The Madhva's official opinion.

[Guest guest]

>Vidvan-Gauranga Das <vidvan>

>Re:Madhvacharya discussion

 

>HH Jayapataka Swami Maharaja related in public last

>month in ISKCON Mayapur that when he recently visited

>Udupi, the current head of the Maadhvas (Pejawar

>Swamiji, if I am not mistaken), declared that ISKCON

>is bona fide as members of the Madhva-sampradaaya.

>Pejawar Swamiji also reportedly stated that

Vaadiraaja >Tiirtha, who was a later head of the

Maadhva >community, was influenced by Shrii K.ri.sh.na

>Chaitanya. Now, Pejawar Swamiji's statements weren't

recorded, as far as I know. One of my devotee-friends

>from Bangalore also stated that the same Swami also

>stated in a Kannada journal that the lineage of the

>Gau.diiya Vai.sh.navas from Madhavendra Puri onwards

>are bona fide members of the Madhva-sampradaaya.

 

Dear Vidvan Gauranga das, my thanks and appreciations

to you!

 

It is interesting that you say that Pejavara Swami has

confirmed the validity of the Gaudiya parampara. That

is also mentioned on the NCMath website.

 

It would sure be interesting to read the Swami's

comments from the Kannada journal, as well as

Jayapataka Maharaja's comments too.

 

In your service, Sanjay

 

=====

"Radha-Krishna prana mora jugala-kisora, jivane marane gati aro nahi mora."

 

"The divine couple, Sri Radha and Krsna, are my life and soul. In life or death

I have no other refuge but Them."

 

-- Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura

 

 

 

Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices

http://auctions./

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, J.N. Das wrote:

> From memory, what I recall, he said Pejavar

> swami stated that Madhavendra Puri took sannyasa from Vyasa Tirtha,

 

Why did he change his title from Tirtha to Puri?

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> It would sure be interesting to read the Swami's

> comments from the Kannada journal, as well as

> Jayapataka Maharaja's comments too.

 

I heard maharaj say this in the Bangalore Ratha Yatra inauguration

speach a couple months ago. From memory, what I recall, he said Pejavar

swami stated that Madhavendra Puri took sannyasa from Vyasa Tirtha, and

that Vadiraja Tirtha had met with Sri Chaitanya, and subsequently

changed many practices in the madhva line, giving more stress to

nama-kirtana.

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

achintya, "J.N. Das" <jndas> wrote:

 

> >

> > Why did he change his title from Tirtha to Puri?

>

> Thats the same question I have, and it is a very common point

> brought up to show that the two lines are different. I really

> don't know the answer, nor the answer that Pejavar Swamiji

> would give.

 

OBL Kapoor briefly touches on this issue in his _The Philosophy and

Religion of Sri Caitanya_. He quotes evidence that suggests that

Maadhavendra Puri and Iishvara Puri were originally sannyaasis of the

Shankarite order, thus explaining why they have "Puri" in their

names. It is suggested that only later did they get Vaishnava siksha -

Maadhavendra from Vyaasa Tiirtha and Iishvara Puri from

Maadhavendra. They kept their Puri designations merely because they

had already acquired some repute by those names.

 

Kapoor's reasoning is like this:

 

Krishna daasa Kaviraaja Gosvaamii says that Keshava Bhaaratii

(Mahaaprabhu's sannyaasa guru) was a disciple of Maadhavendra Purii

(CC 1.9.13).

 

Caitanya-chandrodaya regards Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu as a

sannyaasi of the Bhaaratii order, presumably because He got

initiation from Keshava Bhaaratii (reference not given)

 

Consequently, Maadhavendra Purii must have formerly been a

maayaavaadii sannyaasii, during which time he initiated Keshava

Bhaaratii, and only later converted to Vaishnavism.

 

Another example is given of a Raamachandra Purii, apparently another

disciple of Maadhavendra who expressed maayaavaadii views and got

chastised by Maadhavendra. This too suggests that he initiated

disciples into maayaavaada and later went against this.

 

However, I should point out that this is merely OBL Kapoor's view. I

have yet to hear of any senior aachaaryas in Gaudiiya sampradaaya

acknowledging any of this.

 

One devotee on the formerly existing soc.religion.vaishnava once

pointed out that Vishnu Puri, author of _Bhakti Ratnaavalii_ was

actually a Maadhva sannyaasi even though he had Puri in his name. I

don't know if this is true, but I thought it worth pointing out.

 

 

yours,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, J.N. Das wrote:

> > From memory, what I recall, he said Pejavar

> > swami stated that Madhavendra Puri took sannyasa from Vyasa

Tirtha,

>

> Why did he change his title from Tirtha to Puri?

 

Thats the same question I have, and it is a very common point

brought up to show that the two lines are different. I really

don't know the answer, nor the answer that Pejavar Swamiji

would give.

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:

> achintya, "J.N. Das" <jndas> wrote:

> > > Why did he change his title from Tirtha to Puri?

> > Thats the same question I have, and it is a very common point

> > brought up to show that the two lines are different. I really

> > don't know the answer, nor the answer that Pejavar Swamiji

> > would give.

> OBL Kapoor briefly touches on this issue in his _The Philosophy and

> Religion of Sri Caitanya_. He quotes evidence that suggests that

> Maadhavendra Puri and Iishvara Puri were originally sannyaasis of the

> Shankarite order, thus explaining why they have "Puri" in their

> names. It is suggested that only later did they get Vaishnava siksha -

> Maadhavendra from Vyaasa Tiirtha and Iishvara Puri from

> Maadhavendra. They kept their Puri designations merely because they

> had already acquired some repute by those names.

This makes a good deal of sense if one reason Mahaprabhu took

Advaitin sannyasa was that these orders were most respected in that time

and place. Kapoor also suggests that there was no reason a Tirtha couldn't

simply decide to change his sampradaya's sannyasa title henceforth,

especially in the case of an exceptional acarya such as Madhavendrapuri.

That would actually seem warranted in this case, because his teachings

were simply *not* Advaita.

 

 

 

> Kapoor's reasoning is like this:

> Krishna daasa Kaviraaja Gosvaamii says that Keshava Bhaaratii

> (Mahaaprabhu's sannyaasa guru) was a disciple of Maadhavendra Purii

> (CC 1.9.13).

> Caitanya-chandrodaya regards Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu as a

> sannyaasi of the Bhaaratii order, presumably because He got

> initiation from Keshava Bhaaratii (reference not given)

> Consequently, Maadhavendra Purii must have formerly been a

> maayaavaadii sannyaasii, during which time he initiated Keshava

> Bhaaratii, and only later converted to Vaishnavism.

> Another example is given of a Raamachandra Purii, apparently another

> disciple of Maadhavendra who expressed maayaavaadii views and got

> chastised by Maadhavendra. This too suggests that he initiated

> disciples into maayaavaada and later went against this.

There was actually such a great number of such pseudo-Sankaraite

sannyasis among Mahaprabhu's early associates that S.K. De and others

have speculated that this group of bhakti-friendly sannyasis must have

been the sampradaya's link with Sridharasvamin (who was also an Advaitin

in Kashi, according to some scholars). I'm wondering about Visnupuri; is

this author of the Sanskrit Bhagavatam anthology _Bhaktiratnavali_ the

same as the Visnupuri (also a follower of Madhavendrapuri) mentioned in

the Caitanya-caritamrta? If so, how do we know? The source materials

I've seen give somewhat conflicting stories about this.

 

 

 

> However, I should point out that this is merely OBL Kapoor's view. I

> have yet to hear of any senior aachaaryas in Gaudiiya sampradaaya

> acknowledging any of this.

Don't expect it; there's no reason they really should, as these

questions are more historical than theological.

 

 

 

> One devotee on the formerly existing soc.religion.vaishnava once

> pointed out that Vishnu Puri, author of _Bhakti Ratnaavalii_ was

> actually a Maadhva sannyaasi even though he had Puri in his name. I

> don't know if this is true, but I thought it worth pointing out.

It's hard to imagine that all these Puris were first Advaitins,

and then became Madhvas or Gaudiyas; more logical, I think, is that they

retained the external accoutrements of their Advaita order even though

they cultivated pure bhakti as was popular in their time and place,

especially if they were in the company of greats like Madhavendrapuri

and Lord Caitanya. In this sense they may have been a sort of renegade

Advaitin order, but also not unlike the formal (but not theological) Madhva

link Kavikarnapura, Baladeva, and others claimed for the Gaudiya diksha

succession.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, M. Tandy wrote:

> That would actually seem warranted in this case, because his teachings

> were simply *not* Advaita.

Of course, they weren't Dvaita either.

 

 

 

> I'm wondering about Visnupuri; is

> this author of the Sanskrit Bhagavatam anthology _Bhaktiratnavali_ the

> same as the Visnupuri (also a follower of Madhavendrapuri) mentioned in

> the Caitanya-caritamrta?

Actually, he seems not to be the same one; according to

Kavikarnapura's Gaura-ganoddesha-dipika (22), this Visnupuri was a

Madhva about two generations before Madhavendrapuri.

 

MDd