raghu

How about bhagavad-gItA? Arjuna wanted to reject his duty of fighting in favor of nonviolence. He did not want to enjoy the spoils of war and did not have any ambition to be reinstated to power. In other words, he was displaying brahminical traits. Andy, being the ignorant, wretched, enemy-of-the-world mAdhva brahmin that I am, can you kindy show me where in the gItA Arjuna got promoted to the brAhmana varna, and where it was that Sri Krishna told him that he need not fight the battle? Thanks for your help.

Aren't YOU the one who claimed that everyone in Kali Yuga is born a shUdra? Well, Baladeva wrote in the commentary that I quoted that a shUdra is not eligible to undergo saMskAras. Andy, being the expert on Gaudiya Vaishnavism that you are, can you explain to me how a shUdra becomes a brAhmana when he is not allowed to undergo saMskAras?

andy108 and all other "pure devotees" representing Prabhupada: These are Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushana's writings. They are not my opinions. Baladeva Vidyabhushana is an authority in your sampradaya. As in, you cannot claim to represent the sampradaya if you disagree with him. If you have a problem with what he wrote, flaming me is not going to help you.

Since andy108 and shiva are (once again) hijacking the thread by posting irrelevant responses and generally trying to change the subject rather than admit when they are wrong, I have posted here about the Govinda Bhasya passages that are relevant for the original discussion

Predictably, shiva was not interested in responding on a point-by-point, evidence-based manner, even when *he* was the one who brought up the evidence! Therefore, let me quote Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Gaudiya commentator, whose translation is posted on the iskcon website given by shiva earlier: Please kindly do not flame me. These are Baladeva's own words, provided via iskcon. It is very clear that Baladeva rejects the view that a shudra can become a brahmana. If any gaudiya vaishnavas do not like this idea, kindly take up your objections with your own sampradaya acharya.

Perhaps someone could explain to this dull-witted, bigoted caste brahmin, wretched as I am for not being in the iskcon clique, as to why the above shlokas substantiate a Prabhupada link to Sri Madhva. Prabhupada's commentary on bhagavata 1.3.28 is *clearly* in disagreement with Madhva's commentary on the same. This is just one example, but since "Krishna is the Original supreme Personality of Godhead" is such a core facet of your beliefs, I think it will suffice to make the point. This would be the same Bhaktivinoda who, according to your friend Sonic Yogi, says that the mAdhva caste-brahmins are the greatest enemies of the world?

Justin, are you asking them to provide evidence for their controversial views? Don't you know that you are supposed to just believe whatever they say? Asking them for evidence is just proof of your bigotry. They may or may not know. Typically, whenever you ask the Gaudiya Vaishnavas on this forum a question, they fly into a blood shot rage when they cannot provide sensible answers, begin calling you bigot, Christ-hater, etc, and then they spam these letters. These letters were actually written to rebut a position paper that made some unflattering remarks about iskcon and claimed to be representing one of the madhva maths. Probably the authors of this position paper got frustrated because the gaudiya vaishnavas they would debate with were similar to these guys here - basically a bunch of unqualified, sectarian-minded, cultists who are happy to preach any false idea and *claim* to have the sanction of scripture but unwilling to have their ideas scrutinized the way they scrutinize others. So these swamijis responded to smooth things over. There is nothing in these letters that answers any of the questions I raised. I'm ok with there being a "Madhva-Gaudiya link" if it makes people happy. But let's be honest and admit that the "link" is NOT a link of "diksha" and NOT a link of "siksha." Whatever else it is, who knows? But Prabhupada's Gita is NOT Madhva's Gita commentary unchanged, and achintya bedha abedha is NOT tattvavada unchanged. Tattvavada and achintya bedha abedha contradict each other on numerous significant points. And Tattvavadis have been practicing a hereditary system of varnashrama dharma for centuries. And so have the Sri Vaishnavas. And the pushti-margis. And the pre-iskcon Gaudiyas. And so has basically everyone else excluding the last 200 years of free-thinking, politically-correct, pseudo-vedic, new age, neo-Hinduism. But let us not despair that the Ashta-matha swamis's letters are being taken out of context. For soon they will see another set of comments making the rounds on the internet - those of Sonic Yogi's and andy108's and shiva's hate-spewing comments against mAdhva Vaishnavism. These include comments such as these (just from this thread alone): I have already printed out the inflammatory comments above along with the web URL and will be mailing this to the Ashta-Matha Swamis and CCing a copy to iskcon's leadership. I want the Ashta-Matha swamis to see the deep-seated prejudice which the Western iskcon devotees have towards our varnashrama culture, and I think this will certainly give them a better idea of who they are dealing with. To the moderators: I request that you not censor any of the postings including this one so that the proper context of the comments can be examined in detail. This thread should remain here a public monument of the hatred which iskcon devotees have towards varnashrama culture.

In that regard, you people have a lot more in common with the followers of Vivekananda and Sai Baba than you do with any Vaishnava Vedanta traditions.

Precisely my point. In other words, there is no record that *Sri Caitanya* ever claimed to be in a "siksha parampara" from Sri Madhva. As far as the Gaudiya parampara is concerned, no one made this claim until about the time of Sri Baladeva, nearly 200 years later.

I apologize, I just realized that this was the thread where I should have posted this. Since *you* are the one providing the link to the iskcon translation of Govinda Bhashya (above), I trust you will not take issue with anything I quote *from* it. So take a look at VS 3.34-38 along with the accompanying commentary by your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana. Therein, Sri Baladeva says repeatedly that shudras are not eligible to study the Vedas. Now one might think that a shudra can become a brahmana and then study the Veda, but Baldeva refutes this as well by stating that a shudra cannot undergo any reformatory samskaras. So I guess Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentator for the Gaudiya sampradaya, is also a bigoted caste brahmin who s to a bogus idea. If it is beginning to bother you that your own acharyas disagree with your ideas, feel free to just flame me again as always.

Since *you* are the one providing the link to the iskcon translation of Govinda Bhashya (above), I trust you will not take issue with anything I quote *from* it. So take a look at VS 3.34-38 along with the accompanying commentary by your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana. Therein, Sri Baladeva says repeatedly that shudras are not eligible to study the Vedas. Now one might think that a shudra can become a brahmana and then study the Veda, but Baldeva refutes this as well by stating that a shudra cannot undergo any reformatory samskaras. So I guess Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentator for the Gaudiya sampradaya, is also a bigoted caste brahmin who s to a bogus idea. If it is beginning to bother you that your own acharyas disagree with your ideas, feel free to just flame me again as always.

Wow. What an amazing string of ad hominem attacks and spiteful invective. For a moment, I had thought from your initial posting that we were going to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. I guess I won't make that mistake again. And this would no doubt be the Gaudiya version of the events in question, right? Or do you have historical evidence that proves the ill motives you assign to the other party? Didn't someone tell those envious Sri Vaishnavas that Baladeva did not need a commentary because the Gaudiyas come in parampara from Sri Madhvacharya and could just use his? I guess this means we won't be getting a proper explanation for why the gaudiya sampradaya is simultaneously, inconceivably, the same and yet a different sampradaya from that of Sri Madhva's.

Well, if I am a sudra, then what are you? A brahmin? Do brahmins speak like this? Do you accept the conclusion of the Mahabharata translation which *you* quoted as follows: that defines a brahmana by his study of the Vedas? And then logically the conclusion that iskcon brahmins are not brahmins since they do not study the Vedas? It was you who brought these quotes up. It makes little sense to quote them when they appear to support what you say and then reject them when they say more that you do not want to accept.

Was this supposed to be a definitive proof of anything? It looked more like a meandering way of basically restating the problems in believing in a Gaudiya-Madhva connection. Or at least that is just from skimming through it the first time.

Catholic, The God I worship, the God of all beings, did not throw plagues at the Egyptians and slaughter their first born simply because their leader was a stubborn idiot. Whoever that was, it was someone else.

