Guest guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Hare Krishna, I came across following verses about Srimad Bhagavatam: Matsya Purana (53.20-22) and Agni Purana (272.6.7) yatradhikrtya gayatrim vamyate dharma-vistarah vrtasura-vadhopetam tad bhagavatam istyate likhitva tac ca yo dadyad dhema-simha-samanvitam prausthapadyam paurnamasyam sa yati paramam gatim asta-dasa-sahasrani puranam tat prakirtitam "That purana is known as the Bhagavata which gives the highest religious principles (dharma vistarah), refers to the sacred gayatri mantra (gayatrim vamyate), and tells the story of the slaying of Vrtasura (vrtasura vadhopetam). This purana has 18,000 verses and whoever writes down the entire text (likhitva tac ca) and places it on a golden throne (dhema simha-samanvitam) and gives it in charity to a qualified person on the day of the full-moon of the month of Bhadra will attain the Supreme abode (sa yati paramam gatim)." The question is if Srimad Bhagavatam was revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic literature, then how could the above verses be a part of Puranas that were written before Srimad Bhagavatam? Vidyadhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar" <Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote: > The question is if Srimad Bhagavatam was revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic literature, then how could the above verses be a part of Puranas that were written before Srimad Bhagavatam? > I am aware of the "seed-verses" concept with respect to the Bhaagavatam, but where is it stated that "Srimad Bhagavatam was revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic literature?" If the question is based on a premise that is itself unfounded, then the question is irrelevant. First let us discuss this premise and its correctness with respect to specific evidence. yours, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Hare Krishna, >>>>>I am aware of the "seed-verses" concept with respect to the Bhaagavatam, but where is it stated that "Srimad Bhagavatam was revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic literature?"<<<<<<<<< I was referring to SB 1.7.8 Although this verse does not explicitly say 4 to 18000, it does say that SB was revised. The verses I quoted from other Puranas talk about 18000 verses in SB. Will this help to get the discussion going? Vidyadhar ________________________________ krishna_susarla [krishna_susarla] Sat 11/20/2004 10:36 PM achintya Re: Question about Srimad Bhagavatam achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar" <Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote: > The question is if Srimad Bhagavatam was revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic literature, then how could the above verses be a part of Puranas that were written before Srimad Bhagavatam? > I am aware of the "seed-verses" concept with respect to the Bhaagavatam, but where is it stated that "Srimad Bhagavatam was revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic literature?" If the question is based on a premise that is itself unfounded, then the question is irrelevant. First let us discuss this premise and its correctness with respect to specific evidence. yours, K Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar" <Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote: > Hare Krishna, > > >>>>>I am aware of the "seed-verses" concept with respect to the > Bhaagavatam, but where is it stated that "Srimad Bhagavatam was > revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic > literature?"<<<<<<<<< > > I was referring to SB 1.7.8 Although this verse does not explicitly say 4 to 18000, it does say that SB was revised. The verses I quoted from other Puranas talk about 18000 verses in SB. Will this help to get the discussion going? > Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you brought it up. I am not contesting the fact that the Bhaagavatam was "revised." But this verse, as you have pointed out, says nothing about being expanded from 4 verses to 18,000. In fact, if memory serves, the "revisions" referred to here refer to attempts to simplify the Sanskrit to make it easier to understand by those who are not twice-born. This is based on something I read from Tattva-Sandarbha. If you are interested, I will try to dig up specific references later. The fact that the other Puraanas refer to the Bhaagavatam as having 18,000 verses should be taken as a fact. Thus, the Bhaagavatam always had 18,000 verses even in the pre-revised forms, or those 18,000- verse predictions were speaking of the final edition of the Bhaagavatam. This latter idea would be a paradox, since Vyaasa did not "know" at that time that he was to recompile the Bhaagavatam, having not yet been instructed by Naarada to do it. But there are similar paradoxes elsewhere, such as in the Chaandogya Upanishad in which Naarada, having studied the Vedas (inclusive of the Chaandogya Upanishad, which contains this very conversation!) nevertheless submits a doubt before Sanat-Kumaara and requires further explanations from him, despite the fact that this must also have already been in that very Upanishad which he would have already studied! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Hare Krishna, Can you please look up the verses from Tattva Sandarbha? >>>>>the Bhaagavatam always had 18,000 verses even in the pre-revised forms, or those 18,000- verse predictions were speaking of the final edition of the Bhaagavatam. This latter idea would be a paradox, since Vyaasa did not "know" at that time that he was to recompile the Bhaagavatam, having not yet been instructed by Naarada to do it. <<<< So my question is, if the pre-revised 18000 verses were predictions speaking about the final edition, then in that case Srila Vyasa already knew that Srila Narada will come and instruct him about the revision. Please comment About the paradox from Chandogya Upanisad, I am finding hard time understanding it too. If Srila Narada had read what is going to happen, then he knows the answers to the questions that he posed to Sanat Kumara. Then what is the point in asking the questions. Please explain. vmk ________________________________ krishna_susarla [krishna_susarla] Sun 11/21/2004 9:12 PM achintya Re: Question about Srimad Bhagavatam achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar" <Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote: > Hare Krishna, > > >>>>>I am aware of the "seed-verses" concept with respect to the > Bhaagavatam, but where is it stated that "Srimad Bhagavatam was > revised from 4 to 18000 verses after the compilation of all Vedic > literature?"<<<<<<<<< > > I was referring to SB 1.7.8 Although this verse does not explicitly say 4 to 18000, it does say that SB was revised. The verses I quoted from other Puranas talk about 18000 verses in SB. Will this help to get the discussion going? > Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you brought it up. I am not contesting the fact that the Bhaagavatam was "revised." But this verse, as you have pointed out, says nothing about being expanded from 4 verses to 18,000. In fact, if memory serves, the "revisions" referred to here refer to attempts to simplify the Sanskrit to make it easier to understand by those who are not twice-born. This is based on something I read from Tattva-Sandarbha. If you are interested, I will try to dig up specific references later. The fact that the other Puraanas refer to the Bhaagavatam as having 18,000 verses should be taken as a fact. Thus, the Bhaagavatam always had 18,000 verses even in the pre-revised forms, or those 18,000- verse predictions were speaking of the final edition of the Bhaagavatam. This latter idea would be a paradox, since Vyaasa did not "know" at that time that he was to recompile the Bhaagavatam, having not yet been instructed by Naarada to do it. But there are similar paradoxes elsewhere, such as in the Chaandogya Upanishad in which Naarada, having studied the Vedas (inclusive of the Chaandogya Upanishad, which contains this very conversation!) nevertheless submits a doubt before Sanat-Kumaara and requires further explanations from him, despite the fact that this must also have already been in that very Upanishad which he would have already studied! Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 brahmasUtrANAmarthasteShAmakR^itrimabhAShyabhUta ityarthaH | pUrvaM sUkshmatvena manasyAvirbhUtam tadeva saMkshipya sUtratvena punaH prakaTitam pashchAdvistIrNatvena sAkShAt shrIbhAgavatmiti | tasmAttadbhAShyabhUte svataH siddhe tasmin satyarvAchInamanyadanyeShAM svasvakapolakalpitaM tadanugatamevAdaraNIyamiti gamyate | Here the words brahma-suutrANAm arthaH mean that Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedaanta-suutra. The Bhaagavatam first appeared in the heart of Shrii Vyaasadeva in a subtle form. He then summarized it in the form of the Vedaanta-suutra, and later expanded it into Shriimad-Bhaagavatam as we know it. Since the Vedaanta-suutra already has a natural commentary in Shriimad- Bhaagavatam, whatever recent commentators have produced from their own brains should be taken seriously only when it is faithful to the version of Shriimad-Bhaagavatam. (shrii tattva-sandarbha, anuchchheda 21.2) Based on the above, it appears that Shriimad-Bhaagavatam was indeed present first in a concise form, and only later expanded into the form in which we know it today, after Vyaasa expressed disatisfaction after compiling the Vedaanta-suutra. However, I would be hard pressed to believe that the concise form was only four verses. There is no indication how large that concise form was. Regarding revisions to make the Sanskrit easier to understand, I got this from Satyanarayana's notes on Anuccheda 14.4 where he speaks of Vyaasa adding statements like "shrI kR^iShNa uvAcha" and "shrI arjuna uvAcha" to the original bhagavad-gItA found in primeval yajur veda. However, this might be speculation. The point is, I think, that Vyaasa may have edited the Sanskrit of the itihaasas and puraanas to make them easier to understand, but this does not, in the Gaudiiya view, make them any less apaurusheya. 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.