Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Caitanya
H. Krishna Susarla
>>I didn't think it was that hard. What did you think "caitanyaya namo namah"
>>meant?
>Quite simply, it need not refer to the individual named. It can refer
>to Krishna directly. All uses of 'chaitanya' in the Shrutis/Smrtis are
>explained so by non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
Okay, fair enough. But by that standard, it would be almost impossible to
prove that Chaitanya refers to a particular incarnation. There are other
verses from some of the Puranas (I don't know any of them by memory) which
specifically state that He will come as a devotee, propagate the chanting of
the Holy Name, and so on. So at least for Gaudiyas there is no doubt that
Chaitanyopanishad refers to the incarnation as Lord Chaitanya.
>I take your word for it; however, the part about Madhva's non-mention
>remains.
I imagine that he brought up Madhva because of Madhva's parampara link to
Brahma. More on that later.
>> It would be foolish for Gaudiyas to claim that their
>> philosophy is 100% identical to Madhva's, because in
>> Chaitanya-Charitamrita (Madhya Lila, Volume 4) it is recorded that
>> Lord Chaitanya met with, and defeated the Tattvavadis of Udupi.
>You will, I hope, forgive me for taking that with a large dose of rock
>salt. There is no record of any debate between Chaitanya and Vyaasa
>Tiirtha, Vaadiraaja Tiirtha, or Vijayiindra Tiirtha, who were (most
>likely) his contemporaries. Besides, whenever a real debate ensues,
>the records state the actual names of participants; "the Tattvavaadas
>of Udupi" is a giveaway because of its fuzziness.
I didn't bring this up because I was asking *you* to believe it. Rather, I
was saying that this is accepted by Gaudiyas, and that is why Gaudiyas
cannot and will not claim that their philosophy is identical to Madhva's.
>>traditions. One excellent example of this is when the leader of the
>>Madhva sampradaaya (was it Vishvesha Tirtha?) spoke at Prabhupada's
>>Puspa Samadhi Mandir. In all humility which is befitting a Vaishnava
>>he humbly stated that he was not qualified to take the dust from
>>Prabhupada's lotus feet.
>This, too, I must question. For one thing, there is no unique leader
>for the Maadhva sampradaaya today.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the Maadhvas have some kind of system
whereby an acharya is elected/appointed for some time? I think the 'leader'
referred to was that person.
>but he is by no means the leader of them all. It is also totally
>beyond belief that he would state that he was unfit to "take the dust
>from Prabhupada's lotus feet." That is, as nearly as I can tell, a
>_very_ Gaudiya expression, and second, while there is not the least
Picky, picky. I don't know if he said 'lotus' feet, or not. That's why I did
not enclose that in quotes. But from what I heard, he definitely said
something to the effect that he was not qualified to take the dust from
Prabhupada's feet.
>doubt in my mind that he holds Prabhupada, whom he knew personally, in
>high regard, he would not say such a thing about anyone but his own
>Guru. Thus, if such was reported about his speech, it was false.
It was well publicized in ISKCON, at least. I wonder if there is anyone out
there who has a transcript of the speech?
>Achyutapreksha Tiirtha was a Advaiti (before he himself made a
>conversion to the Maadhva sampradaaya), and thus, his (earlier)
>guru-paramparaa must have led back to Shankara one way or the
>other. Also, I'm not certain where "Madhva lists Achyuta Preksha's
>[paramparaa]" -- as far as I know, nowhere. Madhva claims to be, well,
>Madhva -- but then you know that. His Guru is Sriman NaaraayaNa
>Himself. He does not mention anyone but Krishna/NaaraayaNa/etc. as a
>Guru, and does not even comment upon works by anyone but Him.
The paramparaa I was referring to was mentioned in CC, Madhya-lila 9.25
purport by Srila Prabhupada:
1) Hamsa Paramaatmaa
2) Caturmukha Brahmaa
3) Sanakaadi
4) Durvaasaa
5) Jnaananidhi
6) Garuda-vaahana
7) Kaivalya Tiirtha
8) Jnaanesa Tiirtha
9) Para Tiirtha
10) Satyaprajna Tiirtha
11) Praajna Tiirtha
12) Acyuta Preksaacaarya Tiirtha
13) Srii Madhvaacaarya
14) Padmanaabha .... etc.
Prabhupada alluded to the Madhva-vijaya so I assumed he got this from that
work.
Anyway, the point I was making is that *someone* in that sampradaaya lists
the paramparaa as such, even though it is understood that Madhva's
philosophy was not that of Acyuta Preksha. So, as a matter of formality I
suppose, one could list the paramparaa this way although Madhva's real guru
was not Acyuta Preksha.
>Achyutapreksha Tiirtha is said to have done merit during a previous
>birth as a braahmaNa, by eating the prasaada that Vaayu, as Bhiimasena,
>offered during worship -- this merit brought him close to Vaayu again,
>as Achyutapreksha Tiirtha. That is all. He is considered to have been
>given a gift, rather than to be a senior of Madhva. The latter does not
Well, I was not implying that he was a senior of Madhva, or that he was
Madhva's real guru. The point is that Gaudiyas list the Maadhvas as part of
their paramparaa in the same spirit that the Maadhvas list Achyuta Preksha's
sampradaaya. There is a historical link in both cases, although
philosophically not so.
>ever even mention him. Were it not for the Sumadhva-vijaya (and sources
>based upon it) where Madhva's life-story (and Achyutapreksha Tiirtha) is
>mentioned, you wouldn't know that Achyutapreksha Tiirtha ever existed.
>Last but not the least, as I'm sure you're aware, Achyutapreksha Tiirtha
>himself accepted diiksha into Madhva's order, as Purushottama Tiirtha
Yes, I was aware of this.
>(thus inverting the guru-shishya relationship) and renounced his earlier
>affiliation. Thus, too, for the example given to be valid, some Gaudiya
>must have had to accept diiksha from a Maadhva, and then get the latter
>to renounce his earlier affiliation. I am not aware that this did happen.
Maadhavendra Puri accepted diksha in that line (although, I suppose he might
not have been called a Gauidya at that time) and his disciple's disciple was
Lord Chaitanya, who gave the Gaudiya siddhanta. I'm not aware that Lord
Caitanya tried to convert his own guru, and from what I understand of the
philosophy, there would have been no need. His own guru was a Vaishnava, not
an advaitin, so it is less likely that an exactly parallel situation would
be seen here.
>>The second point is that calling the philosophy of Dvaita-vada as an offshoot
>>of the Advaita philosophy (which, I presume, is the obvious conclusion of
>>saying that Madhva sampradaaya is an offshoot of Sankara's) is certainly a
>>bigger stretch than to say that the Gaudiya is an offshoot of the Madhva line.
>I don't know. I could write at length to show why one is as valid as
>the other, but don't do so because I believe both "offshoot" hypotheses
>to be _equally_ false.
I also believe them both to be false, but it would certainly be harder to
believe the former than the latter.
>> Neither Gaudiyas nor Maadhvas are well known for wasting time trying to
>>defeat each other, but both have spent considerable time and energy refuting
>>the philosophy of advaita. Regardless of their respective differences,
>>Gaudiyas and Maadhvas have a lot more in common than either does with advaita,
>The polemical tradition in Tattvavaada reached its peak around the
>time of Vyaasa Tiirtha, and waned after then; now it's almost
>nonexistent. Considering that the Gaudiya tradition developed mostly
>afterward, it is possible to conceive of a different explanation for
>the absence of debates between Gaudiyas and Tattvavaadas than their
>doctrines' affinity.
In that case, maybe you should look at the Maadhvas' attitude towards the
Sri Vaishnava sampradaaya, since both must have had strong polemical
traditions at about the same time. Somehow, I doubt that Maadhvas would
waste as much time trying to convert the followers of Ramaanuja as they
would arguing with the advaitins. Your sampradaaya might think that
Ramaanuja's philosophy is less correct, but the bottom line is that his
followers are still Vaishnavas and therefore entitled to a certain amount of
respect. I know that Madhva met with the Sri Vaishnavas and discussed
various points of similarity and difference in their two philosophies, but
my point it is that I don't think Vaishnavas would spend as much time
preaching to each other as they would to advaitins. Of course, you have
access to the biographies of Madhva and his disciples, so you will have to
tell me.
>> since the followers of the latter have accepted the theory that the Lord
>>descends in a body made of material elements, and that He and the jiivas are
>>ultimately the same. I want to point out again that I'm not trying to say that
>I'm not aware that Advaitis have ever said the Lord ever takes a body
>of material elements. Who among them has said this, precisely?
Srila Prabhupada quoted one Sadaananda Yogi, a follower of Sankaracharya in
_Teachings of Lord Chaitanya_. Here it is.
------ begin quote
SadAnanda-yogI, one of the greatest mAyAvAdI AcAryas, has written
in his book, vedAnta-sAra: "The Absolute Truth of eternity, knowledge and
bliss is Brahman. Ignorance and all products of ignorance are
non-Brahman. All products of the three modes of ma terial nature are
covered by ignorance, and all are different from the supreme cause and
effect. This ignorance is manifested in a collective and individual
sense. Collective ignorance is called viSuddha-sattva-pradhAna. When
that viSuddha-sattva-pradh Ana is manifest within the ignorance of
material nature, it is called the Lord, and the Lord manifests all kinds
of ignorance. Therefore He is known as sarvajNa." Thus according to
mAyAvAdI philosophy, the Lord is a product of this material nature, and
the living entity is in the lowest stage of ignorance. That is the sum
and substance of mAyAvAdI philosophy.
-------- end quote
I don't have the exact Sanskrit verse and text in which this statement
appears. However, it's not hard to accept that this is the position of the
advaitins. If the advaitins were to admit that Lord Krishna's form is
spiritual, then their whole philosophy would fall apart. One could then
question why the jiivas don't also ultimately have spiritual forms, and why
liberation is supposedly monist.
regards,
-- HKS
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.22, 2/6/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Shrisha Rao
>Srisha Rao wrote:
>
>>>I didn't think it was that hard. What did you think "caitanyaya namo namah"
>>>meant?
>
>>Quite simply, it need not refer to the individual named. It can refer
>>to Krishna directly. All uses of 'chaitanya' in the Shrutis/Smrtis are
>>explained so by non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
>
>Okay, fair enough. But by that standard, it would be almost impossible to
>prove that Chaitanya refers to a particular incarnation. There are other
>verses from some of the Puranas (I don't know any of them by memory) which
>specifically state that He will come as a devotee, propagate the chanting of
>the Holy Name, and so on. So at least for Gaudiyas there is no doubt that
>Chaitanyopanishad refers to the incarnation as Lord Chaitanya.
It _is_, in fact, impossible to prove that 'chaitanya' refers to a
particular incarnation. Some months ago, a Gaudiya Vaishnava devotee was
kind enough to arrange to send me a copy of a booklet called 'Lord
Chaitanya's coming predicted in scripture' or something similar, and I
received the work thankfully and read it with humility. However, at the
end, I remain quite convinced that Sri Chaitanya cannot be proved to be
an avatar of Vishnu to a Tattvavaadi's satisfaction -- or indeed, to the
satisfaction of anybody but a Gaudiya Vaishnava who accepted such as an
article of faith to begin with.
This is, I am aware, possibly a rather distressing pronouncement, and I
asseverate that I do not intend to slur the Gaudiya sampradaaya or its
devotees. Yet, I must say that there are several problems with the
reading of Krishna Chaitanya's avataarhood into such scriptural
references. I do not intend to debate the matter at length, but I state
a few of them, briefly:
1> Questionable sources:
For one thing, it seems to be the case that the sources that most
unequivocally assert that Chaitanya is an avatar, are always the most
dubious; out-of-the-way PuraaNas, samhitas, etc., and especially copies
of such that are said to have been discovered by somebody, and have
verses not found in widely-extant copies. Here, the acceptance of such
sources depends upon one trusting, a priori, that the discoverer is an
honest person and that (s)he is not likely to be deluded or to trust a
deluded person. While Gaudiyas may accept this most readily of people
they consider revered forebears/gurus, etc., other sampradaayas have no
such bindings; in fact, Tattvavaada specifically outlaws such a priori
acceptance in *all* cases.
2> Questionable translations:
In a large number of cases, the barest mention of 'chaitanya' seems to
be translated as "... The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu...," etc., which I would call a questionable practice -- and
others would use stronger, or less respectful, terms to criticize this
habit. For one thing, in most if not all cases, 'chaitanya' in Sanskrit
is an adjective, and to directly translate it as "The Supreme
Personality of Godhead, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu," a (rather extended)
noun, is not correct in any obvious way. Furthermore, in a large number
of cases, forced parallels are drawn from scriptural references to
referents in Chaitanya's life and times. Such are often if not always
out-of-context with the rest of the text; for example, consider the
references to Chaitanya said to exist in the Vishnu-sahasra-naama, which
we have discussed at length on ARV last year.
3> Lack of coherence:
It is never, in my humble opinion, the case that any set of
unquestionably authentic sources is completely and consistently
interpreted to show Sri Chaitanya's Divinity; stray references are
picked up here and there, certain questionable meanings foisted on them,
and then it is claimed that Chaitanya has been mentioned in scripture.
By contrast, accepted avataar-references, such as those about Krishna,
Narasimha, etc., show a certain consistency over a broad span.
4> Lack of forcefulness:
One basic tenet in scriptural understanding is: never accept anything if
an alternative plausible explanation exists. Of course, two (or more)
alternatives may be equally plausible, but then neither can "force" its
own way. When one considers a large body of evidence, and then
eliminates various inconsistencies created by explanations that are only
"locally" plausible to the extent of some small data set, one arrives at
a total broad picture that is plausible and consistent. Various
criticisms that have been made of Advaita are to the effect that it does
not consider all the evidence without bias -- nay, that it cannot _but_
dither from considering all evidence without bias; that it (at best)
rests upon the biased acceptance of certain convenient, non-forceful, ad
hoc, locally plausible hypotheses, and unnecessary rejection of the
global evidence that indicates inconsistencies, etc. A very similar
criticism can be made of the readings of Chaitanya's mention in
scripture; they are taken here-and-there, out of context, are never
forceful enough in eliminating alternative possibilities, and one does
not arrive at an overall consistent picture upon accepting them.
5> Lack of acceptance by Sri Chaitanya himself:
It is more or less accepted, as far as I understand, that Sri Chaitanya
himself never asserted his own alleged Divinity, and that he in fact
shied away from, and rejected, such claims made by others. Now, this has
been sought to be explained away as being due to Chaitanya being a
"covered" avataar, but this I find hard to believe -- what entity in the
three worlds is powerful enough to cover Lord Vishnu Himself?! Also,
never in any scripture is there any instance of Vishnu denying Himself
for _any_ reason. On the contrary, He boldly asserts Himself as he did
to Arjuna, and also proclaims that _in spite of this_, those of base
tendencies will never understand Him, and will see Him as a human only.
To claim that Vishnu could deny being Himself is to accuse Him of
falsehood, and of unprecedented and scripturally unsupported behavior.
6> Logical fallacy in the claims of post-hoc identification:
Quite simply put, it is not the case that Sri Chaitanya was called
something else, and people said "this person is actually the Chaitanya
predicted in scripture" -- he was _named_ that by mortals, and then
apparent similarities found between his name and scriptural references.
This is on a much weaker basis than, say the identification of Ananda
Tiirtha as Madhva, and I have pointed out this important difference
before. By the same standard as applied in the case of Chaitanya's
divinity, _any_ person named after Vishnu can claim to be His
incarnation (or have others claim so for him). This also I have pointed
out in the past.
Last but not the least, I simply cannot believe that great devotees from
other sampradaayas, like Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha (a contemporary of
Chaitanya, as you perhaps know), would so completely and wilfully
ignore Lord Vishnu, were He actually present in the world as an
Incarnate. It has been documented that there was a Sri Vaishnava devotee
of such great faith that Vishnu used to live with him all the time in
the form of young child Krishna; that Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha visited
this devotee and treated him with utmost respect, etc. It is quite clear
that sampradaaya-affiliations were not of themselves considered enough
to ignore larger truths. Thus also, the alleged Divinity is
questionable...
[*chomp*]
>>>traditions. One excellent example of this is when the leader of the
>>>Madhva sampradaaya (was it Vishvesha Tirtha?) spoke at Prabhupada's
>>>Puspa Samadhi Mandir. In all humility which is befitting a Vaishnava
>>>he humbly stated that he was not qualified to take the dust from
>>>Prabhupada's lotus feet.
>
>>This, too, I must question. For one thing, there is no unique leader
>>for the Maadhva sampradaaya today.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the Maadhvas have some kind of system
>whereby an acharya is elected/appointed for some time? I think the 'leader'
>referred to was that person.
No such system exists.
>>but he is by no means the leader of them all. It is also totally
>>beyond belief that he would state that he was unfit to "take the dust
>>from Prabhupada's lotus feet." That is, as nearly as I can tell, a
>>_very_ Gaudiya expression, and second, while there is not the least
>
>Picky, picky. I don't know if he said 'lotus' feet, or not. That's why I did
>not enclose that in quotes. But from what I heard, he definitely said
>something to the effect that he was not qualified to take the dust from
>Prabhupada's feet.
Rubbish. He would not say anything like it; it would be an affront to
his own Guru and Achaarya if he did.
[*chomp*]
Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not.
>Anyway, the point I was making is that *someone* in that sampradaaya lists
>the paramparaa as such, even though it is understood that Madhva's
>philosophy was not that of Acyuta Preksha. So, as a matter of formality I
>suppose, one could list the paramparaa this way although Madhva's real guru
>was not Acyuta Preksha.
No one in that sampradaaya lists that paramparaa; a direct quote showing
such is not available. On the contrary, a fairly detailed listing of the
Udupi MaThas' lines, or the Uttaradi MaTha's line, *always* starts with
Srimad Ananda Tiirtha *only* -- perhaps Hari can confirm this from the
Uttaradi MaTha calendar, which should list the "official" lineage.
Besides, the paramparaa goes from Duurvaasa to Achyutapreksha Tiirtha in
a mere eight steps; not very plausible, is it?
[*chomp*]
>>The polemical tradition in Tattvavaada reached its peak around the
>>time of Vyaasa Tiirtha, and waned after then; now it's almost
>>nonexistent. Considering that the Gaudiya tradition developed mostly
>>afterward, it is possible to conceive of a different explanation for
>>the absence of debates between Gaudiyas and Tattvavaadas than their
>>doctrines' affinity.
>
>In that case, maybe you should look at the Maadhvas' attitude towards the
>Sri Vaishnava sampradaaya, since both must have had strong polemical
>traditions at about the same time. Somehow, I doubt that Maadhvas would
>waste as much time trying to convert the followers of Ramaanuja as they
>would arguing with the advaitins. Your sampradaaya might think that
>Ramaanuja's philosophy is less correct, but the bottom line is that his
>followers are still Vaishnavas and therefore entitled to a certain amount of
>respect. I know that Madhva met with the Sri Vaishnavas and discussed
>various points of similarity and difference in their two philosophies, but
>my point it is that I don't think Vaishnavas would spend as much time
>preaching to each other as they would to advaitins. Of course, you have
>access to the biographies of Madhva and his disciples, so you will have to
>tell me.
While it does _seem_ that adherents of Tattvavaada have spent more
energy and efforts at debating followers of Advaita than in debating
Sri Vaishnavas, this is merely indicative of the fact that a greater
distance apart in the doctrines' precepts causes a greater number of
debates; the most significant difference between Maadhvas and Sri
Vaishnavas is the formers' refusal to accept the latters' assertion that
the mukta enjoys on par with Vishnu Himself; that there is no heirarchy
of worth among jiivas. By contrast, with Advaitis, one has to actually
justify the fact of saguNa-mukti itself, and all that it entails.
Another reason could be that during the period of Tattvavaada's creation
and heyday, Advaita was having a second resurgence, and produced a
number of able scholars; if (notice I say _if_, because I don't know for
sure) the Sri Vaishnava tradition was perhaps comparatively at a lower
ebb at the time, then again there would be fewer chances for debate.
[*chomp*]
>>I'm not aware that Advaitis have ever said the Lord ever takes a body
>>of material elements. Who among them has said this, precisely?
>
>Srila Prabhupada quoted one Sadaananda Yogi, a follower of Sankaracharya in
>_Teachings of Lord Chaitanya_. Here it is.
Frankly, I have never heard either of Sadaananda Yogi, or the Vedanta-
Saara. If the quote were from a famous work like the Viveka-chUDAmaNi or
Sri Shankaraachaarya's bhaashyas on one of the prasthaana-traya texts,
I could look it up or ask someone to. As things stand, someone else
more conversant with Advaita scholars and texts will have to confirm or
deny the veracity of the claim. However, I found this to be rather
funny:
>When that viSuddha-sattva-pradh Ana is manifest within the ignorance of
>material nature, it is called the Lord, and the Lord manifests all
>kinds of ignorance. Therefore He is known as sarvajNa."
There's a slight contradiction there: a totally ignorant sarvagnya!
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Vijay Sadananda Pai
>>while there is not the least
>>high regard, he would not say such a thing about anyone but his own
>>Guru. Thus, if such was reported about his speech, it was false.
>It was well publicized in ISKCON, at least. I wonder if there is anyone out
>there who has a transcript of the speech?
Well, I beg to contend that such statements were _not_ well publicized
in ISKCON, which also makes _me_ wonder if they were actually said. I
would have no problem believing the statement if it were publicized
in ISKCON World Review, which is the best source of information regarding
any sort of meetings of ISKCON leaders with prominent world
scholars/leaders/etc. My BTG subscription had lapsed during the relevant
time, so I can't say for sure if BTG said anything about it; did they?
As for transcripts of the Mayapur opening proceedings, I am sure they
exist in multiple media, which (assuming that what you were saying is true)
makes me wonder why IWR wouldn't write very much about Vishvesha Tiirtha,
other than saying that he was there and honored Srila Prabhupada with his
words & presence.
>>Achyutapreksha Tiirtha was a Advaiti (before he himself made a
>>conversion to the Maadhva sampradaaya), and thus, his (earlier)
>>guru-paramparaa must have led back to Shankara one way or the
>>other.
Not necessarily; he may have simply honored Shankara in other ways,
rather than being a disciple. I think the list that Srila Prabhupada
lists is also the same one given by BNK Sharma -- I believe it is not
Shankara's line, though, since Shankara's line doesn't include Sanaka
or Durvasa.
>1) Hamsa Paramaatmaa
>2) Caturmukha Brahmaa
>3) Sanakaadi
>4) Durvaasaa
>5) Jnaananidhi
>6) Garuda-vaahana
>7) Kaivalya Tiirtha
>8) Jnaanesa Tiirtha
>9) Para Tiirtha
>10) Satyaprajna Tiirtha
>11) Praajna Tiirtha
>12) Acyuta Preksaacaarya Tiirtha
>13) Srii Madhvaacaarya
>14) Padmanaabha .... etc.
>regards,
>
>-- HKS
Yours,
Vijay
Hari Krishna Susarla
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>1> Questionable sources:
>
>For one thing, it seems to be the case that the sources that most
>unequivocally assert that Chaitanya is an avatar, are always the most
>dubious; out-of-the-way PuraaNas, samhitas, etc., and especially copies
>of such that are said to have been discovered by somebody, and have
>verses not found in widely-extant copies. Here, the acceptance of such
>sources depends upon one trusting, a priori, that the discoverer is an
>honest person and that (s)he is not likely to be deluded or to trust a
>deluded person. While Gaudiyas may accept this most readily of people
>they consider revered forebears/gurus, etc., other sampradaayas have no
>such bindings; in fact, Tattvavaada specifically outlaws such a priori
>acceptance in *all* cases.
This, unfortunately is the case since the scriptures predicting Lord
Caitanya's coming had to be unmanifest prior to His appearance. He did not
want people to recognize Him as anything other than a pure devotee of the
Lord. My understanding is that most of the clear-cut references to His
avataarhood were recovered after His disappearance.
>2> Questionable translations:
>
>In a large number of cases, the barest mention of 'chaitanya' seems to
>be translated as "... The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Chaitanya
>Mahaprabhu...," etc., which I would call a questionable practice -- and
>others would use stronger, or less respectful, terms to criticize this
>habit. For one thing, in most if not all cases, 'chaitanya' in Sanskrit
>is an adjective, and to directly translate it as "The Supreme
>Personality of Godhead, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu," a (rather extended)
>noun, is not correct in any obvious way. Furthermore, in a large number
>of cases, forced parallels are drawn from scriptural references to
>referents in Chaitanya's life and times. Such are often if not always
>out-of-context with the rest of the text; for example, consider the
>references to Chaitanya said to exist in the Vishnu-sahasra-naama, which
>we have discussed at length on ARV last year.
My (admittedly limited) understanding of Sanskrit indicates to me that the
distinction between substantives and adjectives is often blurred in many
cases, and I have seen them used interchangeably at times. Regarding the
translations, I personally favor an exact, literal translation but I realize
the impracticality of it when dealing with a Sanskrit text. Aside from the
fact that there are connotations in the language which cannot adequately be
brought out in an exact, word-for-word translation, there is also the problem
of people taking verses out of context to support their views. Prabhupada's
translation of Gita 4.24 comes to mind. Although one edition states that the
sacrifice is Brahman, the offering is Brahman, etc, Prabhupada's commentary
indicates that this means the activites are spiritualized in Krishna
consciousness. I have observed previously that sometimes a Mayavadi will take
a translation (without the commentary) and say, "oh, see, look, even the
Vaishnavas believe as we do." So, in the second edition the word
Krishna-consciousness is inserted; even though it is not a direct translation,
nothing new has been added in terms of meaning. This way no one can use the
translations in an unauthorized way.
Translations like "The Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu"
do not bother me in the least because they are done in context. If in the
previous verse, Caitanya is identified as the Lord, then it makes perfect
sense to me for the translator to continue to identify Him as such in the
following verses even if the exact word Bhagavan, Isvara, etc. isn't always
there.
>3> Lack of coherence:
>
>It is never, in my humble opinion, the case that any set of
>unquestionably authentic sources is completely and consistently
>interpreted to show Sri Chaitanya's Divinity; stray references are
>picked up here and there, certain questionable meanings foisted on them,
>and then it is claimed that Chaitanya has been mentioned in scripture.
>By contrast, accepted avataar-references, such as those about Krishna,
>Narasimha, etc., show a certain consistency over a broad span.
This of course relates to the fact that Lord Caitanya's coming was supposed to
be kept confidential. If it were that easy to predict His appearance, then the
whole point of His coming as a devotee would be lost.
In any case, I have never been that interested in proving Lord Caitanya's
avataarhood to others, because I feel the philosophy is strong enough on its
own. When I first got involved with Krishna-consciousness, it had nothing at
all to do with the fact that the philosophy was given by an avataar of Krishna
Himself. In fact, I had no clue as to who Lord Caitanya was until after I had
done considerable reading into the philosophy. This is also the general
preaching strategy with most devotees; while most yogis try to claim that
their alleged divinity is the reason why their philosophy should be accepted,
the devotees of Lord Caitanaya put more emphasis on the philosophy itself. I
think that it is far better to accept a philosophy initially on the basis of
its merits rather than on the reputation of its exponents. This is not to say
that I am marginalizing Caitanya's position. I do believe He is the Lord, but
I think faith in that idea will only come to someone who takes up the Gaudiya
Vaishnava religion and not before.
>4> Lack of forcefulness:
>
>One basic tenet in scriptural understanding is: never accept anything if
>an alternative plausible explanation exists. Of course, two (or more)
>alternatives may be equally plausible, but then neither can "force" its
>own way. When one considers a large body of evidence, and then
>eliminates various inconsistencies created by explanations that are only
>"locally" plausible to the extent of some small data set, one arrives at
>a total broad picture that is plausible and consistent. Various
>criticisms that have been made of Advaita are to the effect that it does
>not consider all the evidence without bias -- nay, that it cannot _but_
>dither from considering all evidence without bias; that it (at best)
>rests upon the biased acceptance of certain convenient, non-forceful, ad
>hoc, locally plausible hypotheses, and unnecessary rejection of the
>global evidence that indicates inconsistencies, etc. A very similar
>criticism can be made of the readings of Chaitanya's mention in
>scripture; they are taken here-and-there, out of context, are never
>forceful enough in eliminating alternative possibilities, and one does
>not arrive at an overall consistent picture upon accepting them.
As far as eliminating alternative possibilities, I can't think of any after
some of the Puranic references I have heard. The other criticisms may have
some apparent validity, but I have heard very precise mention that Lord
Caitanya would propagate Hare Krishna, that He would leave householder life,
that He would appear in the province of Gaudesh, and so on...
>
>5> Lack of acceptance by Sri Chaitanya himself:
>
>It is more or less accepted, as far as I understand, that Sri Chaitanya
>himself never asserted his own alleged Divinity, and that he in fact
>shied away from, and rejected, such claims made by others. Now, this has
That is not entirely true. Lord Caitanya did not make widespread claims to
being the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For most people, He was simply seen
as a very exalted devotee. But He did reveal His identity to some of His most
intimate disciples, one of them being Ramananda Raya.
>been sought to be explained away as being due to Chaitanya being a
>"covered" avataar, but this I find hard to believe -- what entity in the
>three worlds is powerful enough to cover Lord Vishnu Himself?! Also,
This is 100% nonsense. Either you must have misunderstood what was said, or
whoever told you this was a rascal. Lord Caitanya is not "covered" by
illusion. That is mayavadi philosophy. I have heard that His identity as the
Lord would be concealed from most (maybe you heard "covered" in this context)
but He definitely knew that He was the Lord.
>6> Logical fallacy in the claims of post-hoc identification:
>
>Quite simply put, it is not the case that Sri Chaitanya was called
>something else, and people said "this person is actually the Chaitanya
>predicted in scripture" -- he was _named_ that by mortals, and then
>apparent similarities found between his name and scriptural references.
>This is on a much weaker basis than, say the identification of Ananda
>Tiirtha as Madhva, and I have pointed out this important difference
>before. By the same standard as applied in the case of Chaitanya's
>divinity, _any_ person named after Vishnu can claim to be His
>incarnation (or have others claim so for him). This also I have pointed
>out in the past.
Therefore, ultimately this issue requires that one have some faith in the
Gaudiya philosophy. As I stated before, I have never been interested in trying
to establish Lord Caitanya's position in a scholarly manner because I don't
see the point. The philosophy is of devotional service to Lord Krishna. Lord
Caitanya was not some mayavadi yogi who claims to be God so that others would
worship Him. For very fallen persons like me, it is easier to accept
Mahaprabhu's identity because the mercy He has shown us through the
propagation of Krishna-consciousness did not come from any other route. When I
consider how fallen I am, and how I am now trying to engage myself in
devotional service after associating with the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, I can only
conclude that I have benfitted from the Lord's mercy even though I am vastly
unqualified.
>Last but not the least, I simply cannot believe that great devotees from
>other sampradaayas, like Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha (a contemporary of
>Chaitanya, as you perhaps know), would so completely and wilfully
>ignore Lord Vishnu, were He actually present in the world as an
>Incarnate. It has been documented that there was a Sri Vaishnava devotee
>of such great faith that Vishnu used to live with him all the time in
>the form of young child Krishna; that Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha visited
>this devotee and treated him with utmost respect, etc. It is quite clear
>that sampradaaya-affiliations were not of themselves considered enough
>to ignore larger truths. Thus also, the alleged Divinity is
>questionable...
I don't know if Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha ever met Lord Caitanya, so I can't
comment here.
>No one in that sampradaaya lists that paramparaa; a direct quote showing
>such is not available. On the contrary, a fairly detailed listing of the
>Udupi MaThas' lines, or the Uttaradi MaTha's line, *always* starts with
>Srimad Ananda Tiirtha *only* -- perhaps Hari can confirm this from the
>Uttaradi MaTha calendar, which should list the "official" lineage.
>Besides, the paramparaa goes from Duurvaasa to Achyutapreksha Tiirtha in
>a mere eight steps; not very plausible, is it?
Why not? If it is referring to the same Duurvaasa of the Mahabharata then it
is certainly plausible that he could have lived a relatively long life span...
Anyway, this is speculation. I would be interested in seeing the "offical"
Madhva paramparaa. I would also like to know if there is a listing somewhere
that goes back through Acyuta Preksha. Prabhupada would not have given that
paramparaa unless it appeared somewhere in the Maadhva literature; that
listing surprised me since I had understood that Madhva studied under Vyaasa.
>>respect. I know that Madhva met with the Sri Vaishnavas and discussed
>>various points of similarity and difference in their two philosophies, but
>>my point it is that I don't think Vaishnavas would spend as much time
>>preaching to each other as they would to advaitins. Of course, you have
>>access to the biographies of Madhva and his disciples, so you will have to
>>tell me.
>
>While it does _seem_ that adherents of Tattvavaada have spent more
>energy and efforts at debating followers of Advaita than in debating
>Sri Vaishnavas, this is merely indicative of the fact that a greater
>distance apart in the doctrines' precepts causes a greater number of
>debates;
That's my point. Vaishnavas of the four sampradaayas (the ones considered by
Gaudiyas to be genuine) have some degree of dualism in common, whereas the
advaitins do not even accept this basic fact. When all is said and done, why
would you want to waste time trying to win over to your philosophy someone who
is already serving the Lord, when there are others out there who have such a
profound misunderstanding that they think they are ultimately on the same
level as the Lord?
I may be somewhat 'liberal' by Vaishnava (and perhaps, even by Gaudiya)
standards when I say this, but it would not bother me in the least bit for
the other Vaishnava sampradaayas to preach on an international level as the
Gaudiyas have done. In fact, it would actually make me quite happy to see them
succeed in such an effort, as long as they are following their philosophy
properly. I don't believe another Vaishnava is condemned simply because he has
a different understanding of such things as how the jiva falls down from the
spiritual world, whether it is Krishna who is the source of Narayana or
vice-versa, which Vedic scriptures are to be most emphasized for study, or
exactly how devotional service is to be carried out. For most people, such
philosophical concepts are too esoteric for them, and all they need to
understand is that the Lord's lotus feet are the supreme goal, that they are
distinct from the Lord, and they can be happy only by devotional service to
the Lord.
On the other hand, the advaitins have a totally incompatible understanding,
and it is much more worthwhile to debate with them. Their understanding is an
obstacle to performing pure devotional service, because one has to understand
that one is distinct from the Lord in order to do that. So it does not
surprise me in the least bit that the Maadhvas spent more time debating with
them than with other Vaishnavas.
>Another reason could be that during the period of Tattvavaada's creation
>and heyday, Advaita was having a second resurgence, and produced a
>number of able scholars; if (notice I say _if_, because I don't know for
>sure) the Sri Vaishnava tradition was perhaps comparatively at a lower
>ebb at the time, then again there would be fewer chances for debate.
Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.
>Frankly, I have never heard either of Sadaananda Yogi, or the Vedanta-
>Saara. If the quote were from a famous work like the Viveka-chUDAmaNi or
>Sri Shankaraachaarya's bhaashyas on one of the prasthaana-traya texts,
>I could look it up or ask someone to. As things stand, someone else
>more conversant with Advaita scholars and texts will have to confirm or
>deny the veracity of the claim. However, I found this to be rather
>funny:
I don't know who he is, either. But as I have pointed out, the Advaitins have
to believe that the Lord's form is material, otherwise their whole philosophy
crumbles. They don't accept anything at all like a spiritual form, spiritual
qualities, spirtual variegatedness. An advaitin may counter that he does
accept such things, but only as temporary manifestations. But this simply
shows that their conception of form, qualities, etc. is still material.
Spiritual form means, among other things, eternal form. And that is something
the advaitins will never accept.
>
>>When that viSuddha-sattva-pradh Ana is manifest within the ignorance of
>>material nature, it is called the Lord, and the Lord manifests all
>>kinds of ignorance. Therefore He is known as sarvajNa."
>
>There's a slight contradiction there: a totally ignorant sarvagnya!
I seem to remember Anand Hudli saying something similar a while back, but that
was a long time ago and I can't recall exactly what it was... something to the
effect that the Isvara was Brahman limited by maya...
Eswar Josyula
For someone to get convinced that Sri Caitanya is Krishna
Himself can happen only if He reveals Himself. Sri Caitanya is an
incarnation of Love; any approach other than Love, to know Him is
bound to fail.
Here is a quote giving some information about the meeting of
Sri Caitanya with Tattvavadis of Udupi. Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeating
Tattvavadis of Udupi is nothing but infusing love into them. In the
process of defeating if Lord Caitanya showed them their false pride
and the defect of scriptural learning without devotional service, then
such a defeat can hardly be understood with a negative connotation.
Krishnadasa Kaviraja who is mentioned in this quote is a famous
biographer of the Lord.
"and following a westerly course He (Caitanya Mahaprabhu) came to Udipi
on the coast of South Canara district, 36 miles north of Mangalore,
the capital town of the district. Here he saw the famous Deity of the
Boy-Krishna erected by Madhavacharya. The head-quarters of the Madhva
sect is Udipi, and here Sri Chaitanya engaged in sciptural disputation
with the head of the sect. Krishnadasa Kaviraja does not mention his
name but we may infer from the list of disciples of Uttaradi Math
that it was Raghuvarya Tirtha who is the thirteenth in succession from
Madhva and was in office from Saka 1424 (1511 A. C.) till
Saka 1471 (1559 A. C.). According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met
with Sri Raghuthama Tirtha who was in office from 1419 to 1457 Saka
corresponding to the period from 1497 to 1535 A. C."
>From Sri Chaitanya Mahaprbhu by Sambidananda Das published by
Sree Gaudiya Math, Madras. 1986.
Haribol
Eswar Josyula
Shrisha Rao
>Dear Shrisha,
>
> For someone to get convinced that Sri Caitanya is Krishna
>Himself can happen only if He reveals Himself. Sri Caitanya is an
>incarnation of Love; any approach other than Love, to know Him is
>bound to fail.
Dear Eswar,
For someone to get convinced that Sai Baba is Krishna Himself
can happen only if He reveals Himself. Sai Baba is an incarnation of
Love; any approach other than Love, to know Him is bound to fail.
See the problem now?
> Here is a quote giving some information about the meeting of
>Sri Caitanya with Tattvavadis of Udupi. Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeating
>Tattvavadis of Udupi is nothing but infusing love into them. In the
>process of defeating if Lord Caitanya showed them their false pride
>and the defect of scriptural learning without devotional service, then
>such a defeat can hardly be understood with a negative connotation.
Assuming, of course, that there was a meeting, and a defeat. I'm unsure
about the first, but positive the second never happened. If it had, then
according to the rules of debate, the loser would have accepted
Chaitanya as his guru and renounced his earlier affiliation. If such had
happened at Udupi, the heartland of Tattvavaada, the event would have
resounded for centuries, and possibly caused the demise of Tattvavaada
as a valid doctrine. Since none of this came to pass, since there is no
evidence other than the wild claims of a specific author, to show that
there was even a meeting, let alone a debate, the claim is not worthy of
serious consideration.
>Krishnadasa Kaviraja who is mentioned in this quote is a famous
>biographer of the Lord.
More power to him; when exactly did he live (in relation to
Chaitanya's period)?
>"and following a westerly course He (Caitanya Mahaprabhu) came to Udipi
>on the coast of South Canara district, 36 miles north of Mangalore,
>the capital town of the district. Here he saw the famous Deity of the
>Boy-Krishna erected by Madhavacharya. The head-quarters of the Madhva
>sect is Udipi, and here Sri Chaitanya engaged in sciptural disputation
>with the head of the sect. Krishnadasa Kaviraja does not mention his
>name but we may infer from the list of disciples of Uttaradi Math
>that it was Raghuvarya Tirtha who is the thirteenth in succession from
>Madhva and was in office from Saka 1424 (1511 A. C.) till
>Saka 1471 (1559 A. C.). According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met
>with Sri Raghuthama Tirtha who was in office from 1419 to 1457 Saka
>corresponding to the period from 1497 to 1535 A. C."
The theory that the story of the meeting is fantasy, is further
strengthened by the inference that it was Raghuvarya Tiirtha who met
with and debated Chaitanya -- apparently, whoever derived this
conclusion is unaware that the Uttaradi MaTha is *not* one of the eight
MaThas of Udupi; that its pontiff is not likely to be debated there
ahead of the eight MaThas' own piiThaadhipatis; that the Maadhva
sampradaaya has not, at least since the very early days of its
existence, had a single "head of the sect"; that while Raghuvarya
Tiirtha was in all likelihood an outstanding scholar, it is far more
likely that his contemporaries, the all-time greats Vaadiraaja Tiirtha
and Vyaasa Tiirtha, would take on Chaitanya (and even if Raghuvarya
Tiirtha and any others were beaten, the game would still be on as long
as those two were left); that Vaadiraaja Tiirtha, who was local to
Udupi, would supersede Raghuvarya Tiirtha thusly and even otherwise,
etc., etc.
I have much regard for Chaitanya's ability as a scholar, but in all
honesty, the idea that he, or anyone else for that matter, could march
into Udupi and take on the top Tattvavaada scholars of the day, and be
left himself untroubled by Vaadiraaja Tiirtha and Vyaasa Tiirtha, is
just so much tripe.
In any event, it is also of note that whilst actual records of debates,
either actual transcripts or recollections of witnesses, are preserved
for many a worthwhile debate, so that even now, scholars can study the
points made by either participant, no such has been offered for this
alleged debate. The points that the author of the story claims
(according to another recent posting by HKS) the Tattvavaada disputant
made, are gross concoctions that only someone not conversant with
Tattvavaada could have dreamed up.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Shrisha Rao
>In article <4g5pbm$s...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>
>>1> Questionable sources:
>>
>>For one thing, it seems to be the case that the sources that most
>>unequivocally assert that Chaitanya is an avatar, are always the most
>>dubious;
[*chomp*]
>This, unfortunately is the case since the scriptures predicting Lord
>Caitanya's coming had to be unmanifest prior to His appearance. He did not
>want people to recognize Him as anything other than a pure devotee of the
>Lord. My understanding is that most of the clear-cut references to His
>avataarhood were recovered after His disappearance.
What an admission!
Forgive my ignorance, but why did scriptures "predicting" something
have to be "unmanifest" until after the events allegedly predicted?
Isn't that quite opposite to the very meaning of prediction? By the
same standard, a simple newspaper is also a scripture that "predicts"
everything it reports; owing to certain mitigating circumstances,
however, it had to remain "unmanifest" before the events it reported
actually occurred. Does that make any sense? Would anyone actually
believe it, instead of going for the far simpler conclusion that the
newspaper was written up to report what had already occurred?
>>2> Questionable translations:
>>
>>In a large number of cases, the barest mention of 'chaitanya' seems to
>>be translated as "... The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Chaitanya
>>Mahaprabhu...," etc., which I would call a questionable practice --
[*chomp*]
> Translations like "The Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Caitanya
> Mahaprabhu" do not bother me in the least because they are done in
> context. If in the previous verse, Caitanya is identified as the
> Lord, then it makes perfect sense to me for the translator to
> continue to identify Him as such in the following verses even if the
> exact word Bhagavan, Isvara, etc. isn't always there.
If such identification *isn't* there in the previous verse? After all,
that is something I did take the time to explain; that such references
are mostly if not always *out* of context, not *in* it.
>>3> Lack of coherence:
>>
>>It is never, in my humble opinion, the case that any set of
>>unquestionably authentic sources is completely and consistently
>>interpreted to show Sri Chaitanya's Divinity; stray references are
[*chomp*]
> This of course relates to the fact that Lord Caitanya's coming was
> supposed to be kept confidential. If it were that easy to predict
> His appearance, then the whole point of His coming as a devotee
> would be lost.
Frankly, I don't see what the "point" is; you've lost me again. The
newspaper analogy of point 1> suggests itself strongly once more.
Also, if the Divinity was supposed to be confidential, why do Gaudiyas
discuss it with others? When was the bar lifted, and why? What purpose
did it serve for the duration it was in place? Whose authority decided
that confidentiality was to be preserved, and whose that it was to be
broken?
[*chomp*]
>I do believe He is the Lord, but
>I think faith in that idea will only come to someone who takes up the Gaudiya
>Vaishnava religion and not before.
Not to someone else, you mean. But then, as you yourself admit,
Chaitanya's divinity can only be *accepted* as an a priori article of
faith -- it cannot be proved to a discerning person's satisfaction. That
is exactly what I was saying.
If acceptance is what is needed, then the scripture references are a
waste, anyhow; what good will they do? They are not needed for the
believers, and they are not sufficient for the unbelievers.
>>4> Lack of forcefulness:
[*chomp*]
>>A very similar criticism can be made of the readings of Chaitanya's
>>mention in scripture; they are taken here-and-there, out of context,
>>are never forceful enough in eliminating alternative possibilities,
>>and one does not arrive at an overall consistent picture upon
>>accepting them.
>
>As far as eliminating alternative possibilities, I can't think of any after
>some of the Puranic references I have heard. The other criticisms may have
>some apparent validity, but I have heard very precise mention that Lord
>Caitanya would propagate Hare Krishna, that He would leave householder life,
>that He would appear in the province of Gaudesh, and so on...
The PuraaNic references are (1) subject to the newspaper objection;
(2) themselves so totally uncharacteristic of PuraaNic literature as
to leave no doubt in one's mind as to their complete lack of
authenticity...
>>5> Lack of acceptance by Sri Chaitanya himself:
>>
>>It is more or less accepted, as far as I understand, that Sri Chaitanya
>>himself never asserted his own alleged Divinity, and that he in fact
>>shied away from, and rejected, such claims made by others. Now, this has
>
>That is not entirely true. Lord Caitanya did not make widespread claims to
>being the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For most people, He was simply seen
>as a very exalted devotee. But He did reveal His identity to some of His most
>intimate disciples, one of them being Ramananda Raya.
Not exactly; there is no evidence that I have seen or heard of that
suggests that he ever hinted at having shown Ramananda Raya or anyone
else his Divine form; it seems to be the case that the latter(s)
claimed to have seen him as the Divine, in spite of his own word that he
was not. Hardly a most convincing argument.
>>been sought to be explained away as being due to Chaitanya being a
>>"covered" avataar, but this I find hard to believe -- what entity in the
>>three worlds is powerful enough to cover Lord Vishnu Himself?! Also,
>
>This is 100% nonsense. Either you must have misunderstood what was said, or
>whoever told you this was a rascal. Lord Caitanya is not "covered" by
>illusion.
[*chomp*]
So he isn't; but the claim is that because he is a "covered" avataar,
his nature as Vishnu is covered from all; that is where I meant to say
that no entity is powerful enough to cover Vishnu Himself. Not from
Himself, but from those who see Him.
Also, I notice you excised out the part where I mentioned that this sort
of denial by Chaitanya of his own Divinity, as claimed, would be an act
of falsehood on the part of Vishnu, and would be scripturally
unsupported behavior.
>>6> Logical fallacy in the claims of post-hoc identification:
>>
>>Quite simply put, it is not the case that Sri Chaitanya was called
>>something else, and people said "this person is actually the Chaitanya
>>predicted in scripture" -- he was _named_ that by mortals, and then
>>apparent similarities found between his name and scriptural references.
[*chomp*]
>Therefore, ultimately this issue requires that one have some faith in the
>Gaudiya philosophy.
[*chomp*]
I really fail to see how faith can remove a logical fallacy. Considering
that there seem to be many claims made to the effect that Chaitanya
himself was a past master at logic, and that therefore his school is
also well-endowed with it, such a flight from reason and recourse to
blind faith in the face of a clear demonstration of fallacy, is hardly
very apt.
[*chomp*]
>>Last but not the least, I simply cannot believe that great devotees from
>>other sampradaayas, like Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha (a contemporary of
>>Chaitanya, as you perhaps know), would so completely and wilfully
>>ignore Lord Vishnu, were He actually present in the world as an
[*chomp*]
>I don't know if Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha ever met Lord Caitanya, so I can't
>comment here.
If he didn't meet him, it would be surprising; Vaadiraaja Tiirtha
traveled all over the country visiting pilgrimage spots -- this journey
was the basis of his work, 'Tiirtha-prabandha.'
Actually, this rather begs the question: if Vaadiraaja Tiirtha knew that
such-and-such an avataar of Vishnu was in such-and-such a place, would
he not make it a point to visit? Would he wait or hope for an accidental
encounter? Not likely.
[*chomp*]
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Hari Krishna Susarla
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>Dear Eswar,
>
> For someone to get convinced that Sai Baba is Krishna Himself
>can happen only if He reveals Himself. Sai Baba is an incarnation of
>Love; any approach other than Love, to know Him is bound to fail.
>
>See the problem now?
The problem is that you want empirical evidence to support our claims, but
that is not how Vedic religion works. Lord Caitanya can be known by devotional
service only, and the initial faith required to accept Him as nondifferent
from Krishna will come to those who become attracted to His philosophy and/or
those who could only be saved by His movement.
You were born into a Vaishnava family, I gather. But most of us were not. Most
of us were heading for hellish conditions of life, and no other Vaishnava was
prepared to pull us out (I guess that would make us 'nitya-baddha' by the
Maadhva's classification). For this reason, those of us who have been saved by
Lord Caitanya's philosophy are very grateful to His paramparaa. You cannot
expect us to renounce the very beliefs which our gurus have taught us simply
because they upset you.
>Assuming, of course, that there was a meeting, and a defeat. I'm unsure
>about the first, but positive the second never happened. If it had, then
>according to the rules of debate, the loser would have accepted
>Chaitanya as his guru and renounced his earlier affiliation. If such had
>happened at Udupi, the heartland of Tattvavaada, the event would have
>resounded for centuries, and possibly caused the demise of Tattvavaada
>as a valid doctrine. Since none of this came to pass, since there is no
>evidence other than the wild claims of a specific author, to show that
>there was even a meeting, let alone a debate, the claim is not worthy of
>serious consideration.
There are any number of reasons why the consequences listed above might not
have happened, even if Caitanya had defeated the Tattvavadis as recorded in
CC.
>>Saka 1471 (1559 A. C.). According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met
>>with Sri Raghuthama Tirtha who was in office from 1419 to 1457 Saka
>>corresponding to the period from 1497 to 1535 A. C."
>
>The theory that the story of the meeting is fantasy, is further
>strengthened... (etc, etc)
You're taking this way too personally. All that was said in the quote above
was that, "According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met with Sri Raghuthama
Tirtha." In other words, it is not known for sure. That is hardly a basis for
denouncing the whole thing as a fantasy.
>I have much regard for Chaitanya's ability as a scholar, but in all
>honesty, the idea that he, or anyone else for that matter, could march
>into Udupi and take on the top Tattvavaada scholars of the day, and be
>left himself untroubled by Vaadiraaja Tiirtha and Vyaasa Tiirtha, is
>just so much tripe.
If Caitanya was the Lord, then nothing would be impossible for Him.
>In any event, it is also of note that whilst actual records of debates,
>either actual transcripts or recollections of witnesses, are preserved
>for many a worthwhile debate, so that even now, scholars can study the
>points made by either participant, no such has been offered for this
>alleged debate.
They are in CC, but you won't accept that.
The points that the author of the story claims
>(according to another recent posting by HKS) the Tattvavaada disputant
>made, are gross concoctions that only someone not conversant with
>Tattvavaada could have dreamed up.
I figured you would say that. Just out of curiosity, could you describe how
the statements alleged to have been made by the Tattvavadis are a deviation
from Tattvavaada doctrine? This is not a challenge; rather, I am curious about
something and I will discuss it after you have deconstructed their arguments.
regards,
-- HKS
Manish Tandon
------ From michael tandy <muk...@airmail.net>
Manish Tandon <mta...@hw.stratus.com> wrote:
> >As for the Bhagvatam, I have already pointed it out that the gaudias/Iskconites
> >who make mighty claims to hold it high are one of the worst abusers of it given
> >the dogmatic superimposition of 'hierarchy' on tattvam yaj jnanam advayam,
> >brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate. so there.
>
> I don't think what you have said here is very clear; perhaps you could restate
> it.
Nonetheless you felt oblidged to elude that I might have jumped to a wrong
conclusion. Very typical.
> If you feel that Hare Krsna devotees make a hierarchical distinction among
> the three manifestations of the Absolute Truth--Brahman, Paramatman, and
> Bhagavan--I think you are wrong, although it is easy to see how one might jump
> to such a conclusion. According to the Bhagavatam, these three are all
> absolutely non-different aspects of the Supreme Truth, yet because the
> realization of them affords varying degrees of bliss, they may also be
> considered in that sense different, and Bhagavan may be regarded as the highest
> realization. This is inconcieveable to the mundane intellect; only pure
> devoptees can understand it, by dint of experience.
Last time when I questioned your use of such highly ambiguous language as
"According to the Bhagavatam, these three are all absolutely non-different
aspects of the Supreme Truth, yet because the realization of them affords
varying degrees of bliss", you very carefully side-stepped the questions
saying my tone was "huffy-puffy". So let me try a more moderate approach here.
Please tell us how and why the bliss experienced by realization of the
"absolutely non-different aspects of the Supreme Truth" (implying complete
non-difference) "affords varying degree of bliss"?
And since the aforementioned verse from Bhagvatam is _not_ saying anything like
the "realization of them affords varying degrees of bliss", please give some
insight as to why my thinking that the gaudias superimpose a dogma on the
verse is wrong.
Also, if this is not mere dogma, please give a reference from Prasthan-trai
to support your point.
Last but not least, if there is nothing in the Prasthan-trai that says that
"realization of them affords varying degrees of bliss", please also tell us
why should anyone accept such blind assertions.
> Please revel his/her identity to us.
> As far as I know, it was Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.
Again I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by such blatant
lying. Here I reproduce my original question along with your statement of
faith.
> > Regarding the Caitanya Upanisad, it shouldn't be at all surprising that
> > Baladeva Vidyabhusana didn't mention it, since it was lost until about a
> > hundred years ago.
>
> I hope you realize that this only makes your position much worse. Let me ask a
> few simple question. If it was lost, it must have been lost at some 'time', when
> was that (assuming that it is a real upanisad)? Was it lost immediately after
> Vyasa compiled the Vedas or was it later? And since now it has 'reappeared',
> who was it that brought it back and when and where? Quite likely such a person
> would qualify as a sruti mantra-drashta? Please revel his/her identity to us.
It is well known that Bhaktivinod merely heard (or came to know of the existence
of the said upanisad from whatever source) and started looking for it and some
person who possesed a copy mailed it to him (on learning that the former was
looking for it.)
Now, what exactly did you accomplish by cleverly skipping my statements leading
to that question and than saying something so obviously wrong? Shameful isn't it?
Don't we all know that a 'mantra-drashta' is a person who receives a sruti
directly from the Lord and not in a postal-letter from another human being?
How about some elementry course in sincerity before you make claims of what
is and isn't concieveable to "mundane intellect"?
Hare Krishna,
Manish
Ps. In the light of the latest set of misinformation by Sri Michael Tandy, I
am reposting my response to Sri Henry Grover titled "Re: what is a valid
sampradaya" that appeared on SRV before it went down and I haven't seen
any response to it except for one by Sri Tandy that I pointed above.
Hari Krishna Susarla
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>>This, unfortunately is the case since the scriptures predicting Lord
>>Caitanya's coming had to be unmanifest prior to His appearance. He did not
>>want people to recognize Him as anything other than a pure devotee of the
>>Lord. My understanding is that most of the clear-cut references to His
>>avataarhood were recovered after His disappearance.
>
>What an admission!
>
>Forgive my ignorance, but why did scriptures "predicting" something
>have to be "unmanifest" until after the events allegedly predicted?
I already explained this.
>Isn't that quite opposite to the very meaning of prediction? By the
>same standard, a simple newspaper is also a scripture that "predicts"
>everything it reports; owing to certain mitigating circumstances,
>however, it had to remain "unmanifest" before the events it reported
>actually occurred. Does that make any sense? Would anyone actually
>believe it, instead of going for the far simpler conclusion that the
>newspaper was written up to report what had already occurred?
Perhaps because the 'predictions' were only meant to be read by scholars
before Kali Yuga. Most persons who would be living around the time of Lord
Caitanya's appearance were not supposed to know of His identity.
>If such identification *isn't* there in the previous verse? After all,
>that is something I did take the time to explain; that such references
>are mostly if not always *out* of context, not *in* it.
No, if the identification is there in that particular scripture, I don't mind
it appearing in the translator's work in other verses of the same scripture. I
also don't mind it appearing if it is understood by the translator and his
audience that Caitanya is the Supreme Personality. Many scholars whose works
get published by the BBT try to list word-for-word translations so we can see
where they are coming from. For that reason, it does not bother me in the
least bit to see phrases in the sentence translation like "lotus feet" or
"Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna" even when the word-for-word
Sanskrit only says "feet" and "Krishna."
>> This of course relates to the fact that Lord Caitanya's coming was
>> supposed to be kept confidential. If it were that easy to predict
>> His appearance, then the whole point of His coming as a devotee
>> would be lost.
>
>Frankly, I don't see what the "point" is; you've lost me again. The
>newspaper analogy of point 1> suggests itself strongly once more.
If a scripture were consistently interpreted throughout the ages to support
the fact that Krishna would come at a certain time in the guise of His own
devotee, then the whole point of His mission would be lost. As I have already
implied, this is something which, by its very nature, can only be resolved
after the Lord's mission as Caitanya is finished.
>Also, if the Divinity was supposed to be confidential, why do Gaudiyas
>discuss it with others?
Is it was only supposed to be kept confidential while He was still
performing His pastimes on Earth. Afterwards it would be okay for it be
known. Why does anyone bother to discuss Krishna's divinity with others? If a
devotee has faith that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then it gives
him pleasure to discuss His pastimes.
No one as far as I know marched into Udupi Math and told you what you had to
believe in this matter. If you don't want to accept it, that is your right.
But if someone wants to visit a Gaudiya temple, these things will eventually
be explained to him. That is the culture.
When was the bar lifted, and why? What purpose
>did it serve for the duration it was in place? Whose authority decided
>that confidentiality was to be preserved, and whose that it was to be
>broken?
I am not certain of the specifics. I do know that by the time Krishna dasa
Kaviraja Gosvami wrote CC, it was accepted as such. I have also pointed out
that some of His intimate disciples also knew at the time He was still
manifest on the Earth.
>>I do believe He is the Lord, but
>>I think faith in that idea will only come to someone who takes up the
Gaudiya
>>Vaishnava religion and not before.
>
>Not to someone else, you mean. But then, as you yourself admit,
>Chaitanya's divinity can only be *accepted* as an a priori article of
>faith -- it cannot be proved to a discerning person's satisfaction. That
>is exactly what I was saying.
The bottom line I think, is that no matter how solid the evidence is, I don't
think it can be proved to another person's satisfaction if they aren't ready
to accept it. If Caitanya is an avataar, then that means that His siddhanta
has to be taken as the topmost understanding, and this is something few
Vaishnavas from another sampradaayas are ready to do. Therefore, I think it
goes without saying that most Vaishnavas will only accept Him as a great
devotee, regardless of what evidence is brought for them to see.
>If acceptance is what is needed, then the scripture references are a
>waste, anyhow; what good will they do? They are not needed for the
>believers, and they are not sufficient for the unbelievers.
They will never be sufficient for the unbelievers if the latter are too
attached to their own sampradaayas. But they will always be of interest to the
believers. Basically, if I don't accept Caitanya as an avataar, then the only
logical explanation for the scriptural evidence is that there is some massive
conspiracy which has been rewriting the Vedic texts. In other words, I have to
call into question the character of almost every Gaudiya acharya starting from
Srila Prabhupada all the way back to Lord Caitanya's contemporaries. After
having benefitted from their mercy, I am not prepared to do that.
>>As far as eliminating alternative possibilities, I can't think of any after
>>some of the Puranic references I have heard. The other criticisms may have
>>some apparent validity, but I have heard very precise mention that Lord
>>Caitanya would propagate Hare Krishna, that He would leave householder life,
>>that He would appear in the province of Gaudesh, and so on...
>
>The PuraaNic references are (1) subject to the newspaper objection;
>(2) themselves so totally uncharacteristic of PuraaNic literature as
>to leave no doubt in one's mind as to their complete lack of
>authenticity...
I have no idea how you came to conclusion #2. And I have already forgotten
what you meant by the "newspaper objection."
>Not exactly; there is no evidence that I have seen or heard of that
>suggests that he ever hinted at having shown Ramananda Raya or anyone
>else his Divine form; it seems to be the case that the latter(s)
>claimed to have seen him as the Divine, in spite of his own word that he
>was not. Hardly a most convincing argument.
Srisha, if you are looking for empirical evidence, then I can't provide you
with that. Most of what we know about Lord Caitanya comes from sources like
Caitanya Caritamrita, Caitanya Bhagavata, Caitanya Mangala, and other Gaudiya
literatures. Exactly what are you referring to when you say "there is no
evidence that..." ?
That Caitanya revealed His identity as Radha-Krishna to Ramananda Raya is
covered in the biographies. Someone more familiar with them may be able to
give you an exact reference if that is the kind of evidence you are looking
for.
>So he isn't; but the claim is that because he is a "covered" avataar,
>his nature as Vishnu is covered from all; that is where I meant to say
>that no entity is powerful enough to cover Vishnu Himself. Not from
>Himself, but from those who see Him.
Only Vishnu can conceal His identity from others if He wishes. He is not
covered by any other entity or force.
>Also, I notice you excised out the part where I mentioned that this sort
>of denial by Chaitanya of his own Divinity, as claimed, would be an act
>of falsehood on the part of Vishnu, and would be scripturally
>unsupported behavior.
I excised it because I thought it was bogus. Krishna stole butter from the
gopis and did countless other behaviors which easily count as "scripturally
unsupported" behaviors. Why should the Lord be bound to the rules of
scripture? Caitanya came as a devotee, and He could not tell everyone He was
God in order for His mission to be propagated. SO this particular objection of
yours is not very convincing.
>I really fail to see how faith can remove a logical fallacy. Considering
>that there seem to be many claims made to the effect that Chaitanya
>himself was a past master at logic, and that therefore his school is
>also well-endowed with it, such a flight from reason and recourse to
>blind faith in the face of a clear demonstration of fallacy, is hardly
>very apt.
Quite simply, there have no doubt been many others named Krishna, Caitanya,
and so on, but none of them were as merciful as Lord Caitanya was. None of
them propagated a philosophy of devotional service that would eventually be
spread all over the world to even the most fallen persons. When I observe the
potency of Lord Caitanya's sankirtana movement, I am convinced that He was no
ordinary person. Not even the other Vaishnava acharyas could do what He did. I
don't believe that the Gaudiya acharyas are a bunch of cheaters, and so when
they tell me that Caitanya is an avataar, I accept it. You may call that blind
faith if you wish, but if I can't trust my guru then who can I trust?
>>I don't know if Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha ever met Lord Caitanya, so I can't
>>comment here.
>
>If he didn't meet him, it would be surprising; Vaadiraaja Tiirtha
>traveled all over the country visiting pilgrimage spots -- this journey
>was the basis of his work, 'Tiirtha-prabandha.'
That's still no guarantee that they met. This is just an assumption. What if
they had met, and Lord Caitanya instructed him to keep their encounter a
secret? In Navadvipa Mahatmya, there are similar instructions which Caitanya
gave to other exalted Vaishnavas who recognized His identity. Of course, I
know you won't accept NM, but my point is from the Gaudiya perspective there
are possible explanations.
>Actually, this rather begs the question: if Vaadiraaja Tiirtha knew that
>such-and-such an avataar of Vishnu was in such-and-such a place, would
>he not make it a point to visit? Would he wait or hope for an accidental
>encounter? Not likely.
What makes you think you have covered all of the possiblities? We don't know
that Vaadiraaja Tiirtha knew that Caitanya would be an avataar. We also don't
know that they ever met. And if they ever had, it is entirely possible that
such a thing would not be recorded by him, since Caitanya's identity was not
supposed to publicized until after His disappearance.
Anyway, as I have already stated, I am not interested in proving this to
*your* satisfaction. Even if the Bhaktivedanta Academy gave you the entire
Puranic texts which contain the predictions and explained how the "lost"
portions of the texts were recovered, you would still reject it. Let's face
it; neither you nor I can be considered objective here.
Shrisha Rao
now, be my last posting on the subject of Chaitanya's non-Divinity. I
rather feel this thread has come to a logical end now, and since I
have little, if anything, to add to what I have already stated, it
would be as well for me to desist from further discourse that can only
be empty or repetitive.
I here reply to two separate postings by HKS under this thread.
In article <4gcm7h$i...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Hari Krishna
Susarla <susarla...@studentserver1.swmed.edu> wrote:
>In article <4g8v51$a...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
[*chomp*]
>>If such identification *isn't* there in the previous verse? After all,
>>that is something I did take the time to explain; that such references
>>are mostly if not always *out* of context, not *in* it.
>
>No, if the identification is there in that particular scripture, I don't mind
>it appearing in the translator's work in other verses of the same scripture. I
>also don't mind it appearing if it is understood by the translator and his
>audience that Caitanya is the Supreme Personality. Many scholars whose works
>get published by the BBT try to list word-for-word translations so we can see
>where they are coming from. For that reason, it does not bother me in the
>least bit to see phrases in the sentence translation like "lotus feet" or
>"Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna" even when the word-for-word
>Sanskrit only says "feet" and "Krishna."
That's fine; but in cases like reading "The Supreme Personality of
Godhead, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu," into the Shwetaashvatara
Upanishad's "mahaan prabhur vai...," the above justification does not
apply; *nowhere* in that work is Chaitanya mentioned at all, and this
translation is of the most dubious character possible.
[*chomp*]
>No one as far as I know marched into Udupi Math and told you what you had to
>believe in this matter. If you don't want to accept it, that is your right.
>But if someone wants to visit a Gaudiya temple, these things will eventually
>be explained to him. That is the culture.
Touch of asperity there, I fancy.
Trouble is, actually, that I *don't* actually want to _believe_
anything; that is not the way of Tattvavaada, and that is not how I
myself am by nature. I rather think I would be totally out of place in
any line but that of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha: no one else would tolerate
my propensity for constant questioning, must less encourage and develop
it; in fact, in some cultures and religions, I would be accused of
heresy, and perhaps even placed under a fatwa or burned at the stake.
Thus, I make bold to frankly state that more than any actual
difference in philosophy, the uncritical acceptance of the party line,
which seems to be characteristic of many Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees,
and may be inculcated in them, is extremely disappointing to me. It
is, in fact, the single most significant thing which would stop me
from being a Gaudiya Vaishnava, even if I were to be born into a
family of such persuasion.
[*chomp*]
>The bottom line I think, is that no matter how solid the evidence is, I don't
>think it can be proved to another person's satisfaction if they aren't ready
>to accept it. If Caitanya is an avataar, then that means that His siddhanta
>has to be taken as the topmost understanding, and this is something few
>Vaishnavas from another sampradaayas are ready to do. Therefore, I think it
>goes without saying that most Vaishnavas will only accept Him as a great
>devotee, regardless of what evidence is brought for them to see.
Actually, the matter is a little worse than that, with Maadhvas; it is
certainly true that most Maadhvas, at least the ones I know of, accept
that Sri Chaitanya was indeed a great devotee of Vishnu, but their
non-acceptance of his Divinity has a sterner edge to it than may have
been realized.
Srimad Ananda Tiirtha states that just as a king puts down a subject
who is disloyal to the throne, the Lord puts down those jiivas who are
disloyal to Him. Disloyalty to the king can come in several forms:
refusing to accept the king, asserting that oneself is (also) the
king, asserting that another subject is the king, etc. Likewise, under
Vishnu's dominion, disloyalty to Him can be in the form of atheism,
assertion of jiiva-Ishvara-abheda, worship of false gods as the
Supreme, etc. While a king is limited in his powers, and is also
limited in influence by time and space, it is possible that one may
escape harm in spite of defying a king. However, Vishnu suffers no
such limitation, and there is no escape for one who ignores better
advice and commits Treason against Him.
In the bhaashya on the BrhadaaraNyaka Upanishad, Srimad Achaarya
issues a stern warning: one who considers the Lord Vishnu to be of a
different nature than sachchidaananda will go to dense darkness; he
who considers His incarnations to be of a different nature (as having
human bodies, being less potent, etc.) will also suffer likewise;
those who consider other beings who are not really His incarnations,
to be so, will also go to eternal hell, and those who go there will
never get out of it. The real incarnations of Vishnu are: Matsya
(fish), Kuurma (tortoise), Varaaha (boar), Narasimha, Vaamana,
Bhaargava (a.k.a. Parashuraama), Raamachandra, Krishna, Buddha, Kalki,
Dattatreya, Hayagriiva, Aitareyaka (not sure which this is), Vyaasa,
Kapila, VaikunTha, Rshava, Yagnya, Dhanvantari, Striirupa (Mohinii),
Taapasa, NaaraayaNa, Hari, Krishna (repeated), Upendra. All these are
direct incarnations; Shrii, Bhuu, Durgaa, AmbhraNii, Mahaalakshmii,
DakshiNaa, Sitaa, Jayantii, Satyaa (a.k.a. Satyabhaama), RukmiNii,
these are all the incarnations of Lakshmi, the abhimaani of prakrti,
who is completely different from, dependent upon, ad pervaded
("aavishhTa") by Vishnu and is to be considered as such.
As you can see, Chaitanya does not figure in the exhaustive listing of
avataaras, and worship of him as Vishnu is considered by Srimad
Achaarya to bring eternal damnation upon the worshipper. In all this,
of course, people who hold false beliefs by temporary delusion are not
counted; those who hold incorrect views by nature and by choice, and
_refuse_ to accept the truth, are counted.
[*chomp*]
>>Also, I notice you excised out the part where I mentioned that this sort
>>of denial by Chaitanya of his own Divinity, as claimed, would be an act
>>of falsehood on the part of Vishnu, and would be scripturally
>>unsupported behavior.
>
>I excised it because I thought it was bogus. Krishna stole butter from the
>gopis and did countless other behaviors which easily count as "scripturally
>unsupported" behaviors. Why should the Lord be bound to the rules of
>scripture? Caitanya came as a devotee, and He could not tell everyone He was
>God in order for His mission to be propagated. SO this particular objection
>of yours is not very convincing.
On the contrary, the alleged theft of butter, etc., and such are *all*
completely supported by scripture, simply because they are described
there. It is only if one claims behavior, intent, or quality in the
Lord independently of scripture, that the question of support arises.
Also, it is not the case that Vishnu is bound by scripture; it is that
they are bound by His actions (to be accurate), and thus, unless one
rejects scripture as being untruthful, one must accept that actions
not enjoined by scripture are false.
This point can also be stated as one of logic; since Vishnu is Himself
known only from scripture, it follows that His qualities are also known
only from there, and that one cannot accept any quality or action said
by anyone to be His, if it is opposed to scripture (because of upajiivya
virodha, kalpanaa-gowrava, etc). This point is encapsulated in Srimad
Ananda Tiirtha's statement: "shrowta-smrti viruddhattvaat smrtayo na
guNaan HareH." Thus, although the Lord is not bound by scripture, *we*
are bound to reject claims about the Lord that are opposed to scripture.
[*chomp*]
>>If he didn't meet him, it would be surprising; Vaadiraaja Tiirtha
>>traveled all over the country visiting pilgrimage spots -- this journey
>>was the basis of his work, 'Tiirtha-prabandha.'
>
>That's still no guarantee that they met. This is just an assumption. What if
>they had met, and Lord Caitanya instructed him to keep their encounter a
>secret? In Navadvipa Mahatmya, there are similar instructions which Caitanya
>gave to other exalted Vaishnavas who recognized His identity. Of course, I
>know you won't accept NM, but my point is from the Gaudiya perspective there
>are possible explanations.
No, there aren't; the above explanation is a vague hypothesis rather
than actual fact, and one has to be governed by Sri Jayatiirtha's "na
hi nishchaayaka pramaaNena vinaa sambhaavanaa maatreNa artha-
praaptirbhavati" -- in the absence of decisive proof, the mere
possibility does not carry the day. In addition, quite simply, Sri
Vaadiraaja Tiirtha didn't have to actually _go_ anywhere to meet with
Vishnu; he knew Him always, and his descriptions of Him are always
remarkably vivid, such as those he would make of someone one knows
personally and intimately, not as one would create by hearing or
reading dry descriptions.
In addition, it has been claimed or hinted that the Tattvavaadis of
Vaadiraaja Tiirtha's day were prideful scholars who were so taken up
with their own scholarship that their devotion lacked; that this is
not the case can be seen in texts and stotras composed at the time,
but more importantly, the "pride" did not change the slightest bit
during the period it is claimed that Chaitanya met with and "defeated"
the proud scholars of Udupi. One certainly cannot detect the slightest
change in Vaadiraaja Tiirtha's demeanour over his entire spiritual
career. Thus, quite obviously, if he met with Chaitanya, and retained
his false pride and complete acceptance of the somewhat flawed
doctrine of Tattvavaada, in spite of the latter's admonition, it is
hardly plausible that he would have obeyed Chaitanya's injunction
about not revealing his Divinity.
Last but not the least, it is, as you say, the case that the Navadviipa
Maahaatmya is a work of exceedingly poor quality, and carries no
conviction for its scholarly standard; I have, you may recall, shown in
past postings how it makes completely spurious claims about Madhva.
>>Actually, this rather begs the question: if Vaadiraaja Tiirtha knew that
>>such-and-such an avataar of Vishnu was in such-and-such a place, would
>>he not make it a point to visit? Would he wait or hope for an accidental
>>encounter? Not likely.
>
>What makes you think you have covered all of the possiblities? We don't know
>that Vaadiraaja Tiirtha knew that Caitanya would be an avataar. We also don't
>know that they ever met. And if they ever had, it is entirely possible that
>such a thing would not be recorded by him, since Caitanya's identity was not
>supposed to publicized until after His disappearance.
Well, Vaadiraaja Tiirtha certainly _claimed_ he was a Rju-taatvika-yogi,
and if he was, then he would automatically have known of it without
being told, as he did with the child Krishna living with some obscure
devotee who was not well-regarded even by his own neighbors.
Besides, the question also is why he would stick to a set of flawed
beliefs rather than go with the Lord's own preachment; why he would
refrain from mentioning Chaitanya's Divinity even years after the
latter's passing (as you know, Vaadiraaja Tiirtha had a long life, and
outlived Chaitanya by a number of years), etc.
>Anyway, as I have already stated, I am not interested in proving this to
>*your* satisfaction. Even if the Bhaktivedanta Academy gave you the entire
>Puranic texts which contain the predictions and explained how the "lost"
>portions of the texts were recovered, you would still reject it. Let's face
>it; neither you nor I can be considered objective here.
I would beg to differ; unless shown otherwise, I can claim to be
objective in this matter, because I have merely followed the rules of
evidence that are prescribed for shaastra, and are followed elsewhere
to give results that even you accept (and to refute views that you
also decrey). Although it may be claimed with some justification that
I am not an exponent of the rules of praamaaNya, it seems to me that a
real exponent would be far more critical of the theses I have
questioned, rather than less. I have always seen scholars like Sri
Jayatiirtha to be extremely critical; much more so than I can be. Thus
it is that I do not see that things will be any easier for you
vis-a-vis a real scholar.
In article <4gcm84$i...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Hari Krishna
Susarla <susarla...@studentserver1.swmed.edu> wrote:
>In article <4g8eh3$p...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>
>>Dear Eswar,
>>
>> For someone to get convinced that Sai Baba is Krishna Himself
>>can happen only if He reveals Himself. Sai Baba is an incarnation of
>>Love; any approach other than Love, to know Him is bound to fail.
>>
>>See the problem now?
>
>The problem is that you want empirical evidence to support our
>claims, but that is not how Vedic religion works. Lord Caitanya can
>be known by devotional service only, and the initial faith required
>to accept Him as nondifferent from Krishna will come to those who
>become attracted to His philosophy and/or those who could only be
>saved by His movement.
It is evident that your understanding of Vedanta is different from
mine; shaastra is, to me, always backed by empirical evidence, and
does not call for blind faith.
Second, insert "Sai Baba" in place of "Lord Chaitanya" in the second
sentence, and see how you would answer that.
>You were born into a Vaishnava family, I gather. But most of us were
>not. Most of us were heading for hellish conditions of life, and no
>other Vaishnava was prepared to pull us out (I guess that would make
>us 'nitya-baddha' by the Maadhva's classification). For this reason,
>those of us who have been saved by Lord Caitanya's philosophy are
>very grateful to His paramparaa. You cannot expect us to renounce
>the very beliefs which our gurus have taught us simply because they
>upset you.
There is a presumption, I think, that my understanding and acceptance
of Tattvavaada are the result of my birth. According to shaastra,
however, the converse is the case; one is born into a family where a
tendency already existing may be better expressed. For my part, I do
not see myself as having been brought into contact with Srimad
Achaarya because of my birth; I was given this birth because I am now
and for all time to come his servant, and by past merit and the grace
of him and others in his paramparaa, I was given the gift of a birth
where my natural disposition as his servant could be expressed. Going
further, I can state with complete assurance that I would never be
happy under any system but that of Sriman Madhvaachaarya, which is so
in tune with my own nature; it is possible that I would be, in certain
births, deprived of the real knowledge, and force-fed all manner of
false beliefs, but never in any instance could I gain conviction or
satisfaction in them, even though without Srimad Ananda Tiirtha's
grace I could never know the truth. A birth where one can follow
Srimad Achaarya is a gift, and I am quite humble about it as I am
fully aware it is not in my power to acquire it at will, and that it
is not the case that others not having the gift presently are
necessarily lower to me intrinsically (they're most certainly not).
Second, as you are aware, it is never the case that a single birth
condemns one to a nitya-baddha state; in fact, I have quite recently
attempted to criticize a certain view that entails such.
Last but not the least, I do not expect you to renounce your beliefs;
I'd be much happier to see you renounce the position that _beliefs_,
rather than hard evidence and rationality, have any spiritual value.
>>Assuming, of course, that there was a meeting, and a defeat. I'm unsure
>>about the first, but positive the second never happened. If it had, then
>>according to the rules of debate, the loser would have accepted
>>Chaitanya as his guru and renounced his earlier affiliation. If such had
>>happened at Udupi, the heartland of Tattvavaada, the event would have
>>resounded for centuries, and possibly caused the demise of Tattvavaada
>>as a valid doctrine. Since none of this came to pass, since there is no
>>evidence other than the wild claims of a specific author, to show that
>>there was even a meeting, let alone a debate, the claim is not worthy of
>>serious consideration.
>
>There are any number of reasons why the consequences listed above might not
>have happened, even if Caitanya had defeated the Tattvavadis as recorded in
>CC.
Good. Your saying "even if Chaitanya had" is certainly indicative of a
preponderance of doubt, or at least a shift from blind acceptance, and
that is surely something gained.
>>>Saka 1471 (1559 A. C.). According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met
>>>with Sri Raghuthama Tirtha who was in office from 1419 to 1457 Saka
>>>corresponding to the period from 1497 to 1535 A. C."
>>
>>The theory that the story of the meeting is fantasy, is further
>>strengthened... (etc, etc)
>
>You're taking this way too personally. All that was said in the quote above
>was that, "According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met with Sri Raghuthama
>Tirtha." In other words, it is not known for sure. That is hardly a basis for
>denouncing the whole thing as a fantasy.
I don't think I was taking it personally; in fact, I can confidently
assert that I took it far _more_ objectively than you would an
equivalent statement. Let me show you why.
Eswar Josyula wrote:
"Here is a quote giving some information about the meeting of Sri
Caitanya with Tattvavadis of Udupi. Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeating
Tattvavadis of Udupi is nothing but infusing love into them. In the
process of defeating if Lord Caitanya showed them their false pride
and the defect of scriptural learning without devotional service, then
such a defeat can hardly be understood with a negative connotation.
[*chomp*]
"According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met with Sri Raghuthama
Tirtha who was in office from 1419 to 1457 Saka corresponding to the
period from 1497 to 1535 A. C."
An equivalent statement might be:
"Here is a quote giving some information about the meeting of Sai Baba
with the Gaudiyas of ISKCON. Sai Baba defeating the Gaudiyas of ISKCON
is nothing but infusing love into them. In the process of defeating if
Lord Sai showed them their false pride and the defect of scriptural
learning without devotional service, then such a defeat can hardly be
understood with a negative connotation.
[*chomp*]
"According to some scholars, Sri Sai met with Sri Prabhupada who was
in office from 1883 to 1895 Saka corresponding to the period from 1965
to 1977 A. C."
>>I have much regard for Chaitanya's ability as a scholar, but in all
>>honesty, the idea that he, or anyone else for that matter, could march
>>into Udupi and take on the top Tattvavaada scholars of the day, and be
>>left himself untroubled by Vaadiraaja Tiirtha and Vyaasa Tiirtha, is
>>just so much tripe.
>
>If Caitanya was the Lord, then nothing would be impossible for Him.
Were, not was. Precisely. However, he wasn't, and it _was_ impossible
for him.
[*chomp*]
> The points that the author of the story claims
>>(according to another recent posting by HKS) the Tattvavaada disputant
>>made, are gross concoctions that only someone not conversant with
>>Tattvavaada could have dreamed up.
>
>I figured you would say that. Just out of curiosity, could you
>describe how the statements alleged to have been made by the
>Tattvavadis are a deviation from Tattvavaada doctrine? This is not a
>challenge; rather, I am curious about something and I will discuss
>it after you have deconstructed their arguments.
I should do that sometime, yes. Actually, it might be better if you
could post the next part (the replies given) as well, for a complete
picture, before I do that. I would also like to see the actual verses,
if you don't mind; working with translations is always harder, and
moreover, the actual verses would tell me to what extent the quotes
follow actual Tattvavaada terminology.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
michael tandy
>Thus, I make bold to frankly state that more than any actual
>difference in philosophy, the uncritical acceptance of the party line,
>which seems to be characteristic of many Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees,
>and may be inculcated in them, is extremely disappointing to me.
ceasing, but this is a different, though I think related, matter. I have always
been intrigued by your approach to the parampara system, since it seems infused
with more than a touch of, dare I say, empiricism. I'm not challenging, mind
you. But I'm honestly curious; I can't see what is the value of accepting the
statements of an authority on things that are aparoksa if they must
simultaneously satisfy one's own concepts the logic of the paroksa realm. Maybe
I'm misunderstanding this. Please explain it.
>In the bhaashya on the BrhadaaraNyaka Upanishad, Srimad Achaarya
>issues a stern warning: one who considers the Lord Vishnu to be of a
>different nature than sachchidaananda will go to dense darkness; he
>who considers His incarnations to be of a different nature (as having
>human bodies, being less potent, etc.) will also suffer likewise;
>those who consider other beings who are not really His incarnations,
>to be so, will also go to eternal hell, and those who go there will
>never get out of it.
This is where you are harmonious with those who might issue you a
fatwa or burn you at the stake.
>As you can see, Chaitanya does not figure in the exhaustive listing
The Bhagavatam tells us that the incarnations of the Lord are as numerous as
the waves of the ocean; so how is your list of avataras at all exhaustive?
and worship of him as Vishnu is considered by Srimad
>Achaarya to bring eternal damnation upon the worshipper.
I don't think you will be able to quote Madhva specifically about this.
>Last but not the least, it is, as you say, the case that the Navadviipa
>Maahaatmya is a work of exceedingly poor quality, and carries no
>conviction for its scholarly standard;
I'm sure it was never intended to do so; it is a work of an entirely different
nature, one a "veiled-logician" probably wouldn't much appreciate.
-m
Shrisha Rao
<muk...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>>Thus, I make bold to frankly state that more than any actual
>>difference in philosophy, the uncritical acceptance of the party line,
>>which seems to be characteristic of many Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees,
>>and may be inculcated in them, is extremely disappointing to me.
> I won't try to extend a thread further that you've expressed an
> interest in ceasing, but this is a different, though I think
> related, matter. I have always been intrigued by your approach to
> the parampara system, since it seems infused with more than a touch
> of, dare I say, empiricism. I'm not challenging, mind you. But I'm
> honestly curious; I can't see what is the value of accepting the
> statements of an authority on things that are aparoksa if they must
> simultaneously satisfy one's own concepts the logic of the paroksa
> realm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Please explain it.
Well, it's quite simple, really. While the atiindriya entities that
form the subjects of scriptural study are not themselves obtainable or
understadable by logic alone, the scriptures that are used to
understand them, the methods or means of understanding, various
statments that are made about them, etc., are all indriya-graahya, and
thus amenable to "the logic of the paroksha realm."
Why should this be so? If the text or source deals with an atiindriya
entity, then it itself should be called atiindriya, shouldn't it? Not
exactly, because if the source is itself atiindriya, then it is not
graspable by the senses (by the very definition of 'atiindriya' =
ati+indriya -- beyond the senses), and is of no use to us. However,
one might say next, even if the source is indriya-graahya, shouldn't
it be held sacred, and not subjected to the defilement of mundane
reasoning?
To this, several answers are possible; the first, and most obvious
one, being that if we disavow logic as a source of understanding --
admittedly an auxiliary source, but a source for all that -- then we
have no way of separating the wheat from the chaff; moreover, when we,
say, try to argue with Advaitis and show why certain of their claims
are not plausible, we shall be guilty of a double standard, because we
refuse to believe them when they say their subject is beyond logic,
but make a similar assertion ourselves for our convenience.
Second, it is impossible to achieve consistency of understanding, if
we hold scripture or other source to be beyond reasoning. Third, there
are many instances where scriptures themselves offer logical arguments
for accepting things; if logic itself had no value, then the
scriptures are guilty of superfluity or adherencce to false notions --
they should just say "this is so" and leave it at that, rather than
"this is so because of such-and-such," as they do.
Fourth, the premise that if the information is atiindriya, then so
must the source of it be, is false -- look at a simple example; if we
know the inference rule "if smoke, then fire" from having observed the
association of the two entities on many occasions, then upon sighting
smoke, we may infer fire, although the fire itself is not visible to
us. However, if we accept the view that if the source is atiindriya
then the information must also be, then we will be the absurd position
of denying the smoke that we see, simply because it tells us of a fire
that we do not. Therefore, it will so pass that if we do not have
perceptive evidence of all the things that one might conclude from a
certain piece of perception, then we must reject that perception even
if it is uncontroverted. The fallacy of this should be obvious -- we
will simply have to deny the perception of the universe, since such
perception is partial, and tells us of many things that are not
directly perceived. Thus, we become utter nihilists who refuse to
accept even pratyaksha.
Take the converse case: since it is generally accepted by Vedanta that
anumaana (logic) is a pramaaNa (source of information), what is it
good for? There is much denigration of "svatantra tarka" (independent
inference -- inference that is not firmly rooted in scripture or
pratyaksha), but no wholesale rejection of anumaana as such.
In fact, the pramaaNas are accepted in the following order:
1> pratyaksha
2> pratyaksha, anumaana
3> pratyaksha, anumaana, aagama
4> pratyaksha, anumaana, aagama, abhaava, arthaapatti, upamaana
I have never heard of any doctrine where sets like say (pratyaksha,
aagama), or (anumaana, upamaana), etc., were accepted. This _is_ the
pecking order, and acceptance of a certain type of pramaaNa entails
acceptance of the previous types. Thus, the listing is ordered.
By the way, 1> corresponds to the chaarvaaka or lokaayata school,
which actually denies all atiindriya entities, and is crassly
materialistic. 2> is for Bauddhas, who reject aagama. 3> applies in
case of Tattvavaada (which claims that the latter three types in 4>
are forms of the first three); Advaita fills in 4>. I am not sure
where the Sri-Vaishnava school fits in. It would also be interesting
to know the Gaudiya position on this; would this be covered in the
Prameya-ratnaavaLii, I wonder?
>>In the bhaashya on the BrhadaaraNyaka Upanishad, Srimad Achaarya
>>issues a stern warning: one who considers the Lord Vishnu to be of a
>>different nature than sachchidaananda will go to dense darkness; he
>>who considers His incarnations to be of a different nature (as having
>>human bodies, being less potent, etc.) will also suffer likewise;
>>those who consider other beings who are not really His incarnations,
>>to be so, will also go to eternal hell, and those who go there will
>>never get out of it.
> This is where you are harmonious with those who might issue you a
> fatwa or burn you at the stake.
Quite possibly; however, you are addressing Srimad Ananda Tiirtha
above, more than me. I also did clarify that episodic instances of
false beliefs or understanding do not count. This is where intinsic
nature of jiivas is actually an advantage; no one is sent to hell by
chance.
>>As you can see, Chaitanya does not figure in the exhaustive listing
> The Bhagavatam tells us that the incarnations of the Lord are as
> numerous as the waves of the ocean; so how is your list of avataras
> at all exhaustive?
Does it say 'incarnations' or 'forms'?
>and worship of him as Vishnu is considered by Srimad
>>Achaarya to bring eternal damnation upon the worshipper.
> I don't think you will be able to quote Madhva specifically about this.
No, but the inference is made from his statement in the bhaashya (the
one that shows him to be in tune with the fatwa-fanatics who would
nail me). If someone says: "You will get wet if you go out in the
rain," then I can't very well be expected to show him as saying: "You
will get wet if you go out in the rain at half-past noon on the 22d of
February, 1996, wearing a brown jacket and blue jeans after having a
lunch consisting of two bananas and a veggie sandwich" -- but that is
an obvious inference from what he has stated. The global nature of the
previous statement makes it possible to apply it locally. So also it
is with Srimad Ananda Tiirtha's statement.
>>Last but not the least, it is, as you say, the case that the Navadviipa
>>Maahaatmya is a work of exceedingly poor quality, and carries no
>>conviction for its scholarly standard;
> I'm sure it was never intended to do so; it is a work of an entirely different
>nature, one a "veiled-logician" probably wouldn't much appreciate.
Possibly. However, the fact that its information does not seem too
authentic is something else...
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>-m
H. Krishna Susarla
To summarize what I am about to say, I think that Srisha's objections
regarding Caitanya's divinity are more obnoxious than they are sensible.
Frankly, I think that, due to a love of argument, he is ascribing to himself
a sense of objectivity which obviously is not there.
Srisha Rao writes:
>I here reply to two separate postings by HKS under this thread.
>
>That's fine; but in cases like reading "The Supreme Personality of
>Godhead, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu," into the Shwetaashvatara
>Upanishad's "mahaan prabhur vai...," the above justification does not
>apply; *nowhere* in that work is Chaitanya mentioned at all, and this
>translation is of the most dubious character possible.
That really isn't your call to make. As I have pointed out before, many
(although not all) of the verses regarding Caitanya are hidden throughout
the scriptures, and because of this they can be interepreted in more than
one way. Therefore, one would not expect necessarily expect every reference
to be an obvious one, although elsewhere more clear-cut references can be found.
>Trouble is, actually, that I *don't* actually want to _believe_
>anything; that is not the way of Tattvavaada, and that is not how I
>myself am by nature. I rather think I would be totally out of place in
>any line but that of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha: no one else would tolerate
>my propensity for constant questioning, must less encourage and develop
>it; in fact, in some cultures and religions, I would be accused of
>heresy, and perhaps even placed under a fatwa or burned at the stake.
The trouble with your method of questioning is that it is hardly conducive
to learning. You are holding Gaudiyas to ridiculous standards of proof that
you don't subject to your own sampradaaya. First, you challenge that there
is no mention of Lord Caitanya in scripture. But when someone shows you a
translation of an excerpt of Sanaatana Gosvami's Hari-Bhakti-Vilaasa which
contains many such references, you argue that the verses are from "the most
out-of-the-way sources possible" even though they include verses from such
texts as Sriimad Bhaagavatam and Vaayu Puraana. You also state that they are
taken out of context (well, what do you expect for a book that is supposed
to be an anthology of verses from different texts?) In order to satisfy this
criticism, one would have to show you the entire texts containing all the
verses which Sanaatana Gosvami quoted in his work. But then you would just
charge that they are only being interpreted that way by Gaudiyas, that other
interpretations are possible, and that we are simply following it all
blindly and are going to hell, etc etc.
Let's take a case in point: the Ballitha Suktam of the Rig Veda. Although I
am not familiar with it, I would like to point out that there are other
sampradaayas that do accept the Rig Veda as scripture, such as those of the
Advatins, the Sri Vaishnavas, the Rudra Sampradaaya, and the Kumaara
Sampradaaya. Yet, none of them seem to accept Madhva as their guru. Nor do
they accept his sampradaayas as the only valid one. Why is this? Either it
is not widely accepted that Ballitha Suktam is part of the Rig Veda, or
there are other interpretations which are possible.
The point I am making here is that, in the final equation, you have to
simply surrender to your guru. There is certainly a place for questioning
and argument, but ultimately some faith is required. This is gained through
sincere questioning and association with Vaishnavas. There is no such thing
as not having faith, and I find attempts to portray one's religion as based
on logic alone to be highly pompous and misleading.
>Thus, I make bold to frankly state that more than any actual
>difference in philosophy, the uncritical acceptance of the party line,
>which seems to be characteristic of many Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees,
>and may be inculcated in them, is extremely disappointing to me. It
>is, in fact, the single most significant thing which would stop me
>from being a Gaudiya Vaishnava, even if I were to be born into a
>family of such persuasion.
Again, this is more obnoxious than it is accurate. I can definitely say with
certainty that most Gaudiyas I know (including myself) asked many questions
before we became associated with the sampradaaya. In fact, I remember my
first encounter with Gaudiya Vaishnavas (back in my 2nd year of
undergraduate studies). At that time, I was very puffed up with the idea of
proving everything empirically (just as you seem to be now) and aggressively
questioned the head priest of the Houston Hare Krishna temple regarding
their beliefs which did not seem to be very "scientific" to me. Although I
was defeated over and over again, I did not want to admit it. However, I did
gain a great deal of respect for them, and this caused me to inquire further
into their beliefs and practices.
I have stated before that I did not think Caitanya's divinity could be
proven to your satisfaction. This is not because I feel the evidence is not
strong enough. Rather as I have pointed out already, you are hardly in a
position to objectively evaluate it. You have admitted a long time ago on
ARV to being initiated in the Maadhva sampradaaya. Initiation means that you
have surrendered to your guru and have accepted his paramparaa's teachings
as topmost, and this requires you to believe that there is no higher
teaching. Now, if you are going to sit here and try to convince us that you
are indeed objective (and consequently, that you are equally willing to
accept any conclusion which is established through argument), then that
means that you really did NOT fully accept Madhva's position as the topmost
commentator on the Vedanta. In other words, it would show that you have not
surrendered to your guru and placed your full faith in his teachings. In
short, it would indicate that your initiation was bogus. See the problem
now? I think this is why Gaudiyas (and Vaishnavas in general) have never
been too interested in insisting that all the other Vaishnava sampradaayas
accept their param guru as a particular incarnation. While they may state
their position with great conviction to anyone who enters their Math, they
don't usually seek each other out to argue about these points.
>In the bhaashya on the BrhadaaraNyaka Upanishad, Srimad Achaarya
>issues a stern warning: one who considers the Lord Vishnu to be of a
>different nature than sachchidaananda will go to dense darkness; he
Gaudiyas have no problem with this.
>who considers His incarnations to be of a different nature (as having
>human bodies, being less potent, etc.) will also suffer likewise;
Again, no problem here.
>those who consider other beings who are not really His incarnations,
>to be so, will also go to eternal hell, and those who go there will
>never get out of it. The real incarnations of Vishnu are: Matsya
>(fish), Kuurma (tortoise), Varaaha (boar), Narasimha, Vaamana,
>Bhaargava (a.k.a. Parashuraama), Raamachandra, Krishna, Buddha, Kalki,
>Dattatreya, Hayagriiva, Aitareyaka (not sure which this is), Vyaasa,
>Kapila, VaikunTha, Rshava, Yagnya, Dhanvantari, Striirupa (Mohinii),
>Taapasa, NaaraayaNa, Hari, Krishna (repeated), Upendra. All these are
>direct incarnations; Shrii, Bhuu, Durgaa, AmbhraNii, Mahaalakshmii,
>DakshiNaa, Sitaa, Jayantii, Satyaa (a.k.a. Satyabhaama), RukmiNii,
>these are all the incarnations of Lakshmi, the abhimaani of prakrti,
>who is completely different from, dependent upon, ad pervaded
>("aavishhTa") by Vishnu and is to be considered as such.
>As you can see, Chaitanya does not figure in the exhaustive listing of
>avataaras,
Exhaustive? I'm really surprised to hear you say that. No one can
exaustively describe the glories of Lord Vishnu's avataaras, and it seems
like you have inadvertently limited Him. There are many more names and forms
of Him than given in your listing. Lord Venkateshwara is worshiped with
great faith by the Sri Vaishnavas, and if I'm not mistaken His story is
mentioned in Padma Puraana. The Bhaagavatam also mentions Naarada, the
Kumaaras, and Balaraama as incarnations (Gaudiyas consider the first two of
these to be empowered incarnations, not actually Vishnu Himself). In fact,
the Bhaagavatam (1.3.26) very clearly states:
avataaraa hy asankhyeyaa
harehe sattva-nidher dvijaaha
yathaavidaasinaha kulyaaha
sarasaha syuhu sahasras'aha
which indicates that the incarnations of the Lord are innumerable. Thus,
there is hardly anything like an "exhaustive listing" of the Lord's
incarnations.
> and worship of him as Vishnu is considered by Srimad
>Achaarya to bring eternal damnation upon the worshipper. In all this,
>of course, people who hold false beliefs by temporary delusion are not
>counted; those who hold incorrect views by nature and by choice, and
>_refuse_ to accept the truth, are counted.
Did Srila Aananda Tiirtha specifically warn that the Caitanya of 16th
century Bengal was not to be considered an avataar? Or is this a position
taken by Maadhvas in more recent times?
>there. It is only if one claims behavior, intent, or quality in the
>Lord independently of scripture, that the question of support arises.
>Also, it is not the case that Vishnu is bound by scripture; it is that
>they are bound by His actions (to be accurate), and thus, unless one
>rejects scripture as being untruthful, one must accept that actions
>not enjoined by scripture are false.
Your original point, however, is that for Lord Caitanya to deny His divinity
is scripturally unsupported behavior. But my response is that He had to do
this, since He did not intend to reveal His divinity to just anyone. You
already have the verses from Vaayu Puraana describing that the Lord would
take an incarnation as His own devotee. Therefore, His qualities as a
devotee (which would require that He deny His actual divinity to most
persons) are described in scripture. The problem is that you will not accept
it. So from our perspective, it is not scripturally unsupported behavior.
>This point can also be stated as one of logic; since Vishnu is Himself
>known only from scripture, it follows that His qualities are also known
>only from there, and that one cannot accept any quality or action said
>by anyone to be His, if it is opposed to scripture (because of upajiivya
>virodha, kalpanaa-gowrava, etc). This point is encapsulated in Srimad
>Ananda Tiirtha's statement: "shrowta-smrti viruddhattvaat smrtayo na
>guNaan HareH." Thus, although the Lord is not bound by scripture, *we*
>are bound to reject claims about the Lord that are opposed to scripture.
However, the issue becomes one of which scripture you will accept and which
you will reject. Caitanya's divinity and incarnation as a devotee is clearly
indicated in many scripture which Gaudiyas do accept, the rejection of which
is more or less predestined by other sampradaayas.
>>That's still no guarantee that they met. This is just an assumption. What if
>>they had met, and Lord Caitanya instructed him to keep their encounter a
>>secret? In Navadvipa Mahatmya, there are similar instructions which Caitanya
>>gave to other exalted Vaishnavas who recognized His identity. Of course, I
>>know you won't accept NM, but my point is from the Gaudiya perspective there
>>are possible explanations.
>No, there aren't; the above explanation is a vague hypothesis rather
>than actual fact,
It's hardly vague. NM describes Caitanya's encounters with various exalted
Vaishnavas and describes why He ordered them to remain silent about His
identity. I regret that I cannot offer specifics, since I am unqualified to
debate on matters such as these. I am not fluent with some of the more
distinctively Gaudiya texts such as CC and NM and so I cannot quote verses
to make my point. But I do know such verses are there.
and one has to be governed by Sri Jayatiirtha's "na
>hi nishchaayaka pramaaNena vinaa sambhaavanaa maatreNa artha-
>praaptirbhavati" -- in the absence of decisive proof, the mere
>possibility does not carry the day. In addition, quite simply, Sri
You may be governed by that conclusion, since your initiation into the
Maadhva sampradaaya requires you to reject the statements of Gaudiya
acharyas as authoritative. However, that verse does not apply in the same
way to us, since we accept our acharyas as authoritative.
>Vaadiraaja Tiirtha didn't have to actually _go_ anywhere to meet with
>Vishnu; he knew Him always, and his descriptions of Him are always
>remarkably vivid, such as those he would make of someone one knows
>personally and intimately, not as one would create by hearing or
>reading dry descriptions.
Perhaps, but as I pointed out before, there are many possibilities from the
Gaudiya perspective why Vaadiraaja Tiirtha would not mention Caitanya.
Simply waving your hands and calling them vague hypotheses is not very
convincing. In fact, what all this really comes down to is which paramparaa
you accept. These aren't things which can be objectively prooven, and I
remain unconvinced that any such attempt, cloaked in logic and word-jugglery
can do so.
>In addition, it has been claimed or hinted that the Tattvavaadis of
>Vaadiraaja Tiirtha's day were prideful scholars who were so taken up
>with their own scholarship that their devotion lacked; that this is
>not the case can be seen in texts and stotras composed at the time,
>but more importantly, the "pride" did not change the slightest bit
>during the period it is claimed that Chaitanya met with and "defeated"
>the proud scholars of Udupi. One certainly cannot detect the slightest
>change in Vaadiraaja Tiirtha's demeanour over his entire spiritual
>career. Thus, quite obviously, if he met with Chaitanya, and retained
>his false pride and complete acceptance of the somewhat flawed
>doctrine of Tattvavaada, in spite of the latter's admonition, it is
>hardly plausible that he would have obeyed Chaitanya's injunction
>about not revealing his Divinity.
There are, again, several objections here. What exactly is meant here by
"pride?" Was it said that they were proud with regards to other Vaishnavas,
or did they only seem proud because of their determination to defeat
Advaita? In fact, this response of yours is not a very clear one. It is not
at all clear to me who labeled the Tattvavadis as proud, why they were
labeled as such, and whether or not it was this so-called pride which Lord
Caitanya wanted to smash.
Regarding the accounts in CC, all we Gaudiyas claim to know is that Lord
Caitanya did defeat certain members of the Tattvavaadi sampradaaya. It is
not known who these were. Nor can it be assumed that Lord Caitanya would
have sought to defeat Vaadiraaja Tiirtha had they met. In fact, it may very
well have been that the pride Lord Caitanya sought to smash was only in
these particular Tattvavaadis He encountered at Udupi. Someone once told me
that Prabhupada referred to them as "so-called Tattvavaadis," implying that
they were not properly representing Madhvacarya's position. Whether or not
this is so, I cannot say. All we know from CC is that they were at Udupi
when Lord Caitanya met with, and defeated them.
>Last but not the least, it is, as you say, the case that the Navadviipa
>Maahaatmya is a work of exceedingly poor quality, and carries no
>conviction for its scholarly standard; I have, you may recall, shown in
>past postings how it makes completely spurious claims about Madhva.
In fact, every work which mentions Lord Caitanya and Gauidya siddhanta is "a
work of exceedingly poor quality, and carries no conviction for its
scholarly standard" right? Let's face it; these blanket claims of yours are
not based on any objective examination of the texts. Your objection is based
purely on the fact that your faith is in the Maadhva world view and nothing
else. Gaudiyas do not consider NM to be so easily dismissed, so if you think
are going to convince them to lose faith in their own scripture, think again.
>Well, Vaadiraaja Tiirtha certainly _claimed_ he was a Rju-taatvika-yogi,
>and if he was, then he would automatically have known of it without
>being told, as he did with the child Krishna living with some obscure
>devotee who was not well-regarded even by his own neighbors.
Again, in the ultimate analysis, Gaudiyas are not bound by the claims
certain Maadhvas make about their spiritual advancement. Ultimately, you
have faith in your sampradaaya and I have faith in mine; and this is why
attempts to defeat the other by questioning the legitimacy of the respective
acharyas and scriptures are more offensive than they are fruitful.
>Besides, the question also is why he would stick to a set of flawed
>beliefs rather than go with the Lord's own preachment; why he would
Because the Gaudiya attitude to other Vaishnava sampradaayas is not nearly
so black and white. When asked who could be considered to be a genuine guru,
Srila Prabhupada instructed that anyone who was giving pure devotional
service could be considered genuine. The purport of this was that no one who
taught about becoming God, or performing bhakti-yoga for some material
profit, was genuine. On the other hand, the Vaishnava sampradaayas do teach
the same basic conclusions: namely, that the living entities are eternally
distinct from the Lord, that both the jiivas and the Lord are ultimately
persons, and that devotional service is both the means and the end. My
understanding of the Gaudiya position is that the differences are based more
on what was taught according to time, place, and circumstance.
>refrain from mentioning Chaitanya's Divinity even years after the
>latter's passing (as you know, Vaadiraaja Tiirtha had a long life, and
>outlived Chaitanya by a number of years), etc.
Again, the same objections as before apply. I am not convinced that the two
ever met, nor is there any reason why I should be.
>I would beg to differ; unless shown otherwise, I can claim to be
>objective in this matter, because I have merely followed the rules of
>evidence that are prescribed for shaastra, and are followed elsewhere
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.
>to give results that even you accept (and to refute views that you
>also decrey). Although it may be claimed with some justification that
>I am not an exponent of the rules of praamaaNya, it seems to me that a
>real exponent would be far more critical of the theses I have
>questioned, rather than less. I have always seen scholars like Sri
>Jayatiirtha to be extremely critical; much more so than I can be. Thus
>it is that I do not see that things will be any easier for you
>vis-a-vis a real scholar.
I honestly don't think that either of us can prove our positions regarding
Caitanya's and Madhva's avataarhood in a "scholarly" way. If that were
possible, then all the nastika scholars who study Vedas in their respective
Western Indological departments would have become Vaishnavas a long time ago.
As I have stated before, I really am not interested in debates of this kind.
Gaudiyas don't condemn other Vaishnavas to Hell simply for having a
different understanding. Rather, they are more interested in engaging the
fallen souls in devotional service. I realize you may consider this to be
sentiment, but considering how little of the world's population follows any
kind of Vaishnavism to begin with, it seems highly impractical to me that we
should expect to convert them all to a particular sampradaaya.
>It is evident that your understanding of Vedanta is different from
>mine; shaastra is, to me, always backed by empirical evidence, and
>does not call for blind faith.
I am not advocating blind faith, and I really wish you would discontinue
making such remarks. When I say that Vedanta does not work by displays of
empirical evidence, I am referring to a fact that I'm sure all of us can
appreciate. If I try to tell people that the Supreme Lord is a person, and
that He wears a yellow dhoti and a peacock figure, I could not prove that to
them by waving a magic wand and making the Supreme Lord appear. This is what
I mean. In fact most Vedanta schools start with the assumption that the
Vedas are from the Supreme Lord, and are the only source of knowledge about
Him; however, there is no reason why an atheist should accept such an idea.
Therefore, ultimately you have to be prepared to have some faith.
>Second, insert "Sai Baba" in place of "Lord Chaitanya" in the second
>sentence, and see how you would answer that.
There is no need for me to do so. That there is a world of difference
between the philosophy of Sai Baba and that of Lord Caitanya is something
that should be easily discernable to any Vaishnava. While Lord Caitanya
never claimed to be anything other than a devotee of Krishna (except in some
instances), Sai Baba has publicly claimed to be God. Sai Baba pulls
chocolate candies out of his hair and in this way tries to convince everyone
that they, too, can become God. Caitanya's philosophy, on the other hand, is
much more sound since it is theistic. Lord Caitanya was only interested in
showing the people how they could surrender to Krishna. But Sai Baba wants
to teach people the impossible.
Furthermore, as you are already aware, the Gaudiyas can bring up many verses
(some of which are very clear-cut such as those from the Vaayu Puraana) as
evidence for Caitanya's avataarhood. So a Gaudiya's faith in Caitanya is not
blind. It is based on statements by our acharyas, backed up scriptures which
they have presented to us. On the other hand, I have yet to see a single
clear-cut verse from the Sai devotees regarding Sai Baba's alleged divinity.
I have, in fact, observed them ignoring the Vedic literatures entirely, and
turning instead to vague prophecies from the Bible, the Koran, and other
non-Vedic texts to support their ideas.
>There is a presumption, I think, that my understanding and acceptance
>of Tattvavaada are the result of my birth. According to shaastra,
>however, the converse is the case; one is born into a family where a
>tendency already existing may be better expressed. For my part, I do
We also say the same, however...
>not see myself as having been brought into contact with Srimad
>Achaarya because of my birth; I was given this birth because I am now
>and for all time to come his servant, and by past merit and the grace
>of him and others in his paramparaa, I was given the gift of a birth
>where my natural disposition as his servant could be expressed. Going
>further, I can state with complete assurance that I would never be
>happy under any system but that of Sriman Madhvaachaarya, which is so
>in tune with my own nature; it is possible that I would be, in certain
>births, deprived of the real knowledge, and force-fed all manner of
>false beliefs, but never in any instance could I gain conviction or
Well, I was born into a very materialistic Smaartha family, and I was
force-fed all kinds of nonsense. But it was only through the grace of Lord
Caitanya that I managed to get out of all that and pursue a much more
worthwhile goal.
There are many others like myself, who were very fallen from the beginning
but who were rescued by Lord Caitanya's sankirtana movement. You can't
imagine the amount of gratitude we feel. It's hard for me to accept that
these people are a bunch of liars, or that they got as far as they did on a
false premise.
>Last but not the least, I do not expect you to renounce your beliefs;
I would have to, if you wanted me to belive that there was no empirical
evidence regarding Lord Caitanya's divinity.
>I'd be much happier to see you renounce the position that _beliefs_,
>rather than hard evidence and rationality, have any spiritual value.
I would be happy if all persons could put aside the presumption that they
are somehow capable of equally accepting any conclusion which they arrive at
due to argument. The mind is the sixth sense, and is subject to the same
flaws as the other five. I therefore am unconvinced by any attempt, no
matter how eloquent, to prove one's own position as based on logic alone.
Logic is useful to a certain extent; for example I can use logic to conclude
that I am not on the same level as Bhagavaan, and that I am therefore
subordinate to Him. But to simply wave one's hands and dismiss the whole
range of literature dear to a particular sampradaaya as "unscholarly," "out
of context," etc is simply pompous. In order to make advancement in
devotional service, one has to begin by putting his faith somewhere.
I am completely satisfied with following the Gaudiya sampradaaya because I
recognize their sincerity, their potency, and their relatively nonsectarian
conclusions about the supreme goal which I feel most theists would accept. I
feel that their philosophy is strong enough to discuss with others without
first referring to the fact that it was spoken by an incarnation of the
Lord. However, I cannot and will not accept that Lord Caitanya is less than
Krishna, because to do so I would have to concede that everyone in the
Gaudiya paramparaa is a liar, fraud, and cheat, or at the very least
unqualified to interpret the scripture.
>Good. Your saying "even if Chaitanya had" is certainly indicative of a
>preponderance of doubt, or at least a shift from blind acceptance, and
>that is surely something gained.
No, there is no doubt in my mind. I was just trying to approach it from a
"pseudo-objective" point of view that would seem more acceptable in an
intersampradaaya debate.
>>You're taking this way too personally. All that was said in the quote above
>>was that, "According to some scholars, Sri Chaitanya met with Sri Raghuthama
>>Tirtha." In other words, it is not known for sure. That is hardly a basis for
>>denouncing the whole thing as a fantasy.
>I don't think I was taking it personally; in fact, I can confidently
>assert that I took it far _more_ objectively than you would an
>equivalent statement. Let me show you why.
[quotes deleted]
And again, ultimately it boils down to who you accept. I am not impressed by
comparisons to Sai Baba. The original point is that the account can't be
denied simply because of a statement that "some scholars believe" turns out
to be inaccurate. The very wording of that statement implies uncertainty
regarding that detail.
>>If Caitanya was the Lord, then nothing would be impossible for Him.
>Were, not was. Precisely. However, he wasn't, and it _was_ impossible
>for him.
He was and He did do it.
>>I figured you would say that. Just out of curiosity, could you
>>describe how the statements alleged to have been made by the
>>Tattvavadis are a deviation from Tattvavaada doctrine? This is not a
>>challenge; rather, I am curious about something and I will discuss
>>it after you have deconstructed their arguments.
>I should do that sometime, yes. Actually, it might be better if you
>could post the next part (the replies given) as well, for a complete
>picture, before I do that. I would also like to see the actual verses,
>if you don't mind; working with translations is always harder, and
>moreover, the actual verses would tell me to what extent the quotes
>follow actual Tattvavaada terminology.
I want to see your deconstruction of it first before I post the rest. The
verses are recorded in Bengali, so I don't know if you would want to see
that. Just assume that the account is factual, and tell us how it is
incorrect according to Tattvavada philosophy. That is all you should need in
order to deconstruct it.
--HKS
Gary Stevason
[...]
: Trouble is, actually, that I *don't* actually want to _believe_
: myself am by nature.
Shrisha, ah yes, but what fires our fervour to juggle the words of the
Vedas? Why do we worship the Vedas to seek the Absolute Truth? We must
'_believe_' in something at some point. Clearly, you believe in the Vedas
as the literary incarnation of God.
When we find ourself in the presence of Paramatmaji, will we demand
scriptural references from Him to prove His identity? When the beautiful
three-fold bending form of Syamasundara appears before us, will we expect
long sanskrit discourses from Him so we can know that He is in fact the
Primal Lord? No; faith becomes KNOWING, by Krsna's grace.
The secret of Caitanya is that the five Panca Tattva associates, together,
describe completely the true nature of love of God. This special pastime
of the Panca Tattva, namely Sri Krsna Caitanya, Prabhu Nityananda, Sri
Advaita, Gadadhara, Srivasadi, Gaura Bhakta Vrinda is very merciful
because Krsna is teaching the innermost secrets of the eternal loving
relationship between Him and the jiva soul.
There are still 9500 years left in Sri Chaitanya's sankirtana movement,
so perhaps there is no rush. :-)
I hope that you and Lord Caitanya will forgive me for being so incapable
of presenting His true position.
Gary
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
Shrisha Rao
>: myself am by nature.
>
>Shrisha, ah yes, but what fires our fervour to juggle the words of the
>Vedas? Why do we worship the Vedas to seek the Absolute Truth? We must
>'_believe_' in something at some point. Clearly, you believe in the Vedas
>as the literary incarnation of God.
As a matter of fact, I don't. Those who remember ARV's heyday in May
last year will perhaps recall that I had laid out a detailed
disputation of precisely this idea, and stated why I could not accept
the verse that was quoted in support of it. (Can't recall all of it,
but something running to "...Vedo NaaraayaNaH saakshaat svaayambhuH
iti sushruma".)
I don't think it is necessary to repeat that whole argument again, but
just consider one small point: to say "Vedas are the literary
incarnation of God," 'God' must be known; however, how is He to be
known, if not from the Vedas? Thus, God defines the Vedas, and the
Vedas define God -- verily, we have circularity, or to use the precise
term, 'anyonyaashraya'.
>When we find ourself in the presence of Paramatmaji, will we demand
>scriptural references from Him to prove His identity? When the beautiful
>three-fold bending form of Syamasundara appears before us, will we expect
>long sanskrit discourses from Him so we can know that He is in fact the
>Primal Lord? No; faith becomes KNOWING, by Krsna's grace.
It seems to me that people like Arjuna, Uddhava, etc., did just that
sort of thing -- expected long Sanskrit discourses from Him, etc. If
one's understanding of scripture is lacking, then one will fail to
grasp His identity even if He is before us; has been known to
happen. "Faith" is a Christian concept, not one from Vedanta. I have
heard that Sri Vaishnava saints prescribe "trust" or "surrender," but
that applies to one who accepts their teachings in toto.
>The secret of Caitanya is that the five Panca Tattva associates, together,
>describe completely the true nature of love of God. This special pastime
>of the Panca Tattva, namely Sri Krsna Caitanya, Prabhu Nityananda, Sri
>Advaita, Gadadhara, Srivasadi, Gaura Bhakta Vrinda is very merciful
>because Krsna is teaching the innermost secrets of the eternal loving
>relationship between Him and the jiva soul.
All that is very interesting, although it is not quite sensible
enough. The second sentence, "This special pastime... is very merciful
because..." appears to be a non-sequitur; I can find no clue as to how
the inference rule invoked for the "because" is justified.
>There are still 9500 years left in Sri Chaitanya's sankirtana movement,
>so perhaps there is no rush. :-)
Indeed.
>I hope that you and Lord Caitanya will forgive me for being so incapable
>of presenting His true position.
I would forgive you completely, but will Chaitanya? Hard to tell.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Gary
>
>--
>THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
> Cait...@torfree.net
>"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
>deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Gary Stevason
Gargamuni said in the Srimad Bhagavatam (10.8.13):
aasan varNaas trayo asya
gRhNato 'nuyugaM tanuH
Suklo raktas tathaa pIta
idaanIM kRSNataaM gatah
"In the past, your son has had bodies of three different colors,
according to the age. These colors were white, red and yellow.
In this age [Dvaapara-yuga] He had accepted a blackish body."
>From the Mahabharata:
suvarNa-varno hemaaNgo
varaaNgaS candanaaNgadI
sannyaasa-kRc chamaH Saanto
niSThaa-Saanti-paraayaNaH
"The Lord [in the incarnation of Gaurasundara] has a golden complexion.
Indeed, His entire body, which is very nicely constituted, is like
molten gold. Sandalwood pulp is smeared all over His body. He will
take the fourth order of spiritual life (sannyasa) and will be very
self-controlled. He will be distinguished from Mayavadi sannyasis in
that He will be fixed in devotional service and will spread the
sankirtana movement."
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Gary Stevason
kRSNa-varNaM tviSaakRSNaM
saaNgopaaNgaastra-paarSadam
yajNaiH saNkIrtana-praayair
yajanti hi sumedhasaH
"In the age of Kali, people who are endowed with sufficient intelligence will
worship the Lord, who is accompanied by His associates, by performance of
sankirtana yajna."
Prahlada said in the Srimad Bhagavatam (7.9.38):
itthaM nR-tiryag-RSi-deva-jhaSaavataarair
lokaan vibhaavayasi haMsi jagat-pratIpaan
dharmaM mahaa-puruSa paasi yugaanuvRttaM
channaH kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo 'tha sa tvam
"My Lord, You kill all the enemies of the world in Your multifarious
incarnations in the families of men, animals, demigods, RSis, aquatics
and so on. Thus You illuminate the worlds with transcendental knowledge.
In the age of Kali, O Mahapurusa, You sometimes appear in a covered
incarnation. Therefore You are known as Triyuga [one who appears in only
three yugas]."
>From the Munkdaka Upanisad (3.1.3):
yadaa paSyaH paSyate rukma-varNaM
kartaaraM ISaM puruSaM brahma-yonim
"One who sees that golden-coloured Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Lord,
the supreme actor, who is the source of the Supreme Brahman, is liberated."
>From the Krsna-yaamala:
PuNya-kSetre nava-dvIpe bhaviSyaami SacI-sutaH
"I shall appear in the holy land of Navadvipa as the son of Sacidevi."
>From the Vaayu Purana:
Kalau saNkItanaarambhe bhaviSyaami SacI-sutaH."
"In the Age of Kali when the sankirtana movement is inaugurated,
I shall descend as the son of Sacidevi."
>From the Brahma-yaamala:
athavaahaM dharaadhaame
bhUtvaa mad-bhakta-rUpa-dhRk
maayaayaaM ca bhaviSyaami
kalau saNkIrtanaagame
"Sometimes I personally appear on the surface of the world in the garb of
a devotee. Specifically, I appear as the son of Saci in Kali-yuga to
start the sankitana movement."
>From the Ananta-samhita:
ya eva bhagavaan kRSNo
raadhikaa-praaNa-vallabhaH
sRSTyaadau sa jagan-naatho
gaura aasIn maheSvari
"The Supreme Person, Sri Krsna Himself, who is the life of Sri Radharani,
and is the Lord of the universe in creation, maintenance and annihilation,
appears as Gaura, O Mahesvari."
>From the Padma Purana:
ataH SrI-kRSNa-naamaadi
na bhaved grahyam indriyaiH
sevonmukhe hi jihvaadau
svayam eva sphuraty adaH
"Being pleased by devotional activities, the Lord reveals Himself to His
devotees. That is the way to understand him."
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Gary Stevason
SRI CAITANYA UPANISAD (from the Atharva Veda)
===================== with the Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary
of Srila Sacidananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura
This Upanisad was published by the great pioneer of the Krsna
Consciousness movement Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. The Thakura searched
the length and breadth of Bengal to procure an original copy of the
manuscript of this rare Upanisad, which describes the unique position and
advent of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. It also describes the glorious
position and importance of the Maha mantra, or the chanting of the divine
name of Sri Krsna. He was finally provided with a copy of the original
handwritten manuscript from one Pandita Madhusudana Maharaja, of
Sambala-Pura.
Upon the request of many Gaudiya Vaishnavas of the time, He wrote a
lucid sanskrit commentary called Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta, or the the
nectar of the lotus feet of Lord Caitanya. The first edition of this book
was originally printed in Calcutta, Bengal by the Sri Caitanya press in
1887.
It is to be noted that the great Sampradaya Acarya of the Gaudiya
Vaishnavas and of the Krsna Consciousness movement, His Divine Grace A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, has cited from this Upanisad in His Sri
Caitanya-Caritamrta Bhasya [purport] of Adi-Lila 2.22. to explain the
sacred divinity of Sriman Mahaprabhu:
"... Apart from the relevant scriptural evidence forwarded by Srila
Krsna Dasa Kaviraja Goswami, there are innumerable statements regarding
Lord Caitanya's being the Supreme Lord Himself. The following examples may
be cited: (1) From the Caitanya Upanisad: Gaurah sarvatma maha puruso
mahatma maha yogi tri gunatitah sattva rupo bhaktim loke kasyati. Lord
Gaura who is the all pervading Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead, appears as a great saint and powerful mystic, who is above the
three modes of nature and is the emblem of transcendental activity. He
disseminates the cult of devotion throughout the world...".
The current english translation of this rare gem was done in 1977 in
Vrindaban by a disciple of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada.
................
Harih Aum
1. Atha pippaladah samit panir bhagavantam brahmanam upasanno.
bhagavan me subham kim atra caksvasveti.
atha--thereafter; Pippaladah--Pippalada; samit-panih--with sacrificial
fuel [sacred wood] in hand; bhagavantam--the opulent; brahmanam--Lord
Brahma; upasannah--approached; Bhagavan--O My Lord; me--unto me;
subham--auspicious; kim--what; atra--in this world;caksasva--please tell;
iti--thus.
TRANSLATION
Thereafter, Pippalada, with sacrificial fuel in hand, approached
Lord Brahma and said, "O My Lord, in this world, please tell me what is
the real auspiciousness?"
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta Bhasya, commentary of Srila Bhaktivinoda
Thakura:
Panca-tattvanvitam natva Caitanya-rasa-vigraham
Caitanyopanisad-bhasyam karomy atma-visuddhaye
After offering obeisances unto the Panca-Tattva, I am writing this
commentary on the Caitanya Upanisad, which is the form of the mellow of
Lord Caitanya, for self purification.
This Caitanya Upanisad which is included within the eternal
Atharva-Veda, and which is full of all bliss, has thus far not been
manifest due to being beyond the vision of persons who have become blinded
by the influence of the illusory energy and whose minds are directed
towards external matters. Then, when Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the moon of
Navadvipa, appeared, by the endeavor of the pure devotees, it became
known. According to the authority of the Srimad-Bhagavatam ( 7.9.38 ),
even the sastras are in a covered form concerning the Supreme Lord Sri
Caitanya who is to be worshipped in Kali-Yuga [or Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
appears in a covered form according to the sastras]. Therefore it is not
surprising that, due to misfortune, the fools who are engaged in karma and
jnana have no faith in this connection.
After examining many sastras and performing much worship, Pippalada Muni,
desiring his own welfare, approached the guru, the four faced Lord Brahma
with fuel in hand and asked, "What is best for me?"
2. Sa hovaca. bhuya eva tapasa brahmacaryena
sasvat ramasva mano vaseti.
sah--He, Lord Brahma. ha--indeed; uvaca--said; bhuyah--very; eva--only;
tapasa--with austerity;brahmacaryena--and celibacy; sasvat--always;
ramasva--be pleased; manah--the mind;vasa--control; iti--thus.
TRANSLATION
Lord Brahma said, "Always be very pleased with only austerity,
celibacy and control of the mind."
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
Lord Brahma said to him: "After spending one year acting for the
purification of mind and body by pure behavior in renunciation, by
celibacy, by yoga practice and austerity, come again".
3. Sa tatha bhutva bhuya enam upasadyaha-
bhagavan kalau papac channah prajah katham mucyeran iti.
sah--he, Pippalada; tatha--so; bhutva--becoming; bhuyah--very; enam--thus;
upasadya--approaching; aha-- said; bhagavan--O my Lord; kalau--in Kali;
papat--due to sin; channah--covered; prajah--people; katham--how;
mucyeran--can be liberated; iti--thus.
TRANSLATION
He, Pippalada, becoming pure in mind, again approached his father
and said: "O my Lord Brahma, in the age of Kali Yuga, people are covered
due to sin. How can they obtain liberation?"
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
After practicing purification of the body and mind by celibacy and
austerity, Pippalada again approached his guru and inquired, "In
Kali-Yuga, how can those who are sinful by nature obtain liberation from
the material condition? "
4. ko va devata ko va mantro bruhiti.
kah--which; va--or; devata--deity; kah--which; va--or; mantrah--mantra;
bruhi--please tell ( me ); iti-- thus.
TRANSLATION
Please tell me which deity or which mantra is worthy of service.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
Oh, my Lord, for the living beings whose minds are contaminated by
Kali-Yuga, please tell me which deity or which mantra should be served.
5. rahasyam te vadisyami--jahnavi-tire navadvipe golokakhye dhamni
govindo dvi-bhujo gaurah sarvatma maha-puruso mahatma maha-yogi
tri-gunatitah satva-rupo bhakti loke kasyatiti,
tad ete sloka bhavanti.
sah--he, Lord Brahma; ha--indeed; uvaca--replied; rahasyam--confidential
truth; te--unto you; vadisyami--I will tell; jahnavi-tire--on the bank of
the Jahnavi; navadvipe--in Navadvipa; goloka-akhye-- which is known as
Goloka; dhamni--abode; govindah--Lord Govinda; dvi-bhujah--with two arms;
gaurah--golden complexion; sarva-atma--the Supersoul; maha-purusah--the
greatest Personality; maha-atma; the Supreme Being; maha-yogi--the
greatest yogi; tri-guna-atitah--who is transcendental to the modes of
nature; satva-rupah--the form of truth; bhaktim--devotional service;
loke--in the world; kasyati--will manifest; iti--thus; tat--that;
ete--these; slokah--verses; bhavanti--are.
TRANSLATION
Lord Brahma replied, "I will tell you the confidential truth. On
the bank of the Jahnavi, in Navadvipa Dhama, which is known as Goloka,
Govinda with two arms, golden complexion, the Supersoul, the greatest
Personality, the greatest Yogi, the Supreme Being, Who is transcendental
to the modes of nature, and Whose form is truth, will appear to manifest
devotional service ( bhakti ) in this world. These verses describe that.
Sri Caitanya caranamrta commentary:
In the eleventh canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, (11.5.33-34 ) the
state of being of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Caitanya, the
savior of Kali-Yuga is proven.
dhyeyam sada paribhava-ghnam abhista-doham
tirthaspadam siva-virinci-nutam saranyam
bhrtyarti-ham pranata-pala bhavabdhi-potam
vande maha-purusa te caranaravindam
O Supreme Person, O Protector of the devotees, I offer my respectful
obeisances unto Your lotus feet which are worthy of being constantly
meditated upon, which destroy misery, yield all desire, which are the
abode of all holy places of pilgrimage, which are praised by Lord Siva and
Lord Brahma, which are the shelter of all, which dispel the distress of
the devotees and which are a boat for crossing over the ocean of material
existence.
tyaktva sudustayja-surepsita-rajya-laksmim
dharmistha arya-vacasa yad agad aranyam
maya-mrgam dayitayepsitam anvadhavad
vande maha-purusa te caranaravindam
" We offer our respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of the Lord,
upon whom one should always meditate. He left his householder life,
leaving aside His eternal consort, whom even the denizens of heaven adore.
He went into the forest to deliver the fallen souls, who are put into
illusion by the material energy."
6. eko devah sarva-rupi mahatma
gauro rakta-syamala-sveta-rupah
caitanyatma sa vai caitanya-saktir
bhaktakaro bhakti-do bhakti-vedyah
ekah--one; devah--Lord; sarva-rupi--the form of all; maha-atma--greatest
Personality; gaurah--Gaura; rakta--red; syamala--blackish; sveta--white;
rupah-- whose form; Caitanya--Caitanya; atma--Himself;
sah--he;vai--indeed;Caitanya-saktih--the embodiment of the spiritual
potency; bhakta--of a devotee; akarah--the form; bhakti-dah--bestower of
devotional service; bhakti--by devotional service; vedyah--He can be
known.
TRANSLATION
The one Supreme Personality of Godhead, who appears in a variety of
transcendental forms, is also known as Gaura. He has also appeared in
various complexions such as red, blackish and white. He shall appear in
the form of Gaura. He Himself is Caitanya, the embodiment of cit-sakti. He
shall appear in the form of a devotee, to bestow devotional service to the
Lord and He is also to be known by devotional service.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
In the Srimad-Bhagavatam ( 10.8.13 ), the Lord's characteristics are
described by Gargamuni :
suklo raktas tatha pita
idanim krsnatam gatah
" He has been white, red, and yellow and now ( in Dvapara-Yuga ), he is
blackish."
In Kali-Yuga, He takes the form of a devotee. The confidential truth
is that the Lord has descended with His own abode, Goloka-Dhama, to the
supremely sanctified land of Gauda, in the form of a devotee as Sri Krsna
Caitanya Himself and desiring to deliver love of God, He has exposed the
transcendental secret of madhura-rasa which enlivens all the devotees in
the material world, headed by Sathakopa, Ramanuja, Visnuswami,
Madhvacarya, Nimbarka, etc., for the purpose of quickly bestowing
auspiciousness unto the living beings in Kali-Yuga. Bhakti vedyah means
that the living entities can know the Lord by the practice of devotional
service and not by the practice of dry philosophical speculation.
7. namo vedanta vedyaya
krsnaya paramatmane
sarva-caitanya-rupaya
caitanyaya namo namah
namah--obeisances; vedanta--by vedanta; vedyaya-- who can be known;
Krsnaya--unto Krsna; parama-atmane--who is the Supersoul; sarva--of
everything; caitanya--conscious;rupaya--whose form; caitanyaya-- unto
Caitanya Mahaprabhu; namah namah--obeisances again and again.
TRANSLATION
I offer my respectful obeisances unto He who is to be understood by
Vedanta, who is Krsna, the Supersoul, whose form is conscious of
everything. Obeisances again and again unto Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
Even Lord Brahma offers his obeisances unto Sri Caitanya after
considering His unlimited mercy upon Lord Brahma's own Madhva sampradaya.
8. vedanta vedyam purusam puranam
caitanyatmanam visva-yonim mahantam
tam eva viditva'ti-mrtyum eti
nanyah pantha vidyate' yanaya
vedanta-vedyam--who can be known by vedanta; purusam--person; puranam--the
oldest; caitanya-- Caitanya; atmanam--Himself; visva-yonim--the source of
the universe; maha-antam--the greatest; tam--Him; eva--certainly;
viditva--upon knowing; ati-mrtyum--beyond death; eti--one goes; na--not;
anyah--another; pantha--means; vidyate--there is; ayanaya-- for going.
TRANSLATION
By knowing Him, who is to be known by Vedanta, who is the oldest
personality, who is Himself, Caitanya, the source of the universe and the
greatest, one can overcome death. There is no other means for going beyond
Maya.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
Vedanta-vedyam means, he speaks to Pippalada after reflecting upon
the conclusion of all the Vedas. Sri Caitanya, although in the form of a
devotee can be known by vedanta, as being directly Sri Krsna. For the
living beings who have given up the material world, without the shelter of
the lotus feet of Sri Caitanya, there is no other means for entering into
the spiritual world. According to the evidence of Ramanuja, etc., by the
mellow of servitorship, dasya-rasa, there is no direct path. The
destination of those who practice dasya rasa etc., is limited to
Vaikuntha. This is apparent in their books, etc. This is because Sri
Caitanya is the source of the universe and the only teacher in the matter
of instructing vraja-rasa.
9. sva-nama-mula-mantrena sarvam hladayati vibhuh.
sva--His own; nama--name; mula--whose source; mantrena--by the mantra;
sarvam--everything; hladayati--pleases; vibhuh--the Lord [ the powerful ]
TRANSLATION
By the mantra, whose source is His own name, the Lord pleases everything.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
Because there may be an incongruity with, "by the mantra whose source lies
in His Form, "Bhaktivinode explains that sva nama, His own name, means
thename of Krsna, not the name of Caitanya. Moreover, it can also mean
Hari, but specifically it means Krsna. Vibhuh means the Lord who possesses
all opulence. And sarvam means all moving and non-moving living beings.
10. dve sakti parame tasya hladini samvid eva ca, iti.
dve--two; sakti--potencies; parame--superior; tasya-- His; hladini--hladini
(bliss); samvit--samvit (knowledge); eva--certainly; ca--and; iti--thus.
TRANSLATION
His superior energies are hladini ( bliss ), and samvit ( knowledge ).
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
Two energies are acquainted with the Supreme Lord_hladini and samvit.
By hladini is meant, by the manifestation of devotional service ( bhakti )
and love of God ( prema ), He pleases everything. By samvit is meant, by
the manifestation of knowledge of the Absolute Truth which is approved of
by the pure conclusions of the Vedas, He destroys the varieties of
religion and irreligion which are similar to ignorance and darkness within
of the heart of the conditioned soul.
11. sa eva mula-mantram japati harir iti krsna iti rama iti.
sah--He, Sri Caitanya; eva--certainly; mula-mantram-- the original mantra;
japati--chants; Harih--Hari; iti--thus; Krsnah--Krsna; iti--thus;
Ramah--Rama; iti-- thus.
TRANSLATION
He chants the original mantra consisting of Hari, Krsna and Rama, in
other words, the Hare Krsna Maha Mantra.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
The Supreme Lord in the form of Gaura instructs the conditioned souls
by chanting the supremely powerful, original mantra:
Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare
12. Harati hrdaya-granthim vasana-rupam iti harih.
krsih smarane tac ca nastad ubhaya-melanam iti krsnah.
ramayati sarvam iti rama ananda-rupah. atra sloko bhavati.
harati--He removes; hrdaya--in the heart; granthim-- the knot; vasana--of
material desire; rupam--in the form; iti--thus; Harih--Hari; krsih--the
root krs; smarane--by the remembrance; tat--that; ca--and; nastat--the
affix na; ubhaya--of both; melanam--the union;iti--thus; Krsnah--Krsna;
ramayati--He pleases; sarvam-- everything;iti--thus;Ramah--Rama;
ananda-rupah--the form of bliss; atra--here; slokah-- a verse;
bhavati--is.
TRANSLATION
He who removes the knot in the heart in the form of material desire,
is called Hari. The union by the remembrance of the root krs- and the
affix -na, is the hymn of praise--Krsna. He who gives pleasure to
everything is the form of bliss--Rama. Here is such a verse.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
The meanings of the above three names are explained. Hrdaya-Granthi, means
the inclination of the living entity whose factual constitutional position
is to be a servant of Krsna, which takes its form in the desire for other
mundane interests which is produced from the forgetfulness of the service
of the Lord. In this connection, the words of the Vedas and the
Srimad-Bhagavatam are noteworthy:
bhidyante hrdaya-granthis
chidyante sarva-samsayah
He severs the knot within the heart and all doubts are cut to pieces.
(Mundaka-Upanisad 2.2.8 and Srimad- Bhagavatam 1.2..21 ) He who takes away
that knot is Hari. Krsna is to be remembered in His pastimes as the
Supreme Lord, the Lord of Vrindavana, with beauty like a blackish tamala
tree, sucking the breast of Mother Yasoda. This is the conventional
meaning, which is equivalent to another meaning from the statements of the
Sandarbhas. Rama pleases everything. By this mantra is meant, that when
the spirit soul gives up the conditioned state of existence, he attains
the state of assisting in the transcendental Vrindavana pastimes, and the
attainment of the Supreme enjoyment of rasa, etc. Thus, the verse is to be
reflected upon in this way.
13. mantro guhyah paramo bhakti-vedyah
mantrah--the Hare Krsna Maha-Mantra; guhyah-- confidential;
paramah--transcendental; bhakti--by bhakti- yoga; vedyah--can be known.
TRANSLATION
The Maha-Mantra is confidential, transcendental and can be understood
only by devotional service, (bhakti-yoga).
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
The confidential truth of this mantra can be understood only by those
who have attained the prescribed method and not by those who are adherents
of fruitive work (karma ) and philosophical speculation ( jnana).
sa vai pumsam paro dharmo
yato bhaktir adhoksaje
ahaituky apratihata
yayatma suprasidati
The most perfect occupation for all humankind is what is conducive
to the attainment of devotional service of transcendence to the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. Such devotional service must be unmotivated and
undeterred so that the same shall completely satisfy the self.
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6 )
14. Namany astav asta ca sobhanani.
tani nityam ye japanti dhiras te vai
mayam atitaranti nanyah paramam mantram
parama-rahasyam nityam avartayanti.
namani--names; astau asta ca--eight plus eight; sobhanani--beautiful;
tani--those names; nityam--regularly; ye--those who; japanti--chant;
dhirah-- sober persons; te-- they; vai--certainly; mayam--the illusory
energy; atitaranti--cross over;na--not; anyah--another means;
paramam--transcendental; mantram--mantra; parama- rahasyam--the supreme
secret; nityam--regularly; avartayati--one should repeat.
TRANSLATION
These sixteen names are supremely beautiful. Those who chant them
regularly are sober persons who are able to cross beyond the illusory
energy. there is no other means. One should repeat this maha-mantra which
is the supreme secret, regularly.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
This mantra's quality of yielding fruits to the devotees is apparent. By
regularly chantingthis mantra consisting of sixteen names, the devotee
transcendentally cross beyond the state of being overcome by the illusory,
material energy. There is no other means than this. Even the eternally
perfect souls regularly repeat this mantra for the sake of their own
dharma.
15. Caitanya eva sankarsano vasudevah paramesthi
rudrah sakro brhaspatih sarve devah sarvani
bhutani sthavarani carani ca yat kincit sad-asat
karanam sarvam, tad atra slokah.
Caitanyah--Sri Caitanya; eva-- indeed; sankarsanah- Sankarsana;
vasudevah--Vasudeva; paramesthi--the Supersoul; rudrah--Rudra (Siva);
sakrah--sakra (Indra); brhaspatih--Brhaspati; sarve--all; devah--the
demigods; sarvani--all; bhutani--the living entities;
sthavarani--non-moving; carani--moving; ca--and; yat--which;
kincit--anything; sat--eternal; asat--temporary; karanam--the cause;
sarvam--everything; tat--that; atra--herein; slokah--the verses.
TRANSLATION
Caitanya is Sankarsana, Vasudeva, and the Supersoul. He is the cause of
Rudra (Siva), Sakra (Indra), Brhaspati, all the demigods, all moving and
non-moving entities, and everything which is temporary and external.
Herein are the celebrated verses.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
For the devotees of Sri Caitanya, what need is there for worshipping
other demigods.
16. yat kincid asad bhunkte ksaram tat karyam ucyate.
yat--that which; kincit--whatever; asat--temporary; bhunkte--one enjoys;
ksaram--perishable; tata--that; karyam--effect; ucyate--is called.
TRANSLATION
Whatever one enjoys which is temporary is known as an effect and is
perishable.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
This universe is temporary, due to its quality of being an effect.
17. sat karanam param jivas tad aksaram itiritam.
sat--eternal; karanam--the cause; param--beyond; jivah--the spirit soul;
tat--that; aksaram--perishable; iti--thus; iritam--it is said.
TRANSLATION
It is said that the spirit soul is eternal. He is the cause of that
which is perishable and also beyond that which is perishable.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
The spirit soul is eternal and the cause of that which is perishable.
Due to forgetfulness of his occupational duty because of the influence of
the illusory energy, he imagines himself to be the doer. Therefore, he is
perishable.
18. Ksaraksarabhyam paramah sa eva purusottamah caitanyakhyam
param tattvam sarva-karana-karanam.
ksara--from the perishable; aksarabhyam--and imperishable; paramah--
beyond; sah;He; eva--certainly; purusa-uttamah--the Supreme Person;
Caitanya-- Caitanya; akhyam--is called; param-tattvam-- the Supreme Truth;
sarva-karana-karanam-- the cause of all causes.
dhanyanam hrdi bhasatam givivara-pratyagra-kunjaukasam/ satyananda-rasam
vikara-vibhava-vyavrttam antar-mahah asmakam kila ballavi-rati-raso
vrndatavi-lalaso/ gopah ko'pi mahendranila-ruciras citte muhuh kridatu
" May the cowherd boy who is a festival of ecstatic bliss for the hearts
of the fortunate creatures residing in the groves of Govarhana Hill, Who
is the lover of the Gopis,Who eagerly enjoys pastimes in Vrindavana
forest, and Whose complexion is as splendid as a great sapphire, eternally
enjoy transcendental pastimes in our hearts."
Sri Isvara Puri as cited by Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada in the
Padyavali-[ Bhaktanam Nistha] Text 75.
TRANSLATION
He who is beyond that which is perishable and imperishable is the
Supreme Person. The name of the Supreme Truth, the cause of all causes is
Sri Caitanya.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
The universe is perishable. The spirit soul is imperishable. The
supreme truth beyond both of these, the cause of all causes is called
Caitanya, whose nature is that of the Supreme Person. By this, the three
truths of Vedanta are confirmed.
19. ya enam rasayati bhajati dhyayati
sa papmanam tarati. sa puto bhavati,
sa tattvam janati, sa tarati sokam,
gatis tasyaste nanyasyeti.
yah--one who; enam--this Caitanya Mahaprabhu; rasayati--develops love for;
bhajati--worships; dhyayati-- meditates upon; sah--he; papmanam--sin;
tarati--crosses over; sah--he; putah--purified; bhavati--is; sah--he;
tattvam--truth; janati--knows;
sah--he;tarati--overcomes;sokam--lamentation; gatih--destination;
tasya--of him; aste--there is; na-- not; anyasya--another; iti--thus.
TRANSLATION
Anyone who develops love for Caitanya Mahaprabhu, worships Him or
meditates on Him is freed from sin, becomes purified, understands the
Supreme Truth, and overcomes lamentation. For him, there is no other
destination.
Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary:
One who is a devotee develops love for Krsna Caitanya. This means
he devotes himself to Sri Caitanya due to his being the bestower of the
conjugal mellow of Vrindavana. Bhajati, or he worships, means that after
accepting his own constitutional position, he renders service. Dhyayati
means that he meditates. He overcomes sin in the form of ignorance. Having
overcome that, he is purified by the spiritual nature. Tattvam means that
he understands the truth in terms of inconceivable oneness and difference
between the energy and the energetic. (acintya bheda-abheda-tattva). And
finally he overcomes lamentation.
Thus ends the Sri Caitanya-Caranamrta commentary on the Sri Caitanya
Upanisad.
............................
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Gary Stevason
: mine; shaastra is, to me, always backed by empirical evidence, and
: does not call for blind faith.
Shrisha, I think that statement may be a little strong. Certainly there
is empirical evidence for every syllable of shastra, but much of it takes
lifetimes and lifetimes to realize. For the unrealized soul, what
empirical evidence exists that Visnu is God. Surely at some point in our
quest, blind faith is indeed required regarding these more esoteric
conclusions of shastra.
Now having said that, certainly we do see as the days/lives go by that
more and more of Krsna's words are verified in our life experience, and
faith becomes easier even for a doubting Thomas merely by the logical
process of induction.
But even induction is a form of seeing-impaired faith, taking the chance
that all the other stuff wasn't written just to set you up for the big
embarrassment where the evil one steals your soul and existence forever,
and memory of you is lost to all, even God. ;-(
But we accept many statements in the shastras for which we have no
observable proof, at least not yet. And if we did have evidence of
everything, then we wouldn't need shastra. It would be Vaikuntha!
Gary
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Shrisha Rao
>: mine; shaastra is, to me, always backed by empirical evidence, and
>: does not call for blind faith.
>
>Shrisha, I think that statement may be a little strong. Certainly there
>is empirical evidence for every syllable of shastra, but much of it takes
>lifetimes and lifetimes to realize. For the unrealized soul, what
>empirical evidence exists that Visnu is God. Surely at some point in our
>quest, blind faith is indeed required regarding these more esoteric
>conclusions of shastra.
No, not at all! Why would you say that? There do exist the sadaagamas,
whom we can try to understand and follow; since they are available to
us, it follows that the conclusions of shaastra are also based on
evidence rather than faith.
