PDA

View Full Version : Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Madhva Acharya ( Brahma Sampradaya)



uttam
20 December 2011, 07:27 PM
THE QUESTION IS - DOES CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU BELONG TO MADHVA ACHARJYA'S BRAHMA SAMPRADAYA

THE ANSWER IS - A BIG NO- HOW ?

It is Baladev Bidya Bhushan (the disciple of Biswanath Chakrabory) who for the first time declares that chaitanya mahaprabhu belongs to madhva acharjya's brahma sampradaya. the story goes like this :-

the pujaries (priest) of govinda mandir of Galta near Joypur , Rajasthan belong to chaitanya's gaudiya vaishnabism. it should be mentioned here that during sri rup sanatan sri jib goswami ,the govindadev was offered puja by gaudiya in Brindaban. for the fear of Aurangzeb Govindadev was brought to Galta near the capital of Maharaja Joy Singha.The gaudiya pujaries also went to Galta.Afterward the pandits of Joypur questioned the gaudiya pujaries sampradaya as vaishnab being unsatisfied the pandits got the gaudiyas out of the Govinda Mandir.

In the mean time Biswanath chakraborty who used to live in Brindaban, sent his disciple Baladev Bidya Bhusan in 1706 to get the gaudiya pujaries back in the Govinda Mandir with honour. But the pandits of Joypur were not ready to accept any vaishnab who did not belong to the four sampradaya as mentioned in Padma Purana.Baladeb Bidya Bhusan who wrote ' Govinda Vasya ' defended the gaudiya and defeated the pandit of Joypur by his sheer expertise and proved that Chaitany Mahaprabu's Gaudiya Vaishnabism is nothing but a part of Madhva sampradaya and thus was able to get back the gaudiya pujaries in Govinda Mandir.

It is also found that in Kabikarnapur's ' Gaurganoddasya Dipika' kabikarnapur states that chaitany prabhu belongs to Madhva sampradaya but this sloka does not bear any sloka sankhya ( number). kabikarnapur has given a list of names of guru parampara of madhva sampradaya. It is not known how kabikarnapur collected the names of 15 gurus of far away southern udipi math and secondly the names of guru in the list of kabikarnapur and the list kept in udipi math are different. Baladev bidya bhusan includes Madhabendra puri in his Madhva sampradaya list of guru parampara. It is believed that baladev bidya bhusan has some weakness towards madhva sampradaya because in his early life he was associated with udipi math. Expert opines that the historical accuracy of kabikarnapur's list can easily be challanged.

The lists are as follows :
Gaurganoddesya dipika list and list kept in udipi math

1. Madhvacharjya and 1. Madhva 1040 saka
2. Padmanava and 2. Padmanava 1120 saka
3. Narahari and 3. Narahari 1127 saka
4. Madhava Dwij and 4. Madhava 1136 saka
5. Akhsova and 5. Akhsovya 1159 saka
6. Jayatirtha and 6. Jayatirtha 1177 saka
7. Jyansindhu and 7. Vidyadhiraj 1190 saka
8. Mahanidhi and 8. Kabindra 1255 saka
9. Vidyanidhi and 9. Bagish 1261 saka
10. Rajendra and 10. Ramchandra 1269 saka
11. Jayadharma and 11. Vidyanidhi 1298 saka
12. Purusottam Brahnya and 12. Raghunath 1366 saka
13. Vyas Tirtha and 13. Raghubarsa 1424 saka
14. Laksmipati and 14. Raghuttam 1471 saka
15. Madhabendra and 15. Bedavyastirtha 1517 saka

Now it is clear the names of guru in kabikarnapur's list are not written by kabikarnapur himself. It is also proved from 'Gaurganoddeshya dipika ' and 'chaitanychandrodaya' that chaitanya does not belong to Madhva sampradaya.

Now come to the point of defference between Madhvarjya's vaishnabism and that of chaitanya's.
1. according to madhva the goal of 'sadhan' is 'mukti' whereas according to chaitanya 'mukti bancha kaitab',krishnaprem jiber param sadhya.
2. according to madhva jib and brahma is totally different but according to chaitanya the relation between jib and brahma is ved and aved.
3. acccording to chaitanya ' Radhar prem sadhya siromano' which is just opposit madhva who compares gopi with apsara of swarga which is a crime in the eyes of gaudiya vaishnab.If chaitany were from the madhva sampradaya then he would have never preached greatness of srimati radharani and also swarup damodar sanatan goswami rup goswami jib goswami raghunath das goswami and krishna das kabiraj would not have preached greatness of srimati radha and gopi.madhva was dead against gopi.
4.according to chaitanya sri krishna is param tattva but according to madhva sri vishnu is the highest
5. according to chaitanya sri krishna is purna avatar swayang bhagaban and other avatars are his part. sri krishna only to be upasya but according to madhva all the avatars of sri bhagan are purna avatar and any avatar can be upasya.
6. according to chaitanya sudhya bhakti ( pure devotion) is appropriate but according to madhva it is sakam bhakti ( devotion with wishes)
7. according to chaitanya sri bhagaban accepts seva from santa, dasya, sakhya batsalya and madhur bevotee but according to madhva it is from dasya only.
8. according to chaitanya 'madhurjya pradhan prem bhakti' is right way but according to madhva it is 'aishorjya pradhan'
9. according to chaitanya braja gopies are great in devotion but according to madhva it is brahma.
10. all bhakta irrespective of caste colour etc are authorised to have moksha as chaitanya says but according to madhva it is only higher castes
11. according to chaitany srimad bhagabat is the greatest grantha but according to madhva it is mahabharata.

Finally in the words of Dr Sarbapally Radhakrishnan " Though some of the writers belonging to school call themselves the followers of madhva, in their thaught they are really nearer Ramanuja, since they themselves emphasize identity, even when they admit differences"

Therefore it is concluded that chaitanay does never belong to madhva sampradaya and the contents of 'gaurganoddesya dipika by kabikarnapur' that claims chaitanya as part of madhva school is totally fake and fabricated and most probably later inclusion. the problem is solved in drama 'chaitanya chandraodaya' sloka-6-7 by kabikarnapur.

grames
05 January 2012, 04:20 AM
Hello,

It is very uncharacteristic of an "Uttam" to find 'faults' in a Vaishnava tradition and please understand that, four sampradaya have difference in terms of what makes up their school of thought but the conclusion are same. (Otherwise, four sampradayas itself will have four different goals and they cannot have any meaningful conclusion.)

Does Gaudiya math belongs to the sampradaya of Madhva? It is a very tricky question and the uninformed and jealous onlooker never get the fitting answer and unfortunately most of the followers of these sampradays themselves do not understand the reality. Consider this to understand the 'four' parampara....

They are called "Vaishnava" for the reason that the parampara begins and ends with "Vishnu" as the original teacher and ultimate aim. If beginning is taken as most important, anyone from the four tradition can identify themselves belonging to any one of the four for the reason that the root being "Vishnu" or "Krishna".

Philosophical differences are not really big differences when they are understood well and any vaishnava can relate and understand the different style, sadhana of these paramparas as they ultimately guide the practitioner to the very same goal, ie Sri Vishnu.

The points you listed as differences between the schools is not really true. Here is my brief responses


1. According to madhva the goal of 'sadhan' is 'mukti' whereas according to chaitanya 'mukti bancha kaitab',krishnaprem jiber param sadhya.

Bhakthi is the goal of both Madhva and Gaudiya and mukthi is only the transition from bondage to liberation or an intermittent gift of Bhakthi. Even after Mukthi, it is Bhakthi, which continues, and if this is understood, you can see no differences in the philosophy of Madhva and Gaudiya and it is only then how it is expressed. This is very much the philosophy of Srimadacharya.

2. according to madhva jib and brahma is totally different but according to chaitanya the relation between jib and brahma is ved and aved.

According to Srimadacharya, the Brahman and Jiva are different but they are related eternally. (Second point is not very much stressed in the court of Tarka, Vada etc. as it is not important to counter the Advaita). The relationship is "ParaTantra" for the Jiva and the dependence is on the Brahman. Gaudiya's do not equate the Jiva as Brahman and they still maintain that "jiva" is dependent on Brahman for its very existence and functioning as much as the Madhva's philosophy. A deeper study of TattvaVada will reveal the fact that, the Jiva is a "pratiBimba" of its immediate higher jiva and the first creation is the PratiBimba of the Lord Himself. (Though, Brahman is not the material cause but the Jivas are reflection of Brahman in the gunas that constitutes their SvaRupa). It is very much same when the Gaudiyas say, the relationship is "Acintya BedAbeda" (Beda is because of the material cause as well as the capacity to hold and express the "rasa" but Abeda since the very jiva reflects the "rasa" or Guna of the Lord to its potential and it is still "Acintya cos there is no "absolute" boundary or demarcation of the difference or similarity.)


3. acccording to chaitanya ' Radhar prem sadhya siromano' which is just opposit madhva who compares gopi with apsara of swarga which is a crime in the eyes of gaudiya vaishnab.If chaitany were from the madhva sampradaya then he would have never preached greatness of srimati radharani and also swarup damodar sanatan goswami rup goswami jib goswami raghunath das goswami and krishna das kabiraj would not have preached greatness of srimati radha and gopi.madhva was dead against gopi.

It is your own idea with out much information about TattvaVada or AstaMata practices. Gopi Bhava is very much practiced in the Madhva Sampradaya and the Paryaya Swamis have rituals, which require this Bhava rather than pure "Dashya" bhava.


4.according to chaitanya sri krishna is param tattva but according to madhva sri vishnu is the highest

According to Srimadacharya, Sri Vishnu is Sri Krshna and they both are at the same level and teaching any difference to them is offense. So what is the difference you are seeing here and on what basis?

5. according to chaitanya sri krishna is purna avatar swayang bhagaban and other avatars are his part. sri krishna only to be upasya but according to madhva all the avatars of sri bhagan are purna avatar and any avatar can be upasya.

It is not "according" to Srimadacharya but according to "Some" so-called followers of Srimadacharya. Remember the rule, "No difference in Sri Vishnu" and for a sincere Madhva, Sri Krshna is same in all aspects as Sri Vishnu or any other avatara of Sri Vishnu. Swayam Bagavan has no special meaning for Madhvas and Gaudiya's have this special meaning not on the basis of "gunas" and it is purely on the basis of the "expressed" Rasa. In other words, Gaudiyas also do not accept any differences to any avatar of Sri Krshna but only acknowledge that, Sri Krshna is the form where all the "Rasa"s are expressed. (It is very subtle and i don't expect you to understand it fully but i expect you to at least know the fact that, there is no difference in the philosophical terms between Madhvas and Gaudiyas)


6. according to chaitanya sudhya bhakti ( pure devotion) is appropriate but according to madhva it is sakam bhakti ( devotion with wishes)

It is dry statement. You have to explain what is "Pure Bhakthi"? If you mean that it is the engagement in the service of Lord with out any rewards for the individual, it is same in the Madva's world as well. NishkamaKarma is the qualification to perform Bhakthi Sadhana. (Devotion with personal wishes is an oxymoron)

7. according to chaitanya sri bhagaban accepts seva from santa, dasya, sakhya batsalya and madhur bevotee but according to madhva it is from dasya only.

It is your made up statement and Srimadacharya confirms that Sri Krshna can be served in all these Bhavas. What he has chosen is "Dasya" bhava as Sri Hanuman, Sri Bhima and as Srimadacharya but nowhere he or his sisyas denied that other Bhavas couldn’t be means to serve the Loving Lord. (The DasaKoota has numerous songs with other bhavas and you have to just get yourself a change to enjoy those. The famous Sripada Raja's "Poppu hogana baro Ranga poppu hogana" is surely not a dasya bhava)


8. according to chaitanya 'madhurjya pradhan prem bhakti' is right way but according to madhva it is 'aishorjya pradhan'

This is again ignorant statement.

9. according to chaitanya braja gopies are great in devotion but according to madhva it is brahma.

Not really. In the hierarchy of the baddha Jivas, it is the Brahma who is the height along side with Vayu. ( JivaUttamas). The Gopi's are not Jivas in bondage and they are always submerged in the mood of madurya bhava and serve Sri Krshna. In Madva School, there is equivalent class of jiva who are ever liberated and they are called Rjus. TattvaVada also emphasize that, the knowledge and devotion of the jiva after liberation increases as per the capacity of the Jiva (and also extends that, as the devotion in the state of liberation is expressed fully the capacity of the devotion also increases for that jiva. In other words, there are jivas who are very very higher in terms of devotion to Lord compared to Brahma and Gopis are such class as per Gaudiya). Not knowing any one of the philosophy and assuming intermediate points, as the philosophy of the school is only ignorance of both the schools.


10. all bhakta irrespective of caste colour etc are authorised to have moksha as chaitanya says but according to madhva it is only higher castes

Is it so?? All the "jivas" which can express the devotion towards Lord though had birth in different caste and color (due to the effect of Kali) can attain the Moksha is same philosophy and understanding in both the school. Srimadacharya calls such jiva as "MukthiYogya" with the svaRupa as "Saatvic" and Sri Chaitanya simply calls them Sri Krshna devotees. Where is the difference?? The famous KanakaDasa is very revered in the Madhva sampradaya and his birth is not so called "higher" caste. More interestingly, Srimadacharya rejects the social classification of the material world and he only accepts the classification of the jiva as per the varna (and the inherent quality of being Saatvic) and VarnaDharma is what is emphasized in the TattvaVada and that Varna is not purely by birth alone. (svaDharma is the most important and svaDharma is performing the duties of the jiva’s inherent nature and not the assumed occupational duty of the living condition)


11. according to chaitany srimad bhagabat is the greatest grantha but according to madhva it is mahabharata.

Is it a difference???? I can only laugh. Please read MBTN as well as Srimadacharyas Bagavata Taatparya Nirnaya.

A humble request to you is, please refrain from hatred and a vaishnava do not have any jealously towards another vaishnava or attempts spreading misinformed information which will cause doubt in the mind of new practitioners. Regardless of how you begin, the path you take as long as the ultimate goal is Sri Vishnu, please honor that path, respect that practice and if you cannot glorify such group, mutt or society, at least do not throw ill-natured offensive statements.

Let Krshna shower His entire blessing to you.

