Gaurasundara

This is just strictly my view and no one else's. Did it ever occur to you that "traditional" Gaudiyas are highly interested in developing a personal relationship with Krishna and joining Him in His eternal pastimes, rather than stick around in the material world debating Vedanta like other veda-vada-rathas? I find it highly interesting that Gaudiya sampradaya got by for such a long time by simply relying on the Srimad-bhagavatam as the natural commentary on Vedanta, whereas they were later forced to pen a commentary on Vedanta by Baladeva? In my view, I don't think there is much to gain from serious Vedanta study except to argue with geeks. There are those who claim that a sampradaya is defined by its allegiance to sastra (fair enough) and is also defined by its commentary on Vedanta-sutra. Such individuals are obviously unaware that Mahaprabhu came with a great unique gift that was never given given before at any time. Time spent in trying to attain this great gift is time well spent, I say.

As a Gaudiya Vaishnava, are you disagreeing with this point, that Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself, yet one should "conform" to some "other principles" that Mahaprabhu did not establish? Interesting. And just think if JNDas's initial contact was with the traditional Gaudiyas, he would be arguing against the Sarasvata-parampara. Of course it is a strawman, and an exceptionally weak one too. Can I remind you that we are discussing the diksa connections that have been in vogue since Mahaprabhu's time? Was Arjuna a Gaudiya Vaishnava? Did Arjuna receive any knowledge about raganuga-bhakti? Was Arjuna advised to chant 16 rounds and observe the four regs? What about mangala-arati? Get my point? If you don't, then there is certainly nothing more we can do. You have been repeating yourself endlessly for at least a year and it is unlikely that you will change. I wonder if you even know the difference (or similarity) of diksa and siksa as defined in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition? It's wonderful to know that they have your approval and, hopefully, blessings.

Why ask me? Ask Cheap Shot Dasa. Perhaps he will suggest that Madhvacharya "quietly rejected" his guru Achyutapreksa and "quietly accepted" Vyasadeva, because Madhvacharya was a very cultured acharya?

I don't recall arguing that either. In fact, I specifically stated that this issue is strictly an in-house doctrinal/technical affair for Gaudiyas since the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara is largely different from the Madhva listing. Therefore for all intents and purposes, Madhva opinions may be insightful and appreciable, but are ultimately irrelevant. I believe that Jagatji has written an intere on this very subject. What I find interesting is that Baladeva was actually initiated into the Madhva line. At least that is what I have heard. This is one of the reasons why the Ramanandis were forced to take him seriously. Had he been a fully-fledged "Gaudiya," they would not have given his opinion much weight since they were challenging the very authority of the Gaudiyas. The fact that he was an initiated Madhva gave him some sort of respct and authority inasmuch that the Ramanandis were forced to acknowledge him. Indeed, I beleive that some have commented that the Govinda-bhasya has a certain 'Madhva' style to it.What I want to know, however, is how does this Madhva initiation correlate with his Gaudiya initiation by Radha-damodara das? Does it count as a re-initiation or what? Did he reject his Madhva guru?

I'm only having "fun" in the sense that I am continually amazed at the appalling lack of logic in some arguments that have been displayed for the consideration of the readers. On the other hand I am not having "fun" at all on account of the consistent sarcasm, rudeness, and downright nastiness displayed by certain self-appointed defenders of the Sarasvata parampara. What started as an open-minded quest to discuss various issues that arise in such discussions has degenerated into backbiting, name-calling, and just plain stupidity. Really, if this is the treatment I get when I have decided to be honest with myself and re-evaluate my faith in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I shudder to think how a "new bhakta" will be savaged beyond description if he ever sets foot on this board. After reading this post of yours, I had a spontaneous flow of thoughts that I would love to articulate but I have decided not to. I suppose you get the general vibe. It would be simply a complete waste of time.

Didn't I already explain? "First of all I lost a lot of original texts in the computer crash that I suffered several months ago, so I cannot provide you with the Sanskrit. In fact, I'm not sure it is even stated in the HBV, I might have been thinking of something else, like the qualities one should not be in a guru." Pretty clear. In fact, a few moments after I posted that original post, I realised that I was incorrect as I recalled that the HBV talsk about what qualities one should seek in a guru and what qualities one should not. It was the Krishna Bhajanamritam that discusses what to do about fallen gurus and rejecting them. However, I did not bother to correct my mistake after reading your reply. You wanted the Sanskrit, and because of my computer crash I have to make do with dodgy English translations. Why did I not bother to correct my mistake after reading your reply? Because: "Did you ask yourself why I didn't bother to reply to this post? I'll tell you why: a) because your attitude in writing has been patronizing and condescending, and I don't generally respond to such rudeness b) it contains arguments that have been addressed before, many times before, therefore there is no point going all over them again c) I've repeated the above two points enough times. However, since you have correctly stated that this is the third time you are re-posting this, I have come to the conclusion that you are either trying to pick a fight, or you are just seeking attention. In any case I will gladly serve you." Now it seems that by your above comment, you are illegally attempting to paint me as some sort of liar; that I "pretend" that verses exist which I cannot backup. Hello? Can anyone post a verse that doesn't exist? In either case by trying paint me as a liar, you are being extremely dishonest. See what I mean? This is why I say that you are nothing but a simple scoundrel. You of all people are aware that I deliberately did not reply to your rude post on account of your noticeable lack of basic manners. I've only bothered to reply to that lame post three times after it was posted. Yes, it may seem a coincidence that I noticed that Raga posted the quotes before I declared it so, but this does not change the fact that I already knew about the Krishna Bhajanamritam anyway. Believe what you want. In any case, I do not care for the opinions of a liar. Read Raga's comments and stop wasting everybody's time: "Now, of course it is understandable that one may wish to let others know that he has separated himself from the guru because of the guru's having displayed demoniac qualities, for otherwise he would be blamed for the sin of rejecting a legitimate guru. Thus, though nowhere documented, the "rejecting in public" naturally follows, at least as far as one's immediate social surroundings are concerned." This point was originally made by me (though not in Raga's words) that a guru-rejection in public is necessary in order to let the public know you have rejected your guru because of such-and-such reason. In any case there is no evidence to suggest that Bhaktivinoda Thakura rejected Vipin Vihari Gosvami at any time. If you have evidence, post it, or else keep quiet. In fact, where is that quote from the Vishnu-priya-patrikilla (or whatever) located? I need that quote asap to make an important point, so can you do a favour and tell me where it is to be located in Bhaktivinoda's works? Disagreed with? Alpa-medhasa's "position" was so laughable it had to be read to be believed. Still, evidence? You seem to be pretty high on presenting ragtag "evidence" when it comes to defending an indefensible siksa-parampara, but you seem to be pretty low on evidence on this issue? Is it something to do with the fact that you have no evidence? That would be a more likely explanation. Instead, JNdas talks endlessly about "culture" and his appropriately-named friend Alpa-medhasa says that only "bright" people are capable of understanding who is Bhaktivinoda's "real" guru. The word you are looking for is 'omniscient.' JNDas and Alpa-medhasa are omniscient. They know everything, that is why they see no need to present evidence of their views on this topic. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

