Query

[BVKS Sanga]

Subject: Query

Date: Mon Sep 19 2022 09:06:13 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)

From: "Shyamananda Dasa" 

Param Vijayate Sri Krishna Sankirtanam 

Dandavat Pranams to Guru Maharaja and all BVKS Sanga members. Srila Prabhupada ki Jaya!

I recently "unfortunately" heard a Mayavadi trying to defend Sankaracarya's contradictory commentary on Vedas by stating that even among Vaisnava Acaryas like Madhvacarya and Ramanujacarya there is fighting going on. 

Madhvacarya has refuted even Ramanujacarya's commentary in his Vedanta commentary. In a highly respected book 'Manimanjari' written by Narayana Panditacarya of Madhva Sampradaya, Sankaracarya has been said to be an incarnation of a demon named Manimana and Ramanujacarya is been said to be incarnation of the demon Vatapi. 

Our Gaudiya Vaisnava understanding is radically different so how can this be reconciled? I would appreciate it if anyone could answer this based on evidence of Guru, sadhu and sastra.

Hare Kṛṣṇa!

Dasanudasa,

Shyamananda dasa brahmacari 

[BVKS Sanga]

Subject: Re: Query

Date: Mon Sep 19 2022 12:46:14 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)

From: "Jay Nityananda Das"

Dear Shyamananda Prabhu ji,

Namo Namah.

>> In a highly respected book 'Manimanjari' written by Narayana Panditacarya of Madhva Sampradaya, Sankaracarya has been said to be an incarnation of a demon named Manimana and Ramanujacarya is been said to be incarnation of the demon Vatapi. 

Can your good self provide exact references from Mani-manjari to confirm the validity of the above claim?

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa

("Nandagrama" Varnasrama Community Project)

[BVKS Sanga]

Subject: Re: Query

Date: Wed Sep 21 2022 14:05:22 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)

From: "Shyamananda Dasa" 

About birth of Sankaracarya in Manimanjari the below verses are some of them

Tameva samayam daityo Manimanapyajayata

Manorathena mahata brahmanyam jaratah khalat

At the same time, Maniman thought that his ambition could be achieved immediately, and was born to a widow through aldultery.

6.7

Utpannah sankaratmayam sarvakarmabahiskrtah

Ityuktah svajanairmata sankaretyajuhava tam

As his nature was rubbish as sweepings or his nature was to mix castes, creeds etc, and as he was born to an adultress he was prohibhited from all Vedic karmas by his own relations; his mother called him 'Sankara'.

This version was accepted by Srila Prabhupada in a Morning Walk November 20, 1975, Bombay

Prabhupāda: A brāhmaṇa says because he is saṅkara, varṇa-saṅkara. Yes.

Dr. Patel: Who?

Prabhupāda: Śaṅkarācārya.

Dr. Patel: Was he? No, no. Both were brāhmaṇas.

Prabhupāda: He was born when his mother was widow, and she became pregnant by the priest. So she was going to kill herself. Then her father restrained her, that "Don't do it. Your... In the womb there is a big personality." So the brāhmaṇa community did not like her.

Yaśomatīnandana: Oh, I see. That's why they didn't...

Prabhupāda: Therefore he is called Śaṅkarācārya.

Indian man (2): Varṇa-saṅkara.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Dr. Patel: [Hindi] Śaṅkara is the name of Śaṅkara. I don't agree you have said correctly.

Prabhupāda: Śaṅkara... Śaṅkara is Bhagavān. But because he is Śaṅkara, therefore he is not accepted as Bhagavān. 

Dr. Patel: That is wrong.

Prabhupāda: Hare Kṛṣṇa.

Yaśomatīnandana: Śaṅkara means mixed.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is explained, that kṣīraṁ yathā dadhi-vikāra [Bs. 5.45]. Kṣīram, milk, becomes dadhi-vikāra.

Dr. Patel: Dahi.

Prabhupāda: Dahi. So dahi is nothing but milk, but you cannot call it milk.

About Ramanujacarya it seems to be aural tradition among scholars.

Hare Kṛṣṇa!!!

[BVKS Sanga]

Subject: Re: Query

Date: Fri Sep 23 2022 18:40:06 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)

From: "Jay Nityananda Das" 

Dear Shyamasundara Prabhu and others,

Namo Namah.

>> I recently "unfortunately" heard a Mayavadi trying to defend Sankaracarya's contradictory commentary on Vedas by stating that even among Vaisnava Acaryas like Madhvacarya and Ramanujacarya there is fighting going on. 

There is no need to get surprised over differences of opinions among Vaishnava Acharyas to the extent that one opinion is in opposition to another opinion. There are ample examples to prove this point. e.g. There is/isn't devastation after every change of Manu. Srila Vishvanatha and Srila Jiva Gosvami do differ from Sridhara Svami regarding this point in a very polite way. Kindly follow SB (1.3.5 purport): (emphasis added)

"According to Śrīpāda Śrīdhara Svāmī, the original commentator on the Bhāgavatam, there is not always a devastation after the change of every Manu. And yet this inundation after the period of Cākṣuṣa Manu took place in order to show some wonders to Satyavrata. But Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has given definite proofs from authoritative scriptures (like Viṣṇu-dharmottara, Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, Harivaṁśa, etc.) that there is always a devastation after the end of each and every Manu. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī has also supported Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, and he (Śrī Cakravartī) has also quoted from Bhāgavatāmṛta about this inundation after each Manu. Apart from this, the Lord, in order to show special favor to Satyavrata, a devotee of the Lord, in this particular period, incarnated Himself." [SB 1.3.5 purport]

In a traditional culture, arguing and counter-arguing is not considered sin or offense provided it is done with the sole purpose of establishing the truth based on scriptures (shastra-pramana). In a "vada" or proper debate (wherein purpose is not to defeat the opponent but to establish the truth ), losing the argument is not seen as "humiliation", similarly,  winning the argument is not perceived as "victory" either. 

Generally, commentaries from the previous Acharyas are studied with their sub-commentaries in  a disciplic succession for any such clarification regarding differences.   

 

>>Madhvacarya has refuted even Ramanujacarya's commentary in his Vedanta commentary. In a highly respected book 'Manimanjari' written by Narayana Panditacarya of Madhva >>Sampradaya, Sankaracarya has been said to be an incarnation of a demon named Manimana and Ramanujacarya is been said to be incarnation of the demon Vatapi. 

>>Our Gaudiya Vaisnava understanding is radically different so how can this be reconciled? I would appreciate it if anyone could answer this based on evidence of Guru, sadhu and sastra.

In my humble understanding, Shankaracharya could be a combined incarnation of Lord Shiva and Demon Maniman. I don't have the shastra pramana for this statement, however, both the pramanas regarding Shankaracharya and Manimana impelled me to derive at such a conclusion.

For example, in Gaura-ganoddesha-dipika of Kavikarnapura aka Paramanada das,  vesre 92-93, Ramacandra Puri is said to be incarnation of Vibhishana, however, Lord Caitanya does not accept that Vibhishana could be the cause for the misbehaviour of Ramacandra Puri. He explains it is Jatila, the mother in law of Sri Radhika in Vraja pastimes, who entered Ramacandra Puri for some reason. And therefore, Ramacandra Puri restricted  Lord Caitanya in His acceptance of alms.