Madhva-Gaudiya parampara

[kaisersose]

 

Aha thats an answer to your own question about why the verse numbers are not mentioned.

Faith .

 

Did Madhvas quote these missing verses to non-Madhvas at anytime without verse numbers and expect them to be accepted on the basis of faith? Show me one instance. This whole "references not found" criticism of Madhva is taken out of context.

 

On the other hand., there are several instances where the Gauidyas have tried it and are still trying to push bogus verses (without verse numbers) about the avatarhood of Chaitanya on the basis of faith to non-Gaudiyas. Until now, you believed these verses were genuine, yourself.

 

Now you may argue that these verse were lost after some dude made that list. That is not good enough. These verses should have existed before the time of Chaitanya, and therefore the coming of an avatar of Vishnu would have been noticed and recorded by other Vaishnava Gurus who lived long before Chaitanya. But that is not the case. These unidentified verses were not existing before the time of Chaitanya, briefly popped up during the time when someone compiled that list and promptly disappeared soon after. Is that your position now? Because there is no other position in favor of this theory.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

Ofcourse thats whats expected from you.When you know youve been beaten at your own argument then you come up with excuses about my english being bad.

 

Yes, I've been beaten at my own argument. Please forgive me for my offenses. I simply cannot debate with you.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

In the more likely scenario where Bhaktivinod actually "wrote" this Upanishad, the question that is raised is how such outright duplicity can be considered acceptable in the propagation of one's sampradaya.

Even if we were to assume the text is not authentic, the more likely scenario would be that some pundit in Bengal had a copy of this text and wanted to show it to Bhaktivinode Thakur, after which he thought it relevant to publish it. There are tens of thousands of unknown manuscripts throughout Bengal and Orissa, some ancient, some less ancient. I have seen ancient palm leaf manuscripts on all sorts of topics that have no record of existing anywhere else. Does it mean all of them are made up to cheat the public? Not really. Over the last 5,000 years, many millions of texts have been authored by Vedic scholars, and most have been lost.

 

To immediately assume a saintly person, who has no record of being dishonest and cheating people, suddenly broke from character and personally wrote a fake scripture with the intent of cheating people, really tells more about ourselves than him. Any decent person would give a saintly person the benefit of the doubt, especially when it is the more logical conclusion judging from their life record.

 

As far as the Chaitanya Upanishad is concerned, it's not really an important basis of Chaitanya's achintya bhedabheda tattva vada, i.e. it has no relevance to his teachings. Just as Madhva's own claim of being a divine wind god, or Ramanuja's disciples claiming he is a divine snake god, or Raghavendra's disciples claiming he is an incarnation of Bhakta Prahlada, or Sai Baba claiming he is the everything, have no bearings on their teachings, so in the same way Chaitanya Upanishad is irrelevant in the context of Sri Chaitanya's teachings.

 

Basically every single teacher in ancient times did some of the following:

 

1) quote unheard of scriptural texts

2) themselves or their disciples proclaimed them as a divine incarnation of something

 

This does not mean that they were cheaters, their claims may have been true. That's up to individuals to decide, because factually no one knows beyond any trace of doubt how the universe functions and who incarnated as who. When we read the same stories in Puranas we accept them all with faith without questioning how Vidura could have been Yama. But when we hear such stories in later times we doubt the claims because today we don't perceive such incarnations around us. There is nothing wrong with doubt, but we also cannot claim to be perfect in our judgement.

 

 

He [Madhavendra Puri] was "greatly celebrated," and yet there is no record of him in the mAdhva mathas.

This is a weak argument. Even today I have seen many greatly celebrated living saints in villages that are completely unknown outside of their district. 500 years ago when there was no proper communication system I would expect there to be thousands of "well known" saints who would be completely unheard of outside of their own circle of living.

 

 

But again, this isn't emphasized or required to believe in Tattvavada.

Sri Chaitanya's divinity isn't required to believe his teachings of achintya bhedabheda tattva vada. Later on his followers in Bengal put a lot of stress on his divinity, but his teachings can be followed without believing him to be God. Regardless, it is no more believable to accept someone was a snake god or a wind god as compared to God Himself. All such beliefs require one to have faith. It is irrelevant that the teachings do not require one to have faith. The actual belief in that particular statement requires faith, and all sampradayas are "guilty" of accepting such faith based beliefs. There is nothing wrong with having faith in something that cannot be proven.

 

 

This is unlike, say, the IshAvAsya upanishad, which all sampradayas have. If you quote from IshAvAsya upanishad to say, an Advaitin, he has to accept the evidence and either accept your interpretation or be able to offer a better interpretation. But he cannot simply ignore it, because IshAvAsya is known to be genuine across different sampradayas. The same is not true of Chaithanya Upanishad.

Other than for the purpose of debate, such universal acceptance is not really relevant. There are hundreds of texts that bear the name Upanishad. These include various versions (of texts that are supposed to be eternal and unauthored), regional "upanishads" that only exist in a particular state, and even upanishads that are confined to a particular subsect of Hinduism. The "universally accepted for debate Upanishad list" is much smaller, and is not as universal as you are portraying. The same is the case with the Puranas or any category of Vedic literature.

 

 

All acharyas did

Yes, all saints in the past have quoted unheard of scriptures. Those that we like we call as "lost over time evidence" and those we don't like we say they fabricated their evidence. It's just our own prejudices acting in our mind to blame one and forgive the other. The same with those saints claiming (or being ascribed) divinity. If we like them we say it is innocent and not important, if we don't like them (say Sai Baba or Kalki Bhagavan) we say they are rascals and cheaters. It may or may not be true, but no one is being impartial in their judgements. They always show favoratism to their own selected tradition.

 

 

Chaitanya's teachings do not depend on his divinity. If we study his direct instructions it is quite possible to believe them all without even accepting Caitanya as God or super human.

 

 

And in Bhaktivinoda's time no one questioned him on the authenticity of Caitanya Upanishad. And in Jiva Goswami's time no one questioned him when he published the list of scriptural verses predicting Sri Chaitanya's incarnation. What does that prove? It just means that people are humble and respectful of saintly people. Books were not as universally available as they are now. Even today we cannot know the entire extent of the Vedic literatures other than a basic classification system. We cannot accurately say there are X number of verses, pages, chapters of the Vedic scriptures. Thousands of years ago when communication practically did not exist and transportation also hardly existed we cannot expect that people had an accurate understooding of what "was" the complete Vedic scriptures in a manner that would allow them to immediately reject a particular verse as inauthentic.

 

 

Please don't think anything posted here represents the views of "Gaudiya vaishnavism". One person posting on a forum a statement that he read from a blog by Jagat doesn't indicate the view of "Gaudiya Vaishnavism". It is statistically insignificant and ignorable. To get the actual view of what Gaudiya vaishnavas think on the Caitanya Upanishad you would need to speak with many scholars in Bengal and Orissa to come to an accurate conclusion as to what Gaudiya Vaishnavas in general accept or reject in regards to Caitanya Upanishad.

 

Your way is like me finding some guy named "Fred" posting in this forum that says he is a Madhva follower and he believes Madhva is the devil. Then I could post saying "even amongst the Madhva sampradaya, there are a good number of them who think Madhva is the devil." It is intellectually dishonest, and I am sure you knew that because these things don't go unnoticed by you.

[raghu]

 

Even if we were to assume the text is not authentic, the more likely scenario would be that some pundit in Bengal had a copy of this text and wanted to show it to Bhaktivinode Thakur, after which he thought it relevant to publish it.

 

Fine by me. It still makes me wonder why he would bother with a text that could never enjoy mainstream acceptance.

 

 

To immediately assume a saintly person, who has no record of being dishonest and cheating people, suddenly broke from character and personally wrote a fake scripture with the intent of cheating people, really tells more about ourselves than him.

 

I believe you are assuming quite a bit about me, which I respectfully suggest says more about you. By mentioning the possibility about BV authoring the Chaithanya U, I was merely following the direction that Kulapavana (whom I believe is a Gaudiya Vaishnava - correct me if I am wrong) started. His exact words from earlier in this thread - "It seems that it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself who wrote that text for the sake of preaching. At times Bhaktivinoda would pretend to be a Baul so that he could better preach to Bauls (see his Baul Sangeet). He did not do it for money - he did it for a good cause. I find such actions much less problematic than accepting money raised by very questionable means for the sake of building a spiritual mission. Once you believe that end justifies the means, it is a very slippery slope."

