inter-sampradaya wars

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

ISKCON is not an organization as you think (and i am not formally a part of it) rather in the higher sense refers to all those who follow previous Acharyas -- i take your good luck wish in its true sense.

 

 

By the way, even the link offered by Sumedh does not say about Advaitins what he claims it says. There is nothing there about Advaitins claiming the bhAgavatam is "concocted and unauthorized," nor is there any evidence quoted from Advaitins substantiating this. Nor is there anything there about "Advaitins having no sampradAya," nor are there any remarks or evidence to substantiate this.

 

 

 

To put it again, the Advaitins *only* consider the statements of Upanishads, Vedanta, Bhagavad Gita and reject statements from puranas in formulating their theory and since they contain statements directly from Srila Vyasadeva, Srila Sukadeva and other authorities it can only mean to imply that they are concocted (unless they wish to claim that these authorities are mistaken). In doing so they also gloss over the fact that only about 6% of these texts remain now and formulating and supporting a theory of Supreme Truth based on it is not very prudent.

Kurma Purana (52.19-20):

eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura

sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah

atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

"Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions."

 

In addition, many advaitins (and some western scholars) consider the Bhagavat purana to be composed about 1000 years ago in South India by Vopadeva; this has been expressed by Srila Prabhupada here

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/1/1/en

"Some Mayavadi scholars argue that Srimad-Bhagavatam was not compiled by Sri Vyasadeva. And some of them suggest that this book is a modern creation written by someone named Vopadeva."

for example.

If now this is no longer the case with the present Advaitins then it is welcome, but the fundamental difference of philosophy remains so they will not be considered authorized by the vaishnava sampradayas in any case.

 

Regarding "Advaitins having no sampradaya" (which actually means Advaitins have no authorized sampradaya) the answer is given before and expressed so in the interview of Srila BhaktiSiddhanta.

 

 

Sumedh, you have no clue as to what sampradAya means.

 

 

 

Please present your definition else such a statement is only a slander.

[theist]

Here is a question that has been on my mind for a while. Why do Gaudiya Vaisnava's not feel complete in tracing their sampradaya back more specifically to Madhavendra Puri considering the following verse and purport from Caitanya Caritamrta?

 

 

Upon seeing Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu in such an ecstatic mood, Sri Ranga Puri said, “Your Holiness, please get up. Your Holiness is certainly related to Sri Mädhavendra Puri, without whom there is no flavor of ecstatic love.”

 

PURPORT: Srila Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvati Thäkura remarks that in the disciplic succession of Madhväcärya—up to the advent of His Holiness Sripäda Laksmipati Tirtha—only Lord Krsna was worshiped. After Srila Mädhavendra Puri, worship of both Rädhä and Krsna was established. For this reason Sri Mädhavendra Puri is accepted as the root of worship in ecstatic love. Unless one is connected to the disciplic succession of Mädhavendra Puri, there is no possibility of awakening the symptoms of ecstatic love.

Sri Caitanya-caritämåta Madhya-lilä 9.288–89

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

Please correct me if i am wrong, acintya-bheda-abheda is from Sri Chaitanya and not from Madhavendra Puri from what i have read (though from what Sri Chaitanya says to Prakasananda Saraswati, chanting as main principle was most probably also from Madhavendra Puri).

 

Gaudiyas draw their distinction from Sri Chaitanya and since He is Krsna Himself, the sampradaya could have been taken to originate from Him but for the fact that others may not recognize so (in addition many self-proclaimed gods nowadays), and Sri Chaitanya playing the part of a Guru prefers to be connected to an authorized sampradaya.

[theist]

So the division is one of acintya bhedabheda and not the worship of Radha. Or perhaps both.

 

Not understanding acintya bhedabheda and how the other Vaisnava sampradayas view it I can't really distinguish between them on that basis.

 

But that raises another question. Why would Sri Caitanya stress the Madhva line considering the differences afore mentioned? Or did He even stress any sampradaya connection?

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

Somewhere i read an opinion that probably it was due to Srila Madhvacharya's staunch opposition to impersonalist philosophies, and of course the appearance of Srila Madhavendra Puri in the Madhva line was one of the reasons.

 

Since Lord Chaitanya only left the siksastaka we can know if the sampradaya connection is important only through the successive acharyas, and from Srila Kavi Karnapura to Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana (and Srila Prabhupada) have stressed it.

[theist]

Just so I make sure I understand, Sri Caitanya did not stress it but his disciples did? I know it is not mentioned in His 8 verses but what about in Caitanya Bhagavata which I have never read? Or CC which I have read but don't recall His having referred to the necessity of accepting a particular sampradaya.

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

I have also not read Chaitanya Bhagavat, so cannot say about it. I think just because it is not mentioned in CC, concluding that Sri Chaitanya did not stress it would not be correct. His philosophies have been expounded by Srila Rupa-Sanatana-Jiva Gosvami, and their writings should be considered as Sri Caitanya's desire and same is with other acharyas in the succession. I do not recall seeing even the Hare-Krishna maha-mantra as such in the text of CC, though it is there is Chaitanya Bhagavat. This tells me that not all can be known only by reading some texts (on the other hand Srila Prabhupada says that all that one needs to know to return to Godhead is there in his books).

 

The flavours of writings of earlier acharyas and recent acharyas (from Srila Bhaktivinoda) are quite different since the recent acharyas have adopted books as one of the main medium of preaching, so they write more about the things neophytes need to know in their writings. Earlier, the method of spreading the movement was more personal in nature, thus it is understandable that not all things necessary for neophytes are in a few books rather different acharyas dealt with different matters in their books (their writings are more exclusive). I mean to say things are more "scattered around" if we consider the writings of immediate disciples of Sri Chaitanya and earlier acharyas.

Gaura-Ganodesa-Dipika is a very important text for Gaudiyas since it mentions the eternal identities of the associates of Lord Chaitanya in His lila, and the sampradaya is mentioned in the beginning -- that to my mind makes the sampradaya connection quite important.

[theist]

Don't get me wrong, I accept that transcendental knowledge must descend into this world. It's the stress on formal affiliation that I sometimes question.

 

To the extent that the conclusions may differ I can understand why Vaisnavas would feel more drawn to one or the other.

 

And that one branch may suddenly appear different strikes me like the branch on a cherry or plum tree. It developes along in a certain way and then in the proper season it begins to bud then blossom. A new beauty comes forth that was not visible before transforming the previously healthy branch. It doesn't mean a new branch has sprung as it is just the flowering of the healthy and established one. I tend to see Madhavendra Puri and Sri Caitanya with Their revelation of Radha dasyam as the blossoming of the bhakti tree.

 

But I guess some could make a point either way. It dpes appear to be a new sampradaya from one angle as well.

 

Nice to think of these things, can't wait for liberation when I will be able to see something clearly.

 

But it sure would be nice if in discussions of the differences or perceived differences we could be generous with those that may hold another viewpoint. Especially I see within The GV branches entirely too much petty bickering even as the world slips further into hell.

 

Perhaps more focus should be to challenging the atheist philosphers and scientists, the demonic 'gurus' of this age, then other mono-theists.

 

Hare Krsna

---------------------------

[gHari]

Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya actually establishes the Brahma sampradaya, which is reestablished in each material manifestation by each different Brahma. Periodically another empowered incarnation (like Srila Madhvacarya) will appear to reestablish the eternal purity of the sampradaya from Lord Brahma whenever siddhanta becomes too covered. Then again and again Sri Caitanya appears to inspire the full potency of the sampradaya as only He can, as He unites all sampradayas in (pure love of) Godhead.

 

 

[theist]

You know I never really saw it that way before. The re-establishment through each new Brahma. Very expansive vision.

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

In my opinion, formal or not, whether by shiksha or diksha, affiliation to an authorized sampradaya is neccessary else how is one going to determine if he/she is on the right track.

 

If one starts to read the whole of Vedic literature to find its conclusions then he will be forever confused and this has been emphasized many times. Say just reading Bhagavad-Gita scholarly no one will come to know that unconditional surrender to Krishna is the best. Lord Chaitanya presented to all that sankirtan is the yuga dharma; and similarly from the huge amount of literature written by the Gosvamis and other disciples, the Acharyas have presented to us their conclusions. I think, what is important is not what is presented more in books rather the word of Spiritual Masters and we have the word of Srila Prabhupada in this connection.

We have also been told that when one is sincere enough, Krishna sends him a Guru.

 

 

Perhaps more focus should be to challenging the atheist philosphers and scientists, the demonic 'gurus' of this age, then other mono-theists.

 

 

 

i agree, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushan refused to accept persons of Ramanuja sect, who he defeated in the challenge, as disciples saying he didn't want to undermine their sampradaya.

[theist]

Hearing even small apparent contradictions one teacher from another or one lineage from another could throw one off the path by raising unnecessary doubts.

[sumedh]

and Srimad Bhagavatam presents the simple definition of first-class religion as one which makes one a lover of God. It is really that simple, but our doubting minds make it complex.

 

Hare Krishna