Issues in the bhagavatam

[Guest guest]

SB 1.3.21: Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Sri Vyasadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavati through Parasara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.

 

SB 1.3.22: In the eighteenth incarnation, the Lord appeared as King Rama. In order to perform some pleasing work for the demigods, He exhibited superhuman powers by controlling the Indian Ocean and then killing the atheist King Ravana, who was on the other side of the sea.

--------------------

If this is true then wouldnt this place the Mahabharat before the Ramayana (since Satyavati was married to Beeshma's father)..

[Guest guest]

Doesn't anyone have an answer to this?

 

[Guest guest]

I guess it is just an error in the scripture. Oh well.

[jagatpurush]

chalk it up to yuga-bheda (similar lilas performed in different yugas).

[Guest guest]

I don't think that is it. The numbering of it, saying the 16th 17th 18th incarnation etc basically means that this is a definite chronological order. Otherwise it would not be numbered.

[jagatpurush]

i will ask someone about it. although i have to way that against how important this person's time is.

 

thanks, Hare Krsna.

[Guest guest]

Thanks

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

Shree Vyasadeva evidently appeared before Lord Rama appeared on this earth. However, Shree Vyasadeva compiled the Vedic scriptures just after the Mahabharata, before the age of Kali. Hence, it is clear that the shlokas are simply showing that Vyasadeva's appearance was before Lord Rama. But his actual act of compiling the scriptures fully occurred much later. Remember, the very next verse mentions Lord Krishna and Lord Balarama's advent, clearly showing that the Mahabharata did indeed take place much time after the Ramayana. Of course, this shows how long Vyasadeva's earthly lila is. He was present before Lord Rama's advent, was present while Krishna and Balarama advented, and is actually still performing meditation for the benefit of the earth and all it's creatures at the moment in the Himalayas.

 

It may seem hard to understand, but how can we limit God? When God advents (as Vyasadeva, for example), surely he has the power to extend his lila as far as he feels it to be necessary.

 

I hope that explains it all.

 

Hare Krishna,

Your aspiring servant.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, this was actually that was actually the first thing that ran through my mind. I have no problem with Vyasa living such a long life, some even say that Agastya is still somewhere around. My question really came about because of Satyavati, who was his mother. She was also living at the time of the Mahabharat. Is her life span that long as well??? That is what is would be hard to believe

[Guest guest]

Is there any mention of Vyasadeva in the Ramayana? Because at that time Viswamitra and Vashishta were acknowledged as the two great sages.

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

You make some good points about Satyavati. Actually, reading the word-for-word translation of those verses, it says the sanskrit for 'seventeenth' in the verse for Vyasadeva. However, in the next verse, it doesn't actually say eighteenth in sanskrit. It just says 'The Lord assumed the form of a human being...'. Therefore it doesn't actually say whether Lord Rama was before or after Vyasadeva. It just describes Lord Rama's advent - not in a chronological position (it doesn't even say thereafter - which is mentioned in the Vyasadeva verse). It does, however, say nineteenth and twentieth for Balarama and Krishna respectively. So we can assume that the chronological order applies to the incarnations that are numbered or that actually say 'thereafter' suggesting He did appear happen after. Undoubtedly Lord Rama appeared after Parasurama though - did He appear before or after Vyasadeva? That is left unclear by a literal reading of Srimad Bhagavatam. If one assumes that Satyavati could not have lived that long, then one has to actually explain why one thinks that is the case. It may be that Satyavati and Parasara's union took place before Lord Rama's advent - if anybody can bring evidence to suggest otherwise, please post it here. Even if it is the case that Lord Rama advented before Shree Vyasadeva, it still remains consistent with the Srimad Bhagavatam, since it doesn't actually say whether Lord Rama was before or after Shree Vyasadeva.

 

Confusing, i know - i will ask an advanced devotee and get back to you!

 

Hare Krishna,

Your Servant.

[Guest guest]

It is confusing indeed and even in the Yogavashishta ,Vashishta tells Rama that in the PAST Suka the son of Vyasa also raised some of the same questions he was raising. So this corresponds to the Bhagavatam. But it still strange. Thanks for the help, I have been trying to figure this out for a while now.