Several quick points: 1) The vajra-sucika upanishad is probably not a true Upanishad. It is thought by many to be a later smriti text that got passed off as an Upanishad. For something to be an Upanishad it should be passed down in the oral tradition and accepted across different Vedanta traditions as such. 2) The Chandogya Upanishad only states that Satyakama was accepted for initiation because of his truth-telling. It does not say that Satyakama was born a non-brahmin; on the contrary, it indicates that Satyakama did not know his father nor his lineage. If it were clearly indicated that Satyakama was a non-brahmin by birth, then and only then does this prove your point. 3) The multiple references alleged to be from the Mahabharata are provided without specific verse numbers and without Sanskrit. This makes them difficult to cross reference, which I suppose was intentional. However, one specific reference caught my eye: This indicates that iskcon "brahmins" are not brahmanas because they do not study the Vedas. If you are going to take these English translations alleged to be from the Mahabharata as evidence, then you must be prepared to accept them even when they say things that you do not like. 4) The reference you provided from the Bhagavata says only that the individuals with the right qualities should be thought of or respected as a brahmana. It does NOT say that the person thus becomes a brahmana and then gets the duty of chanting the Vedas. This is a statement explaining the ideals of how a brahmana should behave, what he should do, etc. It does not give practical information saying who exactly gets designated as a brahmana. Ashvatthama was still regarded as a brahmana even though he did not have these qualities - the same Bhagavata says this in the first skandha. Again, this indicates that practically speaking people were regarded as belonging to the varna of their birth. Anyone can say that they have the qualities of a brahmana, and some people may recognize the qualities of a brahmana in a specific individual. But without some objective criterion that everyone in society can accept, it is meaningless to classify people merely according to qualities that one can only subjectively appreciate. Hence, birth is used by convention to determine varna, and people were raised within their varna to have the qualities as described here.

I don't see anything there describing an initiation given to Vyasa by Narada. Arjuna displayed brahminical qualities in rejecting the battle and refusing to fight for the fruits of the kingdom. Yet he was still enjoined to do his kshatriya duty. The basic premise of the bhagavad-gItA contradicts your point of view. I will deal with this in that thread separately. Perhaps you have not read the introduction to Bhagavad-Gita As It Is: "THE DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION Evaḿ paramparā-prāptam imaḿ rājarṣayo viduḥ (Bhagavad-gītā 4.2). This Bhagavad-gītā As It Is is received through this disciplic succession:" *THIS* Bhagavad-gita As It Is is most certainly NOT received through THAT "disciplic succession." Also, numerous iskcon groupies on this forum and elsewhere repeatedly claim that iskcon preaching is "authorized" because it is descended unchanged in the parampara that includes Sri Madhva. I'm not given to accepting something simply because someone says I should. Where is the evidence, if you please, indicating that Sri Chaitanya took diksha in the mAdhva line? According to your own parmpara listing, he is the disciple of one Ishvara purI, who is the disciple of mAdhavendra purI, who in turn is the disciple of lakShmIpati tIrtha. The problem is that none of these names are known in the mAdhva maths. LakshmIpati TIrtha is supposed to be the disciple of vyAsa tIrtha, but there is no record of a disciple by the name lakshmIpati tIrtha. So, where is the actual evidence that Sri Chaitnya took mAdhva initiation? And what is the meaning of his alleged mAdhva initiation when his followers propagate views that are in stark contrast to those of Sri Madhva? I challenge the point of view that "the claim for a diksha connection was established very shortly after Sri Chaitanya's lila ended and was widely accepted at that time." Can you show me evidence in the writings of Chaitanya or his immediate disciples that lists his parampara through Sri Madhva? Barely 200 years after Caitanya the claim of a link to Sri Madhva was already being challenged in the court of Jaipur. This contradicts your point of view that the link "was widely accepted." Many lesser known, esoteric cults like that of Sri Caitanya made statements for which the Madhva community published no official objection. Only the Lord is omnipresent; the mAdhvas cannot be everywhere at once. Most of the so-called "preaching" on this forum is bunk, but you don't see me objecting *every* time theist or ghari get on their high horse and start spewing their sectarian, bigoted nonsense, do you? So it is well accepted at one time (even though Caitanya and his disciples never gave that parampara listing), and we should accept it because it supposedly was, and yet there is no proof. 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. You might be aware that the Hare Krishna mantra chanted by caitanya followers is also not something recieved from the mAdhva paramparA. Using your own logic, one would then have to conclude that Sri Caitanya differs from Vyasa. Where does Vyasa teach about "simultaneous, inconceivable, oneness and difference?" Where does Vyasa teach that the love of the gopis is the highest? Where does Vyasa teach that Sri Caitanya is an avatar of Krishna? Where does Vyasa teach about Radha worship? Do not confuse new ways of explaining timeless ideas with new ideas. Sri Madhva fully supports his explanations with reference to shAstra. The names by which these concepts are referred to in discourses is besides the point. On the other hand, Sri Caitanya's philosophy appears to contain many ideas that have no basis in what Vyasa wrote (see above). In response to "8) Explanation as to why a system of "assigning" varnas based on subjective perception of one's spiritual qualification is better than raising one as a member of the varna of his birth, especially when the former system has led to so many iskcon gurus who repeatedly propagate false ideas (i.e. gay marriages) or just become degraded and/or commit all sorts of criminal behavior." you wrote: No. It just underscores the importance of raising people *properly* from day one to fulfill the role that he will inherit. Something that is difficult to do for one who spent most of his adult life in a drug-induced haze only to get a mantra and beads and presto! suddenly he is responsible for the spiritual welfare of thousands. ...the iskcon system of guru-initiations is, is really quite logical and consistent. After all, it is the iskcon members who repeatedly assert that their philosophy is special, divine, transcendental, etc because so many people are taking to it. So, when so many gurus fall from it, why cannot one use that as evidence that the guru-manufacturing system is flawed? There cannot be one standard of proof for those things you believe in and another for those things you find inconvenient to deal with. If the argument is, "see how great this Krishna-consciousness is because all these fallen white people have given up meat-eating and are worshipping Krishna" then the same people who give such arguments are also inviting me to take a close look at these converts. Really, I am all fine with Westerners being introduced to Krishna-bhakti, but when they suddenly become gurus despite their medicore understanding of even their own scriptures, go on to initiate thousands of people, and then become degraded and mislead their followers, and when this situation is repeatedly the rule instead of the exception, should we not look at the evidence and draw certain conclusions? Or are we supposed to just live in denial? Er, no. That's the idea that Sonic Yogi, andy108 et.al. From Sonic Yogi: In other words, Sonic Yogi et.al. believe that the varna gets assigned to the disciple by someone else, rather than being assigned based on society's expectation based on birth. Given that the majority of iskcon devotees who were "assigned" to the brahmin varna fell from that lofty position, does it not indicate to you that there is something wrong with the way they got assigned in the first place? So far, you have not demonstrated that this is a bogus idea. On the contrary, this has been the historical fact across many sampradayas including their acharyas whose knowledge of shAstra dwarfs your own. There is nothing in shAstra you have provided which shows that a non-brahmin can become a brahmin and officiate at Vedic sacrifices, study Vedas, chant mantras, etc. On the contrary, the examples I have already provided show how people were referred to by their birth varna even when they had different qualities. Arjuna being the most obvious example. Something you and the others repeatedly fail to grasp, is that there are in India, brahmins who were born as brahmins and *are* authentic based on their conduct. Of course, you may not know about them because they are the *silent majority* who don't have web pages with online stores, don't have tens of thousands of disciples, don't have huge marble temples with restaurants and 5-star hotels, etc. You can't seem to absorb the point that no one wants a class of people who are privileged merely based on their birth; we want them to take up the duties that are assigned to them based on their birth. The iskcon party line, which its members blindly promote because they cannot seem to think for themselves, is that hereditary varna is ipso facto bogus. It is a bizarre double standard that if one hereditary brahmin in ten in India becomes degraded, then the whole hereditary varna system is to be regarded as bogus, bigotry, evil, etc. But when 99% of the iskcon brahmins become degraded and spew bogus ideas like "gay marriages," then still no one should say anything about how they got labeled as brahmins. No one should even question it. They are pure devotees and we just have to accept it, even when they have no idea what they are talking about. You are just blindingly repeating the iskcon party line with very little scientific justification for you statement. People like you only remember the extreme examples of herditary brahmins who fell from the standard and then criticize the whole culture. But in iskcon, there is a statistically high probability that anyone rubber stamped as a brahmin will fall away from the standard and take up mleccha conduct once again. The last 30 years of iskcon amply bear this out. And what to speak of the ones who don't fall down and who are busy "accessing higher dimensions," propagating such institutions as "gay monogamy," writing about UFOs and conspiracy theories, etc etc. And of course, they get three square meals a day, are afforded every comfort, etc. I have seen *real* brahmins in India when I made pilgrimage to the famous temples of Lord Vishnu. There, I would see these great scholars who could perfectly chant wonderful Vedic mantras and were very clean in their appearance and behavior. Neverthless they would go and humbly beg alms from any unqualified rascal lower in position than they. Imagine the injustice that such people, merely by being born as brahmins, and voluntarily accepting a lifestyle of austerity and neglect, will be denounced as "bigots" by hypocrites living comfortably in the USA and who do not even read the scriptures or have any concept of proper behavior or etiquette!

Eventually, as we ask more and more probing questions, and the iskconites respond with more and more personal attacks, the moderators will be forced to close this thread to protect the reputation of the gaudiya vaishnavas. It appears that they have already deleted a very hateful comment by Sonic Yogi in which he basically called mAdhva brAhmanas the "greatest evil" of the world. I think this sort of prejudice by Sonic Yogi and other iskconites is the unspoken reason many us feel the need to publicly set the record straight. Nobody wants "Vedic culture" to be hijacked by dishonest people who are just lusting for followers but lack the qualification to lead them. There are sincere seekers out there, and they should be allowed to see the truth for what it is, and not merely the politically-correct truth that is distilled for them by institutional fatwas. One of the politically-acceptable truths that these people are getting force-fed is the idea that iskcon philosophy is authentic because it has its origins in a tradition going back for centuries to Sri Madhva. This is simply false. The iskcon philosophy is only about 500 years old - prior to this there was no "achintya bedha abedha," no "Caitanya is Radha and Krishna combined," and certainly no "impersonal liberation" (at least, not any such concept that is endorsed by mAdhvas). The iskcon people should tell the truth that these are ideas specific to their sampradAya and NOT handed down to them by Sri Madhva. From these postings by Sonic Yogi et. al., one gets the distinct impression that the intellectual equivalent of thuggery is used by iskcon to keep followers in line rather than honest introspection or a respect for historical (or even scriptural) truth.

Whether it is an iskcon invention or not, it is still incorrect. By the way, I am still waiting for answers to the following questions: 1) Scriptural evidence that Vyasa is the "disciple" of Narada 2) Explanation as to why BNK Sharma is unqualified to comment on mAdhva Vaishnavism, but Sonic Yogi, who is not initiated into the mAdhva sampradAya, is. 3) Explanation as to why examples like Arjuna, Drona, AshvatthAma, et. al. do not support the obvious conclusion that people were conventionally known by the varna of their birth, and that they were expected to act/behave according to expectations of that varna. 4) Explanation as to why it is wrong for me to say that gaudiya Vaishnavas did NOT receive their philosophy *unchanged* in disciplic succession from Sri Madhva, even though andy108 basically admitted that the two philosophies are different. 5) Explanation as to how anyone can claim their paramparA is descended from someone when they don't agree with that particular someone on various philosophical points. 6) Explanation as to why iskcon claims its "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" is handed down in a disciplic succession from acharyas who do not agree with many of the explanations/interpretations in it. 7) Explanation from Sonic Yogi about what the so-called "Brahma sampradaya" is and his evidence that gaudiyas are more "in tune" with it. 8) Explanation as to why a system of "assigning" varnas based on subjective perception of one's spiritual qualification is better than raising one as a member of the varna of his birth, especially when the former system has led to so many iskcon gurus who repeatedly propagate false ideas (i.e. gay marriages) or just become degraded and/or commit all sorts of criminal behavior. 9) Proof for the wild claim made by Sonic Yogi that mAdhva "caste brahmins" are the "greatest evil" and responsible for acts of bigotry and prejudice. Specifically, historical evidence showing a trend towards clear-cut examples of bigotry and prejudice that anyone would accept as such. I'm sure there were many other points I was waiting on answers for, but the sheer number of unfounded claims being made by andy108 and Sonic Yogi is getting increasingly difficult to keep track of.

Vyasa is the Lord Himself and does not require a guru. If He chooses to accept a guru for the sake of setting an example (as He did as Rama or Krishna), then He may do so. But nothing obligates Him to do so, not even the mental speculation of unqualified iskcon cultists. Where is your pramAna that states that vyAsa is the disciple of nArada?

Translation: "Any evidence you provide which clearly refutes my position is automatically by the very fact, irrelevant. On the other hand, even though I cannot provide a single shred of evidence for anything I say, my opinion must be accepted as correct." Iskcon gurus have been "logically considering and evaluating the actual tendencies, qualifications, and behavior" of many prospective disciples when "assessing their varna." Would you like to discuss those results in detail? Assuming of course that the moderator will let me discuss those specific examples of people whose "varna" was "assessed" to be brahmin. ... is not what I said. [irrelevant banter deleted] Fine, so please quote the shAstric pramAna which states that Vidura was a brAhmana. Then you will have proven your point. Does this include your own AchAryas? Because sanAtana gosvAmI, in his Hari-Bhakti-VilAs writes that a guru must be brought up in a proper family - he clearly rejects the idea of a non-brAhmana becoming a guru. A similar point is made by Sri Baladeva VidyAbhUShana in his govinda-bhAShya. He also comments on the sUtras to the effect that shUdras are not allowed to study the Vedas. It is very clear from context what he is talking about - he is talking about the hereditary prerequisite for varna. Would you like me to quote their specific comments? I assume you will probably just sweep them under the rug since they contradict you, but one never knows...

Oh? Did I miss that? When did that happen?

False humility is very nice and good, but perhaps you should spend some time reviewing the evidence before stating the conclusion. When you state the conclusion first, you will now be forced to find evidence to support it. If you are honest, then you will not like what you find.

Also, I realize the number of unanswered questions to Sonic Yogi is rapidly accumulating, but I would like to remind him once again to explain to me why BNK Sharma has no authority to comment on MAdhva Vaishnavism while Sonic Yogi does. Specifically, what qualifies Sonic Yogi? Is he initiated into the mAdhva sampradAya? Has he translated any of Sri Madhva's works? Has he read any of Sri Madhva's works?

Yes, but since you do not know Sanskrit, and will not accept any translation of the vedAnta-sUtra or shrutis by anyone other than your iskcon swamis, it is unlikely that you would even bother to look at their proofs much less understand them. No, this is nowhere stated by Sri Vedvyasa. If you feel otherwise, please quote the explicit pramAna, Sanskrit, chapter and verse number. This is a gaudiya Vaishnava view. As far as mAdhvas are concerned, the guru-paramparA begins with Sri Vedavyasa. Sri Madhva bases his conclusions on the shrutis and the commentary on the vedAnta-sutras by Sri Vedavyasa. Are you trying to say that Sri Brahma teaches some conclusion that is different from what is in the shrutis? This is based on what reasoning? Again, mAdhvas trace the paramparA from Sri Vedavyasa. The paramparA listing of "Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa" is largely an iskcon invention. Sri Madhva never gives such a parampara. How do you know this? What are the tenets of Lord Brahma? Can you quote them and then show how the Gaudiya sampradaya is delivering them in their pristine form? OK, so you can claim to be in someone's sampradaya even though you disagree with him? On what grounds do you say that Madhva was "at variance" with Lord Brahma? What "shastra" are you referring to? So far, you have done nothing more than make a lot of unfounded claims.