Other Sampradayas,

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha!

srI krishNa parabrahmaNE namaha!

srImAn nArAyaNa charaNau saraNam prapadyE!

 

Sriman chaitanya das ji,

 

Bondafide AchArya is that person who attained

knowledge from the Supreme Lord Hari in an unbroken

disciplic succession without changing the contents. I

am happy to know that you consider bhagavad

rAmAnujAchArya as one such saD-AchArya. The knowledge

imparted by Sri rAmAnuja AchArya is uncontaminated,

free from maligned motivations and supremely correct.

The authority of his perfection of bhakti is shining

in the form of his magnum opus, srI bhAshya, though

all his other works are also equally great. He taught

the world how to self surrender unto the Supreme Lord

as inscribed in the scriptures. Inspite of all his

glory, the followers of sri ananda teertha blaspheme

such blemishless sri ramanuja with harsh words. Their

AchAryAs even present Sri rAmAnuja as an incarnation

of a demon named vAtApi, who can save them from the

eternal hell for such a bhAgavad aparAda? Not even the

Lord Himself can save them.

 

I can understand from your words that you are a

gaudiya vaishNava. I have no comment to offer for your

belief that there are 4 bonafide sampradAyAs. But

frankly speaking, the recent neo vedantists are the

people who say that there is no difference between all

the AchAryAs, but only the followers fight for their

ego. But the point to be observed is that the entire

understanding of Sri rAmAnujA's visishTa advaitha is

different from sri Ananda teertha's dwaitha. The very

ontological position of brAhmaN, jIva and matter are

seen in a completely different way in these two

sAmpradAyAs.

 

I also have a strong objection to gaudiyA's position

as followers of madhva sAmpradAya as there is no real

disciplic line. (disciplic line just doesnot mean

guru's sishya is next guru, but the guru's teachings

are unchanged by sishya when he becomes guru.) If

there were a disciplic line, then gaudiyAs cannot

deviate from sri Ananda teertha's pancha-bhEda and

formulate their own achintya bhEda-abhEda. It would

have been proper to call themselves chaitanya

sampradAya, rather than 'madhva-gaudiya' sampradAya if

they want to have a different interpretation of

vedanta. If a disciplic line is genuine, then they

will not deviate from the original teacher's readings

(in this case sri madhva's). Hence, I do not see any

genuinity of Gaudiyas as a bonafide vaishnava

disciplic line, even in the case of Sri madhva being a

bonafide AchArya. Hence their teaching that there are

4 bonafide disciplic lines is of little value.

 

I do not mean to offend the devotion of gaudiya

vaishNavAs or madhvas, but exposing the truth behind

the genuinity of their disciplic lines.

 

Please enlighten me, if you see any misunderstanding

in me.

 

Emperumanar thiruvadigalE saraNam!

 

your menial servant,

srIperumbUdUru vEnkata vinOd.

 

--- manoram chaitanyadas <manoramjps wrote:

> Dear Swami,

>

> Pranams!

>

> Hare krsna.

>

> The spiritual school started by Sri Ananda tirtha is

> a

> bonafide line.Great personalities Like Sri

> Ramanuja,Sri Desikan ,Sri Ananda tirtha and many

> more

> descend from the spirtual world to deliver the

> condition souls at differnt times.

>

> The lord can be glorified in differnt ways and it

> happens according to time,place and

> circumstance.Spirtual exchanges are good but it

> shouldn't end in arguements.

>

> Arguements are made by immatured spiritualists.Best

> is

> to avoid them .Otherwise they become offensive to

> the

> philosphy and to the great acharyas who propogated

> it.

>

> I have many friends from the Madhva line who

> appreciate other Samapradya practices and

> philosphy.It

> is good to know the philosphy of Sri Ananda teerta

> but

> it is impossible to refute as Sri Ananda teertha is

> non differnt from Vayu deva and his philosphy has no

> stains .

>

> I dont know much philosphy but have great faith and

> respect for the Vaishnava acharyas.Forgive me if i

> have written anything offensive.

>

> Dasanu dasan,

> Manoram chaitanya das.

>

>

>

>

>

> Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.

> http://baseball.fantasysports./

>

 

 

 

 

 

Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkata Ji

Dandavat pranama

 

 

Can i know who is Ananda Teetha and can you please explain the

philosophy of Panca bheda.

 

 

Thank you

In Vaishnava service

 

Ramananda

[Guest guest]

{Moderator's note:

 

Thanks to Sri Krishna Susarla for posting this. I regret that I let the original

post with fairly strong words against a sampradaya not being discussed in this

list pass through. I have to close this discussion with this post.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

}

 

I am posting this only in response to Vinod's criticisms and his

request for corrections. Since this is not a gauDIya forum, I will

thank Vinod and others to refrain from further discussing this matter

here, but instead to discuss with me privately by e-mail or via a

gauDIya mailing list such as www.achintya.org. Since he has

introduced the subject here, I believe one response would be fair.

Let us then keep further responses off of this mailing list unless

the moderator has no objection.

 

ramanuja, vinod sv <winode_sv> wrote:

 

Inspite of all his

> glory, the followers of sri ananda teertha blaspheme

> such blemishless sri ramanuja with harsh words. Their

> AchAryAs even present Sri rAmAnuja as an incarnation

> of a demon named vAtApi, who can save them from the

> eternal hell for such a bhAgavad aparAda? Not even the

> Lord Himself can save them.

 

Just for my reference, can you point to where their AchAryas have

said this? I agree that it is offensive and uncalled for. I just want

to know exactly who said that and where.

 

> I can understand from your words that you are a

> gaudiya vaishNava. I have no comment to offer for your

> belief that there are 4 bonafide sampradAyAs. But

> frankly speaking, the recent neo vedantists are the

> people who say that there is no difference between all

> the AchAryAs,

 

Just FYI, gauDIyas do *not* say there is no difference between these

four sampradAyas. I agree with you that such a belief is

characteristic of neo-Vedanta.

 

> I also have a strong objection to gaudiyA's position

> as followers of madhva sAmpradAya as there is no real

> disciplic line. (disciplic line just doesnot mean

> guru's sishya is next guru, but the guru's teachings

> are unchanged by sishya when he becomes guru.) If

> there were a disciplic line, then gaudiyAs cannot

> deviate from sri Ananda teertha's pancha-bhEda and

> formulate their own achintya bhEda-abhEda.

 

According to the Advaita Vedanta home page (http://www.advaita-

vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html) the guru-paramparA of shrI

shankarAchArya is given as descending from shrImAn nArAyaNa through

shrI vedavyAsa. Now, we all know that shrI vedavyAsa was not an

advaitin, and shruti-s do not teach advaita. The point is, if one

must never differ from the opinions of pUrvAchAryas in the guru-

parmamparA (your position), then you must also object to

shankarAchArya's guru-parmparA also.

 

Do you?

 

It would

> have been proper to call themselves chaitanya

> sampradAya, rather than 'madhva-gaudiya' sampradAya if

> they want to have a different interpretation of

> vedanta. If a disciplic line is genuine, then they

> will not deviate from the original teacher's readings

> (in this case sri madhva's). Hence, I do not see any

> genuinity of Gaudiyas as a bonafide vaishnava

> disciplic line, even in the case of Sri madhva being a

> bonafide AchArya.

 

These are strong statements, but there are historical precedents to

the contrary.

 

Some of Madhva's own biographers (in Mani-manjari for example) record

his paramparA as being through his Advaitin guru Achyuta Preksha

(even though he later converted him). VallabhAchArya, a contemporary

of shrI chaitanya, has a guru-paramparA from shrIdhar swAmI even

though these two have different doctrines. And as mentioned

previously, shrI shankarAchArya claims a guru-paramparA through shrI

vedavyAsa. I am not aware of any shrI vaiShnava writings which

dispute this.

 

History has shown that exceptional AchAryas sometimes do inaugurate

new doctrines. Regardless of doctrinal differences, etiquette

requires that one still pay homage to his guru. I do not agree with

your position that gauDIyas should not list the madhva paramparA

preceeding their own. In fact, for them to neglect the gurus prior to

mAdhavendra purI would be quite rude.

 

Hence their teaching that there are

> 4 bonafide disciplic lines is of little value.

>

> I do not mean to offend the devotion of gaudiya

> vaishNavAs or madhvas, but exposing the truth behind

> the genuinity of their disciplic lines.

 

shrI baladeva vidyAbhUShana, the gauDIya commentator on vedAnta-sUtra

and an accomplished scholar during his time, listed this mAdhva guru-

paramparA in his own prameya-ratnAvalI. I believe AchAryas such as he

have the prerogative to speak for their sampradAya on such matters as

lineage and succession, without others having to "expose" something

for them.

 

> Please enlighten me, if you see any misunderstanding

> in me.

 

As per your request. But I kindly suggest you keep your criticisms of

gauDIyas off of this list and consider private e-mail or a

specifically gauDIya forum for such discussions. I do not think it

would be fair to one's sampradAya to be criticized, and no responses

be allowed on the grounds that they are not about Sri Vaishnavism. I

think you get the idea.

 

warm regards,

 

HariKrishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Allthe devotees should be united.

Checkout Sarva Vaishnava Samgosthi at: http://www.chinnajeeyar.org/SarvaVaishnavaSamgoshti.htm

Weshould unite by aligning the similarities and distancing the differences.

 

 

 

krishna_susarla[krishna_susarla ]Tuesday, April 12,

20059:25 PMramanujaSubject: [ramanuja]Re: Other

Sampradayas,

***************************************************************************************************

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.

Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is

unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any

review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or

omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you

are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this

message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies

thereof from your system.

***************************************************************************************************

[Guest guest]

When we see discussions on other sampradaya throwing both heat and light Chinna

jear swamys, saying comes to my mind.I quote " Sweeya aradhana Sarva

adharana".this is definitely formula for harmony and not expose that we Hindus

are devided house

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

Krishnamachary,Vedanthamkrishna_susarla <krishna_susarla > wrote:

{Moderator's note:Thanks to Sri Krishna Susarla for posting this. I regret that

I let the original post with fairly strong words against a sampradaya not being

discussed in this list pass through. I have to close this discussion with this

post.adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,varadhan}I am posting this only in response to

Vinod's criticisms and his request for corrections. Since this is not a gauDIya

forum, I will thank Vinod and others to refrain from further discussing this

matter here, but instead to discuss with me privately by e-mail or via a

gauDIya mailing list such as www.achintya.org. Since he has introduced the

subject here, I believe one response would be fair. Let us then keep further

responses off of this mailing list unless the moderator has no objection.--- In

ramanuja, vinod sv

<winode_sv> wrote:Inspite of all his> glory, the followers of sri ananda

teertha blaspheme> such blemishless sri ramanuja with harsh words. Their>

AchAryAs even present Sri rAmAnuja as an incarnation> of a demon named vAtApi,

who can save them from the> eternal hell for such a bhAgavad aparAda? Not even

the> Lord Himself can save them. Just for my reference, can you point to where

their AchAryas have said this? I agree that it is offensive and uncalled for. I

just want to know exactly who said that and where. > I can understand from your

words that you are a> gaudiya vaishNava. I have no comment to offer for your>

belief that there are 4 bonafide sampradAyAs. But> frankly speaking, the recent

neo vedantists are the> people who say that there is no difference between all>

the AchAryAs,Just FYI, gauDIyas do *not* say there is no difference between

these

four sampradAyas. I agree with you that such a belief is characteristic of

neo-Vedanta. > I also have a strong objection to gaudiyA's position> as

followers of madhva sAmpradAya as there is no real> disciplic line. (disciplic

line just doesnot mean> guru's sishya is next guru, but the guru's teachings>

are unchanged by sishya when he becomes guru.) If> there were a disciplic line,

then gaudiyAs cannot> deviate from sri Ananda teertha's pancha-bhEda and>

formulate their own achintya bhEda-abhEda.According to the Advaita Vedanta home

page (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html) the

guru-paramparA of shrI shankarAchArya is given as descending from shrImAn

nArAyaNa through shrI vedavyAsa. Now, we all know that shrI vedavyAsa was not

an advaitin, and shruti-s do not teach advaita. The point is, if one must never

differ from the opinions

of pUrvAchAryas in the guru-parmamparA (your position), then you must also

object to shankarAchArya's guru-parmparA also.Do you?It would> have been proper

to call themselves chaitanya> sampradAya, rather than 'madhva-gaudiya'

sampradAya if> they want to have a different interpretation of> vedanta. If a

disciplic line is genuine, then they> will not deviate from the original

teacher's readings> (in this case sri madhva's). Hence, I do not see any>

genuinity of Gaudiyas as a bonafide vaishnava> disciplic line, even in the case

of Sri madhva being a> bonafide AchArya.These are strong statements, but there

are historical precedents to the contrary.Some of Madhva's own biographers (in

Mani-manjari for example) record his paramparA as being through his Advaitin

guru Achyuta Preksha (even though he later converted him). VallabhAchArya, a

contemporary of shrI chaitanya, has

a guru-paramparA from shrIdhar swAmI even though these two have different

doctrines. And as mentioned previously, shrI shankarAchArya claims a

guru-paramparA through shrI vedavyAsa. I am not aware of any shrI vaiShnava

writings which dispute this.History has shown that exceptional AchAryas

sometimes do inaugurate new doctrines. Regardless of doctrinal differences,

etiquette requires that one still pay homage to his guru. I do not agree with

your position that gauDIyas should not list the madhva paramparA preceeding

their own. In fact, for them to neglect the gurus prior to mAdhavendra purI

would be quite rude.Hence their teaching that there are> 4 bonafide disciplic

lines is of little value.> > I do not mean to offend the devotion of gaudiya>

vaishNavAs or madhvas, but exposing the truth behind> the genuinity of their

disciplic lines.shrI baladeva vidyAbhUShana, the gauDIya commentator on

vedAnta-sUtra and an accomplished scholar during his time, listed this mAdhva

guru-paramparA in his own prameya-ratnAvalI. I believe AchAryas such as he have

the prerogative to speak for their sampradAya on such matters as lineage and

succession, without others having to "expose" something for them. > Please

enlighten me, if you see any misunderstanding> in me.As per your request. But I

kindly suggest you keep your criticisms of gauDIyas off of this list and

consider private e-mail or a specifically gauDIya forum for such discussions. I

do not think it would be fair to one's sampradAya to be criticized, and no

responses be allowed on the grounds that they are not about Sri Vaishnavism. I

think you get the idea.warm regards,HariKrishna SusarlaazhwAr emberumAnAr

jeeyAr thiruvadigalE

saranamTired of

spam? Mail has the best spam protection around