Validity of the Samhitas (was Am Namo Narayanaya)

[Guest guest]

>In the last post, the sesha samhita suggests non-utterance of pranava for

>other than brahmin castes. But the exact reason for why "am" instead of any

 

>The general pramana regarding secrecy of mantra is : gurum prakashayet

>dhiman mantram yatnena gopayet prakasa aprakashayoh ksheeyete sampadayushi

>: this is from the 1st adhikara of Rahasyatrayasara. Sri Vedanta Desika

>quotes this from a "samhita" which I do not remember; (I will check this

>and post the reference later). The meaning is : One should publicize one's

 

 

Hare Krishna! I apologize for changing the subject, but something came up

here which attracted my attention.

 

I have been wondering about the origins and the validity of the literatures

known as the Samhitas. Gaudiya Vaishnavas seem to quote from them profusely,

and indeed one of their own main scriptures is the Brahma-samhita.

 

The question I have is, how do we know that the Samhitas are canonical Vedic

literatures? We know that the Puranas and Itihasas are because in shruti

(specifically, Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad) it is stated that these

literatures emanated from the Supreme Lord along with the Shrutis. However,

I don't think the samhitas are mentioned there. In fact, I have yet to see

any reference to the 'samhita' class of literature in either the shrutis or

the itihasas/puranas. Nevertheless, it seems that many Vaishnavas do quote

from them without reservation. Can anyone shed some light on this? I ask out

of curiosity only; I'm not casting doubts on the discussion above (which is

also interesting in its own right). I would really like to know where these

Samhitas come from and what evidence substantiates them as bona fide

scriptures.

 

adiyEn Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Sri Krishna Susarla said:

>I have been wondering about the origins and the validity of the literatures

>known as the Samhitas. Gaudiya Vaishnavas seem to quote from them profusely,

>and indeed one of their own main scriptures is the Brahma-samhita.

 

Brahma-samhita is a purely Gaudiya shastra. It is only the 5th chapter of a

work supposed to have 100 chapters, found by Sri Chaitanya on his visit to

the Adi Keshava Perumal temple at Tiruvattur in Tamil Nadu near to

Tiruvanantapuram on the Kerala border. It is not to be confused with

another work by the same name which is recognized as part of the Pancaratra

Canon.

 

Sri Krishna Susarla said:

>I don't think the samhitas are mentioned there. In fact, I have yet to see

>any reference to the 'samhita' class of literature in either the shrutis or

>the itihasas/puranas. Nevertheless, it seems that many Vaishnavas do quote

>from them without reservation. Can anyone shed some light on this? I ask out

>of curiosity only; I'm not casting doubts on the discussion above (which is

>also interesting in its own right). I would really like to know where these

>Samhitas come from and what evidence substantiates them as bona fide

>scriptures.

 

Sri Adi Shankara says in his Bhasya that he rejects the Pancaratra

(Samhitas) as authority, this is due to his misunderstanding of the roles

of the Vyuhas like Sankarsana. He misunderstands that the Pancaratra

mistakenly propounds an origin of the Jivatma. It in fact does not. Later

Sri Ramanuja pointed this out in Sri Bhasya. Also Sri Yamunacharya has

written Agama Pramanya which deals with proving the authenticity of the

Agama (Samhitas, there are two Vaisnava Agamas, the Pancaratra and the

Vaikhanasa). And then later Sri Vedanta Desika has written Pancaratra

Raksha which also deals with the same subject, ie proving the authenticity

of the Pancaratra (Samhitas) as Pramanam.

 

adiyen

 

Keshava das

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Sri Keshava dasa writes:

>Brahma-samhita is a purely Gaudiya shastra. It is only the 5th chapter of a

>work supposed to have 100 chapters, found by Sri Chaitanya on his visit to

>the Adi Keshava Perumal temple at Tiruvattur in Tamil Nadu near to

>Tiruvanantapuram on the Kerala border. It is not to be confused with

>another work by the same name which is recognized as part of the Pancaratra

>Canon.

 

 

In that case, the question then becomes this. Is there any objective

evidence which validates Brahma-samhita as authentic shaastra? An answer I'm

likely to get when I pose this question to devotees around me is, "Lord

Chaitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He approved of it,

therefore it is bona fide." But what I'm looking for is evidence beyond mere

tradition that justifies our position that this is in fact an authentic

shaastra. After all, we quote Brahma-samhita to all sorts of people,

expecting them to accept its evidence. That being the case, we should be

prepared to discuss with them why Brahma-samhita is to be considered an

authentic pramaana.

>Sri Adi Shankara says in his Bhasya that he rejects the Pancaratra

>(Samhitas) as authority, this is due to his misunderstanding of the roles

>of the Vyuhas like Sankarsana. He misunderstands that the Pancaratra

>mistakenly propounds an origin of the Jivatma. It in fact does not. Later

>Sri Ramanuja pointed this out in Sri Bhasya. Also Sri Yamunacharya has

>written Agama Pramanya which deals with proving the authenticity of the

>Agama (Samhitas, there are two Vaisnava Agamas, the Pancaratra and the

>Vaikhanasa). And then later Sri Vedanta Desika has written Pancaratra

>Raksha which also deals with the same subject, ie proving the authenticity

>of the Pancaratra (Samhitas) as Pramanam.

 

 

Thanks for this enlightening discourse. So then the Samhitas = Agamas,

correct? And the Sri Vaishnavas clearly do accept these Samhitas as

authentic. In that case, does anyone know exactly what the origins are of

these Samhitas/Agamas? Are they also breathed out by Lord Narayana at the

beginning of creation, or are these considered to be authored works?

