Madhva, Vyasadeva and Gaudiya Sampradya

[Guest guest]

Hare krishna

 

A question has been lurking in my mind for long time:

 

1) Gaudiyas say Madhva met Vyasdeva.

 

2) Since Madhva preceded whole Gaudiya acarya varga, the only source

of this information would be Sumadhva vijyaya.

 

3) So if gaudiyas accept Madhva-Vyasa meeting on authority of

Sumadhva Vijaya then, will gaudiyas also accept madhvas gita bhasya

got vyasa's approval on authority of same ? If not then why ? And if

yes then whats need for a different bhashya, why not follow Madhva ?

 

http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html

"Madhva made two trips to Badarikâshrama, the abode of BâdarâyaNa

a.k.a. Veda Vyâsa, and on the first, obtained the imprimatur of

BâdarâyaNa Himself for his Bhâshya on the Bhagavad Gita, when the

latter made the correction "vakshyâmi leshataH" ("I state

infinitesimally"), in place of "vakshyâmi shaktitaH" ("I state as

best as I can"). "

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> 1) Gaudiyas say Madhva met Vyasdeva.

 

I think the Maadhvas say this. Gaudiiyas just don't disagree.

 

> 2) Since Madhva preceded whole Gaudiya acarya varga, the only

source

> of this information would be Sumadhva vijyaya.

>

> 3) So if gaudiyas accept Madhva-Vyasa meeting on authority of

> Sumadhva Vijaya then, will gaudiyas also accept madhvas gita bhasya

> got vyasa's approval on authority of same ? If not then why ?

 

Why should they accept it because Vyaasa supposedly gave his approval

of it? Gaudiiyas may accept that Madhva met Vyaasa, but I do not see

why they must accept everything else the Sumadhva Vijaya says.

 

FYI, Madhvaachaarya wrote his Giitaa Bhaashya before meeting Vyaasa.

This would indicate that his Tattvavaada system of philosophy was his

own (not something he received from Vyaasa), yet he considers Vyaasa

to be his guru. Proof positive that one can call someone one's guru,

even though one is propagating a philosophy of one's own creation.

This is yet another reason why the criticisms of the internet Maadhva

community against Maadhavendra being in their sampradaaya are

hypocritical.

 

Besides, even Shankaraachaarya comes in Vyaasa's paramparaa (see

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html). So if

Vyaasa's son instructed Shankara's guru's guru, then should we accept

their philosophy? FYI, the internet Maadhvas don't challenge this

paramparaa either. Another example of selective criticism & double

standards.

 

Maadhavendra Purii was initiated into the Maadhva sampradaaya, but

factually he and his followers have inaugurated a culturally and

philosophically distinct tradition. They must naturally offer respect

to the Maadhvas, but they are not required to accept everything

Maadhvas say.

 

And if

> yes then whats need for a different bhashya, why not follow Madhva ?

 

Gaudiiyas are not Maadhvas. They derive their philosophy from

Shriimad Bhaagavatam, which is the best commentary on the Vedaanta.

The Maadhva position on Shriimad Bhaagavatam is not clear, as they

will in some cases try their best to bring its ideas in line with

their own (usually citing Madhva's commentary), while at others times

they will argue that it is only smriti and thus "fit for rejection."

One thing is clear, though, and that is that the Bhaagavatam's take

on philosophy definitely does not come across as the pure Dvaita

advocated by Madhva.

 

> http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html

> "Madhva made two trips to Badarikâshrama, the abode of

BâdarâyaNa

> a.k.a. Veda Vyâsa, and on the first, obtained the imprimatur of

> BâdarâyaNa Himself for his Bhâshya on the Bhagavad Gita,

when the

> latter made the correction "vakshyâmi leshataH" ("I state

> infinitesimally"), in place of "vakshyâmi shaktitaH" ("I state

as

> best as I can"). "

 

Right. Their view is that Madhva already knew everything and thus he

needed no guru. But still Vyaasa taught him all the Vedas. And his

only criticism of Madhva's Giitaa bhaashya is the above - the

implicit idea being that Madhva had got it perfect and needed no

other correction.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

> achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

 

 

>

> I think the Maadhvas say this. Gaudiiyas just don't disagree.

 

Which means Gaudiya agree that Madhva met vyasadeva.

 

> FYI, Madhvaachaarya wrote his Giitaa Bhaashya before meeting

> Vyaasa.

 

I am aware of that.

 

> This would indicate that his Tattvavaada system of philosophy was

his

> own (not something he received from Vyaasa),

> yet he considers Vyaasa

> to be his guru.

> Proof positive that one can call someone one's guru,

> even though one is propagating a philosophy of one's own creation.

> This is yet another reason why the criticisms of the internet

Maadhva

> community against Maadhavendra being in their sampradaaya are

> hypocritical.

 

This is besides the point. We are focussing on gaudiya admitting the

fact that madhva met vyasa.

 

> Besides, even Shankaraachaarya comes in Vyaasa's paramparaa (see

> http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html). So if

> Vyaasa's son instructed Shankara's guru's guru, then should we

accept

> their philosophy ?

 

That is what those guys claim. One is not bound to accept what

someone claims. So yeah the question of accepting what advaitins say

or rejecting them does not arises until one doesn't admits that yeah

i agree that gaudapada was Sukadeva's disciple.

 

> FYI, the internet Maadhvas don't challenge this

> paramparaa either. Another example of selective criticism & double

> standards.

 

This is besides the point.

 

 

> Gaudiiyas are not Maadhvas. They derive their philosophy from

> Shriimad Bhaagavatam, which is the best commentary on the

> Vedaanta.

 

Well i would like to say something over here. But since this is not

relevant to our present topic, i shall save this for later.

 

 

Despite whatever you have said about Madhva, acarya of Gaudiya

sampradya has something different to say:

 

Baladeva writes in Prameya Ratnavali

 

ananda tirtha-nama sukha-maya-dhama yatir jiyat

samsararnava-taranim yam iha janah kirtayanti budhah

 

"May that great sannyasi, Srila Ananda Tirtha (Madhvacarya) be ever

victorious. He is like a boat to cross the ocean of the material

world, and the wise men in this world praise him."

 

A person who according to you has preached stuff different from

Vyasa, different from scriptures and something that his own

creation, who has audacity to carry on with his own mind born

philosophy despite it being against his Lord Vyasa whom he has met

in person more than once, such a person is described by Baladeva as

a boat to cross ocean of material world, wise men in this world

praise him and is wishing him to be ever victorious. Well this

doesn't seems sensible or right thing to do.

 

Also, how can a person who doesn't possess right knowledge walk into

abode of Supreme Person, percieve him, stand with him face to face,

talk with him; do all this not just once but twice even when he is

actually flouting the authority of Lord by preaching something which

his own creation ?

 

Seeing bhagavan is not a normal thing. It is mukti. Baladeva's

Govinds bhasya mentions this. Even in Madhvas system they have the

same opinion. So says bhagavata 1.2.21:

 

bhidyate hrdaya-granthi; chidyante sarva

samasyah ksyante csya karmni drsta evaatmanvare

 

"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 self as master."

 

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.

 

Supreme is not object of perception for just anyone.

 

So now why disagree with Madhva's gita bhasya or rather his

siddhanta on whole ? How can his conclusions be erroneous when he is

capable of seeing bhagavan that too in His own abode which means

mukti ? One should realize one cannot arbritarily agree with one

point and dismiss other points as not true because one may very

easily though unintentionally, in the process make mockery of entire

Vedanta and Bhagavata Dharma. A soul is liberated yet goes on

preaching appsidhanta[not in agreement with bhagavan/sastra].

 

Its easy to say ok, we agree that Madhva met vyasa, but this has

certain implications, which are inevitable, and can become/pose

problem(s) if not properly explained.

 

Liberated souls are not prone to illusion, deciet, imperfect senses,

making mistakes. This is well known to all vedantins.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

> Liberated souls are not prone to illusion, deciet, imperfect

senses,

> making mistakes. This is well known to all vedantins.

>

>

why ? does sankara not cover the real meaning of the sastras ?

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> We are focussing on gaudiya admitting the

> fact that madhva met vyasa.

 

The point is that the Gaudiiyas would likely accept without challenge

anything the Maadhvas have to say about their own aachaarya's

history. They don't seem to be in the habit of challenging such

claims for the sake of challenge.

 

> > Besides, even Shankaraachaarya comes in Vyaasa's paramparaa (see

> > http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html). So

if

> > Vyaasa's son instructed Shankara's guru's guru, then should we

> accept

> > their philosophy ?

>

> That is what those guys claim. One is not bound to accept what

> someone claims.

 

Not even the Gaudiiyas have challenged this claim. If you know

something to the contrary, please provide evidence.

 

So yeah the question of accepting what advaitins say

> or rejecting them does not arises until one doesn't admits that

yeah

> i agree that gaudapada was Sukadeva's disciple.

 

The point is that if you accept the paramparaa above, either two

principles arise:

(1) we accept everything someone within a "bona fide" paramparaa says

on the sole basis that he comes in that paramparaa, or

(2) we accept that if one comes within a "bona fide" paramparaa, then

this is a necessary but not sufficient criterion upon which to judge

the validity of his system of scriptural interpretation - his claims

are subject to further cross-examination.

 

Obviously, #1 cannot be true, because although Shrii Shankaraachaarya

does come in a bona fide sampradaaya, this does not ipso facto speak

for the correctness of his system of Vedaanta. Hence my point - we

can accept Madhva being in Vyaasa's paramparaa, but that does not

guarantee that we accept all of his teachings.

 

> > Gaudiiyas are not Maadhvas. They derive their philosophy from

> > Shriimad Bhaagavatam, which is the best commentary on the

> > Vedaanta.

>

> Well i would like to say something over here. But since this is not

> relevant to our present topic, i shall save this for later.

 

The question is why they do not follow Madhva's commentaries. The

answer is that they follow Shrii Vedavyaasa's instead. Of course the

point is relevant.

 

> A person who according to you has preached stuff different from

> Vyasa, different from scriptures and something that his own

> creation, who has audacity to carry on with his own mind born

> philosophy despite it being against his Lord Vyasa whom he has met

> in person more than once, such a person is described by Baladeva as

> a boat to cross ocean of material world, wise men in this world

> praise him and is wishing him to be ever victorious. Well this

> doesn't seems sensible or right thing to do.

 

Why not? Shrii Aananda Tiirtha has done his research, and he has

every intellectual right to propagate his own system of Vedaanta. Why

should we think less of him for not following Shrii Vyaasa exactly?

The world of Vedaanta has historically accomodated diversity. Do you

think everyone claiming to represent Vedaanta has commented in

similar and not exclusive ways? If so, you are mistaken.

 

I see nothing contrary about Baladeva praising Aananda Tiirtha while

simultaneously adhering to a different system of Vedaanta.

 

> Also, how can a person who doesn't possess right knowledge walk

into

> abode of Supreme Person, percieve him, stand with him face to face,

> talk with him; do all this not just once but twice even when he is

> actually flouting the authority of Lord by preaching something

which

> his own creation ?

 

Historically, not only Vedaanta aachaaryas, but even other sages,

deities, etc have spoken philosophies which have become recorded as

various smriti texts. Historically, the authority of such texts has

been accepted to the extent that they do not contradict shruti.

 

It also depends on what you mean by "right knowledge." If one

understands that one is a servant of the Supreme Lord, does it matter

whether he thinks of himself as a fragmented part and parcel of the

Lord's tatastha shakti, or rather as a totally separate being? All

that is said in the Giitaa is that one should be able to leave his

body thinking of the Lord:

 

prayANa-kAle manasAcalena bhaktyA yukto yoga-balena caiva |

bhruvor madhye prANam Aveshya samyak sa taM paraM puruSham upaiti

divyam || gItA 8.10 ||

 

Since we know that we are to think of the Lord as servants, we can

easily see how believing in Advaita, which equates the jiivaatma to

the Lord, can be harmful to this consciousness. Beyond that, I am not

convinced that believing in the paradigm of one Vedaanta system over

another will make a difference in terms of attaining the Lord's

mercy. But lest I be accused of sentimentalism, I am prepared to

change my position on that if someone can convince me.

