Krishna-karnamritam

[Guest guest]

Dandavats. Jaya Prabhupada!

 

On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, COM: Tadiya-seva (das) BVTS (Copenhagen - DK) wrote:

> > > There are two more parts, the above text being regarded as the first

> > > one, which are prevalent in South India. But the scholars of the Sri

> > > Chaitanya School do not recognise them.

> > Accha. I wonder what Gaudiya scholars he's talking about. As I

> > mentioned, Rupa Gosvami definitely recognized some of them; it's just that

> > they're not all attributed to Bilvamangala or to the KK. Bilvamangala is

> > considered to have been an acharya of the Vishnusvami line by members of

> > that tradition.

> If they are not attributed to Bilvamangala Thakura or the Sri

> Krsna-karnamrtam by Sri Rupa Gosvami, would it not be possible that he

> obtained them elsewhere and not in the two sections of the Sri

> Krsna-karnamrtam from South India?

Absolutely, yes. Some verses are definitely ascribed to other

authors, others are from fairly well-known smritis whose authors would

have been familiar to the educated audience Padyavali was directed at.

Still other verses are simply anonymous.

 

 

> If Sri Rupa Gosvami attribute the verses

> to other sources, this does not really say anything about whether or not he

> recognized the South Indian sections of the Krsna-karnamrtam.

No it doesn't, at least not as such. All it indicates is his

appreciation of the verses which he has chosen to quote, verses which

also happen to be in the Southern KK. That's somewhat significant. I

suspect much of this kavya/stotra literature is anthological in nature,

and as I indicated before, what we might regard as plagiarism was fairly

widespread among such authors, some of whom may have preferred to remain

anonymous anyway. But it would definitely seem incongruous to me if

the KK1 is comprised exclusively of original poems by Bilvamangala whereas

the other two sections freely quote from other sources. I don't know for

sure whether this is or isn't the case, but I don't of any KK1 verses

being attested elsewhere.

 

 

> Regarding what Gaudiya scholars is meant, then I do not know. Perhaps Srila

> Sarasvati Thakura made some statements in this regard?

I don't know.

 

 

> I guess the main point is the content of the verse, and what impact it has

> on us.

Excellent point. This is most important, I think, because

someone--if not everyone--has to be qualified to determine the value of

any given composition which delineates Krishna, on the merit of the work

itself. Of course, that isn't an easy task aat all. Still, it's

essential, especially if we're dealing with a vaishnava work like, say,

Garga-samhita--about which Prabhupada and his predecessors appear (to me

at least) to have made no mention. In fact, most of the writing about

Krishna (even if it is authoritative) which exists in this world, hasn't

been received from Srila Prabhupada. Anyone who has the duty of fully

representing his Divine grace also has the onus of determining the

bonafides, and clarifying the spiritual content, of such literature. This

would naturally be a pressing need in contexts where one is likely to

encounter (or be encountered by) individuals already familiar with and/or

attached to such literary works. It's an immense responsibility, really,

and one which seems to have been particularly underscored in recent years

in ISKCON. But it's especially so too, if Prabhupada's disciples (or

other devotees) want to start writing their own books, as seems to be

the case. The problems associated with rasabhasa are a major part of

this point--they're entirely central to what you've said here.

 

MDd