Thursday, December 29, 2011

Top N Reasons to call Bhagawatam a BOGUS Scripture

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.

Vaishnavites have been found to reject outright the Shaiva Puranas calling them as "Tamasik" based on one single verse from Padma Purana, which calls Shaiva Puranas as Tamasik. Did they ever try to think whether that Padma Purana was telling right or wrong? No, because it was not their Vaishnava texts which was being rejected. So, that's not a moment to bother for them. There is no logic actually to categorize them as Tamasik except for the one fact that Shaiva Puranas are major threat to Vaishnavism and Vishnu's superiority since they clearly narrate Shiva as having an upper hand over Vishnu. I have never seen anyone till date who would have come up with a valid analysis to show why Shaiva Puranas are Tamasik and shouldn't be read / followed. But blindly those fellows would read Bhagawatam and would recommend everyone following the same; calling, Bhagawatam as the highest Vedic scripture (I doubt if they really understand what is a Vedic scripture and what is Puranic). But the truth is - 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.

“[rsayah]:dvaipāyanena yat proktaṃ purāṇaṃ paramarṣiṇā | surair brahmarṣibhiś caiva śrutvā yad abhipūjitam || tasyākhyāna variṣṭhasya vicitrapadaparvaṇaḥ | sūkṣmārtha nyāyayuktasya vedārthair bhūṣitasya ca || bhāratasyetihāsasya puṇyāṃ granthārtha saṃyutām | saṃskāropagatāṃ brāhmīṃ nānāśāstropabṛṃhitām || janamejayasya yāṃ rājño vaiśampāyana uktavān | yathāvat sa ṛṣis tuṣṭyā satre dvaipāyanājñayā || vedaiś caturbhiḥ samitāṃ vyāsasyādbhuta karmaṇaḥ | saṃhitāṃ śrotum icchāmo dharmyāṃ pāpabhayāpahām ||" (MBH 1:01:15-19)
"The Rishi replied, 'The Purana, first promulgated by the great Rishi Dwaipayana, and which after having been heard both by the gods and the Brahmarshis was highly esteemed, being the most eminent narrative that exists, diversified both in diction and division, possessing subtile meanings logically combined, and gleaned from the Vedas, is a sacred work. Composed in elegant language, it includeth the subjects of other books. It is elucidated by other Shastras, and comprehendeth the sense of the four Vedas. We are desirous of hearing that history also called Bharata, the holy composition of the wonderful Vyasa, which dispelleth the fear of evil, just as it was cheerfully recited by the Rishi Vaisampayana, under the direction of Dwaipayana himself, at the snake-sacrifice of Raja Janamejaya?'"

Further, even Vyasa speaks the following about his composition to lord Brahma.He clearly states that in his Mahabharata he has compiled various ancient treatises including Puranas.

"Then the greatly glorious Vyasa, addressing Brahma Parameshthi, said, "O divine Brahma, by me a poem hath been composed which is greatly respected. The mystery of the Veda, and what other subjects have been explained by me; the various rituals of the Upanishads with the Angas; the compilation of the Puranas and history formed by me and named after the three divisions of time, past, present, and future; the determination of the nature of decay, fear, disease, existence, and non-existence, a description of creeds and of the various modes of life; rule for the four castes, and the import of all the Puranas; an account of asceticism and of the duties of a religious student; the dimensions of the sun and moon, the planets, constellations, and stars, together with the duration of the four ages; the Rik, Sama and Yajur Vedas; also the Adhyatma; the sciences called Nyaya, Orthœphy and Treatment of diseases; charity and Pasupatadharma; birth celestial and human, for particular purposes; also a description of places of pilgrimage and other holy places of rivers, mountains, forests, the ocean, of heavenly cities and the kalpas; the art of war; the different kinds of nations and languages: the nature of the manners of the people; and the all-pervading spirit;--all these have been represented. But, after all, no writer of this work is to be found on earth'." (MBH 1:01)

So, it is crystal clear from above verses that Mahabharata is not just a story of Kuru dynasty, but it is a vast compilation of Puranas also.

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 viṣaye purāṇaṃ vartate dvijāḥ | antarikṣasya viṣaye prajā iva caturvidhāḥ ||
kriyā guṇānāṃ sarveṣām idam ākhyānam āśrayaḥ | indriyāṇāṃ samastānāṃ citrā iva manaḥ kriyāḥ ||
anāśrityaitad ākhyānaṃ kathā bhuvi na vidyate | āhāram anapāśritya śarīrasyeva 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!

Let's see whether Bhagawatam survives under the strokes of the hammer called 'reasoning' or succumbs to death.

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 prakṛter guṇās tair | yuktaḥ paraḥ puruṣa eka ihāsya dhatte | sthity-ādaye hari-viriñci-hareti saḿjñāḥ | śreyāḿsi tatra khalu sattva-tanor nṛṇāḿ syuḥ |" (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, Viṣṇu and Śiva. Of these three, all human beings can derive ultimate benefit from Viṣṇu, 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 devadevaḥ sanātanaḥ | tasyāṃśo mānuṣeṣv āsīd vāsudevaḥ pratāpavān | śeṣasyāṃśas tu nāgasya baladevo mahābalaḥ |” (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? (God 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 preṣayām āsa rājā gaura mukhaṃ tadā |
bhūyaḥ prasādaṃ bhagavān karotv iti mameti vai |
tasmiṃś ca gatamātre vai rājā gaura mukhe tadā |
mantribhir mantrayām āsa saha saṃvignamānasaḥ |
niścitya mantribhiś caiva sahito mantratattvavit |
prāsādaṃ kārayām āsa ekastambhaṃ surakṣitam |
rakṣāṃ ca vidadhe tatra bhiṣajaś cauṣadhāni ca |
brāhmaṇān siddhamantrāṃś ca sarvato vai nyaveśayat |
rājakāryāṇi tatrasthaḥ sarvāṇy evākaroc ca saḥ |
mantribhiḥ sahadharmajñaḥ samantāt parirakṣitaḥ |” (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 takṣaka samādiṣṭās tathā cakrur bhujaṃgamāḥ |
upaninyus tathā rājñe darbhān āpaḥ phalāni ca |
tac ca sarvaṃ sa rājendraḥ pratijagrāha vīryavān |
kṛtvā ca teṣāṃ kāryāṇi gamyatām ity uvāca tān |
gateṣu teṣu nāgeṣu tāpasac chadma rūpiṣu |
amātyān suhṛdaś caiva provāca sa narādhipaḥ |
bhakṣayantu bhavanto vai svādūnīmāni sarvaśaḥ |
tāpasair upanītāni phalāni sahitā mayā |
tato rājā sasacivaḥ phalāny ādātum aicchata |" (MBH 1:39:25-29)
"Sauti continued, 'Those snakes, thus commanded by Takshaka, acted accordingly. And they 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 takṣaka tejasā hate; prayujya sarvāḥ paralokasatkriyāḥ |
śucir dvijo rājapurohitas tadā; tathaiva te tasya nṛpasya mantriṇaḥ |
nṛpaṃ śiśuṃ tasya sutaṃ pracakrire; sametya sarve puravāsino janāḥ |
nṛpaṃ yam āhus tam amitraghātinaṃ; kurupravīraṃ janamejayaṃ janāḥ |" (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 of Janamejaya".

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 athāśṛṇod yathā | muneḥ sutokto nirṛtis takṣakākhyaḥ |
sa sādhu mene na cireṇa takṣakā-nalaḿ prasaktasya virakti-kāraṇam |" (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 heyatayā purastāt |
kṛṣṇāńghri-sevām adhimanyamāna | upāviśat prāyam amartya-nadyām |" (SB. 1.19.5)
"Mahārāja Parīkṣit sat down firmly on the banks of the Ganges to concentrate his mind in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, rejecting all other practices of self-realization, because transcendental loving service to Kṛṣṇa 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.

"sukhopaviṣṭeṣv atha teṣu bhūyaḥ | kṛta-praṇāmaḥ sva-cikīrṣitaḿ yat |
vijñāpayām āsa vivikta-cetā | upasthito 'gre 'bhigṛhīta-pāṇiḥ |" (SB. 1:19:12)
"After all the ṛṣis 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 devī dhṛta-cittam īśe |
dvijopasṛṣṭaḥ kuhakas takṣako vā | daśatv alaḿ gāyata viṣṇu-gāthāḥ |" (SB. 1:19:15)
"O brāhmaṇas, 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 brāhmaṇa created — bite me at once. I only desire that you all continue singing the deeds of Lord Viṣṇu".

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-yuktaḥ | prācīna-mūleṣu kuśeṣu dhīraḥ |
udań-mukho dakṣiṇa-kūla āste | samudra-patnyāḥ sva-suta-nyasta-bhāraḥ |" (SB. 1:19:17)
"In perfect self-control, Mahārāja Parīkṣit 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 vaḥ pṛcchyam imaḿ vipṛcche | viśrabhya viprā iti kṛtyatāyām |
sarvātmanā mriyamāṇaiś ca kṛtyaḿ | śuddhaḿ ca tatrāmṛśatābhiyuktāḥ |" (SB. 1:19:24)
"O trustworthy brāhmaṇas, 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 | yadṛcchayā gām aṭamāno 'napekṣaḥ |
alakṣya-lińgo nija-lābha-tuṣṭo | vṛtaś ca bālair avadhūta-veṣaḥ |" (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 scripture Bhagawatam doesn't become fit for being called as ‘scripture’ and as far as considering it as a base document to Judge any other works of Hinduism is concerned, such a chance is highly remote.

Let us now see the evidences in detail and understand how falsely and forcefully Bhagawatam tries to become a scripture when it is just a comic book or novel containing imaginary stories.

3.1 Contradictory age of Suka in Bhagawatam compared to Mahabharata:

The author of Bhagawatam (obviously not Vyasa) committed a big blunder by not paying attention to Mahabharata and by being unaware of how his lies could get exposed by someone in future (that’s being done by me now).

Bhagawatam narrates the following thing about Suka’s appearance and his age. This narration is from the episode where Parikshit remains distressed because of a curse and Suka comes in front of him to narrate Bhagawatam.

“taḿ dvyaṣṭa-varṣaḿ su-kumāra-pāda-karoru-bāhv-aḿsa-kapola-gātram |
cārv-āyatākṣonnasa-tulya-karṇa-subhrv-ānanaḿ kambu-sujāta-kaṇṭham |” (SB. 1:19:26)
This son of Vyāsadeva was only sixteen years old. His legs, hands, thighs, arms, shoulders, forehead and the other parts of his body were all delicately formed. His eyes were beautifully wide, and his nose and ears were highly raised. He had a very attractive face, and his neck was well formed and beautiful like a conchshell”.

That’s what I call a back orifice within the system. The above verse clearly states that Vyasa’s son Suka who narrated Bhagawatam was 16 years old when he met Parikshit. Now let me refute it strongly with power packed evidences from Mahabharata.

In Mahabharata, Ashwatthama redirects his Brahmashira missile towards the fetus of Uttara; and considers himself victorious in killing the future of Pandavas (viz. Parikshit). Sri Krishna out of rage tells him that he himself would make the child alive and Parikshit would live a long life of 60 years.

“vayaḥ prāpya parikṣit tu veda vratam avāpya ca | kṛpāc chāradvatād vīraḥ sarvāstrāṇy upalapsyate |
viditvā paramāstrāṇi kṣatradharmavrate sthitaḥ | ṣaṣṭiṃ varṣāṇi dharmātmā vasudhāṃ pālayiṣyati |
itaś cordhvaṃ mahābāhuḥ kururājo bhaviṣyati | parikṣin nāma nṛpatir miṣatas te sudurmate |
paśya me tapaso vīryaṃ satyasya ca narādhama |” (MBH 10:16:13-15)
The heroic Parikshit, attaining to age and a knowledge of the Vedas and the practice of pious vows, shall obtain all weapons from the son of Sharadvata. Having obtained a knowledge of all high weapons, and observant of all kshatriya duties, that righteous-souled king shall rule the earth for sixty years. More than this, that boy shall become the mighty-armed king of the Kurus, known by the name of Parikshit, before thy very eyes, O thou of wicked soul! Though burnt by the energy of thy weapon's fire, I shall revive him. O lowest of men, behold the energy of my austerities and my truth."

So, as per Krishna’s words from Mahabharata, Parikshit would live for 60 years. In the same Mahabharata, Veda Vyasa himself tells his son Suka about his passing age and warns him not to waste time. Vyasa tells his son that Yama would be fast approaching and hence he should learn the knowledge of Brahman (Brahma Jnana) at the earliest. Here is the verse for reference of his age.

“gatā dvir astavarṣatā dhruvo 'si pañcaviṃśakaḥ | kuruṣva dharmasaṃcayaṃ vayo hi te 'tivartate |” (MBH 12:309:62)
Thou hast passed four and twenty years. Thou art now full five and twenty years of age. Thy years are passing away. Do thou begin to lay thy store of righteousness?

Here as per Vyasa his son Suka was of 25 years of age at that moment when he ordered him to gain the knowledge of Yoga and Emancipation from Janaka. After that, Suka learns Yoga and then casting off his body he unites himself in Brahman (in common man’s language he dies).

But for the time being let us consider him as alive. If we consider Suka of Mahabharata as the same Suka who narrated Bhagawatam then here is the great contradiction what we would observe.

Suka was 25 years old when his story was narrated in Shanti Parva of Mahabharata by Bheeshma. So, that time Bheeshma was alive and Parikshit was not even born. And as per Bhagawatam, Suka met Parikshit seven days before his death. Correlating this with Krishna’s words as noted above, Parikshit’s age must be 60 years at the time of his death. When Suka was 25 years old, from that point, till Parikshit’s birth if we consider that period as “X” (years or months or whatever); then Suka’s age at the time of Parikshit’s death must have become - 25+X+60 =[85+X] years. But Bhagawatam says he was 16 years old which is totally a big ERROR.

Conclusion: - Suka of Mahabharata if lived till Parikshit’s death, he would have attained an age of [85+X] years. But Bhagawatam states he was 16 years old. This is a big blunder done by the author of Bhagawatam by not analyzing Mahabharata while trying to copy it and create a new scripture. It proves that Suka who narrated Bhagawatam to Parikshit was not Vyasa’s learned son Suka.

(Actually Bhagawatam is totally a bogus book and no Suka narrated ever any Bhagawatam to Parikshit but for the time being I am liberally considering that some Suka narrated Bhagawatam to Parikshit. But by the end of this analysis all lies of Bhagawatam would get exposed.)

3.2 Refuting Bhagawatam’s stance of Suka being learned right from within the womb

In Mahabharata it is clearly cited that Suka was learned in all Vedas, Sharstras, and all scriptures, but after he was born. Evidences are given below.

“āraṇeyas tathā divyaṃ prāpya janma mahādyutiḥ | tatraivovāsa medhāvī vratacārī samāhitaḥ |
utpanna mātraṃ taṃ vedāḥ sarahasyāḥ sasaṃgrahāḥ | upatasthur mahārāja yathāsya pitaraṃ tathā |
bṛhaspatiṃ tu vavre sa vedavedāṅgabhāṣyavit | upādhyāyaṃ mahārāja dharmam evānucintayan |
so 'dhītya vedān akhilān sarahasyān sasaṃgrahān | itihāsaṃ ca kārtsnyena rājaśāstrāṇi cābhibho |
gurave dakṣiṇāṃ dattvā samāvṛtto mahāmuniḥ | ugraṃ tapaḥ samārebhe brahmacārī samāhitaḥ |” (MBH 12:311:21-25)
Suka, having obtained his birth from the two sticks, continued to live there, engaged the while in the attentive observance of many vows and fasts. As soon as Suka was born, the Vedas with all their mysteries and all their abstracts, came for dwelling in him, O king, even as they dwell in his sire. For all that, Suka selected Vrihaspati, who was conversant with all the Vedas together with their branches and commentaries, for his preceptor, remembering the universal practice. Having studied all the Vedas together with all their mysteries and abstracts, as also all the histories and the science of government, O puissant monarch, the great ascetic returned home, after giving his preceptor the tuition fee. Adopting the vow of a Brahmacharin, he then commenced to practise the austerest penances concentrating all his attention thereon”.

Let me quote another funniest part from the commentary of Bhagawatam. Not only the scripture is funny, but also the commentaries by the commentators of iskcon add more beauty to it.

PURPORT (SB 1.1.3): “Srila Sukadeva Gosvami was a liberated soul from his very birth. He was liberated even in the womb of his mother, and he did not undergo any sort of spiritual training after his birth. At birth no one is qualified, neither in the mundane nor in the spiritual sense. But Sri Sukadeva Gosvami, due to his being a perfectly liberated soul, did not have to undergo an evolutionary process for spiritual realization”.

This is brutally refuted by Mahabharata verse quoted above which states that Suka got trained under Brihaspati the preceptor of Gods! Also, Suka even learnt Vedas from his father as well.

“prākṛtena suvṛttena carantam akutobhayam | adhyāpya kṛtsnaṃ svādhyāyam anvaśād vai pitā sutam | dharmaṃ putra niṣevasva sutīkṣṇau hi himātapau | kṣutpipāse ca vāyuṃ ca jaya nityaṃ jitendriyaḥ |” (MBH. 12:309:2-3)
Bhishma said, 'Beholding his son Suka living fearlessly as ordinary men do in practices that are considered harmless by them, Vyasa taught him the entire Vedas and then discoursed to him one day in these words: 'Vyasa said, O son, becoming the master of the senses, do thou subdue extreme cold and extreme heat, hunger and thirst, and the wind also, and having subdued them (as Yogins do), do thou practice righteousness”.

Conclusion: - This is again clear cut evidence which proves that Bhahawatam’s Suka was not the Suka the son of Vyasa.

3.3 Bhagawatam’s Suka was a married man hence he wasn’t a son of Vyasa

In the following verse from Bhagawatam, that book itself states that there was a king by name “Nipa” who married the daughter of Suka.

"sa kritvyam suka-kanyayam | brahmadattam ajijanat | yogi sa gavi bharyayam | vishvaksenam adhat sutam |" (SB. 9.21.25)
King Nipa begot a son named Brahmadatta through the womb of his wife Kritvi, who was the daughter of Suka. And Brahmadatta, who was a great yogi, begot a son named Vishvaksena through the womb of his wife, Sarasvati”.

And the funniest part comes when you read the “Purport” associated with that above given verse. In the Purport, the commentator from iskcon (I guess Prabhupada) says the following as copied below. Well Suka’s birth story is not given in Bhagawatam but from the Purport given below it is clear that another corrupted text (Brahma Vaivarta Purana) narrates Suka’s birth in a way as stated below. But that is also a cock and bull story. I’ll refute that shortly. Let’s first read and enjoy the humor of the Purport now.

PURPORT (SB. 9.21.25): - “The Suka mentioned here is different from the Sukadeva Gosvami who spoke Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sukadeva Gosvami, the son of Vyasadeva, is described in great detail in the Brahma-vaivarta Purana. There it is said that Vyasadeva maintained the daughter of Jabali as his wife and that after they performed penances together for many years, he placed his seed in her womb. The child remained in the womb of his mother for twelve years, and when the father asked the son to come out, the son replied that he would not come out unless he were completely liberated from the influence of maya. Vyasadeva then assured the child that he would not be influenced by maya, but the child did not believe his father, for the father was still attached to his wife and children. Vyasadeva then went to Dvaraka and informed the Personality of Godhead about his problem, and the Personality of Godhead, at Vyasadeva's request, went to Vyasadeva's cottage, where He assured the child in the womb that he would not be influenced by maya. Thus assured, the child came out”.

Wow! What a cute story it was! Well, probably the story cookers couldn’t realize that their fairy tales wouldn’t last longer in front of logic and reasoning presented in the light of authentic books.

Before presenting my argument let me quote few verses from Mahabharata which are actually required to refute this above argument.

In Mousala Parva itself Sri Krishna had casted off his material body and went back to Vaikuntha. This is evident from Vyasa’s words to Pandavas as follows.

“rathasya purato yāti yaḥ sacakragadādharaḥ | tava snehāt purāṇarṣir vāsudevaś caturbhujaḥ |
kṛtvā bhārāvataraṇaṃ pṛthivyāḥ pṛthulocanaḥ | mokṣayitvā jagat sarvaṃ gataḥ svasthānam uttamam |” (MBH 16:09:28-29)
He who used to proceed in front of thy car, armed with discus and mace, through affection for thee, was the four-armed Vasudeva, that ancient rishi. That high-souled one of expansive eyes, Krishna, having lightened the burthen of the Earth and cast off his (human) body, has attained to his own high seat.

Then Vyasa instructed Pandavas also to leave this material world as follows.

"kṛtakṛtyāṃś ca vo manye saṃsiddhān kuru puṃggava | gamanaṃ prāptakālaṃ ca tad dhi śreyo mataṃ mama |” (MBH 16:09:31)
O foremost one of Kuru’s race, I regard thee and thy brothers as crowned with success, for ye have accomplished the great purpose of your lives. The time has come for your departure from the world. Even this, O puissant one, is what is beneficial for you now”.

Then in the next chapter named “Mahaprasthanika Parva” of Mahabharata, Yudhishthira hands over the kingdome to Yuyutsu and coronates the child Parikshit as the new heir of Hastinapur while coronating Vajra as the king of Indraprastha. Since Parikshit was still a child, his protection and responsibilities were given to Subhadra and Yuyutsu. Here the narration in Sanskrit and English translation both speak in future tense for Parikshit as a King. So, there should not be any doubt here about Parikshit being still a kid.

“tato yuyutsum ānāyya pravrajan dharmakāmyayā | rājyaṃ paridadau sarvaṃ vaiśya putre yudhiṣṭhiraḥ | abhiṣicya svarājye tu taṃ rājānaṃ parikṣitam | duḥkhārtaś cābravīd rājā subhadrāṃ pāṇḍavāgrajaḥ | eṣa putrasya te putraḥ kururājo bhaviṣyati | yadūnāṃ pariśeṣaś ca vajro rājā kṛtaś ca ha | parikṣid dhāstina pure śakra prasthe tu yādavaḥ | vajro rājā tvayā rakṣyo mā cādharme manaḥ kṛthāḥ | ity uktvā dharmarājaḥ sa vāsudevasya dhīmataḥ | mātulasya ca vṛddhasya rāmādīnāṃ tathaiva ca |” (MBH 17:01:6-10)
Resolved to retire from the world for earning merit, they brought Yuyutsu before them. Yudhishthira made over the kingdom to the son of his uncle by his Vaisya wife. Installing Parikshit also on their throne, as king, the eldest brother of the Pandavas, filled with sorrow, addressed Subhadra, saying, ‘This son of thy son will be the king of the Kurus. The survivor of the Yadus, Vajra, has been made a king. Parikshit will rule in Hastinapura, while the Yadava prince, Vajra, will rule in Shakraprastha. He should be protected by thee. Never set thy heart on unrighteousness’.

Now assuming that the above verses have been studied carefully, let me state the logic here which proves Bhagawatam’s commentary as wrong.

Well, as per Bhagawatam verse no. (SB 1:19:26) Suka was 16 years Old when he met Parikshit just before 7 days of his death. That means at that time, parikshit’s age was 60 years as per (MBH 10:16:13-15); So, when Suka was born (as per Bhagawatam) Parikshit’s age must have been 44 years. And since 44 years is a good middle age for a King, he must have been already ruling as a King by then. That implies, Sri Krishna and pandavas had casted their bodies long before this point itself as studied in above verses from Mahabharata.

And that means when Parikshit was 44 years old (means when Suka was supposed to be born), Krishna was NOT there on Earth. That implies, the story of Brahma Vaivarta Purana where Vyasa goes to Dwarika to seek help from Krishna in getting his som come out of Jabali’s womb is totally a Bogus one! And mind you, in entire Mahabharata there is no mention of Vyasa marrying any woman called jabali and fathering a son. So, the story (read fairy tale) of Brahma Vaivarta Purana and the Purport (commentary) of Bhagawatam (SB 9.21.25) both are BOGUS.

This proves that the Suka of Bhagawatam was a married man and the father of a lady by name Kriti. And this also proves that there was no son fathered by vyasa in the womb of Jabali. Of course this story of Vyasa fathering Suka from Jabali exists even in Skanda Purana, but we have seen in above analysis that this story collapsed when tested with reasoning. So, this is just a tale and needs to be read like a comic book chapter that’s it!

This is again a testimony that Vyasa’s son Suka did not recite Bhagawatam to Parikshit. In fact bhagawatam was not composed by Vyasa. So, this Bhagawatam and it’s story of Suka-Parikshit discussion is all moonshine and in common man’s terms it’s called “bogus”.

Let me present here the actual story of Suka’s birth from Mahabharata. Suka was NOT born to any female. In fact Suka was a boon of Maheshwara to Vyasa. And hence Suka is considered as an incarnation of Shiva. Vyasa got this child when his vital fluid issued out after seeing a celestial damsel by name “Ghritachi”; and his vital fluid fell on “Arani” (fire sticks). Hence Suka was born from the fire sticks and not from any woman. Since Gritachi assumed the form of a parrot seeing Vyasa distressed with desire, that incident led that child to have a name - "Suka" just for rememberance of that incident. And in no case SUka was ever a parrot; he was a normal human bearing the name Suka. This is again a jolt upon those Puranas which call Suka as the pet parrot of Radharani in Go-Loka.

In fact Suka’s birth was full of grandeur. Since he was born from the boon of Shiva (and was his incarnation), goddess Ganga herself came and bathed him, a Sanyasa stick, and deer skin fell from sky automatically; and all gods came there to see that divine child. His birth was celebrated by all the divinities. In fact Shiva and Parvati came there and invested Suka with Sacred-thread.

“sa labdhvā paramaṃ devād varaṃ satyavatī sutaḥ | araṇīṃ tv atha saṃgṛhya mamanthāgnicikīrṣayā | atha rūpaṃ paraṃ rājan bibhratīṃ svena tejasā | ghṛtācīṃ nāmāpsarasam apaśyad bhagavān ṛṣiḥ |
ṛṣir apsarasaṃ dṛṣṭvā sahasā kāmamohitaḥ | abhavad bhagavān vyāso vane tasmin yudhiṣṭhira |
sā ca kṛtvā tadā vyāsaṃ kāmasaṃvignamānasam | śukī bhūtvā mahārāja ghṛtācī samupāgamat |
sa tām apsarasaṃ dṛṣṭvā rūpeṇānyena saṃvṛtām | śarīrajenānugataḥ sarvagātrātigena ha |
sa tu dhairyeṇa mahatā nigṛhṇan hṛcchayaṃ muniḥ | na śaśāka niyantuṃ tad vyāsaḥ pravisṛtaṃ manaḥ | bhāvitvāc caiva bhāvasya ghṛtācyā vapuṣā hṛtaḥ | yatnān niyacchato yasya muner agi cikīrṣayā | araṇyām eva sahasā tasya śukram avāpatat | so 'viśaṅkena manasā tathaiva dvijasattamaḥ |araṇīṃ mamantha brahmarṣis tasyāṃ jajñe śuko nṛpa | śukre nirmathyamāne tu śuko jajñe mahātapaḥ | paramarṣir mahāyogiy araṇī garbhasaṃbhavaḥ |” (MBH 12:311:1-9)
"Bhishma said.’The son of Satyavati having obtained this high boon from the great God, was one day employed in rubbing his sticks for making a fire. While thus engaged, the illustrious Rishi, O king, beheld the Apsara Ghritachi, who, in consequence of her energy, was then possessed of great beauty. Beholding the Apsara in those woods, the illustrious Rishi Vyasa, O Yudhishthira, became suddenly smitten with desire. The Apsara (Ghritachi) seeing the Rishi's heart troubled by desire, transformed herself into a she-parrot and came to that spot. Although he beheld the Apsara disguised in another form, the desire that had arisen in the Rishi's heart (without disappearing) spread itself over every part of his body. Summoning all his patience, the ascetic endeavoured to suppress that desire; with all his effort, however, Vyasa did not succeed in controlling his agitated mind. In consequence of the inevitability of what was to happen, the Rishi's heart was attracted by Ghritachi's fair form. He set himself more earnestly to the task of making a fire for suppressing his emotion, but in spite of all his efforts his vital seed came out. That best of regenerate ones, however, O king, continued to rub his stick without feeling any scruples for what had happened. From the seed that fell, was born a son unto him, called Suka. In consequence of his circumstance attending his birth, he came to be called by name of Suka. Indeed, it was thus that great ascetic that foremost of Rishis and highest of Yogins, took birth from the two sticks (his father had for making fire)”.

Conclusion: - From the detailed reasoning and analysis done above, it is crystal clear that Suka’s birth mentioned in Bhagawatam is bogus.

4. Suka never lived to recite Bhagawatam to Parikshit in reality

Suka of Bhagawatamw cannot be the Suka of Mahabharata (the son of Vyasa). Since Suka learnt Yoga from his father, the science of Emancipation (Moksha) from Janaka the king of Mithila, and then Narada instructed Suka to cast off his body and merge himself into the Supreme Brahman to gain the highest reality of Sayujya Moksha. And Suka gained Moksha by uniting himself with the Brahman. In common man’s terms Suka cast off his body (in improper words – Suka died).

4.1 Vyasa instructs Suka to gain knowledge on Moksha from Janaka the King of Mithila:

“sa mokṣam anucintyaiva śukaḥ pitaram abhyagāt | prāhābhivādya ca guruṃ śreyo 'rthī vinayānvitaḥ |
mokṣadharmeṣu kuśalo bhagavān prabravītu me | yathā me manasaḥ śāntiḥ paramā saṃbhavet prabho | śrutvā putrasya vacanaṃ paramarṣir uvāca tam | adhīsva putra mokṣaṃ vai dharmāṃś ca vividhān api | pitur niyogāj jagrāha śuko brahmavidāṃ varaḥ | yogaśāstraṃ ca nikhilaṃ pāpilaṃ caiva bhārata | sa taṃ brāhmyā śriyā yuktaṃ brahma tulyaparākramam | mene putraṃ yadā vyāsa mokṣavidyā viśāradam | uvāca gaccheti tadā janakaṃ mithileśvaram | sa te vakṣyati mokṣārthaṃ nikhilena viśeṣataḥ |” (MBH. 12:312:1-6)
Bhishma said, 'Thinking of Emancipation, Suka approached his sire and possessed as he was of humility and desirous of achieving his highest good, he saluted his great preceptor and said,--Thou art well versed in the religion of Emancipation. Do thou O illustrious one, discourse to me upon it, so that supreme tranquillity of mind, O puissant one, may be mine!--Hearing these words of his son, the great Rishi said unto him,--Do thou study, O son, the religion of Emancipation and all the diverse duties of life!--At the command of his sire, Suka, that foremost of all righteous men, mastered all the treatises on Yoga, O Bharata. as also the science promulgated by Kapila. When Vyasa behind his son to be possessed of the resplendence of the Vedas, endued with the energy of Brahma, and fully conversant with the religion of Emancipation, he addressed him, saying,--Go thou to Janaka the ruler of Mithila. The king of Mithila will tell thee everything for thy Emancipation”.

4.2 Narada Advices Suka to cast off his body:

“tyaja dharmam adharmaṃ ca jubhe satyānṛte tyaja | ubhe satyānṛte tyaktvā yena tyajasi taṃ tyaja |
tyaja dharmam asaṃkalpād adharmaṃ cāpy ahiṃsayā | ubhe satyānṛte buddhyā buddhiṃ paramaniścayāt | asthi sthūnaṃ snāyu yutaṃ māṃsaśonita lepanam | carmāvanaddhaṃ durgandhi pūrṇaṃ mūtra purīsayoḥ | jarā śokasamāviṣṭaṃ rogāyatanam āturam | rajasvalam anityaṃ ca bhūtāvāsaṃ samutsṛja |” (MBH Book 12:316:40-43)
Cast off both virtue and vice, and truth and falsehood. Having cast off truth and falsehood, do thou cast off that by which these are to be cast off. By casting off all purpose, do thou cast off virtue; do thou cast off sin also by casting off all desire. With the aid of the understanding, do thou cast off truth and falsehood; and, at last, do thou cast off the understanding itself by knowledge of the highest topic (viz., the supreme Soul). Do thou cast off this body having bones for its pillars; sinews for its binding strings and cords; flesh and blood for its outer plaster; the skin for its outer case; full of urine and faeces and, therefore, emitting a foul smell; exposed to the assaults of decrepitude and sorrow; forming the seat of disease and weakened by pain; possessed of the attribute of Rajas in predominance: not permanent or durable, and which serves as the (temporary) habitation of the indwelling creature”.

4.3 Suka decides to get liberated and speaks about casting off his body

“sūryasya sadane cāhaṃ nikṣipyedaṃ kalevaram | ṛṣibhiḥ saha yāsyāmi sauraṃ tejo 'tiduḥsaham |” (MBH 12:318:57)
Having cast off this body of mine in the solar region. With the great Rishis I shall enter the unbearable energy of the Sun”.

“āpṛcchāmi nagān nāgān girīn urvīṃ diśo divam | devadānavagandharvān piśācoragarākṣasān | lokeṣu sarvabhūtāni pravekṣyāmi na saṃśayaḥ | paśyantu yogavīryaṃ me sarve devāḥ saharṣibhiḥ |” (MBH 12:318:58-59)
Declare unto all creatures, unto these trees, these elephants, these mountains, the Earth herself, the several points of the compass, the welkin, the deities, the Danavas, the Gandharvas, the Pisachas, the Uragas, and the Rakshasas that I shall, verily, enter all creatures in the world. Let all the gods with the Rishis behold the prowess of my Yoga today!

4.4 Suka becomes one with Brahman

Usually it is highly misunderstood by people who read this section of Mahabharata. They think that Suka was flying high in sky towards north direction. It is not about external flying my friends; it is the rising of Kundalini upwards through the spine alongwith which the Prana of Suka was travelling upwards, to get united forever into the Brahman (Shiva) present in the Sahasrara chakra (Maha Kailasha) located within the Head’s crown area. When a Yogi thinks of merging himself into Brahman (in Sahasrara), he can do so through this process. And it is a fact that whatever external worlds we see, all are within ourselves. Through Yoga when a Yogi becomes inwardly focused; he can see all the worlds and everything within him. So, all these conversations happening in this below verses are internal in nature and should not be confused with the external entities. In fact before we step into Mahabharata's verses directly, just to give confidence on my thoughts let me cite here reference from Chandogya Upanishad which states the same that the worlds, earth, heaven, stars, constellations etc. everything is present within ourselves.

Everything that you see outside exists within you only within the Sushumna nerve at the heart (Anahata Chakra) and at the Sahasrara Chakra.

“atha yadidamasminbrahmapure daharaM puNDarIkaM veshma daharo.asminnantarAkAshastasminyadantastadanveShTavyaM tadvAva vijij~nAsitavyamiti |” (Chandogya Upanishad VIII-I-1)
“Om. Now, in this city of Brahman, there is a mansion in the shape of a small lotus; in it is a small inner Akasa. What is within that - that should be sought; that indeed, one should desire to understand”.

In the above verse city of Brahman refers to the Sahasrara Chakra (1000 petal lotus in skull) where all universes exist. And in below verse it states that whatever exists in that city of Brahman identically exists in the heart (Anahata Chakra) also. This is because Sushumna nadi passes through the heart and it actually contains all the universes.

“taM chedbrUyuryadidamasminbrahmapure daharaM puNDarIkaM veshma daharo.asminnantarAkAshaH kiM tadatra vidyate yadanveShTavyaM yadvAva vijij~nAsitavyamiti sa brUyAt.h | (Chandogya Upanishad VIII-I-2)
yAvAnvA ayamAkAshastAvAneSho.antarhR^idaya akAsha ubhe asmindyAvApR^ithivI antareva samAhiteubhAvagnishcha vAyushcha sUryAchandramasAvubhau vidyunnakShatrANi yachchAsyehAsti yachcha nAsti sarvaM tadasminsamAhitamiti |” (Chandogya Upanishad VIII-I-3)
“If the disciples should say to him, ‘In this city of Brahman in which is a small mansion in the shape of a lotus and in the small inner Akasa within – what is it that lies there which should be sought, which one should desire to understand ?’ – he should say in reply, ‘As large indeed as is this Akasa, so large is that Akasa in the heart. Within it, indeed, are contained both heaven and earth, both fire and air, both the sun and the moon, lightning and the stars. Whatever there is of him in this world and whatever is not, all that is contained within it’”.

So, hopefully one would buy my words now. Let's now proceed ahead with the actual discussion. The celestials on seeing Suka's prana rising upwards towards Sahasrara Chakra started discussing as follows.

“daivataṃ katamaṃ hy etad uttamāṃ gatim āsthitam | suniścitam ihāyāti vimuktam iva niḥspṛham |” (MBH 12:319:19)
And they asked one another, saying;--What deity is this one that has attained to such a high end? Without doubt, he comes hither, freed from all attachments and emancipated from all desires!

Note here that some celestials are saying why vyasa allowed his son to stride that path where from there is no return.

“pitṛbhakto dṛdha tapāḥ pituḥ sudayitaḥ sutaḥ | ananyamanasā tena kathaṃ pitrā vivarjitaḥ |” (MBH 12:319:22)
Alas, why has he been dismissed by his inattentive father to proceed (thus) along a way whence there is no return?

Here Suka requests all the celestials, mobile and immobile creation to reply back to Vyasa on behalf of Suka if Vyasa comes asking for his son.

“urvasyā vacanaṃ śrutvā śukaḥ paramadharmavit | udaikṣata diśaḥ sarvā vacane gatamānasaḥ |
so 'ntarikṣaṃ mahīṃ caiva saśailavanakānanām | ālokayām āsa tadā sarāṃsi saritas tathā |
tato dvaipāyana sutaṃ bahumāna puraḥsaram | kṛtāñjaliputāḥ sarvā nirīkṣante sma devatāḥ |
abravīt tās tadā vākyaṃ śukaḥ paramadharmavit | pitā yady anugacchen māṃ krośamānaḥ śuketi vai | tataḥ prati vaco deyaṃ sarvair eva samāhitaiḥ | etan me snehataḥ sarve vacanaṃ kartum arhatha |
śukasya vacanaṃ śrutvā diśaḥ savanakānanāḥ | samudrāḥ saritaḥ śailāḥ pratyūcus taṃ samantataḥ |
yathājñāpayase vipra bādham evaṃ bhaviṣyati | ṛṣer vyāharato vākyaṃ prativakṣyāmahe vayam |” (MBH 12:319:23-29)
Hearing these words of Urvasi, and attending to their import, Suka, that foremost of all persons conversant with duties, cast his eyes on all sides, and once more beheld the entire welkin, the whole Earth with her mountains and waters and forests, and also all the lakes and rivers. All the deities also of both sexes, joining their hands, paid reverence to the son of the Island-born Rishi and gazed at him with wonder and respect. That foremost of all righteous men, Suka, addressing all of them, said these words,--If my sire follow me and repeatedly call after me by my name, do all of you together return him an answer for me. Moved by the affection all of you bear for me, do you accomplish this request of mine!--Hearing these words of Suka, all the points of the compass, all the forest, all the seas, all the rivers, and all the mountains, answered him from every side, saying,--We accept thy command, O regenerate one! It shall be as thou sayst! It is in this way that we answer the words spoken by the Rishi!

“tamo hy astavidhaṃ hitvā jahau pañca vidhaṃ rajaḥ | tataḥ sattvaṃ jahau dhīmāṃs tad adbhutam ivābhavat | tatas tasmin pade nitye nirguṇe liṅgavarjite | brahmaṇi pratyatiṣṭhat sa vidhūmo 'gnir iva jvalan |” (MBH 12:320:2-3)
Suka, stayed on his success casting off the four kinds of faults. Casting off also the eight kinds of Tamas, he dismissed the five kinds of Rajas. Endued with great intelligence, he then cast off the attribute of Sattwa. All this seemed exceedingly wonderful. He then dwelt in that eternal station that is destitute of attributes, freed from every indication, that is, in Brahma, blazing like a smokeless fire”.

The following thing happens within our body when Kundbalini rises up. These are not outward changes.

“ulkā pātā diśāṃ dāhā bhūmikampās tathaiva ca | prādurbhūtāḥ kṣaṇe tasmiṃs tad adbhutam ivābhavat | drumāḥ śākhāś ca mumucuḥ śikharāṇi ca parvatāḥ | nirghātaśabdaiś ca girir himavān dīryatīva ha | na babhāse sahasrāṃśur na jajvāla ca pāvakaḥ | hradāś ca saritaś caiva cukṣubhuḥ sāgarās tathā | vavarṣa vāsavas toyaṃ rasavac ca sugandhi ca | vavau samīraṇaś cāpi divyagandhavahaḥ śuciḥ |” (MBH 12:320:4-7)
Meteors began to shoot. The points of the compass seemed to be ablaze. The Earth trembled. All those phenomena seemed exceedingly wonderful. The trees began to cast off their branches and the mountains their summits. Loud-reports (as of thunder) were heard that seemed to rive the Himavat mountains. The sun seemed at that moment to be shorn of splendour. Fire refused to blaze forth. The lakes and rivers and seas were all agitated. Vasava poured showers of rain of excellent taste and fragrance. A pure breeze began to blow, bearing excellent perfumes”.

The following two summits are nothing but the tip of the “Ida” and “Pingala” nadis which are white and yellow respectively. They meet at Sushumna and Suka’s Prana was passing through that intersection point indeed. Through Sushumna when the Prana moves upwards and gets united into Shiva in Sahasrara. that is the highest form of Moksha which has no rebirth (called videha mukti / Sayujyam)

“sa śṛṅge 'pratime divye himavan merusaṃbhave | saṃśliṣṭe śvetapīte dve rukta rūpyamaye śubhe |” (MBH 12:320:8)
Suka as he proceeded through the welkin, beheld two beautiful summits, one belonging to Himavat and another to Meru. These were in close contact with each other. One of them was made of gold and was, therefore yellow; the other was white, being made of silver”.

Here Suka’s prana pierced at the joint of Ida-Pingala and entered into Sushumna nadi

“so 'viśaṅkena manasā tathaivābhyapatac chukaḥ | tataḥ parvataśṛṅge dve sahasaiva dvidhākṛte | adṛśyetāṃ mahārāja tad adbhutam ivābhavat | tataḥ parvataśṛṅgābhyāṃ sahasaiva viniḥsṛtaḥ | na ca pratijaghānāsya sa gatiṃ parvatottamaḥ |” (MBH 12:320:10-11)
With a fearless heart he dashed against those two summits that were united with each other. Unable to bear the force, the summits were suddenly rent in twain. The sight they thereupon presented, O monarch, was exceedingly wonderful to behold. Suka pierced through those summits, for they were unable to stop his onward course”.

Various kinds of Loud noises are usually heard when Kundalini pierces through Sushumna:

“tato mahān abhūc chabdo divi sarvadivaukasām | gandharvāṇām ṛṣīṇāṃ ca ye ca śailanivāsinaḥ |” (MBH 12:320:12)
At this a loud noise arose in heaven, made by the denizens thereof. The Gandharvas and the Rishis also and others that dwelt in that mountain being rent in twain and Suka passing through it”.

Through Sushumna he pierced through the impregnable hole called “Brahmarandhra” and entered into Sahasrara Chakra and gained Siva Sayujyam (became one with Siva- the Brahman)

“divyaiḥ puṣpaiḥ samākīrṇam antarikṣaṃ samantataḥ | āsīt kila mahārāja śukābhipatane tadā |” (MBH 12:320:15)
"The entire firmament became strewn with celestial flowers showered from heaven at that moment when Suka thus pierced through that impenetrable barrier, O monarch!

“tam uvāca mahādevaḥ sāntvapūrvam idaṃ vacaḥ | putraśokābhisaṃtaptaṃ kṛṣṇadvaipāyanaṃ tadā |
agner bhūmer apāṃ vāyor antarikṣasya caiva ha | vīryeṇa sadṛśaḥ putras tvayā mattaḥ purā vṛtaḥ |
sa tathā lakṣaṇo jātas tapasā tava saṃbhṛtaḥ | mama caiva prabhāvena brahmatejomayaḥ śuciḥ | (MBH 12:320:32-34)
Consoling the Island-born Rishi who was burning with grief on account of his son, Mahadeva said these words unto him.--Thou hadst formerly solicited from me a son possessed of the energy of Fire, of Water, of Wind, and of Space; Procreated by thy penances, the son that was born unto thee was of that very kind. Proceeding from my grace, he was pure and full of Brahma-energy”.

4.5 Shiva said that Suka attained the highest end:

“sa gatiṃ paramāṃ prāpto duṣprāpām ajitendriyaiḥ | daivatair api viprarṣe taṃ tvaṃ kim anuśocasi |
yāvat sthāsyanti girayo yāvat sthāsyanti sāgarāḥ | tāvat tavākṣayā kīrtiḥ saputrasya bhaviṣyati |” (MBH 12:320:35-36)
He has attained to the highest end--an end which none can win that has not completely subjugated his senses, nor can be won by even any of the deities. Why then, O regenerate Rishi, dost thou grieve for that son? As long as the hills will last, as long as the ocean will last, so long will the fame of thy son endure undiminished!

4.6 Shiva gives Vyasa a shadow form of his son to relieve his grief a little

“chāyāṃ svaputra sadṛśīṃ sarvato 'napagāṃ sadā | drakṣyase tvaṃ ca loke 'smin matprasādān mahāmune | so 'nunīto bhagavatā svayaṃ rudreṇa bhārata | chāyā paśyan samāvṛttaḥ sa muniḥ parayā mudā |” (MBH 12:320:37-38)
Through my grace, O great Rishi thou shalt behold in this world a shadowy form resembling thy son, moving by the side and never deserting thee for a single moment!--Thus favoured by the illustrious Rudra himself, O Bharata, the Rishi beheld a shadow of his son by his side. He returned from that place, filled with joy at this”.

This story was told to Bheeshma many times by Sage narada and Vyasa in ancient times (in the days of yore). So, long long ago in Bheeshma’s lifetime itself Suka got liberated. Hence Vyasa’s son Suka was in no way the Suka of Bhagawatam.

“iti janma gatiś caiva śukasya bharatarṣabha | vistareṇa mayākhyātaṃ yan māṃ tvaṃ paripṛcchasi |
etad ācasta me rājan devarṣir nāradaḥ purā | vyāsaś caiva mahāyogī saṃjalpeṣu pade pade |” (MBH 12:320:39-40)
I have now told thee, O chief of Bharata's race, everything regarding the birth and life of Suka about which thou hadst asked me. The celestial Rishi Narada and the great Yogin Vyasa had repeatedly told all this to me in days of yore when the subject was suggested to him in course of conversation”.

Conclusion: - From the above narration of Mahabharata it is crystal clear that long long ago in the lifetime of Bheeshma itself, Bheeshma heard the passing away of Suka from Narada and Vyasa that too he heard that story many times from them. And Parikshit was born too later in time. Therefore Vyasa’s son Suka being 16 years in age and narrating Bhagawatam to Parikshit is impossible and is utterly bogus.

4.7 If Suka died (got liberated) how did he recite Mahabharata to Yakshas and Rakshasas?

Well, let me take this opportunity to clarify one apparent contradiction. One may get a doubt here - Mahabharata states that Suka recited Mahabharata in the celestial abodes to Yakshas and Rakshasas as stated in Mahabharata verse below.

"nārado 'śrāvayad devān asito devalaḥ pitṝn | rakṣoyakṣāñ śuko martyān vaiśampāyana eva tu ||" (MBH 18:05:42)
"Narada recited the Mahabharata to the gods; Asita-Devala to the Pitris; Suka to the Rakshasas and the Yakshas; and Vaishampayana to human beings".

This verse apparently makes us think that Suka probably didn’t die and he later narrated this Mahabharata to Yakshas and Rakshasas. But this is not the case! Mahabharata was composed by Vyasa in his mind first, then lord Ganesha penned it down. However, Vyasa taught that epic first to his son Suka (note that he taught to his son in former times, means very early in that era), they both used to chant Mahabharata as stated below.

“maharṣir bhagavān vyāsaḥ kṛtvemāṃ saṃhitāṃ purā | ślokaiś caturbhir bhagavān putram adhyāpayac chukam ||" (MBH 18:05:46)
"In former times, the great Rishi Vyasa, having composed this treatise, caused his son Suka to read it with him, along with these four Verses..."

Suka and other disciples of Vyasa together with Narada sang (recited) this great Bharata in higher abodes and made it famous as stated above in (MBH 18:05:42). Mahabharata was so huge in volume that some thousands of verses were recited in celestial abodes whereas only one hundred thousand verses were reserved for this world of mortals. Also, note that, in this world of humans, Mahabharata was not published until the Kuru seniors (Dhritarashtra and Vidura) departed from this earth. And on this earth it was recited very late during the snake sacrifice of Janamejaya when Vaishampayana recited the Bharata to him. So, on earth Mahabharata was recited when Suka got liberated (died in common man’s words), and it was recited by Vaishampayana. Let’s see some references supporting this.

"parāśarātmajo vidvān brahmarṣiḥ saṃśitavrataḥ | mātur niyogād dharmātmā gāṅgeyasya ca dhīmataḥ ||
kṣetre vicitravīryasya kṛṣṇadvaipāyanaḥ purā | trīn agnīn iva kauravyāñ janayām āsa vīryavān ||
utpādya dhṛtarāṣṭraṃ ca pāṇḍuṃ viduram eva ca | jagāma tapase dhīmān punar evāśramaṃ prati ||
teṣu jāteṣu vṛddheṣu gateṣu paramāṃ gatim | abravīd bhārataṃ loke mānuṣe 'smin mahān ṛṣiḥ ||
janamejayena pṛṣṭaḥ san brāhmaṇaiś ca sahasraśaḥ | śaśāsa śiṣyam āsīnaṃ vaiśampāyanam antike ||
sa sadasyaiḥ sahāsīnaḥ śrāvayām āsa bhāratam | karmāntareṣu yajñasya codyamānaḥ punaḥ punaḥ ||" (MBH 1:01:53-58)
"Sauti continued, 'I will now speak of the undying flowery and fruitful productions of this tree, possessed of pure and pleasant taste, and not to be destroyed even by the immortals. Formerly, the spirited and virtuous Krishna-Dwaipayana, by the injunctions of Bhishma, the wise son of Ganga and of his own mother, became the father of three boys who were like the three fires by the two wives of Vichitra-virya; and having thus raised up Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura, he returned to his recluse abode to prosecute his religious exercise. It was not till after these were born, grown up, and departed on the supreme journey, that the great Rishi Vyasa published the Bharata in this region of mankind; when being solicited by Janamejaya and thousands of Brahmanas, he instructed his disciple Vaisampayana, who was seated near him; and he, sitting together with the Sadasyas, recited the Bharata, during the intervals of the ceremonies of the sacrifice, being repeatedly urged to proceed”.

”caturviṃśatisāhasrīṃ cakre bhārata saṃhitām | upākhyānair vinā tāvad bhārataṃ procyate budhaiḥ ||
tato 'dhyardhaśataṃ bhūyaḥ saṃkṣepaṃ kṛtavān ṛṣiḥ | anukramaṇim adhyāyaṃ vṛttāntānāṃ saparvaṇām || idaṃ dvaipāyanaḥ pūrvaṃ putram adhyāpayac chukam | tato 'nyebhyo 'nurūpebhyaḥ śiṣyebhyaḥ pradadau prabhuḥ || nārado 'śrāvayad devān asito devalaḥ pitṝn | gandharvayakṣarakṣāṃsi śrāvayām āsa vai śukaḥ ||" (MBH 1:01:61-64)
"Vyasa executed the compilation of the Bharata, exclusive of the episodes originally in twenty-four thousand verses; and so much only is called by the learned as the Bharata. Afterwards, he composed an epitome in one hundred and fifty verses, consisting of the introduction with the chapter of contents. This he first taught to his son Suka; and afterwards he gave it to others of his disciples who were possessed of the same qualifications. After that he executed another compilation, consisting of six hundred thousand verses. Of those, thirty hundred thousand are known in the world of the Devas; fifteen hundred thousand in the world of the Pitris: fourteen hundred thousand among the Gandharvas, and one hundred thousand in the regions of mankind. Narada recited them to the Devas, Devala to the Pitris, and Suka published them to the Gandharvas, Yakshas, and Rakshasas: and in this world they were recited by Vaisampayana, one of the disciples of Vyasa, a man of just principles and the first among all those acquainted with the Vedas. Know that I, Sauti, have also repeated one hundred thousand verses".

Conclusion: – Therefore it is clear that Suka, Narada, Sauti, Devala narrated Mahabharata in celestial abodes well before Mahabharata was published in this world of mortals. And later Suka discarded his body and achieved liberation as proved in previous sections. Thereafter in this world of mortals Vaishampayana narrated Mahabharata during the snake sacrifice to Janamejaya..So, there is no contradiction in Mahabharata, it is a fact that Suka died many years ago even during the lifetime of Bhishma and was not alive to recite Bhagawatam to Parikshit. Therefore Bhagawatam is clearly a bogus scripture.

5. Bhagawatam’s failed Attempt to correlate the fictitious Suka’s story with Mahabharata’s story

There is no head and tail that one can make out of the insertion of the following verse in Bhagawatam. What was the objective of this verse is not clear. Here it says Vyasa was following his son and on the way a river came where some damsels were bathing naked. Seeing Suka, they didn’t cover their bodies but seeing Vyasa they covered themselves out of shame.

“drstvanuyantam rsim atmajam apy anagnam | devyo hriya paridadhur na sutasya citram
tad viksya prcchati munau jagadus tavasti | stri-pum-bhida na tu sutasya vivikta-drsteh |” (SB. 1:4:5)
While Sri Vyasadeva was following his son, beautiful young damsels who were bathing naked covered their bodies with cloth, although Sri Vyasadeva himself was not naked. But they had not done so when his son had passed. The sage inquired about this, and the young ladies replied that his son was purified and when looking at them made no distinction between male and female. But the sage made such distinctions”.

This above verse in reality has no connection with this chapter in Bhagawatam. Neither it has anything to do with it’s immediately preceding verse, nor with the succeeding verse. I am not sure who appointed this third class writer to compose Bhagawatam, but actually this story happens in Mahabharata with the ORIGINAL Suka, wherefrom this author of Bhagawatam tried to copy it and apply it on this DUPLICATE (FAKE) Suka.

Let me cite the actual incident from Mahabharata.

In Mahabharata as studied in previous sections above, when Suka travelled upwards for emancipation; Vyasa out of attachment for his son follows him through same Yogic Aerial path (Kundalini). But fails to travel after a certain point and out of grief halts there and laments. There in Ganga river few damsels bathing naked covers themselves out of shame but they didn’t do that while Suka was travelling since he had casted off all his attributes of attachments and desire while Vyasa did not.

“mahimānaṃ tu taṃ dṛṣṭvā putrasyāmita tejasaḥ | niṣasāda giriprasthe putram evānucintayan |
tato mandākinī tīre krīdanto 'psarasāṃ gaṇāḥ | āsādya tam ṛṣiṃ sarvāḥ saṃbhrāntā gatacetasaḥ |
jale nililyire kāś cit kāś cid gulmān prapedire | vasanāny ādaduḥ kāś cid dṛṣṭvā taṃ munisattamam |
tāṃ muktatāṃ tu vijñāya muniḥ putrasya vai tadā | saktatām ātmanaś caiva prīto 'bhūd vrīditaś ca ha |” (MBH 12:320:27-30)
Beholding that glory and puissance of his son of immeasurable energy, Vyasa sat down on the breast of the mountain and began to think of his son with grief. The Apsaras were sporting on the banks of the celestial stream Mandakini, seeing the Rishi seated there, became all agitated with grave shame and lost heart. Some of them, to hide their nudity, plunged into the stream, and some entered the groves hard by, and some quickly took up their clothes, at beholding the Rishi. (None of them had betrayed any signs of agitation at sight of his son). The Rishi, beholding these movements, understood that his son had been emancipated from all attachments, but that he himself was not freed therefrom. At this he became filled with both joy and shame”.

Conclusion: - One can easily understand that Mahabharata’s story was meaninglessly copied in Bhagawatam and applied on the Fake Suka. This story actually belonged to original Suka of Mahabharata which was copied and applied on Fake Suka. This itself shows how the so called revered scripture viz. Bhagawatam was composed.

6. Srimad Bhagawatam trying to Re-Define the Standards of Mahabharata?

6.1 Blunder by Bhagavatam in explaining Bheeshma’s Departure

Srimad Bhagawatam tries to manipulate what the Epic Mahabharata says about Bheeshma's departure. Definitely this cannot be a work of Vyasa since Puranas can speak differently but Mahabharata which was a historical story, it needs to remain unadulterated in all the scriptures wherever narrated. Bhagawatam says that Bheeshma merged into the soul of Krishna and got Moksha (salvation), whereas the 'svargArohaNa parvA' of Mahabharata clearly refutes it stating that Bheeshma was seen by Yudhishthira in the heaven seated as one among the Eight Vasus.

Let's see the contradictory passages here as evidence. The below verses are from Bhagawatam.

“Sūta uvāca
kṛṣṇa evaḿ bhagavati mano-vāg-dṛṣṭi-vṛttibhiḥ
ātmany ātmānam āveśya so 'ntaḥśvāsa upāramat | (SB. 1.9.43)
sampadyamānam ājñāya bhīṣmaḿ brahmaṇi niṣkale
sarve babhūvus te tūṣṇīḿ vayāḿsīva dinātyaye |” (SB. 1.9.44)
Suta Gosvāmī said: Thus Bhīṣmadeva merged himself in the Supersoul, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with his mind, speech, sight and actions, and thus he became silent, and his breathing stopped. Knowing that Bhīṣmadeva had merged into the unlimited eternity of the Supreme Absolute, all present there became silent like birds at the end of the day”.

Whereas Mahabharata says Bheeshma became Vasu again as follows.

“vasubhiḥ sahitaṃ paśya bhīṣmaṃ śāṃtanavaṃ nṛpam |” (MBH 18:4:17)
Behold the royal Bhishma, the son of Santanu, now in the midst of the Vasus”.

So, Vyasa could never have committed such a blunder in narrating the History of Mahabharata totally in a different way in Bhagawatam. So, Bhagawatam definitely was not authored by Vyasa

6.2 Blunders in Bhagawatam related to Ashwatthama’s Brahmashira episode

Srimad Bhagawatam commits a big blunder in narrating the sequences of Ashwatthama’s downfall episode. It again seems like redefining the standards of the actual story of Mahabharata. Actually we should call it as manipulating the story of Mahabharata to Elevate Krishna’s character there. But fiction becomes exposed when real story is studied.

Mahabharata gives a very PRACTICAL narration whereas Bhagawatam narrates a FAIRY TALE which is FAR from truth and practicality aspects. Let’s see the excerpts from both the texts and analyze them. I would quote the Mahabharata story first (which looks realistic) and then Bhagawatam story (which looks like a fairy tale). Wherever required, I would put my comment below the verses.

It was Bhima who marched towards Ashwatthama with bow (fixed with arrow). Seeing him in rage, Ashwatthama out of fear of death releases the supreme weapon ‘Brahmashira’. Let’s see the excerpts now.

Story as narrated by Mahabharata:

“tam abhyadhāvat kaunteyaḥ pragṛhya saśaraṃ dhanuḥ |
bhīmaseno mahābāhus tiṣṭha tiṣṭheti cābravīt |” (MBH 10:13:15)
The mighty-armed Bhimasena, the son of Kunti, taking up his bow with shaft fixed on it, rushed towards Ashvatthama, and said, ‘Wait, wait!'”.

“sa dṛṣṭvā bhīmadhanvānaṃ pragṛhītaśarāsanam | bhrātarau pṛṣṭhataś cāsya janārdana rathe sthitau | vyathitātmābhavad drauṇiḥ prāptaṃ cedam amanyata | sa tad divyam adīnātmā paramāstram acintayat | jagrāha ca sa caiṣīkāṃ drauṇiḥ savyena pāṇinā | sa tām āpadam āsādya vidyam astram udīrayat | amṛṣyamāṇas tāñ śūrān divyāyudha dharān sthitān | apāṇḍdavāyeti ruṣā vyasṛjad dāruṇaṃ vacaḥ | ity uktvā rājaśārdūla droṇaputraḥ pratāpavān | sarvalokapramohārthaṃ tad astraṃ pramumoca ha | tatas tasyām iṣīkāyāṃ pāvakaḥ samajāyata | pradhakṣyann iva lokāṃs trīn kālāntakayamopamaḥ |” (MBH 10:13:16-20)
Drona's son, beholding that terrible bowman coming towards him bow in hand, and the two brothers on Janardana's car, became exceedingly agitated and thought his hour had come. Of soul incapable of being depressed, he called to his mind that high weapon (which he had obtained from his sire). He then took up a blade of grass with his left hand. Fallen into great distress, he inspired that blade of grass with proper mantras and converted it into that powerful celestial weapon. Unable to brook the arrows (of the Pandavas) and the presence of those wielders of celestial weapons, he uttered in wrath these terrible words: ‘For the destruction of the Pandavas.' Having said these words, O tiger among kings, the valiant son of Drona let off that weapon for stupefying all the worlds. A fire then was born in that blade of grass, which seemed capable of consuming the three worlds like the all-destroying Yama at the end of the yuga."

Seeing that divine weapon released, Krishna immediately alerts Arjuna. Then without any time delay Arjuna understands what weapon to be released and releases Brahmashira to counter the other Brahmashira of the opponent. There wasn’t much time delay here. I know I’m repeating this point but this point needs to be noted carefully. Here another noteworthy point is, Krishna didn’t say the name of the weapon released by Ashwatthama. Arjuna was skilled enough to identify the weapon released and he releases the same weapon to neutralize the opponent’s missile. This narration is very realistic and looks practical as well (We’ll see later how unrealistic is Bhagawatam while narrating this scene).

“iṅgitenaiva dāśārhas tam abhiprāyam āditaḥ | drauṇer buddhvā mahābāhur arjunaṃ pratyabhāṣata |
arjunārjuna yad divyam astraṃ te hṛdi vartate | dropopadiṣṭaṃ tasyāyaṃ kālaḥ saṃprati pāṇḍava |
bhrātṝṇām ātmanaś caiva paritrāṇāya bhārata | visṛjaitat tvam apy ājāv astram astranivāraṇam |” (MBH 10:14:1-3)
Vaishampayana said, "At the very outset the mighty-armed hero of Dasharha's race understood from signs the intention of Drona's son. Addressing Arjuna, he said, ‘O Arjuna, O son of Pandu, the time is come for the use of that celestial weapon which is in thy memory, knowledge of which was imparted to thee by Drona. For protecting thyself as also thy brothers, O Bharata, shoot in this battle that weapon which is capable of neutralizing all weapons.'”

“keśavenaivam uktas tu pāṇḍavaḥ paravīrahā | avātarad rathāt tūrṇaṃ pragṛhya saśaraṃ dhanuḥ |
pūrvam ācārya putrāya tato 'nantaram ātmane | bhrātṛbhyaś caiva sarvebhyaḥ svastīty uktvā paraṃtapaḥ | devatābhyo namaskṛtya gurubhyaś ceva sarvaśaḥ | utsasarja śivaṃ dhyāyann astram astreṇa śāmyatām |” (MBH 10:14:4-6)
Thus addressed by Keshava, Arjuna, that slayer of hostile heroes, quickly alighted from the car, taking with him his bow with shaft fixed on the string. Softly wishing good unto the preceptor's son and then unto himself, and unto all his brothers, that scorcher of foes then bowed unto all the gods and all his superiors and let off his weapon, thinking of the welfare of all the worlds and uttering the words, ‘Let Ashvatthama's weapon be neutralized by this weapon!'”.

Then before the two weapons collided, Vyasa and Narada came in between those two weapons and prevented them from colliding. Reason why they didn’t allow those two weapons to collide is given in below verse. Ashwatthama released that weapon to kill all Pandavas, but Arjuna released same weapon to neutralize the former missile. And as per the law of Brahmashira weapon, if it is baffled by any weapon, then for 12 years there happens severe draught in that region. And hence the collision was also a disaster for that region itself. So, that’s why Vyasa and Narada intervened in between those two missiles, and prevented them from colliding. Note these points carefully since in Bhagawatam extracts we would understand how funny the story is told there.

“astraṃ brahmaśiro yatra paramāstreṇa vadhyate | samā dvādaśa parjanyas tad rāṣṭraṃ nābhivarṣati |” (MBH 10:15:23)
That region where the weapon called brahmashira is baffled by another high weapon suffers a drought for twelve years, for the clouds do not pour a drop of water there for this period”.

Then Vyasa instructed Arjun and Ashwatthama to withdraw their weapons back. Arjuna succeeds to do that, but Ashwatthama states that he was not capable to withdraw it. Note that it is Ashwatthama who reveals his incapability to withdraw. And then Ashwatthama redirects his weapon towards the fetus of Uttara to kill him instead of killing Pandavas. Note this point also carefully because we need to enjoy the sense of humor of the author of Bhagawatam which we'll do shortly.

“nāradaḥ sa ca dharmātmā bharatānāṃ pitāmahaḥ | ubhau śamayituṃ vīrau bhāradvāja dhanaṃjayau | tau munī sarvadharmajñau sarvabhūtahitaiṣiṇau | dīptayor astrayor madhye sthitau paramatejasau |
tadantaram anādhṛṣyāv upagamya yaśasvinau | āstām ṛṣivarau tatra jvalitāv iva pāvakau |
prāṇabhṛdbhir anādhṛṣyau devadānava saṃmatau | astratejaḥ śamayituṃ lokānāṃ hitakāmyayā |” (MBH 10:14:12-15)
Then the two great rishis, Narada, who is the soul of every creature, and the grandsire of all the Bharata princes (Vyasa), beholding those two weapons scorching the three worlds, showed themselves there. The two rishis sought to pacify the two heroes Ashvatthama and Dhananjaya. Conversant with all duties and desirous of the welfare of all creatures, the two sages, possessed of great energy, stood in the midst of those two blazing weapons. Incapable of being overwhelmed by any force, those two illustrious rishis, placing themselves between the two weapons, stood like two blazing fires. Incapable of being checked by any creature endued with life, and adorned by the gods and danavas, they two acted in this way, neutralising the energy of the two weapons and doing good to all the world”.

Now, note that Arjuna withdraws ONLY his weapon as per the below narration. And Ashwatthama fails to take back his missile.

“dṛṣṭvaiva naraśārdūlas tāv agnisamatejasau | saṃjahāra śaraṃ divyaṃ tvaramāṇo dhanaṃjayaḥ |
uvāca vadatāṃ śreṣṭhas tāv ṛṣī prāñjalis tadā | prayuktam astram astreṇa śāmyatām iti vai mayā |
saṃhṛte paramāstre 'smin sarvān asmān aśeṣataḥ | pāpakarmā dhruvaṃ drauṇiḥ pradhakṣyaty astratejasā | atra yad dhitam asmākaṃ lokānāṃ caiva sarvathā | bhavantau devasaṃkāśau tathā saṃhartum arhataḥ | ity uktvā saṃjahārāstraṃ punar eva dhanaṃjayaḥ | saṃhāro duṣkaras tasya devair api hi saṃyuge || (MBH 10:15:1-5)
Vaishampayana said, "At the very sight, O tiger among men, of those two rishis possessed of splendour like that of fire, Dhananjaya quickly resolved to withdraw his celestial shaft. Joining his hands, he addressed those rishis, saying, ‘I used this weapon, saying, "Let it neutralise the (enemy's) weapon!" If I withdraw this high weapon, Drona's son of sinful deeds will then, without doubt, consume us all with the energy of his weapon. Ye two are like gods! It behoveth you to devise some means by which our welfare as also that of the three worlds may be secured!' Having said these words Dhananjaya withdrew his weapon”.

“drauṇir apy atha saṃprekṣya tāv ṛṣī purataḥ sthitau | na śaśāka punar ghoram astraṃ saṃhartum āhave ||” (MBH 10:15:11)
Drona's son, beholding those two rishis standing before him, could not by his energy withdraw his own terrible weapon”.

Seeing Ashwatthama incapable of withdrawing his missile, Vyasa instructs him to change the target of the missile and spare Pandavas, then Drona’s son redirects that terrible missile towards Uttara’s womb.

“tataḥ paramam astraṃ tad aśvatthāmā bhṛśāturaḥ | dvaipāyana vacaḥ śrutvā garbheṣu pramumoca ha | (MBH 10:15:33)
"The son of Drona, having heard these words of the island-born, threw that uplifted weapon into the wombs of the Pandava women."

Now let’s see verses from Bhagawatam and understand what an impractical and unrealistic picture it has created of this episode.

Story as narrated by Bhagawatam:

“tadā śucas te pramṛjāmi bhadre | yad brahma-bandhoḥ śira ātatāyinaḥ
gāṇḍīva-muktair viśikhair upāhare | tvākramya yat snāsyasi dagdha-putrā | (SB 1.7.16)
iti priyāḿ valgu-vicitra-jalpaiḥ | sa sāntvayitvācyuta-mitra-sūtaḥ
anvādravad daḿśita ugra-dhanvā | kapi-dhvajo guru-putraḿ rathena |” (SB 1.7.17)
O gentle lady, when I present you with the head of that brāhmaṇa, after beheading him with arrows from my Gāṇḍīva bow, I shall then wipe the tears from your eyes and pacify you. Then, after burning your sons' bodies, you can take your bath standing on his head. Arjuna, who is guided by the infallible Lord as friend and driver, thus satisfied the dear lady by such statements. Then he dressed in armor and armed himself with furious weapons, and getting into his chariot, he set out to follow Aśvatthāmā, the son of his martial teacher”.
Notes: -
  • Arjuna pledges to Draupadi that he would bring the severed head of Ashwatthama as per the above verse. Arjuna never slipped from his vows. Let’s see whether he keeps his pledge or not.
  • It’s only Arjuna and Krishna who sped towards the place where Ashwatthama was there. No mention of Bhima at all

“tam āpatantaḿ sa vilakṣya dūrāt | kumāra-hodvigna-manā rathena

parādravat prāṇa-parīpsur urvyāḿ | yāvad-gamaḿ rudra-bhayād yathā kaḥ | (SB 1.7.18)
yadāśaraṇam ātmānam | aikṣata śrānta-vājinam | astraḿ brahma-śiro mene | ātma-trāṇaḿ dvijātmajaḥ |” (SB 1.7.19)
Aśvatthāmā, the murderer of the princes, seeing from a great distance Arjuna coming at him with great speed, fled in his chariot, panic stricken, just to save his life, as Brahmā fled in fear from Śiva. When the son of the brāhmaṇa [Aśvatthāmā] saw that his horses were tired, he considered that there was no alternative for protection outside of his using the ultimate weapon, the brahmāstra”.
Notes: -
  • Ashwatthama gets scared here seeing Arjuna whereas Mahabharata says it was Bhima who was furiously coming towards him
  • Ashwatthama here is portrayed as having a chariot whose steeds became tired so he could not flee. But Actually Ashwatthama was seated in the hermitage of Vyasa as per Mahabharata
  • Here there is no mention of Vyasa’s presence
  • On a side note, the translator of Bhagawatam doesn’t know what a nuclear weapon is. He translates the Brahmashira as Nuclear weapon. But in reality in Mahabharata nukes were not used

“athopaspṛśya salilaḿ | sandadhe tat samāhitaḥ

ajānann api saḿhāraḿ | prāṇa-kṛcchra upasthite |” (SB 1.7.20)
Since his life was in danger, he touched water in sanctity and concentrated upon the chanting of the hymns for throwing nuclear weapons, although he did not know how to withdraw such weapons".
  • Here Ashwatthama touched water and all sorts of worship etc. But in reality as per Mahabharata Ashwatthama released an “Asika” missile. Asika means ‘grass blade’, and with his Mantra Shakti that grass blade became Brahmashira
  • Here Bhagawatam reveals in advance that Ashwatthama did not know how to withdraw that weapon.
Now comes the funniest sequences of the story. The dialogues, the screenplay everything deserves a noble prize for being the most comical narration. Each word needs to be read carefully to enjoy the beauty of the sense of humor of the author.

“tataḥ prāduṣkṛtaḿ tejaḥ | pracaṇḍaḿ sarvato diśam
prāṇāpadam abhiprekṣya | viṣṇuḿ jiṣṇur uvāca ha | (SB 1.7.21)
arjuna uvāca | kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa mahā-bāho | bhaktānām abhayańkara | tvam eko dahyamānānām |
apavargo 'si saḿsṛteḥ | (SB 1.7.22)
tvam ādyaḥ puruṣaḥ sākṣād | īśvaraḥ prakṛteḥ paraḥ | māyāḿ vyudasya cic-chaktyā | kaivalye sthita ātmani | (SB 1.7.23)
sa eva jīva-lokasya | māyā-mohita-cetasaḥ | vidhatse svena vīryeṇa | śreyo dharmādi-lakṣaṇam | (SB 1.7.24)
tathāyaḿ cāvatāras te | bhuvo bhāra-jihīrṣayā | svānāḿ cānanya-bhāvānām | anudhyānāya cāsakṛt | (SB 1.7.25)
kim idaḿ svit kuto veti | deva-deva na vedmy aham | sarvato mukham āyāti | tejaḥ parama-dāruṇam |” (SB 1.7.26)
Thereupon a glaring light spread in all directions. It was so fierce that Arjuna thought his own life in danger, and so he began to address Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna said: O my Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, You are the almighty Personality of Godhead. There is no limit to Your different energies. Therefore only You are competent to instill fearlessness in the hearts of Your devotees. Everyone in the flames of material miseries can find the path of liberation in You only. You are the original Personality of Godhead who expands Himself all over the creations and is transcendental to material energy. You have cast away the effects of the material energy by dint of Your spiritual potency. You are always situated in eternal bliss and transcendental knowledge. And yet, though You are beyond the purview of the material energy, You execute the four principles of liberation characterized by religion and so on for the ultimate good of the conditioned souls. Thus You descend as an incarnation to remove the burden of the world and to benefit Your friends, especially those who are Your exclusive devotees and are rapt in meditation upon You. O Lord of lords, how is it that this dangerous effulgence is spreading all around? Where does it come from? I do not understand it”.
PURPORT: Anything that is presented before the Personality of Godhead should be so done after due presentation of respectful prayers. That is the standard procedure, and Śrī Arjuna, although an intimate friend of the Lord, is observing this method for general information.
  • There Drona’s son had already released that terrible weapon which was coming with blazing effulgence, and here Arjuna is portrayed at the peak of stupidity. Arjuna who had maximum no. of celestial weapons with him feared for his life here!
  • Instead of releasing a counter weapon Arjuna is shown as praising krishna’s glories. In the moment of disaster, simple salutation to God is enough. Would god ask you to bribe him with too many praises in order to protect you? God would get pleased even if someone simply remembers him and asks for protection. Why the hell one would need all the absurd praises like “O lord you are the original personality…” etc., what if he is? and what if he is not? How does it matter there? Read the above passage once more, and I am sure it would drive everyone nuts.
  • Arjuna is shown as one who is not able to understand what that dangerous effulgence was, which was spreading around. Arjuna was not a normal archer, he was an expert in Dhanurvidya. And it is a serious INSULT to Arjuna’s character if someone portrays him so cowardly.
  • And read the Purport also, how stupid a commentator can be is clearly visible here. Of course Purports are not relevant to be discussed in this analysis, but I couldn’t stop myself after reading that. It says one needs to eulogize God in such a detail. Arjuna’s behavior in these verses is too unrealistic to be considered for an epic. Danger was already fast approaching and he started reciting numerous praises for the Lord. Probably the idea of including Vishnu Sahasranama Stotram here didn’t strike the mind of the author of Bhagawatam. Otherwise he would have considered that as more appropriate prayer here. This is so foolish to see Arjuna offering such elongated and time consuming prayers when actually that was the moment for him to act.
“śrī-bhagavān uvāca | vetthedaḿ droṇa-putrasya | brāhmam astraḿ pradarśitam
naivāsau veda saḿhāraḿ | prāṇa-bādha upasthite | (SB 1.7.27)
na hy asyānyatamaḿ kiñcid | astraḿ pratyavakarśanam | jahy astra-teja unnaddham | astra-jño hy astra-tejasā |” (SB 1.7.28)
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Know from Me that this is the act of the son of Droṇa. He has thrown the hymns of nuclear energy [brahmāstra], and he does not know how to retract the glare. He has helplessly done this, being afraid of imminent death. O Arjuna, only another brahmāstra can counteract this weapon. Since you are expert in the military science, subdue this weapon's glare with the power of your own weapon".
Notes: -
  • Oh! So the supreme personality of godhead said, “know from me that this is the act of Drona’s son”? Was Arjuna blind that he couldn’t see who released that weapon? There is a limit for everything and even if some Purana wants to give away all credits to the central hero (here Krishna), then also there should be some credits to the supporting actors (here Arjuna). This is heights of hypocrisy!
  • Oh! Arjuna doesn’t know what that weapon was. And even Arjuna is being told by krishna that only another Brahmashira can nullify it. Surprising! I thought Mahabharata always projected Arjuna as the best of the bowmen who had knowledge of all celestial weapons!
  • The comment, “Since you are expert in military science” as told by Krishna doesn’t fit there when Arjuna was shown as a novice in weaponry science.
  • And here Krishna is revealing that Ashwatthama doesn’t know how to withdraw his weapon. Strange! In Mahabharata it was Ashwatthama who told that actually
  • And most importantly, there are nobody witnessing that incident. Vyasa, Narada, and pandavas are totally absent.
“sūta uvāca | śrutvā bhagavatā proktaḿ | phālgunaḥ para-vīra-hā | spṛṣṭvāpas taḿ parikramya |
brāhmaḿ brāhmāstraḿ sandadhe |” (SB 1.7.29)
Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī said: Hearing this from the Personality of Godhead, Arjuna touched water for purification, and after circumambulating Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, he cast his brahmāstra weapon to counteract the other one”.
Notes: -
  • Oh, not again! Did the author of Bhagawatam really have any idea of weapons? It was Brahmashira the terrible weapon and that was already released, and here Arjuna is touching water. Where did Arjuna find water? Did he carry a water bottle with him? Ok! Let’s be little lenient and assume that some source of water was available
  • Arjuna did bow to all the Gods and his superiors as per Mahabharata, but so much of overaction of circumambulation etc. was not done as shown here. What if Krishna wasn't there? Without the overaction of circumambulation wouldn't the arrow fly?
  • And I wonder, whether the Brahmashira weapon when released, mounts itself on a bullock cart and comes slowly or something of that sort? The depiction of Bhagawatam clearly shows a great amount of time lapse, and still Arjuna was carelessly doing hell lot of rituals. I suppose Brahmashira weapon actually waits till the target gets prepared to get killed or counter. What a benevolent and magnanimous weapon that is!
“saḿhatyānyonyam ubhayos | tejasī śara-saḿvṛte | āvṛtya rodasī khaḿ ca |
vavṛdhāte 'rka-vahnivat | (SB 1.7.30)
dṛṣṭvāstra-tejas tu tayos | trīl lokān pradahan mahat | dahyamānāḥ prajāḥ sarvāḥ
sāḿvartakam amaḿsata |” (SB 1.7.31)
When the rays of the two brahmāstras combined, a great circle of fire, like the disc of the sun, covered all outer space and the whole firmament of planets. All the population of the three worlds was scorched by the combined heat of the weapons. Everyone was reminded of the sāḿvartaka fire which takes place at the time of annihilation”.
Notes: -
  • Oh my God! Both the Brahmashiras collided and combined their radiations! What a nice depiction of fireworks! Loving the imagination of the author here!
  • Already the population of three worlds started getting scortched by these weapons. Then it would be insane to even think of withdrawal.
  • Secondly, Ashwatthama released that weapon to destroy Arjuna (here in Bhagawatam) whereas (for destruction of all Pandavas in Mahabharata). Why the hell those weapons started scortching all the three worlds and their population? Divine misiles have their own laws and any damn author cannot rule the laws of celestial weapons based on his own imagination. This itself shows how inefficient was the author of Bhagawatam in knowledge of weapon mechanics
  • “Everyone was reminded of the ‘Samvartaka’ fire”, as it says! Who is “Everyone (prajāḥ sarvāḥ)” there? Only three Arjuna, Ashwatthama and Krishna make everyone? Or it means all the worlds and creatures? And were they watching any movie that they were reminded of some other movie scene (Samvartaka fire)?
  • Both weapons started colliding and still there is no mention of Vyasa and Narada
  • Since the weapons already collided there are only two possibilities viz. either destruction of Arjuna or if Arjuna’s missle baffles the other one, a severe famine in that land for 12 years.
“prajopadravam ālakṣya | loka-vyatikaraḿ ca tam | mataḿ ca vāsudevasya |
sañjahārārjuno dvayam | (SB 1.7.32)
Thus seeing the disturbance of the general populace and the imminent destruction of the planets, Arjuna at once retracted both brahmāstra weapons, as Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa desired”.
Notes: -
  • Withdrawal of weapons is possible only before they actually collide. It is stupid to read Bhagawatam putting such illogical sequences
  • A weapon can be withdrawn only by its master. It is not possible for any warrior to withdraw someone else’s missile. But here strangely Arjuna withdraws both the weapons. Strange! Heights of stupidity! If this was the case, then in the Mahabharata war there was no need for Krishna to take Vaishnavastra on himself, there was no need to shout on Bhima and to pull him down making him surrender to Narayanastra. Arjuna could have withdrawn all the weapons shot by the opponents and that way it would have become an eco-friendly war
  • And here again Arjuna didn’t have his own mind to think. He decided to withdraw both weaposn as per the desire of Krishna. Come on! There should be some limit even to glorify any God in a scripture. This Bhagawatam contains exaggerations to their highest limit (and even beyond).
“tata āsādya tarasā | dāruṇaḿ gautamī-sutam | babandhāmarṣa-tāmrākṣaḥ |
paśuḿ raśanayā yathā | (SB 1.7.32)
mainaḿ pārthārhasi trātuḿ | brahma-bandhum imaḿ jahi | yo 'sāv anāgasaḥ suptān
avadhīn niśi bālakān | (SB 1.7.35)
sva-prāṇān yaḥ para-prāṇaiḥ | prapuṣṇāty aghṛṇaḥ khalaḥ | tad-vadhas tasya hi śreyo
yad-doṣād yāty adhaḥ pumān |” (SB 1.7.37)
Arjuna, his eyes blazing in anger like two red balls of copper, dexterously arrested the son of Gautamī and bound him with ropes like an animal. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: O Arjuna, you should not show mercy by releasing this relative of a brāhmaṇa [brahma-bandhu], for he has killed innocent boys in their sleep. A cruel and wretched person who maintains his existence at the cost of others' lives deserves to be killed for his own well-being; otherwise he will go down by his own actions”.
Notes: -
  • Oh! So entire battle was played by Krishna, Arjuna and Ashwatthama here. And now Arjuna has tied him with rope and is taking him to their tent. In Mahabharata not even a hint of such a story was presented by Vyasa. Who the author of Bhagawatam is, tell me, who is trying to redefine History?

“pratiśrutaḿ ca bhavatā | pāñcālyai śṛṇvato mama | āhariṣye śiras tasya |

yas te mānini putra-hā |” (SB 1.7.38)
Furthermore, I have personally heard you promise Draupadī that you would bring forth the head of the killer of her sons”.
Notes: -
  • Yes, my dear Krishna! Even I am waiting to see if Arjuna keeps his promise or not. In Mahabharata Arjuna never failed from his promises though.

“sūta uvāca | evaḿ parīkṣatā dharmaḿ | pārthaḥ kṛṣṇena coditaḥ | naicchad dhantuḿ guru-sutaḿ

yadyapy ātma-hanaḿ mahān | (SB 1.7.40)
athopetya sva-śibiraḿ | govinda-priya-sārathiḥ | nyavedayat taḿ priyāyai |
śocantyā ātma-jān hatān |” (SB 1.7.41)
Sūta Gosvāmī said: Although Kṛṣṇa, who was examining Arjuna in religion, encouraged Arjuna to kill the son of Droṇācārya, Arjuna, a great soul, did not like the idea of killing him, although Aśvatthāmā was a heinous murderer of Arjuna's family members. After reaching his own camp, Arjuna, along with his dear friend and charioteer [Śrī Kṛṣṇa], entrusted the murderer unto his dear wife, who was lamenting for her murdered sons”.
  • Oh! So, again Arjuna went back to square one? Does he need another round of Gita Upadesha? He became compassionate toward that person who killed Draupadi’s five sons? Why didn’t he show his compassion on Jayadratha then who was actually not very much a sinner in killing Abhimanyu? (Actual killing was done by others; Jayadratha was instrumental in blocking all help from outside the Chakravyuha. So, it was not very fair to kill him actually)
  • Since when Arjuna became merciful towards his enemies even after taking Oath of killing? The author of Bhagawatam strictly needs a preaching of Mahabharata. Clearly the person who wrote Bhagawatam was not aware of Mahabharata at all

“tathāhṛtaḿ paśuvat pāśa-baddham | avāń-mukhaḿ karma-jugupsitena | nirīkṣya kṛṣṇāpakṛtaḿ guroḥ sutaḿ | vāma-svabhāvā kṛpayā nanāma ca | (SB 1.7.42)

uvāca cāsahanty asya | bandhanānayanaḿ satī | mucyatāḿ mucyatām eṣa |
brāhmaṇo nitarāḿ guruḥ | (SB 1.7.43)
mā rodīd asya jananī | gautamī pati-devatā | yathāhaḿ mṛta-vatsārtā |
rodimy aśru-mukhī muhuḥ |” (SB 1.7.47)
Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī said: Draupadī then saw Aśvatthāmā, who was bound with ropes like an animal and silent for having enacted the most inglorious murder. Due to her female nature, and due to her being naturally good and well-behaved, she showed him due respects as a brāhmaṇa. She could not tolerate Aśvatthāmā's being bound by ropes, and being a devoted lady, she said: Release him, for he is a brāhmaṇa, our spiritual master. My lord, do not make the wife of Droṇācārya cry like me. I am aggrieved for the death of my sons. She need not cry constantly like me”.
Notes: -
  • Aha! What a transformation in Draupadi’s nature during the transition from Bharata to Bhagawata! In Mahabharata, Ashwatthama was never brought to Draupadi's camp, but hearing about his defeat, she definitely said, "the son of the preceptor is venerable to us"; but had she really faced that killer of her sons, surely her reactions wouldn't have been so soft. Had she been so benevolent, her hairs would not have remain uncombed for so long. Dushsasana’s death would not have been so gruesome. Karna’s death wouldn’t have been so brutal. No doubt that Draupadi was a righteous woman in all sense, but she was not portrayed as so soft hearted in Mahabharata. Of course the atrocities what she had to face they were really painful and hence her desire for avengeing herself was perfectly justified. But no where she was so merciful towards her enemies the way Bhagawatam portrayed her
  • Oh! She said, “My lord! do not make the wife of Droṇācārya cry like me”. Wow! Had Draupadi been like that in reality, then probably Gandhari wouldn’t have lamented for her 100 sons. Dusshala wouldn’t have lamented for Jayadratha. Kunti wouldn’t have lamented for Karna; since all would have remained alive. I know Draupadi’s harshness was meaningful & was apt and that’s how Mahabharata shows her. But here I don’t see real Draupadi’s character being shown in Bhagawatam

“śrī-bhagavān uvāca | brahma-bandhur na hantavya | ātatāyī vadhārhaṇaḥ | mayaivobhayam āmnātaḿ
| paripāhy anuśāsanam | kuru pratiśrutaḿ satyaḿ | yat tat sāntvayatā priyām | priyaḿ ca bhīmasenasya | pāñcālyā mahyam eva ca | (SB 1.7.54)
sūta uvāca | arjunaḥ sahasājñāya | harer hārdam athāsinā | maṇiḿ jahāra mūrdhanyaḿ
dvijasya saha-mūrdhajam | (SB 1.7.55)
vimucya raśanā-baddhaḿ | bāla-hatyā-hata-prabham | tejasā maṇinā hīnaḿ
śibirān nirayāpayat | (SB 1.7.56)
The Personality of Godhead Sri Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly. You have to fulfill your promise to your wife, and you must also act to the satisfaction of Bhīmasena and Me. Just then Arjuna could understand the motive of the Lord by His equivocal orders, and thus with his sword he severed both hair and jewel from the head of Aśvatthāmā. He [Aśvatthāmā] had already lost his bodily luster due to infanticide, and now, moreover, having lost the jewel from his head, he lost even more strength. Thus he was unbound and driven out of the camp”.
Notes: -
  • I think the author of Bhagawatam is confused between the stories of Jayadratha and Ashwatthama. It was Jayadratha once who kidnapped Draupadi, and Pandavas rescued her and later left him alive by tonsuring his head. With Ashwatthama these sequences never happened as per Mahabharata. Actually Ashwatthama was not at all brought to Pandavas camp in Mahabharata
  • It is Ashwatthama himself who actually takes out his Jewell and gives away; in Mahabharata. Here Bhagawatam wants to redefine standards of Vyasa’s writings perhaps!
Stay tuned. More funny and illogical sequences are to come now.

“yājayitvāśvamedhais taḿ | tribhir uttama-kalpakaiḥ | tad-yaśaḥ pāvanaḿ dikṣu |
śata-manyor ivātanot | (SB 1.8.6)
āmantrya pāṇḍu-putrāḿś ca | śaineyoddhava-saḿyutaḥ | dvaipāyanādibhir vipraiḥ |
pūjitaiḥ pratipūjitaḥ |” (SB 1.8.7)
Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa caused three well-performed Aśvamedha-yajñas [horse sacrifices] to be conducted by Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira and thus caused his virtuous fame to be glorified in all directions, like that of Indra, who had performed one hundred such sacrifices. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa then prepared for His departure. He invited the sons of Pāṇḍu, after having been worshiped by the brāhmaṇas, headed by Śrīla Vyāsadeva. The Lord also reciprocated greetings”.

Note that Krishna is about to go back to Dwarika while the below incident happens.

“gantuḿ kṛtamatir Brahman | dvārakāḿ ratham āsthitaḥ | upalebhe 'bhidhāvantīm
uttarāḿ bhaya-vihvalām | (SB 1.8.8)
Uttarovāca | pāhi pāhi mahā-yogin | deva-deva jagat-pate | nānyaḿ tvad abhayaḿ paśye |
yatra mṛtyuḥ parasparam | (SB 1.8.9)
abhidravati mām īśa | śaras taptāyaso vibho | kāmaḿ dahatu māḿ nātha |
mā me garbho nipātyatām |” (SB 1.8.10)
As soon as He seated Himself on the chariot to start for Dvārakā, He saw Uttarā hurrying toward Him in fear. Uttarā said: O Lord of lords, Lord of the universe! You are the greatest of mystics. Please protect me, for there is no one else who can save me from the clutches of death in this world of duality. O my Lord, You are all-powerful. A fiery iron arrow is coming towards me fast. My Lord, let it burn me personally, if You so desire, but please do not let it burn and abort my embryo. Please do me this favor, my Lord”.
Notes: -
  • O My God! A woman carrying fetus in her womb in her last stages of pregnancy can come running?
  • Was the Brahmashira weapon like a lame limping man in its speed of motion? How practical it is to see a woman able to escape from it and run away?
  • And it is so unrealistic on the part of Ashwatthama to wait for such a long time till Ashwamedha sacrifices got over and then try to avenge for his insult

“sūta uvāca | upadhārya vacas tasyā | bhagavān bhakta-vatsalaḥ | apāṇḍavam idaḿ kartuḿ |

drauṇer astram abudhyata | (SB 1.8.11)
vyasanaḿ vīkṣya tat teṣām | ananya-viṣayātmanām | sudarśanena svāstreṇa | svānāḿ rakṣāḿ vyadhād vibhuḥ |” (SB 1.8.13)
Sūta Gosvāmī said: Having patiently heard her words, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is always very affectionate to His devotees, could at once understand that Aśvatthāmā, the son of Droṇācārya, had thrown the brahmāstra to finish the last life in the Pāṇḍava family. The almighty Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, having observed that a great danger was befalling His unalloyed devotees, who were fully surrendered souls, at once took up His Sudarśana disc to protect them”.
Notes: -
  • Brahmashira gave enough time to the victim and krishna; so that, Krishna could hear “patiently” her plea.
  • Krishna “at once took up his Sudarshana”. Strange! Didn't he say, “This is the job for Superman…Up…Up and away.."?. Totally unrealistic story! There is a limit for glorifying the central hero. This story doesn’t match with Mahabharata even a single verse. It’s a cooked up fairy tale and nothing more than that!

“antaḥsthaḥ sarva-bhūtānām | ātmā yogeśvaro hariḥ | sva-māyayāvṛṇod garbhaḿ |

vairāṭyāḥ kuru-tantave | (SB 1.8.14)
yadyapy astraḿ brahma-śiras | tv amoghaḿ cāpratikriyam | vaiṣṇavaḿ teja āsādya |
samaśāmyad bhṛgūdvaha | (SB 1.8.15)
brahma-tejo-vinirmuktair | ātmajaiḥ saha kṛṣṇayā | prayāṇābhimukhaḿ kṛṣṇam |
idam āha pṛthā satī |” (SB 1.8.17)
The Lord of supreme mysticism, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, resides within everyone's heart as the Paramātmā. As such, just to protect the progeny of the Kuru dynasty, He covered the embryo of Uttarā by His personal energy. O Śaunaka, although the supreme brahmāstra weapon released by Aśvatthāmā was irresistible and without check or counteraction, it was neutralized and foiled when confronted by the strength of Viṣṇu [Lord Kṛṣṇa]. Thus saved from the radiation of the brahmāstra, Kuntī, the chaste devotee of the Lord, and her five sons and Draupadī addressed Lord Kṛṣṇa as He started for home”.
Notes: -
  • There is nothing of any such incident that happened in actual Mahabharata. It’s totally fictitious. True, that someone said, “Sky is the limit”; I can see even beyond the sky the never ending limits of imagination of this unrealistic author of Bhagawatam
I wanted to cover the death of Parikshit and his coming back to life episode as a separate section. So, the story read in above section should be kept in memory while reading the below section.

6.3 Blunders in Bhagawatam related to Parikshit’s birth

Continuing from the above section where we have seen that Krishna’s sudarshana chakra covers Uttara’s womb and protects the fetus. Let me extend that story and show what Bhagawatam says further. But before that, let me present the excerpts from Mahabharata the original epic story of Pandavas.

Parikshit’s birth story as given in Mahabharata

Here this excerpt is from the Ashwatthama-Brahmashira episode where, Ashwatthama redirects that missile towards the womb of Uttara. Krishna angrily tells Ashwatthama that if he was thinking that he became successful in destroying that fetus, he was a fool. Krishna said that he himself would revive Parikshit to life who would live for 60 years.

“vayaḥ prāpya parikṣit tu veda vratam avāpya ca | kṛpāc chāradvatād vīraḥ sarvāstrāṇy upalapsyate ||
viditvā paramāstrāṇi kṣatradharmavrate sthitaḥ | ṣaṣṭiṃ varṣāṇi dharmātmā vasudhāṃ pālayiṣyati ||
itaś cordhvaṃ mahābāhuḥ kururājo bhaviṣyati | parikṣin nāma nṛpatir miṣatas te sudurmate ||
paśya me tapaso vīryaṃ satyasya ca narādhama | (MBH 10:16:13-15)
The heroic Parikshit, attaining to age and a knowledge of the Vedas and the practice of pious vows, shall obtain all weapons from the son of Sharadvata. Having obtained a knowledge of all high weapons, and observant of all kshatriya duties, that righteous-souled king shall rule the earth for sixty years. More than this, that boy shall become the mighty-armed king of the Kurus, known by the name of Parikshit, before thy very eyes, O thou of wicked soul! Though burnt by the energy of thy weapon's fire, I shall revive him. O lowest of men, behold the energy of my austerities and my truth."

Here Krishna says he would revive the killed Parikshit with the merit of his austerities and his strength of truth. Mahabharata depicts a very practical and realistic form of Krishna where Krishna is shown as super human only where really it was required. And in other places Krishna used his Yoga prowess, his Merits of being righteous etc. kind of elements to uplift Dharma and to protect people. Bhagawatam on the other hand; every time, in every verse, tries to prove krishna as a super human. But as per Mahabharata even krishna had certain limits and limitations and also Mahabharata is open in revealing such weak areas of krishna unlike Bhagawatam which forcefully tries to map Krishna to that super human level which he was actually not on this planet in that incarnation.

Let’s move further now.

Pariskit was born dead as per Mahabharata and Krishna as promised, puts his truthfulness, his righteousness, his sincerity in clinging to Dharma, his austerities, his firmness in vows into stake and makes the dead infant alive.

“śrutvā sa tasyā vipulaṃ vilāpaṃ puruṣarṣabhaḥ | upaspṛśya tataḥ kṛṣṇo brahmāstraṃ saṃjahāra tat |
pratijajñe ca dāśārhas tasya jīvitam acyutaḥ | abravīc ca viśuddhātmā sarvaṃ viśrāvayañ jagat |
na bravīmy uttare mithyā satyam etad bhaviṣyati | eṣa saṃjīvayāmy enaṃ paśyatāṃ sarvadehinām |
noktapūrvaṃ mayā mithyā svaireṣv api kadā cana | na ca yuddhe parā vṛttas tathā saṃjīvatām ayam |
yathā me dayito dharmo brāhmaṇāś ca viśeṣataḥ | abhimanyoḥ suto jāto mṛto jīvatv ayaṃ tathā |
yathāhaṃ nābhijānāmi vijayena kadā cana | virodhaṃ tena satyena mṛto jīvatv ayaṃ śiśuḥ |
yathāsatyaṃ ca dharmaś ca mayi nityaṃ pratiṣṭhitau | tathā mṛtaḥ śiśur ayaṃ jīvatām abhimanyujaḥ |
yathā kaṃśaś ca keśī ca dharmeṇa nihatau mayā | tena satyena bālo 'yaṃ punar ujjīvatām iha |
ity ukto vāsudevena sa bālo bharatarṣabha | śanaiḥ śanair mahārāja prāspandata sa cetanaḥ |" (MBH 14:68:16-24)
Kesava of eyes like the petals of the lotus. That foremost of beings, hearing those heart-rending lamentations of hers, touched water and withdrew the (force of the) Brahma-weapon. That hero of unfading glory, belonging to the race of the Dasarhas, promised to give the child his life. Then he of pure soul, said these words in the hearing of the whole universe,--'O Uttara, I never utter an untruth. My words will prove true. I shall revive this child in the presence of all creatures. Never before have I uttered an untruth even in jest. Never have I turned back from battle. (By the merit of those acts) let this child revive! As righteousness is dear to me, as Brahmanas are specially dear to me, (by the merit of that disposition of mine) let Abhimanyu's son, who is born dead, revive! Never hath a misunderstanding arisen between me and my friend Vijaya. Let this dead child revive by that truth! As truth and righteousness are always established in me, let this dead child of Abhimanyu revive (by the merit of these)! As Kansa and Kesi have been righteously slain by me, let this child revive today by that truth!' After these words were uttered by Vasudeva, that child, O foremost one of Bharata's race, became animate and began gradually to move, O monarch.'
Notes: -
  • If one studies Mahabharata in detail, one would understand that even though Krishna was a God incarnate, he still was not so Super Human like. He too had his limitations and limits. And in the light of Mahabharata it sounds perfectly realistic to see Krishna using his merits as the basis to make that child alive

Now we’ll see what the fairy tale of Bhagawatam narrates it as!

Parikshit’s birth story as given in Bhagawatam

“matur garbha-gato virah | sa tada bhrigu-nandana | dadarsa purusham kancid |
dahyamano 'stra-tejasa |(1:12:7)
angushtha-matram amalam | sphurat-purata-maulinam | apivya-darsanam syamam |
tadid vasasam acyutam | (1:12:8)
srimad-dirgha-catur-bahum | tapta-kancana-kundalam | kshatajaksham gada-panim | atmanah sarvato disam | paribhramantam ulkabham | bhramayantam gadam muhuh (1:12:9)
astra-tejah sva-gadaya | niharam iva gopatih | vidhamantam sannikarshe | paryaikshata ka ity asau | (1:12:10)
vidhuya tad ameyatma | bhagavan dharma-gub vibhuh | mishato dasamasasya | tatraivantardadhe harih |” (1:12:11)
O son of Bhrigu [Saunaka], when the child Parikshit, the great fighter, was in the womb of his mother, Uttara, and was suffering from the burning heat of the brahmastra [thrown by Asvatthama], he could observe the Supreme Lord coming to him. He [the Lord] was only thumb high, but He was all transcendental. He had a very beautiful, blackish, infallible body, and He wore a dress of lightning yellow and a helmet of blazing gold. Thus He was seen by the child. The Lord was enriched with four hands, earrings of molten gold and eyes blood red with fury. As He loitered about, His club constantly encircled Him like a shooting star. The Lord was thus engaged in vanquishing the radiation of the brahmastra, just as the sun evaporates a drop of dew. He was observed by the child, who thought about who He was. While thus being observed by the child, the Supreme Lord Personality of Godhead, the Supersoul of everyone and the protector of the righteous, who stretches in all directions and who is unlimited by time and space, disappeared at once”.
Notes: -
  • Continuing from the previous section where in Bhagawatam, krishna’s Sudarshana makes a covering on Uttara’s womb; here, this narration is an extension of that event
  • Here Parikshit, being within the womb, beholds Lord Vishnu within the womb as protecting him. Wow what a supernatural description! It’s good to read this as a fairy tale but it has no ground to stand in front of the story given in Mahabharata

“tatah sarva-gunodarke | sanukula-grahodaye | jajne vamsa-dharah pandor |

bhuyah pandur ivaujasa | (1:12:12)
tasya prita-mana raja | viprair dhaumya-kripadibhih | jatakam karayam asa | vacayitva ca mangalam |” (1:12:13)
Thereupon, when all the good signs of the zodiac gradually evolved, the heir apparent of Pandu, who would be exactly like him in prowess, took birth. King Yudhishthira, who was very satisfied with the birth of Maharaja Parikshit, had the purificatory process of birth performed. Learned brahmanas, headed by Dhaumya and Kripa, recited auspicious hymns”.
Notes: -
  • Bhagawatam tells a cock and bull story from the high imaginative prowess of the author
  • Here Vishnu (Krishna) protected Parikshit within the womb itself and when Parikshit was born he was born alive. This is totally contradictory to Mahabharata

Conclusion: - Mahabharata is an Epic, and is a History not a mythology. So, the story of history cannot be altered as per our wish. The way Mahabharata narrates these sequences they are true and all these moonshine created in Bhagawatam is BOGUS and only fit to be called as an imaginary narrative.

7. Vyasa’s hypothetical second Suka (of Bhagawatam) would never have learnt Scriptures from Vyasa

Even if we assume that somehow Vyasa married Jabali and fathered a son. Let us discard the imaginary story of that son remaining inside the womb and Krishna asking him to come out etc. since we have already seen that story as refuted in above sections of our analysis. Let us do a plain assumption that due to grief of losing his original son (Suka), Vyasa married Jabali and normally fathered another boy and named him also Suka.

Even if we assume like this, then also it is impossible for Suka to become learned in Vedas from his father because Vyasa’s disciples had asked him a boon of not teaching Vedas to any other person except 4 of them plus Suka (original one) total five.

“kāṅkṣām astu vayaṃ sarve varaṃ dattaṃ maharṣiṇā | sasthaḥ śiṣyo na te khyātiṃ gacched atra prasīda naḥ | catvāras te vayaṃ śiṣyā guruputraś ca pañcamaḥ | iha vedāḥ pratiṣṭherann eṣa naḥ kāṅkṣito varaḥ |” (MBH 12:314:37-38)
O great Rishi, to grant us a boon. Be thou inclined to be graceful to us. Let no sixth disciple (besides us five) succeed in attaining to fame! We are four. Our preceptor's son forms the fifth. Let the Vedas shine in only as five! Even this is the boon that we solicit

So, the hyporthetical son of Vyasa would not have learned even one Veda from his father.

8. Shiva’s status turned upside down by Bhagawatam contrary to Mahabharata and other scriptures

In Mahabharata and in the uninterpolated sections of Puranas, Vyasa has always given the highest position to Lord Shiva. In Vyasa’s authentic writings, never Vyasa had ever insulted Shiva since Shiva is the Parabrahman of Vedas and Vyasa confirmed that many a times in Mahabharata. But on the contrary, author of Bhagawatam thinks he is smarter than Vyasa, Bheeshma kind of learned souls; and in Bhagawatam it's author has given totally opposite position to Mahadeva. Let’s see how cruelly Bhagawatam snatches Mahadeva’s glories and applies them on Krishna.

The below verse has been spoken by Veda Vyasa in Mahabharata.

“sa eṣa rudra bhaktaś ca keśavo rudra saṃbhavaḥ | kṛṣṇa eva hi yaṣṭavyo yajñaiś caiṣa sanātanaḥ |
sarvabhūtabhavaṃ jñātvā liṅge 'rcayati yaḥ prabhum | tasminn abhyadhikāṃ prītiṃ karoti vṛṣabhadhvajaḥ |” (MBH 7:172:89-90)
Kesava is that devoted worshipper of Rudra who has sprung from Rudra himself. Kesava always worship the Lord Siva, regarding his Phallic emblem to be the origin of the universe. In Kesava is always present that knowledge, in consequence of which he views the identity of Brahman with the: universe and that other knowledge by which the Past, the Present and the Future, the near and the remote, are all seen, as if the whole are before his eyes. The gods, the Siddhas and the great Rishis, adore Kesava for obtaining that highest object in the universe, viz., Mahadeva. The Lord Kesava always worshippeth Siva in the Phallic emblem as the origin of all creatures. The God having the bull for his mark cherisheth greater regard for Kesava”.

The below verses has been spoken by Bheeshma in Mahabharata.

"Rudra bhakthya thu krishnena jagat vyaptham mahathmana | Tham prasadhya thadha devam bhadaryam kila bharatha | Arthath priya harathwam cha sarva lokeshu vai yadhaa |
Prapthavaaneva rajendra suvarnaakshan maheswaraath |" (MBH 13:14:10-11)
"It is in consequence of the devotion of the high-souled Krishna to the illustrious Rudra whom he gratified. O Bharata, in the retreat of Vadari, by penances, that he (Krishna) has succeeded in pervading the entire universe. O king of kings, it is through Maheswara of celestial vision that Vasudeva has obtained the attribute of universal agreeableness,--an agreeableness that is much greater than what is possessed by all articles included under the name of wealth".

"Yuge yuge thu krushnena thoshitho vai maheswara |
Bhakthya paramaya chaiva prathi sruthwa mahatmana |" (MBH 13:14:13)
"In every new Yuga has Krishna (by such penances) gratified Mahadeva. In every Yuga has Mahadeva been gratified with the great devotion of the high-souled Krishna".

The following was the boon given to Narayana by Maheshwara. “Aprameya” means immesurable soul which is nothing but all pervasiveness. With the boon from Mahadeva Narayana became all pervading Vishnu. The same has been said above by Bheeshma also.

"matprasādān manuṣyeṣu devagandharvayoniṣu aprameyabalātmā tvaṃ nārāyaṇa bhaviṣyasi |" (MBH 7:172:74)
"'O Narayana, through my grace, amongst men, gods, and Gandharvas, thou shalt be of immeasurable might and all pervading soul".

The following were the words spoken by Lord Shiva himself about Krishna’s Shiva-Bhakti.

“satyaśaucārjava tyāgais tapasā niyamena ca | kṣāntyā bhaktyā ca dhṛtyā ca buddhyā ca vacasā tathā | yathāvad aham ārāddhaḥ kṛṣṇenākliṣṭakarmaṇā | tasmād iṣṭatamaḥ kṛṣṇād anyo mama na vidyate |” (MBH 10:7:60-61)
"With truth, purity, sincerity, resignation, ascetic austerities, vows, forgiveness, devotion, patience, thought, and word, I have been duly adored by Krishna of pure deeds. For this there is none dearer to me than Krishna".

In Harivamsa Purana lord Krishna himself states the following words about himself, brahma, Ananta and all, as follows.

“ahaM brahmA kapilo yo.apyanantaH | putrAH sarve brahmaNashchAtivIrAH |
tvattaH sarve devadeva prasUtA | evaM sarveshaH kAraNAtmA tvamIDyaH |” (Harivamsa Purana 2:74:34)
O the lord of lords [Shiva]! Myself, brahma, kapila, ananta (sheSha), all the valiant sons of brahma who conquered over the internal enemies - all are created from you. Hence you are the lord of all. Hence you, the lord of all, are worthy of praise”.

Now, let’s see how shamelessly and brutally Bhagawatam turns lord Shiva’s Supreme nature upside down.

“nimna-gānāḿ yathā gańgā | devānām acyuto yathā | vaiṣṇavānāḿ yathā śambhuḥ | purāṇānām idam tathā |” (SB. 12:13:16)
Just as the Gańgā is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Śambhu [Śiva] the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the greatest of all Purāṇas”.

Bhagawatam has made Shiva the devotee of Vishnu (Krishna). And wherever Shiva is called as “Bhahawan” in Bhagawatam; immediately in the Purport the stupid wishful thinking Acharyas would start saying Shiva is Vishnu’s servant and hence Bhagawan title is actually implied to mean Vishnu not Shiva ... etc. kind of rubbish talks.

Not only this, we’ll see in below section how Bhagawatam leaves no stone unturned to insult Lord Shiva.

Conclusion: - Bhagawatam is a bogus scripture which was written by some Vaishnava scholar to elevate the supremacy of Krishna and to alleviate the supremacy of Shiva.

9. Bhagawatam’s wishful attempt to insult Shiva in Banasura Episode

The chapter “Lord krishna fights with banasura” (chapter no. - SB. 10.63) from Bhagawatam is too far from reality. I cannot quote that huge chapter here. One can read that chapter from online sites.

The way Bhagawatam narrates Shiva’s defeat by Krishna; it is a clear cut proof that Veda Vyasa had not written that book. Vyasa in Mahabharata had clearly called out Shiva as parabrahman and in Mahabharata it is clearly stated that Krishna with his austerities received boons from Shiva. The Supreme Lord Shiva blessed Krishna with "invincibility in battles" and he had also blessed Sage Narayana once with a boon stating that even if Narayana had to fight against Shiva, victory would be that of Narayana (so of Krishna). That shows the compassion levels of Mahadeva for his devotees. And Mahabharata clearly calls out Krishna as an ardent devotee of Mahadeva.

In fact, Shiva's boon of invincibility to Krishna has been reiterated in harivamsa Purana also as follows:

“yathA mainAkamAshritya tapastvamakaroH prabho |
tathA mama varaM kR^iShNa saMsmR^itya sthairyamApnuhi |
avadhyastvamajeyashcha mattaH shUratarastathA |
bhavitAsItyavochaM yattattathA na tadanyathA |” (Harivamsa Purana 2:74:37-38)
O kRiShNa! As you did penance staying on mainAka, you received a boon from me. Be firm in your mind, remembering that boon. You can not be killed, you can not be conquered, and you will be more valiant than me. All this will happen as told by me. None will be able to change this”.

Not only Mahabharata, even the Harivamsa Purana gives a lot of respect to Shiva while narrating the Banasura fight episode (chapter no. - HP 2:124 - 2:125). In Harivamsa Purana Brahma, Markandeya and all celestials gather there to witness that fight between Shiva and Krishna. Brahma says to markandeya that the previous night, Brahma had seen a dream where he had seen Shiva in Hari’s form wearing yellow clothes, holding conch and discus and riding on the Garuda; and Vishnu was seen in Shiva’s form holding trident wearing crescent moon. Then Markandeya composes and sings then and there, a hymn to “Hari-Hara” (HariHara Stotram), which is a beautiful hymn sung commonly for both Shiva and Kesava. That shows the oneness of both the gods.

Harivamsa Purana was composed by vyasa hence that Banasura episode from it looks more realistic than the Bhagawatam one which was certainly authored by a Vaishnava.

It was Shiva’s compassion for Krishna and because of his magnanimity in giving boons that Shiva accepted defeat in that war; otherwise even Vedas say that Shiva cannot be defeated in any war. He is the unconquered conquerer whom none can overcome in any battle. Atharva Veda says that even Gods cannot bear the arrows of Rudra and all the Vedas acknowledge the supremacy of Shiva and they remain scared of his arrows. And here in Bhagawatam the author had portrayed Shiva in such a way that Shiva was portrayed pleading to krishna with praises in such a helpless manner that only falling on Krishna’s feet was left out. Just to elevate Krishna’s glories how can anyone stoop down to such a level that one can compose a scripture to insult Mahadeva – the supreme Brahman of Vedas? I can understand how cunning the author of Bhagawatam was!


One doesn’t need 101 reasons to reject such a bogus book. If the readers of this article really has some stuff in their brain; they might have understood by this time what a kind of cheating this scripture does with Hinduism by concealing truths and revealing only lies.

Even after reading the above refutations if someone still didn’t understand what’s wrong with Bhagawatam; then I must recommend them to get someone knock on their skull; I’m sure they would hear “Tong Tong” noise since hollow vessels make "such" noise!

Srimad Bhagawatam is not at all authored by Vyasa. It is a work by some Vaishnava scholars of medieval times. This Srimad Bhagawatam does not qualify to be called as a “Scripture”. It is only as good as a book of fairy tales. It is in fact not even better that novel of modern day authors.
Bhagawatam is a bogus scripture as proved from above analysis. Hence it needs to be trashed.

Copyright © 2011, by Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula. All Rights Reserved.
Check the Footer of this blog for Licenses related details.


  1. Your mission resembles like that of Appayya Dikshita,who threw himself in protecting Shiva Bhakthi!

    Also posting the link for his famous book 'Sivadvaita Nirnaya'.

    Download option available at the left side of the page.

    1. No no...I'm not even a speck of dust of his feet. For me it's still a long way to go in learning Shiva-Tatwam.

      Thanks for the link boddy! That great saint's works are not available anywhere. I'm glad that you shared this wonderful book. It would be a good read for me to understand lord Shiva better.

      Thanks again!

    2. Brilliant as always. I could never digest Srimad Bhagavatam as it placed Krishna above Vishnu, which is totally stupid. Wonder why those people (you know who) always bring Rig Veda 7.40.5, Bhagavatam and other V scriptures to belittle Shiva. Well.. it's all Shiva's dance, isn't it? Let's enjoy His Ananda tandavam !!

  2. Pranams brother,
    First of all I'm blessed to find this site and to read your very logical & mind blowing blogs.I would say this site has been a great enlightenment for me. You have introduced to a whole new world of our religion. I have had many questions on my mind even before reading your blogs but now I know that I can obtain the answers for them through you. Advanced thanks for that. I hope I'm qualified to ask questions, I'm sorry for my poor English & zero knowledge on vedas, gita & etc.I'm neither a complete vaishnava nor shaiva, but I love all our gods equally, plus Lord Shiva has always been a subject of interest to me.
    Okay let me come to my first question, is there any mention of Lord Shiva addressed as 'Shiva' not Rudra in the vedas? If there isn't any, how can we conclude that the vedic Rudra is Shiva?

    1. Dear Brotehr,
      Pranams to you too. I am not even a speck of dust of Lord's feet, if you really liked anything and you feel my articles are correct, then that praise should go to Mahadeva!...And whereever there are shortcomings they are all purely mine.

      Well, coming to your question. Yes Rudra is addressed as Shiva in Shruti. The mantra "namah shivaya" is most powerful and beneficial one. It is hidden inside Yajurveda's central hymn's inner self. Here is the verse for your quick reference

      "namah shankaraya cha mayaskaraya cha
      namah shivaya cha shivataraya cha |" (Yajurveda Sri Rudram,m, Anuvaka-8)

      Sri Rudram is not just a hymn, ratehr, it is a text which is like the foundation of sahasranama / satanama ideas. This is the only hymn of Vedas which calls only Rudra by so many names, and that idea generated later sages to design 108 names and 1000 names of gods.
      Vedic Rudra is verily Shiva. However Vedas use Rudra word more often. That's the only difference. Even you would find name "shiva" in svetaswatara upanishad.

  3. Thank you the reply brother.
    I can't digest srimad-bhagavatham as well and especially Prabhupada's yogurt & milk example. I wonder why they have to bother about Lord Shiva all the time.

    I'm just curious about why did Hindus never create a separate sect for Brahma like Brahmisme or something like that? Why only Vishnu and Shiva were separated by humans? Please enlighten me brother.

    Jai Shiva Shankar.

    1. In Puranas it is said that Brahma was cursed that eh wouldn't have any worship. And following Puranic instructions people usually don't worship him. However in India i think in 2-3 places we have Brahma's temple.
      Coming to my point of view, I love Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara as my fathers. I consider myself as their infant. So, whatever Puranas say I don't care, for me Brahma is a great god, the creator, the best artist! He created billions of humans but none of our finger prints match, none of our cornea scan matches - he is the foremost biometric scientist. On the other hand, he creates child who looks different, but still retains some resemblance with father or mother. What a beautiful creator that father of this universe is!

      While walking to office on the road I always chant in my mind mantras of all my three divine fathers (yes i do chant Brahma's name also).
      om namah shivaya
      om namo narayanaya
      om brahmaya namah
      My connection with Brahma is that of fatehr-child hence no purana can ever break this bond of a fatehr-child relationship!

    2. Wonderful explanation brother. Thank you very much for enlightening me. I'm now going through many scriptures and learning more. Many of them seem to agree with your posts here. I'm also following your mahamantra chanting.

    3. Sorry for asking too much bro,is Lord Shiva a pre-vedic deity? in connection with the excavation findings at indus valley (the pashupathi seal).Also, would love to read a blog about shiva linga and it's significance from you. I'm also eagerly waiting for your blog on Vishnu Tatwam.

    4. No problem bro. I'm weak in history but still I will tell my opinion. I don't believe in having some date of Vedas. Vedas say they emerges from Lord Shiva's breath at the beginning of creation. So Vedas are as old as the universe. So pre Vedic period means pre universe creation. In that case also Lord Shiva existed. So yes Lord Shiva is a pre Vedic God he is a Vedic God and he is puranic God also.

      I'm almost done with article on Vishnu. Will publish in few days, may be this weekend. I'll take up your given topic sometime shortly.

  4. Thank you for another great reply brother.
    I would like to know who is 'Kalagni Rudra'.
    I'm also curious about Hanuman, is he the 11th Rudra? Is he a manifestation or somewhat an aspect or incarnation of Lord Shiva?

    1. Kalagni Rudra is the destroyer aspect of Lord Shiva. Hanuman being Shiva's form is not given in VR however some puranas and ramacharitmanas say so.

  5. Hi,

    I came across ISKCON's views about Shiva Gita during a casual browse and thought that I must share them with you.
    1. They claim that the text is called Shiva Gita because it was spoken by a "demigod" whereas Bhagavad Gita contains the words of the "Supreme Personality of Godhead".
    2. A fantastic claim they make is that the "Supreme Personality of Godhead" takes the form of a disciple to listen to his "devotee's" words (Shiva Gita).

    It is the best to wash our hands of brainwashed people. I feel I am getting mad every time I read their trash. Sanatana Dharma is too diverse to be confined to just following the Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatha Purana and Brahma Samhita(?).

    1. Dear Arun,

      1. They must read my articles (all ten parts) on bhagawad gita titled, 'hidden secrets of bhagawad gita revealed'. That would be an eye opener for them in the sense that they would understand that BG is entirely a glorification of Lord Shiva only and in reality it was spoken by Shiva through krishnas mouth.
      2. I have no cures for fantasies. My articles are for them whose eyes are wide open, whose brains understand logic. I cannot change anyone who closes eyes and blissfully remains in wonderland. :)

      Yeah, ignore them buddy, for me, malgudi days the novel by RK Narayana is a better scripture than bhagawatam and Brahma samhita. :) :)

  6. vyasadeva wrote bhagavatam as a commentary on the vedanta sutras and bhagavatam says narayana is supreme...not krishna directly! Although it says"krishnas tu bhagavan svayam" means krishna is the fullest manifestation of lord narayana unlike the other avatars who are somewhat partial manifestations!

  7. I have seen many debates and arguments against the 'vaishnavas' but this article of yours has to be regarded as one of the best. What an eye opener! My heartfelt gratitude to you for writing an almost a research article.

    I remember one sequence in mahabharatha where Dhritharashtra asks Sanatsujata : "Who is supreme? Shiva or Vishnu?" and Sanatsujata in a classic style answers " Those who do not see the supreme as one indulges in such thought"

    This blog is a precious gem for all those who are seeking actual knowledge. One can clearly identify the intellect and calibre of a shiva bhakta.

    Kindly give me a link to harivamsha purana as I am finding it difficult to find it.

    PS : I hope you might find this interesting -

    "O lord Pashupathi! Who is more courageous than you! All the brave gods close their eyes one after another during the time of pralaya when you are indulged in intense rapture" - Shivananda lahiri

    1. Thanks for your kind words, Amith.

      Here is harivamsham.

  8. Dear Mr Santosh,

    You mentioned in your blogs that Puranas are different from Itihas. Now here you are quoting Harivamsa purana to give example of lord shiva's boon to lord krishna for invincibility.In your blogs you have repeatedly tried to show that lord krishna is at lord shiva's mercy.Your analysis show that lord krishna is simply a super human, that means he is not worthy of worship as a god.You hate vaishnavas who hate lord shiva,thats fine, but that does not means that you should try to belittle & abase lord krishna
    in an attempt to preach shiv bhakti. Will lord shiva himself tolerate that you should contempt lord krishna whom, he himself has never disrespected?

    Read the story of Kakbhushundi whom lord shiva cursed for his arrogance in his previous birth ( In his previous birth he hated lord vishnu) .Lord Shiva gave darshan to Tulsidas & instructed him to write Ramayana in vernacular language. If Lord Rama is simply a super human, why lord shiva instructed tulsidas to write & spread Ramayan ?Priests gathered & protested against Tulsidas's Ramayan.His copy of Ramayan was kept at the lowest inside lord vishvanath temple with doors locked from outside.Above the Ramayana , all the puranas & vedic texts were kept. Next day when all priests opened the door, Ramayan was at top & it had the signature of lord vishvanath over it ie. Satyam Shivam Sundaram.
    If i quote story of bhasmasur, you will say that it is written in a purana whose author was a vaishnav. All the puranas & vedic texts
    might have been interplotaed by many authors since centuries,for their own sake of ideology who knows ? This interploation may also be in case of vaishnav puranas also .. .i agree.... In your reply , vaishnavas can quote many texts from vedic literature , shrutis, smritis & puranas showing lord vishnu as superior which can bewilder your readers in same way as the vaishnavas get hurt after reading your blogs.
    But it will be an endless debate.

    To end , i would request you not to spread such propoganda of superiority of one god over the another. I am not stopping you to preach shiv bhakti but i am requesting to not to quote disparaging remarks from religious texts on adorable lord vishnu. Doing this will surely confuse the readers & they will surely loose faith in God, be it shiva or vishnu & ultimately it would weaken their devotion. Some devotees may also develop hatred to lord shiva or vishnu for which your blogs will be responsible. So , please don't hurt devotees.

    Pls note : I agree that Vaishnavites & Iskon should also not quote evidences from texts to belittle lord shiva. I expect that you will not reply hatefully...

    Thank You

    A Vaishnav devotee

    1. Dear Vishnu-Bhakta,

      Inline with your expectations i would not reply hatefully. Would answer you calmly. Don't worry. :-)

      Well, just four your info, Harivamsa is not a purana, it is a parva, an appendix to MBH hence more imp than Bhagawatam which is a purana.