 

Also, you may be familiar with Gaudiya works like Bhakti-rasaamR^ita Sindhu.

In it, numerous Samhitas are quoted to establish various points; are these

Pancharaatra Samhitas which would be considered by Sri Ramanuja and Sri

Yamunacharya as canonical? Or are these also purely "Gaudiya shaastras?"

 

While we're on the subject, are you at all familiar with scriptures such as

the Vishnu-yaamala, Brahma-yaamala, etc? These are also quoted in Srila

Prabhupada's books, but I have yet to find any information on what they are,

where they came from, evidence for their authenticity, etc.

 

adiyen Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Krishna Susarla said:

>In that case, the question then becomes this. Is there any objective

>evidence which validates Brahma-samhita as authentic shaastra? An answer I'm

>likely to get when I pose this question to devotees around me is, "Lord

>Chaitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He approved of it,

>therefore it is bona fide." But what I'm looking for is evidence beyond mere

>tradition that justifies our position that this is in fact an authentic

>shaastra. After all, we quote Brahma-samhita to all sorts of people,

>expecting them to accept its evidence. That being the case, we should be

>prepared to discuss with them why Brahma-samhita is to be considered an

>authentic pramaana.

 

I have been personnally to Tiruvattur and the people there have no history

or legend about Sri Chaitanya finding that book there. They know nothing

about it. I was general manager of a Smithsonian PL480 funded microfilm

project to preserve Vaisnava Shastras in the 80's and I never came across

any objective evidence about Brahma Samhita. I know nothing to suggest that

it is accepted by any but Gaudiyas.

>Thanks for this enlightening discourse. So then the Samhitas = Agamas,

>correct? And the Sri Vaishnavas clearly do accept these Samhitas as

>authentic. In that case, does anyone know exactly what the origins are of

>these Samhitas/Agamas? Are they also breathed out by Lord Narayana at the

>beginning of creation, or are these considered to be authored works?

 

Both Pancaratra and Vaikhanasa Agamas are composed of Samhitas (not to be

confused with the Veda Samhitas). They are divided into three divisions as

to whether they were spoken by the Lord, Divine Beings (like Adi Sesa) or

Rishis.

>Also, you may be familiar with Gaudiya works like Bhakti-rasaamR^ita Sindhu.

>In it, numerous Samhitas are quoted to establish various points; are these

>Pancharaatra Samhitas which would be considered by Sri Ramanuja and Sri

>Yamunacharya as canonical? Or are these also purely "Gaudiya shaastras?"

 

Yes, these are quotes from Pancaratra accepted by all Vaisnavas. Acharyas

of each sampradaya have quoted from these original Agamas or Samhitas.

Mostly though except for the Sri Sampradaya, the Acharyas of the other

sampradayas compile quotes from various sources (including Pancaratra) for

the ritualistic works of their followers. Madhva compiled Tantrasara

Sangraha, and Sanatana Goswami (and Gopala Bhatta) compiled Hari Bhakti

Vilasa.

>While we're on the subject, are you at all familiar with scriptures such as

>the Vishnu-yaamala, Brahma-yaamala, etc? These are also quoted in Srila

>Prabhupada's books, but I have yet to find any information on what they are,

>where they came from, evidence for their authenticity, etc.

 

 

Some are Dharma Shastras, others are connected to Puranas. Just off hand I

can't say about the two you just mentioned. I'll check up and see if I can

find more definite information for you. You should also know that many

times we only know of a shastra from the fragments of it that are quoted by

later writers. Unfortunately so muchhas been lost or destroyed over the

years. Also even if we know the name of a shastra and accept it as bona

fide and authoritative, there are still the matter of interpolations to

deal with.

 

If you want to discuss more about Gaudiya topics, please e-mail me directly.

 

adiyen

 

Keshava das

[Guest guest]

Krishna Susarla wrote:

> >Sri Adi Shankara says in his Bhasya that he rejects the Pancaratra

> >(Samhitas) as authority, this is due to his misunderstanding of the roles

> >of the Vyuhas like Sankarsana. He misunderstands that the Pancaratra

> >mistakenly propounds an origin of the Jivatma. It in fact does not. Later

> >Sri Ramanuja pointed this out in Sri Bhasya. Also Sri Yamunacharya has

> >written Agama Pramanya which deals with proving the authenticity of the

> >Agama (Samhitas, there are two Vaisnava Agamas, the Pancaratra and the

> >Vaikhanasa). And then later Sri Vedanta Desika has written Pancaratra

> >Raksha which also deals with the same subject, ie proving the authenticity

> >of the Pancaratra (Samhitas) as Pramanam.

 

Sorry, I am not replying to HKS's mail, I deleted the original by

mistake.

 

Sri Sankara's problem with the pA.charAtra is not just the one you

mentioned. He is very careful to dismiss the entire pA.ncarAtra as shown

by his statements on Brahma sUtra, II.ii.45, where he says there are

_many_ kinds of contradictions in the pA.charAtra. He also says that the

pA.charAtra casts a slur upon the veda-s and hence contradicts it. It is

a common misconception that he is against only this aspect since he

singles it out. Why he singled out this particular aspect is very

interesting. I don't want to go into that here. But take a look at

 

"An Unknown Source in Sankara's Refutation of the Pancaratra", by G.

Oberhammer, ABORI, Vol LVIII & IX, pp. 221-233.

 

for why he singles this aspect out. It has a pretty good analysis.

 

Rama.