Should this Bhagavatam PURPORT be modified/rewritten?

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

 

> 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."

>

 

Again, I don't take issue with the historic facts of the Alvaars'

birthplaces. Nor is the significance of those same rivers being

mentioned in this verse lost on me. But *strictly* speaking, it is

not obvious that the Alvaars are being referred to.

 

The verse refers to a plural number of individuals who are

inhabitants of previous yugas (kR^itaadiShu prajaaH), who want birth

in Kali Yuga (ichchhanti sambhavam kalau). Certainly there were will

be many Naaraayana devotees here and there (khalu bhaviShyanti

naaraayaNa-paraayaNaaH kvachit kvachit), but especially so in South

India (draviDeShu cha bhuurishaH). Then the verse mentions a bunch of

different rivers, all in the Nominative singular case (not locative

which would be implied by the translation SMS Chari offers), and then

goes on to say that those who drink these waters will be purehearted

devotees of Vaasudeva.

 

The verse does NOT say that the devotees who appear in Kali Yuga will

appear by these rivers. For that to be obvious, the rivers mentioned

would have to be in the Locative case. In fact, it really says that

anyone who drinks of these waters (ye pibanti jala.m taasaa.m) will

be spotless devotess of Vaasudeva.

 

The rivers are mentioned in the context of Dravida because they

obviously flow there, and because many individuals will become

Vaishnavas by living by those rivers. Not surprisingly, the

inhabitants of other Yugas will also be especially plentiful in that

land also.

 

> >>> 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?

>

 

It is humanly impossible to glorify every devotee in existence. We

can glorify Alvaars in this verse if we chose. But then why not also

including Vallabhaachaarya? Or Raamaanuja? Or Madhva? Any of them

could also be among the referents of the verse itself.

 

Since the BBT staff isn't following the South Indian Bhaagavatam

commentaries, it stands to reason they would not pick up on Chari's

interpretation that the verse "primarily" refers to the Alvaars

(which I still disagree with, based on the analysis give already). I

don't think it is an attempt to minimize anyone, and I see no reason

why to think of it as such. Have you access to Bhaavaartha-diipika?

What about Bhaagavata-tatparya-nirNaya? I suspect that neither of

these commentaries interpreted this verse as a reference to Alvaars.

If they have not, why should we take issue with the BBT commentary

only?

 

> >> 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

>

 

While Prabhupada himself did not write these particular purports, I

have been made to understand that they were based on the commentaries

of Sriidhar Swaamii and other puurvaachaaryas of the Gaudiiya line.

Thus, if you feel they are inappropriate, you should try to compare

the BBT purports to the puurvaachaarya's commentaries (including

Sriidhar Swaamii, who, even though not one of our sampradaaya

aachaaryas, nevertheless seems to enjoy a greater measure of regard

from our aachaaryas than those of other sampradaayas) on the same

verse. Then, we can discuss reasonably if the BBT commentators have

inappropriately left something out or minimized anyone.

 

> and placed more emphasis on harinama and Chaitanya's benediction,

which is certainly not wrong.>

 

Not only is it not wrong, frankly it is only right. Look at the

context of these verses. The Yogendras are describing to King Nimi of

the different appearances of the Lord in different Yugas, and the

various means by which He is worshipped. Then it is mentioned how so

many individuals want to take birth in Kali Yuga even though it is

such an inauspicious time. Why?

 

Becuase in Kali Yuga there is the Harinaama sankiirtana. See verses

36 and 37. Thus, the only way to properly comment on this verse *is*

to emphasize the significance of Harinaama. Becuase that is WHY great

devotees want to take birth in Kali Yuga!

 

> 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?

>

 

What makes you say that? Probably they were places of *spiritual*

prosperity.

 

> and further, the purport says, "Although the residents of South

India are generally #346;r#299; Vais#803;n#803;avas, or devotees in

the Laks#803;m#299;-samprad#257;ya, they are recognized as devotees

of the Lord by the followers of Caitanya Mah#257;prabhu."

>

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

come later, atleast historically.

>

 

Some months ago, I saw a young fanatic on another forum publicly

making fun of a particular Sri Vaishnava practice. This fanatic

thought himself a follower of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu. But perhaps he

did not read this purport which emphasized how Mahaaprabhu and His

followers look upon the Sri Vaishnavas - with great respect.

