Caitanya, Sridhar Svami and Sankara - Elkman's edition of Tattva-sandarbha

No. Kusakratha's version goes sometimes frighteningly off track. There is however an edition of Tattva-sandarbha with Satyanarayana's commentary, published from Jiva Institute, which is pretty good.

Objectionable things, such as?

On what basis would he say that, does he present any solid arguments?

If memory serves me right, Elkman's main point was not so much that the Goswamins misrepresented Chaitanya, but rather that Baladeva did. He claims that the sectarianism of GV grew gradually from Chaitanya, who revered Sridhara Swami and took sannyasa from an advaitin, to Jiva Goswamin, who respects Sankara in his writings, to the CC, where the anti-mayavada rhetoric enters, and finally to Baladeva, whose anti-mayavada polemic style Elkman -- being an advaitin (Ramakrishna Mission monk) himself -- cannot stand. While he does have some points, his making of Chaitanya into a advaitin seems to me based on wishful thinking.

While I am not a person afraid of research and unexpected facts, there's something deeply troubling me with the views of some scholars. It seems as if they wish to make claims that go contrary to the tradition just for the sheer pleasure of swimming upstream. I mean, I would like to know whether there is enough factual information to justify a claim for a fact, instead of suggesting a possibility.

The source, wherever you read it from, does it have anything on this?

http://ori.nic.in/kapilash/

Srimad BhAgavtam:Commentaries:

(ADVAITA COMMENTARY)

1.SrIdhara swamI - "BhAvArtha-dIpikA"

This is the oldest and most influential commentary
available today,though he himself refers to an earlier
commentary by ChitsukhAchArya.He was a Nrisimha upAsaka
and advaitin. He also wrote commentaries on Sri VishNu
PurANam and GItA. His philosophical leanings haven't
prevented AchAryAs of other schools from praising his
commentary. In fact excepting where they differ,most of
them have simply repeated his words.
Sri Chaitanya had great regard for him.
It is narrated by Sri NAbhAdAs in his BhaktamAl,
that SrIdhara wrote the commentary at the command
of his guru ParamAnanda at KASI,
and as a test it was placed before Lord BindumAdhava
with other books, and after a 'prahara'
the curtain was removed to find SrIdhara's work right on top of the other works.

SrIdhara's period is considered to be 1300-1350 AD

(VISISHTADVAITA COMMENTARIES)

2.SudarSana SUrI - "Suka-pakshIyam"

This is a short commentary by Sri Sruta-prakASikAcharya.
It was later elaborated by -

3.VIrarAghava - "BhAgavata-ChandrikA"

He was the son of SrISailaguru belonging to SrIvatsa gotra
and belonged to the 14th cent.This is a very detailed commentary
where every single word of the original text is explained.

(DVAITA COMMENTARY)

4.Vijayadhvaja - "Pada-RatnAvalI"

The founder of Dvaita school Sri Ananda TIrtha has written
a work called "BhAgavatha-tAtparya-nirNaya" which is not
a regular commentary. Hence his follower Vijayadhvaja wrote
a full commentary in which he has acknowledged his debt to
the works of Sri AnandatIrtha and another AchArya Vijaya-
Tirtha(whose work is not extant).The text is conspicuous
for its substantial additions,as well as variant readings.

(VALLABHA SAMPRADAYA )

5.VallabhAchArya - "SubodhinI"

Sri Vallabha belongs to the SuddhAdvaita school.His
commentary,excepting touching upon a few earlier
Skandhas,is almost totally on the DaSama Skandha.The
commentary is simple and totally devotional.Another
AchArya of this school Giridhar MaharAj has also
written a commentary which goes much deeper into
the individual sectors and elaborates and
supplements the earlier book.

(NIMBARKA or HAMSA SAMPRADAYA)

6.SukadEvAchArya - "SiddhAnta-pradIpa"

He was a follower of SrI NimbArka,the founder of the
school,and his commentary is comprehensive,while
others of the school have written commentaries on
specific sections like RAsa-LIlA.


So why with so many available Vaishnava commentaries on Srimad BhAgavtam did Sri Chaitanya accept SrIdhara swamI's "BhAvArtha-dIpikA" above all others ? Was it because he had taken Sannyas in the Advaita Sampradaya and lived at Puri which was the location of Govardhana Math where SrIdhara swamI was the 10th Sankaracarya ? Is there any indication that Sri Chaitanya visited this Sankarite Math?

I have been asking these questions for years and no one is able to answer in a very satisfactory manner.

Whats up with that?

Sridhara Svamin was born in Orissa. At the time of Chaitanya he was already something like a "national hero." If, in Orissa, you would declare that Sridhara Svamin was cool, boy, people would love you! And since Chaitanya was smart, he knew what to say. Or else, being God..., but who would trust God?

-ek

I thought Srdhara Swami was from Gujarat,

and a reason for his pre-eminence is strengthened by the famous couplet;

ahaM vedmi zuko vetti vyAso vetti na vetti vA/
zrIdharah sakalaM vetti zrInRsiMha-prasAdatah//

I know (the meaning of the scripture), Suka also knows, Vyasa may or may not know, but Sridhara knows all by the grace of Sri Nrsimha.

This was uttered by the lord Bindu Madhava at Kasi, after the doubt was raised regarding Sridhara's tika on the Gita.

O yes, so doubt Vyasa, but not Sridhara. If we could only have acces to his works in English it would probably be obvious. His style of annotation, perspecuity of his explanations and his most authorotive turn of phrase, all these we cannot appriciate without actually reading it. A thing is not simply what is said but also how it is said and I think that Mahaprabhu wanted any future commentators to emulate the lucid style of Sridhara and his manner of annotation, which suggests that there may be more to say. When Vallabha tried to put down Sridhara, Mahaprabhu snubbed him with a comment which you are all familiar with no doubt.
I do have his Gita commentary in English called Subodhini, but what I really want is the Bhavartha dipika and see for myself how it is rather than relying on the statements of those who are unsympethetic to the cause.

Regarding the original question on this thread I've also been keen to get the sandarbhas in English. I found Elkman's Tattva sandarbha much better than any other available in English. Kusakratha's is alomst unintellagable, but I heard that SatyaNarayana has done alot of work on the sandarbhas and we are just waiting for him to publish them. What I've been doing is going through a bit of Kusakratha's Bhakti sandarbha and substituting the Bhagavat slokas for my prefered translations, and trying to make sense of the prose paragraphs of Sri JIva as best as I can.
So SatyaNarayanji, if your out there somewhere, we make salutation and humbly entreat you to make those precious books available to the thirsty souls.

That still doesn't answer the question why he would accept an advaitin commentary over a vaishnava, sorry.

"When Vallabha tried to put down Sridhara, Mahaprabhu snubbed him with a comment which you are all familiar with no doubt."

So why did Vallabha put down Sridhar Svami? Do you think the other Vaishnavas at the time who followed Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka would have put down an advaitain commentary over their own Vaishnava?

This makes no sense what-so-ever..and frankly I doubt that this whole episode between Sri Chaitanya and Vallabha ever took place as it is described, sorry.

I don't know if we can say factually that Sri Vallabha "tried to put down Sridhara". I plan to do some research into this when I go to India next. O.B.L. Kapoor cites the opinions of D.C. Sen and others regarding this and other negative portrayals of Vallabha in the CC as possibly the result of some bad feelings toward Sri Vallabha by the Gaudiyas at this time (during writing of the CC) due to the dismissal of Bengali sevaites from Srinath's temple by Sri Vallabha's son Vitthaleshji.

The fact was(is), Sri Vallabha had been given the leadership of the Rudra-sampradaya by 700+ year old Bilvamangala Thakur, and had successfully argued the Suddhaadvaita doctrine in an assembly of all four recognized Vaisnava lines, and was fully capeable of writing his own commentary. Whether he made the alleged comments or not regarding Sridhara Svami we will probably never know, but I tend to doubt.

I also, as you mentioned, suspect that if Caitanya Mahaprabhu did object to Shri Vallabha's commentary it was based on not following the style of Sridhara rather than the lack of substance in the commentary of Vallabha.

Or it could have been that Sridhar Svamin's commentary was so widely accepted even though he was an Advaitin, and after all Sri Chaitanya had Sanyass in that Advaitin line and lived in Puri.
Like -ek said Sridhar was somewhat of a 'national hero' to Puri, also he wrote BhAvArtha-dIpikA" and was the 10th Shankaracarya of the Govardhana Math at Puri.

Can't go putting down the local folk now...could have been political.

Indeed, that was my point. Politics from Vraja, Orissa or both.

There are also other considerations. Vallabha was a contemporary (and competitor) of Chaitanya, his commentary was in the making, and certainly not available in its entirety to a broad readership. Sukadeva (siddhAntapradIpa) I believe was later, not sure. Sudarshana Suri's commentary was not extensive and probably not very well-known at that time. Then there is Madhva, and his follower Vijayadhvaja Tirtha. I believe that Madhva and his strict followers were too controversial at that time. Even Jiva Gosvami thought it wise to make a disclaimer, as it were, in his Tattvasandarbha, when he mentions Madhva's works. Jiva says that he will quote Madhva, but that he has not seen with his own eyes, any of Madhva's sources, such as Garuda- and other Puranas, Brahmatarka, Tantrabhagavata, Mahasamhita and other tantras, etc.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana later comments on Jiva's disclaimer, and argues that since Jiva refers to Madhva as "tattvavAdin," this in itself was proof that Madhva's sources were authentic. Baladeva writes (my paraphrase), "A tattvavadin is a truth-speaker. Since he was a celibate from childhood, he was incapable of speaking a lie, even in his dreams." (!) Funny, isn't it? Why even bring up the topic of lying, if Madhva's work had been totally accepted? It wasn't. That is the point. One would have thought Baladeva could have come up with something better that appealing to Madhva's celibacy as proof for his authenticity. In any case, the commentaries of Madhva and his followers were not obvious choices for Chaitanya.

The only real, extensive and original commentary besides Sridhara Svamin's was Viraraghava's. And why would Chaitanya still prefer the Advaitin Sridhara? I think the answer can be found in a pattern that we have just observed here on the GD forum: if one seeks legitimacy for one's faith, one looks to some older source that has long been accepted. That is why it seems so important to find Radha in the Rg-veda. The older the better. The Sri-Vaisnavas were younger than the Advaitins. Sridhara was an ordained monk in the respectable dazanAmI order. It is unclear whether Chaitanya ever said the things about Sridhara and Vallabha, that are stated in the CC. But it is certain that Krishnadasa Kaviraja, the author, said them. He, and the Gosvamin's are the Gaudiya ideologists. They were the ones who definitely saw the need to establish legitimacy and popular support for their movement. And even today, it seems easier for certain Gaudiya Vaisnava's, to accept something from a group that is ideologically more distant, than from one that is very close (see ISKCON and Gaudiya Math, for example).

-ek

Some good points here indeed ..

Have any of you read any of these commentaries? One of the reasons that his tikas were not accepted originally was that although he was an advaitin he expressed the superiority of bhakti and it is Sridhara who counts even the aspiration for moksa as a kind of self deception (kaitava).

We are at a loss if the testimony of CC is called into question. The episode with Vallabha is really a very beautiful narrative. I cannot accept that Kaviraja Goswami had ultirior motives in penning that passage.

I'm curious if there is any empirical evidence of a connection between Sridhara Swami and Vishnuswami. A.C. Bhaktivedanta says that Sridhara Swami was his follower in one of his purports in C.C. The advaita connection seems to be well established, but does anyone know of any evidence of a connection to vaishanvism through Vishnuswami?

Also, I don't know if anyone here has actually read the commentary of Vallabha - but if anyone has - is there anything in the commentary that establishes either Vallabha's differences with Sridhara Swami's commentary or anywhere where he clearly diverges? According to the C.C. acount the complaint made by Vallabha was this, "Whatever Sridhara Swami reads he explains according to the circumstances. Therefore he is inconsistent." I'm unclear if this means that he explains according the the circumstances of the times in which he lived and commented or if it simply means the circumstances of the story being commented on.

At any rate, even though the C.C. relates that Vallabha took the criticism of Mahaprabhu as correction - there is no indication that he made any changes to his commentary based on the them.

I would guess based on the discussion above that Sridhara Swami's commentary was used as a primary source for Vallabha in preparing his own commentary. If he really felt that there was inconsistencies in Sridhara Swami's commentary I would suspect that a careful reading of both commentaries would bear that out.

Sridhara Svamin was clearly not a follower of Vishnusvami as he was the 10th Shankaracarya of the Govardhana Math at Puri. Dr. Sambidananda tries to make the same claim and connection in his..
'The History & Literature of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and their relation to other Medieval Vaishnava Schools' published by Gaudiya Math 1991.

This Vishnusvami connection is incorrect.

It's kind of like saying Radha is mentioned in the Rig Veda.

Then mahaprabu accepted madhabendra puri's displinic line though madhabendra puri was from advaitin origin?

The answer is pure Krishna Prem.

Kiba bipra kiba sudra naysi kene noy
jei krishna tattabetta sei guru hoy!

Well - I'm not convinced just because he was the 10th Shankaracharya of the Govardhana Matha at Puri. Madhvacharya was initiated by an advaitin but had a clear connection to vaishnavism through Vyasadeva. So I don't think that the argument is sufficient to conclude that there was no connection. I'd like to know if there is any empirical evidence or any claim from Sridhara Swami himself which would corroborate or disprove the statement. I do agree that without any such evidence that making such statements are conjecture at best.

One is certainly left to wonder if you are correct in your assumptions Bangli why it is that Sridhara Swami's commentary is filled with bhakti. I have not read the commentary but as it is quoted by all Gaudiyas from the Goswamis on - I would think that the commentary is most decidely not conceptually tied exclusively to advaitavada. So given that - one is left to wonder where the influence of bhakti came to him from? Certainly not from Shankaracharya.

I find it intersting that his commentary was brought into question and it was Rudra himself who validated it. Maybe there's more to the connection than you think....

Well then show us the evidence of the Vishnusvami link..? Is it only from ACBS that you make such a claim? Did you know Dr. Sambidanandas claim. The Gaudiyas do not say that there was just a link I'll have you know, they claim he was in the Vishnusvami Sampradaya.. sorry but that is just inaccurate.

See S.K. De says "Sridhara Svamin in his commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam attempted to COMBINE the Advaita teachings of Sankara with the Devotionalism of the Bhagavatas."

Devotion to Krishna or Narayan has never been considered inconsistent with one's belonging to the Sankara Sampradaya, many taught that Advaita realization could be attained through worship of a particular diety as a person or a symbol.

The tutelary deity of Sankara himself was Krishna, although his chief disciple, (like Sridhar) worshipped Nrsimha.

Around the time of Sridhar Svaimin there seems to have developed a type of 'Tempering' (in S.K.De's words) of the severe monistic idealism of Advaita Vedanta with the 'Devotional Worship' of a personal GOD.

Sridhar Svamin reveals this tendency in his well known commentary on the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, in which he acknowledges Samkara's teachings as authoritative AND considers Bhakti as the BEST means of Advaita Mukti.

And from GD's Jagatji himself on Sridhar Svamin;

"He was a bhakta and not a jnani. The point is that he was a bhakta in the Shankara sampradaya.

While doing my work on Puri, I came across an interesting discussion of Shankaracharya.

Historically, the beginnings of the Jagannath deities are shrouded in mystery. One version that is supported by some of the Madala Panji (temple records) manuscripts is that Shankaracharya himself recovered the Deities and installed them after they had been hidden from raiding invaders.

Historically and archeologically, there appears to be quite a bit of evidence to support this view. Govardhan Math is by far the oldest math in the Puri area and the Shankaracharyas of that math have traditionally been the most important religious figures in the temple hierarchy, though their influence waned in the course of time. Even so, the Shankaracharya until recently was the head of the Mukti Mandap, etc.

But the real point here is that Shankara established four "dhamas" in the interest of creating Hindu solidarity. He more than anyone else seems to have fused the disparate factions--Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava--into an identifiable entity known as Hinduism. Thus in Puri, which up until then had always been a Shaiva domain, he established Vishnu deities. Whereas in Dvaraka, traditionally a Vaishnava domain, he established a Shiva deity.

The Jagannath Puri trinity also represents the Vishnu (Jagannath), Shiva (Balaram), and Shakti (Subhadra) triad. In the course of time, the Vishnu aspect came to dominate completely, especially after the rebuilding of the temple by Chodaganga.

Orissa, like Maharashtra, has always served as a transition point between South and North Indian cultures. Ramanuja's followers (or Yamunacharya himself) established the Alalanath temple, Madhva's follower Narahari had a very strong presence in souther Orissa, now northern Andhra Pradesh, and was influential with the Ganga kings.

It thus seems that if there were any place in India where a predominantly Vaishnava interpretation of Advaita vada should grow, it would be Puri. Sridhar Swami seems to be the personification of that move. The Puris and Bharatis followed and the Vaishnava aspect of the sampradaya grew stronger and stronger until finally it abandoned the advaita vada altogether and became a separate sampradaya in Chaitanya. Nevertheless, the "acintya-bhedAbheda" doctrine indicates that the Vaishnavas in this line never became entirely "dualistic" in their outlook in the way that Madhva presented his philosophy"


Audarya-lila dasa, you are just out to defend whatever it is that you have heard from IGM.

I am sincerely sorry to hurt your religious feelings and disagree with your affiliations....but I'm not the only one!

namaskar,

bangli

Bangli - I'm am doing no such thing. I merely asked a question. You gave an answer and I said I wasn't convinced. I wouldn't have asked here for evidence either confirming or refuting the claims if I had such evidence. That in and of itself should be sufficient to show you that I am not here to espouse any ideology or defend any position one way or the other.

It is afterall Sridhara Swami who commented that projita in the famous B.P. verse extends to the idea of moksha - which is clearly opposed to the teachings of advaita. There is really no way around that one. That really is my only point - Sridhara Swami's commentary was challenged by the advaitins of the time due to it's placing bhakti in a primary position - so clearly he was not 'toeing the line' so to speak with regard to advaitavada. The question that still begs to be answered is - where did the bhakti influence come from?

Devotion to Krishna or Narayan has never been considered inconsistent with one's belonging to the Sankara Sampradaya, many taught that Advaita realization could be attained through worship of a particular diety as a person or a symbol.
The tutelary deity of Sankara himself was Krishna, although his chief disciple, (like Sridhar) worshipped Nrsimha.

You don't know too much about Shankara's Advaitavad do you..? Many were inbued with 'Bhakti' while at the same time holding their conclusions shown in their Mahavakyas.

namaskar,

bangli

Also, what is this tempering? In Jagat's paper that you quoted he suggests that the influence of vaishavism was apparant and it was natural that vaishnavism influenced the commentary of Sridhara Swami. Apparently Vishnuswami also went to Puri during the second half of the twelth century and established a matha there.

It very well may be that some gaudiya acharyas see the influence of the doctrine of Suddhadwaita more prevalent in the commentary of Sridhara Swami - and from that draw the conclusion of his affiliation with Vishnuswami. I am not conversant with the commentary or the history and that is why I posed the question here. It is an honest question - I don't have the answer and therefore why would I be biased on way or the other. If I get empirical evidence I will accept it. For now, I can only say that it appears to be universally accepted that Sridhara Swami's commentary drew conclusions that were brought into question by advaitins of the time.

I'm no expert on advaitavada, but the comments you quoted state that devotion as a means to moksha - the difference being that Sridhara Swami rejected this idea - see above.

I guess the point being that Sridhara Swami may have been formally from the Shankara lineage but his commentary and teachings in his B.P. commentary are devotional and do not conclude that bhakti to one's ista devata leads 'advaita realization'.

Can please show us all here what advaitins questioned Sridharas commentary?
You keep saying how advaitins questioned his commentary, is this just something you have heard?

Yea and some Gaudiyas say Keshava Bharati was not an advaitin and Radha is mentioned in the Rig Veda...

With due respect and with no sarcasm intended towards anyone, the knowledge level of Advaita and Shankara, in a typical Gaudiya scholar ranges from below average to nil. This is because they do not study Advaita as a Purva Paksha and hence they have to rely on hearsay which is mostly negative propoganda. Naturally it is not surprising that Gaudiya scholars/authors have many misconceptions about Advaita.

The Bhaja Govindam according to Shankara's biographies were *not* written on his deathbed after he had a "change of heart" as some people state. It was composed much earlier and the context is totally different. In addition to this, Shankara has composed many works which are highly devotional. The problem here is propoganda. The rival camps tried to project Advaita as an impersonal philosophy lacking in devotion and humility. Their followers have simply been repeating this, without making an attempt to learn by themselves.

In brief, if a person describes Advaita as impersonal, lacking in Bhakti, etc, you can be sure this person doesn't know squat about Advaita and is only repeating what he heard somewhere.

From GGM's electronic version of Bhaja Govinda (http://www.granthamandira.org/details.php?image_id=566):

Well Bangli - it would seem logical that most of what anyone says is due to having heard or read something along those lines somewhere. Of course we all use our own reasoning in conjunction with what we hear and read and we come up with our own unique perspectives.

So, the answer is yes, I have heard that Sridhara Swami's commentary on the B.P. was questioned by the religous leaders of the time in Benares. Here is an excerpt from one of my Guru Maharaja's Sanga's on the subject:

"religious leaders there questioned the devotional conclusions of Sridhara Swami's commentary on the Bhagavatam and decided to test those conclusions by placing it before the Deity of Lord Siva. It is said that when the sanctuary doors were later opened this Sanskrit verse was heard coming from the Deity:


suko vetti vyaso vetti raja vetti na vetti va sridharo hi sarvam vetti sri nrsimha prasadatah

"Sukadeva knows the meaning of the Bhagavatam, and Vyasa knows its meaning as well. Raja Pariksit may or may not know the meaning, but Sridhara Swami knows everything by the grace of Sri Narasingha."

Now as to whether or not most gaudiya scholars have a good grasp of adwaita philosophy or not - you are probably correct in your assessment for the most part since most gaudiyas are interested in devotional literatures and gravitate toward reading about Krsna in that context. The same thing can be said about most scholars or practicioners of any particular lineage or train of thought - they certainly aren't experts on the teachings of other lineages. No big revelation there - just common sense. Of course that is a generalization and not an absolute by any means.

I know enough about adwaita philosophy to know it's conclusions and aims are quite different from any of the devotional schools of vaishavism.

But what is the point your trying to make? You questioned why Chaitanya Mahaprabhu would revere the commentary of Sridhara Swami and you seem to question his affiliation with Keshava Bharati. Are you insinuating that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was an adwaitin himself? Or that he advocated adwaitavada philosophy? That thesis would be very hard to substantiate since all of the writings of all of his close associates and followers place him firmly in the devotional camp and very clearly distance him and his teachings from those of the adwaitins. Surely you don't think that would be disputed by any reasonable person who has even a slight knowledge of the devotional literatures of the goswamis and their contemporaries who were followers of Mahaprahbu?

You seem to want to differ with Vrndavana dasa Thakur regarding the details of the initiation Lord Chaitanya received from Kesava Bharati. I think it is safe to say that most followers of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu find the description of his initiation to be very wonderful and totally in line with the overall content of his life and teachings. The description of the naming of Gaurhari is also very instructive in that regard.

At any rate this whole discussion went way off the path as far as I'm concerned. I'm interested in the B.P. commentary of Sridhara Swami precisely because it was held in such high regard by Lord Gauranga and, therefore, all of his associates. The teaching of achintya bhedabheda tatttva given by the gaudiyas is quite different than the adwaitavada teachings. The conclusions and writings they have spent so much time and energy on all draw heavily on Sridhara Swami's commentary of B.P.

As I said above - I have not read the commentary of Sridhara Swami. I would have to obtain an english translation to do so. However, I think it would be very difficult to try to argue the thesis that Sridhara Swami's commentary follows strictly along the lines of adwaitavada and draws the same conclusions and posits the same ultimate goal. If that were the case then Mahaprahbu would not have revered it the way he did nor would his followers have quoted him to the extent that they do in their writings.

I am quite sure that most of Mahaprabhu's followers read and discussed the B.P. and the commentary of Sridhara Swami. Many of them were vastly learned scholars. It is well known that Mahaprabhu refuted the teachings of Shankaracharya. The examples of the conversions of Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya and Prakashananda Saraswati are clear enough for any reader to draw the obvious conclusions. Given all of that I find it absurd to draw any conclusion other than Sridhara Swami's commentary was given such respect by Mahaprabhu precisely because of the devotional conclusions.

