Age and Authenticity of the Bhagavata

[Nitaidas]

Feb 17, 2011 6:44:01 GMT -6 @subrata said:

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=view

Jay Nitai

This guy sounds a bit nutty. Vedic Empire? That is pretty whacko. He is also clearly IGM through and through. Does he really have any solid arguments? Or, is it all wish-fullfillment?

That is the question. I will try to go through his essay and see if there is anything that strikes me as worthwhile. It may take me a while from the looks of it. My skimming did not turn up much sense in it.

I think the best accoutn we have so far is from Dr Hazra. I will try to add that of Dr Tagare to that and then the account of the Swami Tapasyananda (RKM). The views of Dr K.K. Shastree will follow. Maybe be then gerardji will have the van Buitenen essay scanned and posted.

[malati]

Hi my dear Nitaidasji

Dont let your emotions rule. Dont blatantly dismiss someone, like the Mexican researcher, just because he seems to be an IGM follower.
We try to be truthful and exercise intelligence here in Chaitanya Symposium, right?

I dont think he's nutty at all. He gave a systematic way by which the antiquity of a literature can be deduced. If your arguments are sound then you dont need name calling to prop up your arguments.

We are awaiting with great interest your systematic way of spelling out your own your points. Or maybe negate Juarez's points.

Thanks for shaking us from our smug complacency.

[Nitaidas]

Feb 18, 2011 2:58:40 GMT -6 malati said:

Hi my dear Nitaidasji

Dont let your emotions rule. Dont blatantly dismiss someone, like the Mexican researcher, just because he seems to be an IGM follower.
We try to be truthful and exercise intelligence here in Chaitanya Symposium, right?

Okay. Malatidi. If you insist. I know these IGMers, though. I was once one, remember. They are convinced they already know the truth and spare no pains to twist the facts to support their claims. They are not in search of the truth. They believe they already have it. They are not really serious about uncovering the truth through research unless it can be made to agree with what they already believe.

I dont think he's nutty at all. He gave a systematic way by which the antiquity of a literature can be deduced. If your arguments are sound then you dont need name calling to prop up your arguments.

You don't find the very idea of a Vedic Empire repulsive? In the first place Vedic is used in that usual ignorant way the IGMers use it. They say the Vedas say this and the Vedas say that when really they mean the Puranas or Smrtis say this or that. They think that anything in Sanskrit is somehow Vedic. Most of what they say is Vedic is not. The Vedas don't say any of those things and the later texts are not the same as the Vedas.

And Empire. How fascistic can one get? Do we really want an emperor or empress? The totalitarianism of it all is sickening.

I assume you have read it and it didn't trip any wires in your critical thinking. You think it is plausible?

We are awaiting with great interest your systematic way of spelling out your own your points. Or maybe negate Juarez's points.

Yes you will hear my assessment of is method or madness, whichever it is.

Thanks for shaking us from our smug complacency.

Now is the turn of my smug complacency, right?

[gerard]

I’m back on line but my scanner doesn’t work yet. But I found Van Buitenen’s article online here, p. 28: books.google.com/books?id=U-sC1GkwH7sC&pg=PA28&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was first published in: Milton Singer (ed.), Krishna: Myths, Rites and Attitudes, University of Chicago Press, 1966.


Van Buitenen quotes from F.J. Meier, Der Archaismus in der Sprache des Bhagavata-Purana, Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik. VIII (1931), 33-79 about the strangeness of the archaization: “the analysis of these baroque verses show us – and therein lies their value – the incredible ignorance of the editor of the Vedic language.” (my translation.)


