[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Puraanas
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote:
> Also I think it is interesting to note how many people felt the Bhagavata
> Purana was amenable to Advaitic interpretation. As well as the well known
> commentary of Shridharacharya, Chitsukhacharya is supposed to have written
> one (which no longer survives) and so did Swami Nrsimha Ashrama. Swami
> Madhusudan Saraswati spoke highly of the Bhagawata Purana and as you
> mentioned, Shankaracharya quoted from it, something he would hardly do if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> he felt it was a Dvaita text.
Are you sure about this? It's quite different from what I've heard
elsewhere. Where did he quote it?
[*chomp*]
> As a side note Madhva knew this argument which is probably why he wrote a
> commentary on the Rk Samhita trying to show that it taught bhakti.
Well, no; that isn't what he meant at all. He claims a three-tier
system of meanings, and that the primary purport of all Shruti is the
same, as indicated by the Suutra-s `OM gatisAmAnyAt.h OM' and
`OM sarvavedAntapratyayaM OM'. I am not aware of any statement of his
that _any_ Shruti "taught Bhakti" (why the past tense?).
Also, his Rg-bhaashhya is probably not available in the U.S.; even if
it is, you'll probably understand nothing unless you read it with
Raghavendra Tiirtha's commentary, which is why it might be more
feasible to try "The Heart of the Rigveda" by Mahuli R. Gopalacharya,
instead.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
