questions on Bhagavatam's appearance

[theist 1]

I have a few questions that I would like to ask the devotees if I may. They concern the nature of the Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

1) Would it make a difference to you if the SB was not 5,000 years old but of a more recent origin?

 

2) What if there had been several authors who were collectively referred to as Vyasadeva?

 

3) What if the narrations were actually allegorical in nature? Consider the following definition from Websters:

 

 

Main Entry: al·le·go·ry

 

Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek allEgoria, from allEgorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -Egorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly -- more at ELSE, AGORA

 

1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression

 

2 : a symbolic representation

(isn't speech itself a symbolic representation of the truth it contains?)

----------------

 

4) Is being able to recite the narratives apart from entering into it's essence the same thing as *knowing* the SB?

 

5) Since this whole material world and the events that take place here within it's full past present and future contexts, really fictional in nature and not so-called "literal truth"?

 

Considering it from that angle what would be the difference between Krsna appearing "literally" on the battlefield of Kuruksetra and His having appeared on such a battlefield in the mind of His devotee who then wrote it out?

 

I see no difference personally. How about you?

 

6)Do you assume that truth is watered down when appearing in the form of an allegory? If so please explain how.

 

 

The above questions are presented in the hopes of initiating some valuable introspection and conversation engaged in as ladies and gentlemen and not as a cause for rakerous hostile and useless bickering.

[Kulapavana 0]

as to the age of Bhagavatam:

 

the question is: WHICH Bhagavatam? SB was spoken many times, and each time it was substantially expanded by the speaker. the final version as we know it today was probably written down from earlier versions about 1500 years ago (judging by the language used in the writing).

 

Vyasadeva (Krsna Dvaipayana) was an author and editor who was using many of his disciples in his compilation work

 

Some narrations are allegorical, some very, very factual - Gita is definitely factual and it still reverberates throughout the Universe in the Akhasic Record.

[theist 1]

 

the question is: WHICH Bhagavatam? SB was spoken many times, and each time it was substantially expanded by the speaker. the final version as we know it today was probably written down from earlier versions about 1500 years ago (judging by the language used in the writing).

 

 

Expanded? Is it likely then that the 11th and 12th cantos were added on. It kind of seems that way to me but I don't know anything about analysizing language structure to determine differnt authors and all that.

 

Are these various expansions obvious to scholars so they can tell where one author left off and another began?

 

[Kulapavana 0]

the original SB was spoken by Lord Vishnu to Brahma in 4 verses. Brahma gave it to Narada in about 100 verses. Then we have Narada giving it to K.D.Vyasa, Vyasa to Sukadeva, and so on... that succession is obvious from the text itself. what happened later is only a speculation, but a likely scenario is that at some time the SB was re-edited to appear in it's current form. I'm not by any means an expert in this field, but this is the opinion of many Vaishnava and non-Vaishnava scholars alike.

 

Some devotees have a simplistic view that Srila Vyasadeva personally wrote down SB in it's current version - that may be a nice sentiment, but it is most likely not true. even in our Brahma-Madhva sampradaya there are serious differences of opinion on this subject.

 

for us Gaudiyas, Lord Chaitanya validated SB in it's current form because it was His favourite shastra, and He called it "the spotless Purana". But that does not mean that Vyasa personally wrote it down - that is more or less irrelevant to us.

[theist 1]

 

Some devotees have a simplistic view that Srila Vyasadeva personally wrote down SB in it's current version - that may be a nice sentiment, but it is most likely not true. even in our Brahma-Madhva sampradaya there are serious differences of opinion on this subject.

 

 

I never knew there was a difference of opinion within the sampradaya. I personally find that encouraging.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Kulapavana wrote on Bhagavatam:

the final version as we know it today was probably written down from earlier versions about 1500 years ago (judging by the language used in the writing).

 

 

I never heard this ever. Interesting thread. So who did this 1500 years ago? Did you mean 500 /images/graemlins/wink.gif?

[Kulapavana 0]

"I never knew there was a difference of opinion within the sampradaya. I personally find that encouraging."

 

that is the problem. most western devotees have little knowledge about our sampradaya and general Vaishnavism and obsess over relative "trivialities" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kulapavana 0]

This is one approach, from the official Iskcon site (http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sb.htm):

 

"Dating Srimad Bhagavatam

 

Hare Krsna das, ISKCON Mexico

"The exact date of the Bhagavata Purana has not still settled down..." (J.A.B. van Buitenen, exact source unknown)

13th century CE as a date for Srimad Bhagavatam was accepted by scholars until the half of 20th century. Nevertheless, the work Tahqiq-i-Hind by Alberuni, a Muslim who made a study of the India in the 10th century CE, mentions Bhagavata Purana.

