Madhva-Gaudiya parampara

[kaisersose]

 

Shiva, thank you for publishing these letters. I was unaware that this issue was taken so further up to the head of the ashtamutts.

 

...

 

Sorry, I am not as learned as the Swamijis are. But I am aghast at these remarks.

 

Most Matha swamis do not read english to check first hand what was written in the position paper. Their letters were a response based entirely on the storyline provided by Hare Krishnas who instead of dealing with facts, chose to complain to the Swamis about how Tattvavadis are "envious" of them. Apparently, this is what some people do when the truth is not on their side.

 

Anyway, eventually the Pejavar Matha head released another letter asking iskcon to stop fabricating stories about how Chaitanya appeared in Madhva's dream, etc. Stories that were concocted by a luminary of that tradition - Bhakti Vinoda Thakur.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

Petty little caste priests as your good self have been saying this same thing for almost 500 years.

Yet the Gaudiya caravan just passes by the barking dogs.

 

In other words, you just called Madhva a barking dog.

 

The problem here is inconsistency. As someone who does not care a hoot for Sampradaya and Parampara, you sure seem to get riled up when presented with the real facts. If you are angry at anyone, it should be at those people from your sampradaya who fed you a line about their "authenticity" since 1975.

 

But strangely, it is the other way around! You are instead angry at those who are showing you the truth. And that too on a topic for which you do not care a hoot.

 

Cheers

[andy108]

You Madhvites fail to recognize the extreme chastisement Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and his stalwarts like Srila Bhaktivinode and his son Bhaktisiddhanta had leveled at the Gaudiya Community as well, and much more frequently than the rare occasion they addressed the Madhva lineage. They particularly focused their chastisment upon that section of the Gaudiya community who insulated themselves into a self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating caste by birth only lineage.

 

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami was able to share the glories of Sri Krsna around the world. He criticized even his own godbrothers for remaining comfortable in their own little kutirs, and failing to understand the depth of devotion, wherein one can take the risk of wandering far and wide sharing the glories of the holy names even to those the scriptures have described as unreceptive. Even if a such a person was unable to instantly develop 100% of their latent Vaisnava brahminical qualities, they still benefited from hearing the glories of the Lord, effectively beginning their slow march back Home. Such Mercy NEVER is shared by those considering another untouchable and fully excluded by birth to read of the Lord in the Vedas.

 

Such chastisement was never meant to be a fanatic condemnation of the progress such caste-by-birth-ONLY adherents had made in meditating on the names of the Lord, but to point out they had a long way to go to realize the largely inconceivable nature of the Lord's mercy, the special mercy and grace that he has imbued his holy names with in this age, and how he places jivas BY BIRTH into various situations that do not exactly match their inner inclinations.

 

This is an observable and recognizable truth, and you only fail to give admittance because it removes you from your comfort zone and challenges your cherished position as having a corner on the market of truth, the high priest of spiritual knowledge, as if the Lord cannot appear as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and add a thing or two that you don't know, that Sri Madhva did not choose to share with you for his own divine reasons, and that is not meant to hurt you but to further your advancement in spiritual life.

 

Instead of minimizing the "only thing he wrote", the Siksastaka, why don't you read it, you might catch a clue.

 

Don't let the fact that some fanatic so-called disciples of Gaudiya Acaryas misuse these facts to bludgeon you about the head with it prevent you from taking advantage of the original intention of these revelations which were meant to help you, not hurt you.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

In other words, you just called Madhva a barking dog.

 

The problem here is inconsistency. As someone who does not care a hoot for Sampradaya and Parampara, you sure seem to get riled up when presented with the real facts. If you are angry at anyone, it should be at those people from your sampradaya who fed you a line about their "authenticity" since 1975.

 

But strangely, it is the other way around! You are instead angry at those who are showing you the truth. And that too on a topic for which you do not care a hoot.

 

Cheers

 

You guys act like you are the first bunch of losers to confront the Gaudiyas with this same old tired argument.

 

The Gaudiyas defeated you guys hundreds of years ago.

 

There is no need to defeat an argument that was laid to rest hundreds of years ago.

 

You guys take yourself too seriously.

 

Much bigger fish than you have been fried by the Gaudiya acharyas in the past.

 

There is no reason to fry you shrimp when the sharks have already been defeated.

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

The Gaudiyas defeated you guys hundreds of years ago.

 

What period in history did that occur?

What were the names of personalities who participated in the debate?

What was the setting and topic?

What place did it occur?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

What period in history did that occur?

What were the names of personalities who participated in the debate?

What was the setting and topic?

What place did it occur?

 

Bhakta Joe had a debate with a Madhva Swami and defeated him pathetically in front of 50,000 Hindus at Udupi in 1973.

[Sonic Yogi]

You make believe Madhvas need to understand that you have no right to speak on behalf of Isvara Puri who was the Madhva acharya who initiated Mahaprabhu into the Madhva sampradaya.

 

Isvara Puri accepted Mahaprabhu and none of you little make believe Madhvas have any right to speak on behalf of Isvara Puri.

 

He accepted Mahaprabhu for initiation.

 

None of you guys can change that with all you big talking.

[kaisersose]

 

What period in history did that occur?

What were the names of personalities who participated in the debate?

What was the setting and topic?

What place did it occur?

 

I am guessing he means that classic incident when Chaitanya walked into Udipi and defeated Vyasaraya Thirtha and all the other Udipi Matha heads without offering any scriptural evidence! Check Dr. BNK Sharma's History of Dvaita Vedanta where he talks about this in an appendix.

 

About the Gaudiya acharyas frying big fish...I do not know what he means as Bengali Vaishnavas do not eat fish.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

You make believe Madhvas need to understand that you have no right to speak on behalf of Isvara Puru who was the Madhva acharya who initiated Mahaprabhu into the Madhva sampradaya.

 

Isvara Puri accepted Mahaprabhu and none of you little make believe Madhvas have any right to speak on behalf of Isvara Puru.

 

He accepted Mahaprabhu for initiation.

 

None of you guys can change that with all you big talking.

 

Again, I though you did not care a hoot. What's going on?

 

If your statement is true, then shame on Mahaprabhu for not following his Guru's teaching and introducing suprious material to create a new doctrine. That is serious Aparadha as you may already know. If not, picture a Prabhupada disciple starting a new doctrine.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

In fact, Madhavendra Puri is the first link in the Madhva chain to express what is essentially the Gaudiya position.

 

So, if you guys want to really get at the root then better move your attack to Madhavendra Puri.

 

 

 

 

Sri Madhavendra Puri is the sprout of the great tree of devotional love represented in the world by Sri Chaitanya Deva. Sri Madhavendra Puri comes from the line of Sri Madhva, the acarya of the pure Dwaita (dualistic) philosophy. It is well known to a student of religious literature that puree dualism is one of the four theistic Vaisnava schools of ancient India. As Brahma, the creator himself, is the pioneer of the faith, the school is also known as the Brahma sampradaya.

The description of the line of succession of the acaryas from Brahma to Madhva varies. Some count it as Brahma, Sanaka, Durvasa, Acyutrapreksa, Madhva; while a sober section hold the line to be Brahma, Narada, Vyasa, Madhva. Although Sri Madhva took his ascetic order formally from Acyutapreksa, he was in severe opposition to the professed creed of his formal guru both before and after accepting the ascetic order. Besides, Madhva's propaganda before he met Sri Vyasa was clearly limited to a destructive line of vanquishing mayavada, and it is only after he came under the divine feet of Vyasadeva, the great world teacher of theism, that he took up the constructive side of regular preaching, and made converts and commentaries as an authorized acarya. Acyutapreksa, his former guru, then submitted to him and was converted fully to transcendental dualism from the mayavada of Sankara. Therefore, the opinion that Sri Madhva, as an acarya preaching the positive principle of transcendental dualism, comes in the line of Sri Vyasa is considered more valid and is accepted by the wiser section.

Sripad Madhavendra Puri was an acarya of the Madhva school and is the connecting link between the Madhva and Gaudiya sampradayas. This is accepted both by the Madhva sampradaya as well as by the Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. Kavi Karnapura, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and others have left authentic records to that effect. But some suspicion may arise in a modern empirical mind as to how "Puri" can possibly come of the Madhva sampradaya where the sannyasins go by the general title of "Tirtha."

