Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. How does one understand the "Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya disciplic succession" on the basis of scripture? Is there some scripture that lists the parampara from Madhva through Lakshmipati Tirth to Caithanya? Can you please explain where "Lord Gaurangaauthorized" the above disciplic succession? Because aside from the fact that he only wrote 8 verses, and there is no mention of the disciplic succession there, there is also no mention of the "Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya" parampara even in the teachings that are attributed to him and recorded in the books of his followers! So, given that he never spoke about such a parampara, how exactly did he "authorize" it? How does Gauranga accepting Ishvara Puri as a guru prove that his parampara is linked to Madhva? There is no connection at all between these two ideas. Huh? So he is God, so he must have accepted a "bonafide line of disciplic succession?" If that is true, then do you accept Buddhism? After all, Buddha has more evidence substantiating his divinity than does Chaithanya/Gauranga. So by your argument, Buddha must have also come in a "bona fide line of disciplic succession" even though he rejected the Vedas! You are aware, are you not, that the idea of Chaithanya being God is only accepted by Chaithanya followers? As in, this is a pretty classic case of circular logic. There are actually quite a few, major differences between Madhvacharya's philosophy and the philosophy of "achintya bhedabhed." There is a total difference of epistemology, a completely different understanding of the Godhead, and a totally different understanding of the relationship of the different tattvas. You came to this conclusion after dispassionately studying both philosophies, right?
  2. The question asked earlier is, "why the obsession about becoming a brahmana?" And this was offered as an answer. So in that context, let me ask this: If a Brahmana is "one who knows the Brahman," then how does one become "one who knows the Brahman" simply by initiation? How does society actually know who does or does not "know the Brahman?" If a brahmana is someone who actually knows Brahman, then why does the Bhagavata Purana (1.7.42-43) refer to Ashvatthama as a brahmana? And that too after he murdered the sleeping sons of the Pandavas? Did Ashvatthama, a murderer, actually "know the Brahman?"
  • Create New...