OK, I'll concede that point and accept that I am semi-wrong on that count. It appears that the Madhva and Ramanuja paramparas present various siksa connections. However, it is undeniable that the parampara from those figures onwards consists of diksa. This is the point I was trying to make, the connection with paramparas is of diksa and not siksa. There is no need to drown in an ocean of your own sarcasm. Looks like the Lollipop Land guy is interested in making himself look very "trendy" by using modern words like 'fro without the 'a'. How very cool, not. Seems that your grandiosity has only taught you how to make cheap shots when you can't answer simple points. JNDas, if you want to present yourself as an expert in debate as you are so obviously interested in doing, it would be credible for you to answer all of my points, preferably in a point-by-point formation which will aid clarity and avoid confusion. Instead of answering all the points, you have chosen just to reply to a few selected points that suit you and avoid the others, as well as toss in a few sarcastic comments here and there. This does not do you any favours and diminishes your credibility. By the way, Sai Baba's afro hair is real. Let's get back to my original point, a point that I have been repeating over and over again: Since the time of Mahaprabhu, connection to His parampara has been via diksa and not siksa. Get it? Why the sudden change? It is basically irrelevant if siksa-paramparas exist and who originated them. For you (or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) to introduce the NEW concept of a siksa-parampara in a tradition that has always traced their lines via diksa, is to de facto declare that you are a highly-empowered individual who is sufficiently empowered to do such a thing. Sure, but the fact that they trace their parampara through diksa should tell you something. They do not trace their line via the "siksa" line of Vyasadeva despite the fact that they consider him more important. Are we getting a clue here? This point has already been addressed. Repeating does no one any favours except to cause a slight amount of irritation. Those three authorities accepted the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara for perhaps the possibility of guarding the sampradaya from alienation. This happened when the Ramanandis disputed the authority of the Gaudiyas. Must we go over this again? By the way, here's an interesting fact for everyone. Much is made of the "prameya-sloka" that apparently embodies Dvaita's beliefs in a nutshell. However, where is the source for this prameya-sloka in the writings of Madhvacharya or any other Tattvavada acharya? It doesn't exist. Modern Dvaita cholars such as Bannanjee Govindacharya have opined that the prameya-sloka is a fraud, most probably. In fact, the Dvaitins admit that the earliest reference to the prameya-sloka is to be found in Baladeva's prameya-ratnavali, where the prameya-sloka is penned in a slightly different way. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Incorrect beyond belief. You are forgetting that Baladeva presented this parampara in his writings either before or after his confrontation with the Ramanandis. See my answer to the previous point. Baladeva himself comes in a direct diksa-parampara beginning with Gauridas Pandit, I believe. Contrary to popular belief, he was not initiated by Visvanatha Cakravarti. They had a siksa relationship, sure, but not diksa. I don't see anybody here is denying the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, do you? The issue relates to parampara since Mahaprabhu and not before, but for some queer reason you overlook this fact.Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself is an extremely controversial figure in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Incorrect. Ramanuja's parampara is indeed traced via diksa and not siksa from Yamunacharya. I've been researching on this point. At least from the Internet, Gosthi Purna and Maha Purna seems to be two different individuals. Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Gosvami thinks that Gosthi Purna is Ramanuja's guru; however, the guru-parampara of Ramanuja is: Yaamunaacaarya (Alavandaar) (c. 900-1000 AD) Periya Nambi (MahaapUrNa) Ramanuja (emberumaanaar, udaiyavar, bhaashyaakaara) (1017 - 1137 A.D.) I tried to clarify some of these points with Mani Varadarajan, who everyone should know. Unfortunately he seems to be too busy to reply to my email. Never fear, I found an old post authored by him on his Bhakti-List: "It is also important to note that the acharya paramparA of the Sri Vaishnava / Visishtadvaita tradition primarily records the succession of teachers who gave mantra upadeSam and taught the inner meaning of the rahasyas to their disciples. ...For Ramanuja, the primary acharya is Periya Nambi and through him Yamunacharya, even though Ramanuja had five acharyas who taught him various different aspects of the tradition." So there you go. Even though Ramanuja was influenced by five teachers including Yamunacharya, his parampara is nevertheless traced via diksa. Interestingly, I found at least one website that describes all of the Madhva paramparas in detail, but I have writen to the webmaster to seek clarification on some important issues. But where is the "siksa-parampara" that supposedly started wth Arjuna? Did Arjuna pass this knowledge on? I've heard that according to the Anu-gita, he forgot it. Anyway, where is the parampara? There is no parampara descending through Arjuna, because Vyasa logged the whole conversation. Thus.By the way, what an incredibly weak argument. Nobody is disputing that Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna. We are taking of diksa and siksa-paramparas here. Oh, I see that Cheap Shot Das continues to hit below the belt whenever it suits him. This motorcycle, did I ever mention that Ramanuja failed to meet his guru on account of his not having a motorcycle or automobile? Who do you think Ramanuja is, Knight Rider or something? I can understand this idiotic misconception coming from a couple of anonymous Guests who failed to get my point, but I'm surprised to see that Cheap Shot dasa also fell for the externals. Hilarious indeed. I would have thought that JNDas was aware of the story that Ramanuja was on his way to meet Yamunacharya when the latter unfortunately passed on. Whose fault was this? Was it Ramanuja's fault for being too slow? Was it Yamunacharya's fault for dying too early? Or was it just circumstances? The answer should be obvious. However, it is absolutely foolish that people are suggesting that I said Ramanuja needed modern transport when I didn't, yet it is a fact that bullock carts, horse carts or just plain walking does not increase your speed when your guru is on his deathbed. Instead of understanding the simplicity of this point, Cheap Shot Dasa decides to fling yet another of his wunderbars below the belt in regards to my previous affiliation with Sai Baba's movement. As if I am disqualified from discussing theology because I fell into a fake guru's trap. Perhaps Cheap Shot Das would do well to take his absurd proposal to its absurd conclusion, when we should all unite and refuse to listen to ISKCON's gurus on account of their being ex-Christians and/or ex-hippies for the most part. How silly. Nobody used any logic, my dear Cheap Shot Prabhu. I made a sarcastic statement which you obviously did not get. As usual. Never mind, here is the joke again: The Pandava army and the Kaurava army were just about to go to war. Arjuna asked Krishna to drive him up to the middle of the battlefield so he could see the opposing army. Upon doing this, Arjuna became overcome with emotion at seeing his family and friends and refused to fight. He asked Krishna's advice as to what to do next. Anyone who is seriously proposing that Krishna and Arjuna should have sat down in the middle of a battlefield that was poised on the brink of war, and performed an initiation fire ceremony complete with mantra-diksa, is a fool. In my view, of course. Did you get the joke this time, CSP? Now let's have a look at the points that you failed to answer. I wonder why you failed to answer, is it because you don't have any answers? In any case, let's go through them again: Point #1: Kavi Karnapura expressly states that Madhva received krsna-diksa from Vyasa. The reasoning that "just because it says diksa dos not mean anything" is useless. I personally think that it is worth noting. Kavi Karnapura did not specifically mention the diksa (or siksa) connections of the next gurus, but seems to make a specific case of Madhvacharya. The word here is 'diksa.' Is anyone suggesting that there is a different definition to this 'diksa' that we don't yet know about? It is also irrelevant what the Madhvas think, as their parampara is different to ours and we are discussing a strictly in-house issue here. Point #2: JNDas suggests that diksa-paramparas are not important because Mahaprabhu never gave diksa. How does JNDas know this? He was told that followers in the line of Lokanatha and Gopala Bhatta Goswamis claim that Mahaprabhu gave diksa to those two personalities and thus the diksa carries on. Plus there is a reference to 'prema-diksa' in CC Antya 16.1. Plus it was also suggested by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura himself that Mahaprabhu may have given diksa: "Those who have recorded the transcendental activities of Sri Gaurasundara have specifically refrained describing His pastimes of giving formal initiation to anyone so that no one would glorify Him only as a 'guru' who gave initiation into the maha-mantra. The devotees of Sri Caitanya are initiated into the chanting of this maha-mantra and always chant loudly as well as softly in a secluded place." - Sri Caitanya-bhagavata Adi 1.2.27 Why does JNDas avoid this point? I'll tell you later. Point #3: JNDas suggests that bhakti may be achieved by following an unauthorised path on acount of it's "powerful" nature. By that logic, let me go and jump in with the ahajiyas and I will have nothing to fear, since it is an unauthorised process and I will get suddha-bhakti anyway. Although let's be fair, we were talking about Bhaktivinoda Thakura's diksa, which brings us to the next point. Point #4: JNDas agrees with the idea that Vipin Vihari Gosvami was somehow an "underqualified" guru for Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji ws the fully-qualified one on account of the fantastic siksa that he must have received. Really? Then why did Bhaktivinoda not get diksa by the two siksa-gurus he associated with before he received diksa? Why not take diksa from either of those two siksa-gurus? What about the fact that Mahaprabhu Himself appeared in the Thakura's dream and told him that He will be sending a guru soon? Seems to me like Vipin Vihari Gosvami was really the chosen one! Point #5: JNdas says that if Bhaktivinoda was rejected by his guru (which is highly debatable) then Bhaktivinoda is incapable of giving diksa and siksa. In that case, the Sarasvata-parampara comes to an end with Bhaktivinoda, since he is "incapable" of giving diksa and siksa. Right. Point #6: JNDas says that Bhaktivinoda wrote that he considered the siksa-guru more important. I explained that this is perfectly understandable considering the Thakur's situation: "Considering that in Srila Bhaktivinoda's day, and certainly in Srila Bhaktivinoda's personal situation, siksa-gurus were more prevalent than diksa-gurus. It seems that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru generally resided in the Vrindavana area or thereabouts, while Srila Bhaktivinoda himself resided in Navadvipa-dhama. Lo and behold, Jagannatha das Babaji also lived in Navadvipa-dhama, so it is perfectly understandable that the Thakura would receive more inspiration/instructions from the revered Babaji. That is not contradictory to sastra, one is allowed to have unlimited siksa-gurus but only one diksa-guru. Srila Bhaktivinoda could have had as many siksa-gurus as he liked." Also, another important point to consider here is that whatever Bhaktivinoda wrote, it is to be considered his subjective (emotional?) opinion. According to sastra, one os duty-bound to offer equal respects to the siksa and diksa gurus, not counting one as "greater" than the other. There are many other points that JNDas failed to respond to, which is understandable because either he cannot refute simple logic or he just has no answers. Also, I've done a little bit of research; I've stated hundreds of times that this issue has been raked over time and time again. The interesting thing is that JNDas has been repeating the same old tired arguments again and again and again. He has repeated now what he has repeated then in an endless chain, despite the fact that he has received scripturally correct answers. Nice going. I also noticed that on previous occasions, JNDas seemed to be a much more cheerful person and calmer, though perhaps coming out with the odd sarcastic comment. Compare that with his attitude now, where he is openly flaming me and hurling invectives. I cannot help but wonder if there is some personal issue he needs to resolve. Perhaps JNDas can do us all a favour and submit his answers to the points outline clearly in this post, not just one or two.

