|
|
Post by gerard on Feb 24, 2011 9:44:44 GMT -6
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. As you are a major contributor to Gaudiya Repercussions perhaps you could put that review there and put a link to that here? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 24, 2011 10:18:08 GMT -6
Sorry Nitaidasji I do not see the import of your post in regard to this thread. Can you please enlighten me.  Thanks The third through the seventh chapters of this work by Baladeva deal with several doubts about the Bhagavata. That is why Subrataji recommended it be presented here. Fionafemere requested that we start from the beginning of the text. So I am honoring his request. The beginning chapters are a good summary of CV theology. He like Sri Jiva in the Tattva-sandarbha argues that the Bhagavata is a form of the Veda. As you can see from the fourth verse the absolute truth has two states: subject and communicator of that subject (conveyed and conveyer), Bhagavan and sound (sabda) which is represented by the omkara, the seed or bija of all scripture, if you will. As Baladeva will say in the fifth and sixth verses each state has many forms and they are all eternal. They only appear and disappear; they are not created or written. So from his perspective the Bhagavata is a complete unit like the Lord himself and it only appears in the world at a particular moment. So our discussions of when the Bhagavata was written and by whom are really only about when it appeared and who facilitated in its appearance. It like the Veda is eternal and ultimately authorless. Our discussions probably do not impact this view. One has to wonder, however, how the form of the text might change in its various manifestations. Does it take a form that fits into each historical context in which it manifests? So in the form before us, it mentions the Greeks (yavana) and the Huns (huna), the Buddha and Mahavira, and even, it would appear, the Tamil saints known as the Alvars, in order to fit into the historical place in which it appears. Surely these accidents of history are temporary and impermanent and would not figure in an eternal text. Maybe they are like lint that is drawn and attached to the fabric of the text whenever it manifests, in which case we need to separate the fabric of the text from its lint to get to the eternal part. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 24, 2011 11:47:47 GMT -6
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 think I read somewhere that Ingalls disagrees. He seems to praise the correctness of the archaic forms. I will look around for that. That said, there are many odd usages and mistakes in the text. I had a book from interlibrary loan at one point that went through the whole text and pointed out all the strange usages and mistaken forms in the text. It was mind boggling. It made me wonder for a bit if the text was written by a foreigner who learned Sanskrit late and not very well. It make one wonder what is the truth. Are the Vedic forms wrong and how so? Or, are they correct? Can you cite some examples from Meier? Do you have access to the the text or should I try to find it? There is a nice book out containing translations of many of Hacker's essays called Philology and Confrontation. It is edited by Wilhelm Halbfass. What I know about Hacker basically comes from this. The suggestion that the Bhagavata theology owes much to the Mahayana comes from a footnote in that. Here is what Hacker says in his essay on Sankara: "I conjecture that the term Bhagavata refers specially, though not exclusively, to Advaita Vaisnavism, whereas the other ancient Vaisnava group, the Pancaratra, was dualistic or pluralistic in its thinking, as we can see from the Vaisnava Samhitas, The monistic-illusionistic tendencies of the Vaisnavas (Bhagavatas) can be explained as being due to their originally close relations with Mahayana Buddhism. Lamotte has pointed out the existence of these relations from Buddhist sources, but they can be attested from the brahminical side also, namely in the Visnupurana." (P and C, page 28) No. It has not. I just noted it in a footnote from Philology and Confrontation. My German is pretty rusty. I had to show competency when I was working on my PhD, but I use it so rarely it has whithered. I can probably get that review and post it. I will check JSTOR. Or, if Ekantin sends his copy to me I can post it. I hate to assume anything. There are references to a group called the Bhagavatas going back to Megasthenes, but we really don't know what they stood for. If Hacker's conjecture is correct then perhaps the Bhagavatas are indeed the source of the Bhagavata Purana. I looked at Sankara's criticism of the Bhagavatas in his commentary on the Brahma-sutra 2.2.42-45. Here is how they are represented in Thibaut's translation: "The so-called Bhagavatas are of opinion that the one holy (bhagavat) Vasudeva, whose nature is pure knowledge, is what really exists, and that he, dividing himself fourfold, appears in four forms (vyuha) as Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. Vasudeva denotes the highest Self, Sankarshana the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind (manas), Aniruddha the principle of egoity (ahankara). Of these four Vasudeva constitutes the ultimate causal essence, of which the three others are the effects---The believer after having worshipped Vasudeva for a hundred years by menas of approach to the temple (abhigamana). procuring of things to be offered (upadana), oblation (ijya), recitation of prayers, etc (svadhyaya), and devout meditation (yoga), passes beyond all affliction and reaches the highest Being." In the next section Sankara says: "Concerning this system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Narayana, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the highest Self, and the Self of all, reveals himself by dividing himself in multiple ways; for various scriptural passages, such as 'He is onefold, he is threefold (Kh U VII, 26, 2), teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms. Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing concentration of mind on the highest Being which appears in the Bhagavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach, etc. for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know well from Smrti and Scripture. We must, however, take exception to the doctrine that Sankarshana springs from Vasudeva, Pradumna from Sankarshana, Aniruddha from Pradyumna." (The Vedanta sutras of Badarayana with the commentary by Sankara, translated by George Thibaut, 440-1). The reason Sankara gives for taking exception seems quite reasonable, but I am out of time. I must run. I will give the rest of the passage later. |
|
|
|
Post by cvsaragrahi on Feb 24, 2011 14:27:19 GMT -6
I know this might sound really "dumb," since I am not by any measure one qualified to undertake this daunting task of determining the various stages of eternal knowledge manifesting in the world by various authors in different time frames. When I read this, "Maybe they are like lint that is drawn and attached to the fabric of the text whenever it manifests, in which case we need to separate the fabric of the text from its lint to get to the eternal part. " I envisioned a clothes dryer full of scripture, turning slowly, filling the lint trap with material concepts. Despite this silly image, I like the idea of lint being attached to divine substance as it makes its way onto different levels of the material dimension. This can apply not only to scripture, but all aspects of our existence on this dimension, activity, speech, thoughts, relationships etc. We are drying everything out in the machine of sadhana and extracting the lint to get a pure fabric of existence capable of receiving the divine imprint in the form, texture and taste of rasa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Feb 24, 2011 16:44:26 GMT -6
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. As you are a major contributor to Gaudiya Repercussions perhaps you could put that review there and put a link to that here? Thanks. Ok, tathastu! ;D Download and read the review here. |
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Feb 24, 2011 17:26:14 GMT -6
OK, I just read the attachment at GR. Thank you Ekantin. Inconclusive as everything so far written on the subject in this tread. It might be here and there. No exact answers and pretty much everyone admits incompetence when dealing with a subject of age and authenticity of not just Bhagavata, but other puranas as well. I am still interested in reading the rest of Baladeva's work.
The main problem, for all of us who grew up in the western societies, will be dates that are missing as we are accustomed through our upbringing and education that any real text should have at least one date and not bunch of chapters which begin with "At the time of yore..." and "Once upon a time...".
However, Nitaidas, you have put it well in this sentence: "Maybe they are like lint that is drawn and attached to the fabric of the text whenever it manifests, in which case we need to separate the fabric of the text from its lint to get to the eternal part. "
|
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Feb 24, 2011 19:45:50 GMT -6
As you are a major contributor to Gaudiya Repercussions perhaps you could put that review there and put a link to that here? Thanks. Ok, tathastu! ;D Download and read the review here. Thanks again! I suddenly remembered that there is another way of doing this and that is Scribd.com. Easy and free to register and upload pdfs there: this is my account for instance: www.scribd.com/softbrainNitai asked: No sorry, I don't have Meier's article, and I don't think I can look it up. Besides my Sanskrit is very poor (let alone Vedic) and this is a technical article. Probably best if you could take a look at it and give us your assessment, if you feel like it. but you also said: Do you remember whose book that was? And do you still need Meier's 1931 article then? Van Buitenen's article is also rather old. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Feb 27, 2011 0:09:56 GMT -6
I suddenly remembered that there is another way of doing this and that is Scribd.com. Easy and free to register and upload pdfs there: this is my account for instance: www.scribd.com/softbrain Oh yes, good idea. Thanks for the tip! I think I might upload the pdfs available at my old site: Srivasa Angan. |
|
|
|
Post by gopalgupta on Feb 27, 2011 13:10:26 GMT -6
Dear Sir: Please don’t lost your time with a very unprofessional person that show his emotional answers like ad huminem phalacy ( attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue.) If somebody want to know all the evidences from Dr. Arganis-, he is Ph D researcher scholar in UIE, please look this website: www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sb.htmRelated: Antiquity of Bhagavatam (MA thesis by Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez - summary) Sincerily Gopal Gupta |
|
|
|
Post by gopalgupta on Feb 27, 2011 13:22:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 27, 2011 14:04:36 GMT -6
Here is the next verse of the Siddhanta-darpana
{\bf
Just as by the Fish, the Tortoise\\
And other forms the one conveyed\\
May become, indeed, manifold,\\
The conveyer, too, is, like that,\\
Proclaimed as many, starting with Ṛg. (5)}
\end{verse}
{\bf Commentary}
He states the manifold nature of both with {\it matysa} ... Just as
the one conveyed, the Controller of All, through his forms of the
Fish, and the rest, has many forms, so, too, does the conveyer, the
{\it praṇava}, become many through the Ṛg, Yajus, Sāma, Atharvan, the
histories ({\it itihāsa}), texts of Ancient Lore ({\it purāṇa}) and so
forth. ``Though one, he appears as many," it is said in the {\it Śrī
Gopāla-tāpanī}.\footnote{{\it Gopāla-tāpanī, Uttara}, 1.19.} And, in
the {\it Śrī Viṣṇu Purāṇa}: ``unto the one whose own nature is one and
many." Thus, there are many forms of the conveyed.
Beginning with ``All the Vedas are rooted in the {\it praṇava}," and
continuing with ``indeed those that are prior letters of that {\it
praṇava}, earth is the 'a,' ...," the ``a," the ``u," the ``m," and
the half measure of that conveyer are in order the Ṛg, Yajus, Sāma,
and Atharvan. From this statement in the {\it Śrī Nṛsiṃhatāpanī}, the
praṇava is the Ṛg and so forth. And from the Bṛhadāraṇyak: ``O thus
indeed is the breath of this great being the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda,
the Sāma Veda, the Atharvāṅgirasa, the history, the wisdom of ancient
lore, the Upaniṣadsm the verses, the aphorisms, and the explanations.
\begin{verse}
And indeed accept me, the Lord,\\
The Controller, the Master, as\\
speaker complete of history and lore.\\
One was then the Yajurveda;\\
He divided that into four.\\
Four-priestly roles in that arose;\\
By that he built the sacrifice:\\
The Adhvaryu with his Yajus,\\
The Hotṛ with hymns of the Ṛk,\\
Udgātṛ with the Sāma songs,\\
And Brahman with his Atharvans.\\
Also the best of the twice-born\\
With their stories, tales, and stanzas.\\
The Purāṇa and Saṃhitās\\
Made He, so skilled in ancient lore.\\
But what remains is Yajurveda.\\
Thus is known the sense of scripture. (5)
[more coming later]
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 27, 2011 14:25:14 GMT -6
Dear Sir: Please don’t lost your time with a very unprofessional person that show his emotional answers like ad huminem phalacy ( attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue.) If somebody want to know all the evidences from Dr. Arganis-, he is Ph D researcher scholar in UIE, please look this website: www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sb.htmRelated: Antiquity of Bhagavatam (MA thesis by Horacio Francisco Arganis Juarez - summary) Sincerily Gopal Gupta Dear sir, I looked at that line of argument and decided there is nothing of worth in it. It is a waste of time to even bother with it. He misreads the evidence and uses percentages as if they were in some way meaningful and in order, no doubt, to give the appearance of some scientific validity. It is just smoke and mirrors. It is a waste of time to even read the thing, much less consider it seriously. All evidence that has any shred of authenticity points to a relatively late (5-6th century CE) and southern source for the Bhagavata. That is the line of inquiry I will pursue here rather than wasting my time on wish-fulfillment and fantasy arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 27, 2011 22:18:19 GMT -6
Here is a pdf of the file. Only the first five verses and commentary are done. Siddhanta-darpana |
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Feb 28, 2011 3:48:18 GMT -6
Thank you Nitaidas for continuing translation of Siddhanta-darpana. It seems that text deals mainly with authenticity of Bhagavata Purana. Jiva Goswami does it in Tattva Sandarbha (I read the Jiva Institute's edition by Satya Narayana das). And if anyone would like to read bits and pieces of it they can go to www.saragrahi.org/ and find it on the left hand side. Or just click on the following link to go to it directly: www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Tattva%20Sandarbha/Tattva%20Sandarbha%20Contents.htmI read both materials, the one on the internet and the printed/ published one; however, I did not go into details of comparing them for any editing they might have done before printing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Mar 1, 2011 11:17:08 GMT -6
Thank you Nitaidas for continuing translation of Siddhanta-darpana. It seems that text deals mainly with authenticity of Bhagavata Purana. Jiva Goswami does it in Tattva Sandarbha (I read the Jiva Institute's edition by Satya Narayana das). And if anyone would like to read bits and pieces of it they can go to www.saragrahi.org/ and find it on the left hand side. Or just click on the following link to go to it directly: www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Tattva%20Sandarbha/Tattva%20Sandarbha%20Contents.htmI read both materials, the one on the internet and the printed/ published one; however, I did not go into details of comparing them for any editing they might have done before printing it. Humm. An IGM site that posts Satyanarayana's work? Doe he know about it? It is rather typical of the IGM, though. The GM used to steal Sundarananda Vidyavinode's writings after he left the GM and claim them as their own. His publisher wrote a preface complaining about it. Saragrahi, huh. We steal from everyone, but we only take what we want. I suppose in some twisted sense it is a service. Sorry. I am in a black mood today. Tired of the dark side winning the pr race. |
|
