Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

[Guest guest]

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_40/msg00020.html

 

Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

 

--

 

dvaita-list

Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

Shrisha Rao <shrao

Wed, 9 May 2001 11:48:48 -0600 (MDT)

In-<004101c0d729$2001e540$76d99480

dvaita-list

Resent-Wed, 9 May 2001 10:49:00 -0700

Resent-dvaita-list

Resent-Message-ID: <"mlrJH3.0.8G7.BCO-w"@mx1>

Resent-Sender: dvaita-list-request

 

--

 

(My apologies if you receive this more than once.)

 

At long last, the following official statement is available from the

Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha on the ISKCON issue. (I would like to clarify,

however, that much of the delay is my fault, not the PPVP's.) Henceforth,

common queries and misunderstandings of Mâdhva and other sincere seekers

should be considerably resolved as a result of this. I have not

extensively edited this document, so some typographical and such errors

remain. It would be welcome for someone to volunteer to copy edit this,

so that we can publish it on the website. The PPVP may circulate this

also. -- SR

 

==

 

References were made by many members of the CMS regarding many points

of conflict between their understanding of Tatvavada and the

interpretations being offered by ISKCON claiming to have the sanction

of Acharya Madhva or being consistent with Tatvavada philosophy. The

subject was discussed at length in Poornaprajna Vidyapeeta, Bangalore

over several sessions, when it was felt that the Tattvavada position

should be fully clarified for the benefit of genuine followers of

Acharya Madhva's Thathvavada philosophy. This note represents the

results of these efforts. The subject has also been discussed with the

late Sri Sri Vidyamanya Tirtha of Palimaru/Bhandakeri Matha, who was

then camping in Bangalore. He has approved this effort as a correct

rendering of the Tatvavada position. Those persons who feel any

further clarifications are needed may pls. write to Vidwan A. Haridasa

Bhat, Poornaprajna Vidyapeeta, Bangalore 560 028, or to Sri N A P S Rao.

 

ISKCON AND TATTVAVADA -- SOME ESSENTIAL CLARIFICATIONS

 

Tattvavada (Dvaita) is a system of Vedanta philosophy which

was clearly enunciated in the 13 th century AD by Acharya

Madhva. This system is one of the trinity of traditional systems

based on the Vedas, which have the largest following and have

been recognised widely as authentic, alternative and complete

systems. There has been continuous and intensive interaction

between the systems, which have opposed each other vigorously in

debates held according to traditionally accepted norms, with

many erudite compositions by accomplished scholars critically

examining the rival systems to show that they are invalid and to

prove their own systems as valid according to mutually

acceptable standards. This process of searching cross

examination has helped refine the systems with regard to

internal consistency, clarity of ideas, acceptability with

reference to all "evidence" adduced etc. Though there were

some variations introduced in the finer details of concepts with

efflux of time in Advaita, the oldest system, there has been no

major change with regard to the basic tenets of each of the

systems from those enunciated by the founders. Tattvavada

enjoys the unique position of having taken on and vanquished the

other two rival systems in numerous debates from the date of its

origin.

 

The Gaudiya school of Navadvipa (Bengal) was founded in the

early 16th century by Sri Krishna Chaitanya, essentially as a school

based on the primacy of intense and emotional love for the Divine

preached by the founder. Though the claimed genealogy of the ascetic

order to which Chaitanya belongs traces itself from Acharya Madhva

(at least as far as the group now known as ISKCON is concerned), the

early history of the Bengal Vaishnava school shows a mix of allegiance

to other founders of Vedanta schools like Shankara and Ramanuja

also. The details of the philosophical system underpinning the cult of

emotional devotion were delineated gradually, not by the founder

himself (who is not credited with any written compositions), but by

the three famous Goswamis of Vrindavan, (Mathura) -- Sanatana and

Roopa (two brothers) and their nephew Jiva. Unlike the traditional

approach of analysing the Prasthana Thrayas -- Brahma Sutras, Gita,

and Upanishaths -- the school took the supreme authority of Bhagavata

Purana as an axiomatic truth and derived their system based on

it. This approach was justified on the strength of the statement that

Bhagavata is the quintessence of ALL the shasthras and thus possesses

supreme authority, as it is accepted as Vyasa's own commentary on the

Brahma Sutras (composed by himself). Jiva Goswamy also discounts all

other sources of valid Pramanas except Shabda (revealed Word) as only

the last named can never be sublated by any other pramana. Thus,

while all other systems were defined substantially by the founders

writing their own commentary on Vyasa's Brahma Sutras, according to

their own tenets, this school did not even have any such commentary at

its formative stage and one was written (with several points of

significant difference with Madhva Bhashya) much later by Baladeva

Vidyabhushana in the 18th century. The basic approach of the system

with its faith pinned on the single main source -- Bhagavata, generally

reducing the importance of all other sources accepted by the other

schools of Vedanta and its lack of critical examination by rival

schools in debates has resulted in a system which is essentially not

capable of being sustained in traditional disputation, as there are no

accepted common ground rules essential for debate with the three main

systems.

 

Even amongst Gaudiya schools themselves, there are differences in

approach and only some of them consider themselves as adherents of

Madhva Vedanta -- with considerable modifications. Of them, one group

has gained some popularity in the recent past due to growth of its

movement ISKCON in foreign countries. As a group accepting many of the

tenets of Dvaita and as Vaishnavas, it is some times felt that the

differences in doctrines are minor and can be allowed to coexist, as

it were, in the larger interest. Very similar arguments can be used

to superficially justify the essential commonness of approach with

Srivaishnavas and Tattvavada, but the experience of numerous

disputations in the past by illustrious ascetics and scholars has

shown certain essential differences in doctrines which can not be

modified or given up, without departing completely from the basic

tenets of the systems. The philosophical position of ISKCON vis-a-vis

other feuding Gaudiya denominations is unclear due to differences

amongst the different groups themselves as well as lack of clarity in

the doctrines, as against Dvaita which is a well defined system. The

object of this note is to define the Tattvavada position with respect

to those of the Doctrines which are different as per the claims of the

ISKCON school claiming to be allied to Madhva Sampradaya Some of the

ISKCON claims which Tattvavada does not accept such as the defeat of

the Tatvavadi Acharyas in Udupi by Sri Krishna Chaitanya, and his

identification with the Supreme Being, etc., also have been included

to avoid misunderstandings owing to falsehoods given in published

ISKCON texts.

 

The points of difference have been mentioned briefly along with

references to the Pramanas (valid sources of textual

ststements) which are relevant in the context.

 

Philosophical issues :

 

1. ISKCON say that they follow a Doctrine of Achinthya

Bhedaadbheda with regard to the relationship between the Supreme

Being and the Souls. Tattvavada follows the doctrine of Pancha

Bheda -- difference between God and the Souls, between the Souls,

between God and Inert Matter, between the Souls and Inert Matter

and between Inert Matter items themselves -- (Paramathma-Jiva,

Jiva-Jiva, Paramathma and Jada, Jiva and Jada, and Jada and

Jada.) The doctrine is well summed up in the following shloka

of Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya of Acharya Madhva -- Chapter

1 -- Sarva Shasthrartha samgraha -- shloka 71 :

 

``paJNchabhedA ime nityAH sarvavasthAsu sarvashaH |

muktAnAM cha na hIyante tAratamyaM cha sarvadA'' ||

 

The fivefold differences (between Souls, God and Jada) defined

above are eternal, absolute and exist under all conditions even

after Mukthi. The Gradation (between souls) is also eternal.

ISKCON have tried to argue that the concept of Vishesha used by

Acharya Madhva to explain the Identity-cum-difference between an

object and its qualities is a similar tenet to their Achinthya

Bhedabheda, which is a further extension of the same idea. But,

there is a fundamental difference in that, Vishesha is a part

of the essence of the object possessed by all -- Souls, Inert

matter (Jada) and the Supreme Being (in whom it is also called

Achinthya Shakthi) and has absolutely no relevance to the

doctrine of Achinthya Bhedaabheda -- which ISKCON use to explain

the relationship between the Soul and God -- being the quality of

the latter. The difference between the Soul and God according to

Tattvavada is Bheda or Absolute difference. In fact, the

concept of Bhedaabheda in one context is also accepted by

Tattvavada -- in the apparent difference in appearance of the

various and infinite forms of the Supreme Being, which are all

identical is essence and each of which though appearing to be

different, is the complete Supreme Being with all His attributes

and aspects. On this issue, ISKCON have a different concept,

where some forms of the Lord are considered to be more complete

than the others -- which is totally repugnant to Tattvavada.

 

The concept of `visheshha' as used by Acharya Madhva can be further

studied by reference to Chapter VII of Mm. B N K Sharma's book --

"Philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya" -- (Motilal Banarsidas, 1986

edition). Comments on the differences between Achinthya Bhedaabheda

and Vishesha are discussed in Appendix V of Dr. Sharma's book --

"History of the Dvaita school of Vedanta." The concept of Bhedaabheda

of different types between the Supreme Being and the Souls has been

clearly and specifically rejected by Acharya Madhva in many

compositions -- including the `khandana traya', Anuvyakhyana,

Vishnuthathvanirnaya etc. Sri B N K Sharma has opined that the two

basic concepts of `achintyAdbhuta shakti' of the Supreme Being to

explain the apparently contradictory qualities in Him (such as being

both Anu -- Atomic and Mahath -- Infinite at the same time) and

Savisheshaabheda which is used to account for the

identity-cum-difference between the properties of a substance and its

essence has been mixed up "beyond its legitimate jurisdiction" to

derive the concept of Achintya Bhedaabheda between the Supreme Being

and the Souls, which is emphatically rejected by Acharya Madhva.

 

Acharya Madhva's quote from the Brahma Tarka (a presently unavailable

composition) is also used erroneously to "justify" the concept against

his clear enunciations.

 

2. Valid Pramanas -- ISKCON argue that all testimony other than

Shabda (revealed scriptural authority) is unreliable. Though

pro forma homage is paid to Vedas, and BrahmaSutras, it is

argued that Bhagavata composed by Sri Veda Vyasa himself is a

commentary on the latter and hence should be considered as a

Parama Pramana (most superior authority). Only convenient

Shruti texts are used and others not discussed as it is

considered that they are already interpreted in Vaishnava

Puranas, chiefly Bhagavata. Thus, while the Gita prasthana

is used, along with Bhagavata, the Upanishad and Sutra

Prasthanas of the traditional Vedanta schools are neglected.

In Tattvavada, Acharya Madhva recognises three valid sources

of knowledge Prathyaksha, Anumana and Agama. He is also unique

in giving due recognition to Prathyaksha in its own domain --

such as in proving the reality of the world. As far as Agama is

concerned, the Tattvavada approach is exemplified by the following

shlokas from Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya of Acharya Madhva:

 

``R^igAdayashcha chatvAraH paJNcharAtraM cha bhAratam.h |

mUlarAmAyaNaM brahmasUtraM mAnaM svataH smR^itam.h'' ||

 

The four Vedas beginning with the Rig Veda, Pancharathra,

Bharatha, Moola Ramayana and Brahma Sutras are accepted to be

self sufficient authority.

 

``aviruddhaM tu yattvasya pramANaM tachcha nAnyathA |

etadviruddhaM yattu syAnna tanmAnaM kathaJNchana'' ||

 

What ever is not contradictory to these is also authority and

not otherwise. What ever is opposed to them is under no

circumstances, authority.

 

``vaishhNavAni purANAni paJNcharAtrAtmakatvataH |

pramANAnyeva manvAdyAH smR^itayo.apyanukUlataH'' ||

 

The Vaishnava Puranas (such as Bhagavata) which establish the

supremacy of Vishnu are also authority as they also convey what

ever is being conveyed by Pancha rathra. Smrithis like that of

Manu and others also are authority so far as they are consistent

with these.

 

In Anuvyakhyana, Acharya Madhva says :

 

``AptavAkyatayA tena shrutimUlatayA tathA |

yuktimUlatayA chaiva prAmANyaM trividhaM mahat.h'' ||

 

``dR^ishyate brahmasUtrANAM ekadhA anyatra sarvashaH |

ato naitadR^ishaM kiJNchit.h pramANAntamamishyate'' ||

 

As Brahma Sutras determine by valid Yukthi (logical analysis)

the import of the Vedas (which being Apaurusheya -- authorless,

are totally without defects) and have been composed by an

Aaptha, well qualified person (Sri VedaVyasa) they are the best

authority and there is none comparable to them as the Supreme

Authority for the purpose.

 

Thus, we find that though Acharya Madhva has used all the valid

Pramanas including Bhagavata, but his most decisive works are

based on Mahabharatha and Brahma Sutras. To the extent that

Bhagavata is correctly interpreted, there is no reason as to

why the doctrines derived there by, should differ from

Tattvavada. But, ISKCON's dependence on Bhagavata alone, with

almost no attention being paid to the Upanishads and Mahabharata

leads to many serious differences between Tattvavada and their

doctrines. The same texts when interpreted by Acharya Madhva in

consonance with the rigid rules of interpretation and relevant

statements made in other authoritative texts give the correct

meanings without conflicts in meanings and doctrine. The

definitive Tatparya Nirnaya composition on Bhagavata of

Acharya Madhva thus resolves many apparent points of discord

between Mahabharata and Bhagavata along with providing the

correct and consistent meanings of many texts capable of

different interpretations, some of which could be taken to

support Advaita by taking their superficial meanings. The

approach of Gaudiya authors is entirely different. Jiva Goswami

acknowledges in Bhagavata Samdarbha that he has taken into

consideration, a composition of a Bhatta friend from the South

who had compiled it by referring to the writings of Vriddha

Vaishnavas such as Ramanuja, Madhvacharya, Sridharaswamin and

others. Sri Ramanuja himself has not referred to Bhagavata in

his writings. Thus, Gaudiya schools including ISKCON do not

consider that the Tattvavada interpretation of Bhagavata based

on Acharya Madhva's composition as the only valid one. The

Pramana basis of ISKCON is thus substantially different from

Tattvavada both in its range of authorities as well as fidelity

of approach:

 

3. Major Differences in doctrines :

 

3.1 Differences in the manifestations of the forms of the Lord.

 

Tattvavada has an essential doctrine that *ALL* the `svarUpAmsha'-s of

the Lord, such as Matsya, Kurma, etc., and the Original (Moola) form are

identical in all respects. The Shrutis such as `neha nAnAsti

kiJNchana' and the Brahma Sutra `na sthAnato.api parasya ubhayaliN^gaM

sarvatra hi' state clearly that there can not be any difference or

gradation in all the forms of the Lord. ISKCON have many concepts

which are fundamentally against this concept. Some of these are

briefly mentioned :

 

i. The two handed from of the Lord Krishna is superior to all

other forms of the lord such as Narayana, Vis

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

I want to apologize for this posting. Another netter had also submitted it,

and I rejected it on the grounds that (1) the list from which it comes has a

privacy policy, and the author's permission needs to be sought before cross

posting here, and (2) the message as written is so long that it would be

better to break it up in pieces and discuss each piece separately before

moving on to the next piece.

 

Somehow, this message got past me, and I am not sure why. In any case,

what's done is done. This "position paper" which is supposedly an official

statement by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha (Maadhva sampradaaya) is rife with

criticisms and allegations against our sampradaaya that are completely

baseless. I propose that we as Gaudiya Vaishnavas take each piece

separately, write our responses, and then move on to the next piece (i.e. -

don't try to answer it all at once - divide into say, fourths and respond to

each quarter thoroughly before moving on). Perhaps later someone can collate

all of the responses into a single, "rebuttal" paper that we can put up on

the internet somewhere.

 

It is important that we put our best foot forward on this - in the process

of clarifying their position, the Maadhvas have misrepresented ours on many

fronts. We have a responsibility to to defend the truth in the best

tradition of our Gaudiiya sampradaaya. Remember that the honor of our

aachaaryas is also at stake here. Hopefully by doing so we can also gain a

better and more mature understanding of our own philosophy.

 

your servant,

 

Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

What follows is the beginning of my attempt to respond to some of the points

in this paper. I have no desire to convert the Maadhvas to our line of

thinking, but I do want to make clear that these criticisms are not

justified and need not be a source of doubt for our devotees. Those who are

uninterested in the discussion matter, feel free to continue posting

Krishna-katha. I would very much appreciate that. For those who wish to see

a response, I will begin to offer one here, albeit in several parts.

 

nama o.m viShNu padaaya kR^iShNa prasthaaya bhuutale |

shriimate bhaktivedaanta swamin iti naamine ||

 

jaya shrii kR^iShNa chaitanya prabhu nityaananda |

shrii advaita gadaadhara shriivaasaadi gaura bhakta vR^inda ||

 

hare kR^iShNa hare kR^iShNa kR^iShNa kR^iShNa hare hare |

hare raama hare raama raama raama hare hare ||

 

The Maadhvas say:

----------

----

References were made by many members of the CMS regarding many points

of conflict between their understanding of Tatvavada and the

interpretations being offered by ISKCON claiming to have the sanction

of Acharya Madhva or being consistent with Tatvavada philosophy. The

----------

----

 

This is the basic premise for the entire paper itself. Our Gaudiiya

sampradaaya descends from Krishna through Brahmaa through Madhva before

coming to Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada. The aachaaryas from

Madhva down to Vyaasa Tiirtha (see Bhagavad-Gita As It Is) are strictly

speaking, followers of Tattvavaada philosophy which is different from our

Gaudiiya Vaishnava philosophy. Therefore, how can we claim to be following

in the line of Madhva?

 

In fact, it has never been claimed by Srila Prabhupada or his predecessors

that we were following Tattvavaada philosophy of Madhva. Such a claim is

explicitly refuted in _Science of Self Realization_, wherein Srila

Prabhupada says in regards to Tattvavaada philosophy that "we have nothing

do with that philosophy." [1] I personally made the author of this "position

paper" aware of this point, although that does not stop him from continuing

to assert that Gaudiiyas claim nondifference of doctrines (perhaps to give

himself a basis to criticize). In fact, there are many doctrinal differences

between Achintya Bedha Abedha Tattva and Tattvavaada (aka Dvaita-vaada), and

generally speaking most learned, Gaudiiya Vaishnavas would not contest them.

 

Why then does Srila Prabhupada claim to come in paramparaa through Madhva?

 

First of all, this paramparaa listing is given by Gaudiiya Vaishnavas as far

back as the six Gosvaamiis, and not just by Srila Prabhupada or ISKCON.

Shriila Jiiva Gosvaamii in his Tattva Sandarbha 28.2, offers respects to

Madhva and states that he will use some pramaanas in his work quoted by

Madhva even though no longer extant. [2] He would not rely on Madhva so

heavily were it not the case that he was indebted to him in some way. This

paramparaa affiliation is more explicitly made clear by Shriila Baladeva

Vidyaabhuushana in his Govinda Bhaashya. Therein, he describes his

paramparaa as descending from Krishna to Brahmaa to Naarada, through Madhva

and his followers all the way to Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu. [3] This is

exactly the same paramparaa described in Bhagavad-giitaa As It Is translated

by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. It might be argued

by the Tattvavaadiis that Baladeva was a former Maadhva who was sympathetic

to them, thus listing the paramparaa inappropriately due to attachment or

sentiment. But such an argument cannot be made of Kavikarnapuura, who lists

the same paramparaa in his Gaura-ganoddesha-diipikaa [4] in spite of

representing Shrii Chaitnaya Mahaaprabhu's philosophy as being different

from that of Madhva elsewhere. [5] The formal affiliation with the Maadhva

sampradaaya was also recognized by members of the Vallabha sampradaaya. In

the writings of that sampradaaya's devotees, it is noted that one of

Vallabhaachaarya's early tutors was Maadhavendra Puri, the guru of Shrii

Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's guru. Therein, Maadhavendra Puri was considered to

be a follower of the Maadhva sampradaaya. [6] Obviously, the followers of

Vallabha would have no vested interest in representing his early guru as a

Maadhva, when Vallabha himself never claimed that sampradaaya as his own.

 

Skeptics will likely point out that the paramparaa listing through Madhva is

unacceptable on several grounds. First, Maadhavendra and Iishvara were

sannyaasiis of the Purii order, which suggests that they were Advaitists

originally and not Maadhva sannyaasiis (who do not accept titles other than

Tiirtha as a matter of custom). Furthermore, none of the Maadhva maths list

Lakshmiipati Tiirtha, Maadhavendra Purii, or Iishvara Purii in their

disciplic successions. Also, Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu and Vyaasa Tiirtha were

roughly contemporaries by dates. This would make it unlikely that there

would be enough time for there to have been three gurus in between them

(Lakshmiipati, Maadhavendra, and Iishvara). Finally, the listing of

"Krishna-Brahmaa-Naarada-Vyaasa" is not accepted by Maadhvas, who give no

such listing prior to Vyaasa.

 

A closer examination shows, however, that these objections have little

substance. OBL Kapoor quotes multiple pieces of evidence suggesting that

Maadhavendra Puri was very likely a sannyaasi of the Shankara order before

converting to Vaishnavism. For example, he was considered by Krishnadaasa

Kaviraaja Gosvaamii as being the guru of Keshava Bhaaratii, but on the other

hand he is depicted as having scolded his disciple Raamachandra Purii

because the latter expressed maayaavaadii sentiments that were opposed to

pure Vaishnavism. [7] From that standpoint, it is logical that he would

maintain his "Purii" title by which he was already well known. That the

aachaaryas from Lakshmiipati Tiirtha and afterward are not listed in Maadhva

maths shows only that that they were not in charge of any of them. This

would also be consistent with the idea that Maadhavendra and Iishvara Purii

were wandering Advatin ascetics who converted to Vaishnavism after getting

sannyaasa. BNK Sharma also points out that the listings of the Maadhva maths

are inconsistent from one math to another, thus calling into question their

credibility in rejecting anyone unconditionally. [8] That Mahaaprabhu and

Vyaasa Tiirtha were contemporaries is also not a difficult objection to

overcome. In Gaudiiya Vaishnava tradition, siksha is even more important

than diksha, and there are numerous listings in the paramparaa of devotees

who are considered the disciple of a particular guru based on siksha, even

though diksha was given by someone else. Bhaktivinod Thaakura actually got

diksha from Bipin Bihaari Gosvaamii, but he is listed as the disciple of

Jaganaatha daasa Baabaajii, whose teachings were more in line with pure

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. If the connections between Vyaasa Tiirtha,

