Question regarding ISKCON...

[Acintya_Ash]

Yeah... I don't think we are in the position to classify jivas as tamasic and neither are we in position to question BhagavAn's motives.

An excerpt from the book Philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya

Madhva's views on Svarupabheda, Taratamya and Traividhya among souls make important contributions to the problem of evil,
freedom and freewill. Madhva does not promise Sarvamukti. Madhva for his part would argue that the business of philosophy is to tell the truth, whether it pleases or
irritates, and not simply to indulge in pious platitudes and pleasant imaginings. His theory of Jiva-traividhya is a logically derived conclusion. It goes beyond the commonly accepted explanations of the theory of karma in Vedanta, as an ultimate explanation of the inequalities of life. It points out that if these inequalities of life are to be explained satisfactorily, the theory of Karma, which is supposed to explain such inequalities in equipment and opportunities, must in the last analysis take its stand on certain basic differences in the nature (svabhava) of the souls themselves. The plurality of selves which is experienced by us will have to be grounded in something that is more fundamental than Prakritic vestures and influences including Karma. If that something is not there, the law of Karma itself would be a cruel joke on humanity. It is Svarupabheda alone that would supply the missing link in the theory of diversity of individual Karma. Madhva has shown great boldness of spirit in detecting the weak point in the conventional theory of Karma as generally advanced in Hindu philosophy and rectifying the deficiency by filling the gap in the theory with his doctrine of Svarupabheda, Taratamya and Traividhya among souls. Considering the importance of the theory of Karma in Hindu philosophy, Madhva's emphasis on Svarupabheda of souls as the determining factor in the differentiation of their karmas from time immemorial would beseen to put the whole theory of karma in a better and more intelligible light, for the first time in Indian thought.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can you please elaborate? I still don't get it. The degree of avidya differs from Jiva to Jiva, who puts them in avidya ? Isn't it Ishvara via his Maya? (Of course they are one but consider conventional reality for the moment) .

Humans, too, are just as deeply under illusion as the animals are. Are not humans animals? With them it is the question of survival and sustainance. With us, the problems are compounded by kama (lust), krodha (anger), mada (pride), lobha (greed) and moha (attachment). It is an illusion to think that maya affects us any less. Of course, with better thinking ability, we have the chance to escape illusion. But that again depends on our 'samskaras' (how we have been brought up), education and experiences. That is what creates the differences. Animals too, are none other than Brahman, just as the humans are. And an Osama bin Laden is just as much Brahman as a Gandhi is. There is only one 'swaroopa', and that is Brahman. Any other 'swaroopa' is not 'swaroopa' but an illusion. This is according to 'advaita', and beliefs will differ from one philosophy to another.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Vedanta, there is no start point. Souls are beginning-less, Karma is beginning-less and Maya is beginning-less too. It is not like there was some point in time when Ishvara introduced Maya.

Which particular belief are you talking about? Are there souls? And how do you know that there is no beginning and no end? Don't you accept the phenomenon of 'pralaya' and cycles of creation? If there is a cycle of creation than karma is not beginning-less or end-less.

 

[Chakra]

Dear Achintya-ji,

If its beginning-less how can we expect it to have an end? How can karma be beginning-less? I mean how can we come under reaction without even acting?
Beginning-less karma would be a good oxymoron

If karma is not eternal, what other explanation do we have? Because we have karma, we cannot get Moksha. You can't just say that we were in Vaikuntha and just fell down to samsara, because mukta jivas don't make mistakes. The very idea that one can lose his position in Vaikuntha makes it unappealing. The story of Jaya-Vijaya happened in Vishnu-loka, not Shri Vaikuntha. Vishnu loka is where Vishnu resides in this material universe. No way could it have been Vaikuntha as Bhrigu Muni was not liberated at the time and neither is it possible that a mukta can "fall" down. I'll try to get some more info on this if you are interested.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Which particular belief are you talking about? Are there souls? And how do you know that there is no beginning and no end? Don't you accept the phenomenon of 'pralaya' and cycles of creation? If there is a cycle of creation than karma is not beginning-less or end-less.

I am specifically talking about Vedanta - all three schools.

VA and TV have representation on this forum and I will let them answer. Advaita says Karma is due to Avidya and Avidya is beginning-less and therefore, Karma is beginning-less too. There was a never a time in the past when the soul was free of Karma.

Please check verse 13 of Shankara's Atma Bodha and his commentary on the Brahma Sutra Bhashya (sutra 2.1.36) where he explains why a start point is illogical (seed-sprout analogy which is better known today as the chicken-egg conundrum).

I have to step out. Will post the relevant piece and anything else I can recall, when I return.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Dear Achintya-ji,

If karma is not eternal, what other explanation do we have? Because we have karma, we cannot get Moksha. You can't just say that we were in Vaikuntha and just fell down to samsara, because mukta jivas don't make mistakes. The very idea that one can lose his position in Vaikuntha makes it unappealing. The story of Jaya-Vijaya happened in Vishnu-loka, not Shri Vaikuntha. Vishnu loka is where Vishnu resides in this material universe. No way could it have been Vaikuntha as Bhrigu Muni was not liberated at the time and neither is it possible that a mukta can "fall" down. I'll try to get some more info on this if you are interested.

Totally Agree. If you could post some Vishishtadvaita quotes on the origin of Karma, that would be great.

The problem with someone being in Goloka/Vaikunta falling is that it could happen again and again. In theory, the person can attain Mukti, go to Vaikunta, get bored after a billion years or so and return to Samsara. If the Jiva got bored of Vaikunta once, it can get bored again.

This is against the message of the Gita where Krishna says there is no return for one who has attained his abode (i.e., Moksha is irreversible).

 

[Asha]

Hare Krsna Prabhu ji

Of course not. I was just wondering, since some ISKCONites don't believe that Advaitin Vaishnavas will get liberation.

Where did you get this from?

May I advise exercising a little caution here, arnt there allways some who foolishly speak out of turn?
Should we realy base the reputation of an entire tradition on what some have said ?
or because some have missinturpreted what others have said ?

This whole ''ISKCONite''thing is becoming just a little blown out of proportion some times I get the feeling that some people think we are all brainwashed and that we dont think for ourselves.
Actualy over the years I have been plesantly surprised at how different things are presented from one guru to the next, their mood seems to be very much influenced by the culture that they originate from.

My attitude in this situation is that those who do not know enough should keep quiet or at least limit them selves polite questioning.Which please dont get me wrong you have tried to do, but you do not give the reasoning behind your curiosity. Is this question about Srila Prabhupada refering to Advaitins as Mayavadis ?
or does it go beyond this ?

Even if I give you the general line it would have to be that Impersonalists that do not beleive in the personal form of the Lord merge with the Brahmajyoti (the Lords effulgence), so if this is the liberation that they seek this is what they will get.
As Gaudiya Vaisnava we are seeking something different, we dont want to become one with an impersonal Brahman, we want to remain in constant loving servitude with the lord himself and his associates.

As I understand it they see Brahman as the pinacle from which Krishna eminates along with this illusiory Maya? and we see it the other way arround, that Brahman is a part of the Lords energy so the differences lay in which is supreme Parameshwara or Parabrahman ?

You can also help me out here by explaining what you mean by Vaisnava Advaitins ?
did Shankaracharya actualy give presidence to Vishnu over any other Deity ?
or was he just born in a Vaisnava family ?
And how does the Sri Vaisnava feel about these issues Parameshwara or Parabrahman ?

please give us your thoughts.

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

I do not see the problem. Also, I do not know that Tattvavada makes such a claim for that would mean, three categories = only three kinds of Karma in this universe, which is not true.

Karma is anadi (beginningless), as are souls. There is no requirement therefore, that it be equal for all souls.

If karma is not eternal, what other explanation do we have? Because we have karma, we cannot get Moksha.

I think @Acintya_Ash ji understood "must in the last analysis take its stand on certain basic differences in the nature (svabhava) of the souls themselves" in the excerpt from the book to mean that eventually, there is a beginning to karma due to which all other subsequent inequalities ensue.
Karma is indeed anādi - Śri Madhva's opinion is clear on that (ref: Brahmasūtra bhāṣya 2/1/36). Karma-bandha is also anādi and to the extent that this is due to ajñāna there is agreement with advaita, disagreement is w.r.t. locus of avidya/ajñāna. Axlyz ji, Karma itself cannot be barrier/antithetical to mokṣa. Do nitya-sūris - Garuḍa and Śeṣa - perform nitya-pūja of Nārāyaṇa or not? That karma is antithesis of mokṣa, in vedānta schools, is afaik, exclusive to advaita given its nirdharma, niṣkriya, nirviśeṣa conceptualization of brahman. In tattvavāda, muktas can engage in desired karma if they choose to, only there is no karma-bandha.

I don't see how classifying souls into 3 categories helps increase the understanding. Just a question (a respectful one), but Tattva-ji and Ash-ji, can Vishnu give moksha to a Tamasic jiva?

Again, your premise is based on the idea that there is some kind of a start point - like in Christianity. In Vedanta, there is no start point. Souls are beginning-less, Karma is beginning-less and Maya is beginning-less too. It is not like there was some point in time when Ishvara introduced Maya.

Yeah... I don't think we are in the position to classify jivas as tamasic and neither are we in position to question BhagavAn's motives.

With His acintyādbhutapaṭutva He can give mokṣa to a stone. But perhaps your question is whether He does so or not. If He did, many would've complained about that too. Advaita discounts the need to explain all this by classifying it as vyāvahārika. Of the realist systems, in VA if you contend there is no need to classify, you'll have to let go of the concept of nitya-sūris as well, by accepting a class of jīvas who've never experienced samsāra VA implicitly accepts classification, and even in mokṣa you'll still have those that have never been in the saṁsāra and those that have been liberated from it.
Now consider this śruti
eṣa hyeva sādhu karma kārayati taṁ yamebhyo lokebhya unninīṣata eṣa u evāsādhu karma kārayati taṁ yamadho ninīṣate
I've already cited from the Gītā in other threads that support the thesis that jīvas are bound either upwards towards mokṣa or downwards towards tamas. Despite being anādi there must be something that drives jīvas in a direction; and even without accepting a beginning, its perpetuation certainly needs justification. Unless one accepts innate yogyata of jīva, Kṛṣṇa's claim that He casts *such* people again and again in āsuri yonis will make Him biased. The classification is not a new category but the acknowledgement of what is a fact based on both pratyakṣa, anumā, & śāstras. Being anādi, what drives jīvas to progress accordingly is jīva svabhāva which is why it is accepted as adhyātma by Kṛṣṇa (BG 8/3). Similarly, unless you accept yogyata "manuṣyāṇām sahasreṣu.." (BG 7/3) becomes superfluous. If you say, others are not ready yet, why? if it is because of ajñāna, why do their ajñāna and its effect vary? if it is because of satkarma then what led to their doing satkarma? if its held that others did duśkarma, why? It is impossible that after an honest study of the Gītā that you can ever be unconvinced of jīva-traividhya. So even though karma is beginning-less, in a realist world there is no scope to escape from both svabhāva and jīva-traividhya.
And, there is no need for us to endeavor and define, or engage in kapola-kalpita labeling as to who belongs to which, Kṛṣṇa in BG has made it exceptionally clear devoting almost an entire chapter for the purpose. Bhagavan's motives are clear as well, being an unbiased karmādhyakṣa - one who correctly perceives difference where there is difference, and doesn't where there is none and is the efficient cause of the outcomes of karma. You must consider, that both as a concept and as an activity, karma is jaḍa, and by definition cannot be the cause of anything by itself. A biased position would be perceiving no difference despite there being very innate ones, or vice versa and effectuating common outcomes irrespective of differences.

You can't just say that we were in Vaikuntha and just fell down to samsara, because mukta jivas don't make mistakes. The very idea that one can lose his position in Vaikuntha makes it unappealing. The story of Jaya-Vijaya happened in Vishnu-loka, not Shri Vaikuntha. Vishnu loka is where Vishnu resides in this material universe. No way could it have been Vaikuntha as Bhrigu Muni was not liberated at the time and neither is it possible that a mukta can "fall" down. I'll try to get some more info on this if you are interested.

Now this doubt is based on the assumption that Jaya-Vijaya were muktas, they were ordinary jīvas much below several other gods (in Śri Madhva's tāratamya) guarding the entrance to mukti-loka, not in mukti-loka itself, for it is unanimously agreed that Viṣṇu waits until the two are cursed by sanakādis for elsewhere it is mentioned that the cause is aham in the minds of the two. Bhṛgu maharṣi (obeisance to my Gotra pravartaka) was an aṁśa (maharṣīṇāṁ bhṛgurahaṁ BG 10/25) of Nārāyaṇa, and if you place a distinction b/w Viṣṇu-loka and Vaikuṇṭha, how will you explain tadviṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayāh, i hope it is not figuratively like many advaitins Such confusions are unnecessary, i think, for Bhṛgu and Sanakādis were no ordinary mortals, former is Lakṣmī's father, She being Bhārgavī, Sanakādis were direct discples of Haṁsa. Also, Vaikuṇṭha is firstly Nārāyaṇa's name and therefore also His dhāma - there is no difference between Him, His dhāma, and nāma, which is mām and mama dhāma are used as if synonyms in BG.

Refer Brahmasūtra nityopalabdhyanupalabdhiprasangoऽnyataraniyamo vāऽnyathā (2/3/31) and also viśeṣānugrahaṁ ca (brahmasūtra 3/4/37) for context consider śruti: śṛṇve vīra ugramugram damāyannanyamanyamatinenīyamānaḥ | edhamānadviḷubhayasya rājā coṣkūyate viśa indro manuṣyān || explained in simpler terms in MB Bhaviṣyatparva asurān damayan viṣṇuḥ svapadaṁ ca surānnayan | punaḥpunarmānuṣāṅstu sṛtāvāvartyasou || I think there is conclusive evidence for āsuri, daivī, and nityasamsāsāri, and their destinations. What can be considered peculiar is that Śri Madhva holds that God never intervenes or tries to effect change in svabhāva, whereas other schools hope that this may be possible (afaik). Though, Śri Madhva too concedes that being fully capable of that, He only chooses not to meddle with innate svabhāva, else logically that would make Him biased.

The problem with someone being in Goloka/Vaikunta falling is that it could happen again and again. In theory, the person can attain Mukti, go to Vaikunta, get bored after a billion years or so and return to Samsara. If the Jiva got bored of Vaikunta once, it can get bored again.

Is there an implicit reference to one/more school of thought in this? i'm not sure which school has this position.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Chakra]

Namaste Asha-ji,

Hare Krsna Prabhu ji



Where did you get this from?

May I advise exercising a little caution here, arnt there allways some who foolishly speak out of turn?
Should we realy base the reputation of an entire tradition on what some have said ?
or because some have missinturpreted what others have said ?

This whole ''ISKCONite''thing is becoming just a little blown out of proportion some times I get the feeling that some people think we are all brainwashed and that we dont think for ourselves.
Actualy over the years I have been plesantly surprised at how different things are presented from one guru to the next, their mood seems to be very much influenced by the culture that they originate from.

My attitude in this situation is that those who do not know enough should keep quiet or at least limit them selves polite questioning.Which please dont get me wrong you have tried to do, but you do not give the reasoning behind your curiosity. Is this question about Srila Prabhupada refering to Advaitins as Mayavadis ?
or does it go beyond this ?

You are right. My bad. It's just that most ISKCONites that I've met have said things about others that made me uncomfortable. Things like "Ramanuja and Madhva worshiped Chaitanya" or telling me that I'll go to Vaikuntha and they'll go to some higher place called Goloka. Forgive me, since you do not hold those views.

There is no doubt that there is a negative perception of Advaita in the ISKCON community. There are some who claim that Shankara was a disguised personalist, and there are some who claim that he is a demon. Prabhupada called them rascals (I know, the philosophy). So I hope you understand why I would be confused. This entire thread was made so that I could understand ISKCON's positions among contradictory viewpoints.

Of course, if you are asking whether I'll bash ISKCON's views after understanding them, then that is simply not the case. There is no reason to think that I, a Vaishnava, would try to hurt and attack another Vaishnava's siddhanta just for the sake of it.

You can also help me out here by explaining what you mean by Vaisnava Advaitins ?
did Shankaracharya actualy give presidence to Vishnu over any other Deity ?
or was he just born in a Vaisnava family ?
And how does the Sri Vaisnava feel about these issues Parameshwara or Parabrahman ?

Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava. Advaita was Vaishnava in its roots. Even a child reading his Gita Bhasya would identify Shankara as a Vaishnava alone. He was born in a Shaiva family, however (AFAIK).
Could you explain what you mean by Parameshwara and Parabrahman? My understanding was that they are the same.

Jaya Shri Krishna

 

[Chakra]

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।[/QUOTE]

Totally Agree. If you could post some Vishishtadvaita quotes on the origin of Karma, that would be great.

The problem with someone being in Goloka/Vaikunta falling is that it could happen again and again. In theory, the person can attain Mukti, go to Vaikunta, get bored after a billion years or so and return to Samsara. If the Jiva got bored of Vaikunta once, it can get bored again.

This is against the message of the Gita where Krishna says there is no return for one who has attained his abode (i.e., Moksha is irreversible).

Do you think we should open a new thread for this?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram axlyz ji

Namaste Asha-ji,

You are right. My bad. It's just that most ISKCONites that I've met have said things about others that made me uncomfortable. Things like "Ramanuja and Madhva worshiped Chaitanya" or telling me that I'll go to Vaikuntha and they'll go to some higher place called Goloka. Forgive me, since you do not hold those views.

this one I have to come out of retirement for ...how did Sri Madhavacharya and Sri Ramanujacharya worship Chaitanya when they were born before him ???...unless these naughty boys intended to say that both worshiped Krsna therefore inadvertantly they must also accept Chaitanya as he is considered Sri Krsna Chaitanya , ...this is a little noncence because Chaitanya is a hidden avatara , ....even Kalki the next fortold yuga avatara is hardly worshiped in ISKCON , ...

Vaikuntha is a planetary system , it is Vaikunths planets , ...Goloka Vrindavana is considered the central planet .the personal abode of Sri Hari , .....

Jaya Shri Krishna

Jai Jai Radharamana Hari Bol

 

[Chakra]

Namaste Ratiben,

namaskaram axlyz ji




this one I have to come out of retirement for ...how did Sri Madhavacharya and Sri Ramanujacharya worship Chaitanya when they were born before him ???...unless these naughty boys intended to say that both worshiped Krsna therefore inadvertantly they must also accept Chaitanya as he is considered Sri Krsna Chaitanya , ...this is a little noncence because Chaitanya is a hidden avatara , ....even Kalki the next fortold yuga avatara is hardly worshiped in ISKCON , ...

Vaikuntha is a planetary system , it is Vaikunths planets , ...Goloka Vrindavana is considered the central planet .the personal abode of Sri Hari , .....

It is mentioned in the work of Bhaktivinode Thakur "Navadvipa Dharma Mahatmya" where it says this...

"Madhva and his disciples also stayed here for some time. Gaurasundara mercifully appeared to him in a dream and while smiling said, 'Everyone knows that you are My eternal servant. When I appear in Navadvipa, I will accept your sampradaya. Now, go everywhere and carefully uproot all the false scriptures of the mayavadis. Reveal the glories of worshipping the Deity of the Lord. Later, I will broadcast your pure teachings.

"Saying this, Gauracandra disappeared, and Madhva awakened dumbfounded.

'Will I ever see that beautiful golden form again?' he cried."

In reply, a voice from the sky said, 'Worship Me secretly, and you will come to Me.' With this instruction, Madhva went on with great resolution and defeated the mayavadi philosophers."

As you can see, this is what one of the glorious Acharyas of the Gaudiya tradition said. This will no doubt cause a lot of distress to the followers of Madhva.

Jai Jai Radharamana Hari Bol

Jai Shri Krishna

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aupmanyav's reading of BG 7.3:

"Manushyanam sahasreshu, kascid yatati siddhaye;
yatatam api siddhanam, kascin mam vetti tattvatah."

You are an expert in Yoga and have studied Shrutis and Shastras, even then you miss the truth. It requires something like the genius of Einstein to recognize the truth.
That, Aupmanyav thinks, is provided by the strictest 'advaita' (You are welcome to differ).

Who is Krishna? Is he something other than Brahman? Is there something other than Krishna?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Axlyz ji

Namaste Ratiben,

It is mentioned in the work of Bhaktivinode Thakur "Navadvipa Dharma Mahatmya" where it says this...


As you can see, this is what one of the glorious Acharyas of the Gaudiya tradition said. This will no doubt cause a lot of distress to the followers of Madhva.

'Mam' =me ....worship me , ....Krsna , .....
Dosent say worship the form of Gaurachandra it says ''I am'' , ...says I will come in the form of ....even this is said in the Gita when ever there is a decline in religion .....I will appear , ....

why are Mhadavacharya devotees surprised that Sri Krsna keeps his word ?
does the world stop after Madhavacharya ? ...no
does the world stop after the apperance of Chaitanya ? ....no , ...we do not take offence at this , this does not diminish Chaitanya , ...

Jai Shri Krishna

jai jai hari hari bol

 

[shivsomashekhar]

why are Mhadavacharya devotees surprised that Sri Krsna keeps his word ?

There is no surprise. No Kali yuga avatars are foretold in the Puranas (other than the Buddha) and therefore, there cannot be any. In India, all Gurus who attain a certain level of posterity are seen as avatars by their followers.

Sathya Sai Baba devotees see Sai baba as Krishna.
Gaudiyas see Chaitanya as Krishna
Swami Narayan followers see him as Narayana himself

Clearly, there is no shortage of Gurus claiming to be Krishna himself. Just like the Gaudiyas will not accept Sai Baba as Krishna, a traditional school like Tattvavada which is centuries older than Chaitanya, will not accept him as an avatar. In fact, other than Chaitany's followers, no one will accept him as an avatar (same with Sai Baba, etc).

does the world stop after Madhavacharya ? ...no

If it does not, then the person cannot call himself a Madhva. Very simple. One cannot call himself a Gaudiya, if his world does not end after Chaitanya. If he accepts Swami Narayan and Sai Baba Krishna too, then he cannot call himself a Gaudiya. At least, this is how I see it.

does the world stop after the apperance of Chaitanya ? ....no , ...we do not take offence at this , this does not diminish Chaitanya , ...

Are you sure? I would be very surprised, if there are Gaudiyas who will accept the Swami Narayan claim and the Sai Baba claim.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Shivsomashekhar ji

There is no surprise. No Kali yuga avatars are foretold in the Puranas (other than the Buddha) and therefore, there cannot be any. In India, all Gurus who attain a certain level of posterity are seen as avatars by their followers.

not that simple , it is not a matter of ones devotees awarding one the status of Avatara , ....

here are just a few of the verses predicting the decent of Kalki , ....


The Vishnu Purana (Book Four, Chapter 24) , .......... "When the practices taught in the Vedas and institutes of law have nearly ceased, and the close of the Kali age shall be nigh, a portion of that divine being who exists of His own spiritual nature, and who is the beginning and end, and who comprehends all things, shall descend upon earth. He will be born in the family of Vishnuyasha, an eminent Brahmana of Shambhala village, as Kalki, endowed with eight superhuman faculties."



The Agni Purana (16.7-9) , ..........also explains that '' when the non-Aryans who pose as kings begin devouring men who appear righteous and feed on human beings, Kalki, as the son of Vishnuyasha, and Yajnavalkya as His priest and teacher, will destroy these non-Aryans with His weapons. He will establish moral law in the form of the fourfold varnas, or the suitable organization of society in four classes. After that people will return to the path of righteousness. ''

The Padma Purana (6.71.279-282) , ........ relates that Lord Kalki will end the age of Kali and will kill all the wicked mlecchas [low class and evil beings] and, thus, destroy the bad condition of the world. He will gather all of the distinguished Brahmanas and will propound the highest truth. He will know all the ways of life that have perished and will remove the prolonged hunger of the genuine Brahmanas and the pious. He will be the only ruler of the world that cannot be controlled, and will be the banner of victory and adorable to the world.

The Mahabharatra (Vana Parva, 190.93-97) adds to the description of Lord Kalki’s appearance: "Impelled by time, a Brahmana named Kalki Vishnuyasha will be born. He will possess great energy, intelligence and prowess. He will be born at a village called Shambhala in a blessed Brahmana family. As soon as thought of, vehicles, weapons, warriors, and arms and armors will all be at his command. He will be the imperial sovereign, ever victorious by the strength of his virtue. He will restore order and peace in this world, overcrowded with creatures and contradictory in its laws. That effulgent and greatly intelligent Brahmana will destroy all things. He will be the destroyer of all and He will be the maker of a new Yuga [Satya-Yuga]. That twice-born one surrounded by the Brahmanas, will exterminate all the low and despicable mlecchas wherever they will be found."

Sathya Sai Baba devotees see Sai baba as Krishna.
Gaudiyas see Chaitanya as Krishna
Swami Narayan followers see him as Narayana himself

Clearly, there is no shortage of Gurus claiming to be Krishna himself. Just like the Gaudiyas will not accept Sai Baba as Krishna, a traditional school like Tattvavada which is centuries older than Chaitanya, will not accept him as an avatar. In fact, other than Chaitany's followers, no one will accept him as an avatar (same with Sai Baba, etc).

Gurus canot them selves claim to be an Avatara , ....

If it does not, then the person cannot call himself a Madhva. Very simple. One cannot call himself a Gaudiya, if his world does not end after Chaitanya. If he accepts Swami Narayan and Sai Baba Krishna too, then he cannot call himself a Gaudiya. At least, this is how I see it.

Sorry we canot agree here , please may I return you to the Gita , .....ch, 4 ...v, 7

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice,
O descendant of Bharata , and a predominant rise of irreligion
at that time I descend Myself."
​

if there is a decline in religiosity ,..will you agree that it is nececary for the lord to decend ?

at the point of Chaitanya's arival not everyone was following lord Buddha , Madhavacharya or Ramanujacharya ,.... in some areas of India and neighbouring countries people are following these and other vedic traditions , but when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared it was to re enliven Vaisnava principles in an area heavily dominated by muslim control , Chaitanya's mood of Vaisnavism was very much needed at that time , He instated a very differnt system which was open to all .​

Are you sure? I would be very surprised, if there are Gaudiyas who will accept the Swami Narayan claim and the Sai Baba claim.

there is a very great difference between Sai Baba and Swami Narayana traditions and Gaudiya traditions , ...Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is never elevated above Radha Krsna , Sita Rama , Jaganatha , Visnu , Narayana , Narasimha ...etc
Chaitanya remains allways humble , of course he is Highly revered but never placed above , he is allways in the mood of devotion .
Personaly I feel it is not my position to criticise how another worships , ....prehaps it might surprise you that there are many Gaudiyas that simply live and let live , many Gaudiyas accept that many people follow a tradition due to their family conections , therefore one could even say that there is an element of Karma involved in the tradition one finds one self in , therefore there are instances when it is aplicable to say ''who are we to pass judgement'' ?

again personaly I find it natural to revere ones own tradition above that of anothers , but it is Naive to suggest that all traditions outside of ones own are invalid , I think we have to be very carefull what we say or what we get drawn into when it comes to questioning the validity of other traditions .

 

[Chakra]

Ratiben, just a question, but why is Ramanuja or Madhva not considered an incarnation of Vishnu? Both of them had a larger sphere of influence at the time and they too argued against anti-Vaishnavites to tell the world about Vishnu.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

why is Ramanuja or Madhva not considered an incarnation of Vishnu? Both of them had a larger sphere of influence at the time and they too argued against anti-Vaishnavites to tell the world about Vishnu.

As for Madhvacharya, he claimed to be avatar of Vayu. Did Ramanujacharya make any claims?
AFAIK, Mahaprabhu never made any claims, his followers believed himeslf to be Krishna.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and they too argued against anti-Vaishnavites to tell the world about Vishnu.

Perhaps that is why.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

As for Madhvacharya, he claimed to be avatar of Vayu. Did Ramanujacharya make any claims?

Once again, every Guru who attained some kind of posterity in India is elevated to the status of an avatar by his followers. This is a very common practice in India and there are a number of such avatars.

Ramanuja is believed to be the avatar of Balarama/Adi sesha. I have also seen arguments on the internet to prove (with scriptural quotes) that he is Narayana/Vishnu himself.

AFAIK, Mahaprabhu never made any claims, his followers believed himeslf to be Krishna.

Right. It is always the followers. This is how it has been at least since the time of Shankara, up to the modern day Sai Baba. The followers elevate their Guru/founder to the status of an avatar and will attribute miracles to him.