BY: SUN STAFF
Feb 2, CANADA (SUN) —
Tattva Sandarbha
by Srila Jiva Goswami
APPENDIX FOUR
T. The statement that the girlfriends of Krishna were of the same age is also untenable because the Adi Purana mentions that the young gopis desired to enjoy with Krishna, who was just a small boy.
U. The word angana means a young woman according to the Amarakosa. This word, angana or vrajangana, is used to indicate the gopis in various places in Srimad Bhagavatam. Such usage defeats the argument that these gopis were of the same age as Yasoda.
Then you say there is no contradiction between the statements in these chapters with the statements of Srimad Bhagavatam in other chapters; rather these establish the glory of the devotees of the Lord and that this understanding is realized by the special favor of the Lord. Such ideas may be welcome to your friends and followers but we see many contradictions.
Response: The Adi Purana may have such statements and may speak of a different kalpa but this is not the principle in Srimad Bhagavatam. And even Adi Purana only states that the young gopis desired to enjoy with baby Krishna, but it does not state that they enjoyed. Such a combination of five year old lover and grown up woman is counted as rasabhasa according to the sahitya sastra, which gives us the rules of poetics.
According to Sahitya darpana, a standard book on the theology of Rasa, if the rati (attachment) is existing only in one partner (alambana-vibhava) that causes rasabhasa, a disturbance to the proper ebb and flow of transcendental mellows. Bahunayaka vishayayam ratau tathanubhayanishthayam(S.D. 3.263). Hence if the grown up gopis were to enjoy conjugal love with child Krishna that would be improper. Their relationship is then marred with rasabhasa. According to Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu it is called vibhava vairupya, or improper combination of lovers (B.R.S 4.8.13). Rasikas, those expert in the matter of tasting rasa, such as Sukadeva Gosvami, frown on such a possibility and there is no chance of such rasabhasa taking place in Srimad Bhagavatam, which is glorified as the amala-puranam, free from all defects (SB.12.13.18):
According to 1.1.3, rasikas are recommended to taste this rasa-sastra. Others, ignorant of the intricacies of rasa, may take pleasure in reading rasabhasa.
We have no objection to the interpretation of the word angana as young damsel, because Krishna did perform the rasa dance with such anganas or vrajanganas. When, however, the word angana is used in 10.8.24 for gopis, who witnessed the childhood pastimes of Krishna, it need not refer to only young gopis. Why would the elderly gopis not enjoy witnessing His bala-lila? Angana may also mean a woman in general, so the claim that it only means young women is not admissable.
The real meaning of angana is a woman with beautiful limbs. Prasastani angani yasyah sa angana (Ramasvami commentary on Amarkosa 3.6.5) By this definition, although Yasoda is old, she is also angana as the beauty of Mother Yasoda is depicted in verses 10.9.3 and 10. She is referred to as sumadhyama, or one with a beautiful waist. Thus Lal's objection that the gopis whose breast Krishna suckled could not be the senior gopis, because angana means young damsels, is refuted.
V. For example verse 10.12.29 describes that when Krishna entered the mouth of Aghasura the demigods became unhappy and demons like Kamsa became happy. By this it is inferred that Kamsa also saw the killing of Aghasura. Then the narration of the killing of these demons in verse 10.36.18 by Narada to Kamsa seems inappropriate, because Kamsa saw the killing of Aghasura. This shows that the Twelfth Chapter of the Tenth Canto is not part of the Srimad Bhagavatam, because it does not fit in properly.
Response: It would be inappropriate if Kamsa enquired about it, but if Narada voluntarily narrates them then there is no contradiction. Narada Muni did not read Kamsa's mind and then thought, "Wait a minute. He already knows about the killing of Aghasura, having witnessed it, so I should not narrate it." Moreover, there is no proof that Kamsa witnessed the killing of all the demons. And even if he witnessed all of them and even if Narada knew it there is nothing wrong in narrating them again because his purpose was to incite Kamsa's anger so that he would call Krishna and Balarama to Mathura immediately.
Even if Kamsa has not seen the killing of Aghasura, he knew that Krishna killed the demons sent to Vraja. This is evident from the following verses.
"While Nanda Maharaja was returning to Gokula, the same fierce Putana whom Kamsa had previously engaged to kill babies was wandering about in the towns, cities, and villages, doing her nefarious duty. (SB.10.6.2)
"While the child was sitting on the ground, a demon named Trinavarta, who was a servant of Kamsa's, came there as a whirlwind, at Kamsa's instigation, and very easily carried the child away into the air." (SB.10.7.20)
He was sending the demons one after another and they were getting killed as is evident from the above verses.. Even if these three chapters are taken out of Srimad Bhagavatam the objection raised by Lal still stands yet somehow he overlooked this fact out of zeal.
Moreover, the objection raised by Lal is baseless because the real meaning of the verse 10.12.29 is not that Kamsa personally saw Lord Krishna entering the mouth of Aghasura and felt elated. Rather the demons headed by Kamsa, Kamsadyah, who witnessed this act felt jubilant or Kamsa got the news through his spies and felt happy. Lal has also explained it in this very way while commenting on 10.12.29:
kamsa adirmukhyo niyanta yesham te kaunapah kunapasina rakshasastu
jahrisurityanvayah...carah sadyah eva gatva kathanat kamsadi namapi tajjnanamiti jneyam.
W. Moreover Chapter Twelve, verses 26 and 27, describe that the Lord knew the cowherd boys were unknowingly entering the mouth of the great python Aghasura and wanted to stop them. The Lord was surprised that they entered anyway and considered this to be an act of Fate.
X. This is entirely against the personality of the Lord who is the controller of fate and is called satya-sankalpa, or one who has an unfailing will. If He has to marvel at fate then we should worship fate and not Krishna. Moreover, the devotees are controlled by the will of the Lord and not by fate. This has been established by an acarya (Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura) of your sampradaya in Madhurya Kadambini.
Y. Verses 10.13.16 and 17 explain that after the calves and cowherd boys were stolen Lord Krishna did not understand what had happened to them. Later on He could understand the reality. This type of ignorance is not possible in Lord Krishna, who is called sarvajna and sarvavit in the Vedas--the all-knowing person.
Response: The response to W, X, and Y is the same as D.
Z. Since you have disrespected the predecessor acaryas there is absolutely no possibility that you have received even a drop of mercy of the Lord. Rather you are envious of both guru and Bhagavan. So to say that these pastimes are very confidential and that they are understood by the special mercy of the Lord is a foolish statement uttered out of excessive pride and befitting only people like you. Since Bopadeva accepts these chapters, he falls in the same class. The conclusion of the intelligentia is that only people with blind faith accept these chapters as part of Srimad Bhagavatam.
Response: This is answered by the explanation under 'E'.
In this way we have given the answers in brief to the major objections, showing that Giridhara Lal's claims are unfounded. The purpose of our response to the essay written by Lal is not to belittle his exalted position as an acarya in the Pushti-marga sampradaya nor to discourage his followers. As a devout follower of Vallabhacarya he did his duty by supporting his predecessor acarya, but he went too far by directly criticising Srila Jiva Gosvami with sharp words. We feel, therefore, that it is our duty to answer him and leave the decision in the hands of the unbiased reader, because the philosophy of acintyabhedabheda of Lord Caitanya is the essence of Srimad Bhagavatam. We present a few more facts to make the matter more transparent.
As said earlier, all the objections can be divided in two classes, those based on internal contradiction and those based on tradition. All the internal contradictions have been resolved and some light was shed on the traditional acceptance.
Besides these, acaryas like Sridhara Svami, Jiva Gosvami, Sanatana Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, Baladeva vidyabhushana, Sukadeva, Bhagavat Prasadacarya, Harisuri, Gangasahaya, Gopalananda muni, Sridhar Svami, Madhusudana Sarasvati, Vamsidhara, Hari Suri, Srinatha Cakravarti, Kasinatha Upadhyaya and so on accept these chapters as part of Srimad Bhagavatam. Srila Jiva Gosvami lists the following commentaries, which are now lost, but which accepted the three chapters: Vasana Bhashya, Citsukhi, Sambandhokti, Vidvat-kamdhenu, Suka Manohara, Paramahamsa Priya of Bopadeva, Hanumad Bhashya and so on. Comparing all these commentaries we see that most of the commentators have accepted the three chapters as authentic. Even among those who reject them most still commented on them. Though they all say the reason for their commenting is that the pastimes in the three chapters are popular, had they shown the courage of their conviction by not commenting they would have been more convincing.
So from the commentaries it is clear that most are in favor.
Sankaracarya was a disciple of Govindapada, who was a disciple of Gaudapada. Gaudapada wrote a commentary on Uttara Gita, a book on yoga, besides other works. In his commentary he quotes 10.14.4 from one of the disputed chapters of the Srimad bhagavatam. This indicates that he considered these chapters authoritative. In the Sankara sampradaya, he is considered a direct disciple of Sukadeva Gosvami. If that has any weight then his opinion is most authoritative. Sankara himself accepted these pastimes as authentic. This is clear from his Govindashtaka, Prabhoda Sudhakara, and Sahasranama Bhashya. Citsukhacarya came in Sankara's line and from his Citsukhi commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam it is clear that he accepted these chapters. Sridhara Svami was also initiated in the Sankara sampradaya and he considered the Citsukhi authoritative. So the claim that he wrote just out of custom has no basis. And thus the acceptance by Bopadeva, the great scholar of Srimad Bhagavatam, and follower of Sankara is not inadvertant.
The Gita Press, Gorakhpura, India, is well known for printing authoritative editions of Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. They make use of many manuscripts to bring out these editions. Any differences of readings are mentioned in the footnotes. They accept the three chapters. So is the case with editions from other publishers.
Traditionally, Srimad Bhagavatam is recited for one week for material as well as spiritual gains. This practice comes from the Bhagavata Mahatmya mentioned in the Padma and Skanda Puranas. In this one week recital a fixed number of chapters are recited each day. The number varies according to the purpose. All the standard recitation schedules accept 335 chapters. If 332 chapters are recited the participants do not get the desired benefit.
But the most crucial problem which critics like Lal have carefully avoided is the number of verses in the Bhagavatam. According to the Matsya, Vishnu, and Skanda Puranas and the Narada Pancaratra, Srimad Bhagavatam should have 18,000 verses. No one has any disagreement over this point. Gangasahaya, the writer of Anvitartha Prakasa counted all the words of Srimad Bhagavatam including the uvaca and chapter endings, added them up and divided it by 32 to convert the whole Srimad Bhagavatam into Anushtup verses. This is the standard way to count the number of verses. He did this thrice and his calculation was short by 1 and half verses. He included the three chapters and the seven verses in his calculation. Somehow it may be possible to accomodate the shortage of one and half verses by comparing different editions, but if these chapters and the seven verses are removed the Bhagavatam will be short by about 210 anushtup verses and there would be no way to compensate for this loss which would amount to more than one percent of the total length of the Bhagavatam.
Vallabhacarya declared the three chapters and seven verses as spurious and gave some simple reason to substantiate his idea. But actually he commented on these chapters and accepted their popularity. He does not seem to seriously reject these chapters. It is his followers who have raised this as a great issue and written a great deal in its support. In this respect Giridhar himself is guilty of stepping over his founder acarya of the suddhadvaita sampradaya.
Our conclusion is substantiated by verses from Purushottama-Sahasranama composed by Vallabhacarya. These names are composed based on the pastimes of the Lord, as narrated in Srimad Bhagavatam. This is stated by the Vallabhacarya himself.
"Lord Vishnu, the oldest person, or the person who is glorified by all the Puranas is called Purushottama. I will recite His 1000 names taken from Srimad Bhagavatam." (Text 1)
"Lord Krishna has unlimited names because of His unlimited lilas. In Srimad Bhagavatam these are mentioned directly and some times indirectly." (Text 3)
"Therefore I will recite these names of Lord Krishna, the enemy of the Mura demon, beginning from the First Canto."(Text 4)
While listing the names based on lilas in the Tenth Canto he writes the following names:
(verses 167-169)
Here he clearly mentions the names based on the pastimes in Chapters Twelve, Thriteen, and Fourteen, such as killer of Aghasura, one who eats in the forest, liberator of the snake (Aghasura), cause of Brahma's delusion, who has unlimited forms (shown to Brahma), brahma mohanakarta, or he who bewilders lord Brahma. Further, in concluding he writes the following verse:
"One whose heart is captivated by Lord Hari has extracted these names, which are like touchstone, from the ocean of Srimad Bhagavatam." (Text 252)
So this is definite proof that even Vallabhacarya was not convinced in his heart that these chapters are spurious. The dvaitavadis have reason to condone these chapters because they cannot fit them in their philosophy, but we see no reason why pushti margiya acaryas have let loose their wrath when these chapters have nothing contradictory to their philosophy except the personal liberation of Putana. Thus we suggest that the modern followers of Vallabhacarya reconsider the issue with an unbiased mind.
Finally we would like to ask the following question. Who did the interpolation and when? No critic has furnished an answer to this. Indeed no one will ever be able to furnish one. Therefore with no substantial proof we have no reason to accept their claim that the three chapters and six verses are interpolations.
While it is convenient to brand anything incomprehensible as spurious, this is not a good idea. Especially in relation to the Bhagavatam, which is giving us the essence of knowledge regarding the name, fame, qualities, and pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
To drive home the final point we cite the following verses:
"O Parvati, the beautiful Srimad Bhagavatam has 18,000 verses and contains 335 chapters." (Gauri tantra, Bhagavata mahatmya 2.26). Here Lord Siva explicitly states that Srimad Bhagavatam has 335 chapters.
"O best of twiceborn listen to me about the chapters in each Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam. The First Canto has nineteen chapters; the Second, ten; the Third, thirty-three, the Fourth, thirty-one; the Fifth, twenty-six; the Sixth, nineteen; the Seventh, fifteen; the Eighth, twenty-four; the Ninth, twenty-four, the Tenth, ninety; the Eleventh, thirty-one; and the Twelfth, thirteen chapters. This totals 335.
The devotees of Krishna accept Srimad Bhagavatam as non-different from Krishna. Any act of reducing or cutting any part of Srimad Bhagavatam is comparable to the act of Jara, the hunter, whose arrow pierced Krishna's heel. Rejecting any part of the Tenth Canto is even worse because according to the Padma Purana the Tenth Canto is not His heel, but the smiling face of Lord Krishna.
Return to Appendix Three
