A New Translation of the Bhagavata with comms.

[vkaul1]

No it was the reply from SN directly. I had actually given my comments to Malati Manjari ji and he had replied through her. So it is by him only.

[vkaul1]

Nitai ji someone defended those verses from the Bhagavata saying that some of the pastimes in those verses are also mentioned in the Garga Samhita. Therefore, the 3 chapters must be old.
I don't know much about the historicity of Garga Samhita. Could you shed more light on this topic? Also they said that the Aghasura pastime is there in the Krsna Upanishad: verse 15. sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/krishnopan.pdf So does that prove it is old and hence it should be in the older recension of the Bhagavata?

[Nitaidas]

Jun 19, 2011 16:38:12 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

Nitai ji someone defended those verses from the Bhagavata saying that some of the pastimes in those verses are also mentioned in the Garga Samhita. Therefore, the 3 chapters must be old.
I don't know much about the historicity of Garga Samhita. Could you shed more light on this topic? Also they said that the Aghasura pastime is there in the Krsna Upanishad: verse 15. sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/krishnopan.pdf So does that prove it is old and hence it should be in the older recension of the Bhagavata?

It is highly unlikely. The GS is a very late work, certainly later than the Bhagavata maybe as late as the 14th or 15th cents. The claim in Wikipedia that it dates to 900-500 BCE is too laughable to even consider. The language of the text is very modern. It even mentions Nimbarka Acarya.(13th cent.?). That argument is as silly as it is desperate.

[madanmohandas]

Who cares? I do. The Tenth Skandha has about 400 more verses in Vijayadhvaja's version. It would seem to me that these were lost for some reason in the edition Sridhara comments on. There are many episodes unique to the Bhagavat or treated distinctively. The extraordinary character of the reciter Suka is one. Interestingly enough Vijaya's edition ommits 12-14. I wonder if they were willfully romoved or just missing or indeed the later addition of a clever rapsodist. If Vijaya's extra chapters are included it is quite evident the continuity of the narrative of the Tenth Book is enhanced to some degree. The 12,13 and 14th chapters are extreemly well devised if they are interpolations, especially as no one would have known of the affair due to the time anomoly , and hence the want of reference. Indeed the question of the Raja signifies that a whole year went by unaccounted for, and hence very few would have been aware of the episode, and if anyone would have been aquainted with it then Suka muni would quite likely be the one. I don't know but it is interesting.
Apart from the lack of cross reference and chapter number discrepancies are there any other reasons for regarding those chapters with suspision?

[Nitaidas]

Jun 22, 2011 3:13:45 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

Who cares? I do. The Tenth Skandha has about 400 more verses in Vijayadhvaja's version. It would seem to me that these were lost for some reason in the edition Sridhara comments on. There are many episodes unique to the Bhagavat or treated distinctively. The extraordinary character of the reciter Suka is one. Interestingly enough Vijaya's edition ommits 12-14. I wonder if they were willfully romoved or just missing or indeed the later addition of a clever rapsodist. If Vijaya's extra chapters are included it is quite evident the continuity of the narrative of the Tenth Book is enhanced to some degree. The 12,13 and 14th chapters are extreemly well devised if they are interpolations, especially as no one would have known of the affair due to the time anomoly , and hence the want of reference. Indeed the question of the Raja signifies that a whole year went by unaccounted for, and hence very few would have been aware of the episode, and if anyone would have been aquainted with it then Suka muni would quite likely be the one. I don't know but it is interesting.
Apart from the lack of cross reference and chapter number discrepancies are there any other reasons for regarding those chapters with suspision?

The chapters are missing from many old manuscripts. That is why they were placed in an appendix in the critical edition. It is not that they were once there and removed. They were never there to begin with. And, the narrative flows just fine without them.

I like those three chapters and if I am able to get that far in my translation I will certainly include them, but not without recognizing their clearly interpolated nature. There are hundreds of interpolated verses, especially in the 10th Skandha, but also throughout the text. It is a text that has had many hands, some belonging to brilliant writers and some to dullards, in the making and it may not be possible to reduce it to its original pristine form. What we would have then would probably not be anywhere near as fascinating. But, do we do ourselves any favors by ignoring the fact that these "improvements" are later additions? I don't think so.

Do you really think there was a Sukadeva? And that he was great (on the basis of his own claims to be so)? I find it highly unlikely. He is a great fictional character perhaps, but nothing more than that. There is absolutely nothing historical about the Bhagavata, any more than there is anything historical in the Bible. Sure there are real place names and references to kings who probably once lived, but nothing said about them is true, or really happened. The Bhagavata (and the Bible) are meant to charm us with their stories; they are not histories any more than Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is historical. In fact, they are much less historical than that.

But history is not our only source of truth. The truths in the stories of the Bhagavata are different and I don't think the stories were meant to be taken literally. Whoever the writers of the Bhagavata were, they knew they were making shit up. Yet, they had another purpose, another teaching in mind. It is that teaching that we have to try to access.

[vkaul1]

Jun 22, 2011 3:13:45 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

Who cares? I do. The Tenth Skandha has about 400 more verses in Vijayadhvaja's version. It would seem to me that these were lost for some reason in the edition Sridhara comments on. There are many episodes unique to the Bhagavat or treated distinctively. The extraordinary character of the reciter Suka is one. Interestingly enough Vijaya's edition ommits 12-14. I wonder if they were willfully romoved or just missing or indeed the later addition of a clever rapsodist. If Vijaya's extra chapters are included it is quite evident the continuity of the narrative of the Tenth Book is enhanced to some degree. The 12,13 and 14th chapters are extreemly well devised if they are interpolations, especially as no one would have known of the affair due to the time anomoly , and hence the want of reference. Indeed the question of the Raja signifies that a whole year went by unaccounted for, and hence very few would have been aware of the episode, and if anyone would have been aquainted with it then Suka muni would quite likely be the one. I don't know but it is interesting.
Apart from the lack of cross reference and chapter number discrepancies are there any other reasons for regarding those chapters with suspision?

Madanji, there were many other arguments. I think I posted it on forum somewhere else, but I cannot find it through searching. I am re-posting some of the arguments that were there. Anyway like Nitai ji has stated it is sealed case of later interpolation, but then all texts are accumulated interpolations of successive authors. And that is the truth. Satyam param dhimahi!


Since Madhva's recension of BhAgavata (the Vaishnava
recension) does not have Brahma Mohana, on what basis
can they claim that it was there and yet Madhva did
not comment on it? (The same applies for Vijayadhvaja
Tirtha who lived prior to Jiva Goswami etc and who
commented on all verses, and whose recension does not
have the 3 chapters which include Brahma Mohana) They
should also keep in mind that besides the commentary,
the recension of BhAgavata commented upon is also
preserved alongside, and the recension of the text
itself does not have Brahma Mohana (so it is not just
the absence of a commentary on that portion). They
seem to apply a faulty inference that because Madhva
did not comment on it, and the recension he commented
upon must have had it (a faulty premise), he did not
know what to comment on it, and got bewildered, so he
left it without commenting on it. Do they think that a
tradition preserves commentaries without the recension
of the text?




4) Apart from that there were other arguments that I presented to three gentleman above (Bryant, Neal and Bhrigu) because they were raised as part of the discussion. These arguments were convincing enough for them to consider that these three chapters are later interpolations.

Let us consider another piece of evidence, this time
from the commentary of ShrIdhara SvAmi, which all
Gaudiyas consider authoritative. In the Ma~Ngala
shlokas of his BhAvArtha-dIpikA commentary on
BhAgavata, ShrIdhara mentions the number of chapters
in the BhAgavata as "dvA-triMshat tri-shatam" or 332.
But it turns out that upon adding the 3 chapters
(12-14) from the 10th canto, the number of chapters
becomes 335, not 332. This can be verified by adding
up the chapters of each canto in the recension of
Prabhupada - vedabase.net/sb .
How then should one understand why ShrIdhara wrote
332, but ended up commenting on the extra 3 chapters
as well?


Further points to note -

- Vallabhacharya has explicitly stated that the three
chapters as interpolations..

- Vyasa Bhatta, son of Parashara Bhatta (disciple of
Ramanuja) rejected these 3 chapters in his commentary
on Bhagavatam. Viraraghavacharya mentions this too in
his commentary (that his predecessor dismissed it as
spurious), and says that he will still go ahead and
comment on it only because some others have done it.

