View source for Men have written with symbolism, pointed things out through symbolism all through the ages

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"men have written with symbolism, pointed things out through symbolism all through the ages"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Mangalavati}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|26Apr11}}
{{last|26Apr11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Men]]
[[Category:Have]]
[[Category:Write]]
[[Category:With]]
[[Category:Symbol]]
[[Category:Point Out]]
[[Category:Thing]]
[[Category:Through]]
[[Category:All]]
[[Category:Age - period of history]]
[[Category:Prabhupada Responding to Comments]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="General_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="11" parent="Lectures" text="General Lectures"><h3>General Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureSeattleOctober91968_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="23" link="Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968" link_text="Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968">
<div class="heading">If there is historical facts, do you take it as symbolism? Suppose somebody is describing the World War number two. Is it symbolism?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968|Lecture -- Seattle, October 9, 1968]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Young man (6): It has been suggested that perhaps the battlefield in the Bhagavad-gītā is the battlefield of Arjuna's mind, and Kṛṣṇa is trying to push him to go into battle against the forces of his senses, as characterized by Duryodhana. What do you think about that?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That means you think that battlefield is an imagination?</p>
<p>Young man (6): Well, that that, the battlefield is symbolic of Arjuna's mind, and that the forces that Kṛṣṇa is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Who is Kṛṣṇa? Who is Kṛṣṇa? Suppose Arjuna is talking with Kṛṣṇa. Then who is... Mind is Kṛṣṇa, you mean to say?</p>
<p>Young man (6): No. I mean to say that if the battlefield is symbolic of...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is... You give the example, "This is this symbol," "This is this symbol." What is the symbol of battlefield? That you do not know?</p>
<p>Young man (6): Are you saying that it should be taken literally?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no. What is your idea? You are putting question. Are you clear in your question? Or you are simply questioning without any clear idea? What is your position?</p>
<p>Young man (6): You mean what am I asking?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Young man (6): I'm asking if the battlefield in...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why you are asking that? Why that question is in your mind, the battlefield is imaginary?</p>
<p>Young man (6): Because that's what I read, and I wondered...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That means you are misled. You have no read very nicely.</p>
<p>Young man (6): Don't you think that perhaps it could be symbolic?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Young man (6): Men have written...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Not at all. (laughter) You have to... If you present symbolic, then you should give, "This is the symbol of this. This is the symbol of this." What is the symbol of battlefield? (pause) That means you are misled. Don't study all these nonsense. You'll be misled. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. The battlefield, Kurukṣetra-Kurukṣetra. It is dharmakṣetra-dharmakṣetra. Pāṇḍava—Pāṇḍava. We have explained in that way. Not that we have accepted battlefield is this or that. No.</p>
<p>Young man (6): But men have written with symbolism, pointed things out through symbolism all through the ages.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Why? Do you think any historical fact are symbolism?</p>
<p>Young man (6): Pardon me?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If there is historical facts, do you take it as symbolism? Suppose somebody is describing the World War number two. Is it symbolism?</p>
<p>Young man (6): (laughs) Well, I suppose not.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then? So similarly, this Bhagavad-gītā is described in the history of India, Mahābhārata. So how you can take it symbolism? Mahābhārata is the history. Mahā means great; great history of India, Mahābhārata. It is historical fact. How you can take a symbolism? Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā... (break) ...verse is dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre ([[Vanisource:BG 1.1|BG 1.1]]). (break) ...in the battlefield. That Kurukṣetra is still lying in India from very old time. So how you call it symbolism? And it is dharma-kṣetra. In the Vedic literature the injunction is kuru-kṣetre dharmam ācaret. And still people go to Kurukṣetra for religious, performing religious rituals. Still they go. That Kurukṣetra battlefield is there. It is being treated as the place of pilgrimage. How you can say that it is symbolic? This is all nonsense. Historical facts is still being, I mean to say, followed. The Pāṇḍavas, that is historical. Still there is one old fort. People say this fort belonged to the Pāṇḍavas. The Indraprastha, New Delhi is called Indraprastha. Everything is historical. How you take symbolical?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>