Embedded Files
TADIPATRI GURUKULA
Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT)
The need for criticism is also stated most clearly by Sri Madhva himself in his Ishavasya commentary, so the presumption that one ought not to criticize is also fundamentally mistaken even otherwise. There is a difference between criticism of philosophy and of personalities, making comments of deliberate fraud, etc. Especially when it is concerned with another Vaishnava sampradaya.
KT: We see a father criticizing his own son or a brother another brother. It is in the process of seeking truth.
What really is the objection? Is it for the criticism of the philosophy or person? If it is for the former, then by stopping such criticism, one is removing the scope and opportunity for nishchaya j~nAna or firm knowledge or conviction. If it is for the latter,is it criticizing the person for the philosophy and principles or for the personal things like attire,social behavior and whims, etc. Again if it is for the former, then it is tantamount for removing the scope for conviction and right knowledge. If it is the latter, there is no justification to it, as those personal things were not attacked. If the objection is for calling it a fraud, then the fact that so many mistake that Gaudiya Vaishnavism to Madhva philosophy itself and many Gaudiyas also claim the same, is the cause for it. Fraud can be of many kinds. This is just one such kind.
I would like to find from Madhvas whether they consider Prabhupada's explanation of purnam adah purnam idam correct or no,
KT: Definitely not. The reason can be seen easily by noting the ridiculousness in there.
What is done is neo vedantic mumbo-jumbo mixed with scriptural statements. Irrelevant verbiage is added to mask the defects in the analysis and thus a concept of “pUrNatva” is thrust upon the entities in the universe. Are all the entities in the universe pUrNa or only some? If former, that can be rejected right away for the obvious ridiculousness. If latter,then which are those some?
I would suggest you are not satisfied because you are failing to see how the concepts of “dependent reality”, “difference” and “immanance of Brahman” tie in together.
KT: One, who sees that, will not resort to such a wrong interpretation of the verse.
The Vedanta sUtra || Om samAkarSAt Om || ( 1.4.16) refers to the relationship between Parabrahman and the all Created entities. MadhvAcArya comments, “ParamAtmA vAcinaH shabdAH anyatra samAkriSya vyavahRyante” . The name of an attribute of Parabrahman is given by Veda to that entity which is created by Parabrahman with that particular attribute.
KT: The scriptures proclaim that all words denote Brahman.
If so, how to denote other things? This objection is answered by this sUtra. The words are borrowed from Him and used to denote other things. So, these words serve the double purpose of denoting both (Him in the scriptures and the objects in the world).
The Lord has “achintyAdbhuta shakti” in every attribute of His. When He creates any entity, He does not give His attribute to that entity. That is a ridiculous proposition. Just because those entities are called in VYAVAHARA by that name, it is naïve to think that the particular entity has the same attribute (denoted by that name) as the Lord.
Therefore, we may say that the created phenomenal universe reflects this “pUrNatva” attribute of Parabrahman.
KT: How? Just because the name is borrowed, it implies the pUrNatva? This is like saying one who is named as PadmanAbha must have a lotus in the navel, etc.
How can one say that the created phenomenal universe has pUrNatva? One that has pUrNatva is changeless.
All those names have multiple meanings. When they describe the Lord, they have a particular interpretation (which makes Him All-Supreme) and when describing the entities, they have a different interpretation (which make them non-supreme and dependent on Lord). Thus only He is pUrNa and they are all non-pUrNa.
A person, who has at least a reasonable understanding of how the concepts of “dependent reality”, “difference” and “immanence of Brahman” tie in together, will not commit the blunder of attributing pUrNatva of the Lord to other entities, just going by the name. All the real entities are dependent on the Lord and hence, they have “dependent reality”. The basic thing is that one of the main differences is that they are not pUrNa like the Lord. Why? Due to “immanence of Brahman”, He is present in them and gives them the attribute only to a limited extent. Every attribute has “independence” part that corresponds and it is illogical to think that Lord gives away the independence also to them.
All qualitative terms and symbols are reflected in universe, and the jIva perceives more and more meaning through this very experience within this universe, as its jnAna blossoms and expands to different planes by the Grace of Brahman.
KT: What a vyApti ?
1. All qualitative terms and symbols are reflected in universe
2. the jIva perceives more and more meaning through this very experience within this universe.
3. its jnAna blossoms and expands to different planes by the Grace of Brahman.
What has the above set of statements to do with the“pUrNatva” of the entities?
In other words, even the “fullness” of Brahman can only be spoken of w.r.t. the epistemic limitations of the jIva's ability to cognize it.
KT: Jiva does not have ability to cognize the “fullness” of*Brahman*. How does it help in concluding the pUrNatva of the entities?
And the Veda and its commentaries are also meant for us jIva-s.
KT: Of course. How will that conclude that the entities have “fullness”. The whole reasoning is in a pathetic and absurd path.
Srila Prabhupada's clearly uses the term “completeness” for universe/ jIvas only w.r.t. how they are “fully equipped” to realize Brahman.
KT: What is meant by “fully equipped”? Are they given ability to fully realize Brahman?
As he says in his purport: “All facilities are given to the small complete units (namely the living beings) to enable them to realize the Complete Whole.
KT: The “purport section” is the most dangerous aspect in there. All wild conjectures can be shoved under the rug there. What is this all “facilities”? Does it include “ability”?
Is there any being who realized the Complete Whole so far? It is given that even Chaturmukha Brahma does not realize the Lord fully. What to speak of others?
All forms of incompleteness are experienced due to incomplete knowledge of the Complete Whole.”
KT: Note how ambiguity is built in so that things can be pushed in somehow. Statements are written loosely so that one can wriggle out any which way and that discussions can be dragged endlessly.
Are we talking about “presence of (in)completeness”of “perceiving (in)completeness” or “experiencing (in)completeness”?
Are we talking about completeness of Brahman or completeness of other things?
“Incompleteness” of what are we speaking here?If it is said that jIva does not have the ability to experience completely, no one disputes that.
If it is said that Lord does not have the ability to experience completely, that is ridiculous.
Ambiguity is mother of erroneous conclusions.
So the reference here is to the “completeness” of universe is w.r.t. its purpose in being created, in being “fully equipped” for self-realization, its behaviours in this regard, and the immanence of Brahman in universe and the individual jIva.
KT: Note the logical discordance and perfect mumbo-jumbo.
The universe is complete. Why?
1. Because of its purpose. What is the purpose?
Being fully equipped for self-realization!
2. Its behaviors in this regard.
3. Immanence of Brahman.
4. Individual jIva.
Another example of “pR^ishhTatADanAddantabhangaH”(A pat on the back made the teeth break!)
This is supported by other Acharyas, as shown above, and definitely by Veda.
KT: Definitely the above statement of Acharya does not support that. No vedic statements support that.
Gaudiyas give such statements due to total disregard to vedic statements, Brahmasutras and upanishadic statements.
Just because Srila Prabhupada does not only parrot the standard previous interpretations of a verse, does not mean it is a “mistake”.
KT: Similarly just because, someone said something totally new, it does not have to be correct.
This is what I meant by “ignorant word-comparisons”
KT: Yes, the “ignorant word-comparisons” have to be avoided. The word “pUrNa” in case of the Lord indicates self-sufficiency. The same word”pUrNa” in case of others can never mean self-sufficiency. Somebody can be a duHkhapUrNaor ashrupUrNa, or roshhapUrNa. It does not make sense to brag as having “pUrNatva”.
without trying to understand any link between philosophical terms.
KT: The main problem is that is what is lacking.
Hence, a ridiculous approach to use the words of Madhvacharya (who firmly believed in the pUrNatva of the Lord and treats all else as dependent) to conclude that the entire universe is pUrNa!
Someone must be kidding if he was suggesting that Prabhupada's commentary called the universe or jIvas “complete” in any sense separate from their relationship with Brahman.
KT: So also, someone must be kidding to conclude that Acharya Madhva said “complete” for jIva in any sense! Just because the universe or jIvas can not have separate existence from Brahman, trying to conclude that they have the attributes of Brahman is ridiculous. If some claim “all are pUrNa in their own way”,let them, but the verse “pUrNamadaH...”, does not say “in their own way”.
That “idaM” is a referent to the Transcendental Knowledge embedded within this phenomenal universe, which renders it complete w.r.t. its highest purpose.
KT: Does this person know what he is talking about? What is “transcendental knowledge embedded within this phenomenal universe”? This is what is a meaningless mumbo-jumbo and this gives one a licence to attach this to the word “idaM” in the verse! Based on what? Purely svamanIshottha vachanas (wild imaginations). Increase the sizeof this verbiage by making “the knowledge render the universe complete, wrt its highest purpose”!
All are pure set of imaginations. Why is the knowledge rendering the universe complete and that too with its purpose? What is the locus of this transcendental knowledge? Is it Brahman or jIva? If it is Brahman, then there is no question about its completeness. If it is jIva, then the person has to come to “square one” - there is no question about its absolute completeness.
[I hope you agree that Information is the primary constituent of universe, not Matter or Energy. Even material scientists see it that way now.]
KT: Who has the information about the universe? Only Lord. That means Lord is complete, but not the universe. Even an average person sees that.
The word “full” or “complete” is itself a relative term in our current state of consciousness, just like all other words we use to describe Brahman.
KT: The word is relative wrt jIva, but not relative wrt Brahman. Brahman is Full in absolute sense and jIva realizes its full only at the time of moxa.
1. There is no word in the verse to signify “in its own way”.
2. Even if someone makes an effort to supply this adhyAhAra (in its own way), the verse will not make sense for that wrong approach,because “pUrNasya pUrNamAdAyA pUrNameva avashishhyate”. Note “the pUrNa, drawing the pUrNa of pUrNa, remains pUrNa”.
This can make perfect sense with Lord's avatAras and mUlarUpa. The universe and “relative pUrNatva” does not make any sense.
Universe is “different” from Brahman in what sense?
KT: One is ever dependent and one ever independent.
And why can “pUrNaM” not apply to both?
KT: It can, but not in the same sense. When different sense is taken, and the verse is made to mix up the two, the very meaning is lost.The same mix up continues in following.
The word certainly applies...within it.
KT: The relative pUrNatva is not talked about in the verse. Also, the purpose of the verse is not to highlight that the Lord let others use His names.
Every word of Veda certainly refers to Brahman in the primary sense, but Veda is meant for us jIvas, it has relevance to us jIvas, right here and now.
KT: So, how does that help for “pUrNatva” of universe or jIvas in absolute sense?
...Prabhupada's intention at every moment is to make that connection
KT: That is what is lost completely.
encourage the reader to turn towards this God
KT: How does making the ever dependent universe as complete encourage to tun towards God?
who is so far, and yet so near to us by His immanence in Universe and our own beings.
KT: “dUrAddUrataM yattu tadevAntikamantikAt”and “sarvagatatvAt”. How do they help in arriving at the wrong conclusion.
Our swamijis have acknowledged Prabhupada's contribution -
KT: Everyone makes some contribution in one's life. Acknowledging the contribution does not mean acceptingthe philosophy.
they have themselves said that Gaudiya is a branch of Madhva sampradaya though there are differences.
KT: This is more a job for historians. As mentioned by Sri Shrisha Rao, one is advised to refer to HDSV by Dr. BNK Sharma, where he talks of the claimed lineage and the problems in such claims.
That there are differences are acknowledged. I think you are reading too much into Prabhupada's statement at the beginning of the book.
KT: Why so? Has PrabhupAda made an effort to enlist the differences and plainly state that Madhva system has “these principles” and Gaudiya system is deviating from “these principles” and then state the reasons and provide logical and scriptural support for that?
Pardon me for saying so, but I am not certain that any of us can say that we know a lot about Vaishnava philosophy.
I meant, compared to what I knew before. In any case, since we acknowledge that we don't know a lot,
KT: See, how a statement can take a full turn, when questioned.Thus questioning is always good so as to seek the truth.
I don't think we should correct the Astha Matha swami's for glorifying Prabhupada. They clearly know what they are saying, and if they feel the differences are not as important as the similarities, it must be so.
If we disagree with them, we certainly think ourselves so advanced and that we know so much that we can correct them and fuel their ire against someone else.
KT: Doesn't this apply to what late Sri Vidyamanyaru's position paper as well. Won't it be mandatory for the Astha Matha swamijis to accept that he knows what heis saying. If we disagree with him, we certainly think ourselves so advanced and that we know so much that we can correct him.
Empirical truths do no rest on statements or states of mind. But how important these differences are, is something our sannyasis know very well.
KT: They do and so the ones that came in the parampara and who wrote many works refuting such thoughts. The name of the school is not important, but the stress on the wrong thoughts as per the understanding of the scriptures is important. We grant full power, as per the tradition,to argue and present the case. Note the importance is for the true knowledge and if there are differences, it is very important to sort out – and this applies to any differences and not just the Gaudiya school.
Any person or group, Gaudiya or not, has every right to hold whatever views he wants – that we may readily grant. However, no one should be allowed to falsely claim sanction from some authority figure for something which that authority figure has denounced.
Two points:
1. Ramanujites would claim ultimately Narayana as their authority – source of disciplic succession. The same Narayana as Vyasa is the authority for Madhva tradition. So a Ramanujite could raise the same argument against a Madhvite with authority as Narayana.
Of course they could and they did too. Nothing prevents them and that is how the search goes on. This gives one an opportunity to progress towards true knowledge(as per the yogyata of an individual, with the encompassing God's grace). We don't say “This is the truth because we say so”.
He could say “no one should be allowed to falsely claim sanction from some authority figure for something which that authority figure has denounced” and quote from Veda to justify.
KT: Of course. Why not? That is what vedanta discussion is all about. “AtmA vA.are drashhTavyaH shrotavyaH nidhidhyAsitavyaH” , “taddhi tapaH taddhi tapaH” ,”kAvyashAstravinodena kAlo gachchhati dhImatAM”.
There is no other way, but to churn and extract the truth.
So my point is that this “violation of authority” is an issue between any two sampradayas, not just between gaudiya and tatvavada.
KT: Agreed. Some argue that every school claims that theirs is the right one and everything else is wrong.
However it doesn't stop there. One must also present justification for such claims and let the manthana begin until one reaches the conclusion that is most convincing to each individual.
The authority both claim to accept may differ but the situation is the same.
KT: The ultimate authority is shrutis and smR^it is that we have. Of course, the next golden question is that again each school interprets these according to the principles of its own. The case is not that simple.
The inter-consistency, rules of grammar, proper justification keeping the context in view will surely reveal that the truth is only one and it can not have many faces.
2. Gaudiyas do not claim Madhva is their authority - they claim a connection to Madhva, which I think there certainly is.
KT: That is fine, as long as they justify what they claim.
Also they have to digest that any truth-seeker will criticize the differences that go against what he believes is the truth. The belief may be blind or maybe based on conviction.
They are also clear about the fact that there are differences.
KT: Glad to know that.
Whether Madhavendra Puri introduced the element of madhurya rasa which was absent in Laxmipathy Tirtha does not make them lose the link.
KT: I see. How do you know that it was absent in LaxmipathyTirtha? How do you define mAdhurya rasa? Won't every school claim ownership to this?
For that matter, even Baladeva was initiated in Madhva sampradaya at Mysore, and Radha Damodara Goswami refused to reinitiate him, considering his previous initiation to be valid, instead he conducted a ceremony where he accepted Caitanya as non-different from Krishna.
KT: Whether Radha Damodara Goswami or Baladeva accepted Caitanya as non-different from Krishna, they are going against the scriptural evidence.
If that does happen, then it behooves all who actually honor that authority figure to rise up and call the liars' bluff. I have heard from some ISKCONites myself that this point raised by people such as yourself on this forum is nothing unexpected or new, and that they have never claimed that because Madhva is in their disciplic succession, they follow Tattvavada.
KT: That is happening only recently and that too not clearly.
They have never made that claim in the first place, and Prabhupada has also talked about the difference.
KT: Where did he conclusively list and elaborate the differences and justify his stand?
What is bothersome is the fact that people harp on this point as if they have been covering it up all along.
KT: You are making such a big issue about listing the differences and how are you concluding that no one covered it up all along?
They claim a connection with Madhva, they do not claim to represent Madhva's teachings.
KT: Then why express frustration for stating the facts. Your objections are general in nature.
Caitanya himself when necessary spared no words in debating with eminent Mayavadis of his time. And where are you getting that from? From the bogus Chaitanya-Charitamrta (sic) biography which was written centuries later by an author who did not know him and did not cite his sources?
That is not true. What Krsnadas Kaviraja wrote in CC is all the pastimes he heard from Raghunath Das Goswami, who was a direct disciple of Caitanya. In fact, that is why he was requested by all Vaishnavas in Vrindavan that time to write a biography, since he had heard personally from Raghunath Das.
KT: Say, you have two neighbors A and B.
B claims that he has seen the divinity of A, even though A claims that he does not have any divinity.
Seeing B, there may be C and D, who also claim all supremacy of A.
Now the question is what has A done to show his all supremacy?
Well B, C and D could have been satisfied by calling A an angel, but they want to call A God only. B, C and D are direct disciples of A.
Will that make A the God?
Raghunath Das was also closely associated with Svarupa Damodar, who was Caitanya's personal servant also. Svarupa Damodar maintained a diary where he recorded all the events he saw taking place in Caitanya's life. He was one of the very few people to whom Caitanya revealed his divinity.
KT: The only problem is that Caitanya's divinity goes against all the scriptures.
So your claim that Krsnadas wrote CC “centuries later on without citing authorities” is not valid.
KT: May be not centuries later, but at least a century later.
What are the approximate time periods of all the above persons?
Which has Chaitanya debating with un-named people in Udupi (and defeating them, with the latter giving some strange, non-Maadhva arguments, etc.
It is mentioned that whoever he talked with had an element of pride in him (not surprising, seeing it prevalent today among Madhvas).
KT: Was he without pride (seeing the same in Gaudiyas as well)? It is strange that only pride is mentioned and not really the contents of the arguments, except...
Secondly, Caitanya did not have a “debate” with the Madhva. He merely humbly asked a question about the ultimate goal. The reply was that the goal is moksha.
Caitanya considered moksha to be a subtle material desire [the desire to become free from bodily trouble], and the highest goal he said was to become a servant of Narayana,
KT: If this were true, that will posit a serious handicap for Caitanya for having a thorough misconception about moksha. While it is true that one, who goes to moksha,becomes free from bodily trouble, the path to it is certainly to resist from all desires. In fact, one is supposed to do sAdhana thru nishhkAma karma as a form of worship to the Lord and only thru that path,one attains aparoxaj~nAna (bimba sAxAtkAra) and one continues to do sadhana to reach the moxa. All truth is sAdhana, such a person is servant of God and remains a servant even after going moksha. While Caitanya keeps his goal (and advises others also) to become a servant of Narayana, the tatvavada emphasizes that a devotee knows that he is servant of the Lord and continues his sAdhana to reach moksha, where in the constant company of the Lord, he continues to serve the Lord.
even if the person has to continue staying in samsara or even going to hell.
[narayana parah sarve na kutascana bibhyati svarga-apavarga-narakesu api tulyartha darsinah – from Bhagavata] This is brought out by him in the 3rd verse of his siksastaka prayers: na dhanam na janam na sundarim kavitam va jagadisa kamaye
mama janmani janmaniishware bhavatad bhaktir ahaituki tvayi - “I do not want wealth, good birth, beautiful women, flowery philosophy, Birth after birth, I want devotion to You”. So he is ready to stay in samsara and go to hell if necessary as long as he gets the opportunity to think devotedly of the Lord.
KT: This is all nothing new. Many devotees including the dAsas in tatvavAda expressed these thoughts incessantly.
In fact Acharya also repeats that thought resoundingly.
He summarizes all those words in one small expression”preshhTatama”.
In fact, it is noticeable that Caitanya did not say this thing to Venkata Bhatta, the Srivaishnava at Srirangam, with whom he spent caturmasya. Since the Srivaishnava “prapatti” also talks of being a servant of a bhagavata life after life, as in some of the Alvar prayers, this idea is similar to the Gaudiya view. So even though the differences with Srivaishnava sampradaya are more it is noticeable that Caitanya did not emphasize on these differences that much.
KT: What he emphasized in this regard, is unprovable, insignificant and irrelevant. I don't see any purpose in talking about “more” and “less” differences. What is the problem in talking about the differences?
That before [the imaginary] Madhavendra Puri, from Madhva down to Vyasaraya there was no one in the lineage who had any devotion for Vishnu?
Sorry? Who said that? Firstly, I don't know what you mean by imaginary. Madhvendra Puri was the guru of guru of Caitanya [Ishwara Puri] who menially served Madhavendra Puri. There are many pastimes of Madhavendra Puri in CC, and his famous pastime where the deity of Gopal stole kheer for him is famous all through Orissa. The temple itself is known by the name of kheer-chor-Gopinath in honor of Madhavendra Puri to this day. So I don't know what makes you think he is imaginary.
KT: Why do you think that “he is imaginary”? The issue is about the lineage. Such lineage is imaginary.
A small extract from HDSV by Dr. BNK Sharma:
“In recent years, the accepted Madhva descent of Caitanya (sampradaya) has been seriously questioned and sought to be repudiated by certain Bengali writers like Dr. S.K. De and Amarnath Ray and the genealogy given by Baladeva dismissed as a forgery and a concoction.”
And he goes on giving evidence for the defective approach taken by KavikarNapura and Baladeva.
The Gaudiyas distinguish between the different rasas towards the Lord, and the rasa of madhurya is what was absent before Madhavendra Puri. I don't think there is any dispute about this.
KT: I don't think there is any proof for this, either.
If Harappa diggings did not show a particular kindof vessel, concluding that they did not use such vessel is ridiculous. In other words, failure to find something can never constitute a proof for its total absence. If this were the case regarding physical objects, what to speak of emtional aspects. It is impossible to furnish any proof that madhurya is absent prior to Madhavendra Puri, and added to that it is presumptuous too.
The fact remains that this Chaitanya himself did nothing of any note in his lifetime – hardly what one would see in an incarnation of Vishnu that he is claimed to be. Caitanya's avatar was NOT meant to be an outright avatar.
In the CC, there is the pastime of Jagai and Madhai, two criminals who hit and wounded Nityananda, Caitanya's associate. Caitanya immediately invoked the sudarsana, and would have killed both of them had Nityananda himself not intervened (on behalf of Jagai and Madhai) and reminded him that he was not supposed to kill demons in this avatar.
KT: We can fully understand your caving in to the Gaudiya school. You may have failed to notice the logical difficulties in this. Has he shown himself with Chakra to other devotees? No, he is not supposed to even show.
Lord has forgotten that he is not supposed to do that and his devotee has to remind him that. If this avatar is to be hidden in Kaliyuga, why did he show his form to select devotees. It is ok to break rule partially? Of course God has no rules, but then why are we translating “hidden avatAra” to mean “hidden as far as power is concerned”. He was still seen by many.
Jagai and Madhai were both stunned by all this and fell at the feet of Caitanya and Nityananda. The pastime was meant to illustrate that offending a Vaishnava is the greatest crime and only by begging forgiveness from the Vaishnava himself does the Lord forgive us.
KT: And here it seems after getting reminded by his devotee,the Caitanya retracted his chakra and then they begged forgiveness.
Anyway, I am sure this is of no value to you.
KT: Nor to any logical mind, since no scriptures mention this avatAra.
I mentioned the above to illustrate that Caitanya's divinity was considered to be a hidden avatar,
KT: Only His divinity is to be hidden and not his avatar.
Under these conditions, perhaps every single human being on earth can claim to be an avatar. Right?
in the sense that the Lord appears in the form of His own devotee to taste the love His devotee (in particular, Srimati radharani) experiences for him, in the form of Caitanya.
KT: This is another logical problem. Granted that Radharani was one of the gopikas, who was a devotee. Where in the scriptures, does it say that her devotion is greater than that of Lakshmi, the eternal consort of the Lord? Make a philosophy out of folklore?
So caitanya is considered to be Krishna in the mood of radha, experiencing the feelings that radha has for him in the form of Caitanya.
KT: This is another height of ignorance. If this claim were true, then Gaudiya sampradaya has given “tilodaka” to the entire canon of vedic and upanishadic texts.
The Lord is antaryAmi and the cause for the feelings and experience for all the beings. He is “svaramaNa”, meaning He does not need another being to give Him joy. Even lakshmi gets joy from Him and not He from Lakshmi. He is sarva preraka meaning instigator for all the beings. If that were the case, His effort to get into the mood of another and all such bogus is quite laughable.
So Caitanya never intended to prove his divinity to the common man. He only showed his original form to his most confidential associates like Svarupa Damodar, etc.
KT: This is still violation of 2nd kind (the 1st kind being hidden interpreted as hidden divinity).
He would pretend to close his ears if someone called him Krishna or Narayana, and would say it is the greatest sin to equate a jiva with God.
KT: So his henchmen violated the rule of their own boss.
He is only known for one short poem of eight verses, and subsequent glorifying aside, his proven performance is completely insignificant.”
Besides the above, his actions even as a devotee were filled with miracles. They are recorded independently in CC and caitanya bhagavata both. Caitanya's performance is as insignificant to a Madhva from Karnataka as insignificant Madhva's proven performance was to a (Gaudiya) Vaishnava from Bengal and Orissa.
So it is relative.
KT: Not quite. While what you say may stand as far as the miracles go, the standing evidence in the form of a vast and superhuman collection of compositions of Madhvacharya that suffice to support a full-fledged philosophical system, whereas the works of Caitanya do not suffice to establish a comprehensive school.
Of course a large following does exist and I guess the following for atheists is even larger and thus the number is no criterion for a measure of dependence.
It is an objective fact that he was and still is as popular in bengal and Orissa as Madhva was in South India.
KT: So is Elvis Presley in entire USA. What are you trying to conclude from popularity?
Even Madhusudana Saraswati wanted to be his disciple for which he went to Navadwip. But Caitanya was not there, and Madhusudana disappointed ended up going to Benaras being an advaitin.
KT: One must have been totally blinded not to see absurdity in such accounts. Madhusudana Saraswati could not wait for Caitanya? Or is it that the period of Madhusudana Saraswati after (I think it is) after Caitanya. Being Advaitin, why did he want to become Caitanya's disciple.
There are no records to indicate any of these.
Prakashananda Saraswati, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya and Keshava Kashmiri were stalwart scholars who were defeated by Caitanya.
KT: No records of any of these. No account of the kind of arguments. No works to support these accounts.
Sarvabhauma was even shown the divine form of the Lord, and he surrendered to Caitanya, giving up his affiliation to Shankara's advaita.
KT: Then He is no more “hidden divinity”.
So I don't know on what basis you say that his proven performance is insignificant.
KT: On the basis of the undocumented, unsupported and scripture-denying accounts like the ones given.
And he deliberately did not write anything since he wanted the Bhagavatam to be brought to prominence which he did.
KT: I wonder how can one be so gullible. Acharya Madhva brought Bhagavatam to prominence by writing exemplary “Bhagavata tatparya nirNaya”, without which the people like us would have a wrong knowledge about many portions in Bhagavatam. If caitanya refuted mayavadins, and if he wanted the Bhagavatam to be brought to prominence, he should have written commentary on that as there are many difficult portions in Bhagavatam. It is like saying “I am a great scientist, but I don't want to write/discover anything as I like Newton's discoveries to come to prominence”.
The other thing he popularized was sankirtan, and his Siksastaka prayers glorify the naama sankirtan of the Lord. And he asked the 6 goswamis to take up the task of writing all that he had taught them.
KT: What happened to the above argument? If Bhagavata has to remain popular, he should ask them to resist from writing all that he taught.
since Caitanya himself warned common people against reading Mayavada commentaries,Chaitanya himself did not such thing; it was subsequently claimed for him.
This is almost as bad as saying that Madhva did not reject advaita.
KT: Is it? There is a big host of literature to prove that Madhva rejected Advaita. Show us one piece of work showing how Caitanya rejected Mayavada.
Everywhere you find Caitanya
KT: Show us one place (or one work) showing that.
That is the reason for saying “subsequently claimed”(just like what you are doing).
(and all his associates, then and now) explicitly criticizing Mayavada.
KT: You mean associates then and followers now. No documentary evidence for his associates then for criticizing Mayavada. His followers now have made a medley of tatvavada and mayavada. Now you can appreciate the need of the hour in pointing out the differences.
This honestly makes me believe that you haven't read anything about him, except for some stray remarks from other sources.
KT: On the contrary, many Madhvas would have read a lot of Gaudiya literature including CC, but with an open mind.
It is not just my belief, but a well-founded conviction that you have succumbed to the high-flying tales and if you revisit them with open and logical mind, the outcome may be more pleasant.
That is a matter of opinion. One wonders what “main philosophy” there is in Madhva's system that does not include the jIvottamattva of Vayu, the tAratamya of the jIva-s, the tri-fold nature of jIva-s, the non-difference of all forms of Vishnu, etc.; on what basis can one hold that a system not accepting these essential tenets is closer to Madhva than to Sankara?
Non-difference of all forms of Vishnu is also there in Gaudiya understanding. But the nature of the relationship shared by the jiva with the Lord is said to be dependent on the form of the Lord. The jiva cannot serve Narayana as a friend, as Arjuna serves Krishna. The difference is in “rasas”, not potency.
All Vishnu-tattvas have same potency and are non-different.
KT: Not only vishnu tatvas are stated to have different potency,a conglomeration of potencies and abheda of Radha and Krishna can be seen in the following (gosai site):
Sometimes Radha and Krishna are combined; sometimes They are separate.
They are separate in Dvapara-yuga, and in Kali-yuga they are combined as Sri Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Both are eternal expressions of the same Absolute Truth... In ancient times, sometimes Radha and Krishna divided Themselves and showed Their pastimes; again both of Them, the potency and the owner of the potency, are combined and closely embraced as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The predominating and the predominated moiety are mixed, and an extraordinary ecstatic feeling is there. Krishna is overpowered by His potency, and He Himself is searching after His own Self: krishnasya atmanusandhana. Krishna Himself is engaged in the search for Sri Krishna, Reality the Beautiful. The influence of Radharani has transformed Him into a devotee, and He is searching Himself. Sweetness is tasting Itself and becoming mad. And it is living sweetness; not dead or static, but dynamic ecstasy – sweetness endowed with life. And He is tasting Himself, the personification of happiness, ecstasy, and beauty, and dancing in madness, and His performance of kirtana means distributing that ecstasy to others. The ultimate sweetness, or ananda, is such that no other thing exists that can taste itself and express its own happiness with such intensity. [Sri Krsna Reality the Beautiful by Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami]
The rest of the points are applicable even to Ramanujites, by which standard even they should be closer to Shankara.
KT: In these points. If Shankara does not believe, Ramanujite does not believe and Gaudiya does not believe, they have same stance in these points.
The significance is to expose the utter falsehood of the claim “This Bhagavad-gita As It Is is received through this disciplic succession.” Let him say whatever he wants, different from or the same as Madhva, but not make that claim.
You are just reading too much into this claim. The purport of this claim is not that Gaudiyas = Tatvavadis, nor do they go around saying that. There is a close historical connection, but there are also important differences, which you have pointed out, and which they have never denied.
KT: If that were the case, why raise any objection to the fact about the differences in the doctrines and the falsehood of any claim of disciplic inheritance?
In any case, I think it is also unusual for a Ramanujite to believe that Madhva went and took siksa from Vyasa. This also can neither be proved nor disproved. All that we can do is to follow what our sampradaya is, and in case with Gaudiyas, I don't feel it was worth spending so much energy into the differences (as astha matha swamis said) when they acknowledge the differences.
KT: If you think that the time spent in just pointing out the differences is not worth (just to be clear it is always worth while to note the difference between what is right and what is wrong), then is it worth to object to the pointing of the differences?
Baladeva's commentary on brahma sutra is certainly closer to madhva than anyone else, and so the similarities are also many.
KT: To claim this, you must have read all the commentaries on Brahmasutras.
SO many Americans and mlecchas all over the world have changed and reformed their ways and started worshipping Krishna because of Prabhupada, devoting whole life to it. Surely you cannot dismiss it all saying they did not understand that Prabhupada is not following Madhva's tatvavada.
KT: They may not know Who Madhva is. The issue pertains to any claims made to the effect of adhering to Madhva.
If claims are made in some places and not made in other, then the objection is only to where they are made.
Again, when Prabhupada explicitly states that Caitanya's teachings are different from Tatvavada, reading so much into that one sentence on Page 34 of Gita is a waste of time and energy.
KT: Not at all. The truth is always to be sought.
In any case, I don't think we are as qualified as Acharya Madhva or Vadiraja to launch personal attacks on other Vaishnavas. If we take siksa from Vyasa himself, or if we are Vayu, then maybe we can (even then, they did not criticize other Vaishnavas but advaitins).
KT: Not true. Madhva did criticize even Ramanujites (ifit makes you feel good). Your objections are stemming from the fact that the criticisms are on personal things (like attire, habits, etc.), but not on philosophy. It is not true. The criticism is only on philosophy and any false claims.
To say that we should criticize others because Acharya Madhva recommends it in Isavasya commentary on 9-11, is like going through entire Veda and saying the most important teaching to follow is to eat chyawanprash since Ayurveda recommends it.
KT: In your own example to go to a person, who follows many things in veda, and also ate chyawanprash, and tell him “why are you wasting your time eating chyawanprash?”. In Dvaita site, there are many things.
In one or two places, there is criticism of PrabhupAda's approach. You are seeing only this tiny portion and not any thing else.
If you want to follow Tatvavada strictly, you are free to reject other philosophies, but it sets a very poor signal to attack someone personally who has explicitly said there are differences from tatvavada.
KT: Why are you repeating that the attack is personal? It is on the views of the person regarding tatva.
There are surely many much more important things to do.
KT: Of course there are and lot of efforts are going in for many things
I never mentioned that following Caitanya is the only means to salvation, nor did I expect anyone to accept Caitanya as Krishna because of my posts.
KT: Why indeed? If you strongly believe in that, you must not hesitate to say so. If you are confident and convinced, you should be able to give the reasoning for that – that which you must question yourself as to the source of its support – scriptures and the logic therefrom.
My intent was precisely to question this malice with which another Vaishnava sampradaya is denigrated without a proper understanding of the principles enunciated.
KT: You may want to note that you are picturizing the criticism or analysis as denigration. If that were so, self-analysis is self-denigration.
Prabhupada has pointed out that the followers of Caitanya differ from tatvavadis, in precisely these words, in the Caitanya Caritamrta.
KT: Perhaps you meant that while commenting on CC, Prabhupada pointed out those precisely. Is there such a work? CC doesn't list such differences.
Madhurya rasa is the relationship where the devotee's feelings towards the Lord are in the mood of His conjugal lover. In the SriVaishnava sampradaya, Andal was one example.
KT: Even in all these sampradayas, such “conjugal love”is seen in case of females only. Even in case of Krishna's 16,100 patnis (who are stated to be agniputras),such was done only when they were born as females.
Even in SriVaishnava sampradaya, Ramanuja did the service form of “dAsya” only. Perhaps Caitanya was the first exception (being born as man and still thought himself asa conjugal lover?). Also isn't conjugal love by definition a physical bondage? Isn't it necessary to see the spiritual bondage beyond any limits of conjugal relationship?
The path to moksha may be devoid of material pleasures, but the end goal is definitely cessation of bodily troubles. The motivation is still to ultimately avoid suffering and get out of samsara.
KT: I think you did not understand the principle correctly at all.
1. Out of several thousand verses that MadhvAcharya has written, give just one example where AchArya has prayed the Lord saying “give me moxa”. He has written repeatedly “vande”, 'namAmi”, “preshhTatama”, etc. and yet you pass judgement on the motivation of Madhva.
2. Caitanya has not written much more than those eight verses and you declare what his motive is, only service to the Lord!
But for Caitanya and all the acharyas in Gaudiya sampradaya, the end goal was service to the Lord, even if the Lord were to throw me away into hell or neglect me or curse me to remain in samsara or become a worm in the stool of a hog.
KT: Isn't something missing from here. The Lord need not do all that. He can make a person a super rich person with all the comforts, but make him an atheist. In that case,how can his goal be service to the Lord. Lord is sarva preraka and without His preraNa, the goal of service is unattainable. Also how can a worm crave for conjugal love, unless its intellect is also very advanced thru God's grace (like Bharata blessed with knowledge even as a deer).
The desire for moksha is what Caitanya meant as “karma” or fruitive desire. Bhakti that is coupled with desire for moksha is, for him, not pure bhakti.
And in the writings of tatvavada, moksha does figure as the goal in many places.
KT: When you say pure Bhakti, is it bhakti with j~nAna or bhakti without j~nAna?
As I told earlier, even in the writings of later scholars of eminence in tatvavada, how many examples can you find praying for moksha? First of all, can you give me your understanding of moksha?
Talking about differences is not a problem, but when one goes beyond just talking of differences to threaten to beat others,
KT: If anybody threatened someone else, then it is wrong,but I don't see any instance of threatening.
and accusing the acharya of another sampradaya of deliberate fraud and lying,
KT: If anyone did that without any reasoning or justification, then it is wrong. If a reason is given for that, then it is open for discussion.
it certainly makes any person wonder what such people think of themselves. Even if they are philosophically right, the fact that even basic human civility is missing reflects very poorly on the entire sampradaya.
Even if some great acharya like Vadiraja or Madhva engaged in polemics, it behoves one to first attain their status before making such remarks.
KT: Every one has his/her own style in expressing a thought.
There is no one universal way in criticizing a system or school. Sometimes the power is expressed in lingustic explosion and sometimes in figurative exemplariness.
It is individualistic. For ex, while commenting on the ridiculousness of SaguNa Brahma and NirguNa Brahma, Sri Vadiraja says
“With SaguNa Brahma, all pervading, and NirguNa Brahma being distinct from SaguNa Brahma, NB has no where else to go, but to hide in the space between the two horns of a hare”. Well, some may not like the power behind those words.
The emphasis of the pastime was on the anger of the Lord when someone dear to Him is hurt. He can tolerate insults to Himself but not to His devotee. In any case, I would not like to go further into this, for the issue of Caitanya = Krishna cannot be resolved on this list,
KT: I only hope that a bright person like you will some day see the true picture in the CC:
I will reproduce a sample from 18th chapter of”antyalIla” (of course one may try to justify these, but that can only be self-deception)
http://vedabase.net/cc/antya/18/summary/en
“Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Antya 18 Summary
A summary of the Eighteenth Chapter is given by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his Amrita-pravaha-bhashya. On an autumn evening when the moon was full, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu walked along the seashore near the Aitota temple.
Mistaking the sea for the Yamuna River, He jumped into it, hoping to see the water pastimes Krishna enjoyed with Srimati Radharani and the other gopis. As He floated in the sea, however, He was washed away to the Konark temple,where a fisherman, thinking that the Lord's body was a big fish, caught Him in his net and brought Him ashore. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was unconscious, and His body had become unusually transformed. As soon as the fisherman touched the Lord's body, he became mad in ecstatic love of Krishna. His own madness frightened him, however, because he thought that he was being haunted by a ghost. As he was about to seek a ghost charmer, he met Svarupa Damodara Gosvami and the other devotees on the beach, who had been looking everywhere for the Lord. After some inquiries, Svarupa Damodara could understand that the fisherman had caught Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in his net. Since the fisherman was afraid of being haunted by a ghost, Svarupa Damodara gave him a s ap and chanted Hare Krishna, which immediately pacified him. Thereafter, when the devotees chanted the Hare Krishna maha-mantra loudly, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu came to His external consciousness. Then they brought Him back to His own residence.”
Gaudiyas accept Radharani and Lakshmi as the same consort of the Lord.
KT: Don't they treat Radharani as superior to Lakshmi? If they are same, where is it mentioned that they are.
I don't know why you call Radharani as folklore, when she is mentioned in so many puranas.
KT: folklore is defined (in Merriam Webster's international dictionary) as”
1. Traditional customs, beliefs, dances, songs, tales, or sayings preserved orally and unreflectively among a people or
group2 : a comparative science that investigates the life and spirit of a people or of peoples as revealed in their traditional customs and tales”
This term is akin to “caricature” (an exaggeration by means of deliberates implification and often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics).
I am not saying that a person by name Radharani never existed. Out of several thousand gopikas, one of them may very well be Radha. We don't know the names of other several thousand gopikas. Why blow the importance of this person (no doubt a highly evolved soul) out of proportion to the extent of neglecting the nitya aviyogini Laxmi.
All these gaudiyas who chant Radha's name several times a day – how many times do they chant Laxmi's name? Is their act right?
If they are all interpolations,
KT: No, list them all yourself and see what has been told in all those statements. Even after that you firmly believe that their purport is to place Radha much ahead of Laxmi, then it only surprises me that a person of your intelligence did not see them properly.
just because Acharya Madhva did not refer to her, it is not a sufficiently strong argument.
KT: Probably not (for a non-madhva). But certainly that Bhagavata did not refer to her, is a sufficiently strong argument.
The same objection of fabrication/interpolation can be raised against the untraceable texts which Acharya Madhva quoted.
KT: Yes, it can be raised. But a simple point of common sense is that the opponent debaters, who were waiting for any means to expose Madhva, did not say one word (not only during his time, but also for several decades after that).
This is not to say that he was dishonest, but to say that likewise, these people are also not dishonest.
KT: The comparison doesn't hold at all. Please do bring in all your versions (of statements about Radha) and tell us how they will satisfy your claims?
This misunderstanding is again because of a lack of understanding of the sweetness of the relationship of the Lord with His intimate devotees.
KT: Not really. See below where the misunderstanding comes from.
As much as Yashoda enjoys being His mother, He enjoys being her child. If He can cry on being scolded by His mother,
KT: He only pretends, as otherwise, all is meaningless.
then why cannot He take seemingly subordinate positions with respect to Radharani, in His madhurya relationships? And by the way, Gaudiyas do not say that He is incapable of doing something. Rather, He allows Himself to be overpowered by the love of His devotee by His own sweet will. It is by His own will that He decides to do so.
KT: That very well can be, if He decides so. It has to be supported by scriptures. He does not allow Himself to be overpowered (as can be seen in the instance of Gopi gIta). When the Gopikas felt that the Lord has come under their grip, the Lord vanishes from their sight.
It is not absurd – this is stated by advaitins themselves - -...” where he eventually ended up studying advaita and became an advaitin.
KT: This is not from the commentary of Madhusudana Sarasvati.
As far as the opinion of advaitins is concerned, it is well known that they have major differences among themselves. Most important of all, the life periods themselves do not match. Caitanya lived during 1485-1533 (according to some 1486-1534). Madhusudana Sarasvati lived during 1540-1600 or so (according to BNK). Some ascribe even later dates to him.
Prakashananda Saraswati, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya and Keshava Kashmiri were stalwart scholars who were defeated by Caitanya.
No records of any of these. No account of the kind of arguments. No works to support these accounts.
They are all described in detail in Caitanya Caritamrta, if only people would care to read with an open mind, willing to accept something beyond and outside 13th century Karnataka.
KT: That is precisely what Tattvavada says : go beyond the limits of 13th century and the limits of Karnataka.
Acharya Madhva has done that thru his works. While it is great that he defeated many Advaitin scholars during his life time, it has to be noted that his works do help the later j~nAnis to uphold Tattvavada and to refute Advaita.
Now why do you confine or more aptly why does Caitanya confine “his greatness to defeat the adviatin scholars” to his period of “1485-1533”? What happens to the Advaitis of a later time? Now to posit that his followers will write “his philosophy” is quite an escapist idea since nothing will replace original work of original guru and an absence of the same is a serious flaw.
And he deliberately did not write anything since he wanted the Bhagavatam to be brought to prominence which he did.
I wonder how can one be so gullible...If caitanya refuted mayavadins, and if he wanted the Bhagavatam to be brought to prominence, he should have written commentary on that ....
That task was assigned to Jiva Goswami. Caitanya assigned all the task of writing what he taught, to the 6 Goswamis. They explained his teachings elaborately in their writings.
KT: A real Guru teaches by “an example”. It is OK to assign the task of writing to the disciples, but without a work of one's own? Except the faith, where is the guarantee that they write exactly what he meant?
There is a big host of literature to prove that Madhva rejected Advaita. Show us one piece of work showing how Caitanya rejected Mayavada...You mean associates then and followers now. No documentary evidence for his associates then for criticizing Mayavada.
This appears all over the Caitanya Caritamrta and in all the writings of the 6 Goswamis. Even BNK Sharma points this out in HDSV. I quote from there -
..”Bengal Vaishnava writers have as rule shown their undisguised antipathy to the Mayavada of Shankara.
Jiva says in so many words that he would follow the lead of Sridhar Swami ONLY so far as it would be in *** etc. ***
KT: But none of the quotes above speak of Caitanya defeating the Mayavadins!! Let us grant that CC, which is your authority on this, is true in the aspect of his defeating the mayavadins. His very lack of not writing a work for posterity and relying on his disciples for the same, is quite unprecedented for a religious founder and to claim a following for such a school is also very strange.
This also counters Mr. Shrisha Rao's contention that Caitanya school is closer to Shankara than to Madhva.
BNK Sharma has himself admitted it. And a simple study of Caitanya Caritamrta, and the literature of the 6 goswamis will make even a child understand how radically Caitanyites oppose Mayavada.
KT: Again you are missing the whole point. The same child will also question “how come a founder of a school has to rely on his 'biography in the form of glorifying pastimes' and his disciples, but without any set of his own root principles in the form of original works?”
Baladeva's commentary on brahma sutra is certainly closer to madhva than anyone else, and so the similarities are also many.To claim this, you must have read all the commentaries on Brahmasutras.Well, I am sure you would not hesitate to accept the quotes from the same book by BNK Sharma which you have asked me to read -Page 596: “...Baladeva's commentary on the Brahma Sutra bears the stamp of the greatest influence and impact of Madhva's thought and interpretation upon it. In him Madhva influence on the Caitanya school has reached its zenith.”
KT: The proof of the pudding is in its eating. It only speaks of influence and not concurrence. Even then the present Gaudiya school hardly refers to the contents of his commentary. Isn't that a pity?
Same page:
“These facts are sufficient to establish that Baladeva is virtually in agreement with Madhva on all the fundamental points of his system. That is why we find him proclaiming his loyalty to Madhva and affirming the historical and spiritual descent of the Caitanya sampradaya from Madhva without any hesitation or mental reservation.... This should suffice to place his allegiance to Madhva sampradaya *beyond question*.”
KT: As mentioned above, the present Gaudiya school hardly refers to the contents of his commentary.
This only confirms mine and several other people's conviction that an attempt to denigrate the acharyas of Gaudiya sampradaya simply stems from the envy and jealousy of seeing people flocking to Gaudiya temples and ISKCON.
KT: 1. The numbers don't mean anything at all. Madhva school firmly believes in the yogyata of a jIva and God's grace in every aspect, including the following of a school.
2. The purpose of these discussions is to deliver clarifications to those who deserve.
3. If the cause for criticism is the envy of big numbers, then Madhva system must concentrate on criticizing Christianity and Islam, who have much bigger number than Gaudiya school.
4. Even though millions flock to the churches,most of them do not have even the faintest idea of Christianity. Same can be said about every school.
Thus the number can hardly be cause for any concern.
Even if a majority of those who flock to the Gaudiya temples are experts of Gaudiya school, that hardly matters for a true Madhva. For your arguments against Mayavada, can mayavadins accuse you of the same thing, since their number is larger than yours?
5. Instead of convincing people of the strength of their philosophy, many schools tend to spread their philosophy by coercion, bribery, or the like, as they know what they lack.
BNK Sharma has written these unambiguous statements in his book,
KT: None of his quotes prove any point that you are trying to make. Let us take a crude example. If a child comes and asks “how much is 2 + 2 ?”, and say the answers given are 4, 5, 9, 15, 21, etc. Out of these you choose that 4 is the right answer. Just because 5 is closest,does it make sense to accept it also? We club 5 along with 21 as wrong answer. Of course, in philosophy it is not so clear cut.
Acharya Madhva has rightly said “tanna kinneti vidvatsumimAmsitaM”. (”It is hotly discussed among the wise as 'That', 'not That', 'Why not That', etc.)
Granted that there are differences, there are many more similarities, and to clump Gaudiyas with Mayavada etc goes against BNK Sharma's own clear statements.
KT: The so called clumping is to the extent of saying that while claiming that the school opposes Mayavada and then made no efforts to remove its own yielding to the interpretations of Mayavada as pointed out by Sri Shrisha Rao.
I am ending it here. I honestly have no strength or motivation to try to argue with people who said the CC was written centuries later and without citing sources. I have already shown both these to be false in a previous mail.
KT: How? Are you claiming that CC was not written later on?Are you claiming that CC cites the sources?
Yet the only reply that was given to it was “rubbish”.
KT: Aren't you doing the same thing as what you accused others of?
Let people read Caitanya Caritamrta and see if it is actually rubbish, as declared by people who didn't even read it but simply depended on the words of another person, who like them, was out to riot against Gaudiyas at all costs.
KT: I think you have to take this out of your mind as you are claiming that others have not read it, and yet you have no proof for the same. The online versions that are available have the mUla incorrectly coded (be it Itrans or HK). I guess most of the peoplejust read the translation. Even then reading them will open your eyes, if you have open mind, as to the various logical inconsistencies.
The preceding week's discussions with Ms. Bharathi Desai was very interesting. In the course, I read these quotes “When we say pure Bhakti, is it bhakti with j~nAna or bhakti without j~nAna?”
KT: The reason that I brought this question out is to refute the common misunderstanding that “pure bhakti means bhakti without j~nAna”. Infact we hear the famous prameya shloka “amalAbhaktishcha tatsAdhanam.h” ('Pure devotion is the means for moxa').
Then subsequently concluding that pure devotion means 'devotion without the need of j~nAna' is not appropriate. There is this shruti vAkya “nAnyaH panthA ayanAya vidyate” (There is no other recourse, but the true knowledge about Hari, which leads to moxa).
Thus those trends which stress on the point that 'devotion without knowledge' can lead to moxa have to be objected to.
“ Bakthi and jNana goes hand in hand one without the other is flawed, I'm not sure as to how to validate the position without the other”.
KT: In other words “Pure devotion” should mean “devotion without wrong knowledge”(in other words devotion with true knowledge).
Similarly “Pure knowledge” should mean “knowledge without showy or faulty devotion” (in other words true knowledge with complete devotion to the Lord with total surrender).
Does it imply an illiterate without any grasping power and hence without j~nana, but with bhakthi alone cannot reach moksha?
KT: One need not get alarmed with this. If a devotee has “pure devotion”, Lord will give an opportunity to acquire the true knowledge. In a symbolic sense, think about the incident of Shuka Maharshi going to Parixit to impart the true knowledge. Moxa does not happen after one or two janmas.
It is a long drawn process.
Also think about various possibilities. If Bhakti alone can lead to moxa, one who is a blind devotee to Mariamma should also be on the way to moxa. One may rhetorically argue “why not?”. At least for those who believe in Vedas, by what is told in Vedas, such is not possible.
Also it does not mean that such a person is blocked for ever. It is quite possible that the path of that person may change for the right direction either in the same janma or subsequent janmas. Things can happen quite opposite also. (we see such incidents also.)One who has apparent good knowledge and apparent good devotion may suddenly change the direction to a wrong path and proceed in that wrong path itself.
A firm belief, that the grace of the Lord is what leads to such true devotion and true knowledge and again by the same grace of the Lord, one gets moxa,is very much needed.
1. Yes, you may find many examples of avadhutas in Gaudiya sampradaya. However, it is common knowledge within the sampradaya that avadhutas are NOT to be emulated.
KT: Where is it mentioned that avadhUtas are not to be emulated? If that were so, then what about the ones that became avadhUtas?
Hence, the approach of pointing out of examples of avadhutas to discredit the sampradaya will not be successful.
KT: Agreed that one cannot just take “any avadhUta” and based on him discredit the sAmpradAya. Any kind of discrediting a sAmpradAya is based on its own inherent principles. A good sAmpradAya will not have self-inconsistencies, nor will it be inconsistent with its own “mother principle”.
The sahajiya movement is not the parent of Gaudiya sampradaya but a perverted offshoot of it. Sahajiyas are not considered even part of the sampradaya. They are considered apasampradaya, and a disgrace to Vaishnavism.
KT: Such perverted one is truly a disgrace. While denouncing that, the supporters of Gaudiya also write from CC, in the following url, some of most ridiculous things about “Sri Krishna and RadharANi”.
http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sadhu/apasampradayas/sahajiya.htm
2. I would like to know the position of tatvavada on gopis and rasa-lila.
KT: The feelings that Gopis have for Krishna is one filled with true knowledge about the Lord. It is not one of lust. This has ample support from Bhagavata itself.
For ex., in Gopigita, the Gopis say “akhiladehinAmantarAtmadR^ik”. Acharya says:
“atastAsAM paraM brahma gatirAsInna kAmataH |
na tu j~nAnamR^ite moxo 'nAnyaH panthA' iti shruteH” |
“Hence they reached the ultimate ParmAtma due totheir j~nAna, but not kAma. Liberation cannot come without the true knowledge. It is said in Shruti 'there is no way other than j~nAna for reaching moxa'”.
3. Prabhupada's translation of Gita is not his final word on it, even by his own words. When asked by disciples what he would translate after Bhagavata, he replied that he would translate Gita. The disciples were astonished and confused, and asked him why he should translate Gita again. Prabhupada replied that there are several layers of understanding, and several commentaries by acharyas like Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya, and what he had given was a very small fraction.
KT: Even granting that PrabhupAda exhibited the virtue of humility, this virtue cannot conceal the serious flaw of a wrong explanation that makes a headlong collision with the “mother principle”, consisting of Gita itself, the vedic canon and the itihasa and purana texts.
A guru may give shorter explanation owing to the handicap of the self as in the case of many normal men, or owing to the shortcomings of the listeners as our Acharya said in GitabhAshya “leshataH”. However that “lesha” has to be impeccable and spotless if it has to be taken as a standard.
Where is it mentioned that avadhUtas are not to be emulated? If that were so, then what about the ones that became avadhUtas? What I am saying here is the understanding of Gaudiya sampradaya, perhaps it may be different in tatvavada.
KT: As per Gaudiyas' claim, they have at one point expressed their criticisms about Advaita. Advaitins can say the same – namely “the understanding of Advaita sampradaya, perhaps it may be different in Gaudiya”. It is quite customary that any school that gets criticized will come up with this kind of statement. However that is not always right. In this instance, I fully understand Gaudiya position and willing to go with all your assumptions and still show how you end up with the inconsistencies even granting all those assumptions.
But avadhutas and babajis are considered to be pure devotees, but their practices may look very strange to a lay person, for they do not fall within the prescribed duties of varnashrama.
KT: As you may concede, every avadhUta or babaji, who makes a claim for an exalted state (or a claim is made by some group on their behalf) need not be “ONE” in an exalted state. Then how would a common man know who is genuine and who is not? This can only go by “case by case”.
Please note two simple logical statements.
1. Just because, one, who is madly in love with God, behaves madly, we cannot conclude that everyone, who behaves madly, is madly in love with God.
2. When one is madly in love with God, it is quite understandable that his followers elevate that person to great heights. However in doing so, if they tend to elevate that person to a state higher than his own ideal, then by their own rules, assumptions and guidelines, they are committing”gurudroha” (betrayal of the preacher), “daivadroha” (betrayal of God).
I hope you realize what this means? The very stalwarts ofGaudiya sampradaya like Rupa Gosvami and Jiva Gosvami are going against the very teachings of Caitanya, by elevating”Krishna premaprada” (the giver of devotional love to Krishna) to a state higher than Krishna Himself.
If you want an analogy, it is like saying “Madhva is much higher than Narayana”. A true Madhva blows that statement as blasphemy and a true follower of Caitanya should blow the statement “Caitanya is Supreme Lord” as blasphemy and thereby please their own “mUlaguru”.
Hence, a sadhaka is not supposed to follow them.
KT: This is a bit ambiguous. By “follow them”, do you mean “follow their path” or “follow their words”? In other words, which one of the following is your position ?
1. A sAdhaka is not supposed to follow their path or their words.
2. A sAdhaka is not supposed to follow their path, but has to follow their words.
3. A sAdhaka is not supposed to follow their words, but has to follow their path.
When one reaches the higher stages of bhakti and realizes the Lord, one may start acting like an avadhuta -
KT: Probably you mean “behaving like an avadhUta”. Even that,if we analyze, an avadhuta is one who has renounced worldly attachments. If their behavior shows strong worldly attachment, then he is not an avadhuta.
probably after reaching asamprajnata samadhi.
KT: “asampraj~nAtasamAdhi” is a state of mind, when one is not even aware of the surroundings (like the episode of ShamIka maharshi on whose neck the king Parixit puts a dead snake).
So, let us not mix up the two.
But the activities of the person are entirely spontaneous at that stage, and though he is not held culpable for not following his duties within varnashrama dharma,
KT: How can that be? He is, infact following the dharma of an avadhUta. I think you are getting mixed up. One who is in asampraj~nAtasamAdhi, need not follow his duties “as long as he is in that state”. After coming out of asampraj~nAtasamAdhi, he still has to follow all his duties.
his example is not to be followed by ordinary people.
KT: Of course a sannyAsi cannot follow Grihastha dharma and vice versa. I do not understand whose example you are referring to and why that example is not to be followed and why that person is out of ordinary? There can be three reasons why one (say A) may not follow the other (say B).
1. The example of B is beyond the reach of A.
2. The example of B is abhoring and so even if it is within reach of A, A does not want it
3. Something is prescribed for B, but not for A. So even if it is good and even if it is within reach of A, it may be prohibited for A.
Which category are you referring to and who you are referring to?
For ordinary people, performance of varnashrama dharma is a must, till one reaches the stage of pure devotion.
KT: This goes against all that is taught in Bhagavad Gita.
The very word “dharma” means that which supports.
“dhAraNAt.h dharmaH”. One has to follow his dharma even after reaching the “pure devotion”. Even after receiving the instruction from Lord Krishna, Arjuna fought.
He did not say “I reached the stage of pure devotion.
Now I need not follow varnashrama dharma.”
If avadhutas like Mirabai were emulated, then it would encourage sahajiya-ism again.
KT: How come? From what I know, her behavior was just the opposite (more like stoicism) and not sahajiyaism. She did not even have desire to be with her husband, while sahajiyaism uses “Radha-Krishna relationship” as a scapegoat to satisfy their carnal desires.
Hence, they are not to be emulated, and one needs to act according to his realization, and not beyond it, by displaying false symptoms of ecstasy.
KT: I would like to go one step more. It is advisable not to exhibit false symptoms of any kind and also one must be cautious and not be gullible to the behavior of others as well.
Such perverted one is truly a disgrace. While denouncing that, the supporters of Gaudiya also write from CC, in the following url, some of most ridiculous things about “Sri Krishna and RadharANi”.
Coming to the specific contents of this page, which I think you refer to: [Note that the English used by Prabhupada has a different style than what may seem scholarly to you – one has to be careful to understand what he means]
KT: Absolutely no problem. I don't care for the “scholarly English” or lack there of PrabhupAda. I am pointing only to the thought. Even with all the explanation and justification, I will show, why it does not hold up.
“Actually I am not golden. Being Sri Krsna, the son of Nanda Maharaja, I am blackish, but when I come in touch with Srimati Radharani I become golden-complexioned eternally.” I will try to explain this with a particular assumption, which you may not agree with, but which is paramount to making sense of this excerpt. Going with that assumption, you won't have any problems making sense of it.
KT: In what way is this approach different from what a particular Advaitin says “Just assume that the jIva is ParamAtma and everything else in Advaita falls in place”.
However to give you the benefit of doubt, I shall do this in two phases.
Phase 1: I will go with your assumption and show how it still doesn't hold.
Phase 2: I will show why such an assumption is ridiculous to start with.
The assumption is that Sri Caitanya is an avatar of Krishna. His body was golden-complexioned.
One of the specific features of this incarnation is that He adopted the mood of Srimati Radharani in his avatar of Caitanya.
KT: Caitanya is actually Sri Krishna, but he imagines himself to be Radha (since he has to get that mood) and then expresses his love for Krishna (himself).
Instead of going around the face, why can't He be Krishna himself and express His love for Radha ? Well, let us not question that as that is His will.
The emotions of love displayed by Him are hence in madhurya rasa. Doing so, he is said to have revealed the confidential secrets of madhurya rasa.
KT: Now He has achieved this Madhuryarasa. In fact He even acts like an avadhUta, not bound by any worldly attachments. What are His followers supposed to do? As per your earlier statements, one must not emulate the avadhUtas. And certainly one must not emulate Him. So what must they do?
This of course resulted in lot of misuse,...completely free of kAma.
KT: Agreed that it is apa sampradAya in the prior posting itself.
So Caitanya's complexion being golden-colored and adopting the mood of Srimati Radharani [who was golden complexioned] when understood together hopefully shed light on the excerpt.
KT: Not really. It actually leaves loose ends and self-contradiction itself. If he is in the mood of Radharani, why should he say “Being Sri Krsna,the son of Nanda Maharaja,...”. That is not mood of Radharani, but mood of Sri Krishna. Is this self-confusion or self-contradiction? He should actually say “Being Radharani, I am golden-complexioned eternally...”.
Further, what are his followers supposed to do?Should they imagine themselves to be “Radha” or “Krishna”? Or if they should not emulate that,what is their course of action?
“I taste My own transcendental features by accepting the complexion of Srimati Radharani.”
One may conclude that this sounds like mAyAvAda
KT: Not really. Mayavada is much more straight-forward,even though not right. They create a much sophisticated confusion.
but the intended meaning is that by experiencing the feelings of Srimati Radharani, He “tasted His own features”, ie, her love for Him.
KT: Here, is he in Radharani's mood or Krishna's mood?If Radharani's mood – then 'my own' refers to RadharaNi.
Then there is no need to mention Radharani as third person. I will give a helping hand here. Krishna mentions the Lord in third person in BG quite a few times like ”IshvarassarvabhUtAnAm hR^iddeshe.arjuna tishhThati”.
So, even if he is Radharani's mood, he can refer Radha in third person. Then “I, Radha, taste My own transcendental features by accepting the complexion of Srimati Radharani (my own complexion)” Now the Lord is tasting Radha's love for the Lord, by getting into the mood of Radha. Then where is the question of accepting the complexion. He is now in Radha's mood. Further why should he say “I am blackish...”?
Why all this fishy explanation?
One may argue why He needs to do this as Caitanya. That is His divine will and lila if He wishes to do that. It is not any restriction on Him, for He does it by His own will as a reciprocation towards His devotees.
KT: No argument as to why He does so, since our assumption is He is the Lord. The question is about such inexplicable inconsistencies. How is this reciprocation to His devotees? Is it true that Radha gets into Krishna's mood and does the same and so He wishes to do that?
Now phase 2: Now this concept of Caitanya being combination of Krishna and Radha, how did VedavyAsa miss this ? Why is this combination process not mentioned in any itihAsa or purANa?
If there are followers of Tulasidas, they have a great opportunity to make TulasidAs as a combination of Krishna and Radha. Why indeed any such fair complexioned being can launch a claim. All that is needed is authoring a work “TulasIdasa caritAmrita”or the like.
The Gaudiya siddhanta is that just as the highest emblem of svakiya rasa is Mahalakshmi's love for Narayana, the highest emblem of parakiya rasa is Srimati Radharani's love for Krishna.
KT: What pramANa is there for that? Only Narayana is svatantra, and all others including Laxmi are paratantra. So where is this svakIya rasa and parakIya rasa and how are they defined?
Likewise, the rest of the excerpt may be understood.
KT: Certainly, it may be, but without an escape from inconsistency and irrationality.
I know that you would find it difficult to digest. What I tried to point out above is that the problem of understanding all such sections boils down to the problem of accepting Sri Caitanya as an avatara of Krishna.
KT: Absolutely no difficulty in digesting it as it is such a simple point. In fact anybody can digest it like Agastya digesting vAtApi. After you digest, if you analyze it, its effect ceases to exist like vAtApi. I showed above how that assumption opens a can of worms. At least those who try to place Caitanya above the God, whose name he chanted so much, must realize that they are going against the teachings of Caitanya. Even in the eight verses that he composed, he did not make such a claim. Why such a persistence to betray your own Caitanya ?
There are not several different issues that you are pointing to, even though there may appear to be many different issues. The issue is only this, since they all hinge on this point.
KT: Of course, this is the only issue that leads to all other issues. If all the Gaudiyas are true to their own “Mulaguru”, they will see the truth and stop betraying him, who taught and led a life of chanting and devotion, with a clear message of his being different from God.
I heard from Sri Prabhanjanacharya that Bhima did not lament for Ghatotkacha's death, but like Krishna, started shouting in joy. However, no such thing is mentioned in the translation of MBH at
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07177.htm.
It in fact mentions that all the Pandavas were in grief.
If Madhvas [on this list, that is] accuse Caitanya Caritamrta etc. of being fictitious texts, then they have to defend themselves from the very same accusations like this. I would like to know the explanation for this, which I presume would be there in Sri Madhva's sampradaya-specific MBH Tatparya Nirnaya.
KT: Why indeed. The arguments are getting weaker, in coherent and far irrelevant. To start with, Acharya did not say in MBTN that “Bhima started shouting in joy”. The statements like this that occur in pravachanas are not meant either to establish or to refute a siddhAnta itself. “Bhima's shouting in joy” or otherwise has no bearing on the siddhAnta. The role and greatness of Bhima is explained in enormous detail in Mahabharata itself and there is no need to argue on this if Mbis accepted as pramANa.
Further even in this incident one can notice a subtle point. In the above url itself, you can see that Arjuna expressed his grief with his moving words whereas Bhima did not say anything. Doesn't it convey something?
Leave alone our accusations. Please ask yourself a question? Do you want to give more weightage to Caitanya's words or the words of Caitanya Caritamrta,especially when there is a complete conflict. The former forces you to accept him as “Krishnapremi”and the latter makes Him non-different from Krishna, which could probably find its justification in Advaita, but not in Gaudiya sAmpradAya.
Gaudiyas would not have landed in so much mess, had they projected him as Indra, Soma, Surya or some other deity, in which case he can still be portrayed as”Krishnapremi” and more importantly there would have been a great escape from the need to fight against”concept of Triyuga” and “a lack of mention in acceptable texts”.
The “kaNTakatraya (3 thorns)” need not be pointed out by others, but can be perceived by your own self.
1. Lack of Pramana for the words in CC (I don't mean any stray incidents in there, but the main point itself).
2. Absence of a set of comprehensive works by the founder himself. (The works by the later ones could have been commentaries on his works, but lo they form the basis.)
3. There is headlong conflict between his own words and the words in CC.
Most importantly, if one believes in “the life after death”,or more aptly “the moxa as described in the scriptures”, then you want to make sure that you are on the right track,which has to be determined by the original texts (vedas, and the ones in accordance as quoted by Acharya) and not a text that goes against the ones that started you on in the first place.
I don't know why you are avoiding a simple question, which you need to ask yourself as well. As the words of CC and the words of Caitanya are in headlong conflict (the former projecting him as God and the latter not), which one do you support? If you are not sure of the answer...
I am hearing from and trying to practice under a Gaudiya teacher.
KT: Does your Gaudiya teacher have a convincing answer for that? If he also does not have an answer, why are you treading that path?
[and since I consider myself a Madhva by birth,
KT: This is a very strange remark. Normally, we use there mark “I consider...”, when we are not sure, but have a big hunch. In case of faith, such a remark makes sense.
In case of birth, you must be positive. I am not trying to nitpick, but such an expression is a bit strange!
and also by practice, I consider Gaudiyas a branch of Madhva line in spite of the differences]
KT: If you are Madhva to the core, you would not think so for reasons that will be explained later on.
Maybe I can be direct – do you consider Gaudiyas as heading towards andham tamas?
KT: I can not say that as much as if you bring any person,show him to me and ask the same question, I would still say “I don't know”. Any rational follower of a particular siddhAnta will not pass arbitrary statement/judgement about any arbitrary person or arbitrary group.
The upanishadic statement that goes as
“andhaM tamaH pravishanti ye.avidyAmupAsate...”
For translation and more details see,
http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/shruti/isha/ibtcomm_tot.pdf
There are two things to notice here.
1. Here what is being talked about is “upAsana”. That means if someone has a wrong notion for a short time or for one janma, that itself may not constitute a dooming factor. The real intrinsic nature of the jIva is assessed by the Lord based on the jIva's actions, etc.
2. No body has a perfect knowledge, by birth or by some random study. The crux of the whole thing is that even when the correct knowledge is given by eternal vedas,and when Madhvacharya further clarified their meaning (when they were being misinterpreted by some others),there is no excuse for persisting in misinterpretation.
(For the usual question, was there no muktimArga prior to Madhva, the simple answer is that eternally there is such muktimArga and periodically such revival is needed).
I prefer to go by the statements of senior sannyasis or representatives of a sampradaya, whether Gaudiya or Tatvavada.
KT: One obvious question is whether the senior sannyasis were presented a complete picture. They do not have internet savoir-faire and also they were given partial picture. When a correct picture was given, the Pejavara Srigalu gave a totally different statement, as shown later in this email.
I believe that to follow either Madhva or Chaitanya, one should follow such senior people,
KT: Agreed, but within that structure, a taratamya is followed.
When, there is a conflict between what Madhva says and what either Caitanya or his followers or their supporters say, in whatever shade, a simple thumb rule is that what Madhva says rules, for many reasons. Listing them is not the purpose of this mail.
and not make judgements about other sampradayas, beyond the theoretical understanding that there are differences.
KT: There are no judgements. You have not been specific about any point, except your objections to the kind of language.
Hence, I totally reject and disapprove of using words like “lying to the teeth” and “not even high-school pass” etc about a senior Vaishnava.
KT: That is very strange for many reasons.
1. You have raised objection for this, but turned a face of silence to the damaging statements like
A thorough analysis of this issue can be found at
http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/critics.shtml
It is pathetic that they try to portray a jIvottama as an ordinary fakir, who weeps on a lost dream.
2. A criticism of this kind is to be taken in the spirit that no mercy is shown when wrong knowledge is condemned.
Sri Purandaradasaru says in one of his songs:
“illi mAtravu bheda allI oMde embO, xullakaranuhiDidu hallu muri eMdu, karavA mugidA mukhyaprANa”
We see the picture of HanumAN standing with folded hands.
Dasaru in a powerful way is saying
“MukhyaprANa folded his hands appealing to the Lord to catch and break the teeth of the vile, despicable, dim-witted savages or liars (xullakaru), who say that there is difference here only (unliberated state), but there is no difference there (liberated state).”
It should not be thought that Sri Purandaradasaru is criticizing “fellow Vaishnavas”. Here just the wrong knowledge is condemned. He just could not reconcile to the thought that someone thinks that he can be equal to Sri Hari at any point of time including liberated state. The total disapproval of such thought emerged as an out pour of such linguistic power. That is due to unadulterated high love for the Supreme.
Same way, a great love for the founder of our siddhAnta,perhaps came out as such out pour.
3. A person who intends to be a founder of a school has tremendous responsibility of presenting an accurate account.
If an error does spill out, it can be one of the following two reasons
3a. The person is aware of the correct concept, but said it wrong, which amounts to lying.
3b. The person is not aware of the correct concept, and so he said it wrong, which amounts to ignorance.
So, it is either 3a or 3b.
It reflects extremely poorly about the character, motivation and heart of not just the person who wrote this, but of everyone on this list.
KT: You are also on this list :-)
I do not know why you are giving such statements. Not only you, but many have been given a chance to express their disapproval and reasons have been explained quite earnestly.
Secondly even as an extreme case, where serious mistakes were done, like the criminal offences by some ISKCON members, would you approve that it reflects extremely poorly about the character, motivation and heart of not just those criminals, who committed such offence, but of everyone in that organization.
And to someone not familiar with Madhva sampradaya, it would also reflect on the sannyasis of the sampradaya.
KT: Not at all. On the contrary, not pointing out those will reflect on the serious shortcoming of putting up with the offence against the very Acharya, who showed us the path of true knowledge.
To me, it is evident that no sannyasi of Madhva sampradaya would issue such statements on a public website claiming to propagate teachings of Sri Madhva, and hence, is equivalent to considering oneself superior to them.
KT: Not at all. Sannyasis of Madhva sampradaya have other means and ways of life and not internet path.
On the other hand, no true follower of Caitanya would go against Caitanya's words, and hence, the authors of CC considered themselves superior not only to such “ideal followers of Caitanya”, but even to Caitanya himself by violating his own teachings.
Ok, so let us take this simple statement by Sri Vishwesha Tirtha:
We are pained to find that the article denigrates Prabhupada and is against our opinion”
KT: Sri Vishwesha Tirtha (the Pejavara Srigalu) gave that statement when partial info was furnished to him.
When a correct picture was given, he gave a statement which can be found at
http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf
I hope the other swamijis would react similarly if they are told about the blasphemous statements given against Madhva himself.
So have some other sannyasis above. But they do not consider these irreconcilable differences as so important that
S1. They disown Gaudiyas from the Madhva school.
KT: Every one is free to follow as per his/her desire.
Why should one school own another school? Social amicability has nothing to do with philosophical conviction and harsh criticism.
S2. They issue personal abuses about Prabhupada.
KT: Again one must refer to IshAvasyopanishat verse 9.
Then how is it that such things are posted on a website under the “blessings” of Sri Vidyamanya Tirtha [without quoting the statement of approval of that sannyasi for the above two statements]?
KT: How come all the Gaudiyas claim that they are Caitanya's followers and quote only CC, without quoting Caitanya ? If they quote Caitanya and also quote CC (which are opposite forces), then that is even worse.
On the contrary, what is posted is: “In this path, it appears that there may be obstacles placed even from unexpected quarters and even by those whom we thought were there to remove them.” etc etc.
You have no respect for your own sannyasis -
KT: It is ridiculous say that disagreement is disrespect. How can expressions of sadness be “no respect”? They are given partial pictures and if they continue their stand,even after knowing the pathetic depiction of Madhvacharya by some schools, the sadness is even more justified.
who are you going to inspire
KT: The purpose is to inspire the ones who seek truth.
[other than confused people who think mere theoretical expertise is going to get them to moksha, even if they do Vaishnava-ninda left, right and center]??
KT: That is the point. Why are you trying to confuse people with incorrect information? How can Vishnu dveshis be Vaishnavas? Seeing differences in the incarnation of Vishnu is one of nine dveshas. How can Krishna be superior to Vishnu, when they are the same? Tell me which is confusing? Krishna said in BG that it is imperative to oppose the haters of Vishnu and the supporters of such hatred?
What do you think you are going to achieve by all this?
KT: Remove the confusion at least for those who like to be rid of such confusion.
Has even a single acharya in your sampradaya supported S1 and S2 explicitly in writing, on paper?
KT: Acharya Madhva himself and that too in his inimicable style (where he does not mention any individual's name or group's name, but just the characteristics). InPrameyadIpika, TikAcharya says:
“na hi buddhimanto nArAyaNadviT.htadanubandhi nigrahaMadharmaM vadanti”
“The wise do not call the act of opposing the haters of Narayana and the associated ones as unrighteous”.
Till the point they do so, all your writings against Gaudiyas being outside Madhva school have no claim to authority whatsoever.
KT: Philosophy is neither administrative, nor political structure. The fact remains a fact, even if we or any one says someway or other.
Who do you consider genuine followers of Srimad Ananda Tirtha today, besides yourselves?
KT: While it may be hard to say who are genuine, it is easier to say that those, who depict Madhva as a fakir who wept on lost dream, are not genuine followers.
Why don't you disown Sri Shiroor Swami for saying “Therefore, the blame cast on Sri Prabhupada is...”?
KT: Well, if you have to make a choice between disowning Sri Shiroor Swami and Sri Madhva, whom would you disown?
You can issue all kinds of rash statements, but you expect the readers to be gentle?
KT: You are going in circles. We explained every statement.
You have not offered any meaningful counter-arguments.
Also, you have not answered many questions that were raised.
You expect them to turn to you for light,
KT: Expectations are met quite often.
think all the sannyasis are confused and ignorant?
KT: Never thought or said “All”.
Also, why this hypocrisy ...?
KT: Merriam Webster defines hypocrisy as “the act or practice of pretending to be what one is not or to have principles or beliefs that one does not have”.
Exactly. Why this hypocrisy of pretending to be mAdhva,while one is not? Why pretend to have a lineage, which is not there? Why pretend to believe in “Hari sarvottamatva and Vayu jIvottamatva”, while your behavior seriously damaged those very beliefs.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse