Vyasa Deva and Madhavacarya

[Guest guest]

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org

 

See/Listen to the video saying Acceptance of Madhava by Vyasdeva. The

speaker says that Madhva's bhagavatam bhasya was approved by Narayana

Rsi and Veda Vyas. If madhva is so intimately connected to Vyasdeva

as is also accepted by our Sampradya then why did he differ on

bhagavata 1.3.28 from the actual meaning of the text. If his Gita

commentary is so highly praised and approved by Veda Vyasa then why

are there differences between his commentary and ours. Why will Vyasa

let him preach something which is not vedic siddhanta assuming what

Gaudiyas preach is the true meaning of Vedic religion ?

 

I am so surprised to see how a liberated soul like hanuman, bhima or

Mukya Pran will teach erroneous conclusion. Gaudiyas accept him to be

hanuman, bhima, Mukhya Pran but then we call his teaching inncorrect

wherever he differs from us irreconcilebly , but we forget that if he

is mukya prana, bhima and hanuman then he is actually a liberated

soul and so can someone explain why does a liberated soul like him

preaches wrong conclusions ? And what is so unacceptable is he

preaches wrong conclusions in the very form of Madhva which is said

to be always engaged in service to Vyasdeva the person to whom belong

all vedic granthas.

 

Similarly if Gaudiyas accept Ramanuja to be Ananta, then can someone

explain why will Ananta or Ramanuja will preach erroneous conclusions.

 

The reason why ramanuja is named ramanuja because anuja or younger

brother of Lord Rama is Lakshman said to be incarntaion of Sesha in

Ramayana.

 

Its so strange, Madhva is hanuman and Ramanuja is Lakshman. Both

hanuman and Lakshman are liberated souls. This is the verdict of

Sastra yet we see Ramanuja and Madhva differing so much. What is even

strange is that according to Madhva liberation is possible through

tattvada only while to ramanuja liberation is possible through

Vishistadvaita doctrine which was taught to Sri by her husband Lord

Narayana.

 

Ramanuja aka Lakshman has rejected Madhvas aka Hanumans Siddhanta:

 

"Apart from the consideration of Brahman as the Soul of all, the

meditation of Brahman as the jiva or the jiva as Brahman cannot be

true. On the theory of difference-cum-identity, as the limiting

adjuncts condition Brahman itself, all the consequent flaws will

contaminate It itself. On the theory of absolute difference between

Brahman and the jiva, the teaching of Brahman as the Atman of all

would be impossible and thus the entire Vedanta gets rejected."

[ Sri-Bhashya: 3.3.37 ]

 

And then everything becomes even more strange when that same Narayana

teaches Achintya bheda abheda as the correct Vedic doctrine.

 

Can anyone please solve these contradictory statements ?

 

I have seen devotees usually sideline these question. Yet to find

someone who will honestly try to answer these let alone solve them

without causing embarassment for any vaishnava sects involved.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, sumeet1981 wrote:

>

> I am so surprised to see how a liberated soul like hanuman, bhima or

> Mukya Pran will teach erroneous conclusion. Gaudiyas accept him to be

> hanuman, bhima, Mukhya Pran . . .

 

Which Gaudiya acarya said this?

 

 

 

> Similarly if Gaudiyas accept Ramanuja to be Ananta,

 

I'm not aware that Srila Prabhupada said this either; have you some quotes?

 

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

 

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, sumeet1981 wrote:

> >

> > I am so surprised to see how a liberated soul like hanuman, bhima

or

> > Mukya Pran will teach erroneous conclusion. Gaudiyas accept him

to be

> > hanuman, bhima, Mukhya Pran . . .

>

> Which Gaudiya acarya said this?

 

Precisely. I think too many of us take these things for granted.

Since when do we accept such a view simply because other Vaishnavas

do? I am not actively disagreeing with them - I simply reserve the

right not to actively agree with it, unless there is irrefutable

shaastric proof of their position.

 

This is only fair - there are many views we have which they don't

care for.

 

If Hanumaan and Bhiima are really the same individual, then how to

explain their meeting each other in the Mahaabhaarata? There is

enough reason to doubt that they are the same person. At least, that

is, there is enough reason not to accept the Maadhva view on this

point unquestioningly.

 

As far as Vyaasa accepting Madhva's commentary on the Bhaagavatam -

is this also a Gaudiiya view? Or is it simply a case of a Gaudiiya

repeating verbatim the views of Madhva's biographers? We should be

clear on that point.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

>

> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, sumeet1981 wrote:

> > >

> > > I am so surprised to see how a liberated soul like hanuman,

bhima

> or

> > > Mukya Pran will teach erroneous conclusion. Gaudiyas accept him

> to be

> > > hanuman, bhima, Mukhya Pran . . .

> >

> > Which Gaudiya acarya said this?

>

> Precisely. I think too many of us take these things for granted.

> Since when do we accept such a view simply because other Vaishnavas

> do? I am not actively disagreeing with them - I simply reserve the

> right not to actively agree with it, unless there is irrefutable

> shaastric proof of their position.

 

Well Garga Samhita carries the evidence that Ramanuja is none but

Ananta. Infact for Madhva it says he is Brahma. Sanaka Kumar another

liberated soul infact a mahajan of bhagavata school is said to have

appeared as Nimbarka. I have seen Gaudiyas quoting it.

 

"Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara will appear as

brahmanas by the order of Visnu, for the preservation of eternal

righteousness in kali yuga. Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and

Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma,

Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara. These four saviours will be the

establishers of the four authorised and empowered spiritual channels

of disciplic succession in the period calculated from the reign of

King Vikrama in 54 B.C. subsequently through the 432,000 year cycle

of kali yuga. These four authorised and empowered spiritual channels

of disciplic succession are to be fully accepted by all beings; as

any word, combination of words or formulation of sound frequencies,

invoked or addressed, audible or inaudible, secret or revealed,

ancient or contemporary outside their auspices prove to have

absolutely no efficacy."

 

Garga Samhita, 10:61:23-26

 

"Madhva and his disciples also stayed here for some time.

Gaurasundara mercifully appeared to him in a dream and while smiling

said, **'Everyone knows that you are My eternal servant**. When I

appear in Navadvipa, I will accept your sampradaya."

 

Source: Sri Navadwipa-dham Mahatmya Chapter 15.

 

Also see here:

"In fact, the Gaudiyas accept Madhvacarya as the incarnation of

Vayu ......."

 

Source: From rebutal of tattvada by acaryas of Narsingha Chaitanya

Matha.

 

This sentence is there under topic divinity of Sri Chaitanya.

 

 

> This is only fair - there are many views we have which they don't

> care for.

>

> If Hanumaan and Bhiima are really the same individual, then how to

> explain their meeting each other in the Mahaabhaarata? There is

> enough reason to doubt that they are the same person. At least,

that

> is, there is enough reason not to accept the Maadhva view on this

> point unquestioningly.

 

Even Yuddhistra and Vidura are same person Yamraja. So were Vyasdeva

and Sri Krishna.

 

A mukta can take as many forms as he wants. Upanisads talk about it.

 

 

> As far as Vyaasa accepting Madhva's commentary on the Bhaagavatam -

> is this also a Gaudiiya view? Or is it simply a case of a Gaudiiya

> repeating verbatim the views of Madhva's biographers? We should be

> clear on that point.

 

Baladeva has not mentioned connection between Vyas and Madhva for no

reason. Madhva didn't meet Vyasa to say hi how are you doing ? There

is siksa link between Madhva and Vyasdeva, Madhvas guru is Vyasdeva.

Please think how can Madhva if he was imperfect could see Supreme

Lord and accept Siksa from him. And for a person who has seen Supreme

and has been taught by him if he preaches wrong things against the

very writing of Supreme, he doesn't deserve any respect.

 

Caitanya Caritamrta commentary (CC Madhya 9.245), Sripad

Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada Comments as follows:

 

"Accompanied by Satya Tértha, Madhväcärya went to

Badarikäçrama. It

was there that he met Vyäsadeva and explained his commentary on

the

Bhagavad-gétä before him. Thus he became a great scholar by

studying

before Vyäsadeva. By the time he came to the Änanda-maöha

from

Badarikäçrama, Madhväcärya had finished his commentary on

the

Bhagavad-gétä. His companion Satya Tértha wrote down the

entire

commentary."

 

The fact is if Madhva is Vyasa's disciple then how does he has

audacity to go against teaching of Supreme Lord Vyasa ? He is a

person capable of beholding Supreme Person, how can he ever be

imperfect ? Supreme Lord Vyas gave him darsana how can he be

imperfect soul having erroneous concepts in mind, not knowing meaning

of vedas.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

--- sumeet1981 <sumeet1981 wrote:

> I am so surprised to see how a liberated soul like

> hanuman, bhima or

> Mukya Pran will teach erroneous conclusion. Gaudiyas

> accept him to be

> hanuman, bhima, Mukhya Pran but then we call his

> teaching inncorrect

> wherever he differs from us irreconcilebly , but we

> forget that if he

> is mukya prana, bhima and hanuman then he is

 

First, what leads you to believe that they have

preached "wrong" conclusions? From what I know of

Madhva's philosophy, he has firm sastric backing for

every point he makes. Same for Ramanuja. Same for

Gaudiyas.

 

The whole point of this diversity is because dharmam

tu saksad bhagavat pranitam, and Bhagavat is very

merciful enough to recognise that everyone is at

different spiritual levels so He has kindly set up all

these different religious systems for those specific

souls.

 

Haribol, Gaura.

 

=====

--

 

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

--- mpt wrote:

>

>

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, sumeet1981 wrote:

> >

> > I am so surprised to see how a liberated soul like

> hanuman, bhima or

> > Mukya Pran will teach erroneous conclusion.

> Gaudiyas accept him to be

> > hanuman, bhima, Mukhya Pran . . .

>

> Which Gaudiya acarya said this?

>

 

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

 

> > Similarly if Gaudiyas accept Ramanuja to be

> Ananta,

>

> I'm not aware that Srila Prabhupada said this

> either; have you some quotes?

>

 

There are some passages here and there in

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's book.

 

Haribol, Gaura.

 

=====

--

 

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> Well Garga Samhita carries the evidence that Ramanuja is none but

> Ananta. Infact for Madhva it says he is Brahma. Sanaka Kumar

another

> liberated soul infact a mahajan of bhagavata school is said to have

> appeared as Nimbarka. I have seen Gaudiyas quoting it.

 

If Gaarga Samhitaa says that Madhva is Brahmaa, and other sources say

he is Vaayu, then which source is correct, and which one is doubtful?

 

Thanks for providing the quote, though. Which edition of Gaarga

Samhitaa are you quoting from?

 

> "Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara will appear as

> brahmanas by the order of Visnu, for the preservation of eternal

> righteousness in kali yuga. Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and

> Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma,

> Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara.

 

I would be very interested in seeing the original Sanskrit for the

above. Specifically, I would like to see what is being translated

as "will appear respectively as a portion of...."

 

"Portion" does not imply "full."

 

> Also see here:

> "In fact, the Gaudiyas accept Madhvacarya as the incarnation of

> Vayu ......."

>

> Source: From rebutal of tattvada by acaryas of Narsingha Chaitanya

> Matha.

 

I appreciate the source, but until I see specific pramaanas provided,

then as far as I know, this is merely the opinion of the N-C Math.

 

Admittedly, I am not aware that Gaudiiyas have disputed the

possibility that Madhva is Vaayu. But neither have I seen an official

Gaudiiya endorsement of this fact. Have any of our aachaaryas

actually glorified him as such? I don't recall Jiiva Gosvaamii

addressing Madhva as the incarnation of Vaayu in his Tattva-

sandarbha, for example.

 

> > If Hanumaan and Bhiima are really the same individual, then how

to

> > explain their meeting each other in the Mahaabhaarata? There is

> > enough reason to doubt that they are the same person. At least,

> that

> > is, there is enough reason not to accept the Maadhva view on this

> > point unquestioningly.

>

> Even Yuddhistra and Vidura are same person Yamraja.

 

Where is your evidence that Yuddhishthira is the same as Yamaraaja?

Yudhishthira is the *son* of Yamaraaja. Indeed, one of his names

is "Dharma-putra." I thought this was well known.

 

So were Vyasdeva

> and Sri Krishna.

 

However, this is not a good example. As Krishna is the omnipotent,

omnipresent Supreme Lord, *obviously* He can be in more than one

place at the same time. It is harder to believe this of a jiiva.

 

> A mukta can take as many forms as he wants. Upanisads talk about it.

 

First of all, where explicitly do "Upanishads talk about it"?

 

Secondly, Maadhvas do not regard Madhva as a mukta. At least, they

don't regard him as having attained liberation until *after* his

disappearance as Madhva. Remember: for Maadhvas, if you are in the

material world, you are not liberated. Period. Maadhvas do not accept

the concept of jiivan-mukti.

 

So, this explanation that Madhva was liberated, and thus in his

previous births he could be present in more than one place at the

same time, would not be acceptable to them.

 

By the way, just as Yudishthira was the son of Yamaraaja, Bhiima was

the son of Vaayu. As was Hanumaan. Evidence for the latter:

 

maarutasya aurasaH shriimaan hanumaan naama vaanaraH |

vajra sa.mhananopeto vainateya samaH jave || raa 1.17.16 ||

 

The direct son of Maruti, the Lord of Wind... is the radiant

Hanumaan, the mighty one with his diamond-like body [indestructible]

and he equals in his swiftness Lady Vinata's son [namely Garuda, the

Divine Eagle, the vehicle of Lord Vishnu.] (raamaayaNa, baala-kaaNDa,

17.16)

 

Of course, Maadhvas do not accept the Raamaayana of Vaalmiiki. But

Gaudiiyas do. So... we have a sacred scripture stating that Hanumaan

is Vaayu's son. And we have another tradition saying that he is

literally Vaayu himself.

 

My point is simply, don't accept anyone's opinion blindly.

 

> > As far as Vyaasa accepting Madhva's commentary on the

Bhaagavatam -

> > is this also a Gaudiiya view? Or is it simply a case of a

Gaudiiya

> > repeating verbatim the views of Madhva's biographers? We should

be

> > clear on that point.

>

> Baladeva has not mentioned connection between Vyas and Madhva for

no

> reason.

 

I conceed the fact that Madhva met Vyaasa and that the latter is

considered his guru. There is no reason for Baladeva to list any

other guru for Madhva. What I question is, which Gaudiiya Vaishnava

has explicitly stated that Vyaasa "accepted" Madhva's commentary on

the Bhaagavatam? As far as I know, Vyaasa reviewed Madhva's Giitaa

commentary only, not his Bhaagavatam commentary. At least, this is

according to traditional accounts.

 

The fact that Madhva learned Vedas from Vyaasa is not tantamount to

saying Vyaasa gave any kind of endorsement to the former's

Bhaagavatam commentary. To use a crude example, this is like saying

that because Satyaraja dasa is Prabhupada's disciple, therefore Srila

Prabhupada gave his approval to Satyaraja's book _Om Shalom_.

 

Madhva didn't meet Vyasa to say hi how are you doing ? There

> is siksa link between Madhva and Vyasdeva, Madhvas guru is Vyasdeva.

> Please think how can Madhva if he was imperfect could see Supreme

> Lord and accept Siksa from him. And for a person who has seen

Supreme

> and has been taught by him if he preaches wrong things against the

> very writing of Supreme, he doesn't deserve any respect.

