Gaurasundara

 

I don't actually believe that ISKCON has to worry about the Gaudiya Math. In fact, most branches now accept Srila Prabhupada as an empowered preacher and have praised his work in spreading Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai's church all over the world...

 

 

Thank you for your comments, Babhruji. I was actually thinking of more subtle comments (even inadvertently) made here and there by devotees of other paramparas/sampradays, even those who are coming from Gaudiya Math. One thing I have in mind as an example is the Hotel Prabhupada article on VNN that appeared several months ago. Of course I am not quick to judge and I am open to the possibility of inadvertent remarks, but I couldn't help being annoyed at a statement like this: "As we approach the large building I said to mother that it must be an ISKCON guesthouse or hotel because no follower of Shri Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta would name a hotel after our founder-acharya."

What exactly is that supposed to mean? "It must be an ISKCON guesthouse because they are not smart like us to know not to disrespect the name of the founder-acharya in that way" ? I did read the rest of the article with interest along with its update, but comments like that tend to stick in my mind as examples of subtle enviousness and snootiness. It upsets me a lot as well.

 

 

I'm convinced that whatever problems ISCKON is having that seem to have drained away much of its vigor (at least in many parts of the world) can be traced to a culture of vaishnava aparadha, the worst of which may have been their public campaigns against Srila Sridhar Maharaj, and more recently against Srila Narayana Maharaj.

 

 

I fully agree with you here. I think that is perhaps more lamentable. When will all these wars stop? Doesn't seem like any time soon? Any ideas? /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I was wondering if I should dignify this inane and nonsensical prattle with a reply, but upon re-reading it I decided it was just too good to miss; if only to provide a perfect example of how clear words are twisted way out of context in order to present a skewed view.

 

 

Otherwise your talk is all sentimental nonsense. "Oh, Gour Govinda Maharaja is a great sadhu, but he is actually a fool for following a bogus sampradaya full of anomalies where no one has actually received proper diksha." Isn't that what you actually mean?

 

 

Er, did I say that anywhere? No I didn't. But I bet you're having bags of fun putting words in my mouth and pretending that I said them, aren't you?

 

 

You think he is a sadhu only because he is no longer present. If he was living you would be criticizing him just like you criticize others in the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON.

 

 

Willing to bet money on it? Sorry, I forgot you don't gamble. Anyway, you're wrong again. If he was still present I would probably be his initiated devotee. Again, having fun responding to things that you think I am saying?

 

 

Why would you criticize him while living? Because while living he would call you a rascal to your face for suggesting that the Sarasvata line was not properly initiated.

 

 

So not only are you coxcombical enough to think you are some sort of intermediary for Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja and purport as if you can speak on his behalf, but you are wrong again. Perhaps he would be merciful enough to give a succint reply to my question. That is the function of a guru, remember? To answer the questions of the disciple.

 

 

What do you know about Gour Govinda Maharaj that makes you think he is a saint? Did you see some glowing jyothi coming out of his aura, or is it that from his teachings and conduct we know he is saintly?

 

 

Duh. I would have thought it was obvious.

 

 

Yet you reject his teachings and laugh at them as childish. Yes, GHari is right when he says such people that do this are poseurs. They pretend to respect a saint in name only, but laugh at their teachings.

 

 

Seems that your supposed psychic abilities to read into people's thoughts (unsuccessfully) is starting to spin out of control. If you were attentive, you'd know that I have posted sayings from Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja's books here and on other forums. Why would I do that if I laughed at his "childish" teachings. Why would I be associating (via email) with some of his senior and respected disciples?

 

 

If you think he is a realized saint then respect his teachings and realize he knows more than you - this is called humility, the first step in advancing in spiritual life.

 

 

I never claimed to know more that Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja. Do us all a favour and quit pretending to be some advanced know-it-all so much that you can authoritatively state what goes on in other people's minds when you don't even have a clue what people think, or what the meaning is behind what they say. You have a strange audacity to talk about humility (I think twice now) when you yourself are perhaps the greatest example of humility on this forum, calling people fools and what have you. Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror?

 

 

What? Your upset that this topic started when you started it? Some people are interested in gossip and rumor rather than hari-katha. For such people these types of discussions are really enjoyable.

 

 

Unbelievable. Do you even know how this issue started? Let me remind you: the appropriately-named Alpa-medhasa decided that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa-parampara was not enough "precedent" for a female diksa-guru, because apparently we should count the "superior" siksa-parampara. And then he proceeded to denigrate the diksa-parampara and a certain member of it. What? And you have a problem when people start to protest against Vaishnava-aparadha? I started this particular topic just so people will know of my own feelings about the Sarasvata-parampara. Apparently it hasn't done much good except to convince the already-convinced fanaticos here to lump me in the same category as "Demonico."

Hari-katha? Who are you trying to kid? Almost every thread in this forum has some sort of argument or disagreement going on within it. Perhaps only 'vedic Verses' and 'Krishna Talk' is free from that. And also, the very fact that you worded the above statement proves that you have not been listening to a single word that I have said. Exactly how many times have I stated that I have seen this particular diksa topic come up in various forums at least a million times, and how I do not want to discuss it again, especially with fanatics? If you were attentive, you'd know I've said this several times, and yet you keep trying to keep this issue going even though my successive posts have drifted off into different side-issues. It's obvious who finds this topic seriously enjoyable, and I don't think it's myself.

 

 

In July of 2001 you finally gave up your belief in Sai Baba.

 

 

I may have given up my belief in Sai Baba officially and consciously in 2001, but in truth I had given him up long before that; hence, 5 years since around 1998.

 

 

Anyone who follows the path of Srila Prabhupada knows Sai Baba is a fraud from day one. You want us to believe you were a seriously practicing devotee, studying the teachings of Srila Prabhupada for 27 years, yet you didn't have a clue when it came to following a cheater like Sai Baba.

 

 

Really? More proof that you haven't been listening to a single word that I have said, except perhaps the juicy parts that catch your attention. Didn't I say clearly that my involvement with ISKCON since my birth consisted largely of being a congregational devotee who only visited the temple as a pious duty? Oh sorry, please excuse me, I forgot that everyone who visits an ISKCON temple anywhere is a Gaudiya Vaishnava. "Karmis" and "fallen souls" never turn up. Therefore, it is more a case of coming to Srila Prabhupada after going through the wasteful experience of Sai Baba. Actually it was not a complete waste of time. I learnt several skills during those years, skills that are going to go a long way as I shall need them.

People like you will never know the dynamics of a destructive cult, and how difficult it is to get out of it. You have no clue about 'True Devotee Syndrome,' nor are you even familiar with general cult studies. You obviously do not even care about the emotional pain and torture people in this situation go through. All you can do is mock and ridicule. Seems to me that you are drawing too much from this issue with the purpose of mockery. Excuse me if I attempt to articulate what your thoughts are (I wouldn't want to do that), but I cannot help feeling that you are picking on this subject in order to mock me. "Oh look, you were so stupidly ignorant that you were stupid enough to get cheated by SB. You may be with Srila Prabhupada now but you're still stupid." Is that what you're trying to say? Oh, and by the way, here's a juicy tidbit for you: One of the reasons why I gave up believing in Sai Baba was because I read several statements by Srila Prabhupada about him. Oh yes, another juicy tidbit: there are several ISKCON devotees who are strong devotees of Sai Baba. I've seen them in Sai Baba's ashram, with their kanthi-malas, japamalas and tilaka, discussing the various meanings of the word 'RADHA' according to Sai Baba's teachings and wondering at the "marvel" of the contemporary "avatar." They were members of the Radha-Gopinatha mandir of Radhanatha Swami in Chowpatty, Mumbai. Makes your blood boil, doesn't it?

 

 

And for someone who just came to the actual teachings of Srila Prabhupada two years ago, you want to ridicule saintly people such as Sridhar Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja because they couldn't convince you about their parampara, and their teachings didn't make any sense.

 

 

Oh yes, still haven't been listening to what I have said previously? Where have I ridiculed Sridhar and Narayana Maharajas? What would you do without all those fantastic explanations from Gaudiya Math? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on, I'll bet.

 

 

You need to wake up and stop pretending your something your not.

 

 

Huh? Show me one statement from any of my previous postings on this subject implying that I am trying to be someone who I obviously am not? Or could you be honest enough to address the points instead of defeating strawmen?

 

 

You just don't have a clue about other sampradayas, nor our own - yet you want to pose yourself as someone who has studied these things in depth.

 

 

I certainly know a lot more than what I revealed in my previous posts. If you're seriously making attempts to guage people's knowledge through what they write on this forum, then you might as well pack up and go home for the evening. You obviously are a master of the art of defeating strawmen, so I think we can leave you alone to play with your strawmen. It's quite funny to see how you respond to things I never said or even meant. Perhaps you could do everyone a favour and read what people write before responding. Also, it would also be a good idea to write and re-write several drafts of your reply until you are sure that your reply is free from anger. You are having fun calling other people hotheads when the only hothead around here seems to be yourself.

 

 

As the famous saying goes, "you know a fool when he opens his mouth".

 

 

So before looking at yourself in the mirror, reading and re-reading what people write before you hotly hit the 'reply' button, and learn how not to defeat strawmen, it would first be a good idea to close your mouth. I didn't like your rudeness before and I don't like it now. "Humility."

 

In fact, I'm not interested in anything you have to say until I see evidence that you have carefully read my posts and are responding only to what I write and not what you think I mean. So, don't bother replying to this post until you learn some basic manners. Thank you.

Just change a couple of details, and that's my experience too! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Radhe!

In ISKCON (and Gaudiya Math?) we are taught that the practitioner must first begin with the practice of vaidhi-bhakti, which is following all the regulative principles. After practicing in this way, spontaneous devotion (raganuga-bhakti) will arise. Quotes from Srila Prabhupada may clarify this point:

 

"Regulative principles in devotional service are meant for those who have not invoked their natural love of Godhead. When natural love arises, all regulative methods are surpassed, and pure love is exhibited between the Lord

and the devotee." - CC Adi 4.26

 

"In the beginning one has to render service strictly according to the regulative principles set forth by the revealed scriptures and spiritual master. By continuously rendering service through the process of vaidhi bhakti, one's natural inclination is gradually awakened. That is called spontaneous attraction, or raganuga bhakti." - CC Madhya 22.153

 

This is also hinted at by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

 

"On the path of gradual development the person must take care to elevate himself to a higher level, no matter on which level he is situated. By good fortune it is the nature of the soul that gradually it elevates itself, but there are obstacles such that the soul may fail to reach the goal. Thus those who desire to reach a higher standard must always be conscious of that fact. In progressing from one level of life to another two things should be considered. A person should be firmly fixed in his present position in order to take a firm step forward. Then, in order to advance to a higher level, when one foot gives up the previous place, that foot must fix itself firmly in the higher place before the other foot can raise itself to the same level. Simultaneously, the person must give up the lower level and establish himself firmly in the higher level...The general characteristic of either gradual or sudden devotion is found in vaidhi bhakti: it is favorable cultivation of Krsna, with no desire other than the desire to nourish devotion itself, and it is uncontaminated by jnana or karma." Sri Caitanya Siksamrita, Chapter 3.

 

However, this seems to differ from the opinion of Srila Rupa Gosvami:

 

vaidhI-rAgAnugA-mArga-bhedena parikIrtitaH |

dvividhaH khalu bhAvo’tra sAdhanAbhinivezajaH ||

 

“The paths of vaidhi and raganuga are known to be separate from each other. Engagement in these two forms of practice certainly awakens two distinct varieties of bhava.” - Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.3.7

 

What are these two distinct forms of bhava?

 

vidhi-bhaktye pArSada-dehe vaikuNThete yAya ||

 

“Through vidhi-bhakti, one will attain the form of an associate in Vaikuntha.” - CC Madhya 2.24.87

 

rAga-bhaktye vraje svayaM-bhagavAne pAya ||

 

“Through raga-bhakti, one will attain the Lord Himself in Vraja.” - CC Madhya 2.24.85

 

sakala jagate more kare vidhi-bhakti |

vidhi-bhaktye vraja-bhAva pAite nAhi zakti ||

aizvarya-jJAnete saba jagat mizrita |

aizvarya-zithila-preme nAhi mora prIta ||

 

“Everyone in this world worships Me through vidhi-bhakti. Vidhi-bhakti has no power for attaining the feelings of Vraja. The devotion of the world is mixed with knowledge of My divine prowess. I do not delight in love diluted with prowess.” - CC Adi 3.15-16

 

 

This is also confirmed in Srila Prabhupada's translations of CC. How are to follow vidhi-bhakti first and then raganuga-bhakti, when Rupa Gosvami clearly states that these paths are separate and thus separately awakens two distinct varieties of bhava? Those who follow vidhi-bhakti will achieve Vaikuntha-bhava (CC Adi 3.17) and those who follow raganuga-bhakti will achieve Vraja-bhava (CC Madhya 8.221). So what is the logic and reasoning behind the other that we should follow vidhi-bhakti first and then raganuga later?

They say that rolling in the dust of Vraja and Navadvipa brings great results.

Dear Babhruji,

 

I forgot to mention this point. I also wanted to tell Audarya-lilaji in reply to his post, but I think I'll tell you in this post itself.

 

As you may have known, I have spent several days offline due to a disruptive change in ISPs. I decided to use this time to get on with some valuable personal projects. In this connection, I started reading some of Jagatji's old articles that I had almost forgottem about. I found this very interesting quote in the article which I would like your comments upon. What do you think?

 

 

"The worst enemy in the mind of the Gaudiya Math is, not surprisingly, the traditional world of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, because they broke away from this world and are so often forced to defend themselves against the accusation that they do not genuinely represent the Chaitanya Vaishnava tradition. This is the same reason that Iskcon has to worry about the Gaudiya Math, which can always claim that Iskcon does not purely represent the traditions of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati."

 

 

Dear Babhruji, thanks for your points.

 

 

Another implication that has been made along the way is that because some (many) in such a parampara aren't initiated by the previsous link, they haven't been properly initiated. Not so. We know, for example, that Bhaktivinoda Thakura was initiated, as was Gaura-kishora. The same holds for all members.

 

 

I don't remember saying anything to that effect, but let me clarify something in these regards. I don't say that none of the Acharyas in the Sarasvata-parampara have not been properly initiated; I am saying that they have not been initiated by each other. After all, I understand that the tradition since the time of Mahaprabhu has been to take diksa into the sampradaya, and to trace respective paramparas according to these diksa connections. It seems that in the Sarasvata-parampara presented by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, not only have the Acharyas listed therein not initiated each other in turn, but some of them never even met each other. If diksa is not important in this siksa-parampara, then how can siksa be important either? How can siksa be "passed" from a guru to a disciple who never met each other?

I am aware that Srila Bhaktivinoda was initiated as was Srila Gaura-kishora. But Srila Bhaktivinoda never initiated Srila Gaura-kisora in any way, did he?

 

Dear Babhruji, I appreciate your points and I admire your ways of speech. I sincerely hope that soemthing fruitful can be born out of this conversation.

Dear Audarya-lilaji, thanks for your points.

 

 

All the mantras that he/she gives to the disciple are available in written form - so if it is just a matter of chanting the correct mantra - that's available for any and all.

 

 

I remember reading somewhere (from a reputable Gaudiya Vaishnava source) that reciting mantras as learned from books will not take effect since the mantra has to be received from the guru. What do you think of that? This is probably also the meaning of the 'sampradaya vihina ye' verse. The mantra has to be passed down by a guru in sampradaya.

 

I was simply reporting the character of your entire group which you claim comprises 90% of Gaudiyas. You were not singled out among that group of poseurs.

 

 

You seem to be pretty sure of my affiliation with a particular Gaudiya sampradaya. Evidently you haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying. I am not affiliated with any branch of Gaudiyas, officially. I take my inspiration and learning from Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON.

Aside from that, it is a fact that there is much more to Gaudiya Vaishnavism than ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha. Say what you like about this, but that does not change the fact. There are also hundred and thousands of Gaudiya Vaishnavas out there as well, who have no connection to Gaudiya Math and ISKCON. I suppose they are all sahajiyas and rascals and no benefit will come from their association?

Poseurs? So now you are insulting Vaishnavas, many of whom you may not personally know?

 

 

However, for presenting such offenses in a public forum like you have done I report that you are indeed much much lower, and that your spiritual life has ended or rather it never began since it has all been mental arrogance and self-aggrandizement since day one. Such offenses are never forgiven by Sri Krsna.

 

 

That's really between Krishna and me, and you are not a middleman to report what is going on. Frankly I feel a sense of relief after speaking my mind. Interestingly, the quality of my chanting also seems to have risen dramatically. This is my experience.

 

 

It is a disgrace that you use that name and sad picture to represent yourself. The sooner Krsna removes it from my sight the better.

 

 

So not do you freely insult Vaishnavas, but now you are starting to insult the name and face of Mahaprabhu Himself?

 

 

I have tasted the pudding and no poseur is going to concoct such lies in my presence. How did they become so arrogant?

 

 

Good for you. I do not know why "they" became arrogant. Who is "they"? Can you please specify who you are addressing or are you simply interested in making blanket condemnations about people who you don't know and haven't bothered to listen to?

 

With your solid two years of practicing Krishna consciousness you seem to think a lot of yourself and little of others.

 

 

I remember stating at various times that I began to study Krishna Consciousness since 1998 or so. That makes 5 years. Rack up a casual knowledge of KC since my very birth and you have an additional 27 years, give-or-take. Where did you get the figure 'two' from? I don't think that it is very intelligent to judge somebody's "spiritual advancement" based on how many years they have spent in Krishna Consciousness. A bhakta who has been distributing books on the street for a week can have far more realization than a twice-initiated devotee who seems to be only interested in where his next big meal of prasadam is coming from. Believe me, I've seen it happen.

As for thinking little of others, I don't remember making any statement to that effect. I tend to condemn blind belief in any form, in any philosophy, in any religion, in any sphere I see it, and that includes material spheres too. In this context I don't think it is right for people to blindly believe in something as important as a crucial spiritual concept. The reason is that spiritual life is perhaps the most important asset of all and thus we cannot afford to compromise ourselves in this regard.

 

 

Simply because something doesn't make sense to you does not mean it is illogical or incorrect. Trigonometry doesn't make sense to a child in the first grade. Continue studying with humility and everything will become clear. You are carrying too many misconceptions and you assume you know more than you actually do.

 

 

You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about my level of knowledge considering that I am sure you do not possess any psychic abilities whatsoever. Neither do I believe you are in any position of authority to comment on someone's level of knowledge when you clearly have no idea how much knowledge a person has. In this way, isn't that a little grandiose in itself? How would you know if I am in "first grade" or "fifth grade" or "Post graduate" for that matter? It just seems pretty grandiose to me when somebody comments on other people's learning.

 

 

Undertake a systematic study of the Gita and Bhagavatam, preferably under a sadhu, and things will become clear.

 

 

In fact, I have decided to re-read BG and SB several weeks ago. In fact, I think I will tackle the CC yet again when I finish. As for sadhus, great, where are the sadhus? I am looking for one. As far as I know, the last great accessible sadhu was Srimad Gour Govinda Swami Maharaja. Now that he has left this world, who do I turn to?

Gita and Bhagavatam, ah! Whose translation do I read?

 

See what I mean? It's easy to make a point, but it's not always as easy to come up with straight answers.

Haribol! The problems with my ISP are over, I can now view this forum from home again. For some reason, I was not notified of replies to my recent posts despite that I have enabled that function, so please excuse me if I have replied very late.

 

 

Gaurasundara, It may be that you alieniated some with some heavy statements on another thread. I don't think that was your intention.

 

 

Dear Theist, thank you for your kind comments. Please believe me when I say I never intended to cause any friction. That is why I decided to rejoin this forum with another identity and picture so that I may be a quiet observer and maybe post from time to time. Unfortunately I saw some denigratory statements on the Urmila thread and responded to them, and thus a big bonfire erupted. In retrospect, I guess I can see how my statements seemed harsh and I certainly apologise for that. However, I think that this standard can be equally applied to all and for all.

 

I agree with everythign else you have said in toto, and would just like to comment on this final point:

 

 

I would suggest slowing down a bit and really reviewing JNdas' points to you in another post. Consider those points in an open way and I feel you will see the answer there.

 

 

Thanks. I have seen those points been made dozens of times and on several occasions I think I refuted some of them. Suffice to say, I don't think that these points are an answer to the problem. I think I may comment again on those points (o some of them) but right now I have no plans to do so, because frankly, I'm rather upset of this topic arising again and again. Please take care of yourself.

Apparently there is nothing in the writings of the Goswamis or the previous Acharyas to suggest that jivas fell from Krsna's abode.

 

What? Good manners? You call the lineage presented by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati a lie and a fabrication and you say that there is evidence presented by a scholar that he was never properly initiated and you want to now talk about ettiquete or manners?

 

 

Dear Audarya-lilaji, even though we have disagreed in the past about some issues, I've always respected you in secret as a mature, thoughtful considerate gentlemanly devotee. But I am sorry to say, you are really accusing me of things that I never said. In your previous post in the 'Urmila' thread, you also accused me of being a slanderer : "Thank you for defending our lineage and it's dignity from the slander posted by Gaurasundara...For Gaurasundara - I thought you were through with slandering devotees. Now you want to brand the entire Saravata lineage as bogus. Wow!" - Please show me just one place in any of my postings where I have slandered anybody or anything, including Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Srila Bhaktivinoda, Srila Prabhupada, and whoever else. Just one place where I have slandered everyone and everything. I think you will find that it is impossible, wouldn't you agree? So then you will have to admit that you have wrongly accused me of slander when it is clear that I have not.

Now, I suppose the thing that you found objectionable would be my statement(s) about how the Sarasvata parampara is fabricated. Well, it is. Considering that we are led to believe that all of the gurus therein initiated each other and how it has been the tradition on the Gaudiya lineages to always initiate, you cannot seriously expect me to believe this of the Sarasvata parampara? For a start, some of those Acharyas never even met each other. I don't remember saying anything about "evidence presented by a scholar," but it is true that Shukavak das has written a well-researched book all about Srila Bhaktivinoda. His diksa-patra is contained there as well. People like alpa-medhasa are expecting me to compare this groundbreaking work with the heavily criticised Rupa-vilasa work that is nothing more than a hagiography. Heavily criticised by senior ISKCON sannyasis of course, whose names I am not at liberty to give.

"BTW, are you going to provide any evidence about some of the things you said or shall we just accept them becuase you said them? For instance you challenged that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur always presented his lineage with BBV as his Guru even after accepting siksha from Jaggannatha dasa babaji. Where is the proof of this statement? (this is just one example of the type of statement of fact without evidence that you have argued is unacceptable in the case of alpa-medasa - do you want a different standard used when it comes to your good self?)"

Audarya-lilaji, you have been around in these forums much longer than I have. You should have seen these sort of topics come up repeatedly at least a million times or more, if not that. As for the example of Bhaktivinoda-Jagannatha, the proof rests in Bhaktivinoda's own diksa-patra. Bhaktivinoda presented this diksa-patra to his son, who presented it to our very own Jagat, who will present it to his own disciple should he ever choose to initiate. Hence, the disciplic successions goes on via initiation. There is no proof that Bhaktivinoda considered Jagannatha das Babaji as his "later guru" even though alpa-medhasa would have us believe his imaginary speculations. The quote provided that shows Bhaktivinoda's praise of Jagannatha as his "guru" refers to his being Bhaktivinoda's siksa-guru. This is not in dispute. Everyone knows that Jagannatha das Babaji was the siksa-guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda. Unfortunately, Alpa-medhasa would have us believe his speculations that Srila Bhaktivinoda "quietly rejected" his guru and "quietly accepted" a new one. This sort of speculation is inadmissible.

Please remember how this discussion came about. Babhru das posted Bhaktivinoda's guru-lineage to show precedent that there were female gurus at least in Bhaktivinoda's line. Alpa-medhasa thinks that no one should accept Bhaktivinoda's line as genuine because "Bhaktisiddhanta said so" and that Vipin Vihari Goswami is not bonafide. Well, considering the nature of the topic (female diksa-gurus) I think it would be safe to say that no one cares about Alpa-medhasa's point. The fact of the matter is that there is and were female gurus in the Gaudiya line. Everything else is just a childish clinging to some unproved facts. It's safe to say that Alpa-medhasa started this whole affait by denigrating and continuing to denigrate Bhaktivinoda's diksa like. More, he has been joined by several others. I protest against this because I do not like to see any Vaishnava slandered. Certainly Vipin Vihari Goswami was a bona fide Vaishnava since he was specifically chose by Mahaprabhu.

 

 

I applaud you for sharing your personal history and your personal philosophical issues.

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

You don't find the writings of Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja or any other Guru in the Sarasvati lineage acceptable - so where does that leave you? You will have to find your fortune elsewhere. Yours is an unfortunate dilemna to say the least.

 

 

Sorry, but I don't think so. First of all, the explanations provided by those respectable acharyas don't make any sense (what bhagavata? what pancaratra?) and do not take into account the simple fact that parivaras from Mahaprabhu's time have been diksa-only. Why is that? And why a sudden change to siksa? What does that prove?

 

 

You are left with the very real possibility of thinking that Srila Prabhupada is a good man and was successful to an extent, but for real suddha bhakti you will have to go somewhere else. There are some who believe this and you apparently are being influenced by their association. My feeling is that it is most unfortunate for you. I feel very badly for you.

 

 

Thanks very much for your kind concern, but I don't think my opinion necessitates my exit at any state. Can you please clarify what exactly you mean by "outside" ? As far as I know, you have always stated that you are a disciple of Tripurari Maharaja and thus you will not be in ISKCON, so where is the question of "outside?" I am not being influenced by anybody's association; I am simply finding the courage within me to state something that I have known practically from the very beginning of my Gaudiya study; that the Sarasvata lineage is not a successive lineage. What is the big problem with that? It is a fact.

If there is a perfectly rational explanation for why the Sarasvata parampara does not follow the usual traditions of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, then Iw ill accept it. Until then, I am bound by my conscience not to place any undue belief in unproved statements.

 

 

You mentioned the idea that one must be in a parivara that goes back directly to the associates of Mahaprabhu. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati taught his disciples to explain to those who asked to which parivara they belonged that they were in the Bhaktivinoda Parivara. Srila Bhaktivinoda is known as the seventh Goswami for a reason and it was the firm conviction of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta that he was a direct associate of Mahaprabhu.

 

 

I didn't say that one must be in a direct parivara. I said that it has been the tradition from Mahaprabhu's time to initiate disciples directly. There is not a single instance of "siksa initiation" in the Gaudiya lineage until the time of Bhaktisiddhanta. So I would like to know, why the change? What does it prove? What is it meant for?

Interesting that you provide Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's comments in this regard; "Bhaktivinoda parivara." That would mean that the GM/ISKCON would be descended from Vipin Vihari Goswami's line, right? After all, parivara means "family." Since the parivaras are descended from Mahaprabhu, it would be logical to state that GM/ISKCON acharyas are descended from Bhaktivinoda/VVG. Except that Bhaktivinoda didn't initiate Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. By the way, who said that Srila Bhaktivinoda was the Seventh Goswami?

As for being a direct associate of Mahaprabhu, anyone can achieve this. When the sadhaka attains perfection, and if he has worshipped both Krishna and Mahaprabhu, then he will attain two spiritual bodies; one in Vraja and one in Navadvipa. In the Navadvipa siddha-deha, one usually attains the form of a young brahmin boy and takes part in sankirtana-lila (so I've heard). In the Vraja siddha-deha, one attains the form of a young manjari and serves Sri Sri Radha-Krishna. Srila Bhaktivinoda certainly attained this.

 

 

Again, I think it is good that you shared your feelings here - but you are also very much unapproachable at this point and you seem to have made up your mind.

 

 

Please don't feel like that. I am not unapproachable at all and am quite open to hearing other people's views so long as they do not contain invective. After all, we are all trying to be some sort of Vaishnava and iridescent name-calling doesn't satisfy anybody.

 

 

At some point you will have to use your intelligence to reconcile the fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was entrusted with the Yoga pitha by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur and was also instructed to institute daivi varnashrama and to spread KC world wide. He set the stage and made the adjustments neccesary for the fulfillment of those orders.

 

 

Exactly. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was instructed to preach about davi-varnasrama by Srila Bhaktivinoda, in spite of the fact that varnasrama-dharma was not observed in the Gaudiya tradition before them. I have no problem with this. In fact, I'm researching it right now. However, what "adjustments" are you referring to? I think the question of initiation is a very important one and should not be adjusted. It is well-known how important initiation is on one's spiritual life. Why has that been adjusted?

As for what you say about Neal Delmonico, I am in full agreement with you on that point. Not only is he extremely scurrilous and offensive, but he does not seem to have any semblance of politeness as well. I have read his e-zone but I do not take much of the things he says very seriously. However, he has raised some very important issues, I think.

 

 

 

Even though you probably won't listen to this or, actually more likely you will find it foolish and intellectual 'boring',

 

 

Please don't misunderstand my statements in the way they were not intended. I was simply stating that the "explanations" that I have been hearing are repetitive with no end in sight, so how will this argument ever end. Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated? Isn't it annoying to hear something repeated?

See what I mean? I don't like repetition. New evidence or something different, sure, but not the same old arguments.

 

 

I want to remind you that there are many lineages and the Gurus representing those lineages have many disciples - but guess what? Most of them are not qualified to pass on KC to others in a substantial way because they have made little progress themselves.

 

 

May I ask who you are talking about, and how do you know they have made little progress?

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was against the idea that the form was most important - and that is why he stressed substance over form and why he made the adjustments he did.

 

 

What do you mean specifically by "form" and "substance"? I don't even see how this is even relevant to the diksa issue. If the confidential mantras are passed on from guru to disciple, that is basically the rite of diksa, and if the disciple chants those mantras, he will make spiritual progress by the power of chanting those mantras. What else needs to be done, except perhaps for the disciple to initiate disciples in turn and pass the mantras on? Of course there is much more to spiritual progress such as hearing of hari-katha, chanting, seva, etc, but I am talking about diksa-mantras though.

 

 

For real spiritual life one must be a very qualified disciple - something that is usually overlooked in the external search that many feel is the genuine search for Sri Guru.

 

 

Yes I am in full agreement with you here. This is why the Hari-bhakti-vilasa advises a one-year period (at least) for the guru and disciple to "check out" each other. It is also true that there are unworthy gurus and unworthy disciples who may more or less be in the business of cheating people, but I don't think that is a generalisation that one should apply to everyone who is not affiliated with the Sarasvata parampara. There are genuine spiritual Gaudiya lines out there, believe it or not. Srila Prabhupada's achievements were supremely fantastic not to mention unprecedented. However, it worries me when people use his achievements as "evidence" of his superiority over others. As if Mahaprabhu has not empowered anyone else.

 

Thanks for your kind post. I enjoyed reading it and will look forward to your reply. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Only insincere shallow morons have the brass to have any sort of opinions outside of those held by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. And that, is the truth.

 

 

Well, what more can I say? Congratulations for alienating around 90% of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas who do not care for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati or Srila Prabhupada.

 

And there are people who say I am a fanatic!

 

 

Get a life. Buy some humility. Steal some. Just get off your high horse and get real. I'm sick of it all.

