Madhva-Gaudiya parampara

[raghu]

 

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.

 

Whether it is an iskcon invention or not, it is still incorrect.

 

By the way, I am still waiting for answers to the following questions:

 

1) Scriptural evidence that Vyasa is the "disciple" of Narada

 

2) Explanation as to why BNK Sharma is unqualified to comment on mAdhva Vaishnavism, but Sonic Yogi, who is not initiated into the mAdhva sampradAya, is.

 

3) Explanation as to why examples like Arjuna, Drona, AshvatthAma, et. al. do not support the obvious conclusion that people were conventionally known by the varna of their birth, and that they were expected to act/behave according to expectations of that varna.

 

4) Explanation as to why it is wrong for me to say that gaudiya Vaishnavas did NOT receive their philosophy *unchanged* in disciplic succession from Sri Madhva, even though andy108 basically admitted that the two philosophies are different.

 

5) Explanation as to how anyone can claim their paramparA is descended from someone when they don't agree with that particular someone on various philosophical points.

 

6) Explanation as to why iskcon claims its "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" is handed down in a disciplic succession from acharyas who do not agree with many of the explanations/interpretations in it.

 

7) Explanation from Sonic Yogi about what the so-called "Brahma sampradaya" is and his evidence that gaudiyas are more "in tune" with it.

 

8) Explanation as to why a system of "assigning" varnas based on subjective perception of one's spiritual qualification is better than raising one as a member of the varna of his birth, especially when the former system has led to so many iskcon gurus who repeatedly propagate false ideas (i.e. gay marriages) or just become degraded and/or commit all sorts of criminal behavior.

 

9) Proof for the wild claim made by Sonic Yogi that mAdhva "caste brahmins" are the "greatest evil" and responsible for acts of bigotry and prejudice. Specifically, historical evidence showing a trend towards clear-cut examples of bigotry and prejudice that anyone would accept as such.

 

I'm sure there were many other points I was waiting on answers for, but the sheer number of unfounded claims being made by andy108 and Sonic Yogi is getting increasingly difficult to keep track of.

[raghu]

 

"

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?

 

Eventually, as we ask more and more probing questions, and the iskconites respond with more and more personal attacks, the moderators will be forced to close this thread to protect the reputation of the gaudiya vaishnavas.

 

It appears that they have already deleted a very hateful comment by Sonic Yogi in which he basically called mAdhva brAhmanas the "greatest evil" of the world.

 

I think this sort of prejudice by Sonic Yogi and other iskconites is the unspoken reason many us feel the need to publicly set the record straight. Nobody wants "Vedic culture" to be hijacked by dishonest people who are just lusting for followers but lack the qualification to lead them. There are sincere seekers out there, and they should be allowed to see the truth for what it is, and not merely the politically-correct truth that is distilled for them by institutional fatwas.

 

One of the politically-acceptable truths that these people are getting force-fed is the idea that iskcon philosophy is authentic because it has its origins in a tradition going back for centuries to Sri Madhva. This is simply false. The iskcon philosophy is only about 500 years old - prior to this there was no "achintya bedha abedha," no "Caitanya is Radha and Krishna combined," and certainly no "impersonal liberation" (at least, not any such concept that is endorsed by mAdhvas). The iskcon people should tell the truth that these are ideas specific to their sampradAya and NOT handed down to them by Sri Madhva.

 

From these postings by Sonic Yogi et. al., one gets the distinct impression that the intellectual equivalent of thuggery is used by iskcon to keep followers in line rather than honest introspection or a respect for historical (or even scriptural) truth.

[andy108]

The people who are inwardly sincere about understanding the true personalist philosophy which is the fruit of the Brahma Sampradaya, and the successive and progressive revelations of that truth which have occured with each Acarya's offering, as they patiently worked through the millenia with the prevailing mentality of the audience of their particular time, place, and circumstance, in order to bring said audience from the most rudimentary and relative impersonal realizations of truth to culminate in the sublime knowledge of Acintya BedhaAbheda (Personal simultaneous oneness and difference with the Supreme Spirit) , will read or will have read my simple explanation near the beginning of page one of this thread, and benefitted.

 

I was responding to those so proud of their so-called understanding of Sri Madhava's position and wrong-headed interpretation that the their chosen acarya was the be all and end all revelator of the highest absolute conception.

 

I had no illusion that those adhering to such a crystalized view, which only suits their ability to assume a superior position, would choose to see that the progressive succession of Brahma Sampradaya Acaryas in this dark age had their work cut out for them to guide the honest (brahminical) but ignorant truth seekers of this age gradually from the most rudimentary impersonal conceptions of transcendence to the full spotless personal spiritual conception of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

For any conception that does not include the understanding of the fragmental Jiva soul's Simultaneous Oneness and Difference with the Original Pure Spiritual Person, cannot possibly offer a relationship with such person, and the propounders of such impersonalist philosophy, however advanced, can only point those listening to their expositions on "transcendence" to their own self.

 

Which is inherently a selfish act, however subtle and well intentioned.

 

Thus strewn throughout the centuries are those who took to their acarya's instructions diligently and garnered some transcendental light of knowledge of impersonal brahman, yet stopped there to rest on those laurels.

 

What we have here is a similar situation to the Pharisies and Sadducees of the Hebrew lands of Yore who became so comfortable, proud, and certain of their position, that when the one prophesied to come save them from engaging in moralism and ritual for the sake of ritual morality only, and provide them with the understanding of how to use such to attain an understanding of eternity in loving service to The Trancendental Person, were too stuck in their self-righteous lifestyle to pay heed, and actually conspired to violently rid themselves of this so called Messenger from God who sought to convince the mass of people who honored and worshipped Pharisaic law and supported the lifestyle choices of the "Priestly class" that there was a better way.

 

This is why the Smarta Caste viewpoint, which considers birth heredity the defining and exclusive qualification a soul must posess in order to live the life divine, is a sure by-product of Mayavadi impersonalism, is considered the most dangerous impediment to the formation of attachment to Bhakti Yoga Proper, and the last snare of Maya. To think that that which is not material is so unknowable that whatever one wishes to imagine its form should be, is as worthwhile and simultanously worthless as any other imagination, because "whatever" is absolute, it cannot possibly have an absolute personal form.

 

An impersonalist can never lift anyone past their own relative realization that for all they can tell, they are as God as it gets.

 

Bhakti yogis can influence ANYONE FROM ANY CASTE, CREED, NATIONALITY, CULTURE, AND DEGRADED BEGINNINGS, to realize they are not their body, are essentially equal in QUALITY with the Original Supreme Spiritual Person (God or Krsna), and allow them to gradually purify their perhaps degraded material tendencies through dedicated service to Krsna while tasting transcendental bliss along the way.

 

The fact that some were offered this path, yet were NOT SINCERE ABOUT ACCEPTING THE DISCIPLINE BUT ONLY MADE A SHOW OF IT IN ORDER TO GARNER FAME, ADORATION, DISTINCTION, AND NAIVE DISCIPLES TO BOSS AROUND, is often used by impersonalist philosophers to point fault at the Acarya who promulgated Lord Caitanya's sublime message.

 

But to what end? By broadly condemning the process because of the coordinated efforts of cheaters, all that is left is for people to TURN TO THEM FOR ANSWERS. And their philosophy being impersonal and a dead end, is no better a substitute, but it serves the impersonalist because they now have someone to pay attention TO THEM.

 

Sorry Boys. Just tellin it like it is.

 

To be fair, it is a rare soul who understands the sublime conclusion of the Bhagavad Gita which the Brahma Sampradaya Acarya's have spilled gallons of blood to insert into our dull human consciousness, but they are out there, and those who sincerely long for something more than a watered down dead end philosophy like Impersonalism in any of its forms, will find them.

 

Those not quite ready will linger with the Smartas until they find out the joke is on them, and they aren't that Smart after all. An eternal personal relationship with a real person awaits, and you don't have to be born in a family of caste brahmins, become a Sanskrit scholar and read all the Puranas and upanishads in order to qualify.

 

For in this degraded age, there is only one method which assures success in this endeavor to any and all comers. Just chant Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare. Hear from the Acarya AC Bhaktivedanta Swami who is the most current link in the Brahma Sampradaya who presented the sublime doctrine of simultaneous oneness and difference as first expressed by the Golden Avatara of Devotion, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Hear from his books Bhagavad Gita As it is, Srimad Bhagavatam, and the Teachings of Lord Caitanaya, which are the risen Creme, the ripened Fruit of all Vedic literature, whose contents focus on the goal of all Vedic study, the intimate and confidential activities of the Supreme Personality of the Three Worlds and Beyond, Sri Krsna, and his dearmost associates.

 

And when you meet other sincere souls who are involved in the same activities, befriend them. And of course beware the charlatans who use these teachings for their own devious means. Many are out there and claim to be exclusive members and guardians of Iskcon, the International Society for Krsna consciousness. If you are sincere, you will see them by their fruits, and you should treat them just like the barking dog impersonalists. Leave them lying in their stool and walk on by.

 

Hare Krsna!

[shiva]

 

Whether it is an iskcon invention or not, it is still incorrect.

 

By the way, I am still waiting for answers to the following questions:

 

1) Scriptural evidence that Vyasa is the "disciple" of Narada

 

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/en1

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/5/en1

 

 

 

3) Explanation as to why examples like Arjuna, Drona, AshvatthAma, et. al. do not support the obvious conclusion that people were conventionally known by the varna of their birth, and that they were expected to act/behave according to expectations of that varna.

 

People usually acted within their varna, but social mobility was possible if people were qualified, i.e. if you were born into a brahmana family but had all of the qualities of a different varna and not the qualities of a brahmana then you could live according to your nature instead of your birth situation. See Who is a brahmana?

 

 

4) Explanation as to why it is wrong for me to say that gaudiya Vaishnavas did NOT receive their philosophy *unchanged* in disciplic succession from Sri Madhva, even though andy108 basically admitted that the two philosophies are different.

 

It isn't wrong. Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine is different then Tattvavadi doctrine, no one claims they are the same. There is a connection through diksha between Sri Chaitanya and the Brahma Sampradaya. This was established hundreds of years ago because some people were questioning the authenticity of the new Gaudiya parampara. They claimed that there are only 4 bona fide Vaishnava sampradayas, citing the Padma Purana, and therefore they claimed that if your guru parampara isn't directly connected through diksha to one of those 4 sampradayas (Lakshmi Sampradaya, Rudra Samprdaya, Kumara Sampradaya, Brahma Sampradaya) that your mantras etc, aren't empowered and therefore your tradition cannot be accepted as an authentic Vedic tradition. Various famous Gaudiya acharyas from hundreds of years ago showed that there was a diksha connection between Sri Chaitanya and the Brahma Sampradaya. Whether or not you accept that is up to you. It is a fact that the claim for a diksha connection was established very shortly after Sri Chaitanya's lila ended and was widely accepted at that time. So it seems likely that the connection was real because there was no objection from the Madhva community back then. It's really impossible to prove it one way or another because what few records do exist of diksha connections from that long ago from all the sampadayas are sketchy at best. Different lists giving different names is common to all traditions, and incomplete or non-existent lists would only be natural because bookeeping and disciple databases were definitely not seen as a priority by wandering sadhus.

 

 

5) Explanation as to how anyone can claim their paramparA is descended from someone when they don't agree with that particular someone on various philosophical points.

 

It's not about claiming descent based upon strict adherence to any particular guru's teaching in the parampara. It's about a supposed requirement that there be a diksha connection in order that your mantras will be effective. It could easily be argued that Madhva's teachings are different in some ways from what is taught by Vyasa. Where does Vyasa teach about concepts like mukty-ayogya or Tamo-yogya or Dvaita doctrine? The followers of Madhva are the only Vaishnavas who reject some type of bhedabheda doctrine as being the true ontological nature of the jiva and Vishnu. Yet all sampradayas claim to be teaching the real interpretation of Krishna's teachings and Vyasadeva's writings.

 

 

6) Explanation as to why iskcon claims its "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" is handed down in a disciplic succession from acharyas who do not agree with many of the explanations/interpretations in it.

 

See above.

 

 

8) Explanation as to why a system of "assigning" varnas based on subjective perception of one's spiritual qualification is better than raising one as a member of the varna of his birth, especially when the former system has led to so many iskcon gurus who repeatedly propagate false ideas (i.e. gay marriages) or just become degraded and/or commit all sorts of criminal behavior.

 

That's a really bad argument. I am sure we can find Indian jails filled with criminals of all types from all varnas, does that mean that all people from all varnas are nothing but criminals? Your use of ISKCON's foibles as an example of how bogus Gaudiya Vaishnavism is in general is a logical fallacy (genetic fallacy). It's not a question of "assigning" varnas being propagated by Gaudiya teachings, that is a weird concept you have come up with. Some Gaudiya paramparas give upanayana-samskara (sacred thread) with Gayatri mantras when they give mantra diksha to a disciple. Traditionally in Hindu society that is done by all varnas except sudras, not that they are not allowed, it's just that they weren't required. Gaudiya Vaishnavism doesn't accept the bogus teaching that only someone born into a Vedic varna is eligible to go through pancha-samskaras or other samskaras and be able to act as a brahmana priest in yagnas and in pujas. We accept the authentic teachings of shastra that teaches that people are eligible based only upon their personal qualities, not their birth situation. That is why Gaudiya Vaishnavas reject many family lineage gurus in India as being authentic gurus, it's because they have those positions based solely through birth and can be any type of low class person.

 

 

9) Proof for the wild claim made by Sonic Yogi that mAdhva "caste brahmins" are the "greatest evil" and responsible for acts of bigotry and prejudice. Specifically, historical evidence showing a trend towards clear-cut examples of bigotry and prejudice that anyone would accept as such.

 

I don't know what he is talking about, but clearly there is a lot of caste discrimination in India which is based upon bogus interpretations of shastra to validate their mistreatment and abuse and exploitation of others.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

It appears that they have already deleted a very hateful comment by Sonic Yogi in which he basically called mAdhva brAhmanas the "greatest evil" of the world. .

 

Obviously, you don't pay much attention because that statement came from a quote by a Gaudiya acharya Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

 

It was nothing of my invention.

 

 

"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)

[raghu]

 

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/en1

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/5/en1

 

I don't see anything there describing an initiation given to Vyasa by Narada.

 

 

People usually acted within their varna, but social mobility was possible if people were qualified, i.e. if you were born into a brahmana family but had all of the qualities of a different varna and not the qualities of a brahmana then you could live according to your nature instead of your birth situation.

 

Arjuna displayed brahminical qualities in rejecting the battle and refusing to fight for the fruits of the kingdom. Yet he was still enjoined to do his kshatriya duty. The basic premise of the bhagavad-gItA contradicts your point of view.

 

 

See Who is a brahmana?

 

I will deal with this in that thread separately.

 

 

It isn't wrong. Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine is different then Tattvavadi doctrine, no one claims they are the same.

 

Perhaps you have not read the introduction to Bhagavad-Gita As It Is:

 

"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:"

 

*THIS* Bhagavad-gita As It Is is most certainly NOT received through THAT "disciplic succession."

 

Also, numerous iskcon groupies on this forum and elsewhere repeatedly claim that iskcon preaching is "authorized" because it is descended unchanged in the parampara that includes Sri Madhva.

 

 

There is a connection through diksha between Sri Chaitanya and the Brahma Sampradaya. This was established hundreds of years ago because some people were questioning the authenticity of the new Gaudiya parampara. They claimed that there are only 4 bona fide Vaishnava sampradayas, citing the Padma Purana, and therefore they claimed that if your guru parampara isn't directly connected through diksha to one of those 4 sampradayas (Lakshmi Sampradaya, Rudra Samprdaya, Kumara Sampradaya, Brahma Sampradaya) that your mantras etc, aren't empowered and therefore your tradition cannot be accepted as an authentic Vedic tradition. Various famous Gaudiya acharyas from hundreds of years ago showed that there was a diksha connection between Sri Chaitanya and the Brahma Sampradaya. Whether or not you accept that is up to you.

 

I'm not given to accepting something simply because someone says I should. Where is the evidence, if you please, indicating that Sri Chaitanya took diksha in the mAdhva line? According to your own parmpara listing, he is the disciple of one Ishvara purI, who is the disciple of mAdhavendra purI, who in turn is the disciple of lakShmIpati tIrtha. The problem is that none of these names are known in the mAdhva maths. LakshmIpati TIrtha is supposed to be the disciple of vyAsa tIrtha, but there is no record of a disciple by the name lakshmIpati tIrtha.

 

So, where is the actual evidence that Sri Chaitnya took mAdhva initiation? And what is the meaning of his alleged mAdhva initiation when his followers propagate views that are in stark contrast to those of Sri Madhva?

 

 

It is a fact that the claim for a diksha connection was established very shortly after Sri Chaitanya's lila ended and was widely accepted at that time.

 

I challenge the point of view that "the claim for a diksha connection was established very shortly after Sri Chaitanya's lila ended and was widely accepted at that time." Can you show me evidence in the writings of Chaitanya or his immediate disciples that lists his parampara through Sri Madhva?

 

Barely 200 years after Caitanya the claim of a link to Sri Madhva was already being challenged in the court of Jaipur. This contradicts your point of view that the link "was widely accepted."

 

 

So it seems likely that the connection was real because there was no objection from the Madhva community back then.

 

Many lesser known, esoteric cults like that of Sri Caitanya made statements for which the Madhva community published no official objection. Only the Lord is omnipresent; the mAdhvas cannot be everywhere at once. Most of the so-called "preaching" on this forum is bunk, but you don't see me objecting *every* time theist or ghari get on their high horse and start spewing their sectarian, bigoted nonsense, do you?

 

 

It's really impossible to prove it one way or another because what few records do exist of diksha connections from that long ago from all the sampadayas are sketchy at best.

 

So it is well accepted at one time (even though Caitanya and his disciples never gave that parampara listing), and we should accept it because it supposedly was, and yet there is no proof.

 

 

Different lists giving different names is common to all traditions, and incomplete or non-existent lists would only be natural because bookeeping and disciple databases were definitely not seen as a priority by wandering sadhus.

 

I fail to understand why this is relevant. If Sri Caitanya propagated tattvavAda, then there would be no question that he must be linked to Sri Madhva, even if the records were somewhat inconsistent. But since it is *quite* *clear* that Sri Caitanya propagates a *different* philosophy, it is reasonable to question any supposed link to Sri Madhva, especially given the fact that the records are inconsistent.

 

 

It's not about claiming descent based upon strict adherence to any particular guru's teaching in the parampara. It's about a supposed requirement that there be a diksha connection in order that your mantras will be effective.

 

You might be aware that the Hare Krishna mantra chanted by caitanya followers is also not something recieved from the mAdhva paramparA.

 

 

It could easily be argued that Madhva's teachings are different in some ways from what is taught by Vyasa. Where does Vyasa teach about concepts like mukty-ayogya or Tamo-yogya or Dvaita doctrine? The followers of Madhva are the only Vaishnavas who reject some type of bhedabheda doctrine as being the true ontological nature of the jiva and Vishnu.

 

Using your own logic, one would then have to conclude that Sri Caitanya differs from Vyasa. Where does Vyasa teach about "simultaneous, inconceivable, oneness and difference?" Where does Vyasa teach that the love of the gopis is the highest? Where does Vyasa teach that Sri Caitanya is an avatar of Krishna? Where does Vyasa teach about Radha worship?

 

Do not confuse new ways of explaining timeless ideas with new ideas. Sri Madhva fully supports his explanations with reference to shAstra. The names by which these concepts are referred to in discourses is besides the point. On the other hand, Sri Caitanya's philosophy appears to contain many ideas that have no basis in what Vyasa wrote (see above).

 

 

In response to "8) Explanation as to why a system of "assigning" varnas based on subjective perception of one's spiritual qualification is better than raising one as a member of the varna of his birth, especially when the former system has led to so many iskcon gurus who repeatedly propagate false ideas (i.e. gay marriages) or just become degraded and/or commit all sorts of criminal behavior." you wrote:

 

 

That's a really bad argument. I am sure we can find Indian jails filled with criminals of all types from all varnas, does that mean that all people from all varnas are nothing but criminals?

 

No. It just underscores the importance of raising people *properly* from day one to fulfill the role that he will inherit. Something that is difficult to do for one who spent most of his adult life in a drug-induced haze only to get a mantra and beads and presto! suddenly he is responsible for the spiritual welfare of thousands.

 

 

Your use of ISKCON's foibles as an example of how bogus

 

...the iskcon system of guru-initiations is, is really quite logical and consistent. After all, it is the iskcon members who repeatedly assert that their philosophy is special, divine, transcendental, etc because so many people are taking to it. So, when so many gurus fall from it, why cannot one use that as evidence that the guru-manufacturing system is flawed?

 

There cannot be one standard of proof for those things you believe in and another for those things you find inconvenient to deal with. If the argument is, "see how great this Krishna-consciousness is because all these fallen white people have given up meat-eating and are worshipping Krishna" then the same people who give such arguments are also inviting me to take a close look at these converts.

 

Really, I am all fine with Westerners being introduced to Krishna-bhakti, but when they suddenly become gurus despite their medicore understanding of even their own scriptures, go on to initiate thousands of people, and then become degraded and mislead their followers, and when this situation is repeatedly the rule instead of the exception, should we not look at the evidence and draw certain conclusions?

 

Or are we supposed to just live in denial?

 

 

It's not a question of "assigning" varnas being propagated by Gaudiya teachings, that is a weird concept you have come up with.

 

Er, no. That's the idea that Sonic Yogi, andy108 et.al. From Sonic Yogi:

 

 

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.

 

In other words, Sonic Yogi et.al. believe that the varna gets assigned to the disciple by someone else, rather than being assigned based on society's expectation based on birth.

 

Given that the majority of iskcon devotees who were "assigned" to the brahmin varna fell from that lofty position, does it not indicate to you that there is something wrong with the way they got assigned in the first place?

 

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism doesn't accept the bogus teaching that only someone born into a Vedic varna is eligible to go through pancha-samskaras or other samskaras and be able to act as a brahmana priest in yagnas and in pujas.

 

So far, you have not demonstrated that this is a bogus idea. On the contrary, this has been the historical fact across many sampradayas including their acharyas whose knowledge of shAstra dwarfs your own.

 

 

We accept the authentic teachings of shastra that teaches that people are eligible based only upon their personal qualities, not their birth situation.

 

There is nothing in shAstra you have provided which shows that a non-brahmin can become a brahmin and officiate at Vedic sacrifices, study Vedas, chant mantras, etc. On the contrary, the examples I have already provided show how people were referred to by their birth varna even when they had different qualities. Arjuna being the most obvious example.

 

 

That is why Gaudiya Vaishnavas reject many family lineage gurus in India as being authentic gurus, it's because they have those positions based solely through birth and can be any type of low class person.

 

Something you and the others repeatedly fail to grasp, is that there are in India, brahmins who were born as brahmins and *are* authentic based on their conduct.

 

Of course, you may not know about them because they are the *silent majority* who don't have web pages with online stores, don't have tens of thousands of disciples, don't have huge marble temples with restaurants and 5-star hotels, etc.

 

You can't seem to absorb the point that no one wants a class of people who are privileged merely based on their birth; we want them to take up the duties that are assigned to them based on their birth. The iskcon party line, which its members blindly promote because they cannot seem to think for themselves, is that hereditary varna is ipso facto bogus.

 

It is a bizarre double standard that if one hereditary brahmin in ten in India becomes degraded, then the whole hereditary varna system is to be regarded as bogus, bigotry, evil, etc. But when 99% of the iskcon brahmins become degraded and spew bogus ideas like "gay marriages," then still no one should say anything about how they got labeled as brahmins. No one should even question it. They are pure devotees and we just have to accept it, even when they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

 

I don't know what he is talking about, but clearly there is a lot of caste discrimination in India which is based upon bogus interpretations of shastra to validate their mistreatment and abuse and exploitation of others.

 

You are just blindingly repeating the iskcon party line with very little scientific justification for you statement. People like you only remember the extreme examples of herditary brahmins who fell from the standard and then criticize the whole culture. But in iskcon, there is a statistically high probability that anyone rubber stamped as a brahmin will fall away from the standard and take up mleccha conduct once again. The last 30 years of iskcon amply bear this out. And what to speak of the ones who don't fall down and who are busy "accessing higher dimensions," propagating such institutions as "gay monogamy," writing about UFOs and conspiracy theories, etc etc. And of course, they get three square meals a day, are afforded every comfort, etc.

 

I have seen *real* brahmins in India when I made pilgrimage to the famous temples of Lord Vishnu. There, I would see these great scholars who could perfectly chant wonderful Vedic mantras and were very clean in their appearance and behavior. Neverthless they would go and humbly beg alms from any unqualified rascal lower in position than they. Imagine the injustice that such people, merely by being born as brahmins, and voluntarily accepting a lifestyle of austerity and neglect, will be denounced as "bigots" by hypocrites living comfortably in the USA and who do not even read the scriptures or have any concept of proper behavior or etiquette!

[shiva]

Raghu

 

I will only answer one of your questions since you clearly are a mudha and a sudra, not a brahmana as you probably think, and are therefore only interested in promoting yourself as some type of enlightened seer by insulting a widely respected Vaishnava tradition as beneath your insignificant life, and you are also clearly incapable of rational or spiritual understanding. Speaking to you is clearly a waste of time, people should ignore you from now on. Don't quit your day job...

 

In Jaipur some members of the Sri Sampradaya tried to gain the royal patronage for themselves because the King of Jaipur was a Gaudiya Vaishnava, and Gaudiya Vaishnavas were specially favored by him.The Sri Vaishnavas were envious and wanted the Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be given the boot so that they could gain royal patronage, hardly an ethical motivation for questioning the authenticity of the Gaudiya parampara. They claimed that because the Gaudiya's didn't have a commentary to the Brahma Sutra that they shouldn't be accepted as authentic. Baladeva Vidyabhusana informed them that the Gaudiya's accepted the Bhagavat Purana as the natural commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas did not accept, so Baladeva composed the Govinda Bhasya.pdf as a Gaudiya commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas were astounded (Baladeva was a former leading scholar and teacher in the Madhva sampradaya before becoming a follower of Sri Chaitanya) and the Gaudiyas kept their royal patronage.

 

Clearly you could care less and are only interested in trying to establish yourself as superior to all Gaudiya Vaishnavas in history.

[raghu]

 

Raghu

I will only answer one of your questions since you clearly are a mudha and a sudra, not a brahmana as you probably think, and are therefore only interested in promoting yourself as some type of enlightened seer by insulting a widely respected Vaishnava tradition as beneath your insignificant life, and you are also clearly incapable of rational or spiritual understanding. Speaking to you is clearly a waste of time, people should ignore you from now on. Don't quit your day job...

 

 

Wow.

 

What an amazing string of ad hominem attacks and spiteful invective. For a moment, I had thought from your initial posting that we were going to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. I guess I won't make that mistake again.

 

 

In Jaipur some members of the Sri Sampradaya tried to gain the royal patronage for themselves because the King of Jaipur was a Gaudiya Vaishnava, and Gaudiya Vaishnavas were specially favored by him.The Sri Vaishnavas were envious and wanted the Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be given the boot so that they could gain royal patronage, hardly an ethical motivation for questioning the authenticity of the Gaudiya parampara.

 

And this would no doubt be the Gaudiya version of the events in question, right? Or do you have historical evidence that proves the ill motives you assign to the other party?

 

 

They claimed that because the Gaudiya's didn't have a commentary to the Brahma Sutra that they shouldn't be accepted as authentic. Baladeva Vidyabhusana informed them that the Gaudiya's accepted the Bhagavat Purana as the natural commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas did not accept, so Baladeva composed the Govinda Bhasya.pdf as a Gaudiya commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas were astounded (Baladeva was a former leading scholar and teacher in the Madhva sampradaya before becoming a follower of Sri Chaitanya) and the Gaudiyas kept their royal patronage.

 

Didn't someone tell those envious Sri Vaishnavas that Baladeva did not need a commentary because the Gaudiyas come in parampara from Sri Madhvacharya and could just use his?

 

 

Clearly you could care less and are only interested in trying to establish yourself as superior to all Gaudiya Vaishnavas in history.

 

I guess this means we won't be getting a proper explanation for why the gaudiya sampradaya is simultaneously, inconceivably, the same and yet a different sampradaya from that of Sri Madhva's.

[raghu]

 

The Sri Vaishnavas did not accept, so Baladeva composed the Govinda Bhasya.pdf as a Gaudiya commentary on the Brahma Sutra.

 

Since *you* are the one providing the link to the iskcon translation of Govinda Bhashya (above), I trust you will not take issue with anything I quote *from* it. So take a look at VS 3.34-38 along with the accompanying commentary by your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana. Therein, Sri Baladeva says repeatedly that shudras are not eligible to study the Vedas. Now one might think that a shudra can become a brahmana and then study the Veda, but Baldeva refutes this as well by stating that a shudra cannot undergo any reformatory samskaras.

 

So I guess Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentator for the Gaudiya sampradaya, is also a bigoted caste brahmin who s to a bogus idea.

 

If it is beginning to bother you that your own acharyas disagree with your ideas, feel free to just flame me again as always.

[kaisersose]

Here is the simple test.

 

1) Madhva is a direct disciple of Vyasa and provided an interpretation of the Gita to the world which is obviously endorsed as correct by Vyasa.

 

2) Prabhupada provides a different interpretation of the Gita and yet claims disciplic succession from Madhva.

 

Position (2) is logically flawed and the only reason someone would try to defend this absurdity is sentiment. For such sentimentalists, here is the test.

 

3) A disciple of Prabhupada writes his own commentary of the Gita (different from Prabhupada's doctrine) and claims it is correct because he has followed a disciplic succession from Vyasa -> Madhva -> Prabhupada.

 

If you agree with (3), then you at least have a claim to argue in support of (2). If you disagree with (3), then you have disagreed with (2) as well.

 

So before you repeat more of the same nonense over and over again, please vote on the validity of (3) and we all can save some time.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Wow.

 

What an amazing string of ad hominem attacks and spiteful invective. For a moment, I had thought from your initial posting that we were going to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. I guess I won't make that mistake again.

 

 

 

And this would no doubt be the Gaudiya version of the events in question, right? Or do you have historical evidence that proves the ill motives you assign to the other party?

 

 

 

Didn't someone tell those envious Sri Vaishnavas that Baladeva did not need a commentary because the Gaudiyas come in parampara from Sri Madhvacharya and could just use his?

 

 

 

I guess this means we won't be getting a proper explanation for why the gaudiya sampradaya is simultaneously, inconceivably, the same and yet a different sampradaya from that of Sri Madhva's.

 

None of this matters.

You didn't come here with an open mind to learn something.

You came here like Mr. Know-it-all preaching hereditary caste system trying to discredit the entire Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

You are a real hoot and so insignificant that nobody should waste their time trying to open your eyes that are glued shut with prejudice and bigotry.

 

The Gaudiyas don't have to prove anything to you.

You in fact are in a position to prove that you have any spiritual qualities at all apart from your bigoted and prejudiced dogma that is suffocating your soul in a cloud of stupidity.

[Kulapavana]

Our sampradaya should drop all pretenses to Madhva's lineage - we are nowhere near these Vaishnavas in both philosophy and mood of service. We should simply claim lineage from Lord Caitanya.

 

The rejection of the actual guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda, Bipina Bihari Goswami, was also a very controversial move, based on rather personal animosity of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta towards that Vaishnava.

 

There is too much reliance on idividual gurus in our line - once they make a controversial decision you are stuck with it. That is why our lineage is so fragmented.

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

I fail to understand why this is relevant. If Sri Caitanya propagated tattvavAda, then there would be no question that he must be linked to Sri Madhva, even if the records were somewhat inconsistent. But since it is *quite* *clear* that Sri Caitanya propagates a *different* philosophy, it is reasonable to question any supposed link to Sri Madhva, especially given the fact that the records are inconsistent.

Raghu you may already know this. There is no evidence of Sri Chaitanya writing any philosophical work or commentaries to any vedic literature. He is known for writing siksataka, a 8 verse poem. His autobiography was written years later after he passed away.

 

Here is a titbit from Chaitanya Charitamrita, autobiography written by Vrindavana daasa;

 

The bulk of Vrndavana Dasa's chaitanya bhagavata vividly portrays the electric effect of Srila Chaitanya's devotion, the group working into a frenzy of religious ecstasy, whose signs - weeping, sweating, fainting, roaring, and a host of other physical manifestations of dementia - resembles most closely the disease of epilepsy.

 

These remarkable symptoms subsequently became the uncontrollable signs of true devotion. The commotion from these sessions apparently irritated the local community, especially when the kirtana spilled into the streets, leading in at least one case to a conflict with the local qazi, and in another with local Shaktas, worshippers of the goddess. Perhaps because of this growing apprehension, Vishvambhara soon declared that his devotion was not taken seriously by those who saw it as socially disruptive, so he would take formal ascetic vows to guarantee that respect.

 

The ascetic Keshava Bharati was in the nearby town of Katoya (Katwa) and initiated the twenty-four year old Vishvambhara in 1510 (shaka 1431). His new religious name was Krsna Chaitanya, the man who would 'make the world aware of Krsna', the name by which he is most commonly known. As news of his renunciation spread, his mother met him at the home of Advaitacharya in Shantipura, where in her grief she extracted from him the promise to reside in Puri. With Nityananda and others he headed for that city in a state of ecstasy.

 

Some time in the month of Asadha (June-July) of 1533 (shaka 1455), Chaitanya passed away, although the details are not recorded. In pious eyes there is no talk of death, he simply returned to heaven. Even though he left no more than eight Sanskrit verses attesting his devotion

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Our sampradaya should drop all pretenses to Madhva's lineage - we are nowhere near these Vaishnavas in both philosophy and mood of service. We should simply claim lineage from Lord Caitanya.

 

The rejection of the actual guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda, Bipina Bihari Goswami, was also a very controversial move, based on rather personal animosity of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta towards that Vaishnava.

 

There is too much reliance on individual gurus in our line - once they make a controversial decision you are stuck with it. That is why our lineage is so fragmented.

 

Frankly, none of this parampara business means a hoot to me.

 

Even if they say our parampara starts with Srila Prabhupada I could care less.

 

The effects of Chanting Hare Krishna are enough to convince me.

 

I don't need any proof of anything anymore.

 

I chant Hare Krishna and I can see the results.

 

This parampara issue means NOTHING TO ME.

 

It only matters to a few hereditary brahmans who are totally bereft of spiritual qualities and only angry because they want to continue their trade as professional priests in India.

[Justin]

 

The Sri Vaishnavas were envious and wanted the Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be given the boot so that they could gain royal patronage, hardly an ethical motivation for questioning the authenticity of the Gaudiya parampara. They claimed that because the Gaudiya's didn't have a commentary to the Brahma Sutra that they shouldn't be accepted as authentic. Baladeva Vidyabhusana informed them that the Gaudiya's accepted the Bhagavat Purana as the natural commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas did not accept, so Baladeva composed the Govinda Bhasya.pdf as a Gaudiya commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas were astounded (Baladeva was a former leading scholar and teacher in the Madhva sampradaya before becoming a follower of Sri Chaitanya) and the Gaudiyas kept their royal patronage.

Are you guys know what you are talking? From where are you recording events that say the envious Sri Vaishnavas wanted gaudiyas to get the boot? Bhagavad Ramanujacharya's are far better than your cocktail mixture philosophy. You guys plagiarize the works from all the great acharyas and then say you are the most pristine. What a confused lot

[kaisersose]

 

Frankly, none of this parampara business means a hoot to me.

 

And yet, you have made quite a few objections on this thread and engaged in ad hominem attacks in support of the alleged Madhva-Prabhupada link, all of which belies your above statement.

 

Why the sudden change in position now?

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Our sampradaya should drop all pretenses to Madhva's lineage - we are nowhere near these Vaishnavas in both philosophy and mood of service. We should simply claim lineage from Lord Caitanya.

 

 

But, the fact is that Mahaprabhu grafted his Gaudiya sampradaya plant on the root system of the Brahma-Madhva sect.

 

Who are we to say there is no connection?

 

All the acharyas to date have defended the Gaudiya tradition of being connected to the Madhva sampradaya.

 

A botanist can graft on a different plant to the root system of another plant.

 

They do that to make them resistant to certain diseases and other improvements.

 

So, to keep with Vedic siddhanta the Gaudiya sampradaya must not reject it's connection to the Madhva sect.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

And yet, you have made quite a few objections on this thread and engaged in ad hominem attacks in support of the alleged Madhva-Prabhupada link, all of which belies your above statement.

 

Why the sudden change in position now?

 

Cheers

 

You guys are lazy.

You want me to do your homework for you.

Well, do your own homework if you want to know the truth about the Gaudiya siddhanta.

[andy108]

 

Here is the simple test.

 

1) Madhva is a direct disciple of Vyasa and provided an interpretation of the Gita to the world which is obviously endorsed as correct by Vyasa.

 

2) Prabhupada provides a different interpretation of the Gita and yet claims disciplic succession from Madhva.

 

 

Prove it.

 

Here are the core reasons why Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami claimed succession from Sri Madhva's expansive additions to Sri Brahma's sampradaya.

 

He claimed to follow in the footsteps of Sri Madhvacarya in the following manner. from Purport to SB 1.4: The Appearance of Sri Narada : SB 1.4.17, SB 1.4.18, SB 1.4.17-18

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> 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"> The greatest philanthropists are those transcendentalists who represent the mission of Vyāsa, Nārada, Madhva, Caitanya, Rūpa, Sarasvatī, etc. They are all one and the same. The personalities may be different, but the aim of the mission is one and the same, namely, to deliver the fallen souls back home, back to Godhead. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

And he did not "disagree" with his teachings.

 

As each Acarya is wont to do when a particular audience is receptively prepared, he added a more confidential aspect from the treasurehouse of Love of God. Sri Madhvacarya promulgated personalism, but Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu expanded on this to enhance it and Srila Prabhupada followed in these footsteps.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur writes: “Madhavendra Puri was a well-known sannyasi of the Madhva-sampradaya. His grand-disciple was Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Prior to his appearance, there was no evidence of prema-bhakti in the Madhva line. In his verse, ayi dina-dayardra-natha (CC Madhya 4.197), the seed of the religious doctrines of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu can be found.” Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati similarly states,

“Madhavendra Puri was the first shoot of the desire tree of divine love that came out of the Madhva lineage. Prior to his appearance, there was no sign of the conjugal mood of devotion in the Madhva line.

 

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:h9t00B03NdEJ:www.gaudiya.com/pdf/Is_the_Gaudiya_Vaishnava_sampradaya_connected_to_the_Madhva_line.pdf+tripurari+%2B%22disciplic+succession%22+ramanuja+madhva+adwaita&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

 

This is not to say that Srila Madvhacaraya had no inkling of the deepest mysteries of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna's pastimes, yet the Lord did not inspire him to divulge these things directly due to the lack of need/desire in the hearts of the audience at that time.

 

This is similar by indirect analogy to the actions of Sankaracarya, considered and incarnation of Lord SaduSiva, and Buddha, another incarnation of the Lord, who respectively preached Impersonalism and return to Vedas, and Voidism and rejection of Vedas. Yet Sankaracarya is on record claiming that the impersonal brahman is sourced as Sri Krsna the Supreme ParaBrahman. Once, and in an obscure instance. And Buddha was in the same way doing triage upon an audience who was using the authority of the Vedas to aggrandize and degrade themselves and the world.

[kaisersose]

 

Prove it.

...

And he did not "disagree" with his teachings.

 

 

That is easy.

 

1) Did Prabhupada accept the concept of the varna of the soul? No.

2) Did Prabhupada interpret Brahman in "Brahmano hi Prathishta aham" as Laxmi? No

3) Did Prabhupada accept Madhva's position that Krishna is the avatar of Vishnu and not the other way around? No

4) Did Prabhupada accept the basis of Madhva's doctrine - the trayi and hold the same position that Puranas are valid only when they do not contradict the trayo and not otherwise? No

 

The list is long. It is not possible to keep adding stuff to a doctrine - things which the founder would have most certainly disagreed with - like Radha worship, a loose interpretation of the varna system, creating new avatars like Chaitanya, etc. Just like you would object to a Prabhupada disciple adding new material, you should in all honesty accept that Prabhupada cannot do this either and yet claim to be in the line of Madhva.

 

There is the proof you asked for + evidence that he disagreed with Madhva.

 

 

As each Acarya is wont to do when a particular audience is receptively prepared, he added a more confidential aspect from the treasurehouse of Love of God. Sri Madhvacarya promulgated personalism, but Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu expanded on this to enhance it and Srila Prabhupada followed in these footsteps.

 

I will ask the same question again - about honesty. Are you willing to extend this logic to a Prabhupada disciple who promulgates personalism by extending it to a particularly new audience - say same sex couples? If not, your logic does not hold.

 

 

This is similar by indirect analogy to the actions of Sankaracarya, considered and incarnation of Lord SaduSiva, and Buddha, another incarnation of the Lord, who respectively preached Impersonalism and return to Vedas, and Voidism and rejection of Vedas. Yet Sankaracarya is on record claiming that the impersonal brahman is sourced as Sri Krsna the Supreme ParaBrahman. Once, and in an obscure instance. And Buddha was in the same way doing triage upon an audience who was using the authority of the Vedas to aggrandize and degrade themselves and the world.

 

Note that Madhva directly rejects Shankara's and Buddha's position that they are *always* incorrect. He does not make allowances that these doctrines were valid for their time and circumstances nor does he claim authenticity through the Advaita Sampradaya. i.e., Shuka-> Gaudapada-> Shankara.

 

Cheers

[shiva]

 

Prove it.

 

Here are the core reasons why Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami claimed succession from Sri Madhva's expansive additions to Sri Brahma's sampradaya.

 

He claimed to follow in the footsteps of Sri Madhvacarya in the following manner. from Purport to SB 1.4: The Appearance of Sri Narada : SB 1.4.17, SB 1.4.18, SB 1.4.17-18

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> 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"> The greatest philanthropists are those transcendentalists who represent the mission of Vyāsa, Nārada, Madhva, Caitanya, Rūpa, Sarasvatī, etc. They are all one and the same. The personalities may be different, but the aim of the mission is one and the same, namely, to deliver the fallen souls back home, back to Godhead. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

And he did not "disagree" with his teachings.

 

As each Acarya is wont to do when a particular audience is receptively prepared, he added a more confidential aspect from the treasurehouse of Love of God. Sri Madhvacarya promulgated personalism, but Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu expanded on this to enhance it and Srila Prabhupada followed in these footsteps.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur writes: “Madhavendra Puri was a well-known sannyasi of the Madhva-sampradaya. His grand-disciple was Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Prior to his appearance, there was no evidence of prema-bhakti in the Madhva line. In his verse, ayi dina-dayardra-natha (CC Madhya 4.197), the seed of the religious doctrines of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu can be found.” Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati similarly states,

“Madhavendra Puri was the first shoot of the desire tree of divine love that came out of the Madhva lineage. Prior to his appearance, there was no sign of the conjugal mood of devotion in the Madhva line.

 

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:h9t00B03NdEJ:www.gaudiya.com/pdf/Is_the_Gaudiya_Vaishnava_sampradaya_connected_to_the_Madhva_line.pdf+tripurari+%2B%22disciplic+succession%22+ramanuja+madhva+adwaita&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

 

This is not to say that Srila Madvhacaraya had no inkling of the deepest mysteries of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna's pastimes, yet the Lord did not inspire him to divulge these things directly due to the lack of need/desire in the hearts of the audience at that time.

 

This is similar by indirect analogy to the actions of Sankaracarya, considered and incarnation of Lord SaduSiva, and Buddha, another incarnation of the Lord, who respectively preached Impersonalism and return to Vedas, and Voidism and rejection of Vedas. Yet Sankaracarya is on record claiming that the impersonal brahman is sourced as Sri Krsna the Supreme ParaBrahman. Once, and in an obscure instance. And Buddha was in the same way doing triage upon an audience who was using the authority of the Vedas to aggrandize and degrade themselves and the world.

 

 

Andy, Gaudiya teachings do disagree with Madhva's teachings on some aspects of siddhanta that have nothing to do with rasa, e.g.

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.19.13

 

 

guṇa-vyaktir iyaḿ devī

vyañjako guṇa-bhug bhavān

tvaḿ hi sarva-śarīry ātmā

śrīḥ śarīrendriyāśayāḥ

nāma-rūpe bhagavatī

pratyayas tvam apāśrayaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

 

guṇa-vyaktiḥ — the reservoir of qualities; iyam — this; devī — goddess; vyañjakaḥ — manifester; guṇa-bhuk — the enjoyer of the qualities; bhavān — You; tvam — You; hi — indeed; sarva-śarīrī ātmā — the Supersoul of all living entities; śrīḥ — the goddess of fortune; śarīra — the body; indriya — senses; āśayāḥ — and the mind; nāma — name; rūpe — and form; bhagavatī — Lakṣmī; pratyayaḥ — the cause of manifestation; tvam — You; apāśrayaḥ — the support.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Mother Lakṣmī, who is here, is the reservoir of all spiritual qualities, whereas You manifest and enjoy all these qualities. Indeed, You are actually the enjoyer of everything. You live as the Supersoul of all living entities, aid the goddess of fortune is the form of their bodies, senses and minds. She also has a holy name and form, whereas You are the support of all such names and forms and the cause for their manifestation.

 

PURPORT

 

Madhvācārya, the ācārya of the Tattvavādīs, has described this verse in the following way: “Viṣṇu is described as yajña personified, and mother Lakṣmī is described as spiritual activities and the original form of worship. In fact, they represent spiritual activities and the Supersoul of all yajña. Lord Viṣṇu is the Supersoul even of Lakṣmīdevī, but no one can be the Supersoul of Lord Viṣṇu, for Lord Viṣṇu Himself is the spiritual Supersoul of everyone.”

 

According to Madhvācārya, there are two tattvas, or factors. One is independent, and the other is dependent. The first tattva is the Supreme Lord, Viṣṇu, and the second is the jīva-tattva. Lakṣmīdevī, being dependent on Lord Viṣṇu, is sometimes counted among the jīvas. The Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, however, describe Lakṣmīdevī in accordance with the following two verses from the Prameya-ratnāvalī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. The first verse is a quotation from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.

 

nityaiva sā jagan-mātā

viṣṇoḥ śrīr anapāyinī

yathā sarva-gato viṣṇus

tathaiveyaḿ dvijottama

 

viṣṇoḥ syuḥ śaktayas tisras

tāsu yā kīrtitā parā

saiva śrīs tad-abhinneti

prāha śiṣyān prabhur mahān

 

“O best of the brāhmaṇas, Lakṣmījī is the constant companion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, and therefore she is called anapāyinī. She is the mother of all creation. As Lord Viṣṇu is all-pervading, His spiritual potency, mother Lakṣmī, is also all-pervading.”

 

“Lord Viṣṇu has three principal potencies — internal, external and marginal. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has accepted parā-śakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent viṣṇu-tattva.”

 

In the Kānti-mālā commentary on the Prameya-ratnāvalī there is this statement:

 

nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jīvatvaḿ lakṣmyāḥ svīkṛtaḿ, tatrāha — prāheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyāpti-kathanena kalākāṣṭhety ādi-padya-dvaye, śuddho ‘pīty uktā ca mahāprabhunā svaśiṣyān prati lakṣmyā bhagavad-advaitam upadiṣṭam. kvacid yat tasyās tu dvaitam uktaḿ, tat tu tad-āviṣṭa-nitya-mukta jīvam ādāya sańgatamas tu.

 

“Although some authoritative Vaiṣṇava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jīvas) in Vaikuṇṭha, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, has described Lakṣmī as being identical with the viṣṇu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Lakṣmī as being different from Viṣṇu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Lakṣmī; they do not pertain to mother Lakṣmī, the eternal consort of Lord Viṣṇu.”

 

In his commentary on Jiva Goswamis Tattva-sandarbha, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, has pointed out four differences with the followers of Madhvacarya:

 

bhaktanam virpanam eva moksah, devah bhaktesu mukhyah, virincasyaiva sayujyam, laksmya jiva-kotitvam ity evam mata-visesah daksinadi-deseti tena gaude 'pi madhavendradayas tad upasisyah katacid bahuvur ity arthah

 

Baladeva Vidyabhusana has found these teachings to be unacceptable to Gaudiya Vaishnavas: Only a brahmana is eligible for liberation, the demigods are the foremost devotees, Lord Brahma attains sayujya-mukti, and Lakshmi Devi is a jiva. Nevertheless Madhavendra Puri and some others in Bengal were initiated into Madhvacarya's line.

 

There are also other differences with the Tattvavadis, e.g. they teach that there are different types of jivas some of which are inherently evil and are damned for eternity. They teach a strict dualism between jiva and Vishnu, and between Vishnu and maya-shakti. And there are some other minor differences having to do with bhava and rasa.

 

Look, don't waste your time anymore with these simpletons, they are clearly offensive in mood and mission and are obviously going to reject any rational or spiritual truth, be it from shastra or from sadhu. They even reject what leaders of the Madhva sampradaya have said on these issues:

 

 

 

We are rather perturbed to come across an article said to contain a statemant issued by Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha about Madhwa and Gaudiya Sampradayas.

 

We have been emphasizing time and again that even though there are certain difference in a few aspects of the two Sampradayas, there are many more common grounds and Gaudiya Sampradaya is a part of Madhwa Sampradaya. We have great regard for Prabhupada who has spread Vaisnava Bhakti Siddhanta throughout the world.

 

We have been admiring him on various occasions also. We are pained to find that the article denigrates Prabhupada and is against our opinion and philosophy.

 

The whole issue will be reviewed and in our capacity as the chancellor of Poornaprajna Vidyapeeta, a message will be shortly published to strengthen the mutual harmonious relationship between the Sampradayas.

 

Sri Sri Vishwesa Tirtha Swamiji

 

 

 

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji

Car Street, Udupi

 

Sri Prabhupada has accepted Sri Madhwacharya as his "Acarya."

 

He has put manure and water to the seed sowed by Sri Madhwacharya. Sri Prabhupada is responsible for the spread of the branches of the tree of "Bhakti cult" all over India. It is the duty of all Madhwas to recognize the sadhana of Vaishnavite Sri Prabhupada.

 

It is true that there is a difference between "Chaitanya school" and "Madhwa school." In spite of the difference between the two schools of thought, one has to look into the similar thoughts that exist between the two. Therefore, the followers of these two cults should never blame each other nor envy each other.

 

One should not use bad words on the other. One should respect the other and vice-versa. All Madhwas should unite themselves.

 

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji

 

 

 

Sri Shiroor Mutt, Udupi

Jadadguru Sri Sri Madhwacharya Peethan

Udupi, South Candra

 

Friend of our Samsthanam Poojya

Sri Narasingha Swamy Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Mutt,

Sri Rangapatna, Mysore

 

Ref: Re: Mispropoganda in www.Dvaita.org between "Sri Madhwacharya and Chaitanya Pantha."

 

Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact. The sadhana achieved by Sri A. C. Prabhupada, Acharya of "Chaitanya Sampradaya" is to be welcomed by all Vaishnavites. It is due to him people all over the world have learned about Lord Krishna. This work should have been accomplished by Madhwa followers. But Prabhupada has served the world in propagating this cult. Even in the western world he has attracted a large number of devotees of Lord Krishna, through his discourse on "Bhagavat Geeta." The book on "Bhagavat Geeta" of Sri Prabhupada is allowed to be sold in front of Krishna Mandira at Udupi. This fact is known to all eight mutts of Udupi. As well as all devotees of Udupi Kshetra.

 

Therefore, the blame cast on Sri Prabhupada is to be deemed as the blame on Sri Hari, Vayu and Guru. This type of behavior is not to be found in a brahmin. As such, it is a bad affair to note that a Vaishnava has exhibited such a behavior. Such contradictory statements do create split in the Vaishnava Society and do not promote any good on the Society.

 

Therefore we oppose the points relayed through the website.

 

Sri Laksmivara Tirtha Swami

 

 

 

Sri Vidyavallaba Tirtha Swamiji

Sri Kaniyoor Mutt

Car Street, Udupi 576101

 

Some argue that there is no relationship between "Chaitanya prabhu parampara" and "Sri Madhwacharya parampara." We wish to put forth our opinion on the matter.

 

According to our views, Sri Chaitanya prabhu having embraced "virakti," approached Sri Vysatheertha, who belongs to the Madhwacharya's traditional Vyasaraya Mutt. Sri Vyasatheertha graced him offering "deeksha" to him and commanded him to spread the philosophic ideals fo Sri Madhwacharya.

 

As a result of his propaganda, Mutts with "Gaudiya Tradition" emerged and this is an historic event. While glancing through the aforesaid historic event, it is evident that there exists a deep relationship between "Chaitanya parampara" and "Madhwa parampara."

 

Therefore it is necessary that no one should wound the feelings of Chaitanya Prabhupada, making comments on him.

 

We humbly appeal to one and all to encourage the philosophic ideals of Sri Chaitanya Prabhupada and see this propaganda grows further without obstacles.

 

Sri Vidyavallaba Tirtha Swamiji

 

 

 

Sri Sri Vidyaprasanna Tirtha Swamiji

Subramanya Matha

Subramanya 574238

 

Philosophic world is very broad and wide. Each philosopher has toiled to seek the truth. The aim of all philosophers is to see that man is relieved of his temporary material happiness and attain the permanent eternal happiness. Acharyas and Mutts have strived hard to see that man is relieved of his bondage in this world.

 

Among the Acharyas, the famous Sri Madhwacharya has preached "Dvaita" philosophy for the world. Some other philosophers have accepted ideals that are very close to Madhwa philosophy.

 

Though there are minor differences among the two schools, deep study of these two schools show there are similiar ideals. People in these days are eager to grow in the field of philosophy, and should not try to develop misconception among people. It is not correct for Madhwa followers to envy "Prabhupada" followers. Many facts that are in tune with Madhwa philosophy, are hidden in the works of Sri Prabhupada.

 

Therefore it is our desire to see that misconception among people in this regard is not created.

 

Sri Sri Vidyaprasanna Tirtha Swamiji

 

And here is some more stuff:

 

http://gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Madhvacarya-Gaudiya.html

 

 

But, lets face it, these guys have heard it all before and they simply don't care because they are not in the business of sadhu sanga here, they are in the business of Jagai and Madhai, i.e. being envious rascals. So, best to ignore them.

[theist]

 

But, lets face it, these guys haveheard it all before and they simply don't care because they are not inthe business of sadhu sanga here, they are in the business of Jagai andMadhai, i.e. being envious rascals. So, best to ignore them.

 

Yep. They have been on my ignore list for some time now.

[Kulapavana]

 

This parampara issue means NOTHING TO ME.

It only matters to a few hereditary brahmans who are totally bereft of spiritual qualities and only angry because they want to continue their trade as professional priests in India.

 

For me, the only reason I even read Srila Prabhupada's books was that he represented an ancient disciplic succession. I do not care for self made gurus.

 

And you are completely wrong about hereditary brahmanas in general. Just read Bhaktivinoda Thakura. They carried our tradition from day one (and still are the carriers of our tradition). The rift started with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. And in Iskcon hereditary brahmanas were replaced with rubber stamped sannyasis and gurus. Big friggin improvement...

[theist]

I find this to be very useful and getting to the heart of the matter.

 

 

In his commentary on Jiva Goswamis Tattva-sandarbha, BaladevaVidyabhusana, has pointed out four differences with the followers ofMadhvacarya:

 

bhaktanam virpanam eva moksah, devah bhaktesu mukhyah, virincasyaivasayujyam, laksmya jiva-kotitvam ity evam mata-visesah daksinadi-desetitena gaude 'pi madhavendradayas tad upasisyah katacid bahuvur ity arthah

 

Baladeva Vidyabhusana has found these teachings to be unacceptable toGaudiya Vaishnavas: Only a brahmana is eligible for liberation, thedemigods are the foremost devotees, Lord Brahma attains sayujya-mukti,and Lakshmi Devi is a jiva. Nevertheless Madhavendra Puri and someothers in Bengal were initiated into Madhvacarya's line.

 

There are also other differences with the Tattvavadis, e.g. they teachthat there are different types of jivas some of which are inherentlyevil and are damned for eternity. They teach a strict dualism betweenjiva and Vishnu, and between Vishnu and maya-shakti. And there are someother minor differences having to do with bhava and rasa.

 

Look, don't waste your time anymore with these simpletons, they areclearly offensive in mood and mission and are obviously going to rejectany rational or spiritual truth, be it from shastra or from sadhu. Theyeven reject what leaders of the Madhva sampradaya have said on theseissues:

 

[Justin]

WoW! what a scam. Do these swamijis know that their letters are all making the rounds in the internet!