[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Bhagavata and Padma Puranas (was Re: REQUEST : What is...)
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote in article
<ghenDy9Ftq.81H@netcom.com>...
> > 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?
>From a Vaishnava standpoint, Krishna is the goal of Vedanta. So even those
who do not have the qualification for studying the shruti can be taught
about Him through smriti texts.
I don't know if there is an *explicit* restriction for people in the lower
modes against studying the shruti. I do know that such people are likely to
misunderstand these texts, and get at most a superficial understanding of
their purport.
> BTW, how do you define a "twice-born"? As one who has undergone the
upanayana
> ceremony?
Twice-born means those who are born again into spiritual life. They are
twice-born by virtue of the fact that they accept a qualified guru and are
properly trained in living according to Vedic standards of conduct. I don't
accept that birth confers upon anyone such a status, nor do I think many of
the caste brahmins of today really qualify either.
> > 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.
And very weak support at that...
> 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).
I don't think that is actually true. I seem to remember Virata (sp?) being
a South Indian kingdom (the place where the Paandavas spent their 13th year
of exile).
> Why then does the Srimad Bhagavatam talk so much about the South?
Here's a totally radical theory: maybe because the Bhaagavata records many
historical events which occurred in South India.
I don't think the Bhaagavata actually talks "so much about the South." Of
course, I have not finished reading it, but I have already pointed out that
there are many North Indian locations described. Then there are events
recorded in higher and lower planetary systems, as in the case of the story
of Hiranyakashipu and Prahlad. Why don't these locations figure in your
analysis?
> 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?
Because Vyaasa is a tri-kaala gyaani who foresaw the events of the
Kali-Yuga.
I thought this was common knowledge. Doesn't the Shankaraachaarya school
accept Him as an incarnation of Naaraayana?
> 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.
It is by no means clear. For one thing, this kind of "logic" is based on
the rather tiresome fallacy of Western Indologists to reject all
possibilites that are outside the realm of their own, mundane experience.
They never consider that Vyaasa could foresee the future and thus indicate
such things in His writings. Because if they did, then they would have to
accept what Vyaasa has written about the Bhaagavatam's origins. And
heavens, this would put an end to their speculative approach, their
publications, their grant monies, etc. Far better for them to carve out a
place for themselves in academia by rejecting whatever is written in
scripture itself about its origins and putting forward all kinds of weak
hypotheses that sound good simply because they are novel.
> 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.
The evidence is weak. For one thing, I don't know what makes George Hart an
authority. For another thing, the Tamil ---> Sanskrit borrowing theory
works just as well in reverse. How does he know that the Tamil words were
not borrowed from Sanskrit? Oh, I know why. Because that would make him
wrong, and we can't have that, now can we?
I can't also help but wonder who he refers to when he says "it is pretty
universally agreed that it [the Bhaagavatam] was written by a Tamilian and
that it is filled with motifs and themes..." Probably what he really means
is, "it is pretty universally agreed that it [the Bhaagavatam] was written
by a Tamilian, except by all those austere, devoted scholars who have been
commenting on the Bhaagvatam long before I was born, and who happen to base
their lives on the Bhaagavatam's teachings." Note the arrogance. The
opinion of the Vaishnava scholars is of no consequence. Only the opinions
of those who happen to have PhD's but don't care for the scriptural
validity of the Bhaagavatam seem to factor into his conclusions.
> > 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 :-)
I don't see it as an insult to call a spade a spade...
These guys may have academic degrees, but if they put forward some theory,
I don't think we should refrain from pointing out flaws just to avoid
bruising their egos. The implications of their speculative method are
significant, and deserve a thorough deconstruction on our part.
> 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.
It is quite correct.
regards,
-- Krishna
