My response to dvaita.org list - please correct me if I was wrong anywhere

[Guest guest]

This is a response to Sri Kesava Tadipatri's mail, I am not going to

spend my time on those whose idea of devotion to Narayana is to

give "beatings to others one after another". I am surprised at the

malice contained in such posts - I never mentioned that following

Caitanya is the only means to salvation, nor did I expect anyone to

accept Caitanya as Krishna because of my posts. My intent was

precisely to question this malice with which another Vaishnava

sampradaya is denigrated without a proper understanding of the

principles enunciated.

 

> That there are differences are acknowledged. I think

> you are reading too much into Prabhupada's statement

> at the beginning of the book.

 

<<<Why so? Has PrabhupAda made an effort to enlist the

differences and plainly state that Madhva system

has "these principles" and Gaudiya system is deviating

from "these principles" and then state the reasons and

provide logical and scriptural support for that?>>>

 

Prabhupada has pointed out that the followers of Caitanya differ

from tatvavadis, in precisely these words, in the Caitanya

Caritamrta.

 

> Whether Madhavendra Puri introduced the element of

> madhurya rasa which was absent in Laxmipathy Tirtha

> does not make them lose the link.

 

<<<I see. How do you know that it was absent in Laxmipathy

Tirtha? How do you define mAdhurya rasa? Won't every

school claim ownership to this?>>>

 

It is generally accepted that Madhavendra Puri's devotion was in the

mood of madhurya rasa, and that starting from him, it appears in the

Gaudiya sampradaya. It is not said like that for Laxmipathy Tirtha.

Even if one day, it is discovered that he was, it would not change

anything.

Madhurya rasa is the relationship where the devotee's feelings

towards the Lord are in the mood of His conjugal lover. In the

SriVaishnava sampradaya, Andal was one example. In case of the

Madhva sampradaya, the mood of Madhva or Raghavendra Tirtha or

Vadiraja etc was in the mood of dasya (as a servant), as in

Hanuman's devotion for Rama. It was not madhurya rasa.

Madhurya rasa is not the exclusive property of Gaudiyas, but it is

widely prevalent in Gaudiya sampradaya, unlike others.

 

<<<If this were true, that will posit a serious handicap

for Caitanya for having a thorough misconception about

moksha. While it is true that one, who goes to moksha,

becomes free from bodily trouble, the path to it is

certainly to resist from all desires.>>>

 

The path to moksha may be devoid of material pleasures, but the end

goal is definitely cessation of bodily troubles. The motivation is

still to ultimately avoid suffering and get out of samsara. But for

Caitanya and all the acharyas in Gaudiya sampradaya, the end goal

was service to the Lord, *even if* the Lord were to throw me away

into hell or neglect me or curse me to remain in samsara or become a

worm in the stool of a hog.

The desire for moksha is what Caitanya meant as "karma" or fruitive

desire. Bhakti that is coupled with desire for moksha is, for him,

not pure bhakti. And in the writings of tatvavada, moksha does

figure as the goal in many places.

 

<<<I don't see any purpose

in talking about "more" and "less" differences. What

is the problem in talking about the differences?>>>

 

Talking about differences is not a problem, but when one goes beyond

just talking of differences to threaten to beat others, and accusing

the acharya of another sampradaya of deliberate fraud and lying, it

certainly makes any person wonder what such people think of

themselves. Even if they are philosophically right, the fact that

even basic human civility is missing reflects very poorly on the

entire sampradaya. Even if some great acharya like Vadiraja or

Madhva engaged in polemics, it behoves one to first attain their

status before making such remarks.

 

<<<We can fully understand your caving in to the Gaudiya

school. You may have failed to notice the logical

difficulties in this. Has he shown himself with Chakra

to other devotees? No, he is not supposed to even show.

Lord has forgotten that he is not supposed to do that

and his devotee has to remind him that.>>>

 

The emphasis of the pastime was on the anger of the Lord when

someone dear to Him is hurt. He can tolerate insults to Himself but

not to His devotee. In any case, I would not like to go further into

this, for the issue of Caitanya = Krishna cannot be resolved on this

list, and I would like to focus more on some of the factual erros in

the statements made in the previous mails.

 

<<<This is another logical problem. Granted that Radharani

was one of the gopikas, who was a devotee. Where in the

scriptures, does it say that her devotion is greater

than that of Lakshmi, the eternal consort of the Lord?

Make a philosophy out of folklore>>>

 

Gaudiyas accept Radharani and Lakshmi as the same consort of the

Lord. I don't know why you call Radharani as folklore, when she is

mentioned in so many puranas. If they are all interpolations, just

because Acharya Madhva did not refer to her, it is not a

sufficiently strong argument. The same objection of

fabrication/interpolation can be raised against the untraceable

texts which Acharya Madhva quoted. This is not to say that he was

dishonest, but to say that likewise, these people are also not

dishonest.

 

<<<This is another height of ignorance. If this claim

were true, then Gaudiya sampradaya has given "tilodaka"

to the entire canon of vedic and upanishadic texts.

The Lord is antaryAmi and the cause for the feelings

and experience for all the beings. He is "svaramaNa",

meaning He does not need another being to give Him

joy. Even lakshmi gets joy from Him and not He from

Lakshmi. He is sarva preraka meaning instigator for

all the beings. If that were the case, His effort

to get into the mood of another and all such bogus

is quite laughable.>>>

 

This misunderstanding is again because of a lack of understanding of

the sweetness of the relationship of the Lord with His intimate

devotees. His crying to see Yashoda's stick is not an impersonal

act, but done as a reciprocation with His devotee, to enhance the

sweetness of their relationship. As much as Yashoda enjoys being His

mother, He enjoys being her child. If He can cry on being scolded by

His mother, then why cannot He take seemingly subordinate positions

with respect to Radharani, in His madhurya relationships?

And by the way, Gaudiyas do not say that He is incapable of doing

something. Rather, He allows Himself to be overpowered by the love

of His devotee by His own sweet will. It is by His own will that He

decides to do so.

 

> Even Madhusudana Saraswati wanted to be his

> disciple for which he went to Navadwip. But Caitanya

> was not there, and Madhusudana disappointed ended up

> going to Benaras being an advaitin.

 

<<<One must have been totally blinded not to see absurdity

in such accounts. Madhusudana Saraswati could not wait

for Caitanya? Or is it that the period of Madhusudana

Saraswati after (I think it is) after Caitanya. Being

Advaitin, why did he want to become Caitanya's disciple.

There are no records to indicate any of these.>>>

 

It is not absurd - this is stated by advaitins themselves - for

example, see Swami Gambhirananda's translation of Madhusudana

saraswati's commentary on Bhagavad Gita published by Advaita

Ashrama. Page 14 says - just a small excerpt - "..renounced home

when he was merely ten years and travelled all the way to Navadwip

to meet Sri caitanya Mahaprabhu who was famous then as an embodiment

of intense love of God. But as destiny would have it, at that time

Sri Caitanya was elsewhere in India spreading his message of bhakti.

Disappointed, no doubt, but not disheartened, Madhusudana

nevertheless stayed on there, waiting for Sri caitanya's return. And

in the meanwhile, studying under the guidance of Mathuranatha

Tarkavagisha, the then foremost professor of Nyaya, he mastered that

philosophy..... He also imbibed the devotional teachings of Sri

caitanya with which Navadwip was vibrant. After thorough studies at

Navadwip, and unable to meet Sri Caitanya even after a long time,

Madhusudana proceeded to Kashi..." where he eventually ended up

studying advaita and became an advaitin.

 

> Prakashananda Saraswati, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya and

> Keshava Kashmiri were stalwart scholars who were defeated

> by Caitanya.

 

<<<No records of any of these. No account of the kind of

arguments. No works to support these accounts.>>>

 

They are all described in detail in Caitanya Caritamrta, if only

people would care to read with an open mind, willing to accept

something beyond and outside 13th century Karnataka.

 

> And he deliberately did not write anything since he

> wanted the Bhagavatam to be brought to prominence

> which he did.

 

<<<I wonder how can one be so gullible...If caitanya refuted

mayavadins, and if he wanted the Bhagavatam to be

brought to prominence, he should have written

commentary on that ....>>>

 

That task was assigned to Jiva Goswami. Caitanya assigned all the

task of writing what he taught, to the 6 Goswamis. They explained

his teachings elaborately in their writings.

 

<<<There is a big host of literature to prove that

Madhva rejected Advaita. Show us one piece of work

showing how Caitanya rejected Mayavada...You mean associates then

and followers now. No

documentary evidece for his associates then for

criticizing Mayavada.>>>

 

This appears all over the Caitanya Caritamrta and in all the

writings of the 6 Goswamis. Even BNK Sharma points this out in HDSV.

I quote from there -

 

..."Bengal Vaishnava writers have as rule shown their undisguised

antipathy to the Mayavada of Shankara. Jiva says in so many words

that he would follow the lead of Sridhar Swami ONLY so far as it

would be in keeping with the principles of genuine Vaishnavism of

the Shuddha Vaishnava type... it is obvious that he cannot and would

not follow Sridhara in his predilections for advaita."

 

..."Rupa himself was considerably influenced by Madhva's special

doctrines... he not only quotes from Madhva, but is also anxious to

reconcile his views with those of Madhva, on certain very intimate

doctrines of Shuddha-Vaishnavism."

 

"The dependence on and attachment to the Bhagavata Purana shown by

Madhva's system was also probably one important factor which brought

the Caitanya cult closer to it and those of Shankara or Ramanuja...

which was bound to come as a logical fulfillment of its Shuddha

Vaishnavism."

 

This also counters Mr. Shrisha Rao's contention that Caitanya school

is closer to Shankara than to Madhva. BNK Sharma has himself

admitted it. And a simple study of Caitanya Caritamrta, and the

literature of the 6 goswamis will make even a child understand how

radically Caitanyites oppose Mayavada.

 

> Baladeva's commentary on

> brahma sutra is certainly closer to madhva than anyone

> else, and so the similarities are also many.

 

<<<To claim this, you must have read all the commentaries on

Brahmasutras.>>>

 

Well, I am sure you would not hesitate to accept the quotes from the

same book by BNK Sharma which you have asked me to read -

Page 596: "...Baladeva's commentary on the Brahma Sutra bears the

stamp of the greatest influence and impact of Madhva's thought and

interpretation upon it. In him Madhva influence on the Caitanya

school has reached its zenith."

 

Same page:

"These facts are sufficient to establish that Baladeva is virtually

in agreement with Madhva on all the fundamental points of his

system. That is why we find him proclaiming his loyalty to Madhva

and affirming the historical and spiritual descent of the Caitanya

sampradaya from Madhva without any hesitation or mental

reservation.... This should suffice to place his allegiance to

Madhva sampradaya *beyond question*."

 

This only confirms mine and several other people's conviction that

an attempt to denigrate the acharyas of Gaudiya sampradaya simply

stems from the envy and jealousy of seeing people flocking to

Gaudiya temples and ISKCON. BNK Sharma has written these unambiguous

statements in his book, in spite of the fact that he has pointed out

the differences also. But the above was quoted from his conclusion

after those differences were discussed.

 

I am sure some people on this forum will flock to try to make him

change his stance here as well. But we have already seen what

conclusions his objective study of the Caitanya sampradaya has led

to in his above words. Granted that there are differences, there are

many more similarities, and to clump Gaudiyas with Mayavada etc goes

against BNK Sharma's own clear statements.

 

I am ending it here. I honestly have no strength or motivation to

try to argue with people who said the CC was written centuries later

and without citing sources. I have already shown both these to be

false in a previous mail. Yet the only reply that was given to it

was "rubbish".

 

Let people read Caitanya Caritamrta and see if it is actually

rubbish, as declared by people who didn't even read it but simply

depended on the words of another person, who like them, was out to

riot against Gaudiyas at all costs. The Nityananda-avadhuta

allegation has already been refuted long back on the gosai.com

website.

 

 

Regards,

Bharathi

[Guest guest]

I recommend against responding on Dvaita.org or in private e-mail to

the ugly remarks of the Dvaita list. What point is there in arguing

with fanatics? The most effective thing, in my opinion, would be to

put all the arguments together along with a point-by-point refutation

up on a public website as the gosai.com people have done.

 

That being said, I think the major corrections I would suggest would

be to quote your sources explicitly here:

 

> Prabhupada has pointed out that the followers of Caitanya differ

> from tatvavadis, in precisely these words, in the Caitanya

> Caritamrta.

 

and here:

 

> Gaudiyas accept Radharani and Lakshmi as the same consort of the

> Lord. I don't know why you call Radharani as folklore, when she is

> mentioned in so many puranas.

 

regards,

 

HKS