Scriptural evidences about Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

[Guest guest]

"I base the credibility of any belief, Gaudiiya Vaishnva or other, on the presence of supporting evidence from mainstream Vedic scriptures."

 

 

Good luck! In your own words all of the scriptural support for Caitnaya's divinity is questionable and not found in "mainstream Vedic scriptures," whatever they are. You have a static conception of scripture.

 

 

"I have nothing but the greatest respect for the upliftment of the spiritually downtrodden and those who are responsible for it. All I am saying is that uplifting the downtrodden does not equal doctrinal correctness."

 

It represents being empowered by krsna sakti.

 

 

 

"What makes you think they are necessarily brahmins? What makes you think they are friends?"

 

That is what you said.

 

"Never mind brahminical culture. Just accept Chaitanya as Krishna. All those dumb Hindoos who follow their varnaashrama are just deluded. Duh."

 

Jarasandha accepted brahminical cluture and worshiped Visnu but was considered a demon becasue he did not worship Krsna. Similarly those who do worship Krsna but do not worship Caitanya are demons as well in the opinion of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami.

 

 

 

"Sat-sandarbhas don't say anything about trying to prove Lord Caitanya's divinity, so no wonder one can't be convinced of it simply be reading them."

 

Here you negelected to acknowledge everything I said, which included the fact that they do not accept the divinity of Lord Caitanya even after reading the commentaries of Sanatana Goswami who directly deals with this and also the fact that in mentioning the Sandarbhas I said that after reading them they do not accept the philosophy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

 

 

 

When I said : What will it take to convert them? You have no answer.

 

 

You said:

 

"I'm not the guru preaching to the masses, though, am I? We have such standards for those who take such a position, not for just any saadhaka."

 

But for some reason I get the impression that you think Prabhupada has done a fine job of it. Now just what standards did he live up to when writing to establish the divinity of Lord Caitanya that Tripurari Maharaja has not?

 

I said:

 

You criticize Tripurari Maharaja by comparing him to Gaudiya Vaisnava leaders who do not know

 

You replied:

 

"When have I done that? Isn't it a fact that you just make things like this up to cover up for your lack of any substantive response?

 

In reply to:

 

 

and merely insult their questioners

when? how?"

 

If you can not remember that you did that there is little hope here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Us

[Guest guest]

Wow.

 

What a very expert and brahminical presentation. I'm totally defeated.

 

So Chaitanya followers who accept His divinity, no matter what their sinful activities might be, are far, far better than other Vaishnavas who practice sad-aachaara etiquette but don't accept His divinity.

 

Your right. It is very much like Christianity. "Just do whatever you want. Everything is ok. All you have to do is accept me and you are saved."

 

I am now ashamed to admit that I had Gaudiya Vaishnavism figured all wrong. I thought we actually respected scriptural authority, the need for yama, niyama, etc. Boy was I off.

 

Thank you for curing me of my great misconceptions.

[Guest guest]

TO K

O prabhu I agree with you that there should not be any insults in debates; just scriptural evidence. But I am surprised(excuse me if am wrong) at your attack on ISKCON devotees. If you read Srila Prabhupada's you will see nothing but the greatest respect for Sri Ramanuja and the Sri vainavas. This is also true of his guru who incorporated many things into gaudiya vaisnavism from the Sri vaishnavas. Lord Caitanya also praised the Sri Vaisnavas for their service to the vasinavas and their purity. The Bhagavatam says that in kali yuga many devotees will take birth in South India and Srila Prabhupada specifically commented that this refers to Sri vainavas. Because of this I am so attracted ti Ramanuja that I even celebrate his birth and plan to visit his pastime places in South India some day.The relationship between ISKCON and the Sri vainavas is so cordial as evidenced buy Sri vaisnavas donating land to ISKCON and helping them to build and from ISKCON devotees encounters with Sri vaishnavas on padayatra and other occasion. I was reading Indradyumna Swami's travelling preacher diary where he published a letter from the authorites in Sri Rangam telling him how they were praying for him to overcome the immense difficulties he was facing in Poland. This is what I pray should forever exist between ISKCON and the Sri Sampradaya.