Hare Krshna.!

uttam
08 January 2012, 06:09 AM
Hellow grames, how are you ,hope fine. I feel your response hurts me and so I think you are over estimating yourself ,seem to be young Madhva . first of all my question is not "Does Gaudiya math belongs to the sampradaya of Madhva?" .Remember my rule " bhakti vinod thakur and bhakti sidhanta saraswati's gaudiya math and chaitany mahaprabhu's gaudiya vaishnavism are not same" my dear friend ,the goal is thought to be different and so there are four sampradayas and for your meaningful conclusion in spite of different school of thought why only four sampradayas of vaishnava to be considered ? Beyond that there are shakta, jaina, buddha islam Christian all are of different school of thought and conclusion is same ,the supreme lord . So I am not in your concluded line of thought. if you are there remain there for ever. I am vaishnav and i will go by my school of thought.so far chaitanya mahaprabu's vaishnav tradition is concerned , the concept of Krishna tattva and vishnu tattva is clearly explained in krishna das kabiraj's chaitanya charitamrita. your remark 'the parampara begins and ends with "Vishnu" and "Vishnu" or "Krishna" to be elaborated. My head ,my hand,my leg,my nose, my eyes etc etc are not same but they all constitute me. In chaitanya charitamrita there mention who is krishna who is vishnu who is Narayana and I belong to that school of thought. It is due to difference in philosophy that sampradayas are created and headed by better qualified people than you and me and i don't understand why they can not understand your simple view that “Philosophical differences are not really big differences when they are understood well and any vaishnava can relate and understand the different style, sadhana of these paramparas as they ultimately guide the practitioner to the very same goal, i.e Sri Vishnu.” and creat their own sampradaya.

Now come to my points. I have not tried to find faults in Madhva samparadaya in my post . I am just opposing the concept of chaitanya mahaprabu being the part of Maddhva sampradaya as advocated in some quarter of vaishnav tradition.In that context only I point out the differences between the school of thought of Madhva and chaitanya mahaprabhu to maintain the correct view that in no way chaitanya mahaprabhu is related to madhva sampradaya.

1. bhakti never considered to be goal by any school . bhakti is means to reach the end the goal i.e sri krishna. but madhva's end(goal) is mukti. in our tradition there are five types of mukti- sarsti, salokya, sarupya, samipya and sajujya and chaitanya mahaprabhu declares that any type of mukti is kaitab and sajujya is kaitab pradhan. you may say "mukthi is only the transition from bondage to liberation or an intermittent gift of Bhakthi. Even after Mukthi, it is Bhakthi, which continues". let it be but then also you are in the state of mukti which is a kaitab as mahaprabhu describes. so there is a vast difference because when madhva says mukti is end(goal) , mahaprabhu says mukti is kaitab. Madhva says Salvation consists in the realisation of bliss, which constitutes the very essence of the individual self i.e., the liberation is SELF–REALISATION consisting in the enjoyment of such bliss as remained latent in the soul. MUKTI is the highest PURUSH+RTHA .i.e., desirable objective of the Soul. I again say "don't mingle bhakti vinod thakur and bhakti sidhanta saraswati's gaudiya math with chaitana mahaprabhu's gaudiya vaishnavism"

2. Madhva is for hard dualism ( ved).but Achintya ved-aved is fundamental concept of chaitany school. madhva never mentioned in his works the relationship is achintya ved-aved. madhva just advocates dwaita against sankaracharaya's adawita concept and there is also ved-aved concept in between but achintya ved-aved is the fundamental concept of chaitanya. I am least interested to understand achinta ved-aved tattva in your line of thinking or gaudiya math.
My simple understanding is that madhva never mentions about achintya ved-aved in his writing or discourse rather he only describes dwaita ( ved) relationship.who I am to say that madhva supports achintya ved-aved by analyzing this or that out of dwaita

3. The central point of chaitanya's vaishnav tradition is Radha. no vaishnav in the line of chaitanya can think of his existence without Radha . gopi ,radha and radha Krishna leela are the central points which gives pleasure to vaishnava and mahaprabhu is here to feel radha’s prem towards Krishna and so radha prem is sadhya siromoni for vaishnava of chaitanya line whereas having gone through srimad bhagabat ,madhva not even uttered a word about radha. Is it my own idea ? And here you are teaching me how gopi bhava is practiced in madhva sampradaya. This is hypocracy my friend.

4. Krishna tattva and Vishnu tattva is clearly explained in chaitany charitamrita.you can see there who is Krishna and who is Vishnu and I belong to that school of thought . my simple question is if both Krishna and Vishnu same then why madhva mentions only Vishnu, narayana and not Krishna as param tattva ? he could have mentioned Krishna instead of Vishnu or narayana.

5. you are so confident about my understanding ! gita , mahabharat and srimad bhagabad clearly declare that sri krishna is swayam bhagaban and even after going through all these why madhva mentions Vishnu is param tattva . ? you say “Gaudiyas also do not accept any differences to any avatar of Sri Krshna but only acknowledge that, Sri Krshna is the form where all the "Rasa"s are expressed.” which gaudiya you talk of ? so far I know the gaudiya in the line of chaitanya maintains that Vishnu and narayana do not have madhurjya rasa . it is only krishna who enjoys madhurjya rasa. Then how gaudiya will equate them both ? do you understand rasa concept fully ? my dear friend ! chaitanya’s raganuga philosophy based on this madhurjya rasa which is missing in madhva. You may not expect me to understand this subtle subject but I do expect for you and as you say “there is no difference in the philosophical terms between Madhvas and Gaudiyas) surely this gaudiya is none other than bhakti vinod thakur, bhakti sidhanta saraswati and the family.

6. According to Madhva ,MUKTI is attained only through sublime BHAKTI i.e., devotion towards the Lord shri Vishnu . In Madhva siddhanta, there is no place for MUDABHAKTI (Blind Bhakti), i.e., Bhakti without Jnan as an instrument of liberation. Infact BHAKTI and JNANA go hand in hand. This jnan-mishra bhakti has not been accepted by mahaprabhu. Pure bhakti can be seen in chapter 8 ,Madhya lila ,chaitany charitamrita in the conversation between mahaprabhu and Rai Ramananda. So my statement is not dry.it is full of rasa ( madhur rasa) but unfortunately you can not taste it.

7. is it my made up statement that there are five bhava which are directly related to five rasa.out of these five bhavas , mahaprabhu emphasizes madhur bhava ( Madhurjya rasa) on which raganuga bhakti is based and this is a basic difference between madhva and mahaprabhu.

8. if you and your madhva gaudiya family do not understand rasa tattva of mahaprabhu how can you realize madhurjya pradhan prem bhakti and aisharjya pradhan bhakti. This is the reason that madhva mentions Vishnu as param tattva and not Krishna because only Krishna is related to madhurjya prem only and not Vishnu or other form of avataras.I am ignorant or you ?. I find you in chaitanya charitamrita chapter 3 adi lila where it says:
Sakal jagate more kare bidhi bhakti
Bidhi bhaktye braja bhava paite nahi shakti
Aisarjya jnanete sav jagat mishritaL
Aisarjya sithil preme nahi mor prita
Aisarjya jnane bidhi marge bhajan karia
Baikunthate jaya chaturbid mukti paiya.

9.Are you trying to re-write tattvavada in the light of braja gopi ? And so I address you as new avatar of madhvacharaya in this modern age. Madhva him self compares gopi with apsara of swarga .i think you better know the status of apsara in swarga and here you are teaching me that gopies are equivalent class of jiva who are ever liberated and they are called Rjus of madhva school. I like to draw your attention that madhva studied srimad bhagabad and you need not clarify who gopies are and who Rjus are.Read chapter 8 madhya leela of chaitanya chartamrita and acquire some idea of gopi prem and if something understood at least leave this space for me because it is not your subject at all. I do not understand which gaudiya you talk of . do they not read chaitany charitamrita ? may be they are not in the line of chaitanya mahaprabhu because if vaishnab, in the line of chaitanya reads chaitanya charitamrita will never explain like you . Krishna kabiraj himself never mention madhva sampradaya in his whole grantha.only one occasion he describes in Chaitanya-caritamrita, Madhya 9.245-278. The account consists of a typical encounter with a rival group: the Madhva Vaishnavas fail to recognize Mahaprabh as a Vaishnava, but think of him as a Mayavadi. Mahaprabhu goes on to criticize the Madhva doctrines for being mixed and having the goal of liberation rather than prema. The Madhva acharya acknowledges the inferiority of his doctrine, but out of loyalty to Madhvacharya, does not convert. In verse 277, Mahaprabhu says, “The only good thing I see in your sampradaya is that you accept the eternal nature of the Supreme Lord’s form.”

10. colour means chaturbarna and caste is chaturashram. According to madhva only deities, rishi and Brahman( sattvic) can attain mukti and those who involved in samsar particularly asurswabhava never get liberated. Has mahaprabhu categorized any such class to attain Krishna prem? For mahaprabhu barna and ashram has no place. Any barna and any ashram can attain Krishna prem. I again remind you - do not try to be madhva in your self and follow what madhva himself writes in his works.
The souls are broadly classified in three categories 1. Sawtika, 2.Rajasa and 3.Tamasa. The first category i.e, Satwika alone can attain MUKTI. And hence the souls in their instrinsic nature are different from one another; there is a gradation among them in the state of MUKTI too.The real nature of the soul is his existence in his pure state of consciousness and bliss. This is not realised by him in Samsara, when he is enveloped in Avidya,Srrow and Fear. Avidya, Kama and Karma are his empirical bondages. When these extraneous associations are got rid of through SADHANA, the soul gets complete unfoldment of its true nature of bliss and consciousness. In that state of MUKTI his false sense of separateness and independence from the Lord vishnu is shred and he realizes how closely he is related to the Lord vishnu.

Mahaprabhu says any one living in the midst of samsar can attain Krishna prem by doing nam sankirtan.Jagai Madhai of nabadwip also attained. So easy is mahaprabhu’s vaishnab dharma.

11. In regard to Madhva’s Sriman Mahabharata tatparya nirnaya, it is said that this is his biggest work in terms of size. It comprises of thirty two chapters spread over 5200 slokas. In the first chapter he has established that Narayana is the supreme Lord of this world, that He is full of auspicious qualities (gunaparipurna), without absolutely no blemish whatsoever (nirdosa).
Whereas , he has written a commentary on the Bhagavata called'Bhagavata tatparya nirnaya'. In this work he has explained the meaning of several passages and the implications of several anecdotes. As usual, he has not commented on every single verse, but has chosen only those which have some philosophical import, profusely substantiating them with quotations so that one can look for 'ViShNusarvOttamatva' and treat anything opposed to it as false knowledge.

At this what should I conclude. You go on laughing I don’t mind.

Lastly, I request you to identify which vaishnab has created false birth place of mahaprabhu as mayapur ? which vaishnab is acquiring so much money and scandals in the math . which vaishnab is spreading his own version of mahaprabhu’s vaishnab dharma . I do not belong to any math and I need not be jealous of any kind but I do protest against falsehood in the name of chaitanya’s vaishnab tradition. Like me many people know the truth but I try to reach out to people with the true/correct informatioin of mahaprabhu. I have not discovered the truth which is there where it should be but a cover has been dropped on the truth and my small attempt is to remove the cover and take out the truth. I can not glorify falsehood .I am always in search of truth.without having selfish end and nothing to be jealous of any kind and rest is as sri Krishna wishes. A humble request to you is, please read and read and read and read chaitanya charitamrita edited by anybody who does not belong to any samparadays.

grames
09 January 2012, 12:52 AM
Dear Uttam,

I think i have given you a larger than what you require answer and you have not understood or open minded enough to "understand" them. The questions you have listed here are the very same i have already answered.

You are internally "fuming" about the success of "ISKCON" but for a vaishnava, its not the Organization "ISKCON" which matters but the meaningful life where you can approach a "Vaishnava" who can lead you to "Lord Krshna".

Put it this way.... Bliss with out the presence of Lord is like Light with out Sun. If you can understand this metaphore, i think my answers are easy to grasp.

I am not a YOUNG MADVA but a baby Vaishnava.

Hare Krshna!

uttam
19 January 2012, 12:33 PM
I would like to present the encounter of Mahaprabhu with the Tattvabadi Acharaya from chapter nine Madhya lila chaitanya charitamrita which will reflect the difference between Chaitanya Mahapravu's vaishnab dharma and Madhvacharaya's dwaitabad.

CC Madhya 9.233: Tattvavadigan prabhuke mayavadi jnyane / pratham darshane na koila sambhasane : : (When the Tattvabadi Vaiṣṇavas first saw Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, they considered him a Mayavadi sannyasi and did not talk to him.)

CC Madhya 9.234: pachhe prema-besh dekhi hoila chamatkar / vaishnab jnyanete bohu karilo satkar : : .(Later, after seeing Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in ecstatic love, they were struck with wonder. Then, considering him a Vaishnab, they gave him a nice reception).

CC Madhya 9.235: Tan sovar antare garbo jani gaurchandra / Tan sova sahit gosthi karila arambha. : : (Considering them very proud ,Sri Chaitanya began his discussion.)

CC Madhya 9.236: Tattvavadi acharaya sastre param prabin / tanre prasna koila prabhu hoiya jeno dina. : : (The chief acharaya of the Tattvavāda community was very learned in the revealed scriptures. Sri Mahaprabhu humbly questioned him.)

CC Madhya 9.237: Sadhya sadhan ami na jani valo mote / sadhya sadhan sreshtha janaha amate. : : (Mahaprabhu said, "I do not know very well about “SHADHYA-SADHAN”. Please tell me of the best of “SHADHYA-SADHAN ")

CC Madhya 9.238: Acharaya kahe varnashram dharma krishne samarpan / ai hoy Krishna bhakter sreshtha sadhan. : : (The acharaya replied, "Varnashram Dharma ( Dharma of the four castes and the four āśhramas) Krishne Samarpan(dedicated to Kishna), and this is the best of Sadhan for a Krishna bhakta.

CC Madhya 9.239: Panchavid mukti paiya vaikunthe gaman / sadhya sreshtha hoy ai sastra nirupan. : : ( By dedicating Varnashram Dharma to Krishna , one becomes eligible for five kinds of liberation. Thus he is transferred to the spiritual world in Vaikuntha. This is the best of “SADHYA” which is the verdict of all revealed scriptures. ( sastra nirupan)"

CC Madhya 9.240: Prabhu kahe –sastre kahe sravan-kirtan / Krishna prem seva-phaler param sadhan. : : (Mahaprabhu said, "According to the śāstras, sraban-kirtan (the process of hearing and chanting) is the best means( param sadhan) to attain Krishna prem seva phal.)

CC Madhya 9.241: Sravan kirtan hoite krishne hoy prema / sai param purusartha , purusartha sima . : : (From sraban-kirtan’ develops Krishna prem which is regarded as param-purusharth ,the limit of purusharth.)

CC Madhya 9.242: Karma tyag karma ninda sorva sastre kahe/kKarma hoite Krishna prem bhakti kabhu nohe : : "In every revealed scripture there is condemnation of fruitive activities. It is advised everywhere to give up engagement in fruitive activities, for no one can attain Krishna prem by executing them.

CC Madhya 9.243: Panchavid mukti tyag kare bhaktagan / phalgu kari mukti dekhe naraker sama. : : ("Pure devotees reject the five kinds of liberation; indeed, for them liberation is very insignificant because they see it as hellish.)

CC Madhya 9.244: Karma mukti dui bastu tyaje bhaktagan / sai dui sthapa tumi sadhya sadhan . : : ( Both liberation and fruitive activity are rejected by devotees. You are trying to establish these things as Sadhya Sadhan .)

CC Madhya 9.245: Aito vaishnaber nahe sadhya sadhan / Sanyashi dekhiya ama karaha banchan . : : (Mahaprabhu continued speaking to the Tattvabadi acharaya: "Seeing that I am a Sanyashi, you are avoiding me . What you have actually described is not sadhya sadhan of a vaishnab)

CC Madhya 9.246: Suni tattvacharaya hoila antare lajjita / prabhur vaishnabata dekhi hoila bismita. : : ( After hearing mahaprabhu, the acharaya of the Tattvavāda sampradaya became very much ashamed. Witnessing Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's rigid faith in Vaiṣṇavism, he was struck with wonder.

CC Madhya 9.247: Acharaya kahe tumi jai kaha sai satya hoy / sorba sastre vaishnaber ai sunischaya. : : (The Tattvabadi acharaya replied, "What You have said is certainly true. It is the conclusion of all the revealed scriptures of the Vaiṣhṇabas.

CC Madhya 9.248: Tathapi madhvacharaya je koriache nirbandha / sai achorie sove sampradaya sammandha . : : ("Still, whatever Madhvācārya has established as the formula for our sampradaya, we are bound to practice that formula as a policy."

CC Madhya 9.249: Prabhu kahe –karmi jnyani dui bhaktihina / tomar sampradaya dekhi sai dui chinha. : : ( Sri Mahaprabhu said, "Both the Karmi and Jnyani do not have bhakti, they are considered nondevotees. Both elements present in your sampradaya.

CC Madhya 9.250: Sove ek gun dekhi tomar sampradaya / satya bigraha kori Isware karaha nischoy. : : (The only qualification that I see in your sampradaya is that you accept the form of the Lord as truth."

CC Madhya 9.251: Thus Mahaprabhu broke the pride of the Tattvavādīs to pieces. He then went to the holy place phalgu-tirtha.

uttam
22 January 2012, 01:53 AM
Dear grames, how can you say to me that I am internally "fuming" about the success of "ISKCON" ? Am i going to take any share from ISKON ? dear friend I know the history of ISKON. I just wonder to think how many times Gaudiya Math established by Bhakti siddhanta saraswati has been cut into pieces and one of the pieces is ISKON. It is the tradition of Gaudiya math gurus to get separated from his own guru and establish own organisation. why so many separate gaudiya maths under different prabhupadas ? It is out of jealousy . Gaudiya people can not tolerate his god brother. By establishing so may gorgeous math and mandir gadiya prabhupadas prove that they are in competition with each other which indicates that they are not friendly. To a gaudiya it is the organisation which matters nothing else. so far your remark its not the Organization "ISKCON" which matters but the meaningful life where you can approach a "Vaishnava" who can lead you to "Lord Krshna".I am sorry. ISKON is not in the correct way of vaishnab tradition Mahaprabhu established. so there is a chance of misleading only.

grames
23 January 2012, 08:00 AM
Dear Uttam.,

I do not see any relevancy in your CC excerpt and i do know very well about this conversation and it still does not reveal or reject any word from "Brahma-Madhva-Sampradaya.

But i am curious as you have made so many imprints on this site for ISKCON not being in line with Sri Mahaprabhu's tradition, i would like to know what is that and what is Sri Mahaprabhu's philosophy??

Your explanation will be delightful if it can also point out how ISKCON deviates from those.

Hare Krshna!

uttam
26 January 2012, 06:05 AM
Dear grames

You know very well about this conversation but you do not see any relevancy of my CC excerpt. very sad ! OK I am helping you .please follow. In this encounter Chaitanya Mahaprabhu makes a basic difference between him and Madhva sampradaya .

(1) Sadhya and Sadhan : According to Tattvabadi (Madhva) sreshtha sadhan is varna ashram dharma krishne samarpan ( this is Karma)and by dedicating varna ashram dharma to Krishna one becomes eligible for five kinds of liberatrion ( Mukti). Thus he is transferred to Vaikuntha. This is the best of “SADHYA” that means Karma and thereby Mukti (liberation) is the goal to be achieved . Madhva says MUKTI is the HIGHEST PURUSHARTHA .i.e., desirable objective of the Soul.
But Mahaprabhu says Sraban-kirtan (the process of hearing and chanting) is param Sadhan and Krishna prem seva-phal is the Sadhya. He says that from sraban-kirtan, develops Krishna prem which is regarded as PARAM PURUSHARTHA .

2) Mahaprabhu says “Karma hoite Krishna prem bhakti kabhu nohe” i.e. No one can attain Krishna prem bhakti from karma.

3) According to Madhva the goal is Mukti ( Liberation) but Mahaprabhu says " Panchavid mukti tyag kare bhaktagan / phalgu kari mukti dekhe naraker sama". : : ("Pure devotees reject the five kinds of liberation; indeed, for them liberation is very insignificant because they see it as hellish.) Moksha (Mukti) is insignificant to them those who are dedicated to Sri Krishna.

4) Mahaprabhu says that the Tattvabadi establishes Mukti and Karma as sadhy-sadhan but the bhaktagan (devotees) reject both Mukti and Karma. He goes on to say that these two (Mukti and Karma) can not be sadhay-sadhan for vaishnab because both karmi and jnyani is bhaktihin and both karma and jnyan is found in Madhva sampradaya. We know very well that in Madhva siddhanta, there is no place for Bhakti without Jnyan as an instrument of liberation. Infact BHAKTI and JNYANA go hand in hand.


At the end the Tattvabadi Acharaya said to Mahaprabhu, "What You have said is certainly true. It is the conclusion of all the revealed scriptures of the Vaiṣhṇabas. Still, whatever Madhvācārya has established as the formula for our sampradaya, we are bound to practice that formula as a policy."


Next part of your query will follow.

grames
26 January 2012, 07:11 AM
Just a quick note....

It is not easy to impart or exchange a very very subtle philosophy and practice in few messages. So., please do remember these...

1. TattvaVadi Acharya with out a name is itself indicates that this conversation is not directed towards Shri Madvacharya Himself or his philosophy.
2. Secondly, it is the belief/faith of some of Mahaprabu's followers that jiva can directly "attain" or "earn" Krshna prema and thus ignore the strength of what every other Vaishnava believes in. If you are one of them, our discussion will be very simple and easy and pls do let me know if the "other" Vaishnava you are referring here is the so called "nityananda" parivara or the famous "anti-party"?
3. I suggest you to read the conversation of Mahaprabhu with Ramananda which has lot of subtle information for a sincere bhakta.
4. Also please read the Chota Haridas story and why he was rejected by Shri Mahaprabu. ( Is it cos of his Karma or Janana or lack of both so that he was not able to maintain the Madurya??)

With out prejudice, i still love to know your opinions and knowledge and please pardon me for my interruptions.

Thanks
Hare Krshna!

uttam
28 January 2012, 09:26 PM
Dear grames

I need some clarification from you on para 2 of your latest response.
Secondly, it is the belief/faith of some of Mahaprabu's followers that jiva can directly "attain" or "earn" Krshna prema and thus ignore the strength of what every other Vaishnava believes in. If you are one of them, our discussion will be very simple and easy and pls do let me know if the "other" Vaishnava you are referring here is the so called "nityananda" parivara or the famous "anti-party"?

i) who are "some mahapravu's followers"
ii) who are these every other vaishnab ? what do they ignore ?
iii) where I am referring 'other vaishnab' ?
iv) who are so called nityananda parivara and who are famous
anti-party and against whom the party is anti

"TattvaVadi Acharya with out a name is itself indicates that this conversation is not directed towards Shri Madvacharya Himself or his philosophy."

My friend at the very outset of this encounter we see in CC "madhvacharaya sthane aila jaha tattvabadi " :- mahaprabhu comes to madhvacharya's place where tattvabadi staying. and at the end of the encounter the Tattvabadi Acharaya said to Mahaprabhu, "What You have said is certainly true. It is the conclusion of all the revealed scriptures of the Vaiṣhṇabas. Still, whatever Madhvācārya has established as the formula for our sampradaya, we are bound to practice that formula as a policy." still you say this conversation is not directed towards Shri Madvacharya Himself or his philosophy." I think this is subtle for you to understand . can you tell me what is this conversation all about and with whom and on what philosophy mahaprbhu carries out the concversation.

"It is not easy to impart or exchange a very very subtle philosophy and practice in few messages. So., please do remember these."

My dear friend I am not discussing madhva philosophy. I am just pointing out the differences between him and tattvabadi which mahaprabhu himself outlines in a very simple sentence. Just tell me when tattvabadi acharaya says by dedicating varna ashram dharma to krishna one can enter vaikuntha by getting five kinds of Mukti but Mahaprabhu says 'No' - it is sraban-kirtan and thereby having krishna prem get krishna sebaphal because devotees reject karma and panchavid mukti,how this simple sentence becomes so subtle that we can not even discuss.I find you discussing tattvabad in other postings of this forum. so when you discuss it is not subtle and when i discuss it becomes subtle.this is nothing but hypocrisy.I think these days every subtle philosophy has been discussed in many forums by learned personalities many times and getting the gist out of their discussion is not a tough job for those who are interested in the subject.what those philosophies do for us if we can not even understand the HEADLINES at least ! Madhva says Vishnu is highest but mahaprabhu says krishna is param tattva. how is it subtle to understand ! please try to acknowledge that there is a difference in krishna tattva and vishnu tattva and there is also a difference between lakshmi tattva and radha tattva. there are some terms like aisharya,madhurya. In Gita, in Bhagavatam, in Mahabharata who is termed as param or highest tattva ? Do you get vishnu saying anything arjuna in Gita ? why it is subtle to understand that sri krishna is param tattva and not vishnu . where do you see madhva says mukti is not our goal rather krishna prem is our goal ? where do you see in madhva that bhakti without jnyan is preferable to bhakti and jnyan go hand in hand.(you can have some idea as to which is preferable from the conversation of mahaprabhu and ramananda in ch.8 madhyalila of CC) I think to understand tattvabad one has to better understand shankar's advaitabad. I want to know when you post your knowledge on tattvabad in other threads in this forum,have you ever felt that advaitabad is subtle ? come on man ,be easy and try to be fair .

"I suggest you to read the conversation of Mahaprabhu with Ramananda which has lot of subtle information for a sincere bhakta."

I think if you had read it you would not have argued in such a wrong way.once you say this is subtle I can not understand and then you say this is subtle I should read it .I think if sri krishna wishes I can be able to understand how so ever subtle the given philosophy is and for your information whatever I do ,I get the inspiration only from the conversation of mahaprabhu and rai ramananda because here we find the actual path which mahaprabhu wants us to follow. I request you once again that I am interested only to present that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is no way related to Madhva and the very tattvabad is not my concern.

I shall let you know my views on ISKON later.

uttam
05 February 2012, 07:21 PM
Dear grames,
I am waiting for your clarification.You took me to be one of them who's belief/faith is that jiva can directly "attain" or "earn" Krshna prema and thus ignore the strength of what every other Vaishnava believes in. Then you say nityananda paribar, famous anti party. I do not fave any idea about this. please clarify.

grames
08 February 2012, 08:48 AM
Dear Uttam.

Thanks for your patience and I am sorry I was very busy lately and so why was not able to respond to you quickly.

What is 'Subtle" is subtle and yes it can be explained when the proper mindset and context is established between us in the conversation and I still not very sure and confidant about this fact so why not jumping to too much elaboration.

Let me begin a little here so that we can establish the context at least for a better understanding of what I said earlier. The claim that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabu does not belong to Madhva Sampradaya is the complain or opinion that we are discussing here and your straight forward conclusion is, it is a BIG NO as per your first message.

Such claim usually comes from Madhva followers and it is unexpected from a Chaitanya follower and that’s the reason why I am responding here with more questions asking for your background. At once, you have even attributed this parampara link as doubtful or questionable by creating some doubt about Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhushana and his work.


Baladeb Bidya Bhusan who wrote ' Govinda Vasya ' defended the gaudiya and defeated the pandit of Joypur by his sheer expertise and proved that Chaitany Mahaprabu's Gaudiya Vaishnabism is nothing but a part of Madhva sampradaya and thus was able to get back the gaudiya pujaries in Govinda Mandir.

When I read the above, I see a great devotee who has full mercy of Shri Chaitanya and it is not mere "Sheer expertise". A devotee fully believes that, only a greatest devotee can have vast knowledge about God and it is only Him who empowers such noble soul for establishing the spiritual truths. For Shri Ramanuja it took so much time to write the Sri Bhashya that too with the great help of his most beloved Sisyas like Shri KoorataAlvaan etc. Secondly, are we going to have some low opinion about the Jaipur King's court pandits skill level and awareness about Shri Madhva's philosophy and Shri Chaitanyas? What we should understand with honest and sincere mind is that, what Shri Baladeva Vidya Bhushana established in the court of Pandits (Remember, they are not mere pandits either.. they were custodian of another orthodox vaishnava sampradaya too.) is there actual truth that were not told or shared with the Vaishnava world yet. Looking at the known history or at least accepted history, Sri Vidya Bhushana in fact started his Shri Chaitanya Darshana after learning and understanding the Sad Sandarpa of the great goswami of Shri Vrndavana Srila Jiva Goswami. And this Govinda Bhasya was also composed or echoed in the holy temple of Govinda mandir and so why fittingly he names his commentary on the Brahma Sutra as "Govinda Bhashya". ( attributing the fact that it was in fact the words of Shri Govinda and not his). I do accept the above as fact and for me it is very credible evidence and the Govinda Bhasya is one of the sublime bhasya inline with the Shri Chaitanya mission.

Am I going to argue better than Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhusana about the Parampara link? Never. I can only point out the great Premaya Ratnavali and if you have a chance to understand it, you will know how easily and same time sweetly he connects the Shri Chaitanya mission as the conclusion and builds that conclusion on top of what Shri Madvacharya built.

shri-madhvah praha vishnum paratamam akhilamnaya-vedyam ca vishvam
satyam bhedam ca jivam hari-carana-jushas taratamyam ca tesham
moksham vishnv-anghri-labham tad-amala-bhajanam tasya hetum pramanam
pratyakshadi-trayam cety upadishati harih krishna-chaitanyacandrah

The one who is on the platform of Rasa Tattva have to understand that, such Rasa Vichara cannot have any prayojana if the 9 tenants of Shri Madhvacharya are not established first to remove all the doubts and onslaught of mayavada. There is no mellow in the heart of any jiva until he has firm conviction on Lord and his relationship with Lord. So where is the question of any Rasa blooming in such hearts?