Nowadays the date 9th century CE predominates. The critics claim that the Bhagavatam mentions Hunas and thus it had to be written after their invasion to India in 5th century CE. Nevertheless, the Hunas are mentioned also in older texts such as Lalitavistara, a Buddhist work dated to 3rd century CE, and Mahabharata, a recognized archaic work. These evidences indicate that this race was known before the invasion and its mention in the Bhagavatam doesn't suggest any occupation.

Others argue that Bhagavatam was influenced by the philosopher Sankara (commonly accepted: 8th century CE) because of similarity of ideas and of the language. But Gaudapada, teacher of Govinda who was teacher of Sankara, mentions the Bhagavatam in his Uttaragita-bhasya and in his commentary on Sankhya-karika makes reference to other two verses.

There was an attempt to discredit those references under the supposition that it could be another, later author of the same name or that Bhagavatam took the verses from the work of Gaudapada. But one would have to show some historical reference that endorses that another author existed with such a name and he wrote these works. Nevertheless, the studies of experts like M. T. Sahasrabuddha tend to verify that those texts are of Gaudapada and that Sankya-karika-vritti and Uttara-gita don't only mention verses but the latter mentions directly the Bhagavata Purana.

This was corroborated in another, independent work known as Nandi-sutra, a core text of the Jaina school, which gives a list of writings prohibited by their academy. It mentions directly Mahabharata, Ramayana, Purana-Bhagavatam, Mathara-vritti, Sankhya-karika, etc. This treaty was dated to 4th century CE under the notion that Vallabhi, its compiler, lived 980 years after Jain Mahavira (commonly accepted: 5th century BCE).

The source of inspiration of the Vritti of Gaudapada was Mathara-vritti which contains the same two verses of the Bhagavatam. Sushila S. Desai disagrees, leaning on Belvekar who appeals to an argument of textual criticism which presupposes a contamination and alteration of the manuscripts. She even insists that in the Mathara-vritti translated into Chinese by Buddhist monk Paramartha in 5th century CE the texts of the Bhagavata contained in the commentary of Gaudapada don't appear. But it requires a series of specimens of the manuscripts, which the philologists like Alberto Blecua call the Collatio Codicum, to show that there are no such verses. It only indicates that in the manuscript that Paramartha used they could have been missing, or, as he belongs to a school opposing the Bhagavata school, he could have removed them since one of these texts (1.6.35) indicates fundamental points of the Bhagavata doctrine.

Bhagavatam rejects the monist theory of the unity of souls and God, as well as the conception that God is ultimately impersonal and amorphous - this is the core of Sankara's philosophy but Sankara quoted Bhagavatam 12.13.1 in his poem "Meditations on the Gita" (text 9) and makes reference to the Bhagavata school in his Sariraka-bhasya. A. N. Chatterji confirms: "Even Sankara crediting [the doctrine of] 'Advaita Vedanta'... has taken into account the influence of the Bhagavata Purana."

Like other scriptures <../encyclopedia/scriptures.htm> SB is either manifested or unmanifested (as the Lord is sometimes seemingly born and sometimes He appears independently - Nrsimhadeva etc., similarly, the scriptures seem to be written by somebody because it is the common way of their origin. Actually, they appear in the author's heart and then they are written. They don't contain (and they are not limited by) history of certain yuga or Brahma's day. They are inaccessible to fools and rascals just as Krsna Himself.

Discoveries by Prasada Gokhale suggest that Sankara lived in the 6th century BCE and Mahavira least in the 1000 BCE. See Buddha <../encyclopedia/demigods.htm>"

[theist 1]

I just read the opening to Search for Sri Krsna, Reality the Beautiful. At the beginning there is an exceprt from a lecture given by Bhaktivinode Thakur that I think anyone interested in this thread would find inspiring.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Vedya vyasa COMPILED it/

 

That was a very interesting read indeed.

[Guest guest]

1) Would it make a difference to you if the SB was not 5,000 years old but of a more recent origin?

2) What if there had been several authors who were collectively referred to as Vyasadeva?

3) What if the narrations were actually allegorical in nature?

 

Whatever the age, content or authorship only one fact remains consistent - that we LOVE. Bhakti. So, no, i do not think these things matter eventually. Maybe at first it might knock ones' faith. But once you progress along the spiritual path you will find that all texts, including SB and BG etc., become useless to you because you already have reached the ultimate goal, i.e. pure bhakti.

 

Anyway, that's my take.

 

G.

[theist 1]

I hear you G. I don't care if an angel from the clouds delivered it yesterday or if I found it in the trash bin somewhere.

 

I think it risky to hook our faith on anything but the transcendental truth contained within it's pages.

[krsna 3]

Can devotees believe in modern science?

