{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/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |