Gaudiya Vaishnavism queries and discussion thread.

[निताइ dasa]

NOT even a single commentary on Vedanta Sutra

Please the below for the Govinda Bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana on Vedanta Sutra:

http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Vedic Texts/Vedanta-sutra/commentaries/Govinda bhasya/Vedanta sutra with Govinda Bhasya.pdf

did not establish something new

Rasa vicara, the intricacies of Sri Nama Tattva, elaboration of Nitya Lila, the step by step process of Bhakti etc and many more.

true vaishnavite or vaishnavism is about respecting the VEDAM and the acharyas who are the walking VEDAM

Yes, and we respect and follow the Acharayas in our line, who have lived a selfless and highly spiritual life, spreading Krsna Nama throughout India. Acharaya is one who does acharana, and all of Lord Chaitanha Mahaprabhu's devotees did so. That is why we place faith in them. There is not one shred of proof you have presented to doubt the character of our Acharayas. If you have faith in Madhavacharaya, why do you reject the letters from Madhavacarya sampradaya leaders attesting to the authenticity of our Sampradaya?

who cares really ?

I care,@ratikala devi dasi Mataji cares. The thousands and thousands of devotees (who are now living a holy life, chanting the name of Sri Krsna daily) care. Without Srila Prabhupada and His movement we would be stuck in the western world of sin and voidism. Maybe you can see why, we are such grateful to our acharayas. It was the Gaudiya movement which saved us and bought us to the Lotus feet of Sri Krsna. It was Lord Nitai who was willing to overlook my millions of offences when no other personality of Godhead would. Therefore my life is given to His mission.

dattva yah kam api prasadam atha sambhashya smita-shri-mukham
durat snigdha-drisha nirikshya ca maha-premotsavam yacchati
yesham hanta kutarka-karkasha-dhiyam tatrapi natyadarah
sakshat purna-rasavatarini harau dushta ami kevalam (45)

"When Lord Gauranga advented in this world, He infused a great festival of love in the hearts of all the living entities by distributing His causeless mercy to everyone in the form of His Holy Names by speaking with them, by mildly smiling at them, by showing His lotus face to them and affectionately glancing at them from afar. In this way Lord Gaurahari exclusively brought and distributed the personification of the full nectarean mellows of pure devotional service. Thus, those who despite having received so many magnificent gifts directly from Him still refuse to respect and gratefully worship Him as the Supreme Lord and Pastimes must be considered ill-fated, speculative and hard-hearted persons."
(This verse was composed by Srila Prabhodananda Saraswati, who was a hitaharivamsa sannayasa from Srirangam of Sri Sampradaya).

Do you see our position. We cannot turn our backs on our Guru Parampara, for whom we have the highest respect. They are our life and wealth.

 

[kalyan]

Please the below for the Govinda Bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana on Vedanta Sutra:

http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Vedic Texts/Vedanta-sutra/commentaries/Govinda bhasya/Vedanta sutra with Govinda Bhasya.pdf



Rasa vicara, the intricacies of Sri Nama Tattva, elaboration of Nitya Lila, the step by step process of Bhakti etc and many more.



Yes, and we respect and follow the Acharayas in our line, who have lived a selfless and highly spiritual life, spreading Krsna Nama throughout India. Acharaya is one who does acharana, and all of Lord Chaitanha Mahaprabhu's devotees did so. That is why we place faith in them. There is not one shred of proof you have presented to doubt the character of our Acharayas. If you have faith in Madhavacharaya, why do you reject the letters from Madhavacarya sampradaya leaders attesting to the authenticity of our Sampradaya?



I care,@ratikala devi dasi Mataji cares. The thousands and thousands of devotees (who are now living a holy life, chanting the name of Sri Krsna daily) care. Without Srila Prabhupada and His movement we would be stuck in the western world of sin and voidism. Maybe you can see why, we are such grateful to our acharayas. It was the Gaudiya movement which saved us and bought us to the Lotus feet of Sri Krsna. It was Lord Nitai who was willing to overlook my millions of offences when no other personality of Godhead would. Therefore my life is given to His mission.

dattva yah kam api prasadam atha sambhashya smita-shri-mukham
durat snigdha-drisha nirikshya ca maha-premotsavam yacchati
yesham hanta kutarka-karkasha-dhiyam tatrapi natyadarah
sakshat purna-rasavatarini harau dushta ami kevalam (45)

"When Lord Gauranga advented in this world, He infused a great festival of love in the hearts of all the living entities by distributing His causeless mercy to everyone in the form of His Holy Names by speaking with them, by mildly smiling at them, by showing His lotus face to them and affectionately glancing at them from afar. In this way Lord Gaurahari exclusively brought and distributed the personification of the full nectarean mellows of pure devotional service. Thus, those who despite having received so many magnificent gifts directly from Him still refuse to respect and gratefully worship Him as the Supreme Lord and Pastimes must be considered ill-fated, speculative and hard-hearted persons."
(This verse was composed by Srila Prabhodananda Saraswati, who was a hitaharivamsa sannayasa from Srirangam of Sri Sampradaya).

Do you see our position. We cannot turn our backs on our Guru Parampara, for whom we have the highest respect. They are our life and wealth.

Thanks swamy, will go through the commentary, seems like a good one.....whatever is in accordance with vedam, is the authority and whoever have commented without crossing a word of vedam is also authority

 

[Terese]

Gaudiyas, tell me of your philosophy, Achintya bheda Abedha. How different is it from other sampradayas?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Gaudiyas, tell me of your philosophy, Achintya bheda Abedha. How different is it from other sampradayas?

Thank you terese mataji. I will give you a brief overview of the Acintya Bheda-abheda siddhanta and its relationship with other philosophies. If I wrongly portray the philosophy of another sampradaya, I would kindly request others to correct me, where I have made an error as I have not studied extensively the commentaries of Srila Ramanujacharaya,Madhavacharaya or the other heads.

Okay, so I will begin with the Kevala-Adwaita vada philospohy of Srila Sankaracharaya. Srila Sankaracharya says that there is no difference between the jiva (soul) and Brahman, and that the jiva is simply Brahman superimposed by Maya. Sankaracharaya's conclusion is that the ultimate truth is impersonal and that by the attainment of brahma-jnana (knowledge about the supreme) the jiva can realise its true nature as Brahman and thus attain Moksha. The Gaudiyas (as well the other Vaishnav sampradayas) disagree with this philosophy for reasons I have given before.

Vaishnav Sampradayas

The Dvaita-Vada of Sripad Madhvacharya can be seen in some ways as the polar opposite of Sankaracharya, in that it says that the jiva and Brahman are eternally separated entities. Madhavacharya's conclusion is that the ultimate truth is personal and is Sri Hari (Lord Visnu) and His Avatars. This conclusion (of the supremacy of Sri Visnu Tattva) is shared by the Vaishnav Sampradayas.

The Visista-advaita of Srila Ramanujacharya says the energies of Sri Hari interact within the cosmic manifestation, and each keeps its separate individual existence. Merging in the material or spiritual energies, therefore, does not involve loss of individuality. Although all the energies of the Lord are one (adwaita ), each keeps its individuality (vaisistya). Your flair says you are a Sri Vaishnav, so I am sure you know these things far for than me.

The Suddha-advaita of Srila Visnu Swami considers that the Jiva is one with Brahman however unlike Sri Sankaracharaya's definition, Visnu Svami says that the Jivas are fragmented parts of the whole Sri Krsna. They also view Maya as a real energy of Krsna and not an illusion. This sampradaya is continued today under the teaching of Srila Vallabhacharya through the teachings of Pusti-Marg.

The Dvaitadvaita of Srila Nimbarkacharya defines existence as composed of Ishwara (Sri Krsna), Cit (the Jiva) and Acit (Maya). Cit and Acit are both dependent on Iswara, Sri Krsna, who is independent. Cit and Acit however different from Ishwara in that they have different qualities to Him.

Now, the first two of these Sampradayas (Brahma and Sri) consider the absolute truth as Sri Narayan or Maha Visnu who is situated in Sri Vaikuntha alongside His eternal associates such as Sri Laxmi-devi. They worship Him in the mood of aishwarya or "awe and reverence". The latter two however consider the absolute truth as Sri Krsna who exists in Goloka Vrindavana alongside Srimati Radharani. They worship Him in the mood of madhurya or "sweetness". Now please understand that these two conclusions are not contradictory. In terms of pure tattva, all forms of Visnu are equally potent, and it is only when we Gaudiyas look at things in terms of rasa (devotional mellows) that there is a difference (see below). There are also other branches (I don't know whether they are authoritative or not) such as Ramanandis (which is branch of Ramanuja's sampradaya) who worship Lord Ramachandra.

Now coming to the Acintya-bhedabheda of Srila Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. This philosophy was fully expounded in the Sat Sandarbhas of Srila Jiva Goswami in a very logical manner and can be found here. The six Goswamis of Vrindavan were Lord Chaitanya's spiritual successors and continued His work, by writing hundreds of books as well as discovering the lost places of Vrindavan:

(You can see them here sitting so sweetly discussing Hari-Katha )

Now, according to us Gaudiyas, the Jiva is both one and different from the absolute truth Sri Krsna. Just like sparks coming from a fire, or the rays of the sun can be called qualitatively one, yet quantitatively different for its source; similarly the Jiva is a minute particle of the Marginal energy of Sri Krsna which is infinite and non-different from Him. Srila Jiva Goswami uses the following verse of Srimad Bhagavatam to form the basis of our philosophy:

"vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate"

"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān" (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2)

When the Vedas describes absolute truth as "impersonal", this refers to the Brahman or Brahmajyoti. It is from this Brahmajyoti feature (also called the marginal potency) that the souls appear. In light of this, Vedic statements such as "aham-brahmasi" and "tat tvam asi" make sense in that the jiva is manifest from the Brahmajyoti. The second feature of Sri Krsna is called Paramatma (supersoul) and in this feature, the Lord pervades and exists within every atom of material creation, regulating it. Furthermore the Paramatma also manifests within the body, acting as a friend and companion to the Jiva (as proved by the Shvetashvatara Upanisad), giving her (the Jiva) the fruits of her karma. Now, Sri Krsna Himself, when He is situated in his internal potency (swarupa shakti) is called Bhagavan being the source of both the Brahmajyoti and Paramatma. This is put into perceptive by Srila Krsna das Kaviraja Goswami:

"yad advaitaṁ brahmopaniṣadi tad apy asya tanu-bhā
ya ātmāntar-yāmī puruṣa iti so 'syāṁśa-vibhavaḥ
ṣaḍ-aiśvaryaiḥ pūrṇo ya iha bhagavān sa svayam ayaṁ
na caitanyāt krṣṇāj jagati para-tattvaṁ param iha"

"What the Upaniṣads describe as the impersonal Brahman is but the effulgence of His body, and the Lord known as the Paramatma (supersoul) is but His localized plenary portion (expansion). He, Lord Chaitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa Himself, full with six opulences. He is the Absolute Truth, and no other truth is greater than or equal to Him"

According to Lord Chaitanya, the Karma-kandhis (fruitful workers) worship the Paramatma feature for Bhukti (or material benefits). The Jnana-kandhis (speculative workers meditate on the Brahman feature for Mukti (liberation from material pains). The highest path however is to surrender to the personal aspect of the Lord as Sri Krsna and the highest attainment in this regard is Krsna Prema (or divine love for Krishna). Only this (Krsna Prema) can constitute the Highest religion, and only this can satisfy the soul. Because the souls is a fragment of the bliss-full Godhead, only Divine Bliss achieved in Bhakti can satisfy it. This is confirmed in Srimad Bhagavatam by Sutadeva Goswami Himself:

"sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo
yato bhaktir adhokṣaje
ahaituky apratihatā
yayātmā suprasīdati"

"The supreme religion [dharma] for all humanity is that by which men can attain to loving devotional service unto the transcendent Lord. Such devotional service must be unmotivated and uninterrupted to satisfy the soul" (S.B 1.2.6)

The best way to do this is to perform Hari-Nama Sankirtan (this is accepted by all Sampradayas actually) as the Name of Sri Krsna is not different from Sri Krsna Himself, and therefore by the singing, chanting and hearing of His name, pure love (Prema) is awakened in the heart. No other spiritual process can cause the awakening of this Prema otherwise.

Now, I just want to clear up this Krsna vs Visnu dilemma. In terms of Tattva (philosophical consideration), there is no difference in the various incarnations of Lord Visnu. All of them have the same potency as they all established in their Bhagavatattva (or Godliness) . In fact devotees in different moods will always see their form of the Lord as highest. However, in terms of Rasa (devotional mellows) the divine qualities of Godhead are manifest in different degrees in the different avatars of Sri Hari. In the Gaudiya consideration, Madhurya rasa (the Lord as Sri Krsna; situated in sweetness) is superior to Aiswairya rasa (the Lord as Narayan, situated in opulence) and therefore Sri Krsna is superior in terms of rasa vicara. Here acintya bheda-abheda can also be applied, as though Narayan and Sri Krsna are one (abheda) they are also inconceivably different (bheda). Furthermore, Srila Jiva Goswami quotes the verse "Krsna tu bhagavan swayam" as the paribhasa sutra (or the ultimate basis) of Bhagavatam and through that establishes that Sri Krsna is the source of Narayana in accordance with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

According to us Gaudiyas, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the combined form of Radha Krsna themselves and Has descended to teach us these truths.This truths were only made manifest by the order of His brother, Lord Nityananda, whom we Gaudiyas conciser non-different to Balaram. Nitai!

 

[kalyan]

Thanks swamy, will go through the commentary, seems like a good one.....whatever is in accordance with vedam, is the authority and whoever have commented without crossing a word of vedam is also authority

Please the below for the Govinda Bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana on Vedanta Sutra:

http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Vedic Texts/Vedanta-sutra/commentaries/Govinda bhasya/Vedanta sutra with Govinda Bhasya.pdf

Seems like a very good book, recommend this for other vaishNavas, although I agree with these things, at the same time, I standby the statement with condemning of upanishads like çhaitanya upanishad and like, not because of arrogance but because of falsity of such fakes and these have no place in vedam...

 

[kalyan]

Although all the energies of the Lord are one (adwaita ), each keeps its individuality (vaisistya)

Small correction here , visista advaita is advaita in the sense, brahman is only one (advaitam) but it is composed of other parts 'Prakriti and the 'jIva' just like when we call a person say "come here Ramu', you are calling the entire 'Ramu'' as a person along with his legs, body, head and all the other parts. So when we say brahman is composed of parts, combined(visistam) its called visistam (this does not refer to vaisistya which means different), visistam means ''combination of' in sanskrit.......So these 3 different entities jIva, prakriti and paramaatma are in each and every thing in the universe, advaitam and visistam at the same moment--visista advaitam

Sri Krsna is the source of Narayana

Wrong and not vedic and not in line with any of vedantic acharya, Sri Krushna is a paripoorna avatara but he comes from VishNu only, Sri KrushNa is an avatara and avataras all have start and end dates fixed by bhagawan himself, after that again vishNu only remains. For example in this kali yuga we don't see Krushna as a vibhava avatara but we see vishNu in the form of archa avatara or the deity form.

Lord Chaitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa Himself,

This is the basic problem I have, attributing avatarhood to a person with no vedic background or backing.

 

[kalyan]

the Jiva is both one and different from the absolute truth Sri Krsna

different how in terms of how ? svaroopa or svabhava, are you saying jIva comes from Krushna where you described as one ?

 

[kalyan]

Interestingly see this wiki link
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baladeva_Vidyabhushana --book you referred me
the wiki entry shows this :

Around this time, a vaishnava sect known as Ramanandi sect, in the court of the king Sadacari Raja at Jaipur, Rajasthan, complained that as the Gaudiya Vaisnavas had no commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, they were not qualified to worship the Deity and therefore the worship should be turned over to the them. They also objected to the worship of Srimati Radharani along with Sri Krishna as not being authorized anywhere in the shastras.

This is the same objection that was raised in this topic multiple times.

Also the vedantic sutra commentary was given only from visista-advaitic perspective as this does not seem to contain any achintya-bheda-abheda references at all. Correct me if you found any such reference in the given book...This also proves one thing, up until 18th centrury there is not even a single commentary on any vedantic sutra by gaudiya faith .... am i wrong in making this assertion ?

 

[Chakra]

Now, the first two of these Sampradayas (Brahma and Sri) consider the absolute truth as Sri Narayan or Maha Visnu who is situated in Sri Vaikuntha alongside His eternal associates such as Sri Laxmi-devi. They worship Him in the mood of aishwarya or "awe and reverence". The latter two however consider the absolute truth as Sri Krsna who exists in Goloka Vrindavana alongside Srimati Radharani. They worship Him in the mood of madhurya or "sweetness".

I just wanted to point out this one misconception that seems to be rampant among Gaudiyas these days. We do not worship Vishnu with "awe or reverence", it's completely possible to worship him in "madhurya" rasa. Sri Andal would be a good example. The story of Thirumalaisai Alvar is also relevant because the Alvar told the archa-avatar of Vishnu to get up from his serpent bed and follow him, and that's what Vishnu did! Vishnu and He also switched names! One final example would be how Poigai Alvar, Bhoothathalvar, and Peyalvar were all in a house together. Then they saw Vishnu knocking on the door, smiling and hoping to be with his devotees. The Alvars refused, but after seeing Vishnu's smile transform in a sad frown, they let him in!

I'm sure the Madhva sampradayas have their own examples. Conclusion is that Vishnu is as playful and clever as Krishna (they are the same person after all).

In fact devotees in different moods will always see their form of the Lord as highest. However, in terms of Rasa (devotional mellows) the divine qualities of Godhead are manifest in different degrees in the different avatars of Sri Hari.

Is this primarily a Gaudiya thing? I know some SV worship only Ranganatha, or Venkateshwara, or Rama, but they never see one form as "higher" than the rest.

 

[kalyan]

gaudiya concept of golakas as being some eternal realm is not mentioned in vedam while Sri Maha Vishnu residing with his 3 eternal consorts 'Sree, Bhoo and Neela' devis is in vedam and the vedam gives beautiful description of Sri Vaikuntam....I am confused on achintya bheda abheda(may be tattvaprah can explain this better) and the concept of golakas as how it sprang into existence with no reference from vedam....Part of my manas tells me due to worship of Sri Krushna as the supreme godhead which he is, they want to stay in the dwapura yuga itself enjoying Krushna leelas, if you look from that perspective it is beautiful, constantly meditating on the infinite times infinite leelas of Sri Krushna but the only thing i cannot accept is trying to prove existence of someone by modifying verses of bhagawatham

 

[निताइ dasa]

Thank you for your questions prabhujis. Please understand that the responses that I am giving here are our conceptions.

Wrong and not vedic and not in line with any of vedantic acharya

I have given the verse which Srila Jiva Goswami quotes to establish this concept (that Sri Krsna is the source of Visnu). As per our understanding, "eta caamsa kalah pumasa, Krsna tu swayam bhagavan" (from Bhagavatam) proves that the source of Visnu is Krsna. Our interpretation is valid, espcially when this is viewed as the Paribhasa Sutra of Bhagavatam. Other sampradayas have other readings on this, so let us agree to disagree here also.

This is the basic problem I have, attributing avatarhood to a person with no vedic background or backing.

The Goswamis that wrote these commentaries also made several references to the Avatar of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as ratikala ji posted. The reason that you do not accept them (calling it fraud, changing of Bhagavatam etc) is because you do not have faith in the Goswamis like we do. Since the Goswamis have quoted the verses establishing Lord Chaitanya's avatarhood in their respective commentaries we accept them as authentic That is how every parampara dhara works. Furthermore the verses quoted do not contradict the Bhagavatam but assert it. Srila Madhavacharaya and Srila Ramanujacharya would have no need to quote the verses because their Bhasyas were concerned with establishing their siddhantas, while Jiva Goswami from the very beginning of his Bhagavatam Sandarbha makes it a special need to proof the authenticity of Lord Chaitanya. For your infomation I will post a verse here that is held authoritative by all sampradayas:

"krsna-varnam tvisakrsnam
sangopangastra-parsadam
yajnaih sankirtana-prayair
yajanti hi su-medhasah" (SB 11.5.32)

krsna-varnam (one who speaks the name of Krsna), tvisakrsnam (but who is not black, i.e golden as per the descriptions of Yuga-avatars in Bhagavatam), sangopangastra-parsadam (alongside His associates, who are His weapons), yajnaih sankirtan-prayair (will establish the sankirtan yagna), yahanti hi su-medhasah (only the most intelligent will be able to understand Him and follow this process).

From this verse, the Gaudiyas read that there will be an incarnation in Kaliyuga, one who will establish Sankirtan and whose body will be golden (not black, as established by Garga Muni). For us this prophecy is fulfilled by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who is also known as Gauranga (one whose limbs are golden).

different how in terms of how ? svaroopa or svabhava,

The Brahmajyoti, or the marginal potency of Lord Hari which is infinite has fragmented minuscule portions call the Jivas. We are same in terms of svabhava but still different because the qualities do not manifest to such a great degree in jivas, while they manifest to their fullest in Lord Hari. The Jivas are Sat-Cid-Ananda, but to a very minute degree.

Also the vedantic sutra commentary was given only from visista-advaitic perspective as this does not seem to contain any achintya-bheda-abheda references at all.

I don't understand what you are saying. The Govinda Bhasya is establishing acintya bheda-abheda, so it does not need ot refer to the idea it is establishing. Yes many ideas are borrowed from visista-advaitic but many ideas are also unique. Now for why this commentary was posted so late. As I said before, we Gaudiyas accept Srimad Bhagavatam as the natural commentary on Vedanta. Only when other Vaishnavs attacked our authencity was the Govinda Bhasya written. Otherwise Baladeva Vidyabhusanji would not have written it at all.

it's completely possible to worship him in "madhurya" rasa.

Yes and I respectfully bow to your opinion, however this is where we Gaudiyas differ. According to us, Vaikuntha is in aishwairya where everyone is aware that Narayan is Ishwara (as in Vaikuntha Narayan manifests aishwarya qualities like four-armed form etc). In such a location Madhurya cannot manifest. Yes, Sri Visnu can be playful, but even that does not constitute Madhurya. Madhurya rasa is only manifest in Sri Krsna because he possess four qualities (rupa madhuri, venu madhuri, gita madhuri, lila madhuri) which are not manifest in Lord Visnu (though He possess them). This difference in the conceptions can be found in Bhagavatam:

nāyaṁ śriyo ’ṅga u nitānta-rateḥ prasādaḥ
 svar-yoṣitāṁ nalina-gandha-rucāṁ kuto ’nyāḥ
rāsotsave ’sya bhuja-daṇḍa-gṛhīta-kaṇṭha-
 labdhāśiṣāṁ ya udagād vraja-vallabhīnām

"When Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was dancing with the gopīs in the rāsa-līlā, the gopīs were embraced by the arms of the Lord. This transcendental favor was never bestowed upon the goddess of fortune or other consorts in the spiritual world. Indeed, never was such a thing even imagined by the most beautiful girls in the heavenly planets, whose bodily luster and aroma resemble the lotus flower. And what to speak of worldly women who are very beautiful according to material estimation?

When we read these first, we understand that though Krsna and Narayan are the same, there are differences between them, as even Sri Lakshmi was not allowed entry into the rasa lila, as her conception is of Aishwarya while Sri Krsna in Vraja is Madhurya. Let us agree to disagree here.

gaudiya concept of golakas as being some eternal realm is not mentioned in vedam

Descriptions of Goloka Vrndavana can be found in Brahma Vaivarta Purana as well as Brahma Samhita (which we Gaudiyas concider authorative). I will post the respective verses here:

goloka-nāmni nija-dhāmni tale ca tasya
devi maheśa-hari-dhāmasu teshu teshu
te te prabhāva-nicayā vihitāś ca yena
govindam ādi-purusham tam aham bhajāmi

"Lowest of all is located Devī-dhāma [mundane world], next above it is Maheśa-dhāma [abode of Maheśa]; above Maheśa-dhāma is placed Hari-dhāma [abode of Hari] and above them all is located Krishna's own realm named Goloka. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who has allotted their respective authorities to the rulers of those graded realms" (Brahma Samhita 5.43)

This is also where our previous disagreement came from regarding Mahesh Dhama. According to us, (and these verse) Mahesh dhama is located between Maya Jagat and Vaikuntha.

Again these concepts do not contradict with the Vedic version, and since the our previous acharayas quote these verses, they are authoritative to us.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Is this primarily a Gaudiya thing

Yes, because as far as I am aware, Rasa Vichara cannot be found in any other Sampradaya. By rasa vichara I mean the categorisation of the different moods, forms, sthalis and emotions by which one can approach Lord Hari. The primary rasa categorication of Santa, Dasya, Sakhya, Vatsalya and Madhurya as we Gaudiya's understand it, cannot be found in the commentaries of any other sampradaya (please correct me if I am wrong).

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Kalyan ji , .....

prabhu ji why are you refering to my reply to Aupmanyav Ji , ......?

why are you not adressing the questions l put to you , ... ?

and why do your remarks seem to be none of the questions raised in either post , ....?

As for your bhakti movement in the west, who cares really ?

what a strrange and irreverant remark , .....

who cares , ...the spiritual master of my own Guru ji who sent him from Bharat here to England , just like Srila Prabhupada ji's Gurumaharaji sent him to the United States , .... they both cared enough ! ...and both deciples cared enough to follow the wishes of their respective Guru ji's

why did their Guru ji's have ths wish ? , ....why because same Paramatma lives in the the Britisher , ..in the Indian and in a Dog , ....and Sanatana Dharma existed before these boundaries of countries existed , it exitsted before the advent of Christianity and Before the advent of Islam , ....

yesus or mahamad have more following in the west or like but they are only humans that have done many mistakes like us, there is no redemption for the people following them atleast in this birth because they are running after some cult which was established on many unreal grounds.

shows how little you Know , ... there is also a very large Indian comunity in Britan , it is also important for them to be able to Continue their traditions , ....actualy the westerners following Viasnavism are now in the minnority compaired to the following of first second and third generation Indians who have been able to continue to live by the principles of Sanatana Dharma thanks to the likes of those that came here to fulfill their Guruji's wishes , ....

I can only say one thing, shankara, bhaskara , prabhakara, ramanuja ,madhva these are all established acharyas, there is no mention of a character called 'chaitanya' anywhere up until recent 18th century or so and the injections like chaitanya upanishad, promoting avaidik acts only makes me think, that there could not be any character called chaitanya in the first place and the so called gaudiya faith did not establish something new and so established chaitanya has no works to his name except a weak work in which he says already we know, there is NOT even a single vedantic sutra commentary,

if this is so please tell me why these two Madhava Sanyasis acept Srila Prabhupada to be Madhava sampradaya ?

laughably they tried to vandalize the great scriptures like bhAgawatham, thank god you did not try to prove chaitanya in Bhagawadgita. This vandalism of vedic texts, avaidik acts promoting fake upanishads should have to be to promote a fake character that did not exist in the first place, using a little logic it should be clear by now,...A true vaishnavite or vaishnavism is about respecting the VEDAM and the acharyas who are the walking VEDAM, condemning the avaidik acts wherever necessary, the gaudiya is hiding behind the barb of vaishnavism and it is completely anti-vedic promoting false upanishads and this kind of false avaidik faith will only lead one to the paths of destruction.

No , this is no laughing matter , what you are doing is destructive , ....please go back and read the two letters I posted , ...If Madhava Sanyasis can accept Gaudiyas , ....and I quote , ......

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji
Car Street, Udupi

Sri Prabhupada has accepted Sri Madhwacharya as his "Acarya."

He has put manure and water to the seed sowed by Sri Madhwacharya. Sri Prabhupada is responsible for the spread of the branches of the tree of "Bhakti cult" all over India. It is the duty of all Madhwas to recognize the sadhana of Vaishnavite Sri Prabhupada.

It is true that there is a difference between "Chaitanya school" and "Madhwa school." In spite of the difference between the two schools of thought, one has to look into the similar thoughts that exist between the two. Therefore, the followers of these two cults should never blame each other nor envy each other.

One should not use bad words on the other. One should respect the other and vice-versa. All Madhwas should unite themselves.

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji

​

then equaly all vaisnavas sould be able to accept the true nature of this gaudiya tradition , ...

I emplore you Prabhu ji to go back and read these letters , ....

​

​

 

[निताइ dasa]

@Terese mataji, I hoped my initial post answered your questions. If you have any more, please feel free to ask, before the post becomes drowned by debate.

 

[Chakra]

Yes, because as far as I am aware, Rasa Vichara cannot be found in any other Sampradaya. By rasa vichara I mean the categorisation of the different moods, forms, sthalis and emotions by which one can approach Lord Hari. The primary rasa categorication of Santa, Dasya, Sakhya, Vatsalya and Madhurya and we Gaudiya's understand it, cannot be found in the commentaries of any other sampradaya (please correct me if I am wrong).

It may be true that we didn't categorize the different moods, but I think we accept the existence. I think a Shri Vaishnava goes through all the moods, and doesn't limit himself to just a one. The Alvars are a good example. I think I will need to read the Divya Prabandham (which is unfortunately in Tamil) to verify this, though.

Yes and I respectfully bow to your opinion, however this is where we Gaudiyas differ. According to us, Vaikuntha is in aishwairya where everyone is aware that Narayan is Ishwara (as in Vaikuntha Narayan manifests aishwarya qualities like four-armed form etc). In such a location Madhurya cannot manifest. Let us agree to disagree here.

I know that you mean well here, and are just following the teachings of your Acharyas...but doesn't this claim ultimately result in an offense against the Great Vishnu? You are saying that Vishnu and Vaikuntha, the divya mandala desired by true jnanis, are limited to just aishwarya rasa? Vishnu, who has been proclaimed as the infinite and immeasurable by Bhisma, Shiva, Brahma, Narada, Suka, Vyasa etc, cannot display Madhurya rasa? What makes you think this, especially when 1) Vishnu and Krishna are the same and 2) Vishnu has been addressed in a "madhurya" mode by many Vaishnavas. Periyalvar even sings lullabies to the awesome Trivikrama avatar!

I think you are needlessly creating differences between forms of the lord. As far as I know, there is no shastric evidence to support that one form is higher than the other. If you do not accept the Alvars, then that is no problem. Lakshmi must surely be in an intimate relationship between Vishnu, yes? I respect your Krishna bhakti, but even Krishna will be astonished to see you proclaiming that his other forms are lower than his beautiful and youthful flute-playing form when they are all the same Narayana.

Please do not take this post as confrontational or offensive.

 

[kalyan]

namaskaram Kalyan ji , .....

prabhu ji why are you refering to my reply to Aupmanyav Ji , ......?

why are you not adressing the questions l put to you , ... ?

and why do your remarks seem to be none of the questions raised in either post , ....?



what a strrange and irreverant remark , .....

who cares , ...the spiritual master of my own Guru ji who sent him from Bharat here to England , just like Srila Prabhupada ji's Gurumaharaji sent him to the United States , .... they both cared enough ! ...and both deciples cared enough to follow the wishes of their respective Guru ji's

why did their Guru ji's have ths wish ? , ....why because same Paramatma lives in the the Britisher , ..in the Indian and in a Dog , ....and Sanatana Dharma existed before these boundaries of countries existed , it exitsted before the advent of Christianity and Before the advent of Islam , ....



shows how little you Know , ... there is also a very large Indian comunity in Britan , it is also important for them to be able to Continue their traditions , ....actualy the westerners following Viasnavism are now in the minnority compaired to the following of first second and third generation Indians who have been able to continue to live by the principles of Sanatana Dharma thanks to the likes of those that came here to fulfill their Guruji's wishes , ....




if this is so please tell me why these two Madhava Sanyasis acept Srila Prabhupada to be Madhava sampradaya ?



No , this is no laughing matter , what you are doing is destructive , ....please go back and read the two letters I posted , ...If Madhava Sanyasis can accept Gaudiyas , ....and I quote , ......

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji
Car Street, Udupi

Sri Prabhupada has accepted Sri Madhwacharya as his "Acarya."

He has put manure and water to the seed sowed by Sri Madhwacharya. Sri Prabhupada is responsible for the spread of the branches of the tree of "Bhakti cult" all over India. It is the duty of all Madhwas to recognize the sadhana of Vaishnavite Sri Prabhupada.

It is true that there is a difference between "Chaitanya school" and "Madhwa school." In spite of the difference between the two schools of thought, one has to look into the similar thoughts that exist between the two. Therefore, the followers of these two cults should never blame each other nor envy each other.

One should not use bad words on the other. One should respect the other and vice-versa. All Madhwas should unite themselves.

Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji

​

then equaly all vaisnavas sould be able to accept the true nature of this gaudiya tradition , ...

you are talking about the recent developments that happened in last couple of centuries and I am referring to earlier lost period. Attaching one to madhva does not give him right to umbrella all gaudiya faith under madhva philosophy.



​

​

not sure of your questions, but these letters don't mean anything, there is not even a single vedantic sutra commentary by any gaudiya before 18th century, what does this prove of earlier gaudiyas?
attaching something to madhva philisophy does not give them right to umbrella all the gaudiya faith under madhva

 

[kalyan]

Descriptions of Goloka Vrndavana can be found in Brahma Vaivarta Purana as well as Brahma Samhita (which we Gaudiyas concider authorative)

i have quoted multiple times on this subject, nitai daasa you are saying my shastram and your shastram and also you seem to quote from puranas which are rejected by Shankaracharya. I do not think no one is in any position to reject shankara categorization.

