Appendix 4
T. The statement that the girlfriends of Kåñëa were of the same age is also untenable because the Ädi Puräëa mentions that the young gopés desired to enjoy with Kåñëa, who was just a small boy.
U. The word aìganä means a young woman according to the Amarakoça. This word, aìganä or vräjäìganä, is used to indicate the gopés in various places in Çrémad Bhägavatam. Such usage defeats the argument that these gopés were of the same age as Yaçodä.
Then you say there is no contradiction between the statements in these chapters with the statements of Çrémad Bhägavatam in other chapters; rather these establish the glory of the devotees of the Lord and that this understanding is realized by the special favor of the Lord. Such ideas may be welcome to your friends and followers but we see many contradictions.
Response: The Ädi Puräëa may have such statements and may speak of a different kalpa but this is not the principle in Çrémad Bhägavatam. And even Ädi Puräëa only states that the young gopés desired to enjoy with baby Kåñëa, but it does not state that they enjoyed. Such a combination of five year old lover and grown up woman is counted as rasäbhäsa according to the sähitya çästra, which gives us the rules of poetics.
According to Sähitya darpaëa, a standard book on the theology of Rasa, if the rati (attachment) is existing only in one partner (alambana-vibhäva) that causes rasäbhäsa, a disturbance to the proper ebb and flow of transcendental mellows. Bahunäyaka viñayayam ratau tathänubhayaniñöhäyäm(S.D. 3.263). Hence if the grown up gopis were to enjoy conjugal love with child Kåñëa that would be improper. Their relationship is then marred with rasäbhäsa. According to Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu it is called vibhäva vairüpya, or improper combination of lovers (B.R.S 4.8.13). Rasikas, those expert in the matter of tasting rasa, such as Çukadeva Gosvämé, frown on such a possibility and there is no chance of such rasäbhäsa taking place in Çrémad Bhägavatam, which is glorified as the amala-puräëam, free from all defects (SB.12.13.18):
According to 1.1.3, rasikas are recommended to taste this rasa-çästra. Others, ignorant of the intricacies of rasa, may take pleasure in reading rasäbhäsa.
We have no objection to the interpretation of the word aìganä as young damsel, because Kåñëa did perform the räsa dance with such aìganäs or vräjäìganäs. When, however, the word aìganä is used in 10.8.24 for gopés, who witnessed the childhood pastimes of Kåñëa, it need not refer to only young gopés. Why would the elderly gopés not enjoy witnessing His bäla-lélä? Aìganä may also mean a woman in general, so the claim that it only means young women is not admissable.
The real meaning of aìganä is a woman with beautiful limbs. Praçastäni aìgani yasyaù sa aìganä (Rämäsvämé commentary on Amarkoça 3.6.5) By this definition, although Yaçoda is old, she is also aìganä as the beauty of Mother Yaçoda is depicted in verses 10.9.3 and 10. She is referred to as sumadhyama, or one with a beautiful waist. Thus Läl's objection that the gopés whose breast Kåñëa suckled could not be the senior gopés, because aìganä means young damsels, is refuted.
V. For example verse 10.12.29 describes that when Kåñëa entered the mouth of Aghäsura the demigods became unhappy and demons like Kaàsa became happy. By this it is inferred that Kaàsa also saw the killing of Aghäsura. Then the narration of the killing of these demons in verse 10.36.18 by Närada to Kaàsa seems inappropriate, because Kaàsa saw the killing of Äghäsura. This shows that the Twelfth Chapter of the Tenth Canto is not part of the Çrémad Bhägavatam, because it does not fit in properly.
Response: It would be inappropriate if Kaàsa enquired about it, but if Närada voluntarily narrates them then there is no contradiction. Närada Muni did not read Kaàsa's mind and then thought, "Wait a minute. He already knows about the killing of Aghäsura, having witnessed it, so I should not narrate it." Moreover, there is no proof that Kaàsa witnessed the killing of all the demons. And even if he witnessed all of them and even if Närada knew it there is nothing wrong in narrating them again because his purpose was to incite Kaàsa's anger so that he would call Kåñëa and Balaräma to Mathurä immediately.
Even if Kaàsa has not seen the killing of Aghäsura, he knew that Kåñëa killed the demons sent to Vraja. This is evident from the following verses.
"While Nanda Mahäräja was returning to Gokula, the same fierce Pütanä whom Kaàsa had previously engaged to kill babies was wandering about in the towns, cities, and villages, doing her nefarious duty. (SB.10.6.2)
"While the child was sitting on the ground, a demon named Tånävarta, who was a servant of Kaàsa's, came there as a whirlwind, at Kaàsa's instigation, and very easily carried the child away into the air." (SB.10.7.20)
He was sending the demons one after another and they were getting killed as is evident from the above verses.. Even if these three chapters are taken out of Çrémad Bhägavatam the objection raised by Läl still stands yet somehow he overlooked this fact out of zeal.
Moreover, the objection raised by Läl is baseless because the real meaning of the verse 10.12.29 is not that Kaàsa personally saw Lord Kåñëa entering the mouth of Aghäsura and felt elated. Rather the demons headed by Kaàsa, Kaàsädyaù, who witnessed this act felt jubilant or Kaàsa got the news through his spies and felt happy. Läl has also explained it in this very way while commenting on 10.12.29:
kaàsa ädirmukhyo niyantä yeñäm te kauëapäù kuëapäçinä räkñasästu jahåsurityanvayaù...cäraù sadyaù eva gatvä kathanät kaàsädé nämapi tajjïänamiti jïeyam.
W. Moreover Chapter Twelve, verses 26 and 27, describe that the Lord knew the cowherd boys were unknowingly entering the mouth of the great python Aghäsura and wanted to stop them. The Lord was surprised that they entered anyway and considered this to be an act of Fate.
X. This is entirely against the personality of the Lord who is the controller of fate and is called satya-saìkalpa, or one who has an unfailing will. If He has to marvel at fate then we should worship fate and not Kåñëa. Moreover, the devotees are controlled by the will of the Lord and not by fate. This has been established by an äcärya (Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarti Öhäkura) of your sampradäya in Mädhurya Kädambini.
Y. Verses 10.13.16 and 17 explain that after the calves and cowherd boys were stolen Lord Kåñëa did not understand what had happened to them. Later on He could understand the reality. This type of ignorance is not possible in Lord Kåñëa, who is called sarvajïa and sarvavit in the Vedas--the all-knowing person.
Response: The response to W, X, and Y is the same as D.
Z. Since you have disrespected the predecessor äcäryas there is absolutely no possibility that you have received even a drop of mercy of the Lord. Rather you are envious of both guru and Bhagavän. So to say that these pastimes are very confidential and that they are understood by the special mercy of the Lord is a foolish statement uttered out of excessive pride and befitting only people like you. Since Bopadeva accepts these chapters, he falls in the same class. The conclusion of the intelligentia is that only people with blind faith accept these chapters as part of Çrémad Bhägavatam.
Response: This is answered by the explanation under 'E'.
In this way we have given the answers in brief to the major objections, showing that Giridhara Läl's claims are unfounded. The purpose of our response to the essay written by Läl is not to belittle his exalted position as an äcärya in the Puñöi-märga sampradäya nor to discourage his followers. As a devout follower of Vallabhäcärya he did his duty by supporting his predecessor äcärya, but he went too far by directly criticising Çréla Jéva Gosvämé with sharp words. We feel, therefore, that it is our duty to answer him and leave the decision in the hands of the unbiased reader, because the philosophy of acintyabhedäbheda of Lord Caitanya is the essence of Çrémad Bhägavatam. We present a few more facts to make the matter more transparent.
As said earlier, all the objections can be divided in two classes, those based on internal contradiction and those based on tradition. All the internal contradictions have been resolved and some light was shed on the traditional acceptance.
Besides these, äcäryas like Çrédhara Svämé, Jéva Gosvämé, Sanätana Gosvämé, Viçvanätha Cakravarti, Baladeva vidyäbhüñaëa, Çukadeva, Bhagavat Prasadäcärya, Harisüri, Gangäsahäya, Gopälänanda muni, Çrédhar Svämé, Madhusüdana Sarasvati, Vaàçidhara, Hari Suri, Çrénätha Cakravarti, Kaçinätha Upädhyäya and so on accept these chapters as part of Çrémad Bhägavatam. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé lists the following commentaries, which are now lost, but which accepted the three chapters: Väsanä Bhäñya, Citçukhé, Sambandhokti, Vidvat-kämdhenu, Çuka Manoharä, Paramahaàsa Priyä of Bopadeva, Hanumad Bhäñya and so on. Comparing all these commentaries we see that most of the commentators have accepted the three chapters as authentic. Even among those who reject them most still commented on them. Though they all say the reason for their commenting is that the pastimes in the three chapters are popular, had they shown the courage of their conviction by not commenting they would have been more convincing.
So from the commentaries it is clear that most are in favor.
Çaìkaräcärya was a disciple of Govindapäda, who was a disciple of Gauòapäda. Gauòapäda wrote a commentary on Uttara Gétä, a book on yoga, besides other works. In his commentary he quotes 10.14.4 from one of the disputed chapters of the Çrémad bhägavatam. This indicates that he considered these chapters authoritative. In the Çaìkara sampradäya, he is considered a direct disciple of Çukadeva Gosvämé. If that has any weight then his opinion is most authoritative. Çaìkara himself accepted these pastimes as authentic. This is clear from his Govindäñöaka, Prabhoda Sudhäkara, and Sahasranäma Bhäñya. Citsukhäcärya came in Çaìkara's line and from his Citçukhé commentary on Çrémad Bhägavatam it is clear that he accepted these chapters. Çrédhara Svämé was also initiated in the Çaìkara sampradäya and he considered the Citçukhi authoritative. So the claim that he wrote just out of custom has no basis. And thus the acceptance by Bopadeva, the great scholar of Çrémad Bhägavatam, and follower of Çaìkara is not inadvertant.
The Gétä Press, Gorakhpura, India, is well known for printing authoritative editions of Bhagavad Gétä and Çrémad Bhägavatam. They make use of many manuscripts to bring out these editions. Any differences of readings are mentioned in the foot notes. They accept the three chapters. So is the case with editions from other publishers.
Traditionally, Çrémad Bhägavatam is recited for one week for material as well as spiritual gains. This practice comes from the Bhägavata Mähätmya mentioned in the Padma and Skanda Puräëas. In this one week recital a fixed number of chapters are recited each day. The number varies according to the purpose. All the standard recitation schedules accept 335 chapters. If 332 chapters are recited the participants do not get the desired benefit.
But the most crucial problem which critics like Läl have carefully avoided is the number of verses in the Bhägavatam. According to the Matsya, Viñëu, and Skanda Puräëas and the Närada Pancarätra, Çrémad Bhägavatam should have 18,000 verses. No one has any disagreement over this point. Gaìgäsahäya, the writer of Anvitärtha Prakäça counted all the words of Çrémad Bhägavatam including the üväca and chapter endings, added them up and divided it by 32 to convert the whole Çrémad Bhägavatam into Anuñöup verses. This is the standard way to count the number of verses. He did this thrice and his calculation was short by 1 and half verses. He included the three chapters and the seven verses in his calculation. somehow it may be possible to accomodate the shortage of one and half verses by comparing different editions, but if these chapters and the seven verses are removed the Bhägavatam will be short by about 210 anuñöup verses and there would be no way to compensate for this loss which would amount to more than one percent of the total length of the Bhägavatam.
Vallabhäcärya declared the three chapters and seven verses as spurious and gave some simple reason to substantiate his idea. But actually he commented on these chapters and accepted their popularity. He does not seem to seriously reject these chapters. It is his followers who have raised this as a great issue and written a great deal in its support. In this respect Giridhar himself is guilty of stepping over his founder äcärya of the çuddhadvaita sampradäya.
Our conclusion is substantiated by verses from Puruñottama-Sahasranäma composed by Vallabhäcärya. These names are composed based on the pastimes of the Lord, as narrated in Çrémad Bhägavatam. This is stated by the Vallabhäcärya himself.
"Lord Viñëu, the oldest person, or the person who is glorified by all the Puräëas is called Puruñottama. I will recite His 1000 names taken from Çrémad Bhägavatam." (Text 1)
"Lord Kåñëa has unlimited names because of His unlimited léläs. In Çrémad Bhägavatam these are mentioned directly and some times indirectly." (Text 3)
"Therefore I will recite these names of Lord Kåñëa, the enemy of the Mura demon, beginning from the First Canto."(Text 4)
While listing the names based on léläs in the Tenth Canto he writes the following names:
(verses 167-169)
Here he clearly mentions the names based on the pastimes in Chapters Twelve, Thriteen, and Fourteen, such as killer of Aghäsura, one who eats in the forest, liberator of the snake (Aghäsura), cause of Brahmä's delusion, who has unlimited forms (shown to Brahmä), brahmä mohanakartä, or he who bewilders lord Brahmä. Further, in concluding he writes the following verse:
"One whose heart is captivated by Lord Hari has extracted these names, which are like touchstone, from the ocean of Çrémad Bhägavatam." (Text 252)
So this is definite proof that even Vallabhäcärya was not convinced in his heart that these chapters are spurious. The dvaitavädis have reason to condone these chapters because they cannot fit them in their philosophy, but we see no reason why puñöi margéya äcäryas have let loose their wrath when these chapters have nothing contradictory to their philosophy except the personal liberation of Pütanä. Thus we suggest that the modern followers of Vallabhäcärya reconsider the issue with an unbiased mind.
Finally we would like to ask the following question. Who did the interpolation and when? No critic has furnished an answer to this. Indeed no one will ever be able to furnish one. Therefore with no substantial proof we have no reason to accept their claim that the three chapters and six verses are interpolations.
While it is convenient to brand anything incomprehensible as spurious, this is not a good idea. Especially in relation to the Bhägavatam, which is giving us the essence of knowledge regarding the name, fame, qualities, and pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
To drive home the final point we cite the following verses:
"O Pärvati, the beautiful Çrémad Bhägavatam has 18,000 verses and contains 335 chapters." (Gauri tantra, Bhägavata mahätmya 2.26). Here Lord Çiva explicitly states that Çrémad Bhägavatam has 335 chapters.
"O best of twiceborn listen to me about the chapters in each Canto of the Çrémad Bhägavatam. The First Canto has nineteen chapters; the Second, ten; the Third, thirty-three, the Fourth, thirty-one; the Fifth, twenty-six; the Sixth, nineteen; the Seventh, fifteen; the Eighth, twenty-four; the Ninth, twenty-four, the Tenth, ninety; the Eleventh, thirty-one; and the Twelfth, thirteen chapters. This totals 335.
The devotees of Kåñëa accept Çrémad Bhägavatam as non-different from Kåñëa. Any act of reducing or cutting any part of Çrémad Bhägavatam is comparable to the act of Jarä, the hunter, whose arrow pierced Kåñëa's heel. Rejecting any part of the Tenth Canto is even worse because according to the Padma Puräëa the Tenth Canto is not His heel, but the smiling face of Lord Kåñëa.