> Well, yes and no. These are stated to be statements of puurva-paksha
> in a PuraaNa. Ananda Tiirtha's Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirNaya
Just for my education, what does "puurva-paksha" mean?
> >can debate on that basis. However, the practice of quoting verses from
> >sections of the Puraanas is certainly not unique to any one school;
> Is that right. Can you give some examples of quotes from "lost
> sections of the Puraanas" quoted by any non-Gaudiya schools?
AS Raghavan does this a couple of times in his book on Vishishtadvaita (he
is a follower of that tradition). I'm sure no one would do it to prove or
disprove some crucial point of philosophy. I don't have the book with me
unfortunately, but I think one of the examples was a quote from the Matsya
Puraana stating that in the different kalpas, the Puraanas spoken by Lord
Brahmaa described a different deity to be supreme.
> Very simple; because the person claimed to be Vyaasa Tiirtha's
Vyaasa Tiirtha's disciple is Lakshmiipati Tiirtha. Shrii Krishna
Chaitanya's initiator's intiator (Maadhavendra Puri) is listed as
and Krishna Chaitanya's initiator's initiator is not called a
> Tiirtha, as he would be were he a Maadhva.
OBL Kapoor, in his book _The Philosophy and Religion of Shrii Chaitanya_,
states that this is probably because Maadhavendra was originally a
sannyaasii of the Shankarite order who later became a Vaishnava. In support
of this, he quotes from one of the biographical works (maybe
Gaurangganodesha diipika, but I don't remember) an instance where
Maadhavendra was seen in chastising his disciple for making some advaitist
remark. The idea apparently, is that he was first a sannyaasii in
Shankara's line, had some disciples, then grew disastisfied with advaita
philosophy and accepted Madhva's sampradaaya.
Also, in Srila Prabhupada's Chaitanya-charitamrita purport, he mentions
that Maadhavendra Puri accepted Madhva's sampradaaya because they (the
Maadhvas) accepted God as the supreme person, which seems to support
There is no record of
> Vyaasa Tiirtha having had such a disciple, either .
Both Kapoor and Stephen Rosen (the latter in a book called Vaishnavism:
Contemporary Scholars Discuss the Gaudiya Tradition) address this point.
They both say that the lack of a record in the Maadhva Maths about
Maadhavendra proves only that he was never in charge of them.
As such, the
> listing is prima facie incorrect, and is stated to be so by
> B.N.K. Sharma, et al.
I don't have Sharma's book. Can you tell me what exactly it was he said?
Either posting here or email is fine. How exactly is the list incorrect,
and what is the evidence to back that claim?
Besides, the sannyaasii-s of the Gaudiya
> tradition follow rules very similar to those of the Ramanuja tradition
> (wearing the sacred thread, reciting the Gayatri, being tri-daNDi,
> etc.), but dissimilar in all these respects to those of the Maadhva or
> Advaita traditions. This is further evidence against the claimed
> link, for if the claimed link were authentic, the practices would be
> identical to that of Maadhva sannyaasii-s.
Not at all. The sannyaasiis of the Gaudiiya line follow this system because
that is what Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati established for them in relatively
recent times. Prior to that, I'm not sure which of the above rules (if any)
were observed by Gaudiiya sannyaasiis. I'm certain that wearing of the
sacred thread was specifically instituted by Bhaktisiddhanta; I'm not as
sure about the others. In fact, I think he was even criticized for it by
some for what appeared to be a revival of caste consciousness.
> The matter is easily decided; if you would kindly provide the copy of
> the transcript, I will e-mail the same to the Vidyapeetha and have it
> confirmed or repudiated, as the case may be, by His Holiness's
> secretarial staff.
Good idea. I should have forwarded the transcript to you by the time you
see this on your newsserver.
> Note, however, that the claim of Sri Vishvesha Tiirtha having spoken
> in that fashion has nothing to do with the lineage issue. I don't
> know why you brought it up.
I didn't want Ramakrishnan to take your opinions regarding the paramparaa
issue to be representative of all Maadhvas. Apparently, some Maadhvas have
no problem accepting that Gaudiiyas have a historical connection with the
Madhva sampradaaya. I just wanted to make sure he knew this, before he
tried to imply differently in order to make it appear that his argument had
any strength to it.