Lakshmiipati, Maadhavendra, and Iishvara were siksha connections, it would

explain why they were not listed in the Maadhva maths, while at the same

time being almost contemporaries of each other. Since they had already

received spiritual training and diksha elsewhere, there would be no need for

them to wait until their diksha gurus (whom they had probably rejected) had

departed before initiating others. Nor would their lack of training in

spiritual life be an issue, thus allowing for them to offer initiations even

while their siksha gurus were present. As far as the paramparaa listing

prior to Vyaasa, the Gaudiiya listing is confirmed by the Bhaagavatam

itself, which states that Krishna instructed Lord Brahmaa in Shriimad

Bhaagavatam who then instructed Naarada, who then instructed Vyaasa: [9]

 

ida.m bhaagavata.m naama yanme bhagavatoditam |

sa.ngraho'ya.m vibhuutiinaa.m tvametad vipuliikuru || bhaa 2.7.51 ||

 

idam - this; bhaagavatam - the science of Godhead; naama - of the name;

yat - that which; me - unto me; bhagavataa - by the Personality of Godhead;

uditam - enlightened; sa.ngrahaH - is the accumulation of; ayam - His;

vibhuutiinaam - of the diverse potencies; tvam - your good self; etat - this

science of Godhead; vipulii - expand; kuru - do it.

 

O Naarada, this science of God, Shriimad-Bhaagavatam, was spoken to me in

summary by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it was spoken as the

accumulation of His diverse potencies. Please expand this science yourself

(bhaagavata puraaNa 2.7.51).

 

tasmaa ida.m bhaagavata.m puraaNa.m dashalakShaNam |

prokta.m bhagavataa praaha priitaH putraaya bhuutakR^it || bhaa 2.9.44 ||

 

tasmai - thereupon; idam - this; bhaagavatam - the glories of the Lord or

the science of the Lord; puraaNam - Vedic supplement; dasha-lakShaNam - ten

characteristics; proktam - described; bhagavataa - by the Personality of

Godhead; praaha - said; priitaH - in satisfaction; putraaya - unto the son;

buuta-kR^it - the creator of the universe.

 

Thereupon the supplementary Vedic literatures, Shriimad Bhaagavatam, which

was described by the Personality of Godhead and which contains ten

characteristics, was told with satisfaction by the father [brahmaa] to his

son Naarada (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.9.44).

 

naaradaH praaha munayo sarasvatyaastaTe nR^ipa |

dhyaayate brahma parama.m vyaasaayaamitatejase || bhaa 2.9.45 ||

 

naaradaH - the great sage Naarada; praaha - instructed; munaye - unto the

great sage; sarasvatyaaH - of the River Sarasvatii; taTe - on the bank;

nR^ipa - O King; dhyaayate - unto the meditative; brahma - Absolute Truth;

paramam - the Supreme; vyaasaaya - unto Shriila Vyaasadeva; amita -

unlimited; tejase - unto the powerful.

 

In succession, O King, the great sage Naarada instructed Shriimad

Bhaagavatam unto the unlimitedly powerful Vyaasadeva, who meditated in

devotional service upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute

Truth, on the bank of the River Sarasvatii (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.9.45).

 

The second doubt about the parampraa listing concerns the difference of

philosophy between Madhva and Chaitanya. In this regard, it should be noted

that while aachaaryas in theory follow the teachings of their predecessors

in paramparaa, there is a clear precedent in Vedic tradition for exceptional

scholars to inaugurate a new philosophy that differs from that of their

predecessors. Vallabhaachaarya, for example, belongs to the Vishnuswaamii

sampradaaya, but reshaped that philosophy according to his particular

understanding of the Vedaanta. [10] Another, more obvious example of this is

Madhva himself. Although he was given diksha by Achyuta Preksha, who was an

advaitist, Madhva considers Vyaasa to be his worshipable guru. Yet Vyaasa

neither gave him diksha nor ordained him into sannyaasa. In fact Madhva

wrote his Bhagavad-giitaa bhaashya and hence shaped his school of philosophy

before meeting with Vyaasa. The differences between Madhva and Vyaasa can be

seen in Madhva's Bhaagavatam commentary, especially in the way in which

Madhva must avoid accepting the straightforward meaning of some of the

shlokas describing nondifference between the Lord and His energies, or the

way he cannot fully accept Lord Krishna as svayam bhagavaan (SB 1.3.28).

These points will be dealt with in more detail at a later time.

 

The conclusions therefore, are multiple. Philosophical differences cannot be

used as a basis for denying a paramparaa link. While being in the same

paramparaa often implies philosophical agreement, this must be verified in

light of what the aachaaryas are actually teaching. That the followers of

Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu are linked to Madhva merely reflects the fact that

they are properly following the position of Vyaasa on the Vedaanta-suutras

through his Vedaanta-commentary, Shriimad Bhaagavatam. We should not over

interpret the statement of Srila Prabhupada that "Bhagavad-gita As It Is is

received through this disciplic succession." What this really means is that

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism was received by Vyaasa in paramparaa from Lord Krishna,

and that Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu revived it in its pristine form which is

nondifferent from what Vyaasa taught. Out of respect, the paramparaa listing

through Madhva is still listed since Maadhavendra and Iishvara did convert

to Vaishnavism through the grace of Vyaasa Tiirtha and Lakshmiipati Tiirtha.

But while there may be some similarities in doctrinal matters between Madhva

and Mahaaprabhu, the philosophy of the former is at best a partial

understanding of what Vyaasa really taught, and which Shrii Chaitanya

successfully delivered.

 

Hare Krishna

 

(comments welcome)

 

sources:

 

1). A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Science of Self Realization.

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

2). Sri Tattva Sandarbha of Srila Jiva Gosvami. Translation & Commentary of

Satya Narayana Dasa. Jiva Institute, 1995. pp 145-146.

 

3). The Vedanta-Sutras of Badarayana. With the Commentary of Baladeva.

Translated by Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vasu. Oriental Books Reprint, 1979.

pp i-ii.

 

4,5). The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya. O.B.L. Kapoor. Munshiram

Manoharlal Publishers, 1976. pp 39-43.

 

6). Jiva Gosvami's Tattva Sandarbha. Stuart Elkman.

 

7). Kapoor, pp 47-48

 

8). The History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta. BNK Sharma.

 

9). Srimad Bhagavatam. Translation & Commentary of His Divine Grace A.C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

 

10). Kapoor, p 41.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Further comments on this "paper's" introduction follow.

 

The Maadhvas allege:

----------

----

Tattvavada (Dvaita) is a system of Vedanta philosophy which

was clearly enunciated in the 13 th century AD by Acharya

Madhva. This system is one of the trinity of traditional systems

based on the Vedas, which have the largest following and have

 

[...]

 

efflux of time in Advaita, the oldest system, there has been no

major change with regard to the basic tenets of each of the

systems from those enunciated by the founders. Tattvavada

enjoys the unique position of having taken on and vanquished the

other two rival systems in numerous debates from the date of its

origin.

----------

----

 

Herein lies the problem with this paper's approach. The authors of the paper

regard Dvaita as being one among a "trinity" of "traditional" systems of

Vedaanta. What they do not acknowledge is that other systems of Vedaanta

exist, each of which has its own commentary on Vedaanta-suutra. These

include our own Achintya Bedha Abedha, the Shudaadvaita of Vallabhaachaarya

& Vishnuswami, and the Bedha Abedha philosophy of Nimbaarka. It is not clear

why the Tattvavaadiis repeatedly refuse to acknowledge these systems, but

their refusal to do so suggests a basic lack of respect that is

unbrahminical and unrealistic. There is no basis for regarding Shankara,

Raamaanuja, and Madhva as "traditional" while rejecting other

Vedaanta-suutra commentators.

 

Knowing this, the statement also that Tattvavaada has "vanquished" its rival

systems can not be taken seriously. Even were it true with regards to the

systems of Shankara and Raamaanuja, it cannot be true in an overall sense

since the Tattvavaadis do not wish to attempt the same with the so-called

"nontraditional" systems.

 

----------

----

The Gaudiya school of Navadvipa (Bengal) was founded in the

early 16th century by Sri Krishna Chaitanya, essentially as a school

----------

----

 

This is also not true, strictly speaking. This claim as given by the

Maadhvas is simply a covert attempt to deny the real antiquity of the

Gaudiiya tradition.

 

The Gaudiiya school of Vaishnavism is based on the Bhaagavatam, which is

itself the essence of the Vedas:

 

ida.m bhaagavata.m naama puraaNa.m brahmasammitam |

uttamashlokacharita.m chakaara bhagavaan R^iShiH |

niHshreyasaaya lokasya dhanya.m svastyayana.m mahat || bhaa1.3.40||

 

tadida.m graahayaamaasa sutamaatmavataa.m varam |

sarvavedetihaasaanaa.m saara.m saara.m samuddhR^itam || bhaa 1.3.41 ||

 

This Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is the literary incarnation of God, and it is

compiled by Shriila Vyaasadeva, the incarnation of God. It is meant for the

ultimate good of all people, and is all-successful, all-blissful and

all-perfect.

 

Shrii Vyaasadeva delivered it to his son, who is the most respected among

the self-realized, after extracting the cream of all Vedic literatures and

histories of the universe (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.40-41).

 

Since Gaudiiyas base their philosophy on Shriimad Bhaagavatam, it is just as

eternal as the Vedas are. No true follower of Shrii Vedavyaasa can

realistically claim that the Bhaagavatam differs in its message from the

Vedas. To show that the Gaudiiya tradition is a "new" system therefore

requires the challenger to attempt to refute its tenets based on Shriimad

Bhaagavatam. So far, there has been little willingness by the Maadhvas to do

this. We therefore reject the claim of the Maadhvas that the Gaudiiya school

was "founded" in the 16th centure by Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu. It would

probably be more appropriate to say that He reinstituted or revived the

eternal, complete bhaagavata-dharma in the 16th century, which other

Vedaanta commentators had at best only partially done.

 

----------

----

preached by the founder. Though the claimed genealogy of the ascetic

order to which Chaitanya belongs traces itself from Acharya Madhva

(at least as far as the group now known as ISKCON is concerned), the

----------

----

 

The paramparaa through Madhva is accepted by all Gaudiiyas all the way back

to the six Gosvaamiis. Is it not merely an ISKCON claim. There may be other

groups calling themselves Gaudiiya Vaishnavas who do not accept this

paramparaa, but their claims cannot be taken seriously since they contradict

those of the Gaudiiya puurvaaachaaryas.

 

If the Maadhvas think we are being uncharitable in this claim, then perhaps

they should also acknowledge all deviants within their own sampradaaya as

Maadhvas also, and give equal weight to these deviant opinions. Treating

deviants from our sampradaaya as "Gaudiiyas" may give the Maadhvas

ammunition by which to criticize, but such a double standard is hardly

honest or scholarly. We prefer that when engaged in intersampradaaya

discussions, differences be discussed between the orthodox postions of the

two schools (i.e. those of their respective "founders"), without becoming

carried away with vocal dissident groups with incompatible agendas.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Krishna Susarla

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

Jaya Prabhupada! Hare Krishna!

 

The Maadhvas say:

 

----------

----

also. The details of the philosophical system underpinning the cult of

emotional devotion were delineated gradually, not by the founder

himself (who is not credited with any written compositions), but by

the three famous Goswamis of Vrindavan, (Mathura) -- Sanatana and

Roopa (two brothers) and their nephew Jiva.

----------

----

 

This is a frequently quoted criticism offered by mundane, academic scholars

regarding the philosophy of achintya bedha abedha tattva. It is not hard to

find such an argument in many academic textbooks on Gaudiiya Vaishnavism.

What is astonishing here is that the Maadhvas have so blindly accepted it.

Like many of the arguments they have offered to date, this one is equally

without basis.

 

First of all, Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu is the undisputed author of Shrii

Shikshaastakam, which are eight verses describing pure devotional service.

It is wrong to say that He is not credited with any written compositions.

Within the Shikshaatakam, the essence of pure devotional service is

described, which is the ultimate goal of Gaudiiya Vaishnava philosophy.

 

It is correct that Shrii Chaitanya never wrote a commentary on the

Vedaanta-suutra. It was Shrii Chaitanya's position that Shriimad Bhaagavatam

is the best commentary on Vedaanta-suutra. [1] This is also supported by

shaastric pramaanas which will be discussed later. Nevertheless, it is

obvious from the available evidence that Mahaaprabhu was fluent with the

Vedaanta. For example, in His conversation with Prakaashaanada Sarasvatii,

He discusses the concept of shakti-parinaama-vaada which is central to

Achintya Bedha Abedha Tattva, even alluding to Shankaraachaarya's

misrepresentation of Vyaasa on this point. [2] Similar conversations on the

meaning of Vedaanta-suutra took place also with others, including

Saarvabhauma Bhattaachaarya, and these are also recorded in the

authoritative biographies.

 

The important point to keep in mind is this. Unlike other aachaaryas, Shrii

Chaitanya did not need to "interpret" the Vedaanta-suutra because He already

accepted that author's own commentary. By thus going to the source, there

was no need to offer a separate commentary. The idea that one cannot be

considered an authentic Vedaanta school without giving a suutra by suutra

commentary on the Vedaanta simply reveals ignorance about the actual goal of

Vedaanta, which is Lord Krishna Himself. [3] Nevertheless, for those who are

interested in such scholarly arguments, Shriila Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana

wrote the Govinda-bhaashya, which is fully in line with Shriimad Bhaagavatam

in every respect.

 

The argument that Achintya Bedha Abedha Tattva was delineated gradually is

inferred from the fact that the Ruupa, Sanaatana, and Jiiva Gosvaamii

authored most of the early texts of the Gaudiiya Vaishnava school. It does

not follow that because a great scholar in the paramparaa wrote a text, that

the ideas within that text are solely his own. Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu

instructed Ruupa and Sanaatana in various aspects of Achintya Bedha Abedha

Tattva and then instructed them to write books to propagate the philosophy.

[4] These instructions are too voluminous to be described in detail here.

The point is that Achintya Bedha Abedha is not an original philosophy

produced by Ruupa and Sanaatana or by Jiiva Gosvaamii who was their

disciple.

 

If the Maadhvas reject that these instructions ever occured, or allege that

the writings of Ruupa and Sanaatana are different from the teachings of

Shrii Chaitanya, then we humbly ask them to provide evidence for their

claims. Statements of personal opinion coupled with arbitrary dismissal of

all contradictory evidence do not constitute scholarship. The Maadhvas would

do well to discuss the actual points of difference between our two

sampradaayas, rather than relying on medicore scholarship in a futile

attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Gaudiiya sampradaaya.

 

1). Teachings of Lord Caitanya, p. 201:

 

"Lord Caitanya explained all this to Prakasananda Sarasvati and told him

that He had heard all this from His spiritual master. He further informed

Prakasananda Sarasvati that His spiritual master taught Him that

Srimad-Bhagavatam is the actual commentary on Vedanta-sutra, as stated in

Srimad-Bhagavatam by Vyasadeva, the author of Vedanta-sutra."

 

2). Shrii Chaitnya Charitamrita, Aadi-liila, 7.121-127

 

3). Bhagavad-giitaa As It Is:

 

sarvasya chaaha.m hR^idi sanniviShTo mattaH smR^itir j~naanam apohana.m cha

|

vedaish cha sarvair aham eva vedyo vedaantakR^id vedavid eva chaaham ||

giitaa 15.15 ||

 

sarvasya - of all living beings; cha - and; aham - I; hR^idi - in the heart;

sanniviShTaH - situated; mattaH - from Me; smR^itiH - remembrance;

j~naanam - knowledge; apohanam - forgetfulness; cha - and; vedaiH - by the

Vedas; cha - also; sarvaIh - all; aham - I am; eva - certainly;

vedyaH -knowable; vedaanta-kR^it - the compiler of the Vedaanta; veda-vit -

the knower of the Vedas; eva -certainly; cha - and; aham - I.

 

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and

forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler

of Vedaanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas (bhagavad-giitaa 15.15).

 

4). Shrii Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya-liila, chapters 19 and 20.

[Guest guest]

(1.0) Scriptural Basis for Achintya Bedha Abedha Tattva

 

The PVPP says:

 

"ISKCON say that they follow a Doctrine of Achinthya Bhedaadbheda with

regard to the relationship between the Supreme Being and the Souls.

Tattvavada follows the doctrine of Pancha Bheda -- difference between God

and the Souls, between the Souls, between God and Inert Matter, between the

Souls and Inert Matter and between Inert Matter items themselves --

(Paramathma-Jiva, Jiva-Jiva, Paramathma and Jada, Jiva and Jada, and Jada

and Jada.) The doctrine is well summed up in the following shloka of

Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya of Acharya Madhva -- Chapter 1 -- Sarva

Shasthrartha samgraha -- shloka 71 :

 

``paJNchabhedA ime nityAH sarvavasthAsu sarvashaH |

muktAnAM cha na hIyante tAratamyaM cha sarvadA'' ||"

 

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do not reject the concept of pancha bedha. However, they

follow the comprehensive philosophical position of Achintya Bedha Abedha,

which is based on Shrii Vedavyaasa's presentation of Shriimad Bhaagavatam.

Achintya Bedha Abedha refers to the simultaneous, inconceivable oneness and

difference between the Lord and His energies, the latter of which are

emanations from Him. These energies constitute both the jiivas and the

material universes. The idea is that while both are same in quality, a

difference exists in quantity. Both difference and nondifference are

eternal, and together represent a complete understanding of the relationship

between Brahman, the jiivas, and the jagat. This philosophy is based on

numerous pramaanas, of which we will list a few:

 

etatpada.m tajjagadaatmanaH para.m sakR^idvibhaata.m svaituryathaa prabhaa |

yathaasavo jaagrati suptashaktayo dravyakriyaaj~naanabhidaabhramaatyayaH ||

bhaa 4.31.16 ||

 

Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation

is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme

Personality is therefore all-pervasive within this material creation. When

the senses are active, they appear to be part and parcel of the body, but

when the body is asleep, their activities are unmanifest. Similarly, the

whole cosmic creation appears different and yet nondifferent from the

Supreme Person. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.31.16)

 

tva.m vaa ida.m sadasadiisha bhavaa.mstato'nyo maayaa

yadaatmaparabuddhiriya.m hyapaarthaa |

yad yasya janma nidhana.m sthitiriikShaNa.m cha tad vaitadeva

vasukaalavadaShTitarvoH || bhaa 7.9.31 ||

 

My dear Lord, O Supreme Personality of Godhead, the entire cosmic creation

is caused by You, and the cosmic manifestation is an effect of Your energy.

Although the entire cosmos is but You alone, You keep Yourself aloof from

it. The conception of "mine and yours," is certainly a type of illusion

[maayaa] because everything is an emanation from You and is therefore not

different from You. Indeed, the cosmic manifestation is nondifferent from

You, and the annihilation is also caused by You. This relationship between

Your Lordship and the cosmos is illustrated by the example of the seed and

the tree, or the subtle cause and the gross manifestation. (bhaagavata

puraaNa 7.9.31)

 

ekastvameva sadasad dvayamadvaya.m cha svarNa.m kR^itaakR^itamiveha na

vastubhedaH |

aj~naanatastvayi janairvihito vikalpo yasmaad guNavyatikaronirupaadhikasya

|| bhaa 8.12.8 ||

 

My dear Lord, Your Lordship alone is the cause and the effect. Therefore,

although You appear to be two, You are the absolute one. As there is no

difference between the gold of a golden ornament and the gold in a mine,

there is no difference between cause and effect; both of them are the same.

Only because of ignorance do people concoct differences and dualities. You

are free from material contamination, and since the entire cosmos is caused

by You and cannot exist without You, it is an effect of Your transcendental

qualities. Thus the conception that Brahman is true and the world false

cannot be maintained (bhaagavata puraaNa 8.12.8).

 

A central tenet of this philosophy is that the Lord, despite His

nondifference from the jiivas and the material universe, is nevertheless

transcendental and unaffected by the modes of material nature, as stated in

SB 7.9.31. The qualitative similarity in spite of quantitative difference is

explained by the numerous analogies offered by the Bhaagavatam, such as that

of the sun and the sunshine, the tree and the seed, and the gold mine and

the gold ornament. In each case, the source is clearly different from, and

greater than, the effect. Yet an underlying unity remains in spite of this

irrefutable difference. For example, the gold ornament is of the same

material as the gold mine, yet a distinct entity made up of a much smaller

amount of the same material.

 

It is not our intention to justify this clear and scripturally supported,

philosophical position to the satisfaction of mundane logicians. Our

intention here is to point out that Achintya Bedha Abedha is the clear and

indisputable position of Shrii Vedavyaasa as revealed in Shriimad

Bhaagavatam. If the puurva-pakshins argue that the evidence from Shriimad

Bhaagavatam is unacceptable because it is smriti, then the same logic can be

brought to bear against their evidence of pancha bedha, which is also from

smriti-shaastra. If it is argued that the Bhaagavatam should not be

interpreted literally with regard to abedha, then the same could be said of

their shlokas showing pancha bedha from the Mahaabhaarata. If it is argued

that the Bhaagavatam shlokas are not consistent with the shlokas quoted from

the Mahaabhaarata (and hence fit to be rejected), then we point out that all

evidence must be reconciled into a single, coherent understanding in order

to be convincing. It is unscholarly to accept only pramaanas convenient for

propping up one's own philosophy while arbitrarily rejecting the rest.

 

Achintya Bedha Abedha is a complete explanation of the Absolute Truth which

logically accomodates both kinds of shaastric pramaaanas asserting

difference and nondifference between the Lord and His energies.

 

S. HariKrishna

Cleveland, OH

Achintya List URL:

achintya