Русский

No products in the cart.

Contact

No products in the cart.

КОНТАКТЫ
Blog

Are the dīkṣā and dīkṣā-mantra of Caitanya’s school fruitless? Is Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇnavism really linked with the Madhva school? (Part 4)

Dīkṣā-mantras
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (18th century) in his Prameya-ratnāvalī 1.4 quotes a stanza allegedly from the Padma-purāṇa which begins with the words: sampradāyavihīnā ye mantrāste viphalā matāḥ: “Mantras [received] outside the sampradāya are fruitless. Therefore, in the kali-yuga the founders of the four sampradāyas will appear: Śrī, Brahmā, Rudra, and Sanaka, the Vaiṣṇavas who purify the earth.”
The principle of the continuation of the sampradāya is guru-paramparā — the chain of disciplic succession. The link between guru and disciple is the dīkṣā-mantra — the mantra of initiation into the teaching/tradition.
The dīkṣā-mantra in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism is the gopāla-mantra. According to the Gauḍīya tradition, the gopāla-mantra is the sampradāya-forming dīkṣā-mantra received through the chain of disciplic succession. The implication, by Caitanya’s followers, is that the gopāla-mantra is received from Kṛṣṇa through the generations to Madhva, through Madhva’s disciples to Vyāsatīrtha, who lived in the 16th century. Vyāsatīrtha was a contemporary of Caitanya (1447–1539). Further, according to Caitanya’s tradition, Vyāsatīrtha’s disciple was Lakṣmīpati, who in turn passed on the dīkṣā-mantra and thus the gopāla-mantra to Mādhavendra, who, as we remember, according to Vṛndāvanadāsa and the Caitanya-bhāgavata, was the founder of bhakti-rasa.
Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī explains Mādhavendra Purī’s position as follows, “The rules regarding the performance of devotional service have come down to us through Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha, representing the Tattvavāda. However, the pure moods of devotion were first introduced to the world by Śrīpāda Mādhavendra Purī…” (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.9.10; 3.8.34).
According to Prabhupāda (comm. on CC 1.9.10), Mādhavendra accepted sannyāsa in accordance with the principles of paramparā, choosing the Madhva tradition. Before him, the ritualistic worship accepted in Madhvācārya’s disciplic succession consisted mainly of rituals with almost no love for God. Mādhavendra was the first to introduce into this tradition the notions of conjugal love relationship with Kṛṣṇa.
Firstly, Prabhupāda’s words “Before him, the ritual worship adopted in Madhvācārya’s disciplic succession consisted mainly of rituals with almost no love for God” are not true. Bhakti is central to Madhva’s teachings and tradition.
Secondly, Mādhavendra Purī was not a sannyāsī of the Madhva-Sampradāya, but an ordinary sannyāsī of the Śaṃkara-Sampradāya. In the Madhva-Sampradāya, there is not many sannyāsīs and there are lists of sannyāsīs from the very foundation of the school by Madhva in the 13th century. Mādhavendra Purī is not in these lists. There are no legends about him either. But the man who made a ritual and theological revolution (“Mādhavendra was the first to introduce into this tradition the idea of conjugal love relations with Kṛṣṇa”) should have been remembered at least in some form and shape, at least by mentioning him, as it happened, for example, with Vādirāja Tīrtha — also a contemporary of Caitanya. Vādirāja is six years older than Caitanya. He changed the system of paryāya from two months to two years, rebuilt Kṛṣṇa’s temple in Udupi, etc.
In essence, Mādhavendra Purī changed the Madhva’s teachings by bringing into that tradition the concepts of conjugal love relationship with Kṛṣṇa, i.e., mādhurya-rasa and Rādhā.
In Madhva’s teaching there is knowledge of rasa, but in a slightly different form. So, there was no reason for Mādhavendra to teach the Madhvaites. But the idea of conjugal love relationship with Kṛṣṇa is not and has never been Madhva’s teaching. Also, the Madhva-Sampradāya has never had and does not have a deity named Rādhā. It is considered a folk deity, not a śāstric deity and has nothing to do with Tattvavāda and never has, nor has it in Rāmānuja-Sampradāya. And the very idea of a conjugal love relationships with Kṛṣṇa is considered heresy (apasiddhānta) in Tattvavāda.
In this matter, the Gauḍīyas construct their religion by attributing to the Madhva teachings and school their own views, which the Madhva school never had and does not have.
Finally, and most crucially, there is no dīkṣā in the Madhva-Sampradāya, in the Gauḍīya sense of initiation into the school and passing on of the gopāla-mantra.
Dīkṣā in the Madhva-Sampradāya is a kind of ritual blessing by the guru to perform, for example, a pūjā. If a brāhmaṇa is going to perform pūjā to a deity, he can go to his preceptor or his guru (whom he considers to be his guru, and there can be several such persons and no initiation is necessary) and asks him to bless him for the righteous deed. The guru or someone authoritative, having waved his hands and recited some mantras, blesses in this way. A person can receive several such dīkṣās per day for some events. There is also a ritual of tapta-mudrā-dhāraṇa, a kind of dīkṣā, when anyone can ask a respected paṇḍita or sannyāsī, when such days are organised, to put Viṣṇu’s symbols on his chest and forearms. A special iron seal with the symbol is heated on fire and burnt on the body.
There are no mouth-to-ear dīkṣā-mantras for becoming a disciple in the Madhva-Sampradāya. All there is, is the upanayana rite, which dvijas undergo at the age of 7–8 years and repeat the Gāyatrī every day. And any doctrine can be practised by such a person. Madhva-Sampradāya is a community of twice-born, mostly brāhmaṇas and to a lesser extent kṣatriyas. To become a Tattvavādī it is enough to profess the ideals of Tattvavāda and the Madhva teachings. Nothing else. There are also Tattvavādī — those who come from the families of Smārta-brāhmaṇas, Advaitins, etc., who were not originally born into a Madhva-brāhmaṇa family, but then became Madhvaites. No dīkṣā rites and mantras they needed to receive for this purpose.
The presence of only three sampradāyas in the original concept of the “Four Sampradāyas” and later four sampradāyas, of which the Caitanya school was not one, as well as the reference to the Gauḍīya-Sampradāya as a sub-sampradāya of Viṣṇuswāmī or Nimbārka, shows that the status of the Caitanya school is not the same as that described in the sermons and in the books. The mantras of the Gauḍīya-Sampradāya are received outside the Madhva tradition, and thus outside the authoritative sampradāya, according to the śloka of the Padma-purāṇa, which quotes Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa.
Even if we assume that the Gauḍīya-Sampradāya originated with Mādhavendra Purī, the first to reveal bhakti-rasa, then in terms of the principle of paramparā and the ślokas from the Padma-purāṇa, it appears that Mādhavendra had no paramparā, invented a mantra outside of the tradition, and began to initiate disciples with it.
Even from the point of view of the paramparā principles of the Caitanya school itself, the mantras of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism are fruitless, i.e., unworkable, and thus the practice is inauthentic and the mantras inauthentic.
The main paramparā-forming mantra of the Caitanya-Sampradāya is inauthentic and fruitless, and will not bear the fruits of bhakti, because it was received from Mādhavendra Purī, who it is not clear where he got it from, but certainly not from the Madhva tradition, i.e., he took it outside the sampradāya, to which the Gauḍīyas identify themselves.
Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha, the guru of Mādhavendra Purī, is also not a Tattvavādī. There is no such person in the Madhva-Sampradāya of that time. Whoever he is his gopāla-mantra is also unworkable and received by him outside the Madhva-Sampradāya, i.e., outside the authoritative Vaiṣṇava tradition.
The guru-paramparā of the Caitanya school is a fake. One argument will suffice without going into the maze and intricacies of the tradition in the 16th century. It is better to show it visually:
The makers of the Gauḍīya-Paramparā did not take into account the years of life of the personalities integrated in the paramparā. Between Vyāsatīrtha and Caitanya in the paramparā there are three more links — three lives — Lakṣmīpati, Mādhavendra Purī, Īśvara Purī. The years of Mādhavendra’s life are 1420–1490. According to Gauḍīya tradition, Mādhavendra died when Caitanya was a child.
Caitanya was born in 1486 and Vyāsatīrtha in 1460 (d. 1539) — they are contemporaries, a difference in age of only 26 years, and this fact makes it physically impossible for the paramparā presented by the Gauḍīyas to prove the connection of their school with the Madhva tradition, because it is impossible for a peer of Caitanya — Vyāsatīrtha, have a disciple (Lakṣmīpati) who then had his own disciple (Mādhavendra) who in turn became famous somewhere outside the Madhva school and who had his own disciples, one of whom was Caitanya’s dīkṣā-guru.
Mādhavendra died when Caitanya was a child. And Vyāsatīrtha himself was a contemporary of Caitanya. How can there be three links between Vyāsatīrtha and Caitanya — three lives, three personalities? It is physically impossible.
Caitanya received dīkṣā from Īśvara Purī when he was 17 years old = 1503. Suppose Mādhavendra received dīkṣā from Lakṣmīpati also when he was 17 years old = 1437, or even when he was 10 years old = 1430 (for the sake of accuracy). At this time Vyāsatīrtha was not even born, let alone Lakṣmīpati received dīkṣā from him, became a disciple, learnt, and then passed the dīkṣā on to Mādhavendra. Does not clash at the best and most favourable calculation for the Gauḍīyas and with the most inconvenient one for the Madhvaites.
In 16–17 years = 1476–1477. Vyāsatīrtha had just finished the traditional school and was not yet an ācārya of the Madhva-Paramparā. Around this period, he became a sannyāsī and lived under his guru, Brahmaṇya Tīrtha, who died in 1476. In 1478, Vyāsatīrtha began to represent the paramparā of his guru and went to Kanci to study. After many years of study in Kanci, Vyāsatīrtha went to Mulbagal to Śrīpādarāja and stayed there for 6 years.
Even if we reduce the “many years” in Kanci to 5, although it was probably longer, he spent until 1483 in Kanci, after which he spent another six years in Mulbagal. Total: 1489.
There he took charge of one of the maṭhas of the Madhva school. Mādhavendra died in 1490. And before Mādhavendra, there was still to be Lakṣmīpati. And yet Vyāsatīrtha was a contemporary of Caitanya. How can three lives of three persons fit between two contemporaries?
When I speak of the Madhva school, using the words “master”/“guru” in the context of paramparā, I am not referring to dīkṣā, but to initiation into sannyāsa, which is a different story. Vyāsatīrtha may have had disciples, but not in the Gauḍīya sense through dīkṣā by gopāla-mantra.
Between Vyāsatīrtha and Caitanya, if the paramparā was correct and we did not know that Mādhavendra died when Caitanya was a child, it would be difficult to assert anything, but we have events and life descriptions from Gauḍīya sources that prove the paramparā of Caitanya’s school to be fake.
If the paramparā is fake, the mantra is fake and inauthentic, can everything else be a working authority, so to speak, with Caitanya’s followers themselves insisting on adherence to paramparā and dīkṣā?
In the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava literature it does not appear that Caitanya himself knew about Vyāsatīrtha. The impression is that he did not know at all. Nowhere is there even a hint that Caitanya had even heard of Vyāsatīrtha. Although Vyāsatīrtha was quite a well-known person in the circles of intellectuals and leading temples of the time, in Kanci, in Tirupati, Vijayanagara etc., where he was the chief priest and one of the king’s advisors on śāstras and dharma.
How can three persons who became links in the succession and died by the time of Caitanya’s birth and childhood be put in the paramparā between Vyāsatīrtha and Caitanya, yet Vyāsatīrtha and Caitanya lived at the same time?
In Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, traditionally, it is customary to lead a paramparā, or rather continue, after the death of one’s guru. If Lakṣmīpati and Mādhavendra died, how could Vyāsatīrtha be the same age as Caitanya, if one takes the Gauḍīya-Paramparā at face value?
It is important to know, there are not many sannyāsīs in Tattvavāda. Sannyāsa is not given out right and left. If a person accepts sannyāsa, he lives in maṭha. Everyone knows him. He may not head the maṭha until the previous sannyāsī-ācārya dies. All the sannyāsīs are counted, but there is no dīkṣā. So how could Lakṣmīpati become the sannyāsa-successor to Vyāsatīrtha if there was no sannyāsī named Lakṣmīpati in any madhva-maṭhas in the period 1539?
There are other strong arguments in favour of the Caitanya’s guru-paramparā being a late period forgery and that the Caitanya school is not part of the Madhva-Sampradāya and never was, and is therefore inauthentic and without any roots (sampradāya-less).
Caitanya in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.9.245–276 makes a distinction between the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas and the followers of Madhva (Tattvavādīs): “Caitanya Mahāprabhu next arrived at Uḍupī, the place of Madhvācārya, where the philosophers known as Tattvavādīs resided.” “To date, the followers of Madhvācārya, known as Tattvavādīs, worship this Deity.” “When the Tattvavādī Vaiṣṇavas first saw Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they considered Him a Māyāvādī sannyāsī.” “Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu could understand that the Tattvavādīs were very proud of their Vaiṣṇavism.” “The chief ācārya of the Tattvavāda community was very learned in the revealed scriptures.”
In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.9.276–277, Caitanya twice says to His opponent “your sampradāya” (tomāra sampradāye). Isn’t the very idea of Caitanya’s disputation with the followers of Madhva, as described in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, an open ideological confrontation?
All of the above and the examples given indicate that Caitanya did not associate himself with the Madhva-Sampradāya either doctrinally or formally.
“I have seen many Vaiṣṇavas [in the south], but they are all worshippers of Nārāyaṇa; there were also Tattvavādīs among them, but they are exactly the same, their philosophy imperfect. Others were worshippers of Śiva. A large number of heretics. But, Sārvabhauma, only the views of Rāmānandarāya are really interesting to me” (Caitanya-chandrodaya-nāṭaka, 8).
The dīkṣā-mantra — received by the Gauḍīyas not just outside the authoritative sampradāya, but even outside any sampradāya and it is not clear how it became the dīkṣā-mantra of an entire school. After all, someone must have questioned Mādhavendra as to who he was and where he came from, besides being an advaita-sannyāsī. Why then does an advaita-sannyāsī not have an advaita-dīkṣā or dīkṣā-mantra and is it normal that no school at that time had such a dīkṣā-mantra like Gauḍīyas have?
The dīkṣā of the Gauḍīya school is barren and dīkṣā-mantra is fruitless. It does not work and apparently will not lead to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa Himself emphasises the importance of guru-paramparā in the Gītā. No matter how much you repeat it, it won’t do any good. The quotation from the Padma-purāṇa confirms this.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[email protected]

bergstreisser.ru