By : Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
|Art by Chi.Ananya Ravi|
This is in response to some remarks made by those who claim to be the followers of Gaudiya tradition. Their interpretation of the Bhagavata statement "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h" and their rebuttal against Dr. B.N.K. Sharma's comments in his book "The Bhagavadgita Bhashya", are nothing short of puerile in nature.
The write-up demonstrates their serious shortcoming not only in the understanding of Sanskrit and logic, but also in that of English.
At the very outset, I like to point out a couple of things.
By this approach, they are not crossing swords with Dr. Sharma, but with Madhvacharya himself, an attempt to cut the very roots that they claim they belong to. Acharya has dealt with this issue of "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h" in Gitabhashya and Dr. Sharma is just presenting the same.
In this context, I like to quote the following 4 verses from Madhvavijaya.
kutrachit.h sadasi tAvadapAlA kIrtitA.atitaruNItyayamUche || 17 ||
shvitriNii bhavati tatpadavAchyetyAgraheNa vadato viduSho.atra |
kashchideShyati vipashchidihainaM pR^ichchhatetyayam\- agachchhadathoktvaa || 18 ||
deshamenamachirAdupayAtastAdR^ishAkR^itiraho kR^itabuddhiH |
tAMstathAbhyadhita tatpadabhAvaM sUrimaulimaNinA.atrayathoche || 19 ||
kevalaM na sakalAH shrutividyA mAnapUrvakasamastagiro.asya |
apyanAgatagatapratipattiM shraddadhuH pR^ithulachetasa ete || 20 ||
The simple gist is that Madhvacharya interpreted the word "Apala" as young damsel and when the scholars there persisted that the word meant "a leper", Acharya advised them to await another scholar for verification and moved ahead. Just as foretold, there came a scholar bearing the very marks and gave out the same meaning as was decided by MadhvAcharya. The learned not only realized the Purnaprajna's proficiency in vedic knowledge, but also his omniscience and ability to see the past and future.
Thus, it is not strange that Acharya knew that there will emerge a group who will misinterpret "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h" and thus dealt with this phrase in his GitAbhAshya (this will be explained, in detail, later on).
Before I proceed any further, I summarize their charges (denoted as 1C, 2C, 3C, etc.) followed by a rebuttal (denoted as 1R, 2R, 3R, etc.).
1C. Yet some like Dr. Sharma may doubt the authenticity of the Brahma-samhita.
1R. A grand and baseless assumption. What we doubt is not the authenticity of Brahmasamhita, but their interpretation.
Why? See 2C for the answer.
2C. After all, they doubt that Krsna is the original Godhead and do not accept that Sri Caitanya is even an avatara of the Lord, what to speak of being svayam bhagavan Sri Krsna Himself.
2R. No one is doubting that Krishna is the Supreme Lord. What we object to is their very approach to bring gradation among various forms of the Lord. Krishna has made it quite clear in Gita that He is the Supreme One. That, by no means, indicates that His other forms are inferior.
What are they trying to do, by comparing various forms of the Lord? Pit one form against another?
Further, using Brahma-samhita verse, they are trying to slip in that Caitanya is Lord Himself. Even a tiny trace of such is not present in the verse in question.
3C. If the Brahma-samhita is a questionable source for some, their doubt will be removed after reading Sri Jiva Gosvami's commentary on the text.
3R. Blind leading the blind! How can the assumption be made without any supporting statements? The verity of the inaccuracy of Jiva Gosvami's statements will be shown herein.
4C. In Sri Jiva Gosvami's Krsna-sandarbha, he cites every possible statement of the Bhagavata that could possibly be construed to contradict what he describes as the paribhasa-sutra (referring to krsnas tu bhagavan svayam) and explains how they to actually support the Gaudiya siddhanta. By paribhasa-sutra, Jiva Gosvami means a verse that explains how one can understand an entire book in context.
4R. What an irony? Jiva Gosvami is talking of the context, while he, completely, lost sight of the context of the phrase in question?
"ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h |
indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yugeyuge"
This they translate
"All these are part-manifestation of Supreme Person. Krishna is Lord Himself. They protect, from age to age, the world, oppressed by the enemies of Indra".
To see the flaw in this let us take a simple English sentence "In this room, those standing, who wore red shirt, are big in number". If someone interprets "There is a person by name 'who' wearing the red shirt. Those standing are big in number" (implying that those are not wearing red shirt), we immediately object and correct it by saying "Those who are standing and wearing red shirt are big in number" (implying that those are wearing red shirt).
Similarly, the above sentence simply means "All these manifestations (like Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana) of the Supreme Person, who indeed are all Krishna Himself, protect, from age to age, the world, oppressed by the enemies of indra."
If they still persist, a simple question is why is this sentence "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h" embedded in between two half sentences "ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH" and "indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yugeyuge".
It should have been "ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayanti yugeyuge | kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h". Even then it will lose the real purport.
If they turn around and say “No, no. 'ete svAMshakalAH puMsaH' is one sentence.
Then Lord Krishna, who is the Lord Himself, is the one, who protects, from age to age, the world, oppressed by the enemies of indra".
Then it should have been "indrArivyAkulaM lokaM mR^iDayati yugeyuge"
Note "mR^iDayati" (singular) instead of "mR^iDayanti" (plural), because it is just Krishna (not His forms).
5C. According to Dr. Sharma, we [Gaudiyas] have it backwards, Krsna is not the source of Narayana, rather Narayana is the source of Krsna.
5R. For a jaundiced person, the whole world may appear yellow. If they commit the blunder of seeing Krishna as superior to Narayana and then assume that Dr. Sharma commits the opposite blunder of treating Narayana as superior to Krishna, they are thoroughly mistaken.
Dr. Sharma clarifies (based on Jayatirtha's commentary) here that Krishna refers to Mularupa of the Lord Himself.
How Krishna refers to MularUpa? It is answered that it is hetugarbhavisheshana.
kR^ishhNa = laye sarvajagat-
karshakatvAt.h = One Who abstracts the world in Pralaya.
Dr. Sharma translates -
"The self-aspected kalas of the Lord (already mentioned such as Varaha, Narasimha and others) are indeed(tu) identical with the Supreme Person, who abstracts the world in Pralaya".
Here are some more rebuttals for the charges.
6C: The Gaudiya understanding of tu in krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is that tu (but) is used for drawing a contrast between Sri Krsna and all of his avataras, including Narayana. If one insists that tu is used for emphasis, however, that does not change the meaning of the verse. In this case tu serves to stress the conclusion that Krsna is the source of all incarnations. Tu can be translated as indeed or certainly. Certainly, Krsna is svayam bhagavan as all the scriptures proclaim.