 

> Seeing bhagavan is not a normal thing. It is mukti. Baladeva's

> Govinds bhasya mentions this. Even in Madhvas system they have the

> same opinion. So says bhagavata 1.2.21:

>

> bhidyate hrdaya-granthi; chidyante sarva

> samasyah ksyante csya karmni drsta evaatmanvare

>

> "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 self as master."

>

> Vedanta Sutra 3.3.49

> "And this Mukti takes by seeing Lord."

 

Interesting quotes, but ultimately not relevant. The point is that

one must have the Lord's mercy via the mercy of His pure devotee

functioning as guru, and that one must understand his position of

servitude vis-a-vis the Lord. How one understands that, and the exact

importance as to the way one understands that (i.e. pure difference

versus qualified nondifference versus inconceivable oneness and

difference), is not clear.

 

> The meaning here is that one becomes liberated by seeing the

Supreme

> Personality of Godhead.

 

I have no objections to the idea of Madhva having attained

liberation. Nor am I saying his philosophy is "wrong," or that it

is "right." I am simply pointing out that the Gaudiiyas have taken

Vyaasa's version of Vedaanta directly, and it is beyond doubt that

their approach is different from Madhva's.

 

> So now why disagree with Madhva's gita bhasya or rather his

> siddhanta on whole ?

 

Is "not agreeing" the same as "disagreeing?" I am not aware of any

scholarly treatise in the Gaudiiya tradition refuting Madhva's views

on anything. But it is beyond doubt that they do not agree with all

of Madhva's views.

 

This may be very hard for you and most Tattvavaadis to believe, but

one can respect the contributions of other Vaishnava theologians even

if one does not agree with all of them.

 

It also goes without saying that there are greater enemies to one's

tradition than other Vaishnavas and their philosophies; the inability

to recognize this while simultaneously devoting all one's energies to

picking fights over esoteric points of philosophy is not likely to

help anyone.

 

How can his conclusions be erroneous when he is

> capable of seeing bhagavan that too in His own abode which means

> mukti ?

 

No one here said his conclusions are "erroneous." The problem is that

you are trying to see things in terms of black and white. "We don't

agree with him, therefore we disagree with him.He is liberated,

therefore we must agree with him.He is not liberated, therefore

some of his opinions are wrong.He comes in bona fide paramparaa,

therefore everything he says is right."

 

Is it not possible that these dichotomies bespeak of an

unsophisticated and uncultured mindset?

 

One should realize one cannot arbritarily agree with one

> point and dismiss other points as not true because one may very

> easily though unintentionally, in the process make mockery of

entire

> Vedanta and Bhagavata Dharma. A soul is liberated yet goes on

> preaching appsidhanta[not in agreement with bhagavan/sastra].

>

> Its easy to say ok, we agree that Madhva met vyasa, but this has

> certain implications, which are inevitable, and can become/pose

> problem(s) if not properly explained.

>

> Liberated souls are not prone to illusion, deciet, imperfect

senses,

> making mistakes. This is well known to all vedantins.

 

Try though you might, you cannot reconcile Chaitanya's philosophy

with that of Madhva's. Eventually, you will run into irreconciable

differences. If you cannot accomodate such diversity in your mind

within that realm of "correct," then you will be forced to reject one

or the other. If Madhva is 100% correct because he met the Lord, then

Chaitanya is wrong, even though being the Lord, because He said

something different. The Gopikas are either apasara-striiH who

worship the Lord out of lust, or they are eternally perfected

devotees whose worship is best among devotees. The Bhaagavatam is

either a very great puraana subject to interpretation based on

shruti, or the topmost scripture to enlighten the people of Kali

Yuga, who should base their understanding of shruti on it.

 

K

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/14/2004 12:33:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

sumeet1981 writes:

 

 

Its easy to say ok, we agree that Madhva met vyasa, but this has

certain implications, which are inevitable, and can become/pose

problem(s) if not properly explained.

 

Liberated souls are not prone to illusion, deciet, imperfect senses,

making mistakes. This is well known to all vedantins.

 

 

 

I don't think we have a problem saying that Madhva is liberated and

percieves the Lord. However, his method of interpretation is different from

ours.

Shankara and Madhva de-emphasize the dualistic and monistic statements in

sastra respectively. However, in the Gaudiya school, we take both categories of

statements at face value and reconcile them in achintya-bheda-abheda

(svabhavika-bheda-abheda for Nimbarkas). Specifically Madhva indirectly

rejects the

straightforward descriptions by Vyasadeva who describes oneness of the living

being and the Lord by interpreting them in some indirect way. This is the

same basic fault as Shankara, although Madhva does come to the conclusion of

Vishnu-sarvottama. Additionally, the Dvaitins are so paranoid about the fault

of repetition of a philosophical point in sastra, that a similar point made

a second time has to be drastically interpreted differently. Thus for these

two reasons, our basic critique of Tattvavada is that it does not take every

shastric statement "as it is."

 

One scholar named Ghate gave an analysis (easily purchased on the web) of

almost all the Vedanta sutra commentaries (but not Baladeva's) and found that

Nimbarka's svabhavika-bheda-abheda came closest to being a straightforward

interpretation of the text with least interpretation. I would guess that

Baladeva's would be equivalent or better in this regard.

 

 

Gerald

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> This is the same basic fault as Shankara, although Madhva does

> come to the conclusion of

> Vishnu-sarvottama.

 

sumeet is discussing madhwa - gaudiya issue and in this context this

is an uncalled for attack on sankara. is sankara's work as an example

for any thing faulty ? is this is the standard of respect you are

taught to to have for other schools of vedanta ? what to expect when

some bonafide leaders of iskcon have called sankara's philosophy "wet

stool". i wont be surprised if sankara's work is cited as an example

if your kids do their home work wrong.

 

krishna_susarla, now you may better understand why sometimes your

request for debate is ignored.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/16/2004 12:12:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

v_raja_ram writes:

 

sumeet is discussing madhwa - gaudiya issue and in this context this

is an uncalled for attack on sankara. is sankara's work as an example

for any thing faulty ?

 

 

The word "attack" means

1. To set upon with violent force.

2. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.

So how does pointing out only one (of the many faults) in Shankara's

philosophy count as an attack?

 

>i wont be surprised if sankara's work is cited as an example

>if your kids do their home work wrong.

 

If my kid persistently and consistently interprets a certain word or concept

in a specifically wrong way, then I strongly feel that would be an

appropriate analogy. But that doesn't mean I don't love or respect him.

Similarly, I

respect Shankaracharya for what good he has done such as re-establishing

respect for Vedic culture and Vedanta.

 

Gerald

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

I recently acquired the latest edition of ' Krishna

Kathamrita' published by Gopal Jiu Publications, Bhubaneshwar titled

"Vaisnavanam yatha Sambuh" . It focusses only on siva tattva and the

intimacy(oneness) between Lord shiva and Krishna with numerous quotes from

previous acharyas starting from Srila Prabhupada upto Lord Chaitanya.

It also discusses the section from Padma Purana where Lord

Shiva comes as Sri Adi Shankaracharya.The position of Lord shiva is discussed in

2 parts. the second part is under preparation. Having seen a number of posting

on Lord Shiva's Position and His Oneness etc, this gives very clear and crisp

information.Carefully reading this magazine might clear a lot of misconceptions.

 

dasa

Narasimhan

 

v_raja_ram <v_raja_ram wrote:

is sankara's work as an example

for any thing faulty ? is this is the standard of respect you are

taught to to have for other schools of vedanta ?

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!