Brahma-samhita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/23/00 1:36:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Ekanath.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<<

I am neither endorsing nor contending this author's views. I don't know the

topic well enough to do that. My posts in this thread are of a purely

informative nature.

 

>>

Haribol

 

We hear of various tantra-s such as Krishna-yamala-tantra in Laghu

bhagavatamrta. So there seem to be other categories of bonafide tantra other

than Pancaratra. I don't think the known Pancaratras go into Krishna-lila. At

best one of them says that Narayana is an expansion of a two handed form.

ys

Gerald

[Guest guest]

On 02 Jan 2000, Vrajendra Kumara wrote:

 

> Can anybody define the position of Brahma-samhita amongst vedic scriptures?

 

This is something I have been getting devotees to do for years...

 

> Being a samhita does it belong to the original Vedas (Sruti)? If so who can

> doubt the superiority of Bhakti over other processes and the supreme

> position of Krsna? If it is not part of original Vedas than what is it's

> position? How do we prove it's authentity?

> Your servant, Vrajendra Kumara das

 

Brahma-samhita is not a samhita in the same sense as the Rig, Yajur, Atharva,

and Saama Veda Samhitas. Vedas are divided into Samhita, Braahmana, Aranyaka,

and Upanishads. Then there are other literatures called as "samhitas" which

are actually pancharaatric or some other smriti. Brahma-samhita is definitely

not shruti, or at least it is not commonly accepted as such.

 

This of course brings to mind what its authority is. Why shouldn't people

(even Vaishnavas from other sampradaayas) challenge us in regard to its

authority? No one outside our sampradaaya accepts it as scripture, so what use

is it for us to quote it as evidence when we are the only ones who accept it

anyway? We can argue that Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu accepted it, and therefore

others should too since He is the Supreme Lord. But if it were really so easy

to convince others of Mahaaprabhu's divinity, then why aren't all Vaishnavas

already accepting it? I contend that this, too, is going to be difficult.

 

So far, Brahma-samhita IMHO seems useful only as a commentary on the

Bhaagavatam, or in other words as something which summarizes some of the

teachings mentioned in the Bhaagavatam. We can go on accepting it as Lord

Brahmaa's words, but since no one else does, I would recommend against using

it for preaching. When it comes to preaching, I would rather go to the

Bhaagavatam for my pramaanas. Although if I wanted a quick understanding of

the relationship between Krishna and other devatas, I would go to the

Brahma-samhita.

 

Just my $00.02....

 

- K