6R: Let 'tu' (but) be used to draw the contrast. The contrast is not between Sri Krsna and all of his avataras, but between Sri Krsna and all the other chetanas. Why? Because if the ignorant ones try to draw the conclusion that the other avataras are different chetanas, that has to be nipped in the bud itself.
"The self-aspected kalas of the Lord (already mentioned such as Varaha, Narasimha and others) are but (tu) identical with the Supreme Person, who abstracts the world in Pralaya".
I am repeating the translation with "tu" meaning indeed or certainly.
"The self-aspected kalas of the Lord (already mentioned such as Varaha, Narasimha and others) are indeed (tu or certainly) identical with the Supreme Person, who abstracts the world in Pralaya".
7C: About this, Dr. Sharma could not be less than blinded by his love for Narayana to have missed, not only hundreds of scriptural statements in support of Krsna's supreme position, many of which are found in the Bhagavata itself, but the very essence of the Bhagavata as well.
7R: No wonder, the scriptures emphasize that drawing or seeing difference between Lord's one form and another is one of the "navadveshas"(nine kinds of hatred) leading to "hell of hells". see how such an approach and love for one form can lead to dvesha of another form. Love for Sri Krishna, in their case, is leading to undermine the position of Narayana (in case of the Lord, that is tantamount to dvesha). Not only that. They get so blinded and deafened that even a loud and clear statement "There is no difference between mUlarUpa Narayana and all His incarnations including Sri Krishna. Even the mUlarUpa can be called Krishna because 'laye sarvajagatkarshakatvAt.h'(He abstracts the world in Pralaya)" does not reach them and they keep saying things like "...could not be less than blinded by his love for Narayana...".
See no difference between the forms and there will be no difference between love for one and another. Please be not mistaken that if one does upAsana of only one form all life, it has to mean love for ONLY that. What one thinks is of utmost importance. For ex. Sri Vadiraja did HayagrIvopAsna all thru, but never did he say that HayagrIva form is superior to other forms of the Lord. It is OK to worship Sri Krishna all one's life, but never should one say that "Sri Krishna is superior to other forms of Sri Krishna". That is ridiculous. "Sri Krishna is superior to others" means "Sri Krishna is superior to all other chetanas including Laxmi devi".
8C (Restating 2C): After all, they doubt that Krsna is the origianal Godhead and do not accept that Sri Caitanya is even an avatara of the Lord, what to speak of being svayam bhagavan Sri Krsna Himself.
8R: Well, rephrasing it is what applies to them.
"After all, they doubt that Krsna is non-different from all other forms of His and they even mistake that Sri Caitanya is an avatara of the Lord, what to speak of their misunderstanding of the phrase 'kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h'".
9C: The fifth chapter of Sri Brahma smahita, the hymns of Brahma, who is the adi-guru of the Madhva sampradaya, begins with the statement:
isvarah paramah krsnah
anadir adir govindah
"The supreme controller is Krsna, who has an eternal form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss. He is known as Govinda and he is the cause of all causes."
Sri Jiva Gosvami's commentary on this verse cites more than fifty statements from the Bhagavata that directly support this statement.
9R: As mentioned by Shrisha Rao, even though, we are not sure of the authenticity of the verses in Brahmasamhita (or the work itself),
I do not see the above verse posing any problem.
I just want to show an amusing fact of how easy it is for anyone to misinterpret.
* The following is only to demonstrate the extent of ludicrousness. *
A shaivite can translate the above verse as:
"Ishvara(Shiva) is all Supreme. Krishna is made of eternity, knowledge, and bliss. Ishvara is beginning less (anAdi) and Govinda has His begnning (Adi) from Shiva. Ishvara is cause of the cause of all (meaning Krsihna is sarva-kAraNa and Shiva being His kAraNa, He is sarva-kAraNa-kAraNa".)
And the Shaivite can cite more than fifty statements from various purANa portions where Shiva is extolled.
Sorry for the confusion. Just wipe this off from your minds bearing the awareness that one must be cautious and not believe every translator.
Jiva Gosvami has gone even one step more, by importing what is not told in the verse namely - Sri Krishna is superior to His other forms. Only people with pUrvAgraha can believe in the translations and commentaries of such.
If the above Shaivite translation makes Shiva upset, the above Gaudiya translation makes Sri Krishna upset only.
While one chants so devotedly Lord Krishna's name, why render that futile by undermining His own other forms?
Note that even the translation of the verse by Gaudiyas does not say anything about the form of Sri Krishna being superior to His other forms. Why then indulge in saying shAstraviruddha info in the form of the commentary?
Their entire philosophy on "Sri Krishna being superior to other forms" is hanging on a single thread of misinterpretation. Not a single quote from them, which they claim as a support, that I have seen so far, speaks of Sri Krishna being superior to His own forms. I am really very curious to see if they have even one (They just repeat like a parrot that Jiva Gosvami cites more than fifty.). Real pathetic is their state, indeed.
10C: The more important question on authority, however, is on what authority did Madhva elect to exclude two chapters of the Bhagavata?
10R: The simple answer is that "Madhva does not elect to exclude anything that is authentic". He does not grant inclusion of any non-authentic texts.
Here are some more rebuttals for the charges.
11C: The bewilderment of Brahma (Brahma-vimohana-lila) in the Bhagavata was a source of bewilderment to Madhvacarya.
11R: Nothing can be a more foolish statement than this as this is a clear indication that the Gaudiyas have no clue about the Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya of our Acharya. While they are content with the brag of explaining the Brahma Mohana, Acharya explained even a lot more. On a different occasion, Acharya talked about Brahma Mohana, including Brahma bhaya and shoka. Not only Acharya explained these, he
even gave a count of how many times it happened.
In BhagavatatAtparyanirNaya (6-9-23) Acharya says:
"janishhyatAM janAnAM tu svabhAvAnAM prasiddhaye | j~nAnAdiguNapUrNasya brahmaNo.api xaNArdhagAH | bhayAdikAM bhavantIha kathaM tasmin sthirAlayAH | iti cha bhagavatpRitaye nityaM brahmaNo ye bhayAdayaH | na vR^ithA tasya bhAvaH syatkashchitte.api xaNArdhagAH | aj~nAnaM tu chaturvAraM dvivAraM bhayameva cha | shoko.api tAvannAnyatra kadAchidbrahmaNo bhavet.h |
tatrApi bhagavatprItyA unnatyashchAsya tadbhavet.h | iti brahmatarke"
"For the sake of making well known the nature of the people who will be born, for only half a xaNa, fear, etc. occur to Brahma, who is guNapUrNa with j~nAna, etc. How can these fear, etc. take a permamnent abode in them? Brahma does every act to please the Lord. Even these xaNArdha fear, etc. are not futile, but are meant to please the Lord. For Brahma, ignorance occurs 4 times, fear twice and that two times sadness also and never again [the ignorance, fear or sadness]. Even that happens for the sake of pleasing the Lord and for the glory of Brahma".
