Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[Guest guest]

If Lord Caitanya did not initiate anyone, did he not start a Siksha parampara?

[Guest guest]

chintamanir jayati somagiri gurur me

shiksha-gurush cha bhagavan chhikhi-piccha-maulih

 

"All glories to Chintamani! All glories to my *shiksha-guru* Somagiri! All glories to Lord Krishna, who wears a peacock feather in His crown!" Krishna-karnamrita 1.1, Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi 1.57

 

Prabhupada's purport:

 

The history of Bilvamaìgala Öhäkura is given in a book called Çré-vallabha-digvijaya. He appeared in the eighth century of the Çaka Era in the province of Draviòa and was the chief disciple of Viñëu Svämé. In a list of temples and monasteries kept in Çaìkaräcärya’s monastery in Dvärakä, Bilvamaìgala is mentioned as the founder of the Dvärakädhéça temple there. He entrusted the service of his Deity to Hari Brahmacäré, a disciple of Vallabha Bhaööa.

[raga]

 

JNDas writes:

 

Shankara's parampara is also based on siksha:

 

narayanam padmabhuvam vasishtham saktim ca tatputra parasaram ca

vyasam sukam gaudapadam mahantam govindayogindram athasya sishyam |

sri samkaracaryam athasya padmapadam ca hastamalakam ca sishyam

tam totakam varttikakaramanyan asmad gurun santatamanatosmi ||

sadasiva samarambham sankaracarya madhyamam

asmadacarya paryantam vande guru paramparam

 

 

Fascinating. Talk about gaps! Tradition holds that Govinda Bhagavatpada was Sankara's guru, and Gaudapada his param-guru. This is evidently the same style of listing parampara as Bhaktisiddhanta's, picking prominent personalities from the history, and placing a few recent generations before oneself in the end.

 

If we agree that gaps in the parampara are not an issue at all, do we agree that at anytime in the future, there may be further gaps, perhaps of even several generations?

 

This tradition of hi-jacking a parampara appears to be quite common, in fact.

 

Vallabhis present themselves as belonging to the parampara of Vishnusvami. Bilvamangala, who was mentioned earlier, is presented as a prominent follower of Vishnusvami, who mystically lived for hundreds of years, and in the end appointed Vallabha as his successor.

 

The Gaudiyas did it with people from the Madhva-tradition.

 

The Advaitins went straight to Suka and Vyasa after two generations of teachers.

 

The Madhvas claim a connection with Acyuta Preksa, whose precepts had little in common with Madhva's, and further trace Acyuta Preksa's line seven generations back to Jnanasindhu Tirtha, from whom the leap is made to Durvasa and the four Kumaras. Madhva lived in 1200's, which would place Jnanasindhu's meeting with Durvasa to somewhere in the 800's or 900's.

 

The Ramanujaites trace their parampara as follows (posted in Bhakti-list, 1995): Parabrahman, Sriman Narayana - Lakshmi - Visvaksena - Nammalvar - Naathamuni - UyyakkoNDaar (pundarIkaaksha) - Rama Misra - Yaamunaacaarya (Alavandaar) - Periya Nambi (MahaapUrNa)- Ramanuja. Nammalvar and Naathamuni were not contemporaries; Nammalvar is said to have appeared to Naathamuni in a vision and handed over the works of the Alvars to him.

 

Fascinating how the paramparas evolve!

 

We can thus observe that practically all traditions have some sorts of anomalies in their successions, anomalies followed by a powerful, charismatic leader who gives a revised shape to the tradition. The traditions above have survived the test of time. Bhaktisiddhanta did the good old manoeuvre the others have done in the past. It remains to be seen whether his revision holds the test of time as the others have held.

[raga]

 

chintamanir jayati somagiri gurur me

shiksha-gurush cha bhagavan chhikhi-piccha-maulih

 

"All glories to Chintamani! All glories to my *shiksha-guru* Somagiri! All glories to Lord Krishna, who wears a peacock feather in His crown!" Krishna-karnamrita 1.1, Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi 1.57

 

 

You cite this from CC 1.1.57, yet neglect Bhaktivedanta's own rendering:

 

"All glories to Cintamani and my initiating spiritual master, Somagiri. All glories to my instructing spiritual master, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who wears peacock feathers in His crown."

 

Indeed, the siksa-guru is generally taken as a reference to Bhagavan. Aside that, the tika of Krishndas Kaviraja states that he received diksa in Gopal-mantra from Somagiri, whom he met soon after the encounter with Cintamani.

[Guest guest]

Jagat's view from an old post: As far as Somagiri is concerned. It is unlikely that he gave Vaishnava mantras, but at the same time, verses from the second or third satakas of SKK cannot be considered Bilvamangala's with any real assurance.

[raga]

 

Jagat's view from an old post: As far as Somagiri is concerned. It is unlikely that he gave Vaishnava mantras, but at the same time, verses from the second or third satakas of SKK cannot be considered Bilvamangala's with any real assurance.

 

 

Yes, I am familiar with this statement. However, if you take the path of questioning historical statements from the acaryas based on available research, then you can forget about defending the hardliner position on the pre-Caitanya parampara, whether you think of it as siksa, diksa, or whatever. People who defend historical events solely on account of the acaryas' statements must consider the evidence I presented over any contemporary research if they wish to be coherent in their approach. One cannot play "pick whatever suits the moment".

[Guest guest]

 

 

You are quite right here. There is very little historical evidence to argue in defense of any sort of parampara between Madhva and Madhavendra Puri, either diksa or siksa-wise.

 

 

 

 

In that case, it must be acceptable to you if I choose to reject your quaint little sampradAya as bogus, just as Gaurasundara rejects BhaktivedAnta's paramparA on the same grounds.

 

 

 

If you wish to know my strictly personal opinion as a person who has tried his level best to research the matter, the parampara given by Baladeva was put together for convenience's sake when confronted by others, with little further significance. We know of Baladeva's confrontation in Jaipur, after which he compiled Prameya Ratnavali in which the aforesaid parampara is given. There is debate over why Kavi Karnapura has included the same in his Ganoddesa Dipika. Indeed, many suspect the verses therein to be interpolated.

 

 

 

 

JNdas quoted a statement from ThAkura Bhaktivinoda to the effect that those who did not accept the gaudIya paramparA link to madhva were the enemies of the gaudIya paramparA. Can I take it from the above that you disagree with Bhaktivinod, or simply that you dispute that he ever said/wrote it?

 

 

 

Personally I see no need for any kind of parampara prior to Mahaprabhu, Nitai and Advaita, whom we consider descents of Bhagavan Himself.

 

 

 

 

No one else other than gaudIyas accept that SrI Caitanya is bhagavAn. What is your evidence to the contrary?

 

Your logic is actually quite circular. You accept that SrI Caitanya is BhagavAn because the gurus in your paramparA teach this. But you only accept this paramparA's authenticity to teach anything because Caitanya is understood by you to be BhagavAn. Pardon me for saying this, but that is pretty silly.

 

Then again, mAdhvas understand SrI Ananda tIrtha to be none other than mukhya prAna (aka vAyu) himself. But even if one did not choose to believe it, there is the fact that he learned the Vedas from vyAsa as documented in sumadhva vijaya. Ananda tIrtha's guru is clear; whether or not he needed one may be another story.

 

On the other hand, it is still not clear who Caitanya's guru (or guru's guru's guru) is. Nor is it clear to which of the four sampradAyas Caitanya's sampradAya belongs. Recall that gaudIyas say (based on some padma purAna verse which does not even exist) that one must receive mantras in one of the four "bona fide" sampradAyas headed by brahmA, SrI, rudra, or kumAra-s. If the paramparA listing (via madhva) as given by baladeva is a fiction, then your AcArya baladeva has falsified his paramparA, and it has no basis in any of the four "bona fide" sampradAyas, being therefore useless. If the paramparA listing by baladeva is intended to be truthful, then that still leaves the gaudIyas with the task of proving the listing to be tenable in the first place. MAdhvas do not list Ananda tIrtha's co-disciples as links in the succession. Nor do they list any guru before SrI veda vyAsa. Nor do they accept the existence of anyone named lakshmIpati tIrtha or mAdhavendra purI. These are exclusively gaudIya innovations, and none of them are based on any recognizable dIksha (quite the contrary in some cases).

 

Regarding the following disputed links:

 

 

 

 

1. The giving of Gayatri-mantra to Brahmaji is documented in the Brahma Samhita.

 

 

 

 

...whose authority, once again, is only accepted by gaudIya vaiShNavas and no one else.

 

If memory serves, my gaudIya friends refer to the "dIksha" described in this text as SrI kR^iSNa playing His flute to brahmA, through which the latter apparently heard or understood the gAyatrI mantra. How exactly is this "dIksha," when so many other links in your bhaktivedAnta paramparA are rejected? What is the definition of "dIksha" if kR^iSNa playing His flute is dIksha? By that standard, so many other things can also count as dIksha, so why split hairs over it?

 

 

 

 

2. - 8. None.

 

 

 

 

Precisely. So why does baladeva list them as links in the succession?

 

-- Not because mAdhvas list it that way, because they do not.

-- Not because there is historical evidence to substantiate it, because there is not.

-- Not to appease some pandits at Jaipur, since they would not care one way or another - all they wanted to know is whether or not the gaudIyas are related to mAdhvas or not (why would baladeva jeopardize his intention by giving a paramparA listing from madhva that is different from that of the mAdhva maths, when he was trying to assert that his own paramparA was a branch of madhva's??)

 

Isn't it a little hard to believe that gaudIyas trace their lineage through dIksha only, when they list their paramparA in such a way that contradicts this? If baladeva was merely making up some details of the pre-Caitanya paramparA, then why did he invent it in such a way that some cases were clearly linked by at best shiksha and not dIksha? If he was going to make up the paramparA listing heedless of what mAdhvas actually say on this matter, then why did he not list only through known lines of dIksha?

 

 

 

9. This is not proposed in the writings of Baladeva and Karnapura.

 

I would never try to argue that this was a diksa-line.

 

 

 

 

So gaudIyas are only supposed to trace their line through dIksha, even though their own founder did not give dIksha? Now that is indeed interesting.

 

 

 

I must say that there is a logical continuity between the style of parampara that is presented for the pre-Caitanya era and the parampara presented by Bhaktisiddhanta. However, as far as most of the Gaudiyas go, they are concerned with following the example of the post-Caitanya tradition. Primarily following the example of the post-Caitanya mahajanas is a well-established part of the Gaudiya doctrine (viz. Prema-bhakti-candrika of Narottama, verse 14, along with Visvanatha's tika). The main schism is in Bhaktisiddhanta's apparent neglect of the practices of the post-Caitanya tradition in his presentation of the parampara.

 

 

 

Perhaps this is due to bhaktisiddhAnta's credit. Even in bhagavad-gItA, no dIksha was given by bhagavAn SrI kR^iSNa to Arjuna. By your silly "gaudIya" ideas, does this mean kR^iSNa was not Arjuna's guru? Apparently so, since you consider Achyuta Preksa to be the guru of SrI Madhva, even though the latter converted the former and made him his own disciple. A surer sign of confusion could not possibly be apparent.

 

 

 

The Madhvas claim a connection with Acyuta Preksa,

 

 

 

MAdhvas make no such claim. Only gaudIyas with their inconsistent and strangely contradictory concepts of "guru" and "paramparA" do. In this regard, the SrI madhva vijaya states:

 

"Achyuthaprajna had planned to specially impart his knowledge regarding the correct observance of the rituals to PoornaPrajna (madhva). But, he observed that the latter followed them to perfection. He himself learnt many special things from the disciple and was amazed in his mind." (4.36)

 

Factually, SrI Ananda tIrtha had nothing to learn from Acyuta preksa; rather, it was the other way around, culminating in acyuta becoming Madhva's own disciple. The listing of Mani-maJNjari is not meant to be taken as a fact of madhva's guru-paramparA - it is the paramparA of madhva's own sannyAsa guru, which he later turned on its head by his own erudition.

 

Another instance of madhva superseeding his alleged "dIksha guru" Acyuta preksa is documented in SrI madhva vijaya 4.49-53. Here it is mentioned that acyuta preksa was giving discourse on the bhAgavata and several of his disciples were reading different recensions of the same. Without studying any of them, the young Ananda tIrtha immediately identified one as the original and correct edition written by Sri vedavyAsa Himself. When acyuta preksa disagreed and challenged madhva to prove this by reciting the pancama skandha along with providing meanings, madhva readily did so on the spot and impromptu - which was later confirmed by acyuta's disciples who realized that the very edition identified by madhva without reading it contained the exact same form of the pancama skanda!

 

Saying that madhva's guru paramparA is that of acyuta preksa is an absurdity of epic proportions. Only ritualistic and unthinking smArthas mistake a mantra initiation and ceremony as "dIksha." For Vaishnavas (or at least, for mAdhvas), the actual passing on of brahma-jnAna is what counts for dIksha, even if this or that ritual does not accompany it in the cases of some exceptional individuals.

 

Raghu

[Guest guest]

Dear (unknown) Guest,

 

Thanks for posting that section of CC, with Srila Prabhupada's commentary.

 

I was aware of what was written there in regard to the mention of Sri Vishnuswami as the Guru of Bilvamangala. However, in Krishna Karnamrtam we read Bilvamangala offering his respects to Somagiri and Chintamani but not mentioning Vishnuswami so if he really was a disciple of Vishnuswami then he it seems he must have established a connection with Vishnuswami some time after Bilvamangala wrote Krishna Karnamrtam.

 

It is doubtful that he would have mentioned the name of Chintamani, giving his respects to her, a (saintly) prostitute, but then failed to mention someone as important as Vishnuswami if he already had a relationship with Vishnuswami.

 

Also, in regard to Jagat's statement "verses from the second or third satakas of SKK cannot be considered Bilvamangala's with any real assurance", let me pose this question: Who is it that might have interpolated the verses? The book was brought to Puri by Sri Chaitanyadeva and distributed amongst the devotees, and in Kaviraj's Charitamrta he quotes the verses about Somagiri and Chintamani. Surely if verses were added then they must have been added by Mahaprabhu, Rupa, Sanatana or Krishnadas Kaviraj or someone else in that inner circle of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Maybe some great scholar will soon write an article exposing Sri Chaitanydev as an "interpolator of texts", as one scholar did recently in regard to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura.

 

Anyway, if the commentator (Kavi Karnapura or Gopal Bhatta) has stated in the commentary to Krishna Karnamrtam that Bilvamangala received Krishna-mantra from Somagiri then this raises another issue: Somagiri was a guru in the line of Sankara. The commentator would seem to be allowing that a Sankarite guru was able to give a Vaishnava diksa. How does this notion sit with those persons who believe you need to get siddha-pranali from some direct successor of the associates of Sri Chaitanyadeva? We know that Bilvamangala attained prema in madhura-rasa, but he didn't get there through the association of a sadhu who gave him siddha pranali.

 

== Muralidhar

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

In that case, it must be acceptable to you if I choose to reject your quaint little sampradAya as bogus, just as Gaurasundara rejects BhaktivedAnta's paramparA on the same grounds.

 

 

 

by this, I meant rejection of the entire gaudIya sampradAya, as opposed to just raga's particular branch of it. just thought I would clarify to be fair.

 

Raghu

[raga]

 

Raghu writes:

 

In that case, it must be acceptable to you if I choose to reject your quaint little sampradAya as bogus, just as Gaurasundara rejects BhaktivedAnta's paramparA on the same grounds.

 

 

Yes, feel free to do so. Accepting a sampradaya is a matter of faith. However, please do apply the standard you choose uniformly to all sampradayas; as you can undoubtedly see, they all have their anomalies which cannot be solidly explained for a critical mind.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

JNdas quoted a statement from ThAkura Bhaktivinoda to the effect that those who did not accept the gaudIya paramparA link to madhva were the enemies of the gaudIya paramparA. Can I take it from the above that you disagree with Bhaktivinod, or simply that you dispute that he ever said/wrote it?

 

 

No, I disagree. There are far greater enemies out there than those who choose to question something which is hard to substantiate.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

No one else other than gaudIyas accept that SrI Caitanya is bhagavAn. What is your evidence to the contrary?

 

Your logic is actually quite circular. You accept that SrI Caitanya is BhagavAn because the gurus in your paramparA teach this. But you only accept this paramparA's authenticity to teach anything because Caitanya is understood by you to be BhagavAn. Pardon me for saying this, but that is pretty silly.

 

 

As I said, it is a matter of faith. It is not silly, it is called faith. Whatever sampradaya you choose to follow, you need to have a certain faith in their precepts. Madhva is nondifferent from Vayu and Hanuman, Ramanuja is Adi-Sesa, half the Vaikuntha descended as Alvars, Sankara is Siva, his guru was Adi-Sesa as well, Vallabha was Krishna's incarnation, his son was Candravali, and so forth. Can you prove any of this without referring to the tradition's own writings? I don't think you can.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

MAdhvas do not list Ananda tIrtha's co-disciples as links in the succession. Nor do they list any guru before SrI veda vyAsa. Nor do they accept the existence of anyone named lakshmIpati tIrtha or mAdhavendra purI.

 

 

Show me any Madhva parampara which is traced back to Vyasa and nowhere beyond, and not through Acyuta Preksa back to Hamsa. Are you the same person who said he'd once read something to that extent at Dvaita-list but didn't have it on record? Well, I have news for you: if you make a claim, prepare to have the evidence on record. I do not intend to consider any arguments for which you cannot show evidence yourself. As I said, I have no time to do extensive research on other people's infinite claims, which are often phony.

 

Phony, such as the claim that Madhvas do not accept the existence of Madhavendra Puri. This is a far-fetched claim. They may not accept his belonging to their tradition, but that is another issue altogether.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

[brahma Samhita] ...whose authority, once again, is only accepted by gaudIya vaiShNavas and no one else.

 

 

To be honest, I am tired of claims you cannot substantiate. I am quite certain that you haven't done your homework in this regard. Can you tell me, for example, the opinion of the Nimbarka-tradition on Brahma-samhita? Whether it's you, Gaurasundara, or anyone else, please don't claim things if you can't prove them.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Isn't it a little hard to believe that gaudIyas trace their lineage through dIksha only, when they list their paramparA in such a way that contradicts this? If baladeva was merely making up some details of the pre-Caitanya paramparA, then why did he invent it in such a way that some cases were clearly linked by at best shiksha and not dIksha? If he was going to make up the paramparA listing heedless of what mAdhvas actually say on this matter, then why did he not list only through known lines of dIksha?

 

 

Go figure. I can't give a conclusive answer on why Baladeva gives such a list.

 

However, the institution of parampara in the post-Caitanya tradition is based on diksa. I am familiar with devotees from the paramparas descending from Advaita, Nityananda / Jahnava, Gadadhara Pandit, Gopal Bhatta Gosvami, Narottama Das Thakur, Srinivasa Acarya, Syamananda Pandit, and a good bunch of others, and they all agree on this. Something Baladeva has written, which cannot be conclusively explained, doesn't change the way the tradition has been for 500 years, and will be in the future, aside some who choose to establish their own way, drawing from the pre-Caitanya tradition and other sampradayas. It is not merely a matter of debating a certain passage in one acarya's text, it is just as much, and more, a matter of how the principle of parampara has been implemented in the Gaudiya tradition over two dozen generations.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Perhaps this is due to bhaktisiddhAnta's credit. Even in bhagavad-gItA, no dIksha was given by bhagavAn SrI kR^iSNa to Arjuna. By your silly "gaudIya" ideas, does this mean kR^iSNa was not Arjuna's guru? Apparently so, since you consider Achyuta Preksa to be the guru of SrI Madhva, even though the latter converted the former and made him his own disciple. A surer sign of confusion could not possibly be apparent.

 

 

No, of course Arjuna was Krishna's disciple, you can read it right in the Gita, 2.7. It is odd that some (such as JNdas in some of his posts) choose to build a major strawman out of this, claiming that we disagree that someone can be a disciple without receiving diksa. Well, to break the news, we have heard of siksa-gurus.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

So gaudIyas are only supposed to trace their line through dIksha, even though their own founder did not give dIksha? Now that is indeed interesting.

 

 

It's not a question of what they're supposed to do. It's a question of what they've been doing since two dozen generations.

 

Raghu, do you speak for any recognized tradition, have you received diksa in any sampradaya? You speak much of the Madhva tradition. Are you initiated among them? I am asking in order to know whether I can regard your views as solidly representing theirs.

[raga]

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

I was aware of what was written there in regard to the mention of Sri Vishnuswami as the Guru of Bilvamangala. However, in Krishna Karnamrtam we read Bilvamangala offering his respects to Somagiri and Chintamani but not mentioning Vishnuswami so if he really was a disciple of Vishnuswami then he it seems he must have established a connection with Vishnuswami some time after Bilvamangala wrote Krishna Karnamrtam.

 

It is doubtful that he would have mentioned the name of Chintamani, giving his respects to her, a (saintly) prostitute, but then failed to mention someone as important as Vishnuswami if he already had a relationship with Vishnuswami.

 

 

I also find it hard to believe that he would actually have been an associate of Vishnusvami.

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Also, in regard to Jagat's statement "verses from the second or third satakas of SKK cannot be considered Bilvamangala's with any real assurance", let me pose this question: Who is it that might have interpolated the verses? The book was brought to Puri by Sri Chaitanyadeva and distributed amongst the devotees, and in Kaviraj's Charitamrta he quotes the verses about Somagiri and Chintamani. Surely if verses were added then they must have been added by Mahaprabhu, Rupa, Sanatana or Krishnadas Kaviraj or someone else in that inner circle of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Maybe some great scholar will soon write an article exposing Sri Chaitanydev as an "interpolator of texts", as one scholar did recently in regard to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura.

 

 

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Gopal Bhatta, Kavi Karnapura and Caitanya das have only commented on the first satakam. The verse on Somagiri and Cintamani is the first verse of the first satakam.

 

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Anyway, if the commentator (Kavi Karnapura or Gopal Bhatta) has stated in the commentary to Krishna Karnamrtam that Bilvamangala received Krishna-mantra from Somagiri then this raises another issue: Somagiri was a guru in the line of Sankara. The commentator would seem to be allowing that a Sankarite guru was able to give a Vaishnava diksa. How does this notion sit with those persons who believe you need to get siddha-pranali from some direct successor of the associates of Sri Chaitanyadeva? We know that Bilvamangala attained prema in madhura-rasa, but he didn't get there through the association of a sadhu who gave him siddha pranali.

 

 

Can I have a reference for Somagiri belonging to Sankara-sampradaya, please?

 

It is not that one can't attain prema without receiving siddha-pranali, it's just that we find it helpful in acquiring a specific concept of the prayojana we aspire to attain. Think of it as an imprint in the heart into which the nectar of realization is poured into. Certainly the power of Harinama can produce miracles regardless of the specifics of sadhana one is engaged in.

 

It is a sad thing that many people get into this black and white preaching, "you must this and that". We find something helpful, we have faith in it, we see it works, and we embrace it with joy. However, not everyone can be molded into the same shape. Therefore, Apana Apana patha, tAte hobo anurata, as Narottama put it. Tread your own path, and proceed with love.

[raga]

 

In reply to:

 

_____________

 

In that case, it must be acceptable to you if I choose to reject your quaint little sampradAya as bogus, just as Gaurasundara rejects BhaktivedAnta's paramparA on the same grounds.

 

____________

 

 

by this, I meant rejection of the entire gaudIya sampradAya, as opposed to just raga's particular branch of it. just thought I would clarify to be fair.

 

Raghu

 

 

The Madhvites (at least those of Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha) anyway reject all other sampradayas as illegitimate. It should not make much difference for them if the Gaudiyas present some details this way or that way.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

As I said, it is a matter of faith. It is not silly, it is called faith. Whatever sampradaya you choose to follow, you need to have a certain faith in their precepts. Madhva is nondifferent from Vayu and Hanuman, Ramanuja is Adi-Sesa, half the Vaikuntha descended as Alvars, Sankara is Siva, his guru was Adi-Sesa as well, Vallabha was Krishna's incarnation, his son was Candravali, and so forth. Can you prove any of this without referring to the tradition's own writings? I don't think you can.

 

 

The key point here is that the teachings of the Madhva line and other lines mentioned above do not depend on the divinity of the founder. Whereas it seems the traditional Gaudiya lines base their root arguments on the fact that Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself so they don't need to conform to any other principle.

 

 

No, of course Arjuna was Krishna's disciple, you can read it right in the Gita, 2.7. It is odd that some (such as JNdas in some of his posts) choose to build a major strawman out of this, claiming that we disagree that someone can be a disciple without receiving diksa. Well, to break the news, we have heard of siksa-gurus.

 

 

Actually it isn't a strawman, nor directed to you. Someone here claims there never was a parampara based on Siksha in the history of the Vedic culture. Yet Krishna states he has come to reestablish the "parampara", and He does so by giving Arjuna Siksha. If you don't see the connection and still think it is a strawman argument, then theres not much I can do.

 

 

It is not that one can't attain prema without receiving siddha-pranali, it's just that we find it helpful in acquiring a specific concept of the prayojana we aspire to attain.

 

 

I agree that diksha paramparas exist, siksha paramparas exist, and even mixed diksha-siksha paramparas also exist. It is only some others here who claim there was never a siksha parampara in the history of Vedic culture, and that the concept of Siksha parampara was fabricated by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

 

Personally I am happy that there are unbroken disciplic lines from Mahaprabhu. Srila Prabhupada has also glorified them on several occassions in his writings. This doesnt mean I accept their teachings and philosophy, but I respect them as devotees of Mahaprabhu.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Guest wrote:

 

MAdhvas do not list Ananda tIrtha's co-disciples as links in the succession. Nor do they list any guru before SrI veda vyAsa. Nor do they accept the existence of anyone named lakshmIpati tIrtha or mAdhavendra purI.

 

 

Raga wrote:

 

Phony, such as the claim that Madhvas do not accept the existence of Madhavendra Puri. This is a far-fetched claim. They may not accept his belonging to their tradition, but that is another issue altogether.

 

 

Come on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I think it was obvious the guest's statement was that the Madhvas do not accept a Madhavendra Puri belonging to one of their Mathas or parampara, not that there was never a person in the world with the name Madhavendra Puri. The wording may not have been perfect, but I certainly thought it was understandable.

[raga]

 

JNdas wrote:

 

Come on. I think it was obvious the guest's statement was that the Madhvas do not accept a Madhavendra Puri belonging to one of their Mathas or parampara, not that there was never a person in the world with the name Madhavendra Puri. The wording may not have been perfect, but I certainly thought it was understandable.

 

 

Yes, I am also aware of the argument you present, and it is a reasonable one. However, here's what Raghu wrote:

 

 

Raghu wrote:

 

MAdhvas do not list Ananda tIrtha's co-disciples as links in the succession. Nor do they list any guru before SrI veda vyAsa. Nor do they accept the existence of anyone named lakshmIpati tIrtha or mAdhavendra purI.

 

 

The first sentence denies someone's being a link in a succession. The third sentence denies someone's existence altogether.

 

While I certainly know what something Raghu has read was aiming at, I find it questionable whether he understood it properly. I am just pointint out to the fact that people need to research their statements properly. Oh yes, and word them a bit better, too, if indeed Raghu meant what you suggest.

[raga]

 

JNdas writes:

 

The key point here is that the teachings of the Madhva line and other lines mentioned above do not depend on the divinity of the founder. Whereas it seems the traditional Gaudiya lines base their root arguments on the fact that Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself so they don't need to conform to any other principle.

 

 

Is it so? Do the teachings of Vallabha-sampradaya not profoundly depend on Vallabha's mystic encounter with Bilvamangala, and the charismatic position he is awarded, in other words, "his divinity"? Do the Ramanujaites not rely to quite an extent on the vision of Nathamuni, where he is said to have received the writings of the Alvars from Nammalvar?

 

As far as I can see, each "founder" has practically established a new tradition, while drawing some support to it from both the scriptures and the past teachers. The Gaudiyas are nondifferent in this regard.

 

 

 

I agree that diksha paramparas exist, siksha paramparas exist, and even mixed diksha-siksha paramparas also exist. It is only some others here who claim there was never a siksha parampara in the history of Vedic culture, and that the concept of Siksha parampara was fabricated by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

 

 

Well, if we agree that siksa-gurus exist, then a succession of siksa-gurus can naturally be coined a siksa-parampara, particularly in non-pancharatrik traditions where mantra-diksa does not play a significant role; though I am not familiar with any prior use of this term until Bhaktisiddhanta's time.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Do the teachings of Vallabha-sampradaya not profoundly depend on Vallabha's mystic encounter with Bilvamangala, and the charismatic position he is awarded, in other words, "his divinity"? Do the Ramanujaites not rely to quite an extent on the vision of Nathamuni, where he is said to have received the writings of the Alvars from Nammalvar?

 

 

My experience is that Madhvas and Sri Vaishnavas will argue vociferously that their siddhanta does not depend on the divinity of the founder, that it is solely based on prasthana-traya and the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas.

 

It seems more common for traditional Gaudiyas, on the other hand, to resort to "Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself and therefore requires no parampara nor shastra to base his teachings against, etc." Perhaps there are other traditional Gaudiya's who feel otherwise, for example Bhaktivinoda Thakur was quite adamant that Mahaprabhu's line must be accepted as coming from the Brahma sampradaya.

 

I think it is obvious why other schools would look down on a philosophy that depends on the divinity of the founder. One can just as well use the same arguments to establish Sai Baba's teachings as correct. Vedantic traditions on the other hand measure their teachings against the prasthana-traya, not the divinity of their founder, and are thus able to be scrutinized independent of the particular tradition.

 

Perhaps traditional Gaudiya schools don't see themselves as Vedantic traditions and aren't interested in being identified as such? That is the impression that I get.

[Guest guest]

 

 

No, I disagree. There are far greater enemies out there than those who choose to question something which is hard to substantiate.

 

 

 

Perhaps you are not understanding the gist of my question. Perhaps I did not word it properly, so let me rephrase it. If it is your contention that the gaudIya connection to madhva is not important, why does bhaktivinod thAkura emphasize it? I would think that someone claiming to represent an orthodox gaudIya tradition would have views that are in line with bhaktivinod's, or is he not considered a part of that tradition's orthodoxy?

 

 

 

 

As I said, it is a matter of faith. It is not silly, it is called faith. Whatever sampradaya you choose to follow, you need to have a certain faith in their precepts. Madhva is nondifferent from Vayu and Hanuman,

 

 

 

Faith-acceptance seems to be a uniquely gaudIya view (or at least gaudIya vaiSNavism as you understand it); It is not a prerequisite for vaiSNava vedAntins, and certainly not for mAdhvas. Although madhva is non other than mukhya prAna, belief in his identity is not required to begin believing in tattvavAda. For one thing, madhva actually bases his siddhAnta on shAstras. For another thing, he also had a guru - SrI vedavyAsa. His opponents did not take issue with his divinity, but rather with his philosophy, and that too unsuccessfully. None of them took issue with his guru-paramparA.

 

 

 

Show me any Madhva parampara which is traced back to Vyasa and nowhere beyond, and not through Acyuta Preksa back to Hamsa. Are you the same person who said he'd once read something to that extent at Dvaita-list but didn't have it on record? Well, I have news for you: if you make a claim, prepare to have the evidence on record. I do not intend to consider any arguments for which you cannot show evidence yourself. As I said, I have no time to do extensive research on other people's infinite claims, which are often phony.

 

 

 

Can you possibly trouble yourself to to a bit of common sense? Acyuta Preksa is not Madhva's guru. He was converted by Madhva and became his own disciple. Even when Madhva was learning from him, he many times either defeated him or in other ways demonstrated that his knowledge, even at such a young age, was greater than that of Acyuta Preksha. These quotes have already been provided. Here is another one, from Sri madhva vijaya 8.2:

 

"PoornaPrajna had an excellent mind capable of knowing completely all aspects of the extremely secret tenets, which remain to be known (only by specially qualified persons like Brahma and Mukhya Prana). VedaVyasa was an appropriate Guru for him as only He could expound fully such tenets to such a disciple. Therefore, the gods

honoured Madhva’s approaching VedaVyasa for knowledge in this manner."

 

Not only this, but madhva's invocation in his brahma-sUtra bhASya is to vyAsa and not acyuta preksa. Indeed, Sri-madhva-vijaya compares vyAsa and madhva to nArAyana and His chief aide mukhya prAna, as the former wrote the brahma-sUtra and the latter would write the ideal commentary.

 

As far as there being anyone before vyAsa in the guru-paramparA (such as the incorrectly vogue "kR^iSNa-brahmA-nArada" listing), it is obvious that He does not need one since He is none other than nArAyaNa Himself. But if you believe the mAdhva guru paramparA begins with someone before vyAsa, I will accept it (Krishna also had a guru), but only when you have provided the source. That vyAsa is madhva's guru and at the head of the guru-paramparA is traditionally understood; the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

 

 

 

Phony, such as the claim that Madhvas do not accept the existence of Madhavendra Puri. This is a far-fetched claim. They may not accept his belonging to their tradition, but that is another issue altogether.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I confused you (not that it seems difficult). What I meant was mAdhvas do not accept the existence of mAdhavendra or lakShmIpati in their tradition.

 

 

 

To be honest, I am tired of claims you cannot substantiate. I am quite certain that you haven't done your homework in this regard. Can you tell me, for example, the opinion of the Nimbarka-tradition on Brahma-samhita? Whether it's you, Gaurasundara, or anyone else, please don't claim things if you can't prove them.

 

 

 

 

The point remains that brahmA-saMhitA is not shruti, and even if it is accepted by at most one other paramparA (which I doubt, since the text was alleged to have been "discovered" by SrI kR^iSNa caitanya), then even still it is not admissible as evidence. But lest it seems I am uncharitable, by all means provide the evidence that the nimbArka tradition or any other tradition accepts this text, if you have it.

 

Bottom line is that there is no objective evidence in your paramparA's existence as a dIksha line.

 

 

 

 

Go figure. I can't give a conclusive answer on why Baladeva gives such a list.

 

However, the institution of parampara in the post-Caitanya tradition is based on diksa. I am familiar with devotees from the paramparas descending from Advaita, Nityananda / Jahnava, Gadadhara Pandit, Gopal Bhatta Gosvami, Narottama Das Thakur, Srinivasa Acarya, Syamananda Pandit, and a good bunch of others, and they all agree on this. Something Baladeva has written, which cannot be conclusively explained, doesn't change the way the tradition has been for 500 years, and will be in the future, aside some who choose to establish their own way, drawing from the pre-Caitanya tradition and other sampradayas. It is not merely a matter of debating a certain passage in one acarya's text, it is just as much, and more, a matter of how the principle of parampara has been implemented in the Gaudiya tradition over two dozen generations.

 

 

 

 

Now, now, let's not change the subject, hmmm? We aren't debating how the line has been traced after Caitanya. What is being debated is the principle of whether or not the line can *only* be traced that way in the pristine Caitanya tradition which you claim to represent.

 

Apparently, given baladeva's listing, it is acceptable to have "shiksha" connections in the gaudIya paramparA. If your thesis is that "gaudIya vaiSNavas trace their line through dIksha, and those who do not do so are not orthodox gaudIyas," then it must be consistent with all the available evidence. The greatest contradiction to this principle which you espouse is not so much the fact that baladeva listed a pre-Caitanya paramparA without dIksha links, but that he actually made it up to contain non-dIksha linkages against the tradition of those whom he claimed to represent! That makes absolutely no sense for a guru coming in a tradition which only accepts paramparA which is legitimized by dIksha. Unless, that is, he does accept some links as the equivalent of dIksha.

 

 

 

No, of course Arjuna was Krishna's disciple, you can read it right in the Gita, 2.7. It is odd that some (such as JNdas in some of his posts) choose to build a major strawman out of this, claiming that we disagree that someone can be a disciple without receiving diksa. Well, to break the news, we have heard of siksa-gurus.

 

 

 

 

Now tell me - which guru was more important to Arjuna's spiritual progress? Was it Krishna, who according to you, is only a shiksha guru, or Arjuna's dIksha guru?

 

If Arjuna had a disciple, would he trace his paramparA back through Lord Krishna, by Whose instruction he got liberation, or though his dIksha guru in youth, whose name seems to have faded into the background?

 

 

 

 

It's not a question of what they're supposed to do. It's a question of what they've been doing since two dozen generations.

 

 

 

If gaudIyas are not required to trace their line through dIksha, then the fact that they have done so for the past 200 years does not preclude the possibility of not doing it again in some cases. Either "paramparA by dIksha only" is a general gaudIya principle or it is not.

 

There is something wrong with a philosophy that espouses principles by which its own tradition cannot be authenticated. You still have not responded to my question about the four sampradAyas. Since you believe that baladeva merely claimed the link to madhva (and hence brahmA) for the sake of "convenience," do you consider the connection real or not? If it is not real, then your paramparA is useless, based on your own principle that one has to come in one of the four sampradAyas. If the connection is real, then why is that line held to a different standard (dIksha not required, shiksha is ok) than the post-gosvAmI line (where it is alleged that only dIksha is accepted)? Surely the notion of "one standard for you, another for me" is sharply at odds with the idea that only one of the two standards correctly defines the gaudIya paramparA.

 

Raghu

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Raghu, do you speak for any recognized tradition, have you received diksa in any sampradaya? You speak much of the Madhva tradition. Are you initiated among them? I am asking in order to know whether I can regard your views as solidly representing theirs.

 

 

 

... but don't judge based on the fact that I have dIksha, but rather on what is also stated in the writings of madhva, his disciples, and the tradition as a whole. I know many individuals who get "dIksha" in many traditions, who don't know a fig about the sampradAya into which they have been initiated. Actual knowledge of pUrvAcAryas' writings and loyalty to their principles counts for more than a sacred thread initiation.

 

On the other hand, by the same principle you mention above, I request that, since you obviously do not have dIksha in madhva sampradAya, that you refrain from making baseless and stupid comments about SrI madhva's guru paramparA. If you want to pass stool all over your own sampradAya, then feel free to do so - just leave others out of it.

 

Also, I just wanted to mention one more thing about the "divinity" of a founder and the authenticity of what he teaches. Madhva does not accept that because someone is a divine being, that his teachings are therefore correct and without blemish. This latter point is brought out nicely in viSNu-tattva-viNirnaya when he discusses the concept of apaurusheyatva. Madhva does not stop with the possibility that because something is authored by God, that it must therefore be without flaws, for even God can mislead others if He so desires (His incarnation as Buddha, for instance). Hence, he argues that Vedas have no author, not even God Himself.

 

So you see - orthodox mAdhvas do not put such emphasis on the divinity of their AcArya that they accept him as an indepedent authority - unlike some gaudIyas who argue that because Caitanya is God, therefore he does not need a guru or a paramparA. Please be aware of such differences and do not confuse the two.

 

Raghu

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Raghu,

 

I don't think that your thesis that vaishnava vedantins don't rely on faith will hold up under scrutiny. Why do you accept the Vedas as apaurusheya? Have you ever come across any writing anywhere that wasn't penned by a person? If you want someone to accept such a notion, then you will have to provide proof - otherwise, what are we left with? I believe one calls it faith.

 

I also find it a bit odd that you said that the Vedas have no origin, not even God because even he can be suspect. Well then - what are the origin of Vedas? They have no origin? Why then does Krsna claim otherwise in Bhagavad-Gita?

 

I'm not really sure what motive you have in posting as you have on this thread. Madhvacharya is a great vaishnava acharya and we (Gaudiya Vaishnavas) respect him and his followers. We Gaudiyas have a different vision, but that doesn't mean that we disrepect or find fault with Madhvacharya. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu taught that the Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural commmentary on the Vedanta Sutras, having been penned by it's author. Jiva Goswami wrote extensively on this point and corroborated it with scriptural support in his Sat Sandarbhas. We also have a commentary on Vedanta Sutras called 'Govinda Bhasya' authored by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, but we place more emphasis on the Bhagavata Purana and it is from there that our entire theology is supported and authenticated.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

p.s. Maybe we can all agree to move on to other subjects now?

[raga]

 

JNdas writes:

 

It seems more common for traditional Gaudiyas, on the other hand, to resort to "Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself and therefore requires no parampara nor shastra to base his teachings against, etc." Perhaps there are other traditional Gaudiya's who feel otherwise, for example Bhaktivinoda Thakur was quite adamant that Mahaprabhu's line must be accepted as coming from the Brahma sampradaya.

 

Perhaps traditional Gaudiya schools don't see themselves as Vedantic traditions and aren't interested in being identified as such? That is the impression that I get.

 

 

Strictly speaking, I would not consider the Gaudiya sampradaya as a Vedantic tradition. It is beyond doubt that many of its philosophical premises in the realm of what we consider sambandha can be traced back to Brahma-sutra and the Upanishads, and the basic elements of its abhidheya are there, too.

 

However, as we enter the realm of prayojana, I am yet to find a Vedantic basis for it. The divinity of Radha-Krishna, the position of Vraja-dhama as the pinnacle of Vaikuntha, the method of worship followed by the maidens of Vraja as the topmost among all, I am all ears if you can demonstrate the presence of the aforesaid tenets in the Vedanta. Oh yes, and Rupa's theology of bhakti-rasa; he derived most of the framework for his analysis of devotion from Bharata Muni's natya-shastra and the subsequent works of Abhinavagupta and others. I would not call this a strictly Vedantic approach.

 

I would call it a mixed tradition.

 

Speaking of Prasthana-traya, I would be keen of hearing a Sri Vaishnava demonstrate the supremacy of Lakshmi-Narayana based on the aforesaid pramana.

 

 

 

JNdas writes:

 

I think it is obvious why other schools would look down on a philosophy that depends on the divinity of the founder. One can just as well use the same arguments to establish Sai Baba's teachings as correct. Vedantic traditions on the other hand measure their teachings against the prasthana-traya, not the divinity of their founder, and are thus able to be scrutinized independent of the particular tradition.

 

 

Now, the core beliefs of the Caitanya tradition on the ultimate goal of life are not derived from prasthana-traya as far as I am acquainted with them; his unique, unforeseen contributions are acknowledged for instance by Krishnadas in the Caitanya Caritamritam (1.1.4). The revelational link from Caitanya to Rupa is made by several authors who make the point that by the grace of Caitanya, Rupa wrote of topics lost to the mankind (CC 2.19.10, C. Cand. N. 9.38).

 

Aside this, the theology of Caitanya's identity is a very central aspect of the Gaudiya sampradaya, wouldn't you agree? While the other traditions are concerned in explaining the revelation of the past, the tradition of Caitanya was conceived in the immediate presence of Bhagavan Himself who descended to this world once again. Consequently, the foundational scenario is radically different from the rest of the mainstream Vaishnava traditions.

 

Now, I don't expect others to agree with the theology of our tradition, nor do I see a need to amend our theology to transform it into a hybrid creation invoking acceptance from various other traditions. We are quite satisfied with the tradition as it is, and do not depend on the opinion of others. Consquently, as Raghu suggested, he may accept or reject our sampradaya as he desires; it has little significance for us. May each find his happiness wherever he may.

[raga]

 

Raghu writes:

 

Perhaps you are not understanding the gist of my question. Perhaps I did not word it properly, so let me rephrase it. If it is your contention that the gaudIya connection to madhva is not important, why does bhaktivinod thAkura emphasize it? I would think that someone claiming to represent an orthodox gaudIya tradition would have views that are in line with bhaktivinod's, or is he not considered a part of that tradition's orthodoxy?

 

 

You may not be very familiar with the recent history of our tradition. Bhaktivinoda is a controversial teacher in many respects. He is definitely not in the mainstream tradition.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Can you possibly trouble yourself to to a bit of common sense?

 

...

 

I'm sorry if I confused you (not that it seems difficult).

 

 

I am a regular r to common sense. In fact, I have a good selection of issues accumulated over the years. Right now my common sense suggests that an encounter with a person who is passionately involved in proving his points and who resorts to condescending comments against the other parties of the discussion may not be a productive undertaking at all.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Now, now, let's not change the subject, hmmm? We aren't debating how the line has been traced after Caitanya. What is being debated is the principle of whether or not the line can *only* be traced that way in the pristine Caitanya tradition which you claim to represent.

 

 

Now, at least this is what *you* are debating.

 

I have already stated that the vast majority of the post-Caitanya tradition, with the exception of Gaudiya Math and possibly some other minor groups that I am not aware of, present a diksa-parampara from an associate of Caitanya down to their present guru when inquired about their guru-parampara. I believe this is not in dispute.

