Member's Commentaries on the Bhagavata

[Deleted]

madanmohandas said:

varnAnAm-artha sangAnAM rasAnAM chandasAm api/
mangalAnAmca kartAtau vande vAni vinAyakau//

Hail to Vani and Vinayaka, the honored authors
Of all letters and expression, moods and metres, and all blessings.

Madanmohan-ji, possibly I did not understand your post, would you like to explain it a bit more. What you mean by posting this verse in relation to Gayatri?

[Deleted]

madanmohandas said:

As you kindly posted that image of Sarasvati, I thought it fine to post a verse in salutation of her and Vinayaka. Vani of course is another name for Sarasvati and Vinayaka is GajAnana.

I don't see how Sarasvati is the devata of the gayarti though. She is the muse or inspiration behind it, but I thought the devata of the gayatri was none other than the glorious Narayana.
Moreover 'gayatri' is a chanda or a poetic metre having three feet.

That verse above is the first in Tulsi das Ramayana glorifying Sarasvati and Ganesh as, varnAnAm-artha snagAnam-the meanings of letters and joining them into words, rasAnAm chandasAm api- and all rasas and poetic metres, kartArau -the authors, mangalAnAmca, of all auspiciousness too.

Dear Madanmohan, the picture is not Sarasvat it is actually Gayatri, as you see the link:
www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/gayatri.jpg

I think Sarasvati holds different apparatus.

[Deleted]

madanmohandas said:

I was not proposing any argument really, and by 'argument' I don't mean it the sense of conflict, but in the less familiar meaning of the word, ie., to set forth a proposition or subject for debate. On that theme I came across an apt verse from John Bough's Poems from the Sanskrt;

Poets today too often try to preach,
Or private feelings show to public view;
These antique verses do not seek to teach,
But simply poetry's pleasure to renew.

Compliments for sharing this poem.
It is actually the type of mentality
which we all should keep alive;
"simply poetry's pleasure to renew".
not the demon-like proud-preaching.

[Deleted]

It is interesting to see how Tibetans and Hindus honor the same Goddess Sarasvati and for sure many other similarities are withing these two close cultures.

Here is your offering to Sarasvat Devii:

varnAnAm-artha sangAnAM rasAnAM chandasAm api/
mangalAnAmca kartAtau vande vAni vinAyakau//

Hail to Vani and Vinayaka, the honoured authors
Of all letters and expression, moods and metres, and all blessings.

I found this Podcast in the same website, dedicated to Sarasvati Devi, click to Listen to: Sarasvati Puja/Podcast (actually the last bhajan in it is for Gayatri Ma)

[Deleted]

The female shakti is very compassionate and nurturing. I keep an image of Saraswati like this on my desk, Durga by my bedhead, and Radha in my altar. Thanks for showing this image.

[Nitaidas]

Well, this topic has gone a long way while I was away. It is, therefore, triply difficult to comment meaningfully on the various channels down which the flow of ideas has meandered. I will try to catch up some of those threads in this and my next few posts here. At one point Harisharanji asked what I and others thought about the "Vedic" idea of creation and maybe starting with that would be a good idea, since it also has to do with how I approach commenting on the first verse of the Bhagavata and indeed how I approach the whole of the CV tradition.

I am glad the Harisharanji put the word "Vedic" in quotes because I think the way the word is used sometimes is a bit flaky. It imposes a kind of unity on three thousand years or more of thinking and writing that just is not there. The creation as envisioned by the writers of the Vedic hymns is different from the creation as envisioned by the writers of the epics and puranas. That is not to say that the creation myths of the Vedic poets has not been enormously influential on the understandings and visions of the later writers. Still, there is a development and transformation that is clearly visible if one studies the texts carefully and in historical perspective. Even among the Vedic poets there is a wide variety of ideas about creation. Some have been influential and some have not. Some have started out from separate places and were blended together in the hands of later writers. One can detect a kind of unity in the tradition, but to call it "Vedic" is to put down and ignore the contributions later seers and sages who vastly expanded and I think improved those old ideas. I am an advocate of recognizing in Indic religion a continuing stream of "revelation" that operates generation after generation and to call it "Vedic" is mistaken. I don't place much stock in the idea of "revelation" only at the beginning of the tradition that gets reproduced or copied by later savants. One might think of it as a progressive revelation that is still not complete.

But what is the basic idea of creation in the "Vedic" tradition(s)? As one great scholar (Kuiper) of the Vedas says it is fundamentally that creation took place out of water and that water is the fundamental or primary substance. That idea gets picked up and developed in the epics and puranas until we have that interesting image that Harisharanji posted of Visnu floating the the waters of creation (kAraNa ocean). It might be of interest to see what the myth was like before Visnu was placed in the middle of it, that is, as it first appeared in the Brahmanas. I will hunt down that interesting article by Kuiper on this idea of creation and present some relevant passages from it.

Anyway, I think the idea of creation from water must be taken metaphorically or allegorically. There is much wisdom in it when handled in this way and very little when taken literally. Water is a universal symbol for chaos as any student of world religions can tell you. Dragons, too, are symbols of chaos and when taken as such we can discover many interesting things about how the ancient seers viewed creation and the nature of the world so created. Indra's fight with Vrtra then becomes a struggle between order and chaos and a kind of creation myth that one finds examples of all around the world. Marduk fighting Tiamat in ancient Mesopotamia is another prime example. When viewed from these perspectives one can see that "revelation" was not limited to India but occurred around the world and in very similar ways.

Enough for now. I will come back to this in the next installment.

[Nitaidas]

A little piece of Kuiper's essay Cosmology and Conception:

4. Owing to a neglect of the data found in more recent texts, the handbooks of Vedic mythology omit to state that we can distinguish two main stages in the process of creation. Not before the last few decades have scholars come to recognize the fact that the central myth of the Rg Veda, the fight of Indra with the dragon (vRtra/VRtra), is a creation myth. This, however, is only the second stage of the cosmogony. The concentration of the Rigvedic poets on this part of the cosmogony exclusively is probably due to the circumstances that this myth was of preeminent importance for social life, since the socioreligious ceremonies of the New Year festival were based on it.

In contradistinction from this myth of the VRtra slaying, that of the beginning of this world had no direct relevance for the ritual. Still, frequent references to it in the ritual texts, where it occurs in the fixed formula: "Water, forsooth, was all this in the beginning," shows that this notion formed an essential part of the speculations on the creation of the world. Although every school had its own slightly divergent variant of this formula, their wording is on the whole identical, which shows this concept to belong to the oldest stock of Yajurvedic mythical tradition.

(History of Religions, vol 10, no. 2 (Nov. 1970) 98-99)

More from this fascinating article later.

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

Some commentators suggest that this first verse of the Bhagavat forms a brief explanation of the gayatri mantra. Sri Jiva says that the word 'dhImahi', 'we meditate', in the text alludes to the gayatri. I noted down a while ago another commentator's analysis, can't remember for sure, but I think it was Vira Raghava's commentary. Might as well cite the mula sloka;

janmAdyasya yato'nvayAditaratazcArtheSvabhijnah svarAT
tene brahma hrdA ya Adikavaye muhyanti yatsUrayah/
tejovArimrdAM yathA vinimayo yatra trisargo'mRSA
dhAmnA svena sadA nirastakuhakaM satyaM paraM dhImahi// 1.1.1

oM bhurbhuvahsvah tatsavitur-varenyaM bhargo devasya dhImahi diyo yo nah pracodayAt/

tatsavituh devasya...........................janmAdyasya yatah
varenyam..........................................param
bhargah............................................dhAmnA svena sadA nirasta kuhakam, and, svarAt
diyo yo nah pracodayAt....................tene brahma hrdA ya Adikavaye
dhImahi............................................dhImahi

I have serious doubts about this way of looking at the verse, baba. I see it as extremely forced. What after all does the sun god have to do with creation, maintenance, and destruction of the universe? The sun is never placed in that role unless one assumes that the sun is a stand in for Visnu and that would already be a great interpretive leap. One of the interesting points Sridhara makes is when he says that dhimahi is there only because of the meter. That hardly sounds like it was intentional or that the author meant to connect the verse with the gayatri. Now, later on even Sridhara says that the meaning of the verse is a commentary on the gayatri, forgetting, I guess, his own earlier comment. At least, I think, he is being inconsistent. Anyway, I don't think there is any intended connection between this verse and the surya-gayatri. One of the great unremarked qualities of the Bhagavata is its often anti brahmanical stances. I think this gayatri issue is part of an attempt by later brahminical commentators to reclaim it.

[Nitaidas]

I didn't mean to imply that the Bhagavata does not discuss the gayatri mantra. It obviously does as you demonstrate so well. I just don't think the first verse is about the gayatri or is a paraphrase or commentary of the gayatri except perhaps in the most general way of both being attempts to express the highest truth. As you yourself have noticed the gayatri typically has three aspects. I forget how you put it, but bascially there is the noetic aspect represented by the verb vidmahe (may we know). Then there is the contemplative aspect represented by the verb dhimahi (may we meditate). Finally there is the supplicatory aspect represented by the verb pracodayat (may he inspire or move us). Two of the three functions of the gayatri are not present in the first verse of the Bhagavata. Only the meditative aspect is there. Of course, the surya-gayatri only has two, the noetic being missing from it.

Anyway, I think there is little relationship between the two except for the happenstance of the word dhimahi which does not really fit in the verse. Dhimahi is as I said before in the middle voice as opposed to the active voice. Those voices correspond to the reflexive and the transitive respectively. Thus, dhimahi is reflexive which means it does not take an object. So literally it would mean "let us meditate ourselves or let us make ourselves meditative." No object is needed. But the verse supplies an object as if the verb were transitive. The object is satyam param. That is why Sridhara supplies dhyAyema which is the transitive form of the optative of the verb dhyai. Long-winded way of saying that dhimahi is out of place there and only is there because the meter demanded it.

As for the brahmana business, not all brahmanas are the same. Some are critical of the typical practices of brahmanas and others are not. I think the Bhagavata was written by one or a group of the former who cast a critical eye on the practices of the brahmanas. None of that really impacts the place of the surya-gayatri except that critical brahmanas are more likely to want to push the interpretation of the gayatri beyond what it usually is understood to be. There is a section of the Agni Purana that is considered a comm. on the surya-gayatri and Sri Jiva has a subcomm. on that. Perhaps that would be a good thing to look at for a better understanding of the importance of the mantra to CV.

As far as I know, there is no commentary on the Bhagavata by a non-brahmana except for the one by Kavi Karnapur which was never circulated or published, probably because he was a non-brahmana. I would love to see it. My guess is that he focused more on the poetic and literary critical aspects of the text than on the philosophical.

[subaldas]

Ananda Vrindaban Campu by Kavi Karnapur translated by Bhanu & Subhag Swamis is available. It is a beautiful retelling of Krishna's kaumar, pauganda and kaisor leelas suitable for rasika meditation.

[Nitaidas]

Kavi Karnapur doesn't get the recognition he deserves. He was equally as great as any of the Gosvamins. Why don't we pay more attention to him? He was a non-brahmana. It is a sad fact: CV quickly fell into caste consciousness after Mahaprabhu's departure. Ah well, it was at least one brief shining moment for India. I will at some point return to Kavi Karnapur's entry for daily meditation, the Krsnahnika-kaumudi. It led the way for such works as the Govinda-lilamrta and the Krsna-bhavanamrta.

On a side note, one of the things I like the least about Sankara is his sense that somehow the salvation of the world is tied up with brahmanism. He says so at the end of his introduction to the gita (see my translation of that).

[subaldas]

Yes, I think way too much emphasis is placed on brahminical culture and lifestyle in CV. When I was a young sannyasi in India, adopting brahminical standards made sense. Later, when I returned to the West and no longer had a support system for that, I gave it up with no regrets. It goes against my nature and the life I live. One is to follow one's sva-dharma, not that of another. When we follow another's way and repress our own nature, it developes a large shadow which often expresses itself in unhealthy ways. Therefore, I consider myself to be casteless, or of mixed caste, and do whatever I have to do. These are all material things and have nothing to do with devotion.

[mightymouse]

subaldas said:

Yes, I think way too much emphasis is placed on brahminical culture and lifestyle in CV. When I was a young sannyasi in India, adopting brahminical standards made sense. Later, when I returned to the West and no longer had a support system for that, I gave it up with no regrets. It goes against my nature and the life I live. One is to follow one's sva-dharma, not that of another. When we follow another's way and repress our own nature, it developes a large shadow which often expresses itself in unhealthy ways. Therefore, I consider myself to be casteless, or of mixed caste, and do whatever I have to do. These are all material things and have nothing to do with devotion.

So when after you returned to the West did you start eating beef subaldas?

Isn't that unhealthy not only for you but for the cows you eat? I thought a Guru representing CV/GV would at least abstain from such a filthy violent habit.

[kingcobra]

Mighty Mouse is just here to save the day, which is his theme song. What he doesn't realize is that us CV afficionadoes are beyond his version of salvation (oh, that's right, he is all about liberation and enlightenment). He keeps trying to be here now, but time keeps on slippin', slippin' into the future... Maybe he stood too close to those Marshall amplifiers during a Steve Miller concert, and it caused his brains to rattle around inside his mouse skull.

[mightymouse]

What he doesn't realize is that us CV afficionadoes are beyond his version of salvation (oh, that's right, he is all about liberation and enlightenment).

How disgustingly ego centric, and fanatical to think your version of salvation is higher and purer that all others, and really we all know CV's feel it's not just my version of salvation, it's ALL versions and you know it.

I thank you for adding more substance to my accusations about CV bigotry. This is getting seriously funner day by day as your similarities to groups like iskcon become more and more evident with terms like 'concoctions, nitaidas saying enlightenment is a term coined by a fake Indian swami in a turban and now you with how you are all beyond all forms of liberation and enlightenment.

Yes your obviously beyond enlightenment ha ha ha ;D