Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 > > The Devi Bhagavata is not an authentic Purana or Upa-Purana. I had > > lengthy discussions with Atma-tattva Prabhu on this point some years > > back. > > I know. I posted it just for preaching purposes, if some devotees deal > with those who accept it as authoritative (many in India). It is > intriguing why a sakta Purana should glorify Radha-Krishna. What I meant is that it is not an authentic Shakta Purana. Shaktas may read it, but it is not a canonical text of the upa-Puranas meant for those in tama-guna. It was concocted a few hundred years ago. Atma-tattva knows all the details. > > Your servant, bh. Jan > > www.veda.harekrsna.cz > (Bhakti-yoga Vedic Encyclopedia Vedic Library Links) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 On Wednesday, April 21, 2004, at 09:10 am, Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) wrote: >>> The Devi Bhagavata is not an authentic Purana or Upa-Purana. I had >>> lengthy discussions with Atma-tattva Prabhu on this point some years >>> back. >> >> I know. I posted it just for preaching purposes, if some devotees deal >> with those who accept it as authoritative (many in India). It is >> intriguing why a sakta Purana should glorify Radha-Krishna. > > What I meant is that it is not an authentic Shakta Purana. Shaktas may > read > it, but it is not a canonical text of the upa-Puranas meant for those > in > tama-guna. It was concocted a few hundred years ago. Atma-tattva knows > all > the details. Dandavats. We could argue that the Goswami granthas were only written a number of hundred years ago. Still they are authoritative. I know that the Devi Bhagavata Purana is not canonical, however we ought to dovetail anything that can have some use in Krsna's service and take those bits that are useful and discard the rest. (Not that I am advocate of the Devi Bhagavata Purana, but do you know what I mean...?) Ys., Rama Kesava dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 >I know that the Devi Bhagavata Purana is not canonical, however we >ought to dovetail anything that can have some use in Krsna's service >and take those bits that are useful and discard the rest. (Not that I >am advocate of the Devi Bhagavata Purana, but do you know what I >mean...?) Interesting is that in S. India I saw one Deity of Durga Sharadi or something like this,and some other. She looks like horse with some 6 feet and hands, lion face. She is fighting with some half lion half man, who lies defeated. So this other half lion half man is supposed to be Lrod Narasimhadeva. They told me this is from some Purana, that Durga defeated Lord Narasimhadeva and they worship this Deity, so I doubt the reliability of this text. Probably is just a story to propagate shakti worship and minimize the position of Krishna in form of Narasimhadeva. Also some half man, half female form of Shiva probably speculated. Your servant Damana Krishna dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 >We could argue that the Goswami granthas were only written a >number of hundred years ago. Still they are authoritative. The Goswami granthas are based on and in perfect line with standard shastras. >I know that the Devi Bhagavata Purana is not canonical, however we >ought to dovetail anything that can have some use in Krsna's service >and take those bits that are useful and discard the rest. The Devi Bhagavata is a compilation of manufactured stories that have little basis in the writings of Vyasadeva. It is no more authoritative than the Aurobindo Upanishad or the Satya Sai Gita. You may choose to dovetail the Satya Sai Gita in Krishna's service, but I would prefer to not touch it. By touching it we give it acceptance and authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 > >I know that the Devi Bhagavata Purana is not canonical, however we > >ought to dovetail anything that can have some use in Krsna's service > >and take those bits that are useful and discard the rest. > > The Devi Bhagavata is a compilation of manufactured stories that have > little basis in the writings of Vyasadeva. It is no more authoritative > than the Aurobindo Upanishad or the Satya Sai Gita. You may choose to > dovetail the Satya Sai Gita in Krishna's service, but I would prefer to > not touch it. By touching it we give it acceptance and authority. That certainly a valid point. There are SO many sastras (popular or not) that have very little or as in this case no validity. Vaisnava acharyas never quote them or comment on them. There was a case in 1974 when Srila Prabhupada asked Satsvarupa Maharaja to write a KC commentary on Bible. He started and wrote a few very straight forward commentaries and Prabhupada approved it that was while in Italy, but since that in France he has said that it will not very useful since it gives authority to it, but _still_ Christians will not be paying any attention to whatever we say. In general Srila Prabhupada was changing mindset by taking people off the platform of material designations (Christians, Shaktas etc.,) to a transcendental level not otherwise. Ys Caitanya candrodaya das 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.