shvu 1 Report post Posted February 9, 2001 Hi Jndas, A few observations. 1. Vyasa records the death of Parikshit in the Mahabharata. Which means the Mahabharata was completed after Parikshit's death. 2. Now Parikshit is dead, the Mahabharatha is complete and Vyasa is sitting dejected when Narda approaches him with the idea of composing the Bhagavata. How can this Bhagavata be naratted to Parikshit later? Suka heard the Bhagavata from Vyasa Suta heard it from Suka. The Rishis of Naimika Aranya heard it from Suta. Now all this recorded in the Bhgavatam text. So WHO wrote the final form of the Bhagavatam? If you have the time perhaps you can address these points. Thank you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shvu 1 Report post Posted February 9, 2001 Itihasa - History Purana - Old, Ancient Why two separate categories in the Shastras to describe the same thing ? Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dasha 0 Report post Posted February 9, 2001 Hi shvu, Sorry I am not JNDAS, and I do not revendicate to be able to answer your question as well as he would do. But there is something I would like to tell you: I can see that you have a very good knowledge of the vedic litterature, much much more that I will ever be able to have. Nontheless the goal of all these books is not to record them by heart, or to be able to put one in comparison to an other. This will not give you the essence of this wonderful knowledge. These books are here to help us to developpe our spiritual nature and give up our mundane vision and bad habits. If you only look for what is wrong in them, one day you will be at the dusk of your life and realise that may be you have proove that this or that was not right in the Bhagavatam, but that you do not have advance in the understanding of what is your real nature. You say that you do not beleive in re-incarnation. Allright, but if everything finishes at the time of death what are you looking for in these books; they all speak about an other world. I understand that you need to have complete faith in a book to beleive in it. This is my tendancy too. But Maya as very subtle aspect and is expert to present herself under the shape of philosophical arguing to bewilder us and make us miss the real purpose. We really have to be carefull not to fall in her clutches. And her clutches do not have always a fearfull aspect. They are even generally very attractive !!!!!!!!!!!! Cheerfully, Your servant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shvu 1 Report post Posted February 12, 2001 Hi Dasha, My knowledge is nothing. I hardly know anything. It takes years of dedicated study to learn the vast amount of Vedic literature and to acquire proficience. Scholarship and devotion are different things. They can exist independent of one another. So a devotee doesn't have to be a scholar and vice-versa. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
