Logic and Reasoning of Gaudiyas

[Guest guest]

There has been some interesting discussion going on here by different people on the position of Narayana and Sri Krishna.

 

It is unfortunate though unlike the 3 basic traditions:

 

Sankara

Ramanuja

Madhva

 

The gaudiya tradition deviates totally from the Vedic school of thoughts.A bonafide sampradaya is based on:

 

Prasthana Traya - Vedas & Upanishads ,Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita

 

Ithihasas and Puranas fall in in the secondary group of scriptures which merely reiterate some of the points of the ancient scriptures or expand on some of the subjects.The 3 Vedic Acharyas utilized the Puranas to the minimum as they are later day works and have lent themselves to much corruption in intepretation and translations etc.

 

The Prasthana Trya Granthas are unauthored - aupuruseya and are very hard to re-write.

 

Even worse, is that the Gaudiyas do not have a formal acharya parampara linking to the Lord.The whole connection with Madhvacharya is purely a patchwork gimmic.

 

Madhvacharya's siddhantam is Dwaita Siddhantam- a philosophy of difference.

 

Acintya Bheda Bheda is merely a perversion of Ramanuja's visishtadvaita.How can there be a link to Madhvacharya in this way?

 

Chaitanya Mahaparbhu's connections with Sankarite Kesava Bharati itself shows he was an ekadandi sanyasi.This connection itself is enough to show why he had a problem with the Madhvites when he went on a tour of South India

( Chaitanya Charitramrita).No wonder the madvites couldn't agree with him.

 

The taking of tridandi sanyasam came much later only during the time of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.That too was not done in the appropriate fashion.

 

The beauty is that the more evidence there is against the gaudiya sampradaya as being a " priated" religion the more effort is needed to divert the arguments to suit their own fanatical ideas and child like fantasies of a golden avatara who gave darshan to all great acharyas- that is taken from a text called bhavishya ( bhavishyottara purana) which is touted as a later day writing.Even great exponents of the bhagavatam accept Lord Narayana as supreme and Krishna as the purna avatara ( non different as ).

 

It is sad to say that today so much effort is being undertaken by Gaudiya groups in Bangalore and Berlin to cover up their deficiencies by trying to adopt " Sri Vaishnava " practices such as worship of Ahobila Narasimha and Venkateswara in their temples.

 

The celbration of Brahmotsava in ISKCON Bangalore is also a cheap attempt to "ape" the greatness of holy kshetras of Tirumala and Kanchi.Kanchi will be Kanchi and Tirumala will be Tirumala.Bangalore can never be another Tirumala and Berlin will never be another Ahobilam.

 

Bottom line - the gaudiyas have no direction or clue as to what they are doing and have caused more spiritual chaos than good.Sad but true.May Lord Hayagreeva grant you the gnyana to see the truth of the Vedas.The Purusha Suktham which appears in all the Vedas has proclaimed:

 

the veda purusha is he whose consorts are hri and sri the goddesses of modesty ( bhudevi ) and wealth ( lakshmi).

 

In the tamil country there is a saying -

 

a mule will never appreciate the scent of camphor.

 

So SD Dasa, it is best you leave these guys to rot in their fanatism and fantasy.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

The 3 Vedic Acharyas utilized the Puranas to the minimum as they are later day works...

 

 

In the Sri Sampradaya there are extensive commentaries on the Vishnu Purana, which is considered a spotless and faultless text. Sri Veeraraghava Acharya has also written a commentary on the Bhagavatam explaining its equality with Vedic texts.

 

In the Madhva Sampradaya, Madhva has written commentaries on Bhagavatam and Mahabharata, equating them with the essence of all Vedic knowledge.

 

 

Even worse, is that the Gaudiyas do not have a formal acharya parampara linking to the Lord.The whole connection with Madhvacharya is purely a patchwork gimmic.

 

 

This is just an uneducated comment, so I won't dwell on it. The lines of Alvhars and Acharyas are also informal, many times divine revelation.

 

 

Chaitanya Mahaparbhu's connections with Sankarite Kesava Bharati itself shows he was an ekadandi sanyasi.This connection itself is enough to show why he had a problem with the Madhvites when he went on a tour of South India...

 

 

The entire Madhva line is ekadandi sannyasa, including Madhva himself.

 

 

...trying to adopt " Sri Vaishnava " practices such as worship of Ahobila Narasimha and Venkateswara in their temples.

 

 

Tirupati Venkateswara has existed for millions of years before there was a Ramanuja or Sri Vaishnava sampradaya. Worship of Venkateswara does not belong to the Sri Vaishnava line. The Lord belongs to no sectarian line.

 

 

The celbration of Brahmotsava in ISKCON Bangalore is also a cheap attempt to...

 

 

Brahmotsava festivals are conducted in thousands of temples throughout South India, both old and new.

 

Your post is really nothing but baseless insults, thrown while hiding behind an anonymous post. These forums are for civil discussion, not for ad hominem attacks. If you can't discuss the philosophy, but must resort to personal insults, then don't participate here. There are other forums where you can participate that don't require you to remain civil.

[Guest guest]

 

 

yeah, he does the same thing elsewhere, his style

is to make up stuff, literally, at one place he insisted

that Mahaprabhu was not mentioned in scripture

as being a coming avatar, and therefore since Gaudiya

philosophy insists that all avatars must be mentioned

in shastra, Mahaprabhu by that standard is not an avatar.

 

So, I showed him where Srila Prabhupada writes in Gita,

 

Krishna can incarnate anywhere,anytime, he need not follow

any time table or shastric evidence, He is independent

and can incarnate as He likes, when He likes.

 

His response was that I said the exact opposite, That God only incarnates according to a schedule written in shastra.

 

so he doesn't have scruples, or doesn't read what you post,

and his knowledge of various Vaisnava siddhantas

is faulty.

 

what i find strange is the type of thinking that believes

say that the upanisads are bona fide, but not the puranas, philisophically if you reject one as being

unreliable and accept the other, how is that justified ?

 

Both are coming from ancient sources,neither can be empirically verified, so to reject one and not the other

and claim that as philosophically superior position

is illogical.

[Guest guest]

What is your background and when did you get involved in Krsna Consciousness? I enjoy reading your posts and you appear to be very knowledgable.

[Guest guest]

 

why thank you, although i cannot claim credit,

Krishna says "from me comes knowledge, rememberance,

and forgetfullnes"

 

i cannot even know who,what,where or when i am,

without help.

 

my backround, i am american, after highschool,i studied and practiced yoga, then almost immediately i joined

ISKCON and lived there for 5 years.

 

that was back in the 70's and beginning of the 80's.

 

since then i have lived mostly in Hawaii,and some in California.

 

 

[ahmygoddess 0]

I like that verse, because who knows...we could have been advanced devotees in a previous life but somehow got steered "off track." Only by the mercy of a pure devotee can we ever realize our lost relationship with Krsna and make our way back Home.

 

I am teenager in an Indian body and got interested in KC after reading As It Is a couple of years. I started going to the Hare Krsna Temple last month for the first time and it was a lot of fun! I always look forward to the Sunday Feasts so I can chant, dance, take prasadam, and associate with devotees. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

take care,

Satya