In answer to that, a section in the Madhva community wants to say that though "Tirtha," having its sacred association with "Ananda Tirtha" - Madhva himself, found special favor in the school and got prominence as a general title of the sannyasins of the community, "Puri" and other titles were not absent altogether. The Madhvas assert that Sri Madhva himself, as well as his successors, converted many sannyasins of the Sankara school and allowed them to retain their former titles to demonstrae their victories over mayavada, and thus Madhavendra Puri must either be a disciple of such a convert or a direct convert. But as this section cannot show any authentic record sufficient to prove their statement, we do not find any reason to accept mere ascertain.

The Gaudiya Vaisnava section, however, holds that Sripad Madhavendra Puri, as a guru of the doctrine of transcendental love, must have accepted his diksa (divine initiation) from the bona fide line of transcendental dualism of Madhvacarya, though he might have taken his sannyasa (formal ascetic order) from another community. This section attaches the real importance to diksa and points out the remarkable difference with which a Vaisnava acharya treats the formal taking of an ascetic order as opposed to diksa. This party draws our attention to Madhvacarya himself who took his sannyasa from Acyutapreksa of the mayavada school only to refute the professed faith of his very guru.

The fact that the Vaisnava school does not attach much importance to this external formality of ascetic order, but considers it merely an ostentatious advantage for propaganda work, is also maintained by Sri Ramanuja's example of going through the order himself without the help of a guru of any sect whatsoever. On the other hand, the same Ramanujacarya was seen perserveringly trying for grace (in the form of mantra diksa) from a Vaisnava guru, times without number. Later on, Sri Chaitanya too, showing his anxiety for sannyasa, took it at once from the immediately available Kesava Bharati of the Sankara school after giving him necessary instructions for the same. Sri Chaitanya has mentioned in modest sportive expression at times this mayavada connection, which an adventurous and interested critic often misreads and very prudently gives his decree to count Sri Chaitanya as one in the mayavada fold.

So it is not definitely known whether Sripad Madhavendra Puri accepted the ascetic order from Madhva sampradaya. But it is sure that he was an acarya of that sampradaya. it is also sure that he was not a mere convert from any other sect. This is so because his faith and love for Sri Krsna and his service was far too sublime and soaring to keep him even within the bounds of Madhva school itself, what to speak of mayavada theory, which propounds God, soul, and service all as illusion. In fact, Madhavendra Puri was not sadhana-siddha, that is, he did not have to realize his goal in this life, but he was nitya-siddha, eternally self-realized.

Trouble, however, arises again as to the adjustment of several names in the pontifical list from Madhva to Madhavendra Puri. Empirical inquiry, ignorant of the real nature and object of spiritual lineage, finds itself in a blind lane while meddling with matter beyond its scope trying to break through the walls with animal wrath. Therefore, the correct reading of pontifical line depends on our sound knowledge of sampradaya-rahasya (esoteric techniques of spiritual society.) When really blessed with such light alone, we can find that sometimes names of remarkable contemporaries are retained and sometimes names that are not very prominent are omitted from the pontifical list.

The greatness and importance of Sri Madhavendra Puri, however, does not rely so much in his being a mere bona fide member of the Madhva community as in his being the pioneer of the faith of transcendental love of Sri Krsna, which the Great Lord Sri Chaitanya Deva descended on earth to proclaim. The first effective start of madhurya-rasa upasana, or consort-service to the youthful Krsna, was really given by Sri Madhavendra Puri. Although the services to Krsna as the gopis rendered them in Vrndavana were not unknown in Madhva Mathas, the object of their service was Bala Gopala, and thus their mood of service could naturally only be in vatsalya-rasa, or parental affection. The famous poems of Sripad Madhavendra Goswami beginning with "ayidina-dayadrea-natha,kamprati kathaitumese," and "syamam eva param ruam," not only indicate the highest achievement of the author but prove that even men of high religious culture of the time were quite strangers to the sublime thought of deep consort-love to ever-youthful Krsna, Reality the Beautiful. There is also a hint in his poem of the advent of a great apostle who would inaugurate extensive and organized propagation of this blossoming doctrine of sweet consort-service to the youthful and beautiful supreme person Sri Krsna. It is not difficult to see that this has happened with the appearance of the great Lord Chaitanya Deva and his overflowing distribution of the nectarine treasure of loving service to the Supreme Krsna.. Sri Nityananda, Sri Adwaitacarya, Sri Iswara Puri, Sri Ranga Puri, Raghupati Upadhyaya, and many other towering personalities of great religious and social importance of the time expressed their high reverence and spiritual indebtedness to this great saint and savior of mankind.

 

[raghu]

 

You Madhvites fail to recognize the extreme chastisement Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and his stalwarts like Srila Bhaktivinode and his son Bhaktisiddhanta had leveled at the Gaudiya Community as well, and much more frequently than the rare occasion they addressed the Madhva lineage. They particularly focused their chastisment upon that section of the Gaudiya community who insulated themselves into a self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating caste by birth only lineage.

 

This would be in contrast to iskcon, where there have never been any self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating spiritual leaders.

 

 

Such chastisement was never meant to be a fanatic condemnation of the progress such caste-by-birth-ONLY adherents had made in meditating on the names of the Lord,

 

You, Sonic Yogi, Shiva, and Theist are confused.

 

No one is arguing in support of a system which privileges one exclusively based on birth.

 

On the contrary, all that has been said is that in Vedic culture, one's varna was determined by birth and *then* one was raised and expected to act according to that varna. This is not an opinion but an historical fact. Arjuna is an obvious example of this.

 

We can argue all we want about how things *could* be or *should* be, but this is the way things were.

 

No one is arguing with the principle that even a shUdra or mleccha should be given respect equal to that given to a brAhmana when the former display brAhminical qualities. This is a theoretical point, however, since most people cannot objectively ascertain who has enough "brAhminical qualities" to merit promotion to a different varna. There is one story of VishvAmitra who became a brahma-rishi, but that was only after tens of thousands of years of penance, and it was none other that Sri Brahma himself who appeared to bestow that title on him. Look at how much chaos was generated when people in iskcon wrongly attributed "brAhminical traits" to unqualified mlecchas, and then these mlecchas when on to become "gurus." How can you support such a system when it has been such an unmitigated disaster almost from day one?

 

 

This is an observable and recognizable truth, and you only fail to give admittance because it removes you from your comfort zone and challenges your cherished position as having a corner on the market of truth,

 

Ironically, these arguments apply to you and those like you who repeatedly behave as if you do not require any support from guru, sAdhu, or shAstra for your claims. You want that everyone should believe you simply because you follow (or claim to follow) Prabhupada. Whereas many of us have been arguing based on scripture, logic, and even the testimony of your own AchAryas! We don't need anyone to believe us based on our birth. Claims for spiritual superiority privileging opinion come from your camp, not from the many who disagree with you.

 

 

the high priest of spiritual knowledge, as if the Lord cannot appear as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and add a thing or two that you don't know,

 

Sure, the Lord can do that. The Lord can appear as a giant amoeba if He wants. The mere fact that He *can* do something does not mean that he did it or will do it.

 

 

that Sri Madhva did not choose to share with you for his own divine reasons, and that is not meant to hurt you but to further your advancement in spiritual life.

 

Pardon me for saying this, but when I see iskcon bullies like you screaming whenever people disagree with you, I become skeptical of the view that gaudiya vaishnava ideas help you to develop more "advancement in spiritual life."

 

 

Instead of minimizing the "only thing he wrote", the Siksastaka, why don't you read it, you might catch a clue.

 

Well I read it, and I do not see anything in there claiming a "disciplic succession" from Sri Madhva.

 

 

Don't let the fact that some fanatic so-called disciples of Gaudiya Acaryas misuse these facts

 

Question: are you a "fanatic so-called disciple of Gaudiya Acarya." Or would you call yourself a "bona fide" Gaudiya Vaishnava?

[andy108]

 

You, Sonic Yogi, Shiva, and Theist are confused.

 

No one is arguing in support of a system which privileges one exclusively based on birth.

 

On the contrary, all that has been said is that in Vedic culture, one's varna was determined by birth and *then* one was raised and expected to act according to that varna.

 

You have a very short memory as to what was posted on the "who is a brahmana thread" by one of your teammates.

 

 

1) Brahmana is by birth only. Prabhupada disagreed with tradition and tried to play God by giving Brahmana status to some of his followers and we all know how that went.

 

So if you disagree that Brahmana is by birth, then how do you identify a Brahmana or better how does a Brahmana identify himself? Consult an Iskcon scholar?

 

as for this piece

 

 

No one is arguing with the principle that even a shUdra or mleccha should be given respect equal to that given to a brAhmana when the former display brAhminical qualities. This is a theoretical point, however, since most people cannot objectively ascertain who has enough "brAhminical qualities" to merit promotion to a different varna.

 

Again, nice that you change your tune, but this is not all there is. You are stymied by pigeon holing existince into categories of what "most people" can or cannot do. While it would be foolish to ignore the truth of such stereotypes, we should not do so at the expense of exceptions.

 

If you are too intellectually lazy or uncaring or perhaps, giving you the benefit of the doubt, priorly indisposed, to scour the world looking for the lost servants of Sri Krsna who have been temporarily dazed by a karmic birth unsuitable to bringing out their best qualifications, that is understandable. What is offensive to your own soul is your relentless campaign to belittle those who are engaged in such efforts. Your shoot first and ask questions later approach to that which seems mysterious to you does not serve you well.

[theist]

 

<!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message -->

<!-- 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"> Originally Posted by ragu

You, Sonic Yogi, Shiva, and Theist are confused.

No one is arguing in support of a system which privileges one exclusively based on birth.

On the contrary, all that has been said is that in Vedic culture, one'svarna was determined by birth and *then* one was raised and expected toact according to that varna.

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

Leave me out of this please. I made no statements to this effect. My position is that the time for trying to hang these designations (brahmana, sudra etc. ) has long outlived it's usefullness in society.

 

My view is 99% is being born at or below sudra level and that the only thing that needs to be taught is Vaisnavism and basic cleanliness which can be engaged in from any platform.

 

People will naturally be attracted to one type of work or another and for the more serious they can take advice from their siksa guru to find which service is more compatable with their nature.

 

The idea that some have that to know God one must take birth in a brahmana family (held by some) is obnoxious to me.

[kaisersose]

 

The idea that some have that to know God one must take birth in a brahmana family (held by some) is obnoxious to me.

 

I am not aware of any orthodox tradition holding such a view - which is why I fail to understand the importance Hare Krishnas (who are mostly westerners) are attaching to these details.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

Leave me out of this please. I made no statements to this effect. My position is that the time for trying to hang these designations (brahmana, sudra etc. ) has long outlived it's usefullness in society.

 

That is always your tune when someone has presented views you want to disagree with but can't.

 

 

My view is 99% is being born at or below sudra level and that the only thing that needs to be taught is Vaisnavism and basic cleanliness which can be engaged in from any platform.

 

Fine. So why was your Prabhupada initiating some of these "at or below sudra level" people as brahmins?

 

 

People will naturally be attracted to one type of work or another and for the more serious they can take advice from their siksa guru to find which service is more compatable with their nature.

 

How is the "siksa guru" supposed to know "which service is more compatable (sic) with their nature?" Kirtananda was a swami who embezzled money and was probably involved in the murder of a disciple. Did his siksa guru, in giving him thread initiation and sannyasa, correctly identify the work that was most compatible with his nature?

 

 

The idea that some have that to know God one must take birth in a brahmana family (held by some) is obnoxious to me.

 

Who said that? Can you please provide the exact quote and web link?

[raghu]

 

Again, nice that you change your tune, but this is not all there is. You are stymied by pigeon holing existince into categories of what "most people" can or cannot do. While it would be foolish to ignore the truth of such stereotypes, we should not do so at the expense of exceptions.

 

If you are too intellectually lazy or uncaring or perhaps, giving you the benefit of the doubt, priorly indisposed, to scour the world looking for the lost servants of Sri Krsna who have been temporarily dazed by a karmic birth unsuitable to bringing out their best qualifications, that is understandable. What is offensive to your own soul is your relentless campaign to belittle those who are engaged in such efforts. Your shoot first and ask questions later approach to that which seems mysterious to you does not serve you well.

 

Andy,

 

This forum would be served well if you could learn to read what people are writing, instead of reading *into* what people are writing.

[Kulapavana]

Iskcon devotees criticize the old system of Gaudiya parivars, yet the system they created is far more prone to cheating and abuse. Completely unqualified people were often given sannyasa initiation, only to fall down and create a huge mess all around them. Why did they take sannyas? purely out of desire for fame, profit and distinction. How on earth is that different from the most abusive cases of caste brahmanas? And the gurus by decree, appointment, or group vote - how is that better than being raised in a brahminical family, groomed for their social role from early childhood?

 

We can say that in the west we did not HAVE brahmanas raised to fulfil their role and that is why Prabhupada had to improvise, but not that the system he created was any better than traditional parivars.

 

And our attempts to create children raised as brahmanas did not work either... thus our criticism of 'caste goswamis' it totaly hollow...

[tackleberry]

 

Iskcon devotees criticize the old system of Gaudiya parivars, yet the system they created is far more prone to cheating and abuse. Completely unqualified people were often given sannyasa initiation, only to fall down and create a huge mess all around them. Why did they take sannyas? purely out of desire for fame, profit and distinction. How on earth is that different from the most abusive cases of caste brahmanas? And the gurus by decree, appointment, or group vote - how is that better than being raised in a brahminical family, groomed for their social role from early childhood?

 

 

 

Perhaps, there's a lesson in all of this: we shouldn't try to be smarter than Krishna. Prabupada made this mistake, and Iskcon is paying the price now.

[tackleberry]

 

Quote:

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

Well, Srila Prabhupada also recognized Jesus and Mohammad.

Neither one of them had any Vedic parampara.

Now, why he recognized them two and none of the Indians without proper parampara is certainly curious.

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

 

I think there was more to it... IMO Srila Prabhupada wanted to transform Gaudiya Vaishnavism into a major religion like Christianity or Islam.

 

I don't see the connection between the two, praising Jesus/Mohammed and the desire to make Vaishnavism a major religion. It's more logical to assume that he was trying to appeal to a western audience. Which is why, you'll never find any Hindu or Iskcon guru praising Moses, for instance (because Jews being a tiny population aren't the right target audience). It's always Je/Mo/Buddha, because all these three religions have a good number of followers, and so it's better to deceive them through flattery.

[IamNotHeeHee]

This discussion is going round in circles and Gaudiyas are reading too much into the caste system of India. Here is a clarification from my perspective --

 

• There are 4 varnas - brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shoodhra.
  
• All 4 varnas are needed in our society for it to thrive.
  
• Maadhvas have high regards and pay homage to great souls who were born in different varnas and demonstrated their qualities through Bhakti, Jnana, and Vairagya.
  
• Such souls are recognized by aparoxa jnanis such as Sri Vaadiraja, Sri Vyaasathirtha, and a host of god-realized saints in the parampara.
  
• Maadhvas pray to Lord Rama and Krishna who were born as non-Brahmins.
  
• Although such exalted souls and the Godhead were born into non-brahmin varnas, they never changed their varnas to that of brahmins.
  
• If brahminism was the highest point to be reached, Lord Krishna would have claimed himself to be a Brahmin inspite of him born into a Yadava dyansty.

Don't you Gaudiyas believe Parashurama to be an incarnation of the Lord? Parashurama taught only Brahmins which made Karna to come in the guise of a Brahmin boy and learn from him. Once Parashurama realized that Karna was a kshatriya and lied to him to gain the powerful knowledge, he cursed him that his knowledge will one day be his nemesis.

 

In brief --

 

• One cannot achieve anything great by simply changing one's varna.
  
• Some Brahmins may display qualities of other varnas and other varnas may have qualities of Brahmins.
  
• There is no way of identifying with 100% certainity that one definitely belongs to a certain varna no matter how pious they act.
  
• The qualities of such souls can only be recognized by god-realized saints. An average Joe like me cannot determine such qualities.
  
• Sri Madhvacharya has prescribed the salvation path to every saathvika soul born into any class unlike other Acharyas who say only Brahmins are the highest class and deserve the Lord's grace.

Regards.

[Kyros]

 

Perhaps, there's a lesson in all of this: we shouldn't try to be smarter than Krishna. Prabupada made this mistake, and Iskcon is paying the price now.

Prabhupada wasn't trying to be smarter than Krishna, he was doing exactly what Krishna wanted him to do.

 

Before you open your mouth and speak on topics you obviously have no deep knowledge of, why don't you look for yourself on the history of the Gaudiya Sampradaya and all the deviations and upasampradaya crap it's had to deal with.

 

What happened to ISKCON is nothing new. Some people don't know how to follow simple rules or they want to interpret things in their own ways instead of taking things in face value.

 

Despite all the deviations and oppositions, the Gaudiya Sampradaya is growing and growing, and as predicted, it'll flood the entire world.

 

"Not a single blade of grass can move without the will of the Lord."

[Justin]

 

Despite all the deviations and oppositions, the Gaudiya Sampradaya is growing and growing, and as predicted, it'll flood the entire world.

 

The whole world will be full of only brahamanas then. Thats scary dude

[Beggar]

 

The whole world will be full of only brahamanas then. Thats scary dude

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.14.5

 

muktānām api siddhānāḿ

nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇaḥ

sudurlabhaḥ praśāntātmā

koṭiṣv api mahā-mune

 

 

O great sage, among many millions who are liberated and perfect in knowledge of liberation, one may be a devotee of Lord Nārāyaṇa, or Kṛṣṇa. Such devotees, who are fully peaceful, are extremely rare.

 

 

Fom the Purport by Srila Prabhupada: "Unless the dirt within the core of one's heart is cleansed away, one cannot become a pure devotee. Therefore the word sudurlabhaḥ ("very rarely found") is used in this verse. Not only among hundreds and thousands, but among millions of perfectly liberated souls, a pure devotee is hardly ever found. "

[sharathegde]

* There are 4 varnas - brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shoodhra.

* All 4 varnas are needed in our society for it to thrive.

----------

Though the 4 varnas are created by Sri Krsna himself, but the GVs believe, they are after all only bodily

designations.

1) The Satya Yuga did not have these four varnas. It had only the

Hamsa Varna.

SB 11.17.10

adau krita-yuge varno

nrinam hamsa iti smritah

krita-krityah praja jatya

tasmat krita-yugam viduh

SYNONYMS

adau -- in the beginning (of the millennium); krita-yuge -- in the Satya-yuga, or age of truth;

varnah -- the social class; nrinam -- of human beings; hamsah -- named hamsa;

iti -- thus; smritah -- well known;

krita-krityah -- perfect in the execution of duties by complete surrender to the Supreme Lord;

prajah -- the citizens; jatya -- automatically by birth; tasmat -- therefore;

krita-yugam -- Krita-yuga, or the age in which all duties are fulfilled;

viduh -- was thus known by the learned.

TRANSLATION

In the beginning, in Satya-yuga, there is only one social class, called hamsa,

to which all human beings belong. In that age all people are unalloyed devotees of the Lord

from birth, and thus learned scholars call this first age Krita-yuga,

or the age in which all religious duties are perfectly fulfilled.

2) The Puranas also state that the Kali Yuga has mostly Sudras,

still both the societies thrived/thriving.

=================================

B)

* There is no way of identifying with 100% certainity that one definitely belongs to a certain varna no matter how pious they act.

-------------

I agree with you, but if it would be necessary to identify a Brahmana then

wouldn't studying the qualities of the person be a better criteria for judging the person

than the birth of the person ?

 

If you say that both birth and the qualities are necessary, then I have some points which disputes that

birth to be a criteria.

1. The puranas say that in Kali Yuga demons also take birth as Brahmanas.

2. In Vajrasucika Upanishad, it is clearly stated that birth is not a criteria

3. Also how can you make sure that all the ancestors in a person's lineage had been Brahmanas and have

performed all the samskaras ?

4. In Chandogya Upanishad too there is the story of Satyakama who was recognised as a Brahmana

inspite of a low birth.Although there was no evidence that Satyakama was born from a brahmana family, Haridrumata Gautama accepted him as a brahmana simply on the strength of his brahminical character.

Srimad Madhvacharya comments on this story as follows:

arjavam brahmane saksat

sudro'narjava-laksanah

gautamas tviti vijnaya

satyakamam upanayat

"A brahmana possesses the quality of simplicity, and a sudra possesses the quality of crookedness.

Knowing this fact, Gautama gave upanayanam to Satyakama."

=================================

 

C) * Maadhvas have high regards and pay homage to great souls who were born in different varnas and demonstrated their qualities through Bhakti, Jnana, and Vairagya.

* Although such exalted souls and the Godhead were born into non-brahmin varnas, they never changed their varnas to that of brahmins.

--

Sri Kanaka dasa was born as a Sudra (Kuruba,Shepherd) but everybody including the

Madhvas recognized him as a saint.

You say that he was a great saint but still a Sudra.

Srimad Acharya in his commentary on Chandogya Upanishad (previously mentioned) has

said that a Sudra has the qualities of Crookedness, do you think Sri Kanakadasa was

crooked at the same time a saint ?

In Bhagavad Gita 18.42, Sri Krsna says that 'samah, damah, tapah, saucam, ksanitih, arjavam...'

'peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity/cleanliness, tolerence, honesty'

are the qualities to be found in Brahmanas. Do you think these saints born in different

varnas didn't have these qualities but were still saints ?

=================================

 

 

D) ** If brahminism was the highest point to be reached,

Lord Krishna would have claimed himself to be a Brahmin inspite of him born into a Yadava dyansty.

* Maadhvas pray to Lord Rama and Krishna who were born as non-Brahmins.

--

In the opinion of Gaudiya Vaisnavas, Brahmanas are in the mode of Sattva, Kshatriyas in the mode of Rajas, Sudras in the mode of Tamas.

But Sri Krsna and his pure devotees are in Suddha Sattva above all these three modes of material nature.

The don't belong to any varna.

Why do you forget that Sri Krsna acted like a Vysya in Vrindavan and as a Ksatriya in Mathura ?

 

 

C) Regarding one more point raised in other posts about why ISKCON Gurus got into nasty situations.

----

Madhva pontiffs have always been born in Brahmin families, why then have

not so nice things happened at many of the Madhva mathas, for example the Vyasaraya matha in recent times?

In my opinion it is just that these devotees got slack in their sadhana or committed

aparadha at the lotus feet of Hari and Vaisnavas, not that there was some defect in their initiating

Gurus or parampara.

 

Hare Krsna,

 

 

Sharat

 

 

Jai Guru Jai Gauranga

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna

Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama

Rama Rama Hare Hare

[kaisersose]

 

* There are 4 varnas - brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shoodhra.

* All 4 varnas are needed in our society for it to thrive.

Quick responses to your questions and arguments.

SH: I agree with you, but if it would be necessary to identify a Brahmana then wouldn't studying the qualities of the person be a better criteria for judging the person than the birth of the person ?

Evidently not, as no one is qualified to assess an individual's "real" Varna and recent examples of such attempts have created disastrous results. In the absence of such an ability, the only way is to determine Varna by birth and that is how things have been done for thousands of years.

SH. The puranas say that in Kali Yuga demons also take birth as Brahmanas.

Then the Purana agrees that Varna is determined by birth. Otherwise, this statement has no meaning.

SH. In Vajrasucika Upanishad, it is clearly stated that birth is not a criteria

A dubious source. There is also an Allah Upanishad & a Chaitanya Upanishad. Isolated quotes from unknown sources do not make sustainable arguments .

SH. Also how can you make sure that all the ancestors in a person's lineage had been Brahmanas and have performed all the samskaras ?

Why do we need to do that? I fail to see the relevance. How do we know Prabhupada comes from an unbroken disciplic succession from where ever he claims he is? How do we know they were all genuine? Did you ever pose this question to your Gurus?

SH. In Chandogya Upanishad too there is the story of Satyakama who was recognised as a Brahmana inspite of a low birth.

Wrong. Gautama's first question to Jabala was on his lineage. Since the boy did not know who his father was, Gautama asked him more questions to determine his lineage and accepted the boy as a disciple *only* after he was satisfied about his lineage.

SH:Srimad Acharya in his commentary on Chandogya Upanishad (previously mentioned) has said that a Sudra has the qualities of Crookedness, do you think Sri Kanakadasa was crooked at the same time a saint ?

No. You are mixing real life with academics. If you go by the book, no one on the planet displays all the characteristics of a single Varna and none other. Hence, it is a wasted attempt to determine Varna by characteristics. The only choices you have are to accept Varna by birth or reject the Varna system. Introducing new concepts of dynamic Varna, etc., are not acceptable.

Cheers