If the spurious portions were genuine, all that Acharya could have done is say "anyatra cha" or something like
that, as it is explained in 6-9-23. There instead of "chaturvAraM(four times)", he would have said "paJNchavAraM (five times)".
It is a laughable matter to say that AchArya was bewildrered for this. They needed a genius to say "It is God's lIla"?
More over Acharya wrote Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya, but did not mention that "those two adhyAyas need to be deleted". The case of the matter is that the version chosen by Acharya as authentic did not have those chapters and even today some editions don't have those chapters (which were spuriously inserted at some point).
12C: This verse from the Brahma-vimohana-lila is the opinion of Brahma on the issue under discussion.
narayanas tvam na hi sarva-dehinam
narayano 'ngam narabhu-jalayanat
tac capi satyam na tavaiva maya
"O Lord of lords, You are the seer of all creation. You are indeed everyone's dearest life. Are You not, therefore, my father, Narayana? Narayana refers to one Whose abode is in the water born from Nara [Gar bhodakasayi Visnu], and that Narayana is your plenary portion. All Your portions are transcendental. They are absolute and are not creations of maya."
Here Brahma is speaking to Sri Krsna after having witnessed innumerable forms of Narayana emanating from the transcendental body of Krsna.
12R: I can understand if they don't understand Sanskrit and Dr. BNK Sharma's English. They should at least understand their own English.
They wrote "Are You not, therefore, my father, Narayana?" This speaks of non-difference between Narayana and Sri Krishna. Right after that, quite shamelessly, they say "Narayana is your plenary portion". They don't know the shruti statement "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana" (which means that there is no difference between the Lord and His avayavas or angas or body parts. Also, there is no difference between Lord and His guNas and kriyas). Granted that it is Dvaita interpretation. If they don't agree, what is their position on that shruti vAkya.
Are they chopping Sri Krishna into portions? Also, do they think that they can extricate themselves by using an oxymoron statement (plenary portion) in case of the Lord?
Then look at their fanciful imagination "... having witnessed innumerable forms of Narayana emanating from the transcendental body of Krsna." Where is it mentioned?
13C: If universes emanate from the body of Narayana, and Narayana emanates from the body of Krsna, it is fair to say that Dr. Sharma has it backwards, not us.
13R: Again, this is based on their above fanciful imagination. Dr. Sharma did not say "innumerable forms of Krsna emanating from the transcendental body of Narayana". No true tatvavadi differentiates between various forms of the Lord.
14C: Although madhurya (sweetness) overrides the aisvarya (opulence) of Vrndavana, this lila makes it clear that Vrndavana is not only sweeter than Vaikuntha, but it is more opulent as well. Sri Krsna's abode exceeds the Vaikuntha lokas in aisvarya. Sri Krsna is the source of all opulence, yet his sweetness and charm is something that is greater than all of his majesty.
14R: Another fanciful imagination. They are not content with comparing various forms of the Lord. Now they like to compare various aspects of Vrndavana (which is on earth and gets destroyed in praLaya) with those of Vaikuntha (the eternal abode, which never gets destroyed). What a crazy approach? Do they have any PramANa-s?
Contd with the rebuttals for the charges from Gaudiyas.
(Reminder: "C"s are charges (like 15C, 16C, etc.) and
"R"s are rebuttals (like 15R, 16R, etc.)
15C: Dr. Sharma cites a reference from the Visnu Purana, which he and others of his stamp interpret to mean that Krsna is an incarnation of the hair (kesa) of Narayana. Therefore, Dr. Sharma reasons, why should we accept Krsna as svayam bhagavan?
15R: Another case of total ignorance and proof for their pAShaNDa approach rejecting the Vedic statement "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana". There is no difference between Lord and His hair. Can they give the exact quote where Dr. Sharma reasons, "why should we accept Krsna as svayam bhagavan?". No one is rejecting what is in Bhagavata. We are only rejecting the convoluted interpretation that goes against Vedas and all the Agama pramANa-s.
It is OK to say "All the avataras of the Lord are svayaM Krsna bhagavan". It is ridiculous to say "Only Krsna is bhagavan and other forms of Krsna are not bhagavAn".
16C: Yet all of the verses said to describe Krsna as a black hair and Balarama as a white hair are misunderstood by foolish commentators.
16R: Before calling Acharya Madhva as "foolish commentator", the opponent must atleast make a good effort to study some vedic literature and understand some basics of Agama statements.
One must understand atleast two important concepts from Agamas.
1. Neha nAnAsti kiJNchana
This has been explained earlier. Let us grant that different schools offer different interpretations for this.
2. ParamAtma is "sacchidAnanda rUpa". Atleast in this there is universal agreement (among vedic schools).
If He is personification of eternity, knowledge and bliss, where is the question of attributing "prAkR^itik" hair or any other aspect.
His hair is non-different from Him and is as much infinite as Himself.
17C: Where in any scripture has the Lord been describe as having white hair? He has black hair. If he drew from his head a black and white hair as they misconstrue, from where did the gray hair come? The Lord is eternally youthful. His hairs do not turn gray over time.
17R: Half-baked knowledge is more dangerous than total ignorance.
God is described as "AdimadhyAntarahita" (Has no beginning, middle or end). He does not grow materialistic "black hair" as well. One who thinks that black hair grew on Him is as much a fool as one who thinks that white hair grew on Him. Do they know the difference between "white" and "gray"? For the gray hair that comes due to aging, the word used in Sanskrit is "palita" and not "sita". Another classic example of ignorance of Sanskrit.
The Gaudiya site is so pathetic (in terms of Sanskrit) that there is absolutely no indication of long and short sounds in shlokas. One has to make guesses. The three words "mayaa", "maayaa" and "maya" (all of which mean different things) are all put as "maya".
Further explanation (on kesha" meaning hair) will be given in the next one, where the actual verses from VishnupurANa will be given.
18C: Sridhara Svami refutes this foolish idea by explaining that the word kesau in the Visnu Purana sloka is used in the sense of splendor. The complexions of Krsna and Balarama are thus being described as beautiful or splendorous. The Vishnu Purana states: ujjaharatmanah kesau. Sridhara Svami explains that this phrase properly understood means "The Lord in his splendid origianl forms as Balarama and Krsna relieved the burden of the earth."
18R: Everything looks foolish for one who doesn't understand some basics. What makes Sridhara Svami and Jiva Gosvami think that Lord's "kesa" (or hair) is not splendorous? Do they have to go head over heels to say 'splendorous'? Look at this:
"The Lord in his splendid origianl forms as Balarama and Krsna relieved the burden of the earth."
So now Balarama form also became original? What a pity that "NarayaNa or Vishnu or Hari" form is not original because Krishna and Balarama snatched it! Where is this convoluted theory of original and duplicate? If one doesn't even understand the meaning or purport of the usage "svayam" and goes on a wild goose chase, it is laughable only.
The verses in question in VishnupurANa are as follows.
evaM saMstUyamAnastu bhagavAn.h parameshvaraH |
ujjahArAtmanaH keshau sitakR^shNau mahAmune || 5-1-60
uvAcha cha surAnetau matkeshau vasudhAtale |
avatIrya bhuvo bhArakleshahAniM karishhyataH || 5-1-61
surAshcha sakalAshchAmshairavatIrya mahItale |
kurvantu yuddhamunmattaiH pUrvotpannairmahAsuraiH || 5-1-62
tataH xayamasheshhAste daiteyA dharaNItale |
prayAsyanti na sandeho maddR^kpAtavichUrNitAH || 5-1-63
vasudevasya yA patnI devakI devatopamA |
tatrAyamashhTamo garbho matkesho bhavitA surAH || 5-1-64
avatIrya cha tatrAyaM kamsaM ghAtayitA bhuvi |
kAlanemiM samudbhUtamityuktvAntardadhe hariH || 5-1-65
The very context is that Chaturmukha Brahma along with other gods goes and prays Lord Sri Hari. Until that point in this episode, there is no mention of Krishna's name.
The gist (Keeping the questionable expressions as are, which will be addressed later on, based on context):
1-60. Oh, great Muni, thus extolled by Brahma, the Supreme Lord with ShadguNaishvarya sampada, drew
out two 'sita kR^ishna kesa-s'.
1-61. Then he spoke to the gods "These two 'kesha-s' of mine will incarnate on earth and will remove the afflictions caused to earth by the heaviness of sins."
1-62. May all the gods incarnate in their amshas and make a war against the intoxicated (insane or intellectually disordered) and already born demons.
1-63. Therefrom, the numberless demons on earth will be destroyed powdered by very glance of mine. Let
there be no doubt.
1-64. Oh gods, the eighth garbha of goddess-like Devaki, the wife of Vasudeva, will become my 'kesha' (the
meaning of this is further explained in next one).
1-65. This (kesha) will incarnate in the eight garbha and kill kAlanemi, who is born on earth as Kamsa.
Now let us analyze the expressions "sita kR^ishna kesau".
Their interpretation is:
"ujjahArAtmanaH keshau" means "The Lord in his splendid origianl forms as Balarama and Krsna relieved the burden of the earth", then why is "reducing burden of earth" repeated in next verse "bhuvo bhArakleshahAniM karishhyataH"?
"ujjahAra" means "drew out" or similar meaning.
Are "keshau" and "sitakR^shNau" in Nominative case or accusative case? No matter, what they choose, their interpretation will hit serious problem.
19C: The misunderstanding of the word kesau as hair is further defeated by the explanation of Vopadeva Gosvami in his Muktaphala-tika. Vopadeva states that kesau means ka (blissful) and isau (the two personalities). A comprehensive refutation of the misunderstanding of the so-called kesa avatara is presented by Srila Rupa Gosvami in his Laghu-Bhagavatamrta, verses 156-164, in the chapter entitled Krsnamrta. Rupa Gosvami's opinion is also supported by the commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was originally initiated into the Madhva sampradaya.
19R: This is like saying
"This is true because my neighbor told me so. He is right because another neighbor told so and so on."
Why is that Gosvami is right? Because another Gosvami told so and so on. It is OK if Gaudiyas want to believe in their Gosvamis. Let them not go on a charade of saying "foolish" for other interpretations without any pramANa-s or with their own works as pramANa-s or by twisting the meanings against shruti pramANa-s.
"ka" is noun and means "bliss", but not "blissful". Let us grant that (against the rules of grammar). "isau" (should be Ishau) does not mean "two personalities". It means two Lords or two masters, etc. Let us grant that too. Then how did "two blissful personalities" (noun) become "splendorous"(adj and also totally different meaning)? Of course, they are both blissful and splendorous, but that doesn't mean one can use the translations indiscriminately.
How come every one of Rupa, Jiva, Vopadeva and Baladeva (and also entire band of Gaudiya brand, including PrabhupAda) miss out on the word "avatIrya"(meaning 'by incarnating'), which came not once, but twice (verse 5-1-61 and 5-1-65)? Is it blindness or ignorance or negligence or deceit?
Blindness is physical handicap; ignorance is intellectual handicap; negligence is mental handicap; deceit is inherent handicap (intent to deceive oneself and others too).
Even if we grant their interpretation and say "God's splendor incarnated", still it is incarnation. The only "way out of this hole" is to accept that Sri Krsihna is incarnation; however, there is no difference between God's MularUpa and God's incarnation. The 'addressing as different the identical forms of the Lord' is 'savisheshha-abheda'.
20C: Grammatical syntax, says Dr. Sharma, seems to be lacking in the krsnas tu bhagavan svayam verse under analysis, if we accept the Gaudiya understanding of the text. Srila Prabhupada's translation of the text is what Dr. Sharma would call an example of this.
20R: Dr. Sharma does not say "seems". Such usage will only be made by those who are not sure.
Dr. Sharma says:
"In our times, Sri Prabhu Pada, Founder of the ISKCON movement has given a fresh impetus to this view, which is vigorously being popularized by his American disciples. They have however to answer the textual objections raised by Madhva against such an interpretation of syntactic connection and grammatical concord between the sentence "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn svayam" and the immediately following predicate in the next line 'mR^idayanti'in the plural."
21C: ete camsa-kalah pumsah
krsnas tu bhagavan svayam
mrdayanti yuge yuge
"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either portions or parts of plenary portions of the Lord, but Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of Them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists in order to protect the theists."
21R: The above is the translation by the Gaudiyas. Apart from the known problem (their interpretation of original and non-original), let us see what are the other problems. They translated "indrAris" as
atheists, as if all the atheists are demons! (because indraris means demons or enemies of Indra). Also, God protects all theists! (Even the ones who believe in God, but have hatred for Him? Even those who evaluate God's potency in terms of percentages?) How can God be made into portions or parts? Also, it is not "camsa-kalah pumsah", but is "svAmshakalAH pumsaH".
22C: If, as has been done in Srila Prabhupada's translation, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is taken as a parenthetical phrase in order to overcome the difficulty of case agreement, and ete (all these incarnations) becomes the subject of mrdayanti, Dr. Sharma argues that such an arrangement would be grammatically awkward.
22R: Dr. Sharma did not use such vague expressions like "grammatically awkward". This is another attempt of fabrication by Gaudiyas. Dr. Sharma firmly says:
'We cannot isolate "krsnastu bhagavan svayam" from "ete svAmsakalaH pumsaH"(in the first quarter) and treat "krsnastu bhagavan svayam" as a parantesis or an independent proposition by itself to overcome the
difficulty of lack of agreement in number between the subject and the predicate and make the other avatAras
like varAha..., referred to some verses earlier, the subject of "mR^idayanti" in i,3,28'.
23C: It is only as awkward, however, as the phrase krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is, in Dr. Sharma's words, "an intrusion of an unconnected topic." But this phrase is hardly unconnected, rather it is central to the entire chapter and to the proper understanding of the entire Bhagavata!
23R: Dr. Sharma did not say that the phrase is unconnected; but rather the interpretation of the phrase is unconnected. Why? Because the context is not at all to compare Lord Krishna and Lord's other avatAras. Such wrong interpretation is central only to the Gaudiya theory and has no support from anywhere else. They try to cheat by claiming that they are giving many supporting statements. Not one of them compares Lord Krishna with other avatAras. By such arguments, they are only revealing that they have a very wrong understanding of Bhagavata.
24C: Dr. Sharma insists that there is no need to break up the unity of thought (which only he perceives has occurred in this translation) by assuming that the word krsna in this verse refers to the personality of Krsna. Rather he says that the verse is better constructed grammatically if we understand krsna here in its etymological sense as the one who absorbs the world within himself (pralaya).
24R: We say "Only Gaudiyas do not perceive the breakup of unity of thought in their convoluted interpretation."
Just look at the context. When this chapter is describing the greatness of all the avatAras, why would it suddenly try to pit one avatAra against other avatAras of the Lord? It is common sense that whenever one hears the statements like "Krishna, you are the greatest" or "Rama, you are the greatest", all these are referring to the same Lord. It is ridiculous to say that one form of the Lord is greater than the other.
There is no relative merit in the construction and Dr. Sharma does not say "the verse is better constructed grammatically if...". Dr. Sharma categorically says that they have to answer the textual objections raised by Madhva. Their interpretation is wrong. Period. Dr. Sharma doesnot beat around the bush. See further below for what he says.
25C: Krsna also means to bring an end to the world, krs, a grand arrangement, na, to bring an end to,
25R: What roots are they using to interpret this way? Do they know that there is difference between "na" and "Na". Even "na" does not give that meaning.
26C: Dr. Sharma would translate this verse thus: "All these incarnations are either parts or plenary portions of the Lord Himself, who destroys all the worlds. They appear in the world whenever there is a disturbance created by the demons."
26R: He would never translate like that. Look at the sloppy thought and sloppy wording. When he has given a translation, why do these Gaudiyas put their own words in Dr. Sharma's mouth?
He says "There is no need to break up the unity of thought here when a perfectly viable construction of 'kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn svayaM' can be found by construing the entire verse 'ete svAmshakalaH...svayaM' as affirming the essential identity of all 'svAmshakaLa-s' of the Lord with the Primeval form of NarayaNa designated here as "kR^ishNa" in its etymological sense of the one who absorbs the world in Himself in Pralaya. That will also eliminate the difficulty of the disagreement between 'kR^ishhNastu...' and the plural verb 'mR^idayanti' (they protect the world harassed by the enemies of Indra).
27C: Even if we were to grant Dr. Sharma that grammatical syntax might be better kept intact by his translation, does he really believe that Vyasadeva after mentioning Krsna only five verses earlier would use the same word krsna here to indicate destruction of the world, when any number of other unambiguous words could have been used?
27R: Yes, he does. Not only him; everyone who claims any link with Madhva, who met and received instructions from Vedavyasa (since believers of Madhva believe so), will believe as well. It is ambiguous for only those, who do not see the purport behind these verses. Do they like to see how 5 verse earlier, the word was used?
ekonaviMshe viMshatime vR^ishhNishhu prApya janmanI |
rAmakR^ishhNAviti bhuvo bhagavAnaharad.h bharam.h || 23
ekonaviMshe = in nineteenth; vimshatime = in twentieth;
prApya janmanI = having incarnated;
vR^ishhNishhu = among vR^ishni-s (in vR^ishni vamsha)
rAmakR^ishhNau iti = as Balarama and Krishna;
bhagavAn = the Lord;
bhuvo bharam.h = the burden
(of sinful beings) of earth; aharat.h = removed (relieved).
The Lord, having taken the nineteenth and twentieth incarnation as BalarAma and Krishna among vR^ishni-s,
relieved the earth of its burden.
(Note: Acharya says further: "Avesho balabhadre" and quotes from MahavarahapurANa:
"shaN^khachakrabhR^idIsheshaH shvetavarNo mahAbhujaH |
AvishhTaH shvetakeshAtmA sheshhAMshaM rohiNIsutam.h ||"
"The Lord of the lords, bearing shankha and chakra, having white complexion with great arms/shoulders, gave Avesha to SheshAvatAri son of Rohini thru the power His white hair (not grey hair).")
No matter, what literary gymnastics they do, they have to accept here that Sri Krishna is one of the incarnations. They can save their face by smply accepting that Lord and all His incarnations are equal in all respects.
Why would VedavyAsa say Krishna is an incarnation and within 5 verses say that Krishna is not an incarnation? Only crazy people will think like that.
By saying that Sri Krishna's other forms are not equal to Krishna, they are not really extolling Him, but infact it is like punching right in the face. No wonder Acharya reiterates with PramANa-s that * seeing diference in Lord's avatAras is one of the nine Hari dvesha-s. *
28C: Furthermore, why should we grant him this when the Nyaya- sastra states, tata etad anu guna tvenaivottara-grantho 'pi vyakhyeyah. "The generally understood meaning of a word is its primary meaning, and etymology based meanings are secondary to that generally understood meaning."
28R: "tata etad anu guna tvenaivottara-grantho 'pi vyakhyeyah" does not mean the above thing. The more I see their writings, the more I doubt if they know any Sanskrit. The above means "For that reason, the latter part of the work is also to be interpreted in accordance with this only."
As Kadiri Krishna noted earlier (see http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001092.html for more details)
the kids, who wrote that article didn't know which line to quote.
They wanted to quote 'rUDhiH yogaM apaharati'.
There are several instances, when the rUDhyartha is not to be taken. If we are sitting for a meal and when such Gaudiyas, who claim to know Sanskrit, are around, one must be careful not to use expressions
like "saindhavamAnaya" or "modakaistADaya", as they may bring a horse or hit with the sweets (going with the generally understood meanings: saindhava = horse, modaka = sweet). The secondary meaning of "salt" is to be taken for saindhava. modakaiH = mA + udakaiH. The above expressions then would mean "bring me salt", "don't hit me with waters".
29C: At this point in the Bhagavata, although other avataras have been mentioned along with a description of Their characteristics, Krsna's characteristics have not been mentioned.
29R: What line of argument is this? If one of the avatAras has been mentioned, it cannot be mentioned again?
30C: Yet if anyone insists that His characteristics have been described earlier, they can only be referring to the word bhagavan (rama-krsnav iti bhuvo bhagavan aharad bharam [SB 1.3.23]), which is not used when describing any of the other incarnations.
30R: Again, another queer line of argument. Who is denying that 1.3.23 is about Balarama and Krishna? Also, why are they self- contradicting? Their "At this point" is verse 1.3.29 and they said "Krsna's characteristics have not been mentioned" and then say 1.3.23 is about Balarama and Krishna only. First of all this argument does not help them. Secondly, they are shooting themselves. What is going on?
31C (Quote from early part as this and the next one, which is 32C, are connected):
In Sri Jiva Gosvami's Krsna-sandarbha, he cites every possible statement of the Bhagavata that could possibly be construed to contradict what he describes as the paribhasa-sutra (referring to krsnas tu bhagavan svayam) and explains how they to actually support the Gaudiya siddhanta. By paribhasa-sutra, Jiva Gosvami means a verse that explains how one can understand an entire book in context. It is one statement found in the beginning of a book that serves as a key to understanding its actual purport and the apparently unrelated facts of the book. Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is such an authoritative statement from the most authoritative book (the Bhagavata).
31R: This is like a person who has a hammer and imagines that everything in this world is a nail. Just because he uses a hammer, everything does not become a nail. This approach of their paribhasha is apahAsya only. They make their first blunder and then propagate that with a series of blunders. First of all, the statement that they are referring is not in the beginning of the book. It is in the middle of third adhyAya of 1st skandha. More over their interpretation is against shruti-s and smR^iti-s. Gaudiya-s claim that they defeated Advaitins. With this approach of Gaudiya-s, Advaitins can blow them out. If Gaudiya-s can misinterpret one smR^iti vAkya, with their own apparent meaning and put a garb of paribhAsha to it and make a failing and futile attempt to reinterpret entire canon of vedic literature, why can't the Advaitins (mis)interpret a bunch of shruti vAkya-s (called as Mahavakyas by them) and reinterpret the entire vedic literature in the name of paribhAsha? They have a much greater justification and much easier path in front of them and Gaudiya-s have to keep mum for getting the taste of their own medicine from Advaitins. They will say " 'ahaM brahmAsmi', 'tattvamasi', 'sarvaM khalvidaM Brahma', 'neha nAnAsti kiJNchana' etc. are such authoritative statements from the most authoritative shrutis. What authority Gaudiyas have to interpret them differently?" Let them not talk of authority, when they don't even know the basics.
32C: In the paribhasa-sutra (SB 1.3.23), the characteristic of Krsna as svayam bhagavan is described, reiterating with emphasis what has been cited earlier (SB 1.3.23), however awkward Dr. Sharma may perceive it to be.
32R: If their paribhasha-sutra, SB 1.3.28 (1.3.23 is a typo) is reiterating SB 1.3.23, then their interpretation is clearly wrong as 1.3.23 is saying that Krishna incarnated (prApya janmanI). Thus, they have to interpret 1.3.28 accordingly, which forces them to accept Madhva interpretation. Let them get their act straight. Dr. Sharma never used the word awkward and their own guilty conscience is making them feel awkward. Let them first perceive the truth.
33C: Furthermore, the fact that this description has been left until the end of the description of the incarnations serves to emphasize the conclusion that Krsna alone is svayam bhagavan, and for this reason it has been placed there.
33R: This is what is known as "pR^ishhTatADanAddantabhaN^gaH".
(The teeth fell down due to smack on the back). What has this "description left until..." to do with their interpretation of "svayaM bhagavAn"? Real perverted logic.
34C: As per the rules of literary composition, facts meant to be emphasized should be placed at the end of the composition.
34R: Here comes their self-contradiction. This goes against their rules of paribhAsha (see 31C and 32C). Now do the facts to be emphasized come at the beginning or end? Let them get their facts straight. Even granting that they come both the places, the real problem is not where they come, but it is what they interpret.
35C: The fact that Krsna is mentioned earlier is not sufficient reason to conclude that this verse is not also ultimately about Him.
35R: Not only their argument of "mentioning earlier or later" has nothing to do with their interpretation, but also they keep self-contradicting. This contradicts 33C. Once they say "left until end" and then they say "mentioned earlier".
36C: Even if the grammar is somewhat awkward, which we are not willing to concede to...,
36R: One who has even some reasonable amount of exposure to Vedanta, must know that the 'grammatical problem' is given as an additional piece of evidence and proof.
Let us analyze this case in a different angle.
Context: First it is to be known that the context does not allow the Gaudiya interpretation. The prior sentences and the following sentences indicate clealy that they are meant to show Lord's superiority over other jIvas and not to show the superiority of Lord's one avatAra over others.
Consistency: The purpose of Bhagavata is to extoll Lord's greatness and no doubt, Bhagavata says a lot about Sri Krishnavatara. However, it is not the purpose of Bhagavata to pit Sri Krishna's other forms against Sri Krishna. Nowhere such a stance is taken. Gaudiyas' defective and evasive interpretations will not do.
Compliance: The shrutis and smR^itis are unanimous in saying that all the forms of the Lord are infinite and equal. It is a futile attempt to use some smR^itis with twisted meaning.
sAvakAsha and niravakAsha: One simple lesson for Gaudiyas or anyone else. If they want to know whether the apparent meanings that they see are correct or not, they must see if their interpretation is "sAvakAsha" (meaning an alternate explanation is possible) or "niravakAsha"(meaning alternate explanation is not possible). Some examples for NiravakAsha pramANas are:
`eko nArAyaNa AsIt.h' , `nArAyaNaH paraM brahma' , `yachcha kiJNchijjagatsarvaM dR^ishyate shrUyate.api vA, antarbahishcha tatsarvaM vyApya nArAyaNaH sthitaH', etc.
If there is virodha between shruti and smR^iti, shruti rules.
Grammar: In some cases, where it is possible, grammmatical incorrectness is used as an additional tool. Here, when all the above arguments did not have the desired effect on some, a final punch is given by highlighting the grammatical issue there. Remember, grammatical incorrectness implies that such an explanation is not acceptable. On the other hand grammatical correctness alone does not endorse a particular explanation. Other means like the ones mentioned above have to be used, as it may be possible to have more than one grammatically correct interpretation.
37C: the author of the Bhagavata, Vyasadeva, has compensated for that in his statement yasmin prat-slokam abaddhavaty api. Here abaddhavaty means irregularity in composition. Vyasadeva has said that in such literature even if there is any irregularity in composition, it should not be allowed to get in the way of the urgency of the message. The urgent message of the Bhagavata is that Krsna is the ultimate expression of Godhead, the reservoir of all transcendental loving exchange (rasa).
37R: Haste makes waste. Why that rush to hate the Lord in the name of extolling the Lord? Seeing the differences in Lord's avatAras is one of the nine dveshas.
Some people have special expertise in partially quoting some statements and trying desperately to retrofit that to their incorrect understanding. Vyasadeva does not have to compensate anything. His statement does not mean that people can go on their own merry way saying "Let me have my own readings in there, no matter how many places, we end up with the irregularities in composition". This kind of approach will lead to total confusion, as all are at liberty to do as they wish, just by having a litle ability to twist.
The following is the actual verse, which comes in the first skandha (as the words of Narada) and in the last skandha (as the words of sUta).
na tadvachaH yadvachashchitrapadaM hareryasho
jagatpavitraM na gR^iNIta karhichit.h |
tad.h vAyasaM tIrthamushanti mAnasA na yatra
haMsA nyapatan.h mimaN^xayA || 1\.5\.10||
sa vAgvisargo janatAghaviplavo yasmin.h pratishlokamabaddhavatyapi |
nAmAnyanantasya yashoN^kitAni yachchhR^iNvanti gAyanti gR^iNanti sAdhavaH || 1\.5\.11||
Just as the crow-ponds do not please the swans, the flowery speech, devoid of "Hari yashas" doesn't please the wise. On the other hand, the compositions deficient in dictum, but enriched by the names of "Ananta" and that wash away the sins please the wise.
By no means, these verses are demeaning the powers of other incarnations of the Lord. If the Gaudiyas claim Madhva roots, it will benefit them a lot if they stop blabbering and refrain from reprimanding the renowned writer Dr. Sharma, who reverently rendered the readings of Sri Madhvacharya with reasoning and references.
38C: There are ten subjects discussed in the Bhagavata. The first nine are asrita, dependents requiring shelter, and the tenth is the asraya, the object providing shelter. Among the asrita is isanukatha, discussion of the incarnations of Godhead. The asraya, however, is their source and shelter, svayam bhagavan Sri Krsna.
38R: Where is it mentioned that there are ten subjects? What are they? What is this Ashrita and Ashraya concept, they are trying to introduce? What pramANa-s do they have for this? Where from are, they drawing their conclusion of Krishna being superior to His own other forms? How are they able to create a competition between Krishna and His other forms? Where is Narayana or Vishnu mentioned here? Is there no end to their fancying? Isn't "Isanukatha" discussion of the Lord and His incarnations? Why this slicing again?
39C: No one can argue that the Bhagavata does not reach its apex in the discussion of Krsna-lila. This discussion constitutes the entire Tenth Canto, which is almost three times longer than any other canto. Krsna and his family members are also the exclusive subject of the Eleventh Canto. Together these two cantos make up more than half of the entire Bhagavata.
39R: This is the concluding and closing argument that they are making. The reasonable expectation is that there will be some good, relevant and powerful argument while closing it. The anticlimax is such that it only shows "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". Their argument here sounds like "I have to be awarded in Physics because my neighbor delivered twins". No point that they mentioned in "39C" has any connection with "Krishna's other forms being inferior".
40C: Why so much attention to Krsna? Because Krsna is the asraya-tattva, the summum bonum of the Bhagavata, and thus even Narayana is his plenary portion.
40R: What a jarring approach? "even Narayana" - as if Narayana is different from Krishna and further seeing
difference in their capacities - a real "vishnudvesha".
41C: Sridhara Svami has stated this in his commentary on the Bhagavata:
dasame dasamam laksyam
sri-krsnakhyam param dhama
jagad-dhama namami tat
"The Tenth Canto of the Bhagavata reveals the tenth subject, who is the shelter of all. He is known as Sri Krsna, and he is the ultimate source of all the worlds. Let me offer my obeisances unto him."
41R: First of all Sridhara Svami is not a pramANa. Secondly the weird thing is that these people do not understand their own Sridhara Svami's words. The above verse does not say that Krishna is different from Vishnu/Narayana.
42C: At this point, it must be asked what is more inept, to awkwardly state the truth or to artistically miss the point? Dr. Sharma has missed the point of the Bhagavata, and our sampradaya seeks to make it clear. Krsna is the source of all incarnations, and He has appeared in this Kali-yuga as Sri Caitanya.
42R: The real point is that not a single point has been pointed out to pinpoint their point of view. At this point, they neither stated the truth nor averted the awkwardness, nay they got into such a muddle that they can't wriggle out. Their struggle is bound to be endless as they are colliding with the shruti pramANa-s and smR^iti pramANa-s. They are just imagining that Krishna will be pleased if they say "Oh Krishna, You are the source of Your incarnations and so You are superior to Your own other forms". That may please a politician, who has very limited powers, but not the Lord, who is infinite. There is no difference between the Lord and all His guNa-s, all His avatAra-s, all His avayava-s (or limbs), all His kriya-s, all His forms.
