The Supremacy of Srimad Bhagavatam over the Vedas

OBJECTION: In your arguments you have mostly quoted purana-vakya (quotes from Puranic texts) to substantiate your points. However, this is unacceptable. The Vedas are eternal as they emanate from the Lord Himself (apaurusaya), whereas the Puranas and smrti-sastras, although they give knowledge about God, are authored by men. They are auxiliary to the Vedas and hence their statements should be considered as secondary when compared to the statements made in the Vedas. Therefore, in order to validate your claims, you must give quotes from sruti only.
REFUTATION: That the Vedas are eternal and apauruseya is a fact that all sampradayas, including the school of Sankara, unanimously agree with. They constitute the means of receiving knowledge about the Absolute Truth. However, there are certain factors that make it practically impossible to study the Vedas in this age:
Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.
At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!
Apart from that, it is practically impossible for those born in the age of Kali (who are generally ‘mandah sumanda-matayo’) to memorise even the slightest thing. What to speak of the entire Vedas or even the 6% that still survives today! At present, amongst the brahmana communities in India, it is generally observed that vedadhyayana simply consists of memorising the text of one of the four Vedas ‘parrot-fashion’, but as we can see from above, there is much more to it than that. Therefore, we may conclude that although the Vedas are perfect sabda-pramana, it is impractical to become thoroughly conversant with the Vedas in this day and age in order to understand the Supreme. Hence the solution lies in the Puranas and the Itihasas. This is explained in the following verse -
Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –
In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –
The reason they are called ‘Puranas’ is because they make the Vedas complete (puranat puranam iti canyatra). This is not to suggest that the Vedas are incomplete. It simply means that the Puranas are explanatory supplements which aid one to understand the concise and ambiguous passages in the Vedas. If the Puranas complete the Vedas, it is only logical that they must be Vedic in nature.

Our Tattvavadi friends have stated that Puranic evidence is secondary to those statements of the sruti because they are composed by mortals. Generally it is correct to state that the sruti is primary and the smrti secondary in that it (sruti) seeks to elaborate on the meaning of the smrti. However, under the circumstances, the puranas and itihasas are now to be considered primary evidence. As regards the mortal composition of the puranas and Itihasas, 2 we beg to differ with this view, on the basis of the following references in the sruti-sastras
From these above sruti statements it is clear that the puranas are part of the Vedas and originate from the same source as the Vedas, namely the Supreme Lord Himself. One may argue that since the Puranas have names such as Skanda, Agni, Markandeya etc. they must have been composed by those personalities, therefore they are not eternal and thus cannot be apauruseya. However, if that is the case, then certain sections of the Vedas must also be considered to be pauruseya-vakya since they have names like Katha Upanisad, Aitareya Upanisad (Katha and Aitareya being names of sages). It is understood that certain parts of the Vedas are named after certain rsis, not because they composed them, but because they were the main exponents of those portions. Since persons with the names Katha and Aitareya appear in every millenium, one should not misunderstand that before the appearance of those persons described in the Vedas, these names were simply meaningless words.
Similarly many of the Puranas are named after the first person who expounded them. Many times however, due to the influence of time, a scripture may become forgotten on this planet and thus a deva or sage speaks it again, and it becomes known by that name. Such an example is found in the Bhagavatam wherein the sun-god imparts the Vajasaneyi-samhita of the Yajur Veda to Yajnavalkya Muni –
In his treatise Visnu Tattva Vinirnaya, Sri Madhva, quoting Brahmanda Purana explains thus:
In other words, the Puranas are supposed to explain the meaning of the Vedas and are only different by the changes in words, chanda (metre), rsi, sequence etc. at the beginning of each creation. In this way they are considered to be non-eternal, but their meaning will be the same as in the previous creation.
Therefore Madhva categorizes the Puranas as ‘nitya-anitya’ because they originally emanate from the Supreme Lord, but they are sometimes unmanifest.
As a side note, it may be asked that if the Puranas are indeed subsidiary to the sruti-sastras, why does Sri Madhvacarya himself quote them so often in his works? Not only that, he even uses puranic evidence in order to establish the nityatva of the Vedas! If the Puranas are not eternal and apauruseya, why would he use their ‘secondary statements’ as a pramana to validify something which is superior?

Another point is that in the chanting of the Brahma-yajna (formal study of the Vedas), the Puranas are included. If they were not Vedic in nature they would not be included. Therefore the Taittiriya Aranyaka (2.9) states yad brahmananitihasa-puranani: "The Itihasas and Puranas are Vedas."

It has already been stated above in the quote from Chandogya Upanisad 3 that the Puranas are known as the fifth Veda. 4 The reason behind this is because the Puranas and Itihasas are derived originally from the Yajur Veda. This is explained by Sri Suta in the Vayu Purana-
The statement of Sri Suta Gosvami in the above verse from Vayu Purana in which he says that ‘Whatever remained after Vyasa had divided the Vedas into four divisions was considered to also be the Yajur Veda’ indicates that the essence of the original Purana (which was the remaining part of the Yajur Veda) became the condensed version of the Purana consisting of four-hundred-thousand slokas, available on the earth-planet.
Further evidence for this is found in the Matsya Purana (53.8-9)wherein the Lord says –
In the next sloka of that Purana, the Lord continues –
The same point is raised in the Vayaviya Samhita (7.1.1. 37-38) –
However, it should be explained that although the Puranas and Itihasas are known as the fifth Veda — that does not mean that they are literally identical in all ways with the Vedas. If that were so, Purana and Itihasa would just be names of certain sections of the Vedas. The difference between them is in annotation and the order of words. The Vedas are chanted in a particular style involving three tone accents (svaras) called udatta, anudatta and svarita. If a word is chanted in the wrong accent, the whole meaning of the sentence can change.
As regards the order of words, the Vedas maintain a particular sequence which has not changed since the dawn of creation. There is no scope for even the slightest change in the Vedic texts, whereas the texts of the Puranas change according to kalpa-bheda. It is for this reason that we find occasional differencies in certain editions of the Puranas.
Another distinction between the Vedas and the Puranas is that although the Puranas are considered part of the Brahma-yajna, they are not used in the performance of Vedic sacrifices.

Unfortunately, major problems also arise when trying to studsy the Puranas. Firstly, although the Puranas are much more accessible than the Vedas and more readily available, they too are not available in their entirety. The eighteen Puranas and eighteen Upa-Puranas are a vast body of literature and there are so many different versions that it is difficult to know which editions are complete and which texts have been interpolated. This is due to the fact that there are no current disciplic schools nor bona-fide commentaries for most of these works.
Secondly, we can understand that independent study of the Puranas yields no fruit since each seems to establish a different deity as Supreme. By studying the Puranas without proper guidance, the result is only confusion. Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –
The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Siva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):
Sri Krsna has clearly expressed in Bhagavad-gita that goodness is superior to passion and ignorance. 8 Similarly, Sri Suta Gosvami explains in the Bhagavata(1.2.24) that "Passion is better than ignorance because it can lead to realization of the Absolute Truth."9 In this verse Suta speaks about which type of worship produces the ultimate benefit, and his conclusion is that one can only achieve the best result by worshipping Lord Visnu. The sattvika Puranas recommend the worship of Visnu / Krsna, whereas the rajasika and tamasika Puranas advocate the worship of minor deities and therefore do not lead the aspirant towards the Absolute Truth.

It is noteworthy that the sattvika Puranas commence with a questioner inquiring from a learned speaker about the nature of the Absolute. The speaker’s answers are clear, direct and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. However, in the tamasika and rajasika Puranas questions are put to the speaker which do not pertain to the Absolute Truth. For example, in the Linga Purana the sages request Suta to speak about the glories of the Lingam form of Lord Siva. We may conclude from this that although Sri Suta Gosvami is learned in transcendental subject matters and expert in explaining them, the questions by the sages here restrict him from speaking on it. All rajasika and tamasika Puranas contain this characteristic defect and therefore are not reliable sources of transcendental knowledge.

