Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by IamNotHeeHee


    I never said there is no difference. I said "I cannot see any contradiction".
    Haribol Prabhuji, so you are so much filled with love that you do not see any contradiction. You see only Krishna and therefore you see the north and the south pole in the same place. How nice :)


    Do you see others contradicting your posts? If you don't, I wonder why you keep clarifying and responding to their contradictions. If you do see the objections, wonder where did Krishna dissappear?

  2. This discussion is going round in circles and Gaudiyas are reading too much into the caste system of India. Here is a clarification from my perspective --


    • There are 4 varnas - brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, shoodhra.
    • All 4 varnas are needed in our society for it to thrive.
    • Maadhvas have high regards and pay homage to great souls who were born in different varnas and demonstrated their qualities through Bhakti, Jnana, and Vairagya.
    • Such souls are recognized by aparoxa jnanis such as Sri Vaadiraja, Sri Vyaasathirtha, and a host of god-realized saints in the parampara.
    • Maadhvas pray to Lord Rama and Krishna who were born as non-Brahmins.
    • Although such exalted souls and the Godhead were born into non-brahmin varnas, they never changed their varnas to that of brahmins.
    • If brahminism was the highest point to be reached, Lord Krishna would have claimed himself to be a Brahmin inspite of him born into a Yadava dyansty.

    Don't you Gaudiyas believe Parashurama to be an incarnation of the Lord? Parashurama taught only Brahmins which made Karna to come in the guise of a Brahmin boy and learn from him. Once Parashurama realized that Karna was a kshatriya and lied to him to gain the powerful knowledge, he cursed him that his knowledge will one day be his nemesis.


    In brief --


    • One cannot achieve anything great by simply changing one's varna.
    • Some Brahmins may display qualities of other varnas and other varnas may have qualities of Brahmins.
    • There is no way of identifying with 100% certainity that one definitely belongs to a certain varna no matter how pious they act.
    • The qualities of such souls can only be recognized by god-realized saints. An average Joe like me cannot determine such qualities.
    • Sri Madhvacharya has prescribed the salvation path to every saathvika soul born into any class unlike other Acharyas who say only Brahmins are the highest class and deserve the Lord's grace.


  3. Shiva, thank you for publishing these letters. I was unaware that this issue was taken so further up to the head of the ashtamutts.


    I agree with the Pontiffs that we need to respect others beliefs and not resort to blame. I agree with them that there are differences and there are common grounds.


    After reading through the position papers in the Dvaita website, I get a feeling that there was nothing personal, but an attempt to show that there needs to be some reform done so to not blemish the ideals of Maadhva sampradaya. I assume the Gaudiyas visited Udupi and complained to the Swamijis and portrayed Maadhvas as envious attackers. This is what happens when one cannot win on the issues. It appears that the letters dictated by the Swamijis are more for reprimanding Maadhvas rather than an attempt to understand their side of the story. Which leads me to believe there was a lot of naivity and ignorance involved in these circumstances.


    A few things that really concerns me, and I quote from the letters --


    "He has put manure and water to the seed sowed by Sri Madhwacharya." - Sri Vidyadheesha swamiji of Palimar mutt

    "Sri Vyasatheertha graced him offering "deeksha" to him and commanded him to spread the philosophic ideals fo Sri Madhwacharya." - Sri Vidyavallaba Tirtha Swamiji, Kaniyoor Mutt


    Specifically what improvements did the Gaudiyas do to the Maadhvas? I have attended a number of Gaudiya/Isckon satsangs and there wasn't even one attribute taken from tattvavaada. They start their session praying to Prabhupada and not Brahma, Madhva, Lakshmi, et.al. They do not know the correct epistemology of Tattvavaada to even relate anything to panchabheda, taaratamya, saakshi, vishesha, jeevottama of vaayu, etc..


    On one satsang the Gaudiyas said they perfected the philosophies of Madhvacharya and Ramanujacharya because these Acharyas did not know or deliver the right message! Perhaps this may be what is meant by 'pouring manure and water to the seed'.


    "The sadhana achieved by Sri A. C. Prabhupada, Acharya of "Chaitanya Sampradaya" is to be welcomed by all Vaishnavites. It is due to him people all over the world have learned about Lord Krishna. This work should have been accomplished by Madhwa followers."

    - Sri Lakshmivara thirtha swamiji of shiroor mutt


    Absolutely, the sadhana achieved by Prabhupada is commendable. However, looking at the tone of the letter, is the shiroor mutt swamiji lambasting Maadhvas for not spreading the message of Lord Krishna!? Maybe I am reading too much into this, but the Swamiji sure has pointed out something here that he should be the one taking the leadership/ownership for i.e. spreading the word of Lord Krishna to the world.


    "It is not correct for Madhwa followers to envy "Prabhupada" followers. Many facts that are in tune with Madhwa philosophy, are hidden in the works of Sri Prabhupada." - Sri Sri Vidyaprasanna Tirtha Swamiji, Subramanya Matha


    Envy "Prabhupada" followers!!? Raising objections is not 'envy'. What is there to "envy" about Gaudiyas?


    Sorry, I am not as learned as the Swamijis are. But I am aghast at these remarks.


    I fail to understand why this is relevant. If Sri Caitanya propagated tattvavAda, then there would be no question that he must be linked to Sri Madhva, even if the records were somewhat inconsistent. But since it is *quite* *clear* that Sri Caitanya propagates a *different* philosophy, it is reasonable to question any supposed link to Sri Madhva, especially given the fact that the records are inconsistent.

    Raghu you may already know this. There is no evidence of Sri Chaitanya writing any philosophical work or commentaries to any vedic literature. He is known for writing siksataka, a 8 verse poem. His autobiography was written years later after he passed away.


    Here is a titbit from Chaitanya Charitamrita, autobiography written by Vrindavana daasa;


    The bulk of Vrndavana Dasa's chaitanya bhagavata vividly portrays the electric effect of Srila Chaitanya's devotion, the group working into a frenzy of religious ecstasy, whose signs - weeping, sweating, fainting, roaring, and a host of other physical manifestations of dementia - resembles most closely the disease of epilepsy.


    These remarkable symptoms subsequently became the uncontrollable signs of true devotion. The commotion from these sessions apparently irritated the local community, especially when the kirtana spilled into the streets, leading in at least one case to a conflict with the local qazi, and in another with local Shaktas, worshippers of the goddess. Perhaps because of this growing apprehension, Vishvambhara soon declared that his devotion was not taken seriously by those who saw it as socially disruptive, so he would take formal ascetic vows to guarantee that respect.


    The ascetic Keshava Bharati was in the nearby town of Katoya (Katwa) and initiated the twenty-four year old Vishvambhara in 1510 (shaka 1431). His new religious name was Krsna Chaitanya, the man who would 'make the world aware of Krsna', the name by which he is most commonly known. As news of his renunciation spread, his mother met him at the home of Advaitacharya in Shantipura, where in her grief she extracted from him the promise to reside in Puri. With Nityananda and others he headed for that city in a state of ecstasy.


    Some time in the month of Asadha (June-July) of 1533 (shaka 1455), Chaitanya passed away, although the details are not recorded. In pious eyes there is no talk of death, he simply returned to heaven. Even though he left no more than eight Sanskrit verses attesting his devotion


    You on the other hand, being a dull mentalist, cannot help at nitpicking at semantics in order to deflect from the truth you cannot see.
    "dull mentalist" :)


    Ad homeniem attacks like these are expected when one cannot debate on the issues. Instead of personal attacks, you could have provided quotes from posts that explicitely stated or implied that only Brahmin children show the qualities of brahmins. Didn't find any, eh?



    Doesn't matter, both you and your smarta "brahmana" pal Raghu are disqualified from ever being able recognize actual Vaisnava Brahmana qualites in a person until you get over your holier than thou, anachronistic, impersonal view that a only a person born to brahmana parents can develop brahminical qualities.
    How brilliant! you are so knowledgeable that you think maadhvas are "smartha brahmins" who have anachronistic impersonal views :) I wonder if the moderator ever notices these remarks?


    FYI...there is no such injunction that only children born to brahmins have brahminical qualities, and which I clarified in post # 43.



    But the last thing a condescending petty tyrant wants to admit is that they don't have a monopoly on the truth already, and that there is actually a person much more supreme than them, so the tyrant temporarily gets his petty little world to rule over, because the Lord they don't believe in is so kind that he will even arrange for his master illusionist to fulfill their desires for a while.


    Right again! We "petty tyrants" do not know what we are talking about.


    You do seem to represent Gaudiya vaishnavism very well. Kudos!


    To say that a child born to a brahmana family will automatically show the qualifications by guna and karma necessary to display the behavioral qualities of a brahmana simply because a brahmana attempts to train him, or conversely to say that a child who was strongly brahminical in the last life cannot take birth within a family of lesser varna for karmic reasons, is a very naive and narrowminded position to take considering the evident and obvious complexities of the world, not to mention the numerous examples of such irregularities we can witness every day! And let us not forget the desire of the Lord to make arrangements as he will.


    There was no post which stated that a child born to a brahmin family will automatically display qualities of a brahmin. You are taking this position on purpose and putting words in the mouth of others :)


    Do you claim to know the varna of yourself or of others? It is impossible. The best we can do is to follow the tradition and expect the children to follow it. Some do and some display tendencies of different varnas.


    Confering brahminism awards to converts, also fails by your argument. Initiating any Dick and Sally as swamijis of the highest order is also naive, if not pretentious.

  7. Sonic Yogi, almost all Vedic schools consider Sage Vyasa or Badarayana to be an incarnation of the Lord. So He is right at the top. The adherence of Siddhanta as taught by Krishna to Brahma to Narada to Vyasa and so on..is moot.


    This also causes a circular reasoning since Veda Vyasa is the Lord Himself. There is no "Brahma sampradaya or Brahma's teachings" as such that is of more value than others. It is not a multiple choice answer as to which is the most pristine so to give prominence to Brahma sampradaya more than anything else.


    In addition, you need to provide proof that there is a disciple succession of that order from an independent authentic scripture, and not from a Gaudiya source.

  8. Sonic Yogi,

    I think Raghu's points are these (And Raghu can correct me if I went wrong):

    1. Gaudiyas claim they have a disciple succession from Sri Madhvacharya
    2. Gaudiyas treatment of scriptures have far deviated from Sri Madhvacharya's expositions
    3. The Gaudiyas have formed their own sampradaya
    4. However, they claim they have Sri Madhvacharya's sanction for their works
    5. Which is not true.
    Sonic Yogi, lets say for example I was your disciple and learnt the shastras from you. But today I have a completely different view that contradicts some of your original teachings. Can I preach and author books claiming my views were derived from you?


    That is the bigoted caste system that kept India in chains for hundreds of years until the Gaudiya acharyas broke the monopoly and proved that caste should never be determined by birth.


    I have not been able to find any evidence that Professor Sharma was ever initiated into the Madhva sampradaya.


    Apart from his family tradition he is not showing diksha by any Madhva guru or acharya.


    He is a professional man, not a guru.

    For a maadhva, the initiation takes place at a young age during the thread ceremony. You wouldn't know that because this is not documented in a government office or published in the internet. There is no public announcement because it is part of the tradition.


    As far as the caste system is concerned, the maadhva tradition has some legendary personalities (e.g. Kanaka dasa and other haridasas) who were not maadhvas by birth, but were given a very high status and revered by even brahmins to this day. Lord Rama and Krishna incarnated as kshatriyas and brahmins pray to them.


    There is a reason why the varna system is given due importance in Vedas so that it is not misused by any Dick and Sally for their gains. One has to have a track record of saatvik accomplishments. A varna cannot be conferred to some Charlie who was just born-again yesterday and started preaching Krishna consciousness today.


    Professor Sharma is a self-appointed authority who shows no formal initiation into the Madhva sampradaya.


    He has approached these subjects as a scholar more so than as a devotee.


    We cannot trust the work of Professor Sharma as he does not even show to be in the lineage of the Madhva sampradaya.


    He is a self-appointed authority with no proper right to pose an an authority on the Madhva sampradaya.

    Prof B.N.K.Sharma is a maadhva by birth and tradition. He has authored books that are a delight to read. He does not just pass of remarks, instead, provides the reasons and knowledge to substantiate his assertions. He has every right to represent the sampradaya since he comes from that lineage.



    His is a professional who makes his living publishing books and teaching Sanskrit.

    His Sanskrit scholarship does not qualify him to represent the Madhva sampradaya.

    He is an exceptional author whose knowledge has served as a guide to many, including myself.


    Would you apply the same yardstick to self-appointed authorities in the Gaudiya/Isckon tradition which grew rich by publishing books and initiating any Charlie as a guru? The depth of sanskrit scholarship will be evident if a true scholar were to proof-read those books and determine whether they truly represent even the vedic tradition.


    The spiritual giants whom you are talking about have no ground. Especially Madhvacharya whose 'Tattva Vaada' stood no ground and has its place confined to one small region in the Kanara region of Karnataka. Sri Ramanujacharyas VA was more realistic approach which helped to encourage both the form and formless unlike Advaita.
    A small following isn't an indication of whether a philosophy is accurate or not. Christianity and Islam have a large following which puts Ramanuja's sect into an insignificant minority. That does not mean those religions are correct or have a more realistic approach.


    Madhva's philosophy is perhaps the most realistic and rationale of Indian and world thought. If one reads and understands his teachings, I doubt whether he or she will turn back. At least there will be no doubts about Vedas in one's mind after understanding Madhva, even if that person is born into any other sect. Maybe its just the passion of birth into a particular religion, or deep attachment towards a particular doctrine, or past bitterness, that is making one to keep the blinders on.


    Actually, I heard this in a discourse, so I am not really sure where I can find the passage. As far as the Mahabharata is concerned, I have never bothered to read any translations, because it is a highly interpolated text, and merely stick to discourses and bhashyas of my acharyas. Only Ramayana is available in a pristine form nowadays.


    According to Vishishtadvaita/Sri Vaishnavism, the Lord is simply neutral. Since karma is anAdi, He doesn't interfere and give moksha to everyone. At the same time, He endeavours to make the jiva realise Him. Surrendering to the Lord gives Him 'legal' power (for want of a better word) to extinguish the Jiva's Karmas.


    Suffering is also anAdi, since the jivas have been under the influence of bad Karma eternally. Krishna did not start this, so He does not interfere with it unduly.


    Sort of like a biased teacher. Someone who grades exam papers neutrally, but at the same time does all he can to help the students pass.


    Gita says atman is not the doer. Some Upanishadic statements convey that Jiva has some power of action, ie, to decide. To integrate them, it is believed that the Lord, residing as the antaryami in the Jiva, provides the power to the Jiva once the latter decides on a course of action. This doesn't compromise the Lord's omnipotence, nor does it make the Jiva as the 'doer', since the Lord provides the power to execute the action.


    Of course, some people argue that the power to decide on the part of the Jiva is itself an action. I believe Sri Vedanta Desikar has written an entire grantha on this subject.


    I think the above is confused between tattvavAda and sri vaishnavism. The above is true in tattvavAda. In sri vaishnavism or vishishtadavaita, it is argued that souls are created by Vishnu. They are not beginingless. Once created, in the initial birth, they are given a chance by Vishnu to do good or bad. If the soul does good in its first steps, it starts collecting good karma. If the soul chooses to do a bad deed, it starts collecting bad karma. The soul loses its independence after its first birth. Sri Vaishnavism or vishishtadvaita does not have the concept of independence/dependence as explained in tattvavAda or dvaita.


    Rg Veda tells in the Purusha Sukta how God (Purusha) has many parts. Purusha sukta says Purusha has hands, legs, eyes. From different parts of this Being Purusha come different things such as sun, earth, brahmins, devas, princes etc.



    Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20:

    As a spider brings forth a web from within itself, so also it is with this world created by Brahman.

    Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.10:

    The Supreme Being surrounds Himself with the products of nature, just as when a spider builds a web and walks on threads spun from its own body. May that Supreme Being grant us liberation in Brahman!

    You are correct. Purusha sooktha tells us of the grand form of God. But his form and attributes being beyond material ones like ourselves, they are not different within Him i.e. He is non-dual or has the same auspiciousness and properties of his hair to the toes. Advaita and Dvaita (or tattvavAda) both assert that God is unchanging and non-different.


    Although the web came from within the spider and the baby from the mother, they are not the identical anymore to the eye. So this analogy does not justify itself and is not appropriate. Once the web is woven out, the web and the spider are not only entirely different but the web is totally independent of the spider. That is not the case with God and jIvas. He is the Controller and the jIvas are the puppets. We know he pervades inside each and every thing in this universe making it function the way it is.


    There are many verses in Bhagavatam saying the God is "All" and that the supreme being is non-dual. Indeed it is true that god is non-dual Oneness but the tiny atoms called "jiva" are not God. They are just tiny atoms of light shining from the Supreme Light called Param-Brahma.


    RamanaDasi, there are many verses also in the Vedas that say God is non-dual. That is correct. God cannot be made up of parts and each part cannot be non-different from him. He cannot be differentiated between His hair and His leg. But the shAstras also state clearly that a jIva is different from God. Each jIva has its own identity carrying experiences from one birth to another. There is no other way you can explain Karma if jIva does not have its own identity.


    Mukti is not a myth. And your experience is always God’s experience. When you think you are fundamentally different from God, you are mistaken.


    Kind regards, Bart


    Bart, you are a funny bloke

    "Justin is not different from God. Justin's experience is God's experience. BUT, Justin is mistaken"

    You may want to clarify who is mistaken - Justin or God.


    Where from are you getting your conjecture that God and Justin are the same - shAstras or, is it your personal opinion....


    You are also suggesting that God is experiencing mukthi.


    Now there is no mention anywhere in the scriptures that God experiences mukthi, or desires to experience mukthi.


    Why would God want to experience mukthi anyway. He should have no purpose to experience neither pleasure nor pain.




    The term ‘oneness’ can only have meaning in relation to non-oneness or duality. If there was no perceived duality in our cosmic manifestation, the term oneness would not exist in the dictionary. The point is that this duality is only perceptual, it’s an illusion. In reality the universe is one (God).


    So why would one preach to ‘others’? It may be seen like curing a disease in your body. Your body is one, but personal knowledge of the disease, or curing just a single cell of the body, won’t stop the disease. The medicine must be transported to all cells of the body to cure the disease.


    Kind regards, Bart

    You are expressing there is only God and nothing else, but God cares about curing a disease in his body or cells. You are making a distinction within God.

    First, you are implying (without you knowing that you are contradicting yourself) that God is made up of different parts. You are differentiating between parts of his body. God cannot be differentiated between cells in his body. Perhaps you may be even thinking he has a brain separate than his diseased cells! Both mAyavAda and tattvavAda accept that God is non-different to himself i.e. he is homogeneous i.e. same all over i.e. cannot be differentiated between his brain and legs i.e. cannot say the cells in one part of his body are finite whereas He is Infinite. If you take a part of Infinity and Perfection, that part also will still be Infinite and Perfect.

    Second, a being which has a disease or imperfections within itself cannot be God in the first place. No Vedic philosophy or Quantum theories would concur with your idea of either monism, or even your idea of dualism.


    I agree with that. All those who identify themselves as individuals possess ego.

    As for your question, it is of course two egos(me and you) as we identify ourselves as separate individuals who are talking about us/One Infinite.

    It is still your same ego that is saying you are that Infinite. There ain't much stock you can put on that assertion as well :-)


    Science is a monistic enterprise. Here we agree............ If so, ‘universal monism’ will be scientifically proven to be true.


    I believe that the best way to know the physical world is through science. With that said, I am looking forward to you for simple answers to these simple questions. Please bear with me because I cannot understand the quantum language and get entangled with the play of words :-)


    1) What does this 'science' study -- consciousness or matter?


    2) Do the scientists say both consciousness and matter are the same?


    3) How do they account for the mind and intellect? Is that part of the material universe or conscious universe?


    4) Does this 'scientific' theory account for creation? Or does it say nothing is created?


    5) Does this theory say matter is consciousness or vice versa?


    6) Does this theory say consciousness creates matter, or does it say matter creates both matter and consciousness?


    7) Currently science (not quantum theory) says that the cosmos began billion years ago in an incredibly and unimaginable hot and dense state. The first life appeared and progressed through a series of evolution. Does your 'science' support this?


    8) How does the monistic 'scientists' account this theory as monism when he/she is looking at it studying this field? Or are they saying they are also one (merged with or part of or whatever terminology you may use) with whatever they are studying?


    9) You say universal monism can be proven to be true. That is quite a strong statement. According to monism, there is only God (above time, space, attributeless, non-active entity). You still believe your 'science' will prove God!!!?


    10) Does this monistic science prove age old beliefs like karma, relationships between the souls, matter and God?


    11) Are these 'scientists' you are talking about religious monistic 'believers' or is the community comprised of atheists too?


    12) How do these monistic scientists know everything contained in this universe is that Supreme Being who is beyond time and space? We haven't even explored planet Mars thoroughly, but go on to assume myriad things about the solar system in the name of monistic science!


    ‘Dualism or dvaita’ on the other hand, denotes 2 (or more) separate entities or forces that exist at the same time. In particular: God and (ignorant) souls.


    There are a lot of misconceptions about Dvaita or dualism, with foremost being that it is understood from a monistic point of view, which deems it very little value to the meaning it conveys. The non-dual school does not convey a dialectical dualism. The Dvaita as defined by a non-dualist is just an antonym for monism and does not have any other meaning other than to equate it to duality. Like your quote in the above just conveys the meaning, but nothing else. That is possibly because monists know very little of what the dualistic school of thought propounds. The Dvaita as explained by the Dvaita school of thought, or tattvavAda, is enormous in its epistemological and ontological prowess. This isn't the mundane Dvaita or dualism that is used (or abused) by the non-dual school. In addition to your quote above the epistemology covers relationships between God, souls, and matter. Not just God and souls alone.


    No scripture in essence is wrong, that thing Bhaktajan has also confirmed in the beginning when he spoke about Buddhism.


    Now concerning your issue of Supremacy of philosophy, then I would say let everyone be happy in their lala land. But the authenticity of a philosophy can be measured by the act of the follower.


    Have you ever seen anyone surpassing the actions of Vaishnavas in terms of welfare and sacrifice?

    Are you saying Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Advaita, Judaism are not wrong inspite of their million contradictions with each other, barring within themselves? What is the use of following one when every theory in this world is right? On your second para I have a comment. I agree that the authenticity of a philosophy can be measured by the act of the follower. But only to an extent. This measurement of a follower is also subjective. For e.g. Advaiti's call a person a fool, paranoid, arrogant, and other name calling if anyone questions or clarifies the principles of Advaita. You may have seen in this forum how members like Dark Warrior and Justin were attacked just because they said Advaita does not gel with new-age non-science or logic or perception. A person who questions Gaudiya Vaishnavism is said to be ignorant, whereas the person may be someone who is a genuine inquirer. Everyone has a pre-conceived opinion of what a good and bad behavior is. What is good behavior for a Vaishnava may not be good for an Advaiti or a Buddhist and vice versa.

  21. Suchandra and Bhaktajan prabhuji's,


    You say what is written in Vedas are facts or what is told by Srila Prabhupada are facts. How do you know? With what veracity can you say Buddhism or other philosophies are not facts? Please pardon my questions. I am quite surprised when people claim their opinions to be not faith! How do you prove the Harekrishna ideology to be a fact?




    For a physist, a scientist is a conclomoration of atoms - just a omplex arrey of matter - and nothing else Hence there is no duality.


    It is true that physics is fundamentally monistic in the material sense.


    Physics simply does not admit a nonmaterial category, at the first place and at the second believes that all matter is ultimately is of one stuff. This is the meaning of Grand Unification.

    I found your post very confusing.

    At a high level, for any field, there is a

    a) subject and

    b) an object of his experience or study.


    The above is not monism as you wrongly assume. Because:


    1) The array of matter and atoms in this universe are distinct from each other. They are not the same as you wrongly opine.


    2) Each distinct atom is distinct than the scientist (or the subject, or a individual body, or individual consciousness, or individual Atma) who analyzes them and


    3) Each distinct atom and the scientist are distinct from their Creator (who transcends the atom, the scientist, the matter, time and space)


    If you understood what I wrote above, you have understood less than 0.0000000001% of tattvavAda or also known as the doctrine of Realities in Vedanta. Non-dualism has no parallel in any field of study we know, be it Mathematics or Physics, Archeology or Evolution, Nano technology or Relativity, because by its own theory of lower and higher degrees of realities, all these fields of study are TRUE only when one is ignorant!

  • Create New...