Re:Sri BhAshyakArar and Sri VP etc

[Guest guest]

> The only point on which aDiyEn has a totally respectful

> but firm difference of opinion is -re the basic difference between

> the approaches of SriVP and SriBH with re to PirAtti.

> Sri VP is totally wholehearted and unrestricted in its

> statement that He is Sriyahpati and she is His constant

> consort,anapAyinI,as in "ahalakillEn iraiyum" and goes on to

> present a Stuti which repeats this statement in a hundred

> ways so that there should be no doubt on that point.

> Kindly see the identical chapter in Sri BH for a striking

> contrast in approach.

 

If you are talking about 10.60.35, then I argue that you have misunderstood.

Rukmini's identifying Herself as a lowly woman of the three gunas should not

be taken seriously. She was speaking humbly about Herself in order to

glorify the Lord. Otherwise, what do you make of the statements in 10.60.17

where Lord Krishna describes Himself as having no good qualities and being

glorified only by beggars? Should that be taken literally too? You need to

understand the context of the dialogue. The Lord is simply teasing Rukmini

in order to see Her anger. Later He Himself acknowledges this, and then

Rukmini begins to glorify the Lord by refuting all His arguments against

Himself.

> Finally a small point.ADiyEn's mention of a past controversy

> re the authorship of Sri BH (which can be found mentioned

> in any critical edition of the BH.- for ex the detailed

> introduction to the superb translation by Sri N.Raghunathan)

> has been taken to imply that aDiyEn has such reservations

> regarding that beautiful work!

 

This is no small point. The Bhaagavatam describes itself as the composition

of Vyaasa. If this point cannot be accepted, then such statements are lies.

How can one accept as scripture that which has proven to contain falsehoods?

It would be like accepting the modern theory that the Vedas were written

down by different sages over different time periods (against the evidence of

the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad), while at the same glorifying it as a

beautiful scripture that should be followed.

 

If so many translators of the Bhaagavatam raise questions about its

authorship, then that is all fine and good. But rather than accepting such

sentiments, one ought to contrast them with the available evidence. I have

shown that other Puraanas refer quite explicitly to Shriimad Bhaagavatam.

Thus, there can be no question of its authorship, unless these critics now

want to claim that all the other Puraanas are also recent compositions.

 

All this may or may not be relevant to Bhaashyakaarar's exclusive use of the

Vishnu Puraana, but it certainly ought to be relevant to Sri Vaishnavism and

Vedaanta.

 

regards,

 

Krishna