Sri Garga-samhita

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakta Sergei Prabhu,

Please accept my respectful obeisances.

 

 

A quote from the Garga-saˆhit€ would normally be indentified by the words:

 

garga-saˆhit€y€m

 

In the Garga-samhita Garga Muni is not the main speaker. Most of the

dialogues are done by other persons.

 

HBV 4.120 deals with instructions for when and how to take bath. There is

also one Graga who is the author of a smrti. This verse very much sounds

like a smrti instruction. From what I know about the Garga-samhita, and

after carefully studying its table of contents, I doubt that such a verse

would appear therein.

 

 

> (HBV 4.120)

>

> ata evoktaˆ gargeŠa —

>

> kury€n naimittikaˆ sn€naˆ …t€dbhiƒ k€myam eva ca /

> nityaˆ y€dcchikaˆ caiva yath€-ruci sam€caret // 120 //

 

 

HBV 5.479 deals with marks on and qualities of salagrama silas. This topic

is not treated in the Garga-samhita, as far as I can tell from briefly

scanning the text and the table of contents.

 

Here both names are in locative. It means "In Garga('s) and

G€lava('s)(books)". G€lava is also mentioned as an ancient rsi and an author

of a dharma-sastra.

 

I doubt that the two verses are from the "Garga-saˆhit€".

 

ys end

 

 

> (HBV 5.479)

>

> g€rgya-g€lavayoƒ —

>

> sukha-d€ samacakr€ tu dv€da… cottam€ ubh€ /

> vartul€ caturasr€ ca nar€Š€ˆ ca sukha-prad€ // 479 //

>

> Your most unworthy servant,

> Sergei.

> Hare Krsna.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S) wrote:

> A quote from the Garga-saMhitA would normally be indentified by the words:

>

> garga-saMhitAyAm

>

> In the Garga-samhita Garga Muni is not the main speaker. Most of the

> dialogues are done by other persons.

>

That's reasonable. But aside from the two verses in question,

is there any reason we should assume that there couldn't be occasional

exceptions to the above postulation? Thanks.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S) wrote:

> > A quote from the Garga-saMhitA would normally be indentified by the

> > words:

> >

> > garga-saMhitAyAm

> >

> > In the Garga-samhita Garga Muni is not the main speaker. Most of the

> > dialogues are done by other persons.

> >

> That's reasonable. But aside from the two verses in question,

> is there any reason we should assume that there couldn't be occasional

> exceptions to the above postulation? Thanks.

>

> MDd

 

Occasional exceptions can't be excluded. Statistically the locative usage

prevails, though I have seen all sorts of other ways in which Sanskrit

authors introduce or (vaguely) identify their quotes.

 

ys end

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S) wrote:

> > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S) wrote:

> > > A quote from the Garga-saMhitA would normally be indentified by the

> > > words:

> > > garga-saMhitAyAm

> > >

> Occasional exceptions can't be excluded. Statistically the locative usage

> prevails, though I have seen all sorts of other ways in which Sanskrit

> authors introduce or (vaguely) identify their quotes.

>

Right; that's why I'm asking. So have we got so far a fairly

safe assumption that the GS hasn't been quoted by many (if any) Gaudiya

acaryas? Or would do you opine that they probably have--and if so, on

what basis? Sorry to trouble you with such questions; thanks again for

your patience.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S) wrote:

> > > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S)

> > > wrote:

> > > > A quote from the Garga-saMhitA would normally be indentified by the

> > > > words:

> > > > garga-saMhitAyAm

> > > >

> > Occasional exceptions can't be excluded. Statistically the locative

> > usage prevails, though I have seen all sorts of other ways in which

> > Sanskrit authors introduce or (vaguely) identify their quotes.

> >

> Right; that's why I'm asking. So have we got so far a fairly

> safe assumption that the GS hasn't been quoted by many (if any) Gaudiya

> acaryas? Or would do you opine that they probably have--and if so, on

> what basis? Sorry to trouble you with such questions; thanks again for

> your patience.

>

> MDd

 

It seems to me that the GS has not been quoted by many Gaudiya acarays. If

any of the Gaudiya acarays have quoted it, then these quotes must be very

rare and they must appeare in rather unknown works.

 

The Gaudiya-kanthahara, a verse book published by the Gaudiya Math by a

disciple of BSST (at the time of BSST), does not list GS in its

pramana-grantha-talika. I find it significant that neither the Gaudiya

Vaisnava Abhidhana, nor Gaudiya Math sources that have bibliographies,

mention the GS.

 

The siddhanta of the GS may be authentic, i.e. in line with Gaudiya Vaisnava

siddhanta, but the time of its "physical" appearance in human society dates

probably less than 5,000 years, in fact, most likely less than 500 years

back.

 

The Catalogue of Printed Sanskrit Works of the University of Mysore (1944),

lists two different printed copies of the Asvamedha-khanda. This is the

tenth and last chapter of the GS. Both copies were printed in Bombay (which

is the original site of the Venkateshwara Steam Press). There is no date,

but printing in India didn't start much earlier than in the first half of

the 19th century. The entry was filed under "Puranas".

 

What would be needed is an entry in a "descriptive catalogue of Sanskrit

manuscripts". Such catalogues usually provide dates and other information.

 

The Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts of the Shri Vidhyadhisha

Sanskrit Manuscripts Library Dharwar (1963), for example, does not list the

GS.

 

I propose that it is safe to assume that the Garga-samhita is a more recent

addition to Vaisnava puranic literature that has hardly been quoted in the

tikas or original works of the earlier Vaisnava acaryas.

 

Your servant

Ekanath dasa

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S) wrote:

> I propose that it is safe to assume that the Garga-samhita is a more recent

> addition to Vaisnava puranic literature that has hardly been quoted in the

> tikas or original works of the earlier Vaisnava acaryas.

>

Scholars I've read consider it a fairly late medieval text, in all

probability composed by an author of the Vallabha sampradaya.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> Scholars I've read consider it a fairly late medieval text, in all

> probability composed by an author of the Vallabha sampradaya.

 

Could you kindly share the names of those "scholars" that you have read?

And perhaps the titles of their publications? Why do you mention it so late

in this discussion?

 

ys end

[Guest guest]

On 16 Dec 1999, Ekanath das wrote:

 

>

> I propose that it is safe to assume that the Garga-samhita is a more recent

> addition to Vaisnava puranic literature that has hardly been quoted in the

> tikas or original works of the earlier Vaisnava acaryas.

>

> Your servant

> Ekanath dasa

 

I don't know much about GS in particular, but many of these non-shruti

literatures (samhitas, yaamalas, tantras, etc along with obscure puraanas not

traditionally listed in the commonly accepted 18) are quoted quite frequently

by various Vaishnava aachaaryas (including our own -- just read

Bhakti-rasaamrita Sindhu or Nectar of Devotion). This brings to mind the

question of just how useful it is to be quoting these literatures in the first

place. The Upanishads name the Samhitas (as in Rig, Yajur, Atharva, Saama),

Braahmanas, Aaranyakas, Upanishads, Itihaasas, and Puraanas as having emanated

from the breathing of Naaraayana and to be collectively considered as Veda.

Thus, their divine origin is clearly established, at least as far as shruti is

concerned. But what about these other, more obscure literatures?

 

If these other literatures (like GS, for example), are to be accepted as valid

pramaanams, then on what basis are they accepted? Are they accepted merely

because they happen to be consonant with what we teach? If so, then why should

anyone outside our sampradaaya (who might differ with us on one or more

points) accept such pramaanams? If they are accepted because some quote from

shruti establishes them as being on par with the Veda, then what is that quote

and where is it?

 

If even some of these other literatures are not accepted, then why even quote

from any of them at all (i.e., anything that is not shruti)? For 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?

 

I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this subject. I guess it all

boils down to epistemology.

 

regards,

 

-- Krishna Susarla

[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!

