I have been having a lot of trouble with a lot of Vaishnava views lately. Especially when such views lead to Vaishnavas bickering with eachother, something Vaishnavas are quite known for, too. I myself am tired of the incredible focus on the philosophical and doctrinal focus of Vaishnavism, as it takes away focus from Sadhana. I did some research and here is, in a nut shell, what I have learned about the "four Sampradaya Śloka":
On the "Four Sampradaya" śloka- this particular verse, which supposedly used to be in the Padma Purana, says that there are four true Sampradayas. And the verse itself mentions Ramanuja, Madhva, Vishnu Svami, and Nimbarka. Now, Tattvavadis blatently reject this verse, saying only their Sampradaya is correct. I'm sure the Ramanandis would reject it too, since they believe that they are the original Śri Sampradaya, rather than Ramanuja holding the original Śri Sampradaya. So instead of it saying "Ramanuja", it should say (For Ramanandis), Ramananda. This can go for any smaller Sampradaya. I, too, reject the validity of this verse. It limits the progress of the truth on earth to four Sampradayas that sometimes reject eachother and have minor quarrels. Also, it never mentions Adi Shankara, when he himself was a Vaishnava who's parampara supposedly stems from Narayana too!*
On philosophy:
It's time to realize what the different philosophical schools in Vaishnavism really are; the attempt to conceive of the inconceivable totality of reality and truth. I truly believe that Madhva, Ramanuja, etc. all were Realized and experienced reality. But when they tried to explain it, or conceive it, they explained it all slightly differently. For instance, set four people in front of the same tree and ask them to explain it in their own words. They will all explain it differently. The same goes for all who experience reality and try to explain it, they will all explain it slightly differently though they are experiencing the same.
Also, I think that if all this "Vada's" where so important, that the Vedas and Upanishads would have specified which one was actually correct, to save us the trouble. The thing is, we all have different perspectives, and these perspectives show all the different "Vada's" we can come up with. The fact that Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc. all come from the same scripture shows that alot of how we experience reality is highly personal. But why call another wrong because they look at the same thing differently from you?*
I don't know if any of this makes sense, I have just thrown it all together during this early snowy morning where I am.*
Narayana!*
On the "Four Sampradaya" śloka- this particular verse, which supposedly used to be in the Padma Purana, says that there are four true Sampradayas. And the verse itself mentions Ramanuja, Madhva, Vishnu Svami, and Nimbarka. Now, Tattvavadis blatently reject this verse, saying only their Sampradaya is correct. I'm sure the Ramanandis would reject it too, since they believe that they are the original Śri Sampradaya, rather than Ramanuja holding the original Śri Sampradaya. So instead of it saying "Ramanuja", it should say (For Ramanandis), Ramananda. This can go for any smaller Sampradaya. I, too, reject the validity of this verse. It limits the progress of the truth on earth to four Sampradayas that sometimes reject eachother and have minor quarrels. Also, it never mentions Adi Shankara, when he himself was a Vaishnava who's parampara supposedly stems from Narayana too!*
On philosophy:
It's time to realize what the different philosophical schools in Vaishnavism really are; the attempt to conceive of the inconceivable totality of reality and truth. I truly believe that Madhva, Ramanuja, etc. all were Realized and experienced reality. But when they tried to explain it, or conceive it, they explained it all slightly differently. For instance, set four people in front of the same tree and ask them to explain it in their own words. They will all explain it differently. The same goes for all who experience reality and try to explain it, they will all explain it slightly differently though they are experiencing the same.
Also, I think that if all this "Vada's" where so important, that the Vedas and Upanishads would have specified which one was actually correct, to save us the trouble. The thing is, we all have different perspectives, and these perspectives show all the different "Vada's" we can come up with. The fact that Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc. all come from the same scripture shows that alot of how we experience reality is highly personal. But why call another wrong because they look at the same thing differently from you?*
I don't know if any of this makes sense, I have just thrown it all together during this early snowy morning where I am.*
Narayana!*