Added to the muddle they are in, they want to slip in somehow that Caitanya is an incarnation of the Lord. The only composition that Caitanya has to his credit is the octet of verses known as "shikShAShTaka". In any of that, he never mentioned that he is God, nor there is comparison of Krishna and His other forms. He was engrossed in chanting Lord's name. CaitanyacaritAmrita gave a quite contradictory message that he is God. Now another quagmire for Gaudiya-s is they have to either forsake the teachings in "shikShAShTaka" or "CaitanyacaritAmrita", but they are stuck to these two opposing forces and will never have an escape from that predicament. His life history clearly indicates that he is no God. The Gaudiyas use "channa" and"gaurAnga" to deduce that he is God. The simple common sense is that their entire explanation or this approach of Caitanya being God will make every fair complexioned member of ISKCON (of the past, present and future) a God. Why indeed, even the non-members of ISKCON, who ever does God's sankirtana and has fair complexion like the ones like Tulasidas, Ramanuja, et al, are God! In fact, most of them better qualify, because, they claim this avatAra is in the form of a sanyAsin. Caitanya got married twice. His first wife was named Lakshmi, the daughter of Vallabhacharya and she died of snake-bite. His second wife was named Vishnupriya. Their claims of Caitanya as God are ridiculous:
That is a long discussion by itself and one thing I just briefly mention is that the big number of quotes that they give are either spurious or have no relevance to their claims. They don't even know how to make an argument.
43C: We hold that Madhva ultimately wanted to preach the gospel of Sri Caitanya after receiving the darshana of Sri Caitanya during his visit to Navadvipa.
43R: Caitanya was born 169 years after Srimad Ananda Tîrtha disappeared from amidst an audience. So, how do they say that Sri Madhva ultimately wanted to teach the gospel of Caitanya? They claim that it happened in a dream - a dream in which Caitanya appeared to Madhva. Let them hold on to this piffle. How do they expect others to accept this balderdash as well? Now let us see how many crazy conclusions come out of this rigmarole or poppycock.
1. Sri Madhvacharya taught all his life, without knowing the "gospel" that he is supposed to teach.
2. He met Vedavyasa (as per Madhvas), but Sri Vedavyasa did not tell him about this "gospel".
3. After Madhvacharya got this dream, he wanted to teach this "gospel", which he himself condemned in his works.
4. Let us say that after he got this dream, he changed his mind. He did not say to any one (even his many disciples) about this change of mind. He did not write even a brief work mentioning about this change of mind.
5. What is even worse is that he told Caitanya that he wants to teach this ridiculous and illogical philosophy, which he has rejected downright.
6. You know how far their craziness goes! They claim Madhva wept (like a baby) because Caitanya disappeared from the dream!
7. What is strange is that whatever they claim as Caitanya's gospel, one can't find in the 8 verses of Caitanya. Caitanya Caritamrita has taken over Caitanya. In other words, one must know that CaitanyagrahaNa by CaitanyacaritAmrita has occurred and there is no end to this grahaNa or eclipse.
44C: Bhaktivinoda Thakura describes this vision in Navadvipa- dhama-mahatmya. At that time, Sri Caitanya told Madhva that He Himself intended to preach His own gospel, and that Madhva should in the meantime keep his dasya-bhaktas.
44R: How does Bhaktivinoda Thakura know the details of this vision?
Did he have a vision of this vision? Now we will be entering a world of "visionarama". Some of the dangers of this approach:
1. Ignoring the shruti and smR^iti pramana-s (Agamavirodha)
2. Ignoring the logical conclusions (aupramANavirodha)
3. We have the pratyaxa, where we notice that we get so many visions and we find that they are not true. Thus, the claim that their visions are true just because they are their visions goes against our pratyaxa.
Thus, this appraoch is pramANatrayaviruddha.
What is interesting is that how do they know that shrI Madhvacharya had a vision? Now we can come up with a similar story. In the last days of jIva Gosvami, he had a vision in which shrI Madhvacharya came and banged him for preaching some stuff, which is pramANa- viruddha and so jIva Gosvami wept bitterly, begged shrI Madhva's pardon and prayed him to grant the right knowledge in his next birth and Madhvacharya told him to undergo prAyashchitta for a few centuries before getting that opportunity of a mAdhva birth.
What do the following mean?
Are there two kinds of bhaktas - dasya and adasya?
Aren't the devotees the Lord's servants anyway?
2. "keep his dasya-bhaktas"?
Keep for what?
45C: It is implied from this, and later in the same book directly stated by Thakura Bhaktivinoda, that a time would come when all of the sampradayas join together under the banner of Sri Caitanya. That time is not so far off when all will join together in nama- sankirtana, the universal yuga-dharma.
45R: Look at their logic.
What has "Caitanya's instruction to Madhva" to do with all the sampradayas joining together?
No matter how ridiculous that book "Navadvipa-dhama-mahatmya" is, it does not say the illogical statement that all sampradayas join together under the banner of Caitanya.
Why that book is ridiculous? One example - it talks of Yudhisthira dreaming of Gauranga and getting orders from Gauranga (alias Caitanya)! Now these people are rewriting smR^itis and the time is not so far off when they attempt to rewrite shruti-s also. What are their sources - getting and giving dreams to anyone and everyone they like! Live on dreams!
46C: If devotees like the learned Dr. Sharma insist on going to Vaikuntha, we have no objection. He will go there that much sooner, however, by embracing the extension of the Madhva sampradaya in the shape of the divine precepts of Sri Caitanya.
46R: Since when did they get the authority to approve as to who goes to VaikuNTha? What value does their "objection" or "no objection" has?
Why do these Gaudiyas insist on wrong knowledge? They are making themselves a laughing stock. They don't even know the basics. All the "muktiyogya jivas", whose sAdhana is complete, go to VaikuNTha only at the end of this Brahma-kalpa. Even if the sAdhana is complete, they will be in wait status only.
Further, how can embracing Gaudiya theory lead anyone to moxa?
They insist on atleast following types of "Vishnudvesha" -
1. Seeing difference between Vishnu and His avataras.
2. Seeing difference between Vishnu and His avayavas.
3. Calling the non-avatAras of the Lord as His avatAras.
Their article itself is enough to show that Gaudiya sampradaya is a mockery of Madhva sampradaya, but not an extension.
If they have a big issue with Madhva saying that Lord Krishna incarnated from "black hair" of Vishnu, they should read what Acharya said in "AnuvyAkhyAna" (BS. 1-1-6)
"brahmatA avayave.api syAt.h tathAvayavini svataH |
yathaiva kR^ishhNakeshasya kR^ishhNasya brahmatAkhilA |
darshitA chaiva pArthAya nihsImAH shaktayo.asya hi|"
"The Super-Lordship is in the 'limb' and also is in the 'limbed' Himself, just as the universal Super-Lordship of Lord Krishna, who is Black Hair, was shown to Arjuna and the powers of the Lord are unlimited".
(The intent is to indicate that irrespective of the limb mentioned, the Lord, who is non-different from His limbs, has infinite powers.)
This concludes the current series.