 

> I don't know much about GS in particular, but many of these non-shruti

> literatures (samhitas, yaamalas, tantras, etc along with obscure puraanas

> not traditionally listed in the commonly accepted 18) are quoted quite

> frequently by various Vaishnava aachaaryas (including our own -- just read

> Bhakti-rasaamrita Sindhu or Nectar of Devotion). This brings to mind the

> question of just how useful it is to be quoting these literatures in the

> first place. The Upanishads name the Samhitas (as in Rig, Yajur, Atharva,

> Saama), Braahmanas, Aaranyakas, Upanishads, Itihaasas, and Puraanas as

> having emanated from the breathing of Naaraayana and to be collectively

> considered as Veda. Thus, their 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. Nor

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

core, or s€ra in Sanskrit, as Lord Ramacandra proclaims in Muktika Upanisad.

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?

 

> If even some of these other literatures are not accepted, then why even

> quote from any of them at all (i.e., anything that is not shruti)? For

> 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.

 

> I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on this subject. I guess it

> all boils down to epistemology.

 

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."

 

Your most unworthy servant,

Sergei.

Hare Krsna.

[Guest guest]

Dandavats. Jaya Prabhupada!

 

On Fri, 24 Dec 1999, COM: Ekanath (das) HKS (NE-BBT, Almvik - S) wrote:

> [Text 2881142 from COM]

> > Scholars I've read consider it a fairly late medieval text, in all

> > probability composed by an author of the Vallabha sampradaya.

> Could you kindly share the names of those "scholars" that you have read?

> And perhaps the titles of their publications? Why do you mention it so late

> in this discussion?

 

Sorry for the delays; travelling intensively, I've been away from

my email for a while.

There are actually several different Garga-saMhitAs (A.B.

Keith mentions astrological treatises in his _History of Sanskrit

Literature_), which is important to keep in mind. Braj scholar Alan

Entwistle explicitly mentions one which concerns itself with Govardhana

(among other topics) as a post-16th CE work written by an unknown

Pushtimarg vaishnava motivated by a desire to give Govardhana the

same kind of prominance Vrindavana was developing under the Gaudiya

gosvamis. See his _Braj: Centre of Krishna Pilgrimage_ (Groningen: Egbert

Forsten, 1987), for many such references. Charlotte Vaudeville, another

highly respected name in the field, mentions the GS as it is cited in the

ZrInAthjI-prAkatya-vArtA, a Braj work describing the (Vallabhite) history

of the Deity of Govardhananathaji we know as Gopala in the Caitanya

CaritAmRta; but in a footnote (41, on page 96) she also seems to

regard the GS as a "spurious" saMhitA, following Otto Schrader (cf. the

latter's _Introduction to the Pancaratra and the Ahirbudhnya-samhita_

cited in the former's "The Govardhana Myth in Northern India," in _Myths,

Saints, and Legends in Medieval India_, Delhi: Oxford, 1996). This

implies a Vallabhite leaning, since the quotes from Giriraja-khanda of the

GS appear in the above Varta are enveloped by commentary which identifies

Vallabha as a Divine incarnation (ibid., 97) and are accepted as evidence

of this allegation by the Pushtimargis. I don't see that they actually do

this, but they do explicitly name Shrinathaji as "Devadamana," a common

name for Him in that sect.

I could mention other scholars, but these two are probably

sufficient, I think. A Garga-saMhitA, or a number of them, would seem

fairly important in Vrindavana, even if their origins are questionable.

Vajranabha, the founder of the famous "deva" murtis of Vraja, is mentioned

in 10.62.26-8. But some think this section was interpolated. All

throughout the work, though, Shrinathji figures with prominance, unlike

Shrimati Radharani. My impression is that the various GS texts are

highly interpolated. And in general, it's a good idea, for devotees with

a real need, to receive books like this from their bonafide gurus or

similarly qualified authorities.

I didn't mention these scholarly opinions earlier because before

introducing an inferior pramana, I wanted to wait until it was clear that

we don't have a readily available opinion on the GS from our acharyas.

There is a "critical" edition of the GS, published by Vibhuti-bhushan

Bhattacharya as "Sarasvati-bhavana-granthamala # 86" (Varanasi:

Sampurnananda Samskrta Visvavidyalaya, 1996). I haven't looked at

it lately, but I think it has a sanskrit introduction which might

be helpful. I also suspect this is the text we're interested in, since

it closely resembles the one Kishakratha Prabhu has translated. I hope

this helps somewhat. Hare Krishna.

 

Your humble servant,

 

Mukunda Datta dasa