Audarya-lila dasa,

I'm not interested in your point of view on this subject as it is really lacking in objectivity. You are just acting the way you normally do here when you come into a subject you know little about, but feel the need to take the upper righteous hand and defend IGM and some of their one-sided conclusions which paint all other Vedantic schools in a lesser way than their own, including other Gaudiya parivars, Babajis etc. what to speak of Advaitavad, Buddhists, or other ugly demons..

And yes I do not think Mahaprabhu was not as adamantly against Advaitavad as so many Gaudiyas claim.

It is interesting to note that Nimai Pandit accepted the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati. I'm sure you as most Gaudiyas don't understand the implications of that. The name Chaitanya is the name given to bramacharis at the famous Sringiri Math of Adi-Shankara, which Sri Chaitanya headed for shortly after his Sanyass (if he ever took Sanyass at all). This is brought up by some scholars because of his acceptance of the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati, there is controversy in regards to him having received Sannyass at all.

Some are of the opinion that he essentially accepted bramachari, thus the name Chaitanya.

The point is he accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya at the time of his Sanyass diksha and it has been construed to be something else. His Gaudiya Biographers have said many things that don't seen to make sense. But without doubt the Sringriri Math gives the names of Chaitanya to it's bramacharis AND Bharati/Puri to it's Sannyasins.
Why was Sri Chaitanya so intent to go to Sringriri Math after his diksha? And why did he visit there at all if he was so opposed to the Advaitin doctrine and forbade his followers to not as much LOOK at a Mayavadin Sannyasin.

Some Gaudiya scholars say Keshava Bharati was a Madhva ascetic which is obviously a blunder and laughable.

Each Matha that was established by Adi-Shankara has it's own Mahavakya associated with it no doubt but some Gaudiya's even went as far to say that Sri Chaitanya wispered a mantra that he received in a dream to Keshava Bharati before diksha asking him to initiate with the dream mantra.

But later realizing that was too far a stretch we see some of his other Gaudiya biographers saying that he in fact accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya....

Sri Chaitanya did not have much influence at all on the advaita school, sorry. There are a few references to him meeting some advaitavadins by his biographers but those meetings are totally embellished to show him defeating them and then converting masses of people into Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which is a total exaggeration.

Sri Chaitanyas acceptance of Sridhar Svamins Bhagavatam (a known advaitin) over and above the then available Vaishnava commentaries is worthy of our investigation excuse me.

Sri Chaitanya came to settle in Puri after he had taken sanyass from the Advaitin Keshava Bharati. It is contended by his followers that Sri Chaitanyas reason for taking initiation from Keshava Bharati was because it was the then accepted and most known form of Sannyass at that time. They also say that Sri Chaitanya had devised a plan to save the fallen souls of Kali Yuga by taking this Sannyass, thus giving people the chance to bow to him and be saved by that very act.

It is accepted that Sri Chaitanya took Sanyass into the Advaitin Sampradaya, but we ask why did Sri Chaitanyas Gurus Isvara Puri and Madhavendra Puri accept Sanyass into the Madhva Sampradaya or did they? Can you answer that?

In Sri Chaitanys biographies he is described as having the ability to convert one into a devotee of Krishna, by one having a mere glance of him dancing in Kirtan. In fact whole villages were converted in this way. Why then the need to accept Sanyass from a school of thought that was opposed to his dualistic teachings of Krishna Bhakti?

As I have stated I do not think Sri Chaitanya was as oppossed to 'MAYAVAD'as his LATER biographers made him out to be.

namaskar,

bangli

(edited by dhyana)

I edited the original post

Was there anything else you felt worthy enough to comment on?

namaskar,

bangli

When I was staying in the Melbourne ISKCON temple, reading Bhaktivedanta's books, I came across a passage in which Bhaktivedanta wrote: "The followers of ZaGkara criticize the bhakti school, but they have not read or understood the vaiSNava commentaries on the sacred texts" (from memory). I raised the point to a senior devotee that, if this is so, then are devotees not making the same kind of blunder when they are criticizing ZaGkara and his followers without ever having read their works. He saw my point, but went into this silly explanation about how Caitanya had warned us about reading ZaGkara's works. Devamrta Swami reiterated this when he forbade me to read ZaGkara's works. I then proceeded to read them. I may have been young and gullible at the time, but I was not so stupid that I fell for such poor arguments. Bangli is right. Devotees do not know much about advaitavedAnta. However, I do not think that his point was that it is bad that they do not know. They are devotees, after all, and channel their energy in that direction. What is bad, is that they make unfounded claims about advaitavedAnta. Without knowing much about a tradition, they attack and vilify it. That is the problem. A well-founded critique is always welcome, but mere slander based on hearsay is not.

Quite frankly Bangli I fail to understand your need to insult me or to try to characterize me in such a negative way. I haven't said anything about you personally or attacked you or anyone who you revere in any way. I am merely posting on a thread that I think is an interesting one.

Let me ask you this - if your thesis is that Mahaprabhu was an advaitin due to his taking sannyasa from one - then where are the writings of his contemporaries that you can cite that lend credence to such a claim? We know who his intimate associates were and what they wrote. Can you cite any of his followers or associates to support your thesis?

You have said you aren't interested in what I have to say because you think I'm merely a 'defender of IGM' or some such thing. At the same time you ask me to respond to questions. May I ask you simply - which is it? Are you interested in dialogue or are you merely interested in insulting me because I don't accept what you have to say without question? I don't accept what anyone says without good reason - so don't expect me to treat your words any differently. Having said that, I also believe in being civil and treating people with respect. Do you think you could possibly bring yourself to stop with the belittling derogatory remarks and address the issues in a gentlemanly manner? I hope so....

I should begin by saying I am honestly not intrested to denegrate the CC, or those who rightly take shelter of it. If one's heart is fixed in mood of Kaviraj Goswami, such discussions as those in this thread will be seen as minor and trivial considerations.

One must admit however, the CC is rather heavy-handed with non-Gaudiyas, and thus warrants the analysis of its assertions against the other schools of thought.

The points of Bangli and -ek have merit, and I would add that, looking objectively, similar stories such as the defeat of the Tattvavaadi Sannyassis (recently there has been some mention of this on dvaita.org), and the 'conversion' of Venkata Bhatta are part of (one) common thread of the CC's mood, showing the 'defeat ' of all other Vedantic schools. Interestingly enough, only the followers of Nimbarka (except Keshava Kashmiri) seem to be spared.

Yet, the interesting thing is the Svaabhaavika-bhedaabheda doctrine (the most similar to acintya-bhedaabheda), and the exclusive worship of Radha-Krsna of Nimbarka, were well established by the time of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Bengal and Orissa were home to many followers of Nimbarka at this time.

Yet we (I've yet to find) find no explaination of the amazingly close similarities between the theology and philosophy of Nimbarka and that presented by the representatives of Sri Caitanya (Jiva, Krsnadasa etc.). If anyone has any knowledgeable comments on this, I would find it interesting.

Dandavats to all,

Bangli ji please read Dr. RadhaGovindanath's Chaitanaya charitamrita ,Gauranga Mahaprabhu and Sisir Kumar Gosh's Amiya Nimai Charit. You will get all your answer there with explanation and proof. The questions you raised are not the new one and all resolved long back by scolars.

I am not sure if you know bengalee , otherwise it will be problem to get english translation of those books.

Thanks
Pranam


BTW have you read Bhagabatam by Prabhupad RadhaVinod Goswami? You will get Sridhar Swami Tika as well Vaisnav Toshani Tika along with explanation.


Dasanudas

Bhaja Nitai Gaur Radheshyam
Japa Hare krisha hare raam

Audarya,

Do I claim Sri Chaitanya was an Advaitin....?

I have not come out and said he was...but his taking of Sanyass from one when his own Gurus did not, recieving the name 'Chaitanya' from an Advaitin, running off to Sringeri Math and preferring 'Sridhar's commentary' has stirred some controversy in this regard way before our time I will have you know.

namaskar,

bangli

Purport by Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada:

Cc.Adi 9.13.15
Kesava Bharati: The Sarasvati, Bharati and Puri sampradayas belong to the Srngeri-matha in South India, and Sri Kesava Bharati, who at that time was situated in a monastery in Katwa, belonged to the Bharati-sampradaya. According to some authoritative opinions, although Kesava Bharati belonged to the Sankara-sampradaya, he had formerly been initiated by a Vaisnava. He is said to have been a Vaisnava on account of having been initiated by Madhavendra Puri, for some say that he took sannyasa from Madhavendra Puri. The temple and Deity worship started by Kesava Bharati are still existing in the village known as Khatundi, which is under the postal jurisdiction of Kandara in the district of Burdwan. According to the managers of that matha, the priests are descendants of Kesava Bharati, and some say that the worshipers of the Deity are descendants of the sons of Kesava Bharati. In his householder life he had two sons, Nisapati and Usapati, and a brahmana of the name Sri Nakadicandra Vidyaratna, who was a member of the family of Nisapati, was the priest in charge at the time that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati visited this temple. According to some, the priests of the temple belong to the family of Kesava Bharati's brother. Still another opinion is that they descend from Madhava Bharati, who was another disciple of Kesava Bharati's. Madhava Bharati's disciple Balabhadra, who also later became a sannyasi of the Bharati-sampradaya, had two sons in his family life, named Madana and Gopala. Madana, whose family's surname was Bharati, lived in the village of Auriya, and Gopala, whose family's surname was Brahmacari, lived in the village of Denduda. There are still many living descendants of both families.
In the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika (52), it is said:

mathurayam yajna-sutram pura krsnaya yo munih
dadau sandipanih so 'bhud adya kesava-bharati

"Sandipani Muni, who formerly offered the sacred thread to Krsna and Balarama, later became Kesava Bharati." It is he who offered sannyasa to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. There is another statement about Kesava Bharati from the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika (117): iti kecit prabhasante 'krurah kesava-bharati. "According to some authoritative opinions, Kesava Bharati is an incarnation of Akrura." Kesava Bharati offered the sannyasa order to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the year 1432 sakabda (A.D. 1510) in Katwa. This is stated in the Vaisnava-manjusa, Part Two.


Cc.Adi 12.14-17

When Acyutananda heard from his father that Kesava Bharati was the spiritual master of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he was very unhappy.

He told his father, "Your instruction that Kesava Bharati is the spiritual master of Caitanya Mahaprabhu will spoil the entire country.

"Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the spiritual master of the fourteen worlds, but You say that someone else is His spiritual master. This is not supported by any revealed scripture."

When Advaita Acarya heard this statement from His five-year-old son Acyutananda, He felt great satisfaction because of his conclusive judgment.

Chaitanyas Madhva Affiliation

The Chaitanya sect some time after it's birth was affiliated as a sub-branch of the Madhva-sect which was the most influential in Bengal before the time of Chaitanya.

It is said that Chaitanya himself was brought up in the Madhva tradition. His predecessor, Advaita, as well as many of his influentilial relatives and associates had close connection with Madhvaism.

Madhavendra Puri was the initiator of the bhakti movement in Bengal before Sri Chaitanya. Iswar Puri and Madhavendra Puri, the two preceptors of Chaitanya, are claimed to have been ascetics of the Madhva-sect.

But the Madhva-sect itself never mentioned the names of Madhavendra Puri or Iswar Puri in the list of succession prepared by R.G. Bhadarkar from the original lists produced from Miraj, Belgaum and Poona.

Baladeva's list differs materially from this more authentic list.

Anandin in his commentary on Prabodhananda's Chaitanya Chandrarita claims that Chaitanya Himself and his followers were the founders of the Bengal Sampradaya and owed nothing to the Gurus of any other Sampradaya.

Madhvaism or affiliation to the Madhva-sect is never acknowledged in the important authoritative biographies of Chaitanya nor in the words of the Vrndavana Gosvamis.

Only Kavi Karnapura, in his Gauraganoddesha dipika, described Madhavendra Puri, Iswar Puri and Chaitanya as Madhva ascetics. But in the drama Chaitanya Chandrodaya, Kavi Karnapura never mentioned Madhavendra Puri as a Madhva ascetic. On the other hand, Chaitanya was a sannyasi of the advaitavadin order.

Baladeva Visyabhusan, in his Govinda bhasya on Vedanta sutra and in his Prameya-Ratnavali attribute Madhva affiliation when giving the Guru-Parampara. He also describes Chaitanya as a Madhva ascetic, reason being his guru Radha Damodara appears to have been considerably influenced by Madhva in his Vedanta-syamantaka, and the disciple Baladeva had strong leanings towards Madhvism which is clear from his erudite writings in Prameya-ratnavali.

Chaitanya formally belonged to the dasnami order of Sankara Sannyasis, though Vaishnava Bhakti movement had nothing to do with the extreme advaitavada of Shankara.

Barring these two authors, there is no mention anywhere that Madhavendra Puri or his disciple Iswar Puri were Madhva-ascetics. Perhaps Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyabhusan derived the list from the same source.

There is no evidence that Madhavendra Puri or Iswar Puri or Advaita had Madhva outlook.

The sannyas name of Madhva was Ananda Tirtha. He himself was a sannyasi of the Shankara order. But both Madhavendra and Iswar were Puris not Tirthas, while Keshava Bharati belonged to the bharati order of Shankara.

At Puri, Chaitanya was introduced to Vasudev Sarvabauma as a sannyasi of the Bharati order of Shankara. Chaitanyas sannyas was through advaita parampara. His indulgence in singing and dancing is in direct disapproval of Madhva doctrine.

All the facts jointly go against Chaitanyas alleged connection with Madvaism. S.K.De, on the origins of Chaitanyaism is of the opinion that Chaitanya never belonged to the Madhva-sect, or was never influenced by Madvaism, on the other hand, he stated that Madhavendra Puri and his disciple, Iswar Puri were Shankarite sannyasis of the same order to which Sridhara Swami belonged.

Madhavendra Puri sowed the seed of Bhakti in the soil of Bengal and Chaitanya is the ‘Noble Tree’ of that seed. Chaitanya took initation from Madhvendra Puri’s disciple Iswar Puri…

From ‘Chaitanya Movement in Eastern Bengal’

Interesting. I always intuitively felt Mahaprabhu was an Advaitin but never knew there was so much corraborating evidence.

Maybe too, Krishna doesn't believe he is a Person since he was disciple of Sandipani Muni.

Thanks bangli! I feel like you are giving us our Chaitanya back who was stolen by the personalists.

Except those who, of course, were Advaitins before they turned to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is a certain fact that on the whole, advaitavAda is an impersonal philosophy and lacks in bhakti at the ultimate stage, since worship of a personal deity (one of the five main deities according to Sankara) is more or less intended as a stop-gap measure before an 'impersonal' realisation dawns in order for liberation to be achieved. As far as bhakti is concerned, any Advaitin worth his salt would be willing to testify that jJAna is the way and the goal of Advaita. Arguing in the way of a pUrvpAkzin doesn't really make much sense, in my view.

Nitai had a nice Advaitic text translation on his site which was interesting to read. What a shame it is not there anymore.

Thanks Gaurasundara,

It should be noted ;

1. Dvaita Vedanta - the dualistic approach

2. Advaita Vedanta - the non-dualistic approach

3. Kevala Advaita Vedanta - the pure non-dualistic school.

The main exponent of Vedanta was the great sage Adi Sankara who was an adept of the Kevala Advaita Vedanta path.

After Sankara's period Kevala Advaita Vedanta became mixed with various other paths and outlooks, similar to what occured with Buddhism when it spead to Tibet, China and Southeast Asia. As a result you had various schools of Yoga and Bhakti incorporate Advaita Sanyass into their paths, Sri Chaitanya himself being an important example of this.

Yea I thought Nitai had some good things on that website, I don't know why he decided to dump it all.

namsakar,

bangli

More on Sridhar Svami coming, patience please....

To access the content of sites that are no longer up, if you have the URL you can sometimes still find it through the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

I use it to read Nitai's old site.....I hope he doesn't mind too much...

In Prabhut Mukherjee's 'The History of the Caitanya Faith in Orissa' which is being discussed in the Panchasakha 'Five Friends' thread elsewhere we find;

"It appears that Isvara, a Vaishnava, took initiation from Madhavendra Puri by reciting the mahavakya of the Sankarite Puri order, in order to become a monk. Similarly, Madhavendra, a Vaishnava, was ordained a monk of the Sankarite Puri order. Was there no provision for monkhood in Vaishnavism?" preface

"Isvara Puri belonged to the 'Puri' order of the Advaitic school of Sankara. The orthodox monks were required to conform to one of the ten orders founded by Sankara, such as Puri, Aranya, and Bharati. Isvara Puri and his preceptor Madhavendra Puri were inclined towards emotional devotion, though they belonged to a Sankarite order" Chapter 3 page 19, 2nd footnote

"On 23 January 1510, at the age of 24, Visvambar was ordained as a monk by Keshava Bharati. Visvambar requested Keshava Bharati to initiate him with a new mantra, which he himself suggested." (murari iii.2.7)
"After initiation, Keshava Bharati named him Sri Krishna Chaitanya. Later, the new Sannyasi came to be known by his Sankarite title of Chaitanya."
-footnote; (The monastic name 'Chaitanya' indicated that the new monk was a novice (brahmachari) of the Bharati order. But he did not become a full-fledged monk, as he did not recite aham Brahmasmi, the maha-vakya ('essence of truth') of the Bharati order. Chaitanyas close companion, Purushottama Acharya took the name Damodar after his initiation as a monk. He was a 'Svarupa' or novice of the Tirtha order.)

"But he did not take the final vows of the Bharati order."
-footnote; (In the Chaitanya Chandrodaya drama (Act V, verses 21f) Advaita criticizes Chaitanya for having joined that particular asrama which is so much liked by people belonging to the Advaita school. Chaitanya answers laughing 'Oh Advaita, remember that we do not belong to Advaita'

"Immediately after his initiation as a monk. Chaitanya went to Ramesvaram. It appears that he went there to visit the Sringeri Math which is the seat of the Bharati order. His biographers do not mention this fact. Murari and Kavikarnapura write that Chaitanya went to the south after worshipping Ramesvara Siva." page 23

namaskar,

bangli

A.K. Majumdar writes in 'Chaitanya His Life and Doctrine'

Chapter XXII Sri Chaitanya's Sampradaya page 262

Chaitanyas Sannyasa is also not free from controversy. According to Murari (II, xviii. 2; III. ii. 7) and the CBh. (II xxvi) he told Keshava Bharati of a mantra which he had recieved in a dream, and Keshava Bharati initiated him with that mantra. (this contradicts Kavi-Karnapura). This was most unusual, and if Chaitanya had not intervened, Keshava Bharati would have initiated hin with a maha-vakya with it's monistic implications to which Chaitanya had the greatest possible objection. Then according to CBh., Keshava Bharati thought that though a Bharati's disciple should be called a Bharati, in this case it would not be proper, hence he gave him the name Sri Krishna Chaitanya.

Now, according to the organization set up by Samkara mentioned above, the brahmacarins under Sarada-math were to be known as Svarupa, under Govardhana-math as Prakasa, under Jyotir-math as Ananda, and as under Srmgeri-math as Chaitanya. As the Srmgeri-math was the center for Sarasvati, Bharati and the Puri orders, it is most likely that Keshava Bharati conferred on his extraordinary disciple the title of Chaitanya to indicate that the latter was not a full fledged Sannyasin. That this happened in the case of Chaitanya's friend Svarup Damodar is admitted in CC (II.x.106). The possibility, therefore, has to be borne in mind that, Chaitanya probably never adopted what is known formally as Sannyasa.

A.K. Majumdar was a student of the infamous Dr. S.K. De who intitated him into the study of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

namaskar,

bangli

Some more details mentioned in another book by A.K. Majumdar—
"Soon he reached Katwa, (24 miles from Navadvipa), and there he was initiated into monastic life by Kesava Bharati and given the name Sri-Krsna-Caitanya (he who awakens Sri-Krsna in the hearts of all.)" [Follows a footnote:] "This is the usual explanation of the name, but there may be another explanation. Before initiating a person as a sannyasin, it is usual to initiate him as a brahmacarin, and the brahmacarins of the Bharati and Puri orders are given the surname caitanya. It is likely that Caitanya never became an initiated sannyasin, which may be one of the reasons for which he never formally initiated any one. A brahmacarin cannot initiate." (A.K. Majumdar "Concise History of Ancient India," Delhi 1973, vol. 3, pp. 610-11).

About Vallabha & Chaitanya he writes:
"The ancient and holy city, however, did not suit him. Varanasi was a stronghold of Advaita, and Vallabha failed in his attempts to convert them, or indeed to gain a fair hearing. So he shifted to Adel, near Allahabad, which remained his home for the rest of his life. It may be noted that Caitanya, who visited Varanasi a few years after Vallabha had left the city, hardly fared any better than his friend, Vallabha." (A.K. Majumdar "Concise History of Ancient India," Delhi 1973, vol. 3, p. 608).

-ek

Please read Dr. Radha Govinda Nath's Chaitanya Chraritamrita and Gauranga Mahaprabhu .... and post those also in this forum to show other memeber here how Dr. Radha Govinda Nath has refuted these type of theory scientifically and logically.


This is not one sided story.

You say this story is not one-sided? Yes I fully agree with you indeed.

And your free to post what you want ...!

Thank you -ek,

Yes there is plently of evidence that shows Visvambar's acceptance of the name Chaitanya is in accordance with the Bharati line of Sankara's and the names given to it's brahmacharis at Srngeri Math.

namaskar,

bangli

S.K. De writes in 'Vaishnava Faith and Movement''

"It appears probable, on the other hand, that Madhavendra Puri and his disciple Isvara Puri were Samkarite Samnyasins of the same type as Sridhara Svamin, who in his great commentary on the Srimad Bhagavata attempted to combine the Advaita teachings of Samkara with the emotionalism of the Bhagavatas."

" It would seem that about the time of Sridhara himself there must have grown a tendency of tempering the severe monistic idealism of Advaita Vedanta with the devotional worship of a personal God. Sridhara appears to give a definite expression to this tendency in his well known commentaries on the Vishnu Purana, the Bhagavad Gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam, in which he acknowledges Samkaras teachings as authoritative., but considers Bhakti as the Best means of 'Advaita Mukti'.
footnote; 'The phrase sva-sampradaya at the beginning of his commentary need not be interpreted to mean Vishnusvamin Sampradaya. Jiva Gosvamin (tat-samdarbha, d. berhampore, p.68) dogmatically asserts that Sridhara, whose opinion is accepted as authoritative in the Bengal school, was a true Vaishnava who only tempered his Vaishnavism with Advaita doctrines in such a way as to make it acceptable to the Advaita schools. But there is no evidence to support this statement. On the contrary, at the commencement of his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, Sridhara distinctly acknowledges the views of the Bhasyakara (i.e. Samkara), and in many places refrains from further explanation by simply referring the reader to Samkara's interpretation. Although Bhakti is his main theme, the Advaita trend of his writings is too obvious to be mistaken.
chapter 1, Pre-Chaitanya Vaishnavism in Bengal p. 17 1st paragraph

namaskar,

bangli

So much of this evidence of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu being either an Advaitin or a Dvaitin boils down to "He said, she said" evidence. Sridhara seems to be clear that he is an Advaitin but the catch appears to be that he was a double-agent for the Vaisnavas. But then the other catch could be that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was a double-agent for the Advaitins.

Excuse me..?

SHOW me the evidence for dvaita connection!

A Puri is a Puri plain and simple...

I can see you are free/mukta to write here also without much research on the matter. It is very easy to get English publication from India and just do a copy and paste here , rather than learning language and trying to go in depth to know the truth.

dasanudas,

Are you so sure I have never researched this? only years my friend, long years...

Many know me here for quite some time...

Language is one thing logic is another indeed, and dont think 'Truth' cannot be conveyed in a language other than yours.

If you have something to say that differs, just come out and post it instead of getting all uptight..

geez,

Could we do some more focusing on the topic and some less evaluating of each other? In general, not only in this topic. I feel it might have a dramatic effect on the flow of our discussions.

Thank you

Madhavendra's guru was Lakshmipati Tirtha.

Agree and am noting that Bangli is presenting compelling evidence whether agreed with or not.

