[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 40, Issue 23
Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy
annapureddy at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 20:42:34 CDT 2006
Thanks Vidyasankarji and Bhaskarji for your responses. Could you
clarify a few more things.
> Even if the dates of the purANa texts as we currently know them are
> post-Sankara, it doesn't follow that their number was different in earlier
> times. The Indian tradition is quite strong in remembering and transmitting
> these kinds of numbers. We need to free our minds from the tyranny of the
> written word and look at the purANa-s as orally transmitted texts that were
> relatively more elastic in their scope and therefore subject to change over
-- Even if we assume that the purANas were orally transmitted, there would
have been a basic body of literature which is termed a particular purANa.
For example, though R^ik vEda was not written down for centuries, everyone
was clear what constitutes the R^ik vEda. Similarly, in shaN^kara's times,
if the bhAgavata was known, some references would have been found (given its
great popularity, at least in later times, and also that it would have been
useful in the gIta bhAShya). Of course, there is also the possibility that
no such references have survived, and the first citation found of the
bhAgavata until now is only in the 10th century. And given that Bhaskarji
mentioned that you hold the bhAgavata to be of later times, how do you
reconcile the number 18 with the bhAgavata being known in shaN^kara's times?
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list