Guest guest Posted January 19, 2000 Report Share Posted January 19, 2000 > Dr. H. Daniel Smith's comprehensive "Descriptive Bibliography of the > Printed texts of the Pancaratraagama" includes a "Brihat Brahma > Samhita"... but not "our" Brahma Samhita under question. He also refers to > unpublished texts (manuscripts) but he fails to note any "Brahma Samhita". > Had he seen and gone through our Brahma Samhita though, from his treatemnt > of texts with the same name as some he probably would have mentioned that > it does not appear to be, because of its subject matter, a pancaratra > (tantra) text. > > Yours, > > Rasananda das In his book "Pancaratra Samhitas and Early Vaisnava Theology" (Delhi 1994), M. Matsubara does give "our" Brahma-samhita a place among pancaratra samhitas: "In the Brahma- (5.1), Krsna is God Himself, but in the earlier texts he appears merely as an Avatara of Visnu." He also gives the following dates for a number of relevant "Samhitas": (all dates A.D.) 400 Narayaniya 500 Satvata, Pauskara, Jayakhya 600 Ahirbudhnya 700 Parama 800 Sanatkumara, Naradiya, Paramesvara, LaksmiT, Visvaksena, Visnu, Padma, Sesa (?) 1300 Isvara, Sriprasna, Visvamitra, Brahma, Sandilya, Aniruddha 1600 Brhadbrahma, NaradaPR I find the date of A.D. 1300 for "our" Brahma-samhita to be astonishingly early. It adds to the credibility of this scholar, at least in my eyes. After all, the text was discovered by Lord Caitanya and the only commentary that exists is Jiva Gosvami's, if one discounts Visvanatha's, which is of course later and supposedly no longer extant. ys end 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.