Embedded Files
TADIPATRI GURUKULA
Answers by Smt.Meera & Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri & Q are in blue .
I thought Radha was a fictional character but apparently Skaandha has a mention of her. However, Skaandha puraana is a Taamasika puraana...which does have Saatvik portions in it. Given that, does anybody know for sure if Radha did exist for real? Did Madhvacharyaru make any mention of Radha or state that she was a fictional character?
Kesava Rao: This is the problem with Radha character. If any one claims that Radha or Radhika is one of the Gopikas and never married Sri Krishna, then that is fine. Or if Radha is another name for Lakshmi, then that is fine and then one must be specific that Radha is not Gopika, but Lakshmi herself.
Garga Samhita is a spurious work, very likely the creation of either Gaudiyas, or some others. None of our standard commentators mention this work. Lot of theories developed around Radha, but with not only lacking support, but going against Pramanas. The Vijayadasara Krutis mentioning Radha can also be spurious as Sri Vijayadasaru will not subscribe to the folk tales created by Sri Jayadeva. If Bhakti is diverted towards fictional characters, that is not encouraging. When the real characters Rugmini and Satyabhama are there, where is the need for finding a replacement?
Apart from being tAmasa Purana, Skanda Purana and also perhaps all the Puranas got corrupted with additions, omissions, etc. Many of our Acharya’s quotes are missing from Puranas and many spurious insertions have crept in. What exactly Skanda purana says about Radha? Just saying that Radha is the name of one of the Gopikas, it will not lead to any of the following.
First and foremost note that Gopikas are incarnation of apsaras and if Radha is one of them, then in her mUlarUpa, she is an apsara stri - means that there is no scope to put her beside Sri Krishna in a temple ignoring Lakshmi, Rugmini or SatyabhAma.
Nor there is need to make stutis with just Radha and Sri Krishna as if Rugmini and SatyabhAma do not need a mention.
If anyone claims any of the following, they need to give proof and, there is no proof for any of those. Just note that there is no mention of Radha in Bhagavata of Sri Vedavyasa or Bhagavata Tatparya nirNaya of our Acharya.
1. Radha is a Gopika, who is other than Lakshmi and also other than Shanmahishiyaru and superior to Lakshmi. There is Goloka superior to VaikuNTha.
There are two subcategories in these
- Sri Krishna married Radha
- Sri Krishna did not marry Radha.
No matter which subcategory, this version of Radha does not exist. If a temple is built for Radha and Sri Krishna, with this fictional Radha displacing the real avatAras of Lakshmi - Rugmini and Satyabhama, that is insulting to Lakshmi and against shAstras.
2. Radha is a Gopika, who is an incarnation of Lakshmi and not any of the Shanmahishiyaru and so Lakshmi herself. There is Goloka superior to VaikuNTha.
There are two subcategories in these
- Sri Krishna married Radha
- Sri Krishna did not marry Radha.
No matter which subcategory, this version of Radha does not exist. If a temple is built for Radha and Sri Krishna, with this fictional Radha displacing the real avatAras of Lakshmi - Rugmini and Satyabhama, that is insulting to Lakshmi and against shAstras. Nowhere it is mentioned that Lakshmi incarnated as one of the Gopikas. Acharya or any of the main commentators mentioned this.
3. Radha is a Gopika and also Neela, one of the ShanmahiShiyaru and married Sri Krishna.
Firstly, this version of Radha does not exist. If a temple is built for Radha and Sri Krishna, with this fictional Radha displacing the real avatAras of Lakshmi - Rugmini and Satyabhama, that is insulting to Lakshmi and against shAstras. Secondly Neela is not a Gopika.
4. Radha is not a Gopika, but Neela herself, one of the ShanmahiShiyaru and married Sri Krishna.
No where in Bhagavata or other places, it is mentioned that Neela has another name viz. Radha. Even so, why should there be temples with Neela/Radha replacing Lakshmi or Rugmini or Satyabhama?
Regarding the Vijaya dasara kriti
1) Kaadana vatsava Hari Kaadana.. a mention of Radhika Ramana krishna occurs in Anupallavi.. it is a really beautiful kriti besides that and among my favorites.. is it possible that only that line is misplaced.. or is the entire Kriti just a concoction?
2) Same with Radhika hrudayaambujaninda Rakshisu Dayadinda
Doesn’t this raises a deeper question? .. if these are complete concoctions.. how does one discern valid dasara padas composed by dasa parampare from essentially fake duplicates?
Kesava Rao: We are not against the usage of the word Radha. Just as Narayana is sarva shabdavaachya, Lakshmi is also sarva shabda vachya for all words except those which are specific to Narayana. Thus in that Kruti the word Radha refers to Lakshmi her self. The etymology is raadhyate sarvadevaiH yaa saa raadhaa. One who is worshipped by all devas is Radha. So we have no problem in using raadha as long as it refers to Lakshmi. If any one claims that Vijayadaasaru made a kruti in which a gopika radha ia descibed who is either superior to Lakshmi or equal to Lakshmi then our claim is that he would not do that. If raadhaa is another name for Lakshmi then it is perfectly fine.
Meera Tadipatri: Dasaru's song is perfect and no interpolation.
Laxmi has all names including "Raadha". Even Chadogya mentions this word to mean "samvruddhi".
The issue here is whenever the word "Radha", is mentioned, the vastu grahana/association with that word is "a gopika stri" and NOT the Laxmi as described in the first 15 stanzas of Laxmi Shobhaane. This is how we have been conditoned due to Sri Jayadeva's influence in all media. This is what being objected to. Laxmi is kaxa # 2 while a Gopika is kaxa # 30+. So, equating/vastu aikya, #2 = # 30+ is dangerous in sadhana.
Laxmi never took avataara in Gokula as a "gopi" -- neither the entire Bhagavata nor its comm make mention of her. If Laxmi took avatara as Gopika, will Bhagavata keep silent on this? A non-avatara as avatara w.r.t Narayana and Laxmi amounts to one of the nava vidha dvesha! cf MBTN 1.112
Q: Is Radha a bogus deity? In this day and age Radha and Krishna are synonymous in the eyes of the masses. Majority of Hindus (at least as far as I know) dont even know that Krishna was married to Rukmini Devi. Is Radha the same Nila Devi that Krishna had married before Upanayanam or is she a complete fabrication by Jaya Deva?
Meera Tadipatri: By "Radha" whom we refer to matters.
For us to worship any deity, her/his position/place in tAratamya [tara-tama devata samuha] is very very critical.
Else, worship is not possible at all.
1. If by "RAdha" an unmarried "gopika" stri of jayadeva is what is referred to, and *equated to Narayana's consort Laxmi, then it is very WRONG. As this amounts to giving "Radha" # 2 position, higher than Mukhyapraana and lower than Laxmi. More importantly, there is NO pramaana. Also, a "popular" deity that too placed so high in taratamya, ignored by all the commentators and especially Harikathamruthasaara which details even the many avataras of kaxa # 18, missing this is impossible. we, in our parampara, don't even have this deity in worship. Thus NO pramana, No sampradaaya.
2. If by "RAdha" an unmarried "gopika" stri of jayadeva is what is referred to, and equated to Neela, it is very WRONG too. As this amounts to giving # 6 position -- a very very high position without any pramana. Neela's jivana charite is exhaustively mentioned in Garuda Purana but no mention of "radha=neela". Harivamsha which mentions Neela doesn't even mention the name "radha" in this context!
Note that atleast till kaxa 15 is very important as they have pervation/vyaapti not only inside us but outside the universe too! If "neela = radha", how can anyone ignore mentioning this. In Harikathamruthasaara even minute details of kaxa # 18 maruts and vishvedevatas who took and didn't take avataras and their names are explicitly mentioned, but no "radha". Its classical commentators are also ignored "radha"! During this period "radha" was quite popular Jayadev character!
3. If by "RAdha" an unmarried "gopika" stri of jayadeva is what is referred to, and *equated to one of the 16K + gopikas", of kaxa # 30+ it is quite possible as we dont
have their names .
4. If by "RAdha" naama, its qualities [ radha = samvruddhi], is what is referred to sure, it applies to Laxmi, as she has Sarva-Shabda-vaachyatva next to Narayana.
ISKON is not anymore the original goundia pantha of Eastern India which had greater influence of Acharya Madhva, infact the in gurunparampare they have Acharya Madhva, Jayatheetharu all the way upto Vyasarajaru and Lakshmivara theertharu of Vasaraja mutta and their after they have their own lineage starting from Vidhyabhooshana and there on.. one school of tgought from Goundia's claim Hari paratarah is written by Vidhyabhooshana, which we Madhva's with conviction agree it is the work of non other than Vyasaraja.. that story apart, coming to the main point.. until early 1800 if you refer to their scholars you don't see much difference other than their claim of Chaithanya being the avathara of Krishna.. but since early 1800 their sect started becoming dilute and by early 1900 their entire philosophy got muddled its when ISKON started gaining momentum and with Bhakthavedantha swamiprabhupada taking the center stage by 1960-1970 made it to fit the west and attract the youths.. but inspite of all the transformation they still retain the essence of Bhakthi which is appriciable..
