You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2006

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00041 Oct 2006

 
Oct 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear SrimAn Protish Patel,
Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.
This question is posed by many modern scholars in the context of dating Bhagavatha purana. Why Sri Ramanuja, the foremost Acharya of Bhakti tradition, was silent on Bhagavatha, which celebrates Vishnu Bhakti in such a glorious manner? The answers speculated by them fall in to one of the Two categories.
1. Bhagavatha Purana is of later origin, perhaps post Ramanuja. Or Bhagavatha Purana was at least not popular enough in South of India during his time.
2. Sri Ramanuja was more inclined towards "Pancharatra" tradition, while Bhagavatha tradition seem to be a bit divergent from this.
For me both these arguments seem to be superficial. Our traditional Divya Prabandham bequeathed to us by those great souls called Azhvars completely last in Krishna Bhakthi, is replete with innemerable references to Krishna Leelas as narrated in Bhagavatha Purana. This clearly shows that Bhagavatha was definitely known to Srivaishnava tradition much before the Advent of Ramanuja him self.  The reason why Sri Ramanuja would not have referred to Bhagavatha Purana, according to our knowledgeable traditional vidwan is that Vishnu Purana was cited by Adi Shankara and other Advitic Acharyas in their Bhashyas and Sri Ramanuja's effort was to establish Vishishtadvita using accepted pramanas of Poorva Paksha. That seems to be reasonable explanation, as he scrupulously went about establishing his Sidhantha refuting the adversaries on their own terms in his polemical works. This approach contrasts with Sri Madhvacharyas style, where he brought in lot of new Shruthi and Smrithi Pramanas, which led to some amount of conraversy as Advitic scholars seemed to have questioned pramanya of some of Sri Madhva's citations. More over, Sri Madhva was only a couple of centuries after Sri Ramanuja and he has written a commentary on Bhagavata. Obviously, Bhagavatha purana was, by then, was widely known. This seems to be a too short time for a new Purana to be written and become important  enough all through the country, to demand a commentary from Sri Madhva. In addition, Sri Sudarshana Suri, famed author of "Shrutha Prakashika" an exhaustive commentary on Sri Ramanuja's Sri Bhashya, is known to have written a commentary on Bhagavatha Purana, named "Shuka Paksheeya", which is supposed to be available in manuscript form and not yet published in print. Sudarshana Suri was an elder contemporary of Sri Vedanta Deshika and Sri Pilla Lokacharya. He was not, chronologically speaking, far off from Sri Ramanuja's period. What is followed today as commentary from Vishishtadvaitic/Srivaishnava perspective for Sri Bhagavatha Purana, is known as Veera Raghaveeya Vyakhyana, written some time during Seventeenth century by Veera Raghavacharya, a Srivaishnava Acharya from Andhra region.
Hope this info helps
Adiyen
Srinivasadasa

pritesh patel <tesh_tel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.
 
Jai Sri krishna
 
My quiery is sligtly of the topic but relates to Bhagavatam and Vishistadvaitam.
The Srimad Bhagavatam is clearly a very important scipture for SriVaishnvas as its only deals with the lilas of Our Lord.  However when reading about the life of Sri Ramanuja, it seems that He did not mention Bhagavatam much.  I know Ramanuja held mentions Vishnu Purana in his works a lot.  Is there a reason why Bhagavatam did not feature much in His works?? Also are there any commentries written by our purvacharayas on the Bhagavatam???
 
aravamudhan@cox.net wrote:
Narasimhan Swamin,

Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika puranams and per our Sri Vaishhava view it is considered authentic.

I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq magazine. what the editor of
Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins have been talking. It is not out of place to mention here about them as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised Saivas)

It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned . None of our Acharyas would negate this.

The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam, beginning with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes Vishistadvaita.

In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam of Peruman is clearly established .

Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from Srimad Bhagavatam.

The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor, Thuklaq) chooses to
elaborate only those place where it is convenient to advaitins and establish something such as 'all Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy Samyam)

From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly says which God is the primordial God.

The blame need to go to the editor and not to the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurnam.

Adiyen,

Regards
KM Narayanan
---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First of all, is it worth reading such a book at all :) I wonder many
> a times what authenticity would such books bring in?!
> adiyEn,
> rAmAnuja dAsan
>
> --- In ramanuja@yahoogroups.com, Vidyalakshmi <vidya_lr@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sri:
> >
> > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha
> > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad
> > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam
> >
> > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed
> > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all worlds
> > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord of all
> > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before him
> > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three sons as
> > the amsam of each of them and that there is no
> > difference between the three.
> >
> > Why is there a contradiction like this in Bhagavatha
> > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading about
> > other puranams where such things have been said.
> >
> > Could someone please explain this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vidya.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>



All New Yahoo! Mail ? Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.


Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com __._,_.___

Azhvar EmberumAnAr JeeyAr ThiruvadigalE Saranam
http://www.vedics.net






SPONSORED LINKS
Illinois home inspector Illinois home builder Illinois home
Illinois home for sale Chicago hotel illinois

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list