As to the divinity of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu judging from the voluminous accounts on him, either He was a fraud or his followers or both and that he was Krishna himself. I can see no other conclusion. Many sri vaisnavas also joined him without in return insulting Sri Ramanuja. *

My obeissances to all. Following Sri Caitanya I respect all vainava. May I never seek to offend them.

Vrindavan dharma ki jaya

[Guest guest]

 

But I am surprised(excuse me if am wrong) at your attack on ISKCON devotees.

 

 

 

No one has been attacked. The problem here is that whenever a probing question is asked, certain ISKCON devotees/Narayana Maharaj followers/ Tripurari followers immediately go into attack mode. This is an unfortunate precedent in our sampradaya that if you think of things deeply and request scriptural proofs, you are almost invariably castigated, excommunicated, etc. "Reasonable" questions are defined as those which the person being asked knows the answer to. But if the person being asked does not know the question, then immediately the person asking the question is "insincere,fundamentalist,insulting,fault-finding," etc.

 

I disagree with your conclusion that if one does not accept Caitanya Mahaprabhu as God, then one must accept him and his followers as frauds. It isn't nearly so black and white.

 

[Guest guest]

Let's take an objective look at this issue. The proplem as I see it is that K in the course of questioning the value of Tripurari Maharaja's article portrayed him as being one who insults his questioners and does not give them answers to their questions. He did this by comparing his overall presentation to that of ISKCON leaders, who in K's opinion are not like Prabuhupada. According to K Prabhupada answered all questions and did not insist that people worship him and just submit to him without answering their questions. This came up when the discussion took a detour into something else Tripurari Maharaja had written in response to the Sri sampradaya, but was used by K to illustrate that Tripurari Maharaja's replys were often insubstantial.

 

Turning to the article about Mahaprabhu's divinity we are left withthe distinct impression that in K's opinion Tripurari Maharaj did a poor job as an acarya of the sampradaya in answering somone's questions about scriptural evidence for Mahaprabhu's divinity. K implied that Tripurari Maharaja's answer was not up to the standards of an acarya, while in fact his answer was more or less the standard answer given by the sampradaya, except for the fact that he had the integrity to admit that most of the scriptural support for Mahaprabhu's divinity was questionable. He emphasized references from a maninstream text, the Bhagavatam, yet admitted that others might not agree with the Gaudiya Vaisnava interpretation of them. How is what he did any less than what Srila Prabhupada has done in answering this particular question? At least it should be admitted that if he is at fualt, so to are his predecessors.

 

Furthermore K assumes that Tripurari Maharaja's audiance is primarily other Vedantists, who K himmself seems preoccupied with. This may not be the case at all, and perhaps if he were specifically addressing them he would have answered differently. K makes rather obvious points in arguing that other Vedantists will not accept Tripurari Maharaja's presentation becasue they have their own interpretations of the same verses. He also seems to admit that he knows no other verses that might be better to cite other than one said to be in the Vayu Purana that I assume he r no one else to date can not find in exisiting manuscripts.

 

In one sense the points of K are well taken: we should be sensitive to our audiance, and when preaching to those of other faiths that are scripturally based we need to meet them on their terms to be convincing by citing verses from texts they accept as being authoritative and giving them explanations of those verses that are credible in their eyes and establish the scriptural validity of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya. However, it seems to me that these are obvious points and moreover on this particular issue no previous Gaudiya acarya has been able to do this. Instead they have done what Tripurari Maharaja has done and often not bothering to defend their interpretations. Certainly this was the case for Srila Prabhupada. Tripurari Maharaja refers the questioner to the commentaries of Sanatana Goswami for a more in depth analysis of the verses he singles out. However, I doubt that these comentaries will convince other Vedantists.

 

So what to do? It is in one sense a problem for the sampradaya, but I do not think it is a fault of Trpurari Maharaja. Understandably some of his followers might take objection to the implications of K's overall presentation.

[Guest guest]

 

A philosophical system like achintya bheda abheda is not Vedantic. Because the purpose of Vedanta is to understand the relationship between Brahman, the world and the jivas described in the Scriptures, via logic (nyaya). To say that the reality is achintya is exactly what many mayavadis do, "it is beyond words". Therefore achintya bheda abheda is a type of mayavada philosophy, far from the clear philosophy of Visistadvaita Vedanta!

 

Gaudiya + Vedanta = Achintya.

 

MRD

[Guest guest]

this is word jugglery, many concepts of vedanta are not fully understandableand REALIZABLE by ordinary humans..

 

if you state that, beyond the basics, everything remains into material, intellectual, logic you are negating the function of sadhana or purifying our life, intelligence and senses to have a better understanding of the absolute truth

 

acynthia abeda beda tattva, is not so hard to grasp,as a philosophical hypotesis or even as a paradox, even in a neophite point of wiew it is very easy to understand... to realize it fully is another thing, it requires the mercy of krsna, of the spiritual master and practice

 

but every spiritual path is under these rules

 

use more powerful subjects if you want to reduce gaudya vaishnava at a sentimental dogmatic (=mayavada) affair

[Guest guest]

The purpose of Vedanta is to demonstrate the logic of scripture, its concordance with regard to the relationship between Brahman, the world and the jivas. Gaudiya Vedanta does this by demonstrating that the scripture says the relationship is one of simultaneous identity and difference. How so? Becasue the nature of Krsna sakti is such that it works in incoinceivable ways. Rather than trying to explain logically the how of this relationship as other Vedantists have done, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas simply accept what scripture says about it and conclude that God works in wonderful ways. What Sankara has done is something very different.

[Guest guest]

Logic is what Sri Ramanuja and other Vaishnava philosophers use to balance all the seemingly conflicting statements in the Vedas regarding the relationship between Brahman, the world and the soul.

 

This does not mean that no spiritual practice is required. It does not follow that no sadhana is required, from the statement that nyaya is used to reach a balanced and true conclusion regarding scriptural statements about the Absolute reality.

 

[Guest guest]

it is not so complicate and difficult:

 

acynthia beda abeda theory means that we are made of the same component of god , we both are made of the same spirit ,

 

so we are exactly the same in quality (guna)

 

but we are different in quantity

 

we are infinitesimal, god is infinite

 

intellectually is not very difficult and it is the natural conclusion of all the theories about the relationship between god and the creatures,

 

but if you do not like the "title" of this tattva i will authorize you to change the name....

 

call it "coca cola" and you will get a lot of money from the sponsorship

 

:-)

[Guest guest]

 

To say that the reality is achintya is exactly what many mayavadis do, "it is beyond words". Therefore achintya bheda abheda is a type of mayavada philosophy, far from the clear philosophy of Visistadvaita Vedanta!

 

 

 

It's always useful to know what you are criticizing before you criticize it.

 

MRD is confusing "achintya" with "anirvachaniiya." The latter is a mayavadi concept that refers to something which neither exists nor does not exist. Mayavadis say that maya (illusion) is anirvachaniiya. They do this to avoid the criticism that if only Brahman is real, then what is maya? Vaishnavas of course, point out that a thing which neither exists nor does not exist has no scriptural or logical basis. Hence, "anirvachaniiya" is not an acceptable concept.

 

As far as God being "achintya," this is only logical. A Being who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient cannot be completely grasped by the mind of a finite living entity. Though one can begin to understand Him through scriptural descriptions, one can never fully understand everything about Him.

 

[Guest guest]

I'm not going to continue to dignify Audarya-lila's comments about me, my character, my motivations, and what I actually typed with a response. All I will say is, what I have typed is clear and is available for anyone to read, assuming they wish to do so. If they simply want to believe Audarya-lila's heavily propagandized version of what I said, then what can I do? I'm not going to to waste time and energy on people who knock down strawmen.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

The Divinity Of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

 

OBJECTION: Madhva has said in his commentary to the Kathopanisad that there are nine types of offense to Lord Visnu, such as ascribing divinity to an ordinary mortal. You are guilty of this because you claim that Caitanya is an incarnation of God. The result of this is that you will go to the darkest regions of hell.

 

REFUTATION: There are many evidences to prove the divinity of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. First we will present those statements of sastra which are from sruti, and then those from the Puranas and other Vedic literatures.

 

for complete article:

 

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Caitanya.html

 

[Guest guest]

Please explain your last post about me. I have only had one post on this thread. I ALWAYS sign my posts with my name and never post anonymously. I have not denigrated you in anyway. I merely stated that your characterization of the exchange between the Anand and My Guru Maharaja was skewed and misrepresentative of what was actually said and the context within which it was said. I stand by those statements. I also put the criticism that you leveled against my Guru Maharaja back in your face. Sridhara Maharaja has said that it is his experience that those who are fault-finders eventually come to own the faults they perceive in others, so I merely pointed out to you how this is so in this instance.

 

You have asked me how Anand's response to the first article which really simply explained that visistadvaita vedanta and Gaudiya vedanta are different was offensive. See the quotes below (which are only a few of the many derogatory statements made) and try to defend them as anything other than overtly offensive to our sampradaya.

 

"The author has well displayed his ignorance regarding the

siddhAnta of Bhagavad RAmAnuja. As questioned above, is it

an improvement ? By the way, it is evident as to who is

struggling to understand Bramhan and finally giving up to be filled with contradictions and safely covering up one's

inability by explaining Bramhan to be achintya in the above sense. This is akin to how advaitins cover-up their siddhAnta by attributing inconceivability to their pet "mAyA" - No one should question on that - The repeated answer is "mAyA" will be both true, false etc.- anirvachanIya."

 

So, here Anand says that the author has showed his ignorance regarding the siddhanta of Ramanuja and then says that the Guadiyas are filled with contradictions and therefore cover it up by postulating the achintya concept which he says is akin to the hand waving of the mayavadis. Is this not offensive? Tripurari Swami merely pointed out that all the other attempts at logically explaining simultaneous oneness and difference fall short according to the Gaudiyas because they seek to logically explain that which is beyond logic.

 

 

At the end of the aricle this is what Anand has to say,

 

"It would be best if the author takes care to read enough of Bhagavad RAmAnuja's siddhAnta before airing such views in public. Probably he can at first read at least those books in English by SrI SMS Chari, like VaishNavism, Fundamentals of ViSishTAdvaita,Philosophy of the VEdAnta SUtras, Philosophy of the Upanishads.

 

Its up to the dispassionate reader to judge as to which

Philosophy is incomplete and who is "struggling" to understand the purport of SAstras !"

 

I think anyone who has actually read the article to which Anand was responding and Anand's response will find that this is quite offensive. Tripurari Swami pointed out in his small response to the question asked of him that some of Ramanuja's followers such as Vedanta Desika speak of aprtak-siddhi as a relation althouth Ramanuja himself in his commentary admits that it is not. This was not addressed by Anand, but rather he says that Tripuari Swami should read the texts by Vedanta Desika to understand Vasistadvaita. His final statement is most offensive indeed. "Who is struggling to understand the purport of the sastras?" Tripurari Swami merely pointed out that the Guadiya acharyas found the explantions regarding the relationship between God, the jivas and the world to be lacking in other 'interpretations' of Vedanta Sutra and that they therefore posited the metaphysic of achinya beda abedha tattva which is in keeping with the natural commentary (Srimad Bhagavatam) written by the author of the sutras himself.

 

This is not offensive to Ramanuja or any other acharya. It simply explains the need (in the view of Gaudiya acharyas) of a different more compelling explanation. It was never said or implied that Ramanuja was struggling to understand the purport of sastra. To say so would be most offensive indeed.

 

Now what you complained about was Maharaja's response to Anand's imflammatory remarks about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. But what really did Maharaja say that was offensive? He merely pointed out that one who speaks of another tradition with such flagrant disrespect (which without any semblance of doubt the author has done) hardly shows any real understanding of Vedanta and certainly does not represent properly the school which they profess to be a member of. I did not bother to post all the other foolish remarks that Anand made trying to show how illogical Gaudiya's are or the offensive remarks he made about Srila Prabhupada. He clearly has a very limited and superficial understanding of Gaudiya siddhanta yet he wrote so much to try to discredit it. Enough said.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

[Guest guest]

BTW, did you think that I would not or should not respond to an allegation such as this coming from you?:

 

"Frankly, I get tired of leaders who use accusations like this to conceal their lack of knowledge of a particular subject. If one has firm conviction in what he preaches, he need not resort to character attacks to try and disarm his opponent. I see this all the time in ISKCON, and I am disappointed to see that ISKCON's sister organizations are no different."

 

It is this very character attack of yours which prompted me to respond to your post in the first place. I have shown that your comment was not supported by the facts and that it is in reality you who uses this type of rhetoric in your attempt to convince others. Sorry, but if the shoe fits you are going to have to wear it.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

[Guest guest]

 

for complete article:

 

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Caitanya.html

 

 

 

This well put together article nevertheless admits to using unheard of sources. But it also defends this by pointing out that other sampradayas do it too. Its position appears to be that that's just the way it's going to be. Probably this is why it's more important to preaching the basics first and only later go into Chaitanya's divinity.

 

 

 

 

[theist]

I know this is not satisfactory to convincing others but if someone really wants to know if Caitanya is a divine incarnation or not and is not satisfied with the scriptual interpretations, then why not just ask the Lord in the heart to reveal it to you.

 

Afterall it is by the potency of the sunlight that the Sun's position is revealed.

[stonehearted]

This is a hard thread to deal with sometimes because only one participant is registered and signed on (Kishalaya) and only Krishna Susarla and Audarya-lila signed their posts. There are a couple of almost-signed posts (MRD and MKD). This makes it hard to follow who says what. Krishna is wrong, however, to vilify Audarya-lila as he does here. The post he's repsoneing to is not Audarya's; I know his writing well enough to see that. And, yes, Audarya-lila always signs his posts.

 

Regarding the issues, Krishna Susarla seems to express some disappointment, in one instance, in Tripurari Maharaja's taking offense at the remarks of the Ramanujite correspondent. Here's what he actually wrote: "I have read the entire article, and it borders on personal insult and involves flagrant disrespect for Gaudiya Vedanta. In this sense it demonstrates little if any actual realization of Vedanta, and thus it is hardly representative of Sripada Ramanujacarya. It also betrays, if not admits to, little understanding of the Gaudiya doctrine coined acintya-bhedabheda by our tattva acarya Sri Jiva Goswami in his Sarva-samvadini."

 

So all he actually said personally is that the article borders on personal insult (emphasis mine). However, since the article the correspondent cites calls Srila Jiva Gosvami's doctrine of achintya-bheda-abheda "illogical" and "mayavadi," Swami is perfectly correct in asserting that the article shows flagrant disrespect for Gaudiya vedanta. We students of Gaudiya acharyas simply follow what is given by those acharyas. Our understanding of Visistadvaita, for example, will be based on what we hear from our acharyas together with whatever study we may do on our own. The writer says that Tripurari Maharaja shows his ignorance of Ramanuja's doctrine, but that same writer shows his own abyssmal ignorance of Gaudiya doctrine. We don't expect that everyone will be able to understand or appreciate the insights given by our acharyas. This depends on an individual's adhikara and Krishna's mercy. Neither do we argue with anyone with a mind to convert them from one theistic darshana to our own. The best we can do is to try to shed some light on what Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His follwers have given the world. As mentioned previously, this depends on the audience's realization, not the force of logic. In Sri-chaitanya-charitamrita, Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj writes that if we are attached to logic and reason, we should see how we can apply these to the mercy of Mahaprabhu. Those who won't do that will not be able to fully appreciate Mahaprabhu's teachings or His divinity. After all, this is a school that disparages the goals of all Hindu religions. At the beginning of Sri-chaitanya-charitamrita, Kaviraja Gosvami writes,

"ajnana-tamera nama kahiye ‘kaitava'

dharma-artha-kama-moksa-vancha adi saba

 

The darkness of ignorance is called kaitava, the way of cheating, which begins with religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation."

 

To the extent that our character is ideal and our presentation sincere, and to the extent that our audience is fertile ground, we will be able to share the fruits of the tree of love Mahaprabhu and His followers have entrusted to us. To expect more than that is not reasonable. The plain fact is that the realities of Goloka, a vision of which is at the heart of Mahaprabhu's gift, are beyond mundane logic and reason.

 

That said, I feel I must point out that there is plenty of scriptural support for the idea of Mahaprabhu's divinity. You may find some of it in an article by Swami B.G. Narasingha at http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Caitanya.html

 

Again, staunch Madhvites, Ramanujites and others will dismiss our understanding of such support as based on specious interpretations, interpolations, or manufactured scripture. Maharaja deals with many such objections in his article. Beyond that, there probably little we can do to increase thier faith in Mahaprabhu except try to extend His mercy in our own meager way. This does, after all, depend partly on the audience's adhikara and partly on the Lord's kripa. Even Mahaprabhu changed Prakashananda's heart not by His arguments but by His effulgence and His character.

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

It was Tripurari Swami who began the whole thing by asserting that some aspects of Ramanuja's philosophy were "not quite logical." It seems that Sri Vaishnavas are supposed to not respond, because any response they make would be "offensive." Perhaps they should just shut up and let anyone, regardless of his perceived qualification, just run all over their purvaachaarya's doctrine? ***

 

One should expect more out of a guru, especially one who incites challenges, to be responsible for what he says. Tripurari started the whole thing, and rather than dealing with the consequences as a result of his writing, he chose to avoid the difficult questions. He left 80% of Anand's questions unanswered. Why answer them? Because Anand is "Offensive." So obviously, if he is offensive (subjective call), then it can't possibly be that any of his questions are reasonable. Or that others in the silent audience might have similar doubts.

 

Anyway, personal friendships, selective reading, and other behind-the-scenes alliances I can only begin to imagine will naturally color one's reading of this thread. I stated very clearly at the beginning of this thread that I was interested in raising the level of discussion rather than fault-finding, but the responses to date insisted on assuming I had some kind of personal vendetta against BVT. The only constructive discussion I had was with Kishalaya, but everyone else insisted on the typical strawman attack strategy. What can I do in the face of such childishness?

 

The fact that this discussion has not carried on can be reflected in the content of the original postings and the complete lack of any response to the original points brought up in post #2 of this thread. Well, unless you count "they are't sensible cuz they don't accept chaitanya as God" as a response.

 

This is rapidly becoming a Gaudiya tradition. Someone brings up some valid but controversial points, and the next three weeks are spent ignoring all those points and instead questioning that person's character, guessing at some hidden motives of his, claiming he said something he never said and then proceeding to knock that down, blatantly insulting him, etc.

 

*** As an aside, I would like to remind everyone of a little bit of history. Some 6-7 years ago BVT spam mailed everyone on the internet with his advertisements for "spiritual sex" and all that sort of thing. I guess he was building up his ashram at the time. Of course, those of us familiar with Prabhupada and Bhagavatam knew what he was getting at. But those advertisements were received by many Vaishnavas, including many Sri Vaishnavas, who regarded them rightfully in very poor taste. Now when that same individual chooses to take pot shots at their guru's philosophy, don't expect that they are going to respond to BVT with the same reverence that his disciples have for him. Respect should be earned, not demanded.

[Guest guest]

You have got to be kidding! Strawmen you call them? Take a better look at yourself sometime. It is apparent from your last post that your emnity towards BVT dates back to the distant past and that it is not based upon anything substancial. You should be defending him to your Ramanuja, etc. friends instead of caving in to them.

 

About Ramanuja's followers Jiva Goswami says aprasiddha-kalpanA prasajjate, "They hang on to imperfect conclusions." BVT said that Ramanuja in putting forward his idea of inseprability beteween Brahman and the jivas had forgone logic. This is more generous than Jiva Goswami's statement.

 

If you study it in context it is clear that what BVT is saying is that Ramanuja's "inseparability" points to the fact that in actuality the relationship between Brhaman and jiva is inconceivable and thus beyond logic. He is clearly NOT saying that Ramanuja is illogical. While the Sri Vaisnavas misunderstood his statement to be calling Ramanuja illogical, they and you as well are guilty of doing exactly what you complin about, even after BVT's second article in response to thier inappropriate outrage explained this more clearly.

 

You complain that BVT did not answer 80% of their questions. In actuality he referred them to the Sandarbhas where all the answers are given in greater detail that the sanga forum allows.

 

Furthermore, he did not start the whole thing as you claim. His original article was in response to someone strongly influenced by their philosophy who questioned the validity of the concept of actintya when inseparability had already been put forward by Ramanuja.

 

[Guest guest]

...............................

 

This is rapidly becoming a Gaudiya tradition. Someone brings up some valid but controversial points, and the next three weeks are spent ignoring all those points and instead questioning that person's character, guessing at some hidden motives of his, claiming he said something he never said and then proceeding to knock that down, blatantly insulting him, etc.

 

*** As an aside, I would like to remind everyone of a little bit of history. Some 6-7 years ago BVT spam mailed everyone on the internet with his advertisements for "spiritual sex" and all that sort of thing.

...................................................

 

You have exmplified your own complaint against the Gaudiyas in paragraph one with what you have said in paragraph two. The mailer was an advertisment for Tripurari's book "Aesthetic Vedanta, The Sacred Path of Passionate Love," which is a very serious book and had been nominated for a prestigious literary award. You refer to this acomplishment as "advertisements for "spiritual sex" and all that sort of thing," and go on to agree with the Sri Vaisnavas opinions you heard by stating that they were those "who regarded them [the promotion] RIGHTFULLY in very poor taste." (my emphasis)

[Guest guest]

Give me a break Krishna S. You want to take a conversation to another level and you post such trash as you did in your last post? Talk about your strawman. No one ever said that a Sri Vaishnava shouldn't respond to what Tripurari Swami said. Those are your words. What was that about a strawman?

 

As I have said already, Tripurari Swami did not denigrate Ramanuja or his doctrine - he merely pointed out to his questioner the reason why the Gaudiya's felt the need to posit a different doctrine which they (we) feel is more compelling. He never said that Ramanuja was illogical - just that explaining how God, the jivas and the world can be both one and different at the same time is beyond the purview of logic and hence the need for achintya.

 

There was no need to go into a long winded tirade against Gaudiya doctrine in response to his statements. That Maharaja didn't answer all of Anand's questions is no mystery. That he directed him to Jiva Goswami's writings for all his answers was appropriate. His answer was very clear and focused on the doctrine of achintya beda abeda tattva.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

 

The fact that this discussion has not carried on can be reflected in the content of the original postings and the complete lack of any response to the original points brought up in post #2 of this thread.

 

 

 

Actually, I was the one who changed the subject from BVT's lack of an in-depth analysis of the Chaitanya pramaanas to one of BVT's hostile approach to answering controversial questions. But either way, the discussion hasn't progressed much from either standpoint.

 

 

 

[stonehearted]

Krishna S.: Anyway, personal friendships, selective reading, and other behind-the-scenes alliances I can only begin to imagine will naturally color one's reading of this thread. I stated very clearly at the beginning of this thread that I was interested in raising the level of discussion rather than fault-finding, but the responses to date insisted on assuming I had some kind of personal vendetta against BVT. The only constructive discussion I had was with Kishalaya, but everyone else insisted on the typical strawman attack strategy. What can I do in the face of such childishness?

 

Babhru: Others have pointed out the irony (to put it charitably) in your accusations. So we're all colluding behind the scenes to gang up on you? Give me a lunch break! We're bringing down the level of discussion? Fuggedaboutit! Who's calling whom childish?

 

K: and the next three weeks are spent ignoring all those points and instead questioning that person's character, guessing at some hidden motives of his, claiming he said something he never said and then proceeding to knock that down, blatantly insulting him, etc.

 

B: That looks a lot like your last couple of posts, in fact. I brought up a couple of points you ignored in favor of looking for hidden motives.

 

You have tried to engage us in Philosophical Discourse, which is a game with rather stringent rules, east or west. Most of us here are either not trained for that sort of exercise or find it tiresome and largely effete, much t=like the Glass Bead Game in Hesse's Magister Ludi. Kishalaya was able and willing to play, and, as you point out, that part of the discussion was productive. However, those of us who simply use the evidence provided by our acharyas are childish sentimentalists, in your view. In fact, the truths of Gaudiya vedanta are inaccessible to purely academic endeavor. There's nothing wrong with argument, but it will ultimately not yield the fruit we seek. That's all. You've tried to characterize that as "they are't sensible cuz they don't accept chaitanya as God." That's certainly nothing like anything I've written here. The harshest thing I've said is that they may not yet be ready for such realization.

 

Gaudiya vedanta is accessible only by surrender and service in the association of sadhus who have that vision. Those of us so enamored of our own intellectual gifts only put distance between our hearts and those who would fill them with this darshan. Mahaprabhu has told us "tarko 'pratisthah: dry argument is inherently inconclusive." It's not bad, and you're not condemned for enjoying and excelling at it; it simply will not yield the fruit we seek.

[Guest guest]

 

You have tried to engage us in Philosophical Discourse, which is a game with rather stringent rules, east or west. Most of us here are either not trained for that sort of exercise or find it tiresome and largely effete,

 

 

In that case, they can consider silence as an appropriate alternative to throwing accusations, temper-tantrums, and so on. They aren't under any obligation to respond, so it goes without saying that if a response is planned, try and make it an intelligent and reasonable one.

 

As was said before, people will see the faults in those they don't know while excusing the same or more faults in those they like. It's not childish. It's just a fact of life. So I'm not impressed with your review of the thread to date, if it was intended to offer some sort of objective point of view.

 

 

However, those of us who simply use the evidence provided by our acharyas are childish sentimentalists, in your view.

 

 

Case in point - I find the above to be childish. What was said is available for review, but it's easier to pull words out of context and twist them into something else. And now by pointing out that you just did this to me, you can claim innocence and just say that no, I was the only one doing it and the others were ever so innocent. Obviously you have no trouble playing this game. But I will have to decline.

 

The original discussion was in proving the divinity of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So let's take this to the next level. Instead of picking on someone because he doesn't blindly tow the party line, go to a non-Gaudiiya mailing list like www.dvaita.org/list, vAdAvaLi/, or / and present your views and evidence on this subject to them. Then, when they object, try the same sort of rejoinders that were attempted here and see what happens.

 

Just don't say I didn't warn you.