Letters to the Editors

"The indispensable quality expected of those who are in charge of the kirtan-yajnais that they will have friendship with all Vaishnavas!" (Prabhupada Saraswati Thakur)

The latest Krsna Talk, The Standard For Higher Lila, is absolutely excellent. With the exact references and nice flow I think it is a very nice overview of the present day cheating of the Vaisnava world. Keep up the good work.

-Damodara dasa

---

In your website you "claim" that the Gaudiya parampara is part of the Madhva sampradaya, when it reality, it violates the very fundamental principles of Vedic thought reestablished by Sri Madhvacharya 1) There are no internal differences in Vishnu (this is expressed by the statement "neha nanasti kincana". In other words, there are no differences between Vishnu, his soul, his body, his avatars. Thought they are all one consistent perfect entity, we are capable of differentiating these properties just as while describing a tall tree, though the tallness & the attribute of being a tree can be identified separately, they have no separate existence. Sri Madhvacharya expounds upon this concept elegantly through the notion of visesha, the power of an entity to make difference appear where there is none. In other words, Vishnu is one entity, and though different avatara-s are perceived it is ridiculous to say that Krishna is superior to Rama or Krishna is superior to Vishnu, Vishnu's head is superior to his feet, etc. 2) Moksha can only be achieved through jnana purvaka bhakti, that is devotion with an understanding of what is behind it. The Caitanya sampradaya places so much emphasis on Bhakti, that the importance of proper knowledge is neglected. Especially for us ordinary mortals, if we don't have proper knowledge, our devotion won't be as strong. For example, we may mistakenly think that we are the controllers of ourselves and we are somehow doing God a favor by worshipping him. Only proper knowledge can get rid of such absurd thinking. 3) The quotes you pull to support the divinity of Caitanya are all bogus. For example, the one from the Narasimha purana does not exist. You can verify it yourself. Other quotes have been misread, misquoted, and it is surprising that you would go to such an extent to *force* Caitanya's divinity on sacred texts. It is wrong to attribute divinity to an ordinary mortal. I am not denying that Caitanya is a devotee of God, but I am asserting that it is wrong to attribute divinity to him, because it is an insult to Vishnu. 4) Every soul will essentially follow what is it's own nature. It is wrong & futile to twist what is right, just so it can appeal to the general public.

-Prasanna

---

Editors Reply:
Thank you for your letter.
You have made a few interesting observations, which I will try to answer here.Firstly, you have said in your introductory paragraph that the Gaudiyas claim that they are part of the Madhva sampradaya. That is correct. And it is not only the Gaudiyas who claim this, Sri Sri Visvesa Tirtha Svamiji of Pejavara Adhoksaja Matha also accepts this (please see the transcript of his lecture in Mayapura). When your own present day leaders and scholars are claiming the Gaudiyas to be part of their sampradaya, I don’t see why this topic makes you people become so belligerent and irate. We have stressed in our article that we do not claim to be followers of Acarya Madhva and his Dvaita philosophy; we are a branch of that line, hence we have some common similarities, but also we have some acute differences.Unfortunately, rather than harmonize, you seem only interested in finding the differences. This does not auger well for the future of the Madhva community — the new generation of Tattvavadis are certainly not as serious as their forefathers were. If it were so, the young ‘brahmanas’ wouldn’t be looking for suitable financial situations in the countries of the Mlecchas. Therefore any philosophical argument from their side can only be seen as an intellectual exercise — nothing more. Nevertheless, for the time being I will indulge you…In your first point you say that there are no differences between Visnu, His soul (sic), His body, His avataras etc. We are in perfect agreement with this statement. All avataras are all perfect, and to state that an avatara has some anomalies is purely mayavada. However, in the area of rasa-tattva there are some intrinsic differences. Our acaryas have mentioned that although the Lord and His avataras are all purnam, Sri Krsna is exalted because of His sweet pastimes, beauty, associates etc. These attributes are not exhibited by other incarnations of the Lord. For example, we do not find Narasimha performing rasa-lila with the Gopikas of Vraja, nor do we find Matsya playing the flute. In the pastimes of other incarnations, the sweetness (madhurya) found in Krsna-lila is absent. So although the Lord appears when there is a need to establish religious principles and annihilate the demons, in Sri Krsna we see that there is more than just ‘paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam’. We also observe that He is performing informal pastimes with His associates, something which is absent in all other avataras. This is why the Gaudiyas give preference upon Sri Krsna. It is not that they belittle or deny the greatness of any other form of Godhead.In your second point you state that moksa is achieved through ‘jnana-purvaka-bhakti’. We also agree with this. It is a common fallacy that many people think that the members of the Gaudiya sampradaya are simply sentimentalists, or inferior because they do not stress any type of jnana. Knowledge within bhakti is important, otherwise we may create our own process thinking it to be devotion, when it is merely a concoction. I refer you to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s ‘Govinda Bhasya’ commentary on the Brahma-sutras, ‘Isavasyopanisad Bhasya’, ‘Namartha Sudha Bhasya’ on Visnu Sahasranama, Srila Jiva Gosvami’s Sat-sandarbhas, Srila Rupa Gosvami’s ‘Bhaktirasamrta Sindhu’ and ‘Sri Laghu Bhagavatamrtam’ Srila Sanatana Gosvami’s ‘Brhad Bhagavatamrtam’ and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s ‘Amnaya-sutras’, Tattva-sutras’ and ‘Tattva-viveka’ to name but a few works of the Gaudiya sampradaya expounding the science of bhakti. Some of these works may be found on the internet.Your third point came as rather a surprise to me. All of the points that you raise have been answered in our essay on the Divinity of Sri Caitanya. I request you to go back and read through it again thoroughly in order to properly understand our viewpoint. Your fourth point is a little vague. You say, ‘It is wrong to twist what is right, just so it can appeal to the general public’. Who is to say what is right? The Madhva’s will claim that they are right, whereas the Gaudiyas will say that they are. Similarly the Advaitins and Vasisth-advaitins will claim that they are solely correct. Each one will claim that the other is twisting the truth. It seems to be a very relative subject. The Tattvavadis will claim that they silenced the Sankarites, while a few miles away in Srngeri a different story is told. As a Gaudiya I have my own viewpoint on what is actually right, as I am sure you do as a follower of Sri Madhvacarya. It is only natural that we will disagree on certain philosophical points when we belong to different traditions, yet to be absolutists and expound that all are wrong and we are the only ones who are correct simply smacks of Muslim/Christian fundamentalism. In 12^th Century Karantaka, smashing all other doctrines into dust was perfectly acceptable. In the 21^st century however, total intolerance of others religious beliefs is not appreciated by the majority of intelligent people — how will a community with such an attitude survive? It would be a nice change if members of the Madhva community, such as yourself, adopted a less bigoted approach and tried to see the similarities with other Vaisnava sampradayas.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a new wave of arrogant fanaticism amongst some of the Madhva youth nowadays.

---

Two of the points which are a very strong part of your Gaudiya philosophy are non-existent in Indian scriptures. 1)The existence of Radha-there is no mention of this in the scriptures, and the very thought of God falling in love with someone is something sickening pulled out of Greek mythology. 2) I stated this earlier, and I will reiterate this: your quote about Caitanya is bogus and non-existent. If you feel otherwise feel free to specify where in the Narasimha Purana you got this from, so its veracity can easily be verified. Also Santoshi Ma and Bharata Mata represent the views of an individual and in no way, shape or form reflect that of either the community as a whole or the philosophy as propounded by Sri Madhvacarya and other great stalwarts of the Dvaita tradition. The same holds for Ayyapa and Radha. The main objection here is the forcing of divinity on either fictious characters (as is the case with Ayyapa) or ordinary beings (Caitanya, a devotee of Vishnu, but nothing more). It is an insult to those who are genuinely in such high positions, and I'm sure Caitanya himself would not be happy to be elevated to the status of that being whom he holds in such high regard. How this is misconstrued as bigoted is absolutely beyond me!!! You contradict yourself very frequently. First off, you claim that you are part of the Madhva sampradaya. Then you state that you are a branch of it, though you don't belong to it (which is itself a contradiction, since a branch of a philosophy is part of the philosophy, just as a branch on a tree is part of the tree). The very fact that you disagree with the Madhva philosophy shows that you are a separate school of thought. If you sincerely accepted Madhvacarya as a Guru, you would accept what he said, instead of contradicting him. Prabhupada clearly goes against Madhvacarya's interpretation of texts, so it would be hypocrisy on your part to claim both as Gurus.  Your view of this as being bigoted & "arrogant fanaticism" is sad.  Intolerance of wrong knowledge has always been sanctioned by the scriptures. Indeed, this was the spirit with which original works & commentaries against various other schools of thought were written by Sri Madhvacarya, Sri Jayatirtha, etc. Unfortunately, you associate this quest for right knowledge to be identical to the fanatical zeal of conversion and hatred of *people* of other faiths, that was practiced by Christian/Muslim fundamentalists. As for your comment that such views will not be accepted by the modern generation, I happen to be a college student who has lived in the US for the past 15 years. The desire for proper knowledge is intrinsic to human nature & is quite hard to quell. The glaring contradictions in your branch of philosophy are not quite as bad as your desire to associate it with the pristine philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya.

Cheers,
Prasanna

---

Editors reply:Dear Prasanna,
I have noted the contents of your last letter. As with your previous one, I will reply point for point. You say that Sri Radha is non-existent and is not found in any scripture. Please refer to Brahma-vaivarta Purana 2.49, 9.34, Narada Purana 2.80, 2.81, Brahma Purana Ch.7 and Padma Purana 4.2, 4.7, 4.20, 4.23, 5.70, 5.73, 5.74, 5.77, 5.82, 5.83, 6.93. These books are available in most Indology bookshops. Of course, I am sure that it will be most convenient for you to evade all this evidence and claim that these references are all interpolations. If so, kindly enlighten us and reveal the identity of the mysterious person who has interpolated so many scriptures? Of course, rather than just blow the whole thing off as an interpolation, it would be more professional and thorough of you to check the Sanskrit in all the available copies of these Puranas in order to confirm your conclusion of interpolation. You have also stated that the very thought of God falling in love with someone is something sickening pulled out of Greek mythology. Firstly, can you give me some empirical proof to show how the roots of Radha-worship stems from Greek mythology? How did it find ground and popularity in Mediaeval India during the time of Sri Caitanya, centuries after the Greeks had left? As far as my limited historical knowledge of India goes, neither Alexander, nor the Greek satraps after him, ever got as far as Bengal and Orissa, so how is it that the worship of Sri Radha became so prevalent there? I look forward to your reply. Obviously you feel sickened by this because you are superimposing your own limited mundane consciousness upon the Lords pastimes. If it were not so, you would not make such an offensive and ridiculous exclamation. What is your reasoning for Krsna performing the rasa-lila, which is found in dasam-skandha of Bhagavatam? Is that also an interpoloation? Krsna has said specifically in Gita that His activities are all divine (janma karma ca me divyam). People of less intelligence tend to believe that Sri Krsnas rasa-lila and other esoteric pastimes of the Lord are simply mundane erotica (in fact, previously Manish Tandon said something to this effect on your website and was later corrected for some reason or other and his foolish posting was later removed from the Dvaita website). According to Gaudiya doctrine Sri Radha is not an ordinary jiva, just as Laksmi Devi is not an ordinary jiva; She is considered to be one of the potencies of the Lord. Is the Lord incapable of showing affection to His consort, or to His devotees? For somebody who professes to belong to a personalist school of thought, I find it unusual that you claim that God cannot love! This implies either one of two things 1) God has no feelings whatsoever and is therefore impersonal. 2) God cannot have feelings since all emotions are mundane. Neither of these assumptions are correct (unless you are an Advaitin, a Jain or a Buddhist!) Furthermore, on at least three occasions I remember visiting Udupi and hearing Jayadeva's Gita Govinda being sung at night in the Sri Krsna temple. As you are probably aware, the topic of this kavya is the love between Radha and Krsna. If such a kavya is bogus, why was it sung for the Deity? Why did ex-svami Vidyabhusana Tirtha produce a cassette (while he was a sannyasi) of songs from that poem? As regards Sri Caitanya: I will find you the quote that you want when you find me the quotes that Acarya Madhva gives from Skanda Purana (ajnanam jnanado visnuh) and Padma Purana (nrpadya satavrtyanta) that he refers to in his Visnu Tattva Vinirnaya. They are not to be found in these puranas you can check! Could you also locate the following texts that Srimad Acarya has quoted from in his various works -Upagita, Kamatha Sruti, Karmaviveka, Kalapa Sruti, Tantra-prakasika, Kapileya Samhita, Karanaviveka, Kausika Sruti, Gatisara, Adhara, AruniSruti, Upanaradiya, Ubhayanirukta, Indraduymna Sruti, Upasana Laksana, Jivatattva, Gunaparama, Gitasara, Gitakalpa, Guruviveka, Gautamakhila, Jyotis Samhita, Tattvasara, Tattvodyoga, Tantra Bhagavata, Tantra Mala, Triyoga, Nibandha, Prana Samhita, Muktitattva, Yadavadhyatama, Linganirnaya, Mahodadhi, Vicara, Viparita Sruti, Visvambhara Sruti, Vimala Samhita, Vaibhavya, Vaisesya, Visva Tantra, Lokatattva, Vayuprokta, Vallabhya, Boddhavya, Pravrtta Samhita, Pavamaniya Vijaya, Pautrayana Sruti, Purusottama Tantra, Vimarda Sruti, Sumata, Sadgunya, Pippalada Sruti, Kathaka Sruti, Paingini Sruti, and Sauparna Sruti . I would also like a reference proving Madhvacaryas identitiy as Mukhya Prana from a Vedic or Puranic source which all parties (Dvaita, Advaita, Visisthadvaita etc) will unanimously accept as specifically referring to Madhva not simply your own interpretation of the text (as in the case of Balitta Suktam). I would also like some acceptable evidence to prove that Jaya Tirtha was Madhvas pack-bull, that Vadiraja Tirtha was Rukminis brahmana messenger, that Raghavendra Tirtha was Prahlada and that Purandara Dasa was Narada Rsi. I understand that Santoshi Ma, Bharata-mata and Ayyapa are not accepted by staunch Tattvavadis, therefore I raise the question, why do you sit idly by while your svamjis dress the Deity in such alankaras? Silence means affirmation - when your pristine philosophy is being diluted from the inside by some of your asta-matha svamis, why do you people remain quiet? I presume that in the near future when the Deity is dressed in Mahatma Gandhi alankara, Sunil Gavaskar alankara or even Satya Sai Baba alankara, we will see no reaction from your community. When someone outside your fold does something, you are on the war-path, yet how is it that when some of your sannyasis perform some gross improprieties (I need not get into details), you keep quiet? Isnt this hypocrisy? Gita Govinda? Santoshi Ma alankara? Ayyapa idols in the temple? From all these points it seems that you people really don't have your house in order, since your svamijis are doing so many things which are contrary to traditional Dvaita philosophy (at least, according to your own estimation).

A branch of the tree is part of the tree but it is not the tree itself. It is distinct from the main trunk of the tree. From the historical point of view, we are unarguably a branch of the Madhva sampradaya since some of our purvacaryas were in that line. From the philosophical point of view, I have stated very clearly that we are a separate school of thought, though we agree on certain points made by Madhva. This is accepted by Pejavara Sri, Sri Vidyamanya Tirtha Svamiji, Sri Bannanje Govindacarya the late Sri Padmanabha Acar, and Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. Despite all this, it still seems to be a difficult matter to digest for some! Are you accusing these stalwarts of being hypocrites because they disagree with your point of view? Surely not. If Gaudiya Vaisnavas are the dangerously deviant kali-yuga cult that you try to make us out to be, please explain how it is that so many westerners (and Indians for that matter) who previously performed such degraded activities as cow-killing, illicit sex, drugs, alcohol etc. are now living lifestyles that many from Madhva brahmana families don't even follow any more? How many modern-day Madhvas follow ekadasi strictly? How many of them are engaged 24 hours a day in spiritual activities such as salagrama-puja, nama-japa, sankirtana etc. How many of them are learning Sanskrit or risking their lives in preaching in Muslim countries? How does all this fit in with your philosophy? If we are offenders to Visnu why is it that the late Sri Vidyamanya Tirtha Svamiji of Sri Palimaru Matha told me personally that the western followers of Srila Prabhupada were sattvika jivas. How can an offender to God be a sattvika jiva? Was he wrong? Was he lying simply to make me feel good? If we are such heretics, why do your leaders stay in Gaudiya Vaisnava temples when they travel to the west? Why do they ask Gaudiya Vaisnava movements for financial aid in order to build temples, chaultries, Gita Bhavans etc? Why do they approach Gaudiya Vaisnava institutions to manage their temples (such as the Varabandhesvara temple in Malpe)? Is it that Gaudiya Vaisnava facilities and money are good, but Gaudiya philosophy is bad? I would be very cautious in answering these questions, lest you accuse your leaders of hypocrisy. The sad fact is that today Dvaitavada is not a doctrine that can benefit the world because it only caters to a particular caste and community. In fact, in the western hemisphere (apart from a few indologists) who had even heard of Madhva and his philosophy prior to Gaudiya Vaisnavism being spread by Srila Prabhupada? Now thousands of people from all over the world come to Udupi and pay homage to Madhva. This is another fact which is hard to swallow for some.

One more point I wish to make: You have said that you have lived in the US for 15 years and that is very clear to me. Cheers is not an appropriate cultured way of ending a letter to anyone (especially to someone who is senior to you). Neither is it very becoming from one who is supposed to be a brahmana. Talking about philosophy is one thing - living it is another.

---

Stunningly beautiful ashram you have developed there in South India. You must really be impressing the South Indians down there. It looks so clean and pucca and well done. You are showing them the standard. Certainly a reflection of your good selves. I started the tour with an email from Krishna Talk and kept hitting the next page. I hope to visit this holy place one day.

- Vidagdha Madhava dasa

---

I am very happy to find this website which has such an ocean of philosophical truths. It is truly inspiring to all Vaishnavas. Keep up the good work.

- S.G.D.

---