The Madhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa according to Srila Bhaktivinod

[Guest guest]

from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Jaiva Dharma Ch. 13

 

 

Babaji: Misled by impersonalism, many people in the world have left

the true path. If the devotees untainted by impersonalism do not have

their own disciplic succession, then it will be very difficult to

associate with true devotees of the Lord. In the Padma Purana it is

written: "Unless you are initiated by a bona-fide spiritual master in

the disciplic succession, the mantra that you might have received is

without any effect. The four Vaisnava disciplic successions,

beginning from Laksmi-devi, Brahma, Siva and Sanaka Kumara, have

purified the entire world." Of all of these, the disciplic succession

from Lord Brahma is the oldest. The disciplic succession begins with

Brahma and extends even to the present day. The Vedas, Vedangas,

Vedanta, and other scriptures have been passed down unchanged from an

ancient time, carefully preserved by the disciplic succession.

Nothing has been changed or added to the scripture under the care of

the disciplic succession. Therefore no one should doubt that the

Vedas and other scriptures that are accepted by the bona-fide

disciplic succession are authentic. There is a great need for a bona-

fide disciplic succession. Therefore from the earliest time the great

saints have followed the bona-fide disciplic succession.

Vrajanatha: Are there complete lists of the disciplic successions?

Babaji: The lists contain the names of only the most important

acaryas. It is their names that are included in the lists.

Vrajanatha: I wish to hear the list of acaryas in the disciplic

succession from Brahma.

Babaji: Here is the list: "Lord Brahma is the direct disciple of

Visnu, the Lord of the spiritual sky. His disciple is Narada,

Narada's disciple is Vyasa, and Vyasa's disciples are Sukadeva

Goswami and Madhvacarya. Padmanabha Acarya is the disciple of

Madhvacarya, and Narahari is the disciple of Padmanabha Acarya.

Madhava is the disciple of Narahari, Aksobhya is the direct disciple

of Madhava, and Jayatirtha is the disciple of Aksobhya. Jayatirtha's

disciple is Jnanasindhu, and his disciple is Mahanidhi. Vidyanidhi is

the disciple of Mahanidhi, and Rajendra is the disciple of

Vidyanidhi. Jayadharma is the disciple of Rajendra. Purusottama is

the disciple of Jayadharma. Sriman Laksmipati is the disciple of

Vyasatirtha, who is the disciple of Purusottama. And Madhavendra Puri

is the disciple of Laksmipati."

[Guest guest]

 

It is interesting to note that the titles of acharyas listed in Madhva

sampradaya end with 'tirtha' but when it comes to beginning of the Gaudiyas, it

changes to 'Puri', Madhavendra, Ishvara etc.,...and I have read that the list

given by Gaudiyas is not in total agreement with what the Madhvas themselves

give, even upto Vyasatirtha - is that true? and, are there good answers to

these discrepancies?

 

in your service,

Aravind.

[Guest guest]

The reason I posted this was to shed some light on our parampara's

relationship with the parampara of Sri Madhva. Nobody doubts that our

doctrines are different, but nevertheless even acharyas like Srila

Bhaktivinod emphasize the relationship.

 

Why does he do this? He quotes the Padma Purana sloka indicating that

only 4 sampradayas are authorized to distribute mantras in the Kali

Yuga, one of which is the Brahma sampradaya. Some argue that the

connection with Madhva (and hence Brahma) was only to appease

critics. But when we take this sloka into consideration (which,

though extant, is nevertheless quoted and accepted by our acharyas),

then we have to either accept that our connection with the Brahma-

Madhva parampara is NOT a mere formality or that our sampradaya is

not one of the four authorized sampradayas. Clearly, the second

option is not acceptable. The Gaudiya parampara is bona fide, because

among other things, it does have its roots in one of the four

original sampradaya acharyas (Brahma, Lakshmi, Kumaras, Rudra), even

though the parampara in between has its own ideas (Madhva).

 

Then the argument comes, "yes but our doctrine is different from

Madhva, and so our concept of parampara can differ from him as well."

That may be, but are we prepared to say that our doctrine is distinct

from that taught by Lord Krishna to Lord Brahma, to Narada and then

Vyasa? That is tantamount to spiritual suicide. Somebody who tells me

that he has invented something new that is different from what Vyasa

taught, has essentially told me that he is not bona fide and need not

be taken seriously. Such arguments may not pose a problem to those

whose concept of Hinduism is "everything is fine, everything is

alright, nothing is wrong." They are not, however, the kinds of

arguments that are embraced by Vedantist scholars.

 

This is why the Gaudiya parampara is really nondifferent from the

Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa parampara. Because Gaudiya Vaishnavism

isn't just inspired by the Bhagavatam; it IS the living

representative of the Bhagavata tradition, which is itself nothing

more than the essence of the Vedic tradition. Saying that Gaudiyas

are not Vedic because they don't chant shruti mantras daily or

perform elaborate sacrifices is short-sighted and superficial. The

real point of the Vedas is knowing Krishna, as per BG 15.15. To truly

be Vedic, it isn't sufficient to perform so many sacrifices, but

rather one must know the proper place of everything in the Vedas,

which is to please Krishna. This is why it is correct to say that the

Gaudiya sampradaya is Vedic, when it extracts the essence of the

Vedas that is directly relevant to Vaishnavas looking for ultimate

surrender. Many of these sacrifices are not practical in this age

when people are less austere, have shorter lives, and shorter

attention spans. SO only the most direct and effective approach has

been taken. This is not tantamount to rejecting the other methods; it

simply means that the other methods are not as effective.

 

The critics have a hard time with this very straightforward position.

Frankly, they strike me as being confused as to the relationship of

revealed scripture with that of the acharya's writings. That the two

are consonant is not a given; it is the test of the authenticity of

the acharya. Thus, when one sees an apparent contradiction between

what the acharya has written and what is in scripture, one does not

merely ignore scripture and assume his understanding of the acharya

is correct. The correct position to look at the acharya's words in

the context of scripture. Doing otherwise means to put them at odds,

imply that they are different, and in short, disgrace the acharya by

implying that he has manufactured a new doctrine. Again, such

representations are not a problem for watered-down, neo-Vedantic, new-

age Hindu leaders. They are not, however, flattering to those who try

to represent the eternal Vedic tradition.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

> Haribol,

>

> It is interesting to note that the titles of acharyas listed in

Madhva sampradaya end with 'tirtha' but when it comes to beginning of

the Gaudiyas, it changes to 'Puri', Madhavendra, Ishvara etc.,...and

I have read that the list given by Gaudiyas is not in total agreement

with what the Madhvas themselves give, even upto Vyasatirtha - is

that true? and, are there good answers to these discrepancies?

>

> in your service,

> Aravind.

 

The system of dashanaami sannyaasi is followed by Advaitin

sannyaasiis usually. Since Madhva was intiated into an Advaitic

tradition, he was originally given the name Aananda Tiirtha.

Traditionally, Maadhvas therefore use the "Tiirtha" title in their

sannyaasii names.

 

OBL Kapoor, in his book _The Philosophy and Religion of Sri

Caitanya_, speculates that Maadhavendra Puri and Iishvara Puri were

originally sannyaasiis of the Shankara sampradaaya, which would

explain why they had "Puri" in their titles. He argues that they were

already well known Advaitic sannyaasiis who converted to Vaishnavism

after meeting Lakshmiipati Tiirtha. Since they had already a

reputation by their old names, they simply kept them while promoting

Vaishnavism.

 

Regarding the inconsistences of paramparaa listing, BNK Sharma

himself (a Dvaita scholar) points out that there are inconsistencies

between different Maadhva math listings in his book _History and

Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_. However, he finds the

listing of the Gaudiiyas to be plausible, and explains how this is

so. I personally doubt that one is going to find a lot of historical

records to argue one way or another, and hence whether or not you

believe it depends on whether or not you take the Gaudiiyas at their

word. Recall that there is no historical evidence that Madhva took

initiation from Vyaasa; we accept this because this is what he said.

 

Contemporary Maadhva aachaaryas do accept the Gaudiiya paramparaa as

being an offshot of their own. Just see the following URL

 

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/indexh.html

 

....in which several letters by Maadhva leaders are printed saying

something to this effect.

 

In my experience, it is only the hot-headed Maadhva youngsters who

are envious of Gaudiiya's widespread influence that tend to deny the

connection. In all the years I have observed their various arguments,

I have seen nothing convincing that would refute the possibility of a

connection.

 

Keep in mind also that, it would be ludicrous for Gaudiiyas to claim

disciplic descent from Madhva merely so that others considered them

bona fide. There is no evidence that Chaitanya took initiation in any

sampradaaya other than that of Madhva's. All of the Gaudiiya

literature points in this direction. Furthermore, there is no

evidence anywhere that Lord Chaitanya was trying to represent the

doctrine of Madhva, or that of any other aachaarya's Vedaanta

commentary. If He were merely seeking to identify His paramparaa with

another, established paramparaa just to give it some authenticity,

then why choose Madhva, with whom there are numerous differences?

Mahaaprabhu's followers could have chosen the Kumaara or Rudra

sampradaayas, with whom they share more in common philosophically.

Not only that, but it would have been much easier to claim to come in

one of these sampradaayas since their records were far less organized

than those of the Maadhva or Raamaanuja Maths.

 

It therefore makes no sense why Lord Chaitanya would claim disciplic

descent from Madhva, unless it was simply true.

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, krishna_susarla wrote:

> OBL Kapoor, in his book _The Philosophy and Religion of Sri

> Caitanya_, speculates that Maadhavendra Puri and Iishvara Puri were

> originally sannyaasiis of the Shankara sampradaaya, which would

> explain why they had "Puri" in their titles. He argues that they were

> already well known Advaitic sannyaasiis who converted to Vaishnavism

> after meeting Lakshmiipati Tiirtha. Since they had already a

> reputation by their old names, they simply kept them while promoting

> Vaishnavism.

 

There are others too. It seems that in those days, "sannyasa" practically meant

Advaitin sannyasa--even for Vaisnavas--and that Kasi was a center for these

bhakti-friendly "Advaitins." Madhusudana Sarasvati was definitely a mayavadi,

yet he wrote "krsnat param kim api tattvam aham na jane" (I know no truth higher

than Krsna). On the other hand, whatever we make of it, there are even now in

ISKCON sannyasis with the names Puri and Tirtha.

 

 

 

> Keep in mind also that, it would be ludicrous for Gaudiiyas to claim

> disciplic descent from Madhva merely so that others considered them

> bona fide.

 

It's really ironic that although the oldest sources (such as

Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika) solidly affirm the Madhva connection, scholars and other

sectarians still question it, exactly as sceptics question God's existence

despite the overwhelmingly supporting evidence.

 

 

 

> Not only that, but it would have been much easier to claim to come in

> one of these sampradaayas since their records were far less organized

> than those of the Maadhva or Raamaanuja Maths.

 

In fact, some scholars say that this is exactly why Vallabhacarya could claim

the pontificial chair of the Visnusvami line, as did some followers of Swami

Haridasa in Vrndavana around the same time.

 

 

 

> It therefore makes no sense why Lord Chaitanya would claim disciplic

> descent from Madhva, unless it was simply true.

 

MDd