[Advaita-l] Question about Avaccheda vada

[Aditya Kumar]

 If
 Advaitins commented on it then it is by definition not a
 "Vaishnava" 
 work is it?  Unless
 you are using some idiosyncratic definition of 
 Vaishnava.

A: I was talking about the Advaitins who digressed. Like MDS for instance who acknowledges Radha but even Madhvas consider Radha to be fictitious and evidently so because there is no mention of Radha anywhere except few Vaishnava sectarian works.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ridiculously arbitrary. 
 There are 18 mahapuranas which are written by 
 Veda Vyasa and the Bhagavata is always numbered
 amongst them.
 
 Not only have
 Advaitins commented on the Bhagavata purana, the most 
 revered and authoritative commentator
 Shridharacharya was Jagadguru 
 Shankaracharya of Puri!

A: Revered by whom is the question :) Do we revere someone just because he is Sanyasin, just because he holds a higher position in a reputed matha? I am not saying Sridhara Swami is not worthy of reverence but I am saying that just because a Sanyasi acknowledging SB does not make SB authentic. As for the philosophy is concerned, consistency is the key. Only scholarship deserves reverence regardless of other qualifications. 

 
 The Gaudiya philosopher Jiva Goswami in the
 introduction to his Bhagavata 
 Sandarbha
 commentary gives the names of various previous commentaries
 and 
 philosophical works that he consulted
 before writing his own.  Foremost 
 is the
 aformentioned Shridharacharya who is his principle source. 
 He 
 has to follow him because Chaitanya
 himself claimed that Shridhara is 
 the
 greatest of commentators but is forced to admit that
 Shridharas 
 comments are replete with
 Advaitic interpretations. He tries to wave the 
 dilemna away by claiming that Shridhara was
 "secretly" a Vaishnava who 
 only
 pretended to be an Advaitin to convert the
 "mayavadis" from their 
 erroneous
 doctrines.

A: I completely agree with Chaitanya MP. Vaishnava sect is agressive in its approach. Is there a strong reason why Chaitanya could be wrong? Even MDS shows his true devotion to Vaishnavism in all his works. He even goes against Shankara. 
 
 
 Also consulted were tikas by Chitsukhacharya
 and one Swami Punyaranya. 
 Both are
 advaitins.  Chitsukhacharya in particular is well known as
 the 
 author of Tattvadipa or Chitsukhi a
 very popular prakarana on Advaita 
 Vedanta.
 Unfortunately neither of these tikas are now available.
 
 Vopadeva or Bopadeva was a
 13th century Marathi Smarta Pandit of great 
 renown.  He is primarily known for his
 alternative to Paninis' vyakarana 
 called Mugdabodha but three of his other works
 are based mainly on the 
 Bhagavata and were
 very influential on the Bengali and other North 
 Indian Vaishnavas.  They are:
 Paramahamsapriya, Muktaphala, and 
 Harililamrta.

A: I thought Vopadeva was a Bengali.
 
 Hemadri Acharya is also a Smarta.  We
 Shuklayajurvedis frequently resort 
 to his
 opinions on dharmashastra.  He was the minister of the last
 great 
 Raja of Devagiri (Daulatabad,
 Maharashtra) Ramachandra of the Yadava 
 vamsha. Therefore we can very accurately date
 him to 1279-1309.  Hemadri 
 was the patron
 of Vopadeva and wrote tikas on his works or some say they
 
 wrote them jointly.  Jiva also mentions
 Hemadri's Chaturvarga Chintamani 
 which
 as far as I know is primarily on dharmashastra though
 perhaps it 
 covers bhakti amongst its many
 topics.
 
 
 So
 if Vaishnavas themselves think its possible for the
 Bhagavata to have 
 an Advaitic
 interpretation you need not have any qualms about it.

A: I can give an Advaitic interpretation to Harry Potter. Does that make its author equal to Vyasa? But SB is not an authentic work of Vyasa, the author of Brahma sutras. There is an article written about the blatant mistakes in SB and calls it bogus. I can share the link if needed. 
 
 
 However,
 having said all that it must be admitted that you are not
 the 
 first to have considered the Bhagavata
 to be a sectarian work.  There was 
 a
 heated controversy amongst the Pandits of Kashi in the late
 17th century 
 on this topic.  The problem
 is that while "Bhagavata" is definitely the 
 name of a Mahapurana, there are two works that
 conform to that 
 description.  This
 (Krshna)Bhagavata and the Devi Bhagavata.  Some vidwans 
 mainly Smartas claimed that in fact the Devi
 Bhagavata is the real 
 Bhagavata and this
 Krshna Bhagavata was actually written by Vopadeva. 
 Others mainly Vaishnavas hotly denied it. 
 However it should be noted 
 that the
 Vopadeva authorship theory was always a minority one and the
 
 defenders of the Krshna Bhagavata also
 included Advaitins.  (For instance 
 Swami
 Ramashrama who in purvashrama was Bhanuji Dikshita the
 nephew of the 
 vaiyakarana Bhattoji
 Dikshita.)

A: Even the great scholar SN Dasgupta who went through all the original manuscripts available during his time says that SB is a recent work. 
 
 -- 
 Jaldhar H.
 Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
 _______________________________________________
 Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
 http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
 
 To unsubscribe or change your
 options:
 http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
 
 For assistance, contact:
 listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org