Prabhupada does say that “Even in preparing the forms of the lord, there is individual taste.” In the Bhagavatam Krishna is said to be highly theatrical. I mean, look at Krishna. Krishna dressed in this real punk way. If you read the Mahabharata, they were totally punk- I don’t mean they had blue hair, they didn’t have spikes, or tongue rings or anything, but when Krishna, Bhima and Arjuna dressed up, they dressed in this really far out way and they went to city as kinda like young punks. They started Vandalism and tearing thing up. The Mahabharata say that they didn’t go in the main entrance- they just kinda went over one of the main hills and started ripping things apart and making their own road.
So Krishna is theatrical. What to speak of wearing Khakis or a polo shirt. Krishna comes as a HOG! If you want to talk about being- like… an incredible concept of come as you are. Think about it, here is Krishna- as we know- Krishna has this human life form- and yet he decides to come as a fish. Its like this supreme personality of surfer, Krishna, and he surf the waves of annihilation. I mean those are the biggest waves in the universe. So when Krishna comes to swim, he surfs the biggest waves. These are waves- of who knows- of millions of miles wide. Tiresome. And there he is as a fish, surfing these waves. Krishna comes as a tortoise, come on a tortoise? We are dealing with an extremely fun loving guy. I mean Krishna is god. It not like material hedonism- but Krishna is really really far out. He says “I am here for your party”. (laughter)

The way I put it is sometimes it is not that God is playing like Krishna, Krishna is sorta like playing like God, doing the God thing because some people need it. But he comes to this world and says, “OK I’ll be the God of religion, do your thing”.

Purusottma means “the ultimate guy”. So here he is the Purusottma, Krishna- he is a person- and he thinks “OK I am going to come down to the material world, and be a FISH”, “I am going to be a tortoise.” – “I am going to be a HOG”- Its very far out. So look at that we are dealing with: Krishna. He is this incredible creative, supremely theatrical, far out; I’ll do anything if I feel like it, Supreme Personality of Godhead.

It’s not as if there is a God who plays as if he is a teenager. He actually is a teenager. Otherwise you’d be left with this absurd implication or entailment- this absurd notion that Krishna is different from his body. The absurd notion that there is some essence of Krishna- that there is some divine essence of Krishna that is different from Krishna himself. That this essence of Krishna is in the body of this far out teenager. As we know Krishna is not different. This is in fact what Prabhupada says- he criticized that Dr. Radhakrishna, the highly learned clueless scholar- who said that- this referrers Man-manavo, it doesn’t refers to Krishna but to the unborn essence within Krishna. The idea there is some essential God that plays like Krishna is not our philosophy. Our Philosophy that Krishna really is God. Whether you like it or not- God really is a teenager. Live with it. That’s Krishna. He’s our guy. He’s young, He’s playful- that’s really him. It’s the other stuff that he is doing for our benefit. It is like He is agreeing to be the object of religion.

As far as I can understand there is no religion in the spiritual world. There are no temples. They don’t have formal religion in Krishnaloka, where people are attending services. They don’t practice anything. That’s the whole point. When you have the whole universe where no one is practicing anything, there is no formal religion. Religion as we know it is an instrument given by God- for our purification. Sadhana is religion. Religion means you practice religion, that’s sadhana-bhakti. But when you have a world where no one is practicing Sadhana-bhakti; no one is practicing anything. Everyone is just following their Raga.

The 7^th canto of the Bhavagatam Prahlad Maharaja simply says, Hearing should not be distracted from Krishna, or something like that, or something very simple but Prabhupada translates that one should not listen to cinema songs SB 7.9.40.

“Cinema Songs” is a very Indian expression. In England do they say “Cinema songs”? No it’s an Indian term, Cinema songs, from Bollywood… 1) Did Prahlad millions of years ago on another planet say cinema songs? That’s one question, the next question is 2) Does Prabhupada believe in a serious historical sense that Prahlad said Cinema songs? I don’t think he did… I think he is being kinda of tongue in cheek. Yesterday we were discussing the Indian sense or lack of sense of history, if you look at the Pre-Newtonian pre- Baconian (Pre-bacon, Sir Francis Bacon) look at the notion of historiography, What did people think about the writing of history before the scientific revelation? History was not the historical science, the notion that history should try to be a real science, and it’s something universities will spend their lives debating; which is essentially trivia. This is after Newton- everyone wanted to be the Newton of their field… Like I want to be the Newton of social studies, I want to be the Newton of history; I want to be the Newton of… so everyone wanted to be the Newton of their field…

This notion this notion of the thoroughly scientific historiography is modern. If you look at say, Virgil’s Aeneid which I think is a good example. Civilization. A Trojan prince somehow escaped the Trojan War which the Trojan’s lost, and somehow sailed around to North Africa. Then had an aborted disastrous love affair with some African queen that never got over it. And then finally came to Italy, and founded Rome. And it was all very glorious, there were all kinds of harbingers, prophetic signs, of this most glorious event of the founding of Rome. Is this real history, is this what really happened? No. There is no evidence that this really happened, but for the Roman people, it is like- this is so cool. This is such a great story, lets just run with this one because there was not this anxiety about we need to know exactly what happened, we needed to know every last little detail. They just didn’t have that anxiety. History was seen as a narrative art whose main purpose was to convey wisdom. So for the Romans I guess the highest wisdom was the glory of Rome.

Again, if you look at the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer- or the song of the Volga boatmen of Scandinavia it’s not an anxiety to scientifically understand the past and then preserve it. That’s not what they were doing. They always say you have to know history or otherwise you are doomed to repeat it. The historical lessons you really need to learn are the big ones it’s not in all the little details, it’s just the big lessons- for example- Hitler. That is you defeat a country in war and then impose upon the unreasonable sanction so they are driven to desperation you’re probably going to produce a radical enemy in the future. There are like certain basic lessons that you are going toned to learn. My point is that Prabhupada had the pre-Newtonian sense of historiography. Where there are certain basic facts, you’d have to get right- because it is a sacred lesson of Krishna, but the details are kind of, you can play with them. I think Prabhupada’s pre-Newtonian sense of Histiography is related to the fact that history is meant for wisdom. It is related to his translation style.

In my transcription service- I find nectar. What do you think of this quote by Hridayananda das Goswami?

“There is some truth in that Monty Python movie- The Holy Grail- where king Arthur sees the little hinge jawed God in the box that appears in the sky and Arthur looks away, God says “what are you doing?” Arthur replies- “I am averting my eyes, my Lord.” And God says, “will you stop groveling? I hate it when you grovel.” You know Prabhupada kinda said the same thing. There is a story in the Nectar of Devotion where Krishna says to one of his own sons, “Quit diverting you eyes. You can look at me”. Or maybe Monty Python read the Nectar of Devotion. Think of it. There is a tendency, in a lower state of religiosity, to take everything in the pompous formal awe-struck way.”