Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 The point of view of the Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas is that the Lord in accepting the form of wood, stone, etc. BECOMES the Deity, and that such form IS Krsna. Krishna has the capacity to transform one energy into another, much as the electrician can transform the electrical energy to either heat or cool a given space. He (Krsna) may turn matter into spirit or spirit into matter as He likes. If the Lord is accepted as having omnipotence, how can you argue that He cannot appear AS the Deity in the temple. The idea that He appears IN the Deity has been discarded by Svarupa Damodara Gosvami in the pastime in which the brahmana "glorifies" Jagannatha as being animated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprahu. I don't think it is acceptable to discard the authority of CC as long as the statements match up with sastra, which they do. Padma Purana justifies the view that the Deity is Krsna. Further, we may put forward our opinions, but I still feel that if persons like Srila Prabhupada, The Six Gosvamis and Bhaktivinoda Thakura affirm this point, we cannot be expected to give equal weight to the opinion of a scholar based on what appears to be a partial understanding of Madhva's teachings. To flatly disagree with the statements of Prabhupada on such an essential point would require some powerful sastric evidence, and not just asserting the opinion that he is wrong. I find this unpalatable. RV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 achintya, "rupavi" <rupavi@n...> wrote: > arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matir vaisnave jati buddhir > visnor va vaisnavanam kali-mala-mathane pada-tirthe'mbu-buddhih > sri-visnor namni mantre sakala-kalusa-he sabde-samanya buddhir > visnau sarvesvarese tad-itara-sama-dhir yasya va naraki sah Thanks for quoting this - I was thinking of this very verse, but I did not have the time to bring it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 achintya, "rupavi" <rupavi@n...> wrote: > > Further, we may put forward our opinions, but I still feel that if > persons like Srila Prabhupada, The Six Gosvamis and Bhaktivinoda > Thakura affirm this point, we cannot be expected to give equal > weight to the opinion of a scholar based on what appears to be a > partial understanding of Madhva's teachings. Well i have read your post and have somethings to say. However, at present i am facing shortage of time so i would just like to say one thing. Its not my self produced opinion. It is opinion of Madhvacarya. If you think i am wrong ask Gerald Surya on this list who has had talks with Sirsha Rao, a great madhva scholar long time back on this same issue. See what he says. If you don't believe Gerald go to dvaita list and ask Sirsha himself. If you don't believe sirsha go to BNK Sharma or consult his book Philosophy of Madhvacarya. Actually see page 353 which has in it chapter on manifestations of brahman. Sharma writes: "The Ramanuja school recognizes five kinds of manifestations of God: 1) Images 2) Avatars 3) Vyuhas 4)Transcendent 5)Immanent. Madhva accepts all but first one,......" Now if you even want to challenge Sharma's understanding of Madhva philosophy why not go ask acaryas of Madhva math in udupi etc...... What i am saying is opinion of Madhva, Jayatirtha, Vyastirtha and not just something produced by me based on feeble understanding of Madhva's philosophy. Give me time I will answer all doubts/questions raised by you. Besides if you have properly read my question springs from avatar concept as taught in Sruti and Gita. Please consult my previous posts for sastric substantiation. Your Servant Always, Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Sumeet, I do not doubt that Madhva holds the opinion you attributed to him. However: > Its not my self produced opinion. It is opinion of Madhvacarya. If > you think i am wrong ask Gerald Surya on this list who has had talks > with Sirsha Rao, a great madhva scholar long time back on this same > issue. See what he says. ..... The above is not a proper response at all. If you want to argue something based on what Madhva said, you must quote Madhva himself. This business of "I heard it from X, who heard it from Y" etc has got to go. I'm not sure when Srisha Rao suddenly became a "great madhva scholar," but just FYI he was publicly corrected by some of his colleagues on the Dvaita list regarding his stance on Puraanas as Fifth Veda. His "position paper" regarding ISKCON was also not warmly received by some of the Ashta Matha Swamis. I know that he is well read, but that does not make him an infallible authority on Madhva. And yes, while I do not have any specific criticism of BNK Sharma, the point is that he is not Madhva, and you are arguing based on something Madhva was alleged to have said. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to show where he said that. We cannot have hearsay on this list - let us have hard facts instead. Then we can discuss the issue properly. yours, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.