why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so intolerant?

[Guest guest]

Why are they?

In Hinduism it is common to regard one's Ishtadevata as supreme and all other

deities as aspects or manifestations of him/her.

For instance, the Shaivas regard Shiva as Parabrahman and respect Vishnu,

Krishna, Brahma, etc. as aspects or manifestations of Shiva and the goddesses

such as Lakshmi, Radha, Sarasvati, etc. as aspects or manifestations of

Shakti-Devi.

The Shaktas also respect the other deities.

But the Gaudiya Vaishnavas seem to hold the view that only Krishna is god, all

other deities are mere demi-gods.

Why? Did Sri Chaitanya preach that?

Is this view shared by all Vaishnava sects, or are there branches of the

Vaishnava tradition that follow the classical Hindu tradition?

On which scriptures do they base their view, and on whose interpretation of

these scriptures?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Alexanderji,

Yes that might be the impression given but they are actually not that

bad.Brahman came form the word Brah which means that which is beyond

measurement . Thus the supreme Brahman is beyond one's own limited concious

interpretation. To experience it one must be able to transcend the limitation

of this limited conciuosness and established himself in his true nature which

is Absolute Knowledege, Eternal Existences and Pure Consicuosness(remember

this are still limited word to describe Him). Then again to define the infinite

within any of the 5 limited sense would only be a futile attempt.........

However to understand its true nature one need to merge with that (which also

happens to be our true nature of existence) and all spritual discipline are to

bring your towards that aim alone .That which is inconceivable takes form that

can be easliy be conceived by the mind and heart thus this is known as choosen

ideal of worship - ishtha devata and because of our love and true yearning for

Him he would manifest out of that love into that very form that we love to see

Him on.Thus God who is formful (with certain personality) , formless(without

any characteristics) and also beyond both of this (the inconceivable by the

limited mind) takes that form because of his love for us .And to experience and

to realize that we conduct spiritual practices to merge with Him-our true nature

of existence .Here the I disappear and only God exist . Now this is vedanta. The

end of knowledge. Veda - To know anta - the end . The end that needs to be

known.............and off course for the Gaudiyas it would be Ramanuja and

Madhavacharya who maintain the duality still exist and thus both the Supreme

Personality of Godhead (Lord Krishna) and his devotees still would maintain a

separate identification

Finally the sadhaka (spiritual practioner) becomes one with God thus the ego

that is the impression of duality (I and God exist ) dissapears and only He

(God) exist and I (the ego dissappears)and this happens after nirvikalpa and

savikalpa samadhi .This would be according to Advaita vedanta theory propounded

by Sankaracharya which would naturally not appeal to Gaudiyas they are not

looking into unification(jnana yoga) rather than worship of the Supreme

Lord(bhakthi yoga) thus Adi Sankaracharya theory of unification- advaita

becomes mayavada theory to them.

The chosen ideal of worship are important to fix the mind on one form of that

which could manifest into various forms and off course for the Gaudiya

Vaishnavas that happens to be Lord Krishna - The Supreme Personality of

Godhead. Remember the words here "personality " that means the characteristic

of the undefinabale Brahman but the Gaudiyas are not going to attempt to define

the undefinabale as they arenot approaching the matter from their mind (it is a

futile attempt) but approaching from heart-something to love - that is is

bhakthi yoga . They are not going to be like Vedantist who uses the mind to

understand the true nature of that Bhraman the end of path of knowledge

-vedanta and that happens to be jnana yoga .Instead the Gaudiyas are going to

use their heart to bring them to the same Supreme Personality of Godhead

without any mental anticipation of the true nature of brahman thus Swami Srila

Prabhupada Maharaj is ideally called Bhakthivedanta

Off course your Supreme Personality of Godhead are the highest God in your heart

and the rest of the manifestation from that Supreme Being would be defined as

the same spark of the same original divinity(Sup[rem Personality of Godhead)

but with lesser appeal to you thus their are still gods but only demigods as

they are formed from the spark of the Supreme Godhead that resides within your

heart but with lesser apeal to you

A lot among us claims that they give same place to all manifestation of their

choosen ideal of worship but actually giving them a smaller place in their

heart. Because if every form is equal than why do we have choosen form of

worship that appeals to us.Furthemore ,can you fix you mind and heart on all

forms of worship . Would you be able to concentrate and meditate on all forms

? Since this is not possible thus such classification are neccesary ,the only

differences is that Gaudiyas are doing it in obvious sense and we are doing it

in our heart that is all. When Sage Narada and Lord Vishnu went walking they

saw Hanuman immersed in japa of Lord Rama and Sage Narada ask Lord Vishnu why

could Hanuman disrespect the Lord by not prostrating at his holy feet but

continued to recite Ram japa . Lord Vishnu asked Hanuman to explain for which

Hanuman said it is true that he is the Lord of all but he is lost in his divine

name as Lord Rama and that very moment Lord Vishnu gave him the darshan as Lord

Rama silencing Sage Narada once and for all. Thus everyone of us would always

hold our own ideal of worship close to our heart even if we realise that

theothers are actually his manifestation as welland the Gaudiyas are no

exception to that either!!!!!

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu- the great bengal saint preached attaining of Supreme

Personality of Godhead by sankritan for this Kali Yuga age and the Mahamantra

are the greatest mantra to do that for vaishnavas just like the panchakshra

mantra for the Shaivites and navarna mantra for the shakthas.We actually have

to ask him what he actually taught but please take note if Sri Chaintaya was

here today he might put the same notion differently. At that age at that

particular time he would have done what was nessecary for the spirtual

upliftment of his community just like Lord Buddha did not talk about God that

does not mean God do not exist but only means that might not been the neccesary

point at his time . So judging them today is difficult to do..............

 

Yes there are various vaishnavas sect and I beleive you have to searchh for the

one that appeals to your heart...............The Gaudiyas themselves have to 2

sects one is ISKCON which is very famous and the other you could get them

through their website. Both came from the same Guru one become famous in Bengal

and the other established themselfin US and he was known as Srila Prabhupada

.....................

 

The core scripture for the Gaudiyas would be Srimad Bhagavatham and Bhagavad

Gita and other vaishnava related scripture like Vishnu Purana etc .Just like

for the shakthas would be Srimad Devi Bhagavatham , Devi Gita and other related

scriptures like Kalika purana depends on choosen ideal of

worship....................And as your own interpretation could go wrong ,the

guru in that lineage's interpretaion would be sought on each of this text . Not

a guru from the other tradition of worship ( we do not want to look at things at

macro level here) but guru who has proper spiritual succesion in the same path

originating from the same source of the text in question(this is the micro

level approach). Off course this would not appeal for those who do not have

Lord Krishna as ideal of worship.

 

If your read each scripture ,each extols the manfestation of the Supreme ideal

in that form which is held that scripture as ideal not because to create

segregation but to propound unity in diversity. Off course in Srimad

Bahgavatham all forms manifest from Lord Vishnu while in Chandi Path (shaktha

scripture) all forms manifest from Chandi Ma alone . They are not contradictory

for sadhaka but complimentary for each person so each could establish his own

personal realtionship with God for his own way of worship.That is the beauty oh

hindu shastras not dogmatic neither contradictive................

 

Jai Maa!!!!

>"Alexandra Kafka"

>Kali_Ma >

> why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so intolerant? >Wed, 11 Jun

2003 02:17:55 +0200 > >Why are they? >In Hinduism it is common to regard one's

Ishtadevata as supreme and all other deities as aspects or manifestations of

him/her. >For instance, the Shaivas regard Shiva as Parabrahman and respect

Vishnu, Krishna, Brahma, etc. as aspects or manifestations of Shiva and the

goddesses such as Lakshmi, Radha, Sarasvati, etc. as aspects or manifestations

of Shakti-Devi. >The Shaktas also respect the other deities. >But the Gaudiya

Vaishnavas seem to hold the view that only Krishna is god, all other deities

are mere demi-gods. >Why? Did Sri Chaitanya preach that? >Is this view shared

by all Vaishnava sects, or are there branches of the Vaishnava tradition that

follow the classical Hindu tradition? >On which scriptures do they base their

view, and on whose interpretation of these scriptures? Tired of spam? Get

advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Alexanderji,

Yes that might be the impression given but they are actually not that

bad.Brahman came form the word Brah which means that which is beyond

measurement . Thus the supreme Brahman is beyond one's own limited concious

interpretation. To experience it one must be able to transcend the limitation

of this limited conciuosness and established himself in his true nature which

is Absolute Knowledege, Eternal Existences and Pure Consicuosness(remember

this are still limited word to describe Him). Then again to define the infinite

within any of the 5 limited sense would only be a futile attempt.........

However to understand its true nature one need to merge with that (which also

happens to be our true nature of existence) and all spritual discipline are to

bring your towards that aim alone .That which is inconceivable takes form that

can be easliy be conceived by the mind and heart thus this is known as choosen

ideal of worship - ishtha devata and because of our love and true yearning for

Him he would manifest out of that love into that very form that we love to see

Him on.Thus God who is formful (with certain personality) , formless(without

any characteristics) and also beyond both of this (the inconceivable by the

limited mind) takes that form because of his love for us .And to experience and

to realize that we conduct spiritual practices to merge with Him-our true nature

of existence .Here the I disappear and only God exist . Now this is vedanta. The

end of knowledge. Veda - To know anta - the end . The end that needs to be

known.............and off course for the Gaudiyas it would be Ramanuja and

Madhavacharya who maintain the duality still exist and thus both the Supreme

Personality of Godhead (Lord Krishna) and his devotees still would maintain a

separate identification

Finally the sadhaka (spiritual practioner) becomes one with God thus the ego

that is the impression of duality (I and God exist ) dissapears and only He

(God) exist and I (the ego dissappears)and this happens after nirvikalpa and

savikalpa samadhi .This would be according to Advaita vedanta theory propounded

by Sankaracharya which would naturally not appeal to Gaudiyas they are not

looking into unification(jnana yoga) rather than worship of the Supreme

Lord(bhakthi yoga) thus Adi Sankaracharya theory of unification- advaita

becomes mayavada theory to them.

The chosen ideal of worship are important to fix the mind on one form of that

which could manifest into various forms and off course for the Gaudiya

Vaishnavas that happens to be Lord Krishna - The Supreme Personality of

Godhead. Remember the words here "personality " that means the characteristic

of the undefinabale Brahman but the Gaudiyas are not going to attempt to define

the undefinabale as they arenot approaching the matter from their mind (it is a

futile attempt) but approaching from heart-something to love - that is is

bhakthi yoga . They are not going to be like Vedantist who uses the mind to

understand the true nature of that Bhraman the end of path of knowledge

-vedanta and that happens to be jnana yoga .Instead the Gaudiyas are going to

use their heart to bring them to the same Supreme Personality of Godhead

without any mental anticipation of the true nature of brahman thus Swami Srila

Prabhupada Maharaj is ideally called Bhakthivedanta

Off course your Supreme Personality of Godhead are the highest God in your heart

and the rest of the manifestation from that Supreme Being would be defined as

the same spark of the same original divinity(Sup[rem Personality of Godhead)

but with lesser appeal to you thus their are still gods but only demigods as

they are formed from the spark of the Supreme Godhead that resides within your

heart but with lesser apeal to you

A lot among us claims that they give same place to all manifestation of their

choosen ideal of worship but actually giving them a smaller place in their

heart. Because if every form is equal than why do we have choosen form of

worship that appeals to us.Furthemore ,can you fix you mind and heart on all

forms of worship . Would you be able to concentrate and meditate on all forms

? Since this is not possible thus such classification are neccesary ,the only

differences is that Gaudiyas are doing it in obvious sense and we are doing it

in our heart that is all. When Sage Narada and Lord Vishnu went walking they

saw Hanuman immersed in japa of Lord Rama and Sage Narada ask Lord Vishnu why

could Hanuman disrespect the Lord by not prostrating at his holy feet but

continued to recite Ram japa . Lord Vishnu asked Hanuman to explain for which

Hanuman said it is true that he is the Lord of all but he is lost in his divine

name as Lord Rama and that very moment Lord Vishnu gave him the darshan as Lord

Rama silencing Sage Narada once and for all. Thus everyone of us would always

hold our own ideal of worship close to our heart even if we realise that

theothers are actually his manifestation as welland the Gaudiyas are no

exception to that either!!!!!

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu- the great bengal saint preached attaining of Supreme

Personality of Godhead by sankritan for this Kali Yuga age and the Mahamantra

are the greatest mantra to do that for vaishnavas just like the panchakshra

mantra for the Shaivites and navarna mantra for the shakthas.We actually have

to ask him what he actually taught but please take note if Sri Chaintaya was

here today he might put the same notion differently. At that age at that

particular time he would have done what was nessecary for the spirtual

upliftment of his community just like Lord Buddha did not talk about God that

does not mean God do not exist but only means that might not been the neccesary

point at his time . So judging them today is difficult to do..............

 

Yes there are various vaishnavas sect and I beleive you have to searchh for the

one that appeals to your heart...............The Gaudiyas themselves have to 2

sects one is ISKCON which is very famous and the other you could get them

through their website. Both came from the same Guru one become famous in Bengal

and the other established themselfin US and he was known as Srila Prabhupada

.....................

 

The core scripture for the Gaudiyas would be Srimad Bhagavatham and Bhagavad

Gita and other vaishnava related scripture like Vishnu Purana etc .Just like

for the shakthas would be Srimad Devi Bhagavatham , Devi Gita and other related

scriptures like Kalika purana depends on choosen ideal of

worship....................And as your own interpretation could go wrong ,the

guru in that lineage's interpretaion would be sought on each of this text . Not

a guru from the other tradition of worship ( we do not want to look at things at

macro level here) but guru who has proper spiritual succesion in the same path

originating from the same source of the text in question(this is the micro

level approach). Off course this would not appeal for those who do not have

Lord Krishna as ideal of worship.

 

If your read each scripture ,each extols the manfestation of the Supreme ideal

in that form which is held that scripture as ideal not because to create

segregation but to propound unity in diversity. Off course in Srimad

Bahgavatham all forms manifest from Lord Vishnu while in Chandi Path (shaktha

scripture) all forms manifest from Chandi Ma alone . They are not contradictory

for sadhaka but complimentary for each person so each could establish his own

personal realtionship with God for his own way of worship.That is the beauty oh

hindu shastras not dogmatic neither contradictive................

 

Jai Maa!!!!

>"Alexandra Kafka"

>Kali_Ma >

> why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so intolerant? >Wed, 11 Jun

2003 02:17:55 +0200 > >Why are they? >In Hinduism it is common to regard one's

Ishtadevata as supreme and all other deities as aspects or manifestations of

him/her. >For instance, the Shaivas regard Shiva as Parabrahman and respect

Vishnu, Krishna, Brahma, etc. as aspects or manifestations of Shiva and the

goddesses such as Lakshmi, Radha, Sarasvati, etc. as aspects or manifestations

of Shakti-Devi. >The Shaktas also respect the other deities. >But the Gaudiya

Vaishnavas seem to hold the view that only Krishna is god, all other deities

are mere demi-gods. >Why? Did Sri Chaitanya preach that? >Is this view shared

by all Vaishnava sects, or are there branches of the Vaishnava tradition that

follow the classical Hindu tradition? >On which scriptures do they base their

view, and on whose interpretation of these scriptures? MSN 8 with e-mail virus

protection service: 2 months FREE*

[Guest guest]

onsdagen den 11 juni 2003 02.33 skrev Alexandra Kafka:

> But the Gaudiya Vaishnavas seem to hold the view that only Krishna is god,

> all other deities are mere demi-gods. Why? Did Sri Chaitanya preach that?

 

I think many of these things says more about the persons preaching it, than

Vaisnava teachings.

 

Everything is the brahman, everything is part of "god". Even us. Then it is

just a matter of making differnt distinctions in that supreme picture. Those

distinctions can be done in different ways for different purposes, and we get

different teachings. I think the bottom line is that some teaching say that

we are actually one with the supreme, where post-Caitanya Vaisnavism say that

we are actually different and distinct. Gaudiya Vaisnavism says that we are

both one and separate at the same time and their ultimate understanding is to

really see clearly and understand how that is.

 

Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not identical to Caitanya Vaisnavism. It is a tradition

that comes from Caitanya Vaisnavism, or a part of Caintaya Vaisnavism, and

maybe the part that survived until today or the mest well known. As I see it

it is a "mystic" tradition, whose real values are transfered from guru to

disciple, and not a scriptural tradition. So what you read about it is not

identical to the tradition in itself. And understanding the oneness and

simeltaneous difference with brahman is indeed a mystical understanding. The

problem here appears to be that a big part of Caitanya Vaisnavism is lost in

time, and only small "sects" have survived to now. So we don't know exactly

what it was, except for some writings.

 

I sometimes mention the Brahmavaivarta purana, which is a post-Caitanya

Vaisnava scripture, and it makes it very clear that Durga and Radha are

practically identical and Krishna and Shiva almost identical. It holds the

picture that all females, goddesses down to earthly women, are partial

manifestations of the supreme female Shakti, just in different degrees.

There, the complete, undivided, brahman without qualities, the nirguna

brahman is called Krishna, which is "God", but we are also part of that God.

Then it gets divided into different ways, and we get various smaller gods,

with different qualities. The (demi-)gods thus are partial manifestations of

the complete brahman, with various partial qualities. The demi- indicates

just that. But it is an english word, not a sanskrit word, and because the

english word "god" appears to indicate the total complete - brahman.

 

You can as well substitute brahman every time there is Krishna. That is not

completely correct, but it indicates that with Krishna is not meant a partial

manifestation of brahman but the full.

 

I am not very good in scriptural understanding with all the intricate details,

so please bear with me with my description if there are faults in it. I am

just trying to give the general picture as I see it. Here I really wish that

someone with scriptural understanding could clear it out.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

What are the Panchakshra Mantra and the Navarana Mantra?

-

Krishnan Kanna

Kali_Ma

Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:40 AM

Re: why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so intolerant?

Namaste Alexanderji,

Yes that might be the impression given but they are actually not that

bad.Brahman came form the word Brah which means that which is beyond

measurement . Thus the supreme Brahman is beyond one's own limited concious

interpretation. To experience it one must be able to transcend the limitation

of this limited conciuosness and established himself in his true nature which

is Absolute Knowledege, Eternal Existences and Pure Consicuosness(remember

this are still limited word to describe Him). Then again to define the infinite

within any of the 5 limited sense would only be a futile attempt.........

However to understand its true nature one need to merge with that (which also

happens to be our true nature of existence) and all spritual discipline are to

bring your towards that aim alone .That which is inconceivable takes form that

can be easliy be conceived by the mind and heart thus this is known as choosen

ideal of worship - ishtha devata and because of our love and true yearning for

Him he would manifest out of that love into that very form that we love to see

Him on.Thus God who is formful (with certain personality) , formless(without

any characteristics) and also beyond both of this (the inconceivable by the

limited mind) takes that form because of his love for us .And to experience and

to realize that we conduct spiritual practices to merge with Him-our true nature

of existence .Here the I disappear and only God exist . Now this is vedanta. The

end of knowledge. Veda - To know anta - the end . The end that needs to be

known.............and off course for the Gaudiyas it would be Ramanuja and

Madhavacharya who maintain the duality still exist and thus both the Supreme

Personality of Godhead (Lord Krishna) and his devotees still would maintain a

separate identification

Finally the sadhaka (spiritual practioner) becomes one with God thus the ego

that is the impression of duality (I and God exist ) dissapears and only He

(God) exist and I (the ego dissappears)and this happens after nirvikalpa and

savikalpa samadhi .This would be according to Advaita vedanta theory propounded

by Sankaracharya which would naturally not appeal to Gaudiyas they are not

looking into unification(jnana yoga) rather than worship of the Supreme

Lord(bhakthi yoga) thus Adi Sankaracharya theory of unification- advaita

becomes mayavada theory to them.

