BY: SUN STAFF
Feb 1, CANADA (SUN) —
Tattva Sandarbha
by Srila Jiva Goswami
APPENDIX THREE
I. You quoted verse 3.15.23, to prove that the word Aghabhit indicates killing of Aghasura. Here the suitable meaning is "the dispeller of sins" and that fits in the context. In the Srimad Bhagavatam usage of the word agha means sin. (Lal quotes many verses to support this, two of which are 6.2.8 and 6.2.11:
"The Vishnudutas continued: Even previously, while eating and at other times, this Ajamila would call his son, saying, "My dear Narayana, please come here." Although calling the name of his son, he nevertheless uttered the four syllables na-ra-ya-na. Simply by chanting the name of Narayana in this way, he sufficiently atoned for the sinful reactions of millions of lives."
"By following the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies or undergoing atonement, sinful men do not become as purified as by chanting once the holy name of Lord Hari. Although ritualistic atonement may free one from sinful reactions, it does not awaken devotional service, unlike the chanting of the Lord's names, which reminds one of the Lord's fame, qualities, attributes, pastimes and paraphernalia."
Response: There is no truth in the statement that the word aghabhit means only dispeller of sin and not the killer of Aghasura. It can have both meanings simultaneously. After all Aghasura is the personification of sin. The demons killed by Krishna represent the various lower qualities found in human beings. Since Bhagavatam is a kavya, or poetical composition, it uses indirect methods to convey instruction. Generally the proper nouns used in Srimad Bhagavatam also have a meaning related to their qualities, just as Bhishma means ferocious in fighting and Arjuna means one with pure character. So there is no Vedic injunction against explaining aghabhit as a name of Krishna, the killer of Aghasura. Vallabhacarya and other commentators, including Lal, often give such double meanings to Krishna's names. This is also substantiated by the statements of Sri Krishnopanishad (14) "Canura is the personification of hatred and Mushtika is the personification of envy. Aghasura is the personification of disease, which are the results of sin. "
J. Sridhara Svami has referred to verse 10.6.36 while explaining the word matarah, mothers. He says that the plural form is for keeping the vatsaharanalila (stealing of calves) in mind, (at this time Lord Krishna expanded Himself to become the sons of the gopis), but that goes against His pastime of Rasa Lila as it is improper to dance with one's mother. Therefore these six verses are spurious.
Response: Sridhara Svami's explanation is not improper, but Lal's conclusion is wrong. We must note that the gopis with whom Lord Krishna engaged in the Rasa dance were not the same ones whose breasts he suckled during the Brahma-mohana lila. From the scriptures we have absolutely no proof to the contrary. Further, Krishna is the Supreme Taster of rasa and a rasa lila with the same gopis whose breasts He suckled would be rasabhasa according to the principles set forth in Rasa sastra, which is frowned upon by knowers of rasa. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the mature fruit of the Vedic tree of knowledge and is called the amala purana, the spotless scripture. It cannot have such defect of improper mixing of rasa in it.
K. Sridhara Svami has explained these chapters just out of custom and in the same spirit he has explained the word vyala-rakshasat (10.31.3) as Aghasura, but in reality it means the snake Kaliya and demons like Trinavarta. Only out of custom does he say in the beginning of the Tenth Canto that there are ninety chapters in it. This he indicated in his invocation verses to the First Canto. There he says sampradayanurodhena, paurvaparyanusaratah, keeping strict adherence to the sampradaya and maintaining harmony between the earlier and later parts of the book. Thus he wrote commentary on all ninety chapters. By sampradaya he refers to Bopadeva and others who accepted ninety chapters. By paurvaparavirodhena, or reconciling the earlier and later statements, he means that there are 332 chapters.
Response: The logic given in this argument is childish. How does the critic know that Sridhara Svami explained these chapters out of custom since he himself never declared them spurious? If there is any verse which he thinks as interpolated, he makes a mention of it. One such example is 1.15.8. Then why would he be so uncharacteristically enigmatic about these three chapters in the Tenth Canto, which is the very heart of the Bhagavatam?. In his invocation to the Tenth Canto he clearly mentions twice that there are 90 chapters in the Tenth Canto, and does not say a word about interpolation. Still Lal dares to misinterpret his invocatory statements sampradayanurodhena, paurvaparyanusaratah. The direct meaning is "We will give meaning as we have studied in our guru parampara and there will be no contradictions in the earlier and later sections." These are the natural qualities of a good commentary. We completely fail to understand Lal's theory that Sridhar Svami did all this out of custom but actually he disagrees. If that is the case then he is following the sampradaya only in name. Even so, why does he explain the word matarah, in verse 10.6.36, as related with Brahma-mohan lila if he does not believe in it? Rather it goes against his promise that his explanation will have no internal contradictions.
Thus we conclude that Sridhara Svami has no objection to these chapters and accordingly he translates the word vyala rakshasa in verse 10.31.3. as Aghasura. Similarly, in commenting on the word mahasanaih in verse 10.2.1 many have translated it as Aghasura. Even Vallabhacarya in Subodhini, his commentary, and Lal also accepts that mahasana could mean either a glutton or Aghasura. All these facts lead to one conclusion, that none of the 335 chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam are interpolations.
L. At this point Lal tries to refute Srila Jiva Gosvami's explanation of the phrase( which phrase) dvatrimsattrisatam used by Sridhara Svami in one of his invocatory verses. Since it is all based on intricate grammatical rules, and only one who has studied Panini's grammer can understand it, we bypass it. Suffice to say that Lal's conclusion is that it means Bhagavatam has 332 chapters. The number 332 is given for easy understanding and Srila Jiva Gosvami's explanation is very difficult and defeats the very purpose of giving the number. Hence the direct meaning, 332, is more logical. Thus in the opinion of Sridhara Svami these chapters are spurious, but we do not accept these chapters as spurious only on the authority of Sridhara Svami, but due to so many defects in them.
Response: Therefore, because there are no convincing reasons to reject these chapters Srila Jiva Gosvami has grammatically explained the meaning of the phrase dvatrimsat trisatam as 335. Since the refutation of Giridharis' objection to this section is beyond the scope of these readers who have not studied Panini Sanskrit Grammar, we will not go into it . Sri Vamsidhara wrote a commentary on the commentary of Sridhara Svami called Bhavartha-dipika-prakasa. He also agrees that the above phrase means 335. Indeed he wrote a separate explanation of this, which he mentioned in his commentary on Sridhar Svami, but unfortunately that book is lost.
The explanation that the number of chapters is mentioned for easy understanding of the reader is indeed correct. Therefore to give a complicated grammatical explanation of this phrase to prove it really means 335 is improper. This statement would have been true if this verse (invocation verse no. six) was composed by Sridhara Svami himself, but the verse is cited from the Padma Purana, Uttarakhanda 198.51, spoken by Sanat Kumar to Narada Muni. The Kumaras are known as the greatest of jnanis and one can expect indirect statements from them. Lord Krishna relishes when the sages speak indirectly:
The Vedas, divided into three divisions, ultimately reveal the living entity as pure spirit soul. The Vedic seers and mantras, however, deal in esoteric terms, and I also am pleased by such indirect confidential descriptions. (S.B.11.21.35)
Indirect statements are not to be accepted as they appear but need interpretation. An example of this are the verses :
The supreme unborn, Lord Sri Krishna, caused the members of the Yadu dynasty to relinquish their bodies, through whom He relieved the burden of the world. This action was like picking out a thorn with a thorn and then throwing them both away, not seeing any difference between the two. (S.B.1.15.34)
The Supreme Lord relinquished the body which He manifested to diminish the burden of the earth. Just like a magician, He relinquishes one body to accept different ones, like the fish incarnation and others. (S.B.1.15.35)
Here every commentator has interpreted the words vijahav tanum (lit. gave up the body) and jahau kalevaram (literally, gave up his body) as giving up the bhava, or mood, and not the body itself, because the Lord's giving up His body does not make sense and goes against the philosophy of the Bhagavatam. For this reason Srila Jiva Gosvami has interpreted this phrase which only seems to mean 332, because actually there are 335 chapters. Also it is against the rules of Sanskrit grammar to translate as 332
M. Since it is not against the Vaishnava principles for demons killed by Lord Krishna to attain liberation, why not accept these chapters? This statement of Srila Jiva Gosvami is not supported by Vijayadhvaja Tirtha of Madhva sampradaya. He explains that Putana went to Hell. According to him the word jananigati (destination of a mother) means the place attained by sinners. Thus Madhvites do not accept liberation of demons and they are your predecessors. The statement sadveshadeva putana (10.14.35) is from the controversial section and thus cannot be accepted as authoritative.
Response: This objection is automatically answered by the explanation given in "E". There is no sense in giving the opinion of Vijayadhvaja on liberation, when Lal himself agrees with Srila Jiva Gosvami that demons killed by Krishna get liberation. How can he expect to argue both sides of the issue? The verse 10.14.53 maybe from the controversial section, but there are many other verses that state the demons Krishna kills attain liberation.
N. My acarya, Vallabha, has explained liberation in these incidents but that is different from the destination attained by devotees. You agree with this so you cannot blame our acarya.
Response: We have no objection to this. Srila Jiva Gosvami never blames Vallabhacarya anywhere in his discussion on the number of chapters in Bhagavatam.
O. This lila is mentioned in other Puranas such as Padma Purana and thus it can also be explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Padma Purana mentions this lila but gives no details. Since no mention of Bhagavatam is made there, it cannot be taken that this lila is narrated in detail in the Srimad Bhagavatam.
Response: This lila is mentioned in some other Puranas which indicates that it did occur and is not a concoction. Thus there is every possibility of it being found in the Srimad Bhagavatam, which Vyasadeva wrote specifically to narrate the pastimes of Lord Krishna. Verses 1.5.36, 1.5.39, 1.7.7, 1.7.10 and 1.7.12 clearly establish that Bhagavatam was mainly compiled to narrate the pastimes of Lord Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In fact the verses confirm that the lilas that are only barely referred to in other Puranas, such as the Padma Purana, must be given an elaborate description in the Bhagavatam. And because these pastimes are found in other sattvika Puranas the philosophic conclusions given cannot be wrong. Otherwise Lal and others have to explain why these lilas are described in other sattvika Puranas.
P. It is not proper reasoning to say that these lilas are included just because they are wonderful. If so, then other such wonderful lilas from Hari Vamsa, Vishnu and Brahma Vaivarta Puranas should also be included.
Response: Vallabhacarya gave this same reasoning, but he gave no explanation for this. He said that these lilas are wonderful and therefore a scholar included them in the Srimad Bhagavatam to woo the audience. But since Vallabha gave no proof to support his opinion Lal's using here as a refutation is erroneous.
Q. Because the places indicating these lilas exist in Vrindavana is also no reason to accept them in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Then other lilas related with such places as Radha Kunda, lukaluka kandara and so on should also be included.
Response: Srila Jiva Gosvami gave this reason to support the logic already presented in response to O. It is not that these lilas are considered part of the Srimad Bhagavatam just on the basis of the places found in Vrindavan. He did not say that the lilas related with these places must be found in the Srimad Bhagavatam; rather, because they are mentioned in Bhagavatam, the various lila sites must be found in Vrindavana.
R. The explanation that those gopis whose breasts were suckled by Lord Krishna were of the same age as Mother Yasoda, and the gopis with whom He performed Rasa Lila were young is not satisfying to scholars. There is no such rule that only the gopis equal in age to Yasoda had sons and not the young gopis.
Response: The response to R is combined with the response to S.
S. According to verse 10.5.23 Yasoda gave birth to Krishna in her old age and even Lord Brahma will not say all the gopis gave birth to children at the same age as Yasoda. The cowherd boys were of the same age as Krishna and thus their mothers would have been young and it is highly improper that Krishna would engage in Rasa-lila with them after drinking their breast milk. So vatsaharana lila is spurious. Also, it is ludicrous that boys around five years old would feed on breast milk.
Response: Srila Jiva Gosvami explains in the Priti Sandarbha as well as in his Vaishnava Toshani commentary on 10.29.6, that the gopis who danced with Krishna had no sons. He is not saying that all the gopis who had sons of Krishna's age were old like Yasoda. He only wants to say that the gopis with whom Krishna engaged in conjugal pastimes were different from those whose milk He drank. Whether the gopis that nursed Krishna were elderly or young, is not the issue. When he says that they were of the same age as mother Yasoda, he means that they were elderly, and not precisely the same age. This is explained in detail in Vaishnava toshani. It is not ludicrous at all for five-year-old boys to drink breast milk, because these boys were Krishna Himself. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is acintya, inconcievable, in every respect. He does not have to conform to our conception of what ordinary boys do. He may act as an ordinary boy, but at any moment he can do something extraordinary. At age seven He lifted Govardhana hill. He performed rasa lila with married gopis. Similarly, to please His devotees He may drink breast milk at age five. Actually, the milk He drank was love in liquid form. It is a medical fact that milk can appear in a woman's breast under certain extraordinary circumstances, such as during intense feelings of love. According to Srimad Bhagavatam (4.9.50), when Dhruva Maharaja returned home after his penances in Madhuvana and met his mother, Suniti, the milk flowed from her breasts. Dhruva was already six years old at that time. Similarly, out of love for Krishna milk would flow from Yasoda's breasts even when Krishna was past the age of drinking breast milk. (SB. 10.11.14,15):
Krishna and Balarama, being attached to Their play, were playing with the other boys although it was very late. Therefore mother Yasoda called Them back for lunch. Because of her ecstatic love and affection for Krishna and Balarama, milk flowed form her breasts. (S.B.10.11.14)
"Mother Yasoda said: My dear son Krishna, lotus eyed Krishna, come here and drink the milk of my breast. My dear darling, You must be very tired because of hunger and the fatigue of playing so long. There is no need to play any more" (S.B.10.11.15). According to Srila Rupa Gosvami in the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu (3.4.45), flowing of breast milk is the ninth sattvika bhava in vatsalya rasa.
These verses describe Lord Krishna's activities after the dama-bandhana-lila. During this lila Lord Krishna ran from Mother Yasoda and she was unable to catch up. Certainly he was no longer a crawling baby, being fed on breast milk. So if it is possible for Mother Yasoda to have breast milk, who was already advanced in age, then why not for younger gopis when Krishna came to them disguised as their sons.
Go to Appendix Four
Return to Appendix Two
