 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
This may sound like a dumb question to Shrisha, but anyway, here goes.
Is it necessary for every dvaita monk to be a Tirtha? Another question:
is it necessary, in the dvaita tradition, for a disciple of a Tirtha to
be a Tirtha also?
In the advaita tradition, a Tirtha may have obtained diksha from a
Bharati and vice versa. In recent history, Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati
of Sringeri named his successor as Swami Abhinava Vidyatirtha. To my
knowledge, there is no rule that a disciple of e.g. a Saraswati has to
be a Saraswati also, although most gurus seem to prefer their own suffix
when it comes to naming their disciples. Actually, since the tradition
of ten names in the advaita tradition goes back to Sankara, through his
four disciples, it is clear that at some point in time, we are going to
find an Aranya who was initiated by a Puri or a Giri, who was in turn
probably initiated by a Tirtha or by a Bharati.
>
> BNK Sharma also points out that Vyaasa Tiirtha had many disciples
> belonging to Advaitic orders. Of course, a "Puri" could not have been
Is it not rather well-known that Vyasatirtha had disciples from advaita
and visishtadvaita traditions also? Is it that inconceivable to imagine
that some disciple named Puri, initially from an advaita order, switched
to dvaita philosophy or attempted some synthesis, out of respect for his
dvaita guru?
Finally, I read in a book titled "Hindu Castes and Sects" by J. N.
Bhattacharya (of Nadiya), that Chaitanya received sannyasa from one
Keshava Bharati of the advaita order. This sounded strange to me, as
I've never seen this name invoked in any of the postings by Gaudiyas
here. Is there any reference to a Keshava Bharati in the Caritamrita or
some such work?
S. Vidyasankar
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|