Do SriVaishnavas recognise Brahma-Samhita?

[Guest guest]

Brahma Samhita was discovered by Sri Caitanya mahaprabhu. Do Sri Vaishnavas recognise it?

-Prasad.

[Govindaram]

Yes.

[Guest guest]

No they don't. There is another text called Brahma-samhita that is accepted by them, but that BrS has nothing to do with our BrS. The former belongs to the Pancharatra class of literature if i'm not mistaken.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

They will accept the conclusions of Brahma-samhita, though not with the same emphasis as Gaudiya's do. In otherwords, there is nothing there that they will find particularly objectionable or against their philosophical conclusions when seen through their own schools vision of interpretation.

[Guest guest]

Case in point - BrS 5.1. They won't accept this to mean that Krishna is the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

But they will not have any problem with the verse itself, only our interpretation of it.

 

They certainly believe Krishna is the cause of all causes, as this is the same conclusion found in the Bhagavad Gita.

 

If Krishna is an incarnation of Narayana, then there is nothing wrong with saying Krishna is the cause of all causes. Incarnation does not make one a lesser potent individual, they remain identical personalities displaying different qualities.

 

[Gauracandra]

I have heard that some Sri Vaisnavas believe it is a composition of one of their saints. Is this so? If so I'd think they would accept it.

[vsdprasad]

Brahma Samhita was sung by Lord Brahma countless millenia ago and the text was discovered by Lord Chaitanya.

What is the general opinion of SriVaisnavas about Lord Chaitanya (other than considering him as a saint)? I mean do they have any concern about his philosophy?

 

-Prasad.

[Guest guest]

It depends on whether your are talking about Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavas or Tenkalai Sri Vaishnavas. Here is a short list of differences which Vadakali Sri Vaishnavas will have with Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, based on my experience discussing with them. Anyone who is knowledgeable may feel free to correct me.

 

Regarding definitions of terms:

1) Bhakti Yoga is defined by SV's a process restricted to brahmins who have previously performed jnaana yoga and karma yoga. Thus, only a select few can practice it. However, sharanaagati is a devotional path that is advocated for all, regardless of qualification. What they call sharanaagati we call bhakti-yoga, and what they call bhakti-yoga we would probably refer to as ashtaanga-yoga or Paramaatmaa worship (as far as I can tell).

 

Regarding scriptures, their interpretation, and philosophy:

1) They disagree with our interpretation of SB 1.3.28. Krishna is not the highest concept of God. Rather, God is beyond forms but takes a form to please His devotees. Thus, while we equate Krishna with God, they equate God with "Naaraayana" but further state that none of Naaraayana's forms are Him in entirety.

2) They disagree with our position that the Lord's brahmajyoti is also referred to as Brahman, and that this is the Brahman referred to in BG 14.27. They interpret "brahman" there to refer to the jiiva. I'm not exactly sure why.

3) They disagree with the idea that "sarva dharmaan parityajya" means that a surrendered devotee is no longer bound by regulations like varnaashrama, sandhya vandana, etc. They consider these to be nitya-karmas rather than merely a means to an end.

4) They consider birth a necessary prerequisition to having a particular status in the varna system. Thus, they do not appear to accept that one can become brahmin if he does not have at least brahmin birth, although they agree that brahmin birth by itself is not sufficient to make one a brahmin.

5) They do not accept any Puraana or Itihaasas to be on par with shruti. Rather, they only accept these texts the way we accept other smriti texts - as dependent authorities to be quoted only if they are consistent with shruti. Gaudiiyas, on the other hand, know that the Puraanas are meant to explain the shrutis to those who lack the qualification to study them, and Shriimad Bhaagavatam is the essence of the shruti. To SV's, it is merely one among many saattvik Puraanas.

6) Vishnu Puraana, not Bhaagavata Puraana, is accepted by SV's as the best Puraana. This is directly contradicted by Puraanic evidence.

 

Regarding culture

1) Only men are allowed to perform Deity worship in the temple. Actually, I think this is the ideal for Gaudiiyas also, but due to the situation Srila Prabhupada had to make this compromise for the temples he opened in the West.

2) Women don't wear tilak or sacred thread. Again, this may also be the case with Gaudiiyas to, with the difference being due to recent compromise. I don't know.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

They will accept the conclusions of Brahma-samhita, though not with the same emphasis as Gaudiya's do. In otherwords, there is nothing there that they will find particularly objectionable or against their philosophical conclusions when seen through their own schools vision of interpretation.

 

 

JN Prabhu,

 

In what sense do you think Sri Vaishnavas will accept BrS 5.45 - the verse comparing Shiva to a "transformation" of Vishnu. As far as I know, Sri Vaishnavas are pretty fanatical about not confusing these two deities. I don't personally see how they could accept verse 5.45 in any sense.