03-23-2005, 01:42 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Mar 19 2005, 09:02 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Mar 19 2005, 09:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The world and souls depend on God, though they are separate and distinct from Him. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) Doesnt the above look similar to Ramanuja's theory that the plurality exists but that plurality doesnt have an existence independent of Brahman?
b) But When he says
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They are neither one with God nor different from Him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> leaving aside
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There is an incomprehensible difference- non-difference (Achintya Bhedabheda<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is it not closer to Madhva?
Can you expound Chaitanya's Philosophy a bit more for ignorant folks a bitter.
Another question
did Chaitanya criticize others like Sankaras in their Baskhya? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sridharji,
Madhva's Dvaita darshana is a pure bheda system. Jiva and Jagat are eternally different from Vishnu though dependent on Vishnu. Achintya Bhedabhed is as the nomenclature suggests a Bheda Abheda type system. Jiva is both similar and not similar to Vishnu. It would seem to me that there is considerable difference between the two positions. Then I don't think Madhva stresses madhur bhava the way Chaitanya stresses madhur bhava. There is also a huge controversy regarding the guru parampara which is mentioned in the discussion regarding Steven Rosen. One problem with the Guru Parampara is that it is fairly certain that Chaitanya was a Sankarite monk. I am not completely sure but in a book by Murari Gupta (Have to check this) Chaitanya's initiation is mentioned. Apparently Chaitanya was initiated into one of the Maha Vakyas (most likely Tattvamasi = Thou art That) in a dream. Chaitanya was very downcast since he did not like that idea that he was Krishna. Then Murari Gupta told him to interpret the passage to mean 'You are Krishna's'. There is also evidence that Chaitanya worshipped Kali.
You have already done a good job expounding Achintya Bhedabheda darshana.
The real problem is that the six Goswamis (Rupa, Sanatan etc) who knew Chaitanya intimately did not write any Bhasya on Brahma Sutra. They mostly wrote treatises on love (Ujjala Nilamani etc). Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandharva is the first book that explains Achintya Bhedabhed darshana but does not mention Madhva. None of the six Goswamis mention Madhva's dvaita darshana. If Chaitanya agreed with Madhva, then why didn't his most intimate disciples refer to Madhva? Baladeva wrote his commentary on Brahma Sutra 300 years after the passing away of Chaitanya and his disciples. It is fairly certain that it is Baladeva who first claimed that the sampradaya accepting Achintya Bhedabheda is a Madhva-Chaitanya Sampradya. Baladeva's commentary has not been accepted by all Vaishnavas belonging to the Chaitanya lineage. The combination of the silence of the six Goswamis about Madhva, the sudden claim by Baladeva 300 years later about the Madhva-Chaitanya Sampradya, and the fact that not all Gaudiya Vaishnavas agree with Baladeva is what has created doubts in some people's mind.
a) Doesnt the above look similar to Ramanuja's theory that the plurality exists but that plurality doesnt have an existence independent of Brahman?
b) But When he says
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They are neither one with God nor different from Him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> leaving aside
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There is an incomprehensible difference- non-difference (Achintya Bhedabheda<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is it not closer to Madhva?
Can you expound Chaitanya's Philosophy a bit more for ignorant folks a bitter.
Another question
did Chaitanya criticize others like Sankaras in their Baskhya? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sridharji,
Madhva's Dvaita darshana is a pure bheda system. Jiva and Jagat are eternally different from Vishnu though dependent on Vishnu. Achintya Bhedabhed is as the nomenclature suggests a Bheda Abheda type system. Jiva is both similar and not similar to Vishnu. It would seem to me that there is considerable difference between the two positions. Then I don't think Madhva stresses madhur bhava the way Chaitanya stresses madhur bhava. There is also a huge controversy regarding the guru parampara which is mentioned in the discussion regarding Steven Rosen. One problem with the Guru Parampara is that it is fairly certain that Chaitanya was a Sankarite monk. I am not completely sure but in a book by Murari Gupta (Have to check this) Chaitanya's initiation is mentioned. Apparently Chaitanya was initiated into one of the Maha Vakyas (most likely Tattvamasi = Thou art That) in a dream. Chaitanya was very downcast since he did not like that idea that he was Krishna. Then Murari Gupta told him to interpret the passage to mean 'You are Krishna's'. There is also evidence that Chaitanya worshipped Kali.
You have already done a good job expounding Achintya Bhedabheda darshana.
The real problem is that the six Goswamis (Rupa, Sanatan etc) who knew Chaitanya intimately did not write any Bhasya on Brahma Sutra. They mostly wrote treatises on love (Ujjala Nilamani etc). Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandharva is the first book that explains Achintya Bhedabhed darshana but does not mention Madhva. None of the six Goswamis mention Madhva's dvaita darshana. If Chaitanya agreed with Madhva, then why didn't his most intimate disciples refer to Madhva? Baladeva wrote his commentary on Brahma Sutra 300 years after the passing away of Chaitanya and his disciples. It is fairly certain that it is Baladeva who first claimed that the sampradaya accepting Achintya Bhedabheda is a Madhva-Chaitanya Sampradya. Baladeva's commentary has not been accepted by all Vaishnavas belonging to the Chaitanya lineage. The combination of the silence of the six Goswamis about Madhva, the sudden claim by Baladeva 300 years later about the Madhva-Chaitanya Sampradya, and the fact that not all Gaudiya Vaishnavas agree with Baladeva is what has created doubts in some people's mind.