11

Madhvacharya in 52nd verse of his sarvasastra tattparya nirnaya which is the first chapter of Mahabharata Tattparya Nirnaya quotes the following verse from Skanda Purana

skAnde.apyuktaM shivenaiva shhaNmukhAyaiva sAdaram shivashAstre.api tad grAhyaM bhagavachchhAstrayogi yat

It is also said with earnestness to Shanmukha by Siva himself in the Skanda Purana (as follows): Though declared in Siva treatises it must be accepted, being in accordance with the scriptures of the Lord(Vishnu)

Which means to the extent Shaiva scriptures agree with Vaishnava scriptures, they can be accepted, otherwise not. When there is contradiction, Vaishnava scriptures are to be accepted.

The above verse is also quoted by Jiva Goswami in Paramatma Sandarbha.

Can anyone give me the exact Khanda, chapter and corresponding verse number?

Community
  • 1

1 Answers1

4

The hard copy of Six Sandarbhas that I have says the verse is not extant in today's Skanda purana version.

And by the way, either Madhvacharya or Jiva Goswami produce it only as one of the many arguments.

Jiva Goswami's quote seems to be borrowed from Madhvacharya's book since the verse is quoted in a similar fashion.

Jiva Goswami states in Tattva sandarbha: Text 28

atra ca sva-darśitārtha-viśeṣa-prāmāṇyāyaiva, na tu śrīmad-bhāgavata-vākyaprāmāṇyāya, pramāṇāni śruti-purāṇādi-vacanāni yathā-dṛṣṭam evodāharaṇīyāni | kvacit svayam adṛṣṭākarāṇi ca tattva-vāda-gurūṇām anādhunikānāṁ pracura-pracārita-vaiṣṇava-mata-viśeṣāṇāṁ dakṣiṇādi-deśavikhyāta- śiṣyopaśiṣyībhūta-vijayadhvaja-vyāsatīrthādi-veda-vedārtha-vidvarāṇāṁ śrī-madhvācārya-caraṇānāṁ bhāgavata-tātparya-bhārata-tātparyabrahma- sūtra-bhāṣyādibhyaḥ saṅgṛhītāni tatra tad-uddhṛtā śrutiś caturveda-śikhādyā, purāṇaṁ ca gāruḍādīnāṁ samprati sarvatrāpracarad-rūpam aṁśādikam | saṁhitā ca mahā-saṁhitādikā tantraṁ ca tantra-bhāgavatādikaṁ brahma-tarkādikam iti jñeyam ||28||

In order to prove the particular meaning shown by me, not in order to prove the statement of Bhāgavatam[since Bhāgavatam is its own proof (being equivalent of śruti)], statements from śruti and Purāṇas are quoted in the Sandarbhas. Sometimes statements from scriptures I have not personally seen are presented from Madhvācārya’s commentaries on Brahma-sūtra, Bhāgavatam and Mahābhārata. Along with others in his disciplic line like Vyāsatirtha and Vijayadhvaja, he was famous in the South as guru of tattva-vāda, holding excellent Vaiṣṇava views well known since ancient times, and was most learned in the Vedas and their meaning. The śrutis that he quotes, such as Caturveda-śikhā and some Purāṇas like Garuḍa, are now available in partial form or not available at all. Other scriptures like Mahā-saṁhitā, Tantra-bhāgavata and Brahma-tarka are also in this category.

Also another famous quote of Gaudiya Vaishavas also seems to be borrowed from Bhagavata Tattparya Nirnaya commentary of Madhvacharya on SB 1.1.1

gāruḍe ca –

pūrṇaḥ so’yam atiśayaḥ | artho’yaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇāṁ bhāratārtha-vinirṇayaḥ || gāyatrī-bhāṣya-rūpo’sau vedārtha-paribṛṁhitaḥ | purāṇānāṁ sāma-rūpaḥ sākṣād-bhagavatoditaḥ || dvādaśa-skandha-yukto’yaṁ śatavic-cheda-saṁyutaḥ | grantho’ṣṭādaśa-sāhasraḥ śrīmad-bhāgavatābhidhaḥ || iti |

In Garuda purana it is said: This work is most complete. It expresses the meaning of the Brahma-sūtras and Mahābhārata. It is the explanation of gāyatrī and reinforces the meaning of the Vedas. It is the Sāma Veda among the Purāṇas and has arisen directly from the Lord. It has twelve volumes and a hundred divisions. It has eighteen thousand verses. It is called Śrīmad-bhāgavatam.

  • Yes, because Shaiva Puranas such as Skanda Purana and Shiva Purana are highly tamasic, influenced by the quality of ignorance (tamas), in them there are many wrong teachings contrary to the teachings of Vedanta, Upanishads, Sruti and Smriti, and contrary to the Vaishnava Puranas which are sattvic. So statements of those tamasic Puranas are to be accepted as valid only if they do not contradict Vedanta, Upanishads, Sruti and Smriti, and sattvic Puranas such as Bhagavatam and Vishnu Purana. ... – brahma jijnasa Mar 04 '19 at 06:50
  • ... But if they contradict them, then their statements should be rejected as false and ignorance (tamas). That's why Madhva has quoted that verse. – brahma jijnasa Mar 04 '19 at 06:50
  • How does this answer the question? OP is looking for exact location of the verse. "the verse is not extant in today's Skanda Purana version" is not an answer. This whole answer looks more like a comment. – Say No To Censorship Mar 06 '19 at 00:50
  • 1
    @brahmajijnasa Can you stop posting comments like Tamasic, Satvic Puranas which are moot and may produce heated comments? Thanks. – The Destroyer Mar 06 '19 at 05:00
  • @TheD I don't understand why you and perhaps some other Hindus feel uncomfortable about those tamasic/sattvic Puranas. The division of the Puranas, and other scriptures as well, on sattvic and tamasic is stated in some Hindu scriptures and has been recognized and acknowledged by acaryas. I think the purpose of this website is to freely talk about Hindu scriptures and beliefs. If somebody doesn't believe that there are sattvic and tamasic Puranas, he is free to believe so, but does that mean that I should not say that sattvic/tamasic scriptures exist? – brahma jijnasa Mar 06 '19 at 22:34
  • @sv. Moderators said that such an answer is acceptable. – brahma jijnasa Mar 06 '19 at 22:37
  • @brahmajijnasa My previous comment was directed at the answerer. I still don't understand how this answers the question: 'Can anyone give me the exact Khanda, chapter and corresponding verse number?' Where did the mods say such an answer is acceptable? – Say No To Censorship Mar 06 '19 at 22:47
  • @sv. Well, how we are supposed to give a verse number for the verse which does not exist? I think, if I remember properly, Keshav Srinivasan said that it is acceptable to say as an answer that a verse doesn't exist in the scripture if it's not in the extant manuscripts of that scripture. – brahma jijnasa Mar 06 '19 at 23:03
  • @brahmajijnasa "it is acceptable to say as an answer that a verse doesn't exist in the scripture if it's not in the extant manuscripts of that scripture" - ok, but I think that's only allowed if OP was questioning the authenticity of the verse, he did not ask "if the verse is really present in the Skanda Purana". – Say No To Censorship Mar 06 '19 at 23:12
  • @sv. I think it's allowed in any possible case. – brahma jijnasa Mar 06 '19 at 23:19
  • @brahmajijnasa It's not because i feel uncomfortable, but such comments invite debates. We have been seeing many heated debates between users. So, it's is better to avoid comments that are debatable. – The Destroyer Mar 07 '19 at 03:34
  • @TheD I don't see that to be a problem. Debating between Hindus has been a long tradition, it can help us to better understand our religious heritage, to sharpen our mind and enable us to better understand the teaching of our scriptures. Let people debate if they want to debate, we have chat on this website and a link to the chat room can be posted here and people can debate there in the chat room. – brahma jijnasa Mar 07 '19 at 09:55
  • Users can debate in chat rooms following CoC. But it is always best to avoid debates in comment sections or chats and comments purpose is not to take debates. – The Destroyer Mar 07 '19 at 16:13