Ramanuja-Gaudiya parampara

[Beggar]

 

Justin is a seeker of the truth. Therefore he does not hesitate to say a unicorn does not exist. If you call that insulting maybe you need to investigate your inner motive and find out if you really are a sincere seeker of the truth. Don't you have a swamin's guidance that you should not prevent another vaishnava from doing his duty? Aren't you using hypocrisy and putting silly questions to others demonstrating that you are holier-than-thou? Please ask these penetrating questions to yourself and see if you are sincere in the first place before you speak against others.

 

If anyone proposes that supposed Vaisnavas act in a humble manner according to the dictates of their teachers, then that person: 1) can be construed as a hypocrite. And: 2) can be construed as sanctimonious person who is taking a holier-than-thou attitude.

If one is a sincere seeker of the truth, no matter their affiliation, they must take a humble position. And although I am writing this I am trying to somehow look at my own position, and pray that I do not cause anyone to lose faith in Sri Bhagavan in any form that one is attracted. We may have difficulty in controlling our senses and we may have a very mundane side of our personality, but if we are to represent a postion of saintly, predecessor acaryas in any Vaisnava line then we are duty bound to not misrepresent them by taking an offensive and argumentative approach.

[Justin]

 

I was a follower of Sri Vaishnavism until I read Prabhupada's books.

 

Now I'm a follower of Gaudiya Vaishnava. Why?

 

Because Krishna has blessed them to spread their influence far and wide, and the Maha-Mantra works!

 

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna

Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama

Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

Unfortunately you have to be aparadha free to taste the nectar.

 

Haribol

 

I had a soft corner for gaudiyas although I was a Sri Vaishnava. Then I was disillusioned with gaudiyas. Why? Because they misuse and abuse the very traditions they have copied all their stuff from.

 

Emperumanar Thiruvadikale Saranam!

[Justin]

 

If anyone proposes that supposed Vaisnavas act in a humble manner according to the dictates of their teachers, then that person: 1) can be construed as a hypocrite. And: 2) can be construed as sanctimonious person who is taking a holier-than-thou attitude.

If one is a sincere seeker of the truth, no matter their affiliation, they must take a humble position. And although I am writing this I am trying to somehow look at my own position, and pray that I do not cause anyone to lose faith in Sri Bhagavan in any form that one is attracted. We may have difficulty in controlling our senses and we may have a very mundane side of our personality, but if we are to represent a postion of saintly, predecessor acaryas in any Vaisnava line then we are duty bound to not misrepresent them by taking an offensive and argumentative approach.

no no no no no. You are not taking a humble position. Don't let my praise of holier than thou deceive you. What you are doing is criticising me in the guise of a beggar. You are actually a proud person who is confused about religion and needlessly arguing with me.

If you think I am taking a hard stance you should meet one of my gurus who I had a chance to meet with recently. He says that a soul can only get moksha by following Ramanuja sampradaya. Every soul on earth will get moksha as they will be born as a Sri Vaishnava and ultimately attain the lotus feet. He says everyone else other than Sri Vaishnavas have not discovered the nectar and will never attain the feet. He is actually very learned person. Is he a hypocrite and insincere?

[Meghanatha]

Namaskar Justin.

Thanks for speaking out about the GV fairy tales.

As a Sri Vaishnava, I find those stories ridiculous and offensive.

GVs know more than you Justin, their conception of God is superior to everyone else´s.

[chandu_69]

Why this parampara thing is on spirituality thread?.If the admin thinks it is necessary to feed trolls like kaiserose,raghu etc why dont you create a trolls thread.

[Justin]

beggar swamin, I am waiting for your humble response?

[kaisersose]

 

Why this parampara thing is on spirituality thread?.If the admin thinks it is necessary to feed trolls like kaiserose,raghu etc why dont you create a trolls thread.

 

You dont even know why this topic is on the spirituality thread?

 

Dude, It is a good thing that you are not the admin!

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

Why this parampara thing is on spirituality thread?