By rasa vichara I mean the categorisation of the different moods, forms, sthalis and emotions by which one can approach Lord Hari. The primary rasa categorication of Santa, Dasya, Sakhya, Vatsalya and Madhurya as we Gaudiya's understand it,

you would be surprised, alwars are considered greater than the acharyas and rishis who have done penance for years and attained their power by doing sAdhana, this is sAdhya bhakti, but for alwars it is siddha bhakti.......Periya alwar in numerous occasion assumes the form of yashoda to Krushna and goes deep inside that state, without alwars Sri Krushna is not there, such is their prema and this is a vast subject I would not like to cover here.

r the marginal potency of Lord Hari which is infinite has fragmented minuscule portions call the Jivas.

this paramounts for you saying that jIvas are an element of Krushna which goes against first sutra in 2nd chapter of Bhagawadgitai

 

[निताइ dasa]

.but doesn't this claim ultimately result in an offense against the Great Vishnu?

That is okay prabhu, I respect your Bhava, so I take not offense .

No it is no offence to Maha Visnu (at least when our acharyas said it. If I appear condescending in anyway please forgive me. I am simply giving the opinion of our Goswamis).In terms of tattva we see no difference between Narayan and Krsna. However it is the manifestations of the qualities of Godhead which matter. Only in Vrndavana can certain qualities manifest, while in Vaikuntha different qualities manifest You see, in Vaikuntha, everyone worships Sri Narayan as God Himself, knowing Him to be the supreme truth. In all the interactions between the devotees of Lord Visnu and His devotees (in scripture at least) the devotees understand Lord Narayan to be good, and their stutis and prayers show this. In Vrndavana however, no-one is aware that Sri Krsna is God. When He lifted Govardhan, then Nanda and Yashoda even then could not accept that Sri Krsna was the absolute truth. In this way we worship Sri Krsna, as God, but in a very Human-Like form. Lord Narayan is always manifesting a 4 armed form.

Anyway, I don't want to attack your belief and the deep bhava you have for Maha Visnu. Let us agree to disagree here.

 

[निताइ dasa]

i have quoted multiple times on this subject, nitai daasa you are saying my shastram and your shastram and also you seem to quote from puranas which are rejected by Shankaracharya. I do not think no one is in any position to reject shankara categorization.

Prabhu, shankaracharya though respected by us, does not hold any authority over us. Why should we hold Him an authority when Madhavacharya, the head of our diksha line at every step aimed to refute his kevala adwaita vada? If He did any authority over us, then we would whole heartedly accept his philosophy of Kevala-Adwaita vada and become Smartas. This kind of logic you are using is called ardha kukkurka nyaya. You accept the bits of Sankaracharya that are in accordance with your view and reject that which isn't. If he is an authority, then why don't you convert to an adwaita-vadi? Furthermore, how is Srimad Bhagavatam rejected by Sankaracharya? True he did not write any commentaries on it, but through his various astakams (govindastakam in particular) we know that he had read and also respected the words of Bhagavatam. For us Sridhara Swami is the authority on this matter.

this paramounts for you saying that jIvas are an element of Krushna which goes against first sutra in 2nd chapter of Bhagawadgitai

I may have not been clear sorry. The Jiva comes from the Tathasta Shakti of Sri Krsna, which is one of his energies. Since His energies are non different from Him (Shakti Shaktimator abheda), the Jivas by result come directly from Sri Krsnas effulgence. In fact in Gita Sri Krsna says that the material existence is constituted of 2 energies, Para (superior, i.e the Jiva) and inferior (maya).

 

[kalyan]

That is okay prabhu, I respect your Bhava, so I take not offense .

No it is no offence to Maha Visnu (at least when our acharyas said it. If I appear condescending in anyway please forgive me. I am simply giving the opinion of our Goswamis).In terms of tattva we see no difference between Narayan and Krsna. However it is the manifestations of the qualities of Godhead which matter. Only in Vrndavana can certain qualities manifest, while in Vaikuntha different qualities manifest You see, in Vaikuntha, everyone worships Sri Narayan as God Himself, knowing Him to be the supreme truth. In all the interactions between the devotees of Lord Visnu and His devotees (in scripture at least) the devotees understand Lord Narayan to be good, and their stutis and prayers show this. In Vrndavana however, no-one is aware that Sri Krsna is God. When He lifted Govardhan, then Nanda and Yashoda even then could not accept that Sri Krsna was the absolute truth. In this way we worship Sri Krsna, as God, but in a very Human-Like form. Lord Narayan is always manifesting a 4 armed form.

Anyway, I don't want to attack your belief and the deep bhava you have for Maha Visnu. Let us agree to disagree here.

ok swamy, finally what we want, a better state, moksham after death of physical body, let us all chant the divine names of sri Hari to bring happiness to him for giving us the opportinity to sing his holy names..........Whatever that helps in that direction is ALL good............let us respect all and worship our own and serve all beings as service to god...#Respect

Hare Krushna