Appendix 2    

        Giridhara Läl's commentary on Bhägavatam 2.9.36 further reveals his critical nature on account of which he forgot his own explanation: "In Bhägavatam 2.9.28 Lord Brahmä requests the Lord to bless him that he 'should not become bound because of pride in the work of creation.' In 2.9.36, beginning with etat, the Lord grants Brahmä's request, telling him to be fixed in transcendental meditation on the philosophy spoken of in the preceeding four verses, commonly referred to as the Catuhçloki bhägavatam. The Lord says that if Brahmä would always think in this way, he would not become possessed by lust, anger, and pride. It must be understood therefore that if Brahmä is overcome by lust, anger, and pride, on occasion it is from his forgetting this message."

            So Giridhara Läl writes that the Lord's blessing applies only to the act of creation. And interestingly, he even says that sometimes because of forgetting this knowledge, Lord Brahmä is captured by Mäyä although this is the very objection he raises--that Brahmä is blessed by the Lord and cannot be caught by Mäyä.

            What to speak of Brahmä, even Mother Yaçodä was bewildered by Yogamäyä when Kåñëa showed her the whole universe within His mouth (S.B.10.8.42):

            "It is by the influence of the Supreme Lord's Mäyä that I am worngly thinking Nanda Mahäräja is my husband, Kåñëa is my son, and  because I am the queen of Nanda Mahäräja, all the wealth of cows and calves are my possessions and all the cowherd men and their wives are my subjects. Actually, I also am eternally subordinate to the Supreme Lord. He is my ultimate shelter."

            While commenting on this verse Läl also accepts that the amount of bliss mother Yaçodä could experinece in thinking of Kåñëa as her son is far superior to if she were to consider Kåñëa as the Supreme Lord.  Knowing this Lord Kåñëa expanded Her vaiñëavi mäyä which constitutes His internal potency.

            And further (10.8.43):

            "Mother Yaçodä, by the grace of the Lord, could understand the real truth. But then again, the Supreme Master, by the influence of the internal potency, Yogamäyä, inspired her to become absorbed in intense affectionate feelings for her son, Kåñëa."

            And what's more, even Lord Kåñëa was  bewildered for a muhürta (48 minutes),  while killing the demon Çälva (S.B.10.77.23,24,28):

 "When He heard this disturbing news, Lord Kåñëa, who was playing the role of a mortal man, showed sorrow and compassion. Out of love for His parents He spoke the following words like an ordinary conditioned soul,

"Balaräma is ever vigilant, and no demigod or demon can defeat Him. So how could this insignificant Çälva defeat Him and abduct My father? Indeed, fate is all powerful!"

            "By nature Lord Kåñëa is full in knowledge, and He has unlimited powers of perception. Yet for a moment, out of great affection for His loved ones, He remained absorbed in the mood of an ordinary human being. He soon recalled, however, that this was all a demoniac illuson engineered by Maya Dänava and employed by Çälva.

            But the ultimate answer to this question is given by Çré Çuka in verse 10.77.32:

            "By virtue of self-realization fortified by service rendered to His feet, devotees of the Lord dispel the bodily concept of life, which has bewildered souls since time immemorial. Thus  they attain eternal glory in His personal association. How then, can that Supreme Truth, the destination of all genuine saints, be subject to illusion?"

            Çukadeva's question is rethorical. It means the Lord can never be bewildered by illusion, but for His pastimes He agrees to become the subjecct of His own Yogamäyä potency.

 And one is further advised to look at Brahmä's statement in 2.7.42:

            "But anyone who is specifically favored by the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, due to unalloyed surrender unto the service of the Lord, can overcome the insurmountable ocean of illusion and can understand the Lord, but those who are attached to the body, which is meant to be eaten at the end by dogs and jackals, cannot do so."

            Whether Brahmä's bewilderment was because of his forgetfulness of the Lord or by the independent will of the Lord, it is not against the narrations and principles established in the Çrémad Bhägavatam. Further, because this pastime is related in the Padma Puräëa, as accepted by Läl, it cannot be against the conclusions of the scriptures.

            As stated earlier, when the Lord wants to enjoy His humanlike pastimes, He takes help from His Yogamäyä. Otherwise He cannot engage in pastimes like stealing butter, feeling hungry and so on, because He owns everything and hunger cannot touch Him. While commenting on the words ätma mäyä (SB.10.3.46), Çré Viöhalnätha, son of Vallabhäcärya, writes, "Just as the illusory energy, Mäyä, the cause of material bondage, makes one forget one's real nature and causes attachment to the material world, in the same way this ätma mäyä makes a devotee forget about his nature (as servant of the Lord) and causes attachment to the Lord (in a particular relationship). Because of the common attribute of making the jéva forget his identity the ätma mäyä is also called mäyä." Vallabhäcärya also says that mäyä is of three types--svamohiné, which bewilders Kåñëa; sväjanamohiné, which bewilders the devotees; and vimukhäjanamohiné, which bewilders the non-devotees. In the Gauòéya sampradäya, svamohiné and sväjanamohiné are called Yogamäyä, which is part of the Lord's internal potency. Vimukhäjanamohiné is called Mahämäyä, the external potency of the Lord.

            This also clears up the objection that the Lord did not keep His words given to Lord Brahmä since that promise was in reference to Mäyä and not to Yogamäyä. Moreover the Lord is independent and supremely powerful. Lord Brahmä gave a boon to Dviviòa that no one would be able to kill him (sarvavädhyaträmätulamänyordattavän purä--Välméki Rämäyaëa 5.60.3) yet he was killed by Lord Balaräma as stated in Bhägavatam 10.67.28.

            E.  Furthermore, Çré Madhva, your own sampradäya äcärya, did not accept those chapters nor did Çré Vijayadhvaja. So you (Jéva Gosvämé) are jumping over your own äcäryas and thus you are a rebel, äcärya-drohi.

Response: Çré Madhva did not comment on these chapters, but he did not say that they were not bonafide. If his not commenting the three disputed chapters, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen is the test of interpolation, then chapters eleven, fifteen, and many others throughout the Bhägavatam should be considered spurious because Madhva did not comment on them either. He comments only on select verses of Bhägavatam. Vijayadhvaja, an äcärya in the same sampradäya, also did not comment on these chapters without giving any reason, but he never says that they are spurious.

            Giridhara Läl counts Madhva and Vijayadhvaja among those who call these chapters spurious. But Madhva's comments are brief, as already mentioned, and he only comments on particular verses. In addition, scholars do not consider Vijayadvaja's readings as a very good standard.  In some places he has extra verses, nay extra chapters, and in other places many verses are missing. Even Madhvites have doubts about his readings. In this regard the publisher of Bhägavat tätparya of Çré Madhväcärya (Sarva Müla Granthä Volume III, Udupi, 1980.) has written "Although previously the original reading according to Vijayadhvaja was published, which is available, that is neither according to Vijayadhvaja nor according to Bhäñya ( Bhägavat tätparya of Madhva).  The  reading according to Vijayadhvaja is strewn with defects.In certain places it appears that as if someone who did not have good knowledge of the original has interpolated it and thus it appears doubtful, not very fine, and in places even contradictory to Bhägavat tätparya........At present the correct reading of Vijayadhvaja needs to be examined...."  These are the statements of a staunch follower of Madhva. Giridhara surely would not have had better access to Madhva sampradäya's manuscripts.

            Although Madhva and Vijayadhvaja do not explicitly declare these chapters interpolated, from the statement of Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé it is clear that they avoid these chapters, not because they doubt their authenticity, but because these chapters go against their philosophical conclusions. They do not accept that a demon killed by Kåñëa can attain liberation. But this is not the philosophy of Çrémad Bhägavatam. Verses 10.44.39, 3.2.20 and 2.7.34 are clear examples of this:

"Kaàsa was always disturbed by the thought that the Supreme Lord would kill him. Therefore when drinking, eating, moving about, sleeping or simply breathing, the King always saw the Lord before him with the disc weapon in His hand. Thus Kaàsa achieved the rare boon of attaining a form like the Lord's.

"Certainly other fighters on the Battlefield of Kurukñetra were purified by the onslaught of Arjuna's arrows, and while seeing the lotuslike face of Kåñëa so pleasing to the eyes, they achieved the abode of the Lord."

"All demonic persons like Pralamba, Dhenuka, Baka, Keçé, Ariñöa, Cäëüra, Muñöika, Kuvalayapéòa elephant, Kaàsa, Yavana, Narakäsura and Pauëòraka, great marshals like Çälva, Dviviòa monkey and Balvalä, Dantavakra, the seven bulls, Çambara, Vidüratha and Rukmi, as also great warriors like Kamboja, Matsya, Kuru, Çåïjaya and Kekaya, would all fight vigorously, either with the Lord Hari directly or with Him under His names of Baladeva, Arjuna, Bhéma, etc. And the demons, thus being killed, would attain either the impersonal Brahmajyoti or his personal abode in the Vaikunöha planets."

            On the strength of these verses one may safely conclude that the claims in the disputed chapters, such as Pütanä attaining the status of the Lord's mother and so forth, are not grounds for rejecting them as interpolated. Further, although Çréla Jéva Gosvämé comes in the Madhva sampradäya,  as a follower of Mahäprabhu Çré Caitanya he is in fact an offshoot from the Madhva line and naturally there are some differences in philosophical conclusions otherwise there will be no difference between the dvaitaväda of Madhva and acintyabhedäbhedaväda of Çré Mahäprabhu. Thus to say that Çréla Jéva Gosvämé is a rebel and envious of his previous äcäryas such as Madhväcärya is unsound reasoning. In a case of contention it is to Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu that Jéva Gosvämé's ultimate fidelity lies and not to Madhväcärya.

