Sri Caitanya and Madhvacarya: Different Angles of Vision
Volume IV, No. 19
http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/..._four/m192.html
Q. Sri Caitanya accepted Sri Madhvacharya and entered his line of succession through Madhavendra Puri. However, the philosophy taught by Sri Madhvacharya has major differences from that taught by Sri Caitanya.
One difference is that in the Caitanya tradition Krsna is considered to be the source of all incarnations, but this contention is not supported anywhere in the scriptures. The Gaudiyas do cite this verse from Bhagavatam "ete camsa kalah pumsam krsnas tu bhagavan svayam" (Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead) as the evidence, but Sri Madhvacharya gives a different explanation for this verse.
Can you shed some light on the authenticity of the Gaudiya connection to the disciplic sucession of Madhvacharya and how the Gaudiyas can claim to be in the line of Madhva when they differ with him on so many important points?
A. Gaudiya Vaisnavas accept Sri Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that Sri Caitanya is Krsna Himself. Their understanding is supported by sastra pramana (evidence from scripture). The supremacy of Krsna over Narayana is stated in the Bhagavatam (1.3.28) where it says "krsnas tu bhagavan svayam."
I am well aware that Madhvacharya explains this verse differently. However, our tattva acharya, Sri Jiva Goswami, has substantiated the Gaudiya interpretation of this verse with over 300 points drawn from sastra in his treatise known as Krsna-sandarbha. Thus the Gaudiyas are not lacking in sastra or reasoning when they interpret this verse as they do. They have also substantiated from sastra their understanding that Sri Caitanya is Krsna himself, drawing from many diverse sources.
On these and other points the Gaudiya Vaisnavas differ from the experience of Madhvacarya and his corresponding interpretation of sastra. However, this does not mean that either the Gaudiyas or Madhva are wrong, but rather that the Lord has revealed himself to them from different angles of vision and has thus given them the power to support their respective visions with scripture.
Many of the followers of Madhva do not agree with the Gaudiya interpretation of scripture, nor do they agree with the interpretations of Ramanuja, Nimbarka, or Visnuswami, all of whom are respected acaryas representing Vaisnava lineages. Still they must respect the particular angles of vision of these acharyas because of their obvious spiritual standing and ability to support their experience with scripture. The present-day followers of Madhva should also show the same deference to Sri Caitanya and his sincere followers.
Although Sri Caitanya appeared formally in the Madhva line, he has revealed new insight. As Sri Krsna he started the Madhva line of disciplic succession when he gave knowledge to Lord Brahma, and he can adjust it if he chooses to reveal something special later on. This is what Krsna has done through the revelations of Sri Caitanya. Thus while the Gaudiyas are formally in the line of Madhva, in substance they differ spiritually, not in terms of whether or not God is personal or impersonal, but rather in terms of which manifestation of Godhead is the sweetest.
Who is sweeter, Krsna or Narayana? Madhurya means sweet--save the sweet for the end of the meal. In essence this is what Krsna has done through his connection with the Madhva sampradaya in the form of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. By sweetness we mean that there is greater potential for rasa in relation to Krsna than there is in relation to Narayana, and scripture tells us that Brahman is rasa--raso vai sah, the reservoir of all rasa.
Is differing within an established lineage unprecedented? No it is not! Madhva himself was initiated in an Advaitin lineage, but he evolved an entirely different doctrine. Although the Madhva sampradaya claims that he later accepted siksa directly from Vyasa, we are left to accept this on faith. There is no conclusive evidence to substantiate this point. However, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas do accept it on faith and honor Madhva so much so that they claim that Krsna himself has chosen to appear again in Madhva's lineage as Sri Caitanya.
Is it too much to ask the Madhvas to accept that Sri Caitanya is Krsna himself, the Kali Yuga avatara, when the Gaudiyas also support their contention with scripture? Is it any more of a stretch than that which the followers of Madhva insist we must make in accepting that Madhva had the darsana of Vyasa or that Madhva was an incarnation of Vayu, Bhima, and Hanuman?
If we accept the Gaudiya vision of Sri Caitanya, where is the break in the disciplic succession and who can complain if Sri Krsna Caitanya decides to shed new light on the teachings of Madhva and the Bhagavatam? New light from Sri Caitanya does not extinguish the light of Madhvacharya, rather the appearance and teachings of Sri Caitanya have enhanced the position of the Madhva sampradaya throughout the world. Who can deny this fact?
Those who choose to follow Madhva's teaching while showing respect to Sri Caitanya will no doubt be successful in attaining the goal of the Madhva sampradaya, which is Vaikuntha, the abode of Narayana. In Vaikuntha the Madhvas will always think that Krsna is an avatara of Narayana.
At the same time the Gaudiyas will attain the goal of Sri Caitanya which is Goloka, Maha Vaikuntha, the abode of Krsna. In Goloka the Gaudiyas will think of Krsna as their friend or lover and that Narayana is God. Thus, in the end the Gaudiyas and Madhvas agree in the sense that from the vantage point of their bhava in Goloka the Gaudiyas accept Narayana as the Supreme God and Krsna, who is their lover or friend, as subordinate to Narayana. Still, they love Krsna more, and who can deny that Krsna is more charming?
Otherwise, overall both sampradayas acknowledge the virtue of nama kirtana and the importance of forgoing material sense indulgence. Focus on this and see which way your heart takes you.
Rice Once High in Price Has No Value
Volume IV, No. 9
http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/..._four/m181.html
Q. As the festival of Madhva Navami approaches (the day Madhvacharya joined his guru at Badarikashrama), I would like to know what position the Gaudiya Vaisnavas give to Sri Madhvacharya. As a follower of Sri Madhvacharya I am interested to know how he has influenced Vaishnava thought worldwide. I learn a lot from your Sanga and look forward to continued association in the future.
A. In his Tattva-sandarbha the Tattvacarya of the Gaudiya Vaisnava lineage, Sri Jiva Goswami, has referred to Sri Purnaprajna Madhvacarya as a venerable Vaisnava, one whose insights he draws on in the course of establishing the Gaudiya scriptural conclusions.
Although there are doctrinal differences between the Madhvas and Gaudiyas, the Gaudiya lineage acknowledges formal ties to the Madhva lineage. As Sri Krsna himself initiated the Madhva lineage through Brahma, he similarly chose to bless the Madhva Vaisnavas by appearing personally in Madhva's lineage as Sri Caitanya, at which time he inaugurated the Madhva-Gaudiya lineage, as our sampradaya is sometimes called.
Two principal themes of Madhva's doctrine have been fully embraced by the followers of Sri Caitanya: the eternality of God's form, and Madhva's refutation of Advaita Vedanta (Mayavada). No one can be a Gaudiya Vaisnava without embracing these two themes. Thus Sri Madhvacarya is venerable by all Gaudiya Vaisnavas, and with this in mind Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura established a murti of Sri Madhvacarya in his principal math in Sri Dhama Mayapura.
Q. Could you please tell me where I might find the original Mahabharata? Is it in some temple or museum or is it lost?
A. According to Srila Madhvacarya, the Mahabharata current during his presence (12th century) was full of interpolation. Thus it is unlikely that the original manuscript is available anywhere today.
'Women, degradation and trust'
Volume II, No. 40
http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/...me_two/m94.html
Q. Madhvacarya writes that some souls are eternally demoniac whereas the Gaudiya tradition teaches that everyone has the oppurtunity to become liberated. How do we harmonize this apparent contradiction in siddhanta?
A. Madhvacarya interprets verses such as 18 and 19 from the 16th chapter of Bhagavad-gita to reach this conclusion. Therein Krsna says, 'Those who are envious and cruel, the worst of humanity, I repeatedly cast into the wombs of the ungodly life after life. Having entered the wombs of the ungodly, the deluded, not attaining me in birth after birth, O son of Kuntî, go from there to the lowest destination.'
So Madhava has not said anything wrong. Indeed, Krsna himself has said that some souls are perpetually cast into demoniac wombs. However, the Gaudiya sampradaya, while appearing within the Madhava sampradaya, has shed new light on the scripture. True to its compassionate Lord, Sri Caitnaya, it finds hope for all souls. In my own Bhagavad-gita commentary (scheduled to be published this year), I have commented on the above verse as follows:
"Here Arjuna experiences the wrath of God and reacts accordingly. This is the nature of the godly. Hearing of the fate of the demoniac, Arjuna considers that certainly on hearing this the ungodly will change their ways. This choice is possible with the help of good association. However, the ungodly do not care for the association of the godly, and they usually have no fear of God. Fear is the lowest level of motivation for serving God. Being devoid of this, there is little hope for them. Here Krsna's strong words are an attempt to save them."
Actually, there are many differences between the teachings of Madhava and the teachings of Sri Caitanya. For example, Madhva does not accept that Krsna is the source of Narayana, whereas this is central to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Madhava is not wrong in his opinion, inasmuch as this is his realization and the common understanding in Vaikuntha. There are different ways of looking at ultimate reality. To say that Sri Caitanya is an incarnation of Mahavisnu is not wrong, but it is not very flattering.
Adi-Guru and Founder Acarya
Volume VI, No. 19
http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/...e_six/m253.html
Q. I read in an Iskcon publication that there are four disciplic successions and the leaders of these successions are known as adi-gurus, or original gurus. The duty of each member and all subsequent gurus in the sampradaya is to simply transmit the message as received from the adi-guru without adulteration. Is this correct?
A.The Padma Purana says that there are four Vaisnava sampradayas. In relation to this statement our sampradaya would be the Brahma sampradaya and our adi-guru would be Brahmaji. He passed the teachings through Narada to Vyasadeva, who compiled the Vedas. When the teachings came to Madhvacarya, he did not simply repeat what he had heard from others, rather he shed new light on the Vedas by interpreting them according to his own spiritual realization. His interpretation, known as dvaitavada, gave birth to a new spiritual movement, in which prominent members further elaborated on the philosophy of Madhva, as the tradition developed its own rites, rituals, and spiritual practices.
Later in the Brahma-Madhva sampradaya, Sri Caitanyadeva, in accordance with his own spiritual experience, shed new light on the teachings that Brahma received from Krsna. His disciples, the Six Goswamis of Vrndavana, further elaborated on the teachings of Sri Caitanya. In this way the Caitanya branch of the Madhva sampradaya came into being and developed its own rites, rituals, and spiritual practices. It is the religion of Sri Caitanya that Srila Prabhupada came west to establish. He did not come to establish a new sampradaya or religion. He came to promote the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya, which he did by innovative preaching, not by simply parroting what he had heard from his guru.
The point here is that while it is true that the teachings should be passed on without adulteration, the real spirit of the parampara involves shedding new light on the teachings, making them relevant to people of the times. While Srila Prabhupada would often say to pass on what you have heard without adulteration, his own example of adjusting the teachings according to time and circumstance clearly demonstrates that preaching involves understanding the teachings enough to deliver the essential message, in the midst of altering many nonessential details. Disciplic succession is not simply about repeating what you have heard from the previous guru. It is about realization.
Q. I read that the adi-guru is the devotee who founds the disciplic succession and establishes its original teachings, and that "founder acarya" refers to the devotee who redirects the parampara and corrects the teachings when they become lost or altered. In this regard some consider Srila Prabhupada's contribution to be like that of Madhva and Ramanuja, who are founder acaryas. Some consider them adi-gurus as well, so I guess Srila Prabhupada could also be both an adi-guru and a founder acarya. The book I read says further that Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains that devotees who succeed the founder acarya are duty bound to see the teachings of the parampara through the founder acarya's instructions. There was however no reference from the writings of Bhaktivinode Thakura given to support these statements. Did Bhaktivinoda Thakura actually say all this?
A. The terms adi-guru and founder acarya are defined here in a novel way. Except for one instance, I have never read where any acarya used the term adi-guru to refer to anyone other than Krsna, the original guru. Similarly, the term founder acarya is not a scriptural term. If it were, it would be a translation of a Sanskrit term. Founder acarya refers to the founding acarya of an institution. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was the founder acarya of Gaudiya Math, Srila Prabhupada was the founder acarya of Iskcon, Srila Sridhara Maharaja was the founder acarya of Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math, and so forth.
Srila Prabhupada himself never explained the terms adi-guru and founder acarya in the way that you have done. So from the start we are left to accept the explanation of these terms with no supporting evidence. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary.
Srila Prabhupada writes, "If we are to accept guru, so the original guru is Krsna because He instructed Lord Brahma, the first living creature within this universe. Tene brahma hrda ya adi-kavaye [sB 1.1.1]. He instructed the adi-kavi (Brahma, the original poet from whom the Vedic scriptures emanate). He is the guru, Krsna. And in the Bhagavad-gita, he also says, imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam [bg. 4.1]. So He (Krsna) is adi guru. In Bhagavad-gita also he is instructing Arjuna. He is adi guru."
Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes, "The adi-guru of all the spiritual masters in the disciplic succession is Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Showing his great mercy, he instructed Brahma, the adi-kavi. These truths were in turn taught by Brahma to Sri Narada, by Narada to Sri Vyasa, and by Vyasa to Sri Madhvacarya. Such instructions as received through this disciplic succession are called guru-parampara-upadesa."
The one instance I mentioned of adi-guru referring to someone other than Krsna is in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Harinama Cintamani, where he refers to Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Visnuswami as adi-gurus. In Gaudiya Vaisnavism the term founder acarya first came into use during the time of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. It is not found in Harinama Cintamani or any of the writings of Bhaktivinoda that I am familiar with. Therefore I don't know how anyone could justify writing that Bhaktivinoda Thakura interpreted the term founder acarya in any particular way. In this case it appears to me that this reference from Harinama Cintamani has been grossly misconstrued to equate the term founder acarya with the founder of a sampradaya. I have already explained that the terms adi-guru and founder acarya are not synonymous. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, not Srila Prabhupada, is the founder of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.