Validity of Srimad Bhagavatam

Several readers have queried us regarding a particular article written on the Bhagavata Purana, called “Bhagavata Purana Samiksha” - https://kamakotimandali.com/~kamakoti/misc/mahapurana.html. Here, the author seeks to establish that the Devi Bhagavatam is the “true Bhagavatam” and that Shrimad Bhagavatam is an Upapurana. It should be noted that Vedantins of all backgrounds have only admitted that the Shrimad Bhagavatam is the authentic text – any question of authenticity is decided by the acceptance among ancient Vedantins. To that effect, we have the following proofs:

1. Innumerable ancient commentaries on Shrimad Bhagavatam by Advaitins, Vishishtadvaitins and Dvaitins
2. Earliest reference being Shri Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar, who is part of the Sri Vaishnava guruparampara and lived between 1207-1307 CE, followed by Madhvacharya and Shri Vedanta Desikan (again a Sri Vaishnava Acharya). This proves that the text was previously quite popular. There are also opinions that Gaudapada has quoted the Bhagavatam, but we haven’t verified those claims
3. The Shrimad Bhagavatam is sAttvika in nature and aligned to the Shastras, while the Devi Bhagavatam contradicts the Shastras and is Tamasa. While that alone is not sufficient to rule out a text as not being among the 18 Puranas (since even Shiva Purana despite being Tamasa is among the 18), the fact that a text called “Bhagavatam” is highly celebrated in other Puranas suggests that it can only be a Sattvika work. 

So, there really is no need to address the claims of these people, this much is enough as proof. But to remove any doubts in the minds of those who wrote to us, we endeavor to answer these questions anyway. 

The Devi Bhagavatam is a minor Upapurana that might have seen additions to it in recent times. It is only quoted by modern day Shaivas/Shaktas.

The Validity of the Shrimad Bhagavatam

“PP” stands for Purvapaksha and is a quote from the Shakta article (- https://kamakotimandali.com/~kamakoti/misc/mahapurana.html). “SD” stands for Siddhantha and is our answer.

PP: Two purANas are known popularly as bhAgavata: viShNu bhAgavata purANa and devI bhAgavata purANa. Traditional scholars have different opinion regarding which of the two can be considered as a mahApurANa. The goal of this post is to present before the discerning reader, various views that exist in this regard.

SD: Only one purāṇa is “popularly” known as “bhāgavata” and that is the sāttvika purāṇa which praises Vishnu and has numerous commentaries. Just as “sahasranāma” denotes only Vishnu sahasranāma, “gIta” denotes only bhagavad gīta, “bhāgavata” or “srimad bhāgavata” denotes only what you call “Vishnu bhāgavata”. Thus, it is futile to claim that devī bhāgavata ever enjoyed a superior or equal status, considering even genuine tāmasa purāṇās like the shiva purāṇa cannot match the sāttvika purāṇas. 

In fact, we challenge our opponent to show us any ancient work using the term “ Vishnu Bhāgavata”. Everywhere, “bhāgavata” denotes only Srimad Bhāgavatam, even in the texts themselves.

“Traditional scholars” have all commented on Srimad Bhāgavatam and hence, there exists no difference of opinions. This is admitted by the Purvapakshin himself later on, so it is an outright lie to claim such a debate exists.

Furthermore, the criterion of a mahāpurāṇa to be eligible for liberation is spelled out in the Bhāgavatam itself as follows. It cannot be argued that this criterion cannot be accepted because it is in the book subject to debate. Because the Bhāgavatam has been commented upon by all great vedAntins like Shridhara, Viraraghavacharya, Vijayadhvaja Tirtha and the goswamis of the gaudiya tradition.  There is no debate regarding its authenticity at all other than in the minds of Vishnu-Dveshis. Whereas, the devī bhāgavata is untouched by anyone except modern day shaivas and shaktas.

atra sargo visargaś ca sthānaṁ poṣaṇam ūtayaḥ manvantareśānukathā nirodho muktir āśrayaḥ (~bhAgavata 2.10.1)

Where “manvantareśānukathā” – “manvantara kaṭhanam iṣvaraceśtitha kaṭhanam” - The stories regarding the leelas of the Supreme Ruler is a criterion for a purāṇa to be classified as a “mahāpurāṇa”.

According to the Subalopanishad – “iṣa sarvabhūtāntarātma apahatapāpma divyo deva eko nārāyaṇa:”– the Supreme Ruler is Narayana alone. Thus, the tāmasa purāṇas which describes stories of rudra, devi, skanda, etc who are not “Isa”, are not mahāpurāṇās that confer liberation, whereas the purāṇās describing the leelas of Hari (janma karmaṇi ca me divyaṃ) alone are mahāpurāṇās that confer liberation. By this, the devī bhāgavata is already ruled out as a mahāpurāṇa.

Of course, there are pancha lakśaṇās that determine a purāṇa to be different to an Akhyana. But on account of failing the criterion of “eśānukathā” by talking about those who are not Ishvaras, none of the tāmasa purāṇās like Shiva, Linga etc are “mahāpurāṇās”. If they are called so, sometimes, it is to differentiate them from an “upapurāṇa” but not to hint they have any mahatva or mahima.

PP:  The lakShaNa for bhAgavata that is regarded as a mahApurANa, is described in mastya purANa as below:

yatAdhikR^itya gAyatrIM varNyate dharmavistaraH | vR^itrAsuravadhopetaM tadbhAgavatamuchyate ||sArasvatasya kalpasya madhye ye syurnarAmarAH | tadvR^ittAntodbhavaM loke tadbhAgavatamuchyate | aShTAdashasahasrANi purANaM tatprakIrtitam ||

The padma purANa describes bhAgavata mahApurANa as below:

purANeShu cha sarveShu ShrimadbhAgavataM param | yatra pratipado kR^iShNo gIyate bahudarshibhiH || ShrimadbhAgavataM shAstraM kalau kR^iShNena bhAShitam | parIkShite kathAM vaktuM sabhAyAM saMsthite shuke ||

It is clear that the reference here is to viShNu bhAgavata purANa.

SD: “Yes, it is clear. Nonetheless, as we possess hatred of Vishnu, we cannot accept it and therefore will try to prove a tāmasa śāstra like devī bhāgavataṃ is higher than a pristine, lofty purāṇa like the Srimad Bhāgavataṃ.” – This is the thinking of the author.

PP: nArada purANa describes briefly, the content of the bhAgavata purANa:

marIche shr^iNu vakShyAmi vedavyAsena yatkR^itam | ShrimadbhAgavataM nAma purANaM brahmasammitam || tadaShTAdasahsAhasraM kIrtitaM pApanAshanam | surapAdaparUpo.ayaM skandhairdvAdashabhiryutaH || tatra tu prathame skandhe sUtarShINAM samAgamaH | vyAsasya charitaM punyaM pANDavanAM tathaiva cha || pArIkShitamupAkhyAnamitIdaM samudAhR^itam | parIkShicChukasamvAde sUtidvayanirUpaNam || brahmanAradasaMvAdo.avatAracharitAmR^itam || purANalakShNaM chaiva sR^iShTikAraNasambhavaH | dvitIyo.ayaM samuditaH skandho vyAsena dhImatA || charitaM vidurasyAtha maitreyeNAsya sa~NgamaH | sR^iShTiprakaraNaM pashchAdbrahmaNaH paramAtmanaH || kApilaM sAmkhyamapyatra tR^itIyo.ayamudAhR^itaH || etc.

viShNu bhAgavata fits the description laid out in all these three purANas. Moreover, the list of chapters detailed by devarShi nArada fits the list of chapters in viShNu bhAgavata.

SD: Yes, it does. Hence, there is really no scope for debate.

PP: Padma purANa describes sAtvika purANas and only viShnu-para purANas are listed here:

vaiShNavaM nAradIyaM cha tathA bhAgavataM shubham | gAruDaM cha tathA pAdmaM vArAhaM shubhadarshane | sAtvikAni purANAni vij~neyAni shubhAni vai ||

Based on this, it seems that bhAgavata considered as the mahApurANa is viShNu para.

SD: Indeed, it is so. And perhaps it leads to the (correct) conclusion that “Vishnu para” alone is the criterion for determining sāttvika character.

PP:  However, matsya purANa, while describing the lakShaNa of bhAgavata, speaks of sArasvata kalpa, which is not discussed in viShNu bhAgavata. The vivR^iti is of pAdma kalpa in bhAgavata as the verse says:

pAdmaM kalpamatho shR^iNu |

The description of the exact kalpa has been considered to be of great importance by vidvAns as the list of aShTAdasha purANas does not remain same in all the kalpas. 

SD: Who are these Vidvāns who give importance to kalpas anyway? Notice how the author hides under cover of “traditional scholars” or “vidvans” without even naming them. Nice way to give a sense of false authenticity to his arguments.

Now, with respect to the discrepancy in kalpas,  the pādma and sārasvata kalpas are one and the same. How? Because the pādma kalpa is named so because it involves creation of the Universe through  the lotus emanating from the Lord’s navel. Thus, it is appropriate to call it “sārasvata” since “sārasvata” is a name of Brahmā, who in turn is closely associated with the Universal lotus.

“sārasvata” has two meanings:

1. Brahmā, associated with Sarasvatī.
2. Brahmā, associated with Speech which is the Veda.

Why refer to pādma kalpa as sārasvata specifically? It could also be called Hiranyagarbha kalpa or something, can it not? The reason is because “Sarasvat”, be it the Vedas or Sarasvatī herself, are instrumental for creation happening through Brahmā. The latter cannot create without the knowledge of the Vedas, which he chants via Sarasvatī taking residence on his tongue. 

The Mahābhārata (Sānti Parva) highlights the importance of “sarasvat” in creation as follows:

sa evam ukto vimukhaś cintā vyākulamānasaḥ pranamya varadaṃ devam uvāca harim īśvaram

kā śaktir mama deveśa prajāḥ sraṣṭuṃ namo 'stu te  aprajñāvān ahaṃ deva vidhatsva yad anantaram

Meaning: (Brahmā said to Hari): I bow to you, O Lord who bestows boons, but I ask what strength have I to create diverse creatures? I have no knowledge. You ordain what should be ordained in view of this.

sa eva m ukto bhagavān bhūtvāthāntar hitas tataḥ  cintayām āsa deveśo buddhiṃ buddhimatāṃ varaḥ

Meaning: Thus addressed by Brahmā, the Lord of the universe, viz., Nārāyaṇa, disappeared there and then from Brahma's sight. The Supreme Lord, the chief of those endowed with intelligence, then began to think.

svarūpiṇī tato buddhir upatasthe hariṃ prabhum yogena caināṃ niryogaḥ svayaṃ niyuyuje tadā

Meaning: The Goddess of Intelligence forthwith made her appearance before the Master of all, Nārāyaṇa who then, by dint of his supreme will, yoked the Goddess of Intelligence properly (to her duties).

sa tām aiśvaryayogasthāṃ buddhiṃ śaktimatīṃ satīm uvāca vacanaṃ devo buddhiṃ vai prabhur avyayaḥ brahmāṇaṃ praviśasveti lokasṛṣṭy arthasiddhaye tatas tam īśvarādiṣṭā buddhiḥ kṣipraṃ viveśa sā athainaṃ buddhisaṃyuktaṃ punaḥ sa dadṛśe hariḥ bhūyaś cainaṃ vacaḥ prāha sṛjemā vividhāḥ prajāḥ evam uktvā sa bhagavāṃs tatraivāntaradhīyata

Meaning: The immutable Lord of all (Hari), addressing the Goddess of Intelligence who was endued with power and goodness and being united with prosperity (of the form of knowledge), said to her these words:--For the accomplishment of the task of creating all the worlds, you enter into Brahmā. Commanded thus by the Supreme Lord, Intelligence forthwith entered Brahmā. When Hari beheld that Brahmā had become united with Intelligence. He once more addressed him, saying--Create diverse kinds of creatures. And Nārāyaṇa disappeared from Brahma’s presence.

To highlight the importance of this, the pādma kalpa has been called as sārasvata kalpa here. The Universal Lotus is associated with Brahmā, who is called Sārasvata on account of his association with the Vedas or Sarasvatī (who confers his ability to chant the Vedas). Either the Vedas or Sarasvatī can be inferred by the term as Brahmā is associated with both, it doesn’t matter which.

PP: Now, one should examine the following verse from shiva purANa:

bhagavatyAshcha durgAyAshcharitaM yatra vidyate |tattu bhAgavataM proktaM na tu devIpurANakam ||

The work which describes the charita of bhagavatI durgA, that indeed is the purANa famous as bhAgavata and that is not devI purANa. The reference here is explicitly to devI bhAgavata.

SD: This can indeed be taken as referring to the srimad bhāgavataṃ. For the “story of durga” which should be one that – 1) accurately depicts her status as a subordinate of the Lord, 2) describes her greatness as it is in reality (a powerful devi, subject to Narayana) and not an exaggeration to elevate her to supremacy.

The highest glorification of durga occurs only in the srimad bhāgavataṃ vide the following:

kātyāyani mahā-māye mahā-yoginy adhīśvari nanda-gopa-sutaṁ devi patiṁ me kuru te namaḥ

iti mantraṁ japantyas tāḥpūjāṁ cakruḥ kumārikāḥ (~Srimad Bhāgavatam 10.22.4)

Here, the gopīs performed the kātyāyani vrata and worshipped Durga for attaining Krishna. The rāsa-leela is the single greatest sport of Lord Krishna and thus Durga has acquired the mahima of being associated with the gopīs, who are bhāgavatas, and of assisting them in their endeavors to attain the Lord.

Durga also helped Krishna by warning Kamsa as we all know.

In addition, durga’s association with the Lord is further spelled out:

iti prabhāṣya taṁ devī māyā bhagavatī bhuvi bahu-nāma-niketeṣu bahu-nāmā babhūva ha (~Srimad Bhāgavatam 10.4.29)

nāmadheyāni kurvanti sthānāni ca narā bhuvi durgeti bhadrakālīti vijayā vaiṣṇavīti ca

kumudā caṇḍikā kṛṣṇā mādhavī kanyaketi ca māyā nārāyaṇīśānī śāradety ambiketi ca (~Srimad Bhāgavatam 10.2-11-12)

Durga attained all her glory only by her services to the Lord. 

This, above everything else, is the “durgāyāścaritaṃ” that is most important. Not the various tāmasa stories that falsely paint durga as supreme, but her birth as the sister of Krishna, her aiding the Lord by warning Kamsa and also her assistance to the gopīs. Because she derives her present status from those acts.

Now, the pūrvapakṣin may question, “But why specifically highlight Durga? The shloka could have simply said, “krśṇayāścaritaṃ” instead. The answer is very beautiful – When you consider the fact that it was Yoga-Maya who heralded the avatāra of the Lord and warned Kamsa, and it was to her that the gopīs prayed for union with Vishnu, the whole of Krishna-leela from the birth of the Lord to him giving moksha to the gopIs can be named as “durgāyāścaritaṃ” – the story relating to Durga – in honor of this Devi for her services to the Lord and his devotees. 

Similarly, even srimad rāmāyaṇa is referred to by vālmiki as “sītayaḥ caritaṃ mahat”. So, it is an honor granted to Durga. The Lord likes giving recognition to his devotees, be it Sita or Durga.

Thus, there is no contradiction in that shiva purāṇa shloka.

PP: Another interesting pramANa to refer to would be that of devIyAmaLa, quoted by bhAskararAya:

ShrimadbhAgavataM nAma purANaM vedasammitam |

pArIkshitAyopadiShTaM satyavatya~NgajanmanA ||

yatra devyavatArAshcha bahavaH pratipAditAH |

idaM rahasyaM charitaM rAdhopAsanamuttamam ||

vyAsAya mama bhaktAya proktaM pUrvaM mayAdrije |

matto rahasyaM j~nAtvaiva rAdhopAsanamuttamam ||

etasya vistaraM chakre ShrimadbhAgavate tathA |

nArade brahmavaivarte lokAnAM hitakAmyayA ||

The various rUpaviSheshas of ambA as well as the mAhAtmya of rAseshvarI rAdhikA, esoterically referred to as parAShriH in UrdhvAmnAya, are discussed only in devI bhAgavata.

SD: Deviyāmala is not a Vaidika text and thus is not authentic. Hence, what it says is of no concern. If the author wants credibility from a Vedantic standpoint, he should quote texts not opposed to the Vedanta systems.

PP: chitsukhAchArya, in his bhAgavata kathA saMgraha, quotes the following verse from brahmavaivarta:

grantho.aShTAdasha sAhasro dvAdashaskandhasammitaH | hayagrIvabrahmavidyA yatra vR^itravadhastathA || gAyatryA cha samArambhastadvai bhAgavataM viduH ||

SD: And Sridhara, the disciple of Citshuka, has commented on Srimad Bhāgavataṃ only. So, not difficult to gauge which Bhāgavataṃ Citshuka meant.

PP: devI bhAgavata starts with the verse:

sarvachaitanyarUpAM tAmAdyAM vidyAM cha dhImahi || buddhiM yA naH prachodayAt ||

viShNu bhAgavata contains the following verse in the very first chapter:

dhAmnA svena sadA nirastakuhakaM satyaM paraM dhImahi ||

Of the two, the verse from devI bhAgavata fits the lakShaNa, gAyatryA cha samArambhaH, better. Both purANas detail the episode of the killing of vR^itrAsura. Also, while viShNu bhAgavata mentions hayagrIva, the episode of brahmavidyAlAbha by hayagrIva is discussed only in devI bhAgavata. Some trace hayagrIva mantra in the fifth skandha of viShNu bhAgavata and interpret this verse as referring to that mantra. But that does not seem applicable here as the reference is to vidyA, which is strImantrapara and not mantra:

antra puMdevatA proktAH vidyAH strIdevatAH smR^itAH ||

Based on these, the above lakShaNa seems to fit devI bhAgavata alone.

SD: The author has completely misunderstood what “hayagrīva brahmavidyā” is. Firstly, “vidyā” here means knowledge (brahmavidya that is upāsaṇa or bhakti-yoga) and not “strImantra”. Secondly, the “hayagrīva” here is the rishi Dadichi who is described in the Upanishads to have gained the head of a horse and instructed the devas on Brahma-Vidya. 

Sa vā adhigato dadhyaṅṅ aśvibhyāṁ brahma niṣkalam yad vā aśvaśiro nāma tayor amaratāṁ vyadhāt (~bhāgavataṃ 6.9.52)

Note the reference to “ashvasira” and “brahma nishkalam” here. The significance of “vritrasura vadha” has more to do with this than a tāmasa story of Devi helping Indra. The reason why “vritrasura vadha” is connected with Dadichi getting the head of a horse is specified by referring to the Pravargya ceremony in the Vedas - The story of a devata (Rudra) getting beheaded and the story of Dadhyangatharvana is not related to the pravargya ceremony in any manner, but is mentioned in the context of the ceremony on account of the similarity of the fixing of the head. Meaning, this devata lost his head and was revived again, just as Dadhyangatharvana lost his head and was revived, and knowing this would foster a remembrance of the meaning of the pravargya which involves removing the head of the sacrifice.

Similarly, the story of Vritrasura is mentioned along with the story of Dadichi (Hayagriva) on account of both involving beheadings. It is one of the nyāyās used by śāstra to foster rememberance.

The gāyatri lakṣaṇa fits the bhāgavataṃ alone. We shall get to that shortly. At this point, we will say this – the gāyatri has Parabrahman Sriman Narayana as its’ import. Any other meaning given to the gāyatri is not a correct explanation of gāyatri and so, the mere reference to gāyatri in the devi bhāgavata does not qualify as a settlement of the criterion.

PP: We spoke earlier of sArasvata kalpa, which is described as below in the nAgarakhaNDa of skanda purANa:

sArasvatastu dvAdashyAM shuklAyAM phAlgunasya cha ||

This means that the avirbhAva of sArasvata kalpa was in the month of phAlguna, on shukla dvAdashI.

The following verse describes AvirbhAva of parameshvarI on this very same tithi for the sake of slaying madhu and kaiTabha:

brahmaNA samstutA seyaM madhukaiTabhanAshane | mahAvidyA jagaddhAtrI sarvavidyAdhidevatA |

dvAdashyAM phalgunasyaiva shuklAyAM samabhUnnR^ipa ||

As both brahmastuti and vadha of madhu kaitabha are described in devI bhAgavata, it is easier to associate this purANa with sArasvata kalpa than viShNu bhAgavata. Moreover, sArasvata kalpa is associated with mahimAdarshana of sarasvatI as indicated by the following verse:

sAtvikeShu cha kalpeShu mAhAtmyamadhikaM hareH | rAjaseShu cha kalpeShu mAhAtmyaM brahmaNo viduH ||tadvadagneshcha mAhAtmyaM tAmaseShu shivasya cha | sa~NkIrNe cha sarasvatyAH pitR^INAM cha nigadyate || [mAtsye]

Moreover, the material in viShNu bhAgavata, which is referred to as pAramahamsya samhitA, is aimed at paramahamsAdayaH, as described by Shridhara svAmin. Whereas the bhAgavata we talk of as mahApurANa is associated with sArasvata kalpa, which is described as sa~NkIrNeShu sarasvatyA, which certainly does not go with the description of pAramahamsya samhitA.

SD: The issue of the kalpās has already been dispelled. The pādma kalpa is the sārasvata kalpa.

Madhu-kaitabha vadhā, brahmastuti etc as described in the Devi Bhāgavata are tāmasa and thus not fit to bear the name of “Srimad” prefix. These incidents did not happen, as Devi is not supreme and did not kill Madhu or Kaitabha. The ithihāsās and sāttvika purāṇās are clear that it is Vishnu who is supreme and that he killed the asurAs. 

PP: The reason why confusion prevails as to which among these is mahApurANa is the following verse, which lists upapurANas, and it lists an upapurANa named bhAgavata:

AdyaM sanatkumAroktaM nArasimhamataH param | parAsharoktaM pravaraM tathA bhAgavatAhvayam ||

In various works such as sarvashAstrArtha sa~Ngraha of madhusUdana sarasvatI, durjanamukhachapeTikA of rAmAshrama, nibandha of nAgojI bhaTTa, durjanamukhapadmapAdukA, bhAvatasvarUpa viShayasha~NkA nirAsha of puruShottama and other works, based on padma purANa, vishNu bhAgavata has been declared as mahApurANa and devI bhAgavata as the upapurANa. However, the confusion regarding the status of mahApurANa is not new as Shridhara svAmin, in his commentary on viShNu bhAgavata clarifies:

bhAgavatanAmAnyadityapi nAsha~NkanIyam ||

SD: So, basically all the Acharyas of the advaita tradition and others have declared the bhAgavataM as a mahāpurāṇa, but the author tries to refute them. This itself establishes that the argument of the author is unvedic and has no standing.

Even were Sridhara admitting some form of ambiguity by the above quote, which he is not, by commenting on the Srimad Bhagavatam, he has clarified what his opinion is. That should be evident.

PP: He also indicates the number of adhyAyas as 332: dvAtrimshattrishataM cha yasya vilasat |

kAshinAtha, in his work durjanamukhamhAchapeTikA, quotes the following verse:

skandhA dvAdasha evAtra kR^ishNena vihitAH shubhAH | dvAtrimshattrishataM pUrNamadhyAyAH parikIrtitAH ||

In this grantha of kR^iShNa dvaipAyana, there are 12 skandhas and 332 adhyAyas. Based on this adhyAya saMkhyA, viShNu bhAgavata has been declared as mahApurANa by some authorities. devI bhAgavata consists of 318 adhyAyas:

trishataM pUrNamadhyAyA aShTAdashayutAH smR^itAH ||

SD: “But we shall nonetheless try to find a contradiction where none exists” – so goes the mentality of this author.

PP: The following is described regarding the origin of bhAgavata purANa, in the purANa itself: bhagavAn vyAsa classified the Veda, compiled the fifth veda which was the group of all itihAsas and purANas, and for the sake of women and patita brAhmaNAdikas, composed the mahAbhArata. But these did not grant him satisfaction. Based on an advice from sage nArada, vyAsa authored viShNu bhAgavata, which details harikathAmr^ita, and attained parama tR^ipti. Based on this story, this purANa was composed after other purANas and itihAshas. However, other purANas, while listing the mahApurANas, list bhAgavata as the fifth purANa. This has encouraged the view that the mahApurANa is indeed devI bhAgavata.

SD: That statement about the fifth Veda does not mean the Bhāgavatam is not included in it. It is merely an introductory statement for Vyasa saying he compiled the Vedas and authored the fifth Veda consisting of all īthihāsās and purāṇās, which also includes Bhāgavatam. Once the Bhāgavatam is composed, it becomes part of the fifth veda canon as well.  It is a very general assertion to highlight who Vyāsa is.

Be that as it may. To the other contention – “The other purāṇās list Bhāgavatam as the fifth purāṇa, but Vyāsa is said to have composed Srimad Bhāgavatam last”. – The author perhaps does not know what a purāṇa is. It is a description of events that happened a long time ago, which was narrated by Brahma. Thus, Brahma narrates it and Vyāsa compiles the discourse of Brahma.

So, even if we accept Vyāsa was dejected and wrote the Bhāgavata Purāṇa last etc, even this happened long, long time ago and Brahma’s narration of this event can easily be the fifth of his discourses. 

We need to understand that the Purāṇās were narrated by Brahma and the narrations compiled by Vyāsa in different orders respectively. Vyāsa may have composed the last narrated purāṇa first and so on.

Alternatively, it can also be that the Purāṇā is describing a Vyāsa of a previous kalpa who composed it last. But our Vyāsa composed this Purāṇā detailing the exploits of that Vyāsa as the fifth of the compositions. The point is, it is impossible to refute the authenticity of a text by such measures as timescales and order are very much subject to change. No scholar has ever used this metric.

PP: Also, while bhAgavata describes its own lakShaNas, which are more than five, devIbhAgavata lists the following five lakShaNas, which have been accepted as the required lakShaNas by amarasimha and others. The following is the verse from devI bhAgavata:

sargashcha pratisargashcha vaMsho manvantarANi cha | vamshAnucharitaM chaiva purANaM pa~nchalakShaNam ||

SD: A Purāṇa can claim anything. Fact is, the Devī Bhāgavataṃ is not listed among the 18 Purāṇās. It is an upapurāṇa, or perhaps a recent work passed off in the name of an original devi upapurāṇa that has become popular among Vishnu-Dveshis.

The 10 lakṣaṇās of the bhāgavata does not contradict the 5 lakṣaṇās described for purāṇās in general. The idea is that the 5 lakṣaṇās are the minimum criteria for a text to be a purāṇa. The 10 lakṣaṇās are the criteria for a mahāpurāṇa, which is eligible for those interested in liberation.

PP: Now there is yet another pakSha which does not even consider viShNu bhAgavata as an upapurANa and claim it to be the work of bopadeva.

SD: In their desperation and hatred of Vishnu, they would even take recourse to the erroneous speculations of indologists. 

PP: One should also note that the list of eighteen mahApurANas is not always same. According to nAradIya purANa:

madvayaM bhadvayaM chaiva bratrayaM vachatuShTayam | AlimpAgnipurANAni kUskaM gAruDameva cha ||

madvayam: mArkaNDeya, matsya bhadvayam: bhAgavata, bhaviShya bratrayam: brahma, brahmavaivarta, brahmANDa vachatuShTayam: vAmana, varAha, vishNu, vAyu A: Aditya liM: li~Nga pa: padma agni: Agneya kU: kUrma ska: skanda gAruDa: garuDa

This list is not always the same. For example, this list does not include shiva purANa, considered as a purANa by other lists and authorities. Some explain the word shiva occurring in other such lists as referring to vAyavya purANa due to its pratipAdana of shiva tattva. However, mudgala purANa clearly distinguishes between the two purANas:

brAhmaM cha vaiShNavaM pAdmaM shaivaM bhAgavataM tathA | bhaviShyaM brahmavaivartaM mArkaNDeyaM cha vAmanam || AgneyaM vAyavaM mAstyaM iti |

SD: Precisely. Note that the list is not always the same, but all lists always include the major sāttvika purāṇās. 

PP: Shiva purANa presents the following list in uttarakhaNDa, madhyameshvara mAhAtmya:

yatra vaktA svayaM taNDe brahmA sAkShAt chaturmukhaH |

tasmAdbrahmasamAkhyAtaM purANaM prathamaM mune ||

The first among the purANas is brahma purANa.

padmakalpasya mAhAtmyaM tatra yasmAdudAhR^itam |

tasmAt pAdmaM samAkhyAtaM purANaM cha dvitIyakam ||

The second is the padma purANa.

parAsharakR^itaM yattu purANaM viShNubodhakam |

tadeva vyAsakathitaM putrapitrorabhedataH ||

The third is the viShNu purANa.

yatra pUrvottare khaNDe shivasya charitaM bahu |

shaivametatpurANaM hi purANaj~nA vadanti cha ||

The fourth is shiva purANa.

bhagavatyAshcha durgAyAshcharitaM yatra vidyate |

tattu bhAgavataM proktaM na tu devI purANakam ||

The fifth is devI bhAgavata purANa.

nAradoktaM purANaM tu nAradIyaM prachakShate |

The sixth is nArada purANa.

yatra vaktA bhavattaNDe mArkaNDeyo mahAmuniH |

mArkaNDeya purANaM hi tadAkhyAtaM cha saptamam ||

The seventh is mArkaNDeya purANa.

agniyogAttadAgneyaM bhaviShyokterbhaviShyakam |

Agneya and bhaviShyottara are the eight and the ninth in the list.

vivartanAdbrahmaNastu brahmavaivartamuchyate ||

The tenth is brahmavaivarta purANa.

Li~Ngasya charitoktatvAtpurANaM li~Ngamuchyate ||

The eleventh is linga purANa.

varAhasya cha vArAhaM purANaM dvAdashaM mune ||

The twelfth is varAha purANa.

yatra skandaH svayaM shrotA vaktA sAkShAnmaheshvaraH |

tattu skAndaM samAkhyAtaM vAmanasya tu vAmanam ||

The thirteenth and fourteenth are varAha and skAnda purANas.

kaurmaM kUrmasya charitaM mAtsyaM matsyasya kIrtitam ||

kUrma and matsya are the fifteenth and sixteenth in this list.

garuDastu svayaM vaktA yattadgAruDasaMj~nakam ||

garuDa purANa is the seventeenth purANa.

brahmANDacharitoktatvAdbrahmANDaM parikIrtitam ||

The eighteenth in the list of mahApurANas is brahmANDa.

SD: The author’s statement:

“bhagavatyAshcha durgAyAshcharitaM yatra vidyate |

tattu bhAgavataM proktaM na tu devI purANakam ||

The fifth is devI bhAgavata purANa.”

Is wrong. This refers to the Srimad Bhāgavatam only, and the “durgAyAshcharitaM” has been explained.

Regarding the order of purāṇās, we have explained already. Narrated by Brahma, the narrations compiled by Vyāsa. Thus, the first composed Purāṇa could be narrated last, or the last composed purāṇa could be narrated first. In the Bhāgavatam’s case, it might well have the statement of Vyāsa saying he composed it last, but in our kalpa, our Brahma probably narrated it as the 5th one.

PP:  Some interpret this verse to indicate viShNu bhAgavata again based on an argument that the charita of vindhyavAsinI in the dashama skandha is related to durgA. But, as explained earlier, the name here is based on the central focus of the purANa and not a lay episode and hence viShNu bhAgavata, where the pratipAdya is narAyaNa, cannot be interpreted as the indicated purANa. Some again object to this pramANa as the reference is to durgA here but the devI bhAgavata purANa deals with bhuvaneshvarI. A verse from yamaLa, which is of special interest to our lineage due to its presence in our pUjA kalpa, can be quoted here to illustrate the separateness of devI bhAgavata from durgA saptashatI, to refute the claims of rAmAshrama and others:

navarAtre tu deveshi daurgaM bhAgavataM paThet |

japetsaptashatIM chaNDIM niyamena samAhitaH ||

Also, the following verse seems to occur in kAlikA purANa:

yadidaM kAlikAkhyaM tanmUlaM bhAgavataM smR^itam ||

The upapurANa named kAlikA purANa has its origin in bhAgavata. Considering the subject matter of kAlikA purANa, the logical conclusion here would be that the bhAgavata mentioned here is devI bhAgavata. 

SD: The purāṇa named “Bhāgavataṃ” cannot refer to any purāṇa but one which has “pratipādya is narāyaṇa”. As per the Vishnu Purana, the term “bhagavān” and hence the related terms of “bhagavat”, “bhāgavataṃ” etc exclusively apply to Vishnu, his leelas and his devotees. Hence, there is no way a purāṇa by the name “bhāgavataṃ” with Narayana as the focus can be an upapurāṇa. 

As established earlier, “durgAyAshcharitaM” refers to the activities of the Lord, of which the Cause is Durga on account of her role. Hence, it only refers to Krishna-Katha culminating in rāsa-līla which is the central focus of the purāṇa.

Alternatively, if taken as referring to Durga itself, then this is the only purāṇa that truly describes how Durga attained all her present glories by her service of the Lord, as seen in the shlokas which were quoted earlier. The tāmasa kathas of Devi killing Madhu-Kaitabha etc are not true, as they are against the Veda and are merely arthavādās for those who worship Devi as supreme; they did not happen. The other ṣāttvika purāṇās also do not describe Durga’s role in Krishna-avatāra to the extent that the bhāgavataṃ purāṇa does. 

The reality of Durga’s glories, the reason why she exists worshipped by many, is due to her association with Krishna as recounted by the bhāgavataṃ. It is not because she herself is supreme as the devI bhāgavataṃ claims. Thus, it refers  only to the Srimad Bhāgavataṃ.

As far as this “kālika purāṇa” verse is concerned:

yadidaM kAlikAkhyaM tanmUlaM bhAgavataM smR^itam ||

This is a tāmasa upapurāṇam and hence every verse need not be taken as valid. Neither can its’ contents be vouched for as completely genuine in modern times. However, even were it taken to be authentic, one can indeed say that the kālika purāṇa glorifying Kali has its’ origin in the bhāgavataṃ as follows:

nāmadheyāni kurvanti sthānāni ca narā bhuvi durgeti bhadrakālīti vijayā vaiṣṇavīti ca (~bhAgavataM 10.2.11)

On account of her services to the Lord, she became worshipped by all and attained such names and due to this, an upapurāṇa consisting of arthavādās in praise of her, was created for her devotees who could then worship her accordingly. In fact, it is the srimad bhāgavata which specifically prophesises she will be glorified in the name of kāli, more so than the devi bhāgavata!

PP: It should be noted that every upapurANa has its origin in one of the eighteen mahApurANas:

aShTAdashabhyastu pR^ithakpurANaM yatpradR^ishyate |

vijanIdhvaM dvijashreShThAstathA tebhyo vinirgatam || [mAtsye]

The slaying of vR^itrAsura is described as an important lakShaNa of bhAghavata. Aditya purANa says the following in this regard:

yAjaghne mahiShaM daityaM krUraM vR^itrAsuraM tathA |

sAdya raktAsuraM hatvA svArAjyaM te pradAsyati ||

When one chooses something as a lakShaNa, it is generally a unique mark. The slaying of vR^itrAsura by devI is described only in devI bhAgavata and hence is unique. The slaying of vR^itra by Indra is described in various purANas including vishNu bhAgavata, which this is not a unique lakShaNa. And by quoting the slaying of vR^itra by devI here, shAstrakaras see the sammati of Aditya purANa for the mahApurANatva of bhAgavata purANa. 

SD: But then, Devi did not slay Vritrāsura iin reality. What is said by tāmasa purāṇās as a māhātmyam of their gods or goddesses is merely arthavAda and veda-virodha. 

The Shruti such as Taittiriya Samhita and the mahābhārata as well as the sāttvika purāṇās declare that Indra slew Vritra with the help of Vishnu and thus this alone is the authentic narration of the incident as it conforms to the Veda. The Veda also has records of this incident and attributes the glory to Indra and not to Devi. In every yuga, only Indra kills Vritra with Vishnu’s help and no other. The killer of Vritra does not change with the yugas. This alone is enough to debunk the claims regarding devī bhāgavatam.

The lakṣaṇa is not to be taken because it is a unique event. It is because it adheres to the authentic descriptions in shruti and other smriti. Also, the bhāgavata describes the event in connection with Dadichi giving brahma-vidyā with the head of a horse, and on account of the mention of the latter, it becomes unique, as we saw by giving the example of the pravargya ceremony.

Next, we come to the small matter of the Gayatri Mantra.

PP: Aditya purANa also says:

dadAti sUryabhaktAya yastu bhAgavataM dvijaH | sarvapApavinirmuktaH sarvavyAdhivivarjitaH ||

jIvedvatShashataM sAgraM ante vaivasvataM padam ||

One should examine the relation between sUrya and the bhAgavata. There is no specific association of sUrya with viShNu bhAgavata. However, devI bhAgavata deals extensively with gAyatryupAsanA which is aimed at savitA. Even if one ignores this, if the verse were referring to viShNu bhAgavata, the promised result here would be viShNu pada prApti and not vaivasvata pada prApti. 

SD: Firstly, when the Devi Bhagavata is a tāmasa purāṇa, it is not giving the right meaning of gāyatri mantra. So even were it describing the gāyatri mantra, that meaning is to be discarded, as the true Being referred to by the gāyatri is Vishnu. “savitā” means the prompter of the intellect, which is a name of Narayana only and not Surya. In any case, this Aditya Purana verse:

dadAti sUryabhaktAya yastu bhAgavataM dvijaH | sarvapApavinirmuktaH sarvavyAdhivivarjitaH ||

jIvedvatShashataM sAgraM ante vaivasvataM padam ||

Is not a contradiction. “sūryabhakta” refers to those engaged in upāsaṇa on sūryāntaryāmin. This is Vishnu as per the pramāṇa  in the antarāditya vidyā - tasya yathā kapyāsa pundarīkaṃ evaṃ akṣinī -  even the Linga Purana, in its’ story of Vishnu worshipping Shiva with lotuses identifies pundarīkākśa as Vishnu only.

“vaivasvatam padam” – By upāsaṇa on Surya with Narayana as the indweller, they can attain the position. Narayana is not merely worshipped for “Vishnu pada”, but also to attain the positions of Aditya, Indra, Rudra, Brahma, etc. That is mentioned in the mahābhārata.

Alternatively, we can take everything as referring to the Sun-God alone. In which case, “sarvapāpavinirmuktaḥ” refers to destruction of all those sins obstructing attainment of his abode, and not to all sins in general, as it is not an abode of liberation. Even those devoted to the Sun-God and aspiring to attain his abode will attain sāyujyam with him if they worship Vishnu by studying the bhāgavatam. For Vishnu is the true granter of all fruits. This is clarified in the gīta itself. Mahābhārata also states that all 18 purANAs (including Shiva, Linga etc) are different angās of Hari.

The idea that Bhāgavatam should only confer Vishnu pada prāpti, or it should only be recited by Vishnu bhaktās is unsupported. The Agni Purāṇa says that studying the Vishnu Purāṇa and gifting it in charity on an occasion will grant the abode of Varuṇa. So it cannot be said Vaishnava Purāṇās only lead to Vaishnava phalās.

PP: Also, we examined one of the lakShaNas earlier that said: yatradhikR^itya gAyatrIm etc., which can be interpreted to refer to the chapters in devI bhAgavata dealing with gAyatrI. The lakShaNa for gAyatrI is stated as: vede tripAdA gAyatrIti, and this tripAshChanda does not occur in viShNu bhAgavata unlike devI bhAgavata.

SD: As mentioned above the devī bhāgavataṃ is a tāmasa śāstra and its’ meanings of gāyatri mantra are veda virodha. Hence, it is ruled out merely by that fact.

The first verse of the bhāgavatā (1.1.1) is infact an exposition of the meaning of “tripādā gāyatrīti” – It is an explanation of the gAyatri which is of three parts, that is the meaning. 

Now, let us see how the bhāgavata purāṇa begins with a  description of the meanings of this tripāda gāyatri below.

 oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya   

janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ tejo-vāri-mṛdāṁ yathā vinimayo yatra tri-sargo 'mṛṣā dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaṁ satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi (~bhAgavataM 1.1.1)

The commentary of Shri Viraraghavacharya is thus: 

This is an exposition of the gāyatri (the * tripāda gāyatri * so to speak) according to the pramāṇa “gāyatrayā ca samārambho yatra bhāgavataṃ viduṃ”.

• The term “janmādy asya” is indicative of jagatkāraṇatva and is mapped to the term “savitr” shabda of gāyatri which refers to being the prompter of all. 
• The term “yat” is indicative of the Supreme Brahman who is well known by the vedānta and is mapped to the “tat” shabda of Gayatri which denotes the same.
• The term “sūrayaḥ” has the same meaning as “vareṇya” shabda of Gayatri. It refers to sarvajnās, as per the pramāṇa - varairṇeyam vareṇyam tu varā dhyātār īritā.
• “tena” refers to the “deva” shabda in gāyatri.

The Sanskrit source of Veeraraghaviyam is reproduced here for the reader’s reference:

atra gAyatryupakramatvaM pratIyate -- dhImahIti shabdataH padAntarairarthatashca tadupakramatvapratyabhij~nAnAt | gAyatryupakramatvaM cAsya skAnde purANe uttarakANDe -- “grantho.aShTAdashasAhasro dvAdashaskandhasammitaH | hayagrIvabrahmavidyA yatra vR^itravadhastathA || gAyatryA ca samArambho yatra bhAgavataM viduH” iti | tathA coktaM mAtsye -- “Arabhya yatra gAyatrIM varNyate dharmavistaraH | vR^itrAsuravadhashcApi yatra bhAgavataM viduH” iti | tatra “janmAdyasya yataH” iti jagatkAraNatvapratipAdanena tadarthakasavitR^ishabdArtha uktaH | vedAntaprasiddhiM dyotayatA “yata” iti padena tacchabdArthashca sUcitaH | “sUraya” ityanena vareNyashabdArtha uktaH | uktaM hi sarvaj~naiH sAvitrIvivaraNe -- “varairneyaM vareNyaM tu varA dhyAtAra IritA” iti | tena ityAdinA devashabdArtha uktaH: ”dyotanaH sarvabhAvAnAM dyotamAnaH svayaM sadA | aj~nAnamakhilaM tudyan” iti tatroktam | dyan khaNDayan “do avakhaNDane” dyotanaH prakAshakaH | janmAdItyanena ca devashabdArtha uktaH | jagadvyApAro hi tallIlA dhAmnetyAdinA bhargashabdArtha uktaH | 

https://archive.org/details/SrimadBhagavatamCanto01withMultipleSanskritCommentaries/page/n32

PP: Some claim that gAyatryartha refers to nArAyaNa alone and the form of meditation for this mantra is only viShNu. This is not acceptable based on pramANa such as bhargo vai rudra iti and also works like prapa~nchasAra where dhyAna of shiva, shakti, sUrya etc. through gAyatrI has been variously described.