 

 

As far as the Chaitanya Upanishad is concerned, it's not really an important basis of Chaitanya's achintya bhedabheda tattva vada, i.e. it has no relevance to his teachings. Just as Madhva's own claim of being a divine wind god, or Ramanuja's disciples claiming he is a divine snake god, or Raghavendra's disciples claiming he is an incarnation of Bhakta Prahlada, or Sai Baba claiming he is the everything, have no bearings on their teachings, so in the same way Chaitanya Upanishad is irrelevant in the context of Sri Chaitanya's teachings.

 

and

 

 

Sri Chaitanya's divinity isn't required to believe his teachings of achintya bhedabheda tattva vada. Later on his followers in Bengal put a lot of stress on his divinity, but his teachings can be followed without believing him to be God. Regardless, it is no more believable to accept someone was a snake god or a wind god as compared to God Himself. All such beliefs require one to have faith. It is irrelevant that the teachings do not require one to have faith. The actual belief in that particular statement requires faith, and all sampradayas are "guilty" of accepting such faith based beliefs. There is nothing wrong with having faith in something that cannot be proven.

 

Unfortunately, the evidence in the form of how Gaudiya Vaishnavism is practiced is not consistent with your view that Chaithanya's divinity is irrelevant or unimportant. Let us take iskcon as an example. In iskcon books, including the ones distributed to people on the streets, the divinity of Sri Chaithanya is stated everywhere as if it were an obvious fact. In the Preface and Introduction to Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Chaithanya is referred to as "Lord Chaithanya" repeatedly. In Sri Chaithanya Charitamrita, one of iskcon's main books, the second chapter of the first section has an extensive description of his divinity and the reasons for his advent. Then again in Bhagavata commentary of Prabhupada again we see arguments in the purports about how some verses really mean Chaithanya even though such references are oblique to say the least. In iskcon gatherings which are open to the public, Sri Chaithanya is customarily referred to as Lord Chaithanya, non-different from Krishna, etc. If Chaithanya's divinity is not so important, then why does Prabhupada go through so much trouble to establish it in the basic books which his rank-and-file followers read? Why do iskcon followers casually repeat such assumptions even to novice seekers who come to their temples?

 

You can say whatever you want about Ramanuja and Madhva, but my observation is that their followers do not emphasize their "avatar status" anywhere near as much as Gaudiyas emphasize Chaithanya's avatar status.

 

 

Basically every single teacher in ancient times did some of the following:

 

1) quote unheard of scriptural texts

2) themselves or their disciples proclaimed them as a divine incarnation of something

 

I believe I acknowledged both points.

 

 

This does not mean that they were cheaters, their claims may have been true.

 

I never claimed that they were "cheaters." Frankly speaking you are obfuscating the issue. The issue is that Gaudiyas (see postings of rahalkar, sant, and sonic yogi previously) repeatedly present this "evidence" even today arguing for Chaithanya's divinity, and that too despite the fact that there is no way for anyone to cross-examine the evidence. Their attitude towards this "evidence" is hardly neutral. They will be happy if we accept it; they will be hostile if we do not.

 

I never see Gaudiyas issuing disclaimers to the effect that this evidence is from pramanas that were lost over time. But always I do see the same evidence being posted all over the internet in attempt to convince the uninformed public of the correctness of a view (which you claim against all observable facts is actually unimportant in gaudiya vaishnava doctrine).

 

 

That's up to individuals to decide, because factually no one knows beyond any trace of doubt how the universe functions and who incarnated as who. When we read the same stories in Puranas we accept them all with faith without questioning how Vidura could have been Yama. But when we hear such stories in later times we doubt the claims because today we don't perceive such incarnations around us.

 

Faith in supernatural occurrences in the Puranas is not the issue. If the Purana clearly says that Sri Krishna took avatara as a 16th century Bengali bhakta, then no one can deny that the Purana says it. The issue is whether or not it was actually said in the Purana in the first place. Let us not confuse belief in supernatural events described in the Puranas with unquestioning faith that a spurious reference does in fact come from a Purana.

 

There are numerous references quoted by Gaudiyas across a wide variety of sources pointing to Sri Chaitanya's divinity. If we are honest and objective, we have to acknowledge that every single, clear-cut reference to Sri Chaithanya's divinity is always from a "lost portion" of some smriti and thus must be accepted on faith. Rather strange coincidence, don't you think?

 

More importantly, despite all these numerous references, we see that hardly one of them is known by any source outside the Caithanya sampradaya. Once again, another convenient coincidence.

 

Of course, none of this would be an issue if Caithanya's followers did not insist so strongly on proclaiming his divinity. But since they do, expect people to express legitimate doubts.

 

In response to "He [Madhavendra Puri] was "greatly celebrated," and yet there is no record of him in the mAdhva mathas." you wrote:

 

 

This is a weak argument. Even today I have seen many greatly celebrated living saints in villages that are completely unknown outside of their district. 500 years ago when there was no proper communication system I would expect there to be thousands of "well known" saints who would be completely unheard of outside of their own circle of living.

 

I guess this depends on how you define "well known" or "greatly celebrated." In any case, I was not arguing anything all here. It was Sonic Yogi who claimed that Madhavendra Puri was a "greatly celebrated" Madhva ascetic, to which I pointed out that there is no record of him in the Madhva Maths. If you want to believe that he was a "greatly celebrated, well known" Madhva ascetic despite the fact that (a) there is no mention of him in the Madhva maths, (b) he did not have a Madhva name and, © he did not possess a Madhva philosphical outlook (as per Sonic Yogi), then by all means be my guest!

 

In response to, "This is unlike, say, the IshAvAsya upanishad, which all sampradayas have. If you quote from IshAvAsya upanishad to say, an Advaitin, he has to accept the evidence and either accept your interpretation or be able to offer a better interpretation. But he cannot simply ignore it, because IshAvAsya is known to be genuine across different sampradayas. The same is not true of Chaithanya Upanishad." you wrote:

 

 

Other than for the purpose of debate, such universal acceptance is not really relevant.

 

If you believe an Upanishad's authenticity is not relevant, then why quote from it or any other "scripture" at all? Just give your own opinion and leave it at that. Why bother with "Chaithanya Upanishad" or "Allah Upanishad" or any of these other dubious references? What is the point of quoting from a scripture whose authenticity only you accept?

 

 

There are hundreds of texts that bear the name Upanishad. These include various versions (of texts that are supposed to be eternal and unauthored), regional "upanishads" that only exist in a particular state, and even upanishads that are confined to a particular subsect of Hinduism.

 

To say that something is "Upanishad" or "shruti" carries a certain distinction in Vedic culture regarding its origins and authenticity.

 

The vast majority of these later, so-called "Upanishads" are either authored texts or simply texts that do not enjoy widespread acceptance because they are only known to one sect, not preserved, etc. Some of these texts contain views that you will no doubt find repulsive. These include references to Advaitic concepts of moksha, belief in oneness of Vishnu and Shiva, belief in supremacy of Durga, etc. If someone quotes from such sources will you accept their validity and modify your own point of view to accommodate their "evidence?"

 

 

The "universally accepted for debate Upanishad list" is much smaller, and is not as universal as you are portraying.

 

I never claimed that the universally accepted Upanishad list was large. On the contrary, it is pretty much limited to 11-12 Upanishads. And naturally, Chaithanya Upanishad is not among them.

 

 

Yes, all saints in the past have quoted unheard of scriptures. Those that we like we call as "lost over time evidence" and those we don't like we say they fabricated their evidence. It's just our own prejudices acting in our mind to blame one and forgive the other.

 

It has nothing to do with "blaming one and forgiving the other." No one from your rival mathas is publishing obscure "lost over time" evidence on the internet to glorify their acharya as an avatar. Time and again it is only gaudiya vaishnavas who are doing this.

 

 

The same with those saints claiming (or being ascribed) divinity. If we like them we say it is innocent and not important, if we don't like them (say Sai Baba or Kalki Bhagavan) we say they are rascals and cheaters. It may or may not be true, but no one is being impartial in their judgements. They always show favoratism to their own selected tradition.

 

Well, Swami Narayan followers quote from an obscure Skandha Purana reference establishing his divinity. Do you accept it, or are you rejecting it based on prejudice? If Sai Baba followers similarly quote from an even more obscure source about his divinity, can you rationally reject it or is that too based on prejudice?

 

We don't need to turn this into another form of moral relativism. The honest approach would be to simply avoid using obscure, non-mainstream evidence to prove anything, especially on internet forums to impressionable young minds.

 

 

And in Bhaktivinoda's time no one questioned him on the authenticity of Caitanya Upanishad. And in Jiva Goswami's time no one questioned him when he published the list of scriptural verses predicting Sri Chaitanya's incarnation. What does that prove? It just means that people are humble and respectful of saintly people. Books were not as universally available as they are now.

 

Which is it? That they were humble, or that books were not as universally available? One explanation contradicts the other. If no challenge was issued because their books were not universally available, then this nullifies the argument that the lack of challenge implies acceptance.

 

If no one challenged because they were "humble," then I must ask - what does humility have to do with it? If a Sai Baba quotes an obscure tantra proving his divinity, then am I arrogant for questioning it? Please clarify.

 

 

Even today we cannot know the entire extent of the Vedic literatures other than a basic classification system. We cannot accurately say there are X number of verses, pages, chapters of the Vedic scriptures.

 

Similarly, we cannot know the full glories of the Supreme Lord. We cannot know all of the different forms that He can take. But we cannot use this logic to suggest that a particular person is actually His avatar. Nor can we use this logic to suggest that an unknown shastra should be accepted as authentic.

 

I can acknowledge that there are other shastras and other Upanishads that are authentic and that I do not know about. But if we are honest, we must admit that we do now know what those other shastras are. So if someone presents one of them that is not accepted in the broader Vedanta tradition, we must take exception to their standard of evidence. We cannot simply accept any bizarre or obscure text on the plea that we do not know "all" of the Vedas and that not accepting such texts is based on prejudice. There has to be some discrimination too.

 

 

Thousands of years ago when communication practically did not exist and transportation also hardly existed we cannot expect that people had an accurate understooding of what "was" the complete Vedic scriptures in a manner that would allow them to immediately reject a particular verse as inauthentic.

 

JNd,

 

The Bhavishya Purana verses predicting Jesus say that King Salivahana fought with the Romans. Historically, we know that no such conflict existed. Is it possible that Salivahana fought with Rome and we do not know about it? Possibly, but extremely unlikely. Similarly, there are other historical inaccuracies in that text. All available evidence points to interpolation, and rejection of such verses seems more intelligent than blind acceptance.

 

You can argue all you want about our limited knowledge of the full Veda, etc, but at the end of the day we have to think and make decisions based on what is possible and what is probable. It is possible that the Romans invaded India, against everything that we know to be true historically. But it is more probable that this misconception was in the mind of the author of these spurious verses.

 

 

Please don't think anything posted here represents the views of "Gaudiya vaishnavism". One person posting on a forum a statement that he read from a blog by Jagat doesn't indicate the view of "Gaudiya Vaishnavism". It is statistically insignificant and ignorable. To get the actual view of what Gaudiya vaishnavas think on the Caitanya Upanishad you would need to speak with many scholars in Bengal and Orissa to come to an accurate conclusion as to what Gaudiya Vaishnavas in general accept or reject in regards to Caitanya Upanishad.

 

Problem is that "many scholars" in Bengal and Orissa have different opinions. Some like Prabhupada. Others hate Bhaktivinod. Some like iskcon. Others think it is deviant, etc. Everyone claims they are representing the real Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that the others are different, impure, untrue, etc.

 

And despite the heterogeneity, Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not hesitate to state authoritatively that their views are right and all other GV views are wrong. Then when taken to task, we are told that no one has the official view. But once that silences us, again the fighting starts with everyone claiming that they have the official view. It is not really clear who one must go to get the real story on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Not Chaithanya since he only left 8 verses. Not the gosvamis, since they never acknowledged the Madhva-Gaudiya parampara. And so on and so on.

 

 

Your way is like me finding some guy named "Fred" posting in this forum that says he is a Madhva follower and he believes Madhva is the devil. Then I could post saying "even amongst the Madhva sampradaya, there are a good number of them who think Madhva is the devil." It is intellectually dishonest, and I am sure you knew that because these things don't go unnoticed by you.

 

Rubbish. I have not singled out any specific Gaudiya Vaishnava as representative of the group. I have been listening to everyone's opinions, even whey they contradict each other, as Kulapavana, theist, Sonic Yogi, ghAri, et al. often do. But one thing that is common to most of them is their aggressively public stance about Sri Caitanya's divinity, despite your attempts to downplay this. Perhaps you all need to discuss amongst yourselves what your priorities are instead of ascribing impure motivations to me.

[sant]

 

Originally Posted by kaiserose: Did Madhvas quote these missing verses to non-Madhvas at anytime without verse numbers and expect them to be accepted on the basis of faith? Show me one instance. This whole "references not found" criticism of Madhva is taken out of context.

 

On the other hand., there are several instances where the Gauidyas have tried it and are still trying to push bogus verses (without verse numbers) about the avatarhood of Chaitanya on the basis of faith to non-Gaudiyas. Until now, you believed these verses were genuine, yourself.

 

Now you may argue that these verse were lost after some dude made that list. That is not good enough. These verses should have existed before the time of Chaitanya, and therefore the coming of an avatar of Vishnu would have been noticed and recorded by other Vaishnava Gurus who lived long before Chaitanya. But that is not the case. These unidentified verses were not existing before the time of Chaitanya, briefly popped up during the time when someone compiled that list and promptly disappeared soon after. Is that your position now? Because there is no other position in favor of this theory.

 

I dont know about wat you are saying about gaudiyas doing such things as i have no idea .Just like raghu says indirectly says faith.I dont have a copy of these puranas thats why i did not find them.

[sant]

 

Originally Posted by raghu: Yes, I've been beaten at my own argument. Please forgive me for my offenses. I simply cannot debate with you.

 

 

Your much better than those who leave cheap comments on my reputation.

[ranjeetmore]

some one here(k ... ?) talks about Sri Gauranga as if he were some sathya sai baba...it speaks a lot about how DISGUSTINGLY insensitive and short sighted he is.

 

 

As for raghu...

Ramananda was disowned by the Sri Sampradaya because he wished to accept even the shudras as disciples.

The bhagavatam describes- "Even the women and shudras have right to Sri Krsna bhakti."

 

So who should we follow ?? The Sri Vaishnavas will roar,"He is a offender !"

But Ramananda was simply following what the Lord willed.

 

Tulsidasa comes in this lineage.

 

You openly deny Ramcharitmanasa.But this is just your sampradayic feeling...a kind of elitism on your part (the teachings in that book are nonsense...just read Ramanuja's works.oh.).

 

It is the SAME WITH THE SAMPRADAYAS ALL OVER.

 

It should however be crystal clear:

 

is the person pure?

Is he teaching what the sastras are teaching ?

Is he realised ?

Lastly,can he establish-the vedas point only towards Sri Krsna/sri Visnu etc ?????

 

this is the criteria.

 

we cannot just insult a mahatma just because he says ,"Worship Sri Nrsingha." and not Sri Varaha.

 

Caitanya's avtaarhood is out of question.The present iskonites are mostly mislead and can't handle it properly.It's never necessary to accept Sri Caitanya as HAri.But if we are intelligent,we should all respect him just as every vaishnava repects Ramanujacharyas...otherwise...we all go to hell.

 

 

***

 

Caitanya bhagavata was written by a maharasika saint in the Gaudiya line.There.It's NOT vedic sastra.

There,Kaisersose.Now shut it about how you can't find a single reference of Caintanya as avtaar before he actually advented.(becoz your revolting).

 

I just hope some miracle happens on national tv and i get to see your face because i sure as hell missed seeing it when you said,"The mention of Radha is absent before 15th century. cheers(ugh)" and the devi bhagavatam clearly mentions radhika.Of course your demoniac person refused to accept Radhikopanishad as sastra but again,that's your misfortune,not mine.

[ranjeetmore]

it's funny how Sri Ramakrishna...one of the most respected personalities(respected mostly by the advaitists) roars his confirmation,"Chaitanya was an incarnation of God" and

 

sings,"Balarama has come as Nityaananda,Shankara has come as Advaita,Narada as Srivasa and Radhika as Gadadhara,when will You come,oh Krsna,as the son of Saci ??"

 

 

 

and petty mayavadis think they are perfectly situated in the knowledge about the avtaarhood of Gauranga.

[raghu]

 

 

As for raghu...

 

You openly deny Ramcharitmanasa.But this is just your sampradayic feeling...a kind of elitism on your part

 

All I denied was the idea that the Ramcharitamanasa is the same as Ramayana. This is a fact since RCM is written by Tulasi dasa and is a recent composition in Hindu, while Ramayana is written by Valmiki and is a much older composition in Sanskrit.

 

Even this was only in response to your dishonest claim that the Ramayana depicts Rama transforming into Shiva and vice-versa. When challenged to substantiate this claim, you then stated that it was from Ramcharitamanasa. Then you claimed that Ramacharitamanasa is same as Ramayana, and you inferred that this happened in Ramayana based on what you read in RCM. And then you admitted you had never read Ramayana.

 

I have read the Ramayana, and when I pointed out that this is not present in Ramayana, you flew into the typical battle rage that occurs when another Hare Krishna has been shown to be incorrect.

 

I really do not understand why you cannot simply acknowledge your mistake and change your views. How does abusing me help you in any way? Why do you persist in repeating mayavadi conclusions based on questionable sources?

[ranjeetmore]

I want to convey is : every single sampradaya fights like petty people.

 

Let me tell you one thing.A person whom i deeply respect and believe to be a perfect mahatma from his behaviour and his person said that : In leela Ksetra Sri Ramchandra became Shankarji and Vice versa.

 

Now,you may think otherwise,but I cannot just go on declaring,"ah- my master said so."

***

 

On the other hand,why can't we just let it go...about Caitanya...about RCM.

 

I mean there are definitely great saints in the Ramananda line.You JUST CANNOT DISMISS RCM OR A WORK OF A MAHATMA AS RUBBISH.IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT,DON'T THINK ABOUT IT.

 

 

All great saints say that,when an incarnation descends,very very few people actually understand His nature.If Narada pointed out to a person living in delhi,5000 years ago,"This is God."

 

He would say,"Ah- just look how he's chasing young girls.My son is better.Narada has lost it !"

 

Srila Vedavyasa wrote the Bhagavatam AFTER sRi KRsna departed.This is how it is.Leela avtaras are HARDLY EVER RECOGNISED AT THE THEIR TIME.Now we do Hare Krsna Hare Rama but when we saw Rama/Krsna we laughed at their Godhood status.

 

All I'm saying is ,just let it be.

[ranjeetmore]

Btw,Shankara is indifferent from Sri Vishnu is not a mayavadi conclusion.

 

That the Person,Mahesvara,is an expansion of the Person,Sri Vishnu and is indiffrent from Him,is a gaudiya conclusion.

[sant]

 

All I denied was the idea that the Ramcharitamanasa is the same as Ramayana. This is a fact since RCM is written by Tulasi dasa and is a recent composition in Hindu, while Ramayana is written by Valmiki and is a much older composition in Sanskrit.

 

You dont beleive in the divinity of tulsidas who had darshan of hanuman.

Certainly some things might not be same as valmiki ramayan.But you dont see that even tulsidas knew valmiki ramayan and there must be a reason why he wrote the way it is.Ram cahrit manas is beautiful.

[ranjeetmore]

in fact...Tulsidas is considered as an incarnation of Valmiki...

 

Lord Shankara is said to have concieved the idea of RCM,Hanumanji sat on Tulsidas's tongue and rest is history.

[raghu]

 

in fact...Tulsidas is considered as an incarnation of Valmiki...

 

Lord Shankara is said to have concieved the idea of RCM,Hanumanji sat on Tulsidas's tongue and rest is history.

 

Whatever.

 

Ramayana and Rama Charita Manasa are not the same. Whoever says that Rama transformed into Shiva in the Ramayana is lying.

 

I don't understand why I must believe in the divinity of Tulasi das. It sounds to me like you are simply repeating certain assumptions as a priori facts and throwing tantrums because the rest of us do not share in those assumptions.

 

Or maybe you just do not want to admit that you were caught misrepresenting the Ramayana.

[raghu]

 

I want to convey is : every single sampradaya fights like petty people.

 

There would be no fighting if people like you (a) refrained from making prejudiced, sectarian statements (i.e. your comment on the ugly form of Shiva), (b) learned to respect facts and evidence, and © stopped making wild and unfounded claims.

 

But in my experience, people like you continue to be argumentative when you no longer should be, and then you complain that there is too much argument.

 

 

Let me tell you one thing.A person whom i deeply respect and believe to be a perfect mahatma from his behaviour and his person said that : In leela Ksetra Sri Ramchandra became Shankarji and Vice versa.

 

But you earlier said that this was in the Ramayana. That was a lie. It is NOT in the Ramayana. Why are you having so much trouble with this concept? Simply tell the truth, and do not misrepresent the facts. Now you are trying to turn this into a discussion on the merits of RCM. I don't know what that has to do with anything. Suffice it to say that RCM is not the Ramayana, and that the Ramayana does NOT depict Rama turning into Shiva or vice-versa.

 

Honesty. That's all we need to have a productive discussion.

[kaisersose]

 

some one here(k ... ?) talks about Sri Gauranga as if he were some sathya sai baba...it speaks a lot about how DISGUSTINGLY insensitive and short sighted he is.

 

If you mean, such a comparison is an insult to Sai Baba & his millions of devotees, I agree it is possible. But as none of them are in this forum, no one will take offense.

 

Thanks for pointing it out, though. That was very considerate of you.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

seeing the discussion whether ramacharita manas is an accepted text or not , i was thinking what are the determining factors for validity of any text ?

 

is it merely its age . the older the text the more infallible it is ?

 

does the spiritual status of the person who wrote it never taken into consideration ? but then again how to determine this status ?

 

just thinking..........!!

[ranjeetmore]

raghu,you completely missed my point: About the avtaarhood of Caitanya...

[ranjeetmore]

 

I want to convey is : every single sampradaya fights like petty people.

 

Let me tell you one thing.A person whom i deeply respect and believe to be a perfect mahatma from his behaviour and his person said that : In leela Ksetra Sri Ramchandra became Shankarji and Vice versa.

 

Now,you may think otherwise,but I cannot just go on declaring,"ah- my master said so."

 

***

 

On the other hand,why can't we just let it go...about Caitanya...about RCM.

 

I mean there are definitely great saints in the Ramananda line.You JUST CANNOT DISMISS RCM OR A WORK OF A MAHATMA AS RUBBISH.IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT,DON'T THINK ABOUT IT.

 

 

All great saints say that,when an incarnation descends,very very few people actually understand His nature.If Narada pointed out to a person living in delhi,5000 years ago,"This is God."

 

He would say,"Ah- just look how he's chasing young girls.My son is better.Narada has lost it !"

 

Srila Vedavyasa wrote the Bhagavatam AFTER sRi KRsna departed.This is how it is.Leela avtaras are HARDLY EVER RECOGNISED AT THE THEIR TIME.Now we do Hare Krsna Hare Rama but when we saw Rama/Krsna we laughed at their Godhood status.

 

All I'm saying is ,just let it be.

[raghu]

 

raghu,you completely missed my point: About the avtaarhood of Caitanya...

 

Yes, I got the point. Like Darwin's theory of evolution or the Big Bang, it can only be "proven" to people who want to believe in it in the first place. So why quote all these verses that do not exist? Just say he is God, this is your opinion, and everyone must believe it on the strength of your opinion.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

There are many versions of Ramayana, and though most people assume that when the word "ramayana" is used it automatically refers to Valmiki Ramayana, that may not be the case for some people. It's actually just a communication problem. The problem is that they do not specify which Ramayana they are speaking of, so we are left to assume they are speaking about Valmiki Ramayana, but their entire conversation will actually be about XYZ Ramayana. If they had specified clearly "in Valmiki Ramayana", "in Kamban Ramayana", "in Tulsidas Ramayana", etc., then no one can fault them for their claim.

 

The next step would be whether the quoted text is an accepted evidence or not, and that again comes down to personal opinion. There are many who don't even accept Valmiki Ramayana as an evidence, and that's their right. Others may not accept Tulsidas Ramayana, or Kamban Ramayana. In cases like this, in my opinion it is better to not try to "prove" our belief as the supreme position, but just to present our position, "In Tulasidas Ramayana it is said... and I believe this." You may not get the universal debate victory crown, but then that isn't worth much. You have conveyed your position honestly and readers have already decided themselves how they view the source (Tulsidas Ramayana for example). Most respect Tulsidas as a saint and regard his words as truth, so you would have succeeded in convincing the majority of people in a way that does not anger others or cause argument. For those who do not respect Tulsidas Ramayana, you could either choose to find verses in Valmiki Ramayana, or just not worry about it. You will never convince everyone about your position (no matter what the position is), so we don't have to try to convince everyone.