Finding out Sastric Evidences on Sri Caitanya avatara

[Guest guest]

 

We should understand that to preach is to face opposition. There in no preaching without opposition. The Gaudiya-vaisnava's boon all over the world is without any doubt a very recent event. Many of the sanatana-dharma traditional darsanas are quite astonished with the revelation of Sri Caitanya's divinity. They want sastric evidences on that assertive. Their argument is quite simply; they want a sound sastric evidence on Sri Caitanya avatara made before His advent, not after His advent. Let's consider why:

 

1. They do not accept the Caitanya Upanishad: recently there was a discussion on that Upanisad instigated by babaji's party and they had argued that this Upanisad was invented by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura to promote his cause of the discovery of Navadvipa-dhama. Many of the other opposite parties such as Sri-vaisnavas and Tattva-vadis are now taking advantage of the doubts on the legitimacy of this Upanisad raised by the Gaudiya-vaisnava camp himself.

 

2. Baivaishya Purana: again the Gaudiya-vaisnava camp, represented by some babajis, is the main defender of the non-legitimacy of this Purana, arguing that there are no bona fide manuscripts of this Puruna and there are many interpolations on the texts. For certain other Vaisnava-sampradayas and other sanatana-dharma darsanas are now somewhat dubious of the authenticity of this Purana, that is also an Upa-purana and not even mentioned in many of the main lists of the original Puranas.

 

3. Srimad Bhagavatam: They consider that the Srimad Bhagavatam's sloka (11th Canto) that we often quote as a proof of Sri Caitanya avatara can have many other interpretations and it is not a sound proof. Sri Garga Muni's statements in 10th canto on the colors of Sri Hari in different yugas may also be understood in different ways.

 

4. Regarding other smrti texts they state that in some manuscripts the slokas concerning Sri Caitanya avatara are not present and may be fond only in a few newly editions. Actually the narrative on Sri Caitanya avatara fond in Sri Locana dasa's Sri Caitanya-mangala, for example, where he states that this dialog between Siva and Parvati may be fond in Padma Purna is not fond even in any of the present editions of Padma Purana.

 

Another point that they are now intriguing is regarding Sri Navadvipa-Mahatmya, where Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura mentions that Sri Caitanya has appeared in Sri Madhva's dreams (samadhi), as well a Sri Ramanuja's, Catursana's and Laksmi's and has revealed his advent to them. But they kept silence on that matter, and never had mentioned it to his followers, writings and so on, that is against vaisnavas's mercy. This topic is being discussed in net forums by now, and it is also a difficult point to be defended, as Sri Ramanuja, for example, has revealed the mantra 'om namo bhagavate vasudevaya' in spite of his own guru opposition. The opposite party states that if they knew the event of Sri Caitanya avatara for certain they would not keep silence in this regard.

 

They also argue that not all sages and devotees at Sriman Mahaprabhu's time had accepted His divinity, as the case of Sri Vallabhacarya, for example, who has had a lot of association with Sri Caitanya and His followers and has founded another Vaisnava-sampradaya. They also quote another prominent Vaisnavas and Sri Caitanya's contemporaries such as Mirabai and Sri Tulasidasa Goswami, who had never accept Mahaprabhu's divinity as well.

 

We are confidant that many of these sastras before Mahaprabhu's advent have descriptions of Kali-yuga and also may mention Mahaprabhu. In every Kali-yuga there is an avatar, and we do accept this fact, but the opposite party use to argue: "Of the 4 Vaisnava-sampradayas of Kali-yuga, none of them had accepted that Sri Caitanya was the Yuga-avatara. Not even Madhva-sampradaya accept this fact, what to say the other sampradayas. This fact is only mentioned by Gaudiyas and by no one else. So, they have to prove it with sound sastric evidences (collected before His advent and easily available nowadays) and irrefutable logic arguments. They cannot simply state that those who don't accept Sri Caitanya as an avatara are only atheists and deluded incredulous."

 

Therefore it is a duty of the Gaudiya-vainavas to find out our sastric evidences on Sri Caitanya avatara with solid and irrefutable quotes following a standard acceptable by most of the sanatana-dharma darsanas including all other Vaisnava-sampradayas , to fulfil the most basic premise of our preachings.

 

Any comment on this topic?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

In brief there is no history of any divine personality having been predicted before-hand.

I don't think this can be logically discussed with you, since to you any mention of a person in a text is proof the text was written after the persons birth.

 

No matter how many texts one would show which provide predictions, you will say, "No, the fact that his name is mentioned shows it was written later."

 

After a few hundred thousand years you will probably tell me (in a later birth) that the references to Kalki were written after he appeared and chopped our heads off.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-30-2001).]

[shvu]

>>>Message accidentally deleted.

 

I understand that as devotees you cannot bear to see facts that may uproot your beliefs; so it doesn't bother me that you want to stick to fancy. Makes no difference, actually.

 

>>>> Note from JNDAS: I messed up this text by clicking edit instead of reply. All I could recover was that one paragraph above.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-30-2001).]

[shvu]

 

After a few hundred thousand years you will probably tell me (in a later birth) that the references to Kalki were written after he appeared and chopped our heads off.

If he does come, I can understand him chopping off my head. Buy why will he chop yours? You are a believing devotee. Au contraire, he should be taking devotees to Goloka or a similar place [ 400,000 years is a long time. A new hidden avatar may come up in North India and suggest a new place].

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

No matter how many texts one would show which provide predictions, you will say, "No, the fact that his name is mentioned shows it was written later."

Sadly, not one has been shown so far. Not one text that was pre-Buddha has been shown to talk about the Buddha. Not one pre-Chaitanya text has been shown to talk about Chaitanya.

 

Just one source will do. But we all know by now, that there doesn't exist any. For if there was such a one, I trust the devotees would have uncovered it by now. They had hundreds of years to find one.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-30-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Shvu, if you remember could you try to repost what you said in the deleted message above?

[shvu]

 

Can't remember what it was. No problems anyway, just my usual rambling.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Here is the "reply" I posted that accidentally erased your message. I hit edit, wrote everything, and then was surprised I couldn't find my message... until I looked up at yours. There it was.

 

Sadly, not one has been shown so far. Not one text that was pre-Buddha has been shown to talk about the Buddha. Not one pre-Chaitanya text has been shown to talk about Chaitanya.

Your opinion is the texts are post-buddha, my opinion is the texts are pre-buddha. There is no "proof" for either claim. You are basing your claims on what you have studied. I am basing my claims on what I have studied.

 

 

I understand that as devotees you cannot bear to see facts that may uproot your beliefs; so it doesn't bother me that you want to stick to fancy. Makes no difference, actually.

What you call as facts, I call as opinions. What I call as facts, you call as opinions. Thats why I said it is impossible to prove anything to you.

 

[shvu]

 

You are coming from the traditional angle. For your convenience, I have posted proof on a new thread about how the Buddha cannot be an avatar, from either a traditional nor historical viewpoint.

 

The concept of an avatar itself is not Sruti. But it may still be given some consideration so long as the avatar does not contradict Sruti in his teachings. The Buddha did so, thus showing that he was no avatar. Isn't it also funny that the Brahmanas accepted the Buddha as an avatar, but not his teachings?

 

Cheers

 

[kailasa]

Century live century be surprised.

It would be interesting to learn(find out) shvu whence all has appeared? The milk is natural from shop, and planet whence? And why you actually trust what there were such people how Sokrat for example? It(him) was not shvu, whether the truth? And Aristotel there was no, whether correct at me a logic?

Question number one planets whence have undertaken.

Whether also second lived Sokrat.

Thank.

 

 

[kailasa]

They do not accept the Caitanya Upanishad:

 

They accept only that it is pleasant by him(it). It is a good way to acquire many troubles.

[shvu]

 

I have a comment.

 

Till date, there hasn't been a single person in history whose birth was predicted. It has always been the person himself claiming to be of divine birth or other people after him [including Krishna].

 

If one mentions the Buddha, it must be noted that none of the literature that mentions the Buddha as an avatar was in existence before/during the time of the Buddha. They popped up several centuries after him. The Brahmanas came up with the bright idea of making Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu, thus making Buddhism a part of Vishnu's grand plan. Consequently the Buddha was added to the list. Ananda Thirta called himself as the Madhva mentioned in the Balitha-Sukta and thus came to be known as Madhvacharya an incarnation.

 

In brief there is no history of any divine personality having been predicted before-hand.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

>> They do not accept the Caitanya Upanishad

 

Let us consider why they don't accept Caitanya Upanisad. The evidence that we have is that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura published it from a single manuscript. That manuscript has never been seen by no one else but him. This is not an encouraging proof of authenticity of an Upanisad. One should observe that not all Gaudiya-vaisnavas are in Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's preceptorial line, some are actually his adversaries regarding many points of tattva and siddhanta. They would not accept an Upanisad revealed by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura as bona fide due their countless divergences with him. Can you imagine what the other opposite parties who aren't even Gaudiya-vaisnavas would say of a proof like that?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa