You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2005

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00038 Apr 2005

 
Apr 2005 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]



{Moderator's note:

Thanks to Sri Krishna Susarla for posting this. I regret that I let the 
original post with fairly strong words against a sampradaya not being discussed 
in this list pass through. I have to close this discussion with this post.

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
varadhan
}

I am posting this only in response to Vinod's criticisms and his 
request for corrections. Since this is not a gauDIya forum, I will 
thank Vinod and others to refrain from further discussing this matter 
here, but instead to discuss with me privately by e-mail or via a 
gauDIya mailing list such as www.achintya.org. Since he has 
introduced the subject here, I believe one response would be fair. 
Let us then keep further responses off of this mailing list unless 
the moderator has no objection.

--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, vinod sv <winode_sv@xxxx> wrote:

 Inspite of all his
> glory, the followers of sri ananda teertha blaspheme
> such blemishless sri ramanuja with harsh words. Their
> AchAryAs even present Sri rAmAnuja as an incarnation
> of a demon named vAtApi, who can save them from the
> eternal hell for such a bhAgavad aparAda? Not even the
> Lord Himself can save them. 

Just for my reference, can you point to where their AchAryas have 
said this? I agree that it is offensive and uncalled for. I just want 
to know exactly who said that and where. 

> I can understand from your words that you are a
> gaudiya vaishNava. I have no comment to offer for your
> belief that there are 4 bonafide sampradAyAs. But
> frankly speaking, the recent neo vedantists are the
> people who say that there is no difference between all
> the AchAryAs,

Just FYI, gauDIyas do *not* say there is no difference between these 
four sampradAyas. I agree with you that such a belief is 
characteristic of neo-Vedanta. 

> I also have a strong objection to gaudiyA's position
> as followers of madhva sAmpradAya as there is no real
> disciplic line. (disciplic line just doesnot mean
> guru's sishya is next guru, but the guru's teachings
> are unchanged by sishya when he becomes guru.) If
> there were a disciplic line, then gaudiyAs cannot
> deviate from sri Ananda teertha's pancha-bhEda and
> formulate their own achintya bhEda-abhEda.

According to the Advaita Vedanta home page (http://www.advaita-
vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html) the guru-paramparA of shrI 
shankarAchArya is given as descending from shrImAn nArAyaNa through 
shrI vedavyAsa. Now, we all know that shrI vedavyAsa was not an 
advaitin, and shruti-s do not teach advaita. The point is, if one 
must never differ from the opinions of pUrvAchAryas in the guru-
parmamparA (your position), then you must also object to 
shankarAchArya's guru-parmparA also.

Do you?

It would
> have been proper to call themselves chaitanya
> sampradAya, rather than 'madhva-gaudiya' sampradAya if
> they want to have a different interpretation of
> vedanta. If a disciplic line is genuine, then they
> will not deviate from the original teacher's readings
> (in this case sri madhva's). Hence, I do not see any
> genuinity of Gaudiyas as a bonafide vaishnava
> disciplic line, even in the case of Sri madhva being a
> bonafide AchArya.

These are strong statements, but there are historical precedents to 
the contrary.

Some of Madhva's own biographers (in Mani-manjari for example) record 
his paramparA as being through his Advaitin guru Achyuta Preksha 
(even though he later converted him). VallabhAchArya, a contemporary 
of shrI chaitanya, has a guru-paramparA from shrIdhar swAmI even 
though these two have different doctrines. And as mentioned 
previously, shrI shankarAchArya claims a guru-paramparA through shrI 
vedavyAsa. I am not aware of any shrI vaiShnava writings which 
dispute this.

History has shown that exceptional AchAryas sometimes do inaugurate 
new doctrines. Regardless of doctrinal differences, etiquette 
requires that one still pay homage to his guru. I do not agree with 
your position that gauDIyas should not list the madhva paramparA 
preceeding their own. In fact, for them to neglect the gurus prior to 
mAdhavendra purI would be quite rude.

 Hence their teaching that there are
> 4 bonafide disciplic lines is of little value.
> 
> I do not mean to offend the devotion of gaudiya
> vaishNavAs or madhvas, but exposing the truth behind
> the genuinity of their disciplic lines.

shrI baladeva vidyAbhUShana, the gauDIya commentator on vedAnta-sUtra 
and an accomplished scholar during his time, listed this mAdhva guru-
paramparA in his own prameya-ratnAvalI. I believe AchAryas such as he 
have the prerogative to speak for their sampradAya on such matters as 
lineage and succession, without others having to "expose" something 
for them. 
 
> Please enlighten me, if you see any misunderstanding
> in me.
 
As per your request. But I kindly suggest you keep your criticisms of 
gauDIyas off of this list and consider private e-mail or a 
specifically gauDIya forum for such discussions. I do not think it 
would be fair to one's sampradAya to be criticized, and no responses 
be allowed on the grounds that they are not about Sri Vaishnavism. I 
think you get the idea.

warm regards,

HariKrishna Susarla










azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list