Guest guest Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 I do not think Shankara had referenced to Bhagavatam either. There is a theory that Bhagavatam came into existence much latter - 11 th or 12th century, although it is attributed to Vyaasa. Same is true with respect to Brahmasuutra-s of Badarayana. Vishal Agarwaal had a post related to this. Hari OM! Sadananda --- "Pradeep Janakiraman <pradeepjanakiraman" <pradeepjanakiraman wrote: > I have a question. When going thru most of Sri Ramanuja's works, we > only find references to Vishnu and Paadma puranam. There is hardly > any reference to Srimad Bhagavatam. > > I have a doubt here. Would it be the case that parts of Bhagavatam > talk more about monism and are advaitic in nature ? Could that be why > Ramanuja chose not to quote extensively from it ? > > Can someone throw light on this ? > > radhe krishna > > > > ----------------------------- > - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - > To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list > Group Home: bhakti-list > Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/ > > > Your use of is subject to > > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 "K.P. Sarathy <saratpk" <saratpk wrote:Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:26:18 -0000 "K.P. Sarathy " bhakti-list-owner Re: Ramanuja & Bhagavatam SriVaishanavas do not accept the theory that Srimad Bhagavatham was a later work though this idea is widely used in modern research publications. It is a sAtvic puranam and since its basis is on the supremacy of SriKrishna there was no need for Sri Bhashyakarar to use this in his work. Dr. K. P. Sarathy bhakti-list, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote: > I do not think Shankara had referenced to Bhagavatam either. There is a > theory that Bhagavatam came into existence much latter - 11 th or 12th > century, although it is attributed to Vyaasa. Same is true with respect > to Brahmasuutra-s of Badarayana. Vishal Agarwaal had a post related to > this. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > > > > --- "Pradeep Janakiraman " > wrote: > > I have a question. When going thru most of Sri Ramanuja's works, we > > only find references to Vishnu and Paadma puranam. There is hardly > > any reference to Srimad Bhagavatam. > > > > I have a doubt here. Would it be the case that parts of Bhagavatam > > talk more about monism and are advaitic in nature ? Could that be why > > Ramanuja chose not to quote extensively from it ? > > > > Can someone throw light on this ? > > > > radhe krishna > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - > > To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list > > Group Home: bhakti-list > > Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/ > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > ===== > What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus. Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 > I do not think Shankara had referenced to Bhagavatam either. There is a > theory that Bhagavatam came into existence much latter - 11 th or 12th > century, although it is attributed to Vyaasa. Same is true with respect > to Brahmasuutra-s of Badarayana. Vishal Agarwaal had a post related to > this. Ref: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/feb2001/0180.html The Brahmasuutra-s are clearly pre-Buddhist and pre-jaina. This is in reference to the above URL and Sri Vishal's excellent post. However, Srimad Bhagavatam also does not have reference to Buddha and the jain thiirthankara, King Rishabha. This clearly puts the authorship of Srimad Bhagavatam much anterior to Gautama Buddha. Regards, Malolan Cadambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 --- Malolan Cadambi <cadambi wrote: > However, Srimad Bhagavatam also does not have > reference to Buddha and the > jain thiirthankara, King Rishabha. No, the 1st Canto Chapter 3 verses 13 and 24 of Srimad Bhagavatam does mention about Lord Buddha, son of Anjana and Lord Rsabha, son of King Nabhi. In verse 24, appearance of Lord Buddha is predicted tatah kalau sampravrtte sammohaya sura-dvisam buddho namnanjana-sutah kikatesu bhavisyati Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist. And is Lord Rsabha mentioned in verse 13 astame merudevyam tu nabher jata urukramah darsayan vartma dhiranam sarvasrama-namaskrtam The eighth incarnation was King Rsabha, son of King Nabhi and his wife Merudevi. In this incarnation the Lord showed the path of perfection, which is followed by those who have fully controlled their senses and who are honored by all orders of life. Source: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Srimad Bhagavatam, BBT Publications. Bala. ===== Balakrishnan A/L Muniapan Mobile: 6-016-4838038 http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/District/9622/resbala.html New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 > In verse 24, appearance of Lord Buddha is predicted > > tatah kalau sampravrtte sammohaya sura-dvisam > buddho namnanjana-sutah kikatesu bhavisyati > > Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will > appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the > province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding > those who are envious of the faithful theist. Before one proceeds in learning and understanding the purAnA-s, one has to important learn sanskrit. It is pretty obvious that the above verse does not refer to Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama 580 BCE - 460 BCE). Let us analyse it. But, first let us know more about Buddha (or Siddhartha Gautama 580 BCE - 460 BCE). Siddhartha Gautama was the son of King Suddhodhana and Maya. Moreover, Siddharta was born in Lumbini not Kikata as the above verse points out. But, the above verse referes to Buddha, the son on Anjana. It is elementary knowledge that the Buddha reffered to in the Bhagavatam is not Siddhartha Gautama. Over the years, Buddhist zealots tried to equate the Buddha of Srimad Bhagavatam to Siddhartha Gautama, in order to win favour of the hindus. This is similar to some semitic religions who tried to claim superiority over the other. One manifestation of that fanaticism lead to centuries of violence and hatred which continues to date. But that scenario is not the same in India, the holy land of the democratic sages. Buddhism and Hinduims have never had any recored history of mass violence, unlike what was seen throughout history in the middle east and medieval europe. Both religions share common places of worship and have very cordial relationships. Gaya in Bihar, Muktinath in Nepal are two such examples. Visit http://www.muktinath.org for more details. > > And is Lord Rsabha mentioned in verse 13 > > astame merudevyam tu nabher jata urukramah > darsayan vartma dhiranam sarvasrama-namaskrtam > > The eighth incarnation was King Rsabha, son of King > Nabhi and his wife Merudevi. In this incarnation the > Lord showed the path of perfection, which is followed > by those who have fully controlled their senses and > who are honored by all orders of life. Then, should it not be imperative of the Jains to base their beliefs on the Srimad Bhagavatam? If following that verse, it would also require that the Jains base their beliefs and source of axiomatic truths on the prasthana trayam. They, however do not. The same argument of identification applies. Inasmuch as the Jains claim that the Rishabhadeva is their first thiirthankara and that he is indeed extolled in Srimad Bhagvatam, they consistenly reject the very ideals that King Rishabhadeva stood for and preached in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Let me give you an example, Jains do not accept the presence of the Brahman, let alone the veda-s or even Vyasa himself! But as again, both faiths have never had any recorded history of mass violence. The dharmAdhikari (head) of Dharmastala, a famous Shiva Temple in coastal Karnataka is a Jain. Jains equally worship at all hindu sacred places and have contributed richly to Indian architecture. The fantastic Mount Abu temple in Rajasthan is one such example. Apart from that, the Jains are also a prominent trading community and one of the drivers of the Indian economy! This again reaffirms to the fact of Indian Democracry since the ages. Forget ancient Greece and Egypt. A tolerance and even acceptance of other religions was displayed by the Hindu rulers of those ages! Regards, Malolan Cadambi Austin,TX USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 > The staunch vaishnavite might always find it tough to accept Buddha > or Jaina being reffered to in any work. That is because Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is not mentioned in *ANY* work. Besides, none of the standard buddhist texts themselves regard Buddha as an avatara of srimann nArayana. However, there have been innumerable interpolations by scores of people. Enough said about them. In the hagiography of jain thiirthankara-s, the story of Rishabha, the first of the thiirthankara-s is very very different from that in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Clearly an identification of the jain thiirthankara to the bhagavatam is a vague interpolation. This might have been done either consciously or unconsciously. > But the complications only continue. Because, in "jayadeva-ashtapati" > the very first song talks about the 10-avatars and one of them refers > to Buddha. > > Ashtapati, is a very well known part of 'sampradaaya-bhajanai' being > followed by all bhagavataas, during any 'radha-kalyaanam'. No. Ashtapati is not followed by every sampradayam, and certainly not by the Sri Sampradayam. This list focuses on the Sri Sampradayam. A discussion of the Ashtapati is beyond the scope. Moreover, Ashtapati is not a prakarana grantha, so there is no meaning in accepting it as a standard work. Please realise that I do not have any ad hominem to the author of asthapati. He is very respected. To oppose philosophically is very different from disrespecting. > But it is true that they do not base their 'siddhanta' on the Vedas. > So we(asthikaas) dont accept either the Boudhas or the Jainas. > > Also, one should recollect that 'ahimsa' and life of extreme docility > is not something for the entire race. We have a way of life called > the 'sanyaasa' for that purpose. Ahimsa and sanyAsa are not inspired by the jain religion. They are eternally present in the prasthana trayam. Regards, Malolan Cadambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.