Can Anyone Provide Me With A PDF Or Online Source For Reading The?

Can Anyone Provide Me With A PDF Or Online Source For Reading The?

I will comment on Shrimad Bhagwatam and its authenticity.I have cited the source so that you all can verify. I know that, “Bhagawatam” is a buzzword in today’s Hinduism. Every unintelligent scholar sings this book’s glories and quotes from it. But I’ve seen nobody so far who actually contemplated on its authenticity extensively. Bhagawatam is a Bogus scripture which was actually not composed by Vyasa. It is a work of some Vaishnavite scholar and attributed to Vyasa (Could be that his pen name was Vyasa). And Bhagawatam contains uncountable blunders out of which I’ve selected only a handful for my reasoning and analysis here. Bhagawatam contradicts Mahabharata in lot many places when it is NOT supposed to contradict. Mahabharata is ‘itihasa’, which means, ‘history’; and Mahabharata clearly states that Vyasa has compiled the mysteries of Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas also together with the story of Kuru dynasty and created this great ‘Bharata’. In Mahabharata Adi-Parva, let’s see how the rishies glorified Mahabharata. It clearly says that Mahabharata includes the subjects of other books (shastras). It also includes Puranas. Further it is stated that Puranas depend on Mahabharata as like as body depends on food for sustenance as stated below. This means that a Purana should solely depend on Mahabharata but in any case a Purana should not contradict Mahabharata since Mahabharata being itihasa it is more authoritative than Purana. ”asyākhyānasya viá¹£aye purāṇaṃ vartate dvijāឥ | antariká¹£asya viá¹£aye prajā iva caturvidhāឥ || kriyā guṇānāṃ sarveṣām idam ākhyānam āśrayaឥ | indriyāṇāṃ samastānāṃ citrā iva manaឥ kriyāឥ || anāśrityaitad ākhyānaṃ kathā bhuvi na vidyate | āhāram anapāśritya śarÄ«rasyeva dhāraṇam ||” (MBH 1.02.238-240) “O ye Brahman, as the four kinds of creatures (viviparous, oviparous, born of hot moisture and vegetables) are dependent on space for their existence, so the Puranas depend upon this history. As all the senses depend for their exercise upon the various modifications of the mind, so do all acts (ceremonials) and moral qualities depend upon this treatise. There is not a story current in the world but doth depend on this history, even as body upon the food it taketh“. Therefore it is very much clear that when a story exists in Mahabharata and same story exists in a Purana and both contradict each other, then Mahabharata being itihasa, and more authoritative than Puranas, it is Mahabharata’s story which needs to be accepted as true. and it’s the story of Purana which needs to be rejected, and not the vice versa. 1. Srimad Bhagawatam’s Objective is not original and Content is not Authentic. In fact, it would be again too harsh on my part to say that Bhagawatam is NOT an authentic scripture. But I would not try to hide the facts here. Bhagawatam is not authored by Vyasa contrary to everyone’s beliefs; the reasons behind doubting the authenticity of entire Bhagawatam as a scripture are as follows. The objective of ‘Harivamsa Purana’ which is a sequel to Mahabharata was that Vyasa felt that in his Mahabharata he could not cover the entire life of Lord Krishna and hence desired to create a separate appendix kind of book to talk only about Lord Krishna’s entire life. Therefore he authored ‘Harivamsa Purana’ which is a sequel of Mahabharata. We may call it as ‘Appendix to Mahabharata’. It is strange and funny to note that Bhagawatam also claims the same objective behind its authorship. Bhagawatam states that Vyasa remained sad after writing Mahabharata and Narada came and told him the reason for his sadness as – the gap of Krishna’s life history in Mahabharata’, and then Narada advised him to write a separate book for Krishna’s life history, and that’s how he wrote Bhagawatam. Narada comes and advises Vyasa as if Vyasa doesn’t know why he was sad. Does someone else need to tell the divine sage his own reason of unhappiness? Strange! Furthermore, Bhagawatam makes Krishna as the primal God and Vishnu as his expansion as shown below. “sattvaḿ rajas tama iti prakrÌ£ter guṇās tair | yuktahÌ£ parahÌ£ purusÌ£a eka ihāsya dhatte | sthity-ādaye hari-viriñci-hareti saḿjñāhÌ£ | śreyāḿsi tatra khalu sattva-tanor nrÌ£ṇāḿ syuhÌ£ |” (SB 1.2.23) “The transcendental Personality of Godhead is indirectly associated with the three modes of material nature, namely passion, goodness and ignorance, and just for the material world’s creation, maintenance and destruction He accepts the three qualitative forms of Brahmā, VisÌ£nÌ£u and Śiva. Of these three, all human beings can derive ultimate benefit from VisÌ£nÌ£u, the form of the quality of goodness”. Whereas Harivamsa is practical, realistic and correct to a large extent in its narration; and calls Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu. There are many references but I am quoting only one here. “devakyajanayadviShNuM yashodA tAM tu dArikAm | muhUrte.abhijiti prApte sArdharAtre vibhUShite |” (Harivamsa Purana 2.4.14) “In the midnight, at the auspicious time of abhijit, devakI, gave birth to viShNu and yashodA gave birth to a girl”. Even Mahabharata calls Krishna as a “Portion” of Narayana and Balarama a “portion” of Sesha. Mahabharata doesn’t agree with Krishna being the original godhead contrary to Bhagwatam’s exaggerated definitions. “yas tu nārāyaṇo nāma devadevaឥ sanātanaឥ | tasyāṃśo mānuá¹£eá¹£v āsÄ«d vāsudevaឥ pratāpavān | śeá¹£asyāṃśas tu nāgasya baladevo mahābalaឥ |” (MBH. 1.61.90-91) “And he, called Vasudeva, endued with great valour, was among men a portion of him called Narayana–the god of gods–eternal. And Valadeva of exceeding strength was a portion of the Naga, Sesha”. There are lot many differences and contradictions between Harivamsam and Bhagawatam. Harivamsa to a large extent matches with Mahabharata, and Bhagawatam differs from both these scriptures. It is foolish to consider that same author would write two books on same character (Krishna) describing his life story but with contradictory depictions. Secondly, Harivamsa Purana begins with salutations to Narayana, Nara and Saraswati and after that it pronounces “Jaya (Victory)”, then the narration starts as shown below. “nArAyaNaM namaskR^itya naraM caiva narottamam | devIM sarasvatIM chaiva tato jayamudIrayet |” (Harivamsa Purana 1.1) “Offering veneration to the almighty nArAyaNa; and to nara; and to nara-uttama; also thus to the goddess who edifies about them, namely goddess saraswati, let us enounce jaya“. This is the same original trademark style employed in Mahabharata by Vyasa. In Bhagawatam this style is totally missing and also, the verses of Bhagawatam seem too Vaishnavite in style of rendition. The style of Bhagawatam does not match the trademark style of Vyasa’s narration. So, definitely Bhagawatam is NOT a creation of Vyasa. Thirdly, Harivamsa Purana begins with a discussion among the Saunaka sages and their leader saint Suta. There Suta discourses his disciples the various Puranic stories and then describes the life history of Krishna. Interestingly (or rather surprisingly), we find Saunaka sages enquiring the same things to Suta in Bhagawatam, and in response to their queries, Suta tells them the life history of Krishna as narrated by Suka once upon a time to Parikshit. Wow! How can same set of disciples (Saunaka sages) encounter same queries (on Krishna’s life) about same god (Krishna) and enquire same preceptor (Suta) in two scriptures? And how can Suta narrate the same life history in two scriptures to the same audience? It is illogical to consider both the scriptures simultaneously as authentic; one of them needs to be rejected as a copy-cat, altered and bogus version. Had I been Suta, and if I would have been enquired on same subject by same disciples I would have simply asked them to refer to their previous notes taken by them while I narrated Harivamsa. How can people be so unrealistic in blindly accepting two versions on same character’s life (Krishna) with contradictory renderings? (Only Keshava knows!) 2. Parikshit didn’t undergo any discourse on Bhagawatam in reality! (Shocking? Yes, It’s a Fact!) Mahabharata details out the death episode of Parikshit in a very granular level, and from the sequences of Mahabharata it is clear that Bhagawatam cooked up the entire picture to gain an excuse to glorify Lord Krishna. Parikshit never underwent any discourse of Bhagawatam. We’ll see a comparative analysis now between Mahabharata and Bhagawatam. Parikshit’s death episode as narrated in Mahabharata Mahabharata says that, when Parikshit comes to know about the curse pronounced on him by the Sage’s son, he gets alarmed, becomes anxious and worried about his life and for self-protection builds a highly secured castle and cages himself inside that. He starts working on the state-affairs from inside the mansion but doesn’t come out of it. he attempts his level best to avert the death curse. His castle was so secure that literally even wind couldn’t enter inside without his permission. This is evident as per the following verses from Mahabharata. Read this below verse very carefully. “tatas taṃ preá¹£ayām āsa rājā gaura mukhaṃ tadā | bhÅ«yaឥ prasādaṃ bhagavān karotv iti mameti vai | tasmiṃś ca gatamātre vai rājā gaura mukhe tadā | mantribhir mantrayām āsa saha saṃvignamānasaឥ | niścitya mantribhiś caiva sahito mantratattvavit | prāsādaṃ kārayām āsa ekastambhaṃ suraká¹£itam | rakṣāṃ ca vidadhe tatra bhiá¹£ajaś cauá¹£adhāni ca | brāhmaṇān siddhamantrāṃś ca sarvato vai nyaveśayat | rājakāryāṇi tatrasthaឥ sarvāṇy evākaroc ca saឥ | mantribhiឥ sahadharmajñaឥ samantāt pariraká¹£itaឥ |” (MBH 1.38.26-30) “And then the king sent away Gaurmukha, saying, ‘Let the worshipful one (Samika) be gracious to me!’ And when Gaurmukha had gone away, the king, in great anxiety, without loss of time, consulted his ministers. And having consulted them, the king, himself wise in counsels, caused a mansion to be erected upon one solitary column. It was well-guarded day and night. And for its protection were placed there physicians and medicines, and Brahmanas skilled in mantras all around. And the monarch, protected on all sides, discharged his kingly duties from that place surrounded by his virtuous ministers. And no one could approach that best of kings there. The air even could not go there, being prevented from entering“. Inside that mansion where he confined himself; on the 7th day some snakes in the disguise of Brahmanas enter (with his permission) and offer him fruits and Kusa grass; Parikshit accepts the offer gladly and feels desirous of eating them. Note that Mahabharata doesn’t show him as doing fasting. “te taká¹£aka samādiṣṭās tathā cakrur bhujaṃgamāឥ | upaninyus tathā rājñe darbhān āpaឥ phalāni ca | tac ca sarvaṃ sa rājendraឥ pratijagrāha vÄ«ryavān | kṛtvā ca teṣāṃ kāryāṇi gamyatām ity uvāca tān | gateá¹£u teá¹£u nāgeá¹£u tāpasac chadma rÅ«piá¹£u | amātyān suhṛdaś caiva provāca sa narādhipaឥ | bhaká¹£ayantu bhavanto vai svādÅ«nÄ«māni sarvaśaឥ | tāpasair upanÄ«tāni phalāni sahitā mayā | tato rājā sasacivaឥ phalāny ādātum aicchata |” (MBH 1.39.25-29) “Sauti continued, ‘Those snakes, thus commanded by Takshaka, acted accordingly. And t took to the king, Kusa grass and water, and fruits. And that foremost of kings, of great prowess, accepted those offerings. And after their business was finished, he said upto them, ‘Retire.’ Then after those snakes disguised as ascetics had gone away,the king addressed his ministers and friends, saying, ‘Eat ye, with me, all these fruits of excellent taste brought by the ascetics.’ Impelled by Fate and the words of the Rishi, the king, with his ministers, felt the desire of eating those fruits“. Unfortunately the fruit which Parikshit was eating, contains a small insect (mighty Takshak in minute form), which takes its original form and bites (burns him) him to ashes. After Takshak kills Parikshit, the ministers crown his minor son “Janmejaya” as the King. This coronation happens after the death of Parikshit, note this point here. “tato nṛpe taká¹£aka tejasā hate; prayujya sarvāឥ paralokasatkriyāឥ | śucir dvijo rājapurohitas tadā; tathaiva te tasya nṛpasya mantriṇaឥ | nṛpaṃ śiśuṃ tasya sutaṃ pracakrire; sametya sarve puravāsino janāឥ | nṛpaṃ yam āhus tam amitraghātinaṃ; kurupravÄ«raṃ janamejayaṃ janāឥ |” (MBH 1.40.5-6) “And when the king was laid low by Takshaka’s poison, his councillors with the royal priest–a holy Brahmana–performed all his last rites. All the citizens, assembling together, made the minor son of the deceased monarch their king. And the people called their new king, that slayer of all enemies, that hero of the Kuru race, by the name ofJanamejaya“. These are the sequence of events described in Mahabharata. Now let’s see how contradictory is the depiction of Bhagawatam. Parikshit’s death episode as described in Bhagawatam On the contrary, the author of Bhagawatam who was not even the least educated in Mahabharata; tries to portray a saintly picture of Parikshit. Bhagawatam states that when Parikshit comes to know about the curse pronounced on him; he accepts that as a great news. Wow! “sa cintayann ittham athāśrÌ£nÌ£od yathā | munehÌ£ sutokto nirrÌ£tis taksÌ£akākhyahÌ£ | sa sādhu mene na cirenÌ£a taksÌ£akā-nalaḿ prasaktasya virakti-kāranÌ£am |” (SB. 1.19.4) “While the King was thus repenting, he received news of his imminent death, which would be due to the bite of a snake-bird, occasioned by the curse spoken by the sage’s son. The King accepted this as good news, for it would be the cause of his indifference toward worldly things”. And this fearless Parikshit doesn’t care about his death; he in fact becomes ready to accept it. So, he sits at the banks of Ganges. Here there is no castle built, no security employed. (Actually the author has built castles in the air, so what’s the need of any real castle?). “atho vihāyemam amuḿ ca lokaḿ | vimarśitau atayā purastāt | krÌ£sÌ£ṇāńghri-sevām adhimanyamāna | upāviśat prāyam amartya-nadyām |” (SB. 1.19.5) “Mahārāja ParÄ«ksÌ£it sat down firmly on the banks of the Ganges to concentrate his mind in KrÌ£sÌ£nÌ£a consciousness, rejecting all other practices of self-realization, because transcendental loving service to KrÌ£sÌ£nÌ£a is the greatest achievement, superseding all other methods”. Then a divine phenomenon happens and sages from various external universes come and assemble near him. And Parikshit speaks to them saying he would fast till death. On the contrary the Mahabharata doesn’t show him as observing fast. And then he requests them to sing the glories of Vishnu. “sukhopavisÌ£tÌ£esÌ£v atha tesÌ£u bhÅ«yahÌ£ | krÌ£ta-praṇāmahÌ£ sva-cikÄ«rsÌ£itaḿ yat | vijñāpayām āsa vivikta-cetā | upasthito ‘gre ‘bhigrÌ£hÄ«ta-pānÌ£ihÌ£ |” (SB. 1.19.12) “After all the rÌ£sÌ£is and others had seated themselves comfortably, the King, humbly standing before them with folded hands, told them of his decision to fast until death“. “taḿ mopayātaḿ pratiyantu viprā | gańgā ca devÄ« dhrÌ£ta-cittam īśe | dvijopasrÌ£sÌ£tÌ£ahÌ£ kuhakas taksÌ£ako vā | daśatv alaḿ gāyata visÌ£nÌ£u-gāthāhÌ£ |” (SB. 1.19.15) “O brāhmanÌ£as, just accept me as a completely surrendered soul, and let mother Ganges, the representative of the Lord, also accept me in that way, for I have already taken the lotus feet of the Lord into my heart. Let the snake-bird — or whatever magical thing the brāhmanÌ£a created — bite me at once. I only desire that you all continue singing the deeds of Lord VisÌ£nÌ£u“. Note here that, Parikshit says he had already coronated his son as the next King of Hastinapur. This is strange, Bhagawatam shows that after that accident (of getting cursed etc.) Parikshit was on his way returning home when he stops by the banks of Ganga. Then how come he would have coronated his son already as the next King? This is illogical and also contradictory to Mahabharata. “iti sma rājādhyavasāya-yuktahÌ£ | prācÄ«na-mÅ«lesÌ£u kuśesÌ£u dhÄ«rahÌ£ | udań-mukho daksÌ£inÌ£a-kÅ«la āste | samudra-patnyāhÌ£ sva-suta-nyasta-bhārahÌ£ |” (SB. 1.19.17) “In perfect self-control, Mahārāja ParÄ«ksÌ£it sat down on a seat of straw, with straw-roots facing the east, placed on the southern bank of the Ganges, and he himself faced the north. Just previously he had given charge of his kingdom over to his son“. Then Suka appears on the bank of Ganga and then the Failry tale (called Bhagawatam) discourse goes on till seven days (till his death). “tataś ca vahÌ£ prÌ£cchyam imaḿ viprÌ£cche | viśrabhya viprā iti krÌ£tyatāyām | sarvātmanā mriyamānÌ£aiś ca krÌ£tyaḿ | śuddhaḿ ca tatrāmṛśatābhiyuktāhÌ£ |” (SB. 1.19.24) “O trustworthy brāhmanÌ£as, I now ask you about my immediate duty. Please, after proper deliberation, tell me of the unalloyed duty of everyone in all circumstances, and specifically of those who are just about to die”. “tatrābhavad bhagavān vyāsa-putro | yadrÌ£cchayā gām atÌ£amāno ‘napeksÌ£ahÌ£ | alaksÌ£ya-lińgo nija-lābha-tusÌ£tÌ£o | vrÌ£taś ca bālair avadhÅ«ta-vesÌ£ahÌ£ |” (SB. 1.19.25) “At that moment there appeared the powerful son of Vyāsadeva (viz. Suka), who traveled over the earth disinterested and satisfied with himself. He did not manifest any symptoms of belonging to any social order or status of life. He was surrounded with women and children, and he dressed as if others had neglected him”. From the above episodes it is crystal clear that as per Mahabharata there is nothing like Bhagawatam discourse being heard by Parikshit. He had confined himself for self-protection; but Bhagawatam portrays a completely contradictory picture just to insert a fairy tale to glorify Krishna. It is clear that for some Vaishnava author it was tough to manipulate Mahabharata majorly to insert tales of false & hyperbolic glorification of Krishna. so he resorted to creating a new book altogether by name – Srimad Bhagawatam. But a close study of Mahabharata exposes all the blunders of this fake text viz. Srimad Bhagawatam. It is thus very clear that Bhagawatam is NOT one among the Puranas and could never be a work of Vyasa. 3. Blunders in Srimad Bhagawatam about its Source (Narrator) viz. Suka Bhagawatam is said to be narrated by sage “Suka” the son of Vyasa to Parikshit who was the grandson of Pandavas. This is again too far from reality. Sage Suka who was the son of Vyasa; his soul departed from his body and he got liberated (since he was a Jnani) well before even Parikshit was born. To put in common man’s words, Suka died long back itself when Bheeshma was alive. Bheeshma himself narrated that incident of departure of Suka’s soul to Yudhishthira. So, definitely it looks logical and reasonable to conclude that Vyasa’s son Suka was NOT the one who narrated Bhagawatam to Parikshit. Bhagawatam mentions about one Suka who had a daughter. So, definitely this Suka was not that original Suka of Vyasa who was a perfect celibate. Therefore sources of Bhagawatam are itself doubtful. Hence Bhagawatam is not a work of Vyasa; and since, it contains lot many stories which are contradictory to Mahabharata and Harivamsa, the