Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Hare Krishna to all devotees. I usually do not cross post postings from other threads. But the following one struck me and I wish to seek some clarification in this regard, not about the writer's faith but about what our gaudiya siddhanta actually says in these regards. I find his mail very simplistic for it only shows one concept of the terms from the gaudiya approach. The Gaudiya concept has multiple understandings depending on how the verses are covered. Srila Prabhupada has covered many facets of words like karma and jnana, etc., not just the type the writer presents. Also, his historical understanding is basically his own preferential speculation, nothing more definitive than that. Any comments about the concepts from the gaudiya view ? ys jai simman jkta _______________ Namaskar, My pranaams to all Hari-bhaktas. Though I am not a learned member, I have been associated with Gaudiya parampara for years, but have recently left after coming across Acharya Madhva's philosophy. So I hope I would answer your question accurately. > I recently heard a lecture delivered by Madhva -Gaudiya Parampara. > According to the lecture they say, > Jnani understands God as Brahman;Yogi understands God as Paramatma;and Devotee understands God as Bhagavan.Out of these only a devotee understands the God efficiently and easily. Is this true? Yes. The Gaudiya parampara has a notion (which I found difficult to accept, after coming across Madhva Bhashya) that Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three different features of the Absolute Truth. For them, the terms you have used mean the following: Jnani = Impersonalist / Mayavadis (generally) Yogi = Ashtanga Yogi, who does yogic austerities to get yogic siddhis, and mainly meditates. Devotee = Bhakta of Lord Krishna Brahman = Impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth Paramatma = All-pervading feature of Absolute Truth Bhagavan = Personal feature of Absolute Truth, which they equate with Krishna. For Gaudiyas, the Brahman feature is "lower" than paramatma feature, which is "lower" than the Bhagavan feature. I think that it is because of history and geography that Gaudiya philosophy has developed the way it has. In 16th century Bengal, Advaita influence was heavy, and so Shankaracharya's commentary was considered most authoritative. Gaudiyas wanted to differ from Advaitins, but probably they did not have the scholarship of Madhva to take the bull by its horns. So they have written their commentaries more or less derived from Shankara (and Ramanuja) but differed from Shankara about the connotation of the words. For example, because Shankara says that only jnana leads to moksha, Gaudiyas have admitted a class of spiritualists (jnanis) who strive for moksha through "speculation on the Upanishads". These jnanis are after impersonal Brahman, but the personal feature is higher, and so this way, the jnanis (advaitins) are relegated to a lower platform than the bhaktas (who are after the Bhagavan feature). Note that except for Baladeva Vidyabhushana in the 18th century, Gaudiyas did not write commentaries on Upanishads, and even today, except for the Ishavasya commentary, the other commentaries on the principal Upanishads written by him have been lost. This reflects their attitude that Upanishads primarily talk of "impersonal Brahman" that the jnanis ("advaitins") are after. It is (I think) for this reason that Gaudiyas look down on jnana - because jnana is synonymous with the knowledge of Upanishads as per advaitins. (just as karma is synonymous with fruitive work, like the Mimamsakas) That is why, Rupa Goswami writes that uttama-bhakti (pure devotion) is devoid of all karma and jnana. He means that it should be devoid of all fruitive endeavors, and speculative knowledge. Of course, for Madhvacharya, there is no room for an "impersonal Brahman" in the shastras. For him, jnani and bhakta are not different. But Gaudiyas allow the advaitins to usurp the term "jnani" (and keep the term "bhakta" for themselves). Similarly, the yogi that Sri Krishna describes in the 6th chapter of Bhagavad Gita is said to be an ashtanga yogi who meditates and realizes the paramatma in his heart. For Gaudiyas, dhyana yoga is an independent path, that is very difficult, and leads to realization of paramatma feature. They say that paramatma feature is lower because the yogi does not serve the Lord actively using hands and legs, unlike Krishna's devotees in Vrindavana who served Him in various ways. So Gaudiya philosophy has different kinds of people: 1. Karmis - who are after fruits of their work 2. Jnanis - who sit and speculate on the Upanishads, aiming to "merge into impersonal Brahman". 3. Yogis - who sit and do meditation, and in the end (after many many births of severe austerities in the forest) realize the paramatma. 4. Bhaktas - who adopt the path of devotion (devoid of karma and jnana above) and reach the highest goal - Goloka Vrindavana in Vaikuntha, where they share an active relationship in different rasas with Bhagavan Sri Krishna. I don't know the answer to your second question. Sincerely, Omkar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hare Krishna, The mail you quoted is by one of my friends. He has requested me to request you to not crosspost his mail on Gaudiya lists, since he says he does not want to offend any Gaudiya Vaishnava, and wants to have regard for them. But he wants to clarify his stand, since the original mail was sent to a person who is not a Gaudiya but a Madhva, and on this list, almost everyone is in the Gaudiya school. I am pasting here what he has asked me to add, since his mail is already posted on this list with name and all. -------------------------------- I find his mail very > simplistic for it only shows one concept of the terms > from the gaudiya approach. The Gaudiya concept has > multiple understandings depending on how the verses > are covered. Srila Prabhupada has covered many facets > of words like karma and jnana, etc., not just the type > the writer presents. I do agree that my mail was simplistic. However, it is based on my studies of Gaudiya literatures, and comparing them with Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva commentaries. Srila Prabhupada surely does not always use "j~nAna" for impersonalists. But it is also true without a doubt that a j~nAnI is used to refer to speculators on UpaniShads at many places. One example that I particularly found difficult to ignore was the one in Caitanya Caritamrta where Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu tells the Madhva sannyAsI that his sampradAya is contaminated with karma and j~nAna. Let us ignore for the moment that the reply of the Madhva sannyAsI, that varnAshrama dharma performed for the pleasure of the Lord is the means to liberation, is not at all Madhva's position or his party policy (which has made some Madhva scholars reject the authenticity of the account). Now, if you look at the context, it is clear that "karma" there has been taken to be fruitive activity, and equated with varNAshrama dharma, and j~nAna has been equated with "speculative knowledge aimed at merging into the Absolute Truth". (purport, http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/277/en) Now for a MAdhva, j~nAna has a positive connotation. Because a person who speculates on the Upanishads is no j~nAnI. Advaitins may do word jugglery on Upanishads, but as far as Madhva is concerned, the Upanishads are as theistic as the Bhagavad GItA. But I have heard many Gaudiya preachers say that Upanishads are meant for impersonalists, and that they speak of the impersonal Brahman feature. I know that at other places, Gaudiyas would also say that Upanishads are speaking of the Lord only, but there is not one clear stand on this. The oft-quoted verse SB 1.2.11 does not in itself make any distinction between Brahman, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn - rather it emphasizes their identity in all respects. Moreover, for Madhva, bhakti and j~nAna are inseparable. If you condemn j~nAna, you are condemning bhakti too. And if you condemn bhakti, you are condemning j~nAna. >From what I saw, Srila Prabhupada's translations are quite close to Shankara and Ramanuja bhashyas. For example, his quotes from the principal Upanishads come primarily from RamanujAchArya's bhAshya, or from someone whose purports in turn are based on RAmAnuja (compare for instance the quotes from the Upanishads and Brahma- SUtras in the purport of BG 13.5 with RAmAnuja bhAshya on the same verse). I know that he has quoted from Madhva in the BhAgavatam purports, but as far as I see, he has not based the GItA on Madhva- bhAshya at all (for whatever reasons - perhaps he did not have it with him, or reasons best known to him). Srila NArAyaNa MahArAja's Bhagavad GItA has explicit quotes from MadhusUdana Saraswati's GItA commentary, who, you may know, spoke unprintable abuses about VyAsatIrtha (you can refer to his commentary online on purebhakti.com). This again supports my feeling that Gaudiyas have been acknowledging advaitins all through their history. But in any case, you will see that the Gaudiya purports are often a mix of purports from different schools, and particularly when they are based on the advaitic purports, (an important instance of this is BG 12.1, which you can compare with Shankara and Madhusudana Saraswati's commentaries) they try to differ in the connotation or meaning but accepting the advaitins' writings. Madhva has an entirely different interpretation for this, and to him, there is no impersonal Brahman feature that KR^ishNa has ever given room to in the GItA. Also, his historical > understanding is basically his own preferential > speculation, nothing more definitive than that. It is surely speculation, and that is why I wrote "I think" at the very beginning. But it is hard for me to avoid this conclusion, since many tenets in Gaudiya philosophy are derived from the advaita school. For instance, karma-kAnDa and j~nAna-kAnDa divisions of Veda are accepted by advaitins, who say that karma is for aj~nAnIs and j~nAna is for mumukShus. The Gaudiya quote "karma-kAnDa j~nAna-kAnDa kevala vishera bhAnDa" is a silent acceptance of the advaitic tenets, perhaps because of their stronghold on the Upanishads at that time in that place (I don't mean it in a derogatory sense by the way). For Madhva, there is no such division, and more than a "vishera bhAnDa", the so-called j~nAna-kAnDa gives solid knowledge of the Lord's glories. The same applies to the so-called karma-kAnDa section. At the least, it is quite clear that the philosophy is different from Madhva in many important places, according status to the advaitins' commentaries which Madhva has outrightly rejected. Perhaps this is why many MAdhvas are angered by the disciplic succession claim issue. I know that the Gaudiya acharyas do not accept the advaitic tenets, and that is why I was bewildered as to what reason could there be then to accord status to the advaitic works by the Gaudiyas. The only answer seems to be - lack of sufficient scholarship to take the bull by the horns. I would be happy to know if I am wrong here. I do not mean it in a derogatory sense, but it is hard for me to believe that someone with scholarship did not actually come forward, since a stronghold of advaita over society is dangerous for Gaudiyas themselves. "There are three classes of transcendentalists, namely the j~nAnI, the yogI and the bhakta - or the impersonalist, the meditator and the devotee." - Srila Prabhupada, page 4, Introduction of Bhagavad GItA. I would be interested to know the reason for this equation of j~nAnI with impersonalists if I am wrong. Also a related issue: I would also be interested if some Gaudiya Vaishnava could throw light on why Sridhar Swami's commentary on BhAgavata is given so much of authority. Is it because they think he was actually right, or because his commentary had a stronghold in north India at the time? I know that some Gaudiyas say that he was in VishNuswAmI sampradAya, and to those who say this, I would like to know (genuinely, since I am not clear about this issue) what they would make of the following statement by Sridhar Swami in his commentary on Bhagavata 1.1.1: yat-satyatayä mithyä-sargo 'pi satyavat pratéyate "Because of whose reality, even the illusory creation of His, seems like real." Note the word "mithyA" to describe the creation - is this Vishnuswami's tenet? From what I know, only advaitins claim the world is false. Also, compare what Srila PrabhupAda has translated for this verse - he follows Sridhar Swami, but then Gaudiyas mean it in a sense that it is constantly in flux, and is temporary. But Sridhar Swami doesn't! He says this jagat is "mithya". "Mithya" does not mean "real but constantly in a flux". So then, the issue arises : why did the Gaudiyas choose Sridhar Swami's understanding over MadhvAchArya's understanding? What is the problem with disagreeing with this statement, so much so that VallabhAchArya (who ironically is known to be in VishNuswAmi sampradAya) was called a prostitute for disagreeing from Sridhar Swami? This is a personal issue for me, because so was I (probably based on the authority of that section in Caitanya Caritamrta), which hurt me a lot. Isn't VallabhAchArya in Vishnuswami line? If yes, didn't he know what he was doing when he said he did not agree with Sridhar Swami? Would you still say Sridhar Swami is in Vishnuswami sampradaya? Here's another quote from his commentary on SB 1.3.33: Commenting on the phrase "tad brahma-darshanam", Sridhar Swami writes "tadA jIvaH brahmaiva bhavati iti arthaH" - that the jiva then becomes Brahman itself, this is the intended meaning. Now, it is difficult to be satisfied with such purports. What is wrong if VallabhAchArya disagreed with them? More importantly, for all their dislike of mAyAvAda, and claim of disciplic succession from Madhva, wouldn't it have been obvious to follow his BhAgavata-tAtparya-nirNaya? Judging from the fact that Gaudiyas didn't, the only satisfactory answer I am left with is that because of geography, they probably did not have access to Madhva's commentaries, and they were forced to accept the scholarship of advaitins in that region. For someone who has been called an unchaste housewife who goes and sleeps with another man, and an ungrateful person whose body would not even be touched by rakshasas, you would know that this issue matters a lot. I would be grateful to any Gaudiya Vaishnava who can address this issue in detail. For the good of their own school, the Gaudiyas should set these issues in order, so that at least the authorities don't have to say such words to people who come with doubts, leaving them not just with their doubts intact, but their hearts also shattered by such painful words. ------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 I don't have any false hopes that I am somehow going to clarify this gentleman's doubts. My experience with Tattvavadis is that when they want to believe ill of your philosophy, even clear explanations become suddenly difficult to understand for them. It's just that they have this very myopic vision as to how things should be, and anything which does not fall within that field of vision is immediately judged to be illogical or unacceptable or whatever. Still, here goes.... achintya, "anantshenoy2000" <anantshenoy2000> wrote: > Srila Prabhupada surely does not always use "j~nAna" for > impersonalists. But it is also true without a doubt that a j~nAnI is > used to refer to speculators on UpaniShads at many places. That is probably because impersonalists themselves often use the term j~nAna to describe their approach. When preaching to people it is often helpful to use language which they understand, no? Whether or not it is actual j~nAna is not the point. Think about it. It is like referring to someone who joins a bogus yoga ashrama in the west as a yogi/follower of yoga. It is a term of convenience, rather than approval that the person is a bona fide jnAnI or bona fide yogi. Another example of this is calling someone a brahmana even though he does not wear sacred thread or perform his brahminical duty. All Hindus do that. One > example that I particularly found difficult to ignore was the one in > Caitanya Caritamrta where Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu tells the Madhva > sannyAsI that his sampradAya is contaminated with karma and j~nAna. You are going to have to get used to the idea that different sampradAyas define some terms differently. Gaudiiyas have a slightly different meaning for "karma" and "j~nAna" than do Maadhvas. > Let us ignore for the moment that the reply of the Madhva sannyAsI, > that varnAshrama dharma performed for the pleasure of the Lord is > the means to liberation, is not at all Madhva's position or his > party policy (which has made some Madhva scholars reject the > authenticity of the account). And yet, I caught Srisha Rao, moderator of the Dvaita list, arguing this with ISKCON devotees. So on one hand, performing varnAshrama dharma for the pleasure of the Lord is not the MAdhva position, and yet there are mAdhva devotees believing it. If mAdhvas today are inconsistent in their treatment of varnAshrama dharma, it is quite conceivable that there were mAdhvas in the past who also had this misconception, and that these were the mAdhvas that Chaitanya met with in Udupi. Why not consider that possibility instead of assuming the account is not authentic? I suppose it is a matter of sectarian pride. For Gaudiiyas, the account is meant to illustrate a point, rather than to slander mAdhvas. Interestingly enough, Bananje Govindacharya acknowledges a tradition of a Bengali pandit who came to Udupi during Chaitanya's time. Apparently not all mAdhvas think the account is inauthentic. Now, if you look at the context, it is > clear that "karma" there has been taken to be fruitive activity, and > equated with varNAshrama dharma, and j~nAna has been equated > with "speculative knowledge aimed at merging into the Absolute > Truth". (purport, http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/277/en) > > Now for a MAdhva, j~nAna has a positive connotation. Because a > person who speculates on the Upanishads is no j~nAnI. Even taking tongue-in-cheek references aside, you are going to have to get used to the idea that different sampradAyas define those words differently. I don't know why you are unable to understand that. Advaitins may > do word jugglery on Upanishads, but as far as Madhva is concerned, > the Upanishads are as theistic as the Bhagavad GItA. As far as Gaudiiyas are concerned, Upanishads are as theistic as Bhagavad Giitaa. Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana wrote commentaries on the principal Upanishads, of which I believe that his Iishopanishad commentary is still extant today. Srila Prabhupada, in his Gita translation preface, used the term "Giitopanisahd" to describe the Giitaa. There is also a Gaudiya Math commentary on the principal Upanishads. But I have > heard many Gaudiya preachers say that Upanishads are meant for > impersonalists, and that they speak of the impersonal Brahman > feature. Upanishads are meant for devotees, but impersonalists take great pleasure in them because they think that Upanishads describe Brahman as impersonal. It is not a Gaudiiya view that Upanishads are only for impersonalists - otherwise, why would Prabhupada quote them multiple times in his own Gita purports? I know that at other places, Gaudiyas would also say that > Upanishads are speaking of the Lord only, but there is not one clear > stand on this. Well, I have yet to see a "one clear stand" by MAdhvas when it comes to the issue of "itihAsa-purAna panchama vedAnam vedaH." Some say it is fifth veda, but others say it is all interpolated and fit to be rejected. And sometimes it is the same mAdhvas who insist that it be accepted because it is fifth Veda, and then in the next breath saying it is not to be accepted because we don't like some things we see so it must be interpolated. I guess my simple point here is that if you want a "one clear stand" from someone, then go to the writings of the AchAryas of that sampradAya. And of course, consider everything they have said on the subject, instead of the one or two sound bytes that seem to paint the picture you would have us see. The oft-quoted verse SB 1.2.11 does not in itself > make any distinction between Brahman, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn - > rather it emphasizes their identity in all respects. Similarly, a statement saying that Krishna is also known as Vishnu, Rama, and Narasimha does not ipso facto make any distinction between them. Yet, we know that while the different names refer to the same Supreme Brahman, they are nevertheless associated with different forms of that Supreme Lord. So too with Brahman, Paramaatmaa, and Bhagavaan. Saying that Brahman, Paramaatmaa, and Bhagavaan refer to different features of the Lord is not saying that they are different. Again, I have caught Srisha Rao (moderator of the Dvaita list), explaining that Madhvas consider each form in the chatur-vyuha to be a partial manifestation of the next form, etc. If they can swallow that concept, then why are they suddenly unable to understand it in the context of Brahman/Paramaatmaa/Bhagavaan? Note that I am not asking you to agree with it. Just that you should understand it before criticizing. I don't think it is too much to ask that you understand what you criticize before you start criticizing it. > Moreover, for Madhva, bhakti and j~nAna are inseparable. If you > condemn j~nAna, you are condemning bhakti too. And if you condemn > bhakti, you are condemning j~nAna. For Gaudiiyas, bhakti, j~nAna, and karma are not synonymous. Vishvanaatha Chakravarti Thaakura treats this topic in some detail in his Giitaa commentary, and Srila Prabhupada follows him in that regard. Again, you may throw a fit that these definitions are not the same as Madhva's, but you'll just have to deal with it. In a devotional context, karma has as its goal the desire to obtain some result while in the service of Lord Vishnu. j~nAna has liberation as its goal. But bhakti has no other goal but the desire to serve Lord Vishnu. The devotee does not even desire liberation, although this is attained via the Lord's grace. Thus, it is obvious that bhaktas, jnAnis, and karmis can actually do the same things superficially but still be classified differently. Bhakti is not separate from transcendental knowledge. The "jnAna" that is condemned by Gaudiiyas is the "so-called jnAna" of mayavadis which incorrectly teaches that the jIva and Brahman are exactly the same. Gaudiiyas also decry karma and jnAna performed independently of serving Vishnu. Some examples of this would be, for example, the karmi who performs sacrifice to some demigod for fruitive result (i.e. not even with the theoretical interest of attaining liberation in Vaikuntha) and the jnAni who wants liberation and is satisfied simply with identifying himself as distinct from matter, but only performs austerities and does not engage himself in service to Vishnu. Still, even these processes are better than wrongly identifying one's self as the Supreme Lord. They are just done without complete knowledge. The ultimate goal, the attainment of pure and unadulterated loving servce to the Lord, is the culmination of properly-performed karma and jn~Ana. Superficially, bhakti yoga may share many similarities with karma-yoga and jnAna-yoga, but it is neither because it is motivated only by the desire to serve the Lord. > From what I saw, Srila Prabhupada's translations are quite close to > Shankara and Ramanuja bhashyas. That is simply wrong, period. Srila Prabhupada's translations of many key verses in the Gita are sharply in contrast to those who translate using Shankara's commentaries as a guide. See for example his translation of Gita 2.12, BG 7.23-25, BG 18.54, BG 14.27, for starters. For example, his quotes from the > principal Upanishads come primarily from RamanujAchArya's bhAshya, > or from someone whose purports in turn are based on RAmAnuja > (compare for instance the quotes from the Upanishads and Brahma- > SUtras in the purport of BG 13.5 with RAmAnuja bhAshya on the same > verse). What is the fault in quoting from someone else's bhAshya? Can an AchArya not give credit where credit is due, even when it is to someone from a different sampradAya? I know that he has quoted from Madhva in the BhAgavatam > purports, but as far as I see, he has not based the GItA on Madhva- > bhAshya at all (for whatever reasons - perhaps he did not have it > with him, or reasons best known to him). So one one hand, mAdhvas criticize him for not following madhva's gItA commentary. Yet on the other hand, if he makes any sign of regard for madhva, he will be criticized for being a follower of achintya bheda abheda. What an interesting catch-22 situation. He is damned if he does and he is damned if he does not. Prabhupada is following Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana and Vishvanaatha Chakravarti Thaakura in his Gita purports. BV and VCT are not Maadhvas as a matter of doctrine (neither is Chaitanya), though their paramparaa technically goes back to Madhva. They school is distinct philosophically, a fact which ought to be obvious to you by now. On one hand, you claim to have studied Gaudiiya literatures, and yet you seem to have a basic misunderstanding as to what school of thought the Gaudiiyas are following. I'm sure you really aren't that obtuse. Perhaps you are trying to make this sound complicated to us, when in fact it really is not. Even Maadhvas list (see Mani-Manjari) a parampara of Madhva that goes back through his Advaita sannyaasa guru, even though Madhva converted that guru into his own disciple. Why does Mani-Manjari list this paramparaa when the Maths generally regard him (following Sri Madhva Vijaya) as a disciple of Vyaasa? I guess the answer in both cases is that it is a matter of formality rather than a statement of doctrinal allegiance. Or would you have me criticize Madhva on the same grounds that you criticize Chaitanya et.al? > Srila NArAyaNa MahArAja's Bhagavad GItA has explicit quotes from > MadhusUdana Saraswati's GItA commentary, who, you may know, spoke > unprintable abuses about VyAsatIrtha (you can refer to his > commentary online on purebhakti.com). I can't speak for Narayana Maharaja. Most of his followers don't hang out here. However, let us use common sense for a moment. If someone selects a few choice quotes that he finds agreeable from someone who happens to be an Advaitin, then does that indicate that he agrees with Advaita as whole? I think Srila Prabhupada was fond of "Bhaja Govindam" which does not express any incorrect conclusion; does his quoting it make him an Advaitin? I doubt if the people who quoted from Madhusuudana Saraswati are aware of the "unprintable abuses" he spoke about Vyaasa Tiirtha. Frankly, this is the first I am hearing about it. It's always a good idea in life to give someone the benefit of the doubt before assuming he is in cahoots with a known blasphemer. This again supports my feeling > that Gaudiyas have been acknowledging advaitins all through their > history. That is a very assinine feeling, I am sorry to say. So if he quotes Shankara once or twice, he therefore agrees with Shankara in toto? You need to think carefully about what you say and why you are saying it. Frankly, it seems to me that you are just looking for any excuse you can find to disagree, even if it is extremely bizarre, pseudo-logic like this. > But in any case, you will see that the Gaudiya purports are often a > mix of purports from different schools, Incorrect. Gaudiiya purports are based on Gaudiiya school. It's just that they don't have a problem with acknowledging where they happen to agree with different schools. Probably they figured that their audience would be honest enough not read too much into an occasional quote by Ramanuja or Shankara or Madhva. and particularly when they > are based on the advaitic purports, (an important instance of this > is BG 12.1, which you can compare with Shankara and Madhusudana > Saraswati's commentaries) they try to differ in the connotation or > meaning but accepting the advaitins' writings. Madhva has an > entirely different interpretation for this, and to him, there is no > impersonal Brahman feature that KR^ishNa has ever given room to in > the GItA. Gaudiya purports to Giitaa 12.1-5 are substantially different from that of Shankara's. The fact that both acknowledge the existence of an impersonal brahman does not make them the same. This is another instance where you need to look a bit more closely before criticizing. Gaudiiyas take the position that meditating on the impersonal feature is more troublesome, and directly worshipping the Lord in His personal form is best. This in contrast to Shankara who takes worship of the personal form as a means to an end, viz the attainment of some impersonal liberation. The Maadhva interpretation which treates the akshara here as Lakshmi (just as it is done in BG 14.27) is certainly interesting, but very roundabout. Gaudiiyas need not be faulted for following the shlokas more literally and yet trying to illustrate the personalist bent to them. > It is surely speculation, and that is why I wrote "I think" at the > very beginning. But it is hard for me to avoid this conclusion, > since many tenets in Gaudiya philosophy are derived from the advaita > school. For instance, karma-kAnDa and j~nAna-kAnDa divisions of Veda > are accepted by advaitins, Why stop there? Advaitins also accept the Vedas as apaurusheya. So do Gaudiiyas. So is this another instance of Gaudiiyas deriving their conclusions from Advaitins? Come on. The idea of a karma-kaanda is alluded to in Krishna's statements in Chapter 2 to the effect that the Vedas contain rituals which happen to be used by people desiring materialistic goals. See for example http://vedabase.net/bg/2/42-43/en There is nothing Advaitic about it. It is simply based on a straightforward reading of Krishna's own words that there is such a thing as a karma-kaanda. Now what that karma-kaanda is for means slightly different things to Advaitins and Gaudiiyas. But it is there, all the same. The Gaudiya quote "karma-kAnDa j~nAna-kAnDa > kevala vishera bhAnDa" is a silent acceptance of the advaitic > tenets, perhaps because of their stronghold on the Upanishads at > that time in that place (I don't mean it in a derogatory sense by > the way). For Madhva, there is no such division, and more than > a "vishera bhAnDa", the so-called j~nAna-kAnDa gives solid knowledge > of the Lord's glories. The same applies to the so-called karma- kAnDa > section. Several points here: 1) Acceptance that there is a karma-kaanda does not equate to Advaita. 2) Even karma-kaanda and jnaana-kaanda do glorify the Lord, and this is acknowledged by Gaudiiyas. See for example, the Bhaktivedanta Purports to BG 17.23-27. 3) We are well aware that Madhva does not acknowledge a karma- kaanda. We aren't Maadhvas, so the issue is moot. 4) Gaudiiyas distance themselves from people who see the karma- kaanda as the all in all, as opposed to those who follow them for the purpose of serving Vishnu. Otherwise, who are the "veda-vAda- rathAH" mentioned in BG 2.43? > At the least, it is quite clear that the philosophy is different > from Madhva in many important places, And this fact has never been denied by Gaudiiya aachaaryas, ever. It is only the Maadhvas on the internet who insist that the philosophies must be the same, so as to give themselves a reason to criticize when it can easily be demonstrated that they are different. according status to the > advaitins' commentaries which Madhva has outrightly rejected. Gaudiiyas have not accorded any "status" to Advaitin commentaries simply because they quote some nice thing about Vishnu which some Advaitins have said here or there. Have you bothered to read anything Prabhupada said about impersonalist commentaries? His comments have the interesting property of contradicting your conclusion that Gaudiiyas accord "status" to Advaitin commentaries. > Perhaps this is why many MAdhvas are angered by the disciplic > succession claim issue. Maadhva aachaaryas are not angered by this at all. Their letters, written on their own letterheads, are archived at the gosai.com website for all to see. It is only a handful of Maadhva followers who have come to USA to become software professionals who take issue with this. And that too, because there are many among their number who have only a superficial understanding of Tattvavaada and who thus find Gaudiiya culture interesting. It is not the fault of Gaudiiyas that there are Maadhvas who do not know their own philosophy well enough to know the obvious differences between dvaita and achintya bheda abheda. Srisha Rao and his crew should rail on the Maadhva community instead of spewing abuses at Gaudiiyas. > I know that the Gaudiya acharyas do not accept the advaitic tenets, > and that is why I was bewildered as to what reason could there be > then to accord status to the advaitic works by the Gaudiyas. The > only answer seems to be - lack of sufficient scholarship to take the > bull by the horns. Oh please... > Also a related issue: I would also be interested if some Gaudiya > Vaishnava could throw light on why Sridhar Swami's commentary on > BhAgavata is given so much of authority. It has to do with the high regard he gave to bhakti and specifically to Radha-Krishna bhakti. Is it because they think he > was actually right, or because his commentary had a stronghold in > north India at the time? I know that some Gaudiyas say that he was > in VishNuswAmI sampradAya, and to those who say this, I would like > to know (genuinely, since I am not clear about this issue) what they > would make of the following statement by Sridhar Swami in his > commentary on Bhagavata 1.1.1: > > yat-satyatayä mithyä-sargo 'pi satyavat pratéyate > > "Because of whose reality, even the illusory creation of His, seems > like real." Jiva Gosvami says in his Tattva Sandarbha that Sridhar Swami was writing in such a way as to attract Advaitins to bhakti. > Note the word "mithyA" to describe the creation - is this > Vishnuswami's tenet? From what I know, only advaitins claim the > world is false. Also, compare what Srila PrabhupAda has translated > for this verse - he follows Sridhar Swami, but then Gaudiyas mean it > in a sense that it is constantly in flux, and is temporary. But > Sridhar Swami doesn't! He says this jagat is "mithya". "Mithya" does > not mean "real but constantly in a flux". It's quite possible some words have more than one meaning, and even more than one nuance of the same meaning. If I look in Monier- Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary, are you telling me I will find exactly one translation for the word "mithya?" > So then, the issue arises : why did the Gaudiyas choose Sridhar > Swami's understanding over MadhvAchArya's understanding? What is the > problem with disagreeing with this statement, so much so that > VallabhAchArya (who ironically is known to be in VishNuswAmi > sampradAya) was called a prostitute for disagreeing from Sridhar > Swami? Vallabhaachaarya was trying to write a commentary to outdo the commentaries of his predecessors, and he openly claimed that his was better. That was the specific basis for the criticism. > Here's another quote from his commentary on SB 1.3.33: > Commenting on the phrase "tad brahma-darshanam", Sridhar Swami > writes "tadA jIvaH brahmaiva bhavati iti arthaH" - that the jiva > then becomes Brahman itself, this is the intended meaning. > > Now, it is difficult to be satisfied with such purports. What is > wrong if VallabhAchArya disagreed with them? His disagreement was not in regards to these statements, since as you know, he is also an Advaitin of sorts. > More importantly, for all their dislike of mAyAvAda, and claim of > disciplic succession from Madhva, wouldn't it have been obvious to > follow his BhAgavata-tAtparya-nirNaya? Judging from the fact that > Gaudiyas didn't, the only satisfactory answer I am left with is that > because of geography, they probably did not have access to Madhva's > commentaries, and they were forced to accept the scholarship of > advaitins in that region. Maadhvas are going to have to get used to the idea that there are other Bhaagavatam commentaries which also disagree with Advaita. It strikes me as incredibly pompous, the implicit premise that if one is going to disagree with Advaita, then he must naturally follow Madhva. > For someone who has been called an unchaste housewife who goes and > sleeps with another man, and an ungrateful person whose body would > not even be touched by rakshasas, you would know that this issue > matters a lot. I would be grateful to any Gaudiya Vaishnava who can > address this issue in detail. For the good of their own school, the > Gaudiyas should set these issues in order, so that at least the > authorities don't have to say such words to people who come with > doubts, leaving them not just with their doubts intact, but their > hearts also shattered by such painful words I'm sorry that your heart was broken. I have no idea who spoke to you that way, or if they even spoke to you that way at all. But for what it's worth, these were never "issues" at all for Maadhvas and Gaudiiyas until about 11 years ago when various brahmins-turned- software professionals started raising a stink about it. I have yet to see much concern among Maadhva leaders, ironically. And while we're on the subject of abuses, let us also address how Maadhvas have abused the Gaudiiyas, and how this abuse likely predates your mistreatment. Srisha Rao and others of his kind on the Dvaita List have publicly referred to Srila Prabhupada as a "senile old man." They have called his philosophy "hodgpodge for every Tom, Dick, and Harry, fit for the dustbin." They have accused his predecessors of falsifying his sampradaaya affiliations. They have taken every opportunity to speak harshly and in a very condescending manner towards and about Gaudiiyas on the Cyber Maadhva Sangha list. On the Dvaita list webpage, Srisha lists the Hare Krishna website not alongside other Vedaantic traditions but rather under the subheading "Free Thinkers, Neo Vedanta, etc." He also has an essay on that same website in which he accuses Prabhupada of not even having a high school level of education. He has referred to Gaudiyia Vaishnavas as "so-called Vaishnavas." And this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Do you publicly object even once when you see these abuses spewed at us, or is it only your practice to cry foul when it happens to you? Personally, I object to abuse regardless of who is doing it and who is on the receiving end. But I have yet to see any Maadhva professionals on the CMS list publicly complain that this behavior is unfair or out of line. On the other hand, Maadhva leaders (whose letters are archived at the gosai.com site for all to see) have complained about this behavior, and Srisha et. al. just don't give a hoot about it. I would like for different Vaishnavas to be engaged in polite and respectful dialog. However, I just don't see this happening when Maadhva professionals such as yourself have casually accepted a culture where it is acceptable to rail on those outside their tradition in all sorts of nasty and dishonest ways. If you spew venom at us and we respond by correcting your misconceptions about our philosophy, then you accuse us of being on the attack. Yet if you attack our gurus, we should not complain. Nor should we complain when you are knocking down strawmen or accusing us of rubbing elbows with mayavadis. I just don't see any real evidence that you are interested in dialog at all. And if we are supposed to feel guilty for something an ISKCON person may or may not have said to you personally in the past, then I wonder if you feel guilty for all the abuses heaped upon our entire sampradaaya by your friends at the CMS list? regards, hks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, krishna_susarla wrote: > I know that at other places, Gaudiyas would also say that >> Upanishads are speaking of the Lord only, but there is not one > clear >> stand on this. . . . > > I guess my simple point here is that if you want a "one clear stand" > from someone, then go to the writings of the AchAryas of that > sampradAya. Better yet, go to one clear acarya--and become his menial servant. Then he can teach you what all the sastras really intend. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla> wrote: > > I don't have any false hopes that I am somehow going to clarify this > gentleman's doubts. My experience with Tattvavadis is that when they > want to believe ill of your philosophy, even clear explanations > become suddenly difficult to understand for them. My intentions are not to believe ill. I still am for an open discussion on these issues, which I never got, and because of which I had to finally leave the Gaudiya paramparA. You are the most open- minded Gaudiya Vaishnava I have met to address these issues, and I would like to thank you for your reply, before anything else. I really appreciate your taking out time for this. > > Srila Prabhupada surely does not always use "j~nAna" for > > impersonalists. But it is also true without a doubt that a j~nAnI > is > > used to refer to speculators on UpaniShads at many places. > > That is probably because impersonalists themselves often use the > term j~nAna to describe their approach. When preaching to people it > is often helpful to use language which they understand, no? But that is precisely my point! You have hit the nail on the wall. Srila Prabhupada did not believe in advaitic works, and yet he allowed the word "j~nAnI" to be used for them. And the reason is that the advaitins say the path to moxa is by j~nAna. The point is this - if this is a preaching tactic, as you admit, you would probably not disagree if someone said "Srila PrabhupAda's purports closely follow a preaching tactic, and the meanings he assigns to words is not reflective of the true meanings of the words in themselves"? The Gaudiya authority I was following did not believe that this was a mere preaching tactic. Whether > or not it is actual j~nAna is not the point. Think about it. It is > like referring to someone who joins a bogus yoga ashrama in the west > as a yogi/follower of yoga. It is a term of convenience, rather than > approval that the person is a bona fide jnAnI or bona fide yogi. Again, you are admitting that the Bhagavad Gita As It Is is filled with preaching tactics, and many of the meanings assigned to words are not their true meanings, in the way they were intended when written down by Veda VyAsa. > You are going to have to get used to the idea that different > sampradAyas define some terms differently. Gaudiiyas have a slightly > different meaning for "karma" and "j~nAna" than do Maadhvas. And again, you have hit the nail on the wall. For Madhvas, karma and j~nAna carry a very different meaning. Then why should Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu accuse the Madhva sampradAya of being contaminated by karma and j~nAna? Please tell me the fundamental reason for his criticism. It should not be because they do sandhyA-vandanam or study UpaniShads. > > > Let us ignore for the moment that the reply of the Madhva > sannyAsI, > > that varnAshrama dharma performed for the pleasure of the Lord is > > the means to liberation, is not at all Madhva's position or his > > party policy (which has made some Madhva scholars reject the > > authenticity of the account). > > And yet, I caught Srisha Rao, moderator of the Dvaita list, arguing > this with ISKCON devotees. So on one hand, performing varnAshrama > dharma for the pleasure of the Lord is not the MAdhva position, and > yet there are mAdhva devotees believing it. I did not say it is not the MAdhva position, I said it is not the means of liberation in itself. I apologize if I was not clear. How can any learned sannyAsI in the Madhva line leave out bhakti, aparoxa-j~nAna and God's grace as the means for liberation, when even a neophyte like myself knows it? And that too, the sannyAsI does not give a single quote from the scriptures, again very hard to accept. > I suppose it is a > matter of sectarian pride. You are making needless presumptions. We are all after right knowledge. > For Gaudiiyas, the account is meant to > illustrate a point, rather than to slander mAdhvas. What was that point? Moreover, saying "The only good thing about your sampradAya is that you accept the form of the Lord as the truth" - isn't this a slander on the whole paramparA? Srila PrabhupAda writes in the purport of that verse that this is the sole reason MAdhavendra Puri accepted Madhva-sampradAya? There was no other good Gaudiyas could find in it? Interestingly > enough, Bananje Govindacharya acknowledges a tradition of a Bengali > pandit who came to Udupi during Chaitanya's time. Apparently not all > mAdhvas think the account is inauthentic. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu may have come to Udupi, the real issue here is - how much of what Srila KrishNadAsa KavirAja wrote is an accurate description of what actually happened? The way he writes it is - that Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu was deflating someone's pride there (note that he also says that even the SrivaishNava Venkata Bhatta had pride) by taking a humble position. And then he accuses the sannyAsI of playing with him in a duplicitious way. What was that duplicity? What do you call someone's taking a humble position with the intent of trying to deflate someone's pride as? Humble? It is not uncommon that biographers, in trying to overzealously glorify their acharya, inadvertently end up attributing things to them which would actually put them in negative light. This happened even with Sri Ramanujacharya's biography where he spoke some pretty harsh words after a debate to the loser which Srivaishnavas do not accept he could have said. The words of the Madhva sannyAsI did not seem to be reflective of the Madhva position, and that too with no scriptural reference to any of his claims. Moreover, is there a reason why Srila PrabhupAda has not written purports to the section of CC where Sri Virabhadra Gosain is also equated with the Supreme Lord? How many incarnations of the Lord were exactly there in Bengal that time, besides Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Advaita Acharya, and Virabhadra Gosain? Moreover, what verses do the Gaudiyas quote to establish the latter two? > Even taking tongue-in-cheek references aside, you are going to have > to get used to the idea that different sampradAyas define those > words differently. I don't know why you are unable to understand > that. I perfectly understand that, and I completely agree with you on this point. > > Advaitins may > > do word jugglery on Upanishads, but as far as Madhva is concerned, > > the Upanishads are as theistic as the Bhagavad GItA. > > As far as Gaudiiyas are concerned, Upanishads are as theistic as > Bhagavad Giitaa. Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana wrote commentaries on the > principal Upanishads, of which I believe that his Iishopanishad > commentary is still extant today. Why aren't the others? Doesn't this reflect how much importance Gaudiyas give to the Upanishads? > Upanishads are meant for devotees, but impersonalists take great > pleasure in them because they think that Upanishads describe Brahman > as impersonal. It is not a Gaudiiya view that Upanishads are only > for impersonalists - otherwise, why would Prabhupada quote them > multiple times in his own Gita purports? If Upanishads are meant for devotees, why do Gaudiya authorities not allow their students to go and study them? Why isn't a study of the Upanishads encouraged? > The oft-quoted verse SB 1.2.11 does not in itself > > make any distinction between Brahman, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn - > > rather it emphasizes their identity in all respects. > > Similarly, a statement saying that Krishna is also known as Vishnu, > Rama, and Narasimha does not ipso facto make any distinction between > them. Yet, we know that while the different names refer to the same > Supreme Brahman, they are nevertheless associated with different > forms of that Supreme Lord. So too with Brahman, Paramaatmaa, and > Bhagavaan. But the point is that all these forms - whether Brahman, paramatma, bhagavan, Krishna, Rama, etc etc are all treated equally - where is it said in this verse that Brahman is lower than Paramatma, which is lower than Bhagavan? Where is one form of the Lord deemed inferior than any other form? Where is it said that Brahman is devoid of personality? > Saying that Brahman, Paramaatmaa, and Bhagavaan refer to different > features of the Lord is not saying that they are different. Again, I > have caught Srisha Rao (moderator of the Dvaita list), explaining > that Madhvas consider each form in the chatur-vyuha to be a partial > manifestation of the next form, etc. If they can swallow that > concept, then why are they suddenly unable to understand it in the > context of Brahman/Paramaatmaa/Bhagavaan? But Brahman for Gaudiyas is devoid of personal qualities. Madhvas do not say that any form of the Lord is incomplete, howsoever it may be manifested. Note that I am not asking > you to agree with it. Just that you should understand it before > criticizing. I don't think it is too much to ask that you understand > what you criticize before you start criticizing it. Please give an explicit shAstric reference to show that Bhagavan has qualities which Brahman doesn't. Please give shAstric references to prove that KR^ishNa has qualities which RAma doesn't. If you say "peacock feather on head", I can also cite "eka-patnI-vrata" as a quality RAma shows which KR^ishNa doesn't. Does this make KR^ishNa not have qualities which RAma has? I have heard one Maharaja say in BhAgavatam class that other forms of KR^ishNa have service attitude towards the KR^ishNa form. I had never heard anything like this before, or read shAstra saying things like this. > > Moreover, for Madhva, bhakti and j~nAna are inseparable. If you > > condemn j~nAna, you are condemning bhakti too. And if you condemn > > bhakti, you are condemning j~nAna. > > For Gaudiiyas, bhakti, j~nAna, and karma are not synonymous. > Vishvanaatha Chakravarti Thaakura treats this topic in some detail > in his Giitaa commentary, and Srila Prabhupada follows him in that > regard. Again, you may throw a fit that these definitions are not > the same as Madhva's, but you'll just have to deal with it. > In a devotional context, karma has as its goal the desire to obtain > some result while in the service of Lord Vishnu. j~nAna has > liberation as its goal. But bhakti has no other goal but the desire > to serve Lord Vishnu. The devotee does not even desire liberation, > although this is attained via the Lord's grace. And here, let me ask you a question. Why does a Gaudiya bhakta want to serve Lord Vishnu? Isn't it because that makes him happy? If yes, then isn't selfish happiness what he is seeking? Why should liberation be looked down upon as inferior to bhakti, when those seeking liberation are also doing so since they want happiness, and when liberation involves service to Vishnu? Madhva also talks of eka- bhaktas in his GItA bhAshya , who don't desire even liberation. These concepts are not missing from Madhva parampara. Will any Gaudiya Vaishnava accept to go to hell eternally if there was no remembrance of the Lord there? Obviously not. Why do they want to remember the Lord? Because it gives them happiness. Now why isn't this a fruitive desire but a desire of moksha is? Isn't it because Gaudiyas get reminded of advaitic moksha when they hear this word? Does Madhva anywhere pray to the Lord "Give me moksha"? You cannot avoid the fact that everyone, whether Gaudiya or Madhva ultimately wants happiness for himself. A pure devotee may become indifferent whether he is in hell or not since his happiness comes by remembering the Lord. But he certainly will not want to become unhappy internally (whether or not you want to use the term moksha). So it is wrong to say that a bhakta does not desire anything for himself. Gaudiiyas also decry karma and jnAna performed independently > of serving Vishnu. Some examples of this would be, for example, the > karmi who performs sacrifice to some demigod for fruitive result > (i.e. not even with the theoretical interest of attaining liberation > in Vaikuntha) and the jnAni who wants liberation and is satisfied > simply with identifying himself as distinct from matter, but only > performs austerities and does not engage himself in service to > Vishnu. But what sort of j~nAnI is he? Where do you find such a person being called a j~nAnI in the shAstra, when he does not perform service to Vishnu? Still, even these processes are better than wrongly > identifying one's self as the Supreme Lord. They are just done > without complete knowledge. The ultimate goal, the attainment of > pure and unadulterated loving servce to the Lord, is the culmination > of properly-performed karma and jn~Ana. Superficially, bhakti yoga > may share many similarities with karma-yoga and jnAna-yoga, but it > is neither because it is motivated only by the desire to serve the > Lord. And ultimately, everything is motivated by a desire to become happy. A pure bhakta realizes that his eternal happiness is in serving the Lord, while a materialist does not realize that, and thinks that it comes from sense pleasure. > Prabhupada is following Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana and Vishvanaatha > Chakravarti Thaakura in his Gita purports. BV and VCT are not > Maadhvas as a matter of doctrine (neither is Chaitanya), though > their paramparaa technically goes back to Madhva. What does "technically going back to Madhva" mean? They school is > distinct philosophically, a fact which ought to be obvious to you by > now. On one hand, you claim to have studied Gaudiiya literatures, > and yet you seem to have a basic misunderstanding as to what school > of thought the Gaudiiyas are following. I'm sure you really aren't > that obtuse. Perhaps you are trying to make this sound complicated > to us, when in fact it really is not. I already know that the two schools are quite different. But I am not clear where the Gaudiya purports are coming from, if not from a mixture of Shankara and Ramanuja ultimately - if you disagree, please point out the disciplic succession starting from the Lord in which the philosophy has been handed down. > > Even Maadhvas list (see Mani-Manjari) a parampara of Madhva that > goes back through his Advaita sannyaasa guru, even though Madhva > converted that guru into his own disciple. Why does Mani-Manjari > list this paramparaa when the Maths generally regard him (following > Sri Madhva Vijaya) as a disciple of Vyaasa? But there is a difference. Madhva does not say in the beginning of his Gita commentary "This Bhagavad Gita is received from the following disciplic succession" and list Achyuta praj~na in it. I guess the answer in > both cases is that it is a matter of formality rather than a > statement of doctrinal allegiance. But the statement in Bhagavad Gita does not sound like a formality. And fine, even accepting that it is, it still does not answer "In which disciplic succession did the knowledge come down"? I won't go into the Narayana Maharaja issue since it seems to be irrelevant on this list. > > But in any case, you will see that the Gaudiya purports are often > a > > mix of purports from different schools, > > Incorrect. Gaudiiya purports are based on Gaudiiya school. It's just > that they don't have a problem with acknowledging where they happen > to agree with different schools. Probably they figured that their > audience would be honest enough not read too much into an occasional > quote by Ramanuja or Shankara or Madhva. Where does the knowledge of Gaudiya school descend from? What is that chain? > > and particularly when they > > are based on the advaitic purports, (an important instance of this > > is BG 12.1, which you can compare with Shankara and Madhusudana > > Saraswati's commentaries) they try to differ in the connotation or > > meaning but accepting the advaitins' writings. Madhva has an > > entirely different interpretation for this, and to him, there is > no > > impersonal Brahman feature that KR^ishNa has ever given room to in > > the GItA. > > Gaudiya purports to Giitaa 12.1-5 are substantially different from > that of Shankara's. The fact that both acknowledge the existence of > an impersonal brahman does not make them the same. This is another > instance where you need to look a bit more closely before > criticizing. Gaudiiyas take the position that meditating on the > impersonal feature is more troublesome, and directly worshipping the > Lord in His personal form is best. This in contrast to Shankara who > takes worship of the personal form as a means to an end, viz the > attainment of some impersonal liberation. I would like to know what this "meditating on the impersonal feature" is - what does it involve, and how does one go about it? Where is the shAstric reference to meditating on the impersonal feature? After all, if there is nothing personal about it, then what do you meditate on? What image do you form in your mind during this meditation? Why will one, in the first place, meditate on the impersonal feature? > > The Maadhva interpretation which treates the akshara here as Lakshmi > (just as it is done in BG 14.27) is certainly interesting, but very > roundabout. Gaudiiyas need not be faulted for following the shlokas > more literally and yet trying to illustrate the personalist bent to > them. What is literal to one may not be literal to another. There are many instances which I too can point where the Gaudiya interpretation is not literal - 2.17, 4.24, 7.29, 15.16, to name a few. Why don't you try to correlate the word-by-word translation of 15.16 with the Gaudiya translation and explain to me how you get the latter from the former? > > > It is surely speculation, and that is why I wrote "I think" at the > > very beginning. But it is hard for me to avoid this conclusion, > > since many tenets in Gaudiya philosophy are derived from the > advaita > > school. For instance, karma-kAnDa and j~nAna-kAnDa divisions of > Veda > > are accepted by advaitins, > > Why stop there? Advaitins also accept the Vedas as apaurusheya. So > do Gaudiiyas. So is this another instance of Gaudiiyas deriving > their conclusions from Advaitins? Come on. You digress - the reason the karma and j~nAna issue is important is that Gaudiyas use it to criticize other Vaishnava schools, and look down on their scholarship and affiliation to Varnashrama dharma, notwithstanding the disasters that the Gaudiyas have themselves faced when brahminical status and sannyasa was given to persons who literally destroyed the entire name of ISKCON permanently, in the name of being a pure bhakta and guru. If you haven't read Monkey on a Stick and Betrayal of the Spirit, you may want to read them. I know that Ravindra Svarupa prabhu has called the accounts in those books as authentic, so you needn't worry that I am pointing you to untrue accounts. You speak of Madhvas causing damage to brahminical culture. Are you yourself aware of the damage done by former ISKCON gurus to the lives of so many people? Doesn't the damage caused by Madhvas pale in comparison to that? And do you think that Sri Sugunendra Tirtha, who is coming to the US since so many years, doesn't know what is good for the Madhvas here? Do you think their starting temples in the US is against their own tradition, and that they should go back to India and live in an ashrama? Please. They also have their gurus. Let them do what their gurus are telling them. Do you think the dvaita website was started without the authorization of Vidyamanya Tirtha and Vishwesha Tirtha? Do you think the position paper was published without Vidyamanya Tirtha's approval and examination? How can you assume that the Madhvas don't follow their gurus? First of all, your comparing Gaudiyas to Madhvas like this is not even fair. Most people who come to Gaudiya sampradaya are interested in spiritual life. On the other hand, most Madhvas follow Madhva simply because it is their family tradition. So it is not a surprise that you find many Madhvas not interested in their culture. I would not even call them as Madhvas. > > The idea of a karma-kaanda is alluded to in Krishna's statements in > Chapter 2 to the effect that the Vedas contain rituals which happen > to be used by people desiring materialistic goals. See for example > http://vedabase.net/bg/2/42-43/en > > There is nothing Advaitic about it. It is simply based on a > straightforward reading of Krishna's own words that there is such a > thing as a karma-kaanda. Now what that karma-kaanda is for means > slightly different things to Advaitins and Gaudiiyas. But it is > there, all the same. But KR^ishNa does not say that these portions are called "karma kAnDa" and that this is all these portions teach! Why do you think he uses the words pushpitam vAcham? Because the superficial meanings of those portions are like flowers, which if you pluck, makes the tree (Veda) not yield any fruit. It is the deeper meanings of those same portions which would yield the fruit. Why do you think he uses the words "veda-vAda-ratAH" and not "veda-ratAH"? > The Gaudiya quote "karma-kAnDa j~nAna-kAnDa > > kevala vishera bhAnDa" is a silent acceptance of the advaitic > > tenets, perhaps because of their stronghold on the Upanishads at > > that time in that place (I don't mean it in a derogatory sense by > > the way). For Madhva, there is no such division, and more than > > a "vishera bhAnDa", the so-called j~nAna-kAnDa gives solid > knowledge > > of the Lord's glories. The same applies to the so-called karma- > kAnDa > > section. > > Several points here: > > 1) Acceptance that there is a karma-kaanda does not equate to > Advaita. But one can guess the source of wherefrom this acceptance of division of shAstra into karma-kAnDa, j~nAna kAnDa, and their condemnation by the Gaudiyas as "vishera bhAnDa" (instead of writing commentaries to bring out their true purports) comes from. > 2) Even karma-kaanda and jnaana-kaanda do glorify the Lord, and this > is acknowledged by Gaudiiyas. See for example, the Bhaktivedanta > Purports to BG 17.23-27. That's the point - you can quote this to prove that they do glorify the Lord. You can also quote the "vishera bhAnDa" reference to prove the opposite. Is it any surprise that just after Prabhupada, there have been so many disagreements and splits? KunDali DAsa had his references to prove that there is no falldown, and the ISKCON GBC had their references to prove that there is a falldown. Prabhupada made statements which directly conflicted with one another (the issue of falldown is already a classic issue). Kundali DAsa chose one, the GBC chose the other. Result? Controversy after controversy. One wonders what PrabhupAda would have said to see the pathetic state in which ISKCON found itself after his departure. > > At the least, it is quite clear that the philosophy is different > > from Madhva in many important places, > > And this fact has never been denied by Gaudiiya aachaaryas, ever. It > is only the Maadhvas on the internet who insist that the > philosophies must be the same, so as to give themselves a reason to > criticize when it can easily be demonstrated that they are > different. The question then is the following - if the Gaudiyas agree that their philosophy is not derived from Madhva, then from whom have they got their philosophy? What is the disciplic chain in which the philosophy has descended (starting from KR^ishNa)? That chain is surely doesn't go even upto VyAsatIrtha, what to speak of Madhva. So can you lay down the chain in which the philosophy has come down (and then also put it up in the books so that others would also know and surely then this whole discussion would stop)? > > according status to the > > advaitins' commentaries which Madhva has outrightly rejected. > > Gaudiiyas have not accorded any "status" to Advaitin commentaries > simply because they quote some nice thing about Vishnu which some > Advaitins have said here or there. Have you bothered to read > anything Prabhupada said about impersonalist commentaries? His > comments have the interesting property of contradicting your > conclusion that Gaudiiyas accord "status" to Advaitin commentaries. I know - mAyAvAda bhAShya shunile hoila sarva-nAsha. This definitely holds for those in the Gaudiya school, since to solidly refute advaita, you will have to go to Ramanuja or Madhva. Without that, there is no possibility but to get confused by advaita. It happened with me. I would have been happy in the Gaudiya school had I not got bewildered by advaita. And as the Lord arranged it, I had to go to Madhva to get that contamination off, since the advaitins appeared much more scholarly in their commentaries than the Gaudiya commentaries. It is hence, in my own practical experience, much more risky to quote advaitins and hope to make bhaktas out of them. Rather, as my own case proves it, you will probably lose your own bhaktas who would become advaitins (unless you're saved by Ramanuja or Madhva). > > > Perhaps this is why many MAdhvas are angered by the disciplic > > succession claim issue. > > Maadhva aachaaryas are not angered by this at all. Their letters, > written on their own letterheads, are archived at the gosai.com > website for all to see. Incidentally, MAdhvas have told me that it is because they are not aware of the Gaudiya tenets in detail (after all, who told them what Gaudiya philosophy is - what exactly were they told by the gosai people when they went to get their letters, about Gaudiya philosophy?) When Swami Vishwesha Tirtha of Pejawara Matha was shown the excerpt from Navadwip Dham Mahatmya, he was anything but less than bitter in his criticism of that episode - which is also on the dvaita website (http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf), and which was after the gosai.com letters were written (27/6/2001). This shows that when they wrote the letters (20/5/2001), they were not even aware of episodes like these. It is anybody's guess what the rest of them are going to say about this issue. I have personally last month talked to the Puthige Math Swami, who told me that my decision to leave the Gaudiya parampara was the correct decision. He told me that the acharyas do not want to raise the differences because they like to fan the commonalities, and the basic message of bhakti carried by ISKCON is good, and deserves appreciation. This however does not mean that they agree with Gaudiyas in toto about their philosophy. I did not want to say these things here, but the way those letters are blindly quoted by Gaudiyas forces me to say this. Pejawara Swami has even praised Amma, this does not mean that when shown what Amma's philosophy is, he is going to stamp his approval on it. It is only a handful of Maadhva followers > who have come to USA to become software professionals who take issue > with this. And that too, because there are many among their number > who have only a superficial understanding of Tattvavaada and who > thus find Gaudiiya culture interesting. It is not the fault of > Gaudiiyas that there are Maadhvas who do not know their own > philosophy well enough to know the obvious differences between > dvaita and achintya bheda abheda. Srisha Rao and his crew should > rail on the Maadhva community instead of spewing abuses at > Gaudiiyas. > > > I know that the Gaudiya acharyas do not accept the advaitic > tenets, > > and that is why I was bewildered as to what reason could there be > > then to accord status to the advaitic works by the Gaudiyas. The > > only answer seems to be - lack of sufficient scholarship to take > the > > bull by the horns. > > Oh please... Then why hasn't any acharya written a clean, independent commentary, if they were great scholars, instead of quoting advaitins and making the sampradaya susceptible to these problems? > > > Also a related issue: I would also be interested if some Gaudiya > > Vaishnava could throw light on why Sridhar Swami's commentary on > > BhAgavata is given so much of authority. > > It has to do with the high regard he gave to bhakti and specifically > to Radha-Krishna bhakti. And would the Gaudiyas also consider his commentary on SB 1.1.1 and 1.3.33 to be authoritative, where he hasn't talked of Radha-Krishna bhakti but supported advaita? > Is it because they think he > > was actually right, or because his commentary had a stronghold in > > north India at the time? I know that some Gaudiyas say that he was > > in VishNuswAmI sampradAya, and to those who say this, I would like > > to know (genuinely, since I am not clear about this issue) what > they > > would make of the following statement by Sridhar Swami in his > > commentary on Bhagavata 1.1.1: > > > > yat-satyatayä mithyä-sargo 'pi satyavat pratéyate > > > > "Because of whose reality, even the illusory creation of His, seems > > like real." > > Jiva Gosvami says in his Tattva Sandarbha that Sridhar Swami was > writing in such a way as to attract Advaitins to bhakti. So is it true that no commentator in the Gaudiya line can be trusted to write things the way VedaVyAsa meant it? That all of them have used preaching tactics to attract various people to them, instead of stating the truth boldly and clearly? Can't the Gaudiyas attract advaitins by defeating their philosophy like Madhva? Do you know of any learned advaitins who were successfully attracted from advaita to Gaudiya fold after having read Sridhar Swami's commentary? Moreover, you know well that bhakti and advaita are not mutually exclusive. Madhusudana Sarawati is well known for his KR^ishNa bhakti. So it is not that advaitins are devoid of bhakti. > > > Note the word "mithyA" to describe the creation - is this > > Vishnuswami's tenet? From what I know, only advaitins claim the > > world is false. Also, compare what Srila PrabhupAda has translated > > for this verse - he follows Sridhar Swami, but then Gaudiyas mean > it > > in a sense that it is constantly in flux, and is temporary. But > > Sridhar Swami doesn't! He says this jagat is "mithya". "Mithya" > does > > not mean "real but constantly in a flux". > > It's quite possible some words have more than one meaning, and even > more than one nuance of the same meaning. If I look in Monier- > Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary, are you telling me I will find > exactly one translation for the word "mithya?" I would like to know if there is any translation for the word "mithya" which would make the world real, in the context of what Sridhar Swami has written. Note also that he puts it in contrast with "satya" - which indicates pretty clearly that he means the world is unreal. Incidentally, I had checked Monier-Williams before writing that section, and there was no meaning for mithya in it that would make the world real. > > > So then, the issue arises : why did the Gaudiyas choose Sridhar > > Swami's understanding over MadhvAchArya's understanding? What is > the > > problem with disagreeing with this statement, so much so that > > VallabhAchArya (who ironically is known to be in VishNuswAmi > > sampradAya) was called a prostitute for disagreeing from Sridhar > > Swami? > > Vallabhaachaarya was trying to write a commentary to outdo the > commentaries of his predecessors, and he openly claimed that his was > better. That was the specific basis for the criticism. But by the same token, Ramanuja and Madhva also tried to outdo the commentaries of their predecessors, and they openly claimed that theirs was better. > > > Here's another quote from his commentary on SB 1.3.33: > > Commenting on the phrase "tad brahma-darshanam", Sridhar Swami > > writes "tadA jIvaH brahmaiva bhavati iti arthaH" - that the jiva > > then becomes Brahman itself, this is the intended meaning. > > > > Now, it is difficult to be satisfied with such purports. What is > > wrong if VallabhAchArya disagreed with them? > > His disagreement was not in regards to these statements, since as > you know, he is also an Advaitin of sorts. I am talking about the principle of disagreeing with a commentary. Sure, Vallabha may have had some other issues. But is there anything wrong in disagreeing with a previous commentary if you are not convinced by it? In any case, the issue here is that Sridhar Swami's statement above is nothing but the conclusion of advaita philosophy. And that for Gaudiyas, disagreeing with him is bad, but disagreeing with Madhva is ok. CC Antya Lila 7.133: "Sridhar Svami is the spiritual master of the entire world because by his mercy we can understand Srimad Bhagavatam. I therefore accept him as a spiritual master." So it is not by Madhvacharya's mercy that Gaudiyas (who call their parampara Madhva-Gaudiya parampara) can understand Srimad Bhagavatam? Who is setting the trend here of disagreeing with past commentaries. Is it only Vallabhacharya? > > More importantly, for all their dislike of mAyAvAda, and claim of > > disciplic succession from Madhva, wouldn't it have been obvious to > > follow his BhAgavata-tAtparya-nirNaya? Judging from the fact that > > Gaudiyas didn't, the only satisfactory answer I am left with is > that > > because of geography, they probably did not have access to > Madhva's > > commentaries, and they were forced to accept the scholarship of > > advaitins in that region. > > Maadhvas are going to have to get used to the idea that there are > other Bhaagavatam commentaries which also disagree with Advaita. It > strikes me as incredibly pompous, the implicit premise that if one > is going to disagree with Advaita, then he must naturally follow > Madhva. Well, I am sure there are other ways to disagree, as Ramanuja did even before Madhva. > > > For someone who has been called an unchaste housewife who goes and > > sleeps with another man, and an ungrateful person whose body would > > not even be touched by rakshasas, you would know that this issue > > matters a lot. I would be grateful to any Gaudiya Vaishnava who > can > > address this issue in detail. For the good of their own school, > the > > Gaudiyas should set these issues in order, so that at least the > > authorities don't have to say such words to people who come with > > doubts, leaving them not just with their doubts intact, but their > > hearts also shattered by such painful words > > I'm sorry that your heart was broken. I have no idea who spoke to > you that way, or if they even spoke to you that way at all. But for > what it's worth, these were never "issues" at all for Maadhvas and > Gaudiiyas until about 11 years ago when various brahmins-turned- > software professionals started raising a stink about it. I have yet > to see much concern among Maadhva leaders, ironically. > > And while we're on the subject of abuses, let us also address how > Maadhvas have abused the Gaudiiyas, and how this abuse likely > predates your mistreatment. Srisha Rao and others of his kind on the > Dvaita List have publicly referred to Srila Prabhupada as a "senile > old man." They have called his philosophy "hodgpodge for every Tom, > Dick, and Harry, fit for the dustbin." They have accused his > predecessors of falsifying his sampradaaya affiliations. They have > taken every opportunity to speak harshly and in a very condescending > manner towards and about Gaudiiyas on the Cyber Maadhva Sangha list. > On the Dvaita list webpage, Srisha lists the Hare Krishna website > not alongside other Vedaantic traditions but rather under the > subheading "Free Thinkers, Neo Vedanta, etc." He also has an essay > on that same website in which he accuses Prabhupada of not even > having a high school level of education. He has referred to Gaudiyia > Vaishnavas as "so-called Vaishnavas." And this is merely the tip of > the iceberg. > > Do you publicly object even once when you see these abuses spewed at > us, or is it only your practice to cry foul when it happens to you? There is again a difference - this happened with me when I was part of the Gaudiya school itself, and it continues to happen with many of my Gaudiya friends I know. In any case, now that I have decided to be part of another school, I will try to prevent such abuses when they happen in front of me. > Personally, I object to abuse regardless of who is doing it and who > is on the receiving end. But I have yet to see any Maadhva > professionals on the CMS list publicly complain that this behavior > is unfair or out of line. On the other hand, Maadhva leaders (whose > letters are archived at the gosai.com site for all to see) have > complained about this behavior, and Srisha et. al. just don't give a > hoot about it. > > I would like for different Vaishnavas to be engaged in polite and > respectful dialog. However, I just don't see this happening when > Maadhva professionals such as yourself have casually accepted a > culture where it is acceptable to rail on those outside their > tradition in all sorts of nasty and dishonest ways. I would apologize if you found my behavior nasty, which was not my intention. I want to get to the bottom of things, that's all. If I am treading on someone's comfort zone, I am sorry. In any case, I never intended that my posts will get onto this list. But having got so, I need to be clear about what I believe in. Moreover, it is not that when I was part of the Gaudiya school, things were very honest. I have never seen any openness among Gaudiya Vaishnavas, you are probably the most open of all I have seen. If you spew > venom at us and we respond by correcting your misconceptions about > our philosophy, then you accuse us of being on the attack. Yet if > you attack our gurus, we should not complain. Nor should we complain > when you are knocking down strawmen or accusing us of rubbing elbows > with mayavadis. I just don't see any real evidence that you are > interested in dialog at all. And if we are supposed to feel guilty > for something an ISKCON person may or may not have said to you > personally in the past, then I wonder if you feel guilty for all the > abuses heaped upon our entire sampradaaya by your friends at the CMS > list? I can only apologize for what I do, I cannot speak for others. But God willing, I will try some day to explain to them too that it would be better to focus on arguments than on personal attacks. I am not expecting any sympathy for what happened to me. In any case, what would be the benefit of sympathy now? I have already taken a decision. I can give you in writing right here that I do not support personal attacks on Srila Prabhupada, or any Gaudiya acharya. I would rather have the world with ISKCON and Gaudiya Math than without it. I feel that it is better for a person to follow ISKCON than to remain a materialist. I personally feel that PrabhupAda, had he been still present, would have been very open about accepting criticisms on his works, which his followers are not. If you have the time, I would request you to please read the chapter "Doctrinal Controversy and Group Dynamic" by Kundali Das in the book "The Hare Krishna Movement - the post charismatic fate of a religious transplant." My arguments here are only with scholarly Gaudiyas, not with neophyte Gaudiyas - since I don't want to disturb anyone's faith. But I do not see any other forum where these issues can be addressed, and I have many outstanding questions for which I would like answers from someone in the Gaudiya sampradaya. Your reply has been a good first step. I am basically still not clear about 1. What is the chain of acharyas starting from KR^ishNa through which Gaudiya philosophy has been handed down, if it is not the disciplic succession given in the books coming down from Madhva? 2. Which acharya has written works where he means what he writes (as VedaVyasa's intentions), and who hasn't attributed relativized meanings to words as a preaching tactic? 3. Do the Gaudiyas accept the jagat-mithya concept and jiva-Brahman aikya concept given by Sridhar Swami in his commentary on SB? Do they even know what he wrote, except for some of his selective remarks on bhakti which PrabhupAda has quoted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I also hope that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas on this list will forgive me for my statements, if they are wrong, and also help me see where I am wrong. I have no intentions to try to convert anyone here - all my questions are for my own understanding. So kindly bear with me as a fellow Vaishnava. Differences aside, I am happy that ISKCON is able to change the lives of people towards bhakti to Lord Krishna. Most important of all, I would not support attributing bad intentions to Prabhupada. I am fully aware that his intentions were not malicious in any sense of the word, and were to spread Krishna- bhakti. Once again, the issues and criticisms I have made are for my own understanding, they are not to nitpick for the heck of it. It is possible that other Madhvas may have done that, but that is at least not my intention. So I hope they would at least get a proper hearing from the mature scholars on this group. Best wishes to all in the service of Sri Krishna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Again, I really am not convinced that anything I say here is going to matter. We've seen this situation before of Madhvas telling us they just want to nicely clarify their doubts, only to put words in our mouths, knock down strawmen, cry "defeated!" and then spew venom at us in the end. > But that is precisely my point! You have hit the nail on the wall. > Srila Prabhupada did not believe in advaitic works, and yet he > allowed the word "j~nAnI" to be used for them. And the reason is > that the advaitins say the path to moxa is by j~nAna. The point is > this - if this is a preaching tactic, as you admit, you would > probably not disagree if someone said "Srila PrabhupAda's purports > closely follow a preaching tactic, and the meanings he assigns to > words is not reflective of the true meanings of the words in > themselves"? You're getting all bent out of shape over nothing. It's just a term of convenience, not a "preaching tactic." How many times do people use the word "brahmin" to describe someone who wears sacred thread even though he comes to USA and does not perform brahminical duty? My impression is that Prabhupada uses the term jnaani to describe both the "so-called jnaanis" (i.e. mayavadis) and the ones who want self-realization/meditation/etc without the unalloyed bhakti. Not that this will be acceptable to you in any case. > The Gaudiya authority I was following did not believe that this was > a mere preaching tactic. I can't comment on your "Gaudiya authority." I base my understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism on what is in the writings of the acharyas. > Again, you are admitting that the Bhagavad Gita As It Is is filled > with preaching tactics, No, that is you putting words in my mouth. I would say that Srila Prabhupada does not put the same emphasis on rigid, hair-splitting definitions that you do. This is not to say that rigid, hair- splitting definitions are bad. It's just that this wasn't his style. Not surprising since he was primarily preaching in a language that was not his first. > And again, you have hit the nail on the wall. For Madhvas, karma and > j~nAna carry a very different meaning. Then why should Sri Caitanya > MahAprabhu accuse the Madhva sampradAya of being contaminated by > karma and j~nAna? Chaitanya-charitamrta was written for Gaudiyas, and so the usage of karma and jnaana will be according to their understanding. Possibly Chaitanya may have used those words in the Gaudiya context in the actual conversation too - I just don't know. I don't recall how mAdhvas exactly define the words. Please tell me the fundamental reason for his > criticism. It should not be because they do sandhyA-vandanam or > study UpaniShads. Even Gaudiya acharyas do these things. As far as the reason for the criticism, that should be obvious from the text itself. He was told that performing varnaashrama dharma for the pleasure of Lord Krishna to get liberation was the highest goal, and he rejected this point of view. It's all there in the text itself. > I did not say it is not the MAdhva position, I said it is not the > means of liberation in itself. I apologize if I was not clear. Like I said, I have seen mAdhvas like Srisha Rao arguing the very same position as the unnamed sannyasis in CC (viz that performance of varnAshrama dharma in service of the Lord was the highest goal), even while claiming in other contexts that the position described in CC is not the mAdhva position. I don't know why they seem confused on this point, and frankly I really don't care one way or another. How > can any learned sannyAsI in the Madhva line leave out bhakti, > aparoxa-j~nAna and God's grace as the means for liberation, when > even a neophyte like myself knows it? What you mean by this question, I think, is how can any mAdhva deviate from