View source for To get back more to the origins of the movement, why do you follow the teachings of Caitanya rather than say Vallabha or Ramanuja or Ramananda?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"To get back more to the origins of the movement, why do you follow the teachings of Caitanya rather than say Vallabha or Ramanuja or Ramananda"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Marc}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|09Aug11}}
{{last|09Aug11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1975]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithDrCopelandProfessorofModernIndianHistoryMay201975Melbourne_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="84" link="Room Conversation with Dr. Copeland, Professor of Modern Indian History -- May 20, 1975, Melbourne" link_text="Room Conversation with Dr. Copeland, Professor of Modern Indian History -- May 20, 1975, Melbourne">
<div class="heading">No, there is no difference. Rather, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's teaching is the summary of all Vaiṣṇava-Rāmānuja, Rāmānanda, Madhvācārya, and Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka. There are four sampradāyas. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu follows everyone. There is no difference much.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Dr. Copeland, Professor of Modern Indian History -- May 20, 1975, Melbourne|Room Conversation with Dr. Copeland, Professor of Modern Indian History -- May 20, 1975, Melbourne]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Madhudviṣa:</p>
:cirāṇi kiṁ pathi na santi diśanti bhikṣāṁ
:naivāṅghripāḥ para-bhṛtaḥ sarito 'py aśuṣyan
:ruddhā guhāḥ kim ajito 'vati nopasannān
:kasmād bhajanti kavayo dhana-durmadāndhān
:([[Vanisource:SB 2.2.5|SB 2.2.5]])
<p>"Translation: Are there no torn clothes lying on the common road? Do the trees, which exist for maintaining others, no longer give alms in charity? Do the rivers, being dried up, no longer supply water to the thirsty? Are the caves of the mountains now closed, or, above all, does the Almighty Lord not protect the fully surrendered souls? Why then do the learned sages go to flatter those who are intoxicated by hard-earned wealth?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That... Saintly person should depend on Kṛṣṇa. If Kṛṣṇa is not supplying cloth, all right, find out some torn, thrown-out cloth on the street. And food? Go to the tree. Take some fruit. And for water, go to the river. There is sufficient water. And for shelter, go to the cave. So these are already arranged. And above, over and above, do you think that the Supreme Lord does not take care of the person who has fully surrendered unto Him? Then why you are going to flatter this rich class of men for your food? This is the... And that is the... Especially throughout the history in India you will find, many hundred thousands of these sādhus. They do not go anywhere. I have seen at Allahabad, Kumbha-melā. They take bath in the Ganges and sit down in their place, chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, without caring wherefrom the food will come. They sit down. And everything is coming. Still in India, if there is information, even in the remotest villages, "There is a saintly person has come in the village," they will approach. "Bābā, what can I do for you?"</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: Have you done that? Have you wandered around from village to village?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not village to village, but town to town. Even in foreign countries.</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: (laughs) Even in Australia too. To get back more to the origins of the movement, why do you follow the teachings of Caitanya rather than say Vallabha or Rāmānuja or Rāmānanda?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, there is no difference. Rather, Caitanya Mahāprabhu's teaching is the summary of all Vaiṣṇava-Rāmānuja, Rāmānanda, Madhvācārya, and Viṣṇu Svāmī, Nimbārka. There are four sampradāyas. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu follows everyone. There is no difference much.</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: Oh, you found. How about Kabhir?(?)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Kabhir is not in the sampradāya.</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He is upstart. (Dr. Copeland laughs) He says mālāja pare śālā.(?) He is abusing a person who chants Hare Kṛṣṇa. He is such a rascal. Mālāja pare śālā. Śālā is abusive language. But he said mālāja pare śālā. All the Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas, they chant the beads, and he is speaking śālā, abusive language. How fallen he is! That is the difficulty, that our system is accepting the previous ācārya, authority. So anyone who does not follow this principle, he is upstart. He is not accepted as authority. So Kabhir is not an authority.</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: Does that mean you go back to Śaṅkarācārya?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Śaṅkarācārya is also not authority because he does not follow the ācāryas. Of course, Māyāvāda philosophy was there always, but that was never taken very seriously. Vyāsadeva is the authority. So Vyāsadeva is not Māyāvādī. He is Vaiṣṇava. We belong to Vyāsadeva's sampradāya, Brahma-sampradāya. Therefore we worship our spiritual master as Vyāsadeva's representative, vyāsa-pūjā. </p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: And how about in the south? Do you have many...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, everywhere. South is the same thing.</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: Surely not as many as in the north, or as much?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well, that is the influence of the time. Otherwise, everything is there in the Bhagavad-gītā, and anyone can follow. Either south or north, it doesn't matter. Or east and west. But if you don't follow, and still you say that "I belong to this sampradāya," that is another...</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: And when you translate the texts that you use, they come from Caitanya?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: So you don't worry about...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We have no worries. Because we have got...</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: I don't have any worries either. (laughs) That's good.(?)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Because we follow the standard. Just like a small child. He follows his parents, and he knows, "My parents are there." Therefore he has no worries. Is it not?</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: Well, no. (laughs)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So we shall remain like a child, being protected by our predecessor. Then there is no worries. And if you want to manufacture something of your concocted brain, then there is worries. Just like Gandhi. Gandhi wanted to prove nonviolence from Bhagavad-gītā, which is impossible. Therefore he had worries, because he wanted to prove something which is not in the Bhagavad-gītā, and still, he took Bhagavad-gītā as evidence.</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: But my point is there are other texts as well as Caitanya's texts.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hmm?</p>
<p>Dr. Copeland: There are other texts, other Gītās.</p>
<p>Amogha: Other versions of the Gītā besides Lord Caitanya's.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, that is not authorized. Therefore we say specifically, "Bhagavad-gītā As It is," no interpretation. Here Kṛṣṇa says that man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru ([[Vanisource:BG 18.65|BG 18.65]]). So we preach that thing. We preach that "You be Kṛṣṇa conscious." Man-manāḥ: "Always think of Me," Kṛṣṇa says. And we are teaching these disciples, "Always think of Kṛṣṇa." There is no difference. We don't create. And therefore it is successful. Others, they created their own concoction; it was never successful. Before me, so many swamis came to the Western countries. They were not successful. Not a single person was Kṛṣṇa conscious, in the history. In the history of the last two hundred years so many swamis are coming in the Western countries. They also speak on Bhagavad-gītā, but not a single person was Kṛṣṇa conscious. And since we have presented Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, hundreds and thousands. This is the proof, that they presented something concoction. It was, what is called, impotent.</p>
<p>A impotent man having sex, he cannot beget children. He can enjoy that sex, but he cannot beget child. Similarly, these so-called swamis, they are impotent. They could not produce any child of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is the proof. (To Amogha:(?)) So you reply him. Don't be innocent like that.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>