Vaishnava Sampradayas

Bhakti Vijnana Goswami · London · 2019

Chapters

Invocational prayers and session introduction

Namawishnupadya Krishna Praishay Bhutales, Srimati Bhakti Vedanta Swami Nitinami, Namaste, Srasvati Devi, Gurava Nibrachari, Nirvi Sasnavadi Paschatis.

Krishna Shaitan Brabunitananda Sriadvaita Gadathara Sivasadi Guru Bhakta Brinda Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama So

I was asked to speak on certain topics and I have chosen the four Vaishnava Sampradaya, of course within forty minutes which is still left. Ten minutes for Sampradaya is very generous allocation.

But still I uh I'll try to speak about this. Why?

Because first of all it's an interesting subject matter for myself and second of all, and perhaps the most important reason for this is that uh Bhaktisiddhanta Srasvati Thakur Prabhupada, while establishing Gaudi Emad and uh his worldwide preaching.

In his first temple in Sridam Mayapur, Adi Temple, Adi Mat Temple, Adimat, he established the deities of four sampradaya acharyas.

And of course, the idea behind this, and he wrote a booklet about four Vaishnava philosophies. And the whole idea behind this is taken from

the verse from Padma Purāṇa quoted by Baladevidabushan Prabhu that is there are four authorized Vaishnavasandpradesh in Kali Yuga. And they all somehow rather come to Utkal Purushotam Jagannath Puri.

And from there they spread all over the world.

And of course, our understanding of this verse is that all the four Sampradaeas find its culmination in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings, find its highest expression in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu teachings, and because the

teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has such a universal appeal, then from there, from Jagannath Puri, after the confluence of all this sampradeas in the personality of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

This Vaishnava movement will spread all over the world, which we are the living proof of. So, and Bhaktivinoda Thakur, of course, he explained what are the elements taken

from all this Vaishnavas and Pradesh and synthesized in the teachings of Lord Chaitanya.

Differences between Sampradaya and Pantha

But I first wanted to speak little a bit about the whole process of what sampradaya means. In India, there are two kinds of schools. One is called sampradaya.

And sampradaya by the very definition or by the very name, sampradaya, samyak rupena, it's something which is transmitting complete knowledge or complete understanding. And transmitting it in a perfect way. Samyakrupyana means completely, and samyakrupyana means perfectly. So sampradaya is the knowledge, is the school

which claims to transmit the original knowledge of the Vedas in a perfect way through different mechanisms which are there in the sampradaya.

And then there is another kind of school which is also quite recognized and very popular, which is called Pantha. Like there is Kabir Pantha and so many other panthas are there.

So, what is the difference between pantas and sampradayas? And uh it's very important for us to understand because we do belong to sampradaya.

Pantha is entirely based on the teachings of a saint and his experience rules supreme in this school.

A great saint, great mystic, having mystical experience, performing a lot of miracles, founds his own school, and his school is primarily based on his teachings,

his words, his example and his personality remains the main figure for years to come.

So the difference, this very stark and important difference between the two paths is that they don't claim to transmit the whole Vedic knowledge.

They are primarily based on the experience, mystical experience and realization of a saint, which is definitely a very significant proof.

There is a living saint who performs so many miracles and he is such an impressive figure. So he has the right to perform to to uh you know to found to find his own to found his own uh school, so to speak.

But uh Of course, uh uh the difference uh in Sampradaya is that sampradaya uh claims that uh there is a complete and systematic understanding which is there in the Vedas, and this is what Samprada is for.

In other words, sampraday is something like university. University, what is the essence of university?

University is supposed to transmit the well-rounded knowledge, knowledge, universal knowledge, knowledge about different spheres of knowledge, complete knowledge, so to speak. And Pantha doesn't claim this.

Pantha is satisfied with that, you know, we are happy if we get that much knowledge, which our founder realized himself. That's fine. It's not bad. There's nothing bad.

Requirements for an authorized Sampradaya

But definitely, Sampraday is a more safe way, so to speak, because it has to be firmly based on the teachings of the Vedas.

And The first sampradaya as such in Kali Yuga was founded by Shankaracharya. And Shankaracharya himself, he delineated the process of how sampradaya can become a sampradaya, what is necessary for a school or for a teaching of a saint to become sampradaya.

He uh originate from him originates this system that Sampradaya has to write commentaries on shruti, smriti and nyaya. Sruti means Upanishads, primarily 10 or 11 or sometimes 12 Vedic Upanishads.

Smriti means Bhagavad-gītā and Vishnu Sahasranam. It has to be there. And nyaya means Vedānta-sūtra, which logically explains the teachings of the Vedas and especially Upanishads.

And Shankaracharya himself, of course, did this. He wrote commentary on Bhagavad-gītā, on Vishnu Sahasranām, on Vedānta-sūtra Śārīraka-bhāṣya, and on all the 11 Upanishads.

So and before that, those some paradise who were before that they didn't do this.

So it's something like the process of license licensing, you know, for uh for educational institutions to be licensed as a university, they have to, you know, perform certain conditions.

So this is the condition for a sampradaya to become sampradaya.

Only when this round knowledge, universal knowledge, regarding all the branches of Vedic knowledge is there, contained in the sampradaya, and the explanation is there. Then only Sampradaya becomes sampradaya.

Therefore we can see how careful our acharyas are. Of course, for us, example and you know teachings of Lord Chaitanya is the most important, but we never will see in

our like you know Rūpa Gosvāmī, Sanātana Gosvāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī, they mentioned Caitanya Mahāprabhu just in one verse in the beginning in maṅgala-caraṇa. Mahaprabhu just in one verse in the beginning in Mangala Charana. And the rest is just quotation from the Vedas. Why?

Because they want to say that Caitanya Mahāprabhu was not teaching a pantha. It's not a Caitanya pantha. He is teaching sampraday, he is teaching Vedic knowledge, firmly based or rooted in the Vedas.

So that's the difference.

And therefore, even though the personality and example and experience of Lord Chaitanya is extremely important, and in fact his teaching is the interpretation of his own experience, as usually is.

But for us the main Brahman is is Veda, is Shastra, is Shruti. And the same is for other Sampradayas.

Transmission of knowledge, sadhana, and bhava

And uh as I said, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura uh and Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī they firmly believed in it in this uh in this sampradaya.

So the sampradaya transmits the knowledge, no doubt about it, but besides the knowledge, sampradaya transmits the mode of worship. It's very important how you worship the Supreme Lord, in which mood you worship.

And sampradaya, of course, transmits bhāva, which is most important, because knowledge, theoretical knowledge is just a shell, it's just a logical structure. But the essence of this logical structure or whatever.

So there is there is knowledge, there is practice, which is systematically being taught by Sampradaya.

What is the spiritual practice? What is the sādhana? What are the elements of sādhana? How these elements of sādhana contribute to your achieving the highest goal.

But the most important thing which is being transmitted through sampradaya, through the succession, is the mood. So it's not enough to know just knowledge theoretically. It's not enough even to practice.

Because if we practice, but don't practice in a proper mood, in a proper with a proper bhāva, then the result will be zero. We will not achieve a result. So these three things have to be there.

And in every sampradaya, there has to be mechanisms of transmitting this. How this is all being transmitted from generation to generation to generation.

So the same is definitely applicable to ISKCON, because in ISKCON we have the body of knowledge, the theories, sambandha-jñāna, siddhānta, which is important, no doubt about it.

Then we have practice, sādhana, the ways or mode of worship towards the Supreme Lord, how we worship this. This has to be taught. But very important, the mood has to be there.

Like, why do we say that Śrīla Prabhupāda was the true successor of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī? Because somehow or other he caught and imbibed the mood of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī. And that was his main contribution.

Many of his Godbrothers who knew Siddhānta on the same level, they were very scholarly. Many of his Godbrothers, they were, you know, practicing very thoroughly. But we claim that Śrīla Prabhupāda,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, he imbibed the mood to the fullest extent. And therefore he is the link in sampradaya.

To be the link in sampradaya, not only the knowledge has to be there, not only the level of sādhana or practice has to be there, but the same sort of bhāva, the same sort of mood. Because ultimately it is the mood which has to be learned. It is the bhāva.

Again, the knowledge and practice they culminate in mood.

There is no use in having theoretical knowledge or even practicing very nicely without realizing the proper bhāva or the proper bhāva, the proper emotions behind this, the proper, you know, which is the highest.

So that's uh that's little introduction to the whole sampradaya thing, why sampraday is so important. And of course, as we as I said already, this verse from Padma Purāṇa says that it is from Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

All the teachings of all ācāryas come to Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and then from Caitanya Mahāprabhu spread all over.

Historical progression and degradation of Vedic knowledge

So what it really means, it means that what What is the idea behind this? The idea is that there is a progression. Even though we say that Vedic knowledge is eternal, and it's always there in one form or another.

But still, when we look historically from the historical perspective, we can see that as much as this material world is also eternal. But sometimes it's visible, sometimes it's not.

Sometimes it's prakat, sometimes it's saprak, manifest or non-manifest. In the same way, the Vedic knowledge and its completeness, sometimes it's manifest, sometimes is not manifest, sometimes half manifest.

Sometimes it's it's not manifest in its fullest extent, just partially manifest. So we will see that when Kali Yuga started,

sometime after Kali Yuga started, the degradation, this yoga nashtha. Actually, that's another important point. This verse from Bhagavad-gītā about Parampara, Evam Parampara Prabtam.

So they say about yoga naṣṭa that parampara is needed to maintain yoga or connection with the Supreme Lord.

Parampara is nothing but the mechanism or the institution which helps the conditioned living entities, the souls in this world to maintain the connection with the Supreme Lord.

And when this connection is finished, Parampara is finished. And it happens. Kāleneha mahatā, yoga-naṣṭaḥ parantapa, because of the influence of the supreme of the time, kāleneha mahatā, yoga-naṣṭaḥ.

Sometimes the line, the disciplic succession, sampradaya becomes non-existent. So this is exactly what happened in the beginning of Kali Yuga. Krishna was there. Krishna came.

Krishna, you know, when he left, Kali Yuga started, we know. And of course, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam came. But very quickly after that, very quickly, it degraded so much because this Kali Yuga is the time of degradation.

The degradation is very rapid in Kali Yuga. So you know 2500 years after Krishna's appearance, Lord Buddha appeared, and his job was basically to dismantle Vedic knowledge. It's a little paradoxical, but that's a fact.

Why is the need there to dismantle Vedic knowledge because Vedic knowledge lost its ability to really transform the hearts of people.

Vedic knowledge is not just a theory, it's a transformational tool, for transformation of the heart. And when it's abused and misused, it loses its potency to transform the hearts of people.

And then it serves as a tool to exploit others.

This is actually a very important and pregnant point because uh very easily even this can and we can see it just happening in front of our eyes and sometimes it's happening within our heart when we turn the spiritual knowledge which we receive into the instrument of exploitation. Exploiting the resources of this material matter, exploiting other people and so on and so forth.

This is unfortunately, this is what it means, Yoganasta. When the knowledge, instead of connecting people with Krishna and giving them the spiritual realization and knowledge becomes the instrument of exploitation.

You know, getting resources, extracting resources from people. Unfortunately, it's a reality, it's the reality of this material world. It happens.

And it's actually our duty to observe it very closely within our heart and outside and try to resist to these tendencies which are there. So this is exactly what happened 2500 years after Lord Krishna.

The knowledge was lost in the sense that it completely was turned into something different. Instead of the tool for elevating people, it became the tool for exploiting people, for actually pushing them down and more into this pool of material energy.

Therefore, Lord Buddha himself comes and says, this is all nonsense, just stop it. And he preaches this religion of compassion. Still, to this day, you know, Buddhism is famous for this for this preaching of compassion.

Of course they have their own understanding of what compassion means, but still nevertheless. But then, still, the need to restore the knowledge is there.

It's very much important again to restore the knowledge, you You know, Lord Buddha basically made the Vedic knowledge zero. You know, he preached this śūnyatvāda. śūnyatvāda means zero philosophy.

So he kind of pushed the delete button to uh to the very acknowledge and said zero, no. Uh uh it doesn't work anymore. Uh but of course, then gradually it has to be rebuilt in its entirety.

And this is exactly what sampradāya ācāryas did, coming one after another, and gradually gradually restoring the Vedic knowledge.

Role of Alvar saints and sampradaya acharyas

And the first of all sampradāya ācārya was Viṣṇu Svāmī, who came just 300 years after Lord Buddha. Of course, even before him, immediately after the beginning of Kali

Yuga, Āḷvārārs, who were the predecessors of Rāmānujācārya and Śrī Sampradāya came. But Āḷvārs didn't teach sampradāya, therefore they're not called acharyas.

They they just they had this mystical experience and they expressed this mystical experience in their songs and poetry and everything else. And yes. So are they are they Ālvārs? No, they're not Āḷvārs.

They are predecessors of Ramanuja. Rāmānuja founded sampradāyas, so they are they are like uh you know like Caitanya Mahāprabhu was listening uh the you know the songs of Caṇḍīdāsa and Vidyāpati and Jayadeva Goswami.

And we don't know exactly sampradāya of them, but we definitely accept their realization. But they don't belong to a particular sampradāya.

Nevertheless, they constitute their writings, constitute some foundation for our sampradāya because it's reflected there. Yes.

We're always taught that you know when we learn the knowledge, we should make sure it belongs to a particular sampradāya and we know that it's bona fide, it's not you know we're learning from the right source. So the those devotees from the olden days when they take the knowledge of the Āḷvārs and they're not part of a sampradāya, how do they justify that they're bona fide or not?

Well, see in many case, uh Vedas are called Shabda and Shabda means revelation. Shabda means revealed knowledge. uh Vedas or Upaniṣads they are revealed.

We say they are eternal, but at the same time, we say that they came here in this world through a particular sage.

We claim that they are Paurushe, they are not composed by any human being, but nevertheless we say that Vishwamitramuni brought Gayatri Mantra into this world. So the same mechanism is applicable here.

You know, the great sages or great saints through their sadhana and through their purity of the heart, the knowledge is revealed within their heart, and then ācārya comes and ācārya says, this is bona fide. He says, oh, this is this revelation which was there.

And he confirms it by different, you know, by different means, by other pramāṇas from Vedic literature. So that's that's the mechanism.

So Rāmānujācārya came, and he completely accepted teachings of, in fact, he explained the teachings of Ālvārs. Because you cannot really follow the teachings of Ālvārs. They are on such a high level.

Process of scriptural revelation

The job of an ācārya is to make the road, make this understanding and realization accessible.

So, what is most important, what I want to say in regard to your question, is that even though we receive knowledge and we can read it in the books, nevertheless it has to be revealed to us.

Sometimes we are of the false understanding that if we read the book or if you, you know, learn a verse, then we have the knowledge. No. Still the revelation process is still applicable even to us. It has to be revealed.

And studying the scriptures is just our way to invoke or to, you know, to beg the knowledge to reveal within our heart. There is a very different mechanism or process. When you study, you are the buyer.

And something which you study is lower than you because you know, you study the text. You know, you cut the text and you look what is inside and you think you study. So and sometimes we try to study Vedic knowledge in the same way, just cutting it and looking what is inside and trying to figure out intellectually.

No, this is not the way. You know, the way of studying the knowledge is we are approaching this book, we are approaching Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam with the view that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam may come to me and change my heart.

We are approaching this knowledge not intellectually trying to understand and grasp this knowledge intellectually from the book, but we're approaching this knowledge for so that this knowledge can change us.

This knowledge remains higher than us. It reformats our hard drive.

So we have this you know hard disk and we we just basically beg Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, please do this, you know, reform our heart disc completely and come to me. Come as a revelation to me.

Therefore, Prabhupāda was always saying that you cannot just learn Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam on your own. You have to hear and you have to, Prabhupāda... He has this beautiful phrase: the art of submissive hearing.

He doesn't even call it as a science, the art of submissive hearing. You hear it in a special frame of mind so that the knowledge is revealed within you.

So that it still remains śabda revelation, not just intellectually grasped knowledge or intellectually understood knowledge. So yeah, did I answer you now? Yes.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism connection to Madhva line

Okay, so we have ten minutes for for some practice. Yes. Maybe you launch where we talk about and if there's time I guess but um I was

thinking like, you know, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's teachings, um, it seems like, you know, with Brahma-Madhva-Gauḍīya-sampradāya, Madhvacharya, right, is very prevalent.

But when you look at the um you know the the the the two essential attributes that

Mahāprabhu took from each of the four sampradāyas, it seems like the, um, Nimbārkācārya's attributes going through Rādhārāṇī and the mood of the gopīs' love for Krishna. It seems like that's more closer to our um To the essence, to the core of our

Siddhānta than Madhvacārya's one. See, uh, our connection with Madhvacharya is um how to say it's um it's not absolute because we don't

you know, there are so many points of Siddhānta which we don't agree, Madhva Siddhanta which we don't agree.

And, yes, Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted Madhvacharya line through Mādhavendra Purī and Īśvara Purī, but at the same time, you know, as I said, he synthesized everything, the teachings

of all four Ācāryas, and he took something from other sampradāyas which were not there in Madhva line.

So our connection with Madhvacharya, it's definitely there on a certain level, but it's not there on another level. So that's how we should understand. For us, of course, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the authority himself, but

still we officially belong to sampradāya, to Madhva sampradaya, and some modern representatives of Madhva sampradaya, they accept this connection gratefully. Others argue vehemently against it and say, no, this is all bosh. So depending on whom you whom you meet among Madhva

sampradāya, you may be welcomed, maybe quite... so but all are important, all the all the eight elements which are there, which Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura... actually had this Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura's understanding.

It's interesting that all four sampradayas came to Vrindavan around the time of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. And all four sampradayas were transformed in Vrindavan.

We can see that Swami Haridas from Nimbarka line came to Vrindavan and actually, Nimbarka Sampradaya was transformed in Vrindavan.

Vallabhacharya from Vishnu Swami Sampradaya came to Vrindavan, and the whole Vallabhacharya Sampradaya was transformed in Vrindavan.

Of course, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Sanatan, they came to Vrindavan and the whole Madhva line was transformed in Vrindavan.

I don't know it didn't happen with Ramanuja Sampradaya, but at least these three Sampradayas during the time of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, under the influence of Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and his teachings coming to Vrindavan were somewhat transformed their teachings.

If we take Vallabhacharya's teachings, it's different from Vishnu Swami, although officially he belongs to Vishnu Swami Sampradaya. If we take Swami Haridas teachings, it's different from original.

It's actually interesting because in Nimbarkacharya's commentary to Vedānta-sūtra there is no mention of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī or gopīs. But it's definitely there in some hidden form.

But what happened under the influence of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, all of them came to Vrindavan, and all of them were very much influenced by by Vrindavan mood of Vrindavan and by this spontaneous devotion which is there in Vrindavan.

Madhva's teaching is Śuddhādvaita and Ramanuja's was Viśiṣṭādvaita. Yeah.

Refuting Shankara's Mayavada philosophy

Can you just mention what's the difference between those two?

Um yeah, that's what I wanted to tell in general what the teachings are and uh Basically, you know, we accept all the teachings of all four sampradayas. We have no problems with that. Why?

Because all sampradayas are vehemently against Śaṅkarācārya. And that's what makes them so near and dear to us.

Because Śaṅkarācārya's teaching of this Kevala-advaita vāda is depriving the living entity the possibility of service or denigrating service to just Some mental, some imagination.

You know, you may serve the deity, but ultimately you are God.

The Kevala-advaita-vāda, by erasing the difference between jīva soul and God, at the same time erases the substantiality of or relevance of service there is no service

so every acharya who came after Madhva or after Śaṅkarācārya would try to establish the need for service because service is the main means of realisation of spiritual nature. So and therefore how they explained it

may be a little different because everyone has to deal with a very severe philosophical problem. The very severe philosophical problem is that absolute truth is unchanged. It cannot be changed.

But at the same time, we see this material world and we see a lot of changes going on all the time. And we know that this material world is a part of absolute truth.

So how to reconcile what we see with our eyes in front of our eyes?

We see all this transformation which is taking place with the statements of the Vedas that absolute truth is Advaya, there's no duality, there's no and there's no changes, it's unchangeable.

So Śaṅkarācārya was the first one who invented the means to reconcile this. He says, okay, fine, everything is simple. The absolute truth, it's unchangeable, no doubt about it. What we see is illusion. Simple.

Just to he did away with all these problems which are there in the material. We're just saying this is illusion, this is not there. This is not there. You wake up and you don't see anything.

You can see many things in the dream, but then you wake up and you know you understand. There are so many metaphors which they use.

So every later acharya comes and says, no, this world is real. This is a part of absolute truth. It's real.

But then they have to explain philosophically and logically and intellectually how the difference which we see uh still uh do not reflect to the absolute truth uh even though the world is a part of the absolute truth and there are so many changes.

So all these phrases which are there or the titles of different philosophies is just their sutra or their compact way of explaining the philosophy of what's going on in this material world.

How should we take this material world? So uh uh and they all have to maintain uh Advaita, they all have to maintain the uh unified uh nature of the absolute truth. Because ultimately all our philosophies are monistic.

We are monists ultimately because we say that there is only one absolute truth. Janmādy asya yataḥ said the source of everything is one.

Philosophical perspectives of the four Sampradayas

And this source is unchangeable, and so this this is what this is the job of an ācārya to reconcile the apparent differences which we see and apparent changes which we observe uh with the non dual nature of reality, of the truth.

So Rāmānujācārya came and he came with this phrase, Viśiṣṭa Dvaita. He says, yes, it's Advaita, but it's Viśiṣṭādvaita.

you know the the clothes uh and its color they're the same at the same time different you know uh you cannot say that this uh red color or orange color of the clothes is different from the clothes.

If we say orange clothes, then but at the same time, so his metaphor is basically: there is a substance and this there is an attribute for the substance.

And the word or the jīva is just an attribute of the absolute truth. Therefore, this phrase Viśiṣṭa, it's Viśeṣa. Viśeṣa means adjective. Adjective. Viśeṣa means adjective. Adjective or how you call it.

My English is not proper. I'm sorry. So this is just, you know, and then they say like there is a rose and there is red color of the rose. So they're different and not different. That's his metaphor of Viśiṣṭādvaita.

And everyone comes with a different understanding, how they are different and non-different.

The explanation of Madhvācārya of this difference and non-difference is that he said they're categorically difference because he says about bheda. You know, his sometimes his philosophy is called Pañca-bheda.

Philosophy of Panch of Five bhedas. Five differences. There is difference between living entities between soul and soul, difference between soul and the world soul and the world, between God and the world and between what

is the five w anyway, all this between the street everyone is differ The

The matter is different from the Lord, the matter is different from jīva Soul, the souls are different from each other, souls are different from the Lord, and uh what else is there? Something else.

Huh? Ever everything is different. But uh his his understanding where the oneness is, the oneness is um basically, lies in like the part and the whole, you know. His understanding: there is a part and then there is a whole.

And they're always categorically different, but still it's a part. The part is a part of the whole. So in this sense, it's not different because it's a part of the whole.

In other words, it doesn't have an independent standing, independent existence.

His understanding of oneness is that we are always dependent on the Lord. We always his servants and being dependent on him we are one with him.

But at the same time we are categorically different because he is independent, we are dependent on him. But still we are dependent on him. We are eternally dependent on him. Never there is a time that we are independent.

That's the meaning of Suddha Dvaita. And then there is of course Vishnu Swami, and he says Suddha Advaita.

And Suddha Advaita basically means he says that Suddha Advaita, it's just, you know, that he says that there is God, and God is Sat, cit, and ananda. And there is matter, matter is only sat.

And there is soul, soul is sat and cit. So God is the complete whole because He's sac-cid-ānanda. And the part which only contains this substance of sat eternity becomes matter, becomes the inert matter.

The part of the complete whole which has two attributes of sat and cit becomes jīva. And sac-cid-ānanda is God. So basically that that's his understanding.

And you know, Bhedābheda of Nimbārka Swami, as opposed to our philosophy, is cintya-bhedābheda. It's logically understandable bhedābheda.

Why it is logically understandable and why our uh concept is acintya-bheda, because uh you know they say that sometimes scriptures bed, because uh you know they say that sometimes scriptures

say that they're different, sometimes scriptures say they're one and we just have to accept that they're one and different. Depending on the point of view.

They're trying in other words, they're trying logically to explain this difference. we say we cannot really completely only logically understand this oneness and difference.

We have to accept that oneness and difference on the basis of scriptures, basically that's what it is. This is in brief for sampradāyas and my time is over. So but I can I can speak more but you have some questions here.

Um, Maharaj, when, um, Śaṅkarācārya had to nullify the Vedas, or, but why did he choose to write a commentary on this? No. Buddha wanted to nullify the Vedas.

Śaṅkarācārya came and said Vedas are correct. And therefore, he based his whole philosophy in the Vedic literature in, the Vedic teachings.

But because everyone was so much influenced under Buddhism, so he kind of preached something which is familiar to people.

Because you know he preached this Śūnyavāda, which is, he preached this Advaitavāda, which is, as Ācārya says, is crypto Buddhism. It's a covert Buddhism. Because it's kind of it's not such a big difference.

You only gradually can reestablish. So Śaṅkarācārya, his job was to re-establish the authority of the Vedas. Buddha said nothing exists, no soul, no God, no Vedas, nothing. So only compassion or whatever it is.

Which is good, which is a good foundation, at least you have compassion, a good starting point.

But then Śaṅkarācārya says, he says, he comes and he says, uh no vedas are true uh but everything else is illusory the world is

illusory, uh, jīva is illusory, God is illusory, but at least Vedas are true; therefore, we say that he is āstika. He's theist. Even though he he basically preaches atheism. But then then comes Vishnu.

Actually, Viṣṇusvāmī came before him. He came 300 years after Buddha. So he came before Shankaracharya. Therefore, he didn't write the complete dissertation to establish sampradaya.

It's only Vallabhacharya who fulfilled this job more or less, or you know, some other Acharya after them. But Viṣṇusvāmī didn't feel the need, he established it, he, he wrote something, he wrote Sarvagya Sutra.

Culmination of devotion in Chaitanya's teachings

But you know they they all try to rebuild the complete understanding of the absolute truth.

And why we say that the pinnacle of it, uh, the culmination of it is in the teaching of Lord Caitanya because everyone else is explaining this uh, world and saying that this world is real, the jīva soul is real, the service is real. Everyone says this and that's good.

But nobody says about the importance of rasa.

So the specialty of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and his teaching is that he added to everything that not only that God is Sarvashaktiman, that He is the possessor of all the energies, but He is also the ocean of Rasa.

And uh that's very important because everyone else was trying to build up, build up, build up gradually.

They they put the need of service, reality of service, reality of relationship, but nobody was speaking about the reality of emotions.

If we say if we take Shankaracharya, oh emotions is the most unreal thing which is there, it's completely illusory, it's just illusion.

And here we come, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu comes and he says, this is the most real thing. The spiritual emotion is the culmination of your spiritual development.

Not only do you have to enter into the relationship with the Supreme Lord, as the servant, and and the Master, but you have to feel in this relationship.

And in this way your your life is enhanced, your existence is enhanced, whereas everyone else.

So uh that's the culmination in the sense that the whole complete realm of our experience is explained by the teachings of Lord Chaitanya. Whereas, if we take any other Acharya, there is not complete explanation.

Ultimately, there is something which which is is somewhat missing and especially this emotional part and uh and therefore Chaitanya Mahaprabhu he accepted the revelations of you know Jayadev Goswami and Vidyapati and Bilva Mangal.

Of course Bilva Mangaltakur he is from Vishnu Swami Sankradaya. He came in Vishnu Swami Sankradaya. Yes. Krishna's explaining in the Gita that he imparts the knowledge to Vivasvan to Manu to Ikshvaku like that.

So it seems like knowledge in the universe is descending in two ways. One is through like a genealogical seminal line, through like Rajarishis to Praja, and then it goes down like that.

And then you have these sampradayas which are more like a spiritual line, guru disciple. So is that the correct understanding that?

It is correct understanding, and even in a sampradaya we have uh we have Nityananda Vamsa and we have Nityananda Parivar, for example. And parivar is Guru Disciple relationship, Vamsha seminal line.

So even in a sampradaya we have this phenomenon, so to speak. Of course, we're not into seminal line, but it it's there, definitely, the the genealogical line is there.

Like yeah, there are so many vamsas there and parivaras.

So they all they can call and seminal lines can be bona fide as long as as long as the knowledge and mood and practice is transmitted through this line in its entirety.

When it becomes again the tool for instrument for exploitation then it's not. And that's exactly what Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was fighting against when it degraded to this level.

When you know cast Goswamis, they would have their inherent flock, followers. The fathers would come to the village and the whole village would become their disciples and then his son would come to the same village and you know the sons of those disciples would become the disciples.

And then it was basically his village, more or less. And he would come regularly to take some tax. So that's what it is. And that's what Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura was fighting against. Okay, I guess that's it.

Thank you very much. Thank you.