 

 

Would you expect me to follow your example. I'm awfully sorry, but this is something you're just going to have to get used to. And you would also be advised not to have complete disresepct fotr the opinions of other people. And when I specifically asked people to have some basic etiquette and not abuse/insult me, you have done exactly the opposite by referring to me as a moron. Gee, thanks. I can add that to my long list of insults.

 

Gaurasundara repeatedly states that the opinions of others like JNdas are "lacking in common sense,betray an appalling lack of knowledge of Gaudiya siddhanta," etc. I am not a member of ISKCON, but noting some of the evidence presented by them, I am rather tempted to believe the reverse. At the very least, I don't see that some of the more vocal opponents of his are lacking in knowledge of siddhAnta or shAstra. Furthermore, I can't help but note the accusations Gaurasundara flings at his opponents (accusing them of insulting him and so forth), even though he himself makes remarks like "snootiness" and "boring me to tears" in regards to them. I find this somewhat hypocritical, as I would expect one to treat others with respect before one started to demand it for oneself.

 

 

Excuse me for not replying for several days. I have recently changed my ISP and there have been some problems. I am writing from the local library right now.

I think it is precisely because you do not know Gaudiya siddhanta very well, that is why you are tempted to believe in the explanations from those who do not know it very well. Suffice to say, I myself might have believed those "explanations" before but I do not now because to do so would be to believe blindly which was the whole point of my long previous post. I don't believe in such explanations and neither do I believe that one should accept such explanations blindly. As for hypocrisy, perhaps you may care to note that upon affirming my opinion that I do not accept the Sarasvata parampara as a diksa lineage, I was immediately labelled as a fanatic, slanderer, nonsensical and some other choice epithets. To retort back with "snooty" is not actually that bad, considering that most of the replies were snooty.

 

Main Entry: snooty

Pronunciation: 'snü-tE

Function: adjective

Inflected Form(s): snoot·i·er; -est

1919

1 : looking down the nose : showing disdain <snooty people who won't speak to their neighbors>

2 : characterized by snobbery <a snooty store>

 

I find it highly interesting the amount of abuse I get just because I express a view that doesn't "jive" with the way other people think. Talk about fanaticism, it is a cultish trait to "demonise" such people.

 

 

Regarding (1), he has not presented any specifics, so I'm not sure who he is referring to as out of sequence.

 

 

All of them, with perhaps the exception of Bhaktisiddhanta-Bhaktivedanta.

 

 

Regarding (2), JNdas and others have given very intersting responses regarding the nature of dIksha which seemed a perfectly reasonable defense. Thus far, I have not seen a response by Gaurasundara

 

 

Probably because, as I have been repeating endlessly, I am not interested in getting into arguments with blind believers who do not know the facts about parampara. This whole argument was born out of some bigoted statements that Bhaktivinoda's diska-parampara is not a precedent for female diksa-gurus because the male-oriented "siksa-parampara" of Bhaktivinoda is taken as more important. I disagree with such a bigoted and chauvinistic view. The simple fact is; Bhaktivinoda had a diksa-parampara which had women in it. In fact, more or less all Gaudiya paramparas have women in them. There is enough Gaudiya precedent (never mind Vedic) for Urmila to become a diksa-guru so long as she is qualified for the position. All the other argument is simply to show that the modern-day Sarasvatas are in no position to criticise other people's paramparas when there are enough unexplainable anomalies in their own.

 

 

Looking back at what Gaura said about himself, I couldn't help but note that he was swayed by mAyAvAdi teachings in spite of his association with GaudIya VaiShNavas. It was especially interesting to note that the mAyAvAdi who so caught hold of his imagination was none other than Sai Baba. Sai Baba philosophy is not terribly intelligent, as we all no doubt know.

 

 

It may not be terribly intelligent for you, but it is very intelligent to the millions of SB devotees who know no better. You cannot blame me for being "swayed" by impersonalists when it is all around. By the way, I was not very much attracted to SB's teachings. They were dry and boring to read, I used to avidly read accounts of his "miracles" and other people's experiences of him.

 

 

Therefore, Gaura's history suggests that despite a professed interest in knowing shAstric conclusions, he can nevertheless be swayed by the views of a charismatic religionist even when they lack shAstric backing. Certainly he has done this once with Sai Baba. It seems quite possibly that something similar has happened here - another charismatic individual who also has doubts regarding the BhaktivedAnta paramparA has influenced Gaurasundara - whether it was before he had the doubts or after that fact and simply solidfying them.

 

 

Not really, you're far off the mark here. I've already explained that I visited ISKCON temples not as a "Gaudiya Vaishnava," but rather as a "devout Hindu." I was basically a spiritual and religios individual who went to the temple every Sunday as a pious duty, just like Christians go to Church and Muslims go to Mosques. I didn't know much of Gaudiya siddhanta except their "strange" ideas (Krishna is above Vishnu, etc) and other things. There was no "sastric backing" given to me anywhere. After all, are you proposing that everyone who vists an ISKCON temple, especially for the free food, is a Gaudiya Vaishnava? Certainly not. It is obvious that people come to the temple simply to participate in the services as a pious duty, if not for the free food. I was like that, a devout Hindu coming to the temple as a religious duty. So what if I went to the Sunday school? We were only taught stories about Prahlada Maharaja, Dhruva Maharaja, and other "moral" tales, as well as rehearsing for dramas all the time. I certainly didn't learn any heavy siddhanta in there.

As for "another charismatic individual influencing me," where is he? I certainly don't see anyone around trying to feed stuff into my brain? Rather, this is the result of simple research that I knew by instinct right from the very beginning. If you are talking about the diksa issue in particular, then you'll be aware from my first post in this thread that I knew that there were anomalies in the Sarasvata parampara right from the beginning, except that I didn't have enough knowledge at that time to verify this. I do now, and it's just something that the Sarasvata-followers will have to get used to. And erm, try to keep the condescension low, OK?

 

 

It also seems to me that there are some latent feelings of guilt and possibly hostility in Gaura's thinking. Guilt in himself for having been swayed by an obvious mAyAvAdi imposter like Sai Baba, and hostility towards ISKCON devotees for having beliefs which he previously thought were wrong.

 

 

You're completely off the beaten track now. You make it sound as if I boiled with anger every time I set foot in an ISKCON temple. That's simply not true. The simple fact is that I didn't know who Srila Prabhupada was. It was never presented to me that he was a guru, a saint, or what-have-you. As far as anyone explained to me, he was a man who went around the world opening Krishna temples and writing books. Fine, but why worship a man? And such strange teachings, Krishna higher than Vishnu, etc. All this didn't bother me, it is simply a case of non-interest. No anger anywhere.

 

 

It appears to me that at least some of his doubts have been explained away to a reasonable standard, but I suspect that none of them will be explained away to his satisfaction. I have seen this phenomenon before - where some mAyAvAdi guy holds a grudge against ISKCON devotees for having anti-mAyAvAdi ideas, only to later lose faith in mAyAvAda and gain faith in ISKCON - but then they change the nature of the grudge into something else!

 

 

Certainly my questions have not been answered to my satsifaction, primarily because the answers make no sense at all when considering the history of the Gaudiya tradtion. Also, you might be advised not to compare me with anyone else you may have met. It's a well known fact that everyone is an individual and thus they all have different inclinations for a particular type of philosophy. And don't forget to include the process of change as well. Unless of course, you propose that I should remain stuck at a certian level of intellectual growth forever?

 

 

Another possibility is that Gaura feels a sense of anger towards ISKCON devotees because he feels that they did not adequately present their conclusions properly, thus leading to his being misled by Sai baba. This also a common failing of neophyte seekers - they blame someone else for the choices they make in life. This would also explain why Gaura maintains so much hostility against ISKCON devotees and anyone else who believes in the BhaktivedAnta paramparA. It's his way of "getting back" at them for their inability to prevent him from falling away.

 

 

So now not only am I fanatic, a slanderer, a nonsense, a rascal, a bounder, but I am a neophyte as well. Thank you! But again, you're wrong. Where did you get the idea that I blame anyone for following SB? I don't blame anyone for that and I'm pretty sure that I didn't make any statement to that effect in my previous post. I suggest you pay attention to what I actually say instead of speculating about what I might be saying. The idea is that I simply need to clear away the unfounded rubbish that has been indoctrinated in my brain by unscrupulous persons. And who says I am "falling away" from ISKCON? I am as devoted as ever before. Only yesterday I paid a visit to the temple. There was only one devotee who was serving the maha-prasadam after the bhoga-arati and I felt upset that only he had to handle it while I wait in line for my serving. So I decided to go and wash my hands and help him out. The experience satisfied me, I think it was the first time that I have served mahaprasadam on plates properly. Oh yes, and then one senior devotee who has known me since I was young asked if I could help with an upcoming mailout. While I was doing that, I caught up with some old friends and discussed Srimad-bhagavatam with them. Would I do all that if I was filled with hatred and boiling with anger ultra-fanatical as everyone makes me out to be?

 

 

All very interesting.

 

 

I'm sure it was. Now perhaps I may ask you a few questions:

 

1 - Who are you?

 

2 - What does "UGP" stand for?

 

3 - Why do you feel the need to psychoanalyse me?

 

4 - Why do you feel the need to psychoanalyse me incorrectly?

 

5 - While psychoanalysing me, why are you talking in the third person rather than to me directly? I am here, after all.

 

6 - Why are you obsessively focusing on a part of my life that is closed and has little or no relevance to my discussion of the diksa issue?

 

7 - If you are unsure about something I said, why not ask me for clarification instead of suspecting what I meant to say and publishing that?

 

I am curious as to what sort of "mAyAvAdi" Gaurasundara found himself attracted to, despite being more or less raised in the company of GaudIya VaiShNavas. He is trying to give us a sense for where he is coming from, but he omits this detail.

 

 

Sorry for the omittance. I just didn't think it was necessary to elaborate on that part of my life since I was mostly writing about my evolution of thought on the parampara issue. The answer, though, has just been given in a previous post. It was Sai Baba.

 

 

Putting on the psychoanalyst cap for a minute, I suspect there is more there in what he omits which is responsible for his current thinking than even he lets on. Probably even he isn't aware of the influence. But I for one would like to know more about what he has been doing with mAyAvAdis for 10 years, now that he suddenly came out of the closet, so to speak, to express all these doubts.

 

 

Please feel free to discuss what you think about SB's influence on my life now. Although I've consciously got rid of all influences except a few pending matters, I'm open to any ideas. Though I must say that I have not "suddenly" come out. I was previously known here as "Vaishnava_das108" before I changed to 'Gaurasundara,' and I recall talking about SB too when the subject ame out. So there is nothing 'sudden' about this topic really.