One may ask at this point why Srila Vyasadeva wrote these Puranas. According to the various desires of the materially conditioned jivas, he arranged the Puranas. Nevertheless, all Puranas contain glorification of Lord Visnu. This was included by Vyasa in order that those in the lower modes of passion and ignorance will slowly develop interest in the Supreme Lord Hari while studying the rajasika and tamasika Puranas. 10Therefore in the Hari Vamsa (3.323.34)it is said –
Yet it must be understood that although rajasika and tamasika Puranas do not speak extensively on the Absolute Truth, this does not mean that they give no valid knowledge at all. If this was the case why would acaryas such as Madhva cite from Puranas such as Skanda, Brahma, Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta etc which are not sattvika by nature? The Puranas in the lower modes may also give some insight into the Absolute Truth, although not to the same extent as the sattvika Puranas.
By this we may conclude that the sattvika Puranas are the ultimate pramana. This is also declared by the Padma Purana - sattvika moksa-dah proktah: "The sattvika Puranas give salvation." Unfortunatly, as stated before, there are no current disciplic schools nor bona-fide commentaries for most of these works. Some of the sattvika Puranas recommend the path of bhakti, while others glorify the path of jnana or yoga.
One possibility to resolve this dilemma is to study the Vedanta-sutra. This work of Vyasadeva contains the essence of the Vedas and the Puranas. Still, the language of the Vedanta-sutras is ambiguous to say the least, and has therefore been interpreted in a number of ways by numerous scholars ( Madhva, Sankara, Ramanuja, Bhaskara, Bodhayana, Dramida, Guhadeva to name but a few). The foundations of many of the sutras lie in Upanisadic passages, yet Vyasa does not mention in his work as to which passages the particular sutra is commenting on. Thus both the student and the commentator must determine this for themselves. It is no wonder then that Vedavyasa felt discontent even after compiling the Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata and Vedanta-sutra -
The reason for his discontentment was then explained by Narada Muni –
On the advice of Narada, Vyasa meditated and the Bhagavata was manifest to him. This is the natural commentary of Vyasa’s own sutras (artho’yam brahma-sutranam) and thus includes the purport of the entire Vedic literature (vedartha-paribrmhitah) It is free from the problems that we find with the Vedas and the other Puranas – it is available in it’s entirety, it has commentated upon by various Vaisnava acaryas, it is divinely composed and Puranic in nature. In it’s opening sloka it gives the essence of the Vedas since it begins with the holy gayatri mantra· (gayatri-bhasya-rupo ’sah) which is itself the essence of the vedas. This is also confirmed in the Matsya Purana (53.20-22) and Agni Purana (272.6.7) -
Most importantly, the Bhagavata is the crowning glory of the divine author’s literary efforts, soothing his heart when he felt that his work remained incomplete.
There are many verses that praise the Bhagavata above all the other Puranas. In the Skanda Purana (Visnu-khanda 6.4.3) it says –
In the Visnu Khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.16.40-42, 44,33) –
In the Padma Purana (Uttara-khanda 193.3)
Also in the Padma Purana -
I bow down to that Lord , the ocean of mercy whose color is like that of a tamala tree and who appears in this world for the welfare of all. I worship Him as the bridge for crossing the unfathomable ocean of material existence. The Bhagavata has appeared as His very Self."
In the Garuda Purana -
OBJECTION: In the Bhagavata (1.4.25) it is stated thus –
This is evidence that the Vedas are the sole property of the brahmana class.

REFUTATION: We should understand from the above statement (stri sudra brahma-bandhunam) that the Mahabharata is indeed meant for those classes, since they are generally considered less-intelligent as regards their philosophical perception. Therefore Vyasadeva provided such people with the Mahabharata — a philosophical text presented in a palatable story-form.
It should be pointed out however that the challenging party again uses the ardha-kukutta-nyaya (half-hen philosophy) for they seem to place stress on the word sudra yet neglect the fact that the verse also refers to brahmana-bandhus. As stated by us in our previous essay, since everyone in Kali-yuga is born as a sudra (kalau sudra sambhava) practically no one is eligible to study the Vedas in this age (the problems of this have been explained at the beginning of this work). In other words, most of the brahmana class today are brahmana-bandhus and must therefore also be considered as ‘ignorant of how to achieve the ultimate goal of life’. With this in mind, Mahamuni Vyasa mercifully composed the illustrious Bhagavata for the sake of all people, of every varna, asrama and race. The Bhagavata says -
We have no argument that one must be a brahmana to study the Vedas – in fact only a brahmana can study the Vedas! Who else is qualified, or indeed, interested? Our question is, who is a brahmana and what are his qualifications? Again, this query has been answered by us already in a previous text.

CONCLUSION: In this way we have shown through the pramana of the srutis, smrtis, Itihasas and Puranas that the Mahabharata and the Puranas are indeed considered to be the fifth Veda, and that they are of higher importance and significance in the age of Kali than the four Vedas. Of them, the highest is the the Bhagavata, the crest-jewel of all the Vedic literatures. For this reason the Bhagavata(1.3.43) says: