The sampradaya of Lord Caitanya

[Guest guest]

The Sampradaya of Lord Caitanya

I am sure that many devotees read or heard about meeting of Lord Caitanya with

the members of Madhva sampradaya in south India. This is the disciplic

succession where Lord Caitanya and His followers belong so naturally we would

think we follow the same spiritual tenets like them but actually it is not so.

Lord Caitanya even criticized and defeated some of their tenets. So, let see

what are the differences and how is it that we still belong to the same

sampradaya.

 

1) The philosophy of Madhvacarya is called Dvaita or dualism and that of

Lord Caitanya the acintya bheda-abheda tattva or the philosophy of inconceivable

ones and difference.

2) Madhva’s ultimate object of worship is Lord Narayana but to Lord

Caitanya it is Krsna whose partial anifestation is Lord Narayana.

3) Madhva say that devotion to Krsna is shown by dedicated performance of

ones duties within the system of varna-asrama and Lord Caitanya is renouncing

varna-asrama for the sake of pure devotional service – suddha bhakti.

4) The ultimate goal according to Madhva is the attainment of the five

kinds of liberation in Vaikuntha and for Lord Caitanya it is the loving service

of Sri Krsna.

5) Madhva say that the gopis of Vrndavana are maidens from heaven (apsarah

stri), who worship Krsna to satisfy their lust but Lord Caitanya say that the

gopis of Vrndavana are not ordinary souls but rather the manifestations of the

internal potency (svarupa sakti) of

Lord Krsna. They are engaged in His selfless loving devotional service free

from lust.

6) According to Madhva the highest devotee is Brahma while according to

Lord Caitany the gopis of Vrndavana whose dust of the lotus feet is desired even

by Lord Brahma.

 

So as we can see there are quite some differences in the tenets. Lord Caitanya

said that the doctrine of Madhva, who named his Vaisnava followers as

tattva-vadis of south India, is defective although based on the scriptures it

doesn’t give deep understanding. Contrary to Madhva’s philosophy Lord Caitanya’s

is brilliant like the cintamany jewel. It helps one to develop the highest pure

devotion to Lord Sri Krsna.

In his Caitanya-candramrta Prabhodananda Sarasvati praise Lord Caitanya in the

following way: “Before the advent of Lord Caitanya who had ever heard of prema

as the highest end? Who was aware of the glory and the greatness of the holy

name? Who had experienced the beauty and sweetness of the celestial garden of

Vrndavana? Who knew of Sri Radha, the highest and

most wonderful manifestation of sweetness, beauty and rasa?” So, it obvious

that the doctrine and input of Lord Caitanya for the development of bhakti is

incomparable with that of Madhvacarya.

 

Before we explain how is it possible that there are differences in the tenets

of these two great personalities Madhvacarya and Lord Caitanya, we can mention

some other examples where the disciple’s teaching becames a bit different from

the knowledge received from the guru.

 

When Vallabhacarya of Sri-sampradaya wrote books about bhakti he did not make

any reference to Visnusvami’s suddha-advaite doctrine. Rather he reshaped the

suddha-advaite doctrine and departed in several ways from the orthodox approach

of the school.

Another more close example for us is, Madhavendra Puri the member of

Madhva-sampradaya who had a different devotional mood and object of worhip than

his guru Laksmipati Tirtha. Laksmipati Tirtha as the follower of Madhva

naturally worshiped Lord Narayana with the mode of awe and reverence while

Madhavendra Puri who is actually a wish fulfilling desire-tree in Goloka

Vrndavana, exhibited great devotion to Sri-Sri Radha-Krsna in the mode of

separation. They differed also in goals. Laksmipati’s was mukti while

Madhavendra’s the pure loving devotional service of Krsna.

 

So, the question is, how that these personalities didn’t follow everything in

toto and did they deviated from the sampradaya of their gurus? One answer is

that they certainly did not deviate but rather they gave deeper meaning of the

teachings received from their guru. It is not uncommon that in rare cases the

disciple becomes more spiritually advanced than his own spiritual master. But

did they start a new sampradaya? No and yes. In the Vedic tradition even if

somebody wants to start a new

sampradaya previous to that one must be initiated into one of the recognized

sampradayas. Even Sankaracarya in his commentary of tha Bhagavad-gita say that

“a man who does not belong to a sampradaya must be ignored as he was a fool.”

 

Therefore, Madhvacarya, who regarding this topic is one another interesting

example, also followed the tradition and thus became actually initiated by

Yadavaprakas into the impersonalistic school of advait-vada. However, he became

a propagator of vaisnava philosophy especially after the meeting of Srila

Vyasadeva in Bhadarika asram

in the Himalayas.

 

One more thing is to be noted, that ordinarily a disciples follow the

teachings of the sampradaya but an exceptions to this rule are the acaryas who

regenerated or founded a new sampradaya. Therefore, despite the above arguments

if somebody thinks that Lord Caitanya, Madhvendra Puri and Vallabhacarya are

deviants that is not true.

 

It is interesting that during the time of the six gosvamis the belief was not

so widespread about necessity to be a member of one of the four bona fide

sampradayas of Kali-yuga in order to start a new faith therefore the six

gosvamis neglected to explain this matter in their works. However, this point

became very important consideration at the time of Baladeva Vidyabhusana who had

to defend our Gaudiya sampradaya at the historical conference in

Jaipur. He had to emphasize our link with Madhva sampradaya despite the

doctrinal differences. If he would have not done this perhaps he would be

labeled as apasampradayi-not being properly initiated into a recognized

sampradaya and thus not given a chance to speak at all at the conference. He

substantiated his presentation with the Govinda-bhasya commentary on the

Vedanta-sutra and has shown thus the genuineness of our sampradaya undeviated

from the Vedic wisdom. Thus he got a universal recognition for our Gaudiya

sampradaya as the fifth Vaisnava school as well.

 

Lets briefly mention few interesting points why the Gaudiya sampradaya was at

first not recognized as a bona fide Vaisnava sampradaya.

 

First of all the argument was that the Guadiya Vaisnavas have no commentary on

the Vedanta sutras of Srila Vyasadeva. So, Baladeva Vidyabhusana decided to

write a commentary in the Govinda temple and amazingly the Govinda Deity

dictated to him the whole commentary on the Vedanta sutra. Therefore, he named

his commentary ‘the Govinda-bhasya’ which is based on Madhva’s teachings but the

differences is also there to uphold the Gaudiya philosophy thought by Lord

Caitanya. Thus at hearing his commentary on Vedanta sutra the challenging party

was silenced.

 

Another challenge of the Ramanandis, a Sri-sapradaya sect in Jaipur was that

the Gaudiya Vaisnavas neglect the worship of Lord Narayana. On this Baladeva

Vidyabhusana answered that Lord Narayana can be worshiped in any of His forms

including Sri Krsna and that no scriptural injunction prohibits the worship of

Govinda exclusive of Lord Narayana.

 

Further, there was a remark that to worship Radha and Krsna together is

improper because They are unmarried. However, this was not a good argument

because Srimati Radharani is the eternal energy of Krsna never separated from

Him and actually to separate Them is a great

offense since Krsna have deep attachment for Srimati Radharani.

 

When all the challenging questions were satisfactorily answered the great

pundits of the Ramananda sect became completely silenced. But now the King Jay

Sing who heard the whole discussion, had to decide about the recognition of the

Brahma-Gaudiya-madhva-sampradaya. He spoke up as follows; “The evidence

supporting the Gaudiya sampradaya is undefeatable. From now the Gaudiya

vaisnavas will be recognized and respected as an authorized religious movement.

I order the reunion of Radha with Govinda.”

 

So, once more the question. How is it that Lord Caitanya’s

philosophical tenets differ from Madhva’s? Although there is an essential

difference between Sri Caitanya and Madhva and although Sri Caitanya accepted

Isvara Puri as His guru only to abide the injunction of the scriptures regarding

to formal necessity of initiation, still Lord Caitanya has a unique position.

Just as He is an incarnation of Krsna and the founder of His own sampradaya, He

is also the Guru of all the Adi-gurus of the different sampradayas, who, whether

directly initiated by Him or not, derive their authority from Him. As explained

in the Navadvipa-Mahatmya by Bhaktivinoda Thakura all the main founders of the

four sampradayas met Lord Caitanya receiving directly instructions from Him.

 

Further, in the gaudiya sampradaya Lord Caitanya is both the worshipper and

the worshipped; He is both the object of bhakti as well as its subject. Bhagavan

Krsna takes up the role of a devotee in the Kali-yuga to show to the fallen

conditioned souls the path of devotion thus preparing their way toward love of

God.

 

As God Himself, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is proud to follow his devotees and

take the dust of their lotus feet just as it is mentioned in the Srimad

Bhagavatam 11.14.16: “With the dust of My devotee’s lotus feet I desire to

purify the material worlds, which are situated within Me. Thus, I always follow

the footsteps of My pure devotees, who are free from all personal desire rapt in

thought of My pastimes, peaceful, without any feeling of enmity, and of equal

disposition everywhere”.

