Srisha Rao's and Sumeet Chandra's criticism of Gaudiya Philosophy ...

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

It is indeed a waste of time relating matters of

philosophy to persons who cannot cross beyond the

rigidity of their mental framework further anchored by

the association of collective bottlenecks.

 

The entire discourse of the dvaita list is basically

centred around the misconception that the Gaudiya

Vaishnavas claim to follow Madhva's philosophy in

toto. Hence, Srila Prabhupada's presentation is a

deviation based on Tattvavada conclusions. This has

never been claimed by the Gaudiya Vaishnava line. The

link is primarily historical rather than theological

although any mature observer of Vaishnava Samparadayas

cannot but fail to notice that significant

similarities do exist side by side with differences.

 

However, there is no use relating to people who have

blockheaded mindsets. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas see their

philosophy as a further evolutionary development from

Madhva's philosophy, with certain improvisations and

developments that may not totally agree with the

latter. They give all due respect to Madhva but take

the finality of spiritual conclusions from Madhavendra

Puri and the stream that descends through him via Lord

Chaitanya.

 

This has been told time and time again but it appears

that some persons cannot see any words beyond their

own in mails and articles relayed to them. We are not

shy about the differences. We do not expect the

Madhvas to agree also. But, there has to be an

understanding of further developments beyond 13th

century Karnataka. Differences do not necessarily mean

conflict unless a zealot makes it out to be so.

 

As for Krishna being superior to Vishnu, this has also

been discussed an umpteen number of times. The GVs

also assert that there is no difference or lack in any

of the Lord's primary forms. This is also pointed out

by Srila Rupa Goswami. The difference or gradation

however comes in terms of rasa vichara or the

manifestation of mellows. Perhaps Sumeet or Srisha

could quote some reference to show that Vamana or

Nrsimha forms have the full array of rasas manifested.

The Lord is complete in all forms but it is in

Krishna's personality that He manifests Himself as

akhila-rasamrta-murti, fully manifesting all the

various rasas. This is what the GVs are interested in.

The full enjoyment of mellows. This seems to be such a

simple thing to understand. Madhva did not support or

deny this aspect of rasa. He has left it untouched. He

has indicated however that differentiating or

espousing internal differences between the Lord and

His form in terms of potency, paraphernalia, etc. is a

fault. But it seems that a small section of

present-day so-called Madhvas are simply hell-bent on

making a mountain of a molehill.

 

As for pramanas like Navadvipa dham Mahatmya, we might

retort about shastric pramana for Sri Raghavendra

being Prahlada's amsa. There is also an instance of an

acharya in the Madhva line being a bull of another

personality in a previous life. If we are made to look

like a joke, then what are we to describe these claims

as ?

 

The point is that truth does evolve and more

revelations may come but those who are myopic stick to

their framework as axiomatic and place a glass ceiling

above their heads. But when defending their own

philosophy from similar accusations by an earlier

idea, they would also argue like us. Give to others

what one expects from others. Simple sense - this

evades them.

 

As for all the other issues, we may present them in

further mails. But the bottom line remains that the

entire attempt is to create a sense of negativity and

inferiority in those who are trying to understand

Gaudiya Siddhanta through a mishmash of self-imposed

frameworks and traditional but ashastric dogma. Let us

not fall into this trap. All these dogmas come from

those who are faulty in their pratyaksha and anumana.

Why bother ?

 

As I had previously mentioned to Sumeet Prabhu in my

correspondence with him, one giant may criticise

another because they are in the same arena. But what

is the use of a mouse like us who cannot properly any

gigantic position properly, trying to opine and

ridicule or render an idea absurd ? We should approach

Vedanta with understanding every position and

counter-position, not with taking sides and whacking

without even having sufficient knowledge and

realisation and slamming something we may be wrongly

understanding due to our own indulgence in the modes

of passion and ignorance. It is good to understand,

but taking sides is another matter that requires

proper spiritual realisation. Even then, no mature

person would be quick to place an axiomatic

universality on a view that is basically just the

figment of an individual conditioned soul's reading of

things. What we may understand or not understand may

not even be what the Acharya is actually relaying ! To

be sucked in by slants and to take these as the real

thing is very very dangerous.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

 

 

ys

r. jai simman

jakarta, indonesia .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The basic problem of the Tattvavadi community is that they have no

temples in the West. They are coming to US in droves, giving up their

brahminical calling, but they still have interest in going to Vaishnava

temples, which usually means ISKCON.

 

Srisha Rao and others like him can't stand this, so they take it out on

ISKCON. This is their motivation - they want to so thoroughly discredit

Gaudiya Vaishnvas that Tattvavadis will stop going to ISKCON temples.

That is why they are not objective and why we must persist in refuting

their accusations.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jai Simman R. Rangasamy"

<rjsimman> wrote:

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas see their

> philosophy as a further evolutionary development from

> Madhva's philosophy, with certain improvisations and

> developments that may not totally agree with the

> latter.

 

I realize that outsiders see it that way. But I think Gaudiya

Vaishnavas see their doctrine not as a new philosophy, but rather as

the most perfect explanation of what is already in the Bhagavatam (and

by extension, the Vedanta).

 

To outsiders, of course, it looks like a mere modification on

Tattvavada. Gaudiyas these days do not necessarily discourage this

view, but I think this paradigm of the scholars will break down under

further examination. For example, Baladeva's concept of achintyatva is

not exactly the same as Madhva's concept of visesha. The former relates

the Lord to all the dependent entities while the latter relates a thing

to its attributes (as per my understanding).

 

More importantly, I think we have to make this distinction, because a

true Vedanta school will consider its thinking as eternal as the

scriptures.