Re: [INDOLOGY] BhP 10.333.31 and the Bhāgavata Purāṇa's date

Fri Mar 24 04:02:35 UTC 2017

Suresh,

The interpretation of 10.33.31 should consider 10.33.29 through 10.33.34. (According to David Reigle, all these verses are in the critical edition, but in chapter 30 instead of 33.) The overall approach of these verses seems to consist of identifying three categories of beings less in status than Kṛṣṇa (īśvaras, devotees, and sages), stating each of them will not be adversely affected by any act of impropriety they engage in., and finally asking if they, beings inferior to Kṛṣṇa, can engage in such act, why couldn’t Kṛṣṇa, who is the Supreme Lord who has created everything? This is the justification of Kṛṣṇa’s actions during rāsalīlā.

Verses 10.33.29 through 10.33.32 speak of īśvaras.

In verse 10.33.29, we have multiple īśvaras and not one.

In verse 10.33.31, we have multiple īśvaras and not one. Also, these multiple īśvaras have said something which is said to be true.

These same īśvaras are free of ego (based on 10.33.32) and when these īśvaras’ act in violation of what is proper, they are not affected by their action.  

10.33.33 poses the comparative question: (if the above-discussed lesser beings are not bound by the propriety or impropriety of their action), how will the Lord (Kṛṣṇa) who has created everything be bound by such action? 

10.33.34 further compares the Lord against the devotees ('those who serve the dust at the Lord’s feet') and sages. (‘Those who serve the dust at the Lord’s feet’ reminds one of the Tamil word for devotees ‘aṭiyār’ meaning ‘ones who are at the feet’, which can mean devotees or servants or slaves. See DEDR 72.)

In my opinion, considering all these verses, Prabhupada’s characterization of the multiple īśvaras as “the Lord’s empowered servants” is not far off the mark. In fact, I consider it to be far better than the translation ‘gods’ by Tracy Coleman in her 2010 paper entitled, "Viraha-Bhakti and Strīdharma: Re-Reading the Story of Kṛṣṇa and the Gopīs in the Harivaṃśa and the Bhāgavata Purāṇa,” (JAOS, vol. 130, no. 3, pp. 385-412). 

Ironically, Tracy Coleman (p. 405) introduces 10.33.31 [which in her version is 10.33.32] saying, 

“Kṛṣṇa’s extraordinary behavior notwithstanding, in fact, the Bhāgavata stresses that one should never imitate his deeds (10.33.31), but rather embody his spoken position: 

	"The word of the gods is good, likewise their behavior on occasion. The wise one should therefore behave according to their decrees. (10.33.32)” 

Coleman's treatment of what the word of ‘the gods’ was supposed to be is not satisfactory. She has disregarded the plural in her own translation. It is as though she has interpreted Kṛṣṇa as one of 'the gods'. This goes against the spirit of the BhP, according to which Kṛṣṇa is not just one of the īśvaras but rather the Supreme Lord. 

The interpretation of muliple īśvaras as ‘the gods' also conflicts with the necessity of these īśvaras to be without ego.  After all, the gods are not exemplars of egoless persons in the Hindu tradition. For instance, Indra does not exactly act without ego in the Govardhana hill episode. In contrat, the extreme humility of the Āḷvārs revealed in their poems is very striking. The epitome of such a poem is Tiruvāymoḻi 3.7.10 in which the author says, “...we are the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants (of Viṣṇu).” (In fact, I think this is a critical diagnostic attribute in identifying the Āḷvārs as the īśvaras here.)

Thus, the requirements of (1) multiple īśvaras, (2) the īśvaras having said something considered to be true and (3) the īśvaras being without ego are all met by the interpretation of īśvara as āḷvār. The semantic equivalence of Sānskrit īśvara and Tamil āḷvār is very clear even independent of BhP.

The BhP verses discussed above will make sense when the multiple īśvaras are taken as referring to the multiple Āḷvārs and their word is taken as referring to the poems of the Tivviyappirapantam. The Āḷvārs also can be said to be without ego as revealed by their bhakti poetry.  The allusions to some improper actions by the Āḷvār/s may suggest that by the time of the composition of BhP some hagiographical stories might have been in circulation (without being written down) such as Tirumaṅkai engaging in robbery or Āṇṭāḷ wearing the garland before being offered to the deity.

That Prabhupada came close but not exactly to the right solution was probably because the real etymology of Āḷvār/Āḻvār was not known when he wrote the commentary.

The fact that the īśvaras are referred to in the plural suggests that the Āḷvārs have come to be recognized as a group by the time of the composition of this chapter. In my 2004 paper, I traced the sound variation of Āḷvar > Āḻvār in different regions of Tamil Nadu over time. BhP’s use of an equivalent of Āḷvār rather than Āḻvār suggests that the form Āḻvār had not been accepted as the standard form by the Vaiṣṇava tradition at that time. Interestingly, Nātamuṉi who is supposed to have compiled the Āḷvār (later Āḻvār) poems uses the form Āḷvār in his solitary stanza in praise of Maturakavi. By the beginning of the 11th century, the form Āḻvār has come to dominate in the inscriptions at Śrīraṅgam temple, which was the most important temple for Śrīvaiṣṇavism. This means that BhP (or at least this part of it) must have been composed before the end of the 10th century, if the inscriptional use also reflects the understanding of the Vaiṣṇava community. Clear evidence of the form Āḻvar occurs in the 12th century. It will be interesting if terms synonymous with īśvara are found in Sanskrit texts produced by persons like Yamunacārya to refer to devotees. 

Dennis Hudson’s argument that since the panels in the Vaikuṇṭapperumāḷ temple depict the episodes in the same order as BhP, BhP must have existed prior to the time of the temple (8th century) is not really valid. Vasudha Narayanan has shown that the sculptural evidence of Vāli churning the ocean of milk (not in the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa) occurs in Pattadakal in the 8th century well before being mentioned in any literary text in south India.

Regards,
Palaniappan

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Suresh Kolichala <suresh.kolichala at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Palaniappan,
> 
> Swami Prabhupāda's explanation of the word īśvara as 'Lord’s empowered servants' is pretty dubious here. 10.33.31 should be seen in the context of the original question (10.33.26-27) on how īśvara, the Lord of the Universe -- who is the the original speaker, the executor, and the protector of the laws -- could violate the same laws/rules.
> 
> SB 10.33.29:
> śrī-śuka uvāca
> dharma-vyatikramo dṛṣṭa
>  īśvarāṇāṁ ca sāhasam
> tejīyasāṁ na doṣāya
>  vahneḥ sarva-bhujo yathā
> 
> The answer is that  the status of īśvara is not harmed by any apparently audacious transgression of morality we may see in them, for they are just like fire, which devours everything fed into it and remains unpolluted (10.33.29).
> 
> SB 10.33.31
> īśvarāṇāṁ vacaḥ satyaṁ
>  tathaivācaritaṁ kvacit
> teṣāṁ yat sva-vaco-yuktaṁ
>  buddhimāṁs tat samācaret
> 
> The statements of the Lord are always true, and the acts they perform are exemplary when consistent with those statements. Therefore one who is intelligent should carry out those instructions.
> 
> There is no reason to doubt that īśvarāṇāṁ in 10.33.31 in any way refers to devotee or a servant of the Lord, and cannot make a case of any relationship with the Tamil āḷvār/āḻvār variation.
> 
> Regards,
> Suresh.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:
> Sorry, there was a typo in the subject line. It should have been BhP 10.33.31.
> 
> Regards,
> Palaniappan
> 
>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 12:16 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa at aol.com <mailto:Palaniappa at aol.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Scholars,
>> 
>> Yesterday, as I was browsing an online BhP text with translation published by ISKCON (https://ia801005.us.archive.org/28/items/SrimadBhagavatamEnglish-Sanskrit/Srimad-Bhagavatam_Canto_10_2.pdf <https://ia801005.us.archive.org/28/items/SrimadBhagavatamEnglish-Sanskrit/Srimad-Bhagavatam_Canto_10_2.pdf>), I came across the following verse.
>> 
>> īśvarāṇāṁ vacaḥ satyam
>> tathaivācaritaṁ kvacit
>> teṣāṁ yat sva-vaco-yuktaṁ
>> buddhimāṁs tat samācaret
>> 
>> In connection with this verse, the commentary says, “ The word īśvara is usually defined in Sanskrit dictionaries as “lord, master, ruler,” and also as "capable, potent to perform.”  Based on the commentaries for this verse and succeeding verses, it is clear that by the word ‘īśvara’ the text refers to a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. This usage of 'īśvara’ to refer to a devotee seems to be a clear case of translation of the Tamil word ‘āḷvār’ as used in Tamil texts and inscriptions. Synonyms of āḷvār are also used to refer to both the devotees and the deities in the Tamil tradition. For instance the deity in the temple at Tanjore is called Bṛhadīśvara in Sanskrit and Peruvuṭaiyār in Tamil. Here Sanskrit īśvara is synonymous with Tamil uṭaiyār. Interestingly, Rāmānuja is called Uṭaiyavar (an alternate form of Uṭaiyār) in the Tamil tradition. 
>> 
>> I had shown in an earlier publication that the word āḷvār meaning ‘one who rules’ got modified to āḻvār meaning ‘one who is immersed’ due to hypercorrection of ḷ to ḻ. (See http://www.academia.edu/9668394/Āḻvār_or_Nāyaṉār_The_Role_of_Sound_Variation_Hypercorrection_and_Folk_Etymology_in_Interpreting_the_Nature_of_Vaiṣṇava_Saint-Poets <http://www.academia.edu/9668394/%C4%80%E1%B8%BBv%C4%81r_or_N%C4%81ya%E1%B9%89%C4%81r_The_Role_of_Sound_Variation_Hypercorrection_and_Folk_Etymology_in_Interpreting_the_Nature_of_Vai%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87ava_Saint-Poets>) 
>> 
>> Can anybody with access to the critical edition of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa tell me if BhP 10.33.31 quoted above is in the critical edition? If it is, then this seems to be an important important information regarding the date of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Palaniappan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
> indology-owner at list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20170323/3f5934cf/attachment.htm>