 

Simultaneously as a devotee Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is more humbler than even

a blade of grass trinad api sunicena. Thus, as all the devotees take shelter of

a sampradaya to properly practice bhakti this aspect is there also in bhakta

God, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu who took initiation from Isvara Puri to show by

example the must of being part of a bonafide sampradaya. Therefore, He also

belongs to a sampradaya although in higher sense He cannot be regarded as the

part of any sampradaya. Rather all other sampradayas are included in His

sampradaya. And acually as already mentioned above, in Jaipur meeting due to

Baladeva Vidyabhusana the Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaisnava sampradaya became universaly

recognized as the fifth bona-fide school of Vaisnava culture.

 

Conclusively, Lord Caitanya’s being part of the Madhva sampradaya cannot be

considered something more than only a formality. Actually the relationship

between the Gaudiya sampradaya and Madhva sampradaya is that of simultaneous

oneness (bheda) - considering the disciplic succession; and difference (abheda)

- considering their doctrines.

 

Compiled by Avadhuta Raya das.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, avadhuta raya <avadhutaraya

wrote:

 

> 3) Madhva say that devotion to Krsna is shown by dedicated

performance of ones duties within the system of varna-asrama and

Lord Caitanya is renouncing varna-asrama for the sake of pure

devotional service – suddha bhakti.

 

As I had indicated earlier, I am not certain that this is Madhva's

view, although it certainly appears to have been the view of the

anonymous Tattvavaadi aachaaryas with whom Shrii Chaitanya had the

discussion documented in CC. I recommend caution before

extrapolating too much from that very brief conversation.

 

It may very well be that the ideal of pure devotional service as

understood by Gaudiiyas is not there in Tattvavaada. I recall Srisha

Rao telling us on soc.religion.vaishnava that in the liberated

state, the jiiva merely stays there in close proximity to Vishnu

without any mention of service. I thought it was a strange thing for

him to say, but it's not our religion and I have no reason to tell

him what he is supposed to believe. Just recently one of their new

converts was saying here that they do have the concept, but then he

went on to say that we only render devotional service because it

makes us happy... ergo I suspect that the Gaudiiya concept of

unalloyed bhakti is not really a feature of their religion.

 

> So as we can see there are quite some differences in the tenets.

Lord Caitanya said that the doctrine of Madhva, who named his

Vaisnava followers as tattva-vadis of south India, is defective

although based on the scriptures it doesn't give deep understanding.

Contrary to Madhva's philosophy Lord Caitanya's is brilliant like

the cintamany jewel. It helps one to develop the highest pure

devotion to Lord Sri Krsna.

 

I have a problem with statements like this, as they are often

uttered by people who have not fully studied either doctrine, or

even begun to study Tattvavaada. Let us be fair when we make

comparisons. You can't compare two things if you are not familiar

with both. What do you actually know about Tattvavaada? Have you

read any of their books?

 

With the aim of smoothing over inter-sampradaaya tensions, I request

people not to make these sorts of sectarian comparisons unless they

have a good idea of what they are talking about.

 

> So, the question is, how that these personalities didn't follow

everything in toto and did they deviated from the sampradaya of

their gurus? One answer is that they certainly did not deviate but

rather they gave deeper meaning of the teachings received from their

guru.

 

This is a matter of semantics. The fact remains that these are not

the same philosophies.

 

> Therefore, Madhvacarya, who regarding this topic is one another

interesting example, also followed the tradition and thus became

actually initiated by Yadavaprakas into the impersonalistic school

of advait-vada. However, he became a propagator of vaisnava

philosophy especially after the meeting of Srila Vyasadeva in

Bhadarika asram

> in the Himalayas.

 

I think this is a mistake. Madhva got initiated into sannyaasa by

Achyuta Prakash, whom he later converted into his disciple. I think

Yaadava Prakash was the name of one of Raamaanuja's early Advaitin

tutors (someone correct me if I am wrong).

 

> It is interesting that during the time of the six gosvamis the

belief was not so widespread about necessity to be a member of one

of the four bona fide sampradayas of Kali-yuga in order to start a

new faith therefore the six gosvamis neglected to explain this

matter in their works.

 

Just FYI, the "four sampradaayas" verse is also quoted by Hariraama

Vyaasa, another Maadhva-Gaudiiya Vaishnava who was a contemporary of

Shrii Chaitanya (but not a follower of Chaitanya). Clearly, the

sentiment was around during Chaitanya's time, too.

