> From: Jaldhar Vyas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In article <email@example.com> you wrote:
> : In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
> : |> How blind can one get? Mr. Know it all, please show me how the
> : |> Brahmasutras are so crytal clear that they need no interpretation? Do you
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : This is true because it is said in the Vaivarta Purana.
> I looked in the list of Puranas in the 12th skandha of the Bhagavata.
> There is Vaivarta Purana there. There is a Brahmavaivarta Purana.
You're right. I gave the incorrect name.
> : Also included
> : in the list of crystal clear texts are the Vedas, the Puranas devoted
> : to Lord Vishnu, and the original Ramayana.
> And yet 200 years after Chaitanya, Baladeva Vidyabhushana felt the need
> to write a bhashya on these supposedly "crystal-clear" sutras! This
> because the Pandits of the day (without whose scholarly work, you would
> understand even less of these "crystal-clear" shastras) were laughing at
> the ignorance of the Gaudiyas.
The Gaudiya movement was at its high in the time of Chaitanya when he
effortlessly converted thousands of mayavadi sannyasis in Benares,
and through the time of the 6 Gosvamis of Vrndavana who wrote hundreds
of books and treatises. I don't see how this could seem ignorant.
The smartas and mayavadis have always called the Gaudiyas ignorant,
but if they actually bothered to understand the Gaudiya tradition they
would have found it the perfect culmination of Puranic knowledge.
I refer, for example, to the 11th Canto of the Bhagavata, where it
says that intelligent people in Kali Yuga will worship the incarnation
of Krishna whose color is not the same as Krishna's and who teaches
the method of congregational chanting (the word sankirtan is directly
used in the Bhagavatam).
> : Ramanuja, Madhva, Sridhar Svami, Baladeva Vidyabhausana (sp?) and other
> : great Vaisnava acaryas have all, of course, commented on the Brahma-sutra,
> : and they generally do _not_ disagree on philosophy,
> Go and read their works. They differ with each other on many points.
Details, yes. Philosophy, no. I make this same point in my post.
None of them, for example, consider processes other than Bhakti to
be supreme, nor do any of them accept the supremacy of any deity
other than Lord Vishnu.
The fact that great acharyas wrote bhasyas on the sutras does not
make them any less crystal clear, as these Vaisnava acharyas offer
the direct crystal clear meaning, not some imaginary interpretation.
> : but
> : do sometimes in practice.
> And for a Bhakta isn't practice more important.
> : But all the Vaisnava schools generally accept
> : each other; Gopala Bhatta Gosvami was born in a Ramanujite (read
> : visistadvaita) home but joined Chaitanya's (acintya bheda-abheda)
> : school.
> If all the Vaishnava schools accept each other, why didn't he stay a
You'd have to ask him. Perhaps he explains in one of his many
treatises. But nevertheless, Sri Vaisnavas and Gaudiya Vaisnavas
do accept one another. Some of the earliest Indian
recommendations for ISKCON were by Sri Vaisnavas at places like
Sri Ranga, Nellore, etc.
> : Similarly one of the greatest disciples of Chaitanya was
> : Prabhodananda Sarasvati, who was also in the Sri (Ramanuja) sampradaya.
> Sarasvati is a surname of Dashanami sannyasis which makes him a follower
> of either Shankaracharya or possibly Madhva but definitely not Ramanuja.
> Either Prabodhananda or your source is confused.
His name was Sarasvati, he practiced at Sri Ranga-Ksetra (one of
the headquarters of the Sri sampradaya) and he wrote Chaitanya
Chandrodamrta. I will not speculate on what school he specifically
took initiation from (it wasn't uncommon then to take sannyas
initiation from another school; Sri Chaitanya took sannyas
from the Shankara school, but kept the name he had received from
his Madhva initiation), but perhaps he mentions it in his books.
His practice was definitely Sri Vaisnava, though.
> : Compare a
> : translation of "Isopanishad" by Srila Prabhupada and by an
> : impersonalist -- you'll find the impersonalist stretching the
> : words beyond their meanings & interpreting words in non-standard ways a
> : lot more frequently (such as using "purnam" for "infinite" rather
> : than "complete"; "asurya" for "both the gods & the demons, opposed to
> : the divine state of non-duality" versus "of the demons").
> As opposed to the Vaishnavas who simply manufacture works that suit their
Nice one-liner. Please explain.
> : There is no end in the Bhagavata Purana of liberated monists
> : (not to be confused with materialistically trapped monists like
> : Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc.) becoming great devotees of Krishna
> : and Vishnu. The Catuh-Sana (4 sons of Brahma) are great examples;
> : they became devotees upon smelling tulasi leaves offered to the feet
> : of Narayana.
> Yes and they were _already_ liberated before they became Bhaktas. Which
> proves that Bhakti is not the cause of Moksha.
Bhakti is, in their case, the result of Moksha.
Bilvamangala Thakura, a great bhakta, has stated that
he has no need to specifically try for Mukti, because she
waits outside the Bhakta's doorstep to offer her
> Shankaracharya only lived for 32 years and he wrote his stotras
> throughout his life. And note that he wrote stotras for all the Devas
> not just Krshna.
But do any of his other stotras express the same bhakti
as, say, "Bhaja Govindam".
> : Brhad-Naradiya Purana [38.126]
> This is also not listed in the 12th Skandha of the Bhagavata. It is
> different from the Narada Purana which is mentioned there.
Actually, I know that the Madhva school calls this one
by a different name; I think it's the same as Narada
> : Kalisantarana Upanishad
> Kalisantarana Upanishad????! Vijay, I'm getting the feeling you're
> making these up as you go along
Only mayavadis make things up as they go along. Vaisnavas
accept the disciplic succession.
> -- Jaldhar