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: “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 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 will soon discover that many of their disciples are not deep thinkers, but simply 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 feel drawn to membership in the “Krishna-cult” because it provides them with a community they can belong to. A group of smiling, happy people. Then when they go home where they will do anything and everything – people who only believe that Krishna is “fantastic” 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 because newcomers tend to be faithless.

The problem is real, because the preachers of Krishna-bhakti themselves created the problem, through their art, cartoons, YouTube videos, and the literature they produce, depicting Hanuman, Rama, and Krishna-lila in ways that automatically encourage people to think Krishna belongs to the world of fantasy.

Thakur Bhaktivinode explicitly addressed the underlying problem. Thoughtful readers lose faith when fantastic stories are presented to them without an adequate explanation. Then following after him, Srila Saraswati Thakur took up that same work, seeking to create genuine faith in the hearts of people rather than simple sentimental faith.

Indeed, some Gaudiyas feel troubled merely by the hearing that Thakur Bhaktivinode described certain accounts of heavens and hells as ‘poetic inventions’ rather than literal facts. But Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur himself published Bhaktivinode’s Bhagavat Lecture, and never repudiated these statements.

Devotees who don’t like to hear about this should pause for a moment and consider the fact that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was the publisher of the book The Bhagavat Lecture. That book was published as a booklet by Sri Gaudiya Math, and again 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 himself published that book and he NEVER said it was false or propaganda. There is no refutation of the “modernist” thinking of Thakur Bhaktivinode. No suggestion, in the vast writings of Srila Saraswati Thakur, that the ideas in The Bhagavat Lecture are wrong.

Sri Krishna Samhita poses additional problems for devotees who believe that all statements of Srimad Bhagavatam are intended 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 can give the impression that Bhaktivinode Thakur regarded the ancient method as correct while adopting the contemporary method only for the sake of modern readers. But that implication is not present in the what Thakur Bhaktivinode actually wrote.

He in fact 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.”

In another place, the translator renders these English words as a translation of Bhaktivinode Thakur’s words:

“These explanations of transcendental characteristics and divisions of time were accepted in order to generate firm faith in such peoples’ minds. The great sages accept the existence of different Manus in order to benefit neophytes and check the fantasies created at various times and places. We will never say that history and the process of calculating time according to the scriptures is false or imaginary.”

These are the actual words, written in Bengali, that Thakur Bhaktivinode wrote:

ভারবাহী জনগণের পক্ষে অলৌকিক বর্ণন অনেক স্থানে উপকারী হয়। পূর্ব্বগত মহাজনদিগের প্রতি দৃঢ়বিশ্বাস জন্মাইবার জন্য অলৌকিক জীবন বর্ণন ও কালবিভাগ অবলম্বিত হইয়াছিল। মহর্ষিগণ কোমলশ্রদ্ধ ব্যক্তিগণের উপকারার্থে এবং দেশান্তরীয় মিথ্যা কালকল্পনা নিরস্ত করণাভিপ্রায়ে মন্বন্তরাদি কল্পনা খণ্ডন করেন নাই। কোমলশ্রদ্ধ পুরুষেরা এতদ্‌গ্রন্থের অধিকারী নহেন, এই জন্যই আমি সাহস পূর্ব্বক এরূপ অর্থ প্রকাশ করিলাম।

Translation:

“For those who tend to carry the burden of inherited traditions (bharavahi), descriptions of supernatural events are often beneficial. Accounts of extraordinary lives and traditional divisions of time were adopted in order to inspire firm faith in the great personalities of the past. For the benefit of persons of tender faith, and with the intention of countering false chronological conceptions current in other lands, the great sages did not reject such conceptions as the manvantaras. Persons of tender faith are not the intended readers of this book; for that reason, I have boldly presented this interpretation.”

Many devotees, perhaps the majority of devotees initiated in the Sampradaya of Thakur Bhaktivinode, strongly align with traditional beliefs, including the “traditional” understanding of the geography of this planet, Earth, that is presented in Srimad Bhagavatam.

Many devotees, perhaps the majority of senior devotees in the West, are accustomed to thinking the words of 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.”