his sampradAya's principles, or have anything to learn from a non-mAdhva, right? Certainly that seems like the real gist of the objection, every time it comes up. And that too, the sannyAsI > does not give a single quote from the scriptures, again very hard to > accept. I don't know if he quoted anything or not. The account given by Krishnadasa may very well have been a cursory review of what happened. Or it might in fact have been the case that it was just a casual 5-minute conversation. I just don't know, but I'm sure you won't accept it in either case. You want to have regard for us, but you're perfectly happy to believe that our acharyas have falsified the details of the encounter. It seems to me like it's an either-or situation, isn't it? > > I suppose it is a > > matter of sectarian pride. > > You are making needless presumptions. We are all after right > knowledge. Well, it's hard not to come to certain conclusions when one consistently hears that the CC account of the Udupi conversation is bunk simply because no mAdhva has anything to learn from a non- mAdhva. > > For Gaudiiyas, the account is meant to > > illustrate a point, rather than to slander mAdhvas. > > What was that point? That is obvious from the text. See CC 2.9.258-268. > Moreover, saying "The only good thing about your sampradAya is that > you accept the form of the Lord as the truth" - isn't this a slander > on the whole paramparA? This was not said by him. What was said was prabhu kahe, -- karmi, jnani, -- dui bhakti-hina tomara sampradaye dekhi sei dui cihna sabe, eka guna dekhi tomara sampradaye satya-vigraha kari' isvare karaha niscaye Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Both the fruitive worker and the speculative philosopher are considered nondevotees. We see both elements present in your sampradaya. The only qualification that I see in your sampradaya is that you accept the form of the Lord as truth." (CC 2.9.276-2776) Is this a slander of your sampradAya? Well, when taken out of context it certainly sounds like it. When taken in context it is a philosphical disagreement. Hence the purport: "Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to point out to the Tattvavadi acarya, who belonged to the Madhvacarya-sampradaya, that the general behavior of the Tattvavadis did not favor pure devotional service, which must be devoid of the taints of fruitive activity and speculative knowledge. As far as fruitive activity is concerned, the contamination is the desire for elevation to a higher standard of life, and for speculative knowledge the contamination is the desire to merge into the existence of the Absolute Truth. The Tattvavada sampradaya of the Madhvacarya school sticks to the principle of varnasrama-dharma, which involves fruitive activity. Their ultimate goal (mukti) is simply a form of material desire. A pure devotee should be free from all kinds of material desire. He simply engages in the service of the Lord. Nonetheless, Caitanya Mahaprabhu was pleased that the Madhvacarya-sampradaya, or the Tattvavada sampradaya, accepted the transcendental form of the Lord. This is the great qualification of the Vaishnava sampradayas." This is the crux of the disagreement between Chaitanya and the Tattvavadi sannyasis. As far as Gaudiyas are concerned, even the desire for liberation, while certainly more intelligent than desiring material things, is still an impediment to unalloyed loving service, which has no desire other than to serve the Lord. It's not as if he is claiming that your acharyas are senile old men whose philosophy is hodgepodge fit for the dustbin. Such remarks are made on your Dvaita List, which you say has the approval of your acharyas. Srila PrabhupAda writes in the purport of > that verse that this is the sole reason MAdhavendra Puri accepted > Madhva-sampradAya? There was no other good Gaudiyas could find in > it? Here is what the purport (CC 2.9.145.277) actually says: "It is the Mayavada sampradaya that does not accept the transcendental form of the Lord. If a Vaishnava sampradaya is also carried away by that impersonal attitude, that sampradaya has no position at all. It is a fact that there are many so-called Vaishnavas whose ultimate aim is to merge into the existence of the Lord. For example, the sahajiyas' Vaishnava philosophy is to become one with the Supreme. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu points out that Sri Madhavendra Puri accepted Madhvacarya only because his sampradaya accepted the transcendental form of the Lord." Again, when you read the actual text, instead of taking an isolated statement out of context, you get the actual sense of what is being said. Madhavendra Puri accepted Madhva's sampradAya because the other so-called Vaishnavas of that area and time were interested in impersonal realizations. This is contrast to Madhva and his followers who accept that the Lord's personality is transcendentally real. Nothing there about "no other good in it." > Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu may have come to Udupi, the real issue here > is - how much of what Srila KrishNadAsa KavirAja wrote is an > accurate description of what actually happened? The way he writes it > is - that Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu was deflating someone's pride > there (note that he also says that even the SrivaishNava Venkata > Bhatta had pride) by taking a humble position. And similarly, Krishnadas Kaviraj and Vrindavan dasa Thakura write in CC and Chaitanya Bhagavata that young Sri Chaitanya used to be very proud of his knowledge and his ability to win debates. So, I guess this is also unflattering and I should object to that too? And then he accuses > the sannyAsI of playing with him in a duplicitious way. That was obviously a playful jest. You are reading way too much into this. All of which just supports my view that you aren't looking for a reason to agree so much as letting us all know why you are destined to disagree, thus making all of this nothing more than an exercise on your part to setup for the invariable Gaudiya bashing I am sure is going to follow. > It is not uncommon that biographers, in trying to overzealously > glorify their acharya, inadvertently end up attributing things to > them which would actually put them in negative light. This happened > even with Sri Ramanujacharya's biography where he spoke some pretty > harsh words after a debate to the loser which Srivaishnavas do not > accept he could have said. Whatever. I'm sure you wouldn't be terribly flattered if someone claimed that your acharya was also inadvertently and overzealously glorified to the point of saying something negative or wrong. > The words of the Madhva sannyAsI did not seem to be reflective of > the Madhva position, and that too with no scriptural reference to > any of his claims. Whether or not it was reflective of the overall Maadhva position was never the issue taken up by Krishnadasa Kaviraja. Only that it was the position of the Tattvavadi acharyas Sri Caitanya met with. > Moreover, is there a reason why Srila PrabhupAda has not written > purports to the section of CC where Sri Virabhadra Gosain is also > equated with the Supreme Lord? Which section is that? I don't recall anything to that effect off hand, and a quick search of the chaitanyacharitamrta section of vedabase using "Virabhadra Gosain" as keywords yielded nothing remotely like what you claimed. How many incarnations of the Lord > were exactly there in Bengal that time, besides Sri Caitanya > Mahaprabhu, Advaita Acharya, and Virabhadra Gosain? Moreover, what > verses do the Gaudiyas quote to establish the latter two? I have yet to even finish counting the number of incarnations in other sampradaayas, what to speak of the ones in the Gaudiya Sampradaya. Madhva is an incarnation of Vaayu, according to a sukta which (not coincidentally) is only interpreted by maadhvas in this way. Similarly Raghavendra Swami is supposed to be an incarnation of Prahlad, Jaya Tirtha is supposed to be the incarnation of Madhva's pack bull, Puranadara Dasa is Naarada, etc. Not that I've seen maadhvas quote any unambiguously authoritative scripture which confirms all that. > > As far as Gaudiiyas are concerned, Upanishads are as theistic as > > Bhagavad Giitaa. Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana wrote commentaries on > the > > principal Upanishads, of which I believe that his Iishopanishad > > commentary is still extant today. > > Why aren't the others? Doesn't this reflect how much importance > Gaudiyas give to the Upanishads? No. If anything it might reflect that Gaudiiyas give more importance to studying the Bhaagavatam, since they regard the Bhaagavatam's message as the essence of that found in the Vedaanta, Upanishads, etc. Their Vedaanta-suutra commentary was only written in response to an outside challenge. I think the Upanishad commentaries were written under similar circumstances. Sri Manish Tandon of Dvaita List Moderator fame very eloquently opined that this proves that Gaudiyas "disrespect the Upanishads" (whatever that means). You can tell my eyes are rolling... > If Upanishads are meant for devotees, why do Gaudiya authorities not > allow their students to go and study them? There is no specific prohibition against qualified brahmanas studying the Upanishads. If you claim that there is one, please quote where in the statements by Sri Chaitanaya, the Six Gosvamis, Baladeva Vidyabhushana, etc this is stated. Why isn't a study of the > Upanishads encouraged? If you really have studied the Gaudiya literatures as you claim, you should already know the answer to this question. Gaudiyas as a matter of tradition and doctrine emphasize the study of the Bhaagavatam, for reasons described in Bhaagavatam 1.4.1-16. > But the point is that all these forms - whether Brahman, paramatma, > bhagavan, Krishna, Rama, etc etc are all treated equally No, now you are missing the point. The point here was that there is a form known as Brahman, a form known as Paramaatmaa, and a form known as Bhagavaan. - where is > it said in this verse that Brahman is lower than Paramatma, which is > lower than Bhagavan? Where is one form of the Lord deemed inferior > than any other form? Where is it said that Brahman is devoid of > personality? The word "inferior" is not used by Gaudiya acharyas with respect to different forms of the Lord. This verse does not say anything about one form being "lower" than the other. What Gaudiiyas do say is that each form is a partial expression of the next. I'm sorry if I don't use rigid, hair-splitting definitions to illustrate the concept, but I find that the concept is not hard to understand. I'm not interested in jumping through someone's hoops if it is a foregone conclusion that all of this will just be shot down anyway. In Bhagavad-gita 14.27, Krishna says "brahmaNo hi pratiShThAham..." What is that Brahman of which He is the basis? In Hari Vamsha 2.114.9-11, Krishna points to the effulgence of Vaikuntha (brahmatejomayaM), says that it is none other than Himself, is the supreme goal of the sankhyaites, is the position of liberation for the yogis, etc: brahmatejomayaM divyaM mahat yad dR^iShTavAn asi | ahaM sa bharatashreShTha mattejas tat sanAtanam || HV 2.114.9 || The divine expanse of Brahman effulgence you have seen is none other than Myself, O best of the Bhaaratas. It is My own eternal effulgence (shrii harivaMsha, viShNuparva 114.9). prakR^itiH sA mama parA vyaktAvyaktA sanAtanI | tAM pravishya bhavantIha muktA yogaviduttamAH || HV 2.114.10 || It comprises My eternal, spiritual energy, both manifest and unmanifest. The foremost yoga experts of this world enter within it and become liberated (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.10). sA sA^nkhyAnAM gatiH pArtha yoginAM cha tapasvinAm | tat padaM paramaM brahma sarvaM vibhajate jagat || HV 2.114.11 || mAmeva tad ghanaM tejo j~nAtum arhasi bhArata || HV 2.114.12 || It is the supreme goal of the followers of Saankhya, O Paartha, as well as that of the yogiis and ascetics. It is the Supreme Absolute Truth, manifesting the varieties of the entire created cosmos. You should understand this brahma-jyoti, O Bhaarata, to be My concentrated personal effulgence (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.11-12). What is this brahmatejomayaM that is the same as Krishna, yet not a personal form like Krishna, and yet the goal of the yogis/saankhya followers/ascetics, etc? These verses are pretty clear that Krishna is that, that it is an effulgence, and that it is equated with liberation in some sense. Hence... Brahman as formless effulgence. And as far as it being at most a penultimate goal of spiritual realization, we have the statements such as these: muktAnAm api siddhAnAM nArAyaNaparAyaNaH | sudurlabhaH prashAntAtmA koTiShvapi mahAmune || bhA 6.14.5 || So who are these other muktas and siddhas who are not nArAyANa- parAyaNaH? > But Brahman for Gaudiyas is devoid of personal qualities. Brahman, when it is used to refer to the brahmajyoti, is devoid of personal qualities - that is a fact (see Hari Vamsha verses above). Madhvas do > not say that any form of the Lord is incomplete, howsoever it may be > manifested. Nor do Gaudiya acharyas. It is not a question of completeness so much as what is expressed. > Please give an explicit shAstric reference to show that Bhagavan has > qualities which Brahman doesn't. The Hari Vamsha verses describe the brahmajyoti as an effulgence, as opposed to a personality. From that, the idea that Brahman does not express qualities which are expressed in the Bhagavaan feature, is obvious. > Please give shAstric references to prove that KR^ishNa has qualities > which RAma doesn't. This is not the statement of Gaudiiyas as per my understanding. The Lord has all the qualities, but does not express all of them in every form. > I have heard one Maharaja say in BhAgavatam class that other forms > of KR^ishNa have service attitude towards the KR^ishNa form. I had > never heard anything like this before, or read shAstra saying things > like this. I also remember reading something along these lines in the Bhaagavatam, but I forgot exactly where it was. > And here, let me ask you a question. Why does a Gaudiya bhakta want > to serve Lord Vishnu? Isn't it because that makes him happy? No. The Gaudiya devotee following the standard of unalloyed devotional service wants to serve Vishnu only to please Him. He does not care for his own happiness or distress at all. If yes, > then isn't selfish happiness what he is seeking? Why should > liberation be looked down upon as inferior to bhakti, when those > seeking liberation are also doing so since they want happiness, and > when liberation involves service to Vishnu? See above. Madhva also talks of eka- > bhaktas in his GItA bhAshya , who don't desire even liberation. > These concepts are not missing from Madhva parampara. Whatever, I really don't care. Everyone is now saying "me too" when it comes to the concept of shuddha bhaktas, although they still deride Gaudiiyas for treating this subject separately from that of devotees desiring liberation. Why just the other day I saw a Tenkalai purohit going on and on about it during an Andal kalyAnam he was conducting. It was kind of interesting until he started chanting the Hare Krishna mantra - then it became really obvious where it was all coming from. Why do they > want to remember the Lord? Because it gives them happiness. Now why > isn't this a fruitive desire but a desire of moksha is? Isn't it > because Gaudiyas get reminded of advaitic moksha when they hear this > word? I really don't know what else to say, other than that your concept of liberation and eka-bhakti is clearly different from the Gaudiya one. > Does Madhva anywhere pray to the Lord "Give me moksha"? I don't know what Madhva says. I am only setting the record straight as to what Gaudiiyas say. > You cannot avoid the fact that everyone, whether Gaudiya or Madhva > ultimately wants happiness for himself. Like I said, your concept of pure devotion is not the Gaudiya one. A pure devotee may become > indifferent whether he is in hell or not since his happiness comes > by remembering the Lord. But he certainly will not want to become > unhappy internally (whether or not you want to use the term moksha). > So it is wrong to say that a bhakta does not desire anything for > himself. In that case, take the matter up with Lord Krishna who explains that those serving Him do not even desire the various types of liberation (bhA 9.4.67). > What does "technically going back to Madhva" mean? Maadhavendra Purii's guru was in a paramparA going back to Madhva. He had no other Vaishnava guru. > I already know that the two schools are quite different. But I am > not clear where the Gaudiya purports are coming from, Gaudiya purports are coming from Gaudiya AchAryas. if not from a > mixture of Shankara and Ramanuja ultimately - if you disagree, > please point out the disciplic succession starting from the Lord in > which the philosophy has been handed down. So on one hand, you argue that Gaudiiya philosophy is mix of Shankara and Raamaanuja philosophy, even though Gaudiiyas have no disciplic succession from either. Yet on the other hand, you request that there must be some other disciplic succession to prove that the Gaudiiya philosophy is not a mix of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita. Nice double standard, this. > > Even Maadhvas list (see Mani-Manjari) a parampara of Madhva that > > goes back through his Advaita sannyaasa guru, even though Madhva > > converted that guru into his own disciple. Why does Mani-Manjari > > list this paramparaa when the Maths generally regard him > (following > > Sri Madhva Vijaya) as a disciple of Vyaasa? > > But there is a difference. Madhva does not say in the beginning of > his Gita commentary "This Bhagavad Gita is received from the > following disciplic succession" and list Achyuta praj~na in it. Small wonder that. Madhva did not write in English, nor did he preach to mlecchas in 1960's America for whom concepts of paramparA and sampradAya were so foreign. It kind of goes without saying that you can't reveal the whole history and the nuances of every detail of every thing in a book which is being distributed to introduce foreigners to bhakti-yoga. Then again, Prabhupada has spoken of the differences elsewhere in this CC purports, so that leaves little room for the view that he was somehow trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. > But the statement in Bhagavad Gita does not sound like a formality. > And fine, even accepting that it is, it still does not answer "In > which disciplic succession did the knowledge come down"? Most Gaudiiyas will tell you that the *knowledge* that constitutes Gaudiiya Vaishnava philosophy really comes from Maadhavendra- Iishvara-Shrii Chaitanya. However, as a matter of respect they naturally want to give credit to Maadhavendra's line. It's a matter of etiquette. > > Gaudiya purports to Giitaa 12.1-5 are substantially different from > > that of Shankara's. The fact that both acknowledge the existence > of > > an impersonal brahman does not make them the same. This is another > > instance where you need to look a bit more closely before > > criticizing. Gaudiiyas take the position that meditating on the > > impersonal feature is more troublesome, and directly worshipping > the > > Lord in His personal form is best. This in contrast to Shankara > who > > takes worship of the personal form as a means to an end, viz the > > attainment of some impersonal liberation. > > I would like to know what this "meditating on the impersonal > feature" is - what does it involve, and how does one go about it? This is an example of how this discussion will go on and on in an ever-expanding and never-ending spiral of tangential points. You make a point that Prabhupada's interpretations are crypto-Advaita. I refute the point. Then you ask me to elucidate his views on that. And this coming from a person who obvious knows English, obviously has access to the books, and can obviously read it for himself. So far this entire discussion has been like that. You bring up one of your misconceptions and knock it down. I correct your misconception. And rather than acknowledging that your misconception was false, you go on to look for something else. This is why I'm not really encouraged by this at all. Obviously you aren't taking back anything from this. Whatever you have falsely claimed about Gaudiya paramparaa, you will continue to do so elsewhere. Why should I feel compelled to take time out to answer all these questions when it is obvious that you are unwilling to assimilate what you read here? Obviously, you aren't taking in anything you read in Prabhupada's purports. > > The Maadhva interpretation which treates the akshara here as > Lakshmi > > (just as it is done in BG 14.27) is certainly interesting, but > very > > roundabout. Gaudiiyas need not be faulted for following the > shlokas > > more literally and yet trying to illustrate the personalist bent > to > > them. > > What is literal to one may not be literal to another. There are many > instances which I too can point where the Gaudiya interpretation is > not literal - 2.17, 4.24, 7.29, 15.16, to name a few. Why don't you > try to correlate the word-by-word translation of 15.16 with the > Gaudiya translation and explain to me how you get the latter from > the former? Again, this is yet another example of you trying to change the subject. My point is simply that there is a literal basis for many of the Gaudiya Vaishnava views, and that criticizing them for following the text just does not make much sense. Anyway, we can get into a discussion of various other interpretations that might not seem so literal, but unlike you, I was hoping to keep this discussion focused. > > Why stop there? Advaitins also accept the Vedas as apaurusheya. So > > do Gaudiiyas. So is this another instance of Gaudiiyas deriving > > their conclusions from Advaitins? Come on. > > You digress - No, it is you who digress. When you see even so much as a superficial resemblance on some point between Advaitins and Gaudiiyas, you are argue that Gaudiiyas are basically mayavadis? Come on, this is incredibly stupid. Does anyone else here actually have a doubt that Gaudiiyas are occult Mayavadis because they accept the existence of a karma- kaanda? If so, please step forward and be heard. the reason the karma and j~nAna issue is important is > that Gaudiyas use it to criticize other Vaishnava schools, and look > down on their scholarship and affiliation to Varnashrama dharma, This reactionary drivel is really getting out of hand, Anant. > notwithstanding the disasters that the Gaudiyas have themselves > faced when brahminical status and sannyasa was given to persons who > literally destroyed the entire name of ISKCON permanently, And now we see your friend's real problem. Philosophy was never the issue - it was the issue of the ISKCON people and their bad behavior. This has generally been my experience with Maadhvas who were formerly aligned with Gaudiiyas - they don't leave Gaudiiyas because they read Madhva and found him more convincing. They leave Gaudiiyas because ISKCON can't live up to its social principles. It is only that they use philosophy as the subsequent justification. We don't need to hear horror stories about ISKCON's failed social experiments from you. Most of us have heard it at one point or another. But this is not an ISKCON list and I am not an ISKCON member. So if you are expecting me cry tears that you object to ISKCON's failed gurus, think again. Truth be told, following the principle I alluded to earlier, I suspect there would be many more converts to Tattvavada from ISKCON's ranks if the Tattvavadi internet community were not so vicious and low-class in their criticism of Vaishnavas outside their ranks. It tends to leave an impression in one's mind when a mailing list approved of by senior acharyas of the Ashta-Mathas persistently rails on Gaudiiya acharyas for their alleged lack of high school education, for having hodgepodge philosophy fit for dustbin, being purile, not knowing any Sanskrit, being likened to neo-Vedantins, etc. If those are the kinds of people one would have to put up with for being "in" the sampradaya, then you can naturally exclude people who have principles which inspire them towards fairness and moderation. > You speak of Madhvas causing damage to brahminical culture. I have said no such thing. This is you putting words in my mouth. Do you think their starting temples in > the US is against their own tradition, and that they should go back > to India and live in an ashrama? I have never said anything against them starting temples in the US. If they could spend half as much time building temples in US as they spent railing on ISKCON, we might have a genuine Madhva temple I would be pleased to visit now and again. Please. They also have their gurus. > Let them do what their gurus are telling them. When have I ever told them not to do what their gurus are telling them? On the contrary, I think they should do what their gurus are telling them. And when their gurus tell them not to disrespect the followers of Prabhupada, I think they should take that to heart, too. Do you think the > dvaita website was started without the authorization of Vidyamanya > Tirtha and Vishwesha Tirtha? You tell me. The website has their approval, so then according to you, the vicious, hateful, and condescending remarks on that website about Prabhupada and his followers also has their approval? Do you think the position paper was > published without Vidyamanya Tirtha's approval and examination? Srisha Rao claims that the acharyas who wrote in support of Gaudiya Vaishnavism on gosai.com lacked the English knowledge to fully evaluate the ramifications of what they said. Strange that the same logic did not extend to the acharyas who approved of his little position paper, which was also written in English. Really, some of the arguments in that paper are just plain silly, such as, for example: "Radha is a bogus deity with no shAstric support, and any shAstra which mentions Radha is interpolated, bogus," etc. I personally would have assumed that Maadhva acharyas had a higher standard of scholarship. But if you feel this represents the sophisticated level of thinking of Vidyamanya Tirtha, then far be it for me to stand in your way. How > can you assume that the Madhvas don't follow their gurus? Where have I assumed any such thing? Shouldn't you calm down and figure out what it is you are trying to tell us? You started out claiming you want to have regard for us and clarify your doubts, but now you are accusing me of saying so many things which I never said. > First of all, your comparing Gaudiyas to Madhvas like this is not > even fair. Most people who come to Gaudiya sampradaya are interested > in spiritual life. On the other hand, most Madhvas follow Madhva > simply because it is their family tradition. So it is not a surprise > that you find many Madhvas not interested in their culture. I would > not even call them as Madhvas. Right. Behold the double standard. When Gaudiyas do something bad, it is a fault of their philosophy. They are "really" Gaudiyas. But when Madhvas do something bad, well, they aren't really Madhvas... they just claim to be based on family tradition. Prabhupada > made statements which directly conflicted with one another (the > issue of falldown is already a classic issue). Kundali DAsa chose > one, the GBC chose the other. Result? Controversy after controversy. > One wonders what PrabhupAda would have said to see the pathetic > state in which ISKCON found itself after his departure. He would have told us to become Tattvavadis, so we can be part of a sampradaya which has no controversies, no failures, no corruption, and where everyone is nice and brahminical and fair and respectful to all. > This definitely holds for those in the Gaudiya school, since to > solidly refute advaita, you will have to go to Ramanuja or Madhva. You can be quite certain that many individuals here do not feel threatened by Advaita, and yet have not gone to Ramanuja or Madhva. I really have nothing else to say in response to this extremely pompous claim. > Without that, there is no possibility but to get confused by > advaita. It happened with me. I would have been happy in the Gaudiya > school had I not got bewildered by advaita. And as the Lord arranged > it, I had to go to Madhva to get that contamination off, since the > advaitins appeared much more scholarly in their commentaries than > the Gaudiya commentaries. > > It is hence, in my own practical experience, much more risky to > quote advaitins and hope to make bhaktas out of them. Rather, as my > own case proves it, you will probably lose your own bhaktas who > would become advaitins (unless you're saved by Ramanuja or Madhva). I'm certainly not about to disagree with your n=1 study. Everyone in ISKCON these days seems to have a story that amounts to "if your philosophy was different, I would be better off." Never mind one's own personal failures. No, it has to be the philosophy that is at fault. > > > Perhaps this is why many MAdhvas are angered by the disciplic > > > succession claim issue. > > > > Maadhva aachaaryas are not angered by this at all. Their letters, > > written on their own letterheads, are archived at the gosai.com > > website for all to see. > > Incidentally, MAdhvas have told me that it is because they are not > aware of the Gaudiya tenets in detail (after all, who told them what > Gaudiya philosophy is - what exactly were they told by the gosai > people when they went to get their letters, about Gaudiya > philosophy?) When Swami Vishwesha Tirtha of Pejawara Matha was shown > the excerpt from Navadwip Dham Mahatmya, he was anything but less > than bitter in his criticism of that episode - which is also on the > dvaita website (http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf), and which was > after the gosai.com letters were written (27/6/2001). This shows > that when they wrote the letters (20/5/2001), they were not even > aware of episodes like these. It is anybody's guess what the rest of > them are going to say about this issue. And yet, nowhere in that letter did Vishvesha Tirtha decry the parampara affiliation. Nor did any of the other acharyas publish new letters taking back what they said earlier. VT's objection was about something in Navadvipa-dhama Mahatmya, not in regards to the parampara affiliation. See, now once again, you are just changing the subject. I said that Madhva swamis have no problem with the idea of Madhva-Gaudiya parampara. The best you can come up with in response is that VT objects to an account found in Bhaktivinod Thakura's Navadvipa Mahatmya which has nothing to do with the parampara listing. > I have personally last month talked to the Puthige Math Swami, who > told me that my decision to leave the Gaudiya parampara was the > correct decision. So what? All Vaishnavas talk like that. They are happy if you do some bhakti somewhere, but they are happiest if you do it under their camp. You think someone will follow a sampradaya if he were not convinced it is best? This however does not mean that they agree with > Gaudiyas in toto about their philosophy. I did not want to say these > things here, but the way those letters are blindly quoted by > Gaudiyas forces me to say this. That is really dumb. The gosai.com people made no claim to the effect that the philosophies were the same. It is only in response to the bad behavior of Srisha Rao et. al. that they even sought a clarification from the Ashta-Matha swamis on the issue. You see, you people are in serious denial about what is going on. Srisha and the CMS moderators spewed a lot of evil remarks about Prabhupada and the entire Gaudiya sampradaya. As a result, the gosai.com people asked the Ashta-Matha swamis to issue a statement clarifying their stance on the matter, to which they respond with letters arguing that we share a common parampara. Now, in response to that, you claim that it is all politics and that they are claiming something which they never said. You argue that Madhvas should follow their own gurus, but when their own gurus make statements about our cordial relationship and parampara affiliation, you do not seem at all interested in accepting it. But then you cry foul that I am somehow keeping you from following your gurus. > Pejawara Swami has even praised Amma, this does not mean that when > shown what Amma's philosophy is, he is going to stamp his approval > on it. Another interesting double standard. If Prabhupada quotes Shankara even once, you argue that he is supporting Advaita. But when Pejavara Swami praises Amma (the so-called durga avatar who hugs everyone and advocates materialistic neo-Vedanta), you see no problems at all with seeing them as two, separate, and distinct individuals with distinct philosophical backgrounds. Anant Shenoy, since you are the one forwarding this person's "doubts" here, may I ask if you actually find his "logic" so troubling to you? I mean, do you really think Prabhupada is a mayavadi because he mentions karma-kaanda? Do you think Prabhupada is a mayavadi because he occasionally quotes Shankara (while Pejavar Swami is not even though he shows up at Amma's birthday celebration)? Do you think mistakes and bad behavior of some ISKCON devotees should reflect on Gaudiya Vaishnavism, while bad behavior of Madhva immigrants should be forgiven because it is somehow approved by Madhva swamis? Because I personally am not finding anything intelligent or doubt- provoking in any of this, and I am unwilling to let this list get hijacked in a never-ending spiral focused on this person's extremely tangential thinking. > I can only apologize for what I do, I cannot speak for others. But > God willing, I will try some day to explain to them too that it > would be better to focus on arguments than on personal attacks. > I can give you in writing right here that I do not support personal > attacks on Srila Prabhupada, or any Gaudiya acharya. I would rather > have the world with ISKCON and Gaudiya Math than without it. I feel > that it is better for a person to follow ISKCON than to remain a > materialist. Nothing is stopping you from going to the Dvaita List - right this minute - and publicly objecting to every instance where Srisha Rao, Manish Tandon, Keshava Potty, et. al. have made nasty and/or condescending remarks against Gaudiyas. If it really and truly matters to you, that is. Frankly, I doubt that it does. > I am not expecting any sympathy for what happened to me. In any > case, what would be the benefit of sympathy now? I have already > taken a decision. You think you are the only one who has been mistreated by ISKCON? Think again. I know many people here (myself included) who were at one time or another or still are. This isn't an ISKCON list, and we don't let our political concerns color our appreciation for tradition. Probably we'd all be Madhvas just to get away from ISKCON's social dysfunction were it not obvious that the Madhvas have their own dysfunctionality, beginning with the elitist and condescending attitudes of its internet leaders who supposedly have the personal approval of the Ashta Matha swamis. > I personally feel that PrabhupAda, had he been still present, would > have been very open about accepting criticisms on his works, which > his followers are not. I have been personally saying the same thing for a long time. However, I also personally find your "criticism" to be shallow and one-dimensional. If logic like "Prabhupada gives support to mayavadis because he believes there is a karma-kaanda" is bona fide "criticism," then with folded hands I humbly submit that I am just unqualified to debate with you. yours, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 >But I do not see any other forum where these issues can be addressed, and I have many outstanding questions for which I would like answers from someone in the Gaudiya sampradaya. If a decision has already been reached, what is the purpose of these questions: to surrender or to criticize? HKS> All of which just supports my view that you aren't looking for a reason to agree so much as letting us all know why you are destined to disagree, thus making all of this nothing more than an exercise on your part to setup for the invariable Gaudiya bashing I am sure is going to follow. This sounds like a reasonable assessment of the situation. >What is the chain of acharyas starting from KR^ishNa through which Gaudiya philosophy has been handed down, if it is not the disciplic succession given in the books coming down from Madhva? The Gaudiya philosophy is presented in the Srimad Bhagavatam and was present throughout history. The history of the succession is presented therein from Krishna to Brahma to Narada to Vyasa when it became recently manifested again in human society 5000 years ago. It later became reinvigorated by Madhavendra Puri and Lord Caitanya. This is my understanding. > Which acharya has written works where he means what he writes (as VedaVyasa's intentions), and who hasn't attributed relativized meanings to words as a preaching tactic? Gaudiyas take Srimad Bhagavatam as the ultimate presentation of Srila Vyasadeva's intentions (unlike Maadhvas who see Brahma-sutra as most-conclusive) of which the primary one is devotional service that is pure or in his own words--ahaituki and apratihata (not materially motivated and not interrupted). This point is hammered again and again by Srila Vyasadeva. Therefore, any interpretation of any part of the Vedic literature that yields this conclusion is acceptable. Because the various Vaishnava schools do give interpretations consistent with this one point, Gaudiyas, generally speaking, have no quarrel with the variety of nuances that various Vaishnava schools have given to different verses of Gita, etc. The Lord Himself acts in ways that each serve multiple purposes. This is undoubtedly so even for His speech in the Gita. Even Madhva accepts that each verse of the Mahabharata, including the Gita, has ten interpretations. As an example, the word brahma occurs in the Bhagavadgita many times and VCT interprets it consistently to refer to some aspect of the Lord, however, Baladeva interprets it to refer to the jiva at times (although not nearly as many times as does Ramanuja). Both are aligned with the paradigm of pure devotional service-which we believe is actually Vyasadeva's intention. However, what may be debatable is what is the *best* interpretation in terms of logical and contextual strength in regards to the chapter, section, verse, etc. You have mentioned the verse 7.29. Baladeva takes the word brahma as jiva, and Visvanatha Cakravarti takes it to refer to the Lord. The consistent use of the word brahma throughout the Gita even as seen with predominance in the commentary of Baladeva could give the latter interpretation stronger contextual relevance. Similarly, Baladeva interprets 2.17 in terms of the jiva, and Visvanatha Cakravarti, in his second explanation, points to "tu" as a modifier of context, and then takes the verse in relation to the Lord (the jiva having already been described). Both are building up to the concept of pure bhakti, therefore there is no reason to go into epileptic fits over these differences. >Do the Gaudiyas accept the jagat-mithya concept and jiva-Brahman aikya concept given by Sridhar Swami in his commentary on SB? Do they even know what he wrote, except for some of his selective remarks on bhakti which PrabhupAda has quoted? Regarding the identity passages, Sridhara Swami is acknowledged as making such comments which are not acceptable to the Gaudiya Vaishnavism except maybe as a statement of similarity in line with achintya-bheda-abheda. So the answer is a "no" in regards to the Advaitin identity statements. *However,* in regards to the mithya concept, the SB 11.11.3 describes the material world and spiritual reality as pratItIh and vastuH respectively which does indicate the idea of this reality-in-flux vs. absolute reality. This is true *even* for the Madhva interpretation which is briefly mentioned at www.srimad.org: "Bondage and liberation are only for jeevas, not for the Lord who is beyond and in control of Maya. In a dream, there is no awareness that the dream is in progress and as long as the dream lasts, the dreamer experiences grief etc.So also in the waking state, the jiva not being alive to his true nature of sacchidananda and also lacking in knowledge of Sri Hari, undergoes suffering, joy etc. Such experiences being strictly confined to jiva's embodied state are not a part of his constitutional baggage and hence termed not factual (na vasthavi)." (see under summary of chapter 11). The Gaudiyas attach no meaning to the word mithya other than this, and there is no obligation on their part to accept the Advaitin sense of it. > Then why should Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu accuse the Madhva sampradAya of being contaminated by karma and j~nAna? Please tell me the fundamental reason for his criticism.. This is from the same summary of Srila Madhvacarya's discussion of the Bhagavatam: "If one is unable to fix ones mind irrevocably on the Lord, one is advised to perform all allotted duties efficiently as an offering to the Lord (near the end of chapter 11)." "A man should continue to do his duties enjoined by the shastras so long as he does not get disgusted with the pleasures of sense or so long as keenness does not appear in him for listening to the stories of the Lord (beginning of chapter 20). " Thse indirectly indicate that pure devotional service is higher than varnashrama done as krishna-arpanam (thus indicating that varnashrama should be performed as an expression of glorification of Krishna rather than as a mere offering to Krishna). >There was no other good Gaudiyas could find in it? Obviously, this is not the case since Jiva and Baladeva took benefit of otherwise lost textual references from them. This is a direct reference to the exposition and implicitly the practice of the Tattvavadi acarya himself--"you who follow bhakti with an inappropriate emphasis on varnashrama and moksha and therefore you do not have pure devotional service." >Again, you are admitting that the Bhagavad Gita As It Is is filled with preaching tactics, and many of the meanings assigned to words are not their true meanings, in the way they were intended when written down by Veda VyAsa. I don't think Krishna Susarla was saying that. Only that Srila Prabhupada's usage in the purport is the colloquial one at times. > Why isn't a study of the Upanishads encouraged? Gaudiyas view them as being focussed on the purusa-avataras and sambandha-tattva, whereas the Bhagavatam, already including such information, gives importance to the activities of the lila-avataras especially those of Krishna as objects of meditation for the purposes of sadhana or abidheya. > I have heard one Maharaja say in BhAgavatam class that other forms of KR^ishNa have service attitude towards the KR^ishNa form. I had never heard anything like this before, or read shAstra saying things like this. What to speak of other Vishnu-tattvas, even Krishna is stunned in attraction to His Krishna form. He is uniquely wonderful. >This definitely holds for those in the Gaudiya school, since to solidly refute advaita, you will have to go to Ramanuja or Madhva. Without that, there is no possibility but to get confused by advaita. I don't think a Maadhva would agree with this assessment, they view Ramanuja and all other Vaishnavas as variants of advaita. Another point is that Madhva and Ramanuja's sampradayas' contributions in the refutation of Advaita occurred first because of various reasons. And if there is a opportunity for intense dialectics with Advaita, that would naturally happen in the case of the other Vaishnava traditions. Another point is that why should other traditions bother to reinvent the wheel. Just as Gaudiya acharyas quoted texts of other sampradayas, one natural step would be to adapt information and dialectical techniques of the Madhva and Ramanuja sampradaya into the framework of acintyabhedaabheda tattva. I agree with HKS that your assessment is pompous, or to give you the benefit of the doubt, deliberately ignorant. > I would like to know what this "meditating on the impersonal feature" is - what does it involve, and how does one go about it? Where is the shAstric reference to meditating on the impersonal feature? After all, if there is nothing personal about it, then what do you meditate on? What image do you form in your mind during this meditation? Why will one, in the first place, meditate on the impersonal feature? The answers to these are summarized in BG 12.3-5, involving meditating on the opposite of matter: neti, neti. I am sure there are parallel passage in the Upanisads. Other Vaishnava interpretations which offer jiva or Laxmi as the subject of the verse can't fully understand the significance of the words "prApnuvanti mam"--"achieve Me"--in light of all the negative words in this context. On a side note, Laksmi worship has never been discussed earlier in the Gita. >But KR^ishNa does not say that these portions are called "karma kAnDa" and that this is all these portions teach! Why do you think he uses the words pushpitam vAcham? Because the superficial meanings of those portions are like flowers, which if you pluck, makes the tree (Veda) not yield any fruit. It is the deeper meanings of those same portions which would yield the fruit. Why do you think he uses the words "veda-vAda-ratAH" and not "veda-ratAH"? Yes, Gaudiyas would agree that other than pure devotional service, all other interpretations constitute superficial understandings. Without at least some bhakti, all processes are fruitless. > I have personally last month talked to the Puthige Math Swami, who told me that my decision to leave the Gaudiya parampara was the correct decision. > In any case, what would be the benefit of sympathy now? I have already taken a decision. I also get the opportunity to see him nearly every time he comes to New York. I think your decision is correct in your situation, because no one can advance without proper regard for one's gurus and sadhus which in the case of ISKCON includes Sridhara Swami and the two main Gita commentators and of course Srila Prabhupada. When Lord Caitanya corrected the mentality of Vallabha Bhatta, He was illustrating the principle of sadhu-vartma-anuvartante. One must have proper regard for the past sadhus through their examples, words, and current followers. The less you dwell on the Gaudiya acaryas in the way you do the better for you. Focus on the positives of your new tradition. > But the point is that all these forms - whether Brahman, paramatma, bhagavan, Krishna, Rama, etc etc are all treated equally - where is it said in this verse that Brahman is lower than Paramatma, which is lower than Bhagavan? Where is one form of the Lord deemed inferior than any other form? Where is it said that Brahman is devoid of personality? But Brahman for Gaudiyas is devoid of personal qualities. Madhvas do not say that any form of the Lord is incomplete, howsoever it may be manifested. ...Please give an explicit shAstric reference to show that Bhagavan has qualities which Brahman doesn't. Please give shAstric references to prove that KR^ishNa has qualities which RAma doesn't. If you say "peacock feather on head", I can also cite "eka-patnI-vrata" as a quality RAma shows which KR^ishNa doesn't. Does this make KR^ishNa not have qualities which RAma has? You are right: all the Vishnu-tattvas and phases of Godhead are the same individual. "Though each God (Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha) manifests only one attribute (or aspect), yet all these six divine attributes are vested in all three of Them, (so that in fact) They are neither less nor more than the eternal Vasudeva. Their major and minor limbs, etc. are not phenomenal; Their bodies containing the six-fold divine attributes are divine and eternal. .... O lord of heavens, it is erroneous to think that there is any essential difference between these (manifestations). In order to stress the particular activity associated with each, (such differentiations) are envisaged (by scriptures)." (Laksmi tantra 4.13-16,21-23) "In the case of each vyuha, O sage, the four qualities not mentioned are still present in reality, but respectively in a pursuing form. (Ahirbudhnya-samhita) Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura acknowledges that the different phases are described as such due to the different types of worshippers: "Though his sac-cid-ananada form is called by the names brahman, paramatma, and bhagavan, actually there is no difference at all between them. svarUpa dvayAbhAvAt: there is no duality in Your form SB 6.9.36). However, because of observing difference in the worshippers, in terms of sAdhana and the results, difference has been designated." All discussions of the particular specialty of Krishna have to be seen in the context of this overarching identity of the Lord. This is the principle of visesa, which dvaitins suddenly can't comprehend when presented by Gaudiyas who are then considered haters of Hari! HKS> And similarly, Krishnadas Kaviraj and Vrindavan dasa Thakura write in CC and Chaitanya Bhagavata that young Sri Chaitanya used to be very proud of his knowledge and his ability to win debates. So, I guess this is also unflattering and I should object to that too? Great point. Lord Caitanya inspired humility everywhere. Regards, Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Hare Krsna, I would like to point out that questions about Gaudiya philospohy cannot be understood while the questioner is in a challenging frame of mind. The mood of the inquirer needs to be submissive and humble, at least recognizing that there is something (she) does not understand. As long as challenging attitude is there, a vaisnava can answer to their last breath, and the answer will not be understood. Understanding the vaisnava philosophy means devotional attitude and doing some devotional service to the spiritual master, or least the some slight desire to find it. The Lord reveals the correct understanding of the Bhagavada Gita, the Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya Caritamrta as we advance on the path of devotional service. These books are the written manifestation of Him. They are non different from Him. Simply dissecting them without submissive inquiry will not bring understanding. Understanding them is not mental speculation or word jugglery. Those activities are left to the much discussed jnanis. Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada, JayaLalita dd --- Mrgerald wrote: >But I do not see any other forum where these issues can be addressed, and I have many outstanding questions for which I would like answers from someone in the Gaudiya sampradaya. If a decision has already been reached, what is the purpose of these questions: to surrender or to criticize? vanca-kalpatarubhyas ca krpa-sindubhya eva ca patitanam pavanebhyo vaisnavebhyo namo namaha 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.