      Well, my blog is just a baby born some 2-3 years ago, why didn't you stop ISKCON and likes from abusing shiva for the past few decades? Their sites are far far older than mine. I also know all such goody-goody stories what you are citing. Those times of Kak-Bhushundi etc., were different, people of earlier Yugas were equally devoted to Hari and Hara, they had no disrespect for the other god while being devoted to one god. There were no fanatics as such, only devotees.
      In such a golden era, when once in a while someone stepped on wrong path, Shiva/Vishnu used to correct them, because still Dharma-cow was standing on two legs atleast and there was room for corrections. This is why we have a story that in Shiva's army one soldier considered shiva and vishnu as same, Shiva embraced him for his achievement of truth, and we also have a story that Vyasa himself once was possessed of such mentality and started calling shiva as inferior, and then he lost his hands, if i remember correctly it was Vishnu who appeared in front of him and brought him to senses saying he shouldn't see such differences.

      Now, the times have changed. Golden yugas are over, this is Kali yuga. It's NOT true that i am not aware of the fact of oneness between Hari and Hara, I know truly that Vishnu is nothing but a form of Shiva himself (namo sipivishtaya cha as shruti proclaims clearly); and after establishing SHiva's greatness back to the original glory I would prove that Vishnu is not different from Shiva, but that's long way to go.
      But then at present why i'm doing all these like an ignorant man, is the question!

      The answer is, since ages Shiva has been ridiculed, there is no shiva bhakta today who can fearlessly stand and support shiva's paratwam. Then why shouldn't I stand against this injustice to Mahadeva?

      Can you preach your goody goody words to your own Vaishnavite friends, ISKCON etc and get me their agreement that they accept Shiva as one with or at equal level with Vishnu? Can you make them agree that Rameshwara jyotirlinga was established by Rama? They can't tolerate Rama worshiping Shiva, hence say it's not in Valmiki Ramayana (VR) hence not a authentic story. Then in that case, their ego-satisfying beliefs are nullifying one imp. teertha-kshetra viz. Rameswaram. That means, one of the 12 jyotirlingas is fake? Not everything is coverd in VR, otherwise, Ramjhula-LakshmanJhula, Bhadrachalam etc teertha sthana also not being covered in VR should become bogus right?

      Can you make madhawas abandon their belief that Shiva is lesser than Vayu? Can you make Sri vaishnavas abandon their idea of SHiva being a Jiva?

      Can you make Gaudiyas and ISKCONites agree that shiva is not servant/gatekeeper in goloka?

      They also say many things whose list is endless for me to write. What do these schools teach except superiority stuff when shiva-vishnu topics come? Did they ever praise Shiva's glories? Well, did you ever post a comment in ISKCON/GV/SV/Madhwa etc. websites asking them to observe oneness between hari-hara accusing them of polluting and dividing Hinduism?

      I know you never did that., and even if you do, I know you wouldn't succeed in making them agree to abandon their hatred towards Shiva. Then why questioning me? Don't i have a right to protest in this world of democracy? Did I come to your sites/blogs and try to preach anything? (No right?), then why are you preaching me? I am fully awake and doing whatever I am doing, and hence i would not like to see preachers. I don't need preachings. Kindly understand that you and your like people are wasting their valuable time on me.

    2. My blog is as open to exit as open the entry is! I have not flashed my blog in your territory and invited you right? You should curse that entity who pointed you here, be it person or search engine, how can I be the reason behind your disappointment?

      Therefore, if you land on my blog thru searches, kindly click on the browser close (X) button simple! And yes, request you all not to come again here with these Fake profiles. I can understand what politics you guys are trying to play. :-)


    3. Dear Mr santosh,

      There is no proof that Harivamsa may not have been inserted later in Mahabharat by authors.I already quoted that all puranas , texts, mahabharat have been interpolated.This interpolation include Vaishnav & Shaiv texts & Mahabhart \ Harivamsa, vedic texts as well.There is no witness alive now.

      As per mahabharat, Bheeshma gave vishnu sahasranam to Yudhishtir & declared Vishnu as supreme ( you did not mentioned this so that you can delude the readers) It is not possible that same Bheeshma will declare shiva & vishnu to be supreme at the same time. This confirms that there is interpolation in Mahabharat also. You will say that vishnu being supreme is the interpolation & i will say just opposite. Endless..

      Since the ages, not lord shiva but lord vishnu has been ridiculed. Southern region is a best example of this. Hundreds of years back, Chola King Kulothunga-I damaged the eyes & had beaten Ramanuja followers to death who were vishnu devotees. Such an extent was hatred towards Lord vishnu. This barbarism is still continued (may be only in thoughts) as i can see in your blogs. So , all this was not initiated by vaishnavites as per historical evidences. Let us take the example of Tulsidas as evidence. He fostered vaishnavism without uttering poisonous thoughts on lord shiva. In fact he wrote Rudrashtakam to glorify Lord shiva. This is the best example i have seen in kaliyug.

      If you believe in democracy then you must not be desperate & listen to other's views too.

      Thank You.

    4. Dear HKHR,

      [You wrote]: I already quoted that all puranas , texts, mahabharat have been interpolated.This interpolation include Vaishnav & Shaiv texts & Mahabhart \ Harivamsa, vedic texts as well.There is no witness alive now.
      [End Quote]

      [My Response]:

      This is your understanding of Hinduism? These are illogical points what didn't make me publish your comments. And further you were flooding other msgs also. If as per you Vedic texts are also interpolated, then there arises no reason to have any further discussions/debates.

      I don't know which school of Vaishnavism you belong to, but as far as I know, all Vaisshnavism treat Vedas as apurusheya and uncorrupted. Even Advaitins, Shaivas and Shaktas, in fact entire Hinduism treats them so. If you say Vedas are interpolated to staunch Vaishnavas, believe me you would get bashed for that. The one thing i admire vaishanavas is they try very hard to support shruti as 'apourusheya'.

      Of course if i go by your way of questioning texts because there are no witness alive, then i can even question if Veda Vyasa existed? if yes, whatever he wrote were real or just he was a great fiction-genre author? Can you prove God's existence is that case? Therefore there has to be a baseline. There should be some "belief" in the system for us to proceed ahead.

      I've published your current comment to show how illogical your arguments are. I came to know that you have complained to "Humble Bhagavata Bandhu" who is my worthy opponent, about your comments not getting published. He sent me a message and it is solely with whatever min respect I have for him, I've published one of your post here. But understand that complaining about me and my actions somewhere else is childish.

      I still say, i have no interest in "wasting" my time in debates, I have to gain time to pend down further works. Would you kindly allow me to pursue my work ahead without being hindrance? For all anti-me activities you already have HBB's blog to contribute from your side :-) When his blog is there in existence, i don't see any need for your counter posts to be here. Kindly leave me alone.


    5. Namaskarams Brother,

      Wonderful reply ! You have very good political skills & i feel all poor shiva devotees like me must learn from you in order to defend.

      Congratulations !!

      Om Namah Shivay

  9. Beautifully defended brother. By the way ,may i know , are you a politician ? :)

    Nevertheless , Congratulations.

    Om Namah Shivay.

    1. If you are real profile, then all your praises i pass on to Maheshwara. I am just an instrument in his hands.

      I see your profile is also locked as like as other fake profiles that are posting here. I can understand their politics very well. If this is another fake profile by them to test whether i am reading their illogical comments or not, then the reply is " I am not interested in unproductive discussions, i have my limited time to spend on Maheswara. Therefore i can't answer their illogical posts, hence not publishing them wherever i feel they are just trying to drag me into debate. I am least interested ind debates".

      If you are real, sorry bro. As i said, i am just an instrument in mahadeva's hands, so your praises should go to him. Thanks anyway for liking if you really liked.

    2. I am indeed feeling ashamed thinking why did i override the signals from my "powerful intuition" and listened to your fake friendly messages below. Anyway, to err is human!

  10. ###### NOTICE ######

    For all those Vaishnavites under Fake profiles who are trying to play politics here, be aware that i can understand your motives, i can read your minds, I am acquainted with every drop of your blood, the no. of veins and arteries that carry them! :-)

    Therefore, play your politics somewhere else. I said earlier also, but i'll repeat here for you -

    "My blog is as open to EXIT as open for ENTRY it is !!"

    If you have any problem with me or my write-ups, please click the little cross (X) mark present on the top right corner of your browser window (For Safari users on mac, it should be available at top left corner).

    I have no interest in wasting my valuble time in useless, endless, unproductive debates. Comments that fall under such category would NOT be published. So, don't waste your valuable efforts here on me.

    I can't waste my limited bandwidth with you, need my concentration to focus on Mahadeva's feet alone!

    Thanks for understanding and cooperation!

  11. Dear Brother,
    I am a staunch shaivite like you. I congratulate that you have good writing skills & through these skills any one can make right appear as wrong & vice versa. I feel sorry for you to have been encountered by illogical comments, as you said . However,I think ,Whoever is writing illogical to you must be countered by a strong logic. So,i feel, instead of defending, you should try to counter them with a strong logic. This will increase the authenticity & popularity of what this website is saying. This is must to induce shiv bhakti into neophyte readers & clear their doubts. But caution, prevarication will bring us a step backward & loose the authenticity. Secondly, be careful that you do not humiliate other diety, rather try to promote shaivism with praises of lord shiva, because the rationale & secular readers may not like this blog if you condemn other devata & they will equate us with what Isckonites are doing which will reduce our genuineness. We must remember that our purpose is mainly to induce shiv bhakti into them. Following this, you can make the readers feel that this is a genuine website. Frankly speaking ( pls dont mind) , at present some portions of the do not seem to be convincing & writing skills are playing a more high lightened role compared to evidences.
    I fear to elaborate more on this because shiv bhaktas like me will either get confused or hurt.

    Good luck to you !!

    May Great Lord Shiva bless everyone & remove poison of minds too ( as done during samudra manthan). Om Namah Shivay !

  12. Pranams Brother,

    Mine is not a fake profile & i am lord shiva's dust of his feet.
    I also love lord vishnu as his name in vishnu saharanam is Shiva, the 27th and 600th name of Vishnu sahasranama. I can not reveal my profile as i was threatened by my friend for adoring lord vishnu, apart from praying to lord shiva. Therefore, i want to keep privacy.
    My best wishes to you to spread flawless shiv bhakti.

    Best Regards,
    Om Namah Shivay

    1. Pranams bro,

      Your kind of devotees are indeed required. Vishnu is not different from Shiva. Shiva in vaikuntha is Vishnu, in brahmaloka is Brahma. In fact I too worship Vishnu daily, and consider myself as an infant of him and lakshmi. Only thing is I don't show it here because in Hindi there is a saying, "laaton key bhoot baaton se nahin maante", hence by displaying goodness to Shiva and Vishnu, lot many people have failed to teach these ignorant Vishnu fanatics the importance of Shiva. Hence I adopted the language which they would understand.
      I have no issues with those vaishnavas who know Shiva's greatness and invest their devotion in Vishnu. But such mahatmas are rare among vaishnavism. So even though my image is getting spoiled, even though daily many people might be cursing me, I prefer to stand by mahadeva, for me insults at me do not matter I can tolerate, but what I cannot endure is to see maheshwara being insulted.
      I do not have any desire except for seeing a abuse-free earth for Shiva where I can happily breath ny last!!

      Thanks for the wishes, may Lord Shiva and Vishnu bless you and your entire family!


    Cast of sardonyx seal representing Vishnu blessing a worshipper,in all likelihood Shiva as evidenced from the Ganges spouting from his locks and the crescent moon by his head, Afghanistan or Pakistan, 4th-6th century CE.

    1. Great. It looks like some rishi with a turban o a matted hair also. The ganges/moon what is interpreted could be curls of a turban/hair also.

      Anyway, even if that's shiva it doesn't prove anything apart from the sculptor's imagination and his inclination towards vishnu bhakti. That's not something which came from heaven :-)

      Today if i create a painting of katrina kaif getting blessings from Vishnu. AFter say 300 years, if still my painting remains preserved, they can either interpret it as real or just my creativity. Nothing more.

      Anyway, if this picture pleases your heart to conclude Vishnu is shiva's lord, then let it be so. be pleased and happy. I ahve no objections. :-)

  14. ###### ATTENTION ALL READERS #######

    Oflate there have been many FAKE Profiles being created to post comments here. Probably these fakies do not know that they are trying to fool that person who is their grandsire in internet functionalities. :-)

    These are the dirty politics that have been used by them.

    1. As Vaishnava profile names like "Bhakt", and "Hare Krishna Hare Rama" they try to pose their illogical queries (good questions in their opinion though).
    2. As "Shiv OM" they try to befriend me, enacting as a Shiva Bhakta and supporting my view points.
    3. They post using vaishnava names questions, and since I've stopped publishing their comments, in order to test whether I have been reading them or not they post a "wah wah" comment for some of my answers under the name "Shiv Om", pretending as if he really liked. This makes them think I would publish such "praises to me" readily without even understanding the genuinity of the same. They feel if i am publishing the praises of "Shiv OM" i am definitely reading their Vaishnava attacks also. Hence they can rant against me that I am biased at one side.
    4. Seeing me not publishing anything, another devotee manifested, showing a SECULAR profile name as "Hari Har Devotee", but raising same stupid questions.
    5. Seeing no actionf rom my side, that friend did his pleanary expansion as "Sankarshan", and posted same stuff which was a write up of Mr. Srinivasan ramanujan (aka Unknown), I am not sure if he took permissionf rom him to copy/paste his write-ups! (This is his Violation of rights)

    Here are the dirty tricks he employed
    1. Created a blogger profile
    2. I caught his profile as being created in "July" when it was named "Bhakt"
    3. Hence the next day found "Bhakt" as profile-locked for viewing
    4. Then he just changed the profile name as "Hare Krishna Hare Rama" and posted "attacking messages"
    5. Again changed the profile name as "Shiv Om", and posted "supporting messages" as friend
    6. Again changed profile name as "Hari har Devotee" and posted "attacking messages"
    7. Again as "Shiv OM" posted supporting messages
    8. Again as "Sankarshan" posted attacking messahes.
    9. ......Now i am looking forward for seeing "Pradyumna, Aniruddha, Vasudeva, Narayana, Hrishikesha, padmanabha...." and the list should go on. :-) Hahaha

    :::Their Agenda:::
    They might have thought, seeing so many people -0 vaishanvas, Secular devotees etc. to be against me, the readers of this blog would get convinced that I am on wrong path. But what this world knows about me is just a quarter of my self, three quarters of my skills are still non-entity :-)

    All of them are being banged to the walls of my SPAMBOX now. None of them (read none as one since all of them are same), would be able to send their messages to my comment inbox hearafter. Probably this fellow doesn't know that the person with whom he is trying to act smart, happens to be far more far-sighted than him.

    Poor fellows, they do not know that blogger display name can be changed, but blogger profile ID cannot be changed.

    See below IDs- all are identical:
    05349702078602180059 -- Profile ID of "hare Krishna Hare Rama"
    05349702078602180059 -- Profile ID of "Hari Har Devotee"
    05349702078602180059 -- Profile ID of "Shiv OM"

    Genuine profiles:
    01932475050150832871 -- Profile ID of "Humble Bhagavata Bandhu" (HBB in short)
    08063187545902058684 -- Profile ID of "Unknown (Srinivasan Ramanujan)"


    Do NOT play your tricks on me. I am too tough to be handled through cheap tricks. To take you as my opponent also you should meet certain standards.



    Hara Hara Mahadev! Jai Bhavani!

    1. ADDENDUM:

      What plans i have, how do I want to ANSWER to queries, my strategies etc., I need not disclose to anyone. RTI wouldn't work here, mind it! Eventually, time would tell the reasons behind my actions. Don't panic, don't ask questions, don't brand me as "scared/afraid..etc". Whatever I'm doing has valid reason and it's for the betterment of everyone, I'll reveal many things in times to come. Don't disturb and do your work (Chant "hare krishna" maha mantra). I am NOT answerable to any tom dick and harry here. None of you opponents are my Boss, therefore I need not do status-reporting of my work, if i am looking rigid, that's not fear of anything, but some good which is planned for future. Hence as I have said many a times, "My blog is as open for exit as open for entry it is!". You are the best decision maker!

  15. Great blog, its finally good to see someone who is standing up against fanaticism of Vaishnava "cults". I am not referring here to the pure hearted devotees like Narada, Prahalada, Meera Bhai or Tyagaraja but to those hotheaded people whose hatred for non-vaishnava deities exceeds there love for Vishnu.

    As for me though, I enjoy reading the Srimad Bhagavatam (moola) as much as I do chanting the Rudram or Shiva Sankalpa mantras or Mahanyasam. To be, the problem is not SB itself. I love listening to Saptahaas from pure hearted devotees. My main problem is with the parochial interpretation of people who believe that they have exclusive rights over any book remotely associated with Vishnu.

    1. Dear Sir - Thanks for stopping by this blog. Apologies for late response as i wasn't keeping well these days and also not getting much time. All glories to Maheshwara, i'm just an instrument in his hands.

      Well, I too absolutely have no problem with the pure hearted devotees of Vishnu and I echo with your thoughts. Vishnu is indeed an adorable god, but these fanatics are the only problem. Sigh! :-(

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. Hello again!

    I am not sure if you already know this, but certain scholars attribute this 'Bhagavatpurana' to vopadeva who is also the author of Mugdhabodha vyakaranam. The original work of Bhagavan Vedavyas is Srimad Devi Bhagavatam maha purana. If you can throw more light on this, it will be beneficial.


    1. Yes friend, even i heard about Vopadeva, he could be the author but i have very less awareness about him. However, i agree that Devi Bhagavatam is not an upa-purana it is a Mahapurana. it is the only purana where Vyasa has mentioned itself as 'mahapurana' at the end of each chapter. So, most probably, originally "bhagawatam" meant Devi bhagavatam, which later on was probably pushed down as Upa-Purana and Krishna-Bhagawatam was introduced.