The CC verses you quote got different numbers and I assume you are subscribing to different version than the one I subscribe to. Though the verse of our interest is there on my subscription too, I do read the conversation of this particular Madhya leela with very different note. On His south India tour, He engaged with many Vaishnava's and helped them to raise their love of Lord by His own mercy. He even glorifies one who recites the Bagavat Gita with out proper pronunciation or knowing the meanings. Venkata Bhatta was blessed with the story of Shri Lakshmi and 'reminded' about the highest love and abode. With such mercy, when the Lord meets the TattvaVadi's, knowing they are ardent devotees of Lord Vishnu, He saw that they have the pride of what the Gopi's had in the Vrndavana. ( Cos, the same tattvaVadis once they know Lord is a Vaishnava, they honored Him properly with nice reception.) So, Lord asked them questions (rather challenges as with non-vaishnavas) about the best ideal for humanity. ( More than establishing a new philosophy, here Lord reminds them of their pride and how their pride actually made them forget the actual love for Lord) and reminded of the purpose of "liberation" itself. This is also a reminder to the TattvaVadin of His time that they have lost the actual philosophy of Shri Madhva. ( FYI: The Vyasa Koota and DasaKoota are so popular and DasaKoota inspired by the VyasaKoota is full time in to the same sadhna as Shri Chaitanya describes and I do strongly believe our Lord knows all this all the time and thats why He accepts the Parampara with riders - 'Thumara' in the Thumara Sampradaya thus cannot include Shri Madhva's and all of his followers but only to those group who lost the connection in the same parampara.

This is even subtler and loosely reading the above conversation and then making some conclusion will put both Shri Madhvacharya and Shri Chaitanya on different horizons.

It is irrefutable for Vaishnava followers that Shri Madhva belongs to the Brahma Sampradaya and it will become questionable then, how Shri Chaitanya can be authoritative if He does not belong to any Sampradaya. (You cannot call or consider Shri Chaitanya Himself is a new Parampara and thus PP verse is all not worthy in front of Lord. Lord clearly says He follows the Vaidi dharma even though He is not affected by that but to show the lead for dharmic life and not surprisingly He accepted a Guru, took sanyasa etc. just to show how important it is for His jiva's to follow the same sadachara that makes the life of sincere vaishnava)

Above all, even if there are differences, they are not opposites as Shri Chaitanya Himself accepts a form of Truth from the TattvaVadin's group ( unusual of Lord if He saw them as His opponents rather saw them as the ones who required reminding of the whole truth). So, just such incident will not negate or throw away the noble connection and validity of Shri Chaitanya being part of the Siksha connection to Shri Madhva. ( Again a subtle point and it is Shri Madhva who learns from Shri Krshna not vice versa thus He knows fully what was taught and preached by Shri Madhva)

Add.Info" Shri Madhva does not say Mukti is the final Goal... ( I made this statement earlier as well)

Shri Chaitanya is very subtle in every incident that was recorded by different disciples. It will be ages and births to talk about everyone of them so I cut short my long response with this simple statement...


Questioning the Validity of the Shri Chaitanya Parampara, you have to understand the Siksha connection first and then go deeper in to the philosophical platform. If you find the evidences as unacceptable to you, please provide evidences on Siksha and then on philosophical platform opposing differences (instead of relying on just different practices - with in Shri Madhva parampara, there are different practices) then make the firm assertion with support of the above two points that Shri Chaitanya actually belongs to "which one of the four" authorized Vaishnava Parampara.

If you have different proof, answers and evidences it will be my delight to know your proof, read your answers and accept the evidences.

So the ball is on your court.

Hare Krshna!

uttam
09 February 2012, 08:43 PM
Dear grames

Before going into details of your latest response i just make a quick point from the end part of your highly subtle explanation of mahaprabhu and madhva relationship. Just tell me what is the goal of madhva sampradaya. I mean what will one achieve if he/she follows madhva line of vaishnab parampara just like if one follows mahaprabhu's line , he/she will achieve krishna prem seva phal and so rejects mukti ( i think you have got my point here )? (2) just tell me something about four authorized vaishnab parampara( sampradaya) i.e. where ( in which scripture )you have found the names of these sampradayas for the first time or who for the first time categorized vaishnab into four sampradays and lastly who determines that to become a vaishnab ,one have to have a philosophical platfom of these four sampradays ? Do you mean outside these four sampradays there can be no vaishnab parampara ? if so, just tell me who and in which scriptures of Hindu or vaishnab , has noted this theory . I want to make my self clear from your vast knowledge on vaishnab philosophy that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu must have to belong to any of the four authorized vaishnab sampradayas otherwise his own krishna bhakti (as depicted in CC ) would be at stake! Here I like to draw your attention to the fact that before Baladev Bidyabhushan made the famous joypur trip , no other vaishnab of mahaprabhu line did mention in any of their writing that there exists any relation between madhva and mahaprabhu. ,My friend , taking my point into consideration and the clarification i sought from you on anti party or nityananda paribar etc if you respond me as early as possible I will be happy. I shall definitely return to you very soon with full details.

uttam
12 February 2012, 09:14 AM
Sorry friend, I have established the context at the very beginning and you changed it to another context. I always maintained my context “DOES CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU BELONG TO MADHVA ACHARJYA'S BRAHMA SAMPRADAYA” but you changed it to “Does Gaudiya math belongs to the sampradaya of Madhva? I think first you should have to establish a clear understanding between Gaudiya vaishnabism and Gaudiya math and at the same time keep in mind that Gaudiya vaishnabism comes first and Gaudiya math is a organization which claims to be a part of Gaudiya vaishnabism. So, what Gaudiya math preaches may be or may not be a part of the philosophy of Gaudiya vaishnabism.
And you have made same mistake again. You say “At once, you have even attributed this parampara link as doubtful or questionable by creating some doubt about Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhushana and his work.” And you quote from my first message .But unfortunately you missed the point that I have simply narrated the story and not attributed any doubt or questioned about Sri Baladeva Vidya Bhushana and his work. You have not followed that I have written “ the story goes like this “ However it would not be out of place to reiterate here the story of Baldev Vidyabhushan’s early life and his victory over pandit of jaipur.This time I have copied the story from ( www.stephen-knapp.com (http://www.stephen-knapp.com/)) I am sure this story is a proof that baldev bidya bhushan is a great vaishnab but you have to answer me some questions if you are agree to the contents of the story and of course if you want to answer.The story is like this :
At an early age Baldev Vidya bhushan became learned in Sanskirt grammar, poetry, rhetoric, and logic. After becoming expert in all these subjects, he began wandering to different places of pilgrimage. After wandering about in this way for some time, and after visiting many holy places, he happened to stay at a temple of the Tattvavadi followers of Shri Madhvacharya. There, he became fluent in his understanding of the tattvavada-siddhanta, that is, the philosophical and theological conclusions of the followers of Madhva. After this, he took sannyasa, and preached the tattvavada-siddhanta very vigourously throughout the length and breadth of India.
As he wandered from one place to the next, he gradually came to Jagannatha Puri. There he remained and preached for a few days. At that time, he chanced to meet one of the foremost disciples of Shri Rasikananda Deva, Pandit Shri Radha-Damodara, with whom he discussed devotional principles. At that time, Shrimad Radha-Damodara dev Goswami instructed Baladev on the subject of Shri Gourasundara's pastimes of mercy and His teachings on Gaudiya Vaishanva siddhanta to Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya. After hearing the divine wisdom spoken by Shri Radha-Damodara Goswami, Baladeva's heart was deeply moved. After a few days of hearing from him, he accepted initiation into the Radha-Krishna mantra, and began studying the Sat-Sandarbhas of Jiva Goswami at the holy feet of his gurudeva, Radha-Damodara Goswami.
After a short time, Baladeva became expert in the Gaudiya Vaishanva siddhanta. After staying with Radha-Damodara Goswami for some time, he was ordered to further his studies in Gaudiya Vaishnavism by going to Vrindavan and taking shelter at the holy feet of Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. After first visiting Nabadwipa, he soon arrived in Vrindavan.
Shri Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur (Shri Harivallabha dasa), was very happy to see Baladeva's submission, modesty, learning, and renunciation. From that day forward, for some time, he kept Baladeva by his side and taught him the acintya-bheda-abheda philosophy of Shri Chaitanya and many other important siddhantas related to the Gaudiya Vaishnava conception of Krishna-bhakti. From this point on, Shri Baladeva's life and soul was fully dedicated to the theistic conception of the Gaudiya Sampradaya. His mind was fixed on this, and with one-pointed determination, he now began preaching this line to the exclusion of all others.
One day, in Jaipur, in the royal court, the Ramanuja sampradaya began arguing a case in connection with the Gaudiya sampradaya. They informed the king that the Gaudiya sampradaya had no commentary on the most important revealed scripture of Vedic religion—Vedanta; therefore they had no siddhanta and no real sampradaya, or school. As a consequence they should give up their service of the deities of Govinda and Gopinatha, and entrust with those who were bona fide members of a genuine sampradaya. At that time, the king of Jaipura was a follower of the Gaudiya sampradaya. He immediately sent word of the controversy by messenger to Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakur in Vrindavan, wanting to know if the Gaudiya sampradaya actually did have any commentary on theVedanta. If there was, the king wanted that the commentary be sent immediately to Jaipur to satisfy the scrutiny of the pandits from the Ramanuja Sampradaya.
At this time, Shri Vishvanatha Chakravarti was very old and infirm. It was impossible for him to make the arduous journey to Jaipur. He sent his student and disciple, Shri Baladev, in his place. Baladeva Vidyabhusan was an expert scholar in all the important scriptures. In the midst of a huge assembly of pandits from the Ramanuja sampradaya, Baladeva challenged them all to argue with him in scholarly debate. A long and hard-fought debate took place, with tumultuous arguing from the Ramanuja School. Still, none of them could stand before his conclusive statements, keen scholarship, and penetrating intellect. Baladeva argued that the founder of the Gaudiya Sampradaya, Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established the Shrimad-Bhagavatam as the topmost commentary on Vedanta. The Bhagavatam itself claims that it is bhashyanam brahma-sutranam, the natural commentary on Vedanta. This is confirmed on the basis of evidence given by Jiva Goswami in his Sat Sandarbha. Therefore, the Gaudiya sampradaya has chosen to accept Shrimad-Bhagavatam as the original commentary on Vedanta, and sees no need for a separate commentary.
At that point, the pandits from the Ramanuja sampradaya shouted: "He admits that there is no commentary! They have no commentary!" Having no other recourse, Shri Baladeva Vidyabhusan promised to show them the Gaudiya commentary on Vedanta within a few days. The pandits were astonished to think that such a thing existed. They were suspicious that this might be some kind of trick, but were silenced for the time being.
Very troubled within his mind, Shri Baladeva Vidyabhusana went to the temple of Shri Govinda, the deity of Rupa Goswami. After offering his eightfold obeisance before the deity, he related everything that had taken place. That night in a dream, Shri Govinda told him, you must compose the commentary. That commentary will be personally sanctioned by me. No one will be able to find any fault in it. Seeing this in his dream, Baladeva became very happy, and his heart was full of strength, ready for the task at hand. After this, he meditated on the lotus feet of Govinda and began writing his commentary. Within a few days it was completed. This commentary became known as the Govinda Bhashya commentary on Vedanta.
In an addendum appended to the Govinda Bhashya, after it was published, Shri Baladeva has written, vidyarupam bhushanam ye pradaya, khatim nitye teno yo mamudarah, Shri govinda-svapna-nirdishtha bhashye, radhabandhurangah sa jiyat. "May Shri Govinda be all glorious? By his mercy, he revealed this commentary to me in a dream. The commentary revealed by him is especially appreciated by the highly learned, and as a result of this I have been given the name Vidyabhushan, but it is Shri Govinda who deserves all credit. May that Shri Govinda who is the most dear life and soul of Shri Radhika, be all-victorious."
With the Govinda Bhashya commentary in hand, Baladeva Vidyabhushan arrived at the assembly hall of the king, where the pandits were waiting for him. When he showed them his commentary, they were speechless. The Gaudiya sampradaya was proclaimed victorious. The king and all the Gaudiya Vaishnavas were supremely happy. At that time the pandits gave Shri Baladeva the name "Vidyabhushana," or one whose ornament is knowledge, in honor of his great scholarship. The year was 1628, Shaka era. From the day forward, the king of Jaipur decreed, everyone would attend the aroti of Shri Govinda, the deity beloved by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who was ultimately responsible for such a wonderful commentary on Vedanta.
The Ramanuja pandits, falling under the influence of Shri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, accepted him as their acharya and wanted to become his disciples. With great humility, Baladeva Vidyabhushana refused, explaining that there are four sampradayas, among which the Shri Sampradaya is a genuine school that preaches servitude to God as the best religious process. By advancing the views of the Gaudiya sampradaya, he meant no disrespect to the Shri sampradaya. To insult the Shri sampradaya would be a great offense, he said.
Shripad Baladeva Vidyabhushan returned from Jaipur to Vrindavan carrying the message of his victory. Upon returning, he submitted to the lotus feet of Shri Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura and told him the news. All the visiting Vaishnavas and the residents of Vrindavan were delighted, and Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura bestowed his blessings upon Baladeva Vidyabhusana.
My questions (i) Vidyabhushan came to puri for preaching tattvabad but After hearing the divine wisdom spoken by Shri Radha-Damodara Goswami, Baladeva's heart was deeply moved. After a few days of hearing from him, he accepted initiation into the Radha-Krishna mantra, and began studying the Sat-Sandarbhas of Jiva Goswami at the holy feet of his gurudeva, Radha-Damodara Goswami. If chaitanya’s Gaudiya vaishnabism belonges to Madhva then why Baladev has shifted himself from tattvabad to gaudiya and took diksha ? is it not a evidence that there exists difference between mahaprabhu and madhva’s tattvabad.
(ii) do you agree with me that vidyabhushan came to know about achinta ved aved here from gaudiya goswami ? if so you have to accept that achinta ved aved is a fundamental concept of chaitanya mahaprabhu’s line of vaishnabism.
(iii) It seems to me that the encounter of vidyabhushan with the pandit of jaipur ( ramanuj sampradaya) is a dual between tattvabadi and sri vaishnab rather than tattvabadi and gaudiya vaishnab. do you agree ?
(iv) It is also evident that before baldev bidya vushan came to rescue the gaudiya baishnab in jaipur, they could not prove themselves to pandits of jaipur about their vaishnab sampradaya to which they belonged to and this makes clear that before this incident the goudiya vaishnab did not consider them selves to be a part of any of the four sampradaya.
(v) Shifting of vidyabhushan from tattvabad to gaudiya is itself a proof that mahaprabhu’s vaishnab line is superior to tattvabad. Do you agree to it ?
(vi) After coming back from Jaipur vidyabhushan conveyed to Bishwanath chakraborty his victory over sri vaishnab in Jaipur only , may be, he did not disclose the details how he won the debate there. Could it be or not ?
(vii) I think now it is clear that of Baladev vidyabhushan has played the major role to declare that gaudiya vaishnab dharma belongs to madhva’s brahma sampradaya. Agree ?
I shall return to you again with more evidence.

uttam
14 February 2012, 08:47 PM
Dear grames,

When I read your advice that this should be understood or that is subtle , I laugh at you because it seems to me that you are the one who understands every subtle philosophy and rest( me) just a fool . You say questioning the validity of chaitanya parampara I have to understand the siksha connection first and go deeper into the philosophy.
Why you have not presented any evidence to show “that noble connetion and validity of sri chaitanya being part of the siksha connection to sri madhva”. Only baladev vidyabhushan’s work is sufficient to prove this connection ? Did Vidyabhushan’s predecessor like Krishna das kabiraj, jiv goswami, rup goswami, sanatan goswami , swarup damodor forget to mention it in their writings ? Have you gone through the story of baladev vidyabhushan ? how he shifted his guru from tattvabad to gaudiya which itself is a proof that there is no link between mahaprabhu’s gaudiya vaishnabism and madhva’s tattvabad and also mahaprabhu’s gaudiya vaishnabism is superior to madhva’s tattvabad.
May I know from you in which chapter and in which line of the CC or else where , the Lord clearly says to follow vaidhi dharma .Are you blind to your understanding the CC ? It is a laughing stock to me that chaitanya mahaprabhu says to follow vaidhi dharma. If this is your subtle philosophy, I think I should avoid it rather going deep into this philosophy. I suggest you to please open your eyes and read CC once more and try to count how many times mahaprabhu says to follow rag dharma. Vaidhi dharma is linked to vaikuntha ( this is Mukti) and rag dharma is linked to golok (krishna pada seva). Vaidhi dharma is aishourya pradhan and rag dharma is madhurya. pradhan. Please go through chapter 21 madhya lila of CC (text-119)
karma, tapa, yoga, jnyan, vidhi-bhakti, japa, dhyana,/
iha haite madhurya durlabha/
kevala ye raga-marge, bhaje krsne anurage/
tare krsna-madhurya sulabha
(madhurya is not generated (durlabha) from karma,tapa,yoga,jnyan ,vidhi bhakti,japa and dhyana. Madhurya is generated (sulabha) only through rag marg and there is no alternative.)

So Vaidhi dharma is connected to diksha and rag dharma is connected to siksha. But the question is , has the words like roti, prem , rag , madhurya , gopi, radha any place in madhva’s philosophy ? If you have any understanding about siksha and diksha you should express your views. Can you tell me why Krishna das kabiraj has categorized diksha guru and siksha guru. If you claim mahaprabhu has the siksha line with madhva, please mentione specifically what mahaprabhu learnt from madhva smapradaya ? Madhavendra Puri’s link to madhva samapradaya is controversial issue. I can prove that madhavendra puri is not linked with madhva sampradaya , will you accept ?
It is funny to me that madhva sampradaya does not recognize your claim that madhavendra puri, iswarpuri and mahaprabhu have anything to do with their sampradaya but you people are busy to establish the link that they do belong to madhva parampara.

We find mahaprabhu with sri vaishnab venkat bhatta having a good conversayion between them. I do not understand why you people do not linked mahaprabhu with sri vaishnab parampara or other vaishnab parampara ? why madhva only ? Is it so because Baladev vidyabhushan has established parampara of link of mahaprabhu with madhva ?

anirvan
15 February 2012, 03:27 AM
[QUOTE=uttam;78916]Dear grames,

When I read your advice that this should be understood or that is subtle , I laugh at you because it seems to me that you are the one who understands every subtle philosophy and rest( me) just a fool .
May I know from you in which chapter and in which line of the CC or else where , the Lord clearly says to follow vaidhi dharma .[B]Are you blind to your understanding the CC ? It is a laughing stock to me that chaitanya mahaprabhu says to follow vaidhi dharma. If this is your subtle philosophy, I think I should avoid it rather going deep into this philosophy. I suggest you to please open your eyes

[ I can prove that madhavendra puri is not linked with madhva sampradaya , will you accept ?
It is funny to me that madhva sampradaya does not recognize your claim that madhavendra puri, iswarpuri and mahaprabhu have anything to do with their sampradaya but you people are busy to establish the link that they do belong to madhva parampara.


dear Uttam,

May Beloved Krishna bless you.But with no insult,do you honestly think of yourself as a Vaishnav?definitely the rhetoric you have thrown to a fellow Vaishnav doesn"t prove that.

I definitely agree you are well informed about all vaishnav stories,but without wisdom and learned little other than EGO. Raga marga/madhurya rati can"t be practiced nor can be made as a goal.It comes naturally,by krishna kripa/bhakta kripa/ Vaidh sadhna of previous previous birth.So if you think you had already made the madhur bhava as your goal, rethink about it as with slightest of Ego,you are disqualified for it.

What I feel Grames is true vaishnav. Chaitanya mahaprabhu is purna avtar of SriRadha-krishna .Even comparing him to madhvacharya is insult to Mahaprabhu.

Madhava is bhakta,Mahaprabhu is Bhagban,he came to correct,rectify and make his dear bhakta complete.All discussions ends then and there.


A true seeker and bhakta will never dis-disillusioned himself with such shabda ki mayajaal(web of illusion of words). how far a bird can fly will know that far.This has created so many sampradaya.

Harekrishna

uttam
15 February 2012, 01:52 PM
My dear grames ,
I am sorry. I offer my apology if I hurt you. Please don't mind and get back to our conversation. I am waiting for your response.

grames
17 February 2012, 08:41 AM
Dear Uttam.,

Hare Krshna!

I am just wondering why or what makes you ridicule when i say something is very 'subtle'?? Just because you want to enforce your 'face value' understanding of Shri Chaitanya, what i say does not become irrelevant or wrong.

OK. Take this Q and answer...

If Shri Krshna is absolute, His very own Forms are also absolute with no differences at all. Attributing some sort of Rasa Beda is weak philosophy and in fact it is an oxymoron. Secondly, in the Absolute Personality where is the difference of Bhavas that HE shares or connects with you. Prema cannot be supeior to any other Bhavas when it is in Absolute platform and so what makes you say Madhurya is superior to any other form of Bhava?

The Bhava that flows from Shri Krshna to His beloved ( Gopis and Bhaktas) should not have any sort of differences since He is absolute and everything that He does/posses including His name is Absolute.

So, try to explain the above with in the scope of whatever you learnt from 'your' Shri Chaitanya faith.

Here, Shri BVB demonstrates his mastry understanding and devotion and he correctly understands and also the Siksha required to connect Shri Madhva to Shri Chaitanya. If you ridicule Shri BVB, then please answer the above with out offending any vaishnava faith.

Hare Krshna!

uttam
18 February 2012, 07:56 PM
Dear anirvan, I offer parawise response to your earlier massage and hope you will return.
May Beloved Krishna bless you.But with no insult,do you honestly think of yourself as a Vaishnav?definitely the rhetoric you have thrown to a fellow Vaishnav doesn"t prove that
I do not think my self a vaishnab but I am in the process. It is upto sri krishna to make me vaishnab.As regards rhetoric, with no insult, I would request you to read the verses how Gaudiya Math/ISKON Vaishnb (?) in their writings abuse other vaishnab sampradaya of Bengal like Sahajia, karta-bhoja, Baul (they call them like this). These sampradaya also chaitanya mahaprabhu’s followers but their ways of sadhan-bhajan are not approved by gaudiya math family.Even Bhakti vinod thakur, Bhakti siddhanta saraswati and A C bhakti vedanta prabhupada too.Please let me know your opinion on them.
I definitely agree you are well informed about all vaishnav stories,but without wisdom and learned little other than EGO
I can not deny that I have ego complex. Trully speaking, not only ego, I have all the RIPUS in full form in me. So I always pray to Mahaprabhu to help me to shed these bad elements from me. Yes, the day I will become vaishnab, I shall have no ripus in me. Please pray for me to Mahaprabhu.
Raga marga/madhurya rati can"t be practiced nor can be made as a goal.It comes naturally,by krishna kripa/bhakta kripa/ Vaidh sadhna of previous previous birth.
Here I shall definitely make comments. First of all , would you please quote the vaishnab scripture where this theory can be found. (2) Setting aside Krishna kripa/vakta kripa ( because this is first and foremost thing without his kripa our very existence will be a question mark),I am putting some texts from sri chaitanya charitamrita and invite your learned views on the need of these texts.


1. Should I practice rag marg or not
(i) A sloka from Adi lila chapter 1 :



etavad eva jijnasyam
tattva-jijnasunatmanah
anvaya-vyatirekabhyam
yat syat sarvatra sarvada.

"A person interested in transcendental knowledge must therefore always directly and indirectly inquire about it to know the all-pervading truth." (Here the words anvaya-vyatirekabhyam, "directly and indirectly," suggests that one must learn the process of devotional service in its two aspects: one must directly execute the process of devotional service and indirectly avoid the impediments to progress.)
(ii) Adi lila chapter 3 : yuga-dharma pravartaimu nama-sankirtana/
chari bhava-bhakti diya nacamu bhuvana
(I shall personally introduce yuga-dharma--nama-sankirtana, I shall make the world dance in ecstasy, realizing the ( chari bhavas) four bhaves ( dasya,sakhya,batsalya & madhur bhav of braja)
(iii) Adi lila chapter 3:apani karimu bhakta-bhava angikare/
apani achari' bhakti sikhaimu sabare

(I shall accept the role of a devotee, and I shall teach devotional service by practicing it Myself.)

(iv) Adi lila chapter 3 : apane na kaile dharma sikhan na yaya/
ei ta' siddhanta gita-bhagavate gaya
( If I do not practice devotional services myself, I cannot teach it to others. This conclusion is indeed confirmed throughout the Gita and Bhagavatam.)
(v) Madhya lila chapter-8 :

sadhya bastu sadhan vinu keha nahi paya /
kripa kari' kaha, raya, pabar upaya
"The goal of life ( sadhya bastu) cannot be achieved unless one practices the process. Now, being merciful upon Me, please explain that means by which this goal can be achieved.


Rag marg is not goal, it is a means (marg) to attain goal i.e. Krishna-prem seva phal. To me Vaidh sadhna of previous previous birth( I am sure you will provide me the source of this conception) is nothing but a wrong conception because vaidh sadhan existed for long before Mahaprabhu’s coming. Had vaidh sadhan been considered right way of attaining goal i.e. Krishna-seva, Mahaprabhu would not have appeared. So sri chaitanya charitamrita says :
( Adi lila chapter 4)
anusanga-karma ei asura-marana/
ye lagi' avatara, kahi se mula karana
Thus the killing of the demons is but secondary work. I shall now speak of the main reason for the Lord's incarnation.( avatara)
prema-rasa-niryasa karite asvadana/
raga-marga bhakti loke karite pracarana



rasika-sekhara krsna parama-karuna
ei dui hetu haite icchara udgama

The Lord's desire to appear was born from two reasons: He wanted to taste prem rasa niryasa (the sweet essence of love of God) and He wanted to propagate rag marg bhakti in the world. Thus He is known as the most merciful of all.


vrajera nirmala raga suni' bhakta-gana
raga-marge bhaje yena chadi' dharma-karma

.
Then, by hearing about the pure love of of Vraja, devotees will worship me on the path of rag marg , leaving all rituals of religiosity and fruitive activity.


Why not vaidhi sadhan ?
i)Madhy lila chapter 8: raganuga-marge tanre bhaje yei jana/
sei-jana paya vraje vrajendra-nandan
(If one worships the Lord on raganuga marg, he enjoys the favour of Vrajendra-nandana)
ii)Madhy lila chapter 8: gopi-anugatya vina aisvarya-jnane
bhajileha nahi paya vrajendra-nandane
(If due to aiswarya jnyan one does not follow in the footsteps of the gopis( rag bhakti), he cannot enjoys the favour of Vrajendra-nandana even though he continues his sadhan-bhajan)
iii)Madhy lila chapter 8: ‘anghri-padma-sudha'ya kahe 'krsna-sangananda'
vidhi-marge na paiye vraje krsna-chandra
(The word 'anghri-padma-sudha' means 'associating intimately with Krisna.'. One cannot have vraje krisna-chandra by serving on vaidhi marg.)


iv)Madhya lila chapter 20: maya-mugdha jivera nahi svatah krsna-jnana
jivere krpaya kaila krisna veda-puran
(The maya-mugdha jiva can not have krisna-jnyan by his own effort. So, out of kripa, Lord Krisna compiled ved-puran.)


v) Madhya lila chapter 24: raga-bhaktye vraje svayam-bhagavane paya
vidhi-bhaktye parsada-dehe vaikunthete yaya
(Rag bhakta attains the abode of swayang bhagaban sri krishna. But vidhi-bhakta goes to vaikunthete)

uttam
18 February 2012, 08:08 PM
Dear anirvan , ( this is continuation of previous message)
So if you think you had already made the madhur bhava as your goal, rethink about it as with slightest of Ego, you are disqualified for it.
I am in the process to attain my goal i.e. sri Krishna seva through raganuga bhakti marg. So don’t worry. Sri chaitanya is param dayalu and I am sure that with his kripa and vaishnab kripa I shall overcome not only ego but all the blockeds in my way.
What I feel Grames is true vaishnav
It is your prerogative to decide who is true vaishnab and who is false . But I would request you to read the messages of grames to me in this thread where I feel Mr grames is not kind enough towards me in his selection of words. At the same time I feel I do not require your certificate whether I am a true vaishnab or not.
Chaitanya mahaprabhu is purna avtar of SriRadha-krishna .Even comparing him to madhvacharya is insult to Mahaprabhu.
Madhava is bhakta,Mahaprabhu is Bhagban,he came to correct,rectify and make his dear bhakta complete.All discussions ends then and there.
You should offer this peace of learned views to grames because he wants to establish that Mahaprabhu belogs to Madhva sampradaya and I do not agree with him.I also like to point out that the whole gaudiya math family including iskon is at par with grames’s view . So discussion will continue.
A true seeker and bhakta will never dis-disillusioned himself with such shabda ki mayajaal(web of illusion of words). how far a bird can fly will know that far.This has created so many sampradaya.
I am unable to understand this para. I would like to mention that If sri Krishna wishes bird may fly into space also where satellites run.
Above all , I do not think it is wise on the part of a learned man having great wisdom to impart advice on his own to a unknown person. Every body is free to make comment on specific issue only.
I am sorry I am not expert in using computer. I request you to do favor to me by reading the message with some extra efforts.

anirvan
20 February 2012, 06:13 AM
[QUOTE=uttam;79072]What I feel Grames is true vaishnav[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
It is your prerogative to decide who is true vaishnab and who is false . But I would request you to read the messages of grames to me in this thread where I feel Mr grames is not kind enough towards me in his selection of words. At the same time I feel I do not require your certificate whether I am a true vaishnab or not.


Sorry Uttam,I am nobody to certify to anybody.but why you are getting agitated so soon.As a satirtha,a vaishnav,i just wanted to point you the vaishnav-apradha you may be committing.A true vaishnava never will hurt anybody how ignorant/stupid the other person may be,and will always avoid ista/guru,seva and vaishnava aparadha at any cost.My criticising to you is only a symbol of love and respect to a fellow vaishnava.nothing else.knowing all philosophy,knowing the best/most approprate path/dharama is not important for SriKrishna.he only ask for truest love,saranagati and honesty.Even if you follow a idiotic vaishnava guru,but if your love is true,Srikrishna will himself guide to the highest path.Its un-necessary to argue which is good or best.

For the second part,i just wanted to highlight the teaching of Advita(as per you is mayavada) ------

"Ichha matram avidya "!

Even a thought if arising in your mind,is a sure sign of Avidya=maya.the more you excess or irrelevant you study/or engaged other than your chosen sadhna,you will be bound to maya more and more.its like a vicious network of web.even good/sattvika samskar is maya,illusion which will keeps you away from lord.
Harekrishna

sm78
20 February 2012, 11:24 AM
[QUOTE]

....but why you are getting agitated so soon

....you the vaishnav-apradha you may be committing.

.....My criticising to you is only a symbol of love and respect to a fellow vaishnava.nothing else.

Since you had nothing to offer on Uttam's post wouldn't it be better to respectfully stay away than getting such personal in such condescending manner?

It is clear that uttam has put significant amount of time and effort to frame his positions challenging gaudiya matha propaganda. If you or other objectors don't have any material or logic to refute him (as is amply clear in this thread to any neutral reader), at least you can bid adeu to the debate rather than being condescending in the above fashion. I don't see any basis of your statements apart from dislike for being proven wrong. I must applaud uttam for being so patient with such unnecessary statements.

anirvan
21 February 2012, 01:47 AM
[QUOTE=anirvan;79106]

Since you had nothing to offer on Uttam's post wouldn't it be better to respectfully stay away than getting such personal .

It is clear that uttam has put significant amount of time and effort to frame his positions challenging gaudiya matha propaganda. I don't see any basis of your statements apart from dislike for being proven wrong. I must applaud uttam for being so patient with such unnecessary statements.



dEAR SM78, i have seen lots of your posts and i can expect such accusation from you.some peoples like debate or more precisely arguments to proving wrong and can become arrogant.its because they are biased to one or another side of a topic.Its only shows their ego of learning.

But few peoples like me are seeker of wisdom and dont want to prove anybody wrong by patiently collecting informations or references witha fighting attitude.I can clearly see the futility in trying and proving someone who is brainwashed with fundamentalistic dualistic views.Only a rational mind willing to learn and know truth and with some spiritual realization is a candidate who will accept and gain from a healthy debate.

Thats the reason i didn"t wanted to indulge into the argument more and same time didn"t wanted to hurt him either,but encourage a fellow seeker.
I am not here to create relationship and being personal.But same time its not my virtue to hurt anybody even in my wildest dream.

But i am sure you can"t understand my stand point as you are miles way different from me.

Pranam

jopmala
21 February 2012, 06:00 AM
Heloow my fellow respected members….

HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA ,KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE
HARE RAMA HARE RAMA ,RAMA RAMA HARE HARE
Dear anirban
How u can say such things like dis…..wthout enough evidence…. Mr uttam is quite right in his knowledgeable thread…….i welcm him..to spread more Vedanta like dis…..
Dear anirban give d proper meaning of ‘advita’ than I will back to u….thnx…
HARE KRISHNA

uttam
21 February 2012, 09:26 PM
Dear anirban,
Thanks for your comments but the fact is that I am not at all agitated.. I think I have not posted such hurting words in my message that it will turn into vaishnab apradh rather I felt very much hurt at grams’s message which I have conveyed to him earlier. But these are all part of a debate I never mind that. I do not think I have forgotten what is important for sri Krishna and what he asks for but I am enjoying your advice about the ABCD of vaishnab dharma since you are in the habit of imparting advice to everybody .I quote from your message “knowing all philosophy,knowing the best/most approprate path/dharama is not important for SriKrishna.he only ask for truest love,saranagati and honesty.Even if you follow a idiotic vaishnava guru,but if your love is true,Srikrishna will himself guide to the highest path.Its un-necessary to argue which is good or best.” If it is so, May I know why you become a vaishnab ? There are so many lines for spititual realization. Since knowing all philosophy,knowing the best/most appropriate path/dharama is not important for SriKrishna and it is un necessary to argue which is good or best ,you could have gone to sai baba of Anddhra or Ram Krishna Mission or Brhma Kumaries and so many . Would you please explain why you have choosen to be vaishnab ? why you mislead people ? Is it so because you have desired to lift the burden( sabka thika ) of placing people to the right direction for attaining their spiritual goal ? I put my strong objection to your phrase “a idiotic vaishnava guru”. It is unthinkable for me that a vaishnab guru can be a idiot . This is the true case of vaishnab apradh committed by you. Again you deliver a piece of advice on mayabad (!) instead of making comments on the issue .Thanks for that because you are in the habit of under estimate everybody before you ! Your wisdom, your learned advice OK but what I really want from you is answers/views to the questions I put before you.. If you know the answer, please share . your wise coments will make the issue more acceptable to everybody. Don’t hide yourself at the back of true seeker of wisdom.


I want to make comments on your reaction to sm78 because you have refered to me in a very unacceptable way. You talk of love and respect in the front being satirtha vaishnab and stab with words in the back. You have made some un parliamentory words towards me . These are Arrogant, biased ,ego of learning, brainwashed with fundamentalistic dualistic views etc and on the other hand you have made your potrait as a seeker of wisdom, a rational mind willing to learn and know truth and with some spiritual realization, and lastly “its not my virtue to hurt anybody even in my wildest dream”. Baa ! what a idea ! Does it not seem to you that you have hurt a fellow vaishnab now ? Does it not seem to you that you are agitated so soon ? Does it not seem to you that it reflects your ego ? I don’t think you will say ‘yes’ Here I would like to state my position in brief with regards to the ongoing debate .First of all, I like to clear that I am neither your enemy nor that of iskon. I have never advised you to change your belief. During the course of my journey towards mahaprabhu's gaudiya vaishnabism , I have come to understand that what iskon/gaudiya math is preaching about sri chaitanya mahaprabhu’s vaishnab dharma is not in the direction it should be ( as we see how iskon/gaudiya math has made Mayapur as Mahaprabhu’s birth place instead of Nabadwip which I consider a wrong direction ) and keeping in mind the kind of commercialization of gaudiya vaishnabism by iskon/gaudiya math( it is my own feeling and I have the right to feel and express views on my feelings), I have decided to join this forum to present the correct interpretation of Mahaprabhu’s gaudiya vaishnabism (according to my understanding )through debate with interested people. Now you people instead of making comments on issues I raise begin to attack personally. Why do you under estimate people by thinking that they will be misled by my opinion. To you, the people are fool and I shall drive them away to face serious consequesces by my opinion .I am quoting from grams’s and your’s message which will reflect your frustration.

Grames in his first message to me :- “please refrain from hatred and a vaishnava do not have any jealously towards another vaishnava or attempts spreading misinformed information which will cause doubt in the mind of new practitioners”

Your’s :- “some peoples like debate or more precisely arguments to proving wrong and can become arrogant.its because they are biased to one or another side of a topic.Its only shows their ego of learning.”

“dont want to prove anybody wrong by patiently collecting informations or references witha fighting attitude.I can clearly see the futility in trying and proving someone who is brainwashed with fundamentalistic dualistic views.Only a rational mind willing to learn and know truth and with some spiritual realization.”

My question is why do n’t you see how iskon/gaudiya math has brainwashed so many innocent people to follow them ? Do I not have the right to express my views ? why are you making so much hue and cry ? Let people enjoy our arguments and decide themselves who are busy to brainwash. I again request you to counter my views , my questions by a acceptable arguments and establish the truth. This forum is for debate. So let us debate only and little personal attack is ok which I think is a part of debate .Actually I fond of rasa . A little personal attack will make our debate spicy and more enjoyable. Therefore, Instead of being so serious on being personal , if we debate various vaishnab related issues with a free mind, our own conception will be perfect and truth will prevail.So Forget and forgive and let us debate again. Thank you.

sm78
21 February 2012, 11:41 PM
[QUOTE]
But few peoples like me are seeker of wisdom and dont want to prove anybody wrong by patiently collecting informations or references witha fighting attitude.I can clearly see the futility in trying and proving someone who is brainwashed with fundamentalistic dualistic views.Only a rational mind willing to learn and know truth and with some spiritual realization is a candidate who will accept and gain from a healthy debate.

Thats the reason i didn"t wanted to indulge into the argument more and same time didn"t wanted to hurt him either,but encourage a fellow seeker.

I am not here to create relationship and being personal.But same time its not my virtue to hurt anybody even in my wildest dream.

But i am sure you can"t understand my stand point as you are miles way different from me.

Pranam

Mr Uttam has given a lengthy reply, I'll on the other hand request you to read and re-read your own reply. You being a doctor from aiims and presumably a very intelligent person should understand the irony of your claims in your own statements after thinking for sometime.

Using gentle words, always addressing people with appropriate titles, avoiding use of direct references, harsh words and keeping out of sticky discussions, and not expressing any strong opinion are not signs of being ego less or having less ego. On contrary these can (meaning I am not saying they necessarily are) be very sinister signs since one never knows what the person stands for.

Presuming oneself to be above someone and talking down in a condescending manner about their personal faults is worst egoistic behavior in my book.

If you were debating with Uttam it would have at least proven that you were taking his words seriously, at least giving him some serious attention & time to what he has to say, before talking to him. You did none of that and came down with a bunch of personal suggestions like a guru to his shisya. And if you had even read the thread carefully it is Uttam who has been most reserved with words and have presented his case in most patient and humble manner only to be ignored and given personal advice by you, OR being made to play "merry-go-round" by the other poster.

I think enough has been said. I'll also request Uttam ji refrain from posting on this thread unless he thinks valid debate can be still carried out with Grames and others. I am sure non-iskoites and non-gaudiya math or any neutral person will find Uttam ji's posts very intriguing in developing his or her understanding further - so that service has been rendered already.

devotee
22 February 2012, 01:23 AM
Good advice, SM78 ! :)

OM

anirvan
22 February 2012, 01:57 AM
[QUOTE=uttam;79230]b
but I am enjoying your advice about the ABCD of vaishnab dharma since you are in the habit of imparting advice to everybody .


Absolutely baseless allegation.In fact i am against it always as i perfectly realized that "behaving guru without being a guru is the death sign in spiritual path.And its the most deceptive way of maya to estrange a sadhaka from his goal.


Would you please explain why you have choosen to be vaishnab ? why you mislead people ? Is it so because you have desired to lift the burden( sabka thika ) of placing people to the right direction for attaining their spiritual goal ?

Already answered above.I have never choosen to be a vaishnab,in fact i always been a rationalist and seeker of truth.In fact I was more intended in advita vaedanta.only when rationally i could relate the advita with achintyabhedabheda,i turned into vaisnab belief. Second reason is my real self is bhakti-pradhan,I have ever felt the desire to love to infinite level.but always was wandering to whom???when i realized the subject of my love,i realized my path and goal of life: that is love and serve krishna,nothing else.


I put my strong objection to your phrase “a idiotic vaishnava guru”. It is unthinkable for me that a vaishnab guru can be a idiot . This is the true case of vaishnab apradh committed by you.

Its not aimed at any vausnab guru,but the mali-jholi clad fake religious leader.
Vaishnab can"t be idiotic,but fake can take name of a vaishnab.




[COLOR=black][FONT=&quot]I want to make comments on your reaction to sm78 because you have refered to me in a very unacceptable way. stab with words in the back. You have made some un parliamentory words towards me . These are Arrogant, biased ,ego of learning, brainwashed with fundamentalistic dualistic views etc what a idea ! Does it not seem to you that you have hurt a fellow vaishnab now ? Does it not seem to you that you are agitated so soon ? Does it not seem to you that it reflects your ego ? I don’t think you will say ‘yes’.


Its never intended particularly against any one.Its my experience with so many such peoples,for whom i have generalized the topic.May be subconsciously i have presumed you among them.its because without any rational understanding,just hearing the name of ADVITA/SHANKARA,they will prepare to kill shankaracharya as if he was a criminal/adharmi/mlechha??? Simply they are not ready to hear beyond that.So its doesn"t reflect my ego,but my ANGER AND IRRITATION towards their brainwashed un-rationalistic thought.


Now you people instead of making comments on issues I raise begin to attack personally. Why do you under estimate people by thinking that they will be misled by my opinion.
Do I not have the right to express my views ? why are you making so much hue and cry ?

I have never objected about the question you have raised nor I attacked personal.I was regularly reading you post and in fact after reading your such informative posts,i have started learning all those books related to vaishnab history and sampradaya. I juts intervened inthe topic to raise the few rhetoric you posted to Grames.till the i was waiting the appropriate time to post my view point.

I hope all the misunderstanding should be resolved after my above explanation.I will come with the post regarding the original topic.

HAREKRISHNA

anirvan
22 February 2012, 02:04 AM
[QUOTE=sm78;79234][QUOTE=anirvan;79172]
Using gentle words, always addressing people with appropriate titles, avoiding use of direct references, harsh words and keeping out of sticky discussions, and not expressing any strong opinion are not signs of being ego less or having less ego. On contrary these can (meaning I am not saying they necessarily are) be very sinister signs since one never knows what the person stands for.
Presuming oneself to be above someone and talking down in a condescending manner about their personal faults is worst egoistic behavior in my book.



Suggestion accepted.May be you are true.I will introspect over it.everybody is existing because of ego. Nobodies know when and how it become so expressive to rub with the boundaries of others.Thank you!One model code of conduct thread should be initiated and when one exceed the line,everybody should attack him to refrain from doing so.


Pranam

jopmala
22 February 2012, 02:25 AM
well said dear uttam......
and nice piece of advice frm sm78 thnx
HARE KRISHNA:)

grames
22 February 2012, 02:44 AM
Dear SM

So in the name of policing etc. what is that you are doing in this thread? What is your contribution??

Look at thySelf!

Hare Krshna!

grames
22 February 2012, 04:58 AM
Dear Uttam.,

For your age and vaishnava faith especially the desire to glorify Shri Chaitanya, i have lot of respect and admiration but please do not take the position of you being "perfect" and never stated anything "unparlimentary" and hurt anybody by posting series of allegations against Gaudiyas ( though grouping all of them under the "Gaudiya Math" label). It is not sincere and it is not gentleman-ship in first place. If my response to your allegations hurt you, please remember that your allegations itself is very painful to bear and so why a response is given with out worried about what kind of pain it is going to cause you. ( I am not a Buddha or MahaVeer to worry about your peace alone)

Here are some of the points you have to first substantiate with proper, established proof rather than mere allegations.

1. Gaudiya Math is establishment of Sri Saraswati Thakura and blaming everything under this label does not establish the "context" properly.

2. Whether you accept, acknowledge or even admire the fact that, for Saraswati Thakur, Shri Bhakthi Vinoda is not just a father but a Guru. In the spiritual lineage, the Guru Sishya relationship has the utmost importance than their poorvashrama connection. ( A Guru without discipline to lead others is no longer a guru, and SBV's guru has known as "fallen" and you don't require any reminder about them as i believe you know his smoking habits and other non-spritual habits - SBV though a householder was disciplined and more devout than anyone during his time and this is the fact when you go read the frustration of the so called "other" followers of Shri Chaitanya and their routing from SBV's strong disciplined practice of Bhakthi. This is still the fact why people like you are still assuming SBV is wrong, biased but whatever you follow is not. Have you ever got a chance to read SBV's devotional messages and books and his following of Shri Chaitanya? If Mayapur issue has to be settled, looking at this devotion, dedication and sincerity and grand desire and successful accomplishment on spreading the glory of Shri Chaitanya, i will be biased to settle with Mayapur as the true birthplace of Shri Chaitanya as there is no other "authentic" source which will settle this issue comfortably satisfying all. This is also an acceptable pramana if and only if you know what "Pramana Lakshna" means.

3. Assuming the Gaudiya Math started from Shri Baladeva Vidya Bhushana itself is wrong assumption. Whatever is your following of Shri Chaitanya, (Which you havent stated yet and keeping as a secret), you at some point have to understand the reasons behind your following itself when you ask the questions, Why Krsna Prema is not attractive to everyone, why there are rich and poor people, why there are different Bhavas, Why someone always suffer, why someone is always happy etc. If your faith gives you an idea that, all soul are attracted to Krshna equally, then you have to prove it from any estabilished principle or philosophy. And most importantly, why the so called "Krshna Premis" fall and abuse woman, smoke pots and proclaim they are incarnations, Shaki's and manjaris?? Create division among vaishnavas, do not honor other vaishnavas and do everything lethal to demolish the practice where Shri Krshna is always glorified ( Aren't these all signs of demonic rather than Vaishnavas??) Explain please.

4. When you accuse, you have to provide the alternative substantial proof for the Truth and so far in your case, you haven't done that yet. Even this Mayapur issue cannot be settled to fulfill your taste and wish, and every party has their own wisdom, devotion and enough knowledge to prove their identified location as Birthplace of Shri Chaitanya. But aren't you seeing the dry debate and waste of energy debating on a 'lat long' degree precision about so called "Birthplace"?? Have you ever asked what is the total area of Vrndavan?? Is it like Shri Krshna ascends to a particular 'lat long' and thus that is the only point of interest on earth which we MUST celebrate as His Birthplace?? For information sake, can you disclose the audience of this thread the difference in miles between the nine islands and mayapur?? It will be more useful in case you want some reasonable understanding of what is debated and blown out of proportion here.

5. Connecting this parampara to Shri Madhva is not done by the Gaudiya Math but at least from the time of Shri Bala Deva. No one raised questions about this lineage connection until the Gaudiya math become very successful and popular and if you can provide evidences of this being an issue before Gaudiya math success, i will be delighted to know them and also remember, what is not said is not always false. Since no Goswami or Sishya's compositions talked about this parampara connection before Shri BalaDeva, doesn't mean it cannot be true (and it is not Gaudiya Math's idea that Four Sampradaya are the only authentic as you know from own excerpt that, BVB himself didn't accept the Sri Sampradaya disciples under his sampradaya for the sincerity of keeping authenticity of sampradayas as true and intact.)

6. The Shri Madhva relationship did not start from Shri Chaitanya as you think ( but all of the sudden you say, what Sishya started, the Bagavan completed etc. which is very much against your propaganda here - which simply means the Bagavan is connected to the Sisya on the philosophical platform level). You cannot justify or find reasons why Shri Chaitanya accepted someone as His guru and it is not in your rational juridiction. The fact which you do not know or ignorant about is that, with in Madhva school, the Dasa Koota is all about BhavaVrti and it is very much possible that the Bhava School matured in this lineage of DasaKoota. ( This is the reason why we do not find the connection to AstaMata seers from the listed Gaudiya Parampara seers. BNK Sharma gives certain proof in this connection and you should purchase the "History of Dvaita School of Vedanta" for this). But at least for Shri Gauranga followers, the accepted guru parampara cannot be questioned unless there is another one in place. Or Prove that Shri Lakshmipathi Thirta has no connection with the other two 'Puri's conclusively and not controversially because you want to create controvery. First option is not possible as these names are stated clearly in the CC and other Shri Chaitanya biographies accepted by all parties.

7. If you do not have any association with any south Indian traditional vaishnavaism, you will not understand the historical VedaVada and what happens before and after such Vada. "Puri" alone cannot identify one to certain parampara and there are lot of "Tirta' who are not even vaishnavas. Doubts are only in the mind of people who wants to seek the smell and color of individual in the parampara chain but not in the mind of priya devotees who see their devotion, knowledge and attachment to the service of Lord as the connecting thread in the parampara.

8. Shri Chaitanya is a special case where He can belong to any parampara as He is the originator of all. Connecting Him to Shri Madhva parampara is technically not incorrect in first place ( you have not given any alternative to this so far)

9. You asked why He is not connected to Sri Sampradaya and it is dry question as you know already very well from whom Shri Chaitanya took Diksha and Shiksha ( Shiksha is again subtle as He requires no Shiksha at all - from anyone but on the avatara time He does accepts Guru and Shiksha.) So asking such question only makes you look weak and insincere and polarized towards certain unproven and unacceptable faith which is not vaishnava. Same time, one of the greatest Goswami of Vrndavana is actually connected to Sri Sampradaya and if you have information, please identify that Goswami and then understand that, Vaishnava umbrella is not like independent disconnected zone but a very well theistic connected path with ONLY ONE destination.

10. I asked you about Mukthi and your response is either not there or never clear what Mukthi itself means. ( Just stating four types of Mukthi is not enough) The neophytic vaishnava only assumes Mukthi in terms of getting release but no other work after that. Shri Madhva school gives clear details of what happens when Bhakthi is maturing and BSB of Shri Madhva has all the details. ( Give yourself a chance to read and understand first if you have time). If you do not know one philosophy to full extend, you cannot copy paste some web content posted by some misinformed people as some authentic accuse. ( So why i told earlier that i am surprised that this kind of accusations comes from a Non Madhva - for Madhvas the answers are different btw)

So, my response so far and objections everything is not for you as a person but for your posted content here. At an individual level, i will continue to have respect for you regardless of what you gonna say here further and i strongly agree with Shri Madhva that every individual is unique and different from each other always. This is in fact the subtle truth why not all the soul experience the same Bhava with same strength towards Shri Bhagawan and same time no one is superior or inferior in Vrndava regardless of their bhava based relationship with Shri Krshna.

Hare Krshna!

uttam
23 February 2012, 01:24 PM
Dear grames,
This is in response to your message dated 17/2/2012. parawise reply. But I like to say that this part is not related to my context. How ever I shall reply.
1) first of all I would say you have started ridiculing . In your very first message you have written ,I quote “It is very subtle and i don't expect you to understand it fully but i expect you to at least know the fact that …….” . I wondered what made you to assess my understating in such a manner in your very first response. Since then and reminder issued by you in other messages from to time I have taken it granted that your subtle theory is nothing but to degrade my understanding. otherwise how you can make comment on subtle issues .I do not understand what is the necessity of reminding some thing as subtle on your part. what is subtle is subtle. The man before you may have the capacity to understand whether any given subject is subtle or not .you should not judge one's understanding in such rude manner.I personally believe that subtle is relative word.It is not necessary that what is subtle for you may be subtle for me also. I have already said all the subtle issues have been discussed in various forums. every body having some interest can get the taste of every subtle issues.OK.
2) About the forms of sri Krishna , I quote some texts from Sri chaitanya charitamrita :

Param iswar Krishna swayam bhagaban :- (Madhy lila -21Chapter)
Tate bada, tanra sama keha nahi ana

( Meaning : Sri Krishna is the supreme personality of godhead ; therefore he is the greatest of all. No one is equal to him, nor is anyone greater than him)

Brahma Vishnu Har, ---- ei srstyadi-iswara :- (Madhy lila -21Chapter)
Tine ajnakari krishnera, Krishna ---adhiswara

( Meaning : The primary predominating iswaras of this creation are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva . Nonetheless, they simply carry out the orders of Krishna , who is the master of them all.)

Brahma shiv agyakari bhakta avatar :- (Madhy lila -20Chapter)
Palanarthe vishne-krishnera swarupa aakar

( Meaning : brahma ,shiva are his bhakta avatar and carry out the orders of sri Krishna whereas Vishnu is his swarup aakar whose duty is palan-poshan

Bhakta-bhede rati-bheda pancha prakara :- (Madhy-19 chapter)
Santa rati dasya rati sakhya rati ara
Vatsalya rati madhura rati—ei pancha vibheda
Rati bhede Krishna bhakti –rase pancha bheda

( Meaning : According to devotee, attachment falls within the five categories of rati like santya rati, dasya rati, sakhya rati, vatsalya rati and madhura rati. This five types of rati arise from the devotee’s different attachements to sri Krishna .The transcendental mellows derived from devotional service are also of five varities.)

Krishna praptira upaya bahu vidha haya :- ( Madhya-8)
Krishna prapti taratamya bahuta achaya

( Meaning : There are various ways and means for attaining the favour of Krishna. All those ways and means should be considered from the point of view of comparative importance )


Kintu yar yei bhav sei sarvottama :- (Madhy-8 chapter)
Tatastha haiya vicharile, ache tara-tama

( Meaning : What ever bhava a devotee has with Sri Krishna is the best for him but when the bhavas are viewed from a neutral position, there are difference of degree of love according to the bhavas .)

Gunadhikye swadadhikya bade prati rase :- (Madhy-8 chapter)
Santya dasya sakhya vatsalyera guna madhurete baise

( Meaning : As the qualities (guna) increase, so the taste also increases in each and every rasa. Hence the qualities found in santy,dasya,sakhya and vatsalya rasa are all manifest in madhurya rasa.)

Gopu anugati vina aishaurya jnyane :- (Madhy-8 chapter)
Vajileho nahi paya brajendra nandane

( Meaning : if we practice without following gopi ( gopi anugati) by dint of aishouya jnyan, we shall not get krishn’s favour.So Ramanand Rai says Kanta prema sarvosadhyasar.)

Ye madhurya urdhva ana, nahi yar samana :-(Madhy-21 chapter)
Paravyome swarupera gane
Yenho saba-avatari, parabyoma-adhikari
E madjurya nahi Narayane

( Meaning : The madhurya of sri Krishna enjoyed by gopies is unparalleled. Nothing is equal to or greater than such madhurya .Even the paravyoma adhikari ,Narayana do not possess such maghurya. Indeed none of the avataras of Krishna upto Narayana possess such madhurya )


Narayana haite krishner asadharana guna :- (Madhy-9 chapter)
Ataeva lakshmira krishne trishna anukhsana

( Meaning : Krishna possess extraordinary qualities which Narayana does not ,so goddess Lakshmi devi always desires the company of sri Krishna)

Swayam bhagavan Krishna hare lakshmira mana: (Madhy-9 chapter)
Gopikara mana harite nare Narayana

( Meaning : Swayam bhagavan Krishna attracts goddess lakshmi devi but Narayan can not attract the minds of gopies.)

Chatur-bhuj murthi dekhiya gopi-ganera aage (Madhy-9 chapter)
Sei krishne gopikara nahe aurage

( Meaning : Although Krishna assumed the four armed form of Narayana, he could not attract the attention of the gopies in ecstatic love )

Lastly. Vaishnaber madhye Ram upasak sab :- (Madhy-9 chapter)
Keha tattvabadi keha haya sri vaishnaba

(Meaning : At the time ,all the south Indian vaishnabs used to worship Lord Ram. Some of them were tattvabadia and some were sri vaishnab)

Sei saba vaishnab mahaprabhura darsane :-(Madhy-9 chapter)
Krishna upasam haila loiya Krishna name

( Meaning : when those vaishnabs met mahaprabhu, they became Krishna bhakta and began to do Krishna nama sankirtana )

I think I have tried my best within the scope of what ever I learnt from my chaitanya faith to make you understand the subtle philosophy of sri chaitanya to some extent. See, you can not treat the flower offered on lotus feet of sri krishna and affixed on back hair of a young lady for fashion as same. Another example. We all have a love-relationship with our parents but do you follow the nature and extent of our love towards our parents and viceversa ? suppose in my case, I love my father and he also loves me but think the nature of love between us and also extent thereof (vatsalya). Again we have servant in our house. His love towards my father and my father’s love towards his servant ( dasya). notice the nature and extent of love. Then again my father’s friends love towards him and his love towards friends ( sakhya). But the nature of love and the extent of love between my father and my mother is very very much different from all these above relations (madhur). so due to difference in nature of love and extent of love towards my father , his swarup is different to us. I mean what I see in my father does not match with what my mother sees in him.his anger, his happiness, his feelings vary to each one of us differently. the relation of love can not exist without having rasa.therefore, how much we are near to our father from the point of view of love to him will determine his impression to us. so although he is one but he is different to each one of us when the question of nearness from the point of view of prema arises.I may be near to my father but not as much as my mother to him.being same, my father is different to me and to my mother from the point of view of prema for him .
To speak the truth does not mean to ridicule. BVB shifted his faith from tattvabad to chaitanya. Why ? definitely he was missing something there with tattvabadies.that does not mean that he disregarded tattvabad. May be he did an experiment by establishing a link between his earlier philosophy (tattvabad) and chaitany’s vaishnab dharma . you have notice that during that period there was no such remarkable gaudiya vaishnab personality in brindavan to challange his experiment , his guru viswanath chakraborty was too old and has the blessings on BVB. BVB's understanding is very high so he shifted the faith so quickly and so easily. I just express my viewes.(so I say may be).I do not doubt his krishna bhakti at all, even I do not dare to think so. But then I can not accept his theory of mahaprabhu being a part of madhva sampradaya. I could have accepted it if his predecessors goswamis did mention in their writings.

uttam
24 February 2012, 11:55 PM
Dear grames,

I am not against Gaudiyas, I am against Gaudiya Math and the family .Please make sure from your subtle knowledge on Gaudiya vaishnabism that the people of Nabadwip/Nadia area were known as Gaudiya for long before Gaudiya Math organisation established. The family took the name “Gaudiya” only to take the advantage of sri chaitanya’s vaishnab dharma by equating artificially them with the word Gaudiya vaishnabism. (Just eye wash /ear wash) I do not think those people are intelligent who does not even make a difference between Gaudiya vaishnab and Gaudiya Math/Mission vaishnab. If you were Buddha or Mahaveer or else, It would not have any impact on me.You may spell anything you like against or for me . I will not mind.
Every time you jump from one context to another and want proof from me but I think it is now your turn to prove my thread incorrect. I have presented the differences between them and claimed that due to so many differences Mahaprabhu should not belong to Madhva samparadaya. You have to prove me wrong.
Now I offer parawise reply against your response.

1. I do not blame them to establish my context properly. I blame them for misleading innocent krishna-loving people.

2. I do not accept, acknowledge and even admire SBV or SVSS. I want to know from you who has proved that SVB’s guru was fallen? Do you know Sri chaitanya Mahaprabhu use to take some kind of mouth freshner after having meal etc? will you consider mahaprabhu “fallen” for this act? Do you know how Nityananda probhu used to live his life ? Do you dare to call him “fallen” ?Can sishya decide whether his guru is fallen or not? You should know that SVB was rejected by his guru due to SVB’s false propaganda about Mahaprabhu’s birth place.! There are many more stories about father-son ‘s false and fabrication of old vaishnab literature. A good sishya will never dare to judge his guru. This is against parampara. Try to revive your memory if you have ever read CC carefully what Mahaprabhu said When other gaudiyas made some allegations aginst Nityananda prabhu regarding his life style. How so ever successful he was and how so ever devotion, dedication and sincerity etc he had, to glorify sri chaitanya, his false and fabricated attempt to establish Mayapur as Mahaprabhu’s birth place instead of Nabadwip will be marked a black chapter in the history of Gaudiya vaishnab tradition. How many authentic sources of proof you need to satisfy that Mayapur is not Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s birth place? Who has told you there is no such authentic source to prove about the place where Mahaprabhu was born?

3. I can not remember when I have assumed Gaudiya Math started from Baladev . Just tell me how even after following so disciplined practice of bhakti , incidents you mention take place in ISKON temple?. Are the cases of child abuse , sexual abuse and other such crimes commited by ISKON people pending in courts of India and abroad all fabricated? I am not concerned with “your so called krishna premis” True krishna bhakta is always indifferent to the idea of rich, poor ,suffer, happy etc. I don’t understand how all souls are attracted to krishna equally ? Do you have any knowledge on the concept of sakhis and manjaris ? You always advise me to make comment after knowing the philosophy properly and not to copy paste web content.Here I shall feel happy if you are kind enough to explain the concept of sakhi’s and manjaris in full ? The Gaudiya Math has many divisions too.

4. Except a small group of people who owe allegiance to Gaudiya Math family has accepted Mayapur as mahaprabhu’s birth place .Outside your world everybody knows the truth. It is evedent that every controvery related to sri chaitanya’s gaudiya vaishnab dharma has started since SVB and his son sarawati established their Math/Mission. Before that there was no controversy . Nobody has ever heard of the names of nine islands before Narahari chakraborty’s bhakti ratnakar . I am giving the names and request you to locate places of such name in the documents of State Revenue office. These are Antardvipa, Simantadvipa,Godrumadvipa,Madhyadvipa,Koladvipa,Rtudvipa,Jahnudvipa, Modrumadvipa . Has anybody ever heard such names of places near Nabadwip/Nadia area ? I don’t know whether you have any knowledge of Bengal’s history .These places can be traced in the spiritual world of sri Narahari chakraborty. Similarly, the place Mayapur could not be traced in the revenue records before SVB appeared in the scene.SVB turns Minyapur into Mayapur using his administrative capacity.

uttam
24 February 2012, 11:58 PM
In continuation to previous message.

5. Since the relation of mahaprabhu with madhva sampradaya has not been given any place in the writing of goswami before Bala dev. It is therefore evident that the goswami did not relate themselves with madhva sampradaya. The Gaudiya vaishnab philosophy has not been establised by Baladev Vidya Bhushan. The question is why those goswami has not mentioned that their siddhanta has its root in Madhva sampradaya if it was so . How this lineage has been propagated ,can be answered by those who has brought it. Gaudiya math has been successful in its mission not due to this issue so question does not arise to provide any evidence. Being impartial for a moment , can you think what basic siddhanta of gaudiya vaishnab philosopy is to be compromised to bring mahaprabhu into the madhva sampradaya ? is it possible for gaudiya vaishnab goswamis to compromise their basic siddhanta ? Please let me know from you the siddhanta which are common to both Madhva and Gaudiya . I would like to know why it is so necessary to get mahaprabhu linked to madhva sampradaya.Is it Only to get an entry in one of the so called authorised sampradaya or else ? who will answer this ? Regarding four vaishnab sampradaya, I asked you some questions to which you have not replied yet. Please tell me who has catagorised vaishnab into four sampradaya and when such category came into effect. I want to know who is behind this idea . Who for the first time did feel that mahaphabhu must have to belong to madhva sampradaya. The great gaudiya goswamis of Vrindaban or Nabadvipa of the age before Baladev Vidya Bhushan appeared did not feel it .Have you got any answer for me?

6. I don’t think you are OK These statements are not told by me. It is anirvan who has stated sishya sarted bhagavan completed etc. In respect of Gauranga followers , how many guru parampara you have recognised as acceped . one or more ? In chaitanya charitamrita adi lila, there are so many guru parampara given.I do not recognise any connection between Puri and Thirta. You should ask this question to those who have connected them both . The root of all the controversy is Gaudiya Math. My small attemt is to address all those controversy toward its logical end. I don’t want to become an expert in madhva philosophy. I want my involvement only in chaitany charitamrita.

7/8/9. sri chaitanya’s parampara has its own entity which is not from madhva . This entity of chaitanya parampara can be seen in Kabikarnapura’s ‘Gaur-gana-uddeshya-dipika’ and ‘ chaitanya chandrodoya Natak’.Collect and read . (The sloka 6-7) is “Acharyang yashya kando ………………iha bhuvane kaschan pradurasit.” For sri chaitanya, no sampradayaik parampara is required. He has his own sri chaitanya parampara having root in Madhavendra puri.although Madhavendra puri was a Dasanami sanyashi, but was bhaktibadi and no way related to Madhva.Before I establish my view, you have to answer my question as to who categorised vaishnab into four authorised sampradya and since when this categorisation came into effect. What is the need of giving name of the greaest goswami of vrindaban who is connected sri sampradaya. He might be some one like Baladev , who might have shifted his faith from sri sampradaya to Gaudiya as Baladev did from Brahma sampradaya. This vaishnab umbrella might have been created by the deserters only.

10. As per Hindu scriptures only five types of Mukthi are considered for spiritual journey. Other than these five ,I don’t know if there is any left. But the point is in no way Mukthi can be equated with attaing krishna prem . Mahaprabhu’s raganuga bhakti marg will lead to getting krishna prem only. How so ever high philosophy you add to describe mukthi. You can not equate it with krishna prem which is the sole aim of Mahaprabhu’s raganuga bhakti ,so Mukthi is rejected by Mahaprabhu. I shall not want to discuss the subject that is rejected by mahaprabhu.Out of the five bhavas, ( rasa) only madhur bhava is regarded as the highest.I think I have to discuss this issue separately.I maintain that since there are different bhavas , so also our nearness in terms of prema to sri krishna are different as per bhavas.and only through madhur bhava , we are at the nearest of sri krishna.

Lastly I want you to prove my thread wrong by giving acceptable arguments.

uttam
25 February 2012, 06:42 PM
Dear grames,
I have shown the differences between Mahaprabhu’s Gaudiya vaishnab dharma and Madhv’s Brahma Sampradaya and claimed that due to so many basic differences like supremacy of sri krishna instead of vishnu, sri radha and gopi tattva and their prema, mukthi issue, suddha bhakti issue, varna-ashram dharma issue, madhurya-pradhan raganuga bhakti issue, achintya ved-aved tattva and many more and hence I do not accept the theory that Mahaprabhu belongs to Madhva sampradaya. Therefore, it is now your turn to prove me wrong. If you try to explain Madhv’s philosophy in the light of Mahaprabhu’ s theory, it will be a foolish attempt. So you have to explain Mahaprabhu’s Gaudiya siddhanta in the light of Madhv sampradaya ‘s theory. I just request you to give the similarities, I mean I like to know from you which Madhva siddhanta has been accepted by Mahaprabhu’s gaudiya vaishnab sampradaya for which you are claiming that Mahaprabhu belongs to Madhv’s Brahma sampradaya. I think one of the best way to prove me wrong is to verify the list of guru parampara kept in Udipi Math of Madhva sampradaya and trace any gaudiya vaishnab goswami or their guru’s name there in the list. To prove that Lakshmipathi Tirtha has any connection with the other two Puri , I request you to show the original guru parampara list kept in Udipi Math of Madhva sampradaya (with evidence to prove that the list has been obtained from udipi math because being member of gaudiya math people ,you have a inherited tendency to fabricate old ducuments). I believe you can do this very easily and prove me wrong.

uttam
28 February 2012, 12:43 PM
Dear grames
I am expecting response from you. Please read these texts from CC also.

1. eka-matra angshi Krishna angsha –avatara : ADI LILA-6 CHAP
angshi angshe dekhi jyestha-kanistha achara
( Meaning : sri Krishna is the source of all incarnations and all others are his parts or partial incarnations. We find that the whole and part behave as superior and inferior)

2. jyestha- bhave angshite haye prabhu jnyana
Kanishtha-bhave apanate bhakta –abhiman
( Meaning : He has the emotions of a superior when he considers himself the master, and he has the emotions of an inferior when he considers himself a devotee)

3) krishne samye nahe tanra madhurya aswadana
Bhakta bhave kare tanra madhurya charvana
( Meaning : Madhurya of sri Krishna can not tasted by those who consider themselves equal to him. It is to be tasted only through the sentiment of servitude)

grames
01 June 2012, 04:00 AM
Dear Uttam.,

Reading this thread after long and sorry for the disconnect...

After reading this message, i believe you went back to Square one. But i want to appreciate and acknowledge that your CC excerpts are very sublime and wonderful. Wish and expect you to understand the greatness of BVB, who in fact actually give you the meaning and understanding the subtle differences and difference in the attachment of various jiva to Krshna and thus having different degrees of Bhava. I think i have explained that already.

This is not what BVB was missing and the Poorna Anubhava of Krshna prema cannot be mere sentimental. This is a ridiculous position of new age so called vaishnavas where they strongly believe, Surrender to God means just a sentimental attachment. I do not think you are interested to know or understand the greatness of BVB as well as he being the link between Bhava school which needed the vedantic basis and with out which, it has no place in the Indian Vaishnava system.

With out the knowledge of TattvaVada, it will be offensive to read certain CC verses and do not just overrun such verses. Example of Shri being desirous of Krshna! With out BVB, there is no smooth rendition of CC and with out vaishnava principles from four sampradayas, Gaudiyas will have nothing to offer in a spiritual sweet manner to the followers. Do not ever forget that this fact is acknowledged by Shri Chaitanya Himself. (as He accepts principles from four sampradayas). You want your personal desire (ista) to be fulfilled for whatever reasons.. but i am giving utmost respect to this great devotee of Lord Shri BVB and i am sure we are never going to reconcile except stating our facts for faith.

For me, BVB is the crucial link and with out his seva for Shri Chaitanya, none of the sincere followers/devotees can understand Shri Chaitanya properly and there is no questions of any nivartti and forget about Bhava Vrttis.

Hare Krshna!

grames
01 June 2012, 04:16 AM
Dear Uttam.,

Your first point is the point i am stressing for sometime...

Shri Mahaprabu does not belong to Any Sampradaya but He is the originator of all. ( You can never acknowledge this until unless you understand and have faith that Shri Mahaprabhu is Shri Krshna Himself). So, seeking some allegiance to any Parampara for Shri Mahaprabhu is not going to yield us any result. This allegiance to a vendantic prampara is not to make Shri Chaitanya authentic but to establish the truth that, what Shri Chaitanya taught is in fact Vedantic and authentic. I don't want to continue any further arguments on this line as i do not see any points coming from you in this regard.

For the second point, i am not sure if you have learnt everything that GV Math teaches and i would like to know what is that you have learnt and from whom. That will help me to discuss further with you whether your understanding and your background information has truth and also allow me and like minded to differentiate truth from lies. So, do state your position and mere accuse is not enough.

For the third point, Guru Lakshna and Daiva Lakshna are ocean different and with out proper learning and understanding you cannot make proper judgments. If Shri Chaitanya or Shri Nityananda did something, as an insignificant jiva you cannot immitate ( this is the reason why there are some followers branded as "imitators") and justify your actions. A fallen soul is fallen regardless of his status and the purpose behind such fall is not in my power to understand or explain. In KaliYug, the possibilities of Guru falling is not a surprise or shock and rejecting such fallen Guru is symptom of your sincerity towards Lord. ( If you want to argue on this again, this is my last point).

You are arguing like you were ruling the villages in the Chaitanya Era. You haven't provided any facts so far but just accusations just to let u know. Here is one research paper on the Mayapur being the birthplace. If you want to refute with facts, history and evidences.. you are most welcome..

http://gosai.com/writings/a-study-for-sri-chaitanyas-birthplace

Hare Krsna!

grames
01 June 2012, 04:24 AM
Do you know what is Tattva Beda and RasaBeda?

I am not here to prove you wrong....

I am sharing what i know and understood and in my faith and belief, Shri Chaitanya's teaching is vedantic and not sure how is it for you. Shri Chaitanya can be explained only on the basis of four vaishnava sampradaya principles and otherwise, His teachings will be gross! Shri Madhva's Pancha Beda is so critical and crucial for the establishment of BhavaVrtti and you cannot build Bhava thought or practice with out the understanding of PanchaBeda. This is the connection and this is the foundation and if you are not able to grasp it, my dear Uttam, you can continue to follow what you follow. At the end of the day, i strongly believe it is our beloved Lord who gives us this "difference" in thoughts and this "difference" in understanding Him and upholding our "difference" as our nature is not a flaw.

Hare Krshna!