Daniel P. Sheridan summarizes the discussion in his Advaitic Theism of the Bhagavata Purana, Motilal Banarsidass 1986, p. 6-7:

‘The terminus ad quem must be the catalogue of the Puranas in Alberuni’s history (1030 A.D.). Since it gives greater detail than either the Harivamsa or the Visnu Purana, the Bhagavata probably postdates these texts of the third or fourth centuries [note DPS: Winternitz, A History of Indian Literature]. Thus the limits for its dating are 500 – 1000 A.D. Within these limits opinion varies. From the reference within the Bhagavata apparently to the Alvars it appears that the Bhagavata was written in a Tamil speaking area. For example BP XI. 5. 39-40: “There will be many in the Dravidian lands, where the rivers Tamraparni, Krtamala, Payasvini, the most sacred Kaveri, Pratici and Mahanadi flow; those who drink their waters generally become pureminded devotees of Bhagavan Vasudeva.” The main period of the Alvars’ activity can be placed in the eighth and ninth centuries. The Bhagavata’s redactor may be considered the contemporary of these saints. Thus T. Hopkins’ assessment seems correct: “The ninth century, probably between 850 and 900 A.D. would thus seem the most likely time for the Bhagavata to have been written.” [Hopkins, Vaisnava Bhakti Movement in the Bhagavata Purana, p.7.] This, however, is a tentative assignment. With van Buitenen, we agree that until “fresh evidence turns up, it is better not to push back the date of the final version of the Bhagavata too far, nor too uncomprisingly to insist on the southern origin of our text.” There are no references to the Bhagavata in Ramanuja (12th century) nor in Yamuna (918-1038), both South Indian devotional theologians. “Their reticence”, according to van Buitenen, “need to be explained… That neither appears to quote from our text may mean either that in their day it was not sufficiently known or that it was not sufficiently respectable for their orthodox purposes. But argumentum e silentio are never conclusive…” Nevertheless, a reasonable working hypothesis dates the Bhagavata around 900 A.D., and there seems to be no alternative to a South Indian origin [note DPS: F. Hardy confirms this assessment by showing that some passages of the Bhagavata are translation-paraphrases of Alvar poems. See Viraha Bhakti: The Early History of Krsna Devotion in South India (Delhi, Oxford University Press. 1983)].’



But - as F.E. Pargiter in his Ancient Indian Historical Tradition stresses - the Puranas first came into existence as a collection of ancient legendary lore, and this, its original nature, is an essential fact. And that ancient lore will be very difficult to date.

[Nitaidas]

Thanks, gerardji, for this link and for the passage from Sheridan. Both are important parts of the puzzle. It is good to see you on the forum again.

There is no doubt that there are ancient things in the Bhagavata. Passages are clearly reflections of or comments on the ancient Vedic hymns and the Upanisads. The imprint of the Purusa-sukta is all over the place. Surely, there are other things that we who do not know the Vedas very well are missing that an audience of the second millennium in India would have seen immediately. There is an interesting text that I saw when I was working at the U Chicago Library just after being fudded. It traced all of the Vedic references from the Purana back to their Vedic sources. I think it was called something like Sruti-bhagavata and it was written by a pandit from Gujarat, I believe, in Sanskrit. Maybe I will try to get a copy through interlibrary loan. It is clear that whoever the author or authors of the Bhagavata was, he or they were deeply steeped in the Vedic texts (I am not using Vedic ignorantly here. I really mean the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads). In that sense the Bhagavata is an interpretation or commentary on those ancient texts. That is why I think the Bhagavata was written in a community of brahmanas in the South among whom memorization and use of the Vedic hymns in rituals was (and is) still active and alive, a community like the Nambudiri brahmanas of Kerala which is the community that Sankara came from. They were in his time mostly Vaisnava and, i think, still are today. Anyway, their level of learning and engagement with the Vedic texts and practices is a good match, in my opinion, for what we see in the Bhagavata.

Check out this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvvI3bIAgVA


This I think is the community that may have created the Bhagavata.

[malati]

Yes, Nitai das, Juarez's article didnt trip any wires of critical thinking in me. I must admit I am ignorant of the historicity surrounding GVism and its literature.


Dang! the 2 articles cited by Subrata and Gerard are long. Thanks for the links guys. I now even forgot what Juarez's points were. I must post this comment before I forget everything that I read.

The article by Van Buiten claims that the Bhagavat and the Gita were written at a later date, post Vedic. The prime reason for this claim is that the Vedas were primarily recited in ancient times, and except maybe the RgVeda considered the most prestigious of the lot, the Rig Veda had little trace of Vaidic because by that time Sanskrit had already been codified by the 3 sankritists , Panini, et al. (Please correct me here if I misunderstood the point about the RigVeda-- the sentence is not very well constructed, so a bit unclear to me). (I think we have to understand that sanskrit is not like the english language. Sanksrit is a, as a description from the article, "summation of a way of life".)

Anyway, the article says that when sanksrit was in the decline, came the Bhagavat and the Gita which even now exert great influences across the board of Hindu thoughts. It claims that the 2 books were written post Vedic, sanskritized to make the lifeline to the ancient Vedas and as time went by refined and extended by successive authors, including Yamuna, Madhava, Ramanuja. The reasons given in the article for sankritization were that to lend authority to these literature and to lend them orthodoxy as the Vedas exert authority on the religious, thoughts and cuture of the Indian society.

The 3 giants of Hindu thoughts contributed to the refinement of the Bhagavat and the Gita that we now know. Ramanuja "smuggle' his pet idea-- Vaishnava bhakti to the Bhagavat, made Krishna philosophy a centerpiece for these literature. Other authors extended it and in this way the Bhagavat and the Gita can be considered a distillation of cultural processes.

Anyway, be that as it may, I'll say, so what if both were "not really pure Vedic". They have given renewed meaning to countless people's lives. Just because they're new doesnt mean there are no truth in them. Does anyone ever think that only the Vedas have transcendent realizations?

[gerard]

Feb 19, 2011 12:06:57 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Check out this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvvI3bIAgVA


This I think is the community that may have created the Bhagavata.

That’s what I like about you, Nitaiji, you keep opening cans of worms. Now good old Frits Staal and his performing Nambudiri Brahmins. I really doubt the Nambudiris wrote the Bhagavata. Staal was interested in them because they hadn’t changed in 3000 years, living completely isolated in Kerala. Why would they start compiling books?

Staal was studying the origin of language and he argued that there is a direct relationship between ritual actions and mantras. He suggested that mantras began as sentences attached to ritual actions, and that these mantra/ritual action units were the raw data from which language arose. In India, said Staal, language is not something with which you name something; it is something with which you do something. The Vedic mantra orally handed down is at least as long as a sentence or line of verse that corresponds to one ritual act. Even if the rites are modified or abandoned, the action of mantra recitation is retained.

Or to quote him from his chapter “Vedic Mantras” in Harvey P. Alper (ed.) Understanding Mantras, SUNY 1989 (I’m so glad my scanner works again, but I apologize to Malati for the length of the quotes):


"Mental patients and children often display features reminiscent of earlier stages of evolution, and that may be referred to as archaic. Religion is generally conservative and characterized by archaic features. It is probable that there are other features of religion that can be interpreted as regressive. Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, is a related form of regression. Mantras are always archaic. They are often attributed to ancestors or primeval sages (such as the Vedic rsis), or are regarded as eternal or as having originated in a golden age (krtayuga or satyayuga). In Sri Lanka, where demons are similarly primeval, mantras are referred to as the "language of the demons" (yaksa basava).

"The archaic nature of mantras is related to the fact that many mystical phenomena are archaic. The mystical state is a state of awareness that can be reached or produced with the aid of mantras, a state of consciousness that is "beyond language" or "ineffable." Mantras give access to this ineffable state. To say with Renou, Padoux, and Wheelock that mantras are beyond the boundary of language, at the highest level of speech "situated beyond language and eventually right to the zone of language," or to say that mantras "point backwards to the source of language, which is the source of all creation itself" is not merely a matter of phenomenological, religious, or spiritual metaphor, or using an apt expression for the right congregation; such expressions should be taken literally as asserting that mantras are the predecessor of language in the process of human evolution.

"The mystical state is a prelinguistic state of mind that can be reached when language is renounced, through silence, mantras, or rites. Absence of language accounts for most or all of its allegedly blissful nature. But it also explains certain philosophical and theological ideas and doctrines. An example is the belief that mantras are not only eternal and impervious to transformation but that they fail to effect any transformations. Accordingly, mantras do not transform a person or lead to a new existence; on the contrary, they give access to a state or condition that at all times was already there. This simply means, on our interpretation, that the prelinguistic condition continues to exist beneath a state of awareness now steeped in language—just as our animal nature underlies whatever human characteristics are superimposed on it. Man cannot become an animal; he always already is one. This is formulated analogously in terms of Indian philosophy: No one attains release; everyone is already released, only he or she does not know it. Such ideas are found in the Advaita Vedanta and in the Buddhist Madhyamika school—the philosophical underpinnings for all the schools of the Tantra. In Buddhism, the locus classicus is Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyama-kakarika 16.8:

baddho na mucyate tavad abaddho naiva mucyate
syatam baddhe mucyamane yugapadbandhamoksane

(No one in bondage is released just as
no one who is free is released,
if someone in bondage were to be released
bondage and release would be simultaneous.)

For Vedanta, the locus classicus is Gaudapada's Agamasastra 2.32:

na nirodho na cotpattir na baddho na ca sadhakah
na mumuksur na vai mukta ity esa paramarthata

(There is no destruction, no origination,
no one in bondage, no one seeking perfection,
no one desirous of release, no one really released—
this is the highest truth.)

[…]

"If there are anywhere structures similar to these ritual features, it is in the realm of music. This is not so merely because the Samaveda may be described as "mantras set to music." What is more significant is that the structure of these chants, both internally and in relation to each other, corresponds to musical structure. Close parallels to these structures are found, for example, in the complex expressions of polyphonic music in Europe during the eighteenth century. The ritual chants of the agnicayana resemble in this respect the arias of Bach's oratorios, and are similar in character: Their language is uninteresting, their poetry mediocre, and their meaning trite; but the sounds, with their themes and variations, inversions, interpolations, and counterpoint, and the particular distributions of their elements is what makes them remarkable. To those who have grown up in such a tradition, and who have learned to perceive and appreciate it in its traditional perspective, it is the structure of these chants that reveals to a large extent what is felt to be their beauty."

* * *

As a sort of a PS

To me it seems that Staal only has eyes for the unio mystica experience in the literal sense of the word of becoming one with the Divine as the Immutable Ground of Being as with the Advaitic, Buddhistic and some Christian mystics. Staal says that “there is in later Hinduism a sort of religiosity (bhakti) but most Indian philosophers are indifferent to that.” (Over zin en onzin in filosofie, religie en wetenschap, Amsterdam 1986).

I think he underestimates bhakti, but as a delineation of the beginning of the evolution of consciousness his work is very important.
The implication of Staal's reasoning above could be that Advaita and Buddhism belong to a sort of archaic consciousness and hence their aims and the practice of their meditation could be seen as atavistic tendencies, but bhakti as being more modern - the Bhagavata only as recent as 600 - 900 A.D.! - could still be practiced by people today. Sankirtan is the yugadharma of this age.

[Nitaidas]

Impressive, gerardji. Thanks for posting all those comments from Staal. I like Staal and consider him immensely learned. And yes, you are right about his favoring the advaitic experience. Still, i think we can learn a great deal about mysticism and advaita from him.

Perhaps I am jumping ahead a bit here. We still need to gather much data and then spend some time digesting it. But why do you think that the Nambudiri community, or some members from that community, might not have put the Bhagavata together? Yes, I think it came in parts. Here is my line of reasoning:

1. The Bhagavata was written by a Vaisnava southerner (who did not know the geography of Vraja at all). The Nambudiris are Vaisnava southerners.

2. The authors of the Bhagavata were deeply steeped in Vedic texts. The Nambudiri brahmanas are just that. Not a common trait. Those who were not brahmana were not allowed to study it.

3. The Bhagavata espouses a theistic-advaitism that is very similar to that of Sankara and he was a member of that same Nambudiri community. This, of course, depends on one's acceptance of the recent research on Sankara done by Paul Hacker, Nakamura, and Mayeda which argues that most of the works of Sankara were not really by him and that those that probably are by him are all Vaisnava and are not atheistic or mayavada. If this is true this invalidates most of what has been said about Sankara by both IGM and CV. They misunderstand Sankara as an incarnation of Siva, a Saivite, who accepted the vivarta form of Advaita. Actually, he was a Vaisnava for whom Brahman=Visnu. This is very close to the position of the Bhagavata.

4. The Namburdiris had the necessary facility with the Sanskrit language and the familiarity with the Vedic language to have attempted the "archaisms" found in the Bhagavata. My understanding is that those archaic forms are mostly used correctly.

Anyway, the key to the age of the Bhagavata is there in the text itself and I will try to unpack my views (again just hypotheses waiting on more confirming or disconfirming evidence) as we looking at the arguments of others.

The only major problem that I can see with this theory of mine is the presence in the Bhagavata of a marked strain of anti-Brahmanism. One would expect the Nambudiris to be fully pro-brahmana as Sankara is in his preamble to his Gita commentary, for instance. Maybe it was done by some in the community who had the advantages of the training but who were or became rebellious and critical of more conservative elders of the time.

There is another lead I would like pursue and that has to do with the relationship between the Bhagavata philosophy as found in the Bhagavata and the Buddhist Mahayana tradition. This connection is made in Hacker's book Prahlada. Are you familiar with this work?

[malati]

Just my reflections on the comments by Nitaidasji that the Nambudiri community of South India could have written the Bhagavat. I watched the video and I saw that till now the passing down of mantras/rituals of that isolated community was still by way of oral tradition. In the video we can see that the father is coaching his son??, on the mantras and shaking his head/small body back and forth as if the force of his shake has the force to effect a strong remembrance on the boy. If they are still into oral tradition even in this modern age, what caused the "mutation" to have caused one of theirs to write and compile it. Very unlikely, in my opinion.

Anyway, while looking for more information on the topic on hand, I found an introduction by Mars Martin Fosse on his translations of the Gita. Here is the link, very informative.

www.yogavidya.com/Yoga/BhagavadGita.pdf

Some highlights from his introduction:

The Gita may or may not be a part of Mahabharat.

He placed the origin of the Mahabharat somewhere in the 8 and 9th century BCE (before the christian era). Although he said some scholars consider the roots of the M to be much older. The didactic (to teach a moral lesson) portions of the twelfth book seem to have been added at a later date, 4 century CE 400 (christian era).

The oldest part of the Gita placed at 3rd century BCE. The theistic portion at 2nd century BCE. Chaps 12-15 date back to 1st century CE, Chap 7 , maybe even younger. The Gita was likely composed in north-central India, perhaps in the modern Haryana or Uttar Pradesh. (Note not in South India)

Fosse notes that the Gita at its core is a text of contradictions, as the book talks about theism, ascetism, dualism, pantheism, pragmatic materialism, yoga, vedanta and even Buddhism in the same breath. Me thinks therefore that we can conclude that it's a composite work that evolved through time by different authors.

Scholars believe that there's no single date of composition and no single authorship for Mahabharat, traditionally believed to be composed by Vyasa. Originally as oral poetry, it's core is fixed, but and as a poetry it's performance was higly flexible and so a bard can at his disposal embellish, digress and add to it. Perhaps the core of the epic was composed by a single bard or a group of bards but it's now irrecoverable.


Malati dasi

[Ekantin]

Feb 19, 2011 18:38:53 GMT -6 malati said:

Anyway, be that as it may, I'll say, so what if both were "not really pure Vedic". They have given renewed meaning to countless people's lives. Just because they're new doesnt mean there are no truth in them. Does anyone ever think that only the Vedas have transcendent realizations?

Good question, especially in the context of this thread to try and ascertain the true age of the Bhagavata. Does meaning become more meaningful with age? Meaningfulness is after all a type of qualia. If we assume for the sake of argument that the Bhagavat is 5000 years old, does this automatically make it more meaningful and enriching than a text that was published only yesterday?

And also, one might ask themselves if it is possible for a 5000-year-old work to be more or less relevant to life than a text published recently?

But maybe we can leave those questions for later, after we finish chewing on the questions of it's actual age first.

[Nitaidas]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them, malatidi. What you see on the video is their study of and transmission of the Veda. That they try to pass on inviolate. You should not assume that that is their only mode of study or of literary activity. As I said before, Sankara himself came from this community and he wrote plenty in his brief time on earth. One should also not assume that this community has survived isolated and unchanged for three thousand years. That is just a pious fantasy. They have changed profoundly as all communities must. They once offered real blood sacrifices as the Vedas require, but now their offerings reflect their vegetarian status. Coconuts instead of heads, etc. etc.

Acquiring an intimacy with the Veda such as that found in the Bhagavata was not easy. That was a strictly controlled area of knowledge and not available to the vast majority of Indians, not available even to many among the brahminical community.

So what else can the Bhagavata tell us about itself?

Its use of the word yavana tells us that it was composed after the incursion of Alexander the Great into India in 326 BCE. Now that may not apply to all of the text because it is obviously a composite text. Here are the parts of the text that should be regarded as separate parts added perhaps at different times and from different sources.

The first skandha and the last skandha are the most recent additions. Because of the way Sanskrit books were bound in the old days it was easy to add leaves on to the front and the back. To put them in the middle was problematic. The first skandha is clearly an advertisement of the main text. It and the last are like the blurbs found in modern books on the front flap of the cover and the back flap of the cover. They mostly tell us what a wonderful book the Bhagavata is and praise and substantiate its author. These are certainly not by Vyasa no matter how you conceive of him. They fall well outside the portion of the text represented as spoken by Suka. They are high quality, no doubt, but clearly presuppose the existence of another text called the Bhagavata.

The Third and Fourth Skandhas seem also to form a unit distinct from the rest of the work. Those likely came from another source. It is as if the story starts over again at the beginning of three. We are plunged back into creation and eventually presented with the dialogue between Devahuti and Kapila which is not found in the VP or Harivamsa. If these are later additions then it is likely that two is too. Skandha Two is one of the places where the word yavana (from ionian) occurs as well as the word huna (for Huns). What do you suppose this means?

This is as far as my thinking, based on what I have read, has gone on this at present. Obviously, this is theoretical and not established yet. A closer examination of the text is needed. And more reflection. I think the purana wants to tell us its secrets, but we have to be ready to listen.

[Nitaidas]

Here is the next section of the Siddhanta darpana. Please ignore the markups. I will post a pdf shortly.

{\bf Forever let him live in our hearts\\
That Murāri, the self of Caitanya,\\
By whose grace the king of gajas\\
Became free of blame and joyful. (2)}

{\bf Commentary}

Now he composes his own auspicious verse beginning {\it nityam} ...
Here the three, Kṛṣṇa, Caitanya, and Murāri, are described. In the
first case Murāri refers to Kṛṣṇa who is consciousness, whose very
form is consciousness. The ``king of elephants'' ({\it gajapati}) is
Gajendra trapped in the jaws of a crocodile. Blameless means that he
(Gajendra) lost his animal nature and joyful that he gained the body
of a companion of Kṛṣṇa.

In the second case {\it caitanyātmā} refers to the form of the one
named Caitanya who is Murāri, that is, who is the destroyer of the
reproach of repeated birth and death, and the ``king of elephants''
means the king of Utkala (Orissa). Blameless means having given up
the quality of {\it rajas} or militant passion. And, being joyful
means that he attained the bliss of divine love.

In the third case, Murāri refers to his (Baladeva's) own fourth
predecessor [ancestor?]. And, {\it caitanyātmā} means he was fully
devoted to the Son of \'Sacī. ``King of elephants'' means Gopāladāsa,
a king of elephants. Blameless means that he was freed of his violent
nature and joyful means that he enjoyed the service of the saints.
Here the first case is the expressed meaning and the other two are
suggested meanings.
\bigskip

\begin{verse}

{\bf Since, in this book are revealed\\
The conclusions of the Vedas,\\
So precious to the holy,\\
This book is called by name\\
``Mirror of Consclusion.'' (3)}

\end{verse}

{\bf Commentary}

He praises the present book with {\it yad} ... The conclusions of the
Veda such as the eternity of the Veda, its being a form of the Lord,
its having the histories ({\it itihāsa}) and ancient lore ({\it
purāṇa}) as its forms, are revealed, that is, are completely
perceived. ``Holy'' means {\it bhaktas} of Hari who are followers of
the Vedas.
\bigskip

\begin{verse}

{\bf One indeed is the highest truth\\
In conveyed and conveyer states,\\
Conveyed is Deity, All-controller\\
Conveyer is the holy {\it oṃ}. (4)}

\end{verse}

{\bf Commentary}

He begins the book with {\it ekam} ... ``This indeed, Satyakāma, is
the higher and lower {\it brahman} which is the syllable {\it
oṃ}.''\footnote{{\it Praśna Upaniṣad}, 5.2.} The non-difference
between the conveyed and the conveyer, the controller and the syllable
{\it oṃ}, is shown. And so will it be in other places.

[gerard]

Feb 20, 2011 22:39:30 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

4. The Namburdiris had the necessary facility with the Sanskrit language and the familiarity with the Vedic language to have attempted the "archaisms" found in the Bhagavata. My understanding is that those archaic forms are mostly used correctly.

Anyway, the key to the age of the Bhagavata is there in the text itself and I will try to unpack my views (again just hypotheses waiting on more confirming or disconfirming evidence) as we looking at the arguments of others.

The only major problem that I can see with this theory of mine is the presence in the Bhagavata of a marked strain of anti-Brahmanism. One would expect the Nambudiris to be fully pro-brahmana as Sankara is in his preamble to his Gita commentary, for instance. Maybe it was done by some in the community who had the advantages of the training but who were or became rebellious and critical of more conservative elders of the time.

There is another lead I would like pursue and that has to do with the relationship between the Bhagavata philosophy as found in the Bhagavata and the Buddhist Mahayana tradition. This connection is made in Hacker's book Prahlada. Are you familiar with this work?

But van Buitenen seems to agree with Meier’s assessment of the redactor’s "unbelievable ignorance (unglaubliche Unkenntnis)" of the Vedic language, and therefore, I assume, van Buitenen doesn't give any additional linguistic example in his article. But then, Shankara's knowledge of the Vedic language isn't rated as very high either ("knows the [Vedic] language very imperfectly", Otto Böhtlingk 1897).

I don't know the recent research done on Shankara. Sheridan quotes Hacker as saying that "Samkara worked in a Vaisnava milieu in which various forms of advaita were studied".

Has Hacker's book Prahlada been translated into English or did you read it in German? When I googled it, I could only find the German edition. BTW, in 1964 Frits Staal wrote a review of that book in JAOS 84, p.464-67.


Wouldn't it be more plausible to assume that the BhagPur originated with the Bhagavatas in stead of smarta-brahmans like the Nambudiris? Because of their low status the Bhagavatas were in dire need of a traditionalization of their text.




There is not only a marked strain of anti-brahmanism in the BhagPur but funnily enough also a marked anti-Veda attitude, a continuation of Gita 2.42, the flowery speech of those who delight in the words of the Veda, in BhagPur XI.21.35, persons bewildered by the flowery words of the Vedas.

But more so by the defeat of the Vedic devadeva Indra by his son Arjuna and defiance of Krishna with Govardhana to become the new devadeva. It is the end of the era of the Vedic gods and Bhagavan Sri Krishna reveals Himself.

[Ekantin]

Feb 23, 2011 9:09:40 GMT -6 gerard said:

BTW, in 1964 Frits Staal wrote a review of that book in JAOS 84, p.464-67.

I have this review. If anyone wants to read it, send me your email address in a private message please. The forum unfortunately disallows attachments.

[malati]

Feb 22, 2011 16:06:35 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Here is the next section of the Siddhanta darpana. Please ignore the markups. I will post a pdf shortly.

{\bf Forever let him live in our hearts\\
That Murāri, the self of Caitanya,\\
By whose grace the king of gajas\\
Became free of blame and joyful. (2)}

{\bf Commentary}

Now he composes his own auspicious verse beginning {\it nityam} ...
Here the three, Kṛṣṇa, Caitanya, and Murāri, are described. In the
first case Murāri refers to Kṛṣṇa who is consciousness, whose very
form is consciousness. The ``king of elephants'' ({\it gajapati}) is
Gajendra trapped in the jaws of a crocodile. Blameless means that he
(Gajendra) lost his animal nature and joyful that he gained the body
of a companion of Kṛṣṇa.

In the second case {\it caitanyātmā} refers to the form of the one
named Caitanya who is Murāri, that is, who is the destroyer of the
reproach of repeated birth and death, and the ``king of elephants''
means the king of Utkala (Orissa). Blameless means having given up
the quality of {\it rajas} or militant passion. And, being joyful
means that he attained the bliss of divine love.

In the third case, Murāri refers to his (Baladeva's) own fourth
predecessor [ancestor?]. And, {\it caitanyātmā} means he was fully
devoted to the Son of \'Sacī. ``King of elephants'' means Gopāladāsa,
a king of elephants. Blameless means that he was freed of his violent
nature and joyful means that he enjoyed the service of the saints.
Here the first case is the expressed meaning and the other two are
suggested meanings.
\bigskip

\begin{verse}

{\bf Since, in this book are revealed\\
The conclusions of the Vedas,\\
So precious to the holy,\\
This book is called by name\\
``Mirror of Consclusion.'' (3)}

\end{verse}

{\bf Commentary}

He praises the present book with {\it yad} ... The conclusions of the
Veda such as the eternity of the Veda, its being a form of the Lord,
its having the histories ({\it itihāsa}) and ancient lore ({\it
purāṇa}) as its forms, are revealed, that is, are completely
perceived. ``Holy'' means {\it bhaktas} of Hari who are followers of
the Vedas.
\bigskip

\begin{verse}

{\bf One indeed is the highest truth\\
In conveyed and conveyer states,\\
Conveyed is Deity, All-controller\\
Conveyer is the holy {\it oṃ}. (4)}

\end{verse}

{\bf Commentary}

He begins the book with {\it ekam} ... ``This indeed, Satyakāma, is
the higher and lower {\it brahman} which is the syllable {\it
oṃ}.''\footnote{{\it Praśna Upaniṣad}, 5.2.} The non-difference
between the conveyed and the conveyer, the controller and the syllable
{\it oṃ}, is shown. And so will it be in other places.

Sorry Nitaidasji

I do not see the import of your post in regard to this thread. Can you please enlighten me.


Thanks