Is the Garga-Samhita authentic? If yes, why don’t the Goswamis quote it?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna Question Is the Garga Samhita an authentic book? If yes then why do our Acharyas not quote from it? Answer When we use the word authentic we have to understand what we are referring to by the word authentic though there are Arsha Vigyamakya it is said.
Arsha is the learned seers who have spiritual vision and their Vakyas are also considered to be equivalent to Vedic authority just as these are Smriti literature so in general Smriti literature are considered equivalent to Smriti and in fact the Bhagavatam is considered to be the conclusion of all the Smritis as well as Smritis it is the final word in transcendence it is what Vyasadeva wrote in his spiritual maturity so if we are using authentic in the terms that whether it’s Arsha Vigyamakya yes now Gargacharya has is said to have written it and then Gargamuni is definitely considered to be an exalted person he is the person who gave name to Krishna so therefore it is valid to say that Gargamuni that book is authentic so now there are further considerations also the point is that there are certain books which have been preserved in the tradition by the Acharyas and certain books which have not been preserved and in fact certain books have not been referred to also so the points about why the Vaishnavacharyas are not referred to Garga Samhita we don’t know they are not here for us to ask and in general we shouldn’t assume that they had access to all the literature that were there available at that time because at that time there was no no internet data bank where you could just do one google search so the Acharyas were at one place and at some other place the book might have been there and it might have been unknown so because of that the Vaishnavacharyas the Goswamis who have written a lot about the position of Krishna establishing how Krishna is the highest absolute truth they have not quoted the Garga Samhita but that doesn’t necessarily imply that it is invalid the Garga Samhita does demonstratively teach in its first three chapters in one of its sections about how Krishna is the source of all the incarnations and how all the manifestations of the absolute truth including Vishnu come ultimately from Krishna so the Siddhanta which is taught in Bhagavatam which our Acharyas accept as the highest authority which Vyasadeva has written with maturity that same Siddhanta is demonstrated in the Garga Samhita and also the Garga Samhita contains the Balram Sahasranam the Yamuna Sahasranam so these are very special devotional literature which devotional compositions which glorify the lord and his great devotee Yamuna Devi in very special ways sweet and special ways so if we look at the overall content it does seem to be it does demonstrate the Gauri Vyasa Siddhanta well and this devotional glorification also one matter of concern is that many of the pastimes that are described in Garga Samhita are described in ways that are different from the descriptions in the Bhagavatam and that is also not necessarily a point against it because in general the lord performs pastimes in different ways, in different appearances so based on Kalpabhed Kalpabhed means that the pastime of a different human based on Kalpabhed we can recognize that the Garga Samhita is referring to one Kalpa and the Bhagavatam is referring to another Kalpa so overall the Garga Samhita shouldn’t be our primary source of authority, we can use it as a secondary source of authority, so that is Guru Sadhu Shastra, we have these three means by which we can understand the absolute truth so in general if one of them is saying something that is not contradicted by the others then accepting it is not wrong, so in general the epistemological standard that Jiva Goswami says in the Tapasandarbha epistemology is the way of acquiring knowledge knowledge of knowledge epistemological standard means how do we understand scripture so there is nirnayak shastra and there is nirnayatara shastra nirnayak is that which is decisive and nirnayatara is that which is to be decided, so based on extensive logical, philosophical and scriptural analysis Jiva Goswami established how Bhagavatam is nirnayatara shastra nirnayatara is that which is the nirnayak shastra the decisive scripture, so to the extent any other scripture agrees with the Bhagavatam, to that extent we accept it as bona fide and to the extent it doesn’t agree to that extent, not that we reject it as malified but we understand that it is talking about truths which are different, which may be for people in the lower modes like say the recommendations for mutity the statements about mutity that are there in certain scriptures or if we are talking about different kalpas, so like that the nirnayak has to be the highest authority and nirnayatara can be quoted, so if some devotees object to Garbha Samhita we can accept their sentiment because it has not been quoted, so if they want to avoid quoting it, that is fine but there is no need to make a campaign against Garbha Samhita saying that it is not bona fide, if some devotees feel inspired to quote it in their classes, that is also fine, the important point is we shouldn’t make that our primary authority our primary authority should be the Srimad Bhagavatam and Garbha Samhita can be quoted as a confirmatory secondary authority