The chosen ideal of worship are important to fix the mind on one form of that

which could manifest into various forms and off course for the Gaudiya

Vaishnavas that happens to be Lord Krishna - The Supreme Personality of

Godhead. Remember the words here "personality " that means the characteristic

of the undefinabale Brahman but the Gaudiyas are not going to attempt to define

the undefinabale as they arenot approaching the matter from their mind (it is a

futile attempt) but approaching from heart-something to love - that is is

bhakthi yoga . They are not going to be like Vedantist who uses the mind to

understand the true nature of that Bhraman the end of path of knowledge

-vedanta and that happens to be jnana yoga .Instead the Gaudiyas are going to

use their heart to bring them to the same Supreme Personality of Godhead

without any mental anticipation of the true nature of brahman thus Swami Srila

Prabhupada Maharaj is ideally called Bhakthivedanta

Off course your Supreme Personality of Godhead are the highest God in your heart

and the rest of the manifestation from that Supreme Being would be defined as

the same spark of the same original divinity(Sup[rem Personality of Godhead)

but with lesser appeal to you thus their are still gods but only demigods as

they are formed from the spark of the Supreme Godhead that resides within your

heart but with lesser apeal to you

A lot among us claims that they give same place to all manifestation of their

choosen ideal of worship but actually giving them a smaller place in their

heart. Because if every form is equal than why do we have choosen form of

worship that appeals to us.Furthemore ,can you fix you mind and heart on all

forms of worship . Would you be able to concentrate and meditate on all forms

? Since this is not possible thus such classification are neccesary ,the only

differences is that Gaudiyas are doing it in obvious sense and we are doing it

in our heart that is all. When Sage Narada and Lord Vishnu went walking they

saw Hanuman immersed in japa of Lord Rama and Sage Narada ask Lord Vishnu why

could Hanuman disrespect the Lord by not prostrating at his holy feet but

continued to recite Ram japa . Lord Vishnu asked Hanuman to explain for which

Hanuman said it is true that he is the Lord of all but he is lost in his divine

name as Lord Rama and that very moment Lord Vishnu gave him the darshan as Lord

Rama silencing Sage Narada once and for all. Thus everyone of us would always

hold our own ideal of worship close to our heart even if we realise that

theothers are actually his manifestation as welland the Gaudiyas are no

exception to that either!!!!!

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu- the great bengal saint preached attaining of Supreme

Personality of Godhead by sankritan for this Kali Yuga age and the Mahamantra

are the greatest mantra to do that for vaishnavas just like the panchakshra

mantra for the Shaivites and navarna mantra for the shakthas.We actually have

to ask him what he actually taught but please take note if Sri Chaintaya was

here today he might put the same notion differently. At that age at that

particular time he would have done what was nessecary for the spirtual

upliftment of his community just like Lord Buddha did not talk about God that

does not mean God do not exist but only means that might not been the neccesary

point at his time . So judging them today is difficult to do..............

 

Yes there are various vaishnavas sect and I beleive you have to searchh for the

one that appeals to your heart...............The Gaudiyas themselves have to 2

sects one is ISKCON which is very famous and the other you could get them

through their website. Both came from the same Guru one become famous in Bengal

and the other established themselfin US and he was known as Srila Prabhupada

.....................

 

The core scripture for the Gaudiyas would be Srimad Bhagavatham and Bhagavad

Gita and other vaishnava related scripture like Vishnu Purana etc .Just like

for the shakthas would be Srimad Devi Bhagavatham , Devi Gita and other related

scriptures like Kalika purana depends on choosen ideal of

worship....................And as your own interpretation could go wrong ,the

guru in that lineage's interpretaion would be sought on each of this text . Not

a guru from the other tradition of worship ( we do not want to look at things at

macro level here) but guru who has proper spiritual succesion in the same path

originating from the same source of the text in question(this is the micro

level approach). Off course this would not appeal for those who do not have

Lord Krishna as ideal of worship.

 

If your read each scripture ,each extols the manfestation of the Supreme ideal

in that form which is held that scripture as ideal not because to create

segregation but to propound unity in diversity. Off course in Srimad

Bahgavatham all forms manifest from Lord Vishnu while in Chandi Path (shaktha

scripture) all forms manifest from Chandi Ma alone . They are not contradictory

for sadhaka but complimentary for each person so each could establish his own

personal realtionship with God for his own way of worship.That is the beauty oh

hindu shastras not dogmatic neither contradictive................

 

Jai Maa!!!!

>"Alexandra Kafka"

>Kali_Ma >

> why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so intolerant? >Wed, 11 Jun

2003 02:17:55 +0200 > >Why are they? >In Hinduism it is common to regard one's

Ishtadevata as supreme and all other deities as aspects or manifestations of

him/her. >For instance, the Shaivas regard Shiva as Parabrahman and respect

Vishnu, Krishna, Brahma, etc. as aspects or manifestations of Shiva and the

goddesses such as Lakshmi, Radha, Sarasvati, etc. as aspects or manifestations

of Shakti-Devi. >The Shaktas also respect the other deities. >But the Gaudiya

Vaishnavas seem to hold the view that only Krishna is god, all other deities

are mere demi-gods. >Why? Did Sri Chaitanya preach that? >Is this view shared

by all Vaishnava sects, or are there branches of the Vaishnava tradition that

follow the classical Hindu tradition? >On which scriptures do they base their

view, and on whose interpretation of these scriptures?

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* To from

this group, send an email to:Kali_MaYour use of

is subject to the

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:40:32 +0200 "Alexandra Kafka"

<alexandra.kafka writes:

> What are the Panchakshra Mantra...

 

<OM NAMAH SHIVAYA>

 

> and the Navarana Mantra?

 

<OM AIM HRIM KLIM CHAMUNDAYE VICHCHE>

 

(And Chaitanya's mahamantra, or course, is...)

 

<HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA

KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE

HARE RAMA HARE RAMA

RAMA RAMA HARE HARE>

 

All such "mahamantras" don't require initiation.

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

> -

>

> Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu- the great bengal saint preached

> attaining of Supreme Personality of Godhead by sankritan for this

> Kali Yuga age and the Mahamantra are the greatest mantra to do that

> for vaishnavas just like the panchakshra mantra for the Shaivites

> and navarna mantra for the shakthas.

 

 

______________

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Alexandre,

 

Panchaksara Mantra - Om Namashivaya

 

Navarna Mantra - Om Aim Hrim Krim Chamundayai Vicce

 

Jai Maa!!!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Alexandre ,

 

 

> Is this view shared by all Vaishnava sects, or are there branches

of the Vaishnava tradition that follow the classical Hindu tradition?

 

Well below I hope you read them as how Madavacharya Tattavada theory

is not followed by Gaudiya vaishnanva ISKCON as that is what differ

them from the other vaishanva

 

1) Scriptural text are not the 3 cannonical text but only Srimad

Bhagavatham

2) Interpretaion by Srilaji differs for other on the same text

 

 

> On which scriptures do they base their view, and on whose

interpretation of these scriptures?

 

Well this would be Srimad Bhagavatham accrodingly the disgareement

with Mahdavacharya tattvavada theory and total exclusion of other

text by Srila Govinda Sawmi mahara followed by the guru parampara

lineage shall help in this scriptural diffrence

 

 

Please read ;

 

ISKCON and Tattvavâda -Some essential clarifications

 

Tattvavâda (Dvaita) is a system of Vedânta philosophy which was

clearly enunciated in the 13th century AD by Achârya Madhva. This

system is one of the trinity of traditional systems based on the

Vedâs, which have the largest following and have been recognized

widely as authentic, alternative, and complete systems. There has

been a continuous and intensive interaction between the systems,

which have opposed each other vigorously in debates held according to

traditionally accepted norms, with many erudite compositions by

accomplished scholars critically examining the rival systems to show

that they are invalid and to prove their own systems as valid

according to mutually acceptable standards. This process of searching

& cross examination has helped refine the systems with regard to

internal consistency, clarity of ideas, acceptability with reference

to all "evidence" adduced, etc. Though there were some variations

introduced in the finer details of concepts with efflux of time in

Advaita, the oldest system, there has been no major change with

regard to the basic tenets of each of the systems from those

enunciated by the founders. Tattvavâda enjoys the unique position

of

having taken on and vanquished the other two rival systems in

numerous debates from the date of its origin.

Contents:

Introduction

1. Relationship between soul and Supreme

1.1 Unthinkable difference-cum-identity, versus five-fold

difference

1.2 Vishesha, or the quality of specialty

2. Authoritative sources

2.1 Scriptural authority versus authoritativeness in general

2.2 Bhâgavata versus Brahma Sûtra and the rest

3. Other Doctrinal Digressions

3.1 Differences in the manifestations of the forms of the Lord

3.2 Jîvas a part of the Supreme Being?

3.3 A Question of Gradation

3.4 The Unknown `Panchama Purushârtha'

3.5 Four Correct Traditions?

4. Peculiar views of tradition

4.1 Identification of their Founder Sri Krishna Chaitanya with

Lord Krishna

4.2 Râdhâ -- a bogus deity

4.3 False attribution of Madhva's authorship

Postscript

 

Introduction

The Gaudiya school of Navadvîpa (Bengal) was founded in the early

16th century by Sri Krishna Chaitanya, essentially as a school based

on the primacy of intense and emotional love for the Divine preached

by the founder. Though the claimed genealogy of the ascetic order to

which Chaitanya belongs traces itself from Achârya Madhva (at

least

as far as the group now known as ISKCON is concerned), the early

history of the Bengal Vaishnava school shows a mix of allegiance to

other founders of Vedânta schools like Sankara and Râmânuja

as well.

The details of the philosophical system underpinning the cult of

emotional devotion were delineated gradually, not by the founder

himself (who is not credited with any written compositions), but by

the three famous Goswamis of Vrindavan, (Mathura) -- Sanatana and

Roopa (two brothers) and their nephew Jîva. Unlike the traditional

approach of analyzing the prasthâna traya -- Brahma Sûtras,

Gîtâ, and

Upanishads -- the school took the supreme authority of the

Bhâgavata

Purâna as an axiomatic truth and derived their system based on it.

This approach was justified on the strength of the statement that the

Bhâgavata is the quintessence of all the shastras and thus

possesses

the supreme authority, as it is accepted as Vyâsa's own commentary

on

the Brahma Sûtras (composed by himself). Jîva Goswamy also

discounts

all other sources of valid Pramânas except Shabda (revealed Word)

as

only the last named can never be sublated by any other Pramâna.

Thus,

while all other systems were defined substantially by the founders

writing their own commentary on Vyâsa's Brahma Sûtras according

to

their own tenets, this school did not even have any such commentary

at its formative stage, and one was written (with several points of

significant difference with Madhva's Bhâshya) much later by

Baladeva

Vidyabhushana in the 18th century. The basic approach of the system

was pinning its faith on a single main source -- Bhâgavata,

generally

reducing the importance of all other sources accepted by the other

schools of Vedânta. Its lack of critical examination by rival

schools

in debates has resulted in a system which is essentially not capable

of being sustained in traditional disputation, as there are no

accepted common ground rules essential for debate with the three main

systems.

Even among Gaudiya schools themselves, there are differences in

approach and only some of them consider themselves as adherents of

Madhva Vedânta -- with considerable modifications. Of them, one

group

has gained some popularity in the recent past due to growth of its

movement ISKCON in foreign countries. As a group accepting many of

the tenets of Dvaita and as Vaishnavâs, it is sometimes felt that

the

differences in doctrines are minor and can be allowed to coexist, as

they are, in the larger interest. Very similar arguments can be used

to superficially justify the essential commonness of approach with

Srivaishnavâs and Tattvavâdins, but numerous disputes in the

past by

illustrious ascetics and scholars have shown certain essential

differences in doctrines which cannot be modified or given up without

departing completely from the basic tenets of the systems. The

philosophical position of ISKCON vis-a-vis other feuding Gaudiya

denominations is unclear due to differences among the different

groups themselves, as well as a lack of clarity in the doctrines,

compared with Dvaita, which is a well-defined system. The object of

this note is to define the Tattvavâda position with respect to

those

of the doctrines which are different as per the claims of the ISKCON

school claiming to be allied to Madhva Sampradâya. Some of the

ISKCON

claims which Tattvavâda does not accept, such as the defeat of the

Tattvavâdi Achâryas in Udupi by Sri Krishna Chaitanya, and his

identification with the Supreme Being, etc., also have been included

to avoid misunderstandings owing to falsehoods given in published

ISKCON texts.

The points of difference have been mentioned briefly along with

references to the Pramânas (valid sources of textual statements)

which are relevant in the context.

1. Relationship between soul and Supreme

1.1 Unthinkable difference-cum-identity, versus five-fold

difference

ISKCON says that they follow a doctrine of Achintya Bhedâbheda

with

regard to the relationship between the Supreme Being and the Souls.

Tattvavâda follows the doctrine of pancha bheda -- difference

between

God and the Souls, between the Souls, between God and Inert Matter,

between the Souls and Inert Matter and between Inert Matter items

themselves -- (Paramâtma-Jîva, Jîva-Jîva, Paramâtma

and Jada, Jîva

and Jada, and Jada and Jada.) The doctrine is well summed up in the

following shloka of the Mahâbhârata Tâtparya Nirnaya of

Achârya

Madhva (Chapter 1, Sarva Shâstrârtha Sangraha, shloka 71):

paJNchabhedA ime nityAH sarvavasthAsu sarvashaH |

muktAnAM cha na hIyante tAratamyaM cha sarvadA ||

The fivefold differences (between Souls, God and Jada) defined above

are eternal, absolute and exist under all conditions, even after

Mukti. The gradation (among souls) is also eternal. ISKCON has tried

to argue that the concept of Vishesha used by Achârya Madhva to

explain the simultaneous Identity and difference between an object

and its qualities is a similar tenet to their Achintya Bhedâbheda,

which is a further extension of the same idea. But there is a

fundamental difference. Vishesha is a part of the essence of the

object possessed by all -- Souls, Inert matter (Jada) and the Supreme

Being (in whom it is also called achintya shakti) and has absolutely

no relevance to the doctrine of Achintya Bhedâbheda -- which

ISKCON

uses to explain the relationship between the Soul and God -- being

the quality of the latter. The difference between the Soul and God

according to Tattvavâda is Bheda or Absolute difference. In fact,

the

concept of Bhedâbheda in one context is also accepted by

Tattvavâda --

in the apparent difference in appearance of the various and infinite

forms of the Supreme Being, which are all identical in essence, and

each of which, though appearing to be different, is the complete

Supreme Being with all His attributes and aspects. On this issue,

ISKCON has a different concept, where some forms of the Lord are

considered to be more complete than the others -- which is totally

repugnant to Tattvavâda.

1.2 Vishesha, or the quality of specialty

The concept of visheshha as used by Achârya Madhva can be further

studied by reference to Chapter VII of Mahâmahopâdyâya

B.N.K.

Sharma's book -- "Philosophy of Sri Madhvâchârya" -- (Motilal

Banarsidass, 1986 edition). Comments on the differences between

Achintya Bhedâbheda and Vishesha are discussed in Appendix V of

Dr.

Sharma's book -- "History of the Dvaita school of Vedânta." The

concept of Bhedâbheda of different types between the Supreme Being

and the Souls has been clearly and specifically rejected by

Achârya

Madhvâ in many compositions -- including the khandana traya,

Anuvyâkhyâna, Vishnutatvanirnaya, etc. Mm. B.N.K. Sharma has

opined

that the two basic concepts of achintyAdbhuta shakti of the Supreme

Being to explain the apparently contradictory qualities in Him (such

as being both aNu (atomic) and mahat (Infinite) -- at the same time)

and savisheshâbheda which is used to account for the simultaneous

identity & difference between the properties of a substance and its

essence has been mixed up "beyond its legitimate jurisdiction" to

derive the concept of Achintya Bhedâbheda between the Supreme

Being

and the Souls, which is emphatically rejected by Achârya Madhva.

Achârya Madhva's quote from the Brahma Tarka (a presently

unavailable

composition) is also used erroneously to "justify" the concept

against his clear enunciations.

2. Authoritative sources

2.1 Scriptural authority versus authoritativeness in general

ISKCON argues that all testimony other than Shabda (revealed

scriptural authority) is unreliable. Though pro forma homage is paid

to Vedâs, and BrahmaSûtras, it is argued that the Bhâgavata

composed

by Sri Veda Vyâsa himself is a commentary on the latter and hence

should be considered as a Parama PramâNa (most superior

authority).

Only convenient Shruti texts are used and others are not discussed,

as it is considered that they are already interpreted in Vaishnava

Purânas, chiefly the Bhâgavata. Thus while the Gîtâ

prasthâna is

used, along with the Bhâgavata, the Upanishad and Sûtra

Prasthanas of

the traditional Vedânta schools are neglected. In Tattvavâda,

Achârya

Madhva recognizes three valid sources of knowledge: pratyakSha,

anumAna, and Agama. He is also unique in giving due recognition to

pratyakSha in its own domain -- such as in proving the reality of the

world.

2.2 Bhâgavata versus Brahma Sûtra and the rest

As far as Agama is concerned, the Tattvavâda approach is

exemplified

by the following shlokas from the Mahâbhârata Tâtparya

Nirnaya of

Achârya Madhva:

R^igAdayashcha chatvAraH paJNcharAtraM cha bhAratam.h |

mUlarAmAyaNaM brahmasUtraM mAnaM svataH smR^itam.h ||

The four Vedâs beginning with the Rg Veda, Pancharâtra,

Bhâratha,

Mûla Râmâyana and Brahma Sûtras are accepted to be

self-sufficient

authorities.

aviruddhaM tu yattvasya pramANaM tachcha nAnyathA |

etadviruddhaM yattu syAnna tanmAnaM kathaJNchana ||

Whatever is not contradictory to these is also an authority and not

otherwise. Whatever is opposed to them is not an authority under any

circumstances.

vaishhNavAni purAnani paJNcharAtrAtmakatvataH |

pramANanyeva manvAdyAH smR^itayo.apyanukUlataH ||

The Vaishnava Purânas (such as Bhâgavata) which establish the

supremacy of Vishnu are also authorities as they also convey whatever

is being conveyed by the Pancharâtra. Smritis like that of Manu

and

others are also authorities, as long as they are consistent with

these.

In the Anuvyakhyana, Achârya Madhva says :

AptavAkyatayA tena shrutimUlatayA tathA |

yuktimUlatayA chaiva prAmANyaM trividhaM mahat.h ||

 

dR^ishyate brahmasUtraNAM ekadhA anyatra sarvashaH |

ato naitadR^ishaM kiJNchit.h pramANantamamishyate ||

Since the Brahma Sûtras determine by valid Yukti (logical

analysis)

the import of the Vedâs (which, being Apaurusheya, i.e.,

authorless,

are totally without defects), and have been composed by an Âpta,

well

qualified person, i.e., Sri Veda Vyâsa, they are the best

authority

and there is none comparable to them as the Supreme Authority for the

purpose.

Thus we find that although Achârya Madhva has used all the valid

Pramânas including the Bhâgavata, his most decisive works are

based

on the Mahâbhâratha and Brahma Sûtras. To the extent that

Bhâgavata

is correctly interpreted, there is no reason why the doctrines

derived thereby, should differ from Tattvavâda. But ISKCON's

dependence on the Bhâgavata alone, with almost no attention being

paid to the Upanishads and Mahâbharata, leads to many serious

differences between Tattvavâda and their doctrines. The same

texts,

when interpreted by Achârya Madhva in consistence with the rigid

rules of interpretation and relevant statements made in other

authoritative texts give the correct meanings without any conflicts.

The definitive Tâtparya Nirnaya composition on Bhâgavata by

Achârya

Madhva resolves many apparent points of discord between the

Mahâbharata and Bhâgavata and also provides correct and

consistent

meanings of many texts capable of different interpretations, some of

which could be taken to support Advaita by taking their superficial

meanings. The approach of Gaudiya authors is entirely different.

Jîva

Goswami acknowledges in his Bhâgavata Sandarbha that he has taken

into consideration a composition of a Bhatta friend from the South

who had compiled it by referring to the writings of Vriddha

Vaishnavâs such as Sri Râmânuja, Sri Madhvâchârya, Sri

Sridharaswamin

and others. Sri Râmânuja himself has not referred to the

Bhâgavata in

his writings. Thus, Gaudiya schools including ISKCON do not consider

that the Tattvavâda interpretation of the Bhâgavata based on

Achârya

Madhva's composition is the only valid one. The Pramâna basis of

ISKCON is thus substantially different from Tattvavâda both in its

range of authorities as well as fidelity of approach.

