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
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)
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.