Appendix 3
I. You quoted verse 3.15.23, to prove that the word Aghabhit indicates killing of Aghäsura. Here the suitable meaning is "the dispeller of sins" and that fits in the context. In the Çrémad Bhägavatam usage of the word agha means sin. (Läl quotes many verses to support this, two of which are 6.2.8 and 6.2.11:
"The Viñëudütas continued: Even previously, while eating and at other times, this Ajämila would call his son, saying, "My dear Näräyaëa, please come here." Although calling the name of his son, he nevertheless uttered the four syllables nä-rä-ya-ëa. Simply by chanting the name of Näräyaëa in this way, he sufficiently atoned for the sinful reactions of millions of lives."
"By following the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies or undergoing atonement, sinful men do not become as purified as by chanting once the holy name of Lord Hari. Although ritualistic atonement may free one from sinful reactions, it does not awaken devotional service, unlike the chanting of the Lord's names, which reminds one of the Lord's fame, qualities, attributes, pastimes and paraphernalia."
Response: There is no truth in the statement that the word aghabhit means only dispeller of sin and not the killer of Aghäsura. It can have both meanings simultaneously. After all Aghäsura is the personification of sin. The demons killed by Kåñëa represent the various lower qualities found in human beings. Since Bhägavatam is a kävya, or poetical composition, it uses indirect methods to convey instruction. Generally the proper nouns used in Çrémad Bhägavatam also have a meaning related to their qualities, just as Bhéñma means ferocious in fighting and Arjuna means one with pure character. So there is no Vedic injunction against explaining aghabhit as a name of Kåñëa, the killer of Aghäsura. Vallabhäcärya and other commentators, including Läl, often give such double meanings to Kåñëa's names. This is also substantiated by the statements of Çré Kåñëopaniñad (14) "Cäëüra is the personification of hatred and Muñöika is the personification of envy. Aghäsura is the personification of disease, which are the results of sin. "
J. Çrédhara Svämé has referred to verse 10.6.36 while explaining the word mätaraù, mothers. He says that the plural form is for keeping the vatsaharaëalélä (stealing of calves) in mind, (at this time Lord Kåñëa expanded Himself to become the sons of the gopés), but that goes against His pastime of Räsa Lélä as it is improper to dance with one's mother. Therefore these six verses are spurious.
Response: Çrédhara Svämé's explanation is not improper, but Läl's conclusion is wrong. We must note that the gopés with whom Lord Kåñëa engaged in the Räsa dance were not the same ones whose breasts he suckled during the Brahma-mohana lélä. From the scriptures we have absolutely no proof to the contrary. Further, Kåñëa is the Supreme Taster of rasa and a räsa lélä with the same gopés whose breasts He suckled would be rasäbhäsa according to the principles set forth in Rasa çästra, which is frowned upon by knowers of rasa. The Çrémad Bhägavatam is the mature fruit of the Vedic tree of knowledge and is called the amala puräëa, the spotless scripture. It cannot have such defect of improper mixing of rasa in it.
K. Çrédhara Svämé has explained these chapters just out of custom and in the same spirit he has explained the word vyäla-räkñäsät (10.31.3) as Aghäsura, but in reality it means the snake Käliya and demons like Tåëävarta. Only out of custom does he say in the beginning of the Tenth Canto that there are ninety chapters in it. This he indicated in his invocation verses to the First Canto. There he says sampradäyänurodhena, paurväparyänusärataù, keeping strict adherence to the sampradäya and maintaining harmony between the earlier and later parts of the book. Thus he wrote commentary on all ninety chapters. By sampradäya he refers to Bopadeva and others who accepted ninety chapters. By paurväparavirodhena, or reconciling the earlier and later statements, he means that there are 332 chapters.
Response: The logic given in this argument is childish. How does the critic know that Çrédhara Svämé explained these chapters out of custom since he himself never declared them spurious? If there is any verse which he thinks as interpolated, he makes a mention of it. One such example is 1.15.8. Then why would he be so uncharacteristically enigmatic about these three chapters in the Tenth Canto, which is the very heart of the Bhägavatam?. In his invocation to the Tenth Canto he clearly mentions twice that there are 90 chapters in the Tenth Canto, and does not say a word about interpolation. Still Läl dares to misinterpret his invocatory statements sampradäyänurodhena, paurväparyänusärataù. The direct meaning is "We will give meaning as we have studied in our guru paramparä and there will be no contradictions in the earlier and later sections." These are the natural qualities of a good commentary. We completely fail to understand Läl's theory that Çrédhar Svämé did all this out of custom but actually he disagrees. If that is the case then he is following the sampradäya only in name. Even so, why does he explain the word mätaraù, in verse 10.6.36, as related with Brahma-mohan lélä if he does not believe in it? Rather it goes against his promise that his explanation will have no internal contradictions.
Thus we conclude that Çrédhara Svämé has no objection to these chapters and accordingly he translates the word vyäla räkñasa in verse 10.31.3. as Aghäsura. Similarly, in commenting on the word mahäçanaiù in verse 10.2.1 many have translated it as Aghäsura. Even Vallabhäcärya in Subodhiné, his commentary, and Läl also accepts that mahäsana could mean either a glutton or Aghäsura. All these facts lead to one conclusion, that none of the 335 chapter of Çrémad Bhägavatam are interpolations.
L. At this point Läl tries to refute Çréla Jéva Gosvämé's explanation of the phrase dvätriàçattriçatam used by Çrédhara Svämé in one of his invocatory verses. Since it is all based on intricate grammatical rules, and only one who has studied Päëini's grammer can understand it, we bypass it. Suffice to say that Läl's conclusion is that it means Bhägavatam has 332 chapters. The number 332 is given for easy understanding and Çréla Jéva Gosvämé's explanation is very difficult and defeats the very purpose of giving the number. Hence the direct meaning, 332, is more logical. Thus in the opinion of Çrédhara Svämé these chapters are spurious, but we do not accept these chapters as spurious only on the authority of Çrédhara Svämé, but due to so many defects in them.
Response: Therefore, because there are no convincing reasons to reject these chapters Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has grammatically explained the meaning of the phrase dvätriàçat triçatam as 335. Since the refutation of Giridharis' objection to this section is beyond the scope of these readers who have not studied Päëini Saìskåt Grammar, we will not go into it . Çré Vaàçédhara wrote a commentary on the commentary of Çrédhara Svämé called Bhävärtha-dépikä-prakäça. He also agrees that the above phrase means 335. Indeed he wrote a separate explanation of this, which he mentioned in his commentary on Çrédhar Svämé, but unfortunately that book is lost.
The explanation that the number of chapters is mentioned for easy understanding of the reader is indeed correct. Therefore to give a complicated grammatical explanation of this phrase to prove it really means 335 is improper. This statement would have been true if this verse (invocation verse no. six) was composed by Çrédhara Svämé himself, but the verse is cited from the Padma Puräëa, Uttarakhaëòa 198.51, spoken by Sanat Kumar to Närada Muni. The Kumaras are known as the greatest of jïänis and one can expect indirect statements from them. Lord Kåñëa relishes when the sages speak indirectly: .
The Vedas, divided into three divisions, ultimately reveal the living entity as pure spirit soul. The Vedic seers and mantras, however, deal in esoteric terms, and I also am pleased by such indirect confidential descriptions. (S.B.11.21.35)
Indirect statements are not to be accepted as they appear but need interpretation. An example of this are the verses :
The supreme unborn, Lord Çré Kåñëa, caused the members of the Yadu dynasty to relinquish their bodies, through whom He relieved the burden of the world. This action was like picking out a thorn with a thorn and then throwing them both away, not seeing any difference between the two. (S.B.1.15.34)
The Supreme Lord relinquished the body which He manifested to diminish the burden of the earth. Just like a magician, He relinquishes one body to accept different ones, like the fish incarnation and others. (S.B.1.15.35)
Here every commentator has interpreted the words vijahäv tanuà (lit. gave up the body) and jahau kalevaram (literally, gave up his body) as giving up the bhäva, or mood, and not the body itself, because the Lord's giving up His body does not make sense and goes against the philosophy of the Bhägavatam. For this reason Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has interpreted this phrase which only seems to mean 332, because actually there are 335 chapters. Also it is against the rules of Saìskåt grammar to translate as 332
M. Since it is not against the Vaiñëava principles for demons killed by Lord Kåñëa to attain liberation, why not accept these chapters? This statement of Çréla Jéva Gosvämé is not supported by Vijayadhvaja Tértha of Madhva sampradäya. He explains that Pütanä went to Hell. According to him the word jananégati (destination of a mother) means the place attained by sinners. Thus Mädhvites do not accept liberation of demons and they are your predecessors. The statement sadveñadeva pütanä (10.14.35) is from the controversial section and thus cannot be accepted as authoritative.
Response: This objection is automatically answered by the explanation given in "E". There is no sense in giving the opinion of Vijayadhvaja on liberation, when Läl himself agrees with Çréla Jéva Gosvämé that demons killed by Kåñëa get liberation. How can he expect to argue both sides of the issue? The verse 10.14.53 maybe from the controversial section, but there are many other verses that state the demons Kåñëa kills attain liberation.
N. My äcärya, Vallabha, has explained liberation in these incidents but that is different from the destination attained by devotees. You agree with this so you cannot blame our äcärya.
Response: We have no objection to this. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé never blames Vallabhäcärya anywhere in his discussion on the number of chapters in Bhägavatam.
O. This lélä is mentioned in other Puräëas such as Padma Puräëa and thus it can also be explained in the Çrémad Bhägavatam. Padma Puräëa mentions this lélä but gives no details. Since no mention of Bhägavatam is made there, it cannot be taken that this lélä is narrated in detail in the Çrémad Bhägavatam.
Response: This lélä is mentioned in some other Puräëas which indicates that it did occur and is not a concoction. Thus there is every possibility of it being found in the Çrémad Bhägavatam, which Vyäsadeva wrote specifically to narrate the pastimes of Lord Kåñëa. Verses 1.5.36, 1.5.39, 1.7.7, 1.7.10 and 1.7.12 clearly establish that Bhägavatam was mainly compiled to narrate the pastimes of Lord Kåñëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In fact the verses confirm that the léläs that are only barely referred to in other Puräëas, such as the Padma Puräëa, must be given an elaborate description in the Bhägavatam. And because these pastimes are found in other sättvika Puräëas the philosophic conclusions given cannot be wrong. Otherwise Läl and others have to explain why these léläs are described in other sättvika Puräëas.
P. It is not proper reasoning to say that these léläs are included just because they are wonderful. If so, then other such wonderful léläs from Hari Vaàça, Viñëu and Brahma Vaivarta Puräëas should also be included.
Response: Vallabhäcärya gave this same reasoning, but he gave no explanation for this. He said that these léläs are wonderful and therefore a scholar included them in the Çrémad Bhägavatam to woo the audience. But since Vallabha gave no proof to support his opinion Läl's using here as a refutation is erroneous.
Q. Because the places indicating these léläs exist in Våndävana is also no reason to accept them in the Çrémad Bhägavatam. Then other léläs related with such places as Rädhä Kuëòa, lukaluka kaëòara and so on should also be included.
Response: Çréla Jéva Gosvämé gave this reason to support the logic already presented in response to O. It is not that these léläs are considered part of the Çrémad Bhägavatam just on the basis of the places found in Våndävan. He did not say that the léläs related with these places must be found in the Çrémad Bhägavatam; rather, because they are mentioned in Bhägavatam, the various lélä sites must be found in Våndävana.
R. The explanation that those gopés whose breasts were suckled by Lord Kåñëa were of the same age as Mother Yaçodä, and the gopés with whom He performed Räsa Lélä were young is not satisfying to scholars. There is no such rule that only the gopés equal in age to Yaçodä had sons and not the young gopés.
Response: The response to R is combined with the response to S.
S. According to verse 10.5.23 Yaçodä gave birth to Kåñëa in her old age and even Lord Brahmä will not say all the gopés gave birth to children at the same age as Yaçodä. The cowherd boys were of the same age as Kåñëa and thus their mothers would have been young and it is highly improper that Kåñëa would engage in Rasa-lélä with them after drinking their breast milk. So vatsaharaëa lélä is spurious. Also, it is ludicrous that boys around five years old would feed on breast milk.
Response: Çréla Jéva Gosvämé explains in the Préti Sandarbha as well as in his Vaiñëava Toñaëé commentary on 10.29.6, that the gopés who danced with Kåñëa had no sons. He is not saying that all the gopés who had sons of Kåñëa's age were old like Yaçodä. He only wants to say that the gopés with whom Kåñëa engaged in conjugal pastimes were different from those whose milk He drank. Whether the gopés that nursed Kåñëa were elderly or young, is not the issue. When he says that they were of the same age as mother Yaçodä, he means that they were elderly. and not precisely the same age. This is explained in detail in Vaiñëava toñaëé. It is not ludicrous at all for five-year-old boys to drink breast milk, because these boys were Kåñëa Himself. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is acintya, inconcievable, in every respect. He does not have to conform to our conception of what ordinary boys do. He may act as an ordinary boy, but at any moment he can do something extraordinary. At age seven He lifted Govardhana hill. He performed räsa lélä with married gopés. Similarly, to please His devotees He may drink breast milk at age five. Actually, the milk He drank was love in liquid form. It is a medical fact that milk can appear in a woman's breast under certain extraordinary circumstances, such as during intense feelings of love. According to Çrémad Bhägavatam (4.9.50), when Dhruva Mahäräja returned home after his penances in Madhuvana and met his mother, Sunéti, the milk flowed from her breasts. Dhruva was already six years old at that time. Similarly, out of love for Kåñëa milk would flow from Yaçodä's breasts even when Kåñëa was past the age of drinking breast milk. (SB. 10.11.14,15):
Kåñëa and Balaräma, being attached to Their play, were playing with the other boys although it was very late. Therefore mother Yaçodä called Them back for lunch. Because of her ecstatic love and affection for Kåñëa and Balaräma, milk flowed form her breasts. (S.B.10.11.14)
"Mother Yaçodä said: My dear son Kåñëa, lotus eyed Kåñëa, come here and drink the milk of my breast. My dear darling, You must be very tired because of hunger and the fatigue of playing so long. There is no need to play any more" (S.B.10.11.15). According to Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé in the Bhakti Rasämåta Sindhu (3.4.45), flowing of breast milk is the ninth sättvika bhäva in vätsalya rasa.
These verses describe Lord Kåñëa's activities after the däma-bandhana-lélä. During this lélä Lord Kåñëa ran from Mother Yaçodä and she was unable to catch up. Certainly he was no longer a crawling baby, being fed on breast milk. So if it is possible for Mother Yaçodä to have breast milk, who was already advanced in age, then why not for younger gopés when Kåñëa came to them disguised as their sons.