Kesava Rao: We live in a world of self-deception, either bragging about the greatness of our past gurus or the richness of our siddhAnta - maa taatalu netulu taagaaru maa mUtulu vaasana chUDaMDi - namma taata-muttaataru tuppa kuDididdAre namma baayi vaasane nODi - hamaare naana-daada lOg ghI svAd kiye, hamaare muh sUMgha lena - Our ancestors drank lot of ghee and so smell our mouths - namma siddhAntadalli ellA muttu, ratnagaLe AdarE namage yAvudakkU hottE illa - maa siddhAntamulO annI ANi-mtyAlE aitE mAku tIrikE lEdu. Atleast in this list, people are showing some interest - but many outside go with the opinion - ee pAta kAlapu ChAMdasamEmiTO - vijnAna shAstra biTTu innU haLEkAlada ajji sAmpradAyagaLe hiDiyOdA? - endless sad situation.
Even the GuaDIya sAmpradaaya has lot of defects and diverged from mAdhva thoughts - the writings of gosvamis has many wrong interpretations - Please read the above link I sent. I had arguments with Gaudiya followers and their thinking process is not right at all. We do not accept Radha, who they project superior to Lakshmi. They give different ratings to various forms of Vishnu. They give score to God's potentials. Vishnu has 94 or 96 points. Krishna has 110 points or what ever. Radha has 112 points. Chaitanya is merged form of Radha and Krishna and so he has 122 points and so on. Some weird approach. Bhagavata does not even mention Radha. They quote some vague puranas. They claim that Goloka is superior to VaikuNTha. They dont realize that there is no such thing as Goloka. Rukmini and SatyabhAma are dumped so that the place can be taken by a fictitious Radha. They dont realize that Chaitanya Mahabprabhu is great devotee, but not Supreme God. Chaitanya CharitAmruta is full of logical problems, but that is their Bible. Ther misinterpretation of Bhagavata and Bhagavadgita is inexcusable. Our trikAlajna Acharya gave the correct interpretation of "Krishnastu Bhagavan svayaM" that come in Bhagavata, by analyzing that in GitA bhAShya. They stripped it from Bhagavata and say that Krishna is not avatAra, but all-Supreme God and Vishnu came out Sri Krishna and that is only partial energy of Krishna. Endless are their positions that go against our Vedas and our scriptures.
I have not been part of the complete conversation and questions of Mr Srinivasan just responding to last part .
What I have experienced and seen is that the acharya sampathu is locked with few intellectuals .
It has to trickle down through the layers of socio economical aspects and broaden beyond intellect .
Only gnanis can do those.
As an example, I have a realised that our sanathana dharma has a fantastic way of living . We will get answers to everything be it arts , artha, health , wealth etc .
That too in all formats . However we haven't even scratched a minute part of agadha knowledge .
Kesava Rao: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. How many people have willingness to spend time and learn. People complain that they don't have time to do SandhyAvandane and where is the question of trickling down to many?
Sir I am a professor in a college teaching Architecture I always feel that it is the onus of the Guru to create jignasa in students rest leave it to Krishna .
If I can't create interest and make the subject interesting and worthwhile to my student it is my fault as a Guru
Kesava Rao: The purpose of the above proverb is only that. Rayaru created jignaasa to only the deserving people. He could not change many people of his own time. We can not say that he was a failure or it is his fault. Surely it is the onus of the Guru to create jignaasa. But that will reach only a limited segment, who deserves it.
Making a living and learning shAstra are not mutually exclusive. Both can be done and one does not have to choose one for the other. There are many who did both.
Guadia's are also influenced by Nibarka and vallabha sampradhya so they inherent some of their theories. I agree with you in totality with the confusion the Gaundia's have especially with Jeeva Goswami's sat-Sandarbhas and Rupa Goswami's Bhakthirasamrutha sindhu but baladeva vidhyabooshana's Govinda bhashya is a lot more refined work, unfortunately I lost the copy of the book else would have shared it with you (your comprehending capacity is way far beyond mine) with your knowledge of shastra you could have pointed the defects in the work.
The life history of baladeva Vidhyaboosha, he claims he was direct disciple of Lakshmivara teertha and studied under him for 8 years before going on digvijaya of western India.
Kesava Rao: Even Nimbarka and Vallabhacharya did not go in the line of differentiating Sri Krishna and Vishnu and seeing Sri Krishna as having more ability than Vishnu. The siddhAnta is that there is no difference between them. When the Lord is svagatabhedavivarjita, for me seeing the difference between the potency of Krishna and that of Vishnu is like a poisonous drop. If that mindset does not go away, just as a pot of nectar contaminated by hAlAhala is not acceptable, GovindabhAShya will have inherent issues.
The concept of Radha is inherited from Nimbarka and bedhaabedha of Gaundia is in a way influenced by dwaithaadwaitha of Nimbaraka.. Nimbaraka accepts existance of 3 entities eshvara (Krishna) Chit (chetana) and Achit (achethana). Nimbarakar accepts the attribute differences between 3 entities, further they also accept eshvara is independent and chit and achit are dependent but he says dependance is inseparable from the independent attribute (I am unable to grasp what is inseparable dependent attribut in independent attribute, the term independent defies dependent). On the other hand bedhaabedha of Gaundia as explaind in Sat- Sandarbha of Jeeva Goswami talks about beda (the difference) and abedha (non difference) which is Krishna is both different and simultaneously has the inconceivable oneness with his creation, again the same question arises how bedha can also be abedha simultaneously. my understanding is bedhaabedha is in line with dwaithaadwaith of Nimbaraka with certain adaptations and absolutely both make no sense. At least at the higher level Vidhya Bhushana in his Govida bhashya touches tarathamya and pancha bedha but ofcourse not in total sense though.
I request when you get some time if you can explain the dwaithaadwaitha of Nimbaraka, it will be helpful.
Kesava Rao: Yes, that is why I said differentiating Sri Krishna and Vishnu is not there in Nimbarka or Vallabhacharya. Surely Gaudiya inherited all bad things from all over, even some from Advaita. Bhakta Jayadeva is the first one who popularized the Radha theory a lot. It caught up and Gaudiya used that as one of their pillars. For Gita verse 1-10, various commentatots gave various interpretations. Even though most of the advaitins gave wrong interpretation, some Advaitin scholars gave right interpretation. But Gaudiyas were too quick to grab the wrong interpretation. While all these issues are there. the achintya bhedAbheda proponents of Gaudiya stand out unique in the sky of philosophy to differentiate between Vishnu and Shri Krishna and bring gradations in the various forms of Vishnu - even between Vishnu and Narayana, which is most unforgivable blunder as that is one of nava vidha dveshas. Other mistakes appear pale in front of this. Making Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as incarnation of God is also unique for them, not imported from other schools like Nimbarka or Vallabhacharya. That is also one of the nava-dveshas.
Very true Acharyare👌🙏 I find it really amazing and incredible that the other two popular Mathas are still existing and thriving even today in India despite the passage of almost 800 years since Madhvacharyaru came and gave us Tattvavaada. Iskcon though is thriving today around the world due to their simplifying things and sticking to the Gita primarily, even though they have adopted Acharya's interpretation for the most part.
Kesava Rao: Actually it is neither amazing nor incredible but to be expected only. There are many reasons for that. Most important is pUrvaagraha means strong affinity to their own earlier faith irrespective of any reasoning. There are other reasons like simplicity, money, temptations, missionary activities, security, greed, associations, company, fear, pressure, etc. Correctness is not a guarantee for majority following. The number 1 and number 2 in the world is not any vedic religion. Followers of tattvavaada is not even 1 percent of world population. Even that is not an incredible thing. Why followers of Madhva in India are much less than Shankara followers. I wrote about it in Quora and interested ones can read. Google why is Madhvacharya not as famous as others like shankaracharya or ramanujacharya.
If anyone is interested to Chaithanya Mahaprabhu's teachings, here it is.. shikshyaastkam is the only known work of Chaithanya. The bedhaabeha shidhantha stands on these 8 verses and all the commentaries were written by shad goswami's his direct disciples are based on this.
Kesava Rao: The ShikShaaShTaka does not contain any bhedaabheda concepts at all. If bhedaabheda stands on these, then that is tantamount to standing on a pillar of emptiness. These verses are pure expressions of devotion and kirtana, devoid of any philosophical depth. I am not saying that it should have. I am only saying that those principles can not be seen even in small trace here.
Yes I agree. It will lean towards vishishtadvaita...
Initial gaudiya mutt has been following Acharya teaching to larger extend in olden days (14-15 century)..
Kesava Rao: Not true. Even from the beginning there is tendency to deviate. All their wrong concepts were there ever since they formed it even in 15th century. Gaudiya Vaishnavism was started in early fifteenth century by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Just as Christianity ignored Jesus words that he is not God and made Jesus God, just as Shirdi Saibaba followers ignored his words that he is not God and made him God, just as Gautama Buddha followers ignored his words that he is not God (even there is no God) and made him God, the GauDIya followers ignored Chaitanya Mahaprabhu words that he is not God and made him God. Rupa Gosvami(1489-1564) met Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534) and received instructions to start a new school. Their obsession with Radha to show a fictitious personality as superior to Lakshmi is terrible.
Now the modern sympathizers of Gaudiya tried to amend this grave situation by depicting Radha as an incarnation of Lakshmi, which was never there in the writings of the founding masters. From the beginning they showed the attitude that there is deficiency in Dvaita siddhAnta and so they wanted “achintya bhedAbheda”. To show their superiority over Madhva teachings, they concocted stories that are disgusting. One of them - Madhvacharya got in his dream Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and when he vanished from the dream, Madhvacharya cried like a child and then he heard words that he is going to incarnate in the future and Madhvacharya has to wait. Similarly they built false stories that their scholars came to debate Madhva scholars in Udupi and defeated them. If initially, they followed Acharya teaching, where was the need to write GovindabhAsha for Brahmasutras? Why did Baladeva VidyAbhUShana not write commentaries on Upanishads and Gita? They do not recommend Madhva works or our parampara works to their students. Far from it, they ask them to keep away from those.
Like in all our Vedic schools, in our school also Guru not only plays an important role. The guru knows the potential of the shiShya and puts him on the right path. Finding the guru is not easy and God's grace is also needed for that. If going thru other schools is not suited to a person, the guru will not recommend that to the ShiShya. It is not true that studying other schools is a waste of time. Suppose a huge society of Madhvas never go through other schools, and learn only Madhva shastra, there is no restriction that other school people do not interact with this society. They will be pushy about their schools and force them on some members of this society. Since this socity never studied other schools, there is no comparative study done. When other schools present their thoughts forcefully, the people in this society, who do not have strong conviction will yield to others. The rest of the society also cannot come to their rescue as they have not done any comprative study either. So as a society itself their philosophical position will be weak. Surely we can encourage their social activities. Annadaana is good, whoever does it. We have to differentiate social from philosophical.
I agree with you, but this is the only written work of Chaithanya Mahaprabhu , other than that he gave 10 tenets in the form of lectures and preachings, which were further developed by shat Goswami. I faintly remeber 1 or 2 tenets, its been 4-5 years that I read that book. Once I am done with my days work, I will look for the book and share the 10 tenets..
If I remeber correctly then they say Atman is part of Krishna and Krishna is different and Atman is different.. they confuse around Atman being part of Krishna and yet different from Krishna.
Kesava Rao: Also the history proves that the followers may not even obey their master. See my earlier comment about christianity shirdi sai bauddha.
Here are the 10 tenets or the principle teachings of Chaithanya- I never understood #4, I have tried talking to many of my ISCON friends both in Detroit and Bangalore, they tried their best to make me understand with no luck. If you see #5 and #8 contradict.. I have made casual enquiries why Chaithanya never wrote any commentaries, never got a satisfactory answer, except for once in Dallas one gentleman said in their parampare Madhvacharya has written the commentary so they think rewriting will be duplication of work.
Kesava Rao: In their name itself there is contradiction. It is bhedaabheda. That means there is bheda and also abheda. So having contradictions is not a surprise.
just so, when the basic building blocks are faultered then how the philosophy built on it can be right? If you are interested, we can certainly work together offline (not sure how many would be interested in the discussion if we continue it here) to understand the minute differences, obvious ones are clearly visible.. what do you say?
one such that I can think of and highly discussed with my ISCON friends is: Bhagavad geetha 2-11.. here ISCON interprets prajnavaadha as "your scholar like talks" while Achaya Madhva in Bashya intreprers it as "prAjnamata viruddhavAdam vadasi.. you are talking what is not acceptable to scholars" if you look at from a high level there is a suttle difference between talking like scholar versus talking what is not acceptable to scholars.. when you relate closly these aspect with what Arjuna said and Krishna's responses this suttleness becomes a vast horizon of difference... anyways if you recollect our earlier discussion- at a 40,000 feet view BG as it is versus at ground zero is not all the same.
Kesava Rao: I think his question is not about difference between Gaudiya and us. But it is rather difference between ISKCON and Gaudiya.
All those who follow Gaudia linage plus Srila Prabhupada and his teachings are ISKCON but those who follow only Gaudia lineage without accepting Srila Prabhupada as the modren master are only Gaudia they are not ISKCON. Any Gaudia swami cannot preach in ISKCON they have to be approved by GBC to be inducted into ISKCON.
This notification by ISKCON outlines the difference in totality:
To fulfill the previous acharya’s desire for a united worldwide preaching organization to expand Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s mission, Srila Prabhupada founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness as a distinct branch of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya. Therefore he is the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON.
a. Srila Prabhupada is the foundational siksa guru for all ISKCON devotees because he has realized and presented the teachings of the previous acharyas of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya sampradaya appropriately for the modern age.
b. Srila Prabhupada’s instructions are the essential teachings for every ISKCON devotee.
c. Srila Prabhupada’s books are the embodiment of his teachings and should be accepted as the standard by all future generations of ISKCON.
d. Srila Prabhupada should be worshiped daily by every ISKCON member.
e. Every ISKCON spiritual master is responsible to guide his disciples to follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions.
f. As Founder-Acharya, Srila Prabhupada gave directions for management, principles of co-operation, and other practical guidelines which form the basis and inspiration for ISKCON’s policies.
g. Srila Prabhupada established the Governing Body Commission to execute his will, following the order of the previous acharyas.
Kesava Rao: They are either administrative or organizational differences. Are there any philosophical differences?
Here are the 10 tenets or the principle teachings of Chaithanya- I never understood #4, I have tried talking to many of my ISCON friends both in Detroit and Bangalore, they tried their best to make me understand with no luck. If you see #5 and #8 contradict.. I have made casual enquiries why Chaithanya never wrote any commentaries, never got a satisfactory answer, except for once in Dallas one gentleman said in their parampare Madhvacharya has written the commentary so they think rewriting will be duplication of work.
Chaithanya Mahaprabhu's teachings are called dasa mula or 10 root principles:
1. The statements of amnaya (scripture) are the chief proof.
2. Krishna is the Supreme Absolute Truth.
3. Krishna is endowed with all energies.
4. Krishna is the source of all rasa - flavor, quality, or spiritual emotions.
5. The jivas (individual souls) are all separated parts of the Lord.
6. Inbound state the jivas are under the influence of matter.
7. In the liberated state the jivas are free from the influence of matter.
8. The jivas and the material world are both different from and identical to the Lord.
9. Pure devotion is the only way to attain liberation.
10. Pure love of Krishna is the ultimate goal.
Kesava Rao: This is not actually composed by him. It is said that he told these to Rupa Gosvami. So it is a transcription.
Amsha translates into Part, Parcel, segment - it does not give a new meaning to idea, right? How can jeeva be amsha of bhagavantha - jeeva-isha has definate bedha.. Jeeva is anadhi, if jeeva is amsha of bhagavantha then that amsha happened in some interval of time? So it makes jeeva adhi.. then the jeeva swarupa is bhagavantha datta??
Kesava Rao: We accept jivas to be bhinnamshas meaning different from Lord. One example is our shadow. Our shadow can not be there without us. Is shadow part of us? It is bhinnamsha. This is what is meant by mamaivaamsho jeevaloke jeevabhUtassanaatanaH.
Yes i have given many points where ISKCON is blatantly wrong. Even the world is bhedaabheda from Paramaatma. It is completely messed up one.
They are closer to Advaita than to us.
Adviata has divided paramaatma into 2 Nirguna brahma and saguna brahma, but made jIva non different from Brahman. iSKCON/Gaudiya made Brahman of several kinds with Sri Krishna being superior to Vishnu and Narayana and all avataaras of varying potencies and yet jeeva is part of Brahman and that is why bheda and abheda at the same time, heavy confusion at the best.
Made a devotee Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as all Supreme Brahman killing the principle of triyugahUti(Lord does not incarnate in Kaliyuga, note Kalki avataara is in sandhikaala of Kali yuga and Kritayuga).
They do not have bhinnamsha concept at all. That is why I gave shadow example. Not only shadow is different from object, it can never merge with object.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse