Question regarding ISKCON...

[Aupmanyav]

Because under maya we have forgotten the truth and are 'nitya-baddha'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This idea of Krishna being the source of Vishnu is peculiar to Eastern Indian (Bengal region) Vaishnavas - probably created by Jayadeva, a 12th Century Bengali poet.

Sri La Jayadeva was not wrong as indicated by his 'Dashavatara stotra' where he enumerated the avataras. Hari is Vishnu, therefore, 'Jai Jagadish Hare'.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Maybe @तत्त्वप्रह्व can come and add the Tattva-vadin views.

(Caution: People may get offended reading this). Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

Given that you are already aware of the academic position, i will only discuss from my own experience.
The tattvavāda view is based primarily on the vedas, pancarātras, and the itihāsas, viz., the bhārata and the mūlarāmāyaṇa. By the time of Śri Madhva, the purāṇas were predominant, and his bhāgavata-tātparya-nirṇaya synthesizes portions that appear misleading with the veda-pancarātra system of theology, theosophy and the cosmogony given that most original pancarātras were soon disappearing and purāṇas undergoing interpolations. The pancarātra theology, can be considered as a mixture of polytheism+monotheism, yet not exactly henotheism, and follows the vyūha-system which takes the central place in Śri Madhva's philosophy. The dvādaśa (12), caturviṁśati (24), panchāśat (50), śata, and sahasra-rūpa vyūhas emanate from Nārāyaṇa thru' the caturvyūhas. The daśa avatāras similarly emanate from the vyūhas, not to mention other avatāras mentioned in the bhāgavata itself. The vyūha system is elaborated in upaniṣad-bhāṣyas, anusandhāna of gayatri, puruṣa-sūkta, and omkāra and relevant portions from the samhitas and purāṇas too are employed to underscore unanimity from śatra's perspective. Such is the centrality of vyūha system in tattvavāda.

So when brahma-samhita says īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, Kṛṣṇa is indeed the greatest because He is no different from Nārāyaṇa. Imagining difference/inequality between one form and another is therefore an aparādha. In the same way for tattvavādins it is not only alright to worship Śiva as Saṅkarṣaṇa but is also enjoined. Now the crux which actually differentiates tattvavāda from other schools is that every jīva has a unique form of Nārāyaṇa referred to as the biṁba-rūpa of which the respective jīva is a pratibiṁba, it is by realizing this rūpa alone that the respective jīva achieves mokṣa. Nevertheless, each form is equal to Nārāyaṇa in all respects. For me, there can be no better synthesis of the objective and the subjective. Jīvas' current state of bandha and ajñāna is anādi, but not necessarily nitya, only dependence on the biṁba-rūpa is nitya and therefore bheda is nitya, because the pratibiṁba is not owing to a prakṛta-upādhi (such as manas/ahaṁkāra) but the very cit of the jīva.

Kṛṣṇa of the mahābhāratha can create say, 100 Nārāyaṇas and Nārāyaṇa can create Kṛṣṇa from a strand of His hair, so can Paraśurāma or Buddha the jina-suta or Datta - the principle of neha nānāsti kincana. But the śastras are unequivocal about the vyūha system, so if at all there are stray references that appear to contradict they need to be interpreted in context.

Now consider what bhāgavatam itself says:
jagṛhe pouruṣaṁ rūpaṁ bhagavān mahadādibhiḥ | saṁbhūtaṁ ṣoḍaśakalāmādau lokasisṛkṣayā |1/3/1
yasyāṁbhasi śayanasya yoganidrāṁ vitanvataḥ | nābhihradāṁbujādāsīdbrahmā viśvasṛjāṁ patiḥ |1/3/2
That the original puruṣa with 16 kalās is the śeṣaśāyi Nārāyaṇa is unmissable. It continues enumerating the various avataras and says this about Kṛṣṇa:
ekonaviṁśe viṁśatime vṛṣṇiṣu prāpya janmanī | rāmakṛṣṇāviti bhuvo bhagavānaharadbharaṁ |1/3/23
... having born among the vṛṣṇis, known as Rāma and Kṛṣṇa...
then,
tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya suradviṣāṁ | buddho nāmnā jinasutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati |1/3/24
In the kaliyuga in order to mislead those with hatred for suras, (He) will be born as Buddha, the son of jina in the kīkaṭa - around magadha.
The problem doesn't arise until Kṛṣṇastu bhagavān svayaṁ is forcefully lifted out of context without considering that by bhagavān śeṣaśāyi Nārāyaṇa is already indicated in the first verse, thus only cogent interpretation being that śeṣaśāyi Nārāyaṇa is Kṛṣṇa too.

W.r.t. yuga-avatāra, tattvavāda's position is that only three yugas have avatāra, all karma is surrendered to Kṛṣṇa as He is the immediate prior avatāra, skipping Buddha, because His mission was to mislead the asuras. Technically, even the Buddha avatāra is in the yuga-sandhi period.

The four sampradāyas, all valid, position is not accepted in the tattvavāda school. Bheda between bhinnāṁśas (jivas), abheda amongst svāṁśas (vyūhas and avataras) are eternal.

Now the discord between tattavāda & ISKCON, as pointed out in the paper is on latter's claim on "Brahma-Madhva" sampradaya and yet digression from it in terms of philosophy, which has historical antecedents in that acintya-bhedābheda was supposedly challenged by some north Indian school forcing Baladeva to write his own bhāṣya on the sūtras. Like posited in the paper, both acintya and saviśeṣābheda are terms used by Śri Madhva, but the acintya-bhedābheda is not a natural extension of the concepts. I think tensions would never arise if the ISKCON and related schools simply accept Śri Caitanya as their first guru and consider the beginning of their school from thence rather than try and trace it to Śri Madhva while at the same time holding contradictory views, if it is only to fit into the scheme of four sampradāyas.

As an aside you might find this interesting: The Two Bhagavatas - Dr. S. Srikanta Sastri | Official Website

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Chakra]

Hare Krishna Asha-ji

I think you are saying the same thing "Jiva falls from Vaikuntha"..The difference being only in Semantic. Dreaming=Fall? If not What is fall?

Also it is said that the Misuse of Free Will lead to the Falldown of Jiva from Spiritual Platform. Now if all Jivas have similar svabhava then why do they end up making different choices and end up in varying degrees of karma?



thanks and regards
Ash

Actually, Vishistadvaita also believes that the jivas have the same svarupa, ie we are exactly identical. We explain this by the theory of Dharma Bhuta Jnana. We all have a Dharma Bhuta Jnana but it expands and contracts depending on the jiva, which results in different tastes.

Hey guys,
I've tried researching and haven't find any actual objective evidence for some of ISKCON's claims. What I mean is that one website says that Krishna, Vishnu, and Rama are all equal, while another website says that Krishna is superior to Vishnu. I would humbly request the ISKCONites here or anyone knowledgeable on the issue to tell me the ISKCON position on these topics:

1) Does ISKCON believe that Krishna is not the incarnation of Vishnu?
2) Does ISKCON believe that the jiva fell from Vaikuntha?
3) Does ISKCON believe that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was the Kali Yuga incarnation (for example, one website stated that each yuga has an incarnation, and Mahaprabhu is the incarnation for this Yuga) or do they believe that Chaitanya was a "hidden" incarnation?
4) Does ISKCON believe that all 4 Vaishnava sampradaya are all true (for example, one website said that all 4 sampradayas are equal while one said Achintya is the most correct)?
5) Does ISKCON believe that there were two Buddhas and Gautama Siddhartha is not Vishnu's incarnation?

If need be, I can pull up the websites, but I don't think that will be necessary (and also quite time-consuming for me, since I don't take note of which websites I browse). These are the only questions I have right now, but if I have more, I will post them later on. Not asking for any proof if the claims are real, I just want to know ISKCON's positions on each claims. Also, quotes from any ISKCONite literature or from Prabhupada's lectures would help a lot.

Thanks and Hare Krishna.

Here is the Sri Vaishnava viewpoint for a couple of these.

1) Krishna is a form of Vishnu which is also supreme and completely equal to Vishnu. We agree with the Tattva-vadins on that.
2) No falling. We have been in samsara eternally and have never been with Vishnu.
4) Some parts of each sampradaya may be true, but ancient Vishistadvaitins (and almost every single ancient Vedantin) believed that although other philosophies are quite glorious, but their philosophy alone is 100% Vedic and 100% acceptable to Vyasa.
5) Gautama Siddharta was a shaktyavesha avatar of Vishnu.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Axlyz ji

OK, here are the links.

1) Who's First: Vishnu or Krishna? | Back to Godhead
In this website, it states that Krishna, Vishnu, Narasimha are all avataras, so I was confused because Krishna was the supreme in GV.

Krsna , ...Visnu , Narayana , Narasimha , ....all aspects of the same 'one supreme', ....Avatara simply decends so you are seeing one aspect of an incomprehensably vast eternal Whole , each avatara is in responce to a situation and are as different as our moods yet still they are us , ....you have read many posts writen by me but still you do not know me you know only my responce to a momentary situation , ....

2) 1-Residents of Vaikuntha never fall down | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram
Website saying jiva DID NOT fall from Vaikuntha. Note the bold phrases.

interestingly enough this isnt an ISKCON website it is Gaudiya Math , ....not that that efects the topic under discussion , ......I would agree with this , ...no no one ever falls down !

3) This is actually just from my mind. I've read some random websites that say there is class of avataras called Yuga-Avatars. So I guessed Mahaprabhu was the Yuga Avatar from this age. But then some said that Krishna only comes in 3 yugas and takes a secret incarnation in Kali. So I just wanted clarification.

most consider Yuga avatara to be Kalki , ..who will liberate at the end of Kali yuga , ..

4) This is also from my mind. I know that ISKCONites hold great reverence for Vaishnava saint-philosophers like Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Vedanta Desika, Jayatirtha etc, and also go to the extent of saying that they are 100% true and capable of liberation. There are some who say that while all of these are equal, Achintya is still the most Vedic. It's the same thing when ISKCONites say they come from Dvaita philosophy, but in reality, their philosophy and the Tattva-vada of Madhva are not the same. For example, here is a paper that shows the differences between both. (Caution: People may get offended reading this). Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

interestingly enough the Gaudiya site above gives a polite reply to this sad peice of noncence , yes it is offensive illinformed and un realised , .....it is better not to read such sites , ..please read the reply given .........

Tattvavada & Gaudiya Siddhanta | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

5) Stephen Knapp was the one who made me think that there are two Buddhas, but then reading several ISKCON websites (it's a while ago, so no browser history ) many glorify Gautama Buddha as THE Buddha.

yes, ... many glorify lord Buddha , ...this is quite sufficient

yes Stephen Knapp puts forward some interesting topics but he is hardly authorative , a little more speculative , ...sensationalism sells books , ...like ''Christianity and the Vedic teachings with in it '', ....''Jesus taught Bhakti yoga'', ...some may find this a tad offensive also , ...by all means read with an open mind but do not count as authorative , ...

prehaps it was this, ..... Were There Two Buddhas?

 

[ratikala]

Earlier it was Shiva vs. Vishnu, now it is Vishnu vs. Krishna. I don't like any. It can only harm Hinduism. Let us get together.

Jai jai , , ...I have a sugestion , ...Chant and be happy

 

[Stormcry]

) No falling. We have been in samsara eternally and have never been with Vishnu.

If the worldly existence is without beginning, there wouldn't be an end also. Because logically only beginning has an end. If we have never been with Vishnu, it means our original position is this Samsara.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram तत्त्वप्रह्व, ji

Given that you are already aware of the academic position, i will only discuss from my own experience.
The tattvavāda view is based primarily on the vedas, pancarātras, and the itihāsas, viz., the bhārata and the mūlarāmāyaṇa. By the time of Śri Madhva, the purāṇas were predominant, and his bhāgavata-tātparya-nirṇaya synthesizes portions that appear misleading with the veda-pancarātra system of theology, theosophy and the cosmogony given that most original pancarātras were soon disappearing and purāṇas undergoing interpolations. The pancarātra theology, can be considered as a mixture of polytheism+monotheism, yet not exactly henotheism, and follows the vyūha-system which takes the central place in Śri Madhva's philosophy. The dvādaśa (12), caturviṁśati (24), panchāśat (50), śata, and sahasra-rūpa vyūhas emanate from Nārāyaṇa thru' the caturvyūhas. The daśa avatāras similarly emanate from the vyūhas, not to mention other avatāras mentioned in the bhāgavata itself. The vyūha system is elaborated in upaniṣad-bhāṣyas, anusandhāna of gayatri, puruṣa-sūkta, and omkāra and relevant portions from the samhitas and purāṇas too are employed to underscore unanimity from śatra's perspective. Such is the centrality of vyūha system in tattvavāda.

Forgive me for saying this but isnt the academic position allways changing , always being refined , ....and each Achariya himself refining his own understanding thus refining the understanding of the day , ...therefore should ant one theological position remain in aspic , ....?

are we not somerimes missing the thread which runs through all theology , ...?

and in this way Lord Krsna instructs Arjuna , ....

''O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.''
BG 7.7

then each math , ...each thological position , may be likened to the pearl and Sri Krsna the one that unites them , ...
therefore we should not argue as each math exists purly for the glorification of the lord , we sholld not be looking for the differences between Maths , we should be glorifying the mission of each , ....and what we must ask was the mission od Madavachariya , and what similarity does this have with the mission of Ramanujacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu , ........Madhavacharya installesd Udupi Krsna presented to him on the sea shore by fisherman , .....Ramanuja installed the self manifest form of Visnu which apeared to him from an ant hill ....and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu installetd Krsna in the form of the holy name into the heart of all who joined him , ....

should we not concentrate upon this aspect of each math the concurrent thread being the apperance and worship of Krsna ?

should we not glorify these forms rather than seperate ourseved from one another by arguing on the philosopical fine points of each tradition ???

So when brahma-samhita says īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, Kṛṣṇa is indeed the greatest because He is no different from Nārāyaṇa. Imagining difference/inequality between one form and another is therefore an aparādha.

jai jai

W.r.t. yuga-avatāra, tattvavāda's position is that only three yugas have avatāra, all karma is surrendered to Kṛṣṇa as He is the immediate prior avatāra, skipping Buddha, because His mission was to mislead the asuras. Technically, even the Buddha avatāra is in the yuga-sandhi period.

to re establish Dharma

Now the discord between tattavāda & ISKCON, as pointed out in the paper is on latter's claim on "Brahma-Madhva" sampradaya and yet digression from it in terms of philosophy, which has historical antecedents in that acintya-bhedābheda was supposedly challenged by some north Indian school forcing Baladeva to write his own bhāṣya on the sūtras. Like posited in the paper, both acintya and saviśeṣābheda are terms used by Śri Madhva, but the acintya-bhedābheda is not a natural extension of the concepts. I think tensions would never arise if the ISKCON and related schools simply accept Śri Caitanya as their first guru and consider the beginning of their school from thence rather than try and trace it to Śri Madhva while at the same time holding contradictory views, if it is only to fit into the scheme of four sampradāyas.

what contradictory veiw ....all installed krsna in the heart and promoted the worship of Sri Hari !!!

 

[Amrut]

Hey guys,
I've tried researching and haven't find any actual objective evidence for some of ISKCON's claims. What I mean is that one website says that Krishna, Vishnu, and Rama are all equal, while another website says that Krishna is superior to Vishnu. I would humbly request the ISKCONites here or anyone knowledgeable on the issue to tell me the ISKCON position on these topics:

1) Does ISKCON believe that Krishna is not the incarnation of Vishnu?
2) Does ISKCON believe that the jiva fell from Vaikuntha?
3) Does ISKCON believe that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was the Kali Yuga incarnation (for example, one website stated that each yuga has an incarnation, and Mahaprabhu is the incarnation for this Yuga) or do they believe that Chaitanya was a "hidden" incarnation?
4) Does ISKCON believe that all 4 Vaishnava sampradaya are all true (for example, one website said that all 4 sampradayas are equal while one said Achintya is the most correct)?
5) Does ISKCON believe that there were two Buddhas and Gautama Siddhartha is not Vishnu's incarnation?

If need be, I can pull up the websites, but I don't think that will be necessary (and also quite time-consuming for me, since I don't take note of which websites I browse). These are the only questions I have right now, but if I have more, I will post them later on. Not asking for any proof if the claims are real, I just want to know ISKCON's positions on each claims. Also, quotes from any ISKCONite literature or from Prabhupada's lectures would help a lot.

Thanks and Hare Krishna.

Namaste,

I will try to answer some questions. I agree with @Madhuri ji

1. Yes
2. GV's dont, but newest ISKCONites do. they cite e.g. of Jaya and Vijay falling. Mostly it's western ISKCONites perspective. However, Srila Prabhupada has also said that though Jaya nad Vijaya did fall from VAikuntha, they did sofor joinging in Lord's Lila, else it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuntha.
3. some say he was incarnation of both Krishna and Radha.
4. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is said to have adapted 2 logics from all 4 schools and then created the best among them. Technically, all schools strive hard to prove their siddhAnta and so they cannot completely agree with other schools, else there is no point in creating another sampradAya based on a different siddhAnta. dvaita cannot accept VA position of jIva w.r.t to ISvara.
5. Stephan Knap did believe. dont hav emuch info.

The reason for believing Krishna as original source is due to 2 reasons

1. In BP it is said Krishna tu svayam bhagavan
2. viShNu is different from caturbhuja viShNu. caturbhuja viShNu is the deity of perservation who is just 1/4th part of original viShNu brahman. This main viShNu is called as Brahman, nArAyaNa, hari, janArdana, keSava, vAsudeva etc. though the names are used interchangeably, whenever any avatAra is eulogized as supreme brahman, it is not the deity of preservation but the source of all.

viShNu purANa gives us hints

Vishnu, the creator of Trinity

VP 1.2.1-2: srI parASarajI said – the one who is the cause of brahmA, viShNu (hari) {deity of preservation} and Sankara and assumes the forms of brahmA, viShNu {deity of preservation} and Sankara for the creation, preservation and destruction of the world (or universe). And who helps his devotees to swim the ocean of samsAra i.e. transcend his devotees beyond samsAra (this transcient world), that changeless, pure, indestructible, paramAtmA, always one and uniform (ekarasa), completely victorious (sarvavijayI), my salutations to bhagavAn vAsudeva viShNu.

Purusha is the first form of Paramatman

VP 1.2.15: O dvija ! (twice born), puruSa is the first form of paramAtmAn, unmanifested [prakruti] and manifested [mahada, etc] are his other forms. And since [this form] is adorned by all, kAla (time) is the topmost / best form (paramarUpa).

VP 1.22.23: [That] janArdana divides itself into four parts while creating and preserving the universe and by dividing itself in four forms destroys the world.

VP 1.22.24-25: With one part becomes unmanifested brahmA ji, with second part marici, etc prajApati, [lord's] third part is kAla and fourth is all beings.

VP 1.22.26-27 Then that puruShottama with support (getting in tune with) sattva guNa preserves the world. During that time, from first part [1], viShNu [deity of preservation] form preserves the world, with second part, assumes the form of manu, etc and from third assumes the form of kAla (time) and from forth is present in all bhUta-s (all bodies, i.e. is present everywhere).

VP 1.22.28-29: and in the end [when time for destruction of universe has come], that unborn bhagavAn taking AdhAra (support) of tamo guNa (tamas guna), with one part takes rudrarUpa, with second [part] agni (fire) and form of death, with third kAla and with fourth stays in all bodies and worlds (omnipresence)

and so on...

According to bhAgavat purANa, there is one trinity for each brahmANDa and viShNu / nArAyaNa is the source of everything.

viShNu bhagavAn is the most nearest svarUpa of brahman

viShNu purANa says,

VP 1.22.61: all powerful viShNu is the para-svarUpa (higher form) of brahman and is manifested who is contemplated by yOgI-s before entering into yOga.

VP 1.22.62: O muni-s ! Whose mind is properly concentrated with continuous practice, attains 'Avalamban-yukta sabIja mahAyOga'. [1] O the fortunate one! the sarvabrahmamaya [2] [viShNu bhagavAn] is the foremost among all the parASakti and is the most nearest mUrta-brahmasvarUpa (manifested form of brahman)

[1] yOga attained by taking help of name and form i.e. manifested form of brahman.

Avalamban means support. Here it means that those who meditate properly with one-pointedness on the form of viShNu attains union. Since these yOgI-s take support of a 'form', hence their achievement is called as Avalamban-yukta. sabija could mean 'that with form' as beej is a form of manifestation. beeja also means garbha i.e. source or mAyA or lower brahman (lower brahman is explained in Gita BG 8.20).

[2] sarvabrahma-maya means 'completely identified with brahman'

Source: Gita Press, Hindi translation, page 109

btw, GV's or may be ISKCONites do believe that mahA viShNu = sadA Siva ( I was told by a GV who revers Srila Prabhupada and is now aligning with ISKCONites)

rudra / Siva are guNAvtara of kruShNa (Krishna)

Apologies if someone finds Advaitic tinge. Cant help myself

Hari OM

 

[shivsomashekhar]

what contradictory veiw ....all installed krsna in the heart and promoted the worship of Sri Hari !!!

This is religious Universalism, where the various differences among belief systems are ignored and only the common elements are taken into account to arrive at the conclusion that all religions are the same and equally valid.

However, Indian traditions - including Vaishnava traditions - do not hold this view. This is true for Chaitanya too, who disapproved of Nyaya (the logic school) and Advaita. The primary reason for the founders of these traditions to develop specific doctrines was to convey the truth - which was not to be found in other traditions. So, regardless of our own personal views - it is evident that they held exclusive views.

Consequently, if I profess to follow a certain belief system and yet claim universal validity of all belief systems, I am actually disagreeing with the founder and the doctrine. As an example, the above position paper of Tattavavada on Iskcon clearly says that Tattvavada is the only way to the truth (as stated by Sri Vadiraja). Therefore, if a Tattvavadin claims all Vaishnava beliefs are equally valid, he is no longer true to Tattvavada.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Circular logic. Replace Bible with VP.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

We have been in samsara eternally and have never been with Vishnu.

Is there a viewpoint in one of the two schools of VA which holds that in the beginning, the jīvas are given an option to choose their karma and from then on it is simple cause & effect?
W.r.t. this, the tattvavāda school's position is that jīvas' innate svabhāva drives their desires and actions, the fruition enabled by His Will. So during praḷaya, even though the creation as such doesn't exist, the jīvas continue in a state of unconsciousness unaware of their even being. and it is this ajñāna that is anādi but not necessarily nitya.

Because logically only beginning has an end. If we have never been with Vishnu

Not necessarily, for example, say one has ₹100 in his pocket, but is completely unaware of it. So it is as good as not having it and dispossession of it was a natural state until he happens to be say, reminded by someone that it is there. So that which was hitherto (anādi) not a possession suddenly becomes one. So the lack of money that would have been without a beginning, ends with the knowledge/awareness of it. Also, the awareness not only destroys the ignorance, but persists even after owing to continued realization that one possesses it.

interestingly enough the Gaudiya site above gives a polite reply to this sad peice of noncence , yes it is offensive illinformed and un realised , .....it is better not to read such sites , ..please read the reply given .........

Tattvavada & Gaudiya Siddhanta | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

Forgive me for saying this but isnt the academic position allways changing , always being refined , ....and each Achariya himself refining his own understanding thus refining the understanding of the day , ...therefore should ant one theological position remain in aspic , ....?

No need to apologize Ratikala ji, i used the term academic in that the paper was presented as such. Śri Madhva's views have been elaborated, yes, but in manners consistent with the core philosophy. There are difference of opinions on calculation of nakṣatras within tattvavāda schools, but in terms of theology and philosophy there is as much unanimity as there was in the 13th century. The gaudiya claim of being an offshoot is unfounded, because with the adoption of govinda bhāṣya, it essentially is a different school. Whereas you have difference of opinion within the gaudiya system (obvious in the forum itself), the integrity of Śri Madhva's system has stood the test of time. The Govinda bhāṣya itself is inspired by both Śri Madhva's and Śri Rāmānuja's bhāṣyas and there are some incongruences too, but by differing from the two schools, it becomes a different school.

I'm not sure if you see your viewpoint as universalism, but assuming you limit it to within hindu-traditions, i feel it can be referred to as micro-universalism. Of course, there is no need to specify, but its only human to think thru' conceptual categories. I think Shivsomashekhar ji's post covers my viewpoint.

The position you are presenting, as i understand is thus:
AB, CD, EF, GH are different schools, and all are correct, in that they have certain similarities. XY has a viewpoint which too has similarities with others and is therefore correct. AB differs from and disagrees with XY and therefore those points of AB are sad piece of nonsense, offensive, ill-informed, and un-realised. XY school doesn't believe in dialectics because dialectics are stupid arguments, pretentious, et cetera, but doesn't shy away from engaging in it whenever possible. So ultimately XY is the most correct and others are correct to the extent of their similarity to XY.

Now by the yardstick you propose Ratikala ji, if i were to analyze the website endorsed Validity of the Gaudiya parampara and Madhvacarya | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

It is the opinion of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas that the teachings of Sri Madhva-acarya are a vital step in the evolution of theism which culminates in the philosophy of divine love expounded by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

This suggests that C's philosophy is better than Śri M's, so this is a pretentious claim.

We do not claim to be a great vidvan (scholar), nor do we claim to have much knowledge in philosophy and history.

Yet we will venture into publishing expert comments on those which we don't have much knowledge under the 'pretentious' blanket of gurubhakti to Baladeva who is not there to provide testimony if the spirit of his letters are presented as is.

Our Tattvavadi friends have referred to Madhva’s commentary on the Vedanta-sutras as ‘exhaustive’, inferring that there is nothing else to be said on the subject. We therefore raise the question, why did Jaya Tirtha write his Tattva Prakasika commentary to Madhva’s Vedanta-sutra-bhasya? Why did Raghavendra Tirtha write his Tattva Manjari commentary on the Anu-bhasya of Madhva? Why did Trivikrama need to write his Tattvapradipa commentary? In fact, all of the works of Madhva-acarya have been commented upon by many acaryas following in the Dvaita line.

Now this gentlemen, doesn't know the difference b/w writing explanatory sub-commentaries and writing a different bhāṣya, yet considers himself knowledgeable enough to question sūtra-bhāṣyas - sounds very pretentious to me.

It is not that Sri Caitanya rejected Madhva’s philosophy (2), rather, he rejected the erroneous, distorted dogma which had entered the sampradaya of Madhva-acarya at that time.

Isn't this as good as telling my understanding is better than yours? So naturally, stupid arguments.
If you posit that the author was only responding to the tattvavādi website's position, the latter too was only responding to propaganda by ISKCON and related organizations.

I think, whereas, it is nice and courteous to hold that all are right and present a face of altruism, when it comes to actual practice, most of them choose to give it as good as they get. The wise can always see beyond the garb of fake humility whose only intent is to subversively assert one's idea. For me, i'd prefer being forthright in what i accept as correct and respectfully disagree with opposing views than present an artificial stance which is not natural to me. The website you've endorsed can be refuted using the same vitaṇḍa the author uses, but the author knows it and accepts the differences, and is acting in his best interest in propagating his view. I have nothing against such a view for he is entitled to it, as the tattvavāda school is in espousing its position. The current state is no doubt awkward, which is why there is all the more need for resuscitating the disappearing vāda - dialectical - system to emerge out of such online mudslinging and engage in worthwhile pursuit of truth with full intellectual honesty.

are we not somerimes missing the thread which runs through all theology , ...?

At least Śri Madhva doesn't see or accept any such thread which makes all theologies fundamentally and essentially the same. His position is very precise and clear with no scope for such alternative interpretations that can contradict each other. His opinion is that most other schools have missed both the thread and the pearls.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram

This is religious Universalism, where the various differences among belief systems are ignored and only the common elements are taken into account to arrive at the conclusion that all religions are the same and equally valid.

I am greatly saddened as it would seem that you have not understood what I was trying to say , ....or that you have no respect for vaisnavas or for Krsna .

ratikala said: ↑
what contradictory veiw ....all installed krsna in the heart and promoted the worship of Sri Hari !!!

is it so wrong for all vaisnava's to hold the worhip Krsna in common ?

As far as I am concerned It would be better if we concentrated more upon the worship and love of the Sri Hari and less time arguing over sectarian divides ?

Consequently, if I profess to follow a certain belief system and yet claim universal validity of all belief systems, I am actually disagreeing with the founder and the doctrine. As an example, the above position paper of Tattavavada on Iskcon clearly says that Tattvavada is the only way to the truth (as stated by Sri Vadiraja). Therefore, if a Tattvavadin claims all Vaishnava beliefs are equally valid, he is no longer true to Tattvavada.

I am not claiming a universalist veiw point , .....I am just fed up with a wedge being driven between Vaisnava traditions who dispite some differences also have much in common , .....''all installed Krsna in the heart and promoted the worship of Sri Hari !!!''

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

[QUOTE="तत्त्वप्रह्व, post: 4215320, member: 55730"

No need to apologize Ratikala ji, i used the term academic in that the paper was presented as such. Śri Madhva's views have been elaborated, yes, but in manners consistent with the core philosophy. There are difference of opinions on calculation of nakṣatras within tattvavāda schools, but in terms of theology and philosophy there is as much unanimity as there was in the 13th century. The gaudiya claim of being an offshoot is unfounded, because with the adoption of govinda bhāṣya, it essentially is a different school. Whereas you have difference of opinion within the gaudiya system (obvious in the forum itself), the integrity of Śri Madhva's system has stood the test of time. The Govinda bhāṣya itself is inspired by both Śri Madhva's and Śri Rāmānuja's bhāṣyas and there are some incongruences too, but by differing from the two schools, it becomes a different school.[/quote]

Please Prabhu , ...I am not so much appologising as begging to differ as politely as I can because I dissilke being offensive , ...you men can argue under guise of academic discussion , ....but it is not fitting for a woman to argue , however when the Deva is disrespected , ones sampradaya questioned or ones Guru is insulted , then I Forget my gender , ...and I will fight back , ...

I'm not sure if you see your viewpoint as universalism, but assuming you limit it to within hindu-traditions, i feel it can be referred to as micro-universalism. Of course, there is no need to specify, but its only human to think thru' conceptual categories. I think Shivsomashekhar ji's post covers my viewpoint.

Universalism , ...micro universalism ??? ..what because I dont want to perpetuate divides and comitt apradha's, ...and prefer to focus upon the devotional aspect of Viasnavism ?

The position you are presenting, as i understand is thus:
AB, CD, EF, GH are different schools, and all are correct, in that they have certain similarities. XY has a viewpoint which too has similarities with others and is therefore correct. AB differs from and disagrees with XY and therefore those points of AB are sad piece of nonsense, offensive, ill-informed, and un-realised. XY school doesn't believe in dialectics because dialectics are stupid arguments, pretentious, et cetera, but doesn't shy away from engaging in it whenever possible. So ultimately XY is the most correct and others are correct to the extent of their similarity to XY.

I think you do not understand my position in the least , ...
please listen whilst I politly try to explain , ....I am not presenting any AB , ..AX, .. or any such position I gave a link to a page refuting the link , ....and I did not read it past the first few lines as I am fed up with the arguments , I am fed up with the apradha's...and the ''pretention''

did you read the original link posted by Axalyz ji , ...he warned that it was offensive , ...and yes it was offensive and some other things on the site were even more offensive than the page linked to , ...After reading I felt sick , ..and I warn you I am still sick and Angry ,.....

this thread initialy asked those with experience or knowledge of ISKCON's veiw to comment on a list of questions , ..it now seems that those outside the sampradaya in question know more than those within it , ....which is just about typical for this forum , ...why I even bothered to answer I dont know I should have remained silent .

Now by the yardstick you propose Ratikala ji, if i were to analyze the website endorsed Validity of the Gaudiya parampara and Madhvacarya | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

I am not proposing anything you may read it or not the choice is yours , but if you read it just to amass amunition to fire around then nothing will be acheived . I am just suggesting that there may be two sides to any argument .

This suggests that C's philosophy is better than Śri M's, so this is a pretentious claim.

did it actualy say '' better '' ? .....or is this your wording ..?

Yet we will venture into publishing expert comments on those which we don't have much knowledge under the 'pretentious' blanket of gurubhakti to Baladeva who is not there to provide testimony if the spirit of his letters are presented as is.

Now this gentlemen, doesn't know the difference b/w writing explanatory sub-commentaries and writing a different bhāṣya, yet considers himself knowledgeable enough to question sūtra-bhāṣyas - sounds very pretentious to me.

Isn't this as good as telling my understanding is better than yours? So naturally, stupid arguments.
If you posit that the author was only responding to the tattvavādi website's position, the latter too was only responding to propaganda by ISKCON and related organizations.

the posts on their website rendered them no better that those they criticise as far as I am concerned it is an apradha

I think, whereas, it is nice and courteous to hold that all are right and present a face of altruism, when it comes to actual practice, most of them choose to give it as good as they get. The wise can always see beyond the garb of fake humility whose only intent is to subversively assert one's idea. For me, i'd prefer being forthright in what i accept as correct and respectfully disagree with opposing views than present an artificial stance which is not natural to me. The website you've endorsed can be refuted using the same vitaṇḍa the author uses, but the author knows it and accepts the differences, and is acting in his best interest in propagating his view. I have nothing against such a view for he is entitled to it, as the tattvavāda school is in espousing its position. The current state is no doubt awkward, which is why there is all the more need for resuscitating the disappearing vāda - dialectical - system to emerge out of such online mudslinging and engage in worthwhile pursuit of truth with full intellectual honesty.

and if the wise were truely wise they would also recognise sincere humility and learn to differenciate , ..and if the wise were truely wise they would not cling to veiws that impede their devotion ...

At least Śri Madhva doesn't see or accept any such thread which makes all theologies fundamentally and essentially the same. His position is very precise and clear with no scope for such alternative interpretations that can contradict each other. His opinion is that most other schools have missed both the thread and the pearls.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

I think like Shivsomashekhar , you have chosen to missunderstand My intended meaning .......

And if as you say Madhavacharya is of the opinion that ''that most other schools have missed both the thread and the pearls.'' ...does that mean that no one understands the Gita except him self ...?
if we are being streight forward with each other , .then I may be honest about my fellings and say that surely your claim is just a tad pretentious ?

 

[ratikala]

@axlyz ji

namakaram

I am very sorry , ...I regret replying to this thread , I undersand that your initial questions were posed in good faith , however I am greatly saddened by the lack of genuine interest and willingness that some have to listen to anothers perspective without having to resort to philosopical attack .

I am also deeply sadened by the apparent lack of devotional tollerence , I am not happy with this attitude that if one is not prepaired to constantly oppose anothers veiw then one must be either stupid or a univeraslaist ?

.....time to go listen to Bhajans , ....in otherwords .....I'm out of here Prabhus

 

[Chakra]

I think there is a lot of animosity because of the link-sharing of very acerbic articles.

Just a couple of things:

1) Vedantins did believe that their view alone was correct. As a very wise friend told me, Ancient advaitins/Vishistadvaitins/Dvaitins: "We respect people belonging to all schools of philosophy, but we strongly believe that our view is the only one that is 100% true and is 100% acceptable to Vyasa."

2) This does not mean that you hate people from the opposite sampradaya. For example, Vidyaranya and Vedanta Desika were great friends, although they were the head of their sampradaya and were philosophical opponents. The Madhva and Ramanuja sampradaya in particular have a very friendly relationship, as both are basically the same but with some differences (as said by Desikan). Madhvas and Sri Vaishnavites live together in complete peace and prosperity.

3) Even though Jayatirtha criticized Vishistadvaita, Sri Vaishnavas have a lot of respect for him. Similarly, Tattva-vadins also have a lot of respect for Vedanta Desika. We may not have the same philosophies, but know for sure everyone, that neither side (VA or T) has engaged in insulting maha-bhagavatas or Bhagavan. This is only a recent phenomenon.

4) And here is my attempt to get @ratikala -ji back...let's see if it works...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let all sorrows and differences dissolve in the deities.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

namaskaram

and if the wise were truely wise they would also recognise sincere humility and learn to differenciate

Certainly, but am sure, you'll agree that there are some who are only faking humility and you know the institutions i intend to refer to.
I'm sure you'd also agree that not responding appropriately in the face of unprovoked deva, guru, sampradāya nindā would certainly cause impediment in devotional progress. Otherwise, you'll rarely find anyone from the tattvavāda school getting into discussions/debates, but overtime, the disinformation about tattvavāda school of thought has spread unscrupulously and most of the responses are from individuals - there is still no organized effort on this. Many of the Mādhva youths were disillusioned if ISKCON's propaganda was true, and if not, why is there no refutation of any sort from tattvavāda school. The heads of different mutts perhaps had a discussion with representatives from ISKCON, but when it continued, the article was published, the rationale for it being called position paper. I am giving you all the background just so that you don't end up thinking all that tattvavādins do is engage in debates, this is one of the most commonly (mis)represented picture of tattvavāda. Tattvavāda school, in fact, has no interest in propaganda - even as of 2015, the only way one can gain understanding of tattvavāda is by approaching a guru. Even the websites that are online only have elementary books / essays. The biggest propaganda you might come across are compositions and bhajans from Purandaradasa, mostly in Kannada. Most won't even know he was a Mādhva.

The fact that commentaries were composed is to emphasize that those presented hitherto were wrong. If Śri Madhva had found all other schools had already covered what was to be told, he wouldn't have wasted his time writing a bhāṣya and a tātparya nirṇaya and followed by sub-commentaries by many of his successors. I don't think that it was pretentious, because he didn't say, i agree with everyone, but still my viewpoint is better. He said i respectfully disagree, and this is what i think is correct, and this is why other interpretations are wrong. I only see uncompromising sincerity.

I don't think anyone on the forum has an iota of disrespect towards your viewpoint Ratikala ji; only respectfully disagreeing with opposing viewpoints is most universally applicable common belief within hindu traditions. Like i've reiterated many times, just because i disagree with you, doesn't mean i have any disrespect towards you. There is absolutely no diatribe involved in the discussions. For eg., Aup ji as an advaitic-atheist is the polar opposite of my conviction, and i sincerely have no acrimony against him. You are a Vaiṣṇava with Kṛṣṇa-bhakti. I hope you don't stop contributing your different and enriching views.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[ratikala]

namaskram prabhu ji's

I will return to the converstaion when someone can be delighfull enough to reply to some of the potentialy uplifting aspects of this conversation .....or must we allways concentrate upon and prepetuate arguments ?

''O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.''
BG 7.7

then each math , ...each thological position , may be likened to the pearl and Sri Krsna the one that unites them , ...
therefore we should not argue as each math exists purly for the glorification of the lord , we sholld not be looking for the differences between Maths , we should be glorifying the mission of each , ....and what we must ask was the mission of Madavachariya , and what similarity does this have with the mission of Ramanujacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu , ........Madhavacharya installesd Udupi Krsna presented to him on the sea shore by fisherman , .....Ramanuja installed the self manifest form of Visnu which apeared to him from an ant hill ....and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu installetd Krsna in the form of the holy name into the heart of all who joined him , ....

but no , ...I am told that only Mahavachariya understands this verse , ...which makes everyone else fools , ..and suggests that no buddhi can manifest in any other acharya after his demise ???

At least Śri Madhva doesn't see or accept any such thread which makes all theologies fundamentally and essentially the same. His position is very precise and clear with no scope for such alternative interpretations that can contradict each other. His opinion is that most other schools have missed both the thread and the pearls.

I am not interested in philosopical inturpretations all this does is inflame rajas and tamas , ...in this case pride and ignorance , ...I am only interested in pure love of Hari , ...does that make me a dirtyword , ...universalist or non Hindu , .....?


I ask these questions again , ....

should we not concentrate upon this aspect of each math the concurrent thread being the apperance and worship of Krsna ?

should we not glorify these forms rather than seperate ourselves from one another by arguing on the philosopical fine points of each tradition ???

 

[ratikala]

Certainly, but am sure, you'll agree that there are some who are only faking humility and you know the institutions i intend to refer to.
I'm sure you'd also agree that not responding appropriately in the face of unprovoked deva, guru, sampradāya nindā would certainly cause impediment in devotional progress. Otherwise, you'll rarely find anyone from the tattvavāda school getting into discussions/debates, but overtime, the disinformation about tattvavāda school of thought has spread unscrupulously and most of the responses are from individuals - there is still no organized effort on this. Many of the Mādhva youths were disillusioned if ISKCON's propaganda was true, and if not, why is there no refutation of any sort from tattvavāda school. The heads of different mutts perhaps had a discussion with representatives from ISKCON, but when it continued, the article was published, the rationale for it being called position paper. I am giving you all the background just so that you don't end up thinking all that tattvavādins do is engage in debates, this is one of the most commonly (mis)represented picture of tattvavāda. Tattvavāda school, in fact, has no interest in propaganda - even as of 2015, the only way one can gain understanding of tattvavāda is by approaching a guru. Even the websites that are online only have elementary books / essays. The biggest propaganda you might come across are compositions and bhajans from Purandaradasa, mostly in Kannada. Most won't even know he was a Mādhva.

The fact that commentaries were composed is to emphasize that those presented hitherto were wrong. If Śri Madhva had found all other schools had already covered what was to be told, he wouldn't have wasted his time writing a bhāṣya and a tātparya nirṇaya and followed by sub-commentaries by many of his successors. I don't think that it was pretentious, because he didn't say, i agree with everyone, but still my viewpoint is better. He said i respectfully disagree, and this is what i think is correct, and this is why other interpretations are wrong. I only see uncompromising sincerity.

I don't think anyone on the forum has an iota of disrespect towards your viewpoint Ratikala ji; only respectfully disagreeing with opposing viewpoints is most universally applicable common belief within hindu traditions. Like i've reiterated many times, just because i disagree with you, doesn't mean i have any disrespect towards you. There is absolutely no diatribe involved in the discussions. For eg., Aup ji as an advaitic-atheist is the polar opposite of my conviction, and i sincerely have no acrimony against him. You are a Vaiṣṇava with Kṛṣṇa-bhakti. I hope you don't stop contributing your different and enriching views.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

some feign Humility as it does not come naturaly this happens in all traditions , this in it self is a part of the learning process , ..through Feining humility one eventualy will eventualy gain true humility , as fruit ripens from ones actions .

however I am surprised that this is the only point you can find to answer , ....

if you want uncompromising sincerity I will start another post to address some of the issues raised here but please note I am not here to defend any ignorance on the part of ISKCON but to defend the Gaudiya tradition from the degredation of such apradha's .....

it is my greatest hope that not all tattvavadins are not like this , ..but it is also my greatest hope that other Math's do not veiw all Gaudiyas are like that !