BY: SUN STAFF
Jan 31, CANADA (SUN) —
Tattva Sandarbha
by Srila Jiva Goswami
APPENDIX TWO
Giridhara Lal's commentary on Bhagavatam 2.9.36 further reveals his critical nature on account of which he forgot his own explanation: "In Bhagavatam 2.9.28 Lord Brahma requests the Lord to bless him that he 'should not become bound because of pride in the work of creation.' In 2.9.36, beginning with etat, the Lord grants Brahma's request, telling him to be fixed in transcendental meditation on the philosophy spoken of in the preceeding four verses, commonly referred to as the Catuhsloki bhagavatam. The Lord says that if Brahma would always think in this way, he would not become possessed by lust, anger, and pride. It must be understood therefore that if Brahma is overcome by lust, anger, and pride, on occasion it is from his forgetting this message."
So Giridhara Lal writes that the Lord's blessing applies only to the act of creation. And interestingly, he even says that sometimes because of forgetting this knowledge, Lord Brahma is captured by Maya although this is the very objection he raises--that Brahma is blessed by the Lord and cannot be caught by Maya.
What to speak of Brahma, even Mother Yasoda was bewildered by Yogamaya when Krishna showed her the whole universe within His mouth (S.B.10.8.42):
"It is by the influence of the Supreme Lord's Maya that I am worngly thinking Nanda Maharaja is my husband, Krishna is my son, and because I am the queen of Nanda Maharaja, all the wealth of cows and calves are my possessions and all the cowherd men and their wives are my subjects. Actually, I also am eternally subordinate to the Supreme Lord. He is my ultimate shelter."
While commenting on this verse Lal also accepts that the amount of bliss mother Yasoda could experinece in thinking of Krishna as her son is far superior to if she were to consider Krishna as the Supreme Lord. Knowing this Lord Krishna expanded Her vaishnavi maya which constitutes His internal potency.
And further (10.8.43):
"Mother Yasoda, by the grace of the Lord, could understand the real truth. But then again, the Supreme Master, by the influence of the internal potency, Yogamaya, inspired her to become absorbed in intense affectionate feelings for her son, Krishna."
And what's more, even Lord Krishna was bewildered for a muhurta (48 minutes), while killing the demon Salva (S.B.10.77.23,24,28):
"When He heard this disturbing news, Lord Krishna, who was playing the role of a mortal man, showed sorrow and compassion. Out of love for His parents He spoke the following words like an ordinary conditioned soul,
"Balarama is ever vigilant, and no demigod or demon can defeat Him. So how could this insignificant Salva defeat Him and abduct My father? Indeed, fate is all powerful!"
"By nature Lord Krishna is full in knowledge, and He has unlimited powers of perception. Yet for a moment, out of great affection for His loved ones, He remained absorbed in the mood of an ordinary human being. He soon recalled, however, that this was all a demoniac illuson engineered by Maya Danava and employed by Salva.
But the ultimate answer to this question is given by Sri Suka in verse 10.77.32:
"By virtue of self-realization fortified by service rendered to His feet, devotees of the Lord dispel the bodily concept of life, which has bewildered souls since time immemorial. Thus they attain eternal glory in His personal association. How then, can that Supreme Truth, the destination of all genuine saints, be subject to illusion?"
Sukadeva's question is rethorical. It means the Lord can never be bewildered by illusion, but for His pastimes He agrees to become the subjecct of His own Yogamaya potency.
And one is further advised to look at Brahma's statement in 2.7.42:
"But anyone who is specifically favored by the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, due to unalloyed surrender unto the service of the Lord, can overcome the insurmountable ocean of illusion and can understand the Lord, but those who are attached to the body, which is meant to be eaten at the end by dogs and jackals, cannot do so."
Whether Brahma's bewilderment was because of his forgetfulness of the Lord or by the independent will of the Lord, it is not against the narrations and principles established in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Further, because this pastime is related in the Padma Purana, as accepted by Lal, it cannot be against the conclusions of the scriptures.
As stated earlier, when the Lord wants to enjoy His humanlike pastimes, He takes help from His Yogamaya. Otherwise He cannot engage in pastimes like stealing butter, feeling hungry and so on, because He owns everything and hunger cannot touch Him. While commenting on the words atma maya (SB.10.3.46), Sri Vithalnatha, son of Vallabhacarya, writes, "Just as the illusory energy, Maya, the cause of material bondage, makes one forget one's real nature and causes attachment to the material world, in the same way this atma maya makes a devotee forget about his nature (as servant of the Lord) and causes attachment to the Lord (in a particular relationship). Because of the common attribute of making the jiva forget his identity the atma maya is also called maya." Vallabhacarya also says that maya is of three types--svamohini, which bewilders Krishna; svajanamohini, which bewilders the devotees; and vimukhajanamohini, which bewilders the non-devotees. In the Gaudiya sampradaya, svamohini and svajanamohini are called Yogamaya, which is part of the Lord's internal potency. Vimukhajanamohini is called Mahamaya, the external potency of the Lord.
This also clears up the objection that the Lord did not keep His words given to Lord Brahma since that promise was in reference to Maya and not to Yogamaya. Moreover the Lord is independent and supremely powerful. Lord Brahma gave a boon to Dvivida that no one would be able to kill him (sarvavadhyatramatulamanyordattavan pura--Valmiki Ramayana 5.60.3) yet he was killed by Lord Balarama as stated in Bhagavatam 10.67.28.
E. Furthermore, Sri Madhva, your own sampradaya acarya, did not accept those chapters nor did Sri Vijayadhvaja. So you (Jiva Gosvami) are jumping over your own acaryas and thus you are a rebel, acarya-drohi.
Response: Sri Madhva did not comment on these chapters, but he did not say that they were not bonafide. If his not commenting the three disputed chapters, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen is the test of interpolation, then chapters eleven, fifteen, and many others throughout the Bhagavatam should be considered spurious because Madhva did not comment on them either. He comments only on select verses of Bhagavatam. Vijayadhvaja, an acarya in the same sampradaya, also did not comment on these chapters without giving any reason, but he never says that they are spurious.
Giridhara Lal counts Madhva and Vijayadhvaja among those who call these chapters spurious. But Madhva's comments are brief, as already mentioned, and he only comments on particular verses. In addition, scholars do not consider Vijayadvaja's readings as a very good standard. In some places he has extra verses, nay extra chapters, and in other places many verses are missing. Even Madhvites have doubts about his readings. In this regard the publisher of Bhagavat tatparya of Sri Madhvacarya (Sarva Mula Grantha Volume III, Udupi, 1980.) has written "Although previously the original reading according to Vijayadhvaja was published, which is available, that is neither according to Vijayadhvaja nor according to Bhashya (Bhagavat tatparya of Madhva). The reading according to Vijayadhvaja is strewn with defects.In certain places it appears that as if someone who did not have good knowledge of the original has interpolated it and thus it appears doubtful, not very fine, and in places even contradictory to Bhagavat tatparya........At present the correct reading of Vijayadhvaja needs to be examined...." These are the statements of a staunch follower of Madhva. Giridhara surely would not have had better access to Madhva sampradaya's manuscripts.
Although Madhva and Vijayadhvaja do not explicitly declare these chapters interpolated, from the statement of Srila Sanatana Gosvami it is clear that they avoid these chapters, not because they doubt their authenticity, but because these chapters go against their philosophical conclusions. They do not accept that a demon killed by Krishna can attain liberation. But this is not the philosophy of Srimad Bhagavatam. Verses 10.44.39, 3.2.20 and 2.7.34 are clear examples of this:
"Kamsa was always disturbed by the thought that the Supreme Lord would kill him. Therefore when drinking, eating, moving about, sleeping or simply breathing, the King always saw the Lord before him with the disc weapon in His hand. Thus Kamsa achieved the rare boon of attaining a form like the Lord's.
"Certainly other fighters on the Battlefield of Kurukshetra were purified by the onslaught of Arjuna's arrows, and while seeing the lotuslike face of Krishna so pleasing to the eyes, they achieved the abode of the Lord."
"All demonic persons like Pralamba, Dhenuka, Baka, Kesi, Arishta, Canura, Mushtika, Kuvalayapida elephant, Kamsa, Yavana, Narakasura and Paundraka, great marshals like Salva, Dvivida monkey and Balvala, Dantavakra, the seven bulls, Sambara, Viduratha and Rukmi, as also great warriors like Kamboja, Matsya, Kuru, Srinjaya and Kekaya, would all fight vigorously, either with the Lord Hari directly or with Him under His names of Baladeva, Arjuna, Bhima, etc. And the demons, thus being killed, would attain either the impersonal Brahmajyoti or his personal abode in the Vaikuntha planets."
On the strength of these verses one may safely conclude that the claims in the disputed chapters, such as Putana attaining the status of the Lord's mother and so forth, are not grounds for rejecting them as interpolated. Further, although Srila Jiva Gosvami comes in the Madhva sampradaya, as a follower of Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanya he is in fact an offshoot from the Madhva line and naturally there are some differences in philosophical conclusions otherwise there will be no difference between the dvaitavada of Madhva and acintyabhedabhedavada of Sri Mahaprabhu. Thus to say that Srila Jiva Gosvami is a rebel and envious of his previous acaryas such as Madhvacarya is unsound reasoning. In a case of contention it is to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu that Jiva Gosvami's ultimate fidelity lies and not to Madhvacarya.
F. You (Jiva Gosvami) have said that these three chapters are popular. We ask then whether they are popular among fools, scholars, or both? If they are accepted by fools, then certainly that does not prove their authenticity. If you say it does, then the bodily conception of life should also be accepted. They are not accepted by all scholars otherwise their would be no bone to contend. This automatically removes the third possibility. These chapters cannot be accepted simply because of their popularity, as reasoned by you. Even hundreds of blind men cannot see an object.
Response: Here Lal is saying that even if hundreds of blind men or fools say that these chapters are bonafide and write commentaries on them that will not make them bonafide. Certainly these chapters are popular among scholars. Srila Jiva Gosvami names but a few of these scholars and after that to raise a question like this is in poor taste, for no one gives the names of fools to support his case. This simple fact Lal does not understand and so he asks, "Are these chapters popular with fools or scholars?"
Among Vedic scholars, especially those who study Bhagavatam there is a common belief that the test of one's scholarship is in understanding and commenting on the Srimad Bhagavatam--vidyavatam bhagavate pariksha, The persons who comment on Srimad Bhagavatam therefore cannot be compared to the fool mired in the bodily conception of life. To cite an example, Bopadeva is said to have studied Bhagavatam twenty times from his teachers before he attempted to write his commentary.
Lal suggests that if hundreds of fools claim that the disputed chapters are bonafide that will not make them so, but by the same token, if hundreds of fools say these chapters are interpolated that does not make them so. The truth is that this reasoning cannot apply to the stalwart scholars who have commented on Bhagavatam. If Lal insists that it does apply, then he should first have proven his own immunity from this blindness.
G. Moreover these chapters are rejected by Vyasa bhatta, the son of Sri Ramanuja's disciple, in his Suka pakshini commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam. Following in his footsteps, Sri Viraraghavacarya also considers them spurious, although he commented on them because of their popularity.
Response: Here Lal gives a refutation of acceptance based on popularity by giving the examples of Vyasa Bhatta and Viraraghavacarya. But he tried to refute Srila Jiva Gosvami on this point because the latter gave popularity as one of the reasons for accepting these chapters. Thus Lal contradicts himself by using the popularity to support his view. The interesting thing is that Viraraghavacarya says, "Vyasa Bhatta has not commented on them considering them spurious, but because these chapters are in vogue and have thus been commented on by some so I am also commenting on them."--Bhagavat Candrika 10.12.1. Viraraghava does not consider them spurious, because he makes no explicit mention of it. Here one may say that explicit mention is not necessary, because on the strength of his words in the quote the implicit agreement with Vyasa Bhatta is clear. The fact, however, is that in 12.12.28 he accepts the part of the verse that mentions about these lilas as quoted earlier and he comments on the verse: Nispesho vadhah aghasurasyasusamhara... Nispesha means slaying. Krishna killed the demon Aghasura. This leads us to understand that he did not personally consider the three chapters interpolated.
H. According to Padma Purana, the propagators of the Vaishnava sampradayas in the line of Lakshmidevi and Lord Brahma are Ramanuja and Madhva. They consider these chapters spurious. If you do not accept the opinion of Sri Madhva, then your sampradaya becomes a mere cult.
Response: In fact it is Lal and his acaryas who reject the opinion of the acaryas in the Sri and Madhva sampradayas. All the commentators in these sampradayas have commented on the six verses beginning from 10.6.35 and still Vallabha and his followers insist on calling these verses spurious. We quote part of Lal's commentary on verse 10.6.35. "Here the six verses beginning from 10.6.35 are spurious according to Sri Vallabhacarya, but they are seen in all books and thus I comment on them." Of the the two acaryas, Ramanuja and Madhva, Sri Ramanuja did not write a commentary on Bhagavatam, and, as stated earlier, Madhva did not directly say that these three chapters were interpolated. And even some followers of Ramanuja, like Sudarsana Suri and Viraraghava have commented on these chapters.
No further comment is needed on this. In fact, although Vallabhacarya and his followers consider the three chapters spurious, many commentators in their line, including Vallabhacarya and Giridhara Lal, have commented on them, giving the excuse that they are in vogue among the scholars and masses. Even if they are in vogue among the masses, if the chapters are in fact interpolated, why further mislead the masses by commenting on them? The conclusion is that these commentators were not themselves convinced about the chapters being interpolations.
Go to Appendix Three
Return to Appendix One