3. Other Doctrinal digressions

3.1 Differences in the manifestations of the forms of the Lord.

Tattvavâda has an essential doctrine that all the `svarUpAmsha'-s

of

the Lord, such as Matsya, Kurma, etc., and the Original (Moola) form

are identical in all respects. The Shrutis such as neha nAnAsti

kiJNchana and the Brahma Sûtra na sthAnato.api parasya

ubhayaliN^gaM

sarvatra hi state clearly that there cannot be any difference or

gradation among the forms of the Lord. ISKCON has many concepts which

are fundamentally against this concept. Some of these are briefly

mentioned:

1. The two-handed from of the Lord Krishna is superior to all

other forms of the lord such as Narayana, Vishnu, etc. This is based

on a statement in the Bhâgavata (1.3.28) -- kR^ishhNastu

bhagavAn.h

svayam.h. According to Jîva Goswami this shloka indicates the

primal

position of Sri Krishna and all other statements which indicate

otherwise should be interpreted to sustain this position. The other

text used by ISKCON is ahaM sarvasya prabhavo (Bhagavad Gita 10.8),

where `sarva' is interpreted to include other forms of God like

Nârâyana. Though it is admitted that the forms are identical in

terms

of `tattva' (essence), they differ in `rasa' or more complete

manifestation of the capabilities. All these concepts are not only

totally against Tattvavâda, but are classified as major sins

(`nava-

vidha dveshha' -- indicating the nine forms of hatred of the Supreme

Being, by denying His unique greatness and freedom from all defects

and limitations) which lead to eternal hell. The texts used by ISKCON

are perfectly capable of being correctly interpreted to support the

doctrine of total identity in all the forms of the Lord and indeed

have been done so by Achârya Madhva in his compositions.

Incidentally, ISKCON claims identity of the two-handed form Krishna

with their founder Sri Krishna Chaitanya.

2. ISKCON also believes that there are three different features

of the Lord and realization of Him by the soul will be higher for

Bhagavan than for Brahman or Paramathma. The same quote from

Bhâgavata mentioned earlier is used to "prove" this. Tattvavâda

makes

no distinction of any such kind as realization of the Supreme being

is essentially based on the Swaroopa of the soul and its Jnana,

Karma, etc. In his AnuBhâshya, Achârya Madhva clearly

enunciates:

3. sachchidAnanda Atmeti mAnushhaistu sureshvaraiH |

4. yathAkramaM bahuguNaIH brahmaNA tvakhilairguNaiH |

5. upAsyaH sarvavedaishcha... ||

The auspicious qualities of the Lord are infinite in number & extent

and cannot be visualized or even understood by anyone else. Mukti

Yogya souls are required to understand and worship Him as Sat, Chit,

and Ananda as well as Atma (their own inner controller). Superior

souls with higher Svarupa abilities will worship gradually increasing

numbers of the qualities, while Chaturmukha Brahma has the intrinsic

capacity to worship all the infinite auspicious qualities of the

Lord.

The manifested forms of the Lord do not yield different results

depending on which one is worshipped.

3.2 Jîvas a part of the Supreme Being?

Tattvavâda considers that the Jîvas are bhinnAMsha-s of the

Lord --

based on the faithful interpretation of the Gîtâ text --

mamaivAMsho

jIvaloke jIvabhUtaH sanAtanaH and the Brahma Sûtra -- ata eva

chopamA

sUryakAdivat.h. A clear distinction has to be made between the Self-

Same Forms of the Supreme being, like Râma, Krishna, Matsya, etc.,

which are not only the same in essence but also have equal

capabilities and auspicious qualities in all respects (mentioned

earlier). Jîvas are like images of the Lord with many similar

qualities but are essentially different from Him. These differences

which are intrinsic to them will persist even after Mukti is

attained. The most important and basic differences, like the atomic

nature of the souls and their eternal and total dependence on the

Supreme Being, will never change since they are a part of the soul's

essential nature.

On the other hand, ISKCON accepts that the living entities are part

and parcel of the Lord. Their concepts are based on a totally

different interpretation of the Gîtâ text mentioned earlier,

the

matter not being fully cleared among themselves. But Sri Prabhupada

translates the Gîtâ text XV-7 as follows :

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal,

fragmented parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling with

the six senses, which include the mind. In his purport for that

verse, which begins with, "In this verse, the identity of the living

being is clearly given. The living entity is the fragmented part of

the Supreme Lord -- eternally.

This concept is entirely unacceptable to Tattvavâda because it is

against the Shruti Pramânas and others considered in the Brahma

Sûtras.

3.3 A Question of Gradation

A cardinal doctrine in Tattvavâda is the gradation among souls,

with

Chaturmukha Brahma and Mukhyaprâna being considered the highest --

Jîvottama. The differences in the positions attained in creation,

period of sâdhanâ, degree of devotion, knowledge, etc. are due

to

their intrinsic superiority (svarUpa uttamattva). All the Jîvas

have

their svarUpa qualities which remain unaltered throughout their

eternal existence including Mukti, when they enjoy bliss according to

their capacity. Unless this feature is accepted, it will be

impossible to accept that the Supreme being is free from the defects

of vaishamya and nairghR^iNya (partiality or neglect). The position

of Tattvavâda is well-supported by numerous Shrutis & Smritis like

the Gîtâ and Brahma Sûtras. For example, the Brahma Sûtra

vR^iddhihrAsabhAktvamantarbhAvAt.h ubhayasAmaJNjasyAdevam.h

can be quoted.

The concepts of ISKCON are not clear in this respect and where

expressed they seem to have major differences. For instance, the

interpretation of the Sûtra Anandamayo abhyAsAt.h is made thus:

Both the Lord and the living entity, being qualitatively spirit-soul,

have the tendency for peaceful enjoyment. However, when the part of

the Supreme Personality of Godhead that is the living entity

unfortunately wants to enjoy without Krishna, he is put into the

material world, where he begins his life as Brahma and is gradually

degraded to the status of an ant or a worm in stool.

This concept suggesting a fall from an exalted condition of the

Jîva

(though it is part of "the Supreme Personality of Godhead") does not

have any scriptural support. Though târatamya (Gradation) is not

specifically rejected, its importance in the scheme of things is also

not clearly understood in ISKCON as the same Jîva is thought to be

capable of being both Brahma and a worm. According to Sri Madhva,

ISKCON's philosophy is therefore incapable of causing mukti, because

he says:

tAratamyaM tato j~neyaM sarvochchattvaM harestathA |

etadvinA na kasyApi vimuktiH syAt.h kathaJNchana ||

In other words, the gradation of souls is to be understood, and the

quality of Hari as the Supreme to be understood based on this (that

is, that Hari is not merely blandly superior, but is superior even to

the highest of Jîva-s), and that without this understanding, no

mukti

is possible under any circumstance.

3.4 The Unknown `Panchama Purushârtha'

According to Tattvavâda, like all other schools of Vedânta,

Moksha is

the Supreme Purushârtha or objective of the Soul. The realization

of

one's own nature of bliss for eternal enjoyment is by the grace of

the Supreme Being. By His Aparoksha, the veils obscuring the

Jîva's

own swarupa and that of the Supreme Being are removed. The intense

love of the Supreme Being, called devotion, continues in Moxa as

well. Since it is natural and is of the essential nature of the

Jîva

himself, it transforms itself into Bliss.

On the other hand, ISKCON considers that there is a fifth

purushârtha

even superior to Moksha, which a true devotee of Krishna will seek.

This is prema bhakti, of the same kind as the Gopis had for Krishna

in His incarnation. This devotion involves performing some service to

the Lord, which will continue even after liberation. This appears to

be based on a superficial reading of a verse from Bhâgavata

extolling

the love that very exalted devotees have for the Supreme being by

saying that their devotion is so natural and intense that they do not

have even Mukti as their objective. They say that this love will

continue even after Mukti and is not a substitute thereof. This

concept is not accepted by Tattvavâda, as Achârya Madhva has

quoted

in Gîtâ Bhâshya (Chapter 2 -- shloka 50 ) --

na moxasadR^ishaM kiJNchid.h adhikaM vA sukhaM kvachit.h |

R^ite vaishhNavamAnandaM vAN^mano.agocharaM mahat.h ||

 

-- ityAdeshcha brahmAdipadAdapyadhikatamaM sukhaM cha mokSha,

iti siddham.h ||

Similarly ISKCON admit that even intense hatred for the Supreme being

can result in Liberation giving the examples of Shishupala etc. But

Tattvavâda holds that only devotion can get Mukthi and never

dvesha

or hatred for God, The examples quoted in the Bhâgavata are

explained

by the concept of Jîva Dvayâvesha -- Shishupala having the

swarupa of

Jaya (the gate keeper at Vaikuntha) who was afflicted with a life on

Earth due to a curse by a Rshi. There was an âvesha or

superimposition of an evil Jîva who was actually responsible for

all

of Shishupala's temporary hatred for God. So only the good deserve

Mukti and obtain it.

3.5 Four Correct Traditions?

ISKCON also believes that four Vaishnava Sampradâyas are valid and

base their conclusion on a shloka from Padma Purâna (which is not

found in standard editions):

atah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah |

sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnavah ksiti-pavanah ||

ramanujam srih svcakre madhvacaryam caturmukhah |

sri-visnu-svaminam rudro nimbadityam catuhsanah ||

Tattvavâda does not accept the validity of this shloka, which

seems

to hold that different Vedânta schools which have been arguing

over

the correct interpretation of Vedânta Shrutis since their

inception

are all valid -- in spite of essential differences. The same confused

approach of ISKCON is also seen in their acceptance of the

Bhâgavata

Bhâshya by Sridhara Swamin, which tends to interpret many texts

according to Advaitic tenets, while they claim to follow Dvaita

school whenever it's convenient. According to Tattvavâda, the only

correct school is that of Achârya Madhva -- ante siddhastu

siddhAnto

madhvasyAgama eva hi in the words of the revered saint -- Sri

Vâdirâja.

4 Peculiar views of tradition

There are also some beliefs peculiar to ISKCON which are not shared

by any of the three major Vedânta schools. These are:

4.1 Identification of their Founder Sri Krishna Chaitanya with Lord

Krishna

o They interpret the Bhâgavata text -- kR^ishhNavarNaM kalau

kR^ishhNaM ... yajanti hi sumedhasaH as showing Chaitanya (a.k.a.

Chaitanya Mahâprabhu) as an incarnation of Vishnu. This

interpretation is baseless. No Avatar of the lord in Kaliyuga is

stipulated by authorized compositions like Purânas, etc., composed

by

Sri Veda Vyâsa.

o There are also basically untrue and fanciful stories in

some "historical" works written much after him about Sri Krishna

Chaitanya giving assurances to Achârya Madhva of following him and

preaching the correct doctrines. Madhva's authentic biography

Sumadhvavijaya, composed immediately after Achârya Madhva, and his

tradition do not report any such events. Since they are not

mentioned, there is no ground for such stories.

o Even the Vishnu Sahasranâma, known to depict the thousand

names of Vishnu, is quoted in support by ISKCON -- suvarNavarNa

hemAN^go varAN^gashchandanAN^gadI, etc., which are all used to refer

to only one form of the Lord in the original -- to refer to Sri

Krishna Chaitanya! Tattvavâda does not accept these or any such

interpretations with no valid basis, which even prima facie appear to

fail the test of consistency with valid scriptural statements.

o A work called Chaitanya Charitâmrta also elaborates an

entirely fanciful account of the visit of Sri Krishna Chaitanya to

Udupi and his "defeating" the Tattvavâdi ascetics there. Needless

to

say, the account has no basis of reality, since it was composed much

later with no record of any discussions being preserved. It also, in

the words of Mm. B.N.K. Sharma, grossly misunderstands the

Tattvavâda

position on "the relative positions of karma, j~nâna and bhakti in

the scheme of the sâdhana-s". It should also be noted that the

fictitious Tattvavâda Achârya in the Chaitanya Charitâmrta

is not

allowed a single quotation from scripture in favor of his position,

while his opponent offers several. Also to be noted is that Chaitanya

propounds a "fifth purushârtha" entirely without support from

scripture, but is not challenged upon the point by the Tattvavâda

teacher, which is incredible. These and other such bogus accounts

appear to be embellishments thought up in the recent past by

illiterates.

4.2 Râdhâ -- a bogus deity

There are other concepts based essentially on Brahma Vaivarta

Purâna

allegedly glorifying Râdhâ as superior even to Lakshmî

(eternal

consort of the Lord), the superior position of Goloka, etc. None of

these find a place in Tattvavâda, and these quotes are all equally

bogus.

4.3 False attribution of Madhva's Authorship

A completely bogus text called Tatvamuktâvali or

Mayâvâda-Shata-

Dushani, written by an 18th century scholar called Poornânanda,

has

been wrongly attributed to Achârya Madhva. There are authentic and

traditional documents which clearly show that this is totally

incorrect.

 

 

Postscript

You may also like to see:

o H.H. Pejavara Swamiji's message to the followers of ISKCON

asking that bogus claims be withdrawn. New!

o A review of Prabhupada's `Bhagavad Gita As-It-Is.

Unfortunately, it doesn't follow the "disciplic succession" claimed,

and hence, there is no link between Krishna and Prabhupada as stated.

o Bhagavad Gita 10.41 -- Madhva's take on kR^ishhNastu

bhagavAn.h svayam.h, where he rejects the notion that Krishna alone

is the original form.

o A Response to Our Critics. Confused about why some Mâdhva-s

don't seem to agree with us? Read this.

 

(Editing & web placement by Prasanna Tadipatri & Shrisha Rao .)

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you very much for your very detailed and most helpful explanations.

 

Kind regards,

Alexandra Kafka

-

kanna_krishnan2002

Kali_Ma

Friday, June 27, 2003 8:38 AM

Re: why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so intolerant?

Namaste Alexandre ,> Is this view shared by all Vaishnava sects, or are there

branches of the Vaishnava tradition that follow the classical Hindu

tradition?Well below I hope you read them as how Madavacharya Tattavada theory

is not followed by Gaudiya vaishnanva ISKCON as that is what differ them from

the other vaishanva 1) Scriptural text are not the 3 cannonical text but only

Srimad Bhagavatham2) Interpretaion by Srilaji differs for other on the same

text > On which scriptures do they base their view, and on whose interpretation

of these scriptures?Well this would be Srimad Bhagavatham accrodingly the

disgareement with Mahdavacharya tattvavada theory and total exclusion of other

text by Srila Govinda Sawmi mahara followed by the guru parampara lineage shall

help in this scriptural diffrence Please read ;ISKCON and Tattvavâda -Some

essential clarificationsTattvavâda (Dvaita) is a system of Vedânta philosophy

which was clearly enunciated in the 13th century AD by Achârya Madhva. This

system is one of the trinity of traditional systems based on the Vedâs, which

have the largest following and have been recognized widely as authentic,

alternative, and complete systems. There has been a continuous and intensive

interaction between the systems, which have opposed each other vigorously in

debates held according to traditionally accepted norms, with many erudite

compositions by accomplished scholars critically examining the rival systems to

show that they are invalid and to prove their own systems as valid according to

mutually acceptable standards. This process of searching & cross examination

has helped refine the systems with regard to internal consistency, clarity of

ideas, acceptability with reference to all "evidence" adduced, etc. Though

there were some variations introduced in the finer details of concepts with

efflux of time in Advaita, the oldest system, there has been no major change

with regard to the basic tenets of each of the systems from those enunciated by

the founders. Tattvavâda enjoys the unique positionof having taken on and

vanquished the other two rival systems in numerous debates from the date of its

origin. Contents:Introduction 1. Relationship between soul and Supreme 1.1

Unthinkable difference-cum-identity, versus five-fold difference 1.2

Vishesha, or the quality of specialty 2. Authoritative sources 2.1

Scriptural authority versus authoritativeness in general 2.2 Bhâgavata versus

Brahma Sûtra and the rest 3. Other Doctrinal Digressions 3.1 Differences in

the manifestations of the forms of the Lord 3.2 Jîvas a part of the Supreme

Being? 3.3 A Question of Gradation 3.4 The Unknown `Panchama Purushârtha'

3.5 Four Correct Traditions? 4. Peculiar views of tradition 4.1

Identification of their Founder Sri Krishna Chaitanya with Lord Krishna 4.2

Râdhâ -- a bogus deity 4.3 False attribution of Madhva's authorship

Postscript IntroductionThe Gaudiya school of Navadvîpa (Bengal) was founded in

the early 16th century by Sri Krishna Chaitanya, essentially as a school based

on the primacy of intense and emotional love for the Divine preached by the

founder. Though the claimed genealogy of the ascetic order to which Chaitanya

belongs traces itself from Achârya Madhva (atleast as far as the group now

known as ISKCON is concerned), the early history of the Bengal Vaishnava school

shows a mix of allegiance to other founders of Vedânta schools like Sankara and

Râmânujaas well. The details of the philosophical system underpinning the cult

of emotional devotion were delineated gradually, not by the founder himself

(who is not credited with any written compositions), but by the three famous

Goswamis of Vrindavan, (Mathura) -- Sanatana and Roopa (two brothers) and their

nephew Jîva. Unlike the traditional approach of analyzing the prasthâna traya --

Brahma Sûtras,Gîtâ, and Upanishads -- the school took the supreme authority of

theBhâgavata Purâna as an axiomatic truth and derived their system based on it.

This approach was justified on the strength of the statement that the Bhâgavata

is the quintessence of all the shastras and thuspossesses the supreme

authority, as it is accepted as Vyâsa's own commentaryon the Brahma Sûtras

(composed by himself). Jîva Goswamy alsodiscounts all other sources of valid

Pramânas except Shabda (revealed Word)as only the last named can never be

sublated by any other Pramâna.Thus, while all other systems were defined

substantially by the founders writing their own commentary on Vyâsa's Brahma

Sûtras accordingto their own tenets, this school did not even have any such

commentary at its formative stage, and one was written (with several points of

significant difference with Madhva's Bhâshya) much later byBaladeva

Vidyabhushana in the 18th century. The basic approach of the system was pinning

its faith on a single main source -- Bhâgavata,generally reducing the importance

of all other sources accepted by the other schools of Vedânta. Its lack of

critical examination by rivalschools in debates has resulted in a system which

is essentially not capable of being sustained in traditional disputation, as

there are no accepted common ground rules essential for debate with the three

main systems. Even among Gaudiya schools themselves, there are differences in

approach and only some of them consider themselves as adherents of Madhva

Vedânta -- with considerable modifications. Of them, onegroup has gained some

popularity in the recent past due to growth of its movement ISKCON in foreign

countries. As a group accepting many of the tenets of Dvaita and as Vaishnavâs,

it is sometimes felt thatthe differences in doctrines are minor and can be

allowed to coexist, as they are, in the larger interest. Very similar arguments

can be used to superficially justify the essential commonness of approach with

Srivaishnavâs and Tattvavâdins, but numerous disputes in thepast by illustrious

ascetics and scholars have shown certain essential differences in doctrines

which cannot be modified or given up without departing completely from the

basic tenets of the systems. The philosophical position of ISKCON vis-a-vis

other feuding Gaudiya denominations is unclear due to differences among the

different groups themselves, as well as a lack of clarity in the doctrines,

compared with Dvaita, which is a well-defined system. The object of this note

is to define the Tattvavâda position with respect tothose of the doctrines

which are different as per the claims of the ISKCON school claiming to be

allied to Madhva Sampradâya. Some of theISKCON claims which Tattvavâda does not

accept, such as the defeat of the Tattvavâdi Achâryas in Udupi by Sri Krishna

Chaitanya, and his identification with the Supreme Being, etc., also have been

included to avoid misunderstandings owing to falsehoods given in published

ISKCON texts. The points of difference have been mentioned briefly along with

references to the Pramânas (valid sources of textual statements) which are

relevant in the context. 1. Relationship between soul and Supreme1.1

Unthinkable difference-cum-identity, versus five-fold difference ISKCON says

that they follow a doctrine of Achintya Bhedâbhedawith regard to the

relationship between the Supreme Being and the Souls. Tattvavâda follows the

doctrine of pancha bheda -- differencebetween God and the Souls, between the

Souls, between God and Inert Matter, between the Souls and Inert Matter and

between Inert Matter items themselves -- (Paramâtma-Jîva, Jîva-Jîva,

Paramâtmaand Jada, Jîva and Jada, and Jada and Jada.) The doctrine is well

summed up in the following shloka of the Mahâbhârata Tâtparya Nirnaya ofAchârya

Madhva (Chapter 1, Sarva Shâstrârtha Sangraha, shloka 71): paJNchabhedA ime

nityAH sarvavasthAsu sarvashaH | muktAnAM cha na hIyante tAratamyaM cha

sarvadA ||The fivefold differences (between Souls, God and Jada) defined above

are eternal, absolute and exist under all conditions, even after Mukti. The

gradation (among souls) is also eternal. ISKCON has tried to argue that the

concept of Vishesha used by Achârya Madhva to explain the simultaneous Identity

and difference between an object and its qualities is a similar tenet to their

Achintya Bhedâbheda, which is a further extension of the same idea. But there

is a fundamental difference. Vishesha is a part of the essence of the object

possessed by all -- Souls, Inert matter (Jada) and the Supreme Being (in whom

it is also called achintya shakti) and has absolutely no relevance to the

doctrine of Achintya Bhedâbheda -- whichISKCON uses to explain the relationship

between the Soul and God -- being the quality of the latter. The difference

between the Soul and God according to Tattvavâda is Bheda or Absolute

difference. In fact,the concept of Bhedâbheda in one context is also accepted

byTattvavâda --in the apparent difference in appearance of the various and

infinite forms of the Supreme Being, which are all identical in essence, and

each of which, though appearing to be different, is the complete Supreme Being

with all His attributes and aspects. On this issue, ISKCON has a different

concept, where some forms of the Lord are considered to be more complete than

the others -- which is totally repugnant to Tattvavâda. 1.2 Vishesha, or the

quality of specialty The concept of visheshha as used by Achârya Madhva can be

further studied by reference to Chapter VII of MahâmahopâdyâyaB.N.K. Sharma's

book -- "Philosophy of Sri Madhvâchârya" -- (Motilal Banarsidass, 1986

edition). Comments on the differences between Achintya Bhedâbheda and Vishesha

are discussed in Appendix V ofDr. Sharma's book -- "History of the Dvaita

school of Vedânta." The concept of Bhedâbheda of different types between the

Supreme Being and the Souls has been clearly and specifically rejected

byAchârya Madhvâ in many compositions -- including the khandana traya,

Anuvyâkhyâna, Vishnutatvanirnaya, etc. Mm. B.N.K. Sharma hasopined that the two

basic concepts of achintyAdbhuta shakti of the Supreme Being to explain the

apparently contradictory qualities in Him (such as being both aNu (atomic) and

mahat (Infinite) -- at the same time) and savisheshâbheda which is used to

account for the simultaneous identity & difference between the properties of a

substance and its essence has been mixed up "beyond its legitimate

jurisdiction" to derive the concept of Achintya Bhedâbheda between the

SupremeBeing and the Souls, which is emphatically rejected by Achârya Madhva.

Achârya Madhva's quote from the Brahma Tarka (a presentlyunavailable

composition) is also used erroneously to "justify" the concept against his

clear enunciations. 2. Authoritative sources2.1 Scriptural authority versus

authoritativeness in general ISKCON argues that all testimony other than Shabda

(revealed scriptural authority) is unreliable. Though pro forma homage is paid

to Vedâs, and BrahmaSûtras, it is argued that the Bhâgavatacomposed by Sri Veda

Vyâsa himself is a commentary on the latter and hence should be considered as a

Parama PramâNa (most superiorauthority). Only convenient Shruti texts are used

and others are not discussed, as it is considered that they are already

interpreted in Vaishnava Purânas, chiefly the Bhâgavata. Thus while the

Gîtâprasthâna is used, along with the Bhâgavata, the Upanishad and

SûtraPrasthanas of the traditional Vedânta schools are neglected. In

Tattvavâda,Achârya Madhva recognizes three valid sources of knowledge:

pratyakSha, anumAna, and Agama. He is also unique in giving due recognition to

pratyakSha in its own domain -- such as in proving the reality of the world.

2.2 Bhâgavata versus Brahma Sûtra and the rest As far as Agama is concerned,

the Tattvavâda approach isexemplified by the following shlokas from the

Mahâbhârata TâtparyaNirnaya of Achârya Madhva: R^igAdayashcha chatvAraH

paJNcharAtraM cha bhAratam.h | mUlarAmAyaNaM brahmasUtraM mAnaM svataH

smR^itam.h ||The four Vedâs beginning with the Rg Veda, Pancharâtra,Bhâratha,

Mûla Râmâyana and Brahma Sûtras are accepted to beself-sufficient authorities.

aviruddhaM tu yattvasya pramANaM tachcha nAnyathA | etadviruddhaM yattu

syAnna tanmAnaM kathaJNchana ||Whatever is not contradictory to these is also

an authority and not otherwise. Whatever is opposed to them is not an authority

under any circumstances. vaishhNavAni purAnani paJNcharAtrAtmakatvataH |

pramANanyeva manvAdyAH smR^itayo.apyanukUlataH ||The Vaishnava Purânas (such

as Bhâgavata) which establish the supremacy of Vishnu are also authorities as

they also convey whatever is being conveyed by the Pancharâtra. Smritis like

that of Manuand others are also authorities, as long as they are consistent

with these. In the Anuvyakhyana, Achârya Madhva says : AptavAkyatayA tena

shrutimUlatayA tathA | yuktimUlatayA chaiva prAmANyaM trividhaM mahat.h ||

dR^ishyate brahmasUtraNAM ekadhA anyatra sarvashaH | ato naitadR^ishaM

kiJNchit.h pramANantamamishyate ||Since the Brahma Sûtras determine by valid

Yukti (logicalanalysis) the import of the Vedâs (which, being Apaurusheya,

i.e.,authorless, are totally without defects), and have been composed by an

Âpta,well qualified person, i.e., Sri Veda Vyâsa, they are the bestauthority

and there is none comparable to them as the Supreme Authority for the purpose.

Thus we find that although Achârya Madhva has used all the valid Pramânas

including the Bhâgavata, his most decisive works arebased on the Mahâbhâratha

and Brahma Sûtras. To the extent thatBhâgavata is correctly interpreted, there

is no reason why the doctrines derived thereby, should differ from Tattvavâda.

But ISKCON's dependence on the Bhâgavata alone, with almost no attention being

paid to the Upanishads and Mahâbharata, leads to many serious differences

between Tattvavâda and their doctrines. The sametexts, when interpreted by

Achârya Madhva in consistence with the rigid rules of interpretation and

relevant statements made in other authoritative texts give the correct meanings

without any conflicts. The definitive Tâtparya Nirnaya composition on Bhâgavata

byAchârya Madhva resolves many apparent points of discord between the

Mahâbharata and Bhâgavata and also provides correct andconsistent meanings of

many texts capable of different interpretations, some of which could be taken

to support Advaita by taking their superficial meanings. The approach of

Gaudiya authors is entirely different.Jîva Goswami acknowledges in his

Bhâgavata Sandarbha that he has taken into consideration a composition of a

Bhatta friend from the South who had compiled it by referring to the writings

of Vriddha Vaishnavâs such as Sri Râmânuja, Sri Madhvâchârya, SriSridharaswamin

and others. Sri Râmânuja himself has not referred to theBhâgavata in his

writings. Thus, Gaudiya schools including ISKCON do not consider that the

Tattvavâda interpretation of the Bhâgavata based onAchârya Madhva's composition

is the only valid one. The Pramâna basis of ISKCON is thus substantially

different from Tattvavâda both in its range of authorities as well as fidelity

of approach. 3. Other Doctrinal digressions3.1 Differences in the

manifestations of the forms of the Lord. Tattvavâda has an essential doctrine

that all the `svarUpAmsha'-sof the Lord, such as Matsya, Kurma, etc., and the

Original (Moola) form are identical in all respects. The Shrutis such as neha

nAnAsti kiJNchana and the Brahma Sûtra na sthAnato.api parasyaubhayaliN^gaM

sarvatra hi state clearly that there cannot be any difference or gradation

among the forms of the Lord. ISKCON has many concepts which are fundamentally

against this concept. Some of these are briefly mentioned: 1. The

two-handed from of the Lord Krishna is superior to all other forms of the lord

such as Narayana, Vishnu, etc. This is based on a statement in the Bhâgavata

(1.3.28) -- kR^ishhNastubhagavAn.h svayam.h. According to Jîva Goswami this

shloka indicates theprimal position of Sri Krishna and all other statements

which indicate otherwise should be interpreted to sustain this position. The

other text used by ISKCON is ahaM sarvasya prabhavo (Bhagavad Gita 10.8), where

`sarva' is interpreted to include other forms of God like Nârâyana. Though it is

admitted that the forms are identical interms of `tattva' (essence), they differ

in `rasa' or more complete manifestation of the capabilities. All these concepts

are not only totally against Tattvavâda, but are classified as major

sins(`nava-vidha dveshha' -- indicating the nine forms of hatred of the Supreme

Being, by denying His unique greatness and freedom from all defects and

limitations) which lead to eternal hell. The texts used by ISKCON are perfectly

capable of being correctly interpreted to support the doctrine of total identity

in all the forms of the Lord and indeed have been done so by Achârya Madhva in

his compositions. Incidentally, ISKCON claims identity of the two-handed form

Krishna with their founder Sri Krishna Chaitanya. 2. ISKCON also believes

that there are three different features of the Lord and realization of Him by

the soul will be higher for Bhagavan than for Brahman or Paramathma. The same

quote from Bhâgavata mentioned earlier is used to "prove" this. Tattvavâdamakes

no distinction of any such kind as realization of the Supreme being is

essentially based on the Swaroopa of the soul and its Jnana, Karma, etc. In his

AnuBhâshya, Achârya Madhva clearlyenunciates: 3. sachchidAnanda Atmeti

mAnushhaistu sureshvaraiH |4. yathAkramaM bahuguNaIH brahmaNA

tvakhilairguNaiH |5. upAsyaH sarvavedaishcha... ||The auspicious

qualities of the Lord are infinite in number & extent and cannot be visualized

or even understood by anyone else. Mukti Yogya souls are required to understand

and worship Him as Sat, Chit, and Ananda as well as Atma (their own inner

controller). Superior souls with higher Svarupa abilities will worship

gradually increasing numbers of the qualities, while Chaturmukha Brahma has the

intrinsic capacity to worship all the infinite auspicious qualities of the Lord.

The manifested forms of the Lord do not yield different results depending on

which one is worshipped. 3.2 Jîvas a part of the Supreme Being? Tattvavâda

considers that the Jîvas are bhinnAMsha-s of theLord -- based on the faithful

interpretation of the Gîtâ text --mamaivAMsho jIvaloke jIvabhUtaH sanAtanaH and

the Brahma Sûtra -- ata evachopamA sUryakAdivat.h. A clear distinction has to be

made between the Self-Same Forms of the Supreme being, like Râma, Krishna,

Matsya, etc., which are not only the same in essence but also have equal

capabilities and auspicious qualities in all respects (mentioned earlier).