 

So, for the audience of this Bhaagavatam translation, I do agree that

it is important to settle the matter straight. Most people who read

the BBT edition of the Bhaagavatam probably never heard of Sri

Vaishnavas until after being initiated into Krishna-consciousness by

Srila Prabhupada's books. Not that this is any fault of theirs --- it

is simply a fact.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the reply. Again, I don't take issue with the historic facts of the

Alvaars' birthplaces. Nor is the significance of those same rivers being

mentioned in this verse lost on me. But *strictly* speaking, it is not obvious

that the Alvaars are being referred to.

>>> Can you explain what you mean by "strictly"? What constitutes irrefutable

evidence for you? is the mentioning of these five exact rivers just a

coincidence? then why would Sri Vedanta Desika choose this particular one to

support his theory?

Let me clarify something: I'm not suggesting the whole purport be changed - I'm

just saying that the BBT should consider including a short note on alvaars -

editions are not new to BBT, and so I believe a case can be made. I'm also

currently writing to senior devotees and see what they think. Adding a note on

Alvaars will increase the glory of the verse, not diminish it in any way. It

will also show the open-minded approach of Gaudiyas in contrast to other

traditions, which will be useful in long-term. I somehow get the idea that you

are taking a tit-for-tat approach, in general. It is true that BBT's authors

have given the essence of the verse and details may not be necessary, but as I

said glorifying the alvaars cannot diminish the glory of the purport in anyway.

 

May I ask you this, have you ever questioned the Bhagavatam verse predicting the

advent of Chaitanya? if not, don't you think it's blind faith, which you often

imply should renounce (to be frank, even I have improved on that front, because

of your nice moderating)?

Bhagavatam is not just a philosophical jewel, but an encyclopedia on historical

personalities, particularly stalwart devotees - so, atleast from this

perspective, I think it'll be good to mention the alvaars. This is just my

personal opinion, whatever it is worth. The verse refers to a plural number of

individuals who are inhabitants of previous yugas (kR^itaadiShu prajaaH), who

want birth in Kali Yuga (ichchhanti sambhavam kalau). Certainly there were will

be many Naaraayana devotees here and there (khalu bhaviShyanti

naaraayaNa-paraayaNaaH kvachit kvachit), but especially so in South India

(draviDeShu cha bhuurishaH). Then the verse mentions a bunch of different

rivers, all in the Nominative singular case (not locative which would be

implied by the translation SMS Chari offers), and then goes on to say that

those who drink these waters will be purehearted devotees of Vaasudeva. The

verse does NOT say that the devotees who appear in Kali Yuga

will appear by these rivers. For that to be obvious, the rivers mentioned would

have to be in the Locative case. In fact, it really says that anyone who drinks

of these waters (ye pibanti jala.m taasaa.m) will be spotless devotess of

Vaasudeva. The rivers are mentioned in the context of Dravida because they

obviously flow there, and because many individuals will become Vaishnavas by

living by those rivers. Not surprisingly, the inhabitants of other Yugas will

also be especially plentiful in that land also.

>>> Yes, the rivers are used to qualify Dravida Desa - but as I pointed out the

coincidence cannot be ignored!

It is humanly impossible to glorify every devotee in existence. We can glorify

Alvaars in this verse if we chose. But then why not also including

Vallabhaachaarya? Or Raamaanuja? Or Madhva? Any of them could also be among the

referents of the verse itself.

>> We certainly can. But, Alvaars especially because of the coincidence

mentioned. Vaishnavas don't belong (they are not constrained by) to any

sampradaya. And, to that extent, I feel glorifying the alvaars would be nice.

Others may however feel that this is not necessary in this purport. Since the

BBT staff isn't following the South Indian Bhaagavatam commentaries, it stands

to reason they would not pick up on Chari's interpretation that the verse

"primarily" refers to the Alvaars (which I still disagree with, based on the

analysis give already). I don't think it is an attempt to minimize anyone, and

I see no reason why to think of it as such. Have you access to

Bhaavaartha-diipika? What about Bhaagavata-tatparya-nirNaya? I suspect that

neither of these commentaries interpreted this verse as a reference to Alvaars.

If they have not, why should we take issue with the BBT commentary only?

>>> Prabhu, please don't misunderstand me. I believe this is a forum meant for

discussing BBT's works and so that's why I took the liberty to post it. Let me

clarify: Dr. Chari does not say the verse primarily refers to Alvaars - he just

follows Vedanta Desika in citing it as evidence, just like we do for Chaitanya's

prediction. That was my interpretation.While Prabhupada himself did not write

these particular purports, I have been made to understand that they were based

on the commentaries of Sriidhar Swaamii and other puurvaachaaryas of the

Gaudiiya line. Thus, if you feel they are inappropriate, you should try to

compare the BBT purports to the puurvaachaarya's commentaries (including

Sriidhar Swaamii, who, even though not one of our sampradaaya aachaaryas,

nevertheless seems to enjoy a greater measure of regard from our aachaaryas

than those of other sampradaayas) on the same verse. Then, we can discuss

reasonably if the BBT commentators have

inappropriately left something out or minimized anyone.

>>> I agree. It'll be interesting to see Jiva Goswami's works and see what comes

out. Looking forward to hearing from other members. > and placed more emphasis

on harinama and Chaitanya's benediction, which is certainly not wrong.>Not only

is it not wrong, frankly it is only right.

>>> I disagree. It is also right!

in your service,

Aravind.

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

[Guest guest]

--- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla

wrote:

> birthplaces. Nor is the significance of those same

> rivers being

> mentioned in this verse lost on me. But *strictly*

> speaking, it is

> not obvious that the Alvaars are being referred to.

>

 

A few verses ago it is not "strictly" mentioned that

Caitanya will be born in Kali-yuga (krsna varnam, etc)

yet Gaudiyas take this as a prediction of Caitanya.

Similarly the Alvars are not "strictly" mentioned yet

it is plainly obvious who is being referred to, the

Alvars.

 

There is no problem with such an interpretation.

 

> particular purports, I

> have been made to understand that they were based on

> the commentaries

> of Sriidhar Swaamii and other puurvaachaaryas of the

> Gaudiiya line.

 

No, no Gaudiya Acharya or Sridhara Swami has said

anything about these verses. Except Jiva Gosvami whom

I am currently checking out.

 

> various means by which He is worshipped. Then it is

> mentioned how so

> many individuals want to take birth in Kali Yuga

> even though it is

> such an inauspicious time. Why?

>

> Becuase in Kali Yuga there is the Harinaama

> sankiirtana. See verses

> 36 and 37. Thus, the only way to properly comment on

> this verse *is*

> to emphasize the significance of Harinaama. Becuase

> that is WHY great

> devotees want to take birth in Kali Yuga!

>

 

If that is so then why mention an abundance of

devotees in Dravida-desa? What do the devotees of

Dravida-desa have to do with harinama?

 

> Some months ago, I saw a young fanatic on another

> forum publicly making fun of a particular Sri

> Vaishnava practice. This fanatic thought himself a

> follower of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu. But perhaps he

> did not read this purport which emphasized how

> Mahaaprabhu and His followers look upon the Sri

> Vaishnavas - with great respect.

 

Which forum was this and which practice wa sbeing

ridiculed?

 

Haribol, Gaura.

 

=====

--

 

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

achintya, Gaurasundara das

<gaurasundara_108> wrote:

 

> A few verses ago it is not "strictly" mentioned that

> Caitanya will be born in Kali-yuga (krsna varnam, etc)

> yet Gaudiyas take this as a prediction of Caitanya.

 

Precisely. This is a sampradaaya-specific interpretation. Whether we

think it is obvious or not, no one outside our sampradaaya accepts

our interpretation of it.

 

Nor am I taking issue with the rights of Sri Vaishnavas to interpret

that particular verse as a reference to the Alvaars. All I am saying

is that their interpretation is no more obvious to non-Sri Vaishnavas

than is our intepretation of "kR^iShNa varnaM tvishA kR^IshNam" to

them.

 

This thread started because someone questioned why the BBT did not

follow the Sri Vaishnava interpretation of a specific verse. This

thread did not start because some Gaudiiyas initiated a discussion as

to why others did not interpret "kR^iShNa varnam..." as a reference

to Lord Chaitanya.

 

> Similarly the Alvars are not "strictly" mentioned yet

> it is plainly obvious who is being referred to, the

> Alvars.

 

It is by no means "plainly obvious" that the persons referred to are

the 12 Alvaars. If you feel otherwise, please quote one Bhaagavatam

commentary in the original Sanskrit, and from outside of the Sri

Sampradaaya, in which the verse in question is interpreted as a

reference to the 12 Alvaars.

 

> There is no problem with such an interpretation.

 

Sure, but we should admit the obvious. It's as oblique to us

as "kR^iShNa varnam...." meaning Chaitanya is to them. But to each

his own. My point is, we need not be faulted for not following the

oblique and sectarian interpretations of others.

 

> > Becuase in Kali Yuga there is the Harinaama

> > sankiirtana. See verses

> > 36 and 37. Thus, the only way to properly comment on

> > this verse *is*

> > to emphasize the significance of Harinaama. Becuase

> > that is WHY great

> > devotees want to take birth in Kali Yuga!

> >

>

> If that is so then why mention an abundance of

> devotees in Dravida-desa? What do the devotees of

> Dravida-desa have to do with harinama?

 

You have it all wrong. The emphasis of the verse is to explain why so

many inhabitants of other Yugas want to take birth in Kali Yuga

(because of Harinaama). Only as an aside it is mentioned that they

are especially plentiful in Dravida-desha. This is an historic fact --

most of the Vaishnava sampradaayas have their origin with

personalities from South India, for whatever reason.

 

-K

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

Well here goes opinion of our revered Jiva Goswami.

 

Tattva Sandarbha text 27.

 

For those who have Satya Narayana edition see Anuchedda 27.2

 

kvacit tesam evanyatradrstavyakhyanusarena

dravidadidesavikhyataparama-

bhagavatanam tesam eva bahulyena tatra vaisnavatvena prasid-

dhatvat sribhagavata eva

kvacit kvacin maharaja dravidesu ca bhurisah /

ity anena prathitamahimnam saksacchriprabhrtitah pravrtta-

sampradayanam srivaisnavabhidhanam sriramanujabhagavat-

 

 

"In other instances, our interpretation will be based on the doctrine

found in the writings of the venerable Ramanuja, such as his

Sribhasya etc., (adhered to ) by the Sri Vaisnavasn whose renowned

sampradaya has originated from the goddess Sri herself, and who are

celebrated as great Bhagavatas of the Dravida region etc.; for as the

Bhagavata itself states, there are many in this area well known as

Vaisnavas: "O Great King, some (devotees of Narayana) can be found

here and there, but their numbers are great in the Dravida regions."

(Bh.P.11/5/39) And in some instances, our interpretations will differ

from both (Sridhara and Ramanuja), and will follow the natural sense

of the Bhagavata. As the Advaita doctrines are well-known, they need

not be delineated here."

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

--- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla

wrote:

> > If that is so then why mention an abundance of

> > devotees in Dravida-desa? What do the devotees of

> > Dravida-desa have to do with harinama?

>

> You have it all wrong. The emphasis of the verse is

> to explain why so

> many inhabitants of other Yugas want to take birth

> in Kali Yuga

> (because of Harinaama). Only as an aside it is

> mentioned that they

> are especially plentiful in Dravida-desha. This is

> an historic fact --

> most of the Vaishnava sampradaayas have their

> origin with

> personalities from South India, for whatever reason.

>

 

Ok, well that just goes to show that Sri Vaishnavas

have some encouragement for their position. South

India, very good. Still point remains, why mention

Dravida-desa as an "aside" when the "especially

plentiful devotees" in regards to harinama when these

"especially plentiful devotees" do not have an obvious

regard for harinama, at least not like Gaudiyas do?

 

Also, academic scholars like Friedhelm Hardy admit

that this Bhagavtam verse is not specific to Alvars,

but can understand the meaning referring to Alavars in

an extremely general way.

 

Haribol, Gaura

 

=====

--

 

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

achintya, Gaurasundara das

<gaurasundara_108> wrote:

> --- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla@h...>

> wrote:

 

> > particular purports, I

> > have been made to understand that they were based on

> > the commentaries

> > of Sriidhar Swaamii and other puurvaachaaryas of the

> > Gaudiiya line.

>

> No, no Gaudiya Acharya or Sridhara Swami has said

> anything about these verses. Except Jiva Gosvami whom

> I am currently checking out.

 

Sridhar Swami does indeed comment on these verses, albeit briefly:

 

amalaashayaaH santaH praayaH praayasho bhagavati bhaktaa bhavanti ||

 

As you can see, no mention of the Alvars here. Which just goes to

show that it is by no means obvious that the Alvars are specifically

indicated by this verse.

 

> Ok, well that just goes to show that Sri Vaishnavas

> have some encouragement for their position. South

> India, very good. Still point remains, why mention

> Dravida-desa as an "aside" when the "especially

> plentiful devotees" in regards to harinama when these

> "especially plentiful devotees" do not have an obvious

> regard for harinama, at least not like Gaudiyas do?

 

This is a side issue. The main issue is whether or not it was

inappropriate for the BBT to neglect to mention the Alvars in their

purports to this verse. But to answer your question, all sampradaayas

have high regard for Harinaama, if not necessarily to the level that

Gaudiiyas do. One need only see them in relation to exclusive

practitioners of other yuga dharmas in ages past to recognize this.

 

> Also, academic scholars like Friedhelm Hardy admit

> that this Bhagavtam verse is not specific to Alvars,

> but can understand the meaning referring to Alavars in

> an extremely general way.

 

Of course, and I certainly have not denied the possibility that the

Alvars are included in the broad referent of that verse. I only

disputed the point that the verse was an obvious and specific

reference to them, and that not mentioning them in the commentary is

somehow inappropriate.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Of course, and I certainly have not denied the possibility that the Alvars are

included in the broad referent of that verse. I only disputed the point that

the verse was an obvious and specific reference to them, and that not

mentioning them in the commentary is somehow inappropriate.

 

>>The verse not only talks about devotees propagating hari-nama, but

specifically mentions rivers, all in South India, near which the alvars

appeared (note: all rivers are accounted for). This coincidence is very hard to

ignore. Whether BBT should have included specific mention about alvars or not is

a secondary issue, the primary one is whether the text is a proof for the advent

of alvars. On the latter, I'm somehow inclined to believe genuine acharyas such

as Vedanta-Desika. Almost 2 months back, I wrote to a sannyasi in ISKCON and he

fwded my question to one of the editors of the BBT edition, but haven't got any

replies yet. I'll appreciate if Mukunda prabhu or some senior devotee on this

forum can fwd to Gopiparanadhana Das Prabhu.

 

in your service,

Aravind.

 

 

Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

>

> >>The verse not only talks about devotees propagating hari-nama,

but specifically mentions rivers, all in South India, near which the

alvars appeared (note: all rivers are accounted for). >

 

As mentioned previously, the mention of the rivers is in regards to

the stated fact that those who drink their waters (i.e. the devotees

of other ages who would incarnate in South India during Kali Yuga)

will become pure devotees of the Lord. It says nothing about devotees

who specifically appear near those rivers. Factually speaking, there

are probably many other devotees who appear along those rivers, so

there is no reason why the Alvars could not be included in that list.

But to say it specifically and obviously mentions the Alvars is

another thing altogether.

 

>This coincidence is very hard to ignore. Whether BBT should have

included specific mention about alvars or not is a secondary issue,>

 

Previously, it seemed to be the primary issue, as your exact words

were:

 

"It is my speculation that the purport has been

written without knowledge of previous authorized Vaishnava works and

due credit is not given to the great Vaishnava saints of the South.

So, should an effort be made to rewrite the verse? "

 

....which is why we are having this discussion (see the title of this

thread).

 

> the primary one is whether the text is a proof for the advent of

alvars.>

 

Sure, it includes the Alvars, among others. Why not?

 

> On the latter, I'm somehow inclined to believe genuine acharyas

such as Vedanta-Desika.>

 

Other aachaaryas like Madhva, Sridhar Swami, Jiva Gosvami, etc are

also genuine, but none of them have mentioned the Alvars in their

commentaries on this verse. Your specific criticism/speculation was

that the BBT purport "has been written without knowledge of previous

authorized Vaishnava works." Yet, the only "authorized Vaishnava

work" you have alluded to is the commentary of Vedaanta-deshika, and

even in this case you have not quoted him directly, but rather

alluded to his views as they are related to you by SMS Chari.

 

Do you feel that Madhva, Sridhar Swami, Jiva Gosvami, et. al. have

also written their respective commentaries "without knowledge of

previous authorized Vaishnava works" because they have not commented

on SB 11.5.38-40 as Vedaanta Deshika has done? If yes, then please

explain why all of them are obligated to follow the commentary of

someone not even in their respective sampradaayas.

 

If the answer is no, then please explain why the BBT commentary only

is subject to this criticism, but not so the commentaries of its

predecessors.

 

> Almost 2 months back, I wrote to a sannyasi in ISKCON and he fwded

my question to one of the editors of the BBT edition, but haven't got

any replies yet. I'll appreciate if Mukunda prabhu or some senior

devotee on this forum can fwd to Gopiparanadhana Das Prabhu.

>

 

I doubt if any of them will. No one here seems bothered by this. Why

not instead write to the Sri Vaishnava Jeeyars and request them to

edit Sri Viiraraaghavaachaarya's commentary to SB 11.5.32? I believe

he has commented on this verse without due knowledge of later

Bhaagavatam commentators who have properly understood this to be a

reference to Lord Chaitanya's avataara. Not his fault, of course,

since he preceeded them. But how dare the Sri Vaishnavas have a

different opinion on that verse's meaning! We should correct them,

right?

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

As mentioned previously, the mention of the rivers is in regards to the stated

fact that those who drink their waters (i.e. the devotees of other ages who

would incarnate in South India during Kali Yuga) will become pure devotees of

the Lord. It says nothing about devotees who specifically appear near those

rivers. Factually speaking, there are probably many other devotees who appear

along those rivers, so there is no reason why the Alvars could not be included

in that list. But to say it specifically and obviously mentions the Alvars is

another thing altogether.

>>> Why only those waters is my question? There are many other rivers in South

India, why not those?.

Can't someone say the same about Chaitanya's advent, that there were many others

with a golden complexion who propagated the holy name that appeared in West

Bengal?>This coincidence is very hard to ignore. Whether BBT should have

included specific mention about alvars or not is a secondary issue,>Previously,

it seemed to be the primary issue, as your exact words were:"It is my

speculation that the purport has been written without knowledge of previous

authorized Vaishnava works and due credit is not given to the great Vaishnava

saints of the South. So, should an effort be made to rewrite the verse? ">>>

Yes, it was, but since you had problems in accepting that the verse was

specifically referring to Alvars, I thought it would be better to focus on

that, because that is the key to this discussion. If one does not accept that,

there is no point in worrying about mentioning it!...Once we get some answer

for that, we can worry about

why it's not included in the BBT edition.> On the latter, I'm somehow inclined

to believe genuine acharyas such as Vedanta-Desika.>Other aachaaryas like

Madhva, Sridhar Swami, Jiva Gosvami, etc are also genuine, but none of them

have mentioned the Alvars in their commentaries on this verse. Your specific

criticism/speculation was that the BBT purport "has been written without

knowledge of previous authorized Vaishnava works."

>>> Yes, I see your point. If none of the Gaudiya acharyas included a direct

mention of the Alvars, there is no reason to blame BBT. Can you kindly post

their commentaries on this forum, if available in English? Can you also tell me

where I can get hold of them?

This is what Sumeet once posted on this,

****************

Well here goes opinion of our revered Jiva Goswami.Tattva Sandarbha text 27.For

those who have Satya Narayana edition see Anuchedda 27.2kvacit tesam

evanyatradrstavyakhyanusarenadravidadidesavikhyataparama-bhagavatanam tesam eva

bahulyena tatra vaisnavatvena prasid-dhatvat sribhagavata evakvacit kvacin

maharaja dravidesu ca bhurisah /ity anena prathitamahimnam

saksacchriprabhrtitah pravrtta-sampradayanam srivaisnavabhidhanam

sriramanujabhagavat-"In other instances, our interpretation will be based on

the doctrine found in the writings of the venerable Ramanuja, such as his

Sribhasya etc., (adhered to ) by the Sri Vaisnavasn whose renowned sampradaya

has originated from the goddess Sri herself, and who arecelebrated as great

Bhagavatas of the Dravida region etc.; for as the Bhagavata itself states,

there are many in this area well known as Vaisnavas: "O Great King, some

(devotees of Narayana) can be found here and there, but

their numbers are great in the Dravida regions."(Bh.P.11/5/39) And in some

instances, our interpretations will differ from both (Sridhara and Ramanuja),

and will follow the natural sense of the Bhagavata.

***************

It is pretty clear Jiva Goswami accepts the verse to refer to Alvars, but he

also says why he differs from Sri-Vaishnavaites. Thanks to Sumeet for reminding

about this post.

Do you feel that Madhva, Sridhar Swami, Jiva Gosvami, et. al. have also written

their respective commentaries "without knowledge of previous authorized

Vaishnava works" because they have not commented on SB 11.5.38-40 as Vedaanta

Deshika has done? If yes, then please explain why all of them are obligated to

follow the commentary of someone not even in their respective sampradaayas.

>>> I didn't say that. I was only expressing doubts on the experience of BBT

editors, since they were very young and new to the movement when they edited

SB.

Also, I was looking from a broader Vaishnava perspective, and not from a narrow

sampradayic perspective. Glorifying the Vaishnvas crosses sampradayic

barriers!. At the same time, if these acharyas did not feel the need to mention

alvars, I have no complaints. Acharyas have their own reasons. And, it is futile

to speculate.

I doubt if any of them will. No one here seems bothered by this.

>> I won't give up until I get a reasonable answer from the BBT. If you are a

spokesperson for them, then I rest my case right now, because you have given a

good reason for why BBT might have not bothered about mentioning alvars -

although, I would like to see the commentaries of our Gaudiya acharyas.

Why not instead write to the Sri Vaishnava Jeeyars and request them to edit Sri

Viiraraaghavaachaarya's commentary to SB 11.5.32? I believe he has commented on

this verse without due knowledge of later Bhaagavatam commentators who have

properly understood this to be a reference to Lord Chaitanya's avataara. Not

his fault, of course, since he preceeded them. But how dare the Sri Vaishnavas

have a different opinion on that verse's meaning! We should correct them,

right?

Yes, we should present our case. But, are you ready for a deal? in your service,

Aravind.

Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Aravind Mohanram wrote:

>> Whether BBT should have included specific mention about alvars or not is a

secondary issue, the primary one is whether the text is a proof for the advent

of alvars.>

 

It's obviously not explicit proof.

 

 

>On the latter, I'm somehow inclined to believe genuine acharyas such as

Vedanta-Desika. Almost 2 months back, I wrote to a sannyasi in ISKCON and he

fwded my question to one of the editors of the BBT edition, but haven't got any

replies yet. I'll appreciate if Mukunda prabhu or some senior devotee on this

forum can fwd to Gopiparanadhana Das Prabhu. >

 

I haven't followed this whole thread. Honestly, I just don't think it's a very

important question for us at present.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

>

> >>> Why only those waters is my question? There are many other

rivers in South India, why not those?.

>

 

Because they are the most famous rivers in the South. And it just so

happens that the Alvaars took their births near the most famous

rivers.

 

> Can't someone say the same about Chaitanya's advent, that there

were many others with a golden complexion who propagated the holy

name that appeared in West Bengal?

>

 

Well, yes. If one wanted to play "devil's advocate.Golden

complexion" is known only from biographies which are only "biased"

towards believing in Chaitanya's divinity. How do you know the real

avataara wasn't someone after Chaitanya but nevertheless in His

paramparaa?

 

> >>> Yes, it was, but since you had problems in accepting that the

verse was specifically referring to Alvars, I thought it would be

better to focus on that, because that is the key to this discussion.

If one does not accept that, there is no point in worrying about

mentioning it!...Once we get some answer for that, we can worry about

why it's not included in the BBT edition.

>

 

Well, if it was an obvious reference to the Alvaars, one would think

that Sridhar Swami, Madhva, Vallabha, et.al. would not have missed

it. What is your explanation for that?

 

> >>> Yes, I see your point. If none of the Gaudiya acharyas included

a direct mention of the Alvars, there is no reason to blame BBT. Can

you kindly post their commentaries on this forum, if available in

English? Can you also tell me where I can get hold of them?

>

 

I already posted Sridhar Swami's commentary. Vallabha's commentary is

only available in 10th canto. There is a collection of Bhaagavatam

commentaries that has 12 different commentaries which is published by

Sri Bhagavata Vidyapeetha in Ahmedabad. I don't know if it is in

print, but the editor is one Pandit Krishna Sastry. There is also a 4-

commentary publication by the TTD which is available, but only in the

1st and half of the 10th cantos.

 

> "In other instances, our interpretation will be based on the

doctrine found in the writings of the venerable Ramanuja, such as his

Sribhasya etc., (adhered to ) by the Sri Vaisnavasn whose renowned

sampradaya has originated from the goddess Sri herself, and who are

> celebrated as great Bhagavatas of the Dravida region etc.; for as

the Bhagavata itself states, there are many in this area well known

as Vaisnavas: "O Great King, some (devotees of Narayana) can be found

here and there, but their numbers are great in the Dravida regions."

> (Bh.P.11/5/39) And in some instances, our interpretations will

differ from both (Sridhara and Ramanuja), and will follow the natural

sense of the Bhagavata.

>

> ***************

>

> It is pretty clear Jiva Goswami accepts the verse to refer to

Alvars, but he also says why he differs from Sri-Vaishnavaites.

Thanks to Sumeet for reminding about this post.

>

 

Ummm, no, not quite. Where in the above does he mention anything

about Alvaars? All that Jiva is saying here is that Raamaanuja and

his followers are among the great devotees whose appearance in the

South is predicted by that verse. Jiva does not say *anything* about

Alvaars. In fact, if I remember the context of this anuchchheda

properly, Jiivaa was not talking about agreement with Raamaanuja on

this specific Bhaagavatam verse, but rather about agreement vs.

differing with Raamaanuja and other aachaaryas regarding his

interpretation of the Bhaagavatam. He admits that his interpretation

will sometimes follow Sridhar and sometimes follow Raamaanuja, but

where the natural sense of the Bhaagavatam seems to be different from

their opinions, he will follow it instead.

 

> >>> I didn't say that. I was only expressing doubts on the

experience of BBT editors, since they were very young and new to the

movement when they edited SB.

>

 

Well, I think I pretty much put that doubt to rest. If our aachaaryas

have not given an "Alvaars" interpretation to that verse, then the

BBT has not done anything wrong in not doing so.

 

> Also, I was looking from a broader Vaishnava perspective, and not

from a narrow sampradayic perspective. Glorifying the Vaishnvas

crosses sampradayic barriers!. At the same time, if these acharyas

did not feel the need to mention alvars, I have no complaints.

Acharyas have their own reasons. And, it is futile to speculate.

>

 

It's obvious to me that the BBT had no intention of producing a

commentary appealing to the "broader Vaishnava perspective," but

rather a commentary that would follow a distinctly Gaudiiya point of

view. At the same time, there is no reason why a distinctly Gaudiiya

commentary cannot be appreciated by other Vaishnavas in a

nonsectarian spirit. Gaudiiyas won't deny that Alvaars could be

referred to by the verse you mentioned - but they won't agree that

the verse explicitly mentions the Alvaars, nor will they feel

inclined to point out Alvaars specifically since there are many other

great devotees who no doubt appear in that area. No one else goes out

of their way to point out that similar verses mean Chaitanya

specifically. These things fall on the shoulders of those whose

sampradaaya bears their names in their respective paramparaas.

 

> >> I won't give up until I get a reasonable answer from the BBT. If

you are a spokesperson for them, then I rest my case right now,

because you have given a good reason for why BBT might have not

bothered about mentioning alvars - although, I would like to see the

commentaries of our Gaudiya acharyas.

>

 

I am not a spokesman for the BBT. I am only calling it as I see it.

 

I know for a fact that the 12-commentary Bhaagavatam collection does

include Krama-sandarbha (Jiiva Gosvaami's Bhaagavatam commentary).

 

> Why not instead write to the Sri Vaishnava Jeeyars and request them

to edit Sri Viiraraaghavaachaarya's commentary to SB 11.5.32? I

believe he has commented on this verse without due knowledge of later

Bhaagavatam commentators who have properly understood this to be a

reference to Lord Chaitanya's avataara. Not his fault, of course,

since he preceeded them. But how dare the Sri Vaishnavas have a

different opinion on that verse's meaning! We should correct them,

right?

>

> Yes, we should present our case. But, are you ready for a deal?

 

I was actually trying to make a point. Obviously we aren't going to

do that. These interpretations are specific to different

sampradaayas. We shouldn't go ramming our own interpretations down

anyone else's throat, especially when we cannot prove them

objectively. This is not to say that Gaudiiyas could not make a good

case for the "Chaitanya" interpretation of SB 11.5.32-- only that non-

Gaudiiyas could make an equally compelling case for a "non-Chaitanya"

interpretation of the same.

 

So, the lesson here is that sometimes one has to tolerate differences

of opinion.

[Guest guest]

 

I see what you are saying, although as I said earlier I have no problems

accepting the words of Vedanta Desika, just like I accept Gaudiya acharyas'

view on Chaitanya's advent. I don't want to speculate on that. Because, on

Chaitanya, Gaudiya works are the authoritative sources, and similarly on

Alvars, Sri Vaishnava works are. And, to expect one sampradaya to endorse

another is not necessary, as you have rightly said.

 

I don't think you showed proof of the commentaries of all Gaudiya acharyas,

although you have pointed some sources. Or, did I miss something?

 

I apologise to Mukunda prabhu and others for the email flood on this topic. I

agree this is not the most important question for us now. I think I was a bit

caught up. However, if I find something interesting on this topic, I'll

certainly post it.

 

in your service,

Aravind.

[Edited for length]