SD: That is contradicted by the Veda itself which says “eko ha vai nārāyaṇa āsīt, na brahma, neṣāna”. Since Rudra is a created being, he is not the one referred to by the gAyatri.

The mahābhārata also declares - sabrahmakāḥ sarudrās ca sendrā devāḥ saharṣibhiḥ arcayanti suraśreṣṭhaṃ devaṃ nārāyaṇaṃ harim – Brahma, Rudra, Indra, Devas, Rishis all worship Narayana. As all these gods worship Narayana, none other than him can be denoted by the gāyatri.

In “bhargo vai rudra”is explained thus. “Bharga” sabda referring to tejas indicates his divya-mangala-vigraha. Thus, it is most appropriate to take rudra in an etymological manner as the bestower of good, since the auspicious body of Narayana destroys sins and confers good when meditated upon. 

So, the very auspicious body of the Lord is described as “Rudra” because the mere rememberance of it confers moksha. 

That is very clearly seen in the very shruti pramāṇa quoted by the author (bharga iti rudra). “Rudra” there does not denote Rudradeva as below:

atha bharga iti yo ha vā amuṣminnāditye nihitastārako'kṣiṇivaiṣa bhargākhyaḥ। bhābhigaṃtirasya hīti bhargaḥ । bharjayatīti vaiṣa bharga itirudro brahmavādina । (~Maitrayani Aranyaka 6.7)

Meaning: Now that (divine auspicious body of the Lord) that is called bharga is that which is fixed in the Sun (a golden form with lotus eyes), or that which is the pupil in the eye. And it (that divine auspicious body) is so called, because it is the refuge (gati) of the jīvās who are self-luminous like rays of light (bhabhih); or because it  parches or destroys the sins by virtue of meditation on it (bharjayati). The auspicious body called “Bharga” is verily that which confers good (Rudra), thus say the knowers of Brahman.

“Bharga” means the divine auspicious form of the Lord in the Sun, which is declared to be “hiraṇmaya:smaśru:hiranya kEsa:āprṇakhāt sarva Eva suvarṇa” and “tasya yathā kapyāsa pundarīkaṃ evaṃ akṣinī” in the chāndogya ūpaniśad and as “āditya varṇam” in the Purusha sūkta. As the Linga Purana itself proves, in its’ story of Vishnu plucking out his eye and offering it to Shiva as a lotus, the term “pundarīkākśa” can only denote Vishnu, and thus, he is the possessor of this form.

This body is the refuge for all the jīvās who are self-luminous and thus referred to as “bha”. Meditation on this body destroys all sins. Note that all this is said prior to saying “bharga iti rudro”, the shruti declares that this “bharga” parches meaning, it destroys sins. 

Now, the conclusion – On account of the auspicious form being sin-destroying, and being the refuge of the jIvās, this body called “bharga” (bharga iti rudro). 

The term “Rudra” does not denote any devata here, but the body (Bharga) itself. That is to say “this body (Bharga) is itself a bestower of good i.e., moksha (Rudam dadAti iti Rudra)”, since meditation on the body destroys sins and confers happiness. Note that any exaltation of the body is an exaltation of the being who possesses the body (Narayana), for it is by his presence that the body acquires greatness.

That the possessor of this sin-destroying auspicious body is the lotus eyed Vishnu is established by the Chandogya Upanishad. The Rudram also refers to the Lord's body as “apāpakāshini".

This is the text-book definition of “rudra” as “that which confers good” – thus, the context is established for calling the divine body itself (Bharga) as “Rudra” here. The meaning therefore does not denote rudradeva. 

The cheek of the author to say it is not acceptable to consider Narayana alone as the referrant of the gāyatri when he is the Supreme Brahman eulogized everywhere!

Here we shall explain the meaning of both the gāyatri mantra and how the bhāgavataṃ also expounds on it in the first shloka.

Shri Vedanta Desikan remarks in his shata-dushani,

pratipuruśam anekā: pratyavastham vicitrā: ṣubhagathiśu dhiyo ya: coyatyajn'asā na:

akhilacidhacidhantaryāmi tadh Viśṇusamjn'am  ṣaviturahamupāse tasya dEvasya: bharga: (~ṣataduśani)

The meaning of gāyatri is as follows - Savita is the Lord of Sri, who is the cause of this universe, the prompter of all (jagatkāraṇa bhūta). “bharga” refers to his “tejas”, which means “tejorūpa divya mangaḻa vigraham”  The auspicious body of the Lord Narayana is thus termed “bharga” as it “tejorūpam” and being “subhāśrayaṃ” or the substratum of auspiciousness and shuddha sattva, it removes all attachments to samsāra and confers moksham – hence it is to be meditated upon. (Source: Oppilippan List).

So, savita and bharga in the gāyatri denote the Lord and his divine body. Rudra denotes the body as well.

PP: One should consider both sides of the argument, weigh the pramANas and decide after a careful analysis, which of the two can be considered as a mahApurANa. Based on the pramANas above, sampradAya, personal inclination and guideline of AchAryas like bhAskara and pR^ithvIdhara, our verdict would go with devI bhAgavata.

SD: Funny that the author, who completely goes against the likes of Citsukha, Sridhara, Srimad Veeraraghavacharya and Vijayadwaja Tirtha belonging to the three vaidika darṣaṇās, who identified the srimad bhāgavata as the parama-purāṇa, and yet advices us to consider the “Guidelines of Acharyas”. The irony is evident in this one.

The position of the veda-bāhya shaiva-shaktas stands refuted.