moment and consider the fact that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was the publisher of that book, The Bhagavat Lecture. The book was published as a booklet, and in the pages of The Harmonist newspaper of Sri Gaudiya Math. Some would argue The Bhagavat Lecture is mere propaganda, not genuine Siddhanta. But Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur published that book and he NEVER said it was propaganda. Or that the ideas in The Bhagavat Lecture are wrong.

Sri Krishna Samhita poses additional problems for some devotees, the devotees who like to think that all the statements of Srimad Bhagavatam are meant to be taken as literal truths. Readers who feel this way should take note of the following words of Sri Bhakti Vilas Tirtha Maharaj at the beginning of the Fifth Edition of Sri Krishna Samhita, published in 1961:

“The sacred stream of pure devotion that now flows in the world has, as its mighty source, His Divine Grace Om Vishnupad Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. For those noble souls who, having firm faith in the Bhagavata-dharma, are endowed with discrimination and eagerness for devotional practice, the Thakur composed this Sri Krishna Samhita.”

Unfortunately, the current English language editions of Sri Krishna Samhita have all been translated by devotees whose translations are less than perfect. One translator (name withheld) provided readers with the statement below, in his translation of the Introduction of Sri Krishna Samhita

He purports that Bhaktivinode Thakur wrote:

“It is our duty to consider when and how Vaisnava-dharma has manifest in this country [India]. Before we consider this subject, however, there are many other subjects that have to be resolved. Therefore we will first resolve the dates, according to modern considerations, of the main events of India. Later we will ascertain the dates of the esteemed scriptures. As soon as the dates of the scriptures are ascertained, then I will explain, according to modern opinion, the history of Vaisnava-dharma that is explained in those scriptures. Although we ourselves consider the dates of the scriptures according to ancient methods, I will now follow contemporary methods for the benefit of modern people.”

This is the bengali text of the last sentence:

আমরা সাধারণত প্রাচীন পদ্ধতিতে কাল বিচার করি, কিন্তু বর্তমান লোকদের উপকারার্থে এই স্থলে আধুনিক পদ্ধতি অবলম্বন করিব।

amara sadharanata pracina paddhatite kala vicara kari, kintu vartamana lokadera upakararthe ei sthale adhunik paddhati avalambana kariba.

The translator gave us the phrase “we ourselves consider the dates of the scriptures according to ancient methods.” This translation includes the implication that Bhaktivinode Thakur did not agree with contemporary methods of dating scriptures. But this is not what the Thakur himself was saying.

He actually said is this:

“We generally determine historical periods according to the ancient method, but here, for the benefit of present-day readers, we shall adopt the modern method.”

Many devotees, perhaps the majority of devotees initiated in the Sampradaya of Thakur Bhaktivinode, are accustomed to thinking that statements in the Bhagavatam need to be taken “as is.” But in reality this way of thinking was rejected by Thakur Bhaktivinode. Instead, devotees need to be progressive, and thoughtful.

Thakur Bhaktivinode wrote:

“The souls of the great thinkers of the by-gone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our enquiring spirit and assist it in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma. 

“Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God’s revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of the 11th Skandha of the Bhagavat to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary, in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be. Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. 

“Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labours. It told him from inside “No, Vyasa! you can’t rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days! You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountain-head of truth where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind.

“Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.”