Differences between different Vaishnava traditions? - What exactly are they?

What are the exact points on which various paths and
sampradayas (Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Gaura-nagari, Madhva, Radha-vallabhi, Gaudiya respectively) build their practices?



hariii bol!

How elaborate an answer do you want? The question is extremely elaborate, if any degree of comprehensiveness is sought for.

The four traditional sampradayas are Madhva, Ramanuja, Vishnusvami and Nimbarka. The two first worship on what we regard as vidhi-marga, the two others worship on raga-marga. The tradition of Vishnusvami practically means the tradition of Vallabha, also known as pushti-marga, since 1500's.

The Nimbarka-sampradaya worships Radha-Krishna in svakiya-madhura-bhava. The Vallabha-tradition worships Bala-Krishna. The Madhva-tradition worships Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu. The Ramanuja-tradition worships Lakshmi-Narayan, some branches worship Rama.

Gaudiyas worship Radha-Krishna on raga-marga, madhura-manjari-bhava and mainly parakiya-upasana. Most also worship Gauranga in his nitya-lila conjointly with Vraja-upasana. Radha-Vallabhis worship in madhura-svakiya-bhava and tend to emphasize Radha. Gaura-nagaris worship Gauranga as the enjoyer of the ladies of Navadvipa, some consider Gauranga to be the greatest form of Bhagavan, even superseding Krishna.

That's some very general basic information on their upasana and upasya, without an attempt to go into nuances or possible variants within the traditions. Would someone like to entertain us with brief summaries of their respective Vedanta-darshanas?

Jay Radhe!

Humbly I will offer what I understand of Sriman Vallabhacarya's Pushti Marga.
1. The purport of all sastra is that Hari (Krushna) is the Supreme Sovereign and the Soul of all (Jiva and Cosmos).
2. He is the only Goal, Means and Refuge.
3. The Jiva has made offense to Sri Krushna ( there is the idea that all Pushti Jiva were present at the time of Sri krushna's Prakrat Lila) and because of their offenses have been coverd by forgetfullness of Him.
4. Vallabhacarya recieved this Marga for all Pushti Jivas directly from Sri Krushna consisting of-
a. Mantra Japa of the ashtakshara mantra delivered by a descendant of Vallabhacarya's family line.
b. Bramhasambandha- the conscious dedication of all personhood, property, goals, life to the lotus feet of Sri krushna.
c. Seva (not puja- they are very firm on this point) to a Murti of Sri Krushna- one of Several authorised forms - in your house. This was an important point for Vallabhacaryaji- he wanted that all pushti jivas did seva to their thakurjee in their own house and not hire others to do in a temple. No vicarious seva.
"The devotee should worship the Lord of Vraja at all times, with total love and sentiment. This alone is the rule of life. Never and in no circumstances is there any other."
-Sri Vallabhacarya
-there are many other fascinating aspects of this tradition that builds upon Visnusvami's understanding of Bhagwat Dharma including final understanding of Vraja and the Bhaktasevaks Nitya Swarup, adhikara for the various murthis and adhikara for the pushti marga itself.
The fundamental thrust of this marga can be said to be Grace. Jiva can not even once think of Sri Krushna without Sri Krushna thinking of His forgetfull bhaktasevak first.
www.pushtimarg.net has excellent info

Yes, I realize it is quite broad a topic, but nevertheless worth looking into (for me).

So, in fact, there are minor differences in the modes of worship and final goals?
Is that all?

Where does GM and iskcon fit in all this?


Wel, I would most certainly love to read such summaries.

hariii bol!

They certainly aren't minor. For someone established in a particular mode of upasana, they are vast. For someone who is into all varieties of upasana or who studies without commitment to any, they will appear very similar. Of course there is a general similarity there, that is why we treat them all as bhakti and as Vaishnavism.

Where do IGM fit into this? That would depend largely on how well educated they are in the Gaudiya scriptures, but I've seen everything in between manjari-bhava proper and vaidhi-sadhana blended with Sri and Madhva concepts. They do regard themselves as Gaudiya Vaishnavas, so one would expect them to be adhering to Gaudiya ideals of upasana.

Yes, that's true. I agree.

But, then again, every true and real relationship with Sri Radhe Krsna or Narayana or Rama must be non-material and transcendental.
BRS states that quite clearly...

So, in reality, we all aim at the same common goal, each of us in his special way.

Based on my limited knowledge, I tend to maintain that we are not so much different in the end.

Variety exists in the Absolute Reality and so does here.


Well, I think whatever they do, it is up to them, and it is ok.

I just want to say that differences in the general sense are not that deep (again, from my limited perspective).

But, I think we are dangerously close to the political issues, so I will stop here.

Anyways, thank you for your input, I am looking forward to reading more information on this topic...

hariii bol!

from the external (outsider) point of view, these differences seem quite minor. however, for a serious sadhaka these differences are very, very significant.

Would you care to elaborate, please?

an outsider would say we are all worshiping the same Deity in similar fashion, observing similar practices.

an insider would say that there is a tremendous difference between the worship of Lord Maha-Vishnu in the mood of neutrality (shanta rasa) and the worship of Lord Krishna in the mood of conjugal love. there are significant differences in approach, practices and of course final destination.

and certainly, if you pay attention just to the discussions on this site, there are HUGE differences between Gaudiyas alone

Yes, I understand that.

But, isnt even shanta rasa proper experienced only on transcendental platform, just like every other relationship with Her/Him?

Please, dont get me wrong, I am just trying to see the main "red thread" in all of our vasihnava practices and goals...
...which, from my limited point of view, is krsna prema (in its wonderfull and great many variations).

thank you

shanta rasa may be possible without the presence of Krishna-prema. It is called "awe and reverence" or "admiration".

Rasa is not possible without prema. Rasa and prema are synonymous. Rasa consists of five ingredients condensing on the platform of sthayi-bhava, and that ripening of bhava is called prema.

However, I believe prema and rasa in the sense we treat the concepts are not in the terminology of some other sampradayas. The concept of prema as the panchama-purusartha seems to be somewhat unique to the Gaudiyas; many Vaishnava-traditions consider the four varieties of mukti the goal of their sadhana.

Hmm.
Any relationship with Sri Krsna (shanta, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya nad madhurya rati) is possible only on complete transcendental
platform, only after complete liberation (after nirbikalpa samadhi), BRS states.
And how can one enter into His lilas without prema?
hmm

So, I will maintain that krsna-prema is present, must be present, in "netural" relationship to Sri Krsna.

hariiiii bol!

Would you quote BRS for that? Not that I disagree, that certainly adds up from a number of statements both there and in dozens of other texts, but I can't recall a single statement to that extent from BRS, specifically on rasa and supramundane platform.

Srila Rupa Goswamipada gave a powerfull nod to Pushtimarg in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu.

I do not disagree with you, but perhaps it also depends on the particular case of shanta rasa. One can argue that there is a world of difference between shanta rasa positions in Vaikuntha, and those in Goloka Vrindaban. The rasa concepts in our Gaudiya tradition seem to pertain to Goloka positions alone.

Madhava,

rasa and supramundane platform?
hmm.
how can rasa NOT be of supramundane platform if Sri Radhe Krsna is completely transcendental. Sandhini, samvit and hladini are no material energies, so...


Directly it is not stated, no, at least not that I know off.
The whole work is on completely transcendental subject of bhakti...

But it is plainly seen in various parts of BRS, Eastern Division First Wave, text 11 (where Uttama Bhakti is established) and in its commentary, for example.

Also in Eastern Division First Wave, text 1 where is rasa explained by Bon Maharaj, I think...

ADDED:
BRS online:
http://www.bvml.org/SHBM/

As said, I do not disagree with the conclusion. However, if you say that "The BRS states...", then we'll all assume there is a statement in BRS that says just that. Otherwise, you should say, "From BRS, it may be concluded that..."

Pardon me for being picky on this, but all too many a times people throw around non-existent references. There are many who haven't tracked them down, only to be disappointed later on, having found out the references weren't there, and the siddhanta wasn't accurate.

The link to BRS online, while containing the first division dealing with the concept of uttama-bhakti in its first chapter, will not be helpful when studying rasa, as rasa is treated in the third and fourth divisions of the work.

Yes, you are right.
I stand corrected, I should have used different wording...



Yes, true.
But is offers intro and some verses which are IMHO quite important...

hariii bol!