 

I agree. There are plenty of other spiritual topics that better fit this forum. Like the guy who wants mantras to make his girlfriend love him. Or the various "end of the world" threads. All very spiritual.

 

 

.If the admin thinks it is necessary to feed trolls like kaiserose,raghu etc why dont you create a trolls thread.

 

I have a better idea. Let us create two forums:

- one for people who know how to read, understand, and respond to simple questions/remarks in English

- the other for those people who habitually write the same things without even bothering to read

[rahalkar]

 

After seeing all the discussions in another thread I am exited to present a Gaudiya version of Bhagavad Ramanujacharya's education...

...

...

"Taking the Lord's advice, Ramanuja secretly cultured his attraction

for Navadvipa. So that Gauranga's pastimes were not revealed

prematurely, Lord Narayana then led Ramanuja here to Vaikunthapura

and mercifully showed Ramanuja His transcendental form served by Shri,

Bhu, and Nila. Ramanuja considered himself fortunate to obtain

darsana of his worshipable Lord, when suddenly he saw the Lord assume

the enchanting form of Gauranga, the son of Jagannatha Misra.

Ramanuja swooned at the brilliance of the form. Then Gauranga put His

lotus feet on the head of Ramanuja, who was thus divinely inspired

and recited prayers of praise. `I must see Gauranga's actual lila on

earth. I can never leave Navadvipa!'

...

 

 

 

Here is another fabricated tale:

....

 

 

 

Hare Krishna everybody,

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

 

Here is the truth: Gaudiyas had no authenticity of disciple succession. So they made it up.

Laxmi never taught Sri Ramanuja and Brahma never taught Sri Madhva. This is all made up.

Then they plagiarized the works of Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, Sri Vallabha, and Sri Sankara.

They put all their great works in a pool and christened it gaudiya vaishnavism. They poured

some of their own concoctions in the pool. Replaced Shriman Narayana with Krsna so to make

this cocktail appear as original.

 

 

No, that's not the truth. Your understanding of Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession does not have any scriptural basis, therefore it is completely wrong.

 

In another thread I have already replied to your questions about Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya disciplic succession. The thread is - Madhva-Gaudiya parampara - spiritual-discussions/451479-madhva-gaudiya-parampara.html - Please see the post 127 and 128

 

You might not have had a chance to look at it yet. Please take time to read it.

 

For sharing the information with other readers of this thread, I am putting it here -

 

1. The Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya Paramapara, Guru-Disciplic succession, was stated by Srila Kavi Karnapura and authorized by Lord Gauranga Himself.

 

There can be no questions whatsoever about the legitimacy of the Parampara coming from Srila Madvacharya to Lord Gauranga because Lord Gauranga Himself accepted Sri Ishwara Puri in the disciplic succession as his beloved Spiritual Master. If it wasn't bonafide line of disciplic succession, then, the Lord who is knower of everything and who Himself said in Srimad Bhagavad Gita BG 4.2 - Evam Parampara Praptam, would not have accepted Srila Ishwara Puri as His Spiritual Master.

 

Who can know the past, present and future and what's bonafide and what's not better than the Supreme Lord Himself? If the Lord accepted Srila Ishwara Puri as His Spiritual Master, then that authorizes the disciplic succession from Srila Madvacharya to Srila Ishwara Puri and to Lord Gauranga. What more evidence is needed?

 

2. There are few differences in the philosophy explained by Srila Madvacharya's (dvaita philosophy) and that explained in Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya (Achintya Bhedabhed) from-and-after the divine presence of Lord Gauranga in the Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya. Achintya Bhedabhed explanation does not contradict Srila Madvacharya's Dvaita explanations, rather it complements it. Achintya Bhedabhed was given by none other than the Supreme Lord Himself knowing fully well the rules and regulation of being in Parampara System. Anything given by the Lord Himself, how can it be deviation?

 

The all-omnicient, all-knowing Supreme Lord is always free to add/subtract/alter/change/complement whatever and whenever He likes becuase He is knower of the Supreme Absolute Truth because He is the Supreme Absolute Truth. Therefore Achintya Bhedabhed can not be considered deviation, rather it is complementary to the earlier explanations.

 

From Mahabharat, we know that the Lord would rather let go of His own word just to uphold the prestige and honor of the words of His devotee. Everyone knows in Mahabharat, how Lord Krishna broke His own word of not taking up any arms during the war and took the wheel and charged at Sri Bhismadev, just to keep the honor of the vow of Sri Bhisma.

 

Srila Madvacharya is dear devotee of the Lord. The Supreme Lord never violates the words of His own heart - His dear devotee. Therefore Lord Gauranga's Achintya Bhedabhed does not contradict the explanations of Srila Madvacharya, but simply enriches it.

 

3. The conclusion given by Srila Madvacharya and that given in the Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya, are both same, that is - jiva (jiva tattva) and the Lord (Vishnu tattva) are separate and Supreme Lord is the eternal master of the jiva as opposed to Advaita Philosophy of oneness or monism etc.

 

Because the conclusions of Srila Madvacharya and that of Brahma-Madva Gaudiya from-and-after Lord Gauranga are same, it is not deviation.

 

Therefore the teachings of Srila Prabhupada are received through proper disciplic succession from - Lord Krishna... Brahma...... Vyasa... Madva...... Gauranga...Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

...Brahma never taught Sri Madhva. This is all made up.

 

 

Somehow you misunderstood that Brahma taught to Sri Madhvacharya. The disciplic succession is from Brahma-Narada-Vyas-Madhva.

 

Jai Srila Prabhupada!

 

Hare Krishna!

[gHari]

These pastimes cannot be known through mundane senses. For those who accept the worlds beyond space and time, and the saints who have seen them: http://www.salagram.net/BVT-NDM.html

[gHari]

Timeless worlds on earth ....from http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html

<blockquote>Madhva made two trips to Badarikâshrama, the abode of BâdarâyaNa a.k.a. Veda Vyâsa, and on the first, obtained the imprimatur of BâdarâyaNa Himself for his Bhâshya on the Bhagavad Gita, when the latter made the correction "<tt>vakshyâmi leshataH</tt>" ("I state infinitesimally"), in place of "<tt>vakshyâmi shaktitaH</tt>" ("I state as best as I can").</blockquote>

[AncientMariner]

 

These pastimes cannot be known through mundane senses. For those who accept the worlds beyond space and time, and the saints who have seen them: http://www.salagram.net/BVT-NDM.html

 

 

Sometimes I have suffered from doubts but there is no denying there is something magical about the pastimes of Krishna.

[ranjeetmore]

I'm sorry to say but the present "Ramanujites'' are very dissillusioned.

 

They say ONLY and ONLY Sri Sampradaya is the one.

 

What about the three other Jagadguru titles given to the highly exalted personalities ??

 

MAdhva,Nimbarka and Ramanuja all are mahatmas.

 

Forget all the nonsense about how GVs try to show Ramanuja down to show Gauranga as God,

your most offensive and third class philosophy is 'Radha-a bogus deity.'

 

I mean who the hell calls Mahalaxmi bogus ? .Do you realise you just did that ???

 

You praise Ramanuja,no bars.Why do you have to comment upon Chaitanya deva ?? If Hari bhakti would be contained within a sampradaya,there would've been no Meera,Tulsi,Kabeer,Surdas,Nyaneshwara,etc.

Why don't you understand this ??

You have absolutely no right or the authority to identify the authenticity of the incarnation of the Lord.

 

You have no spiritual vision and neither do those who say that 'Radha is a bogus deity.' I'm not sure even patala loka will suffice for such offense.

 

Have no doubt whatsoever that for such an offense you shall go to hell.

 

Just because you have failed miserably to gain the knowledge of scriptures like Radha-tapani upanishad,Radhikopanishad, etc. doesn't mean you can dismiss Sri Radhika as a human.You are ignorant of the fact that Sri Suta Gosvami would go into bhava samadhi for 3 months when he would just utter the word 'Radha'.

Thus there is no apparent mention of Sri Radhika in bhagavtam by Name.

 

Forget the GVs.Sri Ramabhadracharyaji of the Ramanandi sampradaya,spent an entire hour PROVING that Sri Radhika is indeed indifferent from Sri Sita and that She is mentioned in the bhagavatam.

 

A REAL Mahatma knows perfectly all these truths eventhough his position as Vishnu bhakta or Rama Bhakta,is PROTECTED by Yogamaya,thus making His dearmost form of the Lord appear as most attractive.

 

You are NO MAHATMA for making such comments.

Only you are limited.If this topic would've arose during the times of Sri Ramanuja,and had you made such a statement,I have no doubt that Ramnuja would've dismissed you forever.

[Narasingh]

 

I'm sorry to say but the present "Ramanujites'' are very dissillusioned.

 

They say ONLY and ONLY Sri Sampradaya is the one.

 

What about the three other Jagadguru titles given to the highly exalted personalities ??

 

MAdhva,Nimbarka and Ramanuja all are mahatmas.

 

Forget all the nonsense about how GVs try to show Ramanuja down to show Gauranga as God,

your most offensive and third class philosophy is 'Radha-a bogus deity.'

 

I mean who the hell calls Mahalaxmi bogus ? .Do you realise you just did that ???

 

You praise Ramanuja,no bars.Why do you have to comment upon Chaitanya deva ?? If Hari bhakti would be contained within a sampradaya,there would've been no Meera,Tulsi,Kabeer,Surdas,Nyaneshwara,etc.

Why don't you understand this ??

You have absolutely no right or the authority to identify the authenticity of the incarnation of the Lord.

 

You have no spiritual vision and neither do those who say that 'Radha is a bogus deity.' I'm not sure even patala loka will suffice for such offense.

 

Have no doubt whatsoever that for such an offense you shall go to hell.

 

Just because you have failed miserably to gain the knowledge of scriptures like Radha-tapani upanishad,Radhikopanishad, etc. doesn't mean you can dismiss Sri Radhika as a human.You are ignorant of the fact that Sri Suta Gosvami would go into bhava samadhi for 3 months when he would just utter the word 'Radha'.

Thus there is no apparent mention of Sri Radhika in bhagavtam by Name.

 

Forget the GVs.Sri Ramabhadracharyaji of the Ramanandi sampradaya,spent an entire hour PROVING that Sri Radhika is indeed indifferent from Sri Sita and that She is mentioned in the bhagavatam.

 

A REAL Mahatma knows perfectly all these truths eventhough his position as Vishnu bhakta or Rama Bhakta,is PROTECTED by Yogamaya,thus making His dearmost form of the Lord appear as most attractive.

 

You are NO MAHATMA for making such comments.

Only you are limited.If this topic would've arose during the times of Sri Ramanuja,and had you made such a statement,I have no doubt that Ramnuja would've dismissed you forever.

[rrao]

 

No, that's not the truth. Your understanding of Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession does not have any scriptural basis, therefore it is completely wrong.

 

How does one understand the "Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession" on the basis of scripture? Is there some scripture that lists the parampara from Madhva through Lakshmipati Tirth to Caithanya?

 

 

1. The Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya Paramapara, Guru-Disciplic succession, was stated by Srila Kavi Karnapura and authorized by Lord Gauranga Himself.

 

Can you please explain where "Lord Gaurangaauthorized" the above disciplic succession? Because aside from the fact that he only wrote 8 verses, and there is no mention of the disciplic succession there, there is also no mention of the "Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya" parampara even in the teachings that are attributed to him and recorded in the books of his followers! So, given that he never spoke about such a parampara, how exactly did he "authorize" it?

 

 

There can be no questions whatsoever about the legitimacy of the Parampara coming from Srila Madvacharya to Lord Gauranga because Lord Gauranga Himself accepted Sri Ishwara Puri in the disciplic succession as his beloved Spiritual Master.

 

How does Gauranga accepting Ishvara Puri as a guru prove that his parampara is linked to Madhva? There is no connection at all between these two ideas.

 

 

If it wasn't bonafide line of disciplic succession, then, the Lord who is knower of everything and who Himself said in Srimad Bhagavad Gita BG 4.2 - Evam Parampara Praptam, would not have accepted Srila Ishwara Puri as His Spiritual Master.

 

Huh?

 

So he is God, so he must have accepted a "bonafide line of disciplic succession?"

 

If that is true, then do you accept Buddhism? After all, Buddha has more evidence substantiating his divinity than does Chaithanya/Gauranga. So by your argument, Buddha must have also come in a "bona fide line of disciplic succession" even though he rejected the Vedas!

 

 

Who can know the past, present and future and what's bonafide and what's not better than the Supreme Lord Himself? If the Lord accepted Srila Ishwara Puri as His Spiritual Master, then that authorizes the disciplic succession from Srila Madvacharya to Srila Ishwara Puri and to Lord Gauranga. What more evidence is needed?

 

You are aware, are you not, that the idea of Chaithanya being God is only accepted by Chaithanya followers? As in, this is a pretty classic case of circular logic.

 

 

2. There are few differences in the philosophy explained by Srila Madvacharya's (dvaita philosophy) and that explained in Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya (Achintya Bhedabhed) from-and-after the divine presence of Lord Gauranga in the Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya.

 

There are actually quite a few, major differences between Madhvacharya's philosophy and the philosophy of "achintya bhedabhed." There is a total difference of epistemology, a completely different understanding of the Godhead, and a totally different understanding of the relationship of the different tattvas.

 

 

Achintya Bhedabhed explanation does not contradict Srila Madvacharya's Dvaita explanations, rather it complements it.

 

You came to this conclusion after dispassionately studying both philosophies, right?

[ranjeetmore]

rrao,your taunts are pathetic

If you dnt want to accept chaitanya as God,fine.But even the dumbest of all neophyte devotees would come to know the tremendous maha-bhagavata personality traits of chaitanya.Those who were addicted to sastra discussions also were in awe of the auspicious signs displayed in Gauranga's body.Very few personalities have such signs.Sukadeva paramhamsa,the 4 kumara paramhamsas etc have such signs...

These basic facts should do nothing but urge common people to atleast observe steadfast respect for Gauranga.

I have always observed humble Nimbarkis.NEVER do they talk a single bad word about anyone.They invite everyone from iskconites to local babajis for kirtan.They TOLERATE everyone(barring offenders obviously).Such humble vaishnavas know very well to respect everyone from ramanuja to Gauranga.

I have always maintained the inclination towards addressing Chaitanyadeva as merely Gauranga.I don't think the intimate fact is meant to be voiced so openly as is the custom.

Who was this Gauranga ?

Oh,he was the greatest bhakta ever.Describe his ecstatic symptoms.His person.

 

Who was this Gauranga ?

The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Anyone will run away.

[sambya]

 

..........knowledge of scriptures like Radha-tapani upanishad,Radhikopanishad, etc.

 

im not commenting against radha but at the same time im rather curious to know about these texts in a greater detail ..........

[ranjeetmore]

The radha tapani upanishad,radikopanishad were quoted heavily not only by the mahrasikas of the gaudiya sampradaya(Gosvamis,etc.),but also nimbarkis and most recently by Sri Kripaluji Maharaj.

There is a set of teachings handed down from Hamsa avatara to the 4 sons of Brahma,the kumaras,Sanat kumara,sanakadika..

These teachings are known as the sanat kumara sanghita...just like the brahm sanghita.This scripture reveals the most intimate and blissful form of brahm as Sri Radha krishna.

[ranjeetmore]

Actually the vedas describe all the three features of God.

Bhagavan is addressed in the upasana kaanda.

Brahm in jnana kaanda

 

and paramatma in karma-kaanda.

 

Some foolish people choose to believe that brahm is only Niraakar.They completely ignore the mantras describing Sri Krsna or twist them,manipulate them to make them fit.

[raghu]

Dear Ranjeet,

 

First of all, apologies for the late reply. For the last several months I was not able to access the forum due to repeated error messages to the effect that the server as "too busy." Then I created a new userid to see if that might fix things, and for a while I was able to post as rrao, but then I started running into the same problem. Hopefully this has now been fixed.

 

Now on to your comments.

 

 

rrao,your taunts are pathetic

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't taunted you or rahalkar at all. I only asked questions to clarify his/your stance regarding the "scriptural" basis of the Madhva-Gaudiya parampara. I'm not sure why you have suddenly turned hostile.

 

 

If you dnt want to accept chaitanya as God,fine.

 

This does not answer the question about the "scriptural basis" for the Madhva-Chaitanya link.

 

Just to summarize, Rahalkar made the following claims for which I am still awaiting clarification:

 

"Your understanding of Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession does not have any scriptural basis, therefore it is completely wrong." - what is the "scriptural" basis of the BMG disciplic succession?

 

"The Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya Paramapara, Guru-Disciplic succession, was stated by Srila Kavi Karnapura and authorized by Lord Gauranga Himself." - again, where exactly did Gauranga "authorize" this disciplic succession? In what writings attributed to him has he even mentioned this disciplic succession?

 

Furthermore, Rahalkar made the claim that achintya bedha abedha "complements" Tattvavada and furthermore he minimized the differences between the two. I asked if he had ever studied Tattvavada, and from what I can see he never answered that question.

 

regards,

Raghu

[ranjeetmore]

I have absolutely NO INTEREST in establishing Gauranga as belonging to Madhva sampradaya.

 

I am 100 % sure that even Gauranga feels the same way.

 

But...there are customs...accept a sampradaya,etc etc.So He did it.

 

Anyway...i do not to the sampradaya system.I think all of them are filled with ordinary people(who pose as gurus) today...at least the most popular one is...

 

All that matters is you respect Gauranga and remember that any single sampradaya doesn't reserve exclusive rights to Godhead.

[kaisersose]

 

I have absolutely NO INTEREST in establishing Gauranga as belonging to Madhva sampradaya.

 

I am 100 % sure that even Gauranga feels the same way.

 

But...there are customs...accept a sampradaya,etc etc.So He did it.

 

Accepting the Sampradaya means, accepting the beliefs of that Sampradaya. Since Chaitanya created brand new beliefs which contradict Madhva Sampradaya tenets, it is is obvious that he was not of the Madhva Sampradaya.

 

In short, if accepting a sampradaya was the custom, then Gauranga broke the custom.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

I have absolutely NO INTEREST in establishing Gauranga as belonging to Madhva sampradaya.

 

That is strange. Your own Kavi Karnapur and Baladeva Vidyabhushana claimed such a link.

 

 

I am 100 % sure that even Gauranga feels the same way.

 

Yet Rahalkar claims that "Gaurangaauthorized" the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. This was what I questioned earlier.

 

 

But...there are customs...accept a sampradaya,etc etc.So He did it.

 

 

What is worse - admitting you have no sampradaya and being labeled as an obvious Neo-Vedantist, or pretending you have one in order to have an air of legitimacy?

 

 

Anyway...i do not to the sampradaya system.

 

Wow. What an admission!

 

 

I think all of them are filled with ordinary people(who pose as gurus) today...at least the most popular one is...

 

No unfair generalizations there, I am sure. No doubt you have made a thorough study of the subject and have a basis for making such claims.

 

By the way, which sampradaya is "the most popular one?" I'm curious.

 

 

All that matters is you respect Gauranga and remember that any single sampradaya doesn't reserve exclusive rights to Godhead.

 

Why does only respecting Gauranga matter? Why not only respecting Madhva? Or only respecting Ramanuja? Or only respecting Sri Krishna? Or better yet, why not just respect them all?

 

What does respect have to do with legitimacy?