Sri Garga-samhita

[Guest guest]

> I hope

> this helps somewhat. Hare Krishna.

 

Thank you, Mukunda Datta Prabhu, for your concise, scholarly answer. I very

much appreciate this sort of contribution.

 

Your servant

Ekanath das

[Guest guest]

On 30 Dec 1999, Sergei Schmalz wrote:

 

> Dear Krsna Susarla Prabhu,

> please accept my respectful obeisances.

> All glories to Srila Prabhupada and all other Vaisnavas!

> All glories to Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai and Sri Sri Radha-Govinda!

 

Please accept mine. All glories to pure Vaishnavas!

 

heir divine origin is clearly established, at

> > least as far as shruti is concerned. But what about these other, more

> > obscure literatures?

>

> Many people don't even know that there are also 18 secondary

> Puranas, so-called Alpa Puranas, on the contrary to the 18 Maha Puranas.

 

Don't you mean "Upa Puraanas?"

 

Nor

> do they know that there are more than 108 Upanisads: the 108 are just the

> core, or sAra in Sanskrit, as Lord Ramacandra proclaims in Muktika Upanisad.

 

That is true. I think I once heard some devotee mistakenly refer to

Chaitanyopanishad as one of the 108, but in fact it is not.

 

> Finally, why a pure devotee of the Lord can't write a work for us,

> poor beggars roaming from one edge of the universe to another one? What is

> wrong with such works of pure devotees?

 

Nothing is "wrong" with such works, since the underlying assumption is that

pure devotees speak and write according to scriptural truth. But in order for

a scripture to have universal (or pan-Vedaantist) acceptability, there must be

some agreement as to what is scripture. Most Vedaantists would readily agree

that anything that is shruti is Veda and thus acceptable. But I have yet to

see any mutually agreed upon criteria for an authored text and what

constitutes its acceptability (except, perhaps when Vyaasa is the author, and

even then many Vedaantists don't accept all of the Puraanas which are

supposedly the authored works of Vyaasa).

 

This, then, is the gist of what I'm getting at. If we say that a given text is

scripture because it was written by a pure devotee, then what meaning is there

when we quote that scripture to someone who does not already accept the

spiritual credentials of the author? Furthermore, if we say that something

like Garga-Samhita is scripture because its author is a pure devotee, then why

should the text be misrepresented as if it were an older text?

 

> > example, if it is in fact the case that the Garga-samhita was authored

> > only in the last 500 years, then does that not compromise its

> > authenticity? And could similar claims not be made about other Samhitas,

> > Tantras, and so on?

>

> Many Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas wrote their works within last 500

> years. Does that mean we are going to reject them, just due to this fact?

> No, please, not. I better die than forget my dearmost Rupa Gosvami's works.

 

The issue is one of what the text is represented to be. For example, the

Bhaagavatam says that it was compiled near the beginning of the Kali Yuga. If

the presumptuous theories held by some Indologists were true, and the

Bhaagavatam were in fact authored by the Tamil poet Vopadeva in the 11th

century, then that would compromise the Bhaagavatam's authenticty since it

would in effect say that the Bhaagavatam was lying about its origins.

 

Similarly, if the Gaarga-samhita represented itself as an older text, and we

have strong evidence that it was only written in the last 500 years by one of

our aachaaryas, and not Garga Muni, then that would destroy the credibility of

this text. Of course, if Gaarga-samhita never said anything about its origins,

then this would be a non-issue.

 

Even in that case, however, the GS could only be held to be an authored work

of our aachaaryas. There would be no utility to quoting it someone outside our

sampradaaya, except perhaps to explain what Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaaryas

believe on a given issue.

 

> In Narada-bhakti-sutra (69) we read:

>

> tIrthI kurvanti tIrthAni su-karmI kurvanti karmANi sac-chAstrI

> kurvanti zAstrANi

> "Association of pure devotees makes holy places holy, auspicious

> works auspicious, and authoritative scriptures authoritative."

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be universal acceptance of what

constitutes a pure devotee. Even within ISKCON, we can see that "pure devotee"

is a term used quite liberally, and often revoked when hindsight becomes

20/20.

 

yours,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Dear Krsna Susarla Prabhu,

please accept my respectful obeisances.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada and all other Vaisnavas!

All glories to Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai and Sri Sri Radha-Govinda!

 

[Dear devotees, especially the conference organizer, please excuse

me for the long comment below, I usually do not write that much, but the

topic under discussion has induced me to make an exeption. Please, forgive

me for any possible disturbance caused by the long text.]

 

> > Many people don't even know that there are also 18 secondary

> > Puranas, so-called Alpa Puranas, on the contrary to the 18 Maha Puranas.

>

> Don't you mean "Upa Puraanas?"

 

Yes I mean them, they are termed both as Upa Purana and (as in SB

12th Canto) Alpa Purana, that is Minor Puranas.

 

> > Finally, why a pure devotee of the Lord can't write a work for us,

> > poor beggars roaming from one edge of the universe to another one? What

> > is wrong with such works of pure devotees?

>

> Nothing is "wrong" with such works, since the underlying assumption is

> that pure devotees speak and write according to scriptural truth. But in

> order for a scripture to have universal (or pan-Vedaantist) acceptability,

> there must be some agreement as to what is scripture.

 

Vedai ca sarvair aham eva vedyaƒ: "Vedas are the scriptures by

which one can relize Me", says our dearmost Lord Govinda in our dearmost

Bhagavad-gita. This is the definition of Veda (scripture) by means of phala

(fruit) (phalena phala-k€raŠam anum…yate, "the cause of a fruit is

understood by the fruit", CC). The fruit is Krsna concsiousness, i.e. "aham

eva vedyaƒ". If a given literary work can help one to attain that

admirable(!) fruit, that is "vedaiƒ", the authorized and universal

scripture, and the principle of scripture, €stra-tattva.

Compare, please, with a Bhagavatam verse: "Scriptures written in a

very perfect style but void of glorification of Lord Hari are the place of

pilgrimage of crows. But a scripture full of hari-kirtana, even though

imperfect in language, is the best scripture in the world." Isn't this

extatic! He Radha-Govindadeva, karuŠ€ˆ kuru sarveu!!!

 

> Most Vedaantists would readily agree that anything that is shruti is Veda

> and thus acceptable. But I have yet to see any mutually agreed upon

> criteria for an authored text and what constitutes its acceptability

 

The criteria are given in the passage above to sufficient extant.

 

> This, then, is the gist of what I'm getting at. If we say that a given

> text is scripture because it was written by a pure devotee, then what

> meaning is there when we quote that scripture to someone who does not

> already accept the spiritual credentials of the author?

 

If a person does not accept the spiritual credentials of Garga Muni,

then that person seems to know scriptures too bad, because Gargacarya is

accepted by scriptures themselves. So, what is the problem with

Garga-samhita.

It is a bit more difficult with e.g. six Gosvamis, who are not

directly mentioned in sastras (maybe only as manjaris). But Vaisnavas "do

not throw pearls before swines", but rather keep them for the worthy ones. I

mean, if we quote, say, Srila Rupa Gosvami, this quote is for those who can

appreciate it properly (i.e. devotees). We don't care whether some rascal

accepts his authority or not. He (Rupa Gosvami) was authorized by Lord

Gauranga Himself, who in His turn is the Supreme Lord as revealed in

scriptures like Mahabharata.

 

> Furthermore, if we say that something like Garga-Samhita is scripture

> because its author is a pure devotee, then why should the text be

> misrepresented as if it were an older text?

 

Sorry, I am afraid I don't understand this question. Would You

kindly clarify?

 

> The issue is one of what the text is represented to be. For example, the

> Bhaagavatam says that it was compiled near the beginning of the Kali Yuga.

> If the presumptuous theories held by some Indologists were true, and the

> Bhaagavatam were in fact authored by the Tamil poet Vopadeva in the 11th

> century, then that would compromise the Bhaagavatam's authenticty since it

> would in effect say that the Bhaagavatam was lying about its origins.

 

Ah, Indologists! You know, I am an Indologist too, soon I start

writing my MA paper (Satvata-tantra), but fortunately enough our eyes were

opened by the torchlight of a self-realized person, namely Srila Prabhupada.

So, first of all, Bhagavatam does NOT say it was compiled

bla-bla-bla, it says it was WRITTEN DOWN bla-bla-bla. It did exist as long

as world lasts. At prescribed times it is manifested in a form of a grantha

(book). Well, I don't need now to re-write Srila Prabhupada's books here to

explain this verdict again. Let those Indologists read themselves.

