Should this Bhagavatam PURPORT be modified/rewritten?

[Guest guest]

Haribol Krishna prabhu,

Thanks for the reply.

Are you suggesting that the *verse* should be rewritten, or only the BBT purport

to the verse? Please clarify.

>>The BBT'S Purport, although there is also minor difference in the verse quoted

in the book and BBT edition.While I suppose everyone is free to interpret

according to their standards of their respective traditions, I must point out

that there is absolutely *nothing* in the original Sanskrit that specifically

points to the Alvars.

>> All the rivers that are mentioned are in proximity to the birth places of the

Alvars. Here is the verse and translation given in Dr. S.M.S.Chari's (the author

of the book, and a highly reputed scholar) book,

kalau khalu bhavisyanti narayana-parayanah; kvacin-kvacin-mahaabhaaga draamidesu

ca bhurishah; taampraparni nadi yatra krtamaalaa payasvini; kaveri ca

mahaabhaagaa pratici ca mahaanadi.

" In the beginning of Kaliyuga persons exclusively devoted to Narayana and

endowed with spiritual knowledge will be born here and there but in large

numbers in the land of the Dravidas where flow the rivers Tampraparni, Krtamala

(Vaigai), Payasvini (Paalaar), the holy Kaveri, and the Mahanadhi (Periyaar)

which runs westwards"

Following which, he says,

"It maybe noted that Nammaalvaar and Madhurakavi were born on the banks of

Taampraparni, Periyaalvaar, and Andaal in a place close to Vaigai, Poygai

Alvaar, Putattalvaar, Peyaalvaar and Tirumalisai Alvaar near the Paalaar, and

Tondaradippodi Alvaar, Tiruppaanaalvaar and Tirumangai Alvaar on the banks of

Kaveri."

The translation is a bit different from the BBT's version, but there are mainly

two parts to it, that,

1) There will appear numerous followers of Narayana in South India

2) These Vaishnavas will appear near these Holy rivers

and according to Vedanta Desika and other scholars like Dr. Chari, this clearly

refers to the Alvaars.

The verse does *not* say that these inhabitants of Satya-yuga will *only* be

born in South India, only that they will be more plentiful there. The words

"kvachit kvachit" indicate that they will be all over, albeit more plentiful in

South India (draviDeShu cha bhuurishaH)

>>> No one said it (devotees in kali-yuga) refers only to the Alvaars. But,

primarily it does refer to them, because of the reasons given above. It is a

fact that the BBT has not followed the Sri Vaishnava commentary in many areas.

Why? Because, simply put, Gaudiiyas are under no compulsion to follow the

commentaries of any other Vaishnavas other than their own. And certainly not

with regards to the Bhaagavatam, which isn't even given its due by members of

other sampradaayas. Sri Vaishnavas actually give more emphasis to Vishnu

Puraana as a matter of tradition.

>>> This is not about following a commentary of another sampradaya - this is

about identifying the facts and stating them. Alvaars are exalted devotees of

the Lord, and if we Gaudiyas claim to be the servant of the servant of the

servant, there is certainly no shame in glorifying the Alvaars. Just because,

Sri Vaishnavas don't give enough importance to SB, doesn't mean we have to take

the same attitude. This cannot diminish the value of SB, either. In this verse,

we are not even glorifying the philosophy of these Alvaars, but just their

qualification as pure devotees of Lord Narayana (note: the verse specifically

says Narayana, and the Alvaars were indeed followers of Narayana). So, why such

close-mindedness?

Prabhupada does quote from Viiraraaghavaachaarya, the Sri Vaishnava Bhaagavatam

commentator, from time to time in his Bhaktivedanta Purports. This should not

be seen as tacit approval of every philosophical point in the other's

commentary, but rather as liberal & generous acknowledgement of shared points

of view in some instances. You can be certain that Viiraraaghavaachaarya does

not agree with the Gaudiiya commentary to SB 1.3.28, for instance. Frankly, I'm

not losing any sleep over it either.

>> Please note that this canto was written by Prabhupada's young disciples and

not Prabhupada himself. It is possible that they failed to glorify the Alvaars

and just stuck to SP's purports and placed more emphasis on harinama and

Chaitanya's benediction, which is certainly not wrong. Srila Prabhupada himself

glorified Ramanujacharya in so many places, because, although there maybe

philosophical differences, real vaishnavas never lose a chance to glorify

others.

The final paragraph, discussing the devotees who drink the waters of the sacred

rivers of South India, simply talks about how one should not underestimate

people living in such places simply because they appear to be materially less

well off.

>>> I don't understand this explanation. These (places near these great rivers)

were places of prosperity, weren't they, atleast in olden days?

and further, the purport says, "Although the residents of South India are

generally Śrī Vaiṣṇavas, or devotees in the

Lakṣmī-sampradāya, they are recognized as devotees of the Lord

by the followers of Caitanya Mahāprabhu."

The Sri Vaishnavas need no recognition, but the Gaudiyas do, having come later,

atleast historically.

in your service,

Aravind.

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online