[Advaita-l] Bhaagavata khandanam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 4:42 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Jaldhar ji
> I have read that not only Sri Shankara but also Sri Ramanuja has not quoted
> a single reference from the Srimad-bhagavatam.
>
> Two major Acharya's before 1100 AD have made no mention whatsoever. The
> latter particularly would have found many agreeable Vaishnava ideas there
> to substantiate his viewpoint.
>
>
> One related bit of information - Swami Tapasyananda of RK Mission in his
> long introduction to his English translation of the srimad (Krishna)
> bhagavatam writes that a post-Ramanuja (i e., post 11th century ) southern
> Indian author composed it.  He suggests that the nucleus of the tenth canto
> describing the life of Krishna is much older. But the extant version of the
> text is most likely to be post-Ramanuja. This is just fyi.
>

Raghav ji,

I also saw an opinion,  in Quora or Stack Exchange site,  I think by the
above Swamiji ( I may be wrong), that Ramanuja did not find the (Vaishnava)
Bhagavatam to his favour as this work had a great dose of Hari-Hara,
Trimurti-abheda, Shiva Supremacy, etc. and for this reason ignored it. A
Srivaishnava of present times also told me that their early Acharyas have
not seen this text as favoring them, though this opinion is debatable.

regards
subbu

>
>
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Dec, 2019, 1:02 PM Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Another old post I didn't respond to at the time...
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2019, V Subrahmanian wrote:
> >
> > > This is not just one article refuting the idea that the
> Srimadbhagavatam
> > is
> > > not the 'real' Bhagavatam but the Devi Bhagavatam is the true
> Bhagavatam
> > > composed by Veda Vyasa.
> >
> >
> > Even when Aryasamajist filth give correct information it is for nefarious
> > purposes.  That Dayananda cared not a whit for the Devi Bhagavata or
> > Krishna Bhagavata.  He just wants to slander the authority of Puranas in
> > favor of his fantasy version of Vedas.
> >
> > > There is a popular opinion that the former is a  much later work,
> > > attributed to one 'Vopadeva.'
> > >
> >
> > I wouldn't call it popular.  This was a spat between two factions of
> > Pandits in 17th century Kashi only.  Several Sanskrit pamphlets and
> > broadsides from the disputants survive and it is interesting to note that
> > several of the authors in the pro-Krishnabhagavata camp are themselves
> > Smartas not Vaishnavas.
> >
> > As you yourself have pointed out there is much Advaitic material in the
> > (Krishna) Bhagavata itself.  And we also discussed in this list that the
> > earliest commentators on that work are Advaitins.  Shridhara Swami who is
> > considered the preeminent interpreter by no less than Chaitanya himself
> > was Shankaracharya of Puri. He mentions Chitsukhacharya and Punyaranya as
> > predecessors though their commentaries no longer survive.  Shankaracharya
> > is said to have quoted from the Bhagavata in a couple of his prakaranas.
> > Many North Indian Vaishnavas even believe he wrote a commentary.
> >
> > Vopadeva was a protege of Hemadri acharya author of the influential
> > dharmashastra nibandha called chaturavarga chintamani (thoroughly Smarta
> > and Advaitic in ethos) and the minister to the last two Rajas of Devagiri
> > (modern Daulatabad Maharashtra) before that kingdom was destroyed by
> > Muslim invaders in the 13th century.  The Devagiri royal family belonged
> > to Yadava vamsha and considered themselves to be descendents of Krishna
> > Bhagavan so it natural they would have comissioned works that honored
> > their ancestor.  Vopadeva wrote Muktaphala which is a collection of
> > subhashitas from the Bhagavata and Harililamrta which is a concise
> summary
> > of the contents of that Purana. Hemadri acharya wrote tikas on both
> texts.
> > There is a third work Paramahamsapriya which deals with difficult
> > grammatical constructions in the Bhagavata.  This is the source of the
> > theory that Vopadeva wrote the Bhagavata itself but obviously neither
> work
> > could have been written unless the Bhagavata was already in existence.
> >
> > Vopadeva wrote on other shastras too and one grammatical work of his
> > called Mugdabodha became very popular in Bengal especially because it was
> > easier than Panini.  Probably as a result his other works became well
> > known in that area as well.  We know that the origins of the Gaudiyas are
> > in renagade branch of Dashanami sannyasis of Bengal.  It is possible that
> > as an Advaitin with great love for Krishna, Vopadevas works may have
> > inadvertantly fueled that break.  On the other hand we have Swami
> > Madhusudana Saraswati who was also Bengali, a Krishnabhakta, and
> > influenced by Vopadeva but remained firmly in the Advaita camp.
> >
> > --
> > 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:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>