- Apart from Gaudiyas
(who probably decide to go along with Sridhar Swami's
Advaitic commentary), none of the other prominent
Vaishnava commentators has accepted it.


- Further, if you look at the meter of the verse quoted
above (12.12.28-29) in Prabhupada's recension, it is 8
syllables on every line. Even assuming for a moment
that the two lines referring to Aghasura-vadha and
Brahma-Mohana are authentic, it is to be noted that
starting from the beginning of the chapter (12.12.1 -
vedabase.net/sb/12/12/1/en) upto verse 12.12.47
(http://vedabase.net/sb/12/12/47/en), the meter is the
same, and from 12.12.48, the meter changes. But the
total number of lines from 12.12.1 to 12.12.47 is not
a multiple of 4 (which one would expect) - it has two
extra lines (47 X 4 + 2). One verse in the middle
(12.12.45 - vedabase.net/sb/12/12/45/en) has 6
lines, not 4. Had the two lines mentioning Aghasura
and Brahma-Mohana not been there, then the number of
lines would have been an exact multiple of 4 (= 47 X
4). Thus, the presence of the two lines ends up
distorting the alignment of the set of verses that
contain it, which have the same meter.

[vkaul1]

Jun 22, 2011 10:33:04 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Jun 22, 2011 3:13:45 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

Who cares? I do. The Tenth Skandha has about 400 more verses in Vijayadhvaja's version. It would seem to me that these were lost for some reason in the edition Sridhara comments on. There are many episodes unique to the Bhagavat or treated distinctively. The extraordinary character of the reciter Suka is one. Interestingly enough Vijaya's edition ommits 12-14. I wonder if they were willfully romoved or just missing or indeed the later addition of a clever rapsodist. If Vijaya's extra chapters are included it is quite evident the continuity of the narrative of the Tenth Book is enhanced to some degree. The 12,13 and 14th chapters are extreemly well devised if they are interpolations, especially as no one would have known of the affair due to the time anomoly , and hence the want of reference. Indeed the question of the Raja signifies that a whole year went by unaccounted for, and hence very few would have been aware of the episode, and if anyone would have been aquainted with it then Suka muni would quite likely be the one. I don't know but it is interesting.
Apart from the lack of cross reference and chapter number discrepancies are there any other reasons for regarding those chapters with suspision?

The chapters are missing from many old manuscripts. That is why they were placed in an appendix in the critical edition. It is not that they were once there and removed. They were never there to begin with. And, the narrative flows just fine without them.

I like those three chapters and if I am able to get that far in my translation I will certainly include them, but not without recognizing their clearly interpolated nature. There are hundreds of interpolated verses, especially in the 10th Skandha, but also throughout the text. It is a text that has had many hands, some belonging to brilliant writers and some to dullards, in the making and it may not be possible to reduce it to its original pristine form. What we would have then would probably not be anywhere near as fascinating. But, do we do ourselves any favors by ignoring the fact that these "improvements" are later additions? I don't think so.

Do you really think there was a Sukadeva? And that he was great (on the basis of his own claims to be so)? I find it highly unlikely. He is a great fictional character perhaps, but nothing more than that. There is absolutely nothing historical about the Bhagavata, any more than there is anything historical in the Bible. Sure there are real place names and references to kings who probably once lived, but nothing said about them is true, or really happened. The Bhagavata (and the Bible) are meant to charm us with their stories; they are not histories any more than Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is historical. In fact, they are much less historical than that.

But history is not our only source of truth. The truths in the stories of the Bhagavata are different and I don't think the stories were meant to be taken literally. Whoever the writers of the Bhagavata were, they knew they were making shit up. Yet, they had another purpose, another teaching in mind. It is that teaching that we have to try to access.

But with CC, Nitai ji there is a mix of history and story. Right? Can it be the same to an extent with the Bhagavata? Or CM is only real historical person who was called an avatar. Why does he refer to an earlier avatar of his if that never occurred?

[madanmohandas]

Well I must admit to not sharing your conviction here, but I am probably less informed. Supposing that 12-14th chapters are later additions what would you suggest as the motive and is there any distinct doctrinal difficulty?
Actually Nitai when I mentioned continuity of the narrative I was refering not to the three chapters in question but the many extra chapters in Vijadhvaja's. As far as continiuty is concerned the Aghavadha etc. would make little difference as you say.
You asked if I thought Suka a real person. In a sense I do or would like to, but who knows?
When you say ' they had another purpose, another teaching in mind', another purpose to what? I don't understand what you mean by that. If their purpose was to charm then what is harm in being charmed in that way and transported to a realm of endless and novel fascination? It seems that the texts are too old to have any definite attribution. And I think even if it is as you say fiction its not fiction in the modern sense as the texts demmands our conviction however tentative. What other motive than the edification of the audience would impell the author(s) of such works?

[Nitaidas]

Jun 22, 2011 13:36:58 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

Well I must admit to not sharing your conviction here, but I am probably less informed. Supposing that 12-14th chapters are later additions what would you suggest as the motive and is there any distinct doctrinal difficulty?
Actually Nitai when I mentioned continuity of the narrative I was refering not to the three chapters in question but the many extra chapters in Vijadhvaja's. As far as continiuty is concerned the Aghavadha etc. would make little difference as you say.
You asked if I thought Suka a real person. In a sense I do or would like to, but who knows?
When you say ' they had another purpose, another teaching in mind', another purpose to what? I don't understand what you mean by that. If their purpose was to charm then what is harm in being charmed in that way and transported to a realm of endless and novel fascination? It seems that the texts are too old to have any definite attribution. And I think even if it is as you say fiction its not fiction in the modern sense as the texts demmands our conviction however tentative. What other motive than the edification of the audience would impell the author(s) of such works?

What conviction are you referring to here, ji?

It has always seemed to me that those chapters are a great exposition of the famous teaching in the Brhad-Aranyaka U. (4.5.5) "One holds a husband dear, you see, not out of love for the husband; rather, it is out of love for the Self (atman) that one holds a husband dear. One holds a wife dear not out of love for the wife ; rather, it is out of love for the Self that one holds a wife dear. One holds children dear not out of love for the children; rather, it is out of love for the Self that one holds children dear. ... " Those three chapters are a parable based on that Upanisadic teaching. it is a great teaching and parable, but that does not mean they were original to the text. The other purpose was not to tell us about an historical event but to teach us something about the Self and how it affects even our daily lives.

So the "other" teaching means a deeper teaching than an historical teaching. In Christianity, for instance, everything rests on whether or not Jesus actually, historically rose from the dead. If it could be proven that he did not, Christianity would crumble. The whole edifice is founded on his vicarious death and resurrection in history. In CV, we are not dependent on history in that way. It doesn't really matter if Krsna actually walked the earth five thousand years ago. The Bhagavata creates a relational vision of Krsna that is powerful whether or not Krsna or any of the other descents actually were here. The Bhagavata is in a real sense his avatara, not any time actually spent here on earth. Those three interpolated chapters are just an ornament that some later bhakta added to the body of Krsna.

We are charmed by good literature or art apart from whether they have anything to do with reality. The fact that some story actually occurred does not make it more charming. In fact, the opposite is more often true.

All of the places in Vraja that are associated either with this or that lila do not lend "historicity" to Krsna lila. Instead they act as powerful markings that serve to remind us of him. In other words they are like the vibhavas or evokers of rasa in a piece of good literature or in a bhakti play or poem in the case of bhakti rasa. It is highly doubtful (to me, at any rate) that Krsna did his any of those various acts in any of those places in Vraja. The transcendent Vraja is there in the earthly Vraja because of the rich and powerful imaginations of Rupa and Sanatana and a number of others. They inscribed Krsna lila on the wild landscape surrounding Mathura and now it is there for the rest of us to enjoy. In other words they invented or, if you will, invoked it in the same way that the Goddess Durga is believed to be invoked into her clay images for the duration of the Durga Puja each year. Like that, it is temporary, a temporary presence that needs to be released (visarjana) some day. I think it should be released soon and invoked somewhere else. India no longer deserves it.