 

I have also stated that we consider the pre-Caitanya parampara more or less irrelevant.

 

It seems that you persistently question a certain view. However, I am not quite certain what the view is you think I, or whoever it may be, holds. Could you pin down the exact "opposing view" you argue against prior to presenting further arguments?

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

The greatest contradiction to this principle which you espouse is not so much the fact that baladeva listed a pre-Caitanya paramparA without dIksha links, but that he actually made it up to contain non-dIksha linkages against the tradition of those whom he claimed to represent! That makes absolutely no sense for a guru coming in a tradition which only accepts paramparA which is legitimized by dIksha. Unless, that is, he does accept some links as the equivalent of dIksha.

 

 

As I probably have mentioned earlier on, though Baladeva and Karnapura do present an anomalous pre-Caitanya parampara, they have not presented any such succession down to themselves, only down to Caitanya; to the contrary, in his writings, Baladeva acknowledges belonging to the disciplic line descending from Syamananda and Rasikananda down to his diksa-guru, Radha Damodara Goswami. His siksa-guru, Visvanatha Cakravartin, does likewise in his Sankalpa-kalpadruma and Sarartha-darsini-tika, as does Narahari Cakravartin two generations later. All of the aforementioned acaryas present a diksa-line as their *own* parampara. Accordingly, in the present day, the countless representatives of the various branches of the Gaudiya tradition continue to present a diksa-parampara as their guru-parampara. I hope this is clear.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

If gaudIyas are not required to trace their line through dIksha, then the fact that they have done so for the past 200 years does not preclude the possibility of not doing it again in some cases. Either "paramparA by dIksha only" is a general gaudIya principle or it is not.

 

 

No no, not 200 years; since the days of Caitanya. The earliest specific example in writing I can think of is Visvanatha's (born ca. 1620), who was among the first generations who actually had more than one or two links in the parampara to track down.

 

I'll address the last point in your post in a separate message. This is lengthy enough for one post.

[Guest guest]

Dear Audarya-lila,

 

 

I don't think that your thesis that vaishnava vedantins don't rely on faith will hold up under scrutiny. Why do you accept the Vedas as apaurusheya? Have you ever come across any writing anywhere that wasn't penned by a person? If you want someone to accept such a notion, then you will have to provide proof - otherwise, what are we left with? I believe one calls it faith.

 

 

Vedas being apaurusheya is not a question of faith. They have always been known in the past to not have an author. Note that this is not the same thing as saying "author unknown." Each sukta in the Vedas has very explicit information regarding the presiding devata, the meter, and rishi -- with such details being included, why would one postulate an author when Vedas do not speak of one? If it is argued that the rishis are the actual authors (which is against the position of the SaD-darshanas and the various vedAnta schools), but have only come to be known as draShtars (seers) by influence of time, then does this mean that other authored works will similarly be regarded as unauthored in the next 2,000 years? Will kAlidAsa become known as the rishi of 'meghadUta' instead of its author? Will jIva gosvAmI become known as the rishi of Sad-sandarbhas instead of their author?

 

The earliest critics of the Vedas did not contest their unauthoredness. This is only the presumption of British Indologists with their silly speculations delivered in the name of "scholarship."

 

 

I also find it a bit odd that you said that the Vedas have no origin,

 

 

I did not say that Vedas have no "origin." I said that they have no "author" or in other words "creator." Vedas have always been known by vedAntins to be eternal. This implies without beginning and without end. How can a thing which is authored by someone be without beginning?

 

If Vedas have a beginning, can its beginning be traced out to a particular time in history? At all times in the history of vedAnta, vedas have been known to be anAdi.

 

 

not even God because even he can be suspect.

 

 

Well, then do you accept Buddha? He is Vishnu Himself, yet He decried the Vedas and established a nAStika doctrine. By your logic, you should accept shUnyavAda since this doctrine was also spoken by Vishnu. Do you?

 

For Madhva, the alleged omniscience or divinity of a person is not sufficient criteria to accept his writings as flawless. This is because the acceptance of a person's omniscience is itself an extra assumption - one who does not know who God is cannot know for sure that another person is God.

 

Even if a person is known to be God, that his writings are without flaw also presupposes additional assumptions - namely, that he is not intending to deceive anyone, that he is willing to give out correct knowledge, and so on.

 

By contrast, nothing is assumed by accepting the Vedas as apaurusheya.

 

 

Well then - what are the origin of Vedas? They have no origin?

 

 

According to bR^ihadAraNyakopaniShat.h, they are manifested from the Supreme Lord. But this is not the same thing as saying that the Supreme Lord created them, anymore than saying that because jIva-s originate from Supreme Lord, therefore jIva-s were created by Him. After mahA-pralaya, when the jIvas are reabsorbed into the body of viSNu, their individual existence remains, although not manifest. So it is also with the Vedas.

 

 

Why then does Krsna claim otherwise in Bhagavad-Gita?

 

 

Krishna makes no such claim in bhagavad-gItA. Why did you think this?

 

 

I'm not really sure what motive you have in posting as you have on this thread.

 

 

Three motives, really.

 

The first is my objection to the ill-conceived use of Madhva's good name and the slander of his guru-paramparA (by saying it is to be traced through his own disciple!) by some misinformed individuals who appear to have a bone to pick with your (bhaktivedAnta) sampradAya. As I have said before, whatever objections these so-called "traditional" gaudIya vaiSNavas have to your paramparA, they had better do without their puerile misunderstandings of madhva's disciplic line.

 

The second is that I am always offended when debates are won by reliance on tenous and inconsistent logic - i.e. the idea that your paramparA is somehow lacking because not all of its connections are legitimized by dIksha.

 

The third motivation is my objection to seeing practicing vaiSNavas being picked on by intellectual bullies (i.e. Gaurasundara) who appear to be all bluster and little substance. Anyone who claims to know so much should have his ego deflated once in a while, just to let him know exactly where he stands. Such a person is only asking for trouble when he pretends to know more than he actually does. On that note, anyone who is so utterly foolish as to actually believe in Sai Baba should maintain a little humility, remembering his previous foolishness in accepting such a complete moron as a guru.

 

Raghu

[theist]

authored by...? created by....? or caused by....?

 

Maybe 'caused by' is different.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Krishna is the cause of all causes, including his own expansions and incarnations, yet his expansions are never created. Similarly, the Vedas are equally beyond creation or authorship, yet find their source within the Lord.