Brahma-samhita

[Guest guest]

Dandavat pranams!

 

> > On what evidence the statement that BS was written in 1300 AD, is based?

> > It is aparently not in the text itself, so what makes one assume that it

> > was written in that year?

> >

> > Ys, Gauri das

>

> Textcritical analysis of all extant Pancaratra Samhitas with special

> attention to the development and introduction of new terminology. The

> entire body of literature used by different Vaisnava sects must be taken

> into consideration. The author explains his method, especially his

> attempts to establish a chronolgy, in the second chapter of his book. This

> is a rather complex procedure and I do not want to present it here in

> detail. The book is available from amazon.co.uk, at least that is where I

> got my copy. I suppose a good university library would also have a copy.

 

Thank you Prabhu. I will try to locate the book. Could you please provide

the title and the author's name?

 

Anyway, my question still stands: there seems to be no hard evidence that BS

was written in 1300 AD. Although I haven't seen the book you are referring

to, I can guess that this year was suggested by it's author based on his

subjective analysis. This could be a reliable method or it could turn out a

mere speculation. We do not know that for sure, so we can't rely on that

information before it's proven true. By the way, is the author a Vaisnava?

 

> One thing could be added to my previous post:

>

> A.D. 1300 does not need to be taken as the date of creation of the

> Brahma-samhita. All it takes is a person who "knows" what Brahma spoke at

> the dawn of creation. This is what is called "revealed scripture." Bhaktas

> believe that certain highly qualified persons can know what Lord Brahma or

> Lord Krsna spoke, no matter how far back in time it happened; even if a

> partial or total annihilation took place in the mean time. If the words of

> Lord Brahma or Lord Krsna are then written down, bhaktas do not think that

> the saintly person who wrote down these words "invented" them. It is

> accepted as authentic. Scholars can only find out when it was written. But

> they can't disprove that the words were originally uttered by Lord Krsna

> or Lord Brahma.

 

Completely agreed. It doesn't really matter when exactly this or that piece

of sacred literature was written down as long as it came from an empowered

source and is therefore a "revealed scripture". But in this case we need to

know who that source is and if we can rely on the author's realization to

produce a "revealed scripture". In this particular case, for Gaudiya

Vaisnavas the discovery and acceptance of Brahma Samhita by Sriman

Mahaprabhu is the best evidence of authenticity. But, as mentioned by

Nayana-ranjana Prabhu in his recent comment, someone from another sampradaya

may challenge us as we often refer to BS in our preaching. To prove BS's

authenticity, first we have to convince them in superiority and reliability

of Mahaprabhu's testimony. In other words, we have to prove to them the

divinity of Mahaprabhu, which is probably what we should be doing, anyway.

 

Ys, Gauri das