|
|
Post by Nityānanda dāsa on Apr 25, 2019 18:52:42 GMT -6
Radhe Radhe!
I saw some posts or writings by Nitai-ji about Sankara being a Vaishnava. Could you elaborate on this please? And how would this concept interface with our understanding of Advaita-vada? In other words, does this negate an impersonal concept? Or do we then attribute impersonalism to someone else because it does seem that a lot of Caitanya Vaishnava acharyas (such as Jiva Gosvami in Tattva Sandarbha) spend a significant amount of time arguing against impersonalism. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 26, 2019 14:07:54 GMT -6
Radhe Radhe! I saw some posts or writings by Nitai-ji about Sankara being a Vaishnava. Could you elaborate on this please? And how would this concept interface with our understanding of Advaita-vada? In other words, does this negate an impersonal concept? Or do we then attribute impersonalism to someone else because it does seem that a lot of Caitanya Vaishnava acharyas (such as Jiva Gosvami in Tattva Sandarbha) spend a significant amount of time arguing against impersonalism. Thanks! Surprising what one learns if one digs a little deeper. Recent research on Sankara has revealed that very few of the books attributed to him are actually by him. When one narrows down the works to the handful that are most likely by Sankara one discovers a number of interesting things. Much of this is laid out in the work of Paul Hacker and others (Mayeda and Nakamura). One discovers that what we thought we knew about him (and what most of those in our tradition including Sri Jiva, Baladeva, Krsnadas Kaviraja and others) thought about him turns out to be wrong. For instance, he was not a mayavadi. He very rarely used the term maya. Instead he uses the term avidya. He was a Vaisnava coming as he did from a community of southern brahmanas called Nambudri. They were all Vaisnavas. He rarely even refers to Siva in the works that are likely to be his. Have a look at some of the essays of Hacker collected in a book by Wilhelm Halbfass called Philology and Confrontation. The first five essays are specially interesting. Sankara was transformed into a Saivite in the 14th century by two brothers, Sayana and Madhava, who were ministers of the Saivite king of Vijayanagara (14th cent. - 15th cent.) in the current state of Karnataka. Before then he and all his serious followers were recognized as Vaisanvas. Another point that will make you go "what?" It is my view that we are really in the lineage of Sankara, not Madhva. The connection between CV and Madhva was invented in the 18th cent. in order to maintain control of the worship of Govindaji in Jayapur. It is completely false. CV has very little to do with Madhva. Just compare our teachings with theirs. Madhva calls the gopis sleepers! Baladeva needed to connect the Caitanya tradition with some earlier tradition and he knew the most about the Madhva tradition, since he studied it before he was converted to CV. Our true heritage comes from the Sankara tradition which in the centuries following Sankara found a bigger and more important role for bhakti. Madhavendra Puri was a member of the Dasanami tradition, not the Madhva tradition. The Madhva sannyasins were called Tirthas, not Puris. This is a big topic. We can discuss this more deeply as time goes on. I don't know if you have read it already or not, but have a look at my essay "Sane Vaisnavism." I think that is a topic that comes up there. It is probably on this site somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Nityānanda dāsa on Apr 26, 2019 19:07:08 GMT -6
I have downloaded your essay 'Sane Vaishnavism' from somewhere and can't find it on your sites now. It is dated 2005. I don't know if that's the latest revision, but will give it a read.
A similar thought that may warrant a separate thread is this...
Some time ago a friend of mine mentioned that perhaps the famous Keturi Gaura Purnima festival, arranged by Narottam Das Thakur, and headlined by Jahnava Mata, was a (successful) attempt to bring the splintering Caitanya Vaishnava groups (the separate parivars) together under one umbrella. Is there any validity to this theory?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 27, 2019 17:50:35 GMT -6
I have downloaded your essay 'Sane Vaishnavism' from somewhere and can't find it on your sites now. It is dated 2005. I don't know if that's the latest revision, but will give it a read. A similar thought that may warrant a separate thread is this... Some time ago a friend of mine mentioned that perhaps the famous Keturi Gaura Purnima festival, arranged by Narottam Das Thakur, and headlined by Jahnava Mata, was a (successful) attempt to bring the splintering Caitanya Vaishnava groups (the separate parivars) together under one umbrella. Is there any validity to this theory? Sorry. I looked at it yesterday and I see that only one section is done. The other propositions are simply stated and not defended. I will work on those over the next few weeks. I suspect that the festival was for the purpose of celebrating the tradition and for reuniting the various groups. I think it is described in the Bhakti-ratnakara of Narahari Cakravarty. Mostly, throughout the centuries the various lineages have cooperated with each other. IGM is not really part of the Caitanya Vaisnava tradition, so there is no reason for them to cooperate with those who are (and vice verse). |
|
