Some Basic and Irreconcilable Differences between Gaudia

"GAUDIA SAMPRADAYA IS THE SEPERATE FIFTH VAISHNAVA SAMPRADAYA DIFFERENT FROM FOUR VAISHNAVA SAMPRADAYA AND NOT A PART OF MADHVA SAMPRADAYA"

'Some Basic and Irreconcilable Differences between Gaudia 

Sampradaya and Madhva Sampradaya' acccording to Sri Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu,Six Goswami's and Srila Baladeva 

Vidyabhusana Prabhupada.

(1) FIRST- Srila Madhvacharya considers and worships Lord Sri Narayan of Vaikutha as the supreme personality of Godhead. He brushes aside Krishnastu Bhagvan Svayam- the conclusion of sruti and smriti that Lord Sri Krishna is the supreme personality of Godhead. Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his Gaudia followers, however, accept this Vedic injunction and Lord Sri Krishna is their worshipable deity.

(2) SECOND- Srila Madhvacharya’s opinions at certain places are contrary to not only sastras but also simultaneously breaks the heart of Gaudias. Sruti and Smriti consider Vraj Gopies as expansion of, so called, swaroop sahkti of Lord Sri Krishna. They do not possess material body and are not ordinary living entities of this material world (Gaudia Vaishnava Darshan 1-1-146). Contrary to these well established sastric injunctions, Srila Madhvacharya has called them Apsarah Stri i.e. Society women of higher planets. Apsaras posse extremely beautiful female material body and give bodily pleasure to others and can roughly be compared with prostitutes of this material world. The view of Madhvacharya is reflected in his comments on Srimad Bhagwatam-

"Vimuktavapi Kaminyo Vishnukama vrajstriyah I

Dveshinascha Harau nityam dveshen tamasi sthitah II

Snehabhaktah sada devah kamitven apsarah striyah I

Kaschit kaschinna kamena bhaktaya kevalayaiva tu II

Bhaktya va kaamabhaktya va moksho naanyena kenachit I 

Kaamabhaktya apsarah strinamanyesham naiva kamatah II

Upasyah svasuratvena devstrinam janardanah I 

Jaratvenapsarah strinam kasanchiditi yogyata II"

- Madhavacharya’s commentary on S.B.(Bhagabat Tatparya)

However, Sastras confirm that the love of Vraj Gopies towards Lord Sri Krishna was devoid of any bodily attachment.( G V Darshan 1-1-154/155). Meditating on this and loudly calling “Gopi..Gopi..” Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu used to lose his external consciousness.

Sastras describe, Vraj Gopies as the crest jewel among Lord Sri Krishna’s devotees. Their selfless love completely conquers Lord Sri Krishna. They are dearer to him than even Sri Lakshmiji (G V D 1-1-154). Even Sri Uddhavji and Sri Bramhaji aspire for the dust of their lotus feet ( G V D 1-1-155). Mahabhava of Gopies is not attainable even by queens of Dwarka like Sri Rukmani. Madhvacharya considers devotion of eight queens of Dwarka viz Sri Rukmani-Satyabhama etc twice as intense as Gopies. Mother Yasoda is hundred times more affectionate. In gradation of affection, Mother Devaki is ranked higher than Mother Yasoda, Sri Vasudev is ranked higher than Mother Devaki. Then comes Sri Arjun- higher than Sri Vasudev, Sri Balaram’s devotion is more passionate than Sri Arjun. Sri Bramhaji is ranked higher in devotion than Sri Balaramji. Thus, Sri Bramhaji is ranked as the Topmost devotee and is, therefore, called “Ishesh”

"Krishnapriyabhyo Gopibhyo bhaktito dwigunadhikah I

Mahishyastou vinah yasta kathitah krishnavallabhah II

Tabhyah sahasrasamita Yasoda Nandagehini I

Tatohapyabhyahdhika devi Devaki bhaktitastatah II

Vasudevastato Jisnustato Ramo mahabalah I

Na tatohabhyadhikah kaschit bhaktadou Purusottame II

Vina Bramhanamisesham sa hi sarbadhikah smritah II"

- Madhavacharya’s Commentary on S.B.(Bhagwat Tatparya) 11-12-22

Sri Madhvacharya ranks Vraj Gopies at the lowest in his rating of devotees and Sri Bramhaji the highest. Followers of Madhvacharya consider Sri Bramhaji as their Adi Guru, which explains their special affinity for and the allocation of the highest rank to Sri Bramhaji, although it contradicts the Shastric injunctions. Sri Bramhaji himself in Vaman Purana resolves this apparent difference in opinion. He tells to Bhrigu and other sages-

"Sastivarshsahasrani maya taptam tapah purah I

Nandagopabrajstrinam padarenopalabdhye I

Tathapi na maya praptastasam vai padarenavah II"

Meaning:-“In an earlier era, I prayed but could not even get the dust of the lotus feet of Vraj Gopies despite undergoing austerities for sixty thousands of years.” 

Sri Bramhaji then made his famous statement-

“Naham Shivasch Shesasch Srisch tavih samah kwachit”

Meaning:- Neither me nor Sri Shivji nor Sri Sheshji nor Sri Laksmideviji can ever be equal to Vraj Gopies.”

In fact, least any doubt be created on the most exalted position of Sri Bramhaji’s devotion, Madhvacharya has not commented on three chapters ( 12th, 13th and 14th) of Srimad Bhagwatam which describe bewilderment of Sri Bramhaji, popularly known as “Bramha Vimohan Lila.”

The exalted position of the pure love of the Vraj Gopies is best described by Srila Sanatan Goswami in Brihad Bhagwatamritam. After Sri Sukadev Goswami had concluded Srimad Bhagwatam, Devi Uttara asked her son Sri Parikshit Maharaj the essence of what he had just heard. Sri Parikshit Maharaj revealed that essentially Bhagwat Purana describes the stages of Bhakti. He told her the story of Sri Narada Muni. The Great Rishi began his search for the greatest devotee with Sri Bramha & Sri Shiva and found their devotion mixed with Karma and Gyan. He then went to Sri Prahlad (Shanta rasa), Sri Hanuman (Dashya rasa) and Sri Arjun (Sakhya rasa) before finally reaching to the greatest devotee-Sri Uddhav. SriUddhav, however, told him the conclusion that the highest level of devotion rests with Vraj Gopies.

3-THIRD- Madhvacharya has described moksha (salvation) as the goal of devotional services (Madhava’s comments on second Chapter of Gita as well as his comments on Srimad Bhagwatam slokas 3-15-48, 3-25-32-34). Relying on evidences of Sruti and Smriti, Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has always considered Love of Godhead as the ultimate goal of devotional services.

4- FOURTH- Madhvacharya had maintained that kevala bhakti is the best method to attain the Salvation. He explained Kevala bhakti as the devotional service that is devoid of Religiosity, Desire for financial or material gains or Prestige. It only seeks salvation. Scholars from Madhva’s tradition had confirmed this doctrine to Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu at Urdupi. In contemporary context, in a letter dated March 22, 1952; Srila Vidya Samudra Teerth Maharaj, then in-charge of Kanuru Math of Urdupi, had reiterated this position. This letter was in the custody of Srila Sunderananda Vidyavinod.

Did Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu concur with this stated position of Madhva Sampradaya?

Varnashram dharma Krishne Samarpan I

Eai hai Krishner Bhakter shrestha sadhan II

Panchavidha mukti panya vaikunthgaman I

Sadhya shresth hai eai shastra-nirupan II

-(Chaitanya Charitamrita-Madhya-9/238-239)

Gaudiya Sampradaya deplores even the thought of Salvation (Mukti) and considers it as a witch.

5-FIFTH- As per Madhvacharya, Lord Sri Krishna is not hat-ari-gati-dayak, meaning that he has no power to give salvation to the enemies he kills. (Madhvacharya’s Purport of SB 3-25-32-34, 3-2-24, 3-2-14 and Vedanta Sutra 3-4-40). Right interpretation of the same slokas, as per Gaudia doctrine, is just the opposite. Putana in the most glaring example of the Gaudia interpretation of these slokas.

"Aho bakiyam stan-kaal-kootam,

jinghaamsayaayayad apiasaadhvi I

Levegatim dhatry-uchitaam tata’nyam

kam va dayaalum sarnam vrajemaII"

-(SB 3-2-23)

Meaning:- How can anybody be more merciful than he (Lord Sri Krishna), who granted position of mother in his eternal abode, even to the one who approached to kill him because of revenge, by putting deadliest poison on her breast.

Everybody knows that one of the reasons that attracted Srila Sukadev Goswami to bhakti was the sweetness of the extreme mercy Lord Sri Krishna showered on Putana, whose avowed goal was to kill him.

6-SIXTH- Gaudias’ views on so-called namabhaas or second stage of chanting is. in the stage of namabhaas, between the offensive and offense less stages, one automatically attains the salvation.” (SB 2-2-30). Example of Ajamil is often quoted to support this view.

Madhvacharya disagrees. His purport of SB 6-2-14 states that Ajamil was liberated because he uttered “Narayan..Narayan…” with devotion and his cry for help was directed to Lord Sri Narayan and NOT his son Narayan.

This is contrary to what Srila Sukadev Goswami has stated in SB 6-1-27

"Sa evam vartmano’gyo mritukaak upasthite I

Matim chakar tanye bale Narayannvye II"

Meaning:-When the time of his death had arrived he called for his little son who carried the name Narayan.

Finally, Srila Sukadev Goswami’s conclusion on namabhaas is spelt in SB 6-2-49

"Mriyamāno harernāma grinan putropacāritam

ajāmiloha’pyagāddhāmakim punah śraddhayā grinan"

Meaning:-Fearing imminent death, Ajamil chanted the holy name of the Lord, and although he cried for his son, he nevertheless returned home, back to Godhead. Therefore, if one faithfully and inoffensively chants the holy name of the Lord, where is the doubt that he will go back to Godhead?

Srila Sukadev Goswami reiterates in SB 6/2/24/25 that only after hearing the conversation from Vishnudoots and yamdoots, the glories of the name, fame, qualities and pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he became a pure devotee, not before that. He then greatly regretted his past sinful activities.”

The conclusion is obvious. Madhva’s view on Ajamil episode need to be reassessed because they are contrary to statements of Srila Sukadev Goswami.

7-SEVENTH- Gaudias consider the relationship between the absolute truth and the jivas as simultaneously one (same) and different for an inconceivable reason, the so called Achintya Bhed Abhed Vad. On the contrary, Madhva considers them as completely different, the so-called Dwait vad.

It is because of these basic differences that Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had deprecated Madhva’s views. The Gaudia Sampradaya can never be a part of Madhva Sampradaya in view of the fundamental differences described above. At no point of time, Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had either accepted or supported Madhva’s doctrine. In fact, during his pilgrimage to South India , he had refuted the views of Madhvacharya during discussions with the main theoretician (Tattvavadi Acharya) of Madhva Sampradaya in Urdupi.

The conclusive part of that discussion is reproduced below-

"Karma,Mukti - dui vastu tyaje bhakta-gan I

Sei dui sthapa’ tumi ‘sadhya - sadhan’II

Aita vaishnaver nahe sadhya - sadhan I

-(Chaitanya charitamrita.-Madhya 9-244/245)

Meaning:- Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said- “Both liberation and fruitive activities are rejected by devotees. Taking an opposite view, you are trying to establish them as part of the process to attain the life’s ultimate goal. These are not Sadhya and Sadhan for Vaishnavas.”

"Acharya kahe-tumi yei kaha’sei satya haye I

Sarva-sastre vaisnaver ei suniscaya II

Tathapi madhvacharya ye kariyache nirbandha I

Sei achariye sabe sampradaya-sambandha II"

- (Chaitanya charitamrita-Madhya 9-274/275)

Meaning:- Tattvavadi Acharya of Madhva Sampradaya replied, “I respect your opinion which is in consonance with all the revealed scriptures. But, we act in according to the practices & procedures laid down by Srila Madhvacharya.”

"prabhu kahe-karmi, jnani-dui bhakti-hina I

Tomara sampradaye dekhi sei dui chinha II

Sabe,eka guna dekhi tomar sampradaye I

Satya-vigraha kari’isvare karaha nischaye II"

-(Chaitanya charitamrita- Madhya 9-276/277)

Meaning:- Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said- “Both the fruitive workers and the speculative philosophers are considered non devotees but we see plenty of them present in your Sampradaya. The only good quality I see in your Sampradaya is that you consider the deity form same as the Lord himself”

Interestingly, in the discussion with the Topmost Scholar of Madhva Sampradaya at Urdupi, Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has referred Madhva Sampradaya in second person (You/Your etc) and never called them in first person (We/Our etc).

The learned scholars at Galta too were aware of these irreconcilable differences between the Madhva and the Gaudia linage. The very purpose of the religious debate was not to brush aside these differences but to seek Sastric justification for the views of the Gaudias- then led by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada.

The misconception that five sampradayas contradict Padma Purana’s “Sampradaya vihina….Atah kalau bhavishyanti chaturau sampradaina...” is completely misplaced. This sloka figures neither in authentic old edition of Padma Purana nor in any other Purana compiled by Sri Vyasdeva. Any past editions of Srila Navadas’ “Bhaktamaal”- another authentic source of Vaishnava tradition- never mentions that only four sampradayas will exist in Kaliyuga and the stanza “chatvarau sampradaina……” does not figure anywhere. The obvious conclusion is that someone, to limit Vaishnava traditions arbitrarily to four, had added these words later. None of the books compiled by Six Goswamis and their illustrious spiritual descendents have ever attempted to club “Achintya Bhed Abhed “with “Dwait Vad”. They do not mention that Gaudias are part of Madhav Sampradaya. Same tradition continued right up to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada.

Many current scholars, quoting Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada out of context, consider him a protagonist for clubbing Gaudias with Madhvas. But Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada compiled Govinda Bhashya and led the debate at Galta not to club the Gaudias with Madhva Sampradaya but to prove that Achintya Bhed Abhed is fifth authentic philosophy, fully conforming to all the Sastric injunctions and different from Madhva’s Dwait vad.

The Gaudia tradition commenced from that combined incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna and Srimati Radharani named Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and not from Sri Bramhaji- as is widely propagated. Sri Uddhav Das, disciple of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada and compiler of Upasana Paddhati has started his spiritual tradition from Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and not from Sri Brahmaji. 

There appears to be wide misconception about spiritual linage of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupda. His own compilations viz, commentary of Sri Shyamananda Shatakam, the conclusive part of Sahitya Kaumudi and the beginning of the commentary on Chhandah Kaustuva- conclusively mention him belonging to Sri Shyamanandi Tradition(Guru Parampara) and started from Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, not from Sri Brahmaji.

The own Spiritual tradition(Sva guru parampara) started from Sri Brahma, mentioned in Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada’s Prameya Ratnavali appears to be added later by someone. Sva Guru Parampara means own Spiritual Tradition (Guru Parampara). The author of Prameya Ratnavali is Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada, therefore the Spiritual Tradition would come to an end upto the name of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada. But someone to established that Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was belonging to Madhva Sampradaya, the SpiritualTradition started from Sri Brahma and closed on the name of Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and not upto the name of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhupada by mistake.

GURU PARAMPARA OF SRILA BALADEVA VIDYABHUSANA PRABHUPADA, THE AUTHOR OF GOVINDA BHASYA. 

1. SRI SRI KRISHNA CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU

2. SRI SRI GOURIDAS PANDITA THAKUR 

3. SRI SRI HRIDAY CHAITANYA ADHIKARI THAKUR 

4. SRI SRI SHYAMANANDA PRABHU 

5.SRI SRI RASIKANANDA PRABHU 

6.SRI SRI NAYANANANDA DEVA GOSWAMI PRABHUPADA 

7.SRI SRI RADHA DAMODAR PRABHUPADA 

8. SRI SRI BALADEVA VIDYABHUSANA PRABHUPADA.

Jayjagannath.com 

Jayjagannathgroup.com 

Post from radha shyam sundar jis wall ..!