Tattva-viveka
questions about Advaita Acarya and CM from a person
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 26, 2010 12:12 am
Somebody asked me this question that I was not able to answer at all. He told me that he had difficulty with GV because he cannot accept CM and Advaita Acarya's identities. There are three objections he had:
1) How is Mahavisnu who is creator of all the universes struggling to spread Vaisnavism in small province in Bengal? In the end also the spread of GV was mainly confined to Bengal and Orissa so with Krsna and Mahavisnu, not much was accomplished.
2) CM's first wife died of snake bite that looks a very common occurence. A person's first wife dies and then he marries again etc. It is difficult that it can happen with Krsna.
3) Many people in India are sentimental people who are accepted many people as incarnations very easily. In fact, there have been many "reincarnaitons" of CM already in Bengal and they have good mystic powers, saintly characteristics and nice following. Bengal is especially renowned for such sentimentalism.
How to weed out the doubts of the soul?
For me, I go according to Gm's suggestion and want to serve you and let the lord reveal himself, but it is not so easy for many people.
I would love to hear all of your answers to the above questions. The obvious answer to everything is that it is just Lord' lila but it makes it hard given the reputation of too many people in India to claim that they are incarnations.
Swami - March 26, 2010 12:02 pm
Somebody asked me this question that I was not able to answer at all. He told me that he had difficulty with GV because he cannot accept CM and Advaita Acarya's identities. There are three objections he had:1) How is Mahavisnu who is creator of all the universes struggling to spread Vaisnavism in small province in Bengal? In the end also the spread of GV was mainly confined to Bengal and Orissa so with Krsna and Mahavisnu, not much was accomplished.
2) CM's first wife died of snake bite that looks a very common occurence. A person's first wife dies and then he marries again etc. It is difficult that it can happen with Krsna.
3) Many people in India are sentimental people who are accepted many people as incarnations very easily. In fact, there have been many "reincarnaitons" of CM already in Bengal and they have good mystic powers, saintly characteristics and nice following. Bengal is especially renowned for such sentimentalism.
How to weed out the doubts of the soul?
For me, I go according to Gm's suggestion and want to serve you and let the lord reveal himself, but it is not so easy for many people.
I would love to hear all of your answers to the above questions. The obvious answer to everything is that it is just Lord' lila but it makes it hard given the reputation of too many people in India to claim that they are incarnations.
1) Sri Vaisnavas identify Ramanuja with Ananta Sesa. How is it that he struggled to establish Sri Vaisnavism in South India? Why did Rama struggle with Ravana, etc. If not much was accomplished, how is it that Gaudiya Vaisnavism is all over the world and has given life to other Vaisnava sects. Is the outreach of Sri Caitanya and Advaita limited to what occurred during their manifest lilas? And what is the nature of lila, especially madhurya (sweet) lila? It must involve struggle to be sweet. Sri Caitanya gave Vrindavana to the world. Without him and the seva of the Goswamis, it would have been lost to the world. Advaita called for Krsna for esoteric reasons and for Kali yuga, and all yuga avataras come through Mahavisnu. So if SC is the yuga avatara, it stands to reason that he must come via MV. And if the time for the decent of the YA coincides with Krsna's inner desire to taste Radha's love then you have Krsna coming via MV as the yuga avatara and more.
2. Krsna "died" from an arrow wound in his foot.
3. But Sri Caitanya's divinity is supported by scripture as well as super human prowess, and that prowess is primarily the power of his love, not lesser miracles. Many people in Bengal may claim many things about themselves but they cannot get the kind of following and literary support that Mahaprabhu himself has.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 26, 2010 12:30 pm
1) Sri Vaisnavas identify Ramanuja with Ananta Sesa. How is it that he struggled to establish Sri Vaisnavism in South India? Why did Rama struggle with Ravana, etc. If not much was accomplished, how is it that Gaudiya Vaisnavism is all over the world and has given life to other Vaisnava sects. Is the outreach of Sri Caitanya and Advaita limited to what occurred during their manifest lilas? And what is the nature of lila, especially madhurya (sweet) lila? It must involve struggle to be sweet. Sri Caitanya gave Vrindavana to the world. Without him and the seva of the Goswamis, it would have been lost to the world. Advaita called for Krsna for esoteric reasons and for Kali yuga, and all yuga avataras come through Mahavisnu. So if SC is the yuga avatara, it stands to reason that he must come via MV. And if the time for the decent of the YA coincides with Krsna's inner desire to taste Radha's love then you have Krsna coming via MV as the yuga avatara and more.
2. Krsna "died" from an arrow wound in his foot.
3. But Sri Caitanya's divinity is supported by scripture as well as super human prowess, and that prowess is primarily the power of his love, not lesser miracles. Many people in Bengal may claim many things about themselves but they cannot get the kind of following and literary support that Mahaprabhu himself has.
Thank you. I had made a similar point to point 1) above. He said that believing that Ramanuja is Ananta Sesa is not core tenant of Sri Vaisnavism. However, belief in CM and Advaita Acarya's identities is essential for anybody to follow GV. One cannot be just inspired by the teachings of GV and not believe in the divinity of Advaita Acarya but such is not the case with Sri Vaisnavism.
But thank you for your responses.
Swami - March 26, 2010 4:05 pm
Thank you. I had made a similar point to point 1) above. He said that believing that Ramanuja is Ananta Sesa is not core tenant of Sri Vaisnavism. However, belief in CM and Advaita Acarya's identities is essential for anybody to follow GV. One cannot be just inspired by the teachings of GV and not believe in the divinity of Advaita Acarya but such is not the case with Sri Vaisnavism.But thank you for your responses.
Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, perhaps the most famous logician of Bharata, accepted him as God. It is important to note the character and status of those who accepted him as such during his lila. Sri Rupa and Sanatana were practically the Governing Bengal at the time. Venkatta Bhatta was highly positioned in the Sri Sampradaya, etc. Prataparudra was the ruler of Orissa and beyond. Gopala Bhatta Goswami was a Sri Vaisnava who became a follower of Sri Caitanya as was Prabhodananda Saraswati. They both accepted him as God. These were not "just anybody" proclaiming their tantric neighbor to be an avatara.
And I believe this statement form the Vayu Purana can be found in existing manuscripts.
kalau sankirtanarambhe bhavisyami saci-sutah
"In the Age of Kali when the sankirtana movement is inaugurated, I shall descend as the son of Sacidevi." (Vayu Purana).
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 26, 2010 4:22 pm
Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, perhaps the most famous logician of Bharata, accepted him as God. It is important to note the character and status of those who accepted him as such during his lila. Sri Rupa and Sanatana were practically the Governing Bengal at the time. Venkatta Bhatta was highly positioned in the Sri Sampradaya, etc. Prataparudra was the ruler of Orissa and beyond. Gopala Bhatta Goswami was a Sri Vaisnava who became a follower of Sri Caitanya as was Prabhodananda Saraswati. They both accepted him as God. These were not "just anybody" proclaiming their tantric neighbor to be an avatara.
And I believe this statement form the Vayu Purana can be found in existing manuscripts.
kalau sankirtanarambhe bhavisyami saci-sutah
"In the Age of Kali when the sankirtana movement is inaugurated, I shall descend as the son of Sacidevi." (Vayu Purana).
Yes these are important points which lend support. I am not sure about this verse from the Vayu Purana. Most of the verses that have been cited to support CM directly from Puranas are not found in all versions. If this one is found then it will be really a strong evidence.
Swami - March 26, 2010 5:00 pm
Yes these are important points which lend support. I am not sure about this verse from the Vayu Purana. Most of the verses that have been cited to support CM directly from Puranas are not found in all versions. If this one is found then it will be really a strong evidence.
I cite it because years ago I was told by a reliable source that a very, very prominent sannyasin in the Ramanuja order who preached in norther India accepted the Godhood of Mahaprabhu on the basis of this verse. He accepted Sri Caitanya as an avatara of Narayana. Unfortunately I do not remember his name.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 26, 2010 11:09 pm
I cite it because years ago I was told by a reliable source that a very, very prominent sannyasin in the Ramanuja order who preached in norther India accepted the Godhood of Mahaprabhu on the basis of this verse. He accepted Sri Caitanya as an avatara of Narayana. Unfortunately I do not remember his name.
It certainly is a great verse if it is found in all editions of the Puranas. Generally in most cases, the verses that support the divinity of a famous person directly in any philosophical school are not found in all versions of the sastras. Hence, they can be explained away as interpolation and selective interpretation. But it does not get clearer than this. This verse is very specific and there be no doubt about anything. First of all, we can count on more predictive power of the sastra, instead of needing to explain it as a dynamic revelation in which the text is being updated regularly with time.( that has happened in Bhavisya Purana with the addition of Jesus and Muhammed).
It will be great if somebody who has access to a standard Vayu Purana will locate this verse. I will be very very happy and I must admit pleasantly surprised. I could not find most verses that are used to support CM's divinity this precisely in the standard editions of the Puranas(like Chaitanya Upanishad etc). Jai!!
