Question: I have heard that while killing Putana, Krishna closed His eyes. On this, various spotless Vaishnava Acharyas have written commentaries that differ from each other. One Acharya writes that Krishna closed His eyes so as not to see the heinous face of the infant-killer. Some other Acharya writes that because He was killing a female, He closed His eyes… and so on. (Krishna Book, Ch 6) So, how to understand this phenomenon?
Answer by Romapada Swami:
There is no difference of opinion among the authorized acharyas – rather each of them is disclosing their own confidential realizations and insights into the transcendental activities of the Lord, and all of these explanations are EQUALLY valid; they do not conflict with each other and most significantly they do not detract us from the direct meaning of the text.
The Supreme Lord is Unlimited, and all of His actions are unfathomably deep and meaningful. The Lord can fulfill many purposes through one action. Thus, in the specific example, you have cited of Krishna’s closing His eyes upon seeing Putana, all of the different explanations are equally true.
576) In fact different Acharyas give different commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita too! I understand that all Acharyas accept that “Surrender Unto Krishna” is the goal of the Bhagavad-Gita. Of that, I have no doubt. But, my question is that when Acharyas say things like “Krishna thought so and so”, then is this not mental speculation? For the same verse of the Bhagavad Gita, different Acharyas give different motivations behind Krishna’s speaking it.
Answer: There is a world of difference between these deeper insights given by the authorized representatives of the Lord as opposed to the artificial interpretations given by an academic scholar or philosopher. Mundane interpretation is that which detracts the reader from the direct, intended message of the text. To take a direct and explicit scriptural statement and screw out a different meaning, or impose an interpretation based on one’s own point of view – would be mental speculation and it is certainly reprehensible.
For example when Krishna says “Surrender unto Me”, the meaning is quite simple and straightforward, and there is no necessity for an interpretation that hints at quite the opposite conclusion: “It is not unto Krishna that we have to surrender, but to the Unborn within Him” — this is totally misleading, and in fact an insult to the original speaker. This was also Lord Caitanya’s contention that the aphorisms of Vedanta Sutra are clear and dazzling as the midday sun, ‘and when someone tries to give his own interpretations of the self-effulgent sunlike Vedanta-sutra, he attempts to cover this sun with the cloud of his imagination.’
Quite to the contrary, the transcendental insights given by the acharyas do not detract or diminish the direct meaning of Krishna’s words, but enhance the depth of our understanding and appreciation for the Lord’s instructions or activities. For example, a realized devotee can elaborate at great length on how to surrender to Krishna, the importance and benefits of surrendering to Krishna, or how feelingly Krishna promises His protection to the surrendered souls — from different angles and different levels of realization, according to the needs of the audience as well as the personal devotional mood of the acharya. In this case, evidently, the direct meaning of the text itself is conveyed as it is without changing or twisting. And rather than diverting us from the intended meaning, the purpose of the explanation is to actually take us closer to Krishna and His message.
This, indeed, is the duty and function of the spiritual master, who is regarded as the ‘confidential messenger’ of the Lord – not just for repeating the words of the Supreme Lord, but conveying intact the purpose and the mood of the message, the feelings of compassion and authority with which Krishna spoke this message to Arjuna. It is such a responsible task and the bona fide acharyas are NEVER whimsical or capricious in giving some invented opinion on what they ‘think’ Krishna’s intentions must be. Such acharyas are able to directly access within the core of their hearts the pastimes of Krishna and His inner feelings and thoughts by virtue of their unalloyed attachment to Him – just as even in this world one who deeply loves someone can understand the inner intentions of the beloved, for which others have no access — the acharyas are thus disclosing their spiritual revelation to us.
Once again, faithful representation of the message of parampara “as it is” is not exactly parrot-like repetition, but the ability to present the original purpose of the message with full realization and suitable for the understanding of the audience. Srila Prabhupada indicates how we can distinguish such realization from whimsical interpretation:
“(Sri Saunaka Rishi) stood up to congratulate Sri Suta Gosvami when he expressed his desire to present Srimad-Bhagavatam exactly as he heard it from Sukadeva Gosvami and also realized it personally. Personal realization does not mean that one should, out of vanity, attempt to show one’s own learning by trying to surpass the previous acharya. He must have full confidence in the previous acharya, and at the same time, he must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable manner. *The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization.*” (Cf. SB 1.4.1p) (We also discussed this principle in Digest 154)
Srila Prabhupada himself gave us innumerable explanations and insights to make the Vedic messages relevant to our modern context and understanding – he did this not as an academic exercise or as an attempt to surpass the previous acharyas; rather he did it simply as an authorized servant of the parampara, with full faith, dependence and the greatest respect for the previous acharyas, and with deep contemplation on how to make it accessible to the people of this age.
Prabhupada spoke at length against unnecessary meddling with scriptures in the name of interpretation, and also when interpretation is necessary:
“Just like “Call a spade a spade.” So if you call something else, that is a different thing. He’s not a spiritual master. Just like this is a watch. Everybody has called it a watch, and if I call it a spectacle, then what is the value of my being a spiritual master? I’m misleading. (laughter) It is a watch, that I must say. So when there is misinterpretation, he’s not a bona fide spiritual master. If I want to teach you how to see this watch, I can say that “This is called watch and this is called hand and this is called time indication; this is called…,” so that is nice… That intelligence you must have, who is a pseudo spiritual master or real spiritual master. Otherwise, you’ll be cheated…” (Ref. Lecture — Seattle, October 2, 1968)
“The example is given, where interpretation (is) required. It is said, an example given like, gangayam ghosha-pali, that “There is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali on the Ganges.” So then you can ask that “Ganga is water. How there is a neighborhood?” Then the interpretation: “Not on the Ganges water but on the bank.” Then interpretation. But when it is clear that “On the bank of the Ganges there is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali,” then where is (the need for) interpretation? Interpretation will be required when the meaning is not clear.” (Ref. Evening Darshana — May 9, 1977, Hrishikesh)
Thus, there is room and also the need for appropriate explanations and interpretations; indeed, without the aid of pure representatives of the Lord, how are we to penetrate into the deeper imports of Krishna’s messages or actions? When the text describes simply that Krishna closed His eyes, how are we to understand why He did so? The only caution is that we approach ‘the real spiritual master’ and not a mundane interpreter. How can we know the bona fide representative? By studying their life — a devotee of the Lord who is authorized and is truly faithful to Krishna, whose life is cent percent dedicated for the glorification of Krishna, without any personal agenda or ideology is able to transmit Krishna’s message as well as His mood, intact – not those who have no affiliation or appreciation for Krishna, and who take His Gita and use it to promote their own self-motivated doctrines while diverting our attention away from the original speaker, Krishna. Krishna discloses that He is the property of His devotee and thus we can gain access to Krishna only through His unalloyed devotees.