Jîvas are like images of the Lord with many similar qualities but are

essentially different from Him. These differences which are intrinsic to them

will persist even after Mukti is attained. The most important and basic

differences, like the atomic nature of the souls and their eternal and total

dependence on the Supreme Being, will never change since they are a part of the

soul's essential nature. On the other hand, ISKCON accepts that the living

entities are part and parcel of the Lord. Their concepts are based on a totally

different interpretation of the Gîtâ text mentioned earlier,the matter not being

fully cleared among themselves. But Sri Prabhupada translates the Gîtâ text XV-7

as follows : The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal,

fragmented parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling with the six

senses, which include the mind. In his purport for that verse, which begins

with, "In this verse, the identity of the living being is clearly given. The

living entity is the fragmented part of the Supreme Lord -- eternally. This

concept is entirely unacceptable to Tattvavâda because it is against the Shruti

Pramânas and others considered in the Brahma Sûtras. 3.3 A Question of

Gradation A cardinal doctrine in Tattvavâda is the gradation among souls,with

Chaturmukha Brahma and Mukhyaprâna being considered the highest -- Jîvottama.

The differences in the positions attained in creation, period of sâdhanâ,

degree of devotion, knowledge, etc. are dueto their intrinsic superiority

(svarUpa uttamattva). All the Jîvashave their svarUpa qualities which remain

unaltered throughout their eternal existence including Mukti, when they enjoy

bliss according to their capacity. Unless this feature is accepted, it will be

impossible to accept that the Supreme being is free from the defects of

vaishamya and nairghR^iNya (partiality or neglect). The position of Tattvavâda

is well-supported by numerous Shrutis & Smritis like the Gîtâ and Brahma

Sûtras. For example, the Brahma Sûtra vR^iddhihrAsabhAktvamantarbhAvAt.h

ubhayasAmaJNjasyAdevam.hcan be quoted. The concepts of ISKCON are not clear in

this respect and where expressed they seem to have major differences. For

instance, the interpretation of the Sûtra Anandamayo abhyAsAt.h is made thus:

Both the Lord and the living entity, being qualitatively spirit-soul, have the

tendency for peaceful enjoyment. However, when the part of the Supreme

Personality of Godhead that is the living entity unfortunately wants to enjoy

without Krishna, he is put into the material world, where he begins his life as

Brahma and is gradually degraded to the status of an ant or a worm in stool.

This concept suggesting a fall from an exalted condition of theJîva (though it

is part of "the Supreme Personality of Godhead") does not have any scriptural

support. Though târatamya (Gradation) is not specifically rejected, its

importance in the scheme of things is also not clearly understood in ISKCON as

the same Jîva is thought to be capable of being both Brahma and a worm.

According to Sri Madhva, ISKCON's philosophy is therefore incapable of causing

mukti, because he says: tAratamyaM tato j~neyaM sarvochchattvaM harestathA

| etadvinA na kasyApi vimuktiH syAt.h kathaJNchana ||In other words, the

gradation of souls is to be understood, and the quality of Hari as the Supreme

to be understood based on this (that is, that Hari is not merely blandly

superior, but is superior even to the highest of Jîva-s), and that without this

understanding, nomukti is possible under any circumstance. 3.4 The Unknown

`Panchama Purushârtha' According to Tattvavâda, like all other schools of

Vedânta,Moksha is the Supreme Purushârtha or objective of the Soul. The

realizationof one's own nature of bliss for eternal enjoyment is by the grace

of the Supreme Being. By His Aparoksha, the veils obscuring theJîva's own

swarupa and that of the Supreme Being are removed. The intense love of the

Supreme Being, called devotion, continues in Moxa as well. Since it is natural

and is of the essential nature of theJîva himself, it transforms itself into

Bliss. On the other hand, ISKCON considers that there is a fifthpurushârtha

even superior to Moksha, which a true devotee of Krishna will seek. This is

prema bhakti, of the same kind as the Gopis had for Krishna in His incarnation.

This devotion involves performing some service to the Lord, which will continue

even after liberation. This appears to be based on a superficial reading of a

verse from Bhâgavataextolling the love that very exalted devotees have for the

Supreme being by saying that their devotion is so natural and intense that they

do not have even Mukti as their objective. They say that this love will continue

even after Mukti and is not a substitute thereof. This concept is not accepted

by Tattvavâda, as Achârya Madhva hasquoted in Gîtâ Bhâshya (Chapter 2 -- shloka

50 ) -- na moxasadR^ishaM kiJNchid.h adhikaM vA sukhaM kvachit.h | R^ite

vaishhNavamAnandaM vAN^mano.agocharaM mahat.h ||-- ityAdeshcha

brahmAdipadAdapyadhikatamaM sukhaM cha mokSha, iti siddham.h ||Similarly

ISKCON admit that even intense hatred for the Supreme being can result in

Liberation giving the examples of Shishupala etc. But Tattvavâda holds that

only devotion can get Mukthi and neverdvesha or hatred for God, The examples

quoted in the Bhâgavata areexplained by the concept of Jîva Dvayâvesha --

Shishupala having theswarupa of Jaya (the gate keeper at Vaikuntha) who was

afflicted with a life on Earth due to a curse by a Rshi. There was an âvesha or

superimposition of an evil Jîva who was actually responsible forall of

Shishupala's temporary hatred for God. So only the good deserve Mukti and

obtain it. 3.5 Four Correct Traditions? ISKCON also believes that four

Vaishnava Sampradâyas are valid and base their conclusion on a shloka from

Padma Purâna (which is not found in standard editions): atah kalau

bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah | sri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnavah

ksiti-pavanah || ramanujam srih svcakre madhvacaryam caturmukhah |

sri-visnu-svaminam rudro nimbadityam catuhsanah ||Tattvavâda does not accept

the validity of this shloka, whichseems to hold that different Vedânta schools

which have been arguingover the correct interpretation of Vedânta Shrutis since

theirinception are all valid -- in spite of essential differences. The same

confused approach of ISKCON is also seen in their acceptance of theBhâgavata

Bhâshya by Sridhara Swamin, which tends to interpret many texts according to

Advaitic tenets, while they claim to follow Dvaita school whenever it's

convenient. According to Tattvavâda, the only correct school is that of Achârya

Madhva -- ante siddhastusiddhAnto madhvasyAgama eva hi in the words of the

revered saint -- Sri Vâdirâja. 4 Peculiar views of traditionThere are also

some beliefs peculiar to ISKCON which are not shared by any of the three major

Vedânta schools. These are: 4.1 Identification of their Founder Sri Krishna

Chaitanya with Lord Krishna o They interpret the Bhâgavata text --

kR^ishhNavarNaM kalau kR^ishhNaM ... yajanti hi sumedhasaH as showing Chaitanya

(a.k.a. Chaitanya Mahâprabhu) as an incarnation of Vishnu. This interpretation

is baseless. No Avatar of the lord in Kaliyuga is stipulated by authorized

compositions like Purânas, etc., composedby Sri Veda Vyâsa. o There are

also basically untrue and fanciful stories in some "historical" works written

much after him about Sri Krishna Chaitanya giving assurances to Achârya Madhva

of following him and preaching the correct doctrines. Madhva's authentic

biography Sumadhvavijaya, composed immediately after Achârya Madhva, and his

tradition do not report any such events. Since they are not mentioned, there is

no ground for such stories. o Even the Vishnu Sahasranâma, known to depict

the thousand names of Vishnu, is quoted in support by ISKCON -- suvarNavarNa

hemAN^go varAN^gashchandanAN^gadI, etc., which are all used to refer to only

one form of the Lord in the original -- to refer to Sri Krishna Chaitanya!

Tattvavâda does not accept these or any such interpretations with no valid

basis, which even prima facie appear to fail the test of consistency with valid

scriptural statements. o A work called Chaitanya Charitâmrta also

elaborates an entirely fanciful account of the visit of Sri Krishna Chaitanya

to Udupi and his "defeating" the Tattvavâdi ascetics there. Needlessto say, the

account has no basis of reality, since it was composed much later with no record

of any discussions being preserved. It also, in the words of Mm. B.N.K. Sharma,

grossly misunderstands theTattvavâda position on "the relative positions of

karma, j~nâna and bhakti in the scheme of the sâdhana-s". It should also be

noted that the fictitious Tattvavâda Achârya in the Chaitanya Charitâmrtais not

allowed a single quotation from scripture in favor of his position, while his

opponent offers several. Also to be noted is that Chaitanya propounds a "fifth

purushârtha" entirely without support from scripture, but is not challenged

upon the point by the Tattvavâda teacher, which is incredible. These and other

such bogus accounts appear to be embellishments thought up in the recent past

by illiterates. 4.2 Râdhâ -- a bogus deity There are other concepts based

essentially on Brahma VaivartaPurâna allegedly glorifying Râdhâ as superior

even to Lakshmî(eternal consort of the Lord), the superior position of Goloka,

etc. None of these find a place in Tattvavâda, and these quotes are all equally

bogus. 4.3 False attribution of Madhva's Authorship A completely bogus text

called Tatvamuktâvali orMayâvâda-Shata- Dushani, written by an 18th century

scholar called Poornânanda,has been wrongly attributed to Achârya Madhva. There

are authentic and traditional documents which clearly show that this is totally

incorrect. PostscriptYou may also like to see: o H.H. Pejavara Swamiji's

message to the followers of ISKCON asking that bogus claims be withdrawn.

New! o A review of Prabhupada's `Bhagavad Gita As-It-Is. Unfortunately,

it doesn't follow the "disciplic succession" claimed, and hence, there is no

link between Krishna and Prabhupada as stated. o Bhagavad Gita 10.41 --

Madhva's take on kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h, where he rejects the notion

that Krishna alone is the original form. o A Response to Our Critics.

Confused about why some Mâdhva-s don't seem to agree with us? Read this.

(Editing & web placement by Prasanna Tadipatri & Shrisha Rao .) To

from this group, send an email to:Kali_MaYour use

of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna! All glories to Srila Prabhupada and all Vaisnavas who

walk in the pure love of Sri Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Please

accept my humble obeisances. I pray that this meets each and

everyone in this wonderful group in perfect health and in the

service of Guru and Gauranga.

 

There was a request sent to me by a wonderful friend requesting that

I reply to a post entitled "Why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so

Intolerant?". In this post, there were several questions asked that

are certainly viable. It is not my intent to offend anyone, so I

humbly ask for forgiveness now if any find offense to this post. It

is my intention to teach what the position of Gaudiya Vaishnavaism

is, not the separatism that it has become known for.

 

Moderator's message : To read more kindly refer to the group file entittled :

Why are Gaudiya Vaishnavas so intolerant?