 

> Conclusively, Lord Caitanya's being part of the Madhva

sampradaya cannot be considered something more than only a

formality. Actually the relationship between the Gaudiya sampradaya

and Madhva sampradaya is that of simultaneous oneness (bheda) -

considering the disciplic succession; and difference (abheda) -

considering their doctrines.

>

 

I object to this as well. Achintya Bheda Abheda describes the

relationship between the Lord and dependent entities. I do not like

how some people invoke it to explain away every apparent

contradiction. "Oh, one person says A, and another person says B.

What to do? Achintya Bheda Abheda, and Presto! They're both true!"

That is not the way Achintyatva is supposed to be used.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, krishna_susarla wrote:

> achintya, avadhuta raya <avadhutaraya

> wrote:

> It may very well be that the ideal of pure devotional service as

> understood by Gaudiiyas is not there in Tattvavaada.

 

At least it seems like it isn't prominent elsewhere, in my experience.

 

 

 

 

> I think this is a mistake. Madhva got initiated into sannyaasa by

> Achyuta Prakash, whom he later converted into his disciple. I think

> Yaadava Prakash was the name of one of Raamaanuja's early Advaitin

> tutors (someone correct me if I am wrong).

 

Only on the spelling--it was Acyuta Preksa.

 

 

 

 

>> It is interesting that during the time of the six gosvamis the

> belief was not so widespread about necessity to be a member of one

> of the four bona fide sampradayas of Kali-yuga in order to start a

> new faith therefore the six gosvamis neglected to explain this

> matter in their works.

>

> Just FYI, the "four sampradaayas" verse is also quoted by Hariraama

> Vyaasa, another Maadhva-Gaudiiya Vaishnava who was a contemporary of

> Shrii Chaitanya (but not a follower of Chaitanya). Clearly, the

> sentiment was around during Chaitanya's time, too.

 

Yes, his statement is simply wrong. The verse is quoted by Kavikarnapura in

Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, one of the earliest of Gaudiya Gosvami works.

 

 

 

 

>> Conclusively, Lord Caitanya's being part of the Madhva

> sampradaya cannot be considered something more than only a

> formality. Actually the relationship between the Gaudiya sampradaya

> and Madhva sampradaya is that of simultaneous oneness (bheda) -

> considering the disciplic succession; and difference (abheda) -

> considering their doctrines.

>

> I object to this as well. Achintya Bheda Abheda describes the

> relationship between the Lord and dependent entities.

 

I think acintya-bhedabheda actually does apply wider than this, but your point

is still valid; we shouldn't call something inconceivable simply because WE

can't understand it. Ignorance is what education is meant to eradicate.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna prabhus

PAMHO

 

 

 

> It may very well be that the ideal of pure devotional service as

> understood by Gaudiiyas is not there in Tattvavaada.

 

At least it seems like it isn't prominent elsewhere, in my experience.

 

** So, is the pure devotional service without owe and reverence described in the

tattva vada? e.g. the love of the gopis would be the highest understanding. Do

they speak about this? Is bhakti or mukti their ultimate goal? Pure devotional

service should be ahaituki apratihata.

 

> I think this is a mistake. Madhva got initiated into sannyaasa by

> Achyuta Prakash, whom he later converted into his disciple. I think

> Yaadava Prakash was the name of one of Raamaanuja's early Advaitin

> tutors (someone correct me if I am wrong).

 

Only on the spelling--it was Acyuta Preksa.

 

** Right.

 

>> It is interesting that during the time of the six gosvamis the

> belief was not so widespread about necessity to be a member of one

> of the four bona fide sampradayas of Kali-yuga in order to start a

> new faith therefore the six gosvamis neglected to explain this

> matter in their works.

 

>> Just FYI, the "four sampradaayas" verse is also quoted by Hariraama

> Vyaasa, another Maadhva-Gaudiiya Vaishnava who was a contemporary of

> Shrii Chaitanya (but not a follower of Chaitanya). Clearly, the

> sentiment was around during Chaitanya's time, too.

 

Yes, his statement is simply wrong. The verse is quoted by Kavikarnapura in

Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, one of the earliest of Gaudiya Gosvami works.

 

** I wrote "the belief was not so widespread" that means as you explained nicely

the sentiment was there. Still, imho one sloka is not one book. Or is there a

book about necessity to belong to sampradaya as voluminous as e.g. Bhakti

sandharba?

 

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that sampradaya consciousness was less prominent

so there were no attacks on the gaudiya sampradaya whether it is bona fide or

not. Therefore, the goswamis did not elaborate so much about this point.

 

When I wrote 'it was not necessity to be a member of one of the four bona fide

sampradayas to start a new sampradaya', this I admit I made a mistake and it is

even contradictory to some other statements in the essay.

 

Thanks for your valuable comments.

 

 

>> Conclusively, Lord Caitanya's being part of the Madhva

> sampradaya cannot be considered something more than only a

> formality. Actually the relationship between the Gaudiya sampradaya

> and Madhva sampradaya is that of simultaneous oneness (bheda) -

> considering the disciplic succession; and difference (abheda) -

> considering their doctrines.

 

>> I object to this as well. Achintya Bheda Abheda describes the

> relationship between the Lord and dependent entities.

 

I think acintya-bhedabheda actually does apply wider than this, but your point

is still valid; we shouldn't call something inconceivable simply because WE

can't understand it. Ignorance is what education is meant to eradicate.MDd

 

I THINK I DID NOT MENTION THE WORD ACINTYA, ONLY THE WORDS BHADA & ABHEDA. In

the essay I prove this two points but of course you don't have to agree.

 

ys: ARd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, avadhuta raya wrote:

> ** So, is the pure devotional service without owe and reverence described in

the tattva vada? e.g. the love of the gopis would be the highest understanding.

Do they speak about this? Is bhakti or mukti their ultimate goal? Pure

devotional service should be ahaituki apratihata.

>

 

See Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, ch.9.

 

 

 

 

>>> It is interesting that during the time of the six gosvamis the

>> belief was not so widespread about necessity to be a member of one

>> of the four bona fide sampradayas of Kali-yuga in order to start a

>> new faith therefore the six gosvamis neglected to explain this

>> matter in their works.

>

>>> Just FYI, the "four sampradaayas" verse is also quoted by Hariraama

>> Vyaasa, another Maadhva-Gaudiiya Vaishnava who was a contemporary of

>> Shrii Chaitanya (but not a follower of Chaitanya). Clearly, the

>> sentiment was around during Chaitanya's time, too.

>

> Yes, his statement is simply wrong. The verse is quoted by Kavikarnapura in

Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, one of the earliest of Gaudiya Gosvami works.

>

> ** I wrote "the belief was not so widespread" that means as you explained

nicely the sentiment was there. Still, imho one sloka is not one book. Or is

there a book about necessity to belong to sampradaya as voluminous as e.g.

Bhakti sandharba?>

 

Such a book would be necessary only if the principle of sampradaya affiliation

weren't widely accepted already; otherwise, a single verse at the beginning of

the book is sufficient to remind people, as was the case.

 

 

 

 

> Anyway, what I wanted to say is that sampradaya consciousness was less

prominent so there were no attacks on the gaudiya sampradaya whether it is bona

fide or not. Therefore, the goswamis did not elaborate so much about this

point.>

 

However, this is also wrong; even in the 17th century, there were still attacks

on the Gaudiyas from Ramanandis and others (whatever actually motivated them is

another matter). And one could definitely argue that the Sat-sandarbhas and

other philosophical works were composed largely to counter even earlier

opposition (as polemical literature always is). Similarly, the gosvamis'

deliberate choice to write in Sanskrit may have been intended partly to create

an impression of orthodoxy for their sect, which that at the time was more or

less a radical, "new religious movement."

 

Other bhakti groups also felt a need to affiliate themselves with older,

established sampradayas that were widely respected. For examples, Vallabhacarya

accepted the gaddi of the Visnusvami line, as did some followers of Swami

Haridasa, even though their ideas and writings differ notably from each other,

and possibly from Visnusvami as well, as much as his theology can even be

defined. Ramanandis themselves also affiliated with Ramanujacarya just as

debatably as the Gaudiyas did with Madhva, and some Ramanandis now even deny

that link altogether. Some esoteric Braj sects affiliated with Nimbarka

likewise. Those earlier acaryas themselves had claimed disciplic descent from

Sri, Brahma, Kumaras, and Rudra in a similar manner. My point is that

traditional sampradaya affiliation was always an important consdieration in

validating one's teaching. That concern is part of what led to any such attacks

on early Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

 

No doubt, a consciousness of formal parampara affiliation was less among certain

people (including devotees) even in the medieval period, but that wasn't

necessarily a characteristic of the medieval period, despite what some scholars

speculate. Rather, it's a fairly universal and perennial tendency to evade

authority; there are independents even now, like the ritviks, factions, and

splinter groups that we see on the Internet, etc.

 

MDd