Perhaps the biggest block is the idea of many that bhakti is alien to Advaitic thought which is not. For reasons of the romance of bhakti alone, one does not wish to become the Lover that one has become entranced with. Even with the Atma being God, one is ever drawn to a deeper and passionate relationship with the All.

For those who are familar with the life of the advaitin, Bhagavan Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, it was hardly lacking passion and intensity that is characteristic of bhakti.

A.K. Majumdar;

"It is also necessary to take into consideration Chaitanya's reported preference for Sridhara Svamin's commentary on the Bh.P. (CC. III. vii. 96-120) Apparently Krishna-Das Kaviraja was not exaggerating, for Jiva Gosvamin has praised Sridhara Svamin both in the Brhad-vaishnava-tosani and TS (xxviii), where he is slightly apologetic for the Svamin's occasional foray in 'advaitavada'."

"There can be no doubt about the sect to which Sridhara Svamin belonged; his commentaries on the Bh. P. (x. 87) V.P. (mamgala verse) and the Gita (mamgla verse) show clearly that he was a monist. If Chaitanya had been a Madhva, it would have been impossible for him to consider Sridhara Svamin as an authority at all. As S. K. De has stated, Chaitanya could not have been as anti-Samkara as depicted by his biographer."

Chaitanya His Life and Doctrine, Chapter XXII p.125-26

namaskar,

bangli

But he was given the name 'Puri''..?

From GD's Jagatji himself;

Vyasa Tirtha’s dates are given as 1469-1539, which means that he postdated Chaitanya’s death by five years. Interestingly, from 1498 to the end of his life, Vyasa Tirtha lived in Vijayanagara, the capital city of Krishnadeva Raya, directly to the south of the Orissan kingdom of Prataparudra. These two kingdoms were frequently at war during this time. According to B. N. K. Sharma, Krishnadeva Raya had a lot of regard for Vyasa Tirtha, making several honorific references to him in his writings, even calling him his kuladevata.

The problem that Vyasa Raya’s dates presents for the Gaudiya tradition is self-evident. Vyasa Raya’s disciple was Lakshmipati, whose disciple was Madhavendra, whose disciple was Isvara Puri, Chaitanya’s guru, and yet he outlived them all!

Though at a stretch of the imagination, it is possible that such a connection existed, the general custom in non-Udupi institutions such as that of Vyasa Raya typically have only one "reigning" pontiff who designates someone to take his place only when it comes to prepare for his departure. Thus, had Lakshmipati Tirtha been Vyasa’s successor, he would not have acceded to this position before 1539, after Chaitanya’s disappearance. The question we are left with, even if the connection were possible, is how could such mistakes and omissions creep into the Gaudiya knowledge of the disciplic succession, especially in the matter of who was Vyasa Tirtha’s spiritual master, when they were not only contemporaneous, but neighbors? .(5)

Furthermore, if Chaitanya’s great-great-grand spiritual master lived in the neighboring kingdom, we would expect some kind of acknowledgement of this fact somewhere in his biographies. Even if the problem was one of disagreement – the Madhva line does not accept the worship of Radha, the central point of the Chaitanya line – one would expect such a break with the previous acharyas of the disciplic succession to be considered something of great significance – a central point of the legend, as it were. Krishna Das Kaviraja does briefly mention in passing that Mahaprabhu visited Udupi, the main seat of the Madhva line, and describes a debate that ostensibly took place on that occasion. .(6) He refers to the Madhva guru, without naming him, as a Tattvavadi. This is the term by which the Madhvas know themselves, but the use of the term itself confirms the distance between the two lines of thought. Indeed, in Kaviraja’s description of the meeting, Mahaprabhu uses the expression “your sampradaya” twice (Madhya 9.276, 277)

namaskar,

bangli

again:

Jagatji says:
"Thus, had Lakshmipati Tirtha been Vyasa’s successor, he would not have acceded to this position before 1539, after Chaitanya’s disappearance"


So how could he have possibly been the Guru of Madhavendra Puri..?

Bangli ji,

I beg my apology if I hurt you by my words. I just wanted to make my point clear here that if you could read Dr. Radha Govanda Nath's wrtings you could understand how clearly he has refuted Dr. S K De s points line by line. And along with your valuable comments you could present those here in this forum to make this discussion even more comprehensive.

Excuse me once again if I hurt you anyway.

Jay Nitai
Jay Gaur Hari

Dasanudas

Dasanudas,

You have not hurt me in any way at all...

I just wonder why you cannot post what it is you want 'others' to post for you?

It's kind of silly really....

There is diksha and there is sannyasa. They are not given simultaneously, nor necessarily by the same individual.

There is a lot of ambiguity with the names there. One must wonder, given the asynchroneity there, whether the Vyasa Tirtha mentioned is the same Vyasa who was Lakshmipati's guru.

LOL,

you guys are crackin me up..



brb makin tea...

Its a bit self deprecating to Bangli to suggest that he was hurt by your words. He's a big boy. He knows this is hard ball in suggesting that Mahaprabhu was an advaitin. I think you missed the point of Madhava that you were getting away from the ideas Bangli was presenting and attacking him. Ad hominem attacks which is a major domo faux pax in proper debating circles have become quite the norm on Rush Limbaugh's talk radio show and therefore this spillover into use here at Gaudiyadiscussions.



Its curious how you criticize him for his posting another's research and yet you encourage the mere reading of another, Dr. Radha Gaovanda Nath writings as the refutation.

But isn't that your responsibility to present the good Dr.'s works if you feel they present another side of this argument?

So please, as Bangli has expressed too, if Dr. Radha Govanda Nath has something important to say in this matter, please post it here so we may read it. And too, its a bit of a leap to expect the lot of us to be read his works when these writings are what one could consider as obscure.



Rest assured, you didn't. If anything, you tickled him and he laughed.

How seriously can we take such a distinction? Most Advaitins use the terms 'Advaita' and 'KevalAdvaita' interchangeably to describe the philosophy as taught by ZaGkara, at least those Advaitins who I know and discuss these issues with anyway. Perhaps you could give a few examples of the perceived differences/similarities between the two in a separate thread?


True, but I think the slanderous Ramakrishna would be a better example, since no follower of Caitanya has taken the Advaitic-sannyas. Not that I am aware of.


I have a copy of that file on disk if you're interested.

Madhavaji, but as you yourself quoted from a letter, that you received from Tattvavadi follower, the only type of diksha they have is sannyasa-diksha. For me it sounds like receiving both diksha and sannyasa simultaneously.

madhusUdana sarasvatI of the advaita siddhi fame is an example. He became a kRSNa bhakta after some "visions" he had about vRndAvana. As per my information, he departs significantly from zankara. Infact his philosophy goes somewhat like this - the personal God Izvara, is supposed to be real as long as he does lIlA and after His tirobhAva, actually "merges" into the formless brahma.


?

Slanderous..? Oh that's right and he poisoned all of bengal too

No Follower of Mahaprabhu has ever taken Advaitic Sannyass except himself, his Gurus and some of his associates like Damodar 'Svarup'

I really don't see what the big deal is in a substantial context. Most of what has been shown so far is that Caitanya is more "affiliated" with the ZaGkara school by virtue of His assuming the renunciate order in that school, something that all of us knew from day one anyway.

The charge (?) that Mahaprabhu actually was an Advaitin in terms of the philosophy that He taught is imaginative at best, in my view. If I may return to the original discussion, the question was more pertaining to the objections against Stuart Elkman's claims that Caitanya was more of an Advaitin and the GosvAmIs misrepresented Him. Bhrigumuni das observed that Elkman himself is an Advaitin so claims of bias cannot be thrown out, but Caitanya being described as anti-Advaita is left at the door of His biographers.

According to the traditional view, it was none other than the stalwart RaghunAtha dAs GosvAmI as well as MurAri Gupta who contributed the major source material for the CC. Another biographer is VRndAvana dAs ThAkur, who apparently heard from his mother NArAyanI. There is also the well-known Gaura-nAgarI, ZrI Lochana dAs ThAkur, who penned the ZrI Caitanya-maGgala. From an objective viewpoint, most of these sources can be seen as reliable since the bulk material are eyewitness statements and first-generation evidence or so. Unfortunately we are supposed to believe that the academic views of S.K. De and P.K. Majumder are supposed to be more reliable, being penned more or less 500 years later?

What's the big deal if MahAprabhu preferred the bhAzya of ZrIdhara SvAmi over others? MahAprabhu also liked the KRSNa-KarNAmRta as well, does that make Him a ZrI VaiSNava or so? His liking of VidyApatI and CaNDidAs' poetry makes Him a sahAjiyA too, I presume? To suggest that MahAprabhu preferred ZrIdhara SvamI's bhAzya because it may also have had Advaitic content is a stretch when it is well know He went into ecstasy over the more devotional content, just like He did over the "sahAjiya" poems of CaNDidAs et al.

In any case, yes; by virtue of His initiation into the renunciate order it may be possible for Him to be mistaken as an Advaitin. This is probably a reason for why NityAnanda broke the daGDa:

Oops, wrong wording. I meant 'much slandered'. But anyway, my personal views on that fellow are not suitable for this forum.


My point exactly. Bar one follower, no one in the GauDIya tradition has taken the Advaitic form of sannyAsa. So MahAprabhu is probably not a very good example. It seems to be very much the exception to the (GauDIya) rule so I wouldn't make too much of it. Just my view.

dasanudas wants me to reseach and post quotes for him and now you want me to start another thread for you?

You can start one if you like..

I'm busy with the Sridhar issue, thanks for the invite though...

Oh yes that's another thing. Dasanudasji, it would be very helpful if you could kindly provide us with Dr. Radhagovinda Nath's refutations of Elkman's claims. Bangli said he would present Elkman's claims when he gets the chance. I would be much interested in seeing this material.

Well yea in a sense, but that's not the entire story. As I have brought up the implication of him accepting the name 'Chaitanya' which is the standard name given by the bharati order to 'brahmacharis' at Srngeri Math ..

Thats a whole other 'can of worms'

I never said I would present Elkmans claims... where you get that from?

I believe dasanudas has probably only 'read somewhere' that Dr. Radhagovinda Nath's refutes Elkman's claims, in all honesty.

That is why he cannot reproduce them here...

=-

Right he only founded the sampradaya and was Krishnas incarnation....

What IS interesting is that what exactly Mahaprabhu taught and what his attitude was is open to interpretation, because he himself left no commentaries or written works other than Siksastakam.
And we see clearly in his biographies there was some bias, as we see in the case of the 'Panchasakha' never being mentioned whatsoever in the Bengali Biographies or in the Gosvami's writing's.

namaskar,

bangli

Being trikala-jJa, He knew that writing too much and allowing all your conversations to be recorded leads only to unspeakable mess..

Or, actually: just being a founder and leaving the movement to one's followers always leads to unspeakable mess, but the less writings one has left behind, the less one's followers will get tied up in them and hindered from making the tradition truly theirs...

I think this is an extremely important point (even if hotly contested by some). Pukka Sahajiyaas and many others also claim Mahaprabhu. Objectively speaking we are forced to go with what others have written about Mahaprabhu and what other scant facts are known, since he himself wrote so painfully little. But what makes what one group says about him 'bonafide' and the others bogus? Indeed an interesting dilemma.

Of course we can argue that the most widely accepted understanding must be the right one, by the fact that it is widely accepted, and that must be the will of God (I've heard this argument). But if we go by that logic we should all be either Muslims or Roman Catholics (I can't remember which is larger at present)!

To each of us, a resplendent Gaura in the heart!

As I see it, mahAprabhu's 8 verses point to kRSNa and kRSNa alone. At least, as I read it, and direct service. - "kRpayA tava pAda-paGkaja-sthita-dhUli-sadRzaM vicintaya", "govinda?viraheNa me", "mat?prANa?nAthas tu sa eva nAparaH" and this "indirect service" is introduced to the public with so much hoopla to the point of introducing guilt feelings in those who may have sentiments for kRSNa alone.

Amasingly, the Madhavendra Puri's belonging to tattvavadi is comfirmed by biography of Vallabhacharya by Swami Tapasyananda:

He stayed in Vijayanagar for about two or three years, during which period he came to have a deep understanding of the Vaishnava philosophy of Vishnu Swami and of Madhva. Though he differed from Madhva in philosophy, his association with that system was very close. It was an ascetic of the Madhva sect known as Madhavendra Yati that first introduced him to Bhagavata Purana, the most important text that he preached in his mature years. It was again he that in later years helped Vallabha to establish the temple at Govardhana, and in his last days, initiated him into Sannyasa.

After he got the third call he sent for Madhavendra Puri*, a Sannyasin of the Madhva sect who had earlier introduced him to the study of the Bhagavata and helped in the establishment of the temple of Govardhanadhari. He got initiated into Sannyasa by him under the name Purnananda.

Author, being Advaitin himself, states in footnote:

* It is a strange that the books on Vallabha describe Madhavendra Puri as a Sannyasin of the Madhva Sect. Puris are one of the ten Orders of monks claiming spiritual descent from Sri Sankaracharya. The description of Madhavendra as a follower of Madhva may be due to the prejudice that writers on Vallabha entertained towards Sankara. Vallabha is metaphysically as different from Madhva as from Sri Sankara. For further information on this ascetic, see Sri Chaitanya’s life.

But mere fact, that two different traditions refer to Madhavendra Puri as to tattvavadi, says much for itself. By the way, his "Puri" title can be explained without difficulty, if we assume, that he take sannyasa order of life before his conversion to Vaishnavism. And after conversion his new guru simply hasn't changed his sannyasi name.

Angrezi ji has association of present acharya from Pushti Marg. We can ask him to consult about Vallabhacharya biography and Madhavendra's role in his life.

I will consult Goswamiji before making any fallacious statements of my own, but I will pose a question.

What is the source material Swami Tapasyananda is using for this biography? If he is using standard acedemic books depending on his sources, they might cross-reference each other in the understanding that Madhavendra was a Madhvite. Or, the later Pushtimargiya biographers operated on that idea as well, being somewhat removed by time. Just initial thoughts.

I personally don't remember ever reading much at all about Sri Vallabha and Madhavandra together, and that is in context of Srinathji's seva, certainly not that he took sanyass from him!

I will dig a little and e-mail Goswamiji.

I see another diversion from my homework on the horizon ...

This is Varta 39 of a compilation of stories about the lilas of Srinathji written by Sri Vallabha's grandson Sri Gokulnathji (and added to by others after his passing) translated from Braja-bhasa to English by Shyamdas.


THE LIFE OF MADHAVENDRAPURI

Madhavendrapuri was a Tailang south Indian Brahman. He was an Acharya of the Madhva lineage and his disciple was Shri Krishna Chaitanya. Madhavendra had instructed Chaitanya to uplift the Bengal area. So the people from that area of India all became his disciples. Madhavendrapuri had taken sanyasa and lived in Banares. At that time, Shri Lakshman Bhatt, Shri Mahaprabhuji's father, was arranging for Shri Mahaprabhuji's sacred thread ceremony in Banares. It was then that Lakshman Bhatt requested Madhavendrapuri to teach his son. Within four months, Shri Mahaprabhuji had mastered the six scriptures and the four Vedas. As a gift to the guru, Shri Mahaprabhuji told Madhavendrapuri to ask of him whatever he wanted. Madhavendrapuri realized that Shri Mahaprabhuji was Krishna Himself and so he said, "You will bring forth the worship of Shri Nathji. It is through your grace that I now see your divine form with yogic eyes. I would like to receive a bit of Shri Nathji's seva. This is all that I ask for."

Then Shri Mahaprabhuji replied, "When I go to Braja and establish Shri Nathji in His temple, you will also be in Braja. At that time I will give you the seva of Shri Nathji. You will serve Shri Nathji as long as He desires your services."

Later, Shri Mahaprabhuji went to Braja and established Shri Nathji's seva. At that time, Madhavendrapuri also came to Braja and Shri Mahaprabhuji gave him Shri Nathji's seva. Shri Mahaprabhuji's blessings upon Madhavendrapuri allowed him the fight to serve Shri Nathji for fourteen years. Through him, many Bengalis were able to serve Shri Nathji.

Very interesting 'Sri Nathji' hey...?

Ya gotta love it!

Will the real Chaitanya Mahaprabhu please stand up?

Can't these people agree on anything...?

Dvaitists making of apology for Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's affiliation with the ZaGkara school for reasons of compassion due to respect and prescence such an initiation would bring Him in encouraging others to engage in Sankirtana is problematic but touchable but I feel the key point that is beyond apology and raises the flags is his preference above all others for the Bhagavata Purana commentary of the known advaitin Sridhara Swami.

If it looks like an advaitin, if it reads advaitin, then it must be an advaitin.

I have Elkman's book in my office. I can look it up at one point.

Dear Bangli Ji,

I have never said that Dr. Radha Govinda Nath refuted Elkman's claim. I said Dr. nath refuted Dr. S. K. Dey's points. So you are not correct in this part.

Please go through my profile and you can understand why your belief about me is not correct. It is all about tradition.

Also why I am not presenting excerpt from writings of radha govinda nath here? Only because I am not in a position to spend time on this for this forum. If in future I can extract some time out of my daily life ( returning back to india) I will definitely try to present something from my personal belongings ( If Nitai Chand wishes).

Then why I am commenting on your posting? Only because your are getting some scattered view by only following English translation of some selective so called scholars. There are lots of other valuable books / writings available in bengalee / sanskrit , which are not published/translated in English and from which you could probably present this topic more comprehensive/complete/conclusive to this forum,

Pranam

Dasanudas

Jai Nitai. Jai Gaur hari

=]/o

Please pray to Gaur for me.

Pranam
Dasanudas

Oops, looks like I mixed up one of your posts with one of Elpis'. Guess we'll have to wait for Elpis to present Elkman's arguments then.

=]/

As far as I know, there are a group of Dvaitins who decry the GauDIya sampradaya in entirety.


Why focus so much on one particular event in Caitanya's life as proof of His supposed Advaitic status? What about the conversations with SArvabhauma? What about the debate with PrakAzananda SarasvatI? What about MahAprabhu's jumping in the Ganges to "cleanse" Himself after looking at an Advaitin? And so on and on..

These three particular incidents (have I missed out any others?) display MahAprabhu's aversion to Advaita at best. Why focus on one incident and take it out of context? Taking MahAprabhu's "endorsement" of ZrIdhara SvamI's bhAzya as "proof" of His Advaitic status when there is much evidence to the contrary that He read it just like any other "questionable" text and simply took the essence, as it were, is not very logical in my view.

I think that it would be tantamount to labelling KRSNa as a coward simply because He had a plan to "run away" regularly from certain battles, despite much evidence to the contrary regarding His own ability to vanquish demons, win battles, and so on.

God bless the Vaishanavas here of true humble heart and mind!

I am sorry Gaursundara I appreciate your trying to be nice, however I do suspect that many of those stories that show Chaitanya adverse to Advaita are embellishments, that came after his passing away....

namaskar,

bangli

Something else just occurred to me. Following the above logic, I presume that there should be no objection if I revere MahAprabhu as a respectable ZrI VaiSNava authority by virtue of His deep appreciation for the KRSNa-karNAmRta and other Zri VaiSNava zlokAs. I may also presume that no one should object if I revere MahAprabhu as a respectable SahAjiya authority, by virtue of His deep appreciations for the poetry of VidyApatI and CaNDidAs.

Blaming Caitanya's biographers for "missing links" and levelling charges of bias can be said to be shown as invalid since much of the textual content is more or less first-hand evidence. The underlying assumption of ascribing evil motives to Caitanya's biographers and implying that they deliberately twisted and/or manipulated incidents in Caitanya's life to fit their own ideas is a disturbing one, particularly since it is well known that GauDIya theology only assumed a proper and cohesive codification at the time of ZrI Narottama dAs ThAkura. If we take this theory to its proper and logical conclusion, we are expected to believe that even the Six GosvAmIs were part of the conspiracy to hijack Caitanya's movement, since most of them welcomed and approved of the works of KRSNadAs KavIrAja and VRndAvan dAs ThAkura. Such a proposal would border on the ridiculous.

The debate over whether GauDIya VaiSNavism can be said to be a part of "this" or "that" tradition is ultimately of no use and is doomed to failure, since the unique feature of Caitanyite theology lies in the fundamental importance of its emotionalism and rasa. As such, a discordance arises when attempting to interpret it through the eyes of tattva, which is the hallmark of the VedAntic traditions including Advaita.

Well this is why I agree with Madhava when he said:

There is also the convenience of rejecting evidence that doesn't agree with one's views, which itself is a position of bias from a logical point of view.

Still, no harm in agreeing to disagree.

"With the exception of the so-called conversation of a leading Vedandist, Prakasananda, Chaitanya's presence at Benares does not appear to have been very fruitful, and made little impression in that great centre of Siva-worship and Advaita Vedanta."
(footnoote :- 1 )
'This Prakasananda may be the famous author of the Vedanta-siddhanta-muktavali, but there is hardly any data to identify the two. The so-called conversation, no doubt, is given as proof of Chaitanya's successful missionary effort and power of learned argumentation, but even from the missionary point of view the conversation did not prove very effective in a city like Benares.'

'The fact of the conversation, however, is rendered rather rather suspicious by the somewhat vauge account of Krsnadasa as well as by the denunciation, in a fairly immoderate language, of Prakasananda, put more than once in the mouth of Chaitanya himself by Vrndavandas himself. (C-bh, Madhya iii and xx), who, however, does not expressly mention the fact of the conversation. These biographers do not appear to be very amiable to this Vedantist scholar of Benares,- a fact which is somewhat unusual, indicating an unvaishnava attitude towards an alleged Vaishnava convert. The story of Prakasananda is not mentioned by Murari nor by Kavi-karnapura in his two works, nor by Jayananda and Locana-dasa.'

'At Benares, as well as Puri, Chaitanya is represented by Krsna-das Kaviraja as giving elaborate instruction to Sanatan and Rupa in the dogmas and doctrines of the cult, but the six long chapters of the biography which are devoted to this detailed theological exposition merely give a direct summary, with free quotations, of the learned works which the two brothers themselves composed later on.'


S.K. De 'Vaishnava Faith and Movement' p. 100

"The theology that is attributed to Him (Sri Chaitanya) by Krishnadas is clearly the theology of a later day, in which Krishnadas himself was severely trained. This is, however, not the impression given by Murari-gupta, Vrndavana-das and other biographiers of the Navadvipa circle, who avoid the exaggerated scholastic colouring and enlarge more upon Chaitanya's ecstatic devotion and power of working miracles. It must not also be forgotten that the significance of Chaitany's teaching lies not so much in his special interpretation of this or that text, but in the reality and force of his inner spiritual experience, which gave him an extraordonary power over the minds of men"

(after he gave up his Tol)

"His scholarly pursuits of a Pandit, the pride of learning, the zest for dialectic disputations - all passed out of his (Sri Chaitanya's) life, which now began to move in a new atmosphere of entirely different interests. Outside the Srimad Bhagavata, the newly discovered Brahma-samhita, the Samgita-nataka of Ramananda, and the devotional lyrics of Lilasuka, Jayadeva, Vidyapati and Chandidasa, he appears to have relished next to nothing. It is misdirected zeal which invests him with the false glory of scholastic eminence; His true greatness lies in other directions, and his power over men came from other sources"


"It is indeed difficult to say how much of the elaborate theologising, which is piously put in his mouth, was actually uttered by him; for his reported utterances are in fact faithful summaries of the highly scholastic texts of the Vrndavana Gosvamis themselves, who, as leisured recluses, could devote their keenly trained minds to the construction of an elaborate system.

In chapter after chapter of the Chaitanya Charitamra of Krishna Das, Chaitanya is credited with stupendous sastric learning, highly philosophical discources, great scholastic ingenuity, marvels of interpretation in expoundimg finely finished theological and rhetorical systems of Bhakti; but the general impression, given by the orthodox accounts themselves, of Chaitanya's life of continous and absorbing devotional ectasies, as well as his own disclaimer (explained as the result of his humility) of all such pretensions, certainly throw considerable doubt upon his personal responsibility in such scholastic pursuits"


"The scholary and theologically minded Krishnadas kaviraja loves to depict Chaitanya as a scholar and founder of a school of theology, devotes a long and learned chapter of his biography to the detailed description of a systematic scholistic discourse between Ramananda and Chaitanya, lasting ten days and nights, on the whole theme of Bhakti. In the course of the conference the interlocutors quote and discuss, with the evident relish and precision of trained theologians, texts from the works of Rupa, Sanatana and Jiva, and even from Krishnadas's own Govinda-lilamrta, all of which had not been yet written"


"It must be remembered that Chaitanya Charitamrta of Krishnadas is not a Carita, but a Charitamrta, written more from the devotional than from the historical point of view. It also must be remembered that it was written nearly 100 years after the passing of Sri Chaitanya, completed in the year 1537 saka or 1615 A.D..
And yes it was written as a means to bridge (if you will) the two schools of Gaudiya Vaishnavism that had existed up to that time.

