Dvaita Vada and Gaudiya Vaishnavism

[kimfelix]

I have been carefully reading the debate over the dvaita and the visishtha advaita interpretations of Vedanta and I was wondering where Gaudiya Vaishnavism was located in these terms. I had heard that Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy was achintya bheda abheda, which seems closer to visishthadvaita than to dvaita, despite the sampradaya links to Madhvacharya.

 

So does Gaudiya Vaishnavism and ISKCON follow dvaita as proposed by Madhvacharya?

[Kulapavana]

 

So does Gaudiya Vaishnavism and ISKCON follow dvaita as proposed by Madhvacharya?

 

Not really. Actually, Iskcon has it's own philosophical "bubble", which is sometimes very different than the rest of our closest sampradaya (like the Gaudiya Matha).

 

Dvaita or Advaita are really matters of spiritual taste (rasa) and logical arguments will lead you nowhere. Proponents of each school are just as certain as their oponents that only they are "ultimately right".

[raghu]

No, iskcon and other gaudiya vaishnavas do not follow Sri Madhvacharya. They have their own Vedanta commentary and system of Vedanta and yes it endorses some ideas which will not be acceptable to Tattvavadis.

 

No one comes to a particular school of Vedanta without holding that it is "ultimately right" and others "less correct" or "incorrect" in some way. Many gaudiyas I meet are convinced that bedha abehda philosophy of Caitanya is the purest form of Vedanta, but then I rarely meet gaudiyas who have studied other forms of Vedanta or even their own vedanta sutras. I agree with Kulapavana that it may be a matter of "taste" what one follows - at the risk of sounding elitist some jivas are destined to follow philosophies that are either incorrect or adulterated with incorrect ideas. Buddhism has the Lord's sanction but no Vedantist including mayavadis think highly of it. Advaita and other philosophies like sad-darshanas are eternal but this does not make them right.

 

I could of course tell you what I think is correct, but I would rather you get there on your own, and later preferably with the help of a qualified guru. Read and ask pointed questions. Examine your doubts thoroughly. Don't accept a position due to peer pressure or because it comes with membership in a coveted social group.

[xexon]

"Interpretations" are a sign on the door the master isn't home.

 

Students, well meaning that they may be, offer their take on his words that are written down somewhere. Dead as the master himself.

 

A master declares things, he doesn't take a vote on them. Truth is not a democratic process. Until the next master appears that appeals to the locals, dead words are all they have to feast upon.

 

 

x

[theist]

If words are dead why do you talk so much xexon?

[xexon]

The written word has no life. I still do. x

[Dark Warrior]

The Gaudiyas claim that they belong to the Madhva parampara. The Dvaitins refute it strongly. But the Gaudiya site apparently has answers to all these refutations, so it is a never ending argument again.

 

I am not really sure about Acintya Bheda Abheda. Baladeva Vidyabhushana's Bhashya seems more like a mixture of Dvaita and VA. The Gaudiya position has always puzzled me a bit.

 

I completely agree that it is a matter of taste, which Sampradaya you follow. The only reason I argued vehemently against Dvaita in the other thread was because that fool tackleberry did not have the integrity to respect other Sampradayas. I myself have many Dvaitin friends and we go on pilgrimages without silly arguments.

 

The Gaudiya/Madhva difference is like the Thenkalai/Vadakalai division with Sri Vaishnavism itself.