Printable View
Namaskar
I am currently reading a book on Dvaita by B.N.K. Sharma and I found this very interesting. According to Sharma, Ramanuja didn't comment on Bhagavata Purana because up until that time it was still considered a text with "monist" leanings and it took Madhvacharya to come and extract from it it's dualist meaning.
Any thoughts on this? What is the general mood of Sri Vaishnavas towards this purana today?
Nope...Bhagawatham is parama pramanam...Ramanujaacharya never ignored Bhagawatham
adiyen Ramanuja Daasa
Actually, he kinda did. Sri Yamuna and Sri Ramanuja both neglected to comment on Srimad Bhagavatam or quote from it to solidify their philosophical conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garuda
Sri Ramanuja favored Vishnu Purana.
This thread was made to explore some reasons why that is.
Not only Sri Ramanuja, even the Bhashyas of Sri Shankaracharya never quote from Srimad Bhagavatham. This is despite the fact that he quotes from numerous Puranas in Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyam etc, and also quotes from the Bhagavad Gita many, many times.
Does it tell you anything?
Namaste Harih jiQuote:
Originally Posted by harih
That tells me not a thing
Apparently Adi Shankaracharya did write commentary and poetry on Shri KRshNa LeelA details of which come from BhAgvatam Canto 10
Adi Shankara commented and wrote poetic literature on Shri KRshNa's Vraja Leela
. This nice post by Amrutji shows that.
Now you may say it came from HarivaMsha section of Mahabharat -- moot point because BhAgvat is what it is -- VAn~gmaya mUrtI of ShyAmsundar whom people have experienced.
The OP's point was that Ramanuja avoided Bhagvat because its message is advaita-bhakti, Theistic Monism. Here advaita means tadAtmic bhAva (Atmic bhAv with GopAl)
---
http://walkwithmukunda.blogspot.com
Namaste Smaranam Ji
I have a copy of Prabodha-Sudhakaram - I think its authorship is disputed as it differs from Sri Shankara‘s other works in style and content. My point is (and this is per what I heard from a Vaishnava scholar) that the Bhagavatham as presently available has some slokas missing / chapters incomplete. It is likely that the slokas mentioned in Sri-Bhashyam and Gita-Bhashyam that are presently untraceable͵ might have been part of the original͵ complete Bhagavatham. For example the sloka “Snehapoorvamabhidhyanam Bhaktirityuchyate Budhaih“ in Sri Ramanuja‘s Gita Bhashyam is probably part of a missing sloka from Srimad Bhagavatham. This scholar had written an article some decades ago in the “Bhakta-Priya“ magazine (Published by Guruvayur Devaswom͵ Kerala) wherein he had shared some missing slokas͵ the result of his research amongst the extant manuscripts of Srimad Bhagavatham.
As for the query why Sri Ramanuja didn‘t comment on the entire Bhagavatham͵ the same query might be asked with regard to Vishnu Puranam as well which anyway is extensively quoted. Moreover͵ I think there are content in VP as well͵ that might be called Advaitic.
The reason why Ramanuja and Shankara didn't focus a lot on Bhagavatam is because the Vishnu Purana is more philosophical. The Bhagavatam contains stories that please the bhakta, while the Vishnu Purana talks about Brahman, the relationship between Atma and Brahman, etc.
The Vishnu purana should not be compared to the bhagavatam as it is equal to God and the Vishnu purana is a purana in the mode of goodness. Ramanujacharya and Shankara simply didn't write many commentaries on it with Shankara being an exception to a degree. I don't know the reason why.Quote:
Originally Posted by axlyz
Because during his time, Bhagavatam was considered as an Advaitik scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKR108