ISKCON vs. Visistadvaita: souls bondage issue

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

adiyen had some interesting conversations with Swamy Hridayananda Goswami

of ISKCON movement regarding the "souls bondage issue". The argument is

only regarding one point here :

 

Modern ISKCON view (based on Sri Hridayananda Goswami and Other ISKCON

swamis' book "Our Original Position") :

>From time immemorial souls were in bondage. In other words we dont know

when souls got into bondage. Since it was such a long time ago, in texts

the word "anadi" is used. even though according to dictionaries "anadi"

means beginningless, it actually means "a very very long time ago".

 

VIsistadvaita view:

 

Anadi actually means beginningless. ie. no beginning. Never was a time

when a soul (non-nitya suri soul) was not in bondage. from beginningless

time till salvation, souls are in bondage.

 

Adiyen will post a series of discussions on this subject only to give the

readers some extra points regarding this issue. Many of you already know

this information. The influence of ISKCON on Srivaishnavas is significant

outside India, since ISKCON temples specialize in Krishna worship which is

dear to srivaishnavas. In future our next generation should be equipped

with appropriate information to appreciate our acharyas' views on this

subject. I thought that it is necessary to do this since that ISKCON

publication mis represents Sri Ramanuja sampradaya.

 

adiyen Krishna Kalale

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Kalale, namaskaram

 

Thanks for your insight on this issue. I think that we have corresponded

before. I have been a member of ISKCON for many years (since the early

70's) and my wife and I now own a house in Sri Rangam and actively study

and follow the tenets of Tengalai Sri Vaisnavism. I have studied Pancaratra

and had Chakrabja Mandala (Archaka) Diksha (including Pancasamskara) from

the Late Y. R. Vasudeva Bhattar, previous professor of Pancaratra at the

Maharaja's Sanskrit College, Mysore.

 

I would just like to mention some points that you may not be aware of

concerning ISKCON and this issue.

 

1. Hridyananda Goswami's opinion is not shared by all members of ISKCON.

Many persons in ISKCON agree with practically everything you have stated.

(Concerning the Jaya Vijaya example it is commonly understood even in

ISKCON that they are Nitya Siddhas or Nitya Suris as you state and that

they came to the material universe on the order of the Lord to engage in

Lila with Him. The curse of the sages being itself a Lila and just a

pretext for the Lord to have them come here. Even in ISKCON literature in

this regard Bhaktivedanta Swami states that "it is a fact that no one falls

from a Vaikuntha planet". He also states that it is impossible for there to

be envy in Vaikuntha but concedes that even if there were envy there, the

Lord would protect His associates in Vaikuntha from falldown due to it's

effects.)

 

2. There is no support for Hridayananda Goswamis opinion from any other

group in the "Chaitanya Sampradaya" (or any other sampradaya as you know

and have stated). In fact these opinions are laughed at by members of

ISKCON's Parent Organization, the Gaudiya Math. Actually it seems to me

that this idea is a Judeo-Christian influence (ie fall-down from paradise

due to original sin). This may have something to do with the fact that most

members of ISKCON come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds. Maybe they find

this more acceptable, than beginningless bondage.

 

3. Hridayananda's book was written in response to another book written by

Kundali das and Satyanarayana das entitled "Not even leaves fall in

Vaikuntha". Actually these are only the last in a long line of books and

papers that have argued this point back and forth in ISKCON.

 

4. There are several philosophical controversies like this that plague

ISKCON. This is due to the fact that the members don't read the works

written by their purva acharyas (but only read the writings of ISKCON's

founder/acharya A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami). Therefore no one seems to know

the exact position of their sampradaya on several points. However in recent

years some followers have made the effort to become more educated as to the

traditional views of their sampradaya. Sometimes this leads them to leaving

the organization for another "more traditional" branch of that sampradaya.

 

5. The "Chaitanya Sampradaya" itself is a very factional confederacy. As

you have noted Sri Chaitanya Himself (who left us only 8 Slokas) has

recommended Sridhara Swami's Bhagavatam commentary. The basic philosophy of

the sampradaya is found in the sanskrit works of the (6) Goswamis

(followers of Sri Chaitanya). However a large amount of literature in

Bengali (and other vernaculars) is also available. They had no commentary

on Prastana Trayi until a controversy in Jaipur concerning the authenticity

of their group prompted Baladeva to write one. And Baladeva himself (born

in Orissa, educated in Mysore) has his own (Madhva and other) influences in

his writings. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and his guru Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati (taking the idea from Baladeva's Premeya Ratnavali) have stressed

their lineage from the Madhva sampradaya however this is rejected by most

other Gaudiyas. Their philosophy is very different on many basic points

from Madhva's and it seems just to be a matter of show that they list their

guruparampara as coming from Madhva. If you see Prameya Ratnavali you will

see that Baladeva is convinced by a Puranic quote that there are only four

bonafide sampradayas. Therefore it is not surprising that he traces his

lineage to one of them (Madhva's) to gain authenticity. More information on

this can be found in BNK Sharma's History of Dvaita Vedanta and it's

Literature.

 

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

 

Keshava das

[Guest guest]

> other Gaudiyas. Their philosophy is very different on many basic points

> from Madhva's and it seems just to be a matter of show that they

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

list their

> guruparampara as coming from Madhva. If you see Prameya Ratnavali you will

> see that Baladeva is convinced by a Puranic quote that there are only four

> bonafide sampradayas. Therefore it is not surprising that he

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

traces his

^^^^^^^^^

> lineage to one of them (Madhva's) to gain authenticity. More

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

The idea that Baladeva Vidyabhushana and his descendants incorrectly claimed

disciplic descent from Madhva simply as a matter of show and/or to "gain

authenticty" is not consistent with the actual facts. Unfortunately, such

ideas are currently en vogue among scholars and critics of Gaudiya

Vaishnavism. Without getting into an in-depth rebuttal here, I would like to

ask that some sort of decision be made as to the appropriateness of these

kinds of sectarian remarks to this list. If it is going to be acceptable to

post these kinds of unflattering remarks about another sampradaya and its

acharyas, then it seems only logical to allow for a response.

 

It does not seem particularly fair to allow these kinds of sectarian remarks

on the list while discouraging any responses to them as off topic. Note that

I am not questioning the fall/no-fall thread itself, since I think that is

appropriate, even though it happens to involve the views of another

tradition and some of its devotees. I am only questioning the

appropriateness of the implicit claim that a well-respected Gaudiya

Vaishnava acharya has falsified the details of his parampara for the sake of

spiritual acceptance. Aside from being just plain impolite, this has nothing

to do with the thread as entitled above.

 

information on

> this can be found in BNK Sharma's History of Dvaita Vedanta and it's

> Literature

 

Actually, BNK Sharma gives several arguments as to how the Madhva-Gaudiya

connection can be accepted.

 

regards,

 

HKS