Madhva-Gaudiya parampara

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

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.

For a maadhva, the initiation takes place at a young age during the thread ceremony. You wouldn't know that because this is not documented in a government office or published in the internet. There is no public announcement because it is part of the tradition.

 

As far as the caste system is concerned, the maadhva tradition has some legendary personalities (e.g. Kanaka dasa and other haridasas) who were not maadhvas by birth, but were given a very high status and revered by even brahmins to this day. Lord Rama and Krishna incarnated as kshatriyas and brahmins pray to them.

 

There is a reason why the varna system is given due importance in Vedas so that it is not misused by any Dick and Sally for their gains. One has to have a track record of saatvik accomplishments. A varna cannot be conferred to some Charlie who was just born-again yesterday and started preaching Krishna consciousness today.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

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).

But, it doesn't keep with Vedic siddhanta.

There are many cultural traditions in India that get passed off as "Vedic" when in fact they are just traditions based on certain interpretations which in fact do not reflect the actual Vedic siddhanta.

 

Caste by birth has been specifically rejected in shastra for the age of Kali.

 

Shastra says that in Kali-yuga all are born sudra, even Professor Sharma.

 

One becomes dwija by diksha from a proper Vaishnava.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

For a maadhva, the initiation takes place at a young age during the thread ceremony. You wouldn't know that because this is not documented in a government office or published in the internet. There is no public announcement because it is part of the tradition.

 

 

Traditionally, anyone that comes out to be an authority of a sampradaya will show his spiritual link via the current link or acharya of the sampradaya.

 

In all the sampradayas of India the teachers and gurus always clearly list their guru and when they were initiated.

 

It just very odd than someone appearing as an authority of the Madhva sampradaya is showing no connection to the parampara system.

[chandu_69]

Raghu,

 

I think you are making mountains out of molehills.You are missing the trees for the wood.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

"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)

[IamNotHeeHee]

Sonic Yogi,

I think Raghu's points are these (And Raghu can correct me if I went wrong):

1. Gaudiyas claim they have a disciple succession from Sri Madhvacharya
   
2. Gaudiyas treatment of scriptures have far deviated from Sri Madhvacharya's expositions
   
3. The Gaudiyas have formed their own sampradaya
   
4. However, they claim they have Sri Madhvacharya's sanction for their works
   
5. Which is not true.

Sonic Yogi, lets say for example I was your disciple and learnt the shastras from you. But today I have a completely different view that contradicts some of your original teachings. Can I preach and author books claiming my views were derived from you?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Sonic Yogi,

I think Raghu's points are these (And Raghu can correct me if I went wrong):

1. Gaudiyas claim they have a disciple succession from Sri Madhvacharya
   
2. Gaudiyas treatment of scriptures have far deviated from Sri Madhvacharya's expositions
   
3. The Gaudiyas have formed their own sampradaya
   
4. However, they claim they have Sri Madhvacharya's sanction for their works
   
5. Which is not true.

Sonic Yogi, lets say for example I was your disciple and learnt the shastras from you. But today I have a completely different view that contradicts some of your original teachings. Can I preach and author books claiming my views were derived from you?

 

Here is my reply.

 

Can the Madhva sampradaya prove that Madhvacharya stayed fully in accord with the disciplic siddhanta as comes down through his guru Srila Vyasadeva?

 

Did Vyasadeva himself not explain the Srimad Bhagavat was his commentary on Brahma-sutras?

 

Is not Madhva himself in the Brahma sampradaya?

 

What are the exact tenents of Lord Brahma who is the direct disciple of Lord Krishna?

 

Can the Madhvas say with absolute certainty that the conclusions of Madhvacharya are in absolute accord with the Vedic siddhanta as propounded by Lord Brahma who is the direct disciple of Lord Krishna?

 

So, the Gaudiyas actually are more in tune to the Brahma sampradaya than the Madhva sampradaya which is itself a modified version of the Brahma sampradaya and the conclusions propounded by Lord Brahma in Brahma-samhita and Srimad Bhagavat.

 

So, it is actually the Madhvas who are somewhat in variance to the Brahma sampradaya, not the Gaudiyas.

 

The Gaudiya sampradaya picks up the sampradaya from Madhva and restores it to it's most pristine form as actually descending from Lord Brahma.

 

The Gaudiyas do not have to be in strict accord with Madhva to be in his sampradaya inasmuch as Madhva himself was at variance with the Brahma sampradaya as it is understood by the siddhanta that Lord Brahma propounds in shastra.

 

The Gaudiya siddhanta is strictly in accord with the Vedic siddhanta as propouded by Lord Brahma in shastra.

 

As such they have every right to converge with the Madhva sampradaya and restore the Vedic siddhanta to it's original form as came down to Lord Brahma from Lord Krishna.

 

It is the Brahma sampradaya connection of the Madhva sampradaya that is most important to the Gaudiyas, more so than the Madhva component.

[raghu]

 

But, it doesn't keep with Vedic siddhanta.

 

Your view that anyone can become a brAhmana without the requisite birth is not supported by any mainstream scripture. But, as always, I will change my view if you can provide explicit evidence to the contrary.

 

As far as convention is concerned, in Vedic society one was generally known by the varna of his birth, and he was expected to take up the duties of his varna, which includes thread initiation & study of the Vedas by the brAhmanas.

 

There are numerous clear cut examples of this principle. Arjuna was a kShatriya who refused to fight on the grounds that he did not desire the kingdom, wealth, or other fruits of victory. This is a very sAttvik standard of thinking in one sense, but Arjuna did not suddenly become a brAhmana by such renunciation, and Sri Krishna rejected his idea that he could renounce the battlefield.

 

Drona was a brAhmana by birth but he took up kShatriya-dharma throughout his life. Drona's status did not change to that of a kShatriya - on the contrary, he was known throughout the mahAbhArata as a brAhmana. Indeed, this status was extended even to his son ashvatthAma even when the latter (as described in the bhAgavata - a scripture you claim to revere) committed a despicable act. The pramAna is located at the link below, and should be acceptable to you since it is translated by the guru you claim to follow:

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/7/43/en

 

The conclusion is that one should not abandon the duty that is allotted to him based on his birth. Birth is a prerequisite in the traditional varna system. By one's birth one knows what duties he is supposed to follow, and then he should execute those duties as best as he can.

 

The incorrectly fashionable idea that one can be assigned a varna based on his conduct without respect to his upbringing has led to numerous disasters in iskcon, of which you are already aware of quite a few. How many so-called "iskcon brAhmanas" were let loose on the world only to turn into villains of the highest order? And this too after lambasting traditional Hindus for following their system?

 

Before you criticize one system, first you should be able to give an example of a better system. The iskcon system is not better - it is a disaster even by charitable standards. At the very least you should be able to cite shAstra in defense of your point of view, but so far you have not done so, beyond an obscure reference alleged to be from one of the tAmasic purAnas that considers people akin to shUdras at birth in Kali Yuga.

 

Also, is it your conclusion that Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that one can changes his varna from that given to him at birth? Please answer. Because I can say with 100% certainty that this is NOT true based on the writings of your own AchAryas.

[raghu]

 

Can the Madhva sampradaya prove that Madhvacharya stayed fully in accord with the disciplic siddhanta as comes down through his guru Srila Vyasadeva?

 

Yes, but since you do not know Sanskrit, and will not accept any translation of the vedAnta-sUtra or shrutis by anyone other than your iskcon swamis, it is unlikely that you would even bother to look at their proofs much less understand them.

 

 

Did Vyasadeva himself not explain the Srimad Bhagavat was his commentary on Brahma-sutras?

 

No, this is nowhere stated by Sri Vedvyasa. If you feel otherwise, please quote the explicit pramAna, Sanskrit, chapter and verse number.

 

 

Is not Madhva himself in the Brahma sampradaya?

 

This is a gaudiya Vaishnava view. As far as mAdhvas are concerned, the guru-paramparA begins with Sri Vedavyasa.

 

 

Can the Madhvas say with absolute certainty that the conclusions of Madhvacharya are in absolute accord with the Vedic siddhanta as propounded by Lord Brahma who is the direct disciple of Lord Krishna?

 

Sri Madhva bases his conclusions on the shrutis and the commentary on the vedAnta-sutras by Sri Vedavyasa. Are you trying to say that Sri Brahma teaches some conclusion that is different from what is in the shrutis?

 

 

So, the Gaudiyas actually are more in tune to the Brahma sampradaya

 

This is based on what reasoning?

 

 

than the Madhva sampradaya which is itself a modified version of the Brahma sampradaya and the conclusions propounded by Lord Brahma in Brahma-samhita and Srimad Bhagavat.

 

Again, mAdhvas trace the paramparA from Sri Vedavyasa. The paramparA listing of "Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa" is largely an iskcon invention. Sri Madhva never gives such a parampara.

 

 

So, it is actually the Madhvas who are somewhat in variance to the Brahma sampradaya, not the Gaudiyas.

 

The Gaudiya sampradaya picks up the sampradaya from Madhva and restores it to it's most pristine form as actually descending from Lord Brahma.

 

How do you know this? What are the tenets of Lord Brahma? Can you quote them and then show how the Gaudiya sampradaya is delivering them in their pristine form?

 

 

The Gaudiyas do not have to be in strict accord with Madhva to be in his sampradaya

 

OK, so you can claim to be in someone's sampradaya even though you disagree with him?

 

 

inasmuch as Madhva himself was at variance with the Brahma sampradaya as it is understood by the siddhanta that Lord Brahma propounds in shastra.

 

On what grounds do you say that Madhva was "at variance" with Lord Brahma?

 

 

The Gaudiya siddhanta is strictly in accord with the Vedic siddhanta as propouded by Lord Brahma in shastra.

 

What "shastra" are you referring to?

 

 

As such they have every right to converge with the Madhva sampradaya and restore the Vedic siddhanta to it's original form as came down to Lord Brahma from Lord Krishna.

 

It is the Brahma sampradaya connection of the Madhva sampradaya that is most important to the Gaudiyas, more so than the Madhva component.

 

So far, you have done nothing more than make a lot of unfounded claims.

[raghu]

Also, I realize the number of unanswered questions to Sonic Yogi is rapidly accumulating, but I would like to remind him once again to explain to me why BNK Sharma has no authority to comment on MAdhva Vaishnavism while Sonic Yogi does.

 

Specifically, what qualifies Sonic Yogi? Is he initiated into the mAdhva sampradAya? Has he translated any of Sri Madhva's works? Has he read any of Sri Madhva's works?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Your view that anyone can become a brAhmana without the requisite birth is not supported by any mainstream scripture. But, as always, I will change my view if you can provide explicit evidence to the contrary.

 

I will try to provide you with some Vedic shastric reference when I can find the time.

I don't have all these things hanging on the tip of my tongue.

I have to go back to shastra and do some digging.

I am no big guru, teacher or acharya.

I am just a lay person.

 

I have been a student of Gaudiya Vaishnavism for about 38 years of my 55 years.

 

Yet, I remain a student who has had his share of diversions.

 

I will try to do some research and provide you with the some Gaudiya siddhanta on these issues.

 

But, for tonight I have some other issues I must attend to.

 

I just wish that there were a more qualified person than myself that was on this forum and could deal with your very intelligent and sincere inquiries.

 

I am not so qualified to discuss these things with an intelligent and astute person as your good self.

 

In time.

But, I will have to do some work on the issue and I am not very partial to work.

[raghu]

 

I will try to provide you with some Vedic shastric reference when I can find the time.

I don't have all these things hanging on the tip of my tongue.

I have to go back to shastra and do some digging.

I am no big guru, teacher or acharya.

I am just a lay person.

 

I have been a student of Gaudiya Vaishnavism for about 38 years of my 55 years.

 

Yet, I remain a student who has had his share of diversions.

 

I will try to do some research and provide you with the some Gaudiya siddhanta on these issues.

 

But, for tonight I have some other issues I must attend to.

 

I just wish that there were a more qualified person than myself that was on this forum and could deal with your very intelligent and sincere inquiries.

 

I am not so qualified to discuss these things with an intelligent and astute person as your good self.

 

In time.

But, I will have to do some work on the issue and I am not very partial to work.

 

False humility is very nice and good, but perhaps you should spend some time reviewing the evidence before stating the conclusion. When you state the conclusion first, you will now be forced to find evidence to support it. If you are honest, then you will not like what you find.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

 

This is a gaudiya Vaishnava view. As far as mAdhvas are concerned, the guru-paramparA begins with Sri Vedavyasa.

 

 

Maharaja, this is so lame.

Are you saying that Vyasa has no guru and no sampradaya?

 

I thought you could come up with something more Vedic than that.

Even Rama and Krishna had a guru, but Vyasa did not?

 

Please don't discredit the Madhva sampradaya with such foolishness.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

False humility is very nice and good, but perhaps you should spend some time reviewing the evidence before stating the conclusion..

 

Are you that embarrassed that a lay member of the Gaudiya community can defeat you that you have to resort to such insults?

[andy108]

 

As far as convention is concerned, in Vedic society one was generally known by the varna of his birth, and he was expected to take up the duties of his varna, which includes thread initiation & study of the Vedas by the brAhmanas.

 

By your own choice of the word "generally" you give tacit admission that there were exceptions when Vedic society was current.

 

All your examples you cite to support what generally occurs are but red herrings. The real question is "Can and does the Lord ever arrange for a soul to be born in a family and not display the same qualifications by guna and karma, thus varna, as the father?"

 

If so, then regardless of any argument you can make to the contrary, one must logically consider and evaluate the actual tendencies, qualifications, and behavior of a youth in assessing their varna.

 

Of course, naturally, if there is not a gross and obvious example of such discrepency from early age, it may take some time for the teacher and father to determine that a child just isn't taking properly to following in the footsteps of the father's varna. Being vigilant to the possibility, the father then can catch such a phenomenon early on, and arrange for the son to be matched to an apprenticeship in the proper profession.

 

For a child to develop the inner qualities and more external qualifications of a varna, the child must be properly matched to the situation where that particular social training takes place. That should go without saying.

 

To say that a child born to a brahmana family will automatically show the qualifications by guna and karma necessary to display the behavioral qualities of a brahmana simply because a brahmana attempts to train him, or conversely to say that a child who was strongly brahminical in the last life cannot take birth within a family of lesser varna for karmic reasons, is a very naive and narrowminded position to take considering the evident and obvious complexities of the world, not to mention the numerous examples of such irregularities we can witness every day! And let us not forget the desire of the Lord to make arrangements as he will.

 

One that comes to mind was that Sri Vidura was as brahminically qualified in temperament as they come, was an incarnation of Lord Yamaraja, and was born to a sudra family.

 

Those who insist that one must be physically born to parents of some varna in order for a child to display the tendencies of that varna in the future is ignoring the plain facts of the world around them.

[IamNotHeeHee]

Sonic Yogi, almost all Vedic schools consider Sage Vyasa or Badarayana to be an incarnation of the Lord. So He is right at the top. The adherence of Siddhanta as taught by Krishna to Brahma to Narada to Vyasa and so on..is moot.

 

This also causes a circular reasoning since Veda Vyasa is the Lord Himself. There is no "Brahma sampradaya or Brahma's teachings" as such that is of more value than others. It is not a multiple choice answer as to which is the most pristine so to give prominence to Brahma sampradaya more than anything else.

 

In addition, you need to provide proof that there is a disciple succession of that order from an independent authentic scripture, and not from a Gaudiya source.

[andy108]

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by raghu

As far as convention is concerned, in Vedic society one was generally known by the varna of his birth, and he was expected to take up the duties of his varna, which includes thread initiation & study of the Vedas by the brAhmanas.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

By your own choice of the word "generally" you give tacit admission that there were exceptions when Vedic society was current.

 

All your examples you cite to support what generally occurs are but red herrings. The real question is "Can and does the Lord ever arrange for a soul to be born in a family and not display the same qualifications by guna and karma, thus varna, as the father?"

 

If so, then regardless of any argument you can make to the contrary, one must logically consider and evaluate the actual tendencies, qualifications, and behavior of a youth in assessing their varna.

 

Of course, naturally, if there is not a gross and obvious example of such discrepency from early age, it may take some time for the teacher and father to determine that a child just isn't taking properly to following in the footsteps of the father's varna. Being vigilant to the possibility, the father then can catch such a phenomenon early on, and arrange for the son to be matched to an apprenticeship in the proper profession.

 

For a child to develop the inner qualities and more external qualifications of a varna, the child must be properly matched to the situation where that particular social training takes place. That should go without saying.

 

To say that a child born to a brahmana family will automatically show the qualifications by guna and karma necessary to display the behavioral qualities of a brahmana simply because a brahmana attempts to train him, or conversely to say that a child who was strongly brahminical in the last life cannot take birth within a family of lesser varna for karmic reasons, is a very naive and narrowminded position to take considering the evident and obvious complexities of the world, not to mention the numerous examples of such irregularities we can witness every day! And let us not forget the desire of the Lord to make arrangements as he will.

 

One that comes to mind was that Sri Vidura was as brahminically qualified in temperament as they come, was an incarnation of Lord Yamaraja, and was born to a sudra family.

 

Those who insist that one must be physically born to parents of some varna in order for a child to display the tendencies of that varna in the future is ignoring the plain facts of the world around them.

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

To say that a child born to a brahmana family will automatically show the qualifications by guna and karma necessary to display the behavioral qualities of a brahmana simply because a brahmana attempts to train him, or conversely to say that a child who was strongly brahminical in the last life cannot take birth within a family of lesser varna for karmic reasons, is a very naive and narrowminded position to take considering the evident and obvious complexities of the world, not to mention the numerous examples of such irregularities we can witness every day! And let us not forget the desire of the Lord to make arrangements as he will.

 

There was no post which stated that a child born to a brahmin family will automatically display qualities of a brahmin. You are taking this position on purpose and putting words in the mouth of others

 

Do you claim to know the varna of yourself or of others? It is impossible. The best we can do is to follow the tradition and expect the children to follow it. Some do and some display tendencies of different varnas.

 

Confering brahminism awards to converts, also fails by your argument. Initiating any Dick and Sally as swamijis of the highest order is also naive, if not pretentious.

[raghu]

 

Are you that embarrassed that a lay member of the Gaudiya community can defeat you that you have to resort to such insults?

Oh? Did I miss that? When did that happen?

[raghu]

 

All your examples you cite to support what generally occurs are but red herrings.

 

Translation: "Any evidence you provide which clearly refutes my position is automatically by the very fact, irrelevant. On the other hand, even though I cannot provide a single shred of evidence for anything I say, my opinion must be accepted as correct."

 

 

The real question is "Can and does the Lord ever arrange for a soul to be born in a family and not display the same qualifications by guna and karma, thus varna, as the father?"

 

If so, then regardless of any argument you can make to the contrary, one must logically consider and evaluate the actual tendencies, qualifications, and behavior of a youth in assessing their varna.

 

Iskcon gurus have been "logically considering and evaluating the actual tendencies, qualifications, and behavior" of many prospective disciples when "assessing their varna." Would you like to discuss those results in detail? Assuming of course that the moderator will let me discuss those specific examples of people whose "varna" was "assessed" to be brahmin.

 

 

To say that a child born to a brahmana family will automatically show the qualifications by guna and karma

 

... is not what I said.

 

[irrelevant banter deleted]

 

 

One that comes to mind was that Sri Vidura was as brahminically qualified in temperament as they come, was an incarnation of Lord Yamaraja, and was born to a sudra family.

 

Fine, so please quote the shAstric pramAna which states that Vidura was a brAhmana. Then you will have proven your point.

 

 

Those who insist that one must be physically born to parents of some varna in order for a child to display the tendencies of that varna in the future is ignoring the plain facts of the world around them.

 

Does this include your own AchAryas? Because sanAtana gosvAmI, in his Hari-Bhakti-VilAs writes that a guru must be brought up in a proper family - he clearly rejects the idea of a non-brAhmana becoming a guru. A similar point is made by Sri Baladeva VidyAbhUShana in his govinda-bhAShya. He also comments on the sUtras to the effect that shUdras are not allowed to study the Vedas. It is very clear from context what he is talking about - he is talking about the hereditary prerequisite for varna.

 

Would you like me to quote their specific comments? I assume you will probably just sweep them under the rug since they contradict you, but one never knows...

[raghu]

 

Maharaja, this is so lame.

Are you saying that Vyasa has no guru and no sampradaya?

 

I thought you could come up with something more Vedic than that.

Even Rama and Krishna had a guru, but Vyasa did not?

 

 

 

Vyasa is the Lord Himself and does not require a guru. If He chooses to accept a guru for the sake of setting an example (as He did as Rama or Krishna), then He may do so. But nothing obligates Him to do so, not even the mental speculation of unqualified iskcon cultists.

 

Where is your pramAna that states that vyAsa is the disciple of nArada?

[tackleberry]

Let's face facts. It's obvious that Raghu is right, and that hurts iskconites. But I do understand why Prabupada did what he did, that is, making brahmanas out of non-brahmanas. It's to attract more westerners into his fold. Let's leave it at that, and not make excuses.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Let's face facts. It's obvious that Raghu is right, and that hurts iskconites. But I do understand why Prabupada did what he did, that is, making brahmanas out of non-brahmanas. It's to attract more westerners into his fold. Let's leave it at that, and not make excuses.

 

Let's face facts you guys don't know what you are talking about.

You keep trying to say this is some ISKCON invention when in fact there are families in Bengal that have been doing it for the last 400 years.

 

There are many Vaisnava families in Bengal whose members, although not actually born brahmanas, act as acaryas by initiating disciples and offering the sacred thread as enjoined in the Vaisnava tantras. For example, in the families of Thakura Raghunandana Acarya, Thakura Krsnadasa, Navani Hoda and Rasikananda-deva (a disciple of Syamananda Prabhu), the sacred thread ceremony is performed, as it is for the caste Gosvamis, and this system has continued for the past three to four hundred years. Accepting disciples born in brahmana families, they are bona fide spiritual masters who have the facility to worship the salagrama-sila, which is worshiped with the Deity.

[andy108]

Quote from Hee Haw : "There was no post which stated that a child born to a brahmin family will automatically display qualities of a brahmin."

 

I am not so dull that I cannot catch an implication.

 

You on the other hand, being a dull mentalist, cannot help at nitpicking at semantics in order to deflect from the truth you cannot see.

 

And I don't know what you are referring to by the statement about conferring brahminism to converts.

 

Doesn't matter, both you and your smarta "brahmana" pal Raghu are disqualified from ever being able recognize actual Vaisnava Brahmana qualites in a person until you get over your holier than thou, anachronistic, impersonal view that a only a person born to brahmana parents can develop brahminical qualities.

 

But the last thing a condescending petty tyrant wants to admit is that they don't have a monopoly on the truth already, and that there is actually a person much more supreme than them, so the tyrant temporarily gets his petty little world to rule over, because the Lord they don't believe in is so kind that he will even arrange for his master illusionist to fulfill their desires for a while.

 

And so it goes.

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

You on the other hand, being a dull mentalist, cannot help at nitpicking at semantics in order to deflect from the truth you cannot see.

"dull mentalist"

 

Ad homeniem attacks like these are expected when one cannot debate on the issues. Instead of personal attacks, you could have provided quotes from posts that explicitely stated or implied that only Brahmin children show the qualities of brahmins. Didn't find any, eh?

 

 

Doesn't matter, both you and your smarta "brahmana" pal Raghu are disqualified from ever being able recognize actual Vaisnava Brahmana qualites in a person until you get over your holier than thou, anachronistic, impersonal view that a only a person born to brahmana parents can develop brahminical qualities.

How brilliant! you are so knowledgeable that you think maadhvas are "smartha brahmins" who have anachronistic impersonal views I wonder if the moderator ever notices these remarks?

 

FYI...there is no such injunction that only children born to brahmins have brahminical qualities, and which I clarified in post # 43.

 

 

But the last thing a condescending petty tyrant wants to admit is that they don't have a monopoly on the truth already, and that there is actually a person much more supreme than them, so the tyrant temporarily gets his petty little world to rule over, because the Lord they don't believe in is so kind that he will even arrange for his master illusionist to fulfill their desires for a while.

 

Right again! We "petty tyrants" do not know what we are talking about.

 

You do seem to represent Gaudiya vaishnavism very well. Kudos!