The Navadvipa circle was represented by the works of Murari Gupta, Kavikarnapura, Locana Das and Jayananda, as well as the composers of Padas on Sri Chaitanya and of course Vrndavana Das"

"They had their own theology which was somewhat different from that of the Vrndanava Gosvamis and Krishnadas. The works of the Gosvamis and the Navadivpa devotees were, however, composed at about the same time, although the Navadvipa tradition probably originated earlier than the other.

"If Vrndavana Das's inspiration came chiefly from the orthodox circle of Navadvipa, Krishnadas's inspiration came from the scholistic Gosvamis of Vrndanava and EACH in his own way throws intertesting light on different aspects on Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
The two works of Vrndavana Das and Krishnadasa, therefore, are in a sense complementary to each other as representing two distinct traditions within the Gaudiya Vaishnava faith."


quotes from Vaishnava Faith & Movement..
S.K. De

Don't forget locana dAsa, he was distinct from both vRndAvana dAsa and kavirAja.

well please be so kind as to shed light on that..

I'm exausted..

locana dAsa is a hard core nadIyA nAgarI as is evident form his dhAmali and also from his caitanya mangala. vRndAvana dAsa is clearly uncomfortable with this, and kavirAja does not care.

You have to give some thought to the speculation that one's own interests could have significantly visible influence on one's perception of the "objective" truth; one need not necessarily be faulted for that as that could work subconsciously. For example take the incident of mahAprabhu defeating the tattvavAdIs during his tour in the south. What the tattvavAdIs correctly object to is that given the reputation of their tradition (things like battling eight hundred years on just three words from the chAndogya), it is strange that the tattvavAdI AcArya is not given a single opportunity to defend his position. (As per them) no tattvavAdI worth his salt will go down so shamelessly in a debate. Unless some miracle happened there, it is hard to ignore the argument of the tattvavAdIs here.

And here is another example of what kind of havoc, belief systems play on one's balance of thoughts. maNi manjarI (from your website), a tattvavAdI compilation depicts zankara as a demon incarnate.

We have surely had manjarIs here who have been accused of being demons

What he probably meant was that zrIdhara's allegiance was truly with the advaitic order instead of the hearsay in the gauDIya circles that he had monistic connotations thrown in to save his butt. Now a mahAprabhu who could say "mAyAvAdI bhASya sunile haya sarvanAza" would find it difficult to appreciate a monistic commentary, never mind it's devotional content.



Ah yes, Jagat mentioned something along these lines. It does not matter whether kRSNa exists or not, all we need is to love him. I don't think this is even true of the orthodox tradition within bengal vaiSNavism who are much more interested in tattva than others.

If you look closely at the tradition and what is said to have happened during various conversions or debates that Mahaprabhu was invovled in - you have to conclude that indeed they were 'miraculous'. His conversion of Sarva Bhauma Battacharya, for instance, is more about not saying anything than about saying anything specifically that 'defeated' the philosophy put forth for seven days by the Battacharya. If you look closely at all these incidences you will find that the miraculous conversion takes place not by strength of argument per se - but by the very presence of Mahaprabhu and his bhava. Given that, I think it entirely plausible that the 'tattvavadi' was 'defeated' by Mahaprabhu's love and it's infectious nature rather than any particularly strong philosophical argument.

This is, in fact, what the tradition is all about at it's core. It is about knowing beyond the realm of the mind and reason. Since it is a core tenet of the gaudiya siddhanta that bhakti is infused into the heart of the aspirant by the guru who has it, one has to conclude that there is a mystical transmission of knowledge that goes beyond merely mental or intellectual understanding. That's not to say that intellectual and mental endeavor isn't needed - it's just a point of understanding that real knowing is beyond a mental or intellectual construct.

To love someone is to really know someone.

Just to get back to the Sridhara Swami commentary issue for a moment - what I have yet to see from anyone on this thread is any actual quote from his commentary that substantiates that it's conclusion is monistic. I've seen a lot of speculation from various scholars regarding the implications of Mahaprabhu's allegiance to the commentary and even a comment that Sridhara Swami's commentary was monistic with an influence of bhakti - but that it's conclusions were that bhakti ultimately leads to adwaita mukti. Although this was stated, there was no direct quote from the commentary backing up such a claim. I would like to propose that this discussion will not bear any meaningful fruit without such substantial evidence.

There has also been allegations about the biographies of Mahaprabhu and their authenticity in terms of historical fact. The problem, as I see it, is that speculations as to other plausible scenarios have no empirical data to back them up. We are left with - Chaitanya's name, where he traveled and his high regard for Sridhara Swami's commentary as the only 'evidence' to support alternative explanations for the events recorded by his biographers. I find this type of speculation to be a very far reach and certainly not enough to substantiate the allegations regarding the explanations given by his biographers and by the tradition itself.

I agree with this to a point but what I and others have a problem with is this total abandonement of mind and reason that goes into many of the arguments presented here. If you felt this was really the core, you would be at AliceinWonderland discussions and not Gaudiya discussions. A certain prescence of mind and logic brought you to the Gaudiya traditions. What myself and others are asking if we find our true logic, reason and prescence of mind, the real Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu would stand up in our hearts and we wouldn't voice so many contradictory statements.

As per Sridhara Swami's monism and tasting the flavor of bhakti. This has been touched upon before and bhakti is not contradictory or opposed to advaitic understanding. One could even say bhakti is the total celebration of that which is monist.

What is 'emperical data' seems to be a reletive consideration. I think that is one of the underlying points in the posts of Bangli and others. The Tattvavadi's have their 'data' or 'evidences' regarding Mahaprabhu, the followers of Vallabha theirs, the Sahajiyaas theirs, etc. The fact seems to be, bias can be detected in everyones 'data', including that of Kaviraj Goswami, which is fine and perfectly natural. Therefore, I do not feel that the opinions and evidences presented by other groups, and those in this forum to be 'speculation'.

We will never know the full realm of historical facts in the life of Mahaprabhu. Those who are his followers don't even require this knowledge if they are acting from internal inspiration. We don't even know the full historic facts behind the lives of many mundane figures in the modern day, what to speak of medieval India. The presentations are flawed. Some whould argue that Kaviraj's presentation could not be flawed by dint of his spiritual power, and that's a valid argument from the subjective platform. However this thread is interesting to me because it approaches the issue from an objective stance, as most of us are already familiar with the former.

Any tradition is in fact, a tradition, not a collection of irrefutable empirical evidence. To think otherwise would be naive. Hagiographers within any tradition will write for the purpose of glorification of their tradition, and of course, there is no fault in that.

Those with certain types of spiritual aspiration will be drawn to a certain type of tradition. The discussions in this thread are not meant for everyone, as it approaches this subject in a way that might be disagreeable to some. It is afterall in the "controversial" section .

What I really think is that the biographies of saints by their followers, reveals more about the authors than about the subject matter. Let us see, what somebody posted about mAdhavendra purI



What are you going to make of it? So you can't tell your version to the tattvavAdIs, or for that matter to anybody else and expect that it be taken as an objective truth, something that really happened. You are entitled to your belief, but it won't be admitted as incontrovertible evidence in a court of law.

I leave you to your beliefs but should I understand that when you say that the "mercy" is given by the Guru to the disciple, the disciple somehow comes to understand that those events mentioned in the biographies actually happened. Doubts he had earlier, were removed by the "mercy"?

Ok fine I have not read what zrIdhara svAmI wrote in his commentary, so I do not bend either way now, but now your argument hinges on his commentary being free of mAyAvAdI purports. I do remember that somewhere jIva gosvAmI is said to have stated that he rejects some part of zrIdhara's commentary because of their support for monism. If he is totally clean, then your position may be vindicated, but if not, I think a statement like "mAyAvAdI bhASya sunile haya sarvanAza" is quite a strong standpoint. And to consider that a person having this attitude towards monism would have such a high regard for a commentary with some sympathy towards monism, I find a bit awkward.

Kishalayaji,
I was that 'somebody' who posted that which you quoted, which were the words of Sri Vallabhacarya's grandson. The Mahaprabhu referred to here is Vallabhacarya, not Sri Caitanya. It was posted as part of a sub-discussion of Madhavandra Puri's sampradayika links, and for no other reason. I have read your post three times and I can't figure out if you are addressing your points to me personally (since I posted what you quoted) or making general comments. To whom are you addressing "you"? - Al-angrezi

We need to strongly consider the fact that Sridhar Svamin or 'zrIdhara svAmI' if you like, was in fact the 10th Sankaryacara of the Govardhana Math at Puri. Now THAT right there says heaps and heaps. There is just too much objective evidence that point's to the possibility, if you will, that Sri Chaitanya was not as adverse to Advaita as his later biographers made him out to be. His taking Sannyass from a known Advaitin, taking the common name of 'Chaitanya' that is given to brahmacaris in the 'Bharati order. Being introduced as a 'mayavadi' sayassin at Benares and Puri...the list goes on.

Some of his 'much' later biographers wrote some pretty strange things to try and give credence to his being the 'Yuga Avatar' as well. The spurious 'Chaitanya Upanishad' and the other work by the same author that mentions that dream about Madhvacarya having about Chaitanya is just plain ridiculous.

As far as his defeating various schools and converting masses of people, there is much doubt in that . I will be forthcoming in that regard as well.

"I've seen a lot of speculation from various scholars regarding the implications of Mahaprabhu's allegiance to the commentary and even a comment that Sridhara Swami's commentary was monistic with an influence of bhakti - but that it's conclusions were that bhakti ultimately leads to adwaita mukt"

The 'scholars' opinions that have been brought forth are considered pretty much as some of the most authoritative in historical research regarding Gaudiya Vaishnavism. S.K. DE was one of the foremost no doubt who is referred to in MOST historical works on Gaudiya Vaishnavism as well as his student A.K. Majumdar.

S.K. De I admit was not a practicing Gaudiya Vaishnava, however he is referred to in most Gaudiya Historical writings i.e., D.C. Sen., Melville T. Kennedy, Aloka Lahiri, Edward C. Dimock, Prabhut Mukherjee, Dr. H.C. Das who wrote 'Sri Chaitanya in the Religious Life of India' and even various Gaudiya Math scholars refer to S.K. De also, as well as GD's own Scholar Jagat in many of his personal writings. B.B Majumdar is another important Gaudiya scholar and historian who's views are very important. To say across the board that their views are unimportant and just speculation is simply uninformed, unread and fanatical in my opinion.

If the only opinions that are allowed and considered on historical aspects of a religion are it's own followers...
then it becomes a closed matter and yes fanaticism and one-sidedness creeps in.

An example is the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they were guarded by the Catholic church for years and years not allowing other scholars outside their tradition to even have access to comment on them.

namaskar,

bangli

Sorry angrezi ji, I am not quite used to following protocol in every small thing that I do. This is the second time I think somebody has reminded me of the confusion resulting from my not attributing the quote to the proper person. I am horribly out of time at my workplace so I posted whatever I could salvage in a few minutes. "You" was Audarya Lila Dasa.

I am quite aware that the "mahAprabhu" referred to here is vallabhAcArya. Therefore I asked what do gauDIya vaiSNavas have to say when they hear from the followers of vallabhAcArya that mAdhavendra purI realized vallabhAcArya is kRSNa.

Exactly! I participate in another forum, www.chaitanyamahaprabhuwasanadvaitin.com and folks there get very angry and peturbed and it is considered quite controversial to have anyone suggest that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was a dvaitist. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu it seems is a chameleon of sorts and is many things to many different traditions often one being contradictory to the other tradition.

Instead of us trying to find conclusive truth what is the one real Mahaprabhu, maybe we just have to accept the one real Mahaprabhu is many and appears however one wishes to share communion with Him.

Bangli, I thought for the longest time that we were just banging our heads against the wall here and no one was convinced of anything from our arguments but I just heard from a friend who chooses to remain anonymous and who is in touch with lots of the GBC and Iskcon head honchos and it seems lots of them have become convinced of these arguments from reading them here and now they're thinking of changing the name of "Back to Godhead" magazine to "Back to Brahmajyoti".

Audarya Lila Dasa has a point here. We need to see what is actually written in zrIdhara svAmI's commentaries on bhAgavatam, bhagavad gItA and viSNu purANa.

Satyanarayana Dasa in his commentary to 27.2 of zrI tattva sandarbha (Page 142) writes very confidently "He clearly states in his commentaries that the Lord's form, qualities, abode, associates, and names are all transcendental and eternal and that devotion to the Lord continues even after liberation." This is something that is definitely not within advaita comfort level. I am wondering, if he is a controversial figure in the advaita circles. How could he, being a head pontiff of an advaita mutt, write such conclusions?

Kishalaya,

It is a very good point indeed, however for lack of that availibility I have posted comments from the leading recognized Gaudiya Historians such as S.K. De, Prabhut Mukherjee etc. who's opinions are considered as primary source material in Gaudiya History.
Are you at all familiar with them? Their opinions are certainly not just merely 'speculation' as has been suggested here.

namaskar,

bangli

Perhaps he got away with it percisely because he was a big pontiff. As we know Madhvacarya split from his guru who was a big famous advaitin and ended up later converting his guru to his line of thought and maintaining the relationship. Interesting situation.

Reflecting on this thread I had the following thought: We see deliniation between different schools and modes of thought etc. according to the 20th and 21st century deliniations that have evolved to the present state slowly over time, through the teachings of many individuals. Who's to say what the 'real' mood was of Advaitins and Dvaitins 1000 years ago? Also, no matter what the party-line is, there are always learned free-thinking individuals who act in a way that may be opposed to the tradition they may be popularly associated with, and defy definition as such.

Kishalaya,

You may have missed this early on in the discussion:

"S.K. De says "Sridhara Svamin in his commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam attempted to COMBINE the Advaita teachings of Sankara with the Devotionalism of the Bhagavatas."

Devotion to Krishna or Narayan has never been considered inconsistent with one's belonging to the Sankara Sampradaya, many taught that Advaita realization could be attained through worship of a particular diety as a person or a symbol.

The tutelary deity of Sankara himself was Krishna, although his chief disciple, (like Sridhar) worshipped Nrsimha.

Around the time of Sridhar Svaimin there seems to have developed a type of 'Tempering' (in S.K.De's words) of the severe monistic idealism of Advaita Vedanta with the 'Devotional Worship' of a personal GOD."

namaskar,

bangli

No I am not, but I am quite aware of the problems they would have to deal with. Just as caitanya is mired in controversy because on one hand his biographers depict him as intolerant of mAyAvAda and then agree that he had high regard for a commentary with a monistic slant. It would be hard for such a person to accept even a minimal deviation from the bhAgavat path, and to say he had high regard? This strikes as very awkard. Similarly it would be very awkward if zrIdhara svAmI could write such things on the very edge of an advaitins tolerance level with him being a zaGkarAcArya of an advaita mutt and still not have some controversy revolving around him.

Again;

"Around the time of Sridhar Svamin there seems to have developed a type of 'Tempering' (in S.K.De's words) of the severe monistic idealism of Advaita Vedanta with the 'Devotional Worship' of a personal GOD."

No one ever said his commentary was not controversial..IT WAS no doubt!
I would suggest you read what some of the Gaudiya historians say in this regard perhaps...

namaskar,

bangli

I really want to know if this was a tempering of conclusions to a level that would say that the saguNa brahma is "eternal". And that is why it is necessary to know what was exactly written. As you probably know, after liberation, in advaita, there is no saguNa brahma

from:
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html

nirguNa and saguNa brahman -
To resolve such passages in the upanishads, advaita vedAnta maintains that really brahman is devoid of all attributes, and is therefore known as nirguNa. brahman may be described as in the upanishads, as Truth (satyam), Knowledge (jnAnam), Infinite (anantam), or as Being (sat), Consciousness (cit), Bliss (Ananda), but none of these terms can be truly interpreted as attributes of brahman as a Super-person/God. Rather, it is because brahman exists, that this whole universe is possible. It is because brahman exists that man ascribes attributes to brahman. However, brahman's true nature cannot be captured in words, for all these attributes are ultimately just words. Hence, it is man's ignorance of Its true nature that postulates attributes to brahman, thereby describing It in saguNa terms (with attributes). This saguNa brahman is ISvara, the Lord, whose essential reality as brahman is not dependent on anything else, and does not change because of the production of this universe. Therefore, advaita holds that brahman's own nature (svarUpa- lakshaNa) is devoid of any attributes (nirguNa), while It is seen for the temporary purposes of explaining creation (taTastha- lakshaNa) to be ISvara, with attributes (saguNa).

Now if devotion is eternal (which I feel is difficult to write about by any commentator as something that does not require deity-devotee differentiation) and the rUpa, lIlA, dhAma of the Lord etc. i.e. saguNa brahma is eternal and transcendental, then we are no longer in advaita territory.

Just to clear up for you Bangli - I didn't say that one should simply disregard the 'opinions' of anyone out of hand. What I said was I would like to see some actual evidence supporting the 'opinions' being presented. In the case under discussion it would be a conclusive statement along the lines that Kishalaya is speaking about - that rupa, lila, etc. are temporary and only tools used to reach mukti at which point they disappear - if this type of statement is found in Sridhara Swami's commentary and is not contradicted by statements of the type that Satyanarayana attributes to him (per Kishalaya's post) then the opinion would carry more weight since it is being 'proven' by presentation of the actual text.

I don't know about you - but for me - I like to see quotes from a text that substantiate the claims one is making about it. That certainly isn't too much to ask - otherwise anyone can say anything since there will be no burden of proof.

It is a very good point indeed, and frankly I like to see quotes from a text too, however as I said to Kishalaya 'for lack of that availibility I have posted comments from the leading recognized Gaudiya Historians' such as S.K. De, Prabhut Mukherjee etc. who's opinions are considered as primary source material in Gaudiya History. I will also ask you Audarya-lila are you at all familiar with these Gaudiya historians? Their opinions are certainly not just merely 'speculation' and I'm sorry but you did seem to imply that they were, I could have been mistaken of course..

I mean no harm in asking this but what does Triparari Mhj say about about Sridhar Svami? Does he believe he belonged to the Visnusvami sect as most do in GM?

namaskar,

bangli

I never have said that Sridhar Svami's commentary was your everyday run of the mill hard core advaitin atheistic commentary with nirguna brahman as the final resting place, although I doubt he mentions Goloka ( there's a Topic)

I will be the first to tell you that Sridhar Svami's commentary was controversial and caused a stir in Benares, this is known.... and the reason is obviously because it was so imbued with Bhakti, unlike other Advaitin commentaries. However keep in mind that Bhakti itself has never been out of line with the system that Sankaracarya initiated, even though nirguna brahman is generally seen as ultimate above the manifestations of saguna brahman in various Gods/Goddessess and Avatars.

Sankaracarya himself introduced the traditional pancayatana puja worship which is offered to Siva, Visnu, Sakti, Ganesa and Surya, as aspects of saguna brahman. Skanda is sometimes included in South India as well

The fact that the prominent non-advaita schools of vedanta are dualisticly vaisnava leads to a misconception because they see advaitins as nothing but opposed to themselves, being non-dual. They cannot see Advaitins as anything but 'Mayavadis' who could not possibly have devotion/Bhakti/Love of God etc. Because they hold nirguna brahman as supreme. But in reality Advaitains include Bhakti in their system and also have image worship/puja/ offerings etc. even kirtan!

The famous Madhusudana Sarasvati was an ardent devotee of Krsna, while Prakasananda was a sakti-worshipper. There is ample evidence to show many times that Sankaracarya himself worshiped Krsna/Narayan, the Bhaja Govindam verses speak for themselves.

The whole problem comes with yes saguna and nirguna brahman and which one Sankaracarya see's as higher or lower. He is condemed by all and a demon because he see's nirguna Brahman as supreme. But really all schools of Vedanta differ on that issue with their own interpretation.

Sri Vaishnavas do not accept Krishna as the source of all incarnations and most certainly see Krishna as an incarnation of Sriman Narayana, they also see Radha as a Jiva. The Madhvas reject the erotic Rasa-pancadhyaya section of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is sacred to Gaudiyas. Radha is not found in Madhavs system, and the gopis are seen as exalted apsaras.

The differences in Siddhantas are limitless and whose to say what is more offensive and to who? Is the concept of holding nirguna-brahman as supreme as offensive as considering Radha and the gopis as apsara jivas...?

In reality, advaitins are non-sectarian, and they advocate worship of Siva and Visnu equally with that of the other deities of Hinduism, like Sakti, Ganapati and others. Modern neo-vedantins, who are most strongly influenced by advaita-vedanta, have no trouble accepting Moses, Christ and Buddha also. Philosophically, classical advaita would disagree as much with the Saiva-siddhanta and the Saiva vedanta schools, who's non-dual extremes excede even advaita.

I am not trying to say that Sri Chaitanya was a pure advaitin by any means. But his own life events seem to indicate that he was not as adverse to advaita and other Indian systems of religion, both dual and non-dual, as his later biographers make him out it seems. There are several factors that point to that 'outside the Sridhar issue'. Such as his taking sanyaas from 'Keshava Bharati' a known advaitin, as well as taking the common brahmachari name of 'Chaitanya' found in the 'Bharati Order'. His close association of the 'Panchasaka of Orrisa' who were of the Nath Yogi sect and Orissan Vaishnavs who incorporated Voidest worship while worshiping Jagannath-Buddha shows a liberal attitude. He also never protested to being introduced as a 'mayavadi sanyassin'.

But he was indeed a Krishna Bhakta no doubt..

namaskar,

bangli

I don't know what my Guru Maharaja thinks regarding any link between Sridhara Swami and Vishnuswami, I have never asked him. If your interested in his opinion on the matter I would be happy to ask him.

I am not familiar with S.K. De's writings. I do appreciate your posting a spinkling of them here.

I personally don't demonize anyone. I try to see the good in everyone. Certainly I see the good in those who follow the path mapped out by the great Shankaracharya.

As far as Lord Chaitanya's biographers go - I feel differently about them than you do - but that doesn't mean I don't respect you and your freedom to view them according to your own faith and understanding. I think sometimes things are said in a very cutting/harsh and judgemental way and other times the same message is conveyed in a very soft and congenial manner. It depends on the time and circumstance to a large degree how one conveys his/her convictions - but it also depends on invidual style quite abit.

My Guru Maharaja has made the point on many occasions that as gaudiyas we should not forget the bheda part of our metaphysic. We stress the abedha part of the equation for obvious reasons, but we should realize the truth in the 'oneness' part of the metaphysic as well.

Namaskar,

Audarya-lila dasa

I can confirm that there is no single occurrence of the word "goloka-" or its derivatives in Sridhara Svamin's BhP commentary.

-ek

Personally I feel that Golokaness is a fabrication of those who are insecure with insecurity and the unfathomalness of everything coming from nothing. It strikes me as a fundamentalist term similar to many other concretizations of heaven by many religions around the world. By no coincidence, those who believe in a heaven where they can walk about often believe in the hell for those who don't make the grade and is equally as illusory i.e., does not exist. But while it may not exist, those who believe in hell have a way of manifesting its qualities in the fabric of our world.

Which is my problem with dvaitist thought is that is opens up a whole can of worms and creates conflict in the lives of persons and the society that practices it or believes it.

I always felt that Sridhara's commentary is one of those "You can have the cake and eat it too." You get to be God and play with God too.

Involvement with Krishna's pastimes is therefore more of an aesthetic appreciation that flowers into total divine love intoxication rather than a heady theological discourse of Krishna being God. Krishna is not identified as God but someone one wishes to hear Him play His flute or to dance with.

The One becomes many so we can have a really big party and a really fun time.

As to what is the nature of the soul, because we have a localized physical body inhabiting our consciousness in illusion we thus feel that consciousness is personality and not individual. Souls though are like the blobs in a lava lamp that come together and break apart in the heating action of the Light and therefore God has kindly giving us the lava lamp so that we may conceptualize the idea that there is only one person here, every single one of us.

"I am you and you are me and we are all together"

Whether one follows Adwaitavada or Dwaitavada conflict and problems in the world will exist. Both ideas are concerned with the nature of Brahman - Both philosophies have to deal with material duality. I don't see the connection between Dwaitavadis and problems in the world. In the various conceptions and interpretations of Vedanta that include eternal personhood and individuality as well as monism heaven and hell are part of the material duality - liberation in all schools of Vedanta takes one beyond material duality.

Audarya lila, actually I'm not talking about following any philosophy. To follow a philosophy is to create conflict for there will always be one's idea of the world and experience and the actual world and actual experience. The image will never be the fact and so in holding the image, one has chosen not the real thing. Truth is actuality.

So if you to choose to believe there will always be problems in the world, that will be your experience because that is what you believe. One creates reality out of what they believe. If you can't make the connection of the school of thought that believes in hell and therefore will create it as part of their reality, then that is a problem of your own fuzzy logic and there is nothing I can do about that.

As to the material duality of this world, as such it doesn't exist but due to the illusion we take on so God may have the experience of being God by us not being God, there is the experience of material duality but that is an illusion and a most necessary one and as well, most necessary in time that you let go of.

To understand there is no hell and not to clutter up your head with literal interpretation of Vedantic metaphor and mythos, in small ways in your life, see how you grow and prosper and evolve in a loving environment as opposed to a negative environment. In my own in understanding how love fullfills all, I know that hell is only a unnecessary necessary creation of man till that that, today, when we decide that not to be no longer has to be an aspect of our beingness.

Hopefully too, you can figure out lots of cosmic riddles and not go by interpretations of others or others declaring reality unto you as in this way we can truly know truth.

(babu)

A Golden Thought!

And it is so apparent from the articulate writings of the non-dualists that they are floating in blessedness.

Thanks for the compliment Babu!

Why do you espouse a philosophy in your post yet as the same time suggest that all mental constructs get in the way of actual experience? I'm specifically referring to paragraph 3 in your post.

I won't follow suit with you and insult you or your way of thinking. I'm quite happy with the mental faculties granted to me by Krsna.

Let's look at a little logic here. If you place your hand in fire will it burn? If you believe it won't, will it not burn? The obvious answer is that your belief in whether or not it will burn is immaterial - basic physics and natural law will function regardless of your mental outlook. This is a very simple example of a very simple truth derived at by use of logic - belief does not govern reality.

I happen to be an optimist and have a very postive outlook on life and people around me. I would welcome an end to suffering and conflict in this world. If such a state of affairs arises it will do so regardless of my belief in the possibility of it occuring or not. Still, even though I am an optimist, I also am a student of human nature, the physical sciences and history. Based on my study of these subjects my own conviction is that there will always be conflict and misery in material existence.

Why is it that already 2 gaudiyas have inversed the meaning of abheda and bheda.
I may have misunderstood you
but abheda is non-distict and
bheda is distict.
It seems you are implying otherwise?
The other person who inversed the terms also said that he has always heard and been taught them in this inversed way.
Anyway people are saying so many things here that i respond to in the 'bheda abheda' thread.
I think particularly Audurya you might have something to add to it, since your guru seems to be into emphasizing both bheda and abheda, and it seems not many Gaudiyas think about that.

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

This awkwardness actually strikes a blow for those who hold that Caitanya's biographers "hijacked" his life story and put words into His mouth. If that was so, then why not simply delete the "I like Zridhara's commentary" episode, instead of leaving it in and perpetuating the awkwardness and confusion?

It's just not logical, in my view.

By the way, an important consideration of worthy note is that within the faith-centred ideology of a system such as GauDIya VaiSNavism the word of its lawmakers is exactly that, law. Therefore for a GauDIya, the records of Caitanya's life by luminaries such as KRSNadAs KavirAja, VRndAvan dAs Thakur etc, are unquestionable.

The same cannot be said for academic scholars, since it is well known that a study or a conclusion must undergo substantial peer review before becoming widely accepted as 'fact'. Even then, its status is still considerably shaky since newly discovered evidence can overturn previously-held conclusions and research will have to be undergone in light of any new facts. Who or what is behind the idea that the academics mentioned above are of pre-eminent positions? Their opinions are not important to the average GauDIya sAdhak, but are of interesting academic consideration nonetheless.

Is Prabhat Mukherjee critical? Why is he listed as a US distributor for the works of KAnuprIya GosvAmI?

It seems most religious figures have their lives ‘hijacked’ after they leave this world. Certainly Jesus did, Buddha no doubt, Sri Vaishnavas split, today there is a major guru-parampara dispute that has been going on for years at Sankara’s Jyotir Math. There is plenty of historical proof to show how religion changes, sometimes drastically, after a saint or great religious figure leaves this world.

Sri Chaitanya’s biographers came at different times Murari being the first of course. Vrndavan das, Kavi-Karnapura, Locan das and Krishna das came later at different times, plus you had your Sahajiya texts and all from that side of the fence. The stories of these biographers gradually became embellished with some exaggerations it seems. One thing to be noted, in India so much of this embellishment is part of the Indian mind, and it was very common-place in religious writings in India from pretty much any school to attribute miraculous exaggerations to any Guru, Holy Man, Saint or Politician.

It appears from objective historical study that certain things were allegedly attributed to Sri Chaitanya that he clearly did not say or do, this has been observed objectively by not more than one scholar who were specialists in their fields of study, I have mentioned some of their names here, and what do I hear..? Basically I hear the same thing I heard in Iskcon, that being more or less that ‘mundane scholars’ are worthless and materially motivated or they don’t have the ‘proper bhava’ to really decipher the message of the scriptures and convey it properly, along those lines. “Milk touched by the Lips of a Serpent’ stuff. Or don’t listen to anyone else who has an opinion about our history except us or you will become bewildered.

I used to believe all that, but after reading and cross referencing certain findings, I see that they are not as they were made out to be to us. So many things were demonized in IGM and other Gaudiya lines perhaps ‘Mundane Scholars’ one of them.

I would agree that they don’t share the ‘bhava’ that a devotee would, but that does not mean that in terms of dating , discovering of manuscripts and yes translations, that their conclusions on certain criteria are worthless. Being objective in research has it’s value in accuracy. In fact there are benefits that the devotees get from those efforts, even if it is not recognized. Just like every dualist puts down Sankara, but at the same time owes much to his efforts of commenting on Brahma Sutra, Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads.

They couldn’t delete the Sridhar episode, not possible, Sridhar Svami was a hero in Puri who authored famous commentaries in the 14th century on Srimad Bhagavtam, Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu Purana and I have learned he wrote a Sankara Dig Vijaya called ‘Sarva Vedanta Siddhanta Sara Sangraha’ which was a brief sketch of the life of Sri Sankaracharya. I am in the process of getting a copy, it will be interesting to hear what he says about Sankara no doubt. Sri Chaitanya came there to Puri as a young sanyassin, he seems to have gone with the flow…besides Madhva openly puts the gopis and Radha in an unacceptable category that would not allow him to go with that commentary.

Namaskar,

bangli

Audarya lila, there appears to be a teaching or philosophy or mental construct but it gobbles itself up. It forever dissolves itself back to Ocean until that moment clarity is called for in the next step of evolution to experience joy, love and abundance.

Material laws are held as truth because the best predicter of action has always been the past activity one has observed. But if one's past observation has been occluded by so many misconceptions or superstitions then one's undestandings and experience will mirror what one holds to be true. And so material laws are an invention of one's psyche which is too, the group psyche of the planetary human personality. Yes, my hand will burn and Jesus could walk on water. Peggy Fleming has expanded on Jesus' walking on water and skated on water with such a magnificence and beauty and artistry that it for a moment, took my breath away.



So what was Jesus and Peggy all about then? Not all experience a rainy day the same. For a farmer, there will be great thankfullness with water for the crops and for some beachgoers, there will be perhaps thankfullness too for thankfullness is the balm of happyness but certainly rain is not how they planned to enjoy the beach that day. Maybe they will make discovery of a rainy beach has its own special joys.



Happy to know you'll join Us.

That is about as dogmatic a response I have ever heard ... "Unquestionable LAW?"

Let me ask you, does that 'Law' ever change? Is it eternal and fixed? Because if you are at all familiar with these biographies you refer to you would know that they do differ, Krsna Das differed from Vrndavan, Kavi differed ..and they all differed from Murari. Also Krsna das attributed certain statements to Chaitanya that had not even been written during his lifetime yet. There were some obvious embellishments.

Who decided it was LAW? Because before the time of CC the Gaudiya camp was divided, you had the Navadvip school that came from Nityananda and his son Virabhadra and saw Sri Chaitanya as Yuga avatar, and then there was the Vrndavana school the Gosvamis began that extolled Radha Krishna (without Gaura Nitai) and they were gradually brought together over time, do you think Nityananda was worshipped in Braja during the lifetimes of Rupa and Sanantan..?
CC was in fact an attempt by Krishna das to bridge the two schools.

So again I ask you. Who made it unquestionable Apaurusheya?

To say a work such as Chaitanya Charitamrita is unquestionable Law may get some hands clapping from supporters, but it's the same old dogma the Catholic church and other official doctrines have used on questioning humans forever.
We even see Vedic 'sruti' like 'Brahma sutra, Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads over and over being interpreted and given 'NEW' commentaries, but CC is unquestionable?



I think that a conclusion that must undergo substantial peer review before becoming widely accepted as 'fact' is a GOOD THING. I also regard 'newly discovered evidence' that can overturn previously-held conclusions and research to be a good thing also....How are these things BAD?

Your trying to belittle academics who have spent their time and lives researching theses issues without your even knowing who they are shows somewhat of a 'knee-jerk' reaction that is usual from someone trying to protect dogma they hold as LAW and unquestionable. I would suggest you read Prabhat Mukherjee maybe before trying to demonize him.

I am sorry but I myself will no longer have my intelligence held ransom by a dogmatic system that forbides me to question it's foundation no matter what.

I am not a darwinist..but I feel like telling you to go rent 'Inherit The Wind'

namaskar,

bangli

My simple point was that, for GauDIya sAdhakas, the recorded works of KRNAdAs KavirAja et al have more authority than academic scholars.


Yep, I'm aware of those.


Nobody said that they were apauruseya, as that would be a most foolish assertion. The simple point is the one that I made just above. That is why my original comment made specific mention of noting the context of such texts within a faith-based ideology.


If we talk about those three works (collectively known as PraSTana-traya) then that is Vedanta. The same point applies in that the commentaries of spiritual authorities such as ZaGkarAcArya, RAmAnUjacArya and MAdhvacArya would hold more weight than the commentaries of academic scholars. Why? Probably because they are perceived as saints (or avatArs perhaps) by their followers or the masses in general and their "opinions" would hold more weight since they will have some spiritual insight. An academic cannot lay claim to have any such insight, and his commentary will be of interest to relatively few. It would be a big thing indeed if a modern academic wrote his own commentary on Vedanta, thus founding another independent school of VedAnta.
As for CC being 'unquestionable', this refers to how the majority of sAdhakas perhaps would not dare to question its authority for fear of committing aparAdha.


I never said it was good or bad. Peer review and subsequent acceptance of rejection is par for the course in academic circles. That was my simple point. However, it doesn't impress me much if I am expected to base my spiritual life on such shakeable conclusions.


Who says I am trying to protect the dogma that I supposedly believe in, which I am not? Who says I don't know who they are? Who said I belittled them? Even if I did, so what? The very fact that these people are not devotees(?) but academics puts them at the mercy of the academic community. As such, we apply rigorous criteria of academic standards to their research, not devotional. If their research does not hold up to scrutiny, then they lay themselves open to criticism. If they cannot take criticisms of their works then they are better off not presenting such ideas in the first place.

It is a sad fact that many academics/researchers love to make a splash in the academic community. That is how they get noticed.

Working in an academic community myself, I see it happen all the time. It is easy for anyone to think that they have discovered some half-baked theory and set about their detective work. This entire subject is a perfect example of a theory that does not hold up to basic scrutiny. The ideas of Caitanya being 'affiliated' to the ZaGkara school are mere suggestions and no facts. A few bits of circumstantial evidence is clubbed together and all of a sudden, Caitanya becomes a closet Advaitin?

At the risk of repeating myself, I have brought up several points how these ideas are illogical. One would be that MahAprabhu hardly spoke anything that resembled Advaitic philosophy. Countering this fact with the weak argument that his biographers put words into His mouth will not fly with the GauDIya VaiSNava community. The other point is how MahAprabhu appreciated Zri VaiSNava texts such as KRSNA-karnAmRta. I could use this as proof that MahAprabhu was a closet ZrI VaiSNava. Remember that episode where MahAprabhu converted Vyenkata BhaTTa and his son, the young GopAl BhaTTa (future GosvAmI) away from their ZrI VaiSNava philosophy? Piffle. This entire episode was a fabrication by his biographers to show the superiority of their GauDIya philosophy above all others.
What about the sahAjIyA theory? MahAprabhu is on record as appreciating the works of VidyApati and CaNDidAs. Also, there is a living tradition of sahAjIyA-vAda that is still around today that includes MahAprabhu in their theological praxis or so.He wa sa closet sahAjIyA then?

A genuine devotee of MahAprabhu cares little for such arguments. He simply dances in the ecstasy that possesses him whenever he engages his mind in the contemplation of His countenance.

Therefore, as far as I can see, the theory of MahAprabhu being a closet Advaitin does not hold up to basic scrutiny. The circumstantial evidence is interesting, I'll admit, but so seriously inconclusive that I fail to see how it can be taken any further. In your previous post you made mention of the "serpentine milk" example; I was not even thinking about that when I made my comments. I personally would value something any academic would say if their research/conclusions took account of all the available evidence, instead of accepting some and dismissing the rest. That is known as intellectual dishonesty, and it would be veritable academic death if any of them were tarred with this brush.


Now where did I "demonize" Prabhat Mukherjee? As far as I can see, you have not posted anything from him in this thread (unless I missed something), and I merely asked why he is listed as a US distributor for KanuprIya GosvAmI. How is that demonising him?


That's great, and it shows that you are intelligent enough not to believe anything at face value.

Gee you sound angry

I never said Sri Chaitanya was a "Closet Advaitin" those are your words your trying to put into my mouth. What I have said all along here was that Sri Chaitanya was not as 'opposed' to Advaita as his biographers made him out to be over the years.

A.K. Majumdar;

"It is also necessary to take into consideration Chaitanya's reported preference for Sridhara Svamin's commentary on the Bh.P. (CC. III. vii. 96-120) Apparently Krishna-Das Kaviraja was not exaggerating, for Jiva Gosvamin has praised Sridhara Svamin both in the Brhad-vaishnava-tosani and TS (xxviii), where he is slightly apologetic for the Svamin's occasional foray in 'advaitavada'."

"There can be no doubt about the sect to which Sridhara Svamin belonged; his commentaries on the Bhagavad Purana (10.87) Vishnu Purana (mamgala verse) and the Bhagavad Gita (mamgla verse) show clearly that he was a monist. If Chaitanya had been a Madhva, it would have been impossible for him to consider Sridhara Svamin as an authority at all.
As S. K. De has stated, Chaitanya could not have been as 'Anti-Samkara' as depicted by his biographer."
Chaitanya His Life and Doctrine, Chapter XXII p.125-26

No this is not scripture however it does have merit, Majumdar was not an idiot and not as 'rationalistic' as my be assumed, him being a mundane scholar and all.?

I said this before :
"If the only opinions that are allowed and considered on historical aspects of a religion are it's own followers...
then it becomes a closed matter and yes fanaticism and one-sidedness creeps in.
An example is the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they were guarded by the Catholic church for years and years not allowing other scholars outside their tradition to even have access to comment on them."

I am not going to pick apart your last post word for word either...

Anyway..take care and I hope you cool off...

bangli

I'm not angry, dude..

right...

I think your are 100% correct and you can see plenty of reasons supporting your thought and corresponding eveidence from Dr. RadhaGovindaNath's Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita , where Dr. Nath dealt with all this illogical logic in the Introduction in the first Volume of Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita and also in his book Mahaprabhu Gauranga.
I see people here does not have time or does not want to invest much to know the fact or they do not want to do that purposefully inorder to confuse others.

You are also right in order to know mahaprabhu or krihsna we will have to depend on his "Kripa" , otherwise we will end up with scrutiny / analysis / frustration but certainly not with krishna.

It is also foolish to think to accomplish the same level of understanding by any other person for which sadhakas has spent their whole life.

Jay Nitai
Jay Gaur Hari

Krishna Krishna Krsihna Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishna He
Krishna Krishna Krsihna Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishna He
Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishan Krishna Rakhsha Mam
Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishan Krishna Pahi Mam
Ram Raghav Ram Raghav Ram Raghav Rakhsha Mam
Krishna Kesava Krishna Kesava Krishna Kesava Pahi Mam

Pranam
Dasanudas

What you say is a valid point, but I would add that the sadhaka's vision is based on sraddha, which is subjective, because by definition the sadhaka has not achieved direct perception into spiritual truth, same as the acedemic. The acedemic, (which I am not sticking up for) bases his analysis in objective knowledge, ideally without bias. In a sense, its like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are both fruit, but thats about it.

The sadhaka goes by the inspiration he recieves via a person who (hopefully) has 'seen' the truth. But until he has seen it himself, it remains based on faith, to varying degrees, and is thus incomplete.

The acedemic will perpetually remain incomplete because it isn't possible to collect all the neccessary facts to come to a conclusion, and if it were, there are many ways to interpret those facts.

I will say I as did earlier in this thread that this topic is (trying to be) being approached from an objective stance to explore different historical interpretations of the life and influences of Mahaprabhu. To bring one's personal bhajan or beliefs into it seems a bit out of place.

I have not understood Bangli to be making any definite proclaimations regarding Mahaprabhu being or not being anything. He can correct me if this is not so. He is putting forth some relevant research of others in the field that presents possibilities that are not included in the sampradayika understanding. Most of the responses have been to disagree with what he has presented rather than adding some factual evidence of the contrary to consider, which would also be interesting.

That was indeed very profound and enlightening, I am now making coffee and will ponder on your Sutras. I know you really would love to read Dr. RadhaGovindaNath, dasanudas and I hope one day you have that chance, when you do ..buy a scanner!



namaskar,

bangli

As I found this and didn't have to type anything, here is Sambidananda's opinion, plus those of the person posting to alt.hindu some years ago:




Has anyone here actually read Sridhar Svami? I have his BhAvArtha-dIpikA here if anyone wants to pop over for a few days/weeks. The snow is melting and the fridge is full.

Sambidananda..?

That Gaudiya Math book full of hocas pocas...

We have Babajis quoting from Sambidananda? I'm goin back to sleep...

So exactly how does "hocas pocas" defeat Sambidananda's argument about Rudra and Nrsimha?

I could add a few observations regarding Sambidananda's text you quoted above:He probably didn't mean to repeat the word "Guru," and simply wanted to refer to the end of the entire commentary. Be that as it may, while it is true that Sridhara Svamin pays respects to his guru, both in the beginning and in the end of his commentary, it is not correct that he "supremely eulogises Tridanda Sanyas." This is totally bogus!
Sridhara Svamin mentions tridaNDi- / tridaNDa- only four times in his entire commentary:
1. BhP 10.86.3—
rAmaM vaJcayituM pUjyatamaM tridaNDiveSaM vidhaJa gata ity Aha | sa yatir iti ||
Commenting about Arjuna disguised as tridandi sannyasin to cheat Balaram.
2. BhP 11.18.17—
maunaM vAco daNDaH | anIhA kAmyakarmatyAgo dehasya | prANAyAmaz cetasaH | ete antas trayo daNDA yasya na santi |
Commenting on the threefold restraint pertaining to speech, body, mind. No eulogy here whatsoever, what to speak of contrasting it to ekadaNDa, a term that never appears in Sridhara's commentary!
3. BhP 11.18.28—
bahir virakto mumukSuH san jJAnaniSTho vA mokSe ’py anapekSo mad-bhakto vA saliGgAMs tridaNDAdisahitAn AzramAMs taddharmAMs tyaktvA tadAsaktiM tyaktvA yathocitaM dharmaM cared ity arthaH ||
Commenting on the paramahamsa stage of renunciation, explaining that on this stage one gives up the symbolic insignia such as the triple staff. No eulogs here either!
4. BhP 11.23.38—
nindAm evAha | eSa dharmadhvajas tridaNDaliGgopajIvI |
Commenting on the poor fellow in the bikshu-gita, who gets pooped upon by people, who also say about him "this one wears the insignia of dharma as a cheater(!)", explaining it to mean "he makes a living by sporting the danda."

And well, that's all. No eulogies. Sambidananda flunked it severely. What nerve! He probably never read the Bhavarthadipika.

Next then the Rudra thing. Sambidananda writes:While it is true that Sridhara Swamin praises Nrsimha, right in the first stanza of his mangalacaranam, Sambidananda's second assertion is unsound. Here are the relevant stanzas of Sridhara:

In the first stanza Sridhara Svamin bows to both Krishna and Siva. In the second stanza he declares that "in compliance with the sampradaya, following the succession, this Bhavarthadipika is presented." But what can't wishful thinking accomplish?

-ek

Braja,

Sridhar Svami did not belong to Vishnusvami sampradaya and to think he did is totally just inaccurate and far fetched.
Oh yeah, and to you '-ek', thanks so much for the quotes

namaskar,

bangli

I don't have any opinion on it but my point is that if we "defeat" or "disprove" something just saying that it's hocus pocus, far-fetched or whatever, how are we going to keep people like -ek busy? Or, god forbid, cultivate an environment where real learning can take place? We needs facts.

If there is one thing that we can learn from IGM, it's that saying it's so, makes it so... But it may not be right.

I said that Sambidananda's book was hocus pocus

have you read it? and have you read this thread even..?

bangli

Yes, I read lots in his commentaries. I have about four different printed recesions, and a bunch on micro fiche. Regarding your fridge though, is it full of bliss pUrNAnandahimakarayantra or full of existence? And what sort of fridge is it? Does it have the thirty-two lakSaNas of great refrigerators?

-ek

1. Yes--I've even read Volume 2!

2. Yes. Although on the latter it did start in August so my attention may have been diverted periodically. Why, did I repeat something?



My fridge is a Hotpoint. Pretty zen name for a fridge, right? And it's full of ...potentiality. There isn't any laksa there at the moment, what to speak of 32 varieties but I have a Malaysian friend who makes mean laksa. And if you are ever stuck in Singapore, I can also recommend a restaurant that serves it along with a range of fake meats that don't taste or feel fake.

Well, uh, I was more thinking of the nyagrodhaparimaNDala type of a thing. I figure your fridge must be a person, like everything in the spiritual world. So I thought, if he is a person, he might just as well have the 32 marks of a great person. That would make him a nyagrodhaparimandala, which, contrary to popular opinion, does not mean "one who is a tall as he is broad."

-ek

How sexist. (thumbs down) Fridges are definitely yin. Don't offend Braja's fridge!

Well sure, girl, since his fridge is called Hotpoint, you're probably right.

-ek

I found this searchin the web last night on an official 'Iskcon' website'

Anyway I thought some of you would get this.

5. Jayadharma (Vijayadhvaja) Tirtha

It is well known that Vijayadhvaja's commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam was purely out of love and spontaneous devotion. His commentary of Bhagavatam went under the title "Bhakti-ratnavali" and is said to have greatly influenced his disciple, Visnu Puri.

In his commentary there are many references to the original compiler, the great Sridhar Swami of the Bhagavat School.

Sridhar lived in a very dangerous time to be a Vaisnava, and so kept his meanings covered. Many, even to this day, say that Sridhar Swami was an impersonalist, but actually this is not so. As we have stated, he had to keep the real and personalistic understandings of the Bhagavatam covered for there were many Devious Mayavadis ready to corrupt anything that glorified Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vijayadhvaja (Jayadharma Muni as he is also known) clarified the meanings of Sridhar Swami, bringing out the dualist's point of view from the seemingly hidden meanings of Sripada Sridhar Swami.

Ahhh... these eternal conspiracy theories. How the hell would we make sense of the world without those evil Mayavadis, Illuminati, or the Greys?

"Conspiracies restore one's faith in rationality." (Robin Fox, an animal behavior researcher)

It is rather a compliment to Sridhara Svami that we have still not managed to put him in a single box.

Can anyone who has ZrIdhara SvAmI's bhAZya confirm this and post the relevant commentary, please?