Second. As far as Vopadeva is concerned, I didn't do much research

on him, but it might be the case that he has written a copy of Bhagavatam,

in other words that he has copied it from an already existing text. That's

it. I can't prove it by any pratyaka pram€Ša, but nor can Indologists prove

their ideas. After all, Vopadeva is nowhere glorified in sastras, whereas

Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa IS!

 

> > In Narada-bhakti-sutra (69) we read:

> > t…rth… kurvanti t…rth€ni su-karm… kurvanti karm€Ši sac-ch€str…

> > kurvanti €str€Ši

> > "Association of pure devotees makes holy places holy, auspicious

> > works auspicious, and authoritative scriptures authoritative."

>

> Unfortunately, there does not seem to be universal acceptance of what

> constitutes a pure devotee.

 

How is that? Na hi. There is a verily "universal acceptance of what

constitutes a pure devotee". A pure devotee is described in the Gita chapter

12 at a great length. The problem is that some mayayapahrta-jnanis have a

small fund of knowledge and concoct their own bewildered interpretations.

Alas!

 

> Even within ISKCON, we can see that "pure devotee" is a term used quite

> liberally, and often revoked when hindsight becomes 20/20.

 

Well, this is NOT a problem of ISKCON as the whole organization,

rather of a particular idividual. If there was some Mr. Such-n-such in

ISKCON who dared to abuse a child, that doesn't mean yet that everyone in

ISKCON is a potential abuser, of course not. Similarly, if SOMEBODY lacks

clear understanding of what a pure devotee is, that doesn't mean that

EVERYONE lacks that understanding. So, one shouldn't generalize things that

much.

 

Your most unworthy servant,

Sergei.

Hare Krsna.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, WWW: Krishna Susarla (Dallas TX - USA) wrote:

> > Finally, why a pure devotee of the Lord can't write a work for us,

> > poor beggars roaming from one edge of the universe to another one? What is

> > wrong with such works of pure devotees?

> Nothing is "wrong" with such works, since the underlying assumption is that

> pure devotees speak and write according to scriptural truth. But in order for

> a scripture to have universal (or pan-Vedaantist) acceptability, there must

be

> some agreement as to what is scripture.

Moreover, in the case of works we haven't received from Shrila

Prabhupada or someone in his line, what is the pramana upon which we

believe that the pure devotee who allegedly wrote such works actually did

so? Maybe you're also asking this. Garga-samhita is a good example, and

so far I haven't seen here any solid reasons to believe that the GS is

anything but what it appears to be--a sixteenth century Vallabha

sampradaya work. But I for one will probably change my views if I do and

would be interested to hear if anyone has such evidence.

 

 

> Similarly, if the Gaarga-samhita represented itself as an older text, and we

> have strong evidence that it was only written in the last 500 years by one of

> our aachaaryas,

BTW, do we, in fact?

 

 

> and not Garga Muni, then that would destroy the credibility of

> this text. Of course, if Gaarga-samhita never said anything about its

origins,

> then this would be a non-issue.

I'm not so sure about this. Content is another essential issue.

Unless our gurus give their imprimatur to a given text, we have to judge

on it's content and context, if that's even possible--which it often

isn't. I'm all for blindly accepting whatever bonafide gurus dictate,

but I don't think it's a good idea to be indiscriminate about accepting

what evidently amounts to little more than "lok-shastra." But on the

other hand, maybe I'm just being overly skeptical.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, COM: (Bhakta) Sergei Schmalz (Wiesbaden - D) wrote:

> > But in

> > order for a scripture to have universal (or pan-Vedaantist) acceptability,

> > there must be some agreement as to what is scripture.

> Vedaiz ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH: "Vedas are the scriptures by

> which one can relize Me", says our dearmost Lord Govinda in our dearmost

> Bhagavad-gita. This is the definition of Veda (scripture) by means of phala

> (fruit) (phalena phala-kAraNam anumIyate, "the cause of a fruit is

> understood by the fruit", CC). The fruit is Krsna concsiousness, i.e. "aham

> eva vedyaH". If a given literary work can help one to attain that

> admirable(!) fruit, that is "vedaiH", the authorized and universal

> scripture, and the principle of scripture, zAstra-tattva.

OK, but this isn't always very pragmatic, is it? How might people

who don't yet share (y)our faith apply this principle--or even be able to

appreciate it?

 

 

> But a scripture full of hari-kirtana, even though

> imperfect in language, is the best scripture in the world." Isn't this

> extatic! He Radha-Govindadeva, karuNAM kuru sarveSu!!!

Whoa, come back down to earth for a minute, please. He asked a

perfectly valid question--one which many preachers will have to deal with

realistically. I think a more service-oriented answer would provide an

(at least ostensibly) objective basis for convincing someone else of these

truths. This is what he was getting at, it seems to me.

 

 

> It is a bit more difficult with e.g. six Gosvamis, who are not

> directly mentioned in sastras (maybe only as manjaris). But Vaisnavas "do

> not throw pearls before swines", but rather keep them for the worthy ones. I

> mean, if we quote, say, Srila Rupa Gosvami, this quote is for those who can

> appreciate it properly (i.e. devotees). We don't care whether some rascal

> accepts his authority or not.

However, Rupa Gosvami provides exhaustive quotes for the claims he

makes in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. Evidently, he *did* care what

others thought, and so he took the trouble to substantiate the things he

said with the references of standard, commonly acccepted authorities. I

see no reason why one should be hesitant to quote Rupa Gosvami if one can

also demonstrate that he was authoritative in this way, and if so, no

reason why a gentleman wouldn't also accept him as such. I'm also

cauitious about dismissing people as rascals, since I haven't developed

the ability to see their spiritual identities nor the condition hearts

beyond my reasonable conjecture, which doesn't always work.

 

 

> Second. As far as Vopadeva is concerned, I didn't do much research

> on him, but it might be the case that he has written a copy of Bhagavatam,

> in other words that he has copied it from an already existing text. That's

> it. I can't prove it by any pratyakSa pramANa, but nor can Indologists prove

> their ideas.

Syad etat, but I think a few of the Indologists' claims are fairly

reasonable, for what that's worth--even though I nonetheless don't accept

them as authoritative. One should give credit where credit is due, just

as one must understand that not all credit has equal value.

I suppose it's OK to denounce others so unmistakeably in this

forum, though I get the impression that Shri Susarla is framing a

hypothetical question regarding preaching strategy. One who adopts an

approach that is sensitive to the epistemological needs/wants of his

audience--without compromising (and that isn't very easy, though Krishna

will help those who are sincere)--will be probably more effective than one

who is simply absorbed in what would most likely appear to outsiders

as some inconceivable, personal euphoria and/or dogmatic sectarianism.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jan 2000, M. Tandy wrote:

 

> Moreover, in the case of works we haven't received from Shrila

> Prabhupada or someone in his line, what is the pramana upon which we

> believe that the pure devotee who allegedly wrote such works actually did

> so? Maybe you're also asking this. Garga-samhita is a good example,

 

Yes, this is essentially what I'm getting at. If some non-shruti scripture is

taught to us by our aachaaryas as being what it says it is, then we could make

a good case for its acceptance as pramaana at least within our circles. Though

even in that case, I'm not clear on how useful such a pramaana would be in

debating with Vaishnavas from other sampradaayas. On the other hand, if other

scriptures are not explicitly quoted by our aachaaryas, but are allegedly

authored by persons we consider pure devotees, then how do we know this is in

fact the case?

 

With shrutis, this is not a problem. The acceptance of shruti as Veda is

basically an axiom which all sampradaayas, even non Vaishnava sampradaayas,

accept at least in theory. One might argue that this is a matter of faith

(perhaps blind?), but this is a nonissue when dealing with other Vedaantists.

 

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas might further argue for the authoritative nature of the

Puraanas, based on such shruti quotes as itihaasa puraana panchama vedaanam

vedaH (Chaandogya Upanishad) as well as others which establish the Puraanas as

the fifth Veda.

 

On the other hand, the Pancharaatra Samhitas (of which there are supposed to

be 108, but I've heard the number is actually more like 224 or something like

that) aren't explicitly to my knowledge counted as Veda. So this then is the

question - if we choose to quote these texts for the sake of preaching, does

it not beg the question of how we know these texts are authoritative? Perhaps

if the text is given to us by our aachaaryas, we could make the case that we

are simply following what they have done. But even then, we don't have a basis

for convincing others outside out sampradaaya of their (the quoted scriptures)

authoritativeness.