 

I bought Hindu Encounter With Modernity, a book about Bhaktivinoda Thakur, and am pleased to find the answer is yes. Here are some excerpts from the prologue to Hindu Encounter with modernity, a book about Bhaktivinoda Thakur's struggles with these same issues;

 

"What Bhaktivinoda has accomplished in the Sri-krishna-samhita is to separate the mundane from the Transcendent to a degree that we have never seen a Vaishnava do before. Bhaktivinoda shows us that the mundane is susceptible to acute scrutiny and that the Transcendent can only be approached by faith. This of course is not new and raises no reason for attention. What is new, however, is where he draws that line between the mundane and sacred. Sacred Vedic tradition, and I venture to say that tradition which has been presented for the komala-sraddhas, would have us believe that the entire tradition itself is transcendent and therefore exempt from approach by logic. To scrutinize sacred tradition is to engage in blasphemy. What blasphemy, to think that the Srimad Bhagavatam may be a book of only 1000 years, in temporal time! Bhaktivinoda tell us, however, that time is mundane and his scrutiny in no way affects the conclusions about the eternalness of Bhakti. By presenting the Sri-krishna-samhita he has greatly extended the limits of reason in regards to understanding Vedic knowledge."

 

More from Hindu Encounter With Modernity;

 

"Bhaktivinoda's life straddled contemporary British society and ancestral Hindu culture. One was a modern, analytical world which demanded rational thought. The other was a traditional world of Hindu faith and piety, which seemingly allowed little room for critical analysis. Could he play a meaningful role in modern society and at the same time maintain integrity as a Hindu? This book systematically examines his reinterpretation and application of Hinduism in the context of rational thought. Bhaktivinoda's spiritual insights which divide religion into two constituent parts, the phenomenal and the transcendent allowed him to combine critical rational analysis with the best of Hindu mysticism, Krishna lila. This created a unique synthesis of tradition and modernity. Instead of relinquishing modernity, he utilized it in his writings; instead of rejecting the Hindu tradition in the presence of rational thought, he strengthened it."

 

More from Hindu Encounter With Modernity;

 

 

"Was it possible for the religious insider to study his own tradition in a critical way and still maintain religious faith in the tradition?...... I eventually found the solution to my predicament in the writings of Bhaktivinoda himself. I chanced to find a copy of Bhaktivinoda's first major work, the Krsna-samhita (1879)..... I was amazed to learn that Bhaktivinoda was attempting to analyze Indian history and to show the development of Vaishnavism according to what he called the adhunika-vada, or the modern approach...... Bhaktivinoda was showing that it was indeed possible to take a critical look at one's own tradition, and at the same time maintain a deep and abiding faith within that tradition."...... What follows is a detailed analysis of Indian historiography in which he establishes an interesting dating scheme. Here are a few examples: 1. The Aryans first entered India from the North West and subjugated the indigenous tribes around 4463 B.C. 2. The Battle of Kuruksetra took place in 1912 B.C. (3976 years ago), 3. The present Mahabharata is not the original Mahabharata written by Vedavyasa, but one put together by a later Vyasa, 4. The Ramayana achieved its present form sometime after the compilation of the Mahabharata in about 500 B.C. 5. The Puranas were written successively between 400 A.D. and 1000 A.D. The Markendeya Purana is the oldest and the Srimad Bhagavatam is the youngest. 6. The Srimad Bhagavatam is a southern text, likely written during the 10th century by some unknown respected person who had rightfully assumed the title of Vyasa. Bhaktivinoda arrives at these conclusions through a system of textual analysis. It remarkable that he does not simply rely on an existing modern dating scheme, of which there were many during his time, but takes the effort to prepare his own analysis and reach his own conclusions. Where he doubts his own analysis, he invites future Saragrahis to arrive at a better conclusion. This indicates that he took the matter seriously. In this way Bhaktivinoda uses a rational methodology to show the rationale for accepting the path of devotion........ My first reading of the text left me in utter shock. For years I have struggled to assimilate what I had learned from Vaishnava tradition and what I was learning in academia....... What blasphemy, to think that the Srimad Bhagavatam may be a book of only 1000 years, in temporal time! Bhaktivinoda tell us, however, that time is mundane and his scrutiny in no way affects the conclusions about the eternalness of Bhakti. By presenting the Sri-krishna-samhita he has greatly extended the limits of reason in regards to understanding Vedic knowledge."

 

[vijay 0]

I remember reading this a while back, I think he also writes somewhere maybe near the end that adhunika-vada, or the modern approach is subject to change in light of new evidence whereas the tradition is not, and in studying in this way the theory now may be proved wrong later.

 

 

[krsna 3]

"I too wondered how Bhaktivinode, a champion of Caitanya Vaishnavism, could go to such lengths and question so many traditional beliefs yet maintain a strong and abiding faith in the authority of the Bhagavata and the Vedic tradition as a whole."

