Posted by – Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsa
.jpg)
The dīkṣā succession is described a siddha-praṇālī process of disciplic succession.
Friday, May 20, 2022
Friday, May 13, 2022
Schism in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya
By Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsā
How the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya separated into the Vaḍagalai and
Teṅkalai sects
The Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya has two major
sects, one is called Vaḍagalai and the other Teṅkalai. The two sects have
existed for more than 350 years and arose on account of a bitter schism. The
foundation of this schism is based on eighteen ideological differences on the
topic of mokṣa-dharma propounded by post Rāmānujācārya-era ācāryas Pillailokācārya
and Vedānta Deśika during the 1200-1300 AD period.[i] During this period
Vedānta Deśika was the first one to detect or disagree with certain works of
Pillailokācārya. Maṇavāla Mamuni (Mahāmuni), who appeared right after Vedānta
Deśika, primarily subscribed to the doctrines of Pillailokācārya.
The eighteen differences between the two groups
of these ācāryas centered on the questions as to who can
ultimately award liberation (Lord Nārāyaṇa alone or Mother Lakṣmī as well?) and
whether action on the part of the jīva is required in
obtaining liberation. Pillailokācārya and his followers maintained the view
that liberation can be attained only by the mercy of Lord Nārāyaṇa and not by
a jīva’s actions (mārjāra-nyāya – like a kitten
relying on a mother cat to lift it and move), whereas, Vedānta Deśika
maintained that along with the mercy of Lord Nārāyaṇa, the jīva is required to
do his bare minimal devotional activities (markaṭa-nyāya – like a
baby monkey holding onto the mother monkey for conveyance). Pillailokācārya
propounded that it is not even up to Mother Lakṣmī to influence Lord Nārāyaṇa
in the matter of awarding liberation, whereas Vedānta Deśika categorically
states that Mother Lakṣmī being the inseparable consort of the Lord also has
equal powers to award shelter and liberation.
Differences
in Scriptures
Apart from the ideological differences, there
were differences of opinion on what śāstras are to be
emphasized—Sanskrit Veda or Draviḍa Veda. The Draviḍa Veda (Tamil Veda) is also
known as the Nālayira Divya Prabandha, composed by the
Ālavāras, who were saints devoted to Lord Viṣṇu and widely revered in South
India. The followers of Vedānta Deśika, from Kāncīpuram, northern part of Tamil
Nadu, placed more importance on the Sanskrit Vedas as compared to the followers
of Pillailokācārya and Maṇavāla Mamuni, from Śrī Raṅgam, southern Tamil Nadu,
who placed more importance on the Draviḍa Vedas in their respective fights
against the Advaitins and the Śaivaites.
Most of the of present day Śrī Vaiṣṇavas
acknowledge that the formal distinguishing features of the schism were
established only much later in time (after 1650 CE). Nonetheless, it appears
that tensions started to build up right from the periods of the manifest
presence of both Pillailokācārya and Vedānta Deśika. The Śrī Vaiṣṇavas in
Kāncī, or the northern sect, found it necessary to use the Sanskrit Vedas as
their primary weapon for overcoming the Advaitins, who were all experts in
Sanskrit. The Śrī Vaiṣṇavas from the South found it necessary to use the Tamil
Vedas because they had to deal primarily with Śaivaites, who were expert in the
Tamil compositions of the Nāyanmārs, who were also widely revered saints like
the Ālavāras but devoted to Lord Śiva.
The Schism
The differences in scripture combined with the
differences in ideology between the two groups exacerbated the tensions between
them and eventualy drove a deep wedge into the Śrī Vaiṣṇava community, their
daily practices of devotional service, temple services, temple rights,
privileges, honors, and cultural activities. Śrīman M.A. Venkatakrishnan Swami
(Teṅkalai), professor and former head of the department of Vaiṣṇavism, Madras
University, Chennai, says that although the ideological differences originated
during the 12th and 13th centuries, he believes that the circumstances leading
to the formation of the schism were more on superficial issues associated with
temple rights, practices, honors, and privileges and were formally established
only after 1650 CE. He recollects that around 1650 CE, an incident involving
the king of Mysore and the devotees (Teṅkalais) taking care of the Viṣṇu temple
at Tirunārāyaṇapuram, Melkoṭe, was the first episode leading to the
establishment of the formal schism.
The episode is as follows:
In the 1650’s the Melkoṭe temple was originally
managed and controlled by Teṅkalais (Professor M.A.V. Swami agrees that the
Vaḍagalais would dispute his claim). The King of Mysore, being dissatisfied
with the Teṅkalai devotees of that temple, conferred the rights of temple
worship on the other group (Vaḍagalais), who supported the King. The Teṅkalais
used to recite the praṇāma mantra of Maṇavāla Mamuni (śri-śaileśa
dayā-pātram dhībhaktyādi guṇārṇavam. . .) as part of their temple worship.
However, with the transfer of rights to Vaḍagalais, the Vaḍagalais started to
recite the praṇāma mantra of Vedānta Deśika (śrī-rāmānuja-dayā-patram
jñāna-vairāgya-bhūṣaṇam. . . ) and stopped the recitation of the praṇāma
mantra of Maṇavāla Mamuni. This change disturbed the Teṅkalais, and
they protested against it.
The King later realized his mistake in
interfering with the temple worship and practices, and he then ordered both
the praṇāma mantras to be recited as part of the worship. But
the followers of Maṇavāla Mamuni and Vedānta Deśika became so alarmed over this
incident that to ensure such a thing could never happen in the temples each had
control over, they institutionalized their own groups with respect to worship
processes and rights. Temples controlled by Teṅkalais followed a process that
significantly differed from that of temples under Vaḍagalais. Thus, it was this
incident at the Melkoṭe temple that triggered the formalization of the schism
between Vaḍagalais and Teṅkalais all over South India, especially in Tamil
Nadu.
In order to make their respective sects
explicitly different from each other, their ācāryas introduced
several variations and differences in their own practices: in the tilak that
they wore, the praṇāma mantras that they recited, the choice
of reciting Sanskrit Veda versus Divya Prabandham in temples, the number of
times they would offer obeisances to the Lord and devotees (Vaḍagalais must
offer two, or an even number or more to all, but Teṅkalais would offer only
once), and even the first item of mahā-prasādam that they
serve to devotees in a feast (Vaḍagalais will first serve ghee and rice whereas
Teṅkalais must serve first a salted item such as a sabjī followed
by ghee and rice). Among such numerous variations between the two sects, it is
still common that staunch members do not enter into marriages with each other
or visit each other’s āśramas or temples (certainly not
officially).[ii]
Author’s comment
on Schism in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya
By Śrīdhara
Śrīnivāsa dāsā
For my article
“Schism in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya,” I received several responses and
comments from various devotees and ISKCON leaders through emails and social
media. The article’s focus was to provide just the historical facts behind the
creation of a formal schism in one of the oldest, long standing Vaiṣṇava
sampradāyas in this Kali-yuga.
Nonetheless, by no means did I intended to say
that ISKCON should follow suit.
In fact, my point is that the Śrī Vaiṣṇava
schism is a bona fide difference of views both having the clear backing
of śāstra. But in the case of ISKCON, even the impending or
imminent schism threatening to break it due to the introduction of female dīkśā-gurus is
not equivalent to that of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava schism. This is due to the fact that
institutionalizing female dīkśā-gurus is forbidden per
evidence from the Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā (1.42 to 1.44) of Nārada
Pañcarātra. (See Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s use of these ślokas
from Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā in his commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.13.15)
So how can such a schism be discouraged and
avoided?
By openly coming to the discussion table, no
matter how many years it might take….
This was my intent in writing that article.
Your humble servant,
Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsa
20th January 2022
End Notes
[i] These 18 differences have been
explained in great detail by various spiritual leaders belonging to both the
sects. However, a brief summary or outline is available at: http://sriramanujar.tripod.com/tVsv.html
[ii] Within each of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava
Vaḍagalai and Teṅkalai sects, two significant subdivisions exist, based on
whether the devotees follow āgama śāstra or pāñcarātra
śāstra. Those who follow the Āgamas are called Vaikhānasa (The Tirupati
Tirumalā temple is Vaikhānasa, the Śrī Raṅgam temple follows Pāñcarātra). The
Vaikhānasas do not necessarily follow the Divya Prabandham nor are from the Śrī
Vaiṣṇava guru-paramparā coming in the line of Śrī
Rāmānujācārya but are recognized as Śrī Vaiṣṇavas nonetheless. The Vaikhānasas
follow āgama śāstra because they are descendants of Vikhānasa
Muni (the founder-ācārya of the āgama śāstras and
an incarnation of Lord Brahmā, who received Vedic knowledge directly from Lord
Nārāyaṇa). In addition, Vaikhānasa is acknowledged as bona fide by previous Śrī
Vaiṣṇava ācāryas like Vedānta Deśika in Śrī
Pāñcarātra-raksā.
-----------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The thoughts expressed in this article fully belong to the author of this article. This blog is just a medium to express them.
Thursday, January 13, 2022
Was Prabhupāda’s understanding of Buddhism influenced by Culture?
Analysis of all the quotes of Srila Prabhupada on Buddhism finding their sources
The propounder of the theory of Cultural Conditioning of Śrila Prabhupāda supports his theory by saying that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s understanding of Buddhism was not based on study of Buddhism but what he heard from the people around in the culture he was brought up in.
To give an example of the fact that Prabhupada was influenced by his culture, …the concept that Prabhupada had of Buddhism, that didn’t came from a study of Buddhism, but from what was spoken regarding it.
— talk given by the propounder, Krishna West Convention / Brazil; Transcriśão Português – Inglês
(Tempo: 44:02 - 55:53)
Let us see what Śrīla Prabhupāda says about Buddhism and try to trace wherefrom his ideas of Buddhism are coming. We have searched for all instances of Buddhism from all the published teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda and these are the exclusive points about Buddhism that he speaks:
1. Lord Buddha was incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa
Sources: SB 1.3.24; Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s Daśāvatāra-stotram
2. He appeared to stop animal killing in the name of Vedic sacrifices and thus cheat the athiests
Sources:
- Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s Daśāvatāra-stotram
- SB 1.3.24, Vallabhācārya’s Commentary—“ For making demons posing as brāhmaṇas to give up or reject the Vedas, the Lord will appear as Buddha.”
- SB 1.3.24, sloka itself uses word sammohāya sura-dviṣām – ‘in order to bewilder the athiests.’
3. Buddha incarnations in different kali-yuga may have little different activities
Sources:
- SP says that he takes this information from Jīva Gosvāmī.
- Jīva Gosvāmī says in his commentary—“This is spoken about some other special kaliyuga as the type of demons that are mentioned here are not heard of in this kaliyuga.”
4. SB 5.15.1—“The son of Mahārāja Bharata known as Sumati followed the path of Ṛṣabhadeva, but some unscrupulous people imagined him to be Lord Buddha himself.”
- These ācāryas who do not follow the Vedic principles are presently known as the ārya-samājas, or the Jains. Not only do they not follow the Vedic principles, but they have no relationship with Lord Buddha. Imitating the behavior of Sumati, they claim to be the descendants of Ṛṣabhadeva. (purport)
- In the purport Śrīla Prabhupāda analyzed from Bhāgavatam and distinguished faulty Buddhism from real Buddhism. He was not just influenced.
5. In SB 6.8.19, devotee is praying to Lord Buddha in his prayers. Śrīla Prabhupāda—“ One should therefore surrender to Lord Buddha so that he can help one avoid misusing the injunctions of the Vedas. (Purport)”
Source:
- Vamśīdhara—pramādāt means intelligence that destroys knowledge of śāstras as it is. Buddha is prayed here to save one from such an intelligence.
- Bhagavatprasādācārya says the same thing.
- Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha—Prayer is, ‘Please protect us again and again for properly following the path of dharma’
Prabhupāda did not speculate the purpose of the prayer to Lord Buddha but derived it from ācāryas.
6. Buddhism was widely spread in India by King Aśoka
- Well known in history of India by all historians.
- “Buddhism” by Monier Williams, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1889 (1995), p.59
- “Asoka” by James M. Macphail, Oxford University Press, 1863, Chapter 4
7. Buddhism was thrown out of India by Śankarācārya
- Jaiva Dharma Ch. 2[1]
8. Birth place of Lord Buddha mentioned as Kīkaṭa is Gayā in Magadha
- Śrīdhara Svāmī—“Kikaṭa means at Gayā in Madhyapradesh”
- Viśvanātha Cakravarti Ṭhākura—same as above
9. Lord Buddha was a prince named siddhārtha.
- The Buddha Kārikā[2], 2.17
10. Buddha saw an old man and thus he became renounced and took to life of tapasyā
- The Buddha Kārikā 3.27 onwards (Buddha saw old man and thoughts in his mind)
- The Buddha Kārikā Chapter 5 (Buddha taking to renunciation)
11. Kāśī Māyāvādīs as Sāranātha Buddhists of Kāśī
12. Buddha’s Philosphy is Athiestic (nāstikyavāda)
Source: Cc 2.6.168
13. He preached Non-violence and thus defied Vedas
Source: Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s Daśāvatāra-stotram
14. Buddha Philosophy is called Śūnyavāda
Source:
- Brāhmaṇa and Vaiṣṇava 3 (Vyavahāra Kāṇḍa), Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura
“There are two concepts of impersonal philosophy—denial of spiritual propensities and denial of spiritual activities, both devoid of eternal worship. When people consider the absense of the conscious function as the goal of life it results in çünyaväda, or voidism. And when they consider the idea that consciousness is devoid of activity it is called Mäyäväda, or spiritualism without variety.”
- Caitanya Bhāgavata 1.17.42, Purport (Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura)
“The voidism of the Buddhists and the impersonalism of the païcopäsakas are buried under these lotus feet of Gadädhara.”
- Jaiva Dharma Ch.2
“At the time of his appearance, India urgently required a guëa-avatära, an incarnation who presides over the material nature, because the spread of the voidistic philosophy of Buddhism had caused India to practically give up the cultivation and study of the Vedas, as well as the practice of varëäçrama-dharma, the Vedic social system. Nihilistic Buddhism, known as çünyaväda, directly denies the existence of a personal God and although hinting at the principle of the jévätmä, the eternal spirit soul, Buddhism remains in essence anitya-dharma.”
- Śrī Caitanya Candrodaya 6.252, Kavi Karṇapura
tathä tasya rüpasyäpéti. kevala-nirviçeñatve çünyavädävasaraù prasajyeta.
“In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the voidists and impersonalitsts will still insist that the Supreme Brahman has no qualities.”
- SB 9.9.49, Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha says—
kecid-avaidikāḥ śūnya-nāmnā kalpitaṁ jalpanti na tattattvamityāha aśūnyamiti |
“Some people, who reject the Vedas, imgine the Absolute Truth to be void and speak of Him like that. It is not correct is said in this verse starting from word aśūnyam.”
- Monier Williams Dictionary says—
शून्य/अ—वाद
m. the (Buddhist) doctrine of the non-existence (of any Spirit either Supreme or human) , Buddhism , atheism Madhus.
15. According to Buddha, Consciousness or existence is the cause of distress
Source:
- Brāhmaṇa and Vaiṣṇava 3 (Vyavahāra Kāṇḍa), Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura
“There are two concepts of impersonal philosophy—denial of spiritual propensities and denial of spiritual activities, both devoid of eternal worship. When people consider the absense of the conscious function as the goal of life it results in çünyaväda, or voidism. And when they consider the idea that consciousness is devoid of activity it is called Mäyäväda, or spiritualism without variety.”
16. Buddhism and Māyāvāda are both same atheistic philosophies
Source:
- Padma Purāṇa uttara khaṇḍa 25.7 as quoted in Cc 2.6.182
- Without properly studying Buddhism and Māyāvāda how did Prabhupada compared these two? If his source is comtemporary people then how he came to same conclusion as śāstra? Surely no contemporary source of Māyāvāda declared it as false scripture.
17. Budhhist theory of non-violence is based on Atmavat sarvabhutesu
18. Buddhism believes that at death everything is finished (SB 8.9.12, purport)
Source:
- Viśvanātha—According to Buddhitsts, at death everything is finished. That is also the opinion of Hiraṇyakaśipu.
- Śloka and translation of SB 8.9.12 doesn’t have any hint of Buddha, still Prabhupāda mentions it not out of his speculative connection but from Viśvanātha’s commentary
19. Buddhism believes that life symptoms are a result of combination of matter
Source:
- In his Commentary to Bg 2.26, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa compares buddhism to vaibhāṣika mata. Vaibhāṣikas believe that life is different from gross body but that it goes on changing and is a result of material combination[3].
20. 9-points of Buddhist Philosophy (Cc 2.9.49 purport)
Source: Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura as mentioned by Prabhupāda himself in the purport[4].
21. Although Lord Buddha said there is no God, He is worshipped just like God in thousands of temples all over the world
Source: Pratyakṣa is sufficient. There are thousands of temples all over world many of which are very ancient, showing that temple worship of Lord Buddha is quite ancient.
http://www.touropia.com/famous-buddhist-temples/
Note the dates of establishment of these temples, oldest is Mahabodhi temple built by Asoka in his times (about 300 BC).
22. Destination of Buddhists is between Brahma-jyoti and Material World (Maheśa-dhāma)
23. Śrīla Prabhupāda discusses with leading propagator of Zen Buddhism in Europe (Paris) and defeats his ideas not in line with the original Buddhism. (Room Conversation with Mr.Deshimaru, June 13, 1974)
- See about Taisen Deshimaru at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taisen̮Deshimaru; http://www.buddhanet.net/masters/deshimaru.htm
- Interesting, it’s not that Prabhupada takes idea of Buddhism from him but he sticks to his ideas of Buddhism derived from sastras
24.
[1] In those days, the brāhmaṇas had all but forsaken the Vedic religion and converted to Buddhism.
“At this historic moment, the extraordinarily powerful Lord Śiva appeared as Śrī Śaṅkarācārya and reinstated the pristine glory of the Vedas by transforming nihilistic Voidism into monistic Brahmanism. This was a spectacular achievement, for which India will always remain indebted to Śrī Śaṅkarācārya.
[2] The Buddha Kārikā is a sanskrit text on Life of Lord Buddha written in 2nd Century A. D. by Aśvaghoṣa.
Present Edition used is Edited by Edward B. Cowell, Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, 1894
[3] dehād bhinno vijñāna-svarūpo’py ātmā pratikṣaṇa-vināśīti vaibhāṣikādayo bauddhā vadanti |
[4] Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura states that according to the Buddhist cult there are two ways of understanding philosophy. One is called Hīnāyāna, and the other is called Mahāyāna. Along the Buddhist path there are nine principles: (1) The creation is eternal; therefore there is no need to accept a creator. (2) This cosmic manifestation is false. (3) “I am” is the truth. (4) There is repetition of birth and death. (5) Lord Buddha is the only source of understanding the truth. (6) The principle of nirvāṇa, or annihilation, is the ultimate goal. (7) The philosophy of Buddha is the only philosophical path. (8) The Vedas are compiled by human beings. (9) Pious activities, showing mercy to others and so on are advised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)