Sharma's remarks

[Guest guest]

Very clever, this BNK Sharma. Note how he maintains his criticism by

avoiding the actual issues.

 

you. Regarding

>> your remarks on saktiparinama I am afraid the Caitanya School is

not clear

>> cut

>> in its views. Their interpretation of Ajinkya-abheda is far

removed from

>> the

>> quotations appearing Madhva's Bhagavatatatparya from Brahmatarka

quoted by

>> me

>> on Pages 589 to 590.

 

The disagreement with Maadhva does not make the Gaudiiya stance

unclear. It is the persistent problem with Maadhvas that they try to

assume that achintya bedha abedha is same as tattvavaada, thus giving

them sufficient cause to criticize. A more honest and healthier

treatment of the subject matter is to start off assuming that

achintya is a distinct philosophy. But they won't do this, because

then they will be forced to evaluate it on its own grounds, and then

they won't get to criticize.

 

 

>>

>> The Bengali biographies of Caitanya also have given a garbled

version of

>> Caitanya's alleged visit to Udipi and passing wrong criticisms of

the

>> relation

>> of Karmajnana and Bhakti in Dvaita system which are quite the

opposite of

>> what

>> the Acarya has said in his works.

 

So Sharma concludes that the account is "garbled." Here is a more

likely possibility that he did not consider: The Tattvavaadis with

whom Chaitanya argued were themselves "garbled" in their

understanding of the siddhaanta. Krishnadasa Kaviraja cannot be

logically faulted for giving the narrative because the Tattvavaadis

with whom Chaitanya argued were incompetent. But logic fails the

Tattvavaadis whenever they have an opportunity to criticize, don't

hey?

 

Sharma will now claim that Madhva's siddhaanta is clear, and that it

is not possible for Tattvavaadiis to misunderstand it, hence casting

doubt on Krishnadaasa's narrative. But 2 years ago, in an argument on

the Dvaita list between Mukunda Datta and SHrisha Rao regarding

varnaashrama, I witnessed Shrisha making this exact *same* statement

- that activities in varnaashrama dovetailed in Krishna-consciousness

is the ultimate goal in life. Sharma can throw whatever tantrums he

wants, but if this is a misrepresentation of Madhva's view, then it

is certainly is a very real and believable one. If people like

Shrisha accept this point of view, who knows how many other

Tattavavaadiis do as well?