Here it is—
BhP 1.3.28
tatra vizeSam Aha | ete ceti | puMsaH paramezvarasya kecid aMzAH kecit kalAvibhUtayaz ca | tatra matsyAdInAm avatAratvena sarvajJatvasarvazaktimattve ’pi yathopayogam eva jJAnakriyAzaktyAviSkaraNam | kumAranAradAdiSv AdhikArikeSu yathopayogam aMzakalAvezaH | tatra kumArAdiSu jJAnAvezaH | pRthvAdiSu zaktyAvezaH | kRSNas tu bhagavAn sAkSAn nArAyaNa eva | AviSkRtasarvazaktitvAt | sarveSAM prayojanam Aha | indrArayo daityAs tair vyAkulam upadrutaM lokaM mRDayanti sukhinaM kurvanti ||

-ek

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 7.16

mahāprabhu kahe — "śuna, bhaṭṭa mahā-mati

māyāvādī sannyāsī āmi, nā jāni kṛṣṇa-bhakti

SYNONYMS

mahāprabhu kahe — Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied; śuna — please hear; bhaṭṭa — My dear Vallabha Bhaṭṭa; mahā-mati — learned scholar; māyāvādī — in the Māyāvāda school; sannyāsī — sannyāsī; āmi — I; nā jāni — I do not know; kṛṣṇa-bhakti — devotional service to Kṛṣṇa.

TRANSLATION

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, "My dear Vallabha Bhaṭṭa, you are a learned scholar. Kindly listen to Me. I am a sannyāsī of the Māyāvāda school. Therefore I have no chance of knowing what kṛṣṇa-bhakti is.

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 9.250

tattvavādi-gaṇa prabhuke 'māyāvādī' jñāne

prathama darśane prabhuke nā kaila sambhāṣaṇe

SYNONYMS

tattvavādi-gaṇa — the Tattvavādīs; prabhuke — Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu; māyāvādī jñāne — considering as a Māyāvādī sannyāsī; prathama darśane — in the first meeting; prabhuke — Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu; nā — did not; kaila — do; sambhāṣaṇe — addressing.

TRANSLATION

When the Tattvavādī Vaiṣṇavas first saw Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they considered Him a Māyāvādī sannyāsī. Therefore they did not talk to Him.

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 8.124

prabhu kahe, — māyāvādī āmi ta' sannyāsī

bhakti-tattva nāhi jāni, māyāvāde bhāsi

SYNONYMS

prabhu kahe — the Lord said; māyāvādī — a follower of the Māyāvāda philosophy; āmi — I; ta' — certainly; sannyāsī — one in the renounced order of life; bhakti-tattva — the truths of transcendental loving service; nāhi — not; jāni — I know; māyāvāde — in the philosophy of impersonalism; bhāsi — I float.

TRANSLATION

Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, "I am a Māyāvādī in the renounced order of life, and I do not even know what transcendental loving service to the Lord is. I simply float in the ocean of Māyāvāda philosophy.

Bangli,

Have you ever put together any kind of outline of what it is you believe? It seems that you have been offering little anecdotes that hint at your beliefs and doubts but I'd really like to see something in more detail. You obviously have read a lot (in English only, I take it?)

Do you consider yourself a Chaitanyite (as per Talasiga); a Gaudiya; a former Gaudiya; an Advaitist...?

I do not read Sanskrit or Latin..

namaskar,

bangli

Book reviews, recommendations, etc., would also be great. Many moons ago I got a recommendation from Jagat concerning Ramakanta Chakravarti's "Vaisnavism in Bengal." Took me ages to find a copy but, wow, was it worth it. I picked up a range of books on Sri Caitanya on my last trip to India but many of them are disappointing, generic rehashing of his biographies without flair or insight.

I know it's probably not your thing but I came across this site recently and it reignited in me a desire I've had to make a mega-index to Caitanya-lila. I don't know if anything like that exists in Bengali already. Being able to cross-reference it with critical studies would be quite interesting too.

That's what interest me .

Can you elaborate on this bangli ji , ?

I believe I've demonstrated the ridiculosity of this argument on several occasions in your good presence. It escapes me why you might post it again, even emboldening the passage above.

Krishnadas Kaviraja reports Sri Chaitanya as teaching Rupa-Sanatana, directing them to elaborate on what he wrote. What, then, would the highly scholastic texts be? Elaborations on what Sri Chaitanya taught. And what would the teachings of Sri Chaitanya be, then? Summary presentations of the themes for the later texts. Evidently, as the biographer had no transcripts of the teachings at his disposal, he was forced to model the course of the dialogue somewhat according to the texts at his disposal. However it is unlikely that they are that far from the original teachings delivered, as there is a natural order in which you explain things, a progression very evident for example in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu.

And now, someone may jump at this -- "Why do you try to make yourself believe this?" Now, there are two possibilities and little methods for proving either as correct or false. A mundane scholar may pick either of the two according to his fancy. However, what possibly might be the value of such a guess?

Some of the reasoning of S.K. De, for example his bringing in the argument of "Chaitanya's being made to utter verses found even in Krishnadasa's own Govinda Lilamrita" just makes me think he intentionally wants to swim upstream and present things in a contrary manner. And then you have people praising such endeavors.

Madhavaji, I'm afraid I don't understand this point of yours since I am not familiar with Govinda-lIlAmRta. I understand that it was another text penned by KRSNadAs; do you mean to say that KRSNadAs has quoted "Caitanya's sayings" in that text, and that SK De has alleged that this is evidence of KRSNadAs' putting words in Caitanya's mouth?

Hmm. Seems you removed the offer to put something together that describes your beliefs?

Sorry for being unclear. De objects, as a part of his rampage against the presentation of Sri Chaitanya as a scholar, to Krishnadasa's making Sri Chaitanya "cite" so many verses in the course of his discourses with his followers, at times even "citing" from the author's own Govinda-lilamrita!

Evidently, however, the verses are not intended as something cited by Mahaprabhu, but are additional references the author fills in to (1) show the sources of the inspiration in cases where the references predate Sri Chaitanya, and (2) show how the teachings were written down in cases where the references postdate him.

If nothing else would suggest this, one would assume that those "citations" from Govinda-lilamrita would ring a bell, as certainly our scholastic Krishnadas Kaviraja would not be that dumb a fraudster to quote his own works as being cited by Mahaprabhu! Hello?

You seem to enjoy crossing the views of the tradition whenever the opportunity arises. What gives you the clues based on which you estimate the course of events in the biographies?

Jiva, if memory serves, this incident is narrated in Chaitanya Bhagavata of Vrindavan Das Thakur.

Yes , but I'm interested in bangli's explanation/version :
How's that a already sannyasi ( Kesava Bharati ) can be initiated into sannyasa-order again ? Re-initiation ?

Is that mean Kesava Bharati is no longer a Mayavadi-sannyasi but Vaisnava

Oh. But Mahaprabhu doesn't give him a danda or vairagi-vesh or anything of the sort.

Which one of the two above is S.K. De and which one are you?

We can easily guess....

S.K. De pushed me...

I was at a loss Braja as I am currently in an existential crisis and question the idea of 'Belief' itself...

No problem. My guess is that you're a Deist.

Babuloo!

Krishna's Personality is not dependent on belief. Sandipani does not teach Krishna to believe in himself and Paurnamasi will not let Krishna feed himself.

Ditto, Krishna's personality is not dependent on belief and so neither should ours. What is, is and so need to believe. This is all about feelings, baby and feeling it deep.

The conditioning effects of language are deeply rooted in the sense of division it creates from the labeling process. Feeling and awareness, which is one deeper reality beyond the mental process knows no boundaries. We are the Infinite. Feel it, baby, feel it.

No much to elaborate really...only that some biographers say he was given Sankarite mahavakya, this statement is made in Murari Gupta’s Kadaca, II, 18. 3 and also in Kavikarnapura’s Mahavakavya 11.41-42, and also by Locana dasa in his Caitanya-mangala Part II.
They all say he accepted 'Tat Tvam Asi' and others say he wispered into Keshava Bharati's ear the mantra he wanted...which is one of those embellishments I would say..I don't think Keshava Bharati became a Vaishnava sorry,

namaskar,

bangli

Keshava Bharati certainly was a Vaishnava even before the incident. I suppose what you are saying is he didn't swap the style of clothing and the such from a Shankarite to a Madhvite, or something like that.

Saying that Keshava Bharati was a Vaishnava is not accepted by many and there is evidence that seemingly is contrary to that claim, and not just by mundane scholars.

Is that unquestionable truth?

Why even in his Chaitanya Charitamrta commentary Swami Prabupada says Keshava Bharati was a Sankarite Mayavadin.

I was recently scolded and warned in a pm saying "Madhava will be back to keep you in line and check your heresy!"

O.K.Thanks bangli .

I wonder why Mahaprabhu had to whisper a mantra to Kesava Bharati's ear , anyway ? He didn't whisper any mantra to Isvara Puri , earlier , when Mahaprabhu was initiated ?

If the answer is that ,'' Kesava Bharati was a Mayavadi and Isvara Puri is not '' , I can ask again : what's the difference after Mahaprabhu's whisper ? Didn't Mahaprabhu utter ''Tat Tvam Asi'' , Advaita-mahakavya?

In the case that Mahapraphu's ''Tat Tvam Asi'' had Vaisnava-concept or the mood, so to say , then Kesava Bharati become an Vaisnava-vairagi . Like babaji, without danda , water-pot or whatever ...?

But , problem is that Mahaprabhu was grihasta and grihasta cannot initiate a sannyasi , as much as I understand ?

Of course , Mahaprabhu is Svayam Bhagavan etc , but from the academical point of view I would like to hear some explanation.

Sorry if my post is a little confusing and speculative... ,

Also, I don't understand what you mean , bangli, when you say that Mahaprabhu was not full-fledged sannyasi . I am not familiar with the details of the ritual of sannyasa . Please , be so kind and explain this to me .

Are you ever finding a copy of the book you are wanting for the posting..?

Though I personally am not that inteterested in what the Historical Truth is, I would find it shocking to hear that 'Tat Tvam Asi,' the most classic and trademark of all Advaitan mantras, would be used by anyone who disliked Advaitans. If it is as Jiva says and this Mantra was said within a Gaudiya mood, I am further astounded and would be very interested to hear how Tat Tvam Asi's almost undenyable advaitic meaning, could be now interpreted within a Gaudiya mood. Maybe this has something to do with the Abheda part of Gaudiya? It would seem to me that back then in India, and not just then but even now, Tat Tvam Asi has instant Advaitic connotations to the ear of whoever hears it. Why use a Mantra so popularly associated to Advaita, or, to be less nitpicky, an Advaitan Mantra, and the most classic and well-known one at that?

Also I don't think it's totally accurate that you say "Vaisnava-concept," since it seems to me there are Vaisnavas who strive to 'become one' and 'merge' with the deity, which is seen as Advaitan. So Vaisnava and Advaitan isn't totally a mutually exclusive thing. Also there are Advaitans who chant the name of Krishna.

'Tat tvam asi' is not an Advaitic mantra. It is not even a mahavakya. It was ZaGkara who made it so.

as a person who used to practise that under advaita, you chant tat tvam asi and the goal of that is to get you to experience the sensation of atman=brahman, or the inseparability between 'me' & 'that.' It literally means I am That. It's very common, and as you can see from the meaning behind it, it's an advaitan thing. Though who knows maybe there are actually people out there who use it for something else, which i find interesting and astounding and i'd be curious to hear about it. It would be weird though since it literally means something to the effect of 'I am That.'

Sidenotes.
Brahman in this case, not meaning 'brahmajyoti,' but in the case of advaitans meaning the same thing that krsna means to gaudiyans, in other words, meaning God. This sidenote is expressed in a Pearl of Wisdom by Advitiya here: http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=3016 in post #2

Also in the equation atman=brahman, Atman stands for the tiny spark inside man, not for man as he is.

He was a double-agent. Possibly he could have been playing both sides against one another.

That is how it is practiced in the Advaita tradition and it is their, in my view, incorrect interpretation of it. Read my point again; it is not an Advaitic mantra per se, it is just an UpaniSadic saying. It was only ZaGkara who gave it exceptional importance (along with another three) and made them into "mahavakyas". Study the ChAndogya UpaniSad.

I see. What a way to pay back the favour that Krishna did him in the previous yuga..

From : http://www.advaita-vedanta.org

tattvamasi -
At this juncture, it is instructive to look at the advaitin interpretation of the chAndogya statement tattvamasi, following SankarAcArya. This is one of the four statements that have become well- known as the upanishadic mahAvAkyas, which equate Atman with brahman. The four most important mahAvAkyas (one from each veda) are:

- "ayamAtmA brahma" (muNDaka)
- "tattvamasi" (chAndogya)
- "aham brahmAsmi" (bRhadAraNyaka)
- "prajnAnam brahma" (aitareya)

Sankara explains tattvamasi as follows. tat is a common designation for brahman in the upanishads, while tvam (thou) addresses the student. The sentence states an equation of two seemingly different entities tat - that, and tvam - thou, by means of the verb asi - are. In general, brahman (tat) is commonly understood as ISvara (saguNa brahman), with an infinity of attributes, including the power of creation. tvam is the individual who is bound, who is embodied, and who is in need of liberation. The difference between tvam and tat seems to be a matter of common knowledge for all individuals. What is the reason for the upanishad to teach an identity then? An identity cannot be stipulated, even in infallible Sruti, if there is a real difference. Keeping in mind that Sruti is infallible, advaita therefore concludes that really there is no ultimate difference between tat and tvam.

I guess it's possible to appropriate the main message of the upanisads as not being atman=brahman, but being something else.. since after all it is poetry. Though that's not really the mainstream interpretation you'd hear anywhere. Still I'd say to that who cares just because it's more mainstream doesn't mean it's truer.

Anyway like I said I'd be really interested in hearing by what imaginative leap it would be used to mean anything else, considering its literal meaning.

Just as a sidenote: I think the members of the Sivadvaita school of monists who follow the Agamas, and certainly the Suddadvaita school of monists, would not like to have their brand of advaita mixed up with that of Sankar. Advaita is a much bigger ocean than many realize, and Sankar only had one port thereupon, where many other ships refused to stop.

Yes, because it is important to note that just because the Advaitins/ZaGkara was the first to comment on the Prastana-traya does not mean that their interpretation is the only correct one. In pursuance of your query, I have asked some Zri and TattvavAdI friends for their explanations. If desired, I will post the replies here with the permission of everyone involved. I do not know the GauDIya interpretation though I imagine that BAladeva Vidyabhusan might have discussed it somewhere.

Angreziji, Sivadvaita? Is that another name for the Lingayats? And just to clarify, Suddhadvaita is another nomenclature for the Pusti-margiyas, am I correct?

The literal meaning is you are that. You can have it mean anything.

tat tvam asi, if you read it in the context in Chandogya, is nothing more but Uddilaka telling to Svetaketu that he isn't this body, but is spirit in nature. "You are spirit." That isn't terribly specific to any school of Indian philosophy.


Hey Svetaketu! You are Atman!

Tagore who is big into the 'Personal' aspect of God Only, even -rejects- the Upanisads as they are mainstreamly understood. He says that they cannot fill our hearts. Within the context of Tat Tvam Asi being a theme in the Upanisads, you would think that the That refers to God in the mind of most Indian people of the time. Which is why I would find it strange that a phrase so commonly-used in advaita, and so associated with it, would be used in that case.

However I can see how the That can also mean absolutely anything you want it to mean, and how it can even mean, for example you are a SpiritSoul (not this Body). I find this interesting and it goes to show that Sastra when read alone in Sanskrit can have such divergent meanings, pointing to the question of how is it possible to use Sastra as conclusive Evidence.

What does the guru owe the disciple?

You'll find just about everyone citing tat tvam asi on occasion.

Regarding shastra as evidence, most of the time the intended meanings are fairly easy to decipher from the context.

What I have presented is true to the original context. Please read Chandogya-upanishad, the entire sixth division. Tat tvam asi is frequently repeated therein towards the end of the narration. The meaning I give is particularly pointed in the 11th:

If the intended meanings of sastra are most of the time fairly easy to decipher from the context, why then would we have such polarized interpretations of the same sastra. It is the case for arguably even the most concrete of sastra (like the Bhagavad Gita), let alone for the very philosophical and abstract Upanisads. I would have probably never come across the interpretations of BG as understood in Gaudiya if not for Iskcon, but remained with other radically different interpretations of Upanisads and BG that are mostly emphasized in school and in general culture outside of iskcon and related circles. Are all these other fairly more mainstream interpretations just not paying attention to context?

I was referring to the section in Gaura-gannodesa-dipika wherein it states that Kesava Bharati was the reincarnation of Sandipani Muni, Krsna's gurukula teacher and acarya. By way of paying daksina, Krsna agreed to bring back his 'dead' son from the 'Land of the Dead'. If Sandipani Muni/Kesava Bharati was in the mood to repay any favours in Caitanya-lila, being a double-agent and playing both sides off against each other might be a good way of going about it.

Excuse me, but you do very much find 'Tat Tvam Asi' being associated with Sankaras advaitvada along with three other Mahavakyas as he claims. Sankaras system was also known as Vedanta which has the Upanishads as their main source material. 'Tat Tvam Asi' is not a slogan or mantra used in dualistic / Vaishnava lines that they meditate on and it is certainly not used in Vaishnava diksha.
Boy am I seeing intellectual dishonesty here also..?

As was said earlier, there are no mahAvAkyas per se. It was only ZaGkara who made them so. ZaGkara's and his followers have proceeded to do what they like with their own "mahAvAkyas", which do not fit the context of the area where they are found.

The book is right in my home in India. You can also find a copy of that from Mahesh Library publication , College Street , Calcutta if you want to. Those books I mentioned earlier by Dr. radha Govinda nath are really huge........

As I said earlier I do not have time to spend much about doing the translation in english and posting it here.

Hope this will clarify your doubt..

Pranam
Dasanudas

From dvaita.org:

Dont worry about translating it...

Just use a scanner and we'll get someone to translate it, I cannot believe you are not willing to invest a little time to have this information brought forth you refer to constantly.

I am shocked rather...

Have you 'Gone Tropo'...?

From the archives of the (ZrI VaiSNava) Bhakti List [in response to an Advaitic argument]:



Madhava, any idea where I can find a GauDIya definition?

From: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/spbooks.htm ( not my #1 choice of webisites to quote from) but this was too interesting to pass up....

"Sridhara Svami supposedly stated that his commentary is strictly based on the earlier commentary of Cit-sukhacarya (disciple of Sankara and alleged incarnation of Varuna). According to R.N. Sharma, Citsukha lived in 1220-1284"

also from the same website;

"Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy.
1. One accepts only Upanisads, Vedanta and Bhagavad-gita (prasthan-traya).
2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more dangerous than Buddhists, the Bhagavat-sampradaya is most dangerous of all. They even accept Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His form "dissolves" into Brahman "

This points to Sridhar basing his commetary on Citsukacarya, now he was a very well know advaitin, he may have chanted 'Tat Tvam Asi' as well....but why is Sridhar reading these books and Why is Keshava Bharati giving Mahaprabhu an ekadanda?

I ask you..

Did I say anything to the contrary? I merely pointed out that the statement isn't exclusively theirs, but has a broader application. You'll find Gaudiyas citing that as a famous zruti-vAkya in their writings, such as the Sandarbhas, Gita-bhasyas and so forth.



Whoever spoke of Vaishnava-diksha? Mahaprabhu already had Vaishnava-diksha, and evidently he wasn't out to take a re-initiation. Hence whatever mantra he gave or did not give also did not correspond to a Vaishnava-diksha, since the occasion was not about diksha, whether Vaishnava or Shankarite.



Man I don't know what you're seeing, but most topics steer off course and become practically unreadable when they become filled with comments people pass on each other instead of focusing on the topic.

Oh yea Isvara 'Puri' he was similar to Sridhar wasn't he ..?

If you have something substantial to say on this, go ahead. No need to feel shy. I mean, actually something very plausible, not a mere possibility or a lucky guess, a view one might adopt as the more reasonable one just so as to have a different view with those darn believers.

There is quite a bit posted on this thread already...

It's not a far stretch at all to say Sri Chaitanya was not as opposed to Advaita as some have made him out to be...

For the record, the narration in ChB runs as follows (2.28.155-159):

ok for the record..

Yes, I can see that. However it seems to be a bunch of guess-work. As follows:



It appears probable. And the probability is based on what exactly? If something is possible, that alone does not a probability make.



And again, where is there a description of Madhavendra Puri giving a mahavakya to Ishvara Puri? Please?

A lot of this is just "it sounds like a fun theory" type of material where people theorize their heads off with nothing but a few shreds of evidence, if even that.

Yea Yea..

Anyone who disagrees or doubts is an idiot..

Why do all Gaudiya Historians use S.K. De's work as source material? and what about Prabhut Mukerjee..was he an idiot also?

sure,

go tar and feather someone else

This goes beyond probablity however. It seems as though some highly respected hagiographers have place in Mahaprabhu's mouth a mantra other than the name of Hari at the time of sanyassa, and it indeed sounds suspiciously like a dasnami Sankarite mantra.

I still don't understand the reason for '' whispering mantra'' ( advaita or vaisnava , it doesn't matter ) into Kesava Bharati's ear ?

Maybe Mahaprabhu wanted to make sure he got tattvamasi instead of some Vaisnava mantra .

I'm not sure if he did frankly...

sounds like some sort of embellishment that was said later after the fact to make his taking sannyass diksha from a mayavadi not look so bad...

But Mahaprabhu was grhasta . How can grhasta initiate a sannyasi ?

If Mahaprabhu's whispering to Keshava Bharati possibly never took place as Bangli suggests, it would certainly seem to make the most sense from the perspective of ashrama concerns.

Otherwise, the explaination for the 'whispering' would then naturally be that Sri Caitanya was Krsna, so their would then be no consideration of ashrama at any rate, plus the whispering would be taken as God Himself initiating Keshava Bharati.

Which is more likely? I guess it depends on ones perspective.

But be that as it may, it still leaves the sticky question of the mantra involved for all this...

I don't know if they were idiots or not. However if you can't present much at all to back up their arguments, but just repeat their statements like you were reading the Holy Bible (you've been repeating some of this stuff for years and it never seems to quite get anywhere), then sure that's how it begins to look like at places.

We are not allowed to think of the statements of our devotional biographers as authoritative unless their statements are proven from six to eight angles of view, however taking the unfounded statements of scholars to task is zealotry. Somehow that doesn't add up to me.

A note as a moderator. Please cut down on the snide remarks you're spreading throughout this board in response to both myself and other members whenever they have a disagreement with you.

He wasn't out to re-sannyasa-initiate Keshava Bharati. He just gave him the mantra again and in this way (according to Vrindavan Das Thakur) established Keshava Bharati as his disciple.

Well yes the mantra says a lot no doubt, plus getting the name of Chaitanya which is the common name given in Bharati line to brahmacharis, as well as being introduced as a mayavadi sannyasin...?
What I hear a lot of is not so much explanations of these events but instead I hear what appears as 'Explaining Away' and a belittling of someone who would dare question events that from an objective point of view are inconsistent, thus being worthy of scrutiny and investigation.
Some may see this as an attack and trying to be cunning or envious... the work of demons, etc.
It is not at all...
It has been my conclusion all along that Sri Chaitanya was simply NOT as oppossed to Advaita as he is made out to be...and that is all really. I have seen other people here try and put statements into my mouth and also exaggerate what I'm saying to mean something else. But hey you haven't lived until that happens as they say.

One thing that stands out in Buddhism that I admire is that the Buddha allowed 'doubt', and encouraged people to in fact doubt. In other paths you often find doubt is met with aggression.

Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya offers to bring Mahaprabhu into an "uttama sampradAya" in Cc Madhya 6, seeming to indicate that he would perform the saMskAra (again).

Let's track down the sources here.

Kavi Karnapura's Caitanya-carita-mahakavya (11.41-42) was given as one of the references. There are actually two relevant verses, 41 and 51.


Karnapura also speaks of a mantra received in a dream, and so forth. Unfortunately, nowhere is the mahAvAkya specified in the text.

Since this mantra was received in a dream, it seems to fit the flow of the narration for Prabhu to tell Keshava Bharati of this mantra. The hearing in a dream is given at least in three biographies (CCMK, CBh, CM).

Murari Gupta isn't any more specific in his Kadacha. (2.18)


Here we have a sannyAsa-mantra, as open to our lucky guess as the mahAvAkya of Karnapura.

In Chaitanya Mangala, Lochan Das, like Karnapura, tells of Mahaprabhu's hearing a mantra in a dream, a sannyasa-mantra (2.23.50-52). This drives him to the decision of accepting sannyasa. Meeting Keshava Bharati, Prabhu tells him of the dream and whispers the sannyasa-mantra into his ear, thereby making him a disciple of his. (2.35.89-91) This mantra was then whispered into Prabhu's ear in the sannyasa-rite (2.36.140) Upon hearing the mantra, Prabhu became filled with various sattvika-bhavas, being swayed by waves of Krishna-prema. (2.36.141) Incidentally, in this narration Prabhu also refers to Keshava Bharati as a "great Vaishnava". (2.35.66)

An awfully strange reaction from Prabhu for hearing an Upanishadic phrase, don't you think?

People are jumping to conclusions over the mantra despite not having reviewed a shred of first-hand material. A reference in a book that says it says something like that there seems to be good enough?

The only reference to a mahAvAkya we find in Karnapura's Mahakavya, and even that isn't specifying it at all. For all we know, it could be just another word used in describing the great mantra that obsessed Mahaprabhu and drove him to take sannyasa.

Just for the sake of creating a contrast, I'll repeat what has been established on the basis of our "authoritative sources" earlier on in this thread:


Tells you something about the need to do your homework in addition to chewing the works of these learned scholars to put them into a context.

You might need to pick your Buddhists carefully:



(Ven. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche)

At least here you have given a positive insight into your beliefs though--I am glad to read that you admire some aspect of Buddhism and wish that Gaudiya Vaisnavism were like that. My view of the way you go about creating that more open style of GV makes me wonder how committed you are to that ideal however as you seem very heavy-handed and even eager to knock people whose faith differs from your own. Are doubters beyond being doubted? Doubt is an important function of the intelligence and of faith but I believe the expectation is that someone deals with a particular doubt or set of doubts, balances themselves and then moves to the next challenge. Persistent doubts that aren't resolved and which--especially in light of this forum--simply resurface and get represented over and over indicate some other problem, it seems.

Again I ask that you present your views in a single place, risking ridicule and doubt (as we all do) so that we can know more about the Sri Caitanya that interests you enough to keep reading and coming back here.

It is a common saying in Buddhism.
You need a great chunk of faith
And a great chunk of doubt.
To make progress.
Existential tension isn't there to be resolved but intensified.

You can pick out various quotes from various places that insist on a variety of things. To lend validation to the point that you need to believe at the moment.
One place will say this, one place will say that.
That in itself is part of intensifying you, or part of giving you the wise wisdom you need, at the time that you need it, to further push you.
The buck does not stop with a quote, no matter how crystal clear the instruction is.
When Buddhists read quotes like that, by Rinpoche, they know that.
When Buddhists create quotes like that, they expect that - from their students.

The core is 'Great Faith - Great Doubt.'
These are not opposites that cancel eachother out.
You need great faith to even dare entertain doubt.
Buddhism is not unique in recognizing that doubt can be a vital part of an honest and deeply felt faith. The Christian theologian Paul Tillich makes a similar point in his book, The Dynamics of Faith.
This is the stuff you learn in Buddhist meditation and why most Buddhists don't rely on quotes like that or even Scripture quotes to give them a wholesale conclusive answer to anything.

Do you expect that people will praise and embrace you when you come and openly challenge the tradition, particularly when it's not always in the best of tastes? I needn't remind you that S.K. De, for example, isn't among the most courteous towards the Goswamis, and frankly sometimes it sounds like he's just pissed with them for some reason.

Of course, if reasonable critique is offered, that'll have to be addressed in a reasonable manner. However many of these arguments you hear are less than well prepared to put it politely, and when people read and parrot them without researching the sources, they'll make themselves look ridiculous and end up being the ones who actually belittle themselves.



I don't suppose you read of his being opposed to Advaita as such, after all we know this theology that followed him as bheda-abheda. However it shouldn't come as a surprise if someone who strived for intense personal devotion for Krishna was opposed to a conception of Krishna's sac-cid-Ananda-svarUpa being ultimately a product of mAyA. Hence mAyAvAda.

I wonder, however, to what all you refer when you speak of how "he is made out to be". There are some strong statements out there, but it isn't all over the place or anything like that.

With all the hoopla, grandstanding and all, even admiting that I no doubt have made some mistakes here as I am no scholar...

I found out a long time ago that 'reason' and 'logic' are a lot of what makes up your intelligence..

not just quotes amd languages

And I still say with my objective reason that Sri Chaitanya was not as opposed to 'Advaita' as so many have made him out to be...


I also found out that 'Questioning Unquestionable Truth' is risky business ..

Speaking just for myself, I wasn't jumping to any conclusions. Bangli's point was glossed over in the course of the discussion. I do not have access to even a shred of the works mentioned to review! Thank you for the shlokas.

Hey...

Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player...

I think, but I may be wrong, that there was an article written by ek- pointing to how all the anti-buddhist rhetoric was in big part added in there by Prabhupada.
All those negative rants against Voidism we keep peculiarly encountering in purports.

However, when you see the reaction of Tarunji at the mention of Buddhism, and how he then says there is no reason to whitewash the Gaudiya Acaryas' harsh criticisms of Buddhism, and then he refers to his readings about that, I find it confusing to deny that this prejudice against those traditions exists. Or only exists among -other- gaudiyas, like iskcon, but not raganugas.

Personally I wouldn't know since I never undertook a study where I sift through the texts to compile all the negative comments against Buddhism. Maybe a Gaudiya can do that one day to help clarify things. However, when not faced with inquiring apparent Buddhists, it seems that those criticisms are not denied or underplayed - but taken as self-evident.

I was recently scolded and warned in a pm saying "Madhava will be back to keep you in line and check your heresy!"

Regarding Keshava Bharati's being a Vaishnava. I don't think I posted this one yesterday, my connection got cut off mid-way typing it in.


That one would have to ask from him. I doubt he referred to Keshava Bharati's philosophical insights. Any other sources, preferably with some background to the claim?

We certainly all recognize that he had received sannyasa in the line of Shankara, and in all likelihood at one point adhered to the precepts of that tradition. It is, however, extremely unlikely that Krishnadas Kaviraja would have described him as one of the nine roots (all of whom were Shankarite-sannyasins) of the Chaitanya-tree, had he been an advocate of Shankara's theology during his being a companion of Sri Chaitanya's, given that elsewhere Krishnadas Kaviraja offers rather strong critique of the views of the aforesaid traditions, mAyAvAdI-bhASya zunile hoy sarva-nAza and so forth.

Some relevant references on Keshava Bharati.

He attained Krishna-prema upon embracing Prabhu, dancing and relishing bhakti-rasAmRta. (CBh 3.1.14-16) Answering Prabhu's question on jnana and bhakti, he establishes bhakti as the supreme. (CBh 3.9.130-153) In that passage, Prabhu even asks him to explain why it is then that sannyAsIs say that jnana is higher. Vrindavan Das adds that Prabhu would refuse to see the face of anyone who considered the opposite. The version of Vrindavan Das on Keshava Bharati's philosophical outlook is then clear.

As mentioned earlier, Lochan Das describes him as a great devotee (2.35.66) Both Prabhu and Keshava Bharati danced together, filled with premAnanda, concluding that the joy known as brahmAnanda was insignificant in comparison. (2.36.153-154)

Murari Gupta (2.18) praises him as the gem among sannyasis and the greatly intelligent one, who due to his past good deeds attained the company of Gaura. However neither he nor Karnapura in CCN describe him in very specific terms.

However stop and think for a second -- what motivation would there possibly be to ascribe anti-mAyAvAda to Sri Chaitanya? For a decent theory, you'd have to suggest some reasons for that. Now, it would of course be trendy to say that the Goswamis rather followed someone else and thus brought about this mood, but we find the same in Vrindavan Das' biography as well, as just cited. Is it that Prabhu never indicated any such things, but everybody around him just sort of agreed to boycott mAyAvAdIs, but they were all hush-hush about it so Prabhu wouldn't figure out what they were up to? That would make an interesting theory, perhaps someone can grab it and add into one of those dissertations. I won't claim copyrights.

Those quotes and languages are called "access to source material". Lack thereof is called "believing". If you don't have sources, what good will your logic do? Your logic is only as good as the materials it can work with. In matters of history, what good will logic do without credible source materials?

I can patch together a dozen theories for you on all these topics if you like. However without sources it would be a pretty pointless exercise, wouldn't you agree? Why, then, hail some who seem to be awfully sparse with their sources, despite their "sounds good" theories? You can have so many theories that may sound good.



You'd like to paint it that way, wouldn't you? I'll readily admit that the narrations surrounding the giving of the name Krishna Chaitanya contradict each other (having just browsed through some), and I'll readily admit that there are many other details that are contradictory. That's not an issue. However what's an issue is taking those narratives to task with abundantly stupid arguments that defy both logic and tradition.

You won't find me objecting if someone presents a solid piece of research. For example, you'll find some things in Jagadananda's assertation of Jiva's svakiya-vada conflicting with a good part of the heritage that is commonly accepted, yet you don't see me taking me to task with that. Why? Because he did his homework and makes a coherent presentation. However, if someone just makes wild claims...

(evakurvan)

A Golden Thought of the Day!



Ek did not research ACBS' (Prabhupada's) statements about Buddhists, but those about Mayavadis (Advaitins).
Undeniably these two are parts of the same pattern, although the Mayavadi bashing is far more prominent in ACBBS' purports.

He didn't invent it though, even if he expanded on it and intensified it.

Here's my conspiracy theory of the week...since you asked for one :

It could have been that the followers of Mahaprabhu simply wanted their own new and independent sampradaya upon his passing. To do so would neccessitate severing any ties with the Sankar or Madhva lines Sri Caitanya had certain contact with, thus the stories in CC of defeating the Tattvavaadis, as well as the Mayavaadis. Of course to cover all bases Sri Vallabha would have to be defeated as well, and Venkata Bhatta converted to the Gaudiya siddhanta.

Not bad for a 10 minute thesis . I do not claim copyright so whoever can get this published do so, and just please send me measly $100 a week (and I'll come up with more) .

The picture, let me guess. Me on the left side, on the right side your good self, Mr. De and the rest?

Is that really a 'wild claim' ..?

It would appear to me, from general observation, that when the label Mayavadi is used,
it is intended to refer to Buddhists and Advaitans.
Voidists and Impersonalists.

Advaitans who equate Atman with God.
And Buddhists who don't even at least do that,
but just speak of the Ultimate Realization as being Sunyata (Buddhist Voidism).

From the onlooking point of view of some Gaudiyas,
Advaitans dare conjure the idea that Krishna is ONE with Atman,
whereas Buddhists dare conjure the idea that everything is Void, including Krishna.

Madhava:
I'm the guy with the moustache, sunglasses, and two fish for hands ...

Not necessarily, but if the path you take in presenting it involves heaps of wild claims on various tracks revolving arounds the question, then your credibility for the original claim suffers considerably.

Of course it does Madhava..

This probably merits a discussion in its own right, but the point is interesting. The whole flaw in their philosophy is that they conjure up things. The standard is that evidence is required before a claim can have some basis for it. This is true even in material affairs like psychological experiments and so on. If the Advaitins want to claim that Krishna is one wth atma or whatever, evidence is required. Where is the evidence and what is it?

from his Introduction to Srimad-Bhagavatam
By His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

What is the evidence for the opposite point of view? It seems to me that everybody conjures something up.

All of reality is our imagination.

You mean when the label is used by ACBS? He used it extremely broadly and imprecisely. Basically anybody who was not a Gaudiya could be a Mayavadi or tainted with Mayavada ideas. Ideas like "there are many paths," "all is one", any religious ideas that did not have an extremely clear-cut, crisp image of God as a person. Even ideas that had nothing to do with religion.

But when his statements appeared in more precise context, or where Ek managed to trace them back, t.ex. to specific quotations that provoked ACBS' response, then it was Sankara, Dr. Radhakrishnan, or the editors of the Gita Press edition of the Bhagavata Purana.

I cannot think of any specific instance of Mayavadi bashing in Ek's work that would refer to a Buddhist or Buddhists.

Granted he didn't research Caitanya-caritamrta. There perhaps something could be found, since the book itself mentions Buddhists.

Evakurvan, I don'tthink you have a strong case here that ACBS meant also Buddhists when using the Mayavadi label.

To reply to the new posts:

Ananta Das Baba's commentary on PBC 16 "yogI nyAsI karmI jGAnI" (translated by Advaita Das):

"mayavada is actually a concealed form of Buddhism and is untrue. This is clearly mentioned in the Padma Purana--mayavadam asacchastram [etc.]. Sri Sankara told Mahadevi: "O Devi! mayavada is a false authority and is covered Buddhism. In the age of Kali I have established this in the form of a brahmana named Sankaracarya (in order to re-establish Vedic authority and to destroy Buddhist voidism)." - Ananta Das Baba

Here, Ananta Dasji tells people that Mayavada is really a concealed form of Buddhism. That Mayavada is really Buddhism in disguise.

To clarify this, he then quotes from Padma Purana, where it says that Mayavada is really covered Buddhism. Advaita Das who translated this, confirms that this is what is being said in that passage by Ananta Das Baba. I have also heard opinions like this amply when discussing Buddhism with various types of gaudiyas belonging to differing groups of gaudiya vaisnavism. But even without that, it is what that passage is saying. I have not sifted through the literature to find other passages like this, but if this one exists, I can assume there are more like it.

For a tangential side note on this, look at post #197 of the Sunyata thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now moving on to another point raised in the posts.

I used the word conjure on purpose because I was speaking from the onlooking Gaudiya standpoint, where others go around 'conjuring' things with no real sastric 'evidence,' whereas Gaudiyas do not conjure anything, what they say is crisply straight out of sastra, and the True meaning of what that sastra is saying.

I find this curious, since having studied Upanisads and BG before encountering iskcon, I can say that the Gaudiya interpretation of BG and Upanisads is ailien to what is being taught about the meaning of those sastras in most university classes and even hi-schools. In light of this, I find it curious to say that we invent nothing and conjure nothing, but just repeating the direct words of the evidence found in sastra. This is curious because others use that same sastra that you are using, and see completely different things in it. In fact it is -their- interpretation of that same sastra that is the most mainstream one in schools and arguably the one most known and most accepted by the general public.

That said, I am not saying that one interpretation of BG is wrong, whereas another interpretation of BG is right. I am personally delighted at these wildly contrasting interpretations. I am just saying that it is peculiar to see a sastra as uncontestable factual evidence, when most people use that -very same sastra- to teach a philosophy totally foreign to the one that you say that that sastra is incontestably proving. Of course you can always say that they are not reading the sastra right or paying attention to context, whereas you are.

SIDENOTE
There is ample reference in sastra repeating atman=god philosophy. That is why when you are taught the Upanisads, -that- is the general interpretation of them that you will most likely be given. If you want to see this read the sastra with no purports and with a raw unconditionned eye, or read one of the many commentaries on it that are not gaudiya commentaries on it.

p.s. i am sorry if i am repeating myself but i am re-answering comments similar to other comments made before, yet that keep being re-raised.

I believe there are studies demonstrating the parallel of early Advaitins and the Buddhist tradition. Someone more well versed may want to link us up with further reading material.

That just raises questions about the quality of education available. They take one tradition's interpretation as the "actual" or whatever interpretation, while for example all the Vaishnava-sampradayas also have Vedanta-bhashyas that are widely accepted. Would it not be more befitting to present the diverse interpretations?

The point is not to say whether or not there are parellels between advaita and buddhism. Of course you can find parallels, even more so when you are doing this from the standpoint of a Gaudiya who critisizes them both. The point is that buddhism is seen as totally 'voidist,' and the claim being made is that advaita is just as bad as buddhism, even though advaita is more covert, it is still in the end nothing more but 'hidden buddhism.'

As I thought I clarified there is never any mention of which interpretation is more valid. The only person implying such a thing is Gaurasundara. The point raised is that the more widely studied interpretations of BG and Upanisads are the Non-Gaudiya ones. And that these interpretations are also seen as perfectly valid within the context of the sastra.

Better to read carefully what I'm really saying before dismissing the quality of my education on false grounds. Universities aren't in the business of sectarianism or preaching.

Well there are also the words of Sankaracarya himself wherein he attacks Buddhism as heretical, along with others systems he stood up against...does that count.?

Why this leaning towards Advaita being covered buddhism?

Is drawing that conclusion 'conjuring' things with no real sastric 'evidence,?'

That's some pretty big generalizations i.e. "They take one tradition's interpretation" ..
'They' who exactly are 'They'..?
I guess you mean all educational systems period...

Then you accuse 'Quality of education'...? I have always taken offense towards this kind of demeaning generalization of education systems and universities etc. that comes from religious groups who can't teach their own kids basic math.

This sounds so typical, how are you so sure that quality of education is lacking, have you ever sat in and listened objectively to a lecture from that education system that is lacking in your estimation?
I hear these kind of words and it reminds me of nothing but Iskson and their stance towards universities and education systems themselves, and how they would belittle as if they were in some position to do so.

BTW what is your degree in...?

bangli

Then you'll kindly explain why theistic Vedanta isn't taught as one of the interpretations?

Again, I said most widely taught. I did not say 'theistic' Vedanta, as you biasedly call it, is not taught.

Where are you saying it is not taught..? In all universities..?

here's a course at Oxford... seems to have more than just advaita;

http://www.ocvhs.com/edu_progs/hindu_studi...x.html#overview

Just to let some of you know out there....and this is not to 'Ring my own Bell'

There are many who come here and tell me they are appreciative of my postings and what I say, I pretty much get that every day.

The official moderators would rather show me as mislead, stupid, ignorant etc. demonized basically..

My next thread;

'Are the Babaji camps Covered Iskconism?'

I would have a hard time beleiving there are no 'theistic Vedanta' courses. In my University I have taken very insightful 'theistic' courses in Devi-mahatmya and Ramayana so far (Bhagavad-gita up next term), as these courses are offered on a rotating basis here. I'm not sure if straight Vedanta is covered by name, but I have seen more brief presentations in others of the doctrines of Madhva, Ramanuja, and Caitanya in class, and they were pretty accuruate.

The professor I work under has spent more time in India living in villages than most devotees I know. She also is fluent in several local dialects as well as sanskrit. I wouldn't take initiation from her, but she's certainly no Vedanta basher, and having some knowledge in Indian philosophy I would likely detect if she was disseminating Godless distortions of smirti.

It is not very accurate at all to group all of Indic acedemia into one category (such as ACBS and others have), since there one can find all types. Athiests, Agnostics, Theists, Anthropologists, Mayavadis, Vaisnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, even militant Hindu Nationalists, make up the ranks of college professors here in the US.

What some find offensive seems to be not the fact they are acedemics, but that they engage in objective analysis of traditions; and that is taboo to some...

Big taboo!
I mentioned some time back how the Catholic Church keep the 'Dead Sea Scroll's away from other scholars outside their traditions for years and years after the discovery. Finally others got in to see and translate and interestingly enough, those scrolls didn't paint the Church out to be what they had maintained all these centuries. No wonder they hide them from the world.
Those who spend time and study objectively are not as inaccurate across the board as many religious adherents would have you believe. And the fact that they do have such generalized beliefs about academics and make such broad sweeping statements about them, shows some sort of 'built in non-acceptance' it is just such standard reaction and response, it's very obvious.

Covered Iskconism..?

(bangli)

No wonder... ISKCON has a center in Oxford that is closely involved with OCVHS. Plus Great Britain has a very strong Hindu minority, with various paths of worship well represented. They would certainly protest if an important tradition were missing from the curriculums.

This is not to be taken as me arguing that "theistic" vedanta is indeed generally omitted from the curriculums. I do not know that. But it would greatly surprise me if it were totally missing. Academics are curious guys. Soon enough you would have someone seeing such an omission as his life's chance to carve out a niche for him/herself, and voila! you have a course on the subject.

You will see sectarianism in -any- tradition, even if that sectarianism is merely a product of intense love toward your own path, or some kind of trascendental lila with its own purposes related to Upaya. I don't think that invalidates the religious potency of a tradition. I even think there is something touching about it.

Where things become wrong, is when the oversimplifications and sometimes blatant misconceptions about the 'other-tradition,' are taken as fact, and vehemently defended at any cost, without any ears to hear what the other-tradition actually does believe.

Often when adherents of a path talk about a path foreign to their own they are going to simplify and even misconstrue it, intentionally or unintentionally, to paint it in a negative light and by constrast giving all glories to their own.

Why is giving a nod to this unsettling?

Sidenote
Upaya: When a teacher looks into your soul and gives you the best possible teaching that you need to hear to progress, according to your personal state of understanding.
(Further developped this in relation to sri Caitanya in post #203 of the Sunyata Thread).

Call me stupid but I don't understand how's that teacher ( Mahaprabhu ) becomes disciple , after few moments ?

Anyway ...My conclusion is as follows :

There was some conversation between Mahaprabhu and Kesava Bharati regarding mantra which Mahaprabhu received in the dream .

This is just conversation - not official diksa.

Mahaprabhu accepted Kesava Bharati , even he was Advaitin, because Kesava Bharati was Sandipani Muni , so Krsna-lila continues in a new form.

This is ACADEMICAL,CONTROVERSIAL,ECLECTIC-Section , so little speculation ( I have no proof, I admit ) is allowed , isn't ?

I thought the same thing about Iskcon when I saw the name Oxford !

There is certainly intellectual dishonesty, and the drive for scholars to make a name for themselves within the academy. But it seems as though those same undesireable traits creep into even the 'religious' world as well. Generally speaking, people are people, and act in similar ways whether in a university, or in a math or mandir wearing a mala and tilak.

In one sense it's just a matter of either objective analysis or subjective belief, and dare I say it might be possible to include a bit of both in ones life and pursuit of truth ?

Until we see the face of God (or Goddess) we are more or less all in the same boat!

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#5

5. Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda?

The word mAyAvAda serves many purposes. Since advaita upholds the identity of the individual Atman with brahman, a doubt naturally arises about the origin of the variegated universe. The appearance of difference in the universe is attributed to mAyA. In popular parlance, mAyA means illusion, and a magician or a juggler is called a mAyAvI. Within advaita, mAyA has a technical significance as the creative power (Sakti) of brahman, which also serves to occlude, due to which the universe is perceived to be full of difference, and the unity of brahman is not known. See fuller details in response to Q. 3 above. Some vaishNava schools use the word mAyAvAda in a derogatory sense. However, this criticism interprets mAyA solely as illusion and criticizes advaita for dismissing the world as an illusion that is nothing more than a dream. Such a criticism neglects the philosophical subtlety of the concept of mAyA in advaita.

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#4

4. What is the relationship between advaita and buddhism? Is advaita a mere copy of buddhism?

No, advaita is not a mere copy of buddhism. For a few centuries now, advaita has been criticized as being "pracanna bauddham" - buddhism in disguise. This criticism stems mainly from some of the vaishNava schools of vedAnta, but it is misplaced. Firstly, there is no one "buddhism" and for the criticism to be valid, it must be specified which school of buddhism is being referred to. SankarAcArya expends a lot of effort criticizing many of the philosophical positions taken by various schools of buddhism in his commentaries. Among modern academic scholars, advaita vedAnta is most often compared with the madhyamaka and yogAcAra schools of buddhism. This has been inspired mainly by the fact that the mANDUkya kArikAs, written by gauDapAda, Sankara's paramaguru, exhibit a great familiarity with this school of buddhism.

However, if it is held that advaita vedAnta is essentially the same as madhyamaka buddhism, it must be pointed out that such a view stems from a misunderstanding of the important tenets of both advaita vedAnta and madhyamaka buddhism. There are many key details in which advaita differs from the madhyamaka school of buddhism. As for yogAcAra, the points of similarity arise from the fact that both advaita vedAnta and yogAcAra buddhism have a place for yogic practice, as do other schools of Indian philosophy. For further details, consult
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html

Required Sastric Moment :
As in the case with fire and heat, wherein on cannot exist without the other, such is also the case with the Supreme Lord and His potency. Sri Caitanya Caritamrta states, "Radha is the full energy, and Lord Krishna is the possessor of full power. The two are not different as evinced by the revealed scripture." (Adi 4. 96)

Just as Radha and Krishna are One,
yet separate to relish their own bliss,
So do Advaitans indulge in Ananda
through the beautiful lila of duality.

madhva's interpretation of tattvamasi

bring in the 'a' from the previous word

so, sa AtmAtattvamasi = sa AtmA atattvamasi = That "AtmA", you are NOT that !

http://madhva.org/vms_mi/htm/Dashaprakarana.htm

INTERPRETATION OF ATAT TVAMASI
The most important itm discussed in Visnutattvanirnaya is the interpretation of key sruti passages. This is to show that the entire sruti supports Visnusarvottamatva and Jivesvarabheda but not Jivabrahmaikya. This statement is illustrated by showing the correct reading and interpretation of the passage Atat tvam asi. The nine illustrations given in the context speak of jivesvarabheda not jivabrahmaikya. The context of the teaching of Atat tvam asi is that svetaketu had developed the pride that he knew everything. He was to be told that he did not know the highest entity, i.e. Supreme God as distinct and superior to him. He also did not know that he was under the control of this Supreme God. In this context, no useful purpose would be served if he is told that he is identical with the God. This would increase his pride. Therefore, he is told Atat tvam asi, you are not the God. You are completely under his control.
Therefore, it is jivesvarabheda that is intended to be conveyed here. Ekavijnanena sarvijnana stated in this context does not indicate upadanopadeyabhava here but it is based on pradhanya and sadrsya, therefore, this does not convey jaganmithyatva.

Let's hear it for Kishalaya's latest quotes ladies and gentlemen.

I never said any such thing. You will have to read my words better. I am merely insisting that there are other interpretations of sastra that exist as you already know, and they deserve equal coverage. As for addressing the question of an interpretation which is more valid, I will only say: akhila AmnAya eko vedyo hariH.


Says who? And while we're at it, who says that the "mainstream" interpretations of the sastras that you keep referring to really are that mainstream? Just because there is a prominence of emphasis in the teaching of non-VaiSNava explanations does not necessarily mean that they are "mainstream." As I just said above; akhila-AmnAya-eko-vedyo hariH. I might also add what Krishna Himself says; vedaiz ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH. If any "mainstream" interpretation does not arrive at this conclusion, speak of it, or even point it out, then at least in my view such an interpretation has no value whatsoever.


People here have been studying the scriptures themselves for years. Studying the scriptures themselves and seeing what they have to say is far more useful than listening to a few lecturers waffle about them. The question is not about academic education; it is about the mistaken interpretations that are taught as if they were fact. Madhava's point is essentially correct; even if some universities do teach scriptural courses that may lean towards a theistic view (very unlikely, though), they are far outnumbered by courses that teach "impersonal" viewpoints.

Naturally this course will teach a more 'theistic' interpretation. Just look at the names of the tutors; three of them are associated with ISKCON. Ravi Gupta in particular; his initiated name escapes me right now, but he has been writing articles for Back To Godhead since age 13 or so, and he has come to the UK to pursue graduate studies at Oxford. I haven't seen him for months so I guess he must have passed and become a tutor at this course.
There is also an Oxford Centre for Vaishnava Studies.

As far as the quotes from the Advaita FAQ goes, it should be noted that the concerned webmaster(s) of both the Advaita and Dvaita sites have been battling in internet debates since 1992 or so, and much of the FAQ and website material is the fruit of those debates, as well as material contained in their discussion archives. It could also be true that the webmasters construct their material with an agenda to pursue rivalry. It may be all very well to ridicule the derogatory and misplaced VaiSNavas who "mistakenly" criticise Advaita as being MAyAvAdI and covered Buddhism, so just see the response of the Dvaitins:

There is no question that Universities teach Vedanta from an Advaita perspective more that the dualistic schools of Vedanta. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the well know translations of Sankara i.e. Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Brahma-sutra. The dualistic schools just are lessor known, but are being included more and more it seems.

Please define " 'impersonal' veiwpoints" and how you think universities are teaching them. Futhermore, why is it "very unlikely" that universities would teach from a theistic view? And if that theistic veiw differs from your own (or one's tradition's) interpretation, is it still theistic? Maybe I'm just 'out to lunch' (or a unwitting impersonalist ) ...

Yes the Universities are agents of Kali...

Well I can only speak from my experience, but at my university I have a lot of friends who are taking religion-oriented courses and they are studying various scriptures including BG and some UpaniSads. They are using various 'impersonalistic' translations such as Radhakrishnan's, Isherwood's, Easwaran's, and so on. At least once a week I have to sit with them and point out all the places within the texts which refer to a personal divinity. Also, a lot of my friends who take religion-oriented courses at universities have confirmed a similar state of affairs. Even while I was still at high school, my Religious Education teacher used Easwaran's translation and used to tell us about the 3-gods theory (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) and how they are actually all "subordinate" to Brahman. Even though I was not a GauDIya at this time, I still knew that she hadn't a clue what she was talking about. She was only regurgitating what she had been taught, you see.
And while we're on the subject, there is also another thing that disturbs me. Educational institutions are one thing, but what about bookstores? I regularly visit several famous bookstores in the heart of London. I do not often buy many religious books but I sometimes check out that section to see if there may be anything worthwhile. I can tell you that bookstores in the heart of London sell mainly 'impersonalistic' translations by Easwaran, Yogananda, and others. Very rarely do I see any ISKCON or Mandala publications since I guess they sell quickly. (I wonder why)


I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Could you please clarify with more details? I'm asuming that you're talking about other theistic views within 'Hinduism' itself? In that case I would think the difference matters little if they at least accept the permanent existence of a personal divinity. If you're referring to impersonalistic views then I would not consider them to be theistic as a matter of personal taste.

Evakurvan: As I thought I clarified there is never any mention of which interpretation is more valid. The only person implying such a thing is Gaurasundara.

Gaurasundara: I never said any such thing.

You did say such a thing right here:


Here you say that Advaitans conjure stuff up. You do not think Gaudiyas do that. You pose a question that assumes that Gaudiyas use Sastra to illustrate their theology, whereas ridiculously assume Advaitans do not. You are positting the Gaudiya Interpretaion as more valid.

Now you turn around and deny you said that. I find it hard to communicate with someone who does things like this repeatedly.

Based on this denial, I have decided to respectfully not engage your posts, since I feel they lead me into a loop ping pong situation of communicating in constant rehash. I feel this seriously hinders the discussion from progressing, and needlessly so. I would rather not play a role in encouraging that. Those who recognize this, will understand my reaction. However, I remain amicably grateful for your other contributions like the wonderful Caitanya thread you started, and read them eagerly.

As a final Sidenote to your added post, that I would rather edit in here vs. add an extra reply to, if you are oblivious to Advaitan interpretations of sastra, and imagine that they do not use any 'sastric evidence' to illustrate their ideas, just like Gaudiyas do, I guess there is really not much more I could say to you.

P.S. I clearly already stated that just because it is more mainstream, does not make it more true. Just one other example of why I would rather skip these ripostes, then encourage them via repetitious reply, thus stultifying the movement of this discussion.

Do you mean to say that these translations have no merit? That the traditions interpreting the GItA, say, differently than the vaiSNavas have no basis whatsoever?

I am refering to Shakta, Shaivite, and even Vaisnava traditions that are monistic. My question was, 'what are "impersonalistic" views'?. Is it synonomous with monism (as IGM teaches)? That is my question. Can one be a monist and accept the existence of a "personal divinity", thus making him a theist or is he/she still an (a)thiest?

I am contemplating these things myself, so it is not meant as a challenge. The term 'impersonalist' and 'theist' gets thrown about quite a bit, and honestly, I don't know what people always mean by it.

There are no doubt, half-educated, and poorly educated university professors and textbook writers abound. Just as there are poorly educated theists. One certainly does not excuse the other, I agree.

Evakurvan, that was not a very honest summary of that exchange. If you carefully read my point(s) you would have seen that that it was you who brought up the issue of Advaitins "conjuring" up their own ideas, which I simply agreed with. I also said that if they wanted to present an idea then they should also present the evidence for it, just like everyone else is expected to do. If they can't do that, then why should anyone believe them? And I re-stated that point in my second post, so where did I "deny" anything? I never said anything about an interpretation being "more" valid as you claimed that I did (post #288). Sadly, this was your mistake. I would also appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth; if you insist on everyone reading your posts carefully, it is only natural that everyone else deserves the same from you.


As you wish. However, if you continue to put words in people's mouths and consequently misunderstand what they say, and then cannot admit your mistakes, then I suspect you shouldn't be surprised if no one takes your points seriously.


Thank you.

You can't be serious, Elpis. Isherwood does not even belong to any tradition; he just translated the text. Radhakrishnan claims to be an Advaitin but I am not in knowledge if he was an initiate. The same goes for Easwaran. Much as I am loathe to read Advaitic translations, I would have more respect for such translations than those of mere translators alone. So regarding the basis of different translations whatsoever, I would say that it is the reader's call; 'spiritualist' people should read 'spiritual' translations whether Advaitic or VaiSNava. People who wish to study the BG (for example) may find an academic translation useful for their purposes. These texts are supposed to be spiritual after all.

Ah ok I see what you mean. Well in that case I suppose it is much a question of the believer's preference, since Sakta and Saiva traditions are obviously different from VaiSNava traditions even if they are monistically-inclined or not. I suppose different believers will have different rules and standards of what to refer to as impersonalistic.

My definition of 'impersonalistic' includes doctrines that refer to a divinity being ultimately formless and that sooner or later it would be the destination of all jivas to "merge" in such an amorphous formless divinity. I suppose IGM definitions would be similar. My definition of 'theist' would be much the same as anyone else's, viz., a believer in a personal God. In the context of personalist vs. impersonalist discussions I would consider a theist to be on the 'personal' side. The issue gets complicated in different traditions, I agree, as even different traditions within a tradition tend to hold different beliefs.

As for a monist who accepts the idea of a personal divinity, I believe that is practised by Advaita. ZaGkara formulated a system of 'paJca-pUja' or something which allows for the spiritualist to select one of five divinities for worship. Ultimately, in Advaita, it is the done thing to give up this "personal form" and attain the 'formless'. I personally find that rather odd.

The 'Sunyata' thread was a good example of how followers of Buddha, for example, disagree in their methods and the interpretations of Buddha's teaching.

Yes, this was the point I was trying to arrive at.
Yes, this is true in Shankar's kevala-advaita, I'm not sure it applies across the board, are you?

There seems to be a complete resistance to the idea that Sankara's Advaita includes duality, though thorough study of it would indicate otherwise. I guess the fact that it encyclopedically goes by the name of the 'pure nondualistic school' of kevala advaita, can lead to these conclusions about it.

Even Yogananda who repeats add nauseum that God is Formless, can be also found, under more thorough reading, saying that God has Form. It is best not to draw final lines as to what these mysterious tattvas really mean, especially when going about it in a non-phenomenological way.

Just for fun:

(Editted)

Haha though the Advaitans say Dvaitaadvaita-vivarjita- in their own words, yet the Dvaitaadvaita-vivarjita- people make another name for it, and from their standpoint truly believe that Advaita doesn't teach that.

To oversimplify, Sankara does declare Nirguna Brahman, Nonduality, as ultimate.

And then in the same breath
needing to talk about the Ultimate
just a little bit more
turns around
and further exlpains
with Neti Neti.

Not this, Not That.
Not Dual, Not Nondual.

That isn't contradicting what he said before.
That is trying to explicate what -Nonduality- signifies
in the breath between the letters, in the spaces between words.

Nondual is a word and it stands for something.
But it certainly does not stand for the opposite of dual.

And this is why Yogananda does not blush
when after saying God is Formless
he's not ashamed to say He has a Form.

Theory in Advaita serves as Ongoing Clue not Final Cue...
Does Theory serve more function to Caitanya?

I wonder if asking for references would be too much pedantry?

In all fairness, Mr. Isherwood was a disciple of Swami Prabhavananda. He was the head of the Hollywood Vedanta Society and a disciple of one of Sri Ramakrsna's direct disciples.

I stand corrected.

Edit: And then again, if that is true then this counts Isherwood as one of the 'impersonalistic' translators. It shows that such translations are used in modern universities and so on.

Just a digression, why should a tradition have "more" weight? And why cannot "individual translators" have insightful revelations? Preference for tradition could be a matter of taste, but do the others need to be necessarily less spiritual?

In any case there are two things to observe. First it is no surprise that traditions would vouch for each other. Traditions being the only worthwhile spiritual programs available on the planet. It's like "You scratch my back, and I scratch yours." Afterall, it's a question of survival before the onslaught of independent thinking.

Second when the above pact has been stamped, the traditions are back at taking pot shots at each other. If advaita has no shred of evidence for what it proposes, then, tradition notwithstanding, it should have no value, spiritual or otherwise. Wouldn't a university professor's translation be better?

1) To entertain the fancy that Advaitans provide 'no sastric evidence' for their claims, is even more bizarre.

I am struck by the obvious lack of intimate exposure to other schools that these statements imply.

I do not want to get into sastra-battles. I do not enjoy fighting over which interpretation is more correct, or to get involved in a perpetual out-topping where one sastra quote dismisses another. I have no desire to impose an advaitan reading on sastra, or to imply that any other interpretation is wrong, just because there are sastra quotes that contradict and problematize it.

I do not know if some Gaudiyas here accept Prabhupada's interpretation, but it is famously known as the most biased sectarian interpretation, to conjure things out of practically no where, ever written. Note: I say this in full respect toward Prabhupada, considering him religiously potent and empowered, doing what he had to do to bring the Sankirtan movement to the west. I bow down to him.

But if you really want to see the sastric 'evidence' of advaitans, take any class on the gita in any school, or read any non-gaudiya commentary, and you will find what you keep imagining does not exist, and crisply so.

You don't need to start presenting me as a religious fanatic if you are unable to offer solid sources for the claims in the scholarly texts you cite from.

The bell seems to have been ringing on many fronts, I am also receiving messages about you practically on a daily basis.



Your frequent sarcasm and snide remarks towards several members have been the factor causing many to contact me about you. If you behaved a bit more maturely, your message might be taken more seriously. You're showing a consistent pattern of not addressing issues that have been brought up in response to your claims. That, bundled with snide remarks, does not lend much credibility to your presentations.

Regarding education, I am merely commenting on the following phrase by Evakurvan:


If this is the case, it raises questions about the quality of education. If it isn't the case, then those questions do not rise. I haven't studied the curriculums of every other university around the world, but I am under the impression that the Vaishnava version of Vedanta rarely gets mentioned in basic presentations of Hinduism in schools.

Are you sure? I heard he was gay.

Again, you may have a point somewhere in this line of thought, but my (somewhat rhetorical) point is: what is 'impersonalist'. Before we can establish what is being taught in universities we have to be using some language that accurately reflects the situation. Merely to say they are 'impersonalists' sounds like one would be asking a freshly shaved bhakta book-distributor what is being taught therein.

Monism/ Advaita in general terms does not neccessarily constitute merging into the impersonal Brahman, of course that is an option, and promoted by some schools.

Monism/Advaita is a question of essential underlying truth of being, namely that all is manesfestation of Brahman (or Parabrahman [Krsna] in some schools), realized jivas too; Mamaaivamso jiva-loke .


Just as in Gaudiya theology the nitya-parikars are considered manefestations of Radha or Krsna, some schools of Advaita simply acknowledge that all of us are expansions of Shakti-Shaktiman (Radha-Krsna, Shiva-Shakti etc.). Bas. Whether in such knowledge one gravitates to 'personal' or 'impersonal' relish is up to the eternal nature and preference of the realized jiva. Thus to ascribe the label as 'impersonalist' or 'Advaitist' in a derogatory way only serves to confuse, and over-simplify what is actually a very intricate and fascinating philosophy, that is often misunderstood by those of us weaned on the writings and mood of ACBS.

This incedently, to relate back to the thread topic, is why I don't find it outrageous that Mahaprabhu was not anti-Advaitic.

Just to illustrate my point in one example, of one Advaitic school:
Notice there is no talk of 'merging', only of realization. That is a common theme in Advaitic schools. An Advaitist of this type would neccessarily accept the 'personal' form of the Lord as eternal, as well as the 'impersonal'. The Mayavaadi does not, but most Advaitists do not accept Mayavaad. If Mayavaad were the predominant doctrine being taught in schools (which it's not), there would be more than just the Gaudiyas who would have a problem with it.

Just because you don't take what I say seriously and try and demean it does not mean it is worthless and without merit. The scholars I have quoted are all recognized as being experts in Gaudiya research and History and are referred to as source material, you may not want to accept that but it's true. Even Jagat refers to SK De in some of his writings. He was not a saint or mystic but a scholar and clearly you like most Gaudiya followers do not accept outsider scholars commenting on your religious scriptures. And what about Prabhut Mukerjee or AK Majumdar..?
I even heard the old 'Mundane Scholar' remark the other day...

And again I get people who tell me my postings are meaningful to them and did way before you ever had a forum Madhava

Sorry but in your scoldings lately you DO come off a bit fanatical and just seem uptight frankly.

The 'Covered Iskconism' is not just some snide dumb remark either...

I am not the only one who went to Radha Kunda lately and saw some of that with the starry eyed western Babaji followers..

Many of us here have been around since the early 70's and went through IGM and all that, had families...I for one was finished with Iskcon and knew about lack of diksha in IGM back in 78, I had friends who took diksha way back then, before many of you even became devotees of Harikesh or whoever. I never took diksha back then myself, I wanted to but got too caught up in work and career, I also doubted some of the dogma altogether and just didn't want any affiliation of any sort really, although I continued to read as much as I could on Sri Chaitanya I could find in English as I just don't read sanskrit or Latin. I also read many other things..

I also want to say that some of us here have been around the block a few times and are taken back when we see the same kinda of dogma and 'cultishness' we saw and spent much of our lives trying to get free from..

I for one am bothered when I see the same old sexist attitides and hear a lot of the same old thrashing and condemnation of advaita and buddhists.

I see a lot of the Iskcon attitude here... just yesterday with 'Universities and other schools of Vedanta' and saw the same kind of knee-jerk reaction that occured in those IGM organizations..

All anyone has to do here is say Buddha and people get 'sick' and act like little 17 year old fanatical bramacharis who have no life experience.

It's just the usual attack towards anything not Gaudiya..and if anyone trys to show how some of your conceptions are misplaced you debate till the end of time and yes get uptight.

Like with Eva and her whole thing on Sunyata..I am embarressed how some of the men here have behaved with her and their ignorant responces and even suggesting her teachers are ill-informed and by some kids, some of whom have not even moved out of mommy's house, no life experience, yet they think they are some high horse coz they know a bit of sanskrit and can pOst LiKe tHIs...

I am just wondering if you do not know Calculus how you are going to prove 2nd Law Of thermodynamics?

I'm sorry- maybe i was unclear.
1. Christopher Isherwood took diksa and rcvd siksa from Swami Prabhavananda who was a sisya of a sisya of Sri Ramakrishna(I can give you his Guru Parampara in a pm if you like). This is a fact that is easily researched. He even wrote a book- "My guru and His disciple" about his studies with Prabhavanandaji.
2. Yes, he was gay.
3. From your question i got the impression that you think because he was gay, he could not be a disciple of Prabhavananda's. Please tell me i am mistaken. I have seen much homophobia and anti-gay rhetoric on various Vaisnava sites and hope it is not here as well.
I have a funny story about that very subject if you like.

I will be leaving that up to you only ji? In fact the ball is in your court really...

namaskar,

As I see it, the second law of thermodynamics is based more on experience than on theory and equations. It is certainly not based on complex equations at any rate. And how do you prove a law of physics anyway?

I think otherwise bangliji..... ......If you want have real taste of honey go to forest and have it .... otherwise you will get the prepackaged arificially scented taste......


Excuse me if I am making offence to you.....



Take my pranam
Dasanudas

Christopher Isherwood published a book entitled "My Guru and His Disciple," as you say. He was indeed homosexual and a disciple of Swami Prabhavananda. Prabhavananda knew about his homosexuality as is clear from p. 25 of the book:

No offense taken,

Yes I agree,

'Accept No Imitation'

(Gaurasundara)

Dear Gaurasundara, you are reasoning as if spirituality was a physical property of an object, something unchangeable and objectively always there.

Is this the orthodox Gaudiya view? Or is there a space for seeing spirituality as something arising in the relationship between the text and the reader?

What if somebody reads Radhakrishnan's translations of the Gita and is spiritually inspired? Is the inspiration unspiritual because the translation is Radhakrishnan's?

[Incidentally, ACBS, who attacked Radhakrishnan as a Mayavadi, still considered his translations correct enough to instruct Hayagriva to just copy them for the BG As It Is. Hayagriva recalls a conversation to this effect in his HK Explosion.]

What really made me feel compelled to respond was your mention of Ekanath Easwaran. You see, I have never been seriously into the Upanisads. They felt rather dry and not relevant, not accessible. Then I do not remember by what chance I got a book with Easwaran's translations of several main Upanisads, and it touched me like no translation did before, or after. If yasya deve para bhaktir..., to take just one example, speaks to my heart, it is thanks to Easwaran's gentle translation.

Granted, it is probably not a strictly academic translation, so if I needed such, I would look elsewhere.

I wonder if a Gaudiya would feel compelled to conclude my appreciation of the Upanisads in Easwaran's translation is unspiritual.

If so, that would speak volumes about gauDIya spirituality.

Thank you Elpis.
In addition, Swamiji would have Isherwood read from the Upanishads and Gita on Sunday Service in the shrine. One day, a respected older lady approached Swamiji and asked how he could have a "sexual pervert" reading from sacred text from the podium. Swamiji answered, "Madame, I am a Sannyasin. All sex is perverse to me."

Do you really want to place such a strict polarization between the scholar and the mystic? Many scholars of Religion end up where they are as an extenstion to their religious practise. What do you think would motivate one to pour ten years of laborious effort for a Phd in something as ungainful as Religion.

Are you aware that it is a practise of humility in some traditions to refrain from declaring yourself as belonging to it or declaring your 'rank' ?

Do you really think being an Initiate is a stamp of validation that you indeed are now an official credible religionist? I have never heard of so much hoopla and hierarchization be made over this elsewhere. Not to underplay the meaningfulness of diksha, but I find the overfocus on it directs the attention away from sadhana and turns the process into something acquisitive.

I find the prevailing atmosphere of Status Discourse quite antithetical to Bhakti and to the mood of sri Caitanya's Sankirtan movement, based on my meager readings of the CC.

Did I not go to great lengths in an attempt to see whether the claims you made had merit? I then came to note that for example the claim for Chaitanya's receiving tat tvam asi and the same being confirmed in three biographies was totally unfounded. What am I to assume of the other points on which neither of us has currently the resources to dig deep into?



Are you saying that all source material from academic sources must have merit to it and must be very credible? If so, then good luck for your studies. I would personally not accept any controversial claims without having reviewed the original source material. And with original source material I mean the materials someone used for arriving at the conclusions you find in their texts.



Of course you can refer to his writings if he makes valid points in them. However if his points are shabby, what's the merit in citing them?



I don't really care if it's Santa Claus or Jesus Christ commenting. If they make points that have merit and are well researched, and if they can come out and actually present the leads they followed and the texts they studied to come to a conclusion, then that's just fine. Of course they have a right to form an independent opinion. That opinion will have to be backed up, though, to have any merit.




I'm glad your postings are meaningful.

You've been at these topics for years. Up until now you hadn't even noticed the tat tvam asi was nowhere mentioned in the original sources, and maha-vAkya was given in one instead of three as claimed. That raises questions over the depth of your research. If you want to get serious about it, go to the actual sources. Go to the sources of S.K. De and the rest and see for yourself if their points have merit or not. Don't just parrot them.



You know the board rules, right? Why don't you try following them if you want to keep posting here. For the record, Jagat suggested suspending your account a while back. However I disagreed, deciding to let it pass, so that's what we did.

Hey Madhava,

You can suspend my membership by all means right away.

You are going to see others leave here as well.

Regarding the mahAvAkya, the mantra (if Keshava Bharati indeed gave a classical mahAvAkya) would have been ahaM brahmAsmi. tat tvam asi would be the mantra for Tirthas and Ashramas.

Swami Brahmeshananda of Belur Math gives a detailed breakdown of the Dasanami-sannyasa tradition: Read here.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I think it best that you simply delete your Gaudiya Discussions bookmark and go to a website where your terrific insights, background and posts would be better appreciated.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa