Commentaries on the Bhagavatam

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

A relevant post from the Bhakti List. I think this clearly shows the concept that Bhagavatam is a "Gaudiya" book as being baseless.

 

 

By Bharat Asur

Dear BhAgavatottama-

While we are eagerly awaiting the arrival of Sri Krishna

this year,Mani suggested I should give a short write-up

about the various commentaries on Srimad Bhagavatham

which has been the source book for so many Vaishnava

Sampradayas in the past.In summarising the

facts available,my main sources are Pandit Baldev

Upadhyay's series of volumes on Bhagavata Darsan,

and Sri N.Raghunathan's superb translation and

notes on Srimad Bhagavatham.

 

There is a saying in Sanskrit <vidyAvatAm BhAgavatE

parIksha> -it is the touchstone of one's learning.

Hence it has attracted a host of commentators

through the centuries,belonging to all schools

of Krishna worshippers.

 

1.SrIdhara swamI - "BhAvArtha-dIpikA"

 

This is the oldest and most influential commentary

available today,though he himself refers to an earlier

commentary by ChitsukhAchArya.He was a Nrisimha upAsaka

and advaitin.He also wrote commentaries on Sri VishNu

PurANam and GItA.His philosophical leanings haven't

prevented AchAryAs of other schools from praising his

commentary.In fact excepting where they differ,most of

them have simply repeated his words.Sri Chaitanya had

great regard for him .It is narrated by Sri NAbhAdAs

in his BhaktamAl,that SrIdhara wrote the commentary at

the command of his guru ParamAnanda at KASI,and as a

test it was placed before Lord BindumAdhava with other

books,and after a 'prahara' the curtain was removed

to find SrIdhara's work right on top of the other

works.

SrIdhara's period is considered to be 1300-1350 AD

 

(VISISHTADVAITA COMMENTARIES)

2.SudarSana SUrI - "Suka-pakshIyam"

 

This is a short commentary by Sri Sruta-prakASikAcharya.

It was later elaborated by -

 

3.VIrarAghava - "BhAgavata-ChandrikA"

 

He was the son of SrISailaguru belonging to SrIvatsa gotra

and belonged to the 14th cent.This is a very detailed commentary

where every single word of the original text is explained.

 

(DVAITA COMMENTARY)

 

4.Vijayadhvaja - "Pada-RatnAvalI"

The founder of Dvaita schoolSri Ananda TIrtha has written

a work called "BhAgavatha-tAtparya-nirNaya" which is not

a regular commentary.Hence his follower Vijayadhvaja wrote

a full commentary in which he has acknowledged his debt to

the works of Sri AnandatIrtha and another AchArya Vijaya-

Tirtha(whose work is not extant).The text is conspicuous

for its substantial additions,as well as variant readings.

 

(VALLABHA SAMPRADAYA )

 

5.VallabhAchArya - "SubodhinI"

 

Sri Vallabha belongs to the SuddhAdvaita school.His

commentary,excepting touching upon a few earlier

Skandhas,is almost totally on the DaSama Skandha.The

commentary is simple and totally devotional.Another

AchArya of this school Giridhar MaharAj has also

written a commentary which goes much deeper into

the individual sectors and elaborates and

supplements the earlier book.

 

(NIMBARKA or HAMSA SAMPRADAYA)

 

6.SukadEvAchArya - "SiddhAnta-pradIpa"

 

He was a follower of SrI NimbArka,the founder of the

school,and his commentary is comprehensive,while

others of the school have written commentaries on

specific sections like RAsa-LIlA.

 

(CHAITANYA SAMPRADAYA or GAUDIYA VAISHNAVISM)

 

7.SanAtana GOswAmI - "Brhad-vaishNava-tOshiNI"

 

While sri Chaitanya considered SrIdhara's commentary

as adequate,some of his followers wrote various

commentaries,of which this is the oldest and

considered the most authoritative.It however

deals with the DaSama Skandha only.

 

8.JIva GOswAmI - "Krama-Sandarbha"

 

He was the son of Roopa and nephew of SanAtana

GoswAmI- who were the immediate disciples of

Sri Chaitanya.He was a geat scholar and

he wrote the commentary in seven sections,each

called a "sandarbha",of which this was the

seventh.

 

9.ViSvanAtha ChakravarthI - "SArArtha-DarSinI"

 

He has written a simple commentary in which he

has put together the gist of the commentaries

of SrIdhara SwAmI,Prabhu Chaitanya and his guru.

while he is generally in sympathy with the school

sometimes he takes an independent stand.

 

 

Out of the above main works,with the exception of

Brhad-VaishNava-tOshiNI,the other eight were

published together from VrndAvan in 1958.I have

seen a copy in Madras Sanskrit college library.

But it is not generally available.

 

There were many other commentaries on SrImad BhAgavatham

which are referred to here and there.For example

JIva GOswAmI mentions works like,Hanumad-BhAshya,

VAsanA-BhAshya,SambandhOkti,Vidvat-kAmadhEnu,Tattva-

DipikA,BhAvArtha-DIpikA,Paramahamsa-PriyA and

Suka-Hrdayam.

 

There was a great devotional poet called SrIHari

who was a brahmin belonging to KASyapa gOtra,and

who lived on the banks of GOdAvarI.He wrote a

poem of 5000 SlOkas as a commentary on the first

half of DaSama Skandha.Called "Hari-bhakti-rasAyanam"

its date is taken to be 1759 AD.While being a

commentary it is also an independent imaginative

work.

To show that both these could be possible

simultaneously let us see this example:

As is well-known,while VasudEva carried the baby

Krishna to Gokula on his head,the deep and roaring

Yamuna suddenly became shallow to allow his passage.

While narrating this incident the poet reasons

within himself:why did she suddenly come down to

the level of Vasudeva's throat or waist or knee

at various places? Because she knew that the baby

Krishna had already started wondering how He would

be able have water-sports with the Gopis in the

future if the river was so deep;and so in order

to set His mind at rest she gave a preview of her

ability to adapt herself to circumstances!-

 

<AgAdhE jalE-syAh katham vAmbu-kElir

mamA-grE vidhEyE-ti SankAm pramArshtum

kvachi-jjAnu-daghnA kvachi-nnAbhi-daghnA

kvachit-kanTha-daghnA cha sA kim tadAnIm ?>

 

 

EmberumAnAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

J N Das prabhuji,

 

Thanks for the nice compilation. Very informative. Of course, this doesn't mean that those sampradayas accept SB as the Supreme book

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Thanks for the nice compilation. Very informative. Of course, this doesn't mean that those sampradayas accept SB as the Supreme book.

Just be honest and ask yourself if a Sri Vaishnava saint such as Viraraghavacharya, who wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatama, thought it was a pure revealed scripture, or if he thought he was commenting on useless interpolated texts.

 

If you have any doubt, read his commentary. Show me in his commentary where he says the Bhagavatam is interpolated, or show me where he says the Bhagavatam is not truth. Why would he waste his time commenting on every single word of the Bhagavatam, if it was just interpolation?

 

There is no traditional basis to your argument.

 

You want us to believe that the Bhagavatam is regarded merely as a useful reference as long as it doesn't contradict shruti, but these acharya's who have commented on it have only sung its unlimited glories. They do not bring up such statements, that the Bhagavatam could differ from shruti.

 

It is primarily the Advaita school that raises these arguments, because they cannot reconcile the personalistic teachings of the Puranas with their impersonal philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict.

 

[shvu 1]

 

It is primarily the Advaita school that raises these arguments, because they cannot reconcile the personalistic teachings of the Puranas with their impersonal philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict.

Let us see...

 

If Shankara had not commented on the BG, then people would have said he did not do so because "advaitins cannot reconcile the personalistic teachings of the BG with their impersonal philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict." Now is that correct? The same logic applies to the SB.

 

I can show a number of verse in the SB which are clearly Advaitic and if Shankara had a need (he did not), he would have easily shown the purport of SB to be Advaitic and in my not_so_humble opinion, it would have been more rational and convincing than some other interpretations of the Bhagavatam where single verses are isolated and interpreted out of context. Advaitins have little or no interest in Puranas, for they derive *all* their tenets directly from Sruti, thus eliminating any need to rely on secondary sources like Puranas.

 

Also, this reasoning does not explain why a Vaishnava like Ramanuja did not mention SB anywhere. Was it perhaps because "Vaishnavas cannot reconcile the advaitic teachings of SB with their philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict."?

 

Cheers

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

Just be honest and ask yourself if a Sri Vaishnava saint such as Viraraghavacharya, who wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatama, thought it was a pure revealed scripture, or if he thought he was commenting on useless interpolated texts.

Many Vaishva saints have written commentaries on Ramayana. Is it accepted as the Supreme book? There is no doubt that Sri Vaishnavas accept SB as holy, but the question is do they accept it as the Supreme text?

 

It is primarily the Advaita school that raises these arguments, because they cannot reconcile the personalistic teachings of the Puranas with their impersonal philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict.

Applying the same yardstick, the advaita school should have raised a bogey against Isopanisad and Svetasvatara upanisad, which they didn't.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Many Vaishva saints have written commentaries on Ramayana. Is it accepted as the Supreme book?

You keep bringing up this irrelevent statement as to whether Bhagavatam is accepted as the Supreme book, which is not at all connected to this topic. No one is trying to say that "the Bhagavatam is universally accepted as the only single supreme book in the world." Your just squirming from one side to the other with these statements.

 

Just read my question one more time and give a simple common sense answer:

 

Just be honest and ask yourself if a Sri Vaishnava saint such as Viraraghavacharya, who wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatama, thought it was a pure revealed scripture, or if he thought he was commenting on useless interpolated texts.

There is nothing about a "Supreme Book" anywhere in that statement. The simple question, is did Viraraghavacharya consider the Bhagavatam to be a bunch of useless interpolations, or did he accept it as revealed truth (absolute truth). If you aren't certain about the answer, refer to his commentary and see what he himself states about the Bhagavatam (no need to speculate about what we think Sri Vaishnava acharyas view the Bhagavatam as).

 

From a logical perspective, a self realized acharya like Viraraghavacharya, who has the sarvajnatva to speak about what occured in previous universal existences, has written a commentary on every single word of the Bhagavatam. Thus he has accepted every single word of the Bhagavatam to be absolute truth. I would be interested in you or anyone showing a single word from his writings that point to a defect or untruth in the Bhagavatam. The fact is there isno such statement.

 

In conclusion, you are trying so hard to squirm left and right that you are missing a self-evident truth sitting right in front of us. There is no need to speculate as to what Sri Vaishnava acharya's think of the Bhagavatam, Viraraghavacharya can himself tell us - if we just have a look at his commentary.

 

No where does he say the Bhagavatam is interpolated, nor that it is untrue, nor that it contradicts the shruti - so to hint that he may is just more squirming around.

 

 

Applying the same yardstick, the advaita school should have raised a bogey against Isopanisad and Svetasvatara upanisad, which they didn't.

The difference between Puranic writing styles and that of the Upanishads (any upanishad, even personalistic upanishads) is quite obvious, so I think my point is still relevant.

 

[Jagat 1]

Just a word about Jiva Goswami.

 

Krama-sandarbha is really the Six sandarbhas organized in the Bhagavata verse sequence. The Six sandarbhas are organized according to subject matter. That is the meaning of "krama."

[Jagat 1]

The earliest commentary on the Bhagavatam is really Vopadeva's Muktaphala, which is really a compilation according to subject.

 

Also in the Gaudiya line, Baladeva wrote notes on the Bhagavata, as did Srinath Chakravarti, whose commentary opens with the famous ArAdhyo bhagavAn vrajeza-tanayas verse.

 

Brihad-Vaishnava-toshani is very influential, especially as it forms the basis of Jiva Goswami's interpretation of Krishna lila and led to the Gopala Champu.

[ravi_arsha108 0]

Where can i buy sridhara swami bhagavatam commentary bhavartha dipika.is there any translation in telugu or english