 

The Krishna-samhita and the Adhunika-vada

Shukavak das http://www.sanskrit.org/adhunika-vada.pdf

 

The file is best in the version 4.x of Acrobat Reader for free in this link

 

http://download.adobe.com/pub/adobe/acrobatreader/win/4.x/arce405eng.exe

 

[vijay 0]

There may be a problem with the http://www.sanskrit.org/adhunika-vada.pdf link

[theist 1]

 

I remember reading this a while back, I think he also writes somewhere maybe near the end that adhunika-vada, or the modern approach is subject to change in light of new evidence whereas the tradition is not, and in studying in this way the theory now may be proved wrong later.

 

 

It is understood that all modern approaches to acquiring knowledge are imperfect and subject to change. The dominant theory today is disproven tommorrow and a new one takes it's place.

 

But is tradition free from this? It may be that when tradition is proven wrong it is just unwilling to change sticking stubbornly to the belief that because it's tradition it must be correct.

 

Which raises another question for me. Is there a difference between tradition in general and the siddhanta of the tradition?

[theist 1]

I don't see anyone making a case for believing every thing written in the common use of the term 'literal way'. I know many feel this way and here is an oppurtunity to make your case free from being berated for holding that view.

[vijay 0]

With our imperfect senses and huge ego's we are blind to the truth we will never know if science is correct or the bhagvatam. Science changes everyday, aswell as our ideas, the bhagavatam doesnt, and from the so-called rational side it may seem irational and dogmatic which is expected. The bhagvatam and prabhupadas purport say they are perfect, we may not believe it. The only way to actually know is carry out the process. Everything else unfortunately is just pure speculation, talks of probabilities and arrogance, the frog in the well, the ant commenting on creation, the limited human mind trying to understand reality.

 

I dont think that anyone should blindly believe anything except belief that they are blind then one can start to figure out where the light is. Theres a nice article on chakra about top down understanding.

[theist 1]

 

Science changes everyday, aswell as our ideas, the bhagavatam doesnt, and from the so-called rational side it may seem irational and dogmatic which is expected.

 

 

So it is correct in EVERYTHING just because it doesn't change?

 

So would you consider me a non-believer in the Bhagavatam because I don't accept that there is only one sun in the entire universe for example even though I accept the conclusion which is Krsna is the Supreme Lord, that He is personal with impersonal energies etc. ?

[vijay 0]

"So it is correct in EVERYTHING just because it doesn't change?"

 

I think the point is that we will never now either way as we are in a conditoned gross and subtle body. The only way to know for sure is work top down.

 

"So would you consider me a non-believer in the Bhagavatam because I don't accept that there is only one sun in the entire universe for example even though I accept the conclusion which is Krsna is the Supreme Lord, that He is personal with impersonal energies etc. ? "

 

Personally its not my place to judge if your a believer or not. You and me by definition are not full believers in the bhagvatam, im not, in terms of following all the instructions and truely believing everything (else i would of surrendered) and you by not believing the non-essential past-times. The main thing is trying the process of bhakti.

 

Our process is that one accepts the experiment, practicing it and then relise the truth. Theretical knowledge has limited uses, if the Sun or moon controversy bugs you then its better to see it as I dont understand it yet, using it to motivate us to get out of this world of confusion, lets clean the mirror of the mind so we can tell either way.

 

Personally I dont think its important to accept everything fully, or reject anything fully, once on the path things are suppose to get clearer accepting whats favorable to surrendering and rejecting all else. Thinking the sun is the centre is not a pre-requisite for love of god. I personally used to like finding so-called holes in the philosophy especially when my spirtual life wernt going so well, eventually I figured out why basically i had the same reservations in some form or another again and again, it was just a subtle trick of the mind not wanting to surrender to anything even after knowing this material world is deinately not going to make me happy .

[Guest guest]

but not totally. I believe that many of the events, many of the things expounded in the Bhagavatham happened at one point.

 

I believe Krsna came down to Earth to restore balance to this world. Now, that doesn't mean I don't question the Bhagavatham at certain points. But I do think that if you don't believe Krsna came down to Earth, or that this world has the potential for such miracles described by the Bhagavatham and displayed by Krsna, then you are not a true believer.

 

Some of the events and stuff are allegorical. But to chalk everything up to allegory is an absolute perspective, and I don't agree with that. Not much in this world is completely defined in one way or another.

 

I believe that religious scriptures have some facts mixed with lessons, allegory etc. But the miracles that are described, I believe quite a few happened. Just because science has no explanation for them and we have not seen such things does not mean they never happened.

 

 

To say that everything written in the Bhagavatham is one thing or another, I believe is a cop-out. Because you don't truly understand the Bhagavatham, the possibilities of this world hidden from us, etc. you choose to interpret the Bhagavatham without trying to understand what is real and what is not. Simply chalking everything up to allegory, I believe you do a disservice to the Bhagavatham because it might as well be called religious fiction.