Madhva part
Fri, 02/01/2008 - 15:27 — admin
Madhva taught that three forms of evidence contribute to the soul’s understanding of the Supreme Soul: revelation through transcendental sound (i.e., hearing from realized devotees), inference by study of nature, and direct nonsensual perception of God Himse1f. Madhvacharya forbade the worship of demigods, and declared unalloyed devotional service to Vishnu or Krishna as the only real means of attaining the favor of the Lord.
Well, Michael, are you able to grasp the essential distinctions between the teachings of these five acharyas, even though I packed everything into so few sentences?
MICHAEL: I’m afraid I couldn’t get a very clear understanding of all of the differences between the Vaishnava acharyas. I got a little lost due to your mention of terminology and Sanskrit phrases with which I have no familiarity. What I could understand, however, was the difference between the Mayavadi philosophy and that of the Vaishnava teachers. Whereas the Vaishnavas seem to differ in small ways that aren’t yet clear to me, I could understand that they all consider the Absolute Truth to be a personal Deity, and also that they consider the individuality of the living beings to be eternal. The impersonalist Shankara, on the other hand, appears to be diametrically opposed to this viewpoint. Not only does he declare that God is without form or personality, he says the same thing of the individual soul. He also declares that the individual soul and God are ultimately one.
TEACHER: I think you’ve got the main point. Before we analyze which viewpoint is the correct one, however, let me give you a summary of the life and teachings of Sri Krishna Chaitanya. I think it will help you understand more clearly the essence of Vaishnava thought since the clarity of his teachings17 helped to iron out the apparent wrinkles in Theistic doctrines of the great Vaishnava acharyas.
Most people who have actually experienced leaving their bodies and existing outside their bodies no longer identify their bodies as themselves. They know that they can and will exist without the body. They no longer view death as the end of their existence.Madhvacharya was a literary genius and, despite the extent of his travels and preaching, he managed to write many books, thirty seven of which still exist.16
Science of Identity Foundation – Chris Butler Speaks
Madhva taught that three forms of evidence contribute to the soul’s understanding of the Supreme Soul: revelation through transcendental sound (i.e., hearing from realized devotees), inference by study of nature, and direct nonsensual perception of God Himse1f. Madhvacharya forbade the worship of demigods, and declared unalloyed devotional service to Vishnu or Krishna as the only real means of attaining the favor of the Lord.
Well, Michael, are you able to grasp the essential distinctions between the teachings of these five acharyas, even though I packed everything into so few sentences?
MICHAEL: I’m afraid I couldn’t get a very clear understanding of all of the differences between the Vaishnava acharyas. I got a little lost due to your mention of terminology and Sanskrit phrases with which I have no familiarity. What I could understand, however, was the difference between the Mayavadi philosophy and that of the Vaishnava teachers. Whereas the Vaishnavas seem to differ in small ways that aren’t yet clear to me, I could understand that they all consider the Absolute Truth to be a personal Deity, and also that they consider the individuality of the living beings to be eternal. The impersonalist Shankara, on the other hand, appears to be diametrically opposed to this viewpoint. Not only does he declare that God is without form or personality, he says the same thing of the individual soul. He also declares that the individual soul and God are ultimately one.
TEACHER: I think you’ve got the main point. Before we analyze which viewpoint is the correct one, however, let me give you a summary of the life and teachings of Sri Krishna Chaitanya. I think it will help you understand more clearly the essence of Vaishnava thought since the clarity of his teachings17 helped to iron out the apparent wrinkles in Theistic doctrines of the great Vaishnava acharyas.