Dear Muralidharji, if it is indeed a lie that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated by Srila Gaurakisor, then I think I will be happy beyond measure. That would be one issue out of the way. I think that people who tend to focus on this issue of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's "non-initiation" are relaly missing the point. In my view, the controversy relates to how far the Sarasvata-Gaudiya tradition in terms of theology/philosophy has travelled from the realms of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy as has been practised for centuries since the time of Mahaprabhu Himself. Take, for example, the issue about raganuga-bhakti. What constitutes eligibility? How do we enter into it? What is siddha-pranali? What about Varnasrama? What about so-called "brahmin initiation"? What about, so many other things? It's these issues and more that seem to be the brunt of all these repetitive discussions, the differences between the Sarasvata-Gaudiyas and the Traditional-Gaudiyas. I hope I have been more clearer?

I am not qualified to 'help' you in any way as I haven't been through anything remotely resembling your experience. Can I ask you one question: Do you love your wife?

Dear Babhruji, thanks for your nice points. But how is that possible when Rupa Gosvami specifically states that vaidhi and raganuga are two distinct paths (dvidha sadhanabhida)? And also that following vaidhi-bhakti awakens a distinct bhava, in this case, Vaikuntha-bhava? I'm thankful that you brought up the subject of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, as this is the issue that I really wanted to get at. Several critics of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura happily blame him for initiating several "reforms" that seem to differ from the path chalked out by the Goswamis and other Acharyas. Some of the issues raised therein relate to a difference in approach to the practice of raganuga-bhakti, introduction of varnasrama, and so many other things that they level against him. As this particular thread is concerned with the ideas behind vaidhi and raganuga, we'll stick to this. Again I'll thank you for bring up Srila Bhaktivinoda, that was an excellent point. Now as I previously said, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has been blamed for introducing a "skewed" philosophy, as the critics say, regarding the practice of raganuga-bhakti. Because of this criticism, it seems that Srila Prabhupada is also included in this criticism since his teachings generally mirror Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's on this point. One of these particular points is about how it is said that it is somehow "possible" to progress to the path of raganuga after first practicing vaidhi. Especially when they seem to differ from Rupa Gosvami's teachings on this point. I think this was exemplified in some quotes that I posted at the beginning of this thread. However, I have recently been engaged in a short study of Srila Bhaktivinoda's teachings on this and connected points of philosophy. What have I discovered? It seems to be Srila Bhaktivinoda who has these teachings in his writings. I might hear you say, "So what?" Well, this fact provides an entirely new angle to the debate. If these ideas originated with Srila Bhaktivinoda, then this will have to silence Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's critics. Why? Why because, Srila Bhaktivinoda actively practised the system of raganuga-sadhana, siddha-pranali and ekadasa-bhava in his sadhana, and promoted them in his writings. So here we have an Acharya who is actively practising and promoting raganuga-bhakti as taught by the previous Acharyas, and yet seemingly advocating some sort of change. What Srila Bhaktivinoda penned in theory, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta attempted to carry out in practice. Therefore criticism against Srila Bhaktisiddhanta on this point is unjust and unfair. It's amazing what one can find out just by perusing the books of the previous Acharyas. As I mentioned to Ragaji earlier, my specific interest is about how these ideas translate themselves when being implemented in institutions, specifically Gaudiya Math and ISKCON. I find it interesting that you speak of dichotomies. Not only is there a dichotomy between vaidhi and raganuga, but there seem to be dichotomies within these two fields also. Absolutely amazing to go through them all. I wonder if these confusions will ever be cleared up? Perhaps through genuine and honest frank discussion. This is also scripturally correct, because the Nama is the primary angi so I've heard. I've also heard that the practices of vaidhi-bhakti are more prominent in Madhva and Ramanuja philosophy, and that it is the business of the Gaudiyas to practise raganuga. Perhaps that's just one reason why the Goswamis spent so much time writing about raganuga-bhakti and spent very little time on the process of vaidhi. Amazing. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yes. I would have thought that devotees would want to analyse this philosophy. Isn't that Srila Prabhupada repeatedly enjoined us to do? This "waiting" seems to be the problem. The idea behind raganuga is that the raga makes you so greedy that you simply cannot wait to taste real raga. It makes the sadhaka impatient. Greed to taste the raga is itself the propelling factor behind raganuga-bhakti. In that light, I don't think that it is a good thing to "wait." On the other hand, "waiting" may be applicable in the concept of "yearning." The sadhaka yearns because he has been waiting for so long and continues to wait. This form of waiting may intensify greed. Seems that this may turn into another discussion on the general nature of raganuga-bhakti itself. However, would you propose that the Six Goswamis did not know anything about our fallen Kali natures and our conditioned state? Do you not think they wrote all those literatures with these things in mind? All glories to Srila Prabhupada. However this particular line of reasoning was discussed some time back on another forum. The idea behind spontaneous devotion is that it is propelled only by greed to attain it. If you hear the pastimes of Krishna and you get the desire to hear more and participate in lila, that is when spontaneous devotion has arisen in you.

*sigh* Some people never listen, nor do they bother to. "Give a dog a bad name and hang him."

Yes. Candravali is also considered to be Srimati's rival for Krishna's affections. Srimati's and Candravli's sakhis and manjaris generally engage in "playful" backbiting against each other to enhance lila.However, for sadhakas it has been enjoined by one notable Acharya to pay respects to Candravali-gopi.

Yes.

Exactly. I think I'll obey my own instincts and not dignify any more insulting rambling with rsponses. I've stated several times that I am simply not interested in discussing an issue which has been raked over several times, but they seem to enjoy drawing me into these sorts of discussions, provoking me by posting the same post three times, and the rest of it. Anyway, think I'll concentrate on other threads from now. I think I've said all I possibly can say in this regard.

Dear Babhruji, I don't believe that I am missing the point as far as JNDas is concerned. I know that Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja is a member of the Sarasvata-Gaudiya parampara. Just because I tend to have views that disagree with the conclusions of this parampara, does this mean that I have boiling anger and hatred towards all the Sarasvata-acharyas? Certainly not.I have deep firm admiration for Srila Prabhupada like I always have had, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja. My appreciation for saintliness is not limited herein. I have respect for gurus outside the Sarasvata-parampara. I have friends and associates who are disciples and grand-disciples of all these gurus. I like to see unity and not division. You may recall my last post to you about the "Hotel Prabhupada" article, and how that statement 'against' ISKCON annoyed me greatly and still does. Where JNDas seems to be missing the point, is that he fails to see this and so does everyone else like gHari. Even though I have stated similar things several times, I think it's absolutely unbelievable that they continue to miss this. I think that they are more interested in 'party spirit' and seem happy enough to lump me in with a category of people who openly blaspheme the Sarasvata parampara. Is this an honest thing to do? I have faith that you will know what I mean. Another issue I take is the putting of words into my mouth based on what JNDas thinks I am trying to say. I think that is also a dishonest practice. Unless I say it and it comes out of my mouth, I am duty-bound to object to being given a bad name and hung for it.

