Kishalaya

Dear Prabhu Ji, My humble obeisnaces! It is said that respect is due to All Vaishnavas simply on the strength that they accept Sri Hari as The Supreme Truth. It is also said by Sri Narad, that too much debate is not conducive to bhakti. However when it comes to replying offensive accusations, no untoward words shall be used for logicians who are also Vaishnavas. Defence is sufficient. Defence is also necessary when the opposition reaches to a stage of blasphemy. I shall humbly try to follow that paradigm. "The Sri sampradayam does not give a hoot to the gaudiyas" Well there is no need of "a hoot" (whatever that means) from *any* sampradaya for Gaudiya siddhanta, nor does a Gaudiya vaishnava care. The prime objective of following Gouranga Mahaprabhu is to return to Krishna, not to become a nitpicking grammarian. The Gaudiya siddhanta is based on all Shastra which include, but extend beyond, the prasthana traya. a),b),c) There is no need to say anything here. It is clearly seen here that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had great regard for Sri Sampradaya saints. It is a True Vaishnava's glory that he will not shy away from glorifying other true Vaishnavas. d) I have not seen this, but there is no need to conclude a-priori that the work of one saint is revelation and that of another is "fictitious work" simply on that strength that the other one is not of one's own sampradaya. e) If you say so. However Sri Hari's moola svaroopa cannot have *any* defective parts. The reconciliation is achintya bhedaabheda. Sri Gouranga graced Madhvaacharya because he left no stones unturned to blow mayavada to bits. f) Gaudiya sampradaya is the sampradaya started by Brahma. It does not matter at all if the present day Madhva followers do not accept Gaudiya vaishnavas as followers of Madhva. The reconciliation is possible only by directly asking Sri Madhva and Sri VyaasaTeertha. Till that time let everybody be happy with their notion of what constitutes a valid sampradaya. Now on "You cannot claim allianace to Madhva as you have" Gaudiyas do not claim allegiance to some of what is today propagated as the *only* teaching of Madhva. Nowhere it is written that, one has to follow only those few who today claim sole propreitorship of Madhva's teachings, to be recognised as a valid part of Brahma-Madhva sampradaya. In fact Gaudiya parampara does not make any reverse claims since such claims are simply born of ignorance. i. "rejected his stand on Narayana". Not at all. Sriman Narayana is worshipped with all grandeur in Paravyoma Vaikuntha. However, Gaudiya vaishnavism accepts more. ii. Sridhar Swamin was a great bhaagvat, not a mayavadi, as is apparant to some people by his apparant advaitic nuances in his commentary of Srimad Bhagavatam. Sridhar Svamin was born into an age of mayavada, where any conception of dualism was to bring havoc on society. Therefore He had hidden the bhaagavat interpretation. Later Sripad Vidyadhvaaj Teerth (Jayadharma Muni) in his "Bhakti Ratnavali" commentary on Bhagavatam brought out the dualistic import of Sridhar Svamin's commantary. iii. None of Dvaita's dualistic imports are rejected by Gaudiya siddhanta. Baladeva Vidyabhushana in his commentary "Govinda Bhaashya" of BrahmaSutras at the very start mentions the 9 premayas of Sri Madhvacharya. Nothing is contradictory to AchintyaBhedaabheda. However one must remember that the sole purpose of Madhvaacharya was "kevale-advaita-nirasana" - complete defeat of advaita philosophy. Hence it was a cardinal sin for him to speak anything on abheda. Last but not the least, one must remember that achintya bhedabheda is more about difference than about oneness. iv. As stated earlier, Baladeva completely accepts Madhvas 9 prameyas right at the beginning of "Govinda Bhaashya". His commentary is an elucidation of what Sri Madhva did not write. "These proves that gaudiyas can not survive as a sampradayam on their own. It is not a question of fitting in. Obviously you are ignorant on Indian philosophy." Proofs in siddhanta are not established in half a page! "Your view that Krishna is source of Narayana is also not acceptable to Madhvacarya. And the gaudiyas claim lineage to him ?" Sripad Madhvachaarya said, all avatars of Sriman Narayan and Sriman Narayan Himself are equal in tattva. There is no argument in that. However Sri Madhva did not descend as a rasaacharya. So, it is not from him that teachings about rasa are to be learnt. As for why Gaudiya's claim Sri Krishna is Supreme, the following link will suffice: http://www.raganuga.com/d//index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=626 (See posts by "jiva") "Regarding Rupa goswami's which will appeal to some ill informed sentimental bangla deshis." Well! Standard vedic rules on debate, logic etc ... "It will be futile to have a constructive argument with fanatics, who don't have a clue to standard vedic rules on debate, logic etc .." Fanatics!! Very evident indeed! Thank you :-) Your servant, Kishalaya

ISKCON Bangalore and the likes are feeding Krishna Prasadam to poor children etc. By Krishna's grace we are able to get two square meals a day. Let us also give those not so priveleged, a chance to taste prasadam. -Kishalaya

Bhagavatam 1.3.28 ete caamsa kalah pumsah krishnas tu bhagavan svyam indraari vyaakulam lokam mridayanti yuge yuge krishnas TU bhagavan svayam BUT Krishna is Bhagavan Svayam

ye yathaa maam prapadyante taams tathataiva bhajaamyaham

Bhagavatam 11.3.44 – "paroksa-vada vedo’yam" The Vedas speak indirectly Bhagavad Gita: vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo By All the vedas, only I am to be known.

I see no fault in Sri Hari's Dignity if He cannot make Govardhan so heavy that He can never lift it. Since what Sri Hari cannot create, cannot exist. It makes no difference to my faith if Sri Hari can or cannot create things which cannot exist, but it makes tremendous difference to my faith if Sri Hari cannot create things which can exist. Great are the souls who have natural faith in the Lord, but for those, like me, who think whether He can create a rock that He can never lift, while trying to chant His names, it is imperative that all such buddhi doshas (defects of intelligence) be killed by proper nyaya (logic) just as Sri Hari uses His Sudarshan Chakra to kill demons. Otherwise, it should be known that (samshay) doubt is a killer of (shraddha) faith.

I see no fault in Sri Hari's Dignity if He cannot make Govardhan so heavy that He can never lift it. Since what Sri Hari cannot create, cannot exist. It makes no difference to my faith if Sri Hari can or cannot create things which cannot exist, but it makes tremendous difference to my faith if Sri Hari cannot create things which can exist. Great are the souls who have natural faith in the Lord, but for those, like me, who think whether He can create a rock that He can never lift, while trying to chant His names, it is imperative that all such buddhi doshas (defects of intelligence) be killed by proper nyaya (logic) just as Sri Hari uses His Sudarshan Chakra to kill demons. Otherwise, it should be known that (samshay) doubt is a killer of (shraddha) faith.

There is great misconception about Sri Hari's All Perfect Qualities. God creating a rock He cannot lift. Is there an inherent contradiction in the term "Omnipotent"? Western theistic science has done some hair splitting which we need not waste time on again: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/omni.htm There are various nefarious arguments like the above, some of which are: Can God make 2+2=5? Can God make an object exist and not exist at the same time? Can God make a square triangle? Answer: God can do things which have the quality of getting done! God can create things that have the quality of getting created! So: If something does not have the quality of getting done, then not being able to do it is not a defect. e.g. making 2+2=5, making square traingles. Similarly, if something does not have the quality of getting created (in simple terms, that object does not have the ability to exist), then not being able to create it not a defect. e.g. God creating a rock which he cannot lift. Sri Hari cannot be faulted for lacking the ability to create things which cannot be created because there is no such ability. Similarly Sri Hari cannot be at fault for lacking the ability to do things which cannot be done, because no such ability exists at all.

There is great misconception about Sri Hari's All Perfect Qualities. God creating a rock He cannot lift. Is there an inherent contradiction in the term "Omnipotent"? Western theistic science has done some hair splitting which we need not waste time on again: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/omni.htm There are various nefarious arguments like the above, some of which are: Can God make 2+2=5? Can God make an object exist and not exist at the same time? Can God make a square triangle? Answer: God can do things which have the quality of getting done! God can create things that have the quality of getting created! So: If something does not have the quality of getting done, then not being able to do it is not a defect. e.g. making 2+2=5, making square traingles. Similarly, if something does not have the quality of getting created (in simple terms, that object does not have the ability to exist), then not being able to create it not a defect. e.g. God creating a rock which he cannot lift. Sri Hari cannot be faulted for lacking the ability to create things which cannot be created because there is no such ability. Similarly Sri Hari cannot be at fault for lacking the ability to do things which cannot be done, because no such ability exists at all.

Krishna knows all that is there, all that exists. If by our free will, (some part of) our future has still not been created, it does not exist, hence that which does not exist need not be known. So Krishna is All Knowing because He knows everything that can be known. That which does not exist (such as the part of future that we can create by our free will) does not have the property of being known. So even if Krishna may not know a part of our future, that does not create any fault in Him, because what He does not know --- does not exist. Simple. This argument is same as "Does Krishna know the limit to His opulences?". If He knows, then there is a limit to His opulences and if He does not know, then How is He All Knowing. The answer is same. The limit to Krishna's opulences does not exist. So the very question of its getting known does not arise. As before, what Krishna does not know, does not exist.

Krishna knows all that is there, all that exists. If by our free will, (some part of) our future has still not been created, it does not exist, hence that which does not exist need not be known. So Krishna is All Knowing because He knows everything that can be known. That which does not exist (such as the part of future that we can create by our free will) does not have the property of being known. So even if Krishna may not know a part of our future, that does not create any fault in Him, because what He does not know --- does not exist. Simple. This argument is same as "Does Krishna know the limit to His opulences?". If He knows, then there is a limit to His opulences and if He does not know, then How is He All Knowing. The answer is same. The limit to Krishna's opulences does not exist. So the very question of its getting known does not arise. As before, what Krishna does not know, does not exist.

1. om namah sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krsnayaklista-karine namo vedanta-vedyaya gurave buddhi-saksine Mayavadis are great proponents that Brahman assumes form with the help of maya and such form is lower than the unmanifest. There is no difference between Krishna and his body/form. here it is clearly said, "SAT CIT ANANDA RUPAAYA" 112. om yo’sau param brahma gopala om tat sad bhur bhuvah svas tasmai vai namo namah "PARAM BRAHMA GOPALA". Full Text can be found in http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/gopala-tapani-upanisad.html The following of the PARAM BRAHMA does not look to be too much of unmanifest? 40. namo vinnana-rupaya paramananda-rupine krsnaya gopinathaya govindaya namo namah 41. namah kamala-netraya namah kamala-maline namah kamala-nabhaya kamala-pataye namah Gopal Tapani Upanishad has explicit description of This Param Brahman's form, pastimes and home/planet etc.

1. om namah sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krsnayaklista-karine namo vedanta-vedyaya gurave buddhi-saksine Mayavadis are great proponents that Brahman assumes form with the help of maya and such form is lower than the unmanifest. There is no difference between Krishna and his body/form. here it is clearly said, "SAT CIT ANANDA RUPAAYA" 112. om yo’sau param brahma gopala om tat sad bhur bhuvah svas tasmai vai namo namah "PARAM BRAHMA GOPALA". Full Text can be found in http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/gopala-tapani-upanisad.html The following of the PARAM BRAHMA does not look to be too much of unmanifest? 40. namo vinnana-rupaya paramananda-rupine krsnaya gopinathaya govindaya namo namah 41. namah kamala-netraya namah kamala-maline namah kamala-nabhaya kamala-pataye namah Gopal Tapani Upanishad has explicit description of This Param Brahman's form, pastimes and home/planet etc.

avyaktam vyaktim apannam manyante mam abuddhayah param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam anuttamam Fools think I was unmanifest before and have taken from now. They do not know that I am inexhaustible and the finest.

avyaktam vyaktim apannam manyante mam abuddhayah param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam anuttamam Fools think I was unmanifest before and have taken from now. They do not know that I am inexhaustible and the finest.

Have u seen this limitless light: avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam param bhavam ajananto mama bhuta-mahesvaram Fools consider me to have taken shelter of a human form. They do not know the superior nature that I am the Lord of everything.

Have u seen this limitless light: avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam param bhavam ajananto mama bhuta-mahesvaram Fools consider me to have taken shelter of a human form. They do not know the superior nature that I am the Lord of everything.

Sri Gouranga sat quitely for seven days before Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya who was explaining advaita to Him. This is only to satisfy the purvapaksha that he was given adequate attention. Same with another mayavadi ( Prakashananda Saraswati ? ). However these people were impartial in their heart, so they at once recognized the Superior Truth. In present times, mayavada had been obliterated to bits and pieces by the Madhva Sampradaya (TattvaVada). It is said of VidyaTeertha that advaitis of his time were afraid of him, not because he will vanquish them in dvaita-advaita argument, but because he may show them their deficiencies of true understanding of advaita itself. As for limitlesslight: avyaktam vyaktim apannam manyante mam abuddhayah param bhavam ajananto mamavyayam anuttamam