Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Question: vishNu-puraaNa vs bhaagavata-puraaNa

From the Bhakti List Archives

Louis Nickens • March 19, 2002 


Namaste Ramkumar,

on 3/18/02 8:50 AM, tg_ram at tg_ram@yahoo.com wrote:

> Dear Members:
> 
> It is said that Srii-veda-vyaasa compiled all the eigtheen puraaNa-s.
> 
> Also, Sriimad vishNupuraaNa is said to have been narrated by SrI
> paraaSara-muni while Sriimad bhaagavata-puraaNa is said to have been
> narrated by SrI-sukha-maharshi.
> 

Srimad Bhagavata was narrated by Ugrashrava-Suta, the son of
Romaharshana-Suta.  Romaharshana was the disciple of Vyasa given charge of
the Puranas, according to the Vishnu Purana.  Ugrashrava, giving honor to
Suka as his guru, then narrated the discourse of Suka to Parikshit from the
2nd book of the Bhagavata onward.

We can therefore say that there were many sittings of Srimad Bhagavata:
Vyasa initially spoke it to Suka in an abbreviated form.  Suka spoke an
extended version to Parikshit.  Ugrashrava says that he heard the Bhagavata
from Suka (SB 1.3.44).  Vyasa spoke the Puranas to Romaharshana, who
undoubtedly spoke it to his son Ugrasrava.  Again, Ugrashrava, who was a
sisya of both Romaharshana and Suka, spoke it to the sages at Naimisaranya
headed by Saunaka. 

We know that writers frequently update their works, so we see here that
Vyasa eventually produced a final edition of the Bhagavata Purana under the
direction and inspiration of Devarshi Narada.  This is the Bhagavata that we
have today.

> 
> Also, I remember reading somewhere that Sriimad-bhaagavatam is not
> really on the list of eigtheen 'official' puraaNa-s.  Could
> someone 'official' list ?
> 

The Vishnu Purana lists the Bhagavata among the 18 Puranas in Book 3,
Chapter 6.  This should be sufficient evidence for all Vaishavas.

Of course, what you read was probably referring to the Shakta text typically
referred to as the Devi Bhagavata.  There is little doubt among today's
scholars that the Bhagavata Purana referred to in the Puranic lists is the
Vaishnava Bhagavata and not the Devi Bhagavata.

> Also I am wondering what Srii-vaishNava acaarya-s say regarding the
> status of Sriimad-bhaagavata-puraaNa.
> 
> raamaanuja-daasa
> //Ramkumar
> 

Sri Ramanuja clearly gave preference to the Vishnu Purana, but this does not
mean that he was unaware of the Bhagavata Purana or that he rejected the
Bhagavata Purana.  Dr. B.N.K. Sharma, the great Dvaita scholar, has given
evidence suggesting that the Bhagavata seems to have already been popular as
early as the 6th century, if not earlier.

In the line of Ramanuja, both  Sri Sudarshan Suri and Viraraghavacharya
wrote commentaries on Srimad Bhagavata.  Although I have not seen it, an
edition containing 18 commentaries, including these two, was published in
Ahmedabad in 1965 by one Bhagavata Vidyapitha.

I would travel to India just to get a copy.

I've read somewhere that Sudarshan Suri wrote in his Sutra Prakasha, his
commentary on Sri Bhasya, that the standpoint of the Vishnu Purana in
doctrinal points is the same as the Bhagavata.  For this reason, Ramanuja
did not multiply his texts unnecessarily by quoting verses from the
Bhagavata; instead he focused on the Vishnu Purana.

I don't have any works of Sudarshan Suri or Viraraghava.  Perhaps some of
the wise list members can comment. Can anyone on the list validate this
statement of Sudarshan Suri?

Please forgive my lack of correct transliteration herein.

Namaste,

Louis



--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/