Yamuna Dasi - March 26, 2010 11:59 pm
Somebody asked me this question that I was not able to answer at all. He told me that he had difficulty with GV because he cannot accept CM and Advaita Acarya's identities. There are three objections he had:1) How is Mahavisnu who is creator of all the universes struggling to spread Vaisnavism in small province in Bengal? In the end also the spread of GV was mainly confined to Bengal and Orissa so with Krsna and Mahavisnu, not much was accomplished.
2) CM's first wife died of snake bite that looks a very common occurence. A person's first wife dies and then he marries again etc. It is difficult that it can happen with Krsna.
3) Many people in India are sentimental people who are accepted many people as incarnations very easily. In fact, there have been many "reincarnaitons" of CM already in Bengal and they have good mystic powers, saintly characteristics and nice following. Bengal is especially renowned for such sentimentalism.
How to weed out the doubts of the soul?
For me, I go according to Gm's suggestion and want to serve you and let the lord reveal himself, but it is not so easy for many people.
I would love to hear all of your answers to the above questions. The obvious answer to everything is that it is just Lord' lila but it makes it hard given the reputation of too many people in India to claim that they are incarnations.
I would like to try to answer your question.
This person is having a problem to accept Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as avatar because he finds some of his deeds too much ordinary. But this is not an objection that is valid only for CM. Practically EVERY avatar, great saint or spiritual leader had people objecting him. About Jesus they were saying "Who is this guy? Isn't he the son of the carpenter?"
This is the general tendency of the mind - to reject. And the mind is completely capable to reject just anybody and everybody, even for opposite reasons without being able to see what he is doing and that such a rejection can never lead him to any positive acceptance. Jesus noticed this and very clearly pointed it out to people in Matthew 11:18-19:
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.
You see, John the Baptist was a complete renounciate and he was rejected because he is too renounced. Jesus was not so renounced but still he was rejected for not being enough renounced. John was not making miracles, Jesus was making miracles and still he was accused that he is making those miracles with the power of the devil and had to defend himself:
“26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” (Mathew 12)
There is NO WAY to please the mind which doubts anything and everything except his own rightful position to be doubtful.
Krishna also explains this to Arjuna in BG 4.40:
"Those who are ignorant, faithless, or doubtful are lost. There is neither happiness nor success in this world or the next for the doubting soul."
A baby falls down 1000 times before being able to learn how to walk. It would never had been able to learn how to walk if it doubts the possibility to do it. It’s the faith which makes the baby walk, not the doubt. Faith that after 1000 falls the 1001st try to get up, stand and walk will be successful. And so it is.
As Chesterton says, everybody who denies something should first say what he does not deny. Just to deny everything without accepting anything is useless and cannot stand. If the person denies the position of CM as Krishna avatar, does he accept Krishna’s divinity and his words from Gita? Does he accept Rupa Goswami as authority when he says in the first verse of Sri Upadeshamrita “A self controlled person who can overcome the impulses of speech, the mind, anger, the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to instruct the whole world.”
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu fits completely this description.
Jesus also gave the criteria “you will recognize a person from his deeds”. And Mahaprabhu has a lot of deeds which prove himself.
Mahaprabhu’s teaching is NOT based on claims that he is Krishna. Just the opposite – he was many times denying it when his disciples were telling him “we know who you are, you are Krishna”. This is what distinguishes CM from the other self-proclaimed “avatars”! They claim they are God while he was denying it even jumping into the river to cover his ears. That makes a difference.
Even if one does not accept CM as being svayam Bhagavan and Krishna Himself, he can still follow his teaching and respect him as a Guru and a great devotee. And only one who is really close to Mahaprabhu can SEE who he really is… through divine revelation and personal mystical experience. As Krishna revealed himself to Arjuna because he is his “trusted devotee and a friend.” (BG 4.3)
Mahaprabhu teaches us how to become trusted devotees and friends of Krishna, so we can try to follow this first and see later on what would Krishna reveal to us about himself and about Mahaprabhu…
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 27, 2010 12:18 am
I would like to try to answer your question.
This person is having a problem to accept Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as avatar because he finds some of his deeds too much ordinary. But this is not an objection that is valid only for CM. Practically EVERY avatar, great saint or spiritual leader had people objecting him. About Jesus they were saying "Who is this guy? Isn't he the son of the carpenter?"
This is the general tendency of the mind - to reject. And the mind is completely capable to reject just anybody and everybody, even for opposite reasons without being able to see what he is doing and that such a rejection can never lead him to any positive acceptance. Jesus noticed this and very clearly pointed it out to people in Matthew 11:18-19:
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.
You see, John the Baptist was a complete renounciate and he was rejected because he is too renounced. Jesus was not so renounced but still he was rejected for not being enough renounced. John was not making miracles, Jesus was making miracles and still he was accused that he is making those miracles with the power of the devil and had to defend himself:
“26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” (Mathew 12)
There is NO WAY to please the mind which doubts anything and everything except his own rightful position to be doubtful.
Krishna also explains this to Arjuna in BG 4.40:
"Those who are ignorant, faithless, or doubtful are lost. There is neither happiness nor success in this world or the next for the doubting soul."
A baby falls down 1000 times before being able to learn how to walk. It would never had been able to learn how to walk if it doubts the possibility to do it. It’s the faith which makes the baby walk, not the doubt. Faith that after 1000 falls the 1001st try to get up, stand and walk will be successful. And so it is.
As Chesterton says, everybody who denies something should first say what he does not deny. Just to deny everything without accepting anything is useless and cannot stand. If the person denies the position of CM as Krishna avatar, does he accept Krishna’s divinity and his words from Gita? Does he accept Rupa Goswami as authority when he says in the first verse of Sri Upadeshamrita “A self controlled person who can overcome the impulses of speech, the mind, anger, the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to instruct the whole world.”
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu fits completely this description.
Jesus also gave the criteria “you will recognize a person from his deeds”. And Mahaprabhu has a lot of deeds which prove himself.
Mahaprabhu’s teaching is NOT based on claims that he is Krishna. Just the opposite – he was many times denying it when his disciples were telling him “we know who you are, you are Krishna”. This is what distinguishes CM from the other self-proclaimed “avatars”! They claim they are God while he was denying it even jumping into the river to cover his ears. That makes a difference.
Even if one does not accept CM as being svayam Bhagavan and Krishna Himself, he can still follow his teaching and respect him as a Guru and a great devotee. And only one who is really close to Mahaprabhu can SEE who he really is… through divine revelation and personal mystical experience. As Krishna revealed himself to Arjuna because he is his “trusted devotee and a friend.” (BG 4.3)
Mahaprabhu teaches us how to become trusted devotees and friends of Krishna, so we can try to follow this first and see later on what would Krishna reveal to us about himself and about Mahaprabhu…
Thanks for your answer. I still don't believe that Jesus is God neither do most Vaisnavas.
Yamuna Dasi - March 27, 2010 7:00 am
No need to believe this. That was not the core of his preaching anyway. He was saying that he is a son of God and that others are also sons of God. Same way it was not the core of Mahaprabhu's preaching that he is Krishna. Only those who were very close to him knew it, not the general public.
The real question is if we would follow or not. If we start to follow later on we can see who is who, by his mercy and personal revelation.
Far not all of the followers of Mahaprabhu were seeing him as God also but they followed him and later on some of them saw him as Krishna. Also Arjuna was not exactly taking Krishna as God and in Gita Krishna revealed himself as svayam Bhagavan. First is following and then is seeing.
Many people think "I see and that's why I believe", but it works vice versa "I believe and later on I will see".
I was giving Jesus as an example because as your friend objected CM, the same way Jesus was also objected.
Krishna was also objected even by Indra...
Mind always has some objections.
The real point is not what do we object but what do we accept. That's the stat point and the stand point. And then what we do about what we accept and how we do it.
Personally if I knew your friend I would not start to argue with him giving him proofs that CM is God himself. Rather I would tell him: "You don't believe this, ok, don't worry, you don't have to. But if you believe in Krishna and Gita and if you like the devotees, then just stay with them and do some service. And later on many things you will see and feel by yourself."
Once a devotee told me that the day of her initiation after the ceremony she approached her Guru (Paramadveiti Maharaj) and told him: "Gurudev, I accept everything from our philosophy (she did not know at that time the philosophy anyway), but I cannot accept that God is a person!" Just try to imagine! 
And instead of starting to give her proofs he told her: "You don't have to"... and smiled.
So I asked her: "And what happened!?"
She said: "Come on! After a month with the devotees and the deities I could not even imagine that God is not a person!"
After my initiation I also asked my Gurudeva "why are we playing with these dolls dressing them? What's the symbol of this?"
As you can imagine I was talking about the deities! 
He also didn't start giving me quotes and arguments, just smiled and told me that we are searching a way to express our love...
Arguments are like bullets shooting the mind. And it hurts many times because the ego is also in the mind. So by shooting the mind you are also shooting the false ego. And that hurts. And the living entity is inclined naturally to reject that which causes pain or discomfort.
But if you conquer the heart of a person, then he's yours. Mind will be objected by the heart.