 

and

> so far I haven't seen here any solid reasons to believe that the GS is

> anything but what it appears to be--a sixteenth century Vallabha

> sampradaya work. But I for one will probably change my views if I do and

> would be interested to hear if anyone has such evidence.

 

Bhaktivinode Thaakur has supposedly written a text known as Shrii Krishna

Samhita, but as far as I know this is hardly any secret. If in a hundred years

the authorship of the text is forgotten, and it is considered to be a part of

the Pancharaatra canon, after which some Indologists begin to question its

authenticity as Pancharaatra and bring up the hypothesis that it was written

by some Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaarya, it would hardly be unreasonable. And

this would not in any case call into question the credibility of the

philosophy discussed in Krishna Samhita. What it would do would be to clarify

the position of this work vis-a-vis other scriptures that do have

pan-Vedaantist acceptance.

 

I suppose that something similar could have happened to Garga-Samhita. But

again, I don't know much about it.

 

 

 

> > and not Garga Muni, then that would destroy the credibility of

> > this text. Of course, if Gaarga-samhita never said anything about its

> origins,

> > then this would be a non-issue.

> I'm not so sure about this. Content is another essential issue.

> Unless our gurus give their imprimatur to a given text, we have to judge

> on it's content and context, if that's even possible--which it often

> isn't.

 

You are right, actually. I was simply assuming for the sake of argument that

the contents of the text in question were consistent with shruti.

 

I'm all for blindly accepting whatever bonafide gurus dictate,

> but I don't think it's a good idea to be indiscriminate about accepting

> what evidently amounts to little more than "lok-shastra." But on the

> other hand, maybe I'm just being overly skeptical.

>

> MDd

 

I think skepticism is perfectly reasonable here, since we are all on the same

side and could use this forum to hash out all the possible objections/doubts

that people might have to certain kinds of preaching. Better to anticipate

these kinds of questions before someone outside of our society were to

publicly question us over it.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

Please don't confuse the eternal Pancaratra texts with the larger category of

bonafide and unbonafide smrti texts. A review of the characteristics of

Pancaratra can be found in Matsubara's partial translation of

Ahirbudhnyasamhita, Otto Schrader's Introduction to Pancaratra, Agamas and

South Indian Vaishnavism, and Rangachar's Introduction to Pancaratra.

Pancaratra are as eternal and bonafide as Veda and Purana and deal with the

glories of Lord Narayana and His vyuhas. The Sri Vaishnavas draw heavily from

Pancaratra, which was defended by Yamuna in his Agama-pramanyam. Furthermore,

i believe that scholars say that Pancaratra is not as corrupted as the

Puranas.

 

Narada-pancaratra, Brahma-samhita, Krishna-yamala tantra, or the Dharma

Shastras (manu) etc do resemble Pancaratra although they may be bonafide smrti

texts in their own right.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

On 21 Jan 2000, Krishna Susarla wrote:

 

>

> On the other hand, the Pancharaatra Samhitas (of which there are supposed to

> be 108, but I've heard the number is actually more like 224 or something

like

> that) aren't explicitly to my knowledge counted as Veda. So this then is the

> question - if we choose to quote these texts for the sake of preaching, does

> it not beg the question of how we know these texts are authoritative?

Perhaps

> if the text is given to us by our aachaaryas, we could make the case that we

> are simply following what they have done. But even then, we don't have a

basis

> for convincing others outside out sampradaaya of their (the quoted

scriptures)

> authoritativeness.

>

> and

> > so far I haven't seen here any solid reasons to believe that the GS is

> > anything but what it appears to be--a sixteenth century Vallabha

> > sampradaya work. But I for one will probably change my views if I do and

> > would be interested to hear if anyone has such evidence.

>

> Bhaktivinode Thaakur has supposedly written a text known as Shrii Krishna

> Samhita, but as far as I know this is hardly any secret. If in a hundred

years

> the authorship of the text is forgotten, and it is considered to be a part

of

> the Pancharaatra canon, after which some Indologists begin to question its

> authenticity as Pancharaatra and bring up the hypothesis that it was written

> by some Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaarya, it would hardly be unreasonable. And

> this would not in any case call into question the credibility of the

> philosophy discussed in Krishna Samhita.