Question: I believe that Gītā and Bhāgavatam are the essence of knowledge, but I am not capable of applying them in my life. I read them as stories. What should I do to be able to see the lessons there and apply them in my personal life? What is the minimum practice for moving forward spiritually? I notice two sides of myself. I would like to be Kṛṣṇa’s friend. To play and joke with Him seems to be the sweetest idea. But at the same time, we have all these rules to follow, such as to behave respectfully and worship Him. Therefore, it seems as if there are two Kṛṣṇas. One is the great, almighty Lord, the Father to whom I pray not to forget me, to lead me through my life, and to allow me to remember Him. The other Kṛṣṇa is the dearest friend with whom I would like to play, whose company I miss very much, and whose games I want to participate in so much. How do I reconcile these two aspects? Or is it my ignorance that I consider Him my dearest friend with whom I would like to play? Answer: If you want to apply the teachings in your practical life, there are only two possibilities. 1. You have the wisdom to apply them by reading the books yourself. 2. You learn them from someone who has such wisdom. Kṛṣṇa is a great friend. But to be His friend, you must be great like Him. Friendship is between equals. You may be missing a good friend in your life and thus feel attracted to Kṛṣṇa as a friend. That is fine. But the fact is that He is not available to you to play with right now. First, you need to reach Him. All the rules and regulations - worship, etc. - are to come to that point. Otherwise, anyone can say that he is a friend. He loves to play with Kṛṣṇa. But you have to consider if Kṛśṇa wants to play with you. Such thinking is just one’s own imagination, and it may feel good. But is it a reality? Question: In your book, “Pearls of Wisdom”, you state that the Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta of Sanātana Gosvāmī is kāvya, not an actual līlā that occurred. How do we distinguish kāvya from śāstra? Can we say that the Rāmcaritamānasa is kāvya too, in the same category as a work like Śiśupāla-vadha? If so, can’t we then say that the Bhāgavatam and Vālmīki Rāmāyana are merely kāvyas and not actual historical works? What then stops us from relegating our śāstra to mere allegorical or literary works, as Western scholars do? Answer: Kāvya can be śāstra; I did not say that it is not śāstra. Kāvya means a creation of a kavi, kaveḥ kṛtiḥ kāvyam. It means that the kavi has the freedom to make his plot, which may be based on real history, may be fictional, or may be a mixture of the two. It is called poetic license. That does not mean that the philosophical principles depicted in it are wrong. apāre kavi-saṁsāre kavireko prajāpatiḥ yathāsmai rocate viśvaṁ tathedam parivatate (Agni Purāṇa 339.10) One must know the intention of the author, which is called tātparya. Is he writing history, or conveying principles of dharma, bhakti, etc.? History can be used as a means to convey dharma, etc., similar to teaching a child the alphabet by writing “A” with a picture of an apple. “A” and apple do not have much in common, except for the first letter, but this is a way to teach and learn. Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī wanted to teach the essence of Bhagavata Purāṇa, so a he conceived a plot for that. The storyline is his creation, but the siddhāntas are based on Bhāgavata. This is how kāvyas are written. Question: In Ṛgveda 1.22.18, it is written “viṣṇur gopā”. Can we take its meaning as “Viṣṇu is Gopāla” (Śrī Kṛṣṇa)? Does it indicate that Kṛṣṇa is also mentioned in the Vedas? Answer: Yes, it can be interpreted that way. But it should fit in the meaning of the complete mantra. There has to be a uniformity of meaning (ekavākyatā). Otherwise, it would make no sense. Sometimes people impose their own ideas onto the text to gain credibility. But that is not appropriate. Source https://a108.net/blogs/entry/40701-the-essence-of-knowledge/