[madanmohandas]

Your conviction that these three chapters are interpolations so much so that you would relegate them to an appendix. As I understood one of the features of the Purana is to represent Upanisad doctrines in a more digestable narrative context. And the passage refered to by yourself from the Brhad Aranyaka reiterated by Suka in response Pariksit's interrogation is profoundly significant. If as you say the Bhagavat is Krsna's real avatara, you may want to think again before removing what might be a vital organ, interpolated or no. I think it would be loss if it were not there. I am no scholar of Sanskrt to judge the merits or otherwise of the poetry and how it compares with the rest of the text in the original, but I'm exceedingly fond of those chapters.

[malati]

Jun 24, 2011 16:56:29 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

Your conviction that these three chapters are interpolations so much so that you would relegate them to an appendix. As I understood one of the features of the Purana is to represent Upanisad doctrines in a more digestable narrative context. And the passage refered to by yourself from the Brhad Aranyaka reiterated by Suka in response Pariksit's interrogation is profoundly significant. If as you say the Bhagavat is Krsna's real avatara, you may want to think again before removing what might be a vital organ, interpolated or no. I think it would be loss if it were not there. I am no scholar of Sanskrt to judge the merits or otherwise of the poetry and how it compares with the rest of the text in the original, but I'm exceedingly fond of those chapters.

It took me sometime to decide if I will make make a reply to this very interesting thread as I am actually planning to be on the read-only mode, for sometime. But there are issues raised here that picqued my GV sensibilities.

I defintely agree with Madanmohandasji. To relegate the Parikshit story to the appendix is a devastating " surgery" of the Bhagavatam. The questions of Parikshit strike at the heart of any GV devotees, specifically and to Vedantic devotees in general.

He asked: "0 Guru, my Teacher, please tell me, what should a man do in his life? What is worth doing in life, especially by a man who is faced with death? What should he remember?"

What question can be more important than that?

[malati]

Jun 24, 2011 16:13:15 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Jun 22, 2011 13:36:58 GMT -6 madanmohandas said:

Well I must admit to not sharing your conviction here, but I am probably less informed. Supposing that 12-14th chapters are later additions what would you suggest as the motive and is there any distinct doctrinal difficulty?
Actually Nitai when I mentioned continuity of the narrative I was refering not to the three chapters in question but the many extra chapters in Vijadhvaja's. As far as continiuty is concerned the Aghavadha etc. would make little difference as you say.
You asked if I thought Suka a real person. In a sense I do or would like to, but who knows?
When you say ' they had another purpose, another teaching in mind', another purpose to what? I don't understand what you mean by that. If their purpose was to charm then what is harm in being charmed in that way and transported to a realm of endless and novel fascination? It seems that the texts are too old to have any definite attribution. And I think even if it is as you say fiction its not fiction in the modern sense as the texts demmands our conviction however tentative. What other motive than the edification of the audience would impell the author(s) of such works?

What conviction are you referring to here, ji?

It has always seemed to me that those chapters are a great exposition of the famous teaching in the Brhad-Aranyaka U. (4.5.5) "One holds a husband dear, you see, not out of love for the husband; rather, it is out of love for the Self (atman) that one holds a husband dear. One holds a wife dear not out of love for the wife ; rather, it is out of love for the Self that one holds a wife dear. One holds children dear not out of love for the children; rather, it is out of love for the Self that one holds children dear. ... " Those three chapters are a parable based on that Upanisadic teaching. it is a great teaching and parable, but that does not mean they were original to the text. The other purpose was not to tell us about an historical event but to teach us something about the Self and how it affects even our daily lives.

So the "other" teaching means a deeper teaching than an historical teaching. In Christianity, for instance, everything rests on whether or not Jesus actually, historically rose from the dead. If it could be proven that he did not, Christianity would crumble. The whole edifice is founded on his vicarious death and resurrection in history. In CV, we are not dependent on history in that way. It doesn't really matter if Krsna actually walked the earth five thousand years ago. The Bhagavata creates a relational vision of Krsna that is powerful whether or not Krsna or any of the other descents actually were here. The Bhagavata is in a real sense his avatara, not any time actually spent here on earth. Those three interpolated chapters are just an ornament that some later bhakta added to the body of Krsna.

We are charmed by good literature or art apart from whether they have anything to do with reality. The fact that some story actually occurred does not make it more charming. In fact, the opposite is more often true.

All of the places in Vraja that are associated either with this or that lila do not lend "historicity" to Krsna lila. Instead they act as powerful markings that serve to remind us of him. In other words they are like the vibhavas or evokers of rasa in a piece of good literature or in a bhakti play or poem in the case of bhakti rasa. It is highly doubtful (to me, at any rate) that Krsna did his any of those various acts in any of those places in Vraja. The transcendent Vraja is there in the earthly Vraja because of the rich and powerful imaginations of Rupa and Sanatana and a number of others. They inscribed Krsna lila on the wild landscape surrounding Mathura and now it is there for the rest of us to enjoy. In other words they invented or, if you will, invoked it in the same way that the Goddess Durga is believed to be invoked into her clay images for the duration of the Durga Puja each year. Like that, it is temporary, a temporary presence that needs to be released (visarjana) some day. I think it should be released soon and invoked somewhere else. India no longer deserves it.

Nitaidasji

I share most of your comments on here being somewhat liberal than most of the conservative GV devotees.

However, I see again (sigh!) an inconsistency on your part, Nitaidasji, when you said you plan to warehouse the 10th Skandha in the dusty backoffice.

You announced your new thesis of prema (unadulterated love) with much conviction and then you start to put much of your effort in a new translation of the Bhagavat. But then plan to relegate the most nectar stories on the subject of prema as a secondary afterthought?

I will quote the opinion of the Ramakrishan Mission from their Bhagavta translation, as it very lucidly expresses the point:

That 10th Skandha, the longest section of the text, containing 90 chapters and 3946 verses, is both the climax and the heart of Srimad Bhagavtam, its theme being Apasraya or Ultimate Support (God) here identified as Sri Krishna. Some speak of Nirodha or Pralaya as the topic of this skandha. Pralaya is interpreted by them as the laya or dissolution of the mind in God through hearing and contemplating on the devotional narratives.......

As pointed out in the general introduction, the specific teaching of Bhagavat is that bhakti is the fifth purushastra or value attainable by man..........

The unique feature of this summit bhakti is that Jiva feels the Lord as his "own: and loses himself in his service.... forgetting all considerations......

While in all the earlier skandhas these doctrines have been adumbrated, it is in the 10th, through the life and teachings of Krishna and his relationships .... that these doctrines are incisively taught, especially how Krishna could be loved as one's 'own' through various channel of human love.......

[madanmohandas]

Actually Nitai I realise that you had no intention to appendicise those chapters but they had been in a critical edition, sorry about that.

[madanmohandas]

Malati, I don't think Nitai is relegating nectar stories. Any 'ancient' text will have been subject to some alterations to various degrees and it is worth knowing which portions scholars regard with suspicion-we can then make our own judgment by intensive reading of the text itself. And of course Krsna's favour, as it is said in one of those chapters in question,

athApi te deva padAmbujadvaya-
prasAdalezAnugrhIta eva hi/
jAnAti tattvaM bhagavanmahimno
na cAnya eko'pi ciraM vicinvan// Bhag. 10,14,29

But still one favoured with a mere particle
of grace at thy pair of lotus feet knows
in reality the glory of the Almighty one, not him
who thinks long and hard in solitude.

To further get the sense of this verse see the one before 28 and the one after 30.

[Nitaidas]

Who said anything about relegating the Pariksit story or the 10th Skandha to a appendix? We are only discussing whether the three chapters containing Brahma's stealing of the cows and cowherds are interpolations or not. They clearly are because they are absent from most manuscripts and thus have been placed in an appendix in the critical edition. In my translation I do not plan to put them in an appendix, but merely give note in a footnote that the chapters here presented are later, but worthy additions to the Purana. The same with verses that are interpolations. They will appear were they do in the so-called vulgate but in brackets or with notes identifying them as interpolations.

One can clearly learn about and cultivate prema and taste rasa in the Bhagavata without believing that it has any connection with historical truth. It is timeless and placeless.

I am unaware of any other Upanishadic teaching that is illustrated narratively in the Bhagavata like that of the Brahma-mohana. There are citations and references here and there, but what other narrative exemplifications? Any other examples?