Madhva-Gaudiya parampara

[raghu]

In another thread I found the following:

(Quote)

Originally Posted by sambya

"This supreme science of God is received through the disciplic succession."

That is funny. There is no disciplic succession from Vyasa or Krishna to Prabhupada where the message of the Gita was transferred faithfully without change. Madhvacharya is part of that alleged disciplic chain and his message of the Gita was very different. So anyone who came after him in that chain and differs from his teaching has effectively broken the chain and therefore Prabhupada is not in a disciplic succession. QED.

It is obviously just a sales pitch to fool people who do not know better and evidently it has worked well too.

Cheers (end of Quote)

 

 

 

 

I just wanted to chime in my agreement with the above. There is no "disciplic succession" in which the message of Sri Madhvacharya was transmitted without change to the Gaudiyas. The Bhagavad-gita commentaries of Prabhupada, Baladeva, and Vishvanatha are all different from that of Sri Madhva and actually disagree with him in several important ways. Actually, the Gaudiya commentaries are all different from each other as well.

 

Not that this should stop any of you. But I agree it is high time that this idea of a "bona fide, unbroken, disciplic succession" from which the Gaudiyas have supposedly received their philosophy pristine and pure, should be laid to rest.

[Sonic Yogi]

I shall begin by describing the disciplic succession descended from Sripada Madhvacarya. Lord Brahma, the creator of the universe became the disciple of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Narayana. Brahma's disciple was Narada. Narada's disciple was Vyasa. Vyasa then transmitted transcendental knowledge to his disciple Sukadeva. Sukadeva taught the same knowledge to his many disciples and grand-disciples in this world. The famous Madhvacarya received initiation from Vyasa personally. Madhvacarya carefully studied all the Vedas from Vyasa, and later wrote his book 'Mayavada-sata-dusani', where he proved that the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Person, full of all transcendental qualities, and not the quality-less impersonal Brahman. Madhvacarya's disciple was the exalted Padmanabhacarya. Padmanabhacarya's disciple was Narahari. Narahari's disciple was Madhava-dvija. Madhava-dvija's disciple was Aksobhya. Aksobhya's disciple was Jaya Tirtha. Jaya Tirtha's disciple was Jnanasindhu. Jnanasindhu's disciple was Mahanidhi. Mahanidhi's disciple was Vidyanidhi. Vidyanidhi's disciple was Rajendra. Rajendra's disciple was Jayadharma Muni. Among Jayadharma Muni's disciples was Sriman Visnupuri, the famous author of the 'Bhakti-ratnavali'. Another disciple of Jayadharma was Brahmana Purusottama. Purusottama's disciple was Vyasa Tirtha, who wrote the famous book Sri Visnu-samhita. Vyasa Tirtha's disciple was Sriman Laksmipati, who was like a great reservoir of the nectar of devotional service. Laksmipati's disciple was Madhavendra Puri, a great preacher of devotional service. Madhavendra Puri was the incarnation of a kalpa-vrksa tree in the abode of Vraja. This tree bears as its fruits the mellows of servitude to Lord Krsna, friendship with Lord Krsna, parental love for Lord Krsna, and conjugal love for Lord Krsna. Madhavendra Puri's disciple was Sriman Isvara Puri Svami. Isvara Puri carefully understood the mellows of conjugal love for Lord Krsna, and was able to distribute that fruit to others. Sri Advaita Acarya displayed the sentiments of servitorship and friendship for the Lord, and Sriman Ranga Puri manifested the sentiment of parental love for Lord Krsna. Lord Caitanya accepted Sriman Isvara Puri as His spiritual master. The Lord proceeded to flood the entire world with spontaneous transcendental love for Krsna

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

The above-mentioned disciplic succession given by Kavi Karnapura has been accepted by Bhaktivinoda Thakura and this is evident from the following statement:

 

 

 

ei samasta vakyadvara spasta pratita haya ye, Sri brahma sampradayai Sri Krsna Caitanya -dasadiganer guru-pranali. Sri Kavi Karnapura Gosvami ei anusarre drta kariya sviyakrta 'Gaura Ganodesa-dipika' ya guru-pranalir krama likhiyachen. Vedanta-sutra-bhasyakara Sri Vidyabhusana u sei pranalike sthira rakhiyacchen. Yahara ei pranalike asvikara karen, tahara ye Sri Krsna Caitanya-carananucara-ganer pradhana satru, ihate ara sandeha ki?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It is evident that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu belonged to the Brahma sampradaya, as it descends through Madhvacarya. Kavi Karnapura confirmed this line of disciplic succession in his Gaura Ganodesa-dipika, and the writer of the commentary of the Vedanta, Sri Baldeva Vidyabhusana, did so again (in his

Prameya Ratnavali

).

 

Is there any doubt that those who do not accept this line of disciplic succession are the principle enemies of the followers of Sri Krsna Caitanya?" (Bhaktivinoda Thakura -

Sri Mahaprabhur-siksa,

Ch.2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bhaktivinoda further states in Chapter Two of Sri Mahaprabhur-siksa that anyone who does not accept these statements is an atheist:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sri Krsna Caitanya sampradaya svikara karata gopane guru-

parampara

siddha-pranali svikara Karen na, tahara kalir guptacara. Ihate sandeha ki?

 

"Anyone who refuses to accept such statements is a promoter of atheism. Those who accept the authority of Sri Krsna Caitanya but secretly do not accept this disciplic succession of spiritual preceptors are actually agents of Kali. Can there be any doubt about this?" (Bhaktivinoda Thakura -

Sri Mahaprabhur-siksa,

Ch.2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering the position of Srila Kavi Karnapura, it is highly unlikely he would have simply fabricated a list of names to make up the parampara of Sri Caitanya. Kavi Karnapura was the son of Sivananda Sena and he was thus always associated with pure devotees and with the eternal associates of the Supreme Lord. The information that Kavi Karnapura gives us about the identities of Mahaprabhu's associates in Gaura-lila and their corresponding identities in Krsna-lila is extensive. It is therefore quite unlikely that having access to such confidential information as regards the eternal associates of the Lord that he would at the same time fabricate a fictitious parampara.

 

 

As Kavi Karnapura has heard from senior devotees about the identities of Mahaprabhu's associates, he similarly heard from them regarding the parampara. In fact, although it may not be mentioned in any particular book, it is widely accepted that Sri Caitanya heard about the parampara of Madhavendra Puri at the time of his initiation from Isvara Puri, the disciple of Madhavendra.

 

 

If what Kavi Karnapura had written in Gaura-ganodesa-dipika regarding the Gaudiya-sampradaya parampara was indeed false - then the senior Vaisnavas present on the planet at that time would indeed have objected to those statements. Yet such objections were never raised. On the contrary, the community of Vaisnavas and pure devotees of Sri Caitanya accepted the writings of Kavi Karnapura as bona-fide transcendental literature.

 

 

Just as we have heard from our spiritual master about the lineage of our parampara, so it has always been the tradition among Vaisnavas that a spiritual master informs and enlightens his disciple regarding their parampara.

 

 

The fact that there are also sometimes gaps in the parampara list of names, does not mean that there is an actual break in the parampara. This topic has been briefly explained by Bhaktivinoda in Jaiva-dharma as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

sampradaya-pranali ki sampurna-rupa rakha haiyacche?

madhye madhye ye sakala pradhana acarya haiyacchen,

tahader namasakala sampradaya pranalite acche.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Is there a list of names of spiritual masters in the

parampara

given without any breaks?

 

 

 

 

 

"From time to time, only the more important spiritual masters' names are included in these lists." (

Jaiva-dharma

- Ch.13)

 

 

 

 

Although envious persons or persons with a poor fund of knowledge are sometimes quick to criticize the Gaudiya-sampradaya for such apparent breaks in their parampara, the fact is that there are also apparent breaks in other recognized and established sampradayas such as the Madhva- sampradaya and the Ramanuja sampradaya.

 

 

These apparent breaks are also acknowledged as existing by Madhva and Ramanuja followers, but these apparent breaks are not considered as defects in their respective sampradayas.

 

 

In the books 'Sampradaya Paddhati' and 'Mani-manjari' written by Hrsikesa Tirtha and Narayana Panditacarya respectively (both direct disciples of Madhvacarya) the parampara of the Madhva sampradaya is given as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

Hamsavatara, Brahma, Catursana, Durvasa, Jnanasindhu Tirtha, Garudavahana Tirtha, Kaivalya Tirtha, Jnanisa Tirtha, Para Tirtha, Satya-prajna Tirtha, Prajna Tirtha, Acyuta Preksa, and Madhvacarya.

 

 

 

 

 

The gap between Acyuta Preksa (the guru of Madhva) and Prajna Tirtha (the previous acarya) is approximately 400 years. The reason for this gap is explained that, during this time the Vaisnavas in that area were being terrorized by the Naga Babas, and other militant followers of Sankaracarya. They had gone completely 'underground' as a result of it. After the time of Madhvacarya the social climate changed and the Vaisnavas were able to resume their normal behavior and lived openly in society, establishing Mathas, keeping parampara records, etc.

 

 

A similar gap, but this time of approximately 3,000 years, is found in the Ramanuja sampradaya. The recognized parampara of the Ramanuja sampradaya from Visnu up to Ramanuja is as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

Visnu, Laksmi, Visvaksena, Alvars, Nathamuni, Pundarikaksa, Rama Misra, Yamunacarya, and Ramanujacarya.

 

 

 

 

 

From the Alvars (4000 BC to 2700 BC) to Nathamuni (584AD) there is a gap of more than 3,000 years. Despite this apparent gap the Ramanuja parampara is accepted by all Vaisnava scholars as a bona fide sampradaya. Also, it has been noted that during the period of the Alvars, only Nammalvar and Madhurakavi were connected as guru and disciple respectively. All the other ten Alvars were independent of each other. In other words they were not related in any way as guru and disciple.

 

 

The point of contention wherein some persons try to establish that one must be in a disciplic succession that can produce a list of names of its parampara (guru to disciple) from the present day back to its very origin and prove the validity of those names by producing old texts where such names are mentioned is not actually necessary, nor is such a method accepted by other sampradayas as the ultimate pramana (proof). If it were so, then it would not be possible to factually prove an unbroken chain of disciplic succession in any sampradaya in the world today. Even those so-called sampradayas of Babajis in Vrndavana and Mayapura who claim to have an unbroken disciplic succession, can only prove such by creating imaginary literature and fabricating lies in support of their fallacious claims.

 

 

Actually the evidence supporting the validity of any sampradaya via old books, historical records and all such related materials are for the most part empirical evidence and this is considered secondary to the most important type of evidence known as srota-pantha or having heard from previous acaryas.

 

 

The mind and intelligence being material elements of this mundane world are prone to rational thought and want proof of everything by the process of empirical knowledge. Ultimately empirical knowledge is defective because it is gathered by the imperfect senses. The process of srota-pantha however is the process by which realized knowledge of the Absolute Truth is passed down from guru to disciple without any loss. This process depends not on empirical evidence to prove its validity, but the process of srota-pantha depends solely on hearing with faith.

 

 

The empirical philosopher cannot accept the reality of faith because he or she has no experience of faith. Such less spiritually advanced persons do not know that faith (sraddha) is a spiritual substance more real than all the empirical knowledge of the mundane world combined.

 

 

Faith allows the descending eternal knowledge (sabda-brahman) to flow through the realized spiritual master to the heart of a qualified disciple completely unobstructed by any material defect. The knowledge of the empiricist however is always wrought with troubles and defects because it is an ascending process and depends solely on the material mind, intelligence, and senses, which are imperfect.

 

 

Those faithful devotees who have accepted the authority of the parampara mentioned by Kavi Karnapura in "Gaura-ganodesa-dipika" are factually the persons responsible for fulfilling the prediction of Sri Caitanya of spreading Krsna consciousness all over the world. This is indeed another valid proof (pramana) of the validity of their parampara, for as Krsna Dasa Kaviraja Gosvami states in Caitanya-caritamrta - only those who are empowered by Krsna can spread the holy name of Krsna:

 

 

taha pravartaila tumi,--ei ta 'pramana'

krsna-sakti dhara tumi,--ithe nahi ana

 

 

On the other hand those who doubt the integrity of Kavi Karnapura and his followers such as Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura are to be compared to a thorn in the leg of the Supreme Lord and the association of such unfortunate persons should be rejected.

 

 

 

 

<hr style="width: 200pt;" align="center" size="1" width="200">

 

[andy108]

 

In another thread I found the following:

 

 

I just wanted to chime in my agreement with the above. There is no "disciplic succession" in which the message of Sri Madhvacharya was transmitted without change to the Gaudiyas. The Bhagavad-gita commentaries of Prabhupada, Baladeva, and Vishvanatha are all different from that of Sri Madhva and actually disagree with him in several important ways. Actually, the Gaudiya commentaries are all different from each other as well.

 

Not that this should stop any of you. But I agree it is high time that this idea of a "bona fide, unbroken, disciplic succession" from which the Gaudiyas have supposedly received their philosophy pristine and pure, should be laid to rest.

 

What you fail to understand is that the master seeks to instill in his disciple the following.

 

-You are a spirit soul, not your body.

-You as spirit soul are a fragmented part and parcel of the Supreme Spirit Soul.

-Sri Krsna is the Supreme Spirit Soul. The whole spirit.

-He has 2 energies, Yoga Maya and Maha Maya.

-He is never effected by the material illusions he empowers Maha Maya to create.

- You as a fragmented part and parcel, are subject to Maha Maya's illusion.

- There are certain activities you can engage in, in relationship to Krsna and his Yoga Maya that will bring you out of illusion, and you will love this type of service, and once you get involved, Krsna will call off his Maha Maya energy and you will never be put into illusion again.

 

Now, according to time place and circumstance, conditioned souls on earth are only available to understand certain parts of this essential message. The acarya, being empowered by the Lord, knows just what to say in his message. So, he comments on the scriptures, which say the same thing, but the commentary is suited to pass along as much of the essence as the recipients can grasp at the time.

 

Thus, a SUCCESSION of Acarya's are required to fulfill the Lila of rescuing Jiva souls.

 

The knowlege they pass along is the same in essence, with the same motivated intention and purpose.

 

If you go down the line of Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Acaryas, you will find that they successively championed various philisophical perspectives regarding monism and dualism. Advaita. Dvaita-Advaita. etc.

 

Culminating in Lord Caitanya who championed Acintya BhedaAbheda. That the wandering fragmental spirit soul that we are is SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE AND YET DIFFERENT with the Supreme Brahman, Sri Krsna.

 

Do you understand now?

[theist]

Letter to: Kirtanananda

—

Los Angeles

25 January, 1969

69-01-25

My Dear Kirtanananda,

Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated 18, January 1969, and I have carefully noted the contents. I am encouraged to know that you are very enthusiastic about our projects for developing New Vrindaban. So far as the school goes, we have many qualified teachers, and they are all enthusiastic about going there and beginning their teaching work. The only thing is that there is as of yet no place to accommodate these teachers. So as soon as these facilities are constructed we can at once start at full force in setting up our Krishna Consciousness school program.

You have asked some questions, and I will answer them herewith. The first question is, <jd:"lt-deity worship-arati="" 03="">"When making arati offerings, is it proper to meditate on the different parts of the Lord's Body?'' The answer is that there is no need to meditate in that way. The Lord is actually there with you, and you are seeing all of His parts of the Body, so there is no need to meditate in that way. In regard to the other questions, food should be offered before arati. In the morning, after arati, you can offer some food and then perform kirtana.

 

</jd:"lt-deity>

Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. So in one line of disciples we may not see another name coming from a different line. But this does not mean that person whose name does not appear was not in the disciplic succession. Narada was the Spiritual Master of Vyasadeva, and Arjuna was Vyasadeva's disciple, not as initiated disciple but there was some blood relation between them. So there is connection in this way, and it is not possible to list all such relationships in the short description given in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person. The conclusions which we have tried to explain in our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the same as those conclusions of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna. Another example is that a tree has many branches, and you will find one leaf here and another leaf there. But if you take this leaf and the other leaf and you press them both, you will see that the taste is the same. The taste is the conclusion, and from the taste you can understand that both leaves are from the same tree.

 

 

Regarding the problem with your father, it is not good to fight with one's father, but if he is not going to give you the money, it may be necessary to take legal steps. Since the money is to be used in Krishna's service, you should try to get it.

I have heard from Syama Dasi that she has infected her finger, and I will be glad to know of the particulars so I may give her advice in this matter. I hope this will meet you in good health.

Your ever well-wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

NB: I understand from Hayagriva that you have at New Vrindaban an edited manuscript of Easy Journey To Other Planets. Send this copy to me immediately because in London, Mukunda is attempting to have this published and I would like to read the edited version and send it on to him. So far as your idea of editing the lectures which you started to edit in Montreal, the idea is very nice. ACB

P.S. You will be pleased to know that I have got now my immigration visa card (___ Blue Card) ACB

[raghu]

Once again, before this thread gets hijacked by tangential postings by iskcon groupies, let me again restate the facts.

 

First of all, in the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is published by iskcon, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami writes as follows:

 

 

THE DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION

Evaḿ paramparā-prāptam imaḿ rājarṣayo viduḥ (Bhagavad-gītā 4.2). This Bhagavad-gītā As It Is is received through this disciplic succession:

1. Kṛṣṇa

2. Brahmā

3. Nārada

4. Vyāsa

5. Madhva

6. Padmanābha

7. Nṛhari

8. Mādhava

9. Akṣobhya

10. Jaya Tīrtha

11. Jñānasindhu

12. Dayānidhi

13. Vidyānidhi

14. Rājendra

15. Jayadharma

16. Puruṣottama

17. Brahmaṇya Tīrtha

18. Vyāsa Tīrtha

19. Lakṣmīpati

20. Mādhavendra Purī

21. Īśvara Purī, (Nityānanda, Advaita)

22. Lord Caitanya

23. Rūpa, (Svarūpa, Sanātana)

24. Raghunātha, Jīva

25. Kṛṣṇadāsa

26. Narottama

27. Viśvanātha

28. (Baladeva) Jagannātha

29. Bhaktivinoda

30. Gaurakiśora

31. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī

32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Svāmī Prabhupāda

 

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Once again, let me state that the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is is NOT received in this "disciplic succession." Specifically, the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is is not the Bhagavad-Gita as it is understood by Sri Madhva or his followers prior to the mAdhavendra-Ishvara-chaitanya line. Bhaktivedanta's Bhagavad-Gita commentary differs in a number of very important ways from that of Sri Madhva, and one cannot simply sweep these differences under the rug when claiming that the former is "authorized" because it is received from the latter.

 

This is not a jab at the Gaudiya tradition as a whole or at any of its followers. It is merely a statement of fact that the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is irreconciably *different* from the philosophy of the mAdhva paramparA from which it is alleged to have descended from. This should be clearly understood because many iskcon people claim that their Gita commentary is authentic because it is received, unchanged, from the previous AchAryas in their paramparA. That is actually quite false.

[raghu]

 

Madhvacarya carefully studied all the Vedas from Vyasa, and later wrote his book 'Mayavada-sata-dusani', where he proved that

 

Sonic Yogi, Theist, et. al.

 

A complete listing of Sri Madhva's works can be found at http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_5.html

 

Please note that there is no "Mayavada-sata-dusani" on that list.

 

I do now know why they iskcon people repeatedly claim that this book is written by Sri Madhva. I have reviewed a copy of this book given to me by an iskcon acquaintance and I can tell you that its treatment of the subject matter is very different in tone and depth from the works of Sri Madhva. The author of this work also claims his guru to be one "nArAyana-bhatta" at the very end; Sri Madhva had no guru by this name.

 

I wish the iskcon people would at least try to maintain some semblance of intellectual honesty before propagating claims like this.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Sonic Yogi, Theist, et. al.

 

A complete listing of Sri Madhva's works can be found at http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_5.html

 

Please note that there is no "Mayavada-sata-dusani" on that list.

 

I do now know why they iskcon people repeatedly claim that this book is written by Sri Madhva. I have reviewed a copy of this book given to me by an iskcon acquaintance and I can tell you that its treatment of the subject matter is very different in tone and depth from the works of Sri Madhva. The author of this work also claims his guru to be one "nArAyana-bhatta" at the very end; Sri Madhva had no guru by this name.

 

I wish the iskcon people would at least try to maintain some semblance of intellectual honesty before propagating claims like this.

That book is also known as Sri Tattva Muktavali.

Mayavada-sata-dusani and Sri Tattva Muktavali are the same BOOK!

[Sonic Yogi]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/mayavada_sata_dusani.htm

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Madhvacarya - dvaita - tattvavada - Gaudiya siddhanta - Supremacy of Krishna

 

Srila Madhvacarya

 

 

 

 

ananda tirtha-nama sukha-maya-dhama yatir jiyat

samsararnava-taranim yam iha janah kirtayanti budhah

 

 

 

"May that great

sannyasi,

Srila Ananda Tirtha (Madhvacarya) be ever victorious. He is like a boat to cross the ocean of the material world, and the wise men in this world praise him."

(Prameya Ratnavali by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana)

 

 

The contents of this webpage are in response to a group of young men claiming to be the followers of Sri Madhvacarya who recently challenged the siddhanta of the Gaudiya sampradaya. Many of their points simply stem from lack of knowledge of the Gaudiya siddhanta, whilst other arguments appear to stem more from the fundamental defects of conditioned souls, such as malice and envy.

In a recent meeting, the senior-most leader of the Madhva sampradaya, H.H. Visvesa Tirtha Swami of Pejavara Matha, glorified Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, "just as Bhagiratha brought the Ganga to India, Swami Prabhupada brought the Bhakti-Ganga to the whole world." A video clip from this conversation, along with letters of appreciation from five prominent Madhva leaders may be found here: http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/

Other articles in this section:

1. The Validity of the Gaudiya Parampara
   
2. The Divinity of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
   
3. The Ontological Position of the Vaishnava over the Brahmana
   
4. The Supremacy of Srimad Bhagavatam
   
5. The Supreme Position of Sri Krshna as the Source of All Incarnations [bhagavan Svayam] • NEW •
   
6. A Word to our Madhva-Vaisnava Brethren[From The Harmonist, 1935]
   
7. The Pontifical Position of Sri Madhavendra Puri
   
8. Brahma's Illusion

We will analyze each of these issues individually and present the conclusion according to the Gaudiya viewpoint. In each chapter the oppositions various arguments will be presented, followed by our refutation. Our sole aim in presenting this thesis is to show our own community of Vaisnavas that we indeed have valid and conclusive answers to such objections.

Although we may speak very strongly in our rebuttal, we would like to make it very clear that we find no fault with the great Vaisnava Sri Madhva Muni. We regard him as one of our sampradaya-acaryas and offer him all respects. It is the opinion of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas that the teachings of Sri Madhva-acarya are a vital step in the evolution of theism which culminates in the philosophy of divine love expounded by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

We do not claim to be a great vidvan (scholar), nor do we claim to have much knowledge in philosophy and history. We simply pray at the lotus feet of our revered gurudeva, Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha Maharaja and the predecessor acaryas in our guru-varga such as Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja, Srila B. P. Puri Gosvami, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana to bless us with inspiration.

Praying for the mercy of Hari, Guru and Vaisnavas —

Tridandi Bikshu

Swami Bhakti Vijnana Giri

 

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Madhva - Vaisnava Madhvacarya - Dvaita - Tattvavada - Gaudiya siddhanta

 

 

 

 

A WORD TO

OUR MADHVA

BRETHREN

[Originally published in The Harmonist, Vol. 31, May 1935]

 

There is a fundamental justification in seeking to approach the past history of a sect, especially in this country, on the basis of the prima-facie authenticity of the guru-parampara as preserved in the sect. We would be more scientifically employed if we turn our attention to obtaining greater information by comparative study of the different records instead of resorting to gratuitous assumptions against the validity of the preceptorial lists.

For this very cogent reason we must accept as historically valid the existing preceptorial list of the Madhva-Gaudiya Vaisnava sect till its authenticity in any particular is conclusively impugned by specific historical evidence. We have had no cause up till now to suspect the truth of any portion of this list.

This list discloses the fact that the Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya accepted Sri Isvara Puri as His preceptor. Sri Isvara Puri was a disciple of Sri Madhavendra Puri.

Sri Madhavendra Puri is a most renowned Vaisnava. He is, in fact, the great founder of the society of transcendental lovers who adhere strictly to their all-absorbing passion for the amorous transcendental hero, Sri Krsna, This constitutes a great development of the original doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya. In spite of this peculiarity of the teaching of Sri Madhavendra Puri, the list of the former gurus shows that Sri Madhavendra is descended from the line of Ananda Tirtha in the ascetic order of the Madhva Vaisnavas. There is really nothing against the genuineness of the list of the gurus of the line of the Madhva Vaisnavas.

Some misguided critic may try to rashly propose to disconnect Sri Madhavendra from the line of the gurus of the Madhva Vaisnavas, by asserting that the Madhva sannyasins are known as Tirthas and that no Puri sannyasin can have admittance into their ecclesiastical order. But the solution of this apparent difficulty is offered by an incident in the authentic career of the Supreme Lord, Sri Krsna Caitanya. He is stated to have embraced the order of the Bharati sannyasins. But He was also stated to be a disciple of Sri Isvara Puri. This irregularity is to be ascribed to the practice of attaching their surnames by the older associations. The different guru-paramparas show the same line. So we cannot discredit those records by basing our arguments on assumptions and ordinary argument from current practices.

Moreover, whenever there is any congregational gathering of the different schools of Vaisnavas, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, as a class, introduce themselves as belonging to the line of Sri Madhvacarya. These are hard and indisputable facts and cannot be lightly explained away by inferences based solely on certain practices of either sect.

If, however, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas actually preferred to brand themselves as Madhva Gaudiyas as a matter of history, enquirers would naturally be anxious to know whether the servants of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas in-toto to the professions and practices of the Madhvas or whether they differ from the older school in some other points. In case they have a distinctive reference, enquiry should naturally start to make a list of the differences between the two schools. This comparison should necessarily be made in regard to their practical activity, social procedure, philosophy, theology and different performances due to all these, - or, in other words, the examination should embrace both their exoteric and esoteric differences.

If we take up the practical activities of the Madhva and the Gaudiya Vaisnavas for the purpose of such comparison, we find that the former put themselves under a severe reserve in their propagatory methods, whereas the latter are vigorously proselytizing. The Madhvas keep up the old habits and ideas, whereas the Gaudiya Vaisnavas have advanced towards and utilized everything facilitating the true cause of devotion. The former are very fond of arcana according to the pancaratrika system; whereas the latter, though not different to adopt arcana, yet in addition to that, they perform bhajana like the Dasakuta section of the Madhva community. The Gaudiya Vaisnavas give more stress to bhajana than to arcana of the Vyasakuta section of the latter community. The habits and customs of the Southern Indian Vaisnavas are different from those of Northern Indian Gaudiya Vaisnavas, though both of them have a common base and origin as their guiding principle.

Turning to their respective social procedures we find that there is one great point of resemblance. Brahmanas are alone considered to be eligible for the service of God by the Madhva community. Brahmanas are accordingly in sole charge of the religious institutions of the sect. They alone conduct all public and private worship. This is also the practice of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But in this matter also there is an important distinction between the two. The point has already been referred to in connection with propaganda and proselytization. The Madhvas are not prepared to go outside the pale of the caste brahmanas for imparting initiation for worship. In this they are in one sense too narrow in comparison with the method of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Sri Caitanya accepted all who possessed the real inclination for leading the exclusive spiritual life and bestowed on them even the position and function of the acarya. Thakura Haridasa, the great acarya of the Gaudiya sect, was a Mohammedan by parentage. Most of the Gaudiya Vaisnava Gosvamis were not caste brahmanas.

In another respect, however, the Madhva practice is more lax than the practice of the Gaudiya society. No person is entitled in the Gaudiya community to mantra-diksa unless he or she is prepared to submit unconditionally to follow the instructions of the acarya in every particular of actual conduct. By this test caste brahmanas are also liable to be ineligible for the service of God in the Gaudiya community, if they are not prepared to give up their unscriptural mode of life by submitting to the autocratic rule of the acarya.

Gaudiya Vaisnavas claim to follow the real principle of the scriptural varnasrama institution in the organization of their spiritual society. Whereas the Madhvas follow the hereditary principle which is seldom applicable in the present age when few persons possess either the habit or the inclination to follow the spirit of the sastric regulation.

Judged by the test of loyalty to the spirit of the scriptural regulation, the Gaudiya community may justly claim to be far more conservative in their social practices than the Madhvas.

 

[Sonic Yogi]

 

The author of this work also claims his guru to be one "nArAyana-bhatta" at the very end; Sri Madhva had no guru by this name.

 

.

 

 

Text 114

I have carefully studied the book Sri Narayana-bhakti-bhusa composed by Sri Narayana Bhatta, the best of scholars, as well as many other similar books. By the mercy of the devotees, I have been able to understand the confidential truths of devotional service, which I have described in this book of one hundred verses, Sri Tattva-muktavali, a description of the truth of the eternal difference between the individual spirit souls and the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

All it says is that he studied the book composed by Narayana Bhatta.

It doesn't say that Narayana Bhatta is his guru.

[raghu]

 

That book is also known as Sri Tattva Muktavali.

Mayavada-sata-dusani and Sri Tattva Muktavali are the same BOOK!

 

Sri Madhva never wrote a book called "Sri Tattva Muktavali." Please again reference the *complete* listing of his authored works at http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_5.html

[raghu]

 

Brahmanas are alone considered to be eligible for the service of God by the Madhva community. Brahmanas are accordingly in sole charge of the religious institutions of the sect. They alone conduct all public and private worship. This is also the practice of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But in this matter also there is an important distinction between the two. The point has already been referred to in connection with propaganda and proselytization. The Madhvas are not prepared to go outside the pale of the caste brahmanas for imparting initiation for worship. In this they are in one sense too narrow in comparison with the method of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

And thank goodness for that. Fortunately, mAdhvas do not have to deal with gurus who "access other dimensions," write about UFO conspiracies, endorse degraded social institutions, paint childish pictures as a part of their psychotherapy, etc.

 

 

Sri Caitanya accepted all who possessed the real inclination for leading the exclusive spiritual life and bestowed on them even the position and function of the acarya.

 

 

Yes I agree, all spiritual souls who possess the "real inclination" for being acharyas.

 

You know, I agree that there are degraded brahmanas in every sampradaya, but I fail to understand how you can persist in your belief that you can turn mlecchas into gurus when the evidence *in front of your very eyes* shows that this is false. You yourself had stated earlier that you had "given up on the whole lot of them." So, why backtrack on that position now?

 

Anyway, suffice it to say that:

 

1) Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas are NOT handed down to them from the MAdhva sampradAya unchanged. Many Gaudiya ideas are exclusively their own, and not Madhva's, period.

 

2) Sri Madhva *never* wrote a book called "Mayavada-sata dushani" or "Tattva-Muktavali." These claims by iskcon devotees are spurious.

 

3) Those advocating a new-age guru paradigm might want to check the structural integrity of their glass houses before throwing stones.

[andy108]

RAGHU SAYS :"1) Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas are NOT handed down to them from the MAdhva sampradAya unchanged. Many Gaudiya ideas are exclusively their own, and not Madhva's, period."

 

Please refer to the post #4 above.

 

The Acarya passes as much of the essence that HE knows, as can be absorbed by those populating his audience. He brings them up a notch.

 

The next Acarya takes the torch and fills in the blanks.

 

Broaden your perspective like this, and you will find Gold in a filthy place.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Sri Madhva never wrote a book called "Sri Tattva Muktavali." Please again reference the *complete* listing of his authored works at http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_5.html

 

The books was written under the name Gaudapurnananda.

Some Madhavas consider him different than Madhvacharya, but Madhvacarya was also known as Gaudapurnananda.

 

The Gaudiyas consider the Gaudapurnananda of Sri Tattva Muktavali to be the same as Madhva, though such a view is not accepted by some Madhva scholars.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Sonic Yogi, Theist, et. al.

 

A complete listing of Sri Madhva's works can be found at http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_5.html

 

 

 

This list is largely from "History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature," by Dr. B. N. K. Sharma, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1981.

 

 

Dr. B.N.K. Sharma was a Professor and Head of the Department of Sanskrit in the newly founded Ruparel College of the Modern Education Society of Pune in 1953. He is the recipient of many prestigious awards.Today with over a dozen publications of outstanding merit in lucid English, Dr. Sharma has verily established the highest record of the present century in his chosen field with his latest English rendering of the Samanvayadhyaya of Jayatirtha's Nyayasudha.

 

Professor Sharma is a self-appointed authority who shows no formal initiation into the Madhva sampradaya.

 

He has approached these subjects as a scholar more so than as a devotee.

 

We cannot trust the work of Professor Sharma as he does not even show to be in the lineage of the Madhva sampradaya.

 

He is a self-appointed authority with no proper right to pose an an authority on the Madhva sampradaya.

 

His is a professional who makes his living publishing books and teaching Sanskrit.

His Sanskrit scholarship does not qualify him to represent the Madhva sampradaya.

[gHari]

Does it not all hang on their transcendental relationship? On their eternal reality?

 

If we can accept that Srila Madhvacarya was a disciple of Srila Vyasa, then how is it we are now having such difficulty accepting the humble words of bonafide sadhus whose speech, thoughts and deeds glow with eternal auspiciousness? Our reality and these sadhus are all greater than we can possibly imagine, yet we presume to sit in judgement, stuck in the mud of ahankara.

 

We must go there and see for ourselves, see how the divine play is enacted in eternity for His pleasure. Then we shall have an opinion; otherwise we will have only prejudice, and the cackling of crows.

 

<center>

Is It Not All As It Should Be?

 

</center>

[raghu]

 

RAGHU SAYS :"1) Gaudiya Vaishnava ideas are NOT handed down to them from the MAdhva sampradAya unchanged. Many Gaudiya ideas are exclusively their own, and not Madhva's, period."

 

Please refer to the post #4 above.

 

 

Please refer to posting #1 above

 

 

The Acarya passes as much of the essence that HE knows, as can be absorbed by those populating his audience. He brings them up a notch.

 

The next Acarya takes the torch and fills in the blanks.

 

Thank you for repeating what I wrote earlier: that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not the same as MAdhva Vaishnavism.

[raghu]

 

This list is largely from "History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature," by Dr. B. N. K. Sharma, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1981.

 

It also happens to be the same list that is accepted by all the mAdhva maths. But don't take my word for it - feel free to ask them yourself.

 

 

Professor Sharma is a self-appointed authority who shows no formal initiation into the Madhva sampradaya.

 

Um, you have no formal initiation into the MAdhva sampradaya. By your logic, that would invalidate any claim you make about Madhva as well.

[raghu]

One of the posters earlier made a comment about the supposed "narrow-mindedness" of mAdhva Vaishnavas because they only offer brahminical intiation to brahmanas (which is fully in keeping with the Vedic tradition).

 

In response to this obvious personal attack, I cited numerous examples of Westerners initiated as gurus who became quite degraded. I brought this up as strong evidence of the unsuitability of accepting all those "who possessed the real inclination for leading the exclusive spiritual life" and passing them off as "gurus."

 

Typically, my response was censored, while the original inflammatory comments remain.

 

If you want to have a debate about which system of initiations is most correct, appropriate, or sensible, then you should show some courage and be prepared to acknowledge the historical facts pertaining to each system. Why criticize if you are not prepared to have an even debate? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

It is ironic that many of you verbalize disgust with certain Gaudiya Vaishnava "gurus" who were born in the United States, and yet you persist in praising the very mistaken ideas that allowed them to become "gurus" in the first place. And of course, when you use all kinds of unflattering remarks to describe them, it is allowed, but when I bring those same comments up to show you the shortcomings of your guru idea, it is suddenly abhorrent to you.

[raghu]

All of this is starting to become quite tangential to the original point.

 

My original purpose in starting this thread was to state, very clearly and in no uncertain terms, that the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is NOT handed down to them *unchanged* by the mAdhva paramparA, as is often claimed by the former. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas have changed many ideas and cannot use Madhva as an excuse to authenticate their philosophy, because their philosophy is actually in contradiction to many of Sri Madhva's views.

 

So far no one has contested this point directly, and andy108 has more or less agreed to it.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Um, you have no formal initiation into the MAdhva sampradaya. By your logic, that would invalidate any claim you make about Madhva as well.

 

Well, why don't you if you are so smart?

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Professor Sharma is a self-appointed authority who shows no formal initiation into the Madhva sampradaya.

 

He has approached these subjects as a scholar more so than as a devotee.

 

We cannot trust the work of Professor Sharma as he does not even show to be in the lineage of the Madhva sampradaya.

 

He is a self-appointed authority with no proper right to pose an an authority on the Madhva sampradaya.

Prof B.N.K.Sharma is a maadhva by birth and tradition. He has authored books that are a delight to read. He does not just pass of remarks, instead, provides the reasons and knowledge to substantiate his assertions. He has every right to represent the sampradaya since he comes from that lineage.

 

 

His is a professional who makes his living publishing books and teaching Sanskrit.

His Sanskrit scholarship does not qualify him to represent the Madhva sampradaya.

He is an exceptional author whose knowledge has served as a guide to many, including myself.

 

Would you apply the same yardstick to self-appointed authorities in the Gaudiya/Isckon tradition which grew rich by publishing books and initiating any Charlie as a guru? The depth of sanskrit scholarship will be evident if a true scholar were to proof-read those books and determine whether they truly represent even the vedic tradition.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Prof B.N.K.Sharma is a maadhva by birth and tradition.

Yeah, I know.

The Gaudiya acharyas have explained that the Madhvas practice hereditary principles of caste.

The Gaudiyas do not accept hereditary caste system.

 

That is the bigoted caste system that kept India in chains for hundreds of years until the Gaudiya acharyas broke the monopoly and proved that caste should never be determined by birth.

 

I have not been able to find any evidence that Professor Sharma was ever initiated into the Madhva sampradaya.

 

Apart from his family tradition he is not showing diksha by any Madhva guru or acharya.

 

He is a professional man, not a guru.