|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 13, 2011 11:33:53 GMT -6
This is a thread that Subrataji requested to discuss the age and authenticity of the Bhagavata Purana. We will look at arguments from all sides. As per his suggestion we will start with Baladeva Vidyabhusana's view in his Sanskrit text called the Siddhanta-darpana. There is also extensive argumentation given by Radhagovinda Nath in the introduction of edition/translation (Bengali) of the Bhagavata. I will reproduce that here. Subrataji has suggested other sources with hopefully he will either send to me or present himself here. There are probably other places where the question is raised and discussed within the CV tradition.
There are several scholarly discussions of the question. Most notably there is the classic essay by van Buitenen which I will try to capture a copy of and post here. Edwin Bryant has discussed the question in a special issue of the Journal of Vaisnava Studies and probably in the introduction to his translation of the Tenth Skandha which I will try to scan and present here too. There may be other discussions of it too in the literature and I hope our members will call these to our attention and make this discussions available to us here. Let's leave IGM out of it. I am sure there are many things written by IGMers about the authenticity of the Bhagavata of doubtful worth and lame argumentation. Let's not waste our time with that stuff. The hope is to gather together all the best evidence and argumentation we can find and on the basis of that come to some sort of tentative conclusion. In the process we are bound to learn a lot about the text and the history of its transmission and reception.
Even if we determine, or at least some of us do, that the text is not likely to be by Vyasa, it is not thereby to be considered inauthentic. It has been and remains a source of inspiration and illumination for countless Vaisnavas and Advaitins. It would remain a source of truth on the basis of the quality of its teachings rather than the quality of its attributed author.
Baladeva focuses on these questions in the 3rd-7th Illuminations (chapters) of his Siddhanta-darpana. Shall we start there? Or, do you want it from the beginning? It is a short text.
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Feb 13, 2011 21:14:32 GMT -6
Why not from the beginning if it is a short text and if you have time? Doesn't RK Mission have something on this in the introduction of their Bhagavatam edition/ translation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 0:47:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Feb 14, 2011 7:06:38 GMT -6
There are several scholarly discussions of the question. Most notably there is the classic essay by van Buitenen which I will try to capture a copy of and post here. If you mean Van Buitenen's On the Archaisms of the Bhagavata Purana, (or something like that, I'm at work now and this is from memory), then you don't have to try to capture that somewhere. I have this article at home and scan and post it as soon as I'm on line again (which might be soon).
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 14, 2011 22:46:43 GMT -6
Why not from the beginning if it is a short text and if you have time? Doesn't RK Mission have something on this in the introduction of their Bhagavatam edition/ translation? Yes. Thanks for reminding me. The introduction of the RK Mission text has a few pages on this question. I will type it in over the next few days. And I will present the text of Baladeva's work from the beginning. It is an edifying text to read. I also have the critical edition of the text. That will surely have some discussion of the age of the Bhagavata. I will post that too in due course.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 14, 2011 22:49:39 GMT -6
There are several scholarly discussions of the question. Most notably there is the classic essay by van Buitenen which I will try to capture a copy of and post here. If you mean Van Buitenen's On the Archaisms of the Bhagavata Purana, (or something like that, I'm at work now and this is from memory), then you don't have to try to capture that somewhere. I have this article at home and scan and post it as soon as I'm on line again (which might be soon). Yes, gerardji. I believe that is the essay I had in mind. It appeared in a book on Krsna-bhakti edited by some anthropologists (their names escape me). Anyway, thanks for doing that. That will be a good study for us to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 14, 2011 22:52:32 GMT -6
Thanks for the reference, Subrataji. Hazra was a giant in puranic studies. He iis also referred to in the RK Mission introduction. I can't seem to access this book. Is there a secret to it?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 14, 2011 23:19:03 GMT -6
There is also a good discussion of the age of the Purana in the introduction to the Tagare translation of the text published by Motilal Banarsi Dass. I will reproduce that here, too, unless someone else has it wants to do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 23:50:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 15, 2011 11:21:29 GMT -6
Thanks, Subrataji, but I still can't access anything from that book. All I can see is the cover. Anyway, just as I suspected, the final volume of the critical edition of the Bhagavata does discuss the problem of dating it. The author of that quotes a paragraph from Hazra. Let us make this our first bit of data in our effort to try to determine the date and authorship.
"Let the Bhagavata and the VP be now compared. As regards the contents, the Bhagavata is closely connected with the VP with which it often agrees literally and it is undoubtedly dependent on the latter. By comparing the genealogies in both Puranas, Pargiter has come to the conclusion that 'the Bhagavata has used the Visnu in its composition.' Many myths and legends, which are found in a concise and older form in the VP, appear in the Bhagavata in a much enlarged and elaborate version. For instance, the stories of Dhruva, Vena, Prthu, Prahlada, Jada Bharata and others occurring in both Puranas may be compared. The Bhagavata (Book X) contains the biography of Krsna which is here given in much greater detail than in the VP and the Harivamsa. In particular the love scenes with the cowherdesses (Gopis) occupy a much larger space. In the VP a black hair of Visnu is said to be incarnated as Krsna, i.e. Krsna is an incarnation of an exceedingly small portion of Visnu; but in the Bhagavata he is called amsavatara or Bhagavan himself (krsnastu bhagavan svayam). In the Bhagavata there are stories not found in the VP. The story of Kapila (in Bhag. III 24 to 33 Adhy.s) may be cited as an example. From all these it appears that the VP is older than the Bhagavata. If the latter Purana is assigned to the sixth century A.D., then the date of the former should be placed earlier. (Ibid., 21,22)" (The Bhagavata, vol. iv, part iii, Epilogue. p 15)
Hazra doesn't here give his reasoning for assigning the Bhagavata to the sixth century CE. We will need to ferret that out. But, the comparison with the VP is interesting.
The author of the critical edition essay (Prof. K.K. Shastree) says later:
"Except Gaudapada (the grand preceptor of Sri Adya Sankaracaryaji), none has any knowledge of the BGP. The time of Acarya Sankara has been given 788-820 AD, so that the time of Gaudapada should not be earlier than the middle of the 8th cent. AD. Hence the BGP is earlier than the 8th cent. AD.
There is only one factor, which will be helpful to derive the time of the composition of the BGP. Unlike the prose of the VP, that of the BGP presents the prose (given mostly in the Skandha V) nearing to the classical style of the most famous poet Bana, the author of Kadambari (first half of the 7th cent. AD). It means that the time of composing of the BGP is not earlier than the later half of the 7th cent. AD and not later than the first half of the 8th cent. AD."(ibid. 16)
I don't think that these are very strong arguments. First of all, it is commonly accepted now that Sankaracarya lived in the period 650-700 CE (not 788-820). Moreover, the reference to the Bhagavata by Gaudapada is in a commentary on the Uttara Gita. The Gaudapada who wrote that commentary is not the same as the Gaudapada who was the grand preceptor of Sankara. Since Sankara apparently knows nothing of the Bhagavata, it is possible that it was written about the same time he lived or shortly thereafter. It is possible that the author of the prose section had the work of Bana as his model. In those cases a period of 650-750 CE is possible for the composition of the Purana. But, there is much, much more to consider. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 15, 2011 20:03:09 GMT -6
[Here is the first verse of the Siddhanta-darpana. Baladeva clearly sees Vyasa as the author par excellence. The commentary is by Nanda Misra, a disciple of Baladeva's.]
His father is Parāśara,\\ He's father of \'Sukadeva,\\ To him, Vyāsa, living in Badarī,\\ Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana, do I resort. (1)
Commentary
Though blackish-blue he's reddened\\ By knowledge of the lotus of Veda;\\ Though peaceful yet he destroys\\ The darkness located within;\\ The highest inner realm\\ He lights with his own rays;\\ Him, Vyāsa, wonderful sun,\\ I approach for shelter.
The Veda and that which it teaches, the Supreme Lord, some misinformed deniers (non-believers) do not accept. And some who look like believers have recourse to the half-hen fallacy. In order to refute these misguided ones he wrote the treatise called the Siddhānta-darpaṇa (Mirror of Conclusion) and at its beginning inscribed as its auspicious act a verse of {\it bhakti} for Vyāsa written by his predecessor [ancestor?].
``I resort to'' means I make him favorable to me by bowing to him. By referring to his father being Parāśara, his being the Lord is suggested. It is said in the {\it Viṣṇu Purāṇa} (3.4.5): ``Know Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vyāsa to be Lord Nārāyaṇa.'' And, by his being the father of \'Suka his being the instructor of pure {\it bhakti} is suggested. Moreover, {\it bhakti} for him fulfills the desires of the one who so honors him. (1)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2011 2:49:39 GMT -6
Hazra doesn't here give his reasoning for assigning the Bhagavata to the sixth century CE. We will need to ferret that out. But, the comparison with the VP is interesting. The author of the critical edition essay (Prof. K.K. Shastree) says later: "Except Gaudapada (the grand preceptor of Sri Adya Sankaracaryaji), none has any knowledge of the BGP. The time of Acarya Sankara has been given 788-820 AD, so that the time of Gaudapada should not be earlier than the middle of the 8th cent. AD. Hence the BGP is earlier than the 8th cent. AD. There is only one factor, which will be helpful to derive the time of the composition of the BGP. Unlike the prose of the VP, that of the BGP presents the prose (given mostly in the Skandha V) nearing to the classical style of the most famous poet Bana, the author of Kadambari (first half of the 7th cent. AD). It means that the time of composing of the BGP is not earlier than the later half of the 7th cent. AD and not later than the first half of the 8th cent. AD."(ibid. 16) I don't think that these are very strong arguments. First of all, it is commonly accepted now that Sankaracarya lived in the period 650-700 CE (not 788-820). Moreover, the reference to the Bhagavata by Gaudapada is in a commentary on the Uttara Gita. The Gaudapada who wrote that commentary is not the same as the Gaudapada who was the grand preceptor of Sankara. Since Sankara apparently knows nothing of the Bhagavata, it is possible that it was written about the same time he lived or shortly thereafter. It is possible that the author of the prose section had the work of Bana as his model. In those cases a period of 650-750 CE is possible for the composition of the Purana. But, there is much, much more to consider. More to come. Jay Nitai, If you read Dr. Hazra's original Book (search using Google Book as I explained you should be able to get it), you will find how systematically and step by step he arrived at that conclusion. And we can discussed that. "Moreover, the reference to the Bhagavata by Gaudapada is in a commentary on the Uttara Gita." This is not true. The reference Bhagavata of Garudapa being discussed is on the basis of his Karika (Mandukya Karika) of Gaurudapada which R. C Hazra discussed and in a great length he cited many historical records to show that Bhagavata is not late work at all and it is contemporary of VP may be little later that VP. Bhagavata being late work after Shakara is far fetched idea and I do not see any justification even in discussing that possibility. Any body who had read any thing from Shankar would be able to understand such fact. For e.g in Brihmasutra Bhasya Shankra refuted the concepts of Bhagavata Mata on Four Buhya and he used specific word Bhagavata in his commentary. Had Bhagavata being late work after Shankara no way it could become such a important and revered text to hardcore Shankarite for e.g Madhusudana Saraswati and Sridhar Swami since it is common in Vedic Sisya Parampara to have clear understanding of accepted Sastra on the basis of previous Acharyya approval or denial about any spurious Text. And Shakar's parampara being very orthodox and systematic in preserving old tradition and values does not support the idea of deviation by the later part of Advaitin. We also need to understand the possibility of strong connection and communication of various Traditional Paramparas in India during that age driven by various festivals, Tirtha Darshan by saints , study and obviously most notably regular debate that were being held between various traditions. This strong interaction between various sects refutes the possibility of any modern spurious text assuming such respected position of authority with such a small time even if we consider some of the content may be added later on. Which I do not see any deviation if we imposed any modern scientific worldview of wholeness as against fragmentation derived from Cartesian way of thinking which was predominant till few decade back. This also can be address carefully and can become another subject of research its own merit. I therefore would argue here instead of jumping to conclusion we should study aboyt various scholar opinion starting from Dr. Hazra and then we can apply our own thought process to arrive at opinion. From whatever text we have at our disposal it seems there are overwhelming reason to believe that Srimad Bhagavatam is not at all a later product as suggested by you Sri Nitai Das Ji. And Dr. Hazra seems to agree on that. Neverthless it would be a great study to expore all possibility. Let's do that. I therefore proposing a systematic way of study first in the following order. 1) Sidhdhanta Darpana. 2) Tattva Sandrabha and Sarbasambadini 3) Sri Shymlal Goswami Prabhupada introductory note on Bhagavat (I will try to scan the writing and send to you) 4) Dr. R. C Hazra 5) And any other scholar as you feel. 6) Fermentation of the thought with scientific world view as per the modern physics in the view of process of cognition. 7) At the end exploration from the above discussion how Vedavyas observed the truth and by the same method if any yogi/acharyya view the same truth by aligining with the Pragya of Vedavyas how that would not be considered as pramana and the word of Vedavyas? That is definitely satym param dhimahi. And if that is acceptable then why not to consider manifestation of the same supreme truth in different time frame with different tools like language to express the thought with all it timely deviation of linguistic characteristic. Of course this is accepted idea now-a-days among scientific and philosopher community is that language has it inherent limitation to express / help to manifest the truth, since language is fragmented by nature and process of cognition which leads to truth is not, which leads to the possibility of various interpretation/explanation of various text in terms of Bhasya/Tika to fill the gap whatever extent is possible. Which are all helped us to understand the truth in wholeness, though perfection of truth is not possible by the nature of law in line with uncertainty principle. Let have this framework in mind while going further in our discussion, hopefully this will lead us some striking revelation. To all for this special day: A Big Jay Jay Sri Nitaichand in the eve of Sri Nityananda Troyodashi. Jay Nitai
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Feb 17, 2011 1:05:07 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 6:44:01 GMT -6
Jay Nitai, Thanks fiorafemere for that great link. Now people would be able see the book by Dr. Hazra.I can see many other interesting in that site too which might be helpful for some other discussion. Here is another interesting research paper from an Mexican researcher ("Bhagavat Purana Much more Ancient than Believed" Written by Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez Lic. M.A )who has presented modern scientific view and tehnique and many new facts by moder researchers. This would be a good to have paper for our study. vedicempire.com/index.php?Itemid=27&id=72&option=com_content&task=viewJay Nitai
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 17, 2011 10:14:33 GMT -6
I don't think that these are very strong arguments. First of all, it is commonly accepted now that Sankaracarya lived in the period 650-700 CE (not 788-820). Moreover, the reference to the Bhagavata by Gaudapada is in a commentary on the Uttara Gita. The Gaudapada who wrote that commentary is not the same as the Gaudapada who was the grand preceptor of Sankara. Since Sankara apparently knows nothing of the Bhagavata, it is possible that it was written about the same time he lived or shortly thereafter. It is possible that the author of the prose section had the work of Bana as his model. In those cases a period of 650-750 CE is possible for the composition of the Purana. But, there is much, much more to consider. More to come. Jay Nitai, If you read Dr. Hazra's original Book (search using Google Book as I explained you should be able to get it), you will find how systematically and step by step he arrived at that conclusion. And we can discussed that. Now that we have access to the book. We will be able to look at the argumetns. One thing to be aware of, however, and that is that Dr Hazra wrote long ago. To suppose that no advancement in our knowledge has occurred since then is foolish. We have to keep in mind that there may be new facts that alter or invalidate his conclusions. Sorry to disagree with you here. The Bhagavata is referred to by name and a verse from the 10th Skandha is quoted in the comm. on the Uttara Gita. That commentary is not by the Gaudapada who was the paramaguru of Sankara. Now there are verses in the Mandukya karika which is by the paramaguru of Sankara, but those are not necessarily citations of the Bhagavata by Gaudapada. They are more likely to be the citations from the Karika by the author of the Bhagavata, which supports my thesis that the Bhagavata was written after Gaudapada and around the same time as Sankara (650-700 CE) Dr Tagare says this about the Gaudapada issue: "Attempts have been made to shift the date earlier still by referring to Gaudapada's Bhasya on the Uttara Gira where he mentions the Bhagavata Purana and quotes BhP 10.14.4. But this Gaudapada is supposed to be a later author of the same name as that of Sankara's spiritual grandsire. On the contrary it can be argued that the BhP borrowed words and ideas from the Mandukya-karikas of Gaudapada.[footnote: A.N.Roy BSOS, VII, 107-111] Plainly speaking, the BhP, as the source of the quotations for the works of Sankara and Gaudapada, has not been conclusively proved, as the BhP can be said to be the borrower from Gaudapada or both might have quoted from a different common source. It is for this reason that the 2 verses common to the Mathara-vrtti and BhP 1.8.52 and 1.6.35 are not taken as a conclusive evidence for fixing the date of the BhP, even though the textual resemblances are clear." (Introd, xxxv-xxxvi) This is absurd, Subrataji. We must consider all possibilities. We have to follow the evidence wherever it takes us. Otherwise, we are not really searching for the truth. If you are not willing, then this means that you are really only looking for confirmation of what you already believe. That is not the kind of search for evidence I am interested in. This does not refer to the work called the Bhagavata. It refers to a community of followers who are much earlier. We know about this cult from the references made by the Greek visitors who came to India with Alexander. It is wrong to suppose that their views which Sankara criticizes are the same views given in the Bhagavata Purana. In fact, the Bhagavata Purana with its theistic-advaitism is much closer to the views of Sankara than those of that old cult. This is nonsense, Subrataji. There is a vast difference between the views of Sridhara and Sankara and the views of Madhusudana and Sankara. The Advaita tradition continued to develop and evolve over the centuries between these writers. If the Bhagavata were written at roughly the same time as Sankara and showed such a great similarity to his views, it would be embraced by his followers as indeed it was. The point is that it is not how old a text is, but the high degree of sophistication that makes it so important. The Visnu Purana is older than the Bhagavata as is the Harivamsa, but they do not have anywhere near the authority of the Bhagavata. I have no idea what you mean here. Modern does not equate with spurious. If that were true then Sri Caitanya who is more modern than Sri Krsna would have to be accepted as spurious. Your Cartesian remarks escape me. Yes this is a good procedure. But we don't need to sit silently by while someone presents an idea that is clearly out of date or has been superseded by later research. I express my views as hypotheses that can and should be tested and examined. I am ready to follow the evidence. Are you? How can you say this? Didn't you just say that we have to look at the evidence? Where does this overwhelming reason come from in favor of the antiquity of the Bhagavata? Have you already made up your mind? My suggestion is not all that different from Dr Hazra's. He suggests that the Bhagavata was written in the 6th century CE. I just quoted the passage where he says that. My suggestion is that it was written in 7th century CE. They are practically the same. Only a hundred years separate them and neither of them is modern. You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Explore all the evidence but we already know the truth. Which is it? I agree with all except number 6. I don't agree with that because I have no idea what you mean. Please try to be more clear. I think we have to consider all views, even those I think are absurd and even the ones you think are absurd. And we have to remain open to the possibility that our acaryas did not really have any way of knowing how old the Bhagavata was. They just went with the commonly held view. Such views are often wrong. I am not quite sure I follow what you mean by #7 either. It seems to be an expression of faith that the truth will shine through in the end. The question is will we be able to accept the truth when (and if) it appears, especially if it does not look anything like what we were expecting.
|
|