Dear Theistji, thanks very much for your interesting points. I agree. It is a good life view which I have always carried with me. I learn new things every day and I'd like to think I'll continue to learn newer things. The Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary defines 'parampara' as follows: "one following the other , proceeding from one to another (as from father to son) , successive , repeated MBh. Sus3r. ; (%{am}) ind. successively. uninterruptedly VPra1t. ; m. a great great-grandson or great-grandson with his descendants L. ; a species of deer L. ; %{-tas} ind. successively continually." I would think such a definition would apply to a direct guru-disciple line. 'One after the other.' Mantras from books are not authorised and their chanting will not work. The mantra takes effect when received by a guru in disciplic succession. I think that is the import of the 'sampradaya vihina ye' verse from Padma Purana. I suppose that according to the Monier-Williams Sanskrit definition, such a 'gap in bodies' will be looked upon as a break in the succession. Unless of course, there is some other guru who has received those mantras from their gurus. Every guru has a few disciples, and this can ensure that the mantras get passed on regardless if the disciple takes disciples of their own. Unless of course all the disciples fail to pass on the mantras, in which case that particular disciplic succession will come to an end. Sure, I think that is technically referred to as a siksa-guru. In an ideal world, one would expect that siddhanta should be one, but sadly it is not. Different Gaudiya lines are preaching different siddhantas, so technically it is best to be "on guard" so to speak. Of course, one of the easiest ways to determine a bona-fide guru is to see how close his teachings are to what is related in sastra.In the modern world, such idealistic conceptions do not seem to be practised in the various institutions. What do you think, Theistji?

