Gaudiya siddhanta - ebooks - ISKCON desire tree

REFUTATION: This may well be, but how can we accept the prejudiced writings of your acarya and his
followers to prove such a point? Where is the neutral evidence based on Vedic scriptures? Do you have
direct proof from the Puranas, Agamas, Upanisads or Vedas? All you can point at is one veiled
statement which has also been ‘conveniently interpreted by you to promote the cause of your own sect.’
OBJECTION: It is the opinion of learned scholars such as Trivikrama Panditacarya that
Madhva was the incarnation of Mukhya Prana (Vayu).
REFUTATION: It is also the learned opinion of great scholars such as Vasudeva Sarvabhauma, Kesava
Bhatta, Prakasananda Sarasvati, Prabodhananda Sarasvati, Advaita Acarya, Srivasa Pandita, Gopala
Bhatta Gosvami, Rupa Gosvami, Sanantana Gosvami, Jiva Gosvami, Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami,
Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami, Raya Ramananda, Nilambara Cakravarti, and Gopinatha Acarya that Sri
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was Sri Krsna Himself. It was also the opinion of Rajarsi Prataparudra of Kalinga
and his guru Kasi Misra.
OBJECTION: In reference to Madhva’s being an incarnation of Vayu, there is no opportunity
for exaggeration in the ‘Sumadhva Vijaya’ because the authentic history recorded in
Madhva’s own lifetime has remained unchanged to this day. Although there are several
different biographical texts of other sampradayika acaryas, they tend to conflict with each
other, or were written a long time after the incidents occurred.
Therefore there is either very little or no support from physical evidence. ‘Sumadhva Vijaya’
was written by a contemporary of Madhvacarya and does not have to compete with any other
text to assert it’s authority.
REFUTATION: Because there is no other record of Madhva’s life apart from ‘Sumadhva Vijaya’, what
proof do we have that the writer did not exaggerate? When writing a kavya, the poet is prone to use
dramatic license (alankara) to enhance the qualities of the principal personality that he glorifies. How
can we be so certain that your Narayana Panditacarya did not follow this trait?
Many biographies such as Kaviraja Gosvami’s Chaitanya Caritamrta, Vrndavana Dasa Thakura’s
Chaitanya Bhagavata, Locana Dasa Thakura’s Chaitanya Mangala and Kavi Karnapura’s Chaitanya
Candradaya were written about the life of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. While some accounts differ on
details of His lilas, on the point of His divinity they are all unanimous.
OBJECTION: But Narayana Panditacarya writes in his ‘Bhavaprakasa tika’ on ‘Sumadhva
Vijaya’ -
maya drsta bhuvamiti proktah prayena purusaih
dvayor vaktror virodhe’tra svikrta prabalasya gih
tulyam tu suksmam drst vadyau (tulye tatsuksmadrstyadyau)
deve (daive) naiva pariksyate
"The incidents reported are mostly from those who were actually present
thus, ‘ I have seen it with my own eyes.’ Where there are contradictory
statements, the more forceful among the two has been accepted. When
they are equally weighty, discretion is allowed to decide the matter."
kavyasriyah va gurukirtaye va
proktam svayaivapi manisyeti