Madhva-Gaudiya parampara

[raghu]

 

http://nitaaiyoga.com/nitaiveda/vedas_1.html

This shows chaitanyas coming. Check these.

 

Looks like all the same quotes, once again without any verse numbers, making it more than likely that these are all spurious.

 

But then that is Hare Krishna methodology of debate - if someone questions the validity of something you say, just repeat it over and over again. For Hare Krishnas, falsehoods get turned into truth merely through the act of repetition.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

It is unfortunate that sometimes Gaudiyas to the philosophy of "end justifies the means", which leads some otherwise good devotees to fabricate evidence to support their religious claims.

 

Seeing the flurry of supposedly Puranic quotes here I am surprised that nobody from Iskcon is quoting "Caitanya Upanishad" which even most Gaudiyas consider to be a forgery.

 

What Gaudiyas consider it a forgery?

Maybe you should post relevant quotes before you go making wild claims with no support.

Most "Gaudiyas" do not consider it a forgery.

In fact Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote a commentary on it.

 

The "Gaudiyas" that you claim consider it a forgery are themselves the one's under question because in fact it is not considered a forgery by the Saraswata Gaudiyas.

 

Maybe some of the sahajiya siddha-pranali sects consider it as a forgery, but more than likely it is they who are the frauds and not caitanyupanisad.

 

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Upanishads/Sri_Caitanyopanisad.htm

 

Sounding much like an ISKCON guru, Kulapavana expects that everyone should just accept his statements even though he can provide no quotes or authoritative references to support many of his wild claims.

 

He coughs up stuff he heard on Madhava's forum as if it is gospel, even though even he has no evidence and much of it is not accepted or confired by the acaryas of the Krishna consciousness movement.

[Kulapavana]

Do some basic research on it, Sonic-ji... Sri Chaitanya Upanishad is just as 'authentic' as the Allah Upanishad. I do not know of anybody outside the Saraswata circle who believes it is genuine.

[sambya]

 

In fact Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote a commentary on it.

did he ?

 

can you give me some links to the same ? please ??!! i mean the original commentary .

 

 

also , i was wondering that if this upanishad has been written thousands of years ago , almost all brahmins and vaishnavas must have known about it . they also must have been waiting for the messiah to appear in nabadwipa ?!! then why did it take so long for even his close associates like sarvabhauma to understand him ? and why the other vaishnva groups do not accept hid avataarhood ?!

 

 

can you please provide adress of this 'chaitanya press' in calcutta who first published this upanishad so that i can check out their office and see if they have copy or two still existing ?

 

and if the text actually exists from vedic times then it must be well read and other publishing agencies must as well be publishing it . if however it is not available anywhere apart from the hare krishna well ( kupa manduka , the frog in the well) , then of course no one is left with a choice other than accepting that it is a accomplished lie and outright forgery , too shamefull to be committed by some spiritual person !!

[sant]

 

Garuda Purana verse by verse Hindi translation is available.

 

 

Garuda purana has 19000, narada purana 24thousand shlokas shlokas.So raghu have you gone through all.

Can you give the word by word translation of garuda purana.

[Kulapavana]

Here is the analysis of this text by Jagadananda: http://www.gaudiya.com/pdf/An_Analysis_of_Three_Suspicious_Texts.pdf

[kaisersose]

 

Garuda purana has 19000, narada purana 24thousand shlokas shlokas.So raghu have you gone through all.

Can you give the word by word translation of garuda purana.

 

It is funny that you are challenging Raghu instead of checking up on something that you simply assumed to be true. Someone gives you a bunch of verses with no verse numbers and you have no problems with it, but you are offended when this is questioned.

 

In any event, you have cunningly avoided the questions I posed twice. Even if some spurious verse was inserted into some Purana about some new age avatar like Chaitanya or SwamiNarayan, it does not prove a thing. The clear absence of these names in standard avatar lists is sufficient to prove that they are bogus. I cannot think of any evidence that can possibly override this.

 

Cheers

[sant]

 

Someone gives you a bunch of verses with no verse numbers and you have no problems with it, but you are offended when this is questioned

Of course raghus intentions are clear,hell demean any religion whether ramakrishna,yogananda hare krishna.For him his dvaita is ultimate.

 

 

In any event, you have cunningly avoided the questions I posed twice.

Im really sorry sir.I was finding the verse nos.

 

 

 

1) If Chaitanya was so clearly mentioned in these many sources, why is he not in the main list of avatars?

2) Why didn't any Guru foretell his coming? Vishnu coming down as an avatar is a big deal and should have garnered a lot of attention.

3) Why was the compiler of this list compelled to not mention verse numbers for any of these sources?

4) There are similar quotes from the Rig-veda on the web predicting the arrival of Mohamed. Do you also accept these predictions without questions, just as you accepted these quotes on Chaitanya without ever doubting them? If not, why?

 

1)Chaitanya is not a main avtar dont you know that taht s why hes not on the list.I dont have much information on mahaprabu but there was a movie,i have heard vaishnavs and others accepting his avtar status.

2)which guru?i dont get you here.

3) maybe because nobody from the vaishnavs has done word to word commentary and translation of these puraaans.The bhagwat shlokas which are there have been mentioned.

4)i dont know about this mohammed being mentioned.

[kaisersose]

 

1)Chaitanya is not a main avtar dont you know that...

 

There are avatars and non-avatars. Now if we introduce the concept of main avatars and non-main avatars, then anyone can be an avatar by this logic. When questioned, simply throw up your arms and say "not a main avatar". By this logic, Swami Narayan, Sai Baba, all of them are avatars too, just not main avatars.

 

Cheers

[sant]

 

There are avatars and non-avatars. Now if we introduce the concept of main avatars and non-main avatars, then anyone can be an avatar by this logic. When questioned, simply throw up your arms and say "not a main avatar". By this logic, Swami Narayan, Sai Baba, all of them are avatars too, just not main avatars.

 

 

Saibaba is worshipped and beleived by many people,even swaminarayan is an avtar i guess.Dont you know there are many shkatyvesh avtars.

[raghu]

So now even Sai Baba and Swami Narayan are avatars according to Sant. This just gets better and better.

[chandu_69]

Why not read what God told about Descending on to the earth?.

 

Gita 4:6: Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

 

4:7 Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.

 

4:8: In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Do some basic research on it, Sonic-ji... Sri Chaitanya Upanishad is just as 'authentic' as the Allah Upanishad. I do not know of anybody outside the Saraswata circle who believes it is genuine.

 

In other words you are saying that you know better than Bhaktivinode Thakur and that he was commenting on a bogus text.

I certainly hope you don't consider yourself any sort of Saraswata Gaudiya.

If you do, then you are very foolish.

If you don't then you really have no diksha from any Chaitanyite sect and therefore should not be claiming to speak for any guru of any sect.

 

All you know is the blabber you picked up on Madhava's forum.

Madhava and Jagat are your gurus, even though Jagat is now a professed tantric sahajiya and Madhava has renounced Gaudiya Vaishnavism to dabble in Buddhism and pot smoking.

 

How would you really know what all the different Caitanyite sects believe.

All you really know is the third hand information you picked up at Madhava's forum.

You are not a disciple of any guru of any sect who thinks like that.

Whatever blabber you heard on Madhava's forum is gospel to you, but Bhaktivinode was a misguided fool according to your version.

[raghu]

 

In other words you are saying that you know better than Bhaktivinode Thakur and that he was commenting on a bogus text.

I certainly hope you don't consider yourself any sort of Saraswata Gaudiya.

If you do, then you are very foolish.

If you don't then you really have no diksha from any Chaitanyite sect and therefore should not be claiming to speak for any guru of any sect.

 

Now this is interesting.

 

Sonic, you previously chided me for considering you to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava and taking anything you said about Gaudiya Vaishnavism seriously.

 

Now here you are, despite not being a Gaudiya Vaishnava, telling someone else that he is not a representative of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Logically, that requires that you know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is.

 

Are you or are you not a Gaudiya Vaishnava?

 

Also, who is your Gaudiya Vaishnava guru from whom you took initiation?

 

Please, no verbose and evasive tirades against Hinduism or mayavada. Just answer these two very simple questions so that we can all understand where you are coming from.

[sant]

 

So now even Sai Baba and Swami Narayan are avatars according to Sant. This just gets better and better.

So do you have a proble.Just look at the amount of people praying to shirdi sai baba.Are you challenging their faith.He must be some avtar.You dont how many sai devotees where baba has come to save them personally.

[chandu_69]

 

So do you have a proble.Just look at the amount of people praying to shirdi sai baba.

 

He is talking about Puttaparthi Saibaba who claims to be an avathar of Rama and krishna.

 

 

Are you challenging their faith.He must be some avtar..

 

Must be..hmmm.I have a problem if Puttaparthi Saibaba claims to be an Avtar of vishnu in the line of Rama and krishna.It is an insult.Do you get it.

[sant]

 

He is talking about Puttaparthi Saibaba who claims to be an avathar of Rama and krishna

 

I meant shirdi sai.(edited)

 

Must be..hmmm.I have a problem if Puttaparthi Saibaba claims to be an Avtar of vishnu in the line of Rama and krishna.It is an insult.Do you get it

I thought he claimed to be an avtar of shiva.

[chandu_69]

 

I thought he claimed to be an avtar of shiva.

 

You assume too many things; don't you?.

 

There was a Tantrik in my grand father's village who used to cure(free of charge) people suffering from snake and scorpion bites.

 

Too bad those people didn't consider him an avtar. :D

[sant]

sathya sai claims to be an avataar of shiva

 

 

He revealed that the Sai Avatar is a triple incarnation of the Shiva-Shakthi Principle – Shiva as Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva and Parvathi embodied as Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the Shakthi Principle that will incarnate as Prema Sai in the Mandya District of the state of Karnataka.

http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/Pages...troduction.htm

[chandu_69]

 

sathya sai claims to be an avataar of shiva

 

 

He revealed that the Sai Avatar is a triple incarnation of the Shiva-Shakthi Principle – Shiva as Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva and Parvathi embodied as Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the Shakthi Principle that will incarnate as Prema Sai in the Mandya District of the state of Karnataka.

http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/Pages...troduction.htm

Offensive all the way; this claim.

 

I remember reading a book where he claims he is Rama and krishna.Now, it appears things have changed.

 

Take a look at this blog

http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/doss2claims.htm

 

See how he twists Bhagavadgita verse and says

"the wicked will not be destroyed"

[Kulapavana]

 

In other words you are saying that you know better than Bhaktivinode Thakur and that he was commenting on a bogus text.

 

 

It seems that it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself who wrote that text for the sake of preaching. At times Bhaktivinoda would pretend to be a Baul so that he could better preach to Bauls (see his Baul Sangeet). He did not do it for money - he did it for a good cause. I find such actions much less problematic than accepting money raised by very questionable means for the sake of building a spiritual mission. Once you believe that end justifies the means, it is a very slippery slope.

[raghu]

Why is it necessary for someone to fabricate an Upanishad for "preaching?" Especially when the basic thrust of the fabricated text is that your acharya is God? Why does one's acharya have to be deified for the sake of acharya?

[Kali_Upasaka]

Other than these Avataras you have Meherbaba who is considered an Avatara of Krishna. He was a Parsee and had nothing to do with Hinduism. But his Hindu followers called him an avatara of Krishna.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

It seems that it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself who wrote that text for the sake of preaching.

 

Well, that is your speculation, because in the Saraswata lineage of Bhaktivinoda it is said that Bhaktivinoda found the text in his search around Bengal for the text.

It has never been claimed by the Saraswatas that Bhaktivinoda wrote the book like a novel.

He discovered the text in some library or in the possession of some Brahmana.

 

Your conjecture that he wrote it is your own concoction with no basis in anything except your own mental speculation.

[Kulapavana]

 

Why is it necessary for someone to fabricate an Upanishad for "preaching?" Especially when the basic thrust of the fabricated text is that your acharya is God? Why does one's acharya have to be deified for the sake of acharya?

 

It is certainly not necessary to fabricate evidence for the sake of preaching. Why does it happen? Because some people passionately believe in something, and want others to believe in it as well. It is very human. And deifying their acharyas is not just a problem for Gaudiyas. The followers often want to see their guru elevated to the most divine platform possible. And that is human as well.