[Advaita-l] Raslila

bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Fri Dec 16 00:56:36 CST 2005

Hare Krishna

However, the purANa-s are not historical in quite the same sense.

>  bhAgavata mahApurANa gives elaborated account on krishna janma & bAla
Lila..again dEvi bhAgavata also gives details about dEvi mahAtma...can we
say these are all mere allegorical concoction??

They can only be described as allegorical, metaphorical, etc. Things like
the samudra-ma.nthana,

>  if samudra maNthana is mere story..then neelakaNta, vishadhara names to
rUdra is meaningless...lakshmi mAta who born while churning is mere story
then. We are accepting hanumAn's samudra *laNghana* in ramAyaNa is real but
not samudra maNthana in purANa's...prabhuji, dont you think we are choosy

how SrI gaNeSa got the head of an elephant, etc
cannot really be taken as historical events.

>  We've accepted rAvaNa's ten heads in rAmAyaNa & kumbhakarNa & hanumAn's
gigantic body as real & historical event in rAmAyaNa, we have accepted
khAndava dahana, wax palace, ghatOdgaja's (bhImA's son) mAyAjAla etc. in
kurukshEtra ...I dont know what is the problem in accepting gaNEsha's
elephant head!!

Basically, I'm suggesting that the itihAsa-s are more "historical"
than the purANa-s.

>  honestly speaking,  I dont think there is an unanimously accepted
criteria to conclude like this...the parameters which you have chosen to
prove one is historical and another is mere allegory can be applied to
prove other way round!!  As a matter of fact both ItihAsa & purANa are
accepted as valid pramANa -s in darshana-s.

My few thoughts

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list