78 Symphony of Commentaries

that Mahä-mäyä did so (this is quoted below). And according to the

Närada Paìcarätra, Mahä-mäyä is an aàça of Yoga-mäyä (quoted
in Jéva Gosvämé’s commentary on Brahma-saàhitä 5.3 and in
Särärtha-darçiné 10.1.25), whereas the Padma Puräëa affirms that
Mahä-nidrä is an aàça of Mahä-mäyä:

24
tato näräyaëéà mäyäà parameçaù samabravét ||

27-29
nanda-gopasya patnyäà tu yaçodäyäà sanätané |
taväàça-bhütä mahä-nidrä vindhyaà gatvä mahäcalam ||
tatra sampüjyamänä hi devair indra-purogamaiù |
hanyäd daityän mahä-véryäï çumbhäsura-purogamän ||
rudra uväca
tathety uktvä mahä-mäyä hiraëyäkña-sutäàs tadä |
paryäyeëa ca devakyäà ñaò-garbhän sannyaveçayat ||

“Rudra said: Then the Lord addressed Näräyaëé, who is Mäyä:

“The eternal Mahä-nidrä, your aàça, will take birth in Yaçodä, the
wife of Nanda the cowherd. Upon going to the Vindhya Mountains,
she, worshiped there by Indra and other gods, will kill very powerful
demons, the leader of whom is Çumbhäsura.” Mahä-mäyä replied
“All right” and placed the ñaò-garbhas, Hiraëyäkña’s sons, in
Devaké one after the other.” (Padma Puräëa 6.245.24-29)

Discrepancies in Bhägavatam

In like manner, the Bhägavatam contains contradictory statements

regarding the difference between matter and a transcendental entity
(esp. Bhagavän, bhakti, and Vaikuëöha). In Vedänta, the old-school
viewpoint is that transcendence is pure sattva, that is, sattva devoid
of rajas and tamas. Examples are shown:

(1)
açapan kupitä evaà yuväà väsaà na cärhathaù |

bhavanäntikam (Hari-vaàça 2.2.25-27).

 Appendix of Chapter Four 79

rajas-tamobhyäà rahite päda-müle madhudviñaù ||

“Thus checked by the doorkeepers Jaya and Vijaya, the four

Kumäras became enraged and cursed them: “You do not deserve
to live near the Lord’s feet, which are devoid of rajas and tamas.”
(7.1.38)26
(2)
nañöa-präyeñv abhadreñu nityaà bhägavata-sevayä |
bhagavaty uttama-çloke bhaktir bhavati naiñöhiké ||
tadä rajas-tamo-bhäväù käma-lobhädayaç ca ye |
ceta etair anäviddhaà sthitaà sattve prasédati ||

“When nearly all the bad karma has disappeared by means of

constant service to devotees and to Bhägavatam, devotional service
to Lord Uttamaçloka becomes firmly established. Then the mind,
untouched by impetuses of the nature of rajas and tamas such as
lust and greed, becomes fixed in sattva and develops serenity.” 
(1.2.18-19)
(3)
bhaktiù pravåttätma-rajas-tamopahä ||

“Bhakti, which dispels rajas and tamas in the mind, took place.”
(1.5.28)
(4)
yasyävayava-saàsthänaiù kalpito loka-vistaraù |
tad vai bhagavato rüpaà viçuddhaà sattvam ürjitam ||

“The expanse of planets is fancied as the locations of the limbs

of Garbhodaka-çäyé Viñëu. That form of the Lord is pure, potent
sattva.” (1.3.3)
(5)
pravartate yatra rajas tamas tayoù
sattvaà ca miçraà na ca käla-vikramaù |
na yatra mäyä kim utäpare harer
anuvratä yatra suräsurärcitäù ||

26  In that line of thought, many monistic Upaniñads state that Éçvara is
made of Mäyä.
80 Symphony of Commentaries

“In the spiritual world, there is neither rajas nor tamas, nor sattva
mixed with those two. There is no influence of Time. In that place,
Mäyä does not exist, much less any other material entity. Hari’s
followers are worshiped by gods and asuras.” (2.9.10)

Still, many other texts in Bhägavatam emphatically state that there

is no sattva-guëa in transcendence. For instance: harir hi nirguëaù
säkñät puruñaù prakåteù paraù, sa sarva-dåg upadrañöä taà bhajan
nirguëo bhavet, “Hari, the Puruña in person who is beyond Nature,
is devoid of the guëas. He sees everything and is the witness within
too. One who serves Him becomes transcendental” (10.88.5), and:
anädir ätmä puruño nirguëaù prakåteù paraù, “The Puruña, the Soul,
has no beginning, is devoid of the guëas and is beyond Nature”
(3.26.3). Pure bhakti is described in the same way:

lakñaëaà bhakti-yogasya nirguëasya hy udähåtam |

ahaituky avyavahitä yä bhaktiù puruñottame ||

“The definition of transcendental bhakti-yoga is stated: It is

devotional service to Puruñottama which is unconditional and
constant.” (3.29.12)

The above-mentioned discrepancies in philosophical viewpoints

have become the main source of discord between Mäyävädés and
Vaiñëavas, although both viewpoints are seen in this Vaiñëava
scripture. In his commentary on Bhagavad-gétä, Çrédhara Svämé
noted this contrast between the two factions:

nirguëopäsanasyaivaà sa-guëopäsanasya ca |
çreyaù katarad ity etan nirëetuà dvädaçodyamaù ||

“Which is better: The path of worshiping nirguëa Brahman or the

path of worshiping saguëa Bhagavän? The twelfth chapter aims at
finding the answer.” (Subodhiné 12.1)

Madhusüdana Sarasvaté agreed with this distinction,27 as did

27  tatraivaà sati mayä mumukñuëä kià niräkäram eva vastu cintanéyaà
kià vä säkäram iti svädhikära-niçcayäya saguëa-nirguëa-vidyayor viçeña-
 Appendix of Chapter Four 81

Vopadeva. According to him, the forms of the Puruña (the Avatäras)

consist of sattva-guëa with a trace of rajas and tamas, whereas
Viñëu’s form is made of sattva-guëa without any rajas or tamas.28
Jéva Gosvämé refuted Vopadeva and set forth the standpoint that
in Bhägavatam the word sattva is used in two ways, depending
on the context: açuddha-sattva (sattva-guëa) and çuddha-sattva
(transcendental existence).29

The Composition of Bhägavatam

The Bhägavatam is an ancient scripture. But in its present form it

was compiled after the third century BCE, because both Cäëakya
and King Dhana-Nanda are mentioned in the twelfth canto,30 and
the famous Candragupta of the Maurya dynasty is mentioned there
too.31

bubhutsayä arjuna uväca evam iti (Güòhärtha-dépikä 12.1).

28  taträdau viñëu-prakaraëam | tatra viñëor lakñaëaà bhedäç ca | “aham
eväsam evägre nänyad yat sad-asat param | paçcäd ahaà yad etac ca yo
’vaçiñyeta so ’smy aham” [Bhägavatam 2.9.33] ||6|| sa dvedhä niräkäraù
säkäraç ca | anavacchinnaà caitanyaà niräkäraù | sattävacchinnaà
caitanyaà säkäraù | sa ca caturdhä rajas-tamobhyäà yukte sattve puruñaù |
rajasä brahmä | tamasä rudraù || çuddhe viñëur eva | agocarasya gocaratve
hetuù prakåti-guëaù sattvam | gocarasya bahu-rüpatve rajaù | bahu-rüpasya
tirohitatve tamaù | tathä parasparam udäsénatve sattvam || upakäritve rajaù
apakäritve tamaù | (Muktä-phala 1.6-7). Hemädri comments: caturtham
äha­—çuddhe viñëur iti. çuddhe rajas-tamobhyäm aspåñöe sattve viñëur eva.
(Kaivalya-dépikä 1.7)
29  atra sattva-çabdena sva-prakäçatä-lakñaëa-svarüpa-çakti-våtti-
viçeña ucyate, “sattvaà viçuddhaà vasudeva-çabditaà, yad éyate tatra
pumän apävåtaù” [Bhägavatam 4.3.23] ity-ädy-udähariñyamäëänusärät,
agocarasya gocaratve hetuù prakåti-guëaù sattvam [Muktä-phala 1.7]
ity açuddha-sattva-lakñaëa-prasiddhy-anusäreëa tathä-bhüta-cic-chakti-
våtti-viçeñaù sattvam iti saìgati-läbhäc ca. tataç ca tasya svarüpa-çakti-
våttitvena svarüpätmataivety uktam, “tad abhayam ätma-sukham” iti.
(Bhagavat-sandarbha 10.12); atra tv apräkåta-viçuddha-sattva-hetutvaà
“sattvaà viçuddhaà vasudeva-çabditam” ity-ädeù. darçitaà cäsya
sattvasyäpräkåtatvaà bhagavat-sandarbhe (Préti-sandarbha 110).
30  nava nandän dvijaù kaçcit prapannän uddhariñyati | teñäà abhäve
jagatéà mauryä bhokñyanti vai kalau || (12.1.11). In their commentaries,
Çrédhara Svämé and Viçvanätha Cakravarté confirm that the Brähmaëa
mentioned here is Cäëakya, also known as Kauöilya.
31  sa eva candraguptaà vai dvijo räjye ’bhiñekñyati (12.1.12).
82 Symphony of Commentaries

Like many other Vedic scriptures, such as Rämäyaëa,

Mahäbhärata and Manu-småti, the Bhägavatam is most likely a recast
of an earlier version. For instance, the Rämäyaëa is a composite
work: The consensus is that parts of the the first chapter and of the
last chapter (seventh) are later additions. Based on this, the fourth
century BCE is generally accepted as the date of the composition of
Rämäyaëa.32 Similarly, the original Mahäbhärata was shorter than it
is nowadays. At the outset, Vyäsa says the work is called Bhärata.
He adds that he made both a detailed version and an abridged
version. On top of that, he says there are several variations of the
text.33 Nowadays it is well known that there are two recensions of
Mahäbhärata: Northern and Southern. Everyone uses the Northern
recension (the Pune Critical Edition), but the southern one contains
more details. The former has eighteen cantos (parvan), whereas the
latter has twenty-four. In addition, the mention of the Hunas in the
bhéñma-parva appears to imply that the redaction of Mahäbhärata
was still ongoing in 400 C.E.
All the ancient Vedic scriptures were preserved by memory for
generations until they were put in writing. Moreover, the Sanskrit
language evolved over the course of thousands of years. This is
obvious by looking at the differences between Vedic Sanskrit,
in which the Saàhitä portion of the Vedas were composed, and
Classical Sanskrit, in which the Upaniñads were written. The latter
were put on paper (birch bark, etc.) much later than the former.
Dr. Keith, a professor in Glasgow in the first half of the twentieth
century, expounds:

From the language of the Ågveda we can trace a steady

development to Classical Sanskrit, through the later
Saàhitäs and the Brähmaëas.34

32  http://www.britannica.com/topic/Ramayana-Indian-epic
33  vistéryaitan mahaj jïänam åñéù saìkñepam abravét | iñöaà hi viduñäà
loke samäsa-vyäsa-dhäraëam || manv-ädi bhärataà kecid ästikädi tathäpare
| tathoparicarädy anye vipräù samyag adhéyate || (Mahäbhärata 1.1.49-50).
34  Keith, A.B. (1956) [1920] History of Sanskrit Literature, London:
Oxford University Press, p. 4 (source: https://archive.org/details/
SanskritLiterature).
 Appendix of Chapter Four 83

It is, in point of fact, perfectly obvious that there is a steady

progress through the later Saàhitäs, the Brähmaëas, and
the Äraëyakas and Upaniñads, and that the Bhäñä, the
spoken language of Päëini’s grammar, is closely related to,
though not identical with, the language of the Brähmaëas
and the older Upaniñads.35

In the Viñëu Puräëa, for instance, the genitive absolute is often used in
the sense of the locative absolute, whereas in Bhägavatam this usage
is very rare (6.17.26; 8.4.5; 12.6.13; etc.). In other words, the genitive
absolute is used therein although disregard, ordained by rule,36 is
not implied. This usage of the genitive absolute is not covered by
Päëini’s grammar (450 BCE), not to mention subsequent grammars.
This suggests that the author or authors of Viñëu Puräëa preferred a
different system of grammar, one older than Päëini’s school, such as
the Aindra school, the archetype of Kätantra grammar (50 CE). The
Bhägavatam is the only other scripture to use the genitive absolute
in that way.
Most likely, the Bhägatavam contains many verses of an earlier
version which are in accordance with Advaita-vedänta. For example:
“They cross the ocean of material existence, leave the boat of Your
lotus feet on the shore and go” (10.2.31).37 The sense is jïänés
cease to practice devotional service after achieving self-realization.
Similarly, Jéva Gosvämé implicitly rejects a verse of Bhägavatam
by saying that it expounds Vivarta-väda (the world is an illusion).38
This also explains why Madhväcärya and Vallabhäcärya reject
chapters twelve to fourteen of the tenth canto, which contain traces
of Advaita-vedänta.
Thus, the Bhägavatam was written in stages. This is also implied
in the eleventh chapter of the tenth canto, where Çrédhara Svämé

35  Keith (1956) p. 4.

36  atränädare ñañöhé ca (Hari-nämämåta-vyäkaraëa 697); ñañöhé cänädare
(Añöädhyäyé 2.3.38).
37  svayaà samuttérya sudustaraà dyuman, bhavärëavaà bhémam
adabhra-sauhådäù | bhavat-padämbhoruha-nävam atra te, nidhäya yätäù
sad-anugraho bhavän || (Bhägavatam 10.2.31)
38  yataù yad eva “sämänya-viçeñäbhyäm upalabhyeta sa bhramaù”
[12.4.28] vivarta-väda eva (Krama-sandarbha 12.4.28).
84 Symphony of Commentaries

and Vallabhäcärya do not comment on verses ten to twenty because

they consider them to be interpolations.
It was shown above that the meaning of sattva can be confusing
in certain contexts. The same absence of clear distinction, in nature,
between the two types of life force in the body can be inferred. In
volume one, in the appendix of the second chapter, it was proven
from scripture that the body has two kinds of life force: natural and
supernatural. The latter is the vehicle of the soul and is dependent
on the volition of the soul. It can be activated in times of grave
danger and is sometimes viewed as a miraculous event.39 The
supernatural life force ‘transcends’ the ordinary life force. Yet it is
difficult to say whether the supernatural life force consists of sat-cid-
änanda or is simply a quintessential aspect of the natural life force.
In expounding the nature of a devotee’s spiritual body, Viçvanätha
Cakravarté wrote: tathaiva bhaktir mäyikän eva çabdädéàs tat-
karaëa-kartr-ädéàç cäsäräàçän eva jarayati, na tu säräàçän
bhagavat-sambandhinaù çabdädén präkåtäàs tad-indriyädéàç ca
jarayati “cakñuñaç cakñur uta çrotrasya çrotram” ity-ädi-çruteù. yair
eva bhaktänäà dehaù siddho bhavati.

“Similarly bhakti destroys only the material aspects of sound, touch,

color and shape, taste, and smell, the material senses and the material
presiding deities. Bhakti does not destroy the quintessential aspects,
which are connected to God, in light of the text beginning: cakñuñaç
cakñur uta çrotrasya çrotram, “God is the eye of the eye, the ear of
the ear” (Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 4.4.18). By the quintessential
aspects, a devotee’s spiritual body manifests.” (Särärtha-darçiné
3.25.33). Here the word präkåta (‘quintessential’) literally means
‘material’.

Furthermore, the question whether the body of Éçvara is nirguëa

or saguëa misses the point. Sometimes Rasa (relish) is material,
sometimes Rasa is purely spiritual, and sometimes spiritual Rasa is
evoked by some connection with matter. An example was shown
above. Here is another: On the battlefield of Kurukñetra, Kåñëa was
hit by Bhéñma’s arrows, and so His body exuded blood. Ultimately,

39  http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/09/us/idaho-boy-saves-dad-angels-
trnd/
 Appendix of Chapter Four 85

this increased Bhéñma’s love of God, because he was happy to see

Kåñëa attack him to save Arjuna (Bhägavatam 1.9.38).
All in all, the Bhägavatam is a mysterious scripture which
continues to fascinate. For example, it propounds the theory of
multiple universes: Nowadays, this theory is accepted by many
academics too, under names such as ‘parallel universes’. In addition,
in the fifth canto the Bhägavatam sets forth an amazing theory
regarding the relative movements of the Earth, sun and moon.
This theory explains the ecliptic and is known as the planisphere
interpretation. In Mysteries of the Sacred Universe, Richard L.
Thompson wrote:

“The Bhägavatam verse 5.22.8 says that the moon is 100,000

yojanas above the sun, and this is often taken as a highly
unscientific statement. However, it makes perfect sense
from the point of view of the planisphere interpretation.
The sun and the moon both require planes above the earth
plane, but this has nothing to do with their distances from
the earth globe.”

Moreover, the Bhägavatam propounds the concept of archetype:

Eternal people exist in the transcendental world, and a soul can
become one of them after this life. For example, Vasu, a god,
merged in Uddhava, an eternal associate of Lord Kåñëa (3.4.11-
12). It follows that everyone in the universe is a variation of the
corresponding archetype in other universes: Each parallel universe
has the same people in it, yet the soul in one character in one
universe is different from the soul in the same character in another
universe. Still, each parallel universe has its own specialty. Many
physicists, including Brian Greene (The Elegant Universe), believe
in the existence of parallel universes. Max Loughan, a physicist who
was a child prodigy, believes that we all have our counterparts in
each universe.40

���

40  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuH0gqxKaY (YouTube: “What

is God? According to 13 year old genius physicist – Max Loughan”)