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