While you have characterized my previous statement as "strong," I would
call it a little skewed because of inexact translation. "Empirical
evidence" is commonly understood to mean only the evidence obtained by
observation of physical events, whereas in Vedanta, it is recognized
that knowledge of entities not graspable by the senses may be obtained
from scripture. And in fact, scripture is considered to be by nature
superior to pratyaksha, as a source of knowledge -- this is common (as
far as I know) to all branches of Vedanta; perhaps someone can clarify
the exact Gaudiya position on this, but I don't see that it could be
any different.
In substance, therefore, I would say that no blind faith is called for
to understand shaastra; one need study the scriptures in the proper way
to obtain the knowledge required, and the validity of the scriptures
itself is proved by rational inquiry, thus putting one's understanding
of the atiindriya (extra-sensory) entities on a sound footing rather
than on guesswork and faith.
>Now having said that, certainly we do see as the days/lives go by that
>more and more of Krsna's words are verified in our life experience, and
>faith becomes easier even for a doubting Thomas merely by the logical
>process of induction.
As one's saadhanaa goes on, it is certainly the case that one's own
perception becomes a lot clearer, and things not seen previously are
perceived in detail. However, this by itself does not invalidate a
rational approach to shaastra; rationality is in fact one's safeguard
against Sai-Baba-type delusion where one thinks one perceives extra-
sensory entities but one is actually not doing any such thing.
>But even induction is a form of seeing-impaired faith, taking the chance
>that all the other stuff wasn't written just to set you up for the big
>embarrassment where the evil one steals your soul and existence forever,
>and memory of you is lost to all, even God. ;-(
Now see, "the evil one" (which I take to mean Satan, Lucifer, the
Devil, et cetera) is a Christian concept, and cannot be invoked to
justify a Vaishnava/Vedanta argument. Moreover, it is not the case
that induction, or any other form of inference, is only for the
"seeing-impaired"; it certainly has its own value. For instance, if
you had attained Brahma-gnyaana and could see a certain extra-sensory
entity by direct perception, then you presumably would not count as
"seeing-impaired" (with respect to that entity) and would not need
induction, but you might still need it to educate another. And while
you might see _some_ extra-sensory entities directly, you might still
be "seeing-impaired" with respect to others.
>But we accept many statements in the shastras for which we have no
>observable proof, at least not yet. And if we did have evidence of
>everything, then we wouldn't need shastra. It would be Vaikuntha!
However, we accept things the scriptures say because we have a rational
way of showing that they are truthful; we don't simply believe them
because we have been told to, or because we feel like it.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
P.S. While I remain quite unconvinced about several things you've said
in recent postings, I cannot but admire your persistence in trying to
convert me to your view!
>Gary
Gary Stevason
: >: anything; that is not the way of Tattvavaada, and that is not how I
: >: myself am by nature.
: >
: >Shrisha, ah yes, but what fires our fervour to juggle the words of the
: >Vedas? Why do we worship the Vedas to seek the Absolute Truth? We must
: >'_believe_' in something at some point. Clearly, you believe in the Vedas
: >as the literary incarnation of God.
: As a matter of fact, I don't. Those who remember ARV's heyday in May
: last year will perhaps recall that I had laid out a detailed
: disputation of precisely this idea, and stated why I could not accept
: the verse that was quoted in support of it. (Can't recall all of it,
: but something running to "...Vedo NaaraayaNaH saakshaat svaayambhuH
[...]
Then why do you seek proof of Caitanya's position in the Vedas if you do
not '_believe_' in the Vedas? If it is the case that you '_know_' that
the Vedas are eternal axiomatic truth, then how do you know this? Or if
you '_know_' that the Vedas are something else, whatever, then how do you
know that?
: >When we find ourself in the presence of Paramatmaji, will we demand
: >scriptural references from Him to prove His identity? When the beautiful
: >three-fold bending form of Syamasundara appears before us, will we expect
: >long sanskrit discourses from Him so we can know that He is in fact the
: >Primal Lord? No; faith becomes KNOWING, by Krsna's grace.
: It seems to me that people like Arjuna, Uddhava, etc., did just that
: sort of thing -- expected long Sanskrit discourses from Him, etc. If
: one's understanding of scripture is lacking, then one will fail to
: grasp His identity even if He is before us; has been known to
: happen.
[...]
I think if we couldn't recognize Him, He wouldn't be with us. I
recognize that there are many exceptions to this like Arjuna, Yashoda,
etc., but I know I am not in their lila class.
: >The secret of Caitanya is that the five Panca Tattva associates, together,
: >describe completely the true nature of love of God. This special pastime
: >of the Panca Tattva, namely Sri Krsna Caitanya, Prabhu Nityananda, Sri
: >Advaita, Gadadhara, Srivasadi, Gaura Bhakta Vrinda is very merciful
: >because Krsna is teaching the innermost secrets of the eternal loving
: >relationship between Him and the jiva soul.
: All that is very interesting, although it is not quite sensible
: enough. The second sentence, "This special pastime... is very merciful
: because..." appears to be a non-sequitur; I can find no clue as to how
: the inference rule invoked for the "because" is justified.
[...]
I certainly do tend to overuse my poetic licence at times. ;-)
Dropping the flowers, it becomes: the pastime of the Panca Tattva is
very merciful ---- why? ---- because (through that pastime) Krsna is
teaching us secrets. Or: Krsna teaches us the innermost secrets of
the eternal loving relationship between Him and the jiva soul by
descending in His five tattvas known as the Panca Tattva and performing
loving pastimes. Thus the perfect relationship between the devotee and
the various energies and aspects of the Supreme is explained in a wonderful
drama that mere words could not portray, and had not yet been portrayed.
Love of God has become accessible to all. The only qualification for Sri
Caitanya's mercy is that we are not qualified for it.
[ Now how's that for circular! :-D ]
Gary
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Manish Tandon
Re: Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Caitanya [soc.religion.vaishnava #684]
------ Forwarded Article <4gvakn$9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
------ From Gary Stevason <cait...@torfree.net>
> Gargamuni said in the Srimad Bhagavatam (10.8.13):
>
> aasan varNaas trayo asya
> gRhNato 'nuyugaM tanuH
> Suklo raktas tathaa pIta
> idaanIM kRSNataaM gatah
>
> "In the past, your son has had bodies of three different colors,
> according to the age. These colors were white, red and yellow.
> In this age [Dvaapara-yuga] He had accepted a blackish body."
In order to support your dogma, Gargamuni should have said that the Lord
will appear in the color (that is ascribed to Chaitanya) in future. Instead
he is saying He has already appeared as white, red and yellow prior to
his appearence as Krishna of krishna-varnam. You can't say that Gargamuni
started counting from the previous kali-yuga since the yuga-count and
therefore yuga-avataaras are always listed in order of sat-yuga, treta,
dvaapar, and kali.
> >From the Mahabharata:
>
> suvarNa-varno hemaaNgo
> varaaNgaS candanaaNgadI
> sannyaasa-kRc chamaH Saanto
> niSThaa-Saanti-paraayaNaH
>
> "The Lord [in the incarnation of Gaurasundara] has a golden complexion.
> Indeed, His entire body, which is very nicely constituted, is like
> molten gold. Sandalwood pulp is smeared all over His body. He will
> take the fourth order of spiritual life (sannyasa) and will be very
> self-controlled. He will be distinguished from Mayavadi sannyasis in
> that He will be fixed in devotional service and will spread the
> sankirtana movement."
Now this is a classic Iskcon torture-translation of the verse for there is
nothing in the sanskrit that can be translated to "He will be distinguished
from Mayavadi sannyasis in that He will be fixed in devotional service and
will spread the sankirtana movement." The word "mAyAvAd" doesn't even occur
anywhere in Mahabharat to the best of our knowledge.
Even ignoring the above mentioned problems with both quotations, there is
yet another. The first one says His complexion _was_ pIta (i.e. yellow)
whereas the second one says it _is_ suvarNa (golden) and even a child
would know that yellow and golden are two distinct colors so the above two
verses definitely point to two different avataars in the least.
Re: Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Caitanya [soc.religion.vaishnava #696]
> Spoken by Saint Karabhaajana in Srimad Bhagavatam (11.5.32):
>
> kRSNa-varNaM tviSaakRSNaM
> saaNgopaaNgaastra-paarSadam
> yajNaiH saNkIrtana-praayair
> yajanti hi sumedhasaH
>
> "In the age of Kali, people who are endowed with sufficient intelligence will
> worship the Lord, who is accompanied by His associates, by performance of
> sankirtana yajna."
Now this is even more interesting since the complexion mentioned here is
blackish, kRSNa-varNaM !! So now we have three colors for Chaitanya.
Also interesting is that "kRSNa-varNaM" was carefully skipped in the
translation.
Actually the above verse does more to support Chaitanya as a "sumedhasaH"
who engaged in sankiirtan of Krishna along with his assosiates (i.e. gopis).
It is indeed so unfortunate that people in this age, concerned more about
the status of their school than devotion, due to their inflated egos, have
taken to portray Chaitanya as the Lord whereas he himself always so strongly
(almost vehemently) opposed the very idea while he was present.
> Prahlada said in the Srimad Bhagavatam (7.9.38):
>
> itthaM nR-tiryag-RSi-deva-jhaSaavataarair
> lokaan vibhaavayasi haMsi jagat-pratIpaan
> dharmaM mahaa-puruSa paasi yugaanuvRttaM
> channaH kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo 'tha sa tvam
>
> "My Lord, You kill all the enemies of the world in Your multifarious
> incarnations in the families of men, animals, demigods, RSis, aquatics
> and so on. Thus You illuminate the worlds with transcendental knowledge.
> In the age of Kali, O Mahapurusa, You sometimes appear in a covered
> incarnation. Therefore You are known as Triyuga [one who appears in only
> three yugas]."
This is one of those verse which *if taken as the translation given above*
raises more questions about the authanticity of (this particular section of)
Bhagvatam than tells anything about the yuga-avataar in kali-yuga because
the same book also says that there will be a known "Kalkii" avataar in this
age which goes against the theory of "tri-yugo 'tha sa tvam" as such.
> >From the Munkdaka Upanisad (3.1.3):
>
> yadaa paSyaH paSyate rukma-varNaM
> kartaaraM ISaM puruSaM brahma-yonim
>
> "One who sees that golden-coloured Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Lord,
> the supreme actor, who is the source of the Supreme Brahman, is liberated."
The "rukma-varNaM" (of sun-like complexion) is always taken as a direct
reference to Lord Vishnu Himself.
Another gross mistake in the translation is "the Supreme Lord, the supreme
actor, who is the source of the Supreme Brahman".
The Lord IS the Supreme Brahman. The "brahma" in the "brahma-yonim" refers
to Caturmukha-Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) and not the Lord. As I have pointed
out elsewhere, taking "brahma" here as Parabrahman reduces your philosophy
to advaita with the priorities of Ishvar and Brahman switched. Something
that your pundits haven't been able to answer so far.
Also, none of the 10/11 principal upanisads refer to any specific avataar
of the Lord. The above quote is merely a result of a simple string-search
(looking for yellowish/golden color).
Rest of the quotes from puraaNas/samhiitas deleted since those books are of
no intersest to me.
Just a note for Gary Stevason, you may be better off replacing "Chaitanya"
with "Christ" in the above quotes and posting this crap on alt.christianity
Please don't post such hallucinatory views here.
Manish
Gary Stevason
covered incarnation of Kali yuga. Krsna's reason that this incarnation
should be 'covered' will be become apparent as we examine one of His goals
for this lila. To taste His own sweetness, He came as the enjoyed,
instead of the enjoyer.
The following passages (in Bengali, so only English will be supplied) were
compiled by Krsnadasa Kaviraja in the Sri Caitanya-caritaamRta:
(Adi Lila 4:103-159) [Translated by BBT]
..........................................................................
The Lord came to propagate sankirtana. That is the external purpose, as
I have already indicated. There is a principal cause for Lord Krsna's
appearance. It grows from His own engagements as the foremost enjoyer of
loving exchanges.
That most confidential cause is threefold. SvarUpa Daamodara has revealed
it. SvarUpa GosaaNi is the most intimate associate of the Lord. He,
therefore, knows all these topics well. The heart of Lord Caitanya is the
image of Sri Radhika's emotions. Thus feelings of pleasure and pain arise
constantly therein.
In the final portions of His pastimes, Lord Caitanya was obsessed with the
madness of separation from Lord Krsna. He acted in erroneous ways and
talked deliriously. Just as Radhika went mad at the sight of Uddhava, so
Lord Caitanya was obsessed day and night with the madness of separation.
At night He talked incoherently in grief with His arms around Svarupa
Damodara's neck. He spoke out His heart in ecstatic inspiration.
Whenever a particular sentiment arose in His heart, Svarupa Damodara
satisfied Him by singing songs or reciting verses of the same nature.
To analyze these pastimes is not necessary now. Later I shall describe
them in detail.
Formerly in Vraja Lord Krsna displayed three ages, namely childhood,
boyhood and adolescence. His adolescence is especially significant.
Parental affection made His childhood fruitful. His boyhood was
successful with His friends. In youth He tasted the essence of rasa,
fulfilling His desires in pastimes like the raasa dance with SrImatI
Raadhikaa and the other gopis.
In His youth Lord Krsna made all three of His ages, and the entire
universe, successful by His pastimes of amorous love like the rasa dance.
[As the Visnu Purana states 5.13.60:] Lord MadhusUdana enjoyed His youth
with pastimes on autumn nights in the midst of the jewel-like milkmaids.
Thus He dispelled all the misfortunes of the world.
Lord Krsna made Srimati Radharani close Her eyes in shame before Her
friends by His words relating Their amorous activities on the previous
night. Then He showed the highest limit of cleverness in drawing pictures
of dolphins in various playful sports on Her breasts. In this way Lord
Hari made His youth successful by performing pastimes in the bushes with
Sri Radha and Her friends.
O PaurNamaasI, if Lord Hari had not descended in Mathura with Srimati
Radharani, this entire creation - and especially Cupid, the demigod of
love - would have been useless.
Even though Lord Krsna, the abode of all mellows, had previously in this
way chewed the essence of the mellows of love, still He was unable to
fulfill three desires, although He made efforts to taste them.
I shall explain His first desire. Krsna says: "I am the primary cause of
all rasas. I am the full spiritual truth and am made of full joy, but the
love of Srimati Radharani drives Me mad. I do not know the strength of
Radha's love, with which She always overwhelms Me. The love of Radhika is
My teacher, and I am Her dancing pupil. Her prema makes Me dance various
novel dances."
"O my beloved friend of VRndaa, where are you coming from?"
"I am coming from the feet of Sri Hari."
"Where is He?"
"In the forest on the bank of Radhakunda."
"What is He doing there?"
"He is learning dancing."
"Who is His master?"
"Your image, Radha, revealing itself in every tree and creeper in every
direction, is roaming like a skillfull dancer, making Him dance behind."
"Whatever pleasure I get from tasting My love for Srimati Radharani, She
tastes ten million times more than Me by Her love. Just as I am the abode
of all mutually contradictory characteristics, so Radha's love is always
full of similar contradictions.
"Radha's love is all-pervading, leaving no room for expansion. But still
it is expanding constantly. There is certainly nothing greater than Her
love. But Her love is devoid of pride. That is the sign of its greatness.
Nothing is purer than Her love. But its behaviour is always perverse and
crooked."
[All glories to Radha's love for Krsna, the enemy of the demon Mura.
Although it is all-pervading, it tends to increase at every moment.
Although it is important, it is devoid of pride. And although it is
pure, it is always beset with duplicity.]
"Sri Radhika is the highest abode of that love, and I am its only object.
I taste that bliss to which the object of love is entitled. But the
pleasure of Radha, the abode of that love, is ten million times greater.
"My mind races to taste the pleasure experienced by the abode, but I
cannot taste it, even by My best efforts. How may I taste it? If
sometime I can be the abode of that love, only then may I taste its joy."
Thinking in this way, Lord Krsna was curious to taste that love. His eager
desire for that love increasingly blazed in His heart. That is one
desire. Now please hear of another. Seeing his own beauty, Lord Krsna
began to consider.
"My sweetness is wonderful, infinite and full. No one in the three worlds
can find its limit. Only Radhika, by strength of Her love, tastes all the
nectar of My sweetness.
"Although Radha's love is pure like a mirror, its purity increases at
every moment. My sweetness also has no room for expansion, yet it shines
before that mirror in newer and newer beauty. There is constant
competition between My sweetness and the mirror of Radha's love. They
both go on increasing, but neither knows defeat.
"My sweetness is always newer and newer. Devotees taste it according to
their own respective love. If I see My sweetness in a mirror, I am
tempted to taste it, but nevertheless I cannot. If I deliberate on a way
to taste it, I find that I hanker for the position of Radhika.
"Who manifests an abundance of sweetness greater than Mine, which has
never been experienced before and which causes wonder to all? Alas, I
Myself, My mind bewildered upon seeing this beauty, impetuously desire to
enjoy it like Srimati Radharani."
The beauty of Krsna has one natural strength: it thrills the hearts of
all men and women, beginning with Lord Krsna Himself. All minds are
attracted by hearing His sweet voice and flute, or by seeing His beauty.
Even Lord Krsna Himself makes efforts to taste that sweetness.
The thirst of one who always drinks the nectar of that sweetness is never
satisfied. Rather, that thirst increases constantly. Such a person,
being unsatisfied, begins to blaspheme Lord Brahma, saying that he does
not know the art of creating well and is simply inexperienced. He has not
given millions of eyes to see the beauty of Krsna. He has given only two
eyes, and even those eyes blink. How then shall I see the lovely face of
Krsna?
[The gopis say in the Srimad Bhagavatam (10.31.15):] "O Krsna, when You go
to the forest during the day and we do not see Your sweet face, which is
surrounded by beautiful curling hairs, half a second becomes as long as an
entire age for us. And we consider the creator, who put eyelids on the
eyes we use for seeing You, to be simply a fool."
[Again in the Srimad Bahagavtam (10.82.40):] The gopis saw their beloved
Krsna at Kuruksetra after a long separation. They secured and embraced Him
in their hearts through their eyes, and they attained a joy so intense
that not even perfect yogis can attain it. The gopis cursed the creator
for creating eyelids that interfered with their vision.
There is no other consummation for the eyes than the sight of Krsna.
Whoever sees Him is most fortunate indeed.
[Again the gopis sing in the Bhagavatam (10.21.7):] "O friends, those eyes
that see the beautiful faces of the sons of Maharaja Nanda are certainly
fortunate. As these two sons enter the forest, surrounded by Their
friends, driving the cows before Them, They hold Their flutes to Their
mouths and glance lovingly upon the residents of VRndaavana. For those
who have eyes, we think there is no greater object of vision."
[Mathura's ladies agree in the Bhagavatam (10.44.14):] "What austerities
must the gopis have performed? With their eyes they always drink the
nectar of the face of Lord Krsna, which is the essence of loveliness and
is not to be equaled or surpassed. That loveliness is the only abode of
beauty, fame and opulence. It is self-perfect, ever fresh and extremely
rare."
The sweetness of Lord Krsna is unprecedented, and its strength is also
unprecedented. Simply by hearing of such beauty, the mind becomes
unsteady.
Lord Krsna's own beauty attracts Lord Krsna Himself. But because He
cannot fully enjoy it, His mind remains full of sorrow.
................................... His mind remains full of sorrow. :-(
And this is why He is covered: to enjoy, like Radharani and the gopis,
the wondermost vision of Lord Krsna. His eyes blink in the mood of
Radha when He is reminded of His true identity, stealing His Lord Krsna
from His view.
................................... I should allow Krsnadasa to conclude:
Lord Caitanya appeared with the sentiment of Radha. He preached the
dharma of this age - the chanting of the holy name and pure love of God.
In the mood of Srimati Radharani, He also fulfilled His own desires.
This is the principal reason for His appearance.
Uncovering the covered Sri Caitanya,
A.K.A.
Gaurahari Nimai Gauracandra Visvambhara Gaurakrsna Gaurasundara
Gaura Gauranga Saciananda Chaitanya Mahaprabhu !
And the Panca Tattva: Sri Krsna Caitanya Prabhu Nityananda Sri Advaita
Gadadhara Srivasadi Gaura Bhakta Vrinda.
Ghari,
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Eswar Josyula
-----------------------------------------
[ text deleted]
::Krishnadasa Kaviraja who is mentioned in this quote is a famous
::biographer of the Lord.
:More power to him; when exactly did he live (in relation to
:Chaitanya's period)?
Krsnadas Kaviraja was the direct disciple of two of the Goswamis of
Vrindavana. The Goswamis of Vrindavana are the direct disciples of the
Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
[text deleted]
Haribol
Eswar Josyula
:Regards,
:
:Shrisha Rao
Gary Stevason
wondermost (wun'-dur-most) adj. 1. full of wonder, yet somehow increasing
in wonderment with every moment: "the wondermost sight of Lord Krsna".
[Modern English, from Old English wundor and maest, from Kali Yuga early
Sankirtana period; coined during the uncovering of the covered Caitanya]
[Copyright Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1996]