 

I did not say he was wrong. I have only refrained from endorsing that

what he said was right. Semantics? Perhaps. I am operating on the

principle that aachaaryas may interpret some things to make them

consistent with their respective siddhaantas (whether this is due

to "rasa" or just plain bias, I cannot say). However, I am also going

on the assumption that when someone is obviously "interpreting," then

we have the freedom to follow other traditions which seem more

faithful to the original Sanskrit.

 

> Caitanya Caritamrta commentary (CC Madhya 9.245), Sripad

> Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada Comments as follows:

>

> "Accompanied by Satya Tértha, Madhväcärya went to

> Badarikäçrama. It

> was there that he met Vyäsadeva and explained his commentary on

> the

> Bhagavad-gétä before him. Thus he became a great scholar by

> studying

> before Vyäsadeva. By the time he came to the Änanda-maöha

> from

> Badarikäçrama, Madhväcärya had finished his commentary on

> the

> Bhagavad-gétä. His companion Satya Tértha wrote down the

> entire

> commentary."

 

Right, this confirms what I said earlier. Vyaasa only reviewed

Madhva's Giitaa commentary, not his Bhaagavatam commentary. In fact,

Madhva has written his Giitaa commentary even *before* he had learned

from Vyaasa! This is hardly a conventional guru-disciple

relationship.

 

So is it any wonder that Madhva's philosophy seems to have his own

unique flavor, somewhat different from that of Vyaasa's?

 

> The fact is if Madhva is Vyasa's disciple then how does he has

> audacity to go against teaching of Supreme Lord Vyasa ?

 

Well, let's answer that question by asking it again in a different

way.

 

If Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu took the form of a devotee to show the

proper example, then why did He deviate from the orthodox teachings

of Tattvavaada which His predecessor aachaaryas taught?

 

So far, you are arguing on the premise that one always follows

exactly and in every way what one's predecessors taught. While I

agree that this is mostly true, history has demonstrated that

exceptional aachaaryas have sometimes started a distinct tradition,

which only became acceptable because of at least the appearance of

shaastric support.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

achintya, Gaurasundara das

<gaurasundara_108> wrote:

>

> --- mpt@u... wrote:

 

> > Which Gaudiya acarya said this?

> >

>

> Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

>

> > > Similarly if Gaudiyas accept Ramanuja to be

> > Ananta,

> >

> > I'm not aware that Srila Prabhupada said this

> > either; have you some quotes?

> >

>

> There are some passages here and there in

> Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's book.

 

I think as a general rule, when someone asks for a reference, the

specific reference should be provided: name of source, author, and

exact statement. That way, all of our doubts can be removed and we

can move on to other points.

 

Until we see specific references in the original language written, we

can only consider it hearsay. I'm sure many of us have experienced no

dearth of statements which acquire apparent legitimacy simply on the

basis that "so and so said...."

 

Let's try to eliminate guesswork and provide exact references, please.

 

Thanks.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Gaurasundara das

<gaurasundara_108> wrote:

 

> First, what leads you to believe that they have

> preached "wrong" conclusions?

 

Check out Madhva's commentary to Bhagavad-giitaa 10.41. In the second

half of the commentary, he refers to SB 1.3.28 and specifically takes

a swipe at the idea that Krishna is svayam bhagavaan while other

forms of Vishnu are amshas. The translator of my edition, BNK Sharma,

specifically mentions ISKCON and "Sri Prabhu Pada" as adherents to

the view which Madhva is refuting.

 

This is a clear cut case of disagreement with the Gaudiiya

commentary, not because the Gaudiiya commentary was forseen by

Madhva, but rather because the Gaudiiya interpretation is so obvious.

 

Madhva appears to take issue with the idea that other forms of

Krishna are described as "amshas," but Gaudiiya commentators

translate "amsha" in this context as "plenary expansions." They

are "amshas," but they are full in every respect. Furthermore, Madhva

argues that "tu" in kR^iShNas tu bhagavaan svayam does NOT introduce

a contrast (even though this is what any standard Sanskrit dictionary

has it as doing); rather, it is a particle of emphasis. Ok....

 

Then Madhva quotes a passage from Vishnu Puraana which describes

Vishnu pulling out two hairs, a black one and a white one, from His

body, which then go on to become Krishna and Balaraama, thus showing

that Krishna is an amsha of Vishnu. But Jiiva Gosvaamii, in his

Krishna Sandarbha, rejects this statement of the Vishnu Puraana as

either interpolated or misinterpreted.... since when does the ever

youthful Vishnu have white hairs??

 

Next, Madhva argues that "mR^idayanti" which is plural, does not

agree with its subject which is singular. But Gaudiiyas say the

subject of "mR^idayanti" is the same as "ete" which is Nominative-

plural. So, no problem there.

 

Sharma of course, true to form, complains that ISKCON and "Sri Prabhu

Pada's American followers," have yet to answer these very exacting

criticisms of their interpretation of SB 1.3.28 by Madhva. Of course,

what he does not seem to have a clue about, is the fact that these

comments by Madhva, as well as Sharma's own, are largely unknown and

even irrelevant to the Gaudiiya community, who are actually doing

something practical to spread Krishna's glories while Sharma busies

himself in pointing out in them all sorts of imaginary flaws...

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

 

>If Gaarga Samhitaa says that Madhva is Brahmaa, and other sources

say

>he is Vaayu, then which source is correct, and which one is

>doubtful?

>Thanks for providing the quote, though. Which edition of Gaarga

>Samhitaa are you quoting from?

 

I have seen this quote here:

 

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/DiscipleSuccession/

 

I asked the same question to Jaganath Das who is disciple of Narayana

Maharaj and webmaster. but his answer confused me. Let me ask him

again. You can see the sanskrit there. You may further refer your

questions to him too.

 

Now the whole point of bringing identity of Madhva is to show that

he said to be a liberated soul - nitya mukta bhakta. That is the

point.

 

Like i stated before, BhaktiVinoda thakura says Madhva is eternal

servant of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu,

 

"Madhva and his disciples also stayed here for some time.

Gaurasundara mercifully appeared to him in a dream and while smiling

said, **'Everyone knows that you are My eternal servant**. When I

appear in Navadvipa, I will accept your sampradaya."

 

Source: Sri Navadwipa-dham Mahatmya Chapter 15.

 

See how Sriman Mahaprabhu according to BhaktiVinoda refers to

Madhava, that **Everyone knows you are my eternal servant**.

 

Here the context of the statement clearly shows that Mahaprabhu

according to Bhakti Vinoda means Oh Madhva you are a nitya mukta

bhakta.Then on top of this he says "everyone knows that ........"

which means he is a very famous nitya mukta bhakta known to people in

general. Who could be a famous mukta bhakta known to everyone -

Hanuman seems to be very appropriate.

 

> Where is your evidence that Yuddhishthira is the same as Yamaraaja?

> Yudhishthira is the *son* of Yamaraaja. Indeed, one of his names

> is "Dharma-putra." I thought this was well known.

 

Sorry got myself mixed up there. Was trying to rely on memory.

 

 

> So were Vyasdeva

> > and Sri Krishna.

>

> However, this is not a good example. As Krishna is the omnipotent,

> omnipresent Supreme Lord, *obviously* He can be in more than one

> place at the same time. It is harder to believe this of a jiiva.

>

> > A mukta can take as many forms as he wants. Upanisads talk about

it.

>

> First of all, where explicitly do "Upanishads talk about it"?

 

Please Read Chandogya Up 7.26.2

 

"There is this verse: The Released does not see death nor illness nor

pain. The Released sees everything and obtains everything everywhere.

He is one, he becomes three, he becomes five, he becomes seven, he

becomes nine................."

 

Based on this verse of Sruti, Jaimani is of the opinion that mukta

has body in state of mukti also.

 

Vedanta Sutra 4.4.11

äha hy evam jaiminir vikalpämananät

 

äha - says; hi - because; evam - thus; jaiminiù - JaiminiMuni;

vikalpa - opinion; ämananät - by thought.

 

Jaimini Muni has that opinion, because it is said thus and

because that view is accepted.

 

Purport by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa

 

"Because the individual spirit soul is atomic in nature, it

cannot expand itself to become many different bodies, so these

bodies must be possessions of the atomic soul. Nor can it be said

that this statement of the Upaniñad is not true, for this is in

a passage describing the process of liberation. The body

described here must actually exist, and also it must not have

been created by past karmic reactions."

 

 

 

> Secondly, Maadhvas do not regard Madhva as a mukta. At least, they

> don't regard him as having attained liberation until *after* his

> disappearance as Madhva. Remember: for Maadhvas, if you are in the

> material world, you are not liberated. Period. Maadhvas do not

accept

> the concept of jiivan-mukti.

>

> So, this explanation that Madhva was liberated, and thus in his

> previous births he could be present in more than one place at the

> same time, would not be acceptable to them.

 

 

Well first of all JivanMukti is not alien to Madhva philosophy.

 

According to Madhava philosophy:

 

Aparoksajnanis is also known as Jivan Mukta. The word Jivan Mukta is

used by the celebrated Dvaitin acarya Vyastirtha in his Nyayamrita

4.4.

 

Refer to page 440 of Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya by BNK Sharma.

 

Aparoksajnanis in Gaudiya terms will be that Siddha Prema Bhakta who

is thus described "premanjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena

santah sadaiva hrdayesu vilokayanti" in Brahma Samhita. It refers to

those who can have direct perception of Supreme face to face because

of their situation in unalloyed devotion to God. They are perfected

Souls. Jivan Muktas.

 

 

> I conceed the fact that Madhva met Vyaasa and that the latter is

> considered his guru. There is no reason for Baladeva to list any

> other guru for Madhva. What I question is, which Gaudiiya Vaishnava

> has explicitly stated that Vyaasa "accepted" Madhva's commentary on

> the Bhaagavatam? As far as I know, Vyaasa reviewed Madhva's Giitaa

> commentary only, not his Bhaagavatam commentary. At least, this is

> according to traditional accounts.

 

Well first of all one should realize that Vyasdeva had long before

Madhva disappeared from worldly scene. Vyasdeva is Supreme Person

Krishna himself. He cannot be percieved by any one but who has eyes

tinged with salve of Love. Madhva didn't saw vyas in a dream. He

factually visited Badrikasrama where he saw Supreme Lord Vyasdeva. To

be able to percieve Supreme, talk to him and discuss with him Gita

and have a finally approved commentary just tells Madhva is perfected

soul. Recall Gauranga Mahaprabhu according to Gaudiya acarya

BhaktiVinoda addressed Madhva as "Everyone knows you are my eternal

servant". No imperfect soul can ever have darsana of Supreme. I

repeat erroneous or imperfect souls cannot behold Supreme. Supreme is

not object of perception for just anyone.

 

Vedanta Sutra 3.3.49

And this Mukti takes by seeing Lord.

 

Purport by Sri Baladeva

 

Mundaka Upanisad 2.2.8

"Thus the knot in the heart is pierced, and all misgivings are cut to

pieces. The chain of fruitive actions is terminated when one sees the

Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

The meaning here is that one becomes liberated by seeing the

Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

And a person who is liberated cannot give erroneous conclusion.

 

So whatever Madhva writes after meeting Vyasdeva can also not taken

to be erroneous.

 

> The fact that Madhva learned Vedas from Vyaasa is not tantamount to

> saying Vyaasa gave any kind of endorsement to the former's

> Bhaagavatam commentary. To use a crude example, this is like saying

> that because Satyaraja dasa is Prabhupada's disciple, therefore

Srila

> Prabhupada gave his approval to Satyaraja's book _Om Shalom_.

 

You should understand that a person who is fit to meet Supreme and

see him face to face cannot teach wrong things and deviate from

truth at any point in time. Hence the above examples doesn't fits in

well at all. Madhva is nitya mukta bhakta of Sri Hari.

 

> I did not say he was wrong. I have only refrained from endorsing

that

> what he said was right. Semantics? Perhaps. I am operating on the

> principle that aachaaryas may interpret some things to make them

> consistent with their respective siddhaantas (whether this is due

> to "rasa" or just plain bias, I cannot say). However, I am also

going

> on the assumption that when someone is obviously "interpreting,"

then

> we have the freedom to follow other traditions which seem more

> faithful to the original Sanskrit.

 

Well Madhva doctrine of no liberation for asurs even those killed by

Supreme, his doctrine of three types of Jivatmas - Sattvic, Rajasic

and Tamasic are not approved of by Gaudiyas or Ramanujaites.

 

check his Gita commentary.

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.html#section_8

See 5th prameya.

 

Can you tell me how did Vyasdeva approved all this in Madhvas Gita

commenatry. In his Gita commentary he has clearly brought out his

dvaita philosophy. How come Vyas deva approved all this ? Please

inform me.

 

 

> > Caitanya Caritamrta commentary (CC Madhya 9.245), Sripad

> > Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada Comments as follows:

> >

> > "Accompanied by Satya Tértha, Madhväcärya went to

> > Badarikäçrama. It

> > was there that he met Vyäsadeva and explained his commentary on

> > the

> > Bhagavad-gétä before him. Thus he became a great scholar by

> > studying

> > before Vyäsadeva. By the time he came to the Änanda-maöha

> > from

> > Badarikäçrama, Madhväcärya had finished his commentary on

> > the

> > Bhagavad-gétä. His companion Satya Tértha wrote down the

> > entire

> > commentary."

>

> Right, this confirms what I said earlier. Vyaasa only reviewed

> Madhva's Giitaa commentary, not his Bhaagavatam commentary. In

fact,

> Madhva has written his Giitaa commentary even *before* he had

learned

> from Vyaasa! This is hardly a conventional guru-disciple

> relationship.

>

> So is it any wonder that Madhva's philosophy seems to have his own

> unique flavor, somewhat different from that of Vyaasa's?

>

> > The fact is if Madhva is Vyasa's disciple then how does he has

> > audacity to go against teaching of Supreme Lord Vyasa ?

>

> Well, let's answer that question by asking it again in a different

> way.

>

> If Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu took the form of a devotee to show the

> proper example, then why did He deviate from the orthodox teachings

> of Tattvavaada which His predecessor aachaaryas taught?

 

"It was there that he met Vyäsadeva and explained his commentary

on

the Bhagavad-gétä before him. Thus he became a great scholar by

studying before Vyäsadeva. By the time he came to the

Änanda-maöha

from Badarikäçrama, Madhväcärya had finished his commentary

on

the Bhagavad-gétä."

 

So Madhva finished his commentary while in badrikasrama.

 

Madhva is Chaitanyas eternal Servant, according to bhakti vinoda

thakura. Check Navadvipa Dhama Mahatmaya chapter 15. A nitya mukta

bhakta.

 

And yet Chaitanya differs. This difference in siddhanta is not on

basis of rasa. I am looking for the answer why there is difference.

There is difference i know that. but my question is why ?

 

> So far, you are arguing on the premise that one always follows

> exactly and in every way what one's predecessors taught. While I

> agree that this is mostly true, history has demonstrated that

> exceptional aachaaryas have sometimes started a distinct tradition,

> which only became acceptable because of at least the appearance of

> shaastric support.

 

My point of arguement is this:

 

VS states perception of Supreme brings liberation. Madhva is capable

of this and infact has done that. Its known from accepted history.

BhaktiVinoda quotes Sriman Mahaprabhu adressing Madhva as

my "Everyone knows that you are eternal servant." And I find it hard

to see or swallow irreconcilable difference in teachings of between

liberated soul and Supreme Lord. This is mockery of entire Vedanta

and Bhagavat Dharma. That is why my title was Vyasdeva and

Madhavacarya. As if this is not enough, we have another servant of

Lord, Ramanuja[Ananta Sesha] who also has his differences with

Chaitanya and Madhva. Why all this ?

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

--- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla

wrote:

> However, this is not a good example. As Krishna is

> the omnipotent,

> omnipresent Supreme Lord, *obviously* He can be in

> more than one

> place at the same time. It is harder to believe this

> of a jiiva.

>

 

Hari sarvottama, Vayu jivottama, is their doctrine. If

Vayu is jivottama then he can certainly do. I have

also heard that Madhvas accept Vayu as son of Vishnu,

and power-wise second only to Vishnu Himself.

 

Also, Rama and Parashurama met. Parasurama is jiva but

saktyavesa avatar.

 

> By the way, just as Yudishthira was the son of

> Yamaraaja, Bhiima was

> the son of Vaayu. As was Hanumaan. Evidence for the

> latter:

 

Where is evidence for the former?

 

> Of course, Maadhvas do not accept the Raamaayana of

> Vaalmiiki. But

> Gaudiiyas do.

 

Where Gaudiyas accept Valmiki Ramayana? Has past

Gaudiya acharya like Gosvamis etc quoted anywhere in

their works?

 

> My point is simply, don't accept anyone's opinion

> blindly.

>

 

Accept parampara opinion.

 

> Well, let's answer that question by asking it again

in a different

way.

 

If Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu took the form of a devotee to

show the

proper example, then why did He deviate from the

orthodox teachings

of Tattvavaada which His predecessor aachaaryas

taught?

<

 

Because Chaitanya came to give that which was never

given before. How could Madhvacharya know? Chaitanya

came to give prema-bhakti, Madhvas do not know of

prema-bhakti.

 

Haribol, Gaura

 

=====

--

 

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

--- sumeet1981 <sumeet1981 wrote:

> Please Read Chandogya Up 7.26.2

>

> "There is this verse: The Released does not see

> death nor illness nor

> pain. The Released sees everything and obtains

> everything everywhere.

> He is one, he becomes three, he becomes five, he

> becomes seven, he

> becomes nine................."

>

 

Is my understanding that Srila Prabhupada said that

one who has attained a particular mystic perfection

can manifest upto nine bodies? This is certainly

applicable to a jiva.

 

Haribol, Gaura.

 

 

=====

--

 

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> And a person who is liberated cannot give erroneous conclusion.

 

That is not true.

 

1. First it is very much debatable that there is actually just *one*

way of perceiving the truth. Had it been so, why are the shastras so

ambiguous and require volumes upon volumes of interpretation --

paroksha vada vedo ayam

 

2. There is nothing to say that a liberated person *cannot*

give "erroneous" conclusions. Now supposedly Buddha is incarnation of

Krishna, and we salute Him as God, but keep away from His philosophy.

All this depends on time and circumstance.

 

Therefore, it is advisable to be a bit cautious when somebody

proclaims that one has solitary proprietorship over the highest truth.

 

Kishalaya

[Guest guest]

achintya, Gaurasundara das

<gaurasundara_108> wrote:

> --- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla@h...>

> wrote:

> > However, this is not a good example. As Krishna is

> > the omnipotent,

> > omnipresent Supreme Lord, *obviously* He can be in

> > more than one

> > place at the same time. It is harder to believe this

> > of a jiiva.

 

> Hari sarvottama, Vayu jivottama, is their doctrine. If

> Vayu is jivottama then he can certainly do.

 

I question this. Does being an uttama-jiiva ipso facto mean having

the ability to expand into multiple, different forms simultaneously?

Specifically, is this (that being uttama-jiiva = ability to expand

into multiple forms) the view of the Maadhva tradition? The question

I posed was how Madhva, Bhiima, and Hanumaan could each be Vaayu when

the latter two are described as sons of Vaayu, and are also described

as having met each other during the events of the Mahaabhaarata.

 

I have

> also heard that Madhvas accept Vayu as son of Vishnu,

> and power-wise second only to Vishnu Himself.

 

Still, I would like clarification as to whether or not Maadhvas

accept that Vaayu can exist in multiple, different incarnations

simultaneously. Of course, he is all pervasive in the sense that he

is air/wind, and is as pervasive as air/wind. However, the question

that should be answered is whether or not Vaayu can be personally

present as an incarnation in more than one place at the same time.

Note that I am not soliciting a response like "why not?" Rather, I am

looking for a concrete position that Maadhvas say he can do this.

 

> Also, Rama and Parashurama met. Parasurama is jiva but

> saktyavesa avatar.

 

Precisely. Parashuraama is actually an empowered jiiva. So no problem

with him meeting Raama. Even if he were fully Vishnu, still no

problem since the omnipotent, omnipresent Lord can exist in multiple

different forms simultaneously. The question is whether a jiiva can

do that, and more importantly, whether a jiiva can do this according

to Maadhva beliefs.

 

> > By the way, just as Yudishthira was the son of

> > Yamaraaja, Bhiima was

> > the son of Vaayu. As was Hanumaan. Evidence for the

> > latter:

>

> Where is evidence for the former?

 

Take a look at Mahaabhaarata, Aadi Parva, chapter 122-123 (depending

on the version, but in the Calcutta edition published by Parimal

Publications it is in chapter 123). This is the chapter describing

the birth of the Paandavas. In the chapter immediately preceeding it,

Paandu had just requested Kuntii to bear sons by another man, and in

defense of this seemingly sinful request, he cited an ancient

precedent predating Rishi Shvetaketu in which such a practice was

allowed. Then, Kuntii explained to her husband about the boon she

received in the past which allowed her to call down the demigods at

will:

 

"O princess, by each of their favor, you, shall have offspring." O

descendant of the Bharata race, this was told to me by him at my

father's house." || 1.122.36 ||

 

Here, she explains that she could have children by the demigods whom

she called down.

 

Then at the beginning of chapter 123, it is described how Kuntii

called first Dharma, then Vaayu, then Indra in order to have

Yudhishthira, Bhiima, and Arjuna, respectively.

 

Regarding Bhiima being the son of Vaayu, the following is stated:

 

praahuH kShatra.m balajyeShTha.m balajyeShTha.m suta.m vR^iNu |

tatastathoktaa bhartaa tu vaayumevaajuhaava saa || 1.123.11 ||

 

"The wise say that Kshatriyas are the foremost in strength;

therefore, ask for a son of great strength." Having been thus

addressed, she invoked Vaayu.

 

tatastaamaagato vaayurbhR^igaaruudo mahaabalaH |

ki.m te kunti dadaamyadhya bruhi yatte tddaadi sthitam || 1.123.12 ||

 

Thereupon the greatly strong Vaayu came to her riding on a deer, (and

he asked), "O Kunti, what am I to give you? Tell me what is in your

mind."

 

saa salajjaa vihasyaaha putra.m dehi surottama |

balavanta.m mahaakaaya.m sarvadarpaprabha~njanam || 1.123.13 |

 

Smiling in bashfulness, she said, "O best of celestials, give me a

son, who is strong, who is huge and who is capable of humbling the

pride of everybody."

 

tasyaajjaj~ne mahaabaahurbhiimo bhiimaparaakramaH |

tamapvatibala.m jaata.m vaaguvaachaashariiriNii || 1.123.14 ||

 

By him was born Bhiima, endowed with great strength....

(mahaabhaarata calcutta edition, aadi parva, 123.11-14)

 

These appear to correspond to verses 1.114.8-9 in the critical

edition published by BORI.

 

The BORI edition has the last verse as "tasmAjjaGYe mahAbAhurbhImo"

which drives home the sense that it is *from* Vaayu that this son

Bhiima was born.

 

> > Of course, Maadhvas do not accept the Raamaayana of

> > Vaalmiiki. But

> > Gaudiiyas do.

>

> Where Gaudiyas accept Valmiki Ramayana? Has past

> Gaudiya acharya like Gosvamis etc quoted anywhere in

> their works?

 

I can't remember where, but Srila Prabhupada quotes Madhvaachaarya's

statement that:

 

R^igaadyaabhaarataM chaiva pa~nchaaraatramathaakhilam |

muularaamaayaNaM chaiva puraaNaM chaitadaatmakam ||

 

.... which holds that the muula-raamaayaNa is authoritative source of

knowledge. Of course, contrary to Madhva, he takes muula-raamaayaNa

as that of Vaalmiiki. But the point is that Srila Prabhupada clearly

accepted it.

 

As far as the Sat-gosvAmIs are concerned, I am not familiar with any

specific statement by them about the raamaayaNa. However, I am not

clear in the first place as to why we should doubt that the

raamaayaNa is considered authoritative by them. I am similarly

unaware of any quotations by them from say, the shatapatha braahmaNa,

the kalisantaarana upaniShad, etc. Clearly, we don't reject these

scriptures merely because our aachaaryas do not quote them. That

would make us guilty of the fallacy of placing guru above shaastra.

 

> > My point is simply, don't accept anyone's opinion

> > blindly.

> >

>

> Accept parampara opinion.

 

No, I don't encourage blind acceptance of "parampara opinion" either.

Not ours, and not anyone else's.

 

> > Well, let's answer that question by asking it again

> in a different

> way.

>

> If Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu took the form of a devotee to

> show the

> proper example, then why did He deviate from the

> orthodox teachings

> of Tattvavaada which His predecessor aachaaryas

> taught?

> <

>

> Because Chaitanya came to give that which was never

> given before. How could Madhvacharya know? Chaitanya

> came to give prema-bhakti, Madhvas do not know of

> prema-bhakti.

 

I think he is referring to the more basic pillars of the Tattvavaada

philosophy, and why Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu departed from them to

establish a distinct philosophy.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/13/2004 12:30:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

I posed was how Madhva, Bhiima, and Hanumaan could each be Vaayu when the latter

two are described as sons of Vaayu, and are also described as having met each

other during the events of the Mahaabhaarata.

The dvaitins explain this episode as meant to bewilder the demons. I do not know

if this is a contemporary explanation or if it is said by an acarya of theirs in

the past.

ys

Gerald S

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

 

> The dvaitins explain this episode as meant to bewilder the demons.

 

Well, isn't that convenient? I would like to know for sure who says

that and where, before I commit this to memory as a "Maadhva view."

 

I'm not clear on why Vyaasa would want to bewilder anyone in the

Mahaabhaarata.