            F. You (Jéva Gosvämé) have said that these three chapters are popular. We ask then whether they are popular among fools, scholars, or both?  If they are accepted by fools, then certainly that does not prove their authenticity. If you say it does, then the bodily conception of life should also be accepted. They are not accepted by all scholars otherwise their would be no bone to contend. This automatically removes the third possibility. These chapters cannot be accepted simply because of their popularity, as reasoned by you. Even hundreds of blind men cannot see an object.

            Response:   Here Läl is saying that even if hundreds of blind men or fools say that these chapters are bonafide and write commentaries on them that will not make them bonafide. Certainly these chapters are popular among scholars. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé names but a few of these scholars and after that to raise a question like this is in poor taste, for no one gives the names of fools to support his case. This simple fact Läl does not understand and so he asks, "Are these chapters popular with fools or scholars?"

            Among Vedic scholars, especially those who study Bhägavatam there is a common belief that the test of one's scholarship is in understanding and commenting on the Çrémad Bhägavatam--vidyävatäm bhägavate parékñä, The persons who comment on Çrémad Bhägavatam therefore cannot be compared to the fool mired in the bodily conception of life. To cite an example, Bopadeva is said to have studied Bhägavatam twenty times from his teachers before he attempted to write his commentary.

            Läl suggests that if hundreds of fools claim that the disputed chapters are bonafide that will not make them so, but by the same token, if hundreds of fools say these chapters are interpolated that does not make them so. The truth is that this reasoning cannot apply to the stalwart scholars who have commented on Bhägavatam. If Läl insists that it does apply, then he should first have proven his own immunity from this blindness.

            G. Moreover these chapters are rejected by Vyäsa bhaööa, the son of Çré Rämänuja's disciple, in his Çuka pakñiné commentary on Çrémad Bhägavatam. Following in his footsteps, Çré Véraräghaväcärya also considers them spurious, although he commented on them because of their popularity.

Response:  Here Läl gives a refutation of acceptance based on popularity by giving the examples of Vyäsa Bhaööa and Véraräghaväcärya. But he tried to refute Çréla Jéva Gosvämé on this point because the latter gave popularity as one of the reasons for accepting these chapters. Thus Läl contradicts himself by using the popularity to support his view. The interesting thing is that Véraräghaväcärya says, "Vyäsa Bhaööa has not commented on them considering them spurious, but because these chapters are in vogue and have thus been commented on by some so I am also commenting on them."--Bhägavat Candrikä 10.12.1. Véraräghava does not consider them spurious, because he makes no explicit mention of it. Here one may say that explicit mention is not necessary, because on the strength of his words in the quote the implicit agreement with Vyäsa Bhaööa is clear. The fact, however, is that in 12.12.28 he accepts the part of the verse that mentions about these léläs as quoted earlier and he comments on the verse:  Niçpeño vadhaù aghäsurasyasusaàhära... Niçpeña means slaying. Kåñëa killed the demon Aghäsura. This leads us to understand that he did not personally consider the three chapters interpolated.

            H.   According to Padma Puräëa,  the propagators of the Vaiñëava sampradäyas in the line of Lakñmédevé and Lord Brahmä are Rämänuja and  Madhva. They consider these chapters spurious. If you do not accept the opinion of Çré Madhva, then your sampradäya becomes a mere cult.

Response: In fact it is Läl and his äcäryas who reject the opinion of the äcäryas in the Çré and Madhva sampradäyas. All the commentators in these sampradäyas have commented on the six verses beginning from 10.6.35 and still Vallabha and his followers insist on calling these verses spurious. We quote part of Läl's commentary on verse 10.6.35. "Here the six verses beginning from 10.6.35 are spurious according to Çré Vallabhäcärya, but they are seen in all books and thus I comment on them." Of the the two äcäryas, Rämänuja and Madhva, Çré Rämänuja did not write a commentary on Bhägavatam, and, as stated earlier, Madhva did not directly say that these three chapters were interpolated. And even some followers of  Rämänuja, like Sudarçana Süri and Véraräghava have commented on these chapters.

            No further comment is needed on this. In fact, although Vallabhäcärya and his followers consider the three chapters spurious, many commentators in their line, including Vallabhäcärya and Giridhara Läl, have commented on them, giving the excuse that they are in vogue among the scholars and masses. Even if they are in vogue among the masses, if the chapters are in fact interpolated, why further mislead the masses by commenting on them? The conclusion is that these commentators were not themselves convinced about the chapters being interpolations.