It is a wonder how great scholars, who are so honest in their interpretations, sincerely believe that the Purana definitely speaks only about the school of thought that they belong to! One reason for this might be that we can rarely go beyond the sect we are loyal to, beyond the limitations of the way of thinking with which we are familiar. We are guided by our own convictions and prejudices, and this distorts our vision and limits our power of seeing things. Our difficulty is we want to always have a logically consistent view. According to this view ‘A’ and ‘not A’ must be opposite. These oppositions can never meet, much like light and darkness. When we see various other commentaries — not just of this Purana but also of other texts like the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahma Sutra, and the Upanishads — we find the same problem. The Upanishads, on the whole, stand for the idea of non duality. Copious passages can be cited to that effect. Yet, there are commentators of dualist schools who have tried to interpret even purely Advaitic passages according to their own sectarian faith.
Explanation -
This passage is talking about how people, even well-meaning scholars, often interpret ancient texts, like the Puranas or the Upanishads, in ways that fit their own beliefs and views.
Key points:
Scholars' Biases: Scholars who study these ancient texts can be very sincere and honest in their interpretations, but they often read the texts through the lens of their own personal beliefs. For example, if a scholar follows a particular school of thought (like dualism or non-dualism), they might see the text as supporting only their viewpoint, even if that’s not the intention of the text itself.
Example: Imagine someone who loves a certain sports team. Every time they watch a game, they only see things that support their team winning, even if the game is actually fair and balanced. Similarly, scholars might interpret ancient texts only in ways that support their own view.
Limitation of Thinking: The reason for this is that people are often limited by the way they think and the beliefs they are familiar with. It’s hard for anyone to look beyond the beliefs or ideas they are attached to, so they interpret everything through that narrow lens.
Example: If you always think that only one type of food is healthy, you might ignore other healthy foods, even if they’re right in front of you.
Desire for Logical Consistency: People often want everything to make sense in a logical, consistent way. This means they believe that two things that seem opposite (like light and darkness) can never be true at the same time. They try to fit their interpretations into a neat, logical framework, which can sometimes distort the true meaning of things.
Example: It’s like saying, “The sky is blue, so it can’t also be cloudy,” when, in reality, the sky can be both blue and cloudy at the same time.
Dualism vs. Non-Dualism: The passage gives the example of the Upanishads, which generally teach non-duality (the idea that everything is interconnected and not separate). However, some scholars who follow a dualist (or "two things are separate") view try to reinterpret even non-dual teachings in a way that supports their own beliefs.
Example: It's like reading a book about teamwork and interpreting it to say that only one person can succeed, even though the book clearly says that success is about working together.
In short, the passage is saying that people often interpret ancient texts in ways that fit their personal beliefs and prejudices, which can lead to distorted or biased understandings.
Therefore, it is no wonder that in the Bhagavata, which is
so full of sweet expressions of bhakti, dualistic commentators will find
Advaita a jarring note. They either misinterpret such verses by distorting their
significance or say that such shlokas are meant for people who are not yet fit
to follow the path of bhakti. Such interpretations are there. That is why we
need an interpreter who will interpret without any bias, preconception, or
prejudice. There are verses in this Purana that are to be interpreted according
to the beliefs of the bhakti path and there are slokas which can be subscribed
to only by those who believe in an ultimate Principle.
Explanation:
This passage is talking about how different people interpret religious texts in different ways, depending on their own beliefs.
Key points:
Bhagavata's Dual Appeal: The Bhagavata is full of beautiful expressions of devotion (bhakti), but people with different beliefs will see it differently. For example, those who follow a dualistic view (believing that God and the individual are separate) might not agree with the non-dual teachings (the belief that everything is one) in the text. They may find these non-dual ideas confusing or even wrong.
Example: Imagine a book about friendship where one person says, "True friends are like two different people who support each other," while another person reads the same book and thinks, "True friends are really just one person." The second person might find the first idea strange, because it doesn’t fit with their view of friendship.
Misinterpretation of Verses: These dualistic commentators might try to twist the meaning of certain verses in the Bhagavata. They either change the meaning or say those verses are only for people who are not yet ready to fully understand the devotion path (bhakti).
Example: If a teacher explains that everyone should share, someone who believes in keeping things separate might twist that idea and say, "This is only for people who are not yet ready for individual success."
Need for an Unbiased Interpreter: The passage suggests that we need someone to interpret these texts without any personal biases or prejudices, someone who can see the meaning clearly without being influenced by their own beliefs.
Example: Imagine a judge who must decide who is right in a case. If the judge is fair and doesn’t have any personal attachment to either side, they will make a balanced decision. But if the judge has a favorite side, they might make an unfair decision.
Different Interpretations: The text has verses that can be interpreted in different ways. Some verses are meant to be understood by those who believe in devotion (bhakti), and others may be more for those who believe in the ultimate oneness of all things (like the non-dualists).
Example: A teacher might give different advice to different students. One student might need advice on being kind to others, while another needs advice on finding inner peace. Both are important, but each is suited to the person’s needs.
In short, this passage is saying that people interpret religious texts based on their own beliefs, and sometimes this leads to misinterpretation. To truly understand the text, we need an unbiased, open-minded interpreter who can explain the verses in their true, intended meaning.
God is omnipotent. He transforms himself, through his power
of maya, into various forms — from Brahma the Creator to the blade of grass, abrahma-stamba-paryanta.
But, according to the Bhagavata, there are two kinds of maya. One is guṇa maya
and the other atma maya. Guna maya consists of the three guṇas: sattva, rajas,
and tamas; with the help of these God creates the diverse things in the universe.
But there is another kind of maya called atma maya, his ‘own maya’, with the
help of which he assumes different forms. And these forms are not illusory.
They are all truly divine forms. The world may be an illusion but not the
different forms of God. The one confounds and confuses, the other helps devotees
enjoy the bliss of God in various ways. These distinctions are accepted by the
bhakti cult. But a sadhaka following the path of knowledge will never subscribe
to such views. For him, there is only one Reality, and that is non dual. That
is the difficulty. We are thus taking extreme views and never thinking of the
consistency that may be found in these apparently conflicting ideas. The idea
that God is formless appears contrary to the idea that God is
with form. If one is true, the other must be false. With such an
attitude aspirants can never have any exchange of ideas and their growth
will be stunted.
Explanation:
This passage is explaining different views about how God works and how people see God in different ways, depending on their beliefs.
Key points:
God’s Power and Forms: God is all-powerful and can change himself into many forms, from the creator of the universe (Brahma) to something as small as a blade of grass. This ability of God to transform himself is called maya.
Example: Imagine a magician who can change into many different shapes—like a lion, a bird, or a tree—using magic. The magician has the power to transform, but the transformations are all part of his ability.
Two Types of Maya: According to the Bhagavata, God’s maya (his power to transform) can be of two types:
- Guṇa Maya: This is the type of maya that works through the three qualities (guṇas) of nature:
- Sattva (goodness, purity),
- Rajas (passion, action),
- Tamas (darkness, ignorance). With these qualities, God creates all the things in the universe.
- Atma Maya: This is God’s "own" maya, through which He assumes different divine forms. These forms are not illusions—they are real and truly divine, but the world itself may be an illusion.
Example: Imagine a clay artist who shapes many forms out of clay. The forms are real and made by the artist’s skill, but the clay itself might be a simple material that doesn't last forever.
- Guṇa Maya: This is the type of maya that works through the three qualities (guṇas) of nature:
Difference Between the Two Mayas:
- Guṇa Maya is about the creation of the universe and the diversity of things in it, which is seen as an illusion or temporary.
- Atma Maya is about the real, divine forms that God takes to help people connect with Him and experience His presence. These forms are not illusions but are truly divine.
Example: A shadow of a tree might be an illusion (it’s not the actual tree), but the tree itself is real. Similarly, God’s forms (like those of a deity or a divine figure) are real, unlike the illusion of the world itself.
Bhakti vs. Knowledge Path:
- The bhakti (devotion) path accepts these two types of maya and sees God's forms as real and helpful for connecting with God.
- However, someone following the path of knowledge (like in non-dualism) believes there is only one ultimate reality and sees all forms as illusions. For them, God must be formless and everything else is just part of a single reality.
Example: One person might love a picture of their favorite hero because it helps them feel close to the hero, while another person might argue that the picture is just paper and ink, and the true hero is beyond any form.
The Problem of Conflicting Views:
- The difficulty comes when people take extreme views. One side might say God has no form (formless God), while the other side says God takes many forms (with form). Both views seem to conflict, but the passage is suggesting that we should try to understand how these different views might actually fit together.
Example: Think of a book that says both "the sun rises in the east" and "the sun is everywhere, even though we see it rise in the east." These seem like different ideas, but they might both be true in different ways—one is about perspective, and the other is about a larger truth.
The Importance of Open-mindedness: If people only focus on one side of the argument and refuse to listen to the other, their understanding will be limited. To grow, we need to think about how different ideas can fit together, even if they seem contradictory at first.
Example: If two students argue whether their favorite sports team is the best, without listening to each other’s reasons, they’ll never learn from each other. But if they listen and try to understand both sides, they might see new ways of thinking about the game.
In summary: The passage explains that people can have different beliefs about God—whether God is formless or has many forms. These different views might seem contradictory, but they can be understood in different ways depending on the path (devotion or knowledge) someone follows. To truly grow, we need to be open to different perspectives instead of sticking to extreme, conflicting views.