Gaurasundara

I am in full agreement with you. Shall I tell you something? Everyone knows that Sriman George donated Bhaktivedanta Manor to ISKCON