 

 

I'm also not really clear on what his thesis is. Is he saying there are problems (regarding sequentialism) with the BhaktivedAnta paramparA and challenging us to disprove him? Or is he sure that the problem is there and is simply expressing himself? Why would he need to express his doubts publicly unless he is inviting someone to debunk them? Or is he expressing his doubt because he would feel better refuting anyone who doubts his doubts?

 

 

I don't know if you know this, but pages 5-10 of the "Urmila" thread led to a side-argument about the diksa of Bhaktivinoda. To simplify the matter, the Sarasvata parampara is not sequential as I (we?) have been led to believe. I do not agree for the various speculative "explanations" that have been presented to explain or defend the lack of sequence, precisely beause they are so far off the mark that it simply has to be red to be believed. Feel free to refute my ideas if you want to, but I'm not really interested in challenging anyone to disprove them. As I repeatedly said, these 'dead horse' of these issues have been 'flogged' again and again with no end in sight, so much so that the result is plain boredom. JNDas' "arguments" are a simple example of the snootiness in defense that just leaves me shedding tears of boredom. After all, I was and still am extremely offended that there is a class of people who slander Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru in order to present the superiority of his siksa-guru. I'm not saying that Jagannatha das Babaji was not superior, just that I disagree with such mind-numbing arrogance. Why did I want to express my feelings in this thread? Mainly because, as usual, people started labelling me as nonsensical and slanderer, and so on. Predictable. I'm still waiting to receive the honour of 'Rascal Number One.' Also, some close devotee friends here wrote to me in a worried mood asking me to clarify my feelings and if anything was wrong. Also, I think writing it was a sort of purification for me. Now that I've got it out, I definitely feel a lot better.

 

 

What would be the purpose in remaining steadfast in the idea of an illogical paramparA if he himself believes there is nothing else for him?

 

 

I have and still do feel the mercy of Srila Prabhupada guiding my life. He sometimes appears in my dreams, and there are inconceivable "coincidences" of mercy that are still happening in my life. It was my birthday on Tuesday. I went to my local temple to see Radha-Krishna around the time of bhoga-arati (that's around 12.30pm right?) and I participated in the kirtan there. I was not expecting anything at all, but out of the blue the kirtaniya later gave me an entire plate of succulent maha-prasad. Was that a great birthday present from Them or what! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am still continuing as before. I go to the temple on Sundays (and whenever else I can), help out with some seva there, take caranamrta, see the Deities, eat prasad, do my japa, read my books, and do on. I still bow before Srila Prabhupada and the Deities asking Them to be merciful and send me a bona-fide guru. I am waiting for an explanation for the "inconsistencies" of the Sarasvata parampara. Perhaps the bona-fide guru will be able to answer them satisfactorily.

 

 

He states that he does not know the answers to his questions, yet he seems quite sure that no one else does. He seems quite judgemental of "modern-day Sarasvatas" though he himself seems to excuse himself from judgement.

 

 

"No one else does." Well, they have answers alright but I just do not agree with those answers. Why? Because they betray an appalling lack of knowledge regarding Gaudiya siddhanta, not to mention being devoid of even simple commonsense. As I said, everytime this subject has been discussed the same arguments and the same refutations have been provided until it all descends into a teary mess of complete boredom. Of course everyone leaves the arena feeling all self-righteous and proud of their views and holding very fast to those deeply-held views but I find that there is a lack of real knowledge. Real knowledge, in the sense that everybody seems to be interested in "proving" their points seemingly without any care for the actual truth. Well, I decided to express my real feelings in an attempt to free myself of this mental conditioning of suppressing my feelings out of a fear of ostracisation, etc. I don't believe that I should be forced to believe in something blindly, I think it is a duty to at least check it out. I have my own brain and I must use it. I have also received the opportunity to be born in the human form of life and it is my sacred duty to make use of it, to get out of the samsara and to be with Radha and Krishna in Vraja which is my desire. I'd rather achieve this goal than to hold fast to some dogmatic beliefs that won't do anything for me. Again I'll say, if you think that I am excusing myself from "judgement" please feel free to question/challenge anything I've said. Just please don't expect me to get into a war about it, that's all. Too much war makes a person sick.

 

 

who again is the mAyAvAdi guru who so caught hold of his imagination, diverting him away from Krishna-consciousness, and that too for a whole 10 years? Indeed, I can't help but note that he repeatedly reaffirms his allegiance to Srila Prabhupada, as if to deflect any possible criticism that will come at him.

 

 

Well, this needs clarification. When I say that I was 'practically born in ISKCON,' it really means just that, I have been associated with ISKCON since my very birth. I am actually what is referred to as a 'congregational member.' The local ISKCON temple was the first 'outside' place I was taken to after I was released from hospital after my birth. It's also quite possible that I saw the Deities there, although I do not remember! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I went there almost every Sunday of my life, attended the Sunday School, associated with devotees, saw the Deities, ate prasad, etc.

 

Unfortunately it seems that I was a victim of the very qualities that I now condemn. I held fast to some beliefs that had their basis in sentiment and not fact. At that age, I was taught some basic beliefs about "Hinduism," like that Brahma Vishnu and Shiva are the three main Gods and that Brahman is superior to them and we have to merge in Brahman. Oh yes, and let's not forget that Krishna is NOT supreme, but that He is the eight avatar of Vishnu. So all that time, I couldn't help thinking that I was right and that all those devotees were wrong in thinking that Krishna is supreme. Nice that they were worshipping Krishna, but they were still wrong. I'll tell you something else. I didn't even know who Srila Prabhupada was. Though his murti is at the back of the temple room and I saw people bowing down to him, I was just aware of the fact that he FOUNDED this movement. It was never presented to me that he was an actual guru who had disciples and was a great saint and all. As far as I was concerned, he was just an ordinary man who went around the world opening temples of Krishna. And because Srila Prabhupada had been teaching these people "wrong" ideas about Hindu ideas, I felt resentment towards him. This was what I meant when I said that in my early years I had committed severe offenses towards Srila Prabhupada and that I beg forgiveness from him for such appalling ignorance. Thankfully, I have received some assurances that perhaps I may be releived though I am still not sure. Vaishnava-aparadha is a powerful thing indeed! Had I been receptive, I never would have had to wait until 1998 for his mercy to fully 'hook' me. So much time I wasted.

So to get back to your question, because I was a victim of my strongly-held incorrect beliefs, I fell under the sway of the Sai Baba movement. It seemed a nice alternative to the "suffocating" ISKCON, where any path you follow will help you reach the one God, etc., as opposed to the fact that "you can only follow the Hare Krishna path or else!" I suppose those were the days of fanatical preaching within ISKCON during the Zonal Acharya era, and this accounted for why so many were turned off. When I look back at that 10-year period in retrospect, considering what I now know about God, spirituality, etc., I think 'Jeesh! How could I have been so foolish to fall for that rubbish!'

And that's exactly the reason why I praise Srila Prabhupada very highly. I always have and I always will, precisely because he rescued me from the 'rubbish' that I got unwittingly entangled in. I really feel like that.

 

Gaurasundara

 

P.S. I said at the start that I may reply to the replies of JNDas and Audarya-lila etc who replied within the Urmila thread, when I have more energy. I've now decided not to do so, simply because the arguments there are so painfully weak that it would be a sheer waste of time to reply to. Besides that, I am not in a mood to respond to abuse and insults levelled by so-called "Vaishnavas" who certainly need to learn some good manners.

 

Is it a succesion of bodies born in the same family one after another?

 

Is it a succession of formaly initiated people who may or may not have realized Krsna or not?

 

Or is it really something more subtle, a line of souls who have realized transcendental knowledge.

 

Of course the later might be separted by material time and space which would seem significant from our conditioned perspective but what meaning would time and space considerations have from the perspective of someone who has transcended their grip?

 

 

Dear Theist, you ask very good questions and I admire how you think deeply about things. Though I must say that at this point I just simply do not know. Your questions are required to be answered by someone who has personal realisation and a deep understanding of Gaudiya guru-tattva. All I know is that I (we?) are expected to believe that the Sarasvata parampara as presented by Srila Prabhupada in BG is meant to be a direct disciplic succession of gurus. We now know that this is untrue.

As far as I know, diksa-paramparas in Gaudiya Vaishnavism are supposed to be direct connections leading all the way up to the personal associates of Mahaprabhu. The reason for this is very simple and also complex, and the reason why certain people do not 'get it' is because they are obviously ignorant of this reason. About being realized, I have no clue about this and it is one that I have been thinking about myself.

 

I'm just curious as to what mayavadi movement that was. Since you are telling your life story, I hope you will forgive me my curiosity for wandering what mayavadi yogi had influenced you for a whole 10 years and whom you only recently let go of.

 

 

No worries about the curiosity, I'll gladly tell you. At one critical point in my spiritual journey, I was led to believe in Sathya Sai Baba of South India. The reason I described him and his movement as "mayavadi" is because I felt that this an expression which Gaudiyas might understand, otherwise he is not even a proper mayavadi since he preaches his own brand of "philosophy."

 

This took place around December 1990, and I can clearly (and happily!) remember the end date: 5th July 2001.

 

Now one might wonder what I was doing with SB until 2001 when I earlier said that I took the Gaudiya teachings seriously around 1998 or so. Well, the answer is the same as I have given before: I tried to rationalise and rationalise and rationalise the SB beliefs with Gaudiya beliefs until I just couldn't do it any more. It was either one or the other. This is rather like how I felt I was unable to let go of the idea that the Sarasvata line is an 'intact' direct disciplic succession. My "loyal" feelings were actually based on sentimental grounds and therefore not valid. Oh yes, it was a rather painful transition as I remember and I spent countless hours thinking about it, until one day I woke up and said 'this is it. No more.'

 

And that's when I got very angry.

Dear devotees,

 

in order to save the "Urmila devi" thread from getting disturbed by a relatively "irrelevant" issue such as Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa, I'd like to start off this new topic with explaining my current perspective on the Sarasvata parampara. I might also reply to some of the replies generated by my post, but let us see. Right now I would like to process my own experience with this.

 

It seems that I might have to give a little bit of my own history first so that people may understand my perspective on this issue. I am somebody who has basically grown up in ISKCON and I have been reading Srila Prabhupada's books, going to to temple, eating prasad, all the usual stuff. My experience of Gaudiya Vaishnavism lies with ISKCON. My primary allegiance is to Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Though being an 'outsider', I was drawn into a "mayavadi" movement for about 10 years, but I saw the light, so to speak, and realised the truth of Gaudiya Vaishnava teachings. ISKCON has been the singular constant in my spiritual life. It is possible that it always will be.

 

After escaping the mayavadi group in around 1998, I devoted myself wholeheartedly to studying the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism through the books of Srila Prabhupada. My father had purchased a Srimad-Bhagavatam set when I was 3 years old when we became Life Members, and it was these books that I read. In Srila Prabhupada's books, we see that he often emphasizes the importance of coming in a disciplic succession. The reason is because the message was originally received from Krishna by Brahma (or Lakshmi, Kumaras, Shiva depending which sampradaya you are in) and passed down intact via a chain of gurus in disciplic succession. In BG As It Is, I could see the parampara for myself and it instilled in me a sort of sense of pride. I don't know why, perhaps I was proud that I was receiving an undistorted message since the veritable beginning of creation.

 

In a mixture of sheer curiosity and interest, I wanted to find out as much as I could about all these gurus. Why not? This is a direct disciplic succession coming from Krishna, and while I have received the message from Srila Prabhupada why should I not know about the other Acharyas? My knowledge of the Tattvavadi acharyas came from the infamous Dvaita website. I first saw this site before they started posting inimical articles against ISKCON and so on, and it was quite a good resource to find out about some of the pre-Mahaprabhu acharyas. About the post-Mahaprabhu acharyas, this knowledge came in bits and pieces from Srila Prabhupada's books and various unprofessional hagiographies published by ISKCON authors.

 

Right away I spotted that there were some anomalies in the disciplic succession. Research the dates for each Acharya and see for yourself. They don't fit. However, since I was relatively a "new bhakta" I thought that I was slipping into a mayavadi and offensive mentality, and that I should just establish myself in faith in what Srila Prabhupada said. The disciplic succession is direct and the message is clear.

 

Once I went to a public library and I picked up a book "The Hare Krishnas in India". It was apparently a famous book, an academic study of the "Hare Krishnas" in India. In that book there were various things that again caused me to think. Reference was made to a controversy wherein Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was never initiated by Srila Gaura-kishor das Babaji. What was I to do with this? This was not fanatical spouting by someone with an offensive mentality, this was an academic study. The implications were immediately clear: If Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated by GKDB, then how could Srila Prabhupada be in disciplic succession? There would have to be a sort of break in the tradition from Bhaktisiddhanta onwards.

Again, I chose not to believe this and again established myself with faith in Srila Prabhupada. After all, how is it possible for Srila Prabhupada NOT to be in disciplic succession when he has achieved so much "success" in his campaign to preach Krishna Consciousness in the Western World? How is it possible for Srila Prabhupada not to be in diciplic succession when he was so OBVIOUSLY empowered? So yet again I established myself in faith.

 

Some time later, (I am just giving a description of events, I have not given extreme details as I am trying to keep this as short as possible) I came across another article outlining exactly why Bhaktisiddhanta was removed from disciplic succesion. I now know that this is the 'infamous' article contained in one of Nitai das's e-zines on his . website. I don't know how I came in touch with this article, I think it was posted to our private ISKCON members email by one of our fellow devotees who wanted confirmation if the article was true in what it said? I even know who that person is and he is a member of Audarya Fellowship. Sorry, but I am not going to drop any names. They know who they are.

Anyway, so I considered refuting the points in that article for the benefit of our fellow ISKCON members, some of whom were disturbed by the article. I realised that I could not do so because:

 

a) My knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavism was not yet developed enough to refute such claims

b) The arguments I proposed were based mainly on sentimentality and were thus weak.

 

I thought the article was pretty impressive in only the way they had bunched a collection of "facts" to "prove" that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated. Other than that, I was in full disagreement with it because it so OBVIOUSLY contradicted my knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and parampara that I had learned from the books of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Throughout my life, Srila Prabhupada has been my very life. I may have offended him in my younger years due to not knowing his sublime position, and I shed hot tears and fall at his holy feet hoping that he may mercifully forgive me for all the offenses I have committed. I still bow down to the arca-murti of Srila Prabhupada whenever I visit the temple. I pray to him for his divine guidance so that I may find a bona-fide guru. I have nothing but total love and adoration for Srila Prabhupada. His books were so sublime and full of light that they destroyed my mayavadi mentality when I was within that group, and he saved me. I literally feel that I was shivering in a deep dark well, cold and hungry, thinking that I was happy when I was not, and Srila Prabhupada threw in a rope to save me. I'll always be supremely grateful for that great act of mercy. One of my favourite times of the year is the couple of months or so before his annual Vyasa-puja. This is because I am asked to write an article to be published in our annual Vyasa-puja book. It forces me to sit and think about all the gifts that I have received from Srila Prabhupada, how to be supremely grateful, how I can pay him back (when I can't!), and what to do next. There's no way I can ever disrespect Srila Prabhupad in any way.

 

Anyway, getting back to my point, the Nitai das article stirred up some other feeling within me. One thing that was nagging me was about the discrepancies in the parampara. At this time, I knew more information (though not totally) about the previous Acharyas. Some of the Acharyas listed in the Sarasvata parampara never even met each other, what to speak of initiation. Rupa Goswami is at the head of the line after Sriman Mahaprabhu, but he was never initiated by Mahaprabhu. How then, could this parampara be the vehicle to pass on the message of Krishna when there were obvious disconnections? Srila Prabhupad ahimself often used the example of a postman. The postman passes on the message without adulteration, etc. But according to the lineage of the Sarasvata parampara, some "postmen" just didn't get the message from the previous "postman." Excuse me, but the impression that I had always got from Srila Prabhupada's books was that each guru is initiated by the previous guru, that is why they pass on the message having HEARD it from them. This is obviously untrue when you see the dates of the Acharyas according to the list in the Sarasvata parampara.

 

After I knew that, the next step was to try and research what some of the most recent Acharyas had to say about this. I came into contact with articles by Narayana Maharaja, Sridhara Maharaja, and some other Acharyas, some of whose articles have been posted in the "Urmila" thread. [This whole diksa issue started on page 5 of that thread, and so far has continued upto page 10.] I discovered that the "explanations" there referred to some new (to me) concept of Bhagavata and Pancaratrika paramparas. Now before we go further, I'd like to admit that I don't understand (and probably never will) why the Bhagavat-parampara should be somehow "more important" than the Pancaratrika one. After all, isn't it imporant to pass on the message DIRECTLY? I still do not care for Bhagavata/Pancaratrika theories, as they are far too confusing and cloudy to make any sense for me.

However, satisfied that I had found an "explanation" for the apparent discrepancies, I AGAIN established myself in faith that my parampara was sound and that the critics were like "dogs barking at the moon," which itself shows a sample of the mentality against these criticisms.

 

What now? No matter what glossy explanation is given by "senior" devotees, no one can adequately explain why the Sarasvata Parampara has several discrepancies in it. Instead, I find several speculations and asastric explanations, with a hint of slander thrown into the mix. After all, who else would be audacious enough to state that the so-called "diksa-paramparas" are not the 'real thing' but that the "siksa-parampara" is where it's really at? Sorry, but this does not fit into the siddhanta that wa given by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Where did these arguments come from? Let us remind ourselves: To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada in his books, lectures, conversations, etc, presented the idea of the "divine message" and "parampara" as a postman who simply "passes on" the message." The message was passed onto him by his own postmaster-guru, and so on all the way upto Krishna. At least, this appears that the Sarasvata parampara is direct and sequential. That would be quite simple to understand and believe.

 

When it becomes known that there are discrepancies in the parampara, I find that the resorting to Bhagavata/Pancaratrika arguments and similar irrational and illogical arguments invariably have their origins in the Gaudiya Math. Now I am not interested in starting an internet war about ISKCON vs. Gaudiya Math as has been done many times, but it is a simple fact that Srila Prabhupada often advised his diciples not to associate with them, what to speak of using their arguments in debates. It is with the Gaudiya Math that we invariably find the slander that is often levelled at the "caste gurusbabajissahajiyas" and so forth. So Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura rejected Sri Vipin Vihari Goswami as his guru "quietly" because he was "cultured" and took Srila Jagannatha das Babaji as his guru. This was because VVG "perhaps" was a lower-class guru and "maybe" was not that bona fide at all. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura made a "mistake" in choosing such a lower-class guru and then rejected him when he found the "higher" Jagannatha das Babaji, from whom he took his "higher inspiration." Where did I first hear this story? On a Gaudiya Math website!

Please don't ask me which one, as I can no longer remember. I only remember that at the time I was compiling hagiographies of Srila Bhaktisidhanta, Bhaktivinoda, Gaurakisora and Jagannatha das, and I was forced to resort to view GM websites in the hope that they had more information about these Acharyas. I still have those hagios somewhere on floppy disc, but I remember that particular story appearing on a Gaudiya Matha website.

 

This has been the point of my earlier postings; I have always seen that to explain away the discrepancies in their parampara, modern-day Sarasvatas either resort to unfeasible Bhagavata/Pancaratrika arguments, or they will resort to slandering an acharya of their choice. Such as VVG. Personally I find the latter approach is not at all what I would expect of Vaishnava behaviour and etiquette. It is low-class and simply disgusting. After all, who has the audacity to claim that Vipin Vihari Goswami "may" have been a lower-class guru when the simple fact is that they have no access to original source material about him? Thus the slander perpetrated against him is ignorant Vaishnava aparadha. Bear in mind that I have been and still am a firm admirer of Srila Prabhupada and his disciplic succession, but when I see "fellow members" of this disciplic succession indulge in such gross bad behaviour, I feel extremely ashamed.

 

Where do I stand now? I now accept that there are discrepancies in the diksa-line Sarasvata parampara. To say anything else would be just plain dishonesty. How do I reconcile this with my faith in Srila Prabhupada?

 

Quite simple. I'm telling the truth about things.

 

On one hand, there is no sequentialism. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada was obviously empowered to bring the great gift of Krishna-bhakti to the Western world. And he succeeded! How do we reconcile this? I would like to know. As I stated in one of my earlier posts on this subject, "I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason." I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented a parampara that has no direct diksa lines, and I would relish such an explanation. Of course, it has to be in accordance with Gaudiya siddhanta about pasing on the message. Probably the only person who can adequately explain is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta himself, and sadly he is no longer manifest to our eyes.

 

The answer is: I DON'T KNOW.

 

But I see no reason why I should continue to repress my feelings and believe blindly in things that I should be forced to accept. I feel that I have reached a plateau in my spiritual journey. I have experienced such a plateau many times before. In my experience, this means that I need to evaluate what I have learned so far, digest the knowledge, make sure that I understand it, work out my goals, and then proceed to reach that goal. As well as the diksa issue, there are several other issues that I may like to discuss, perhaps in other threads. But in any case, I see no reason why I should blindly believe in things that I should accept. Before I was weak because I didn't have enough knowledge. Now I am equipped with some verifiable facts about the dates of the Acharyas to prove there was no initiation or meeting.

 

After all, this is something that I worked out for myself right AT THE BEGINNING.

 

I think I've finished for now. I have not given all the details in my story related above, I might elaborate on some things if they are required. Readers are free to comment or discuss some of the things I have talked about, but I would really appreciate it if I didn't receive any abuse or insults. This entire post has been rather emotional to write and to remember the memories. Perhaps now some individuals can understand what my position is now.

 

Incidentally, it is also well known that before getting interested in Vaishnavism, Bhaktivinod Thakur was in the employment of the British and was quite taken aback with Christianity. Should I judge him to be a Christian and and a British collaborator based on his early writings?

 

 

Click on the link below to find out:

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura on Christianity.

 

If we had to choose one person who deserves to be called as the "guru" of Bhaktivinod Thakur, it is Jagannatha dasa Babaji.

 

 

Maybe I got it wrong, but I was under the impression that we had to accept the parampara as the guru gives it. In this case, Srila Bhaktivinoda never never never presented his parampara as coming from Jagannatha das Babaji, even after his so-called "rejection" of Vipin Vihari Goswami. What do you have to say about that?

 

 

Incidentally, it is also well known that before getting interested in Vaishnavism, Bhaktivinod Thakur was in the employment of the British and was quite taken aback with Christianity. Should I judge him to be a Christian and and a British collaborator based on his early writings? This is the logical result of the sort of specious reasoning used by Bipin Bihari supporters to date. We have to take the full historical context into account, I think.

 

 

You really should read all of Bhaktivinoda's writings on Christianity as just one example. He may have written positive things but he also penned rather harsh criticisms of it.

 

By the way, did you know that Mahaprabhu received sannyasa-initiation from one of those "rascal Mayavadis" ? What am I supposed to do with that? Is Mahaprabhu an Advaitin?

 

I already know the arguments that you may present to refute this point as I am well aware of them, but for all intents and purposes Sriman Mahaprabhu was initiated by a Mayavadi for sannyasa. By that sort of "specious logic," this means that Mahaprabhu is a Mayavadi. Right?

 

I suppose I could research it and get back to you, but would that change anything as far as you are concerned? I think we both know it would not. Forgive me for being blunt, but instead of asking questions for the purpose of being argumentative, maybe you should ask only if you are prepared to hear the answers.

 

 

Of course it would change. You will have presented clear and conclusive unarguable evidence that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected Vipin Vihari Goswami as his revered Gurudeva. This would mean that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diciples are disconnected in their respective paramparas and have no hope. Unless of course, you are going to quote me the usual pancaratra/bhagavata balderdash that has been quoted many times before?

 

 

If you actually are interested, you could consult the biography compiled I believe by Rupa-Vilasa. That's where I would start. But you are obviously smart enough to look for yourself.

 

 

Are you aware that Rupa-vilasa's "biography" has been criticised by senior devotees in ISKCON? The reasons generally include the fact that this biography is not detailed enough about certain pivotal events, and that Rupa-vilasa presents almost exactly the same weak speculations that you do. If you are seriously arguing on the basis of RVd's biography, then I'm afraid that you will no longer be credible. And before you ask, yes I have RVd's biography of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivinoda. I also have Shukavak's study. Have you read Shukavak's book? There is a lot to be learned there.

 

 

So I freely admit I don't know when Srila Bhaktivinod met Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji. I also can't give the date and place of Srila Bhaktivedanta's initiation by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. I would not assume from my lack of knowledge on the subject that the initiation did not take place, and/or that there was no guru/disciple relationship between them in either case. Should I?

 

 

This is a ridiculous argument, because the initiation of Srila Bhaktivedanta is not disputed. For one thing, he himself is on record stating so and I think he did give the date for his initiation, though I'm not sure. On the other hand, you haven't presented any evidence that Srila Bhaktivinoda accepted Jagannatha das Babaji as his guru. More on this later.

 

 

see. So when all else fails, fall back on the timeless 'ISKCON fanatic' paradigm: "I know I won't agree with what you're about to say, even though I have not heard it yet. So let me preemptively label you a rascal and be done with it."

 

 

Well, I don't think that Jagat labelled you as an ISKCON fanatic. What he meant to say is that you are a 'scoundrel' if you think that just because you can provide no evidence to suggest that Bhaktivinoda rejected his guru and took Jagannatha das Babaji, it is still true simply because it is "likely."

Well, there's just one problem with your idea that I have said before: You cannot present your speculations as evidence. You have to accept the fact that no evidence exists. Your meaningless descriptions about being "highly cultured" do not have any relevance because according to the dictates of the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, a disciple who perceives his guru as "deviant" in any way is required to renounce him publicly. And vice-versa. So your "cultural" arguments are weak, again.

 

 

It is a fact that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji is listed as Bhaktivinod's guru in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's parampara.

 

 

Nobody is disputing that. In fact, you have just hit on the very crux of the matter. As I explained to you at least twice before, the Gaudiya tradition traces its parampara via diksa and not siksa. It is only Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that presents a fabricated siksa-parampara. This in itself shows that the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is not relevant to what we are talking about. Unless of course you choose to accept what he says which you obviously are.

 

 

Given that Bipin Bihari Gosvami gave diksha to Bhaktivinod, it is obvious that he would have been the logical first choice in such a listing. But he isn't. Now that could only lead to one of two logical possibilities: (1) that Jagannatha dasa Babaji's instruction or qualification was superior to that of Bipin Bihari's in some way, or (2) that Bipin Bihari was somehow regarded as unsuitable as a genuine guru. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta considered the link to Jagannatha dasa Babaji to be more important.

 

 

Not so fast. Remember that you are viewing the parampara only through Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's eyes. Have you forgotten that it is the opinion of Srila Bhaktivinoda himself that truly matters here? Given my reply to your previous point, how does a fabricated siksa-parampara prove anything, especially of your points? Nobody is denying that Jagannatha das Babaji was the siksa-guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda. The problem here is that paramparas in the Gaudiya tradition are traced by diksa, not siksa. This means you are wrong. Srila Bhaktivinoda himself initiated many disciples and presented his 'Vipin Vihari Goswami' parampara to all of them. Did you know that Jagat is a grand-disciple of Srila Bhaktivinoda? Jagat can verify that his great-grand-guru is Vipin Vihari Goswami, not Jagannatha das Babaji. This is because paramparas are traced through diksa and not siksa. Will I have to repeat this any more times?

 

 

Thus, while Bipin Bihari went through the motions of giving Bhaktivinod initiation, it was Jagannatha dasa Babaji who was his "guru." You can dance around the issue all you want, but nothing will change that fact.

 

 

Really, I find your logic to be extremely appalling. Having several times informed you of the precedence of diksa-paramparas over non-existent 'siksa-paramparas' in this and previous posts, it is obvious that it is Vipin Vihari Goswami who was Srila Bhaktivinoda's guru. You cannot emphasize a connection with someone else because you ar enot authorised to do so. By the way, since you mention Rupa-vilasa's biographies, have you read RVd's biography of Srila Bhaktivinoda? According to it, Srila Bhaktivinoda had several siksa-gurus. At least three as my memory recalls. So why are you emphasizing the connection of Jagannatha das Babaji above the other three? If it is because you are attempting to follow the path of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, then you are on extremely shaky ground. The fact of the matter is that Vipin Vihari Goswami is Bhaktivinoda's guru. Mahaprabhu sent VVG to Bhaktivinoda, and Bhaktivinoda himself acknowledges this in several places. "You can dance around the issue all you want, but nothing will change that fact."

 

By the way, did you read with scintillating interest the article by B.B. Bodhayan Maharaja that was posted in the last page? I found it to be highly interesting? The very title of that lecture should enlighten people about this issue.

 

 

I also find it interesting that you have resorted again to the "but Bhaktivinod glorified Bipin Bihari Gosvami as his guru" tactic. Right. Well, I'm sure if we comb through old COM postings, letters, BTG-articles, etc, we can similarly find writings by Neal Delmonico, Satyanarayana dasa, Madhavanada dasa, and so on who declared at some point in their respective pasts that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami was their guru. Now is it ok for me to ignore what happened later and say they are all Prabhupada disciples? Really, Jagat. This is such an elementary concept that I'm not sure why people like you and Gaurasundara just don't get it.

 

 

First of all, Madhavananda was never a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. And for that matter, neither was Satyanarayana das. I see that you have resorted to your old "comparison" tactic. I think I clearly explained to you in my previous posting how this comparison is not valid. It appears that you are the one did not get it, Alpamedhasaji. "Culture" is an extremely weak argument. You are using this argument so that you can dishonestly "prove" your ideas as fact, all to get around the fact that there is no evidence of your ideas. Your ideas are totally speculative. Last I heard, evidence is needed to prove any point.

 

 

There are some who suggest that Srila Bhaktivinod ate meat in his earlier years. Whether this was the case, I do not know. But if Srila Bhaktivinod was capable of making such a grievous error, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that he might have made an error in selecting a less qualified guru before meeting a more qualified one.

 

 

It is a fact that Srila Bhaktivinoda was eating meat upto the point of receiving diksha. This means that he was eating meat even when he was publicly respected as an honourable Vaishnava and writing several of his most popular books, including Krsna-samhita. Where is the evidence for this? Well, Srila Bhaktivinoda himself stated the facts in his autobiogaphy. Would you have me believe that his authobiography is 'unbelievable' simply because you may not agree with the contents?

By the way, are you seriously trying to use this example that just because Bhaktivinoda's eating of meat was an "error", so he similarly made another "error" by selecting a less qualified guru? Again you are on seriously shaky grounds, not to mention committing most serious Vaishnava-aparadha. 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 what about the fact that Mahaprabhu Himself appeared in Bhaktivinoda's dreams shortly before he received diksa, telling him that He (Mahaprabhu) was soon going to send him a guru?

 

 

Now, you can scream that this is "mental spekulation." But the point remains that despite being the logical first choice, Bipin Bihari Gosvami was not listed as Bhaktivinod's guru in the Saraswati parampara. Why not? If you say that something is wrong with Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's judgement, then it is your gurus' word against his. Maybe it is your gurus who are wrong. And no, I don't think that majority opinion = correct opinion.

 

 

It is mental speculation, that's a fact. Not only is it just mental speculation, it is Vaishnava-aparadha. You can perhaps get away with speculating but you cannot get away woth Vaishnava-aparadha unless the Vaishnava forgives you. About Bhaktisiddhanta's judgement, really it is the word of the whole entire Gaudiya tradition against his, not just that of Lalita Prasad Thakura. By the way, are you aware that no Vaishnava school anywhere has a siksa-parampara? No Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, no nothing. Not even the "mayavadi" Sankara. All their paramparas are based on diksa. So Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment is not just against the whole Gaudiya tradition, it is against the whole of the Vedic ones too. The opinion of the majority may matter in some cases. In this case, it obviously does.

 

 

Otherwise, you have to acknowledge that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta thought something was unsuitable about Srila Bhaktivinod's relationship with Bipin Bihari. Perhaps Bipin Bihari was a fine guru, but just not as qualified or enlightening as Jagannatha dasa Babaji. Or maybe something else was wrong with Bipin Bihari.

 

 

Why do you speculate that something "may" have been wrong? Might not have been, maybe, and so on. Why do you not apply the same standards to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta? It seems that this is a double-standard we have here. By the way, let me emphasize again that Bhaktisiddhanta's "opinion" on this matter is largely irrelevant. What matters is Bhaktivinoda's opinion, and we should all know by now what that opinion was, exactly.

 

 

Didn't he get into some kind of fight with Bhaktivinod over the location of Mayapur?

 

 

Looks to me that the entire residential area of Mayapur fought with Bhaktivinoda. I am glad that you brought up this topic of Mayapur. 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. Now I am not prepared to argue this position, as I am simply in the process of ascertaining the facts. However, there is more evidence of the former proposal than the latter.

 

 

The point is, these were cultured gentlemen, and I would not expect them to raise a stink by spelling out the details in public. That may be very difficult to accept by people who are used to reading all sorts of dirty laundry on the internet about devotees, but they will simply have to. Even ordinary pious brahmins in my experience, what to speak of Vaishnavas, will not have much taste in discussing someone's dirty laundry.

 

 

That's too bad. Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived. And vice-versa for the guru concerning the disciple. Being "cultured" is of no advantage to anybody. Except perhaps you, who is heavily relying on this weak argument to prove your speculative ideas.

 

 

"O Jagannatha Das, as well as all the devotees of Gauranga, we fall and offer dandavats at your feet and pray to you that you take the mantle of Sri Sanatana Goswami and reveal the places of Sri Mayapur. You are our guru, who else shall I pray to?"

 

Here is an explicit reference in which Srila Bhaktivinod refers to Jagannatha das as his guru. Why would he do that when Bipin Bihari is actually his "real" guru? Can you give an answer without speculating?

 

 

Fantastic. I was waiting to see if you would bring this subject up. Why should there be a controversy over the fact that Bhaktivinoda calls Jagannatha das Babaji as his "guru"? We have already stated above and previously that the relationship between them was that of siksa, and not diksa. That much is obvious. What you are trying to say is that Bhaktivinoda rejected his diksa-guru and emphasized his conenction to his siksa-guru. Not only is that untrue and highly speculative, but there is simply no evidence for it. Why can you not understand this simple point?

 

When Bhaktivinoda praises VVG in his siddha form, did you notice that? Did you notice that he is praying to members of his guru-varga in their siddha forms? Why does he do that? Do you know?

 

My position is simply that Srila Bhaktivinod went on to accept Srila Jagannath dasa babaji as his guru. This is the position of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and his disciples also. The relationship with Bipin Bihari Gosvami, despite being formalized by diksha, has been downplayed, for reasons that are unclear. And it isn't likely that you will find evidence from Srila Bhaktivinod's writings that explains why this is, since a Vaishnava will not try to offend others, or even speak out against a guru who might have given him some benefit.

 

 

Your position is simply as speculative as speculation can get. In fact, you have taken a novel position. Everybody (thankfully even today in the Gaudiya Math) acknowledges that VVG was Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru and JDB was his siksa-guru. Some emphasize one over the other. It seems to be only you who is saying that Bhaktivinoda rejected VVG for JDB. That is a highly bold, not to mention offensive, statement to make. This is the very fact why I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence, of which you have none.

 

I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION.

 

It's as simple as that. Now, I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason, but simply the fact that paramparas are traced by diksa in the Gaudiya tradition is reason enough not to take it seriously at least for the time being.

 

 

Before you start posting remarks like "oh, and I see you *still* have not responded to...." it helps when you give the other person a chance to respond, rather than assuming that because you responded three times to him within the same day, that he somehow ignored you.

 

 

Fair point, I'll admit that I may not have given you a chance to respond. This is because I respond to posts on an individual basis rather than a collectiv eone. Thankfully you have presented your case in one post and I have replied in one post, so perhaps it can stay this way.

 

By the way, what do you make of the fact that Mahaprabhu sent VVG to Bhaktivinoda? I don't remember you responding to this point.

 

If you wish to respond further, then may I suggest you do so in another thread? This topic is about how Urmila-devi is nominated to be ISKCON's first female diksa-guru. The only reason why Bhaktivinoda came into the affair is because Babhru das posted Bhaktivinoda's guru-line, which clearly includes women and an thus be used as a precedent for female gurus in Gaudiya tradition. Your point about Bhaktisiddhanta's "rejection" of this parampara is irrelevant to this topic. I suggest you try to search the forum archives for the threads in which this topic has been beaten to death many a time. If not, then go ahead and create a new thread to discuss it yet one more time, and we can all repeat the same arguments again and again.

 

Best wishes,

 

Gaurasundara /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

P.S. Your style of talking reminds me of Hari Krishna Susarla. Are you him or an associate of his, by any chance?

Awfully sorry for writing so much, but I just cannot resist!

 

 

(1) Who said anywhere that Bhaktivinoda ever rejected his guru in any way?

 

 

Precisely my point. I don't think you will ever find such explicit condemnation, nor should you expect to. Certain uncultured individuals (and please note I mean this in terms of Vedic culture, not racial as some individual very stupidly took it earlier) would unabashedly lash out at a guru whom they had left. But one would not expect this of Srila Bhaktivinod. He just quietly accepted a new one. That is perfectly in line with brahminical behavior.

 

 

Well, now I see that you're becoming very bold. I notice that you still haven't provided any sort of conclusive evidence to show that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected his guru. You seem to be rather fascinated with drawing a comparison between Srila Prabhupada and his erstwhile disciple Neal Delmonico. The grand difference is that Neal Delmonico publicly renounced Srila Prabhupada as his guru, and Srila Bhaktivinoda didn't. That itself should tell you something, but you are still speculating that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected him "quietly." Again I ask, evidence please? Your speculations are not evidence and you cannot expect us to accept them as such.

 

 

Of course, if you are as interested in Siddhanta Saraswati's opinion as it appears here, there is the fact that he did not list Bhaktivinod's guru as Bipin Bihari, even though this would have been the obvious choice based on formality. And then of course, there is the well known anecdote that Srila Siddhanta Saraswati objected to Bipin Bihari placing his feet on Bhaktivinod's head.

 

 

Well if you are going to bring Srila Bhaktisiddhanta into the equation then you should know that members here have discussed this subject to death, as Jagatji said earlier. The Sarasvata-parampara follow an unconfirmed "siksa-parampara" while the Gaudiya tradition is noted for its unbroken diksa-paramparas. Therefore the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta here is irrelevant for those who are not following his teachings. As for that "anecdote," where did you hear that little anecdote. I can guess that it is probably a case of propaganda from unfavourable sources in the Gaudiya Math. I can also give you more juicy anecdotes to support your ideas, but again their origin is in propaganda from Gaudiya Math. You simply have no idea if the story is true or not. Of course if you choose to believe it, then that is another thing.

 

 

Well, if I can't accept Siddhanta Saraswati's opinion that the parampara proper is listed through Jagannatha dasa babaji, I don't see why I should accept LPT's opinion to the contrary.

 

 

Because as I said earlier, it is only in the Gaudiya Math/ISKCON that the unconfirmed concept of a siksa parampara is followed. The Gaudiya tradition always has and always will follow diksa-paramparas. It's a simple fact that Jagannatha das Babaji did not initiate Srila Bhaktivinoda. It's also a simple fact that Lalita Prasada Thakura (Bhaktivinoda's son) was initiated by Srila Bhaktivinoda. LPT does not list JDB in his parampara.

 

You know, it's true. This issue has been debated to death. You might like to view some older discussion threads about this topic.

 

What I am saying is this: saying that Srila Prabhupada was their guru, because they themselves said it at one point, is clearly misleading. Similarly, saying that Bhaktivinod Thakur's guru was Bipin Bihari Gosvami, simply because Bhaktivinod wrote this before meeting Jagannatha dasa Babaji, is also misleading.

 

 

Unlike the Americans of today, who accept a guru one day and then kick him away the next with all sorts of harsh words, Bhaktivinod Thakura was cultured. You probably won't find the sort of explicit rejection of Bipin Bihari Gosvami in Bhaktivinod's writings as you would of Srila Prabhupada from the likes of Neal Delmonico. That's because, rather than making a stink, it's more likely that a cultured Vaishnava would simply move on from a less qualified guru to a more qualified one. And an intelligent person with any sense of tact ought to be bright enough to catch the change of guru, rather than require some obvious, vulgar, and hostile statement to the effect.

 

 

You still haven't presented any form of clear conclusive evidence that conclusively proves that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected Sri Vipin Vihari Goswami as his eternal spiritual master, conclusively.

 

Judging from your comments, we are expected to be as "bright" as you to catch the "change of gurus" because of a high standard of culture. Anything aside from this idea is misleading.

 

Sorry to break your illusions, but at the risk of repeating it is pretty obvious that neither is there any evidence of your ideas nor can you provide any. The logical conclusion therefore, is to reject your ideas as fantasy and speculation.

 

Besides, don't you think it would be a most severe maha-aparadha for Srila Bhaktivinoda to reject a guru that was chosen form him by Mahaprabhu Himself?

 

And I am not even starting on the implications for parampara here!

 

By being separate from her husband even though the husband has not taken sannyasa, Urmila Devi Dasi is guilty of nisiddhacara, or behaviour contrary to Vaisnava principles.

 

By disguising this separation as being 'vanaprastha', Urmila Devi Dasi is guilty of kuti-nati, duplictous behaviour.

 

By not being aware that in the vanaprastha stage the wife is still supposed to remain and follow her husband, she is guilty of not exhibiting proficiency in knowledge and understanding of sastra (scripture).

 

 

O anonymous Guestji, don't disguise your chauvinism by covering it with GBC Laws and Srila Prabhupada's letters.

 

Better that you show all of your teeth in a big smile if Urmila-devi goes back to her husband's home to be beaten soundly for her acts of rebellion.