Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 For those of you research-minded devotees, there is a new publication of the Brahma-vaivarta Puraana being offered through Krishna Culture. It is reported to contain both the original Sanskrit text and English translation. Whether it is a verse-by-verse translation or a prose translation, I do not know. The translator is one Shanti Lal Nagar, and it contains an introduction by one Acharya Ramesh Chaturvedi. I do not know the sampradaaya details (if even applicable) of the translator and editor. I was wondering if anyone had seen the book and could comment on it in terms of its publication quality, translation quality, etc. FYI, this Puraana, like the Padma Puraana, is supposed to contain much evidence regarding Raadha (for those who might find themselves defending the scriptural basis of Raadha-Krishna worship before South Indian Vaishnava critics). regards, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, krishna_susarla wrote: > FYI, this Puraana, like the Padma Puraana, is supposed to contain > much evidence regarding Raadha (for those who might find themselves > defending the scriptural basis of Raadha-Krishna worship before South > Indian Vaishnava critics). In scholarly circles, the Brahmavaivarta Purana is regarded as somewhat apocryphal, but Srila Prabhupada quotes from it in his books; it might be a good idea to scrutinize any non-Vaisnava edition's manuscript details, if any are given. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 achintya, mpt@u... wrote: > > In scholarly circles, the Brahmavaivarta Purana is regarded as somewhat apocryphal, > I for one would like to know why. There are multiple references to the Brahma-vaivarta in other Puraanas, the Bhaagavatam, Padma, and Matsya being just a few off the top of my head. These kinds of scholarly biases seem almost completely arbitrary to me at times. > it might be a good idea to scrutinize any non-Vaisnava edition's manuscript details, if any are given. > Yes, that goes without saying - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2003 Report Share Posted April 18, 2003 On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, krishna_susarla wrote: > achintya, mpt@u... wrote: > > In scholarly circles, the Brahmavaivarta Purana is regarded as > somewhat apocryphal, > > I for one would like to know why. There are multiple references to > the Brahma-vaivarta in other Puraanas, the Bhaagavatam, Padma, and > Matsya being just a few off the top of my head. These kinds of > scholarly biases seem almost completely arbitrary to me at times. Yes, yet there's nonetheless a method to the madness, so to speak. It's as if anytime a scripture too clearly affirms some specific doctrine, some scholars become very doubtful; perhaps (for reasons one should consider) they can't accomodate the logical fact that there is (or should be) intrinsic harmony between Vedic scriptures and established siddhantas. However, all that this really indicates is that certain people have a skeptical mentality, by default; why else would anyone postulate so negatively? One explanation is quite simple, though not very flattering: they're merely impure. Krsna suggests as much in Gita, 7.15. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 achintya, mpt@u... wrote: > Yes, yet there's nonetheless a method to the madness, so to speak. It's as if anytime a scripture too clearly affirms some specific doctrine, some scholars become very doubtful; perhaps (for reasons one should consider) they can't accomodate the logical fact that there is (or should be) intrinsic harmony between Vedic scriptures and established siddhantas. However, all that this really indicates is that certain people have a skeptical mentality, by default; why else would anyone postulate so negatively? One explanation is quite simple, though not very flattering: they're merely impure. Krsna suggests as much in Gita, 7.15. > Yes, this is exactly my point. If the objection to a Puraana's authenticity stems from the fact that it is consistent and supports Vaishnava/Bhaagavata siddhaanta, then we know that the objections are simply prejudiced and worthy of no futher serious consideration. It is only when there seems to be some genuine concern that we should devote ourselves to establishing the authenticity of a particular version. Jay has stated that there are editions which seem to be very vulgar in nature. Even still, an interpolated version presupposes that a real one exists, especially given that other Puraanas refer to a Brahma-vaivarta. A more interesting question is how any of us (as Vaishnavas who are supposed to be obedient to Puraanic evidence) can take issue with evidence presented from this Puraana, when all of our aachaaryas have quoted from it at some point or another. I can think of Maadhva and Shrii Vaishnava colleagues, for example, who would not accept the Raadhaa evidence from BVP, but by the same logic they should reject any quote from BVP given by their aachaaryas, which they often do not do. And if they simply accept the Puraanic evidence on the strength of their aachaarya's testimony, then why should the aachaarya quote the Puraana at all? His testimony becomes superior to the Puraana, and one might as well dispense with Puraanic evidence and just believe whatever the aachaarya teaches. An interesting epistemological dilemma, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.