Question: vishNu-puraaNa vs bhaagavata-puraaNa

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramkumar,

 

on 3/18/02 8:50 AM, tg_ram at tg_ram wrote:

> Dear Members:

>

> It is said that Srii-veda-vyaasa compiled all the eigtheen puraaNa-s.

>

> Also, Sriimad vishNupuraaNa is said to have been narrated by SrI

> paraaSara-muni while Sriimad bhaagavata-puraaNa is said to have been

> narrated by SrI-sukha-maharshi.

>

 

Srimad Bhagavata was narrated by Ugrashrava-Suta, the son of

Romaharshana-Suta. Romaharshana was the disciple of Vyasa given charge of

the Puranas, according to the Vishnu Purana. Ugrashrava, giving honor to

Suka as his guru, then narrated the discourse of Suka to Parikshit from the

2nd book of the Bhagavata onward.

 

We can therefore say that there were many sittings of Srimad Bhagavata:

Vyasa initially spoke it to Suka in an abbreviated form. Suka spoke an

extended version to Parikshit. Ugrashrava says that he heard the Bhagavata

from Suka (SB 1.3.44). Vyasa spoke the Puranas to Romaharshana, who

undoubtedly spoke it to his son Ugrasrava. Again, Ugrashrava, who was a

sisya of both Romaharshana and Suka, spoke it to the sages at Naimisaranya

headed by Saunaka.

 

We know that writers frequently update their works, so we see here that

Vyasa eventually produced a final edition of the Bhagavata Purana under the

direction and inspiration of Devarshi Narada. This is the Bhagavata that we

have today.

>

> Also, I remember reading somewhere that Sriimad-bhaagavatam is not

> really on the list of eigtheen 'official' puraaNa-s. Could

> someone 'official' list ?

>

 

The Vishnu Purana lists the Bhagavata among the 18 Puranas in Book 3,

Chapter 6. This should be sufficient evidence for all Vaishavas.

 

Of course, what you read was probably referring to the Shakta text typically

referred to as the Devi Bhagavata. There is little doubt among today's

scholars that the Bhagavata Purana referred to in the Puranic lists is the

Vaishnava Bhagavata and not the Devi Bhagavata.

> Also I am wondering what Srii-vaishNava acaarya-s say regarding the

> status of Sriimad-bhaagavata-puraaNa.

>

> raamaanuja-daasa

> //Ramkumar

>

 

Sri Ramanuja clearly gave preference to the Vishnu Purana, but this does not

mean that he was unaware of the Bhagavata Purana or that he rejected the

Bhagavata Purana. Dr. B.N.K. Sharma, the great Dvaita scholar, has given

evidence suggesting that the Bhagavata seems to have already been popular as

early as the 6th century, if not earlier.

 

In the line of Ramanuja, both Sri Sudarshan Suri and Viraraghavacharya

wrote commentaries on Srimad Bhagavata. Although I have not seen it, an

edition containing 18 commentaries, including these two, was published in

Ahmedabad in 1965 by one Bhagavata Vidyapitha.

 

I would travel to India just to get a copy.

 

I've read somewhere that Sudarshan Suri wrote in his Sutra Prakasha, his

commentary on Sri Bhasya, that the standpoint of the Vishnu Purana in

doctrinal points is the same as the Bhagavata. For this reason, Ramanuja

did not multiply his texts unnecessarily by quoting verses from the

Bhagavata; instead he focused on the Vishnu Purana.

 

I don't have any works of Sudarshan Suri or Viraraghava. Perhaps some of

the wise list members can comment. Can anyone on the list validate this

statement of Sudarshan Suri?

 

Please forgive my lack of correct transliteration herein.

 

Namaste,

 

Louis