|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 21, 2010 11:00:26 GMT -6
It seems very unlikely that Adi Shankara composed the Govindastaka (does somebody seriously believe he wrote the Bhaja Govindam?), and the fact - which is feebly contested only by Walther Eidlitz - that Ramanuja never quotes the Bhagavata puts the Bhagavata after Ramanuja (1077 ? – 1157 ?). Legend has it that he once walked all the way from Sri Rangam to Kashmir only because he had heard there was an interesting manuscript (not the Bhagavata) so if it was around in his time he would certainly have known about it and quoted it. Good points, gerard. Since the ground-breaking work of Paul Hacker and Hajime Nakamura, very few of the works attributed to Sankara are now considered really his. Those that remain are his commentaries on the Brahma-sutra and some of the Upanisads and the Upadesa-sahasri. Basically, only the works that have commentaries by one of Sankara's immediate disciples. Even the Gita-bhasya is contested. Certainly none of the stotras made the cut. As far as Ramanuja is concerned, I have seen arguments by better scholars than Eidlitz in favor of his and his teacher's knowing and citing the Bhagavata. Why he did not comment on it is a puzzle. Nevertheless, I suspect it was around before him. Of the early commentators on the text, Hanumat and Citsukha, the dates are uncertain. The Library of Congress places Citsukha in the 13th century, which is not very early. There is no date for Hanumat and no sign of his commentary. Nandamisra unfortunately identifies him as the great monkey devotee of Rama, just a small example of the historical confusion found in some of our Caitanyite commentaries. As I mentioned before, I think there are distinct strata in the Bhagavata. One scholar has compared it with a barley corn. There are outer layers that are more recent and an inner kernel that is more ancient. The outer layers tend to be commentaries on the inner layers and to reveal a familiarity with a later phase in the intellectual history of India. The concept of rasa as an aesthetic experience is one example. There also appears to be a reference to the Alvars of South India who belong to the 8-10h cents. CE in the 12th Skandha. But that is all part of the outer shell. The inner kernel is harder to place. I hope that as I continue to chant it, distinctions in the complexity of the language will become apparent when I get to the inner core. Of course, the author(s) of the outer core probably also edited the inner core, so the difference in language may not be as great. |
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Jan 21, 2010 17:44:08 GMT -6
wemember that the pwofessor is berry berry sick with a strange disease. Lets all join hands and say a word of pway for the poor pwofessor, so he'll get better and come back here and read - sayeth the muddy pig.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jan 21, 2010 18:42:44 GMT -6
It seems very unlikely that Adi Shankara composed the Govindastaka (does somebody seriously believe he wrote the Bhaja Govindam?), and the fact - which is feebly contested only by Walther Eidlitz - that Ramanuja never quotes the Bhagavata puts the Bhagavata after Ramanuja (1077 ? – 1157 ?). Legend has it that Ramanuja once walked all the way from Sri Rangam to Kashmir only because he had heard there was an interesting manuscript (not the Bhagavata) so if it was around in his time he would certainly have known about it and quoted it. When I discussed this with a rather knowledgeable devotee, he said it was because the Vishnu Purana was a better fit for the upasana of the Sri Vaishnavas than the Bhagavata. This was the reason why Ramanuja didn't comment on Bhagavata. I have no idea whether this is correct, but an interesting observation it remains. (On a side note, the Vishnu Purana TV serial is available to watch on YouTube.) |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Jan 21, 2010 18:45:36 GMT -6
Those that remain are his commentaries on the Brahma-sutra and some of the Upanisads and the Upadesa-sahasri. Basically, only the works that have commentaries by one of Sankara's immediate disciples. Even the Gita-bhasya is contested. Do you mean that only works that have sub-commentaries by his immediate diciples are considered authentic? Sorry, I don't quite understand your sentence. My understanding of the Gita-bhasya is that there are some Pancaratric influences there and in his Brahma-sutra commentary Shankara rejects the Panca-ratra, hence Shankara did not write that Gita-bhasya. The orthodoxy must reject that as that would mean that Shankara did not complete a commentary on the Prasthana Traya. |
|
|
|
Post by spiritualbhakti on Jan 21, 2010 22:23:00 GMT -6
Does its being relatively recent and not by Vyasa really affect the authenticity of the text? I think not. Even if the text were composed by someone from the Nambudri Brahmanas of Kerala (Sankara's community) in the 7th century, the text gives us its own grounds for accepting it as a genuine vehicle of knowledge of and bhakti for Krsna. That happens in the very place that I am preparing to recite: 1.5-7. I will explain more after I finish chanting those chapters. Great point, I have always thought that it was the content in a scripture that makes it ....spiritual. Since God is omnipotent he can reveal whenever he wants to anybody he wants , it's in our best interest to turn towards God when he gives us a way out of maya and to serve him.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 28, 2010 20:03:47 GMT -6
Those that remain are his commentaries on the Brahma-sutra and some of the Upanisads and the Upadesa-sahasri. Basically, only the works that have commentaries by one of Sankara's immediate disciples. Even the Gita-bhasya is contested. Do you mean that only works that have sub-commentaries by his immediate diciples are considered authentic? Sorry, I don't quite understand your sentence. My understanding of the Gita-bhasya is that there are some Pancaratric influences there and in his Brahma-sutra commentary Shankara rejects the Panca-ratra, hence Shankara did not write that Gita-bhasya. The orthodoxy must reject that as that would mean that Shankara did not complete a commentary on the Prasthana Traya. Yes, those of his works that have sub-commentaries by people known to be his immediate disciples are considered genuine. Indeed, throwing out the Gita-bhasya would be problematic, especially if he is the promoter of the idea of the prasthana-traya. My sense is that that too is a much later invention and not traceable to Sankara. There is apparently good reason to believe that he wrote the commentary on the Yoga-sutras that is in his name, though I am not familiar with argument for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 13, 2010 14:06:01 GMT -6
Here is the rest of the fifth chapter of the First Skandha. I will start posting these more frequently. I want to complete the First Skandha by the end of the month.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritualbhakti on Feb 23, 2010 18:43:23 GMT -6
What is the verse you say after completing the chapter?
These videos are very helpful!
THANK YOU!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 25, 2010 9:30:13 GMT -6
Thanks, spiritualbhakti. Next chapter is coming soon. I have been chanting it over to try to smooth things out. There are some real tongue-twisters in some of these verses, but with a little practice one can generally chant them with out stumbling. The next section contains Narada's vision of Krsna.
The statement I read at the end is not really a verse. It is technically called a puspika, little flower, because in the manuscripts those sentences are set of by little flower-like drawings before and after. They merely identify the book, the skandha, the chapter, and give it a name. So for instance, the last one identified the preceding chapter as the fifth chapter in the first skandha of the Bhagavata Purana by Vyasa and called the text the hymn of the paramahamsa. The chapter is named "Conversation between Vyasa and Narada."
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 25, 2010 16:47:26 GMT -6
The first half of the sixth chapter of the first skandha.
An interesting chapter. Here Hari appears to Narada in his former existence and promises him a great position in his next existence. Sorry for the phone interference. I didn't feel like doing it over. Perhaps later, once the rest of the skandha is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Mar 2, 2010 17:17:09 GMT -6
Bhagavata Purana 1.6 Second Half
Here is the second half of chapter 6. Narada completes his tale and departs. See the Youtube page for more details.
|
|
|
|
Post by maasikdharma on Mar 5, 2010 15:53:16 GMT -6
Does its being relatively recent and not by Vyasa really affect the authenticity of the text? I think not. Even if the text were composed by someone from the Nambudri Brahmanas of Kerala (Sankara's community) in the 7th century, the text gives us its own grounds for accepting it as a genuine vehicle of knowledge of and bhakti for Krsna. That happens in the very place that I am preparing to recite: 1.5-7. I will explain more after I finish chanting those chapters. Great point, I have always thought that it was the content in a scripture that makes it ....spiritual. Since God is omnipotent he can reveal whenever he wants to anybody he wants , it's in our best interest to turn towards God when he gives us a way out of maya and to serve him. This is something that puzzles me about "religionists" or "spiritualists" - the quest and obsession for "authenticity". "God" or spirituality is not an objective "hard science" that can be proven or disproven via the scientific method in a laboratory. It is, what they like to call "revelatory", which is, afterall, just a mystical sounding word for "subjective". That being the case, I fail to understand the motive behind people who seek to prove various religions, religious concepts, and religious texts "authentic". I mean, if the very premise of the whole thing cannot be proven, how will you "prove" whatever follows after it? The concept of shastric praman is an interesting one. It goes something like this; Vaishnava: I believe in X. Random person: Why do you believe in X? Vaishnava: Because Y (shastra) says so. Random person: Why do you believe Y? Vaishnava: Because of X.  Circular logic anyone? At the end of the day we cannot objectively prove that God exists, so I think all this effort to "prove" the authenticity of whatever tradition is futile, though perhaps a fun way of passing time. |
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Mar 16, 2010 18:59:45 GMT -6
Aside from the issue of authenticity of the works attributed to Vyasa there is a simple convienience in having him as the author. ( Because you'll probably never determine it to be by someone else unequivically.) Like the study of Homer, scholars attribute the Iliad and Ulysiad to various bards whose work Homer compiled into the books. Still it is more convienient to concieve the work as having a single author, so all revere Homer as the source. Likewise it may be beneficial to the study of the books attributed to Vyasa to go along with the idea that he is original author, and by constant study it may be possable to distinguish interpolations and later additions by variation in style and diction. It's interesting to note the contrast between the Bhagavat and the Visnu Puranas. Same themes but a quite different treatment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Mar 21, 2010 15:18:08 GMT -6
Here is chapter 1.7 first half. I have a new camera which has much better capacity. I am experimenting with it to find the best setting.
This chapter contains Vyasa's meditative experience that is the basis of the authority of the Bhagavata. It also contains the famous atmarama verse explaining why Suka who was renounced was attracted to learning such a big work about Krsna. Then the narrative begins that leads us to the point at which Pariksit begins to hear the Bhagavata from Suka. This is the famous incident of the killing of the sons of the Pandavas by Asvatthama in revenge for the loss of his father in the great war.
The second half will come in a few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Mar 21, 2010 17:42:41 GMT -6
Then the narrative begins that leads us to the point at which Pariksit begins to hear the Bhagavata from Suka. This is the famous incident of the killing of the sons of the Pandavas by Asvatthama in revenge for the loss of his father in the great war. Sorry to be a bit off-topic, but I have been going through the Mahabharata lately and it has made a big impact on me, especially since I now read it with new eyes. Incidentally one of the Indian cable channels (Star One, if anyone's got it) is repeating the excellent and critically-acclaimed Mahabharata serial by B. R. Chopra and Ravi Chopra, and this makes the experience even more powerful. And because of all of that, I went back and started reading the Bhagavata again at Chapter 7. I am getting the increasing impression that the Mahabharata is a grander epic than the Bhagavata, which is ultimately an extended treatise on the glories of bhakti. Or at the very least, it has to be an incredibly important text if the Bhagavata picks up the Mahabharat narration from the arrest of Asvatthama. And of course, the Mahabharat contains the beloved Bhagavad-Gita. In the Caitanya tradition, Sri Baladev Vidyabhushan wrote a commentary on the Vishnu-sahasranam which originates in the Mahabharat also. So when the Mahabharat is obviously an important text, I wonder how it has been treated historically in Caitanya Vaisnavism and what sages such as the Gosvamis have said about it. Again, naturally the Bhagavat is beloved because it glorifies bhakti, but I am beginning to treat the Mahabharat with a lot more of the respect that I think it deserves. Any thoughts from anyone? P.S. Yes the new camera is indeed great quality. Reducing the gamma will reduce the white glare, perhaps. |
|
