About differences in parampara

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Krishna,

After the debate on the dvaita list about the significance of the

differences in the commentaries of Srila Prabhupada and Acharya

Madhva, I had a general question to ask. The details need not matter

if the answer to this question is clear:

 

Is it possible for an acharya to differ from previous parampara

acharyas in the philosophical tenets of the system? Srila

Prabhupada's commentary on Bhagavad Gita is (from what I have heard

from others) based on the commentaries of Gaudiya-specific acharyas

like Sri Vishwanatha and Sri Baladeva, and Sri Ramanujacharya. It is

also claimed that Sri Vishwanatha's commentary was based on those of

Sri Sridhar Svami and Sri Madhusudana Saraswati. Both of these

acharyas are considered advaitins by Madhvas - it is also said that

Sri Caitanya defended Sridhar Svami [to Vallabhacharya] because

Sridhar Svami had shown a soft corner for devotion to Vishnu in his

commentary on Bhagavata, though his philosophical conclusions

supported advaita.

 

>From all this, Shrisha Rao got angry that Srila Prabhupada did not

refer to or quote from the commentaries of Madhva, Jayatirtha or

Raghavendra Svami, but their names appear in the list of disciplic

succession (not Raghavendra), and that there are many differences

between Bhagavad Gita As It Is and Tatvavada commentaries. Given

this fact, he felt it is misleading to quote Madhva, Jayatirtha and

other Tatvavadi acharyas as part of the disciplic chain when their

position differs. So considering the point that Srila Prabhupada

did not refer or quote from Tatvavada commentaries, how do we

understand that a whole set of Tatvavadi acharyas appears in the

parampara list quoted by Srila Prabhupada?

 

So the main issue reduces to the question I have stated at the top,

and clarifications from you or other respected Gaudiyas will be

useful to throw light on this issue.

 

With kind regards,

Anant

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Krishna,

> After the debate on the dvaita list about the significance of the

> differences in the commentaries of Srila Prabhupada and Acharya

> Madhva, I had a general question to ask. The details need not

matter

> if the answer to this question is clear:

 

Again, I would advise against trying to have a rational conversation

on the Dvaita list. For whatever that's worth.

 

> Is it possible for an acharya to differ from previous parampara

> acharyas in the philosophical tenets of the system?

 

It's been done. Shrii Shankaraachaarya claims a paramparaa from

Shrii Vedavyaasa, even though Vyaasa is not an Advaitin. Some

Maadhva sources (see Mani Manjari - one of the two main biographies

of Madhva) list Madhva's paramparaa through his Advaitin guru (even

though many say he is Vyaasa's disciple); this too in spite of the

fact that he converted his Advaitin guru. Shrii Vallabhaachaarya

claims to be in Shriidhar Swaamii's paramparaa, even though he wrote

a distinct set of commentaries.

 

There are also many "oneness" references in the Bhaagavatam which

lead me to believe that Madhva differed from Vyaasa in his strictly

dualistic interpretation.

 

In Sri Vaishnava tradition, both Vadakalais and Tenkalais claim guru-

paramparaa to Raamaanuja, even though their philosophies and

practices differ. Obviously, they cannot both be following

Raamaanuja in every respect, when they differ with each other.

 

Several of the Ashta-Matha swamis representing Maadhva Vaishnavism

have indicated they believe there is a Maadhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa -

see the links to the gosai site provided earlier. What of their

opinions? They obviously know that Prabhupada is not a Maadhva.

 

Srila

> Prabhupada's commentary on Bhagavad Gita is (from what I have

heard

> from others) based on the commentaries of Gaudiya-specific

acharyas

> like Sri Vishwanatha and Sri Baladeva, and Sri Ramanujacharya.

 

Shrii Raamaanuja belongs to a different tradition. Bhagavad-Gita As

It Is is based on the commentaries of Vishvanaatha and Baladeva. I

think Prabhupada quoted Raamaanuja only once in his BG 2.12 purport.

 

It is

> also claimed that Sri Vishwanatha's commentary was based on those

of

> Sri Sridhar Svami and Sri Madhusudana Saraswati. Both of these

> acharyas are considered advaitins by Madhvas -

 

The Maadhvas are incorrect about Shriidhar Swaamii. He was not an

Advaitin - he belonged to Vishnuswaamii's school.

 

Vishvanaatha did quote Madhusudana Saraswati a couple of times, but

this is hardly the same as saying that his commentary was based on

Madhusudana's. It's simply giving credit where credit is due -

sometimes even some Advaitins have genuine devotional sentiments,

although taken as a whole Advaita is not acceptable to Vaishnavas.

 

it is also said that

> Sri Caitanya defended Sridhar Svami [to Vallabhacharya] because

> Sridhar Svami had shown a soft corner for devotion to Vishnu in

his

> commentary on Bhagavata, though his philosophical conclusions

> supported advaita.

 

This is often taken out of context. Vallabhaachaarya (as CC

describes it), was trying to outdo the previous commentators rather

than writing the commentary out of a genuine mood of devotion. Shrii

Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu did not appreciate this pride-mishra bhakti

and chastised Vallabha.

 

> From all this, Shrisha Rao got angry that Srila Prabhupada did not

> refer to or quote from the commentaries of Madhva, Jayatirtha or

> Raghavendra Svami, but their names appear in the list of disciplic

> succession (not Raghavendra), and that there are many differences

> between Bhagavad Gita As It Is and Tatvavada commentaries.

 

Srila Prabhupada does quote Madhva several times in his Bhaagavatam

commentary. One was in regards to Madhva's position on animal-

sacrifices in the Vedas, and the other that I remember was in

regards to Madhva's position on Lord Raama's "attachment" to his

wife. However, this does not make him a Tattvavaadi.

 

Given

> this fact, he felt it is misleading to quote Madhva, Jayatirtha

and

> other Tatvavadi acharyas as part of the disciplic chain when their

> position differs. So considering the point that Srila Prabhupada

> did not refer or quote from Tatvavada commentaries, how do we

> understand that a whole set of Tatvavadi acharyas appears in the

> parampara list quoted by Srila Prabhupada?

 

They share a paramparaa, but they do not share a philosophy. We've

been over this many times ad nauseum, but Srisha Rao persists in

presenting it as a if it were some novel doubt.

 

How did Maadhavendra Purii become the great devotee he was if he did

not have a guru? It was said of him that he experienced very

advanced stages of bhaava - would this be possible for someone

without the grace of a pure devotee? And if it is agreed that

Maadhavendra Purii had a guru, then who is it? There is no evidence

that he had a guru outside the Tattvavaadi lineage.

 

Listing the Maadhva paramparaa is simply giving credit where credit

is due. Not to list it would be rude. It is not a statement that

Gaudiiyas are Maadhvas in outlook; everyone knows this. The real

problem is that Srisha can't stand Maadhva software engineers going

to ISKCON temples and failing to read ISKCON books carefully about

the philosophical differences. So he feels the need to turn this

paramparaa thing into an "issue," which naturally causes Gaudiiyas

to defend it (since they don't like their aachaaryas being labelled

as liars). Because Gaudiiyas defend it, Srisha then reacts by saying

that Gaudiiyas are emphasizing it (which they did not do before when

no one criticized it), thus leading him to spew even more venom at

the Gaudiiyas, leading Gaudiiyas to defend it even more.... etc. And

like that, the vicious circle continues.

 

> So the main issue reduces to the question I have stated at the

top,

> and clarifications from you or other respected Gaudiyas will be

> useful to throw light on this issue.

 

I'm not aware of any explicit shaastric pramaana that one must

always share the same Vedaanta understanding as one's

puurvaachaaryas - this is usually understood from tradition.

However, as mentioned previously, there are also historical

precedents to the contrary. I don't see that much else can be said.

The Maadhvas will feel very happy that they found a "fault" in Shrii

Chaitanya's tradition (mostly so they can feel better about

themselves). Meanwhile, the rest of us can go on doing our service.

 

I really wish we could live in a world where facts and cool logic

could settle any dispute, but sadly it is not so. Just now I was in

private correspondence with a Sri Vaishnava who claimed Gaudiiya

paramparaa was illegitimate for reasons he was unwilling to consider

in regards to his own paramparaa. What is one to do? We can go on

simply stating the facts and let people draw whatever conclusions

they want. Frankly, I am of the opinion these days that the greatest

threats to Srila Prabhupada's preaching mission are coming from

within - all this talk about how the Gaudiiya guru-paramparaa is

genuine will not help if the real corruptions in the Gaudiiya

Vaishnava community are not rooted out. That's all I wish to say on

that.

 

regards,

 

HKS

[Guest guest]

I just had one followup comment about this. There are many following

the Gaudiiya camp who are perplexed about the irrational animosity

of Tattvavadis towards Gaudiiyas.

 

Gaudiiyas have a concept of "four Vaishnava sampradayas" who deserve

reverence; Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati set an example to this

effect when he built a temple honoring all four sampradaayas.

Naturally, Gaudiiyas are inclined to be friendly to followers of

other Vaishnava sampradaayas, perhaps even to a fault.

 

But Tattvavadis have no such concept. As far as they are concerned,

theirs is the one, true Vedaanta, and all others must be

aggressively studied and refuted wherever they disagree with the

pure doctrine preached by Madhva.

 

Thus (in my experience), it is not a question of whether you belong

to a "bona fide Vaishnava sampradaaya" or not, but rather whether

you are following Madhva or are tainted by some degree of

maayaavaada. You can say you belong to this or that sampradaaya, but

as far as they are concerned, it is just a question of how and to

what degree your beliefs are tainted by maayavaada.

 

Consequently, you cannot expect to earn their respect or friendship,

unless you are willing to look the other way when they criticize

your gurus. You may argue that you don't really want respect for

yourself, but just that they respect our tradition, our

puurvaachaaryas, etc - but that is the point. As far as they are

concerned, our gurus are influenced to some degree by false

conclusions, and they (by which I mean the brahmins-turned-software

engineers) will not give them any more regard than they do to neo-

Vedantic thinkers. In fact, Srisha Rao lists the ISKCON website

under the "Neo-Vedanta" subheading of the Dvaita List's Links

section.

 

I realize this sounds harsh and cynical, but it's just based on my

observation. Like I said before, I don't think we live in a world

where everyone's personal truth is based on facts and logic. Rather,

it seems that everyone just sticks up for whatever tradition they

are born in, to the point of immaturely going after anyone who

disagrees with them.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, anantshenoy2000 wrote:

> Is it possible for an acharya to differ from previous parampara

> acharyas in the philosophical tenets of the system?

 

Madhvacarya certainly differed from his guru, as did Ramanujacarya. Of course,

both of them founded (or rejuvenated) a new system and wrote a Brahmasutra

bhasya to expound that system.

 

Perhaps you're instead asking if an acarya would differ from his guru while

remaining *within* the same philosophical system? Lord Caitanya objected to

this regarding Vallabhacarya.

 

 

 

 

> It is

> also claimed that Sri Vishwanatha's commentary was based on those of

> Sri Sridhar Svami and Sri Madhusudana Saraswati.

 

The latter may have been quoted therein, but to say that Visvanatha Thakura's

commentary is *based* on Madhusudana Sarasvati's views seems like quite a

stretch.

 

 

 

 

> Both of these acharyas are considered advaitins by Madhvas

 

This is most likely because, unlike the majority of Vedanta schools, the Madhva

system does not give any quarter at all to the notion of abheda, as a hard and

fast principle. Thus, suddha-dvaita often interprets the advaita-vakyas of the

srutis in a manner that could hardly appear other than fanciful. There is no

wrong in that, especially given Madhva's preaching context. But I think to hold

this up as the final statement of Vedanta is not very convincing, nor even as

reasonable as it could be. It is especially troubling if we consider the fact

that Madhva spent more time bashing Sankara's views than in establishing his

own.

 

 

 

 

- it is also said that

> Sri Caitanya defended Sridhar Svami [to Vallabhacharya] because

> Sridhar Svami had shown a soft corner for devotion to Vishnu in his

> commentary on Bhagavata, though his philosophical conclusions

> supported advaita.

 

The Bhagavatam itself supports advaita just as much as the srutis and other

sastras do; it is unavoidable. The crux of the matter is how it does so, and

how much (or little). The various philosophical schools are based on this.

 

 

 

 

> From all this, Shrisha Rao got angry that Srila Prabhupada did not

> refer to or quote from the commentaries of Madhva, Jayatirtha or

 

Srila Prabhupada cites Madhva and other Tattvavada acaryas regularly,

sometimes quite extensively.

 

We usually need to hear more than speak. I hope this is helpful.

 

MDd