[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Bhagavata and Padma Puranas (was Re: REQUEST : What is...)
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Bhagavata and Padma Puranas (was Re: REQUEST : What is...)
-
From: Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU>
-
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 23:54:05 -0500 (CDT)
Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:
>
> Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote in article
> <ghenDxxtIt.1ID@netcom.com>...
[..]
> > 2) If there is nothing important in the Vedas that isn't in the Puranas:
> >
> > (i) it makes *no sense* to bar a section of the society (viz.
> shudras) from
> > learning something *unimportant*.
> >
> > (ii) there would be very little to be gained by studying the Vedas
> instead
> > of the Puranas (which is not the case).
>
> The Vedas are written in different form of Sanskrit which would make them
> difficult if not impossible for anyone other than a qualified twice-born to
> study.
Actually, though there is certainly a difference between Vedic and Puranic
Sanskrit, one who can understand the Sanskrit of the Mahabharata is definitely
qualified to understand much of Vedic Sanskrit.
> Furthermore, the Vedas contain much karma-kanda material which
> people in the lower modes (like yours truly) would probably misuse.
>
Do you then accept that Vedanta could be taught to everyone? If so, why is
there a restriction on studying the upanishads too?
BTW, how do you define a "twice-born"? As one who has undergone the upanayana
ceremony?
[..]
> > If Vyasa wrote the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Padma purana, he must have
> been
> > a Tamilian :-).
>
> Oh boy, here we go again...
Yeah :-)
>
> > No, I'm not kidding! The Bhagavatam contains a LOT of material which is
> > *definitely* written by a Tamilian!
>
> ["evidence" deleted]
>
> So, let me guess this straight. Your logic is that since it mentions
> geographical locations in South India, it obviously must be by a South
> Indian author?
>
Nope. It is just "supportive" evidence.
For one thing, the Mahabharata is almost exclusively descriptive of events
in North India. So far as I know, the only Southern place mentioned is the
"Kanya Teertha" (Kanyakumari).
Why then does the Srimad Bhagavatam talk so much about the South?
Moreover, it is now accepted that the Mahabharata -- whose author we "define"
as Veda Vyasa -- pre-dates the Buddha. If the Bhagavatam is also authored by
the same Vyasa, how come Buddha is mentioned?
So shall we assume that the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam were written
during different times by different people? Clearly, the Bhagavatam is a later
development -- after Buddhism appeared on the Indian scene.
Now, we have a work which talks more about South India than any other
work in Sanskrit literature does. Does that warrant our interest?
It would be no evidence at all unless we find some Tamil influence in the work.
So we examine the text itself:
begin quote from previous post-------
More on the subject by George Hart:
------------------
One of the most intriguing contributions of the Tamil area to Sanskrit
is the Bhagavatapurana. It is pretty universally agreed that it was
written by a Tamilian and that it is filled with motifs and themes from
the Divyaprabandha and other Tamil literature. Its author also uses
"Vedic" forms -- sometimes incorrectly! -- to try to make it sound old
and hoary. This work has catalyzed Bhakti movements all over India and
is, arguably, one of the most important works in the Sanskrit language.
An example of a Tamilism is the word avamocana, "inn." This occurs
nowhere else in Sanskrit -- it is clearly a translation of Tamil viTuti.
------------------
end quote from previous post-------
That's the actual evidence: the language of the Bhagavatam is vastly different
from the Sanskrit in other works, and there are some words that have been
"borrowed" from Tamil.
[lots of "arguments" deleted]
>
> > I got these from a book on the Bhagavatam - don't remember which one -
> and the
> > author says,"These passages seem to have been written by someone who was
> proud
> > of the southern region".
>
> I hope this person does not consider himself to be a scholar. I would
> suggest that he call his alma mater up and ask for his money back...
>
That was, I believe, by a "board of scholars" commenting on the Bhagavatam.
You just insulted about 15 scholars :-)
-Kartik
PS: in my previous post, I assumed that Vyasa (the author of the Mahabharata)
and the author of the Bhagavatam were the same person, which was not really
correct.