Did you ask yourself why I didn't bother to reply to this post? I'll tell you why: a) because your attitude in writing has been patronizing and condescending, and I don't generally respond to such rudeness b) it contains arguments that have been addressed before, many times before, therefore there is no point going all over them again c) I've repeated the above two points enough times. However, since you have correctly stated that this is the third time you are re-posting this, I have come to the conclusion that you are either trying to pick a fight, or you are just seeking attention. In any case I will gladly serve you: Lame argument #1: "The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam." We were talking about the Gaudiya paramparas descending from Mahaprabhu or one of His associates like Nityananda and Advaita, not the "siksa-parampara" from timeless Vedic tradition. This is the excuse given by people who do not understand what was being said. The classical Gaudiyas trace their paramparas from Mahaprabhu, and these connections are based on diksa. Oh, and you just shot yourself in the foot again. The siksa-parampara tradition began like with Krishna and Arjuna (5000 years ago) and not before that? Ooh, thanks for proving my point. Here was me thinking that Krishna-Brahma-Narada was a siksa connection. Lame argument #2: "Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha." Again, you cannot be serious if you are thinking that Krishna and Arjuna should have sat down and performed a fire-ceremony right in the middle of Kurukshetra. Lame argument #3: "In more recent times, Ramanuja was initiated by Yamunacharya despite never having spoken to him or seen him prior to his leaving his body. Diksha mantras were later given to Ramanuja by one of Ramanuja's God brothers, thereby showing that it is not the diksha mantras that make one the disciple, otherwise Ramanuja would not be the disciple of Yamunacharya but of Goshthi Purna." However, it was not Ramanuja's fault that he arrived at his guru's bedside too late. I think you can blame the ancient modes of transport for that. Aside from that, it is obvious that there was a guru-disciple relationship between Yamunacharya and Ramanuja that would have eventually crystallised into a formal relationship between the two. Who knows the truth behind what happened? In any case, this is not relevant to the Gaudiya sampradaya because the Gaudiya lines consist only of diksa. There's no precedent even for taking diksa from a "dead" guru, so by these standards even the ritviks are wrong. Lame argument #4: "Baladeva Vidyabhushana himself accepts a Sikhsa parampara that includes Madhvacharya in our line, something most of the caste Goswami lines and so-called "traditional paramparas" do not do. Madhva did not receive diksha mantras from Vyasa, he only received Siksha and this is elaborately explained in the authoritative biographies of Madhva. Madhvacharya received diksha mantras from Achyutapreksha, who was actually his own siksha disciple." This was more or less answered in a previous post. Kavi Karnapura expressly states that Madhva received Krishna-diksa from Vyasa, so there is no siksa connection. As far as I know, several "traditional" paramparas accept the siksa-parampara provided by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, but it seems to be relatiely unimportant considering that this is the Gaudiya sampradaya. As for Madhva's receipt of diksa-mantras from Acyuta preksa - what is your evidence for this claim? "There are plenty of other examples of Paramparas that were not based on diksha mantras. But judging by your fanatical writing style I see it as a complete waste of time to discuss this matter with you." I think you have extensively exposed yourself and a few others as the fanatics here, whereas I have tried my best to have some sort of semblance of a civilised conversation/discussion going on. However because you continue to insult, mock and berate others, I do not think that this is possible. By the way, this is no excuse. If you have evidence to present, then present it. Simply claiming that there "is" evidence but you are not going to present it does not do you any favours. Lame argument #5: "We should also remember that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never initiated anyone with diksha mantras. Diksha mantras are not important compared to siksha, for it is by divine knowledge that one actually attains diksha." I'm currently researching as to why it is that Mahaprabhu Himself never gave diksa. However, lineages descending from Gopala Bhatta Goswami and Lokanatha Goswami claim that Mahaprabhu gave diksa to those personalities, but it seems there is no objectively verifiable evidence apart from those claims. If it's true, then your argument is incorrect. There's an interesting reference in CC Antya 16.1 speaking of 'prema-diksa', however some think that it is a metaphorical reference to something. Do you know of it? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta also presented an explanation to this question in one of his purports to Caitanya-Bhagavata, have you read that explanation? "Those who have recorded the transcendental activities of Sri Gaurasundara have specifically refrained describing His pastimes of giving formal initiation to anyone so that no one would glorify Him only as a 'guru' who gave initiation into the maha-mantra. The devotees of Sri Caitanya are initiated into the chanting of this maha-mantra and always chant loudly as well as softly in a secluded place." - Sri Caitanya-bhagavata Adi 1.2.27 If what Srila Sarasvati Thakura says is true, then just because it has not been specifically mentioned in the biographies does not necessarily mean that Mahaprabhu never gave diksa. He could have given, but it is not mentioned. You get the point, I'm sure. Lame argument #6: I said: "I just told you that upon receiving diksa, the desire to eat meat was totally dissipated from Bhaktivinoda's heart. This is almost exactly what Bhaktivinoda states in his autobiography. Doesn't that tell you something about the power of the diksha by Vipin Vihari Goswami?" And JNDas replies: "It tells us nothing other than that the process of bhakti is so powerful that even following an unauthorized process brings one transcendental results and detachement." Right. So now I am going to become a sahajiya. I'm also going to have a lot of fun being a sahajiya. That's OK right? Because even though it is an unauthorised process, I will achieve bhakti. Your argument is absurd. Let's go back to what Jiva Goswami says about diksa: divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam | tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva kovidaiH || ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca | gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH || "The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives (da) divine knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa. Therefore, paying obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all, one should receive a Vaisnava mantra diksa preceded with proper procedures." Therefore, a genuine diksa destroys sin as well as bestows knowledge. Last time I checked, meat-eating was classed as a sinful activity. The desire to eat meat disappeared from the Thakur's heart the very instant he received diksa. This is because he received a genuine diksa. For you to minimise this incident in the Thakur's life and describe it as "nothing" shows that not only do you maintain an offensive attitude to the Thakura, but that you also seem to hold a queer contempt for the process of diksa. Also, I notice that you and several others are avoiding the most important subject: Vipina Vihari Gosvami was chosen by Mahaprabhu Himself to be the Thakura's guru. Are you saying that Mahaprabhu was "wrong" to do that? You simply cannot assert that Vipin Vihari Goswami was somehow "underqualified" to be the Thakur's "real" guru because:- a) You will be directly offending Mahaprabhu b) You will be directly offending the Thakura and his judgegment Lame argument #7: I said: "It seems that according to facts collected in Jagat's article on the subject, there is more evidence to suggest that it was perhaps Vipin Vihari Goswami who rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, rather than vice-versa." JNDas replied with: "And since Vipin Vihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, the diksha connection with Lalit Prasad is bogus as are any initiations Lalit Prasad gave to his disciples. Such people have no link to any parampara, neither diksha nor siksha." Now this is just a typical extreme ultra-fanatical statement. I emphasize the word 'extreme.' The reason for that is that it was being suggested that Bhaktivinoda "quietly rejected" his diksa-guru and "quietly-accepted" a new one, even though there is no evidence for such an idea. Rather, there is "more evidence" to suggest that the reverse happened. No one knows if any rejection took place, because there is simply not enough evidence to suggest it. The only evidence that is available points to a dispute of some sort. This in itself does not prove that a rejection took place. Srila Prabhupada's disciples sometimes argued with him and certainly disagreements would occur, are you saying that this constitutes a guru/disciple rejection? By the way, you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. If Bhaktivinoda is incapable of giving diksa and siksa according to your own words, then even the Sarasvata-parampara has no initiation on this point since it relies on a 'siksa' link to Srila Gaurakishor das Babaji. "Gaudiya saints such as Jagannatha das Babaji have accepted Mayapur as the birth place of Mahaprabhu and Bhaktivinoda Thakur valued their judgement more than his so-called "diksha-guru" and other residents of Navadvipa." Is there any evidence for that story apart from Gaudiya Matha sources? "This should tell us something about who the real guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur was." This is foolish. Just because Jagannath das Babaji confirmed the site of Mayapur implies that he was Srila Bhaktivinoda's "real" guru? So if some scientist proceeds to scientifically prove that man really did land on the moon, I should reject Srila Prabhupada's views on that topic? Lame argument #8: "In Bhaktivinoda's own words, he accepts the Siksha guru as more important: 'The initiating spiritual master (diksha-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksha-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti.' - Kalyana-kalpataru" Where in Kalyana-Kalpataru is that located? For some reason I was unable to find it. And you also previously quoted something from "Vishnu-priya-patrikilla" or something. Where is that located also? Considering that in Srila Bhaktivinoda's day, and certainly in Srila Bhaktivinoda's personal situation, siksa-gurus were more prevalent than diksa-gurus. It seems that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru generally resided in the Vrindavana area or thereabouts, while Srila Bhaktivinoda himself resided in Navadvipa-dhama. Lo and behold, Jagannatha das Babaji also lived in Navadvipa-dhama, so it is perfectly understandable that the Thakura would receive more inspiration/instructions from the revered Babaji. That is not contradictory to sastra, one is allowed to have unlimited siksa-gurus but only one diksa-guru. Srila Bhaktivinoda could have had as many siksa-gurus as he liked. In fact, Rupa-vilasa's biography of the Thakura lists at least two siksa-gurus that that the Thakur had before he received diksa from Vipina Vihari Goswami. These two siksa-gurus were Svarupa das Babaji and Raghunatha das Babji. That itself should tell you something about who Bhaktivinoda's "real guru" was. If the association of these two previous siksa-gurus were sufficient, why not take initiation from one of them? Why did he say in his autobiography that he was "searching for a long time for a suitable guru" ? So even though he may have received inspiration from these two siksa-gurus, he was obviously waiting for a "more qualified" guru as he says in his autobiography. See my above point about Mahaprabhu's choice of guru for the Thakura. Lame argument #9: I said "Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived." JNDas replied with: "Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction." Sorry, but I can't. First of all I lost a lot of original texts in the computer crash that I suffered several months ago, so I cannot provide you with the Sanskrit. In fact, I'm not sure it is even stated in the HBV, I might have been thinking of something else, like the qualities one should not be in a guru. I think you may find some evidence in this regard from Krsna-Bhajanamrita. I notice that Raga has already answered this point and provided the evidence. I only have the English but I noticed he provided the original text. Is that satisfactory? Lame argument #10: "The fact that the Sarasvata school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism has spread Mahaprabhu's holy name to every corner of the world, including to your house and my house, is enough proof for me that their parampara is certainly blessed and empowered." Good for you. I have heard that the Bauls were widespread more or less all over Bengal in the generations succeeding Mahaprabhu. Would you have me believe that the Bauls are also the special recipients of Mahaprabhu's mercy? Nobody here is denigrating Srila Prabhupada and his achievements. However, I must express my disappointment at how easily this argument is produced as "evidence". It betrays a cynical and snooty attitude that I have observed in almost every other religious group/cult. Everyone thinks they are the best. However, my particular research involves the study of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta. This statement is perhaps one of the most rude, mocking and contemptuous slander I have ever had the misfortune to read. That too, coming from a so-called "Vaishnava." I shan't dignify this insult with a response. Now I have finally answered this thrice-posted "essay" that supposedly purported to defeat all my points, perhaps now I can be left alone on this topic in order to continue my research into other aspects of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta?

I don't recall hearing anywhere that Delmonico has published a "fake life history" of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's life. Rather, he seems adamant that the Sarasvata line is not empowered on account of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's not having received any form of diksa at all. I don't agree with him on this point, and I disagree with several other points that he makes as well. If you and other people are under the impression that he is some sort of hero-figure to me, then I'll be forced to correct that serious misconception. I think the controversy there really is all about what type of initiation that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received from Srila Gaurakisor. Note here how I use the word "initiation," as it is different from 'diksa' which is 'second initiation.' Some are under the impression that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received harinam and diksa. Some say he received it in a dream. Some say he only received a handful of Navadvipa dust on his head. I don't know, and frankly I don't care. My research interests lie mainly in siddhanta. What really is interesting, however, is how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta differs in his presentation of Gaudiya siddhanta. That's one of the issues that I am researching right now. See the 'Vaidhi and Raganuga - straight or gradual' topic for more details. Krsnadasa Kaviraja's diksa-guru is unknown, I think. I have heard that there is no one who claims to be in a parampara descending from him, so perhaps it somehow ended along the way. His diksa-guru is unknown because as you rightly say, he never listed his diksa-guru anywhere, although some evidence suggests that it was Raghunath das Goswami. I could be wrong. However I don't think you can "authoritatively" state that his diksa-guru was Nityananda, because there is no evidence for that. Anyone can be a siksa-guru, that is the whole point. Many siksa-gurus, one diksa-guru; so it is not surprising if Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami praises Rupa-Raghunatha or Nityananda. Then around 90% of Gaudiyas who have been following the unbroken lines that can be traced to Mahaprabhu or His associates are all deluded; is that what you are saying? You're entitled to your opinion as regards my "offensiveness," but I don't think I've been offensive anywhere. I haven't slandered any guru as some people accused me of doing; all I've done is opened my heart about my doubts about the parampara, and everyone seems to be jumping on me calling me demon including you. This is not what I would expect from representatives of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who was merciful towards all without exception. "Jagai and Madhai is the proof." As for bad association, what makes you think I have been indulging in bad association? I have friends who are disciples of every guru; Tripurari Swami, Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, Gaurangapada, Srila Prabhupada (of course) and I also have several friends in the classical Gaudiya parampara. In fact, they have been extremely nice and caring towards me, as well as patiently answering all of my questions even though some of them might have been offensive in any way. Compare that with the ultra-fanatical insults and bad attitudes I've been receiving here, and ask again who represents bad association for me?

I think it is more like four or five times. What worries is that except for one notable occasion, this misconception was never corrected. Next, I said: And JNDas replies: And then he says I haven't studied the subject enough. So the lines of the Madhva and Gaudiya are not different according to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana? OK, have you checked out Jagatji's article on this point? If you have, well done. What is Baladeva's parampara? "Krishna to Brahma, to Narada, to Vyasa; then to Madhva, Padmanabha, Narahari, and Madhava. Then to Akshobhya, Jayatirtha, Jïana-sindhu, Dayanidhi, Vidyanidhi, Rajendra and Jayadharma. From them, it passes to Purushottama, Brahmanya and Vyasa Tirtha. With devotion, I praise all these spiritual masters, then Lakshmipati and his disciple Madhavendra, whose disciples were the spiritual masters of the universe Advaita and Nityananda. I worship Lord Sri Chaitanya, the disciple of Isvara Puri, who delivered the entire universe with the gift of love for Krishna." This significantly differs with the parampara presented by Dvaitins. Some deny this and explain it away that the same individuals are listed but with slight differences in name, position, etc. I'm not sure Dvaitins would agree with that. JNDas's point is absurd. Why? Simply because you say so? Or are you fantasizing about fire-ceremonies again? Kavi Karnapura specifically spoke of "Krishna-diksa" in his text. Deal with it. Now onto your next point: Now it seems that JNDas has shot himself in the foot. He admits that divya-jnana is implanted via diksa, so where is the reference that this can be accomplished by siksa? Rather, Jiva Gosvami says: divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam | tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva kovidaiH || ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca | gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH || "The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives (da) divine knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa. Therefore, paying obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all, one should receive a Vaisnava mantra diksa preceded with proper procedures." To explain divya-jnana more clearly, Jiva Gosvami explains: "divyaM jJAnaM hy atra zrImati mantre bhagavat-svarUpa-jJAnaM, tena bhagavatA sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnaM ca | - Divine knowledge means here knowledge of the true nature of the Lord in the mantra and, by that, knowledge of one's own special relationship with Him." So now where is your reference that divya-jnana can be accomplished via siksa? It's possible, but it's speculative and imaginative idea according to your own words. We know this because siddha-pranali practically didn't exist at the time of Sripada Madhvacharya. It was the gift of Mahaprabhu. I thought this was elementary knowledge. Take a look at your own words: "siksha parampara of the Gaudiyas." What siksa-parampara is followed by any Gaudiya except the Sarasvata line? Most of these Gaudiyas have little or no concern for the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, as Mahaprabhu is considered to be the founding-father (founder-acharya if you like) of the Gaudiya sampradaya.The reason why authorities like Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyabhusana list the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, is perhaps to counter any possible arguments that will question the authenticity of the sampradaya. We now know that this is what exactly happened at the time of Visvanatha/Baladeva; the Ramanandis questioned the authenticity of the Gaudiya sampradaya. Aside from acknowledging Mahaprabhu's own disciplic line, it is common knowledge that the Gaudiya tradition from Mahaprabhu onwards has always consisted of diksa lines. That is why I have said that there is no instance of a siksa-parampara in Mahaprabhu's line, except of course in the instance of the Sarasvata line from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta onwards. If you had been reading my posts attentively, you would have caught that many times since I repeated it often enough. Obviously you didn't. Oh, and by the way, how can you conclusively state that the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara is 100% siksa? Have you got any evidence to back that up? I have never seen such evidence presented anywhere. If you can backup this claim, that would be a first and a milestone as well. You've just copied this argument from BG Narasingha's article. The rest of your post is not worth replying to because it seems that you are only interested in displaying your "advanced" knowledge and prancing about like a great acharya or something.

You can continue banging your head against the wall as much as you like regarding this "two year" misconception that you have. The fact is that I've been studying GV properly since around 1998. If you work it out on a calculator, you'll find that's around five years. In fact, the very first post in this thread deals with my history in this regard. Try reading and re-reading that again and again until I see some evidence that you understand, instead of repeatedly spouting off about "two years" as if that is some sort of judgement criteria or something. On what basis do you judge a parampara as authentic and not fabricated? Parampara means 'one after the other.' Is the Sarasvata-parampara 'one after the other.' No it isn't. Seems to me like JNDas is having fun again, trying to put words in my mouth and defeating his own strawmen. I said that Gour Govinda Swami's teachings are bogus? Right. That's why I post quotes from him to this forum and other forums as well, as well as to my own mailing list of friends. Because his teachings are bogus, yes that sounds about right doesn't it? Also, I've noticed that instead of responding to my previous post (of which I asked not to bother until you learned some basic manners anyway) in a point-by-point form as could be expected, JNDas has inventively tried to splice my previous posts and present yet another highly creative argument, twisting my comments almost completely out of context. Top that off with a couple of cherries, such as the "two-year" fabrication that he is so fixated with and the regular strawmen, we have here a nice cream pie. This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands. I must say that I do admire your sarcasm. That's one of the great Vaishnava qualities that I am aspiring to attain. If you think that Delmonico's articles are the only source I have been researching, then perhaps its about time you take a reality check. Read the first post of this thread again. I first learnt about the parampara's inconsistencies came from basic research. I found out about the Madhvite acharyas from the Dvaita website and the later Gaudiya acharyas from ISKCON publications. Anyone can do this, it's not a big effort. I found out about Delmonico's articles much later, and remember how it was originally sent to me by an ISKCON member who himself is now a member of Audarya Fellowship? I didn't see anything worth listening to in that article, because, like you, I thought it was fanatical and offensive to "our parampara." Yes, I see that your blood is starting to boil now. You see, I don't go looking around for this sort of rubbish. It comes to me from various sources, so bang goes your hysterical theories about Google. You meet people, you talk with them, you exchange information, you communicate, this is called living in the real world, not the Lollipop Land you are running around in. Er,.. that's the whole point. This is even more proof that you haven't been able to understand a single word that I've said, despite the fact that you've spent an inordinate amount of time cutting and pasting some selected comments in order to present yet another vitriolic post. You see, JNDas, let me tell you something. We're all on a learning curve here. It's always better to be an eternal student; isn't that what Srila Prabhupada once said? Because once you become a "teacher," you've practically cut yourself off from learning anything else in future since you now become a teacher. On the other hand, if you remain an eternal student, you'll keep learning and learning and there is no limit to knowledge. If you think that everyone else here is like you, or supposed to be like you, then you are seriously kidding yourself. There is always more and more to learn, despite the fact that what you conclude may not always be what you like to hear. Personally, I decided to pen my own history of my thoughts of the parampara in the first post of this thread with a view to engaging in an honest discussion about the topic. What do you and your friend gHari do? You decide to give a dog a bad name and hang him. "Oh look at his dirty face, what a rascal, what an offender, what a demon. He insulted our gurus, he is doomed to hell, there is no hope for him, blah blah blah." I've seen this fanatical rhetoric often worded by boot-camp bhaktas during my years with ISKCON, and I'll tell you, it's not nice. It's not even reasonable. Frankly speaking, it makes you look silly. Because out here in the real world, people are always learning, people are always encouraged to learn, and people are to be supported if they wish to learn. If you choose to shut yourself away in Lollipop Land and live in denial about what goes on in the real word, you're at total freedom to do so. After all, you're old enough to make your own decisions and also have the freedom to change them. What you do not have the right to do, however, is to condemn other people for their views and try to depict them as a devil. That's what people used to do in the Dark Ages, hang people for their "heretical" notions. Thus I started this topic to engage in an honest (and hopefully enlightening) discussion about the Sarasvata parampara. I am not a critic per se, as I take an continue to take my inspiration from Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. I have heard views about this parampara from various sources, and I would like to discuss them. Agree with me or disagree with me, but I think it would be most appreciable if a substantial response was given instead of "You are a rascal demon." Of course if you do not agree with people's views, that is also your right and you are entitled to it. If you want to express your view of disagreement, it's always best to word it in a polite tone. But what do you do? "Oh look at his dirty face, what a rascal, what an offender, what a demon. He insulted our gurus, he is doomed to hell, there is no hope for him, blah blah blah." You diminish your own credibility in this way. You think you are doing good, but in the eyes of the world you belong in the Dark Ages. Perhaps its about time someone told you that you will have to get used to hearing things you do not wish to hear. Its called LIFE, and you will have to learn to deal with it. Now are you interested in engaging in an honest and genuine discussion, free from vitriol, about the parampara? Or not? If yes, great. If not, then thank you and goodbye. I'll stick to my earlier instincts and choose not to dignify any more drivel with a response.

Some do, some don't. I think it all depends on how serious you are. Anyone who has been there knows that the atmosphere may not be all that devotional, and it is more or less a meeting place to get introduced to members of the opposite sex. Food, drink, dance, people, what more could you want for a party? That said, there was a couple of garbha functions advertised in Bhaktivedanta Manor. It was not organised by the Manor although several Manor devotees were there attending, dancing and all. Even initiated ones. The function was that it was supposed to be a 'Ras Garbha.' There was a table in the middle with a figuring of Muralidhara Krishna on it, as if it was supposed to mean Krishna is in the middle and all the participants were Gopis or something. I didn't realise this until near the end of the function but when I did, I found it distasteful. A couple of days later, I found that a few friends at the Manor were discussing the Ras Garbha and wondering whether Srila Prabhupada would have approved. The obvious answer is 'no.'

You didn't really understand what we are trying to discuss here, did you?

Pardon the pun, but I was going to introduce that point gradually. /images/graemlins/wink.gif One reason for discussing this subject is the analysis of the application of raganuga-bhakti in modern-day Gaudiya institutions. What is ISKCON's viewpoint on the practice of raganuga-bhakti happening within the institution? What about the Gaudiya math? And to how much extent is it different to the classical Gaudiya lines? Seems to me that there are several viewpoints. After reading some of the articles of B.G. Narasingha Maharaja, he seems to claim that raganuga-bhakti is the goal of the Gaudiya Matha followers, but it evident that the understanding and method of carrying it out is highly different than what is taught in classical Gaudiya lines. More tomorrow.

How many times have I seen this erroneous argument? This line of thought has no place in the discussion because:- a) It's correctly stated that the Madhva line is different, at least from that of the Gaudiyas. The simple fact that it is different escorts them out of the issue altogether. What use is it to discuss two different paramparas? The whole issue is strictly an in-house Gaudiya affair. b) It's a popular myth that Madhva's connection to Vyasa is that of 'siksa.' I've noticed it come up here and there in various ritvik papers and an article by Brahma das. However, because of point 'a', evidence of Madhva's "authorised biographies" is more or less inadmissible since this is an in-house Gaudiya issue. And the Gaudiya viewpoint is different: "vyasal labdha-krishna-diksho madhvacaryo mahayasaH" -- from Vyasa, the glorious Madhva Acarya received diksa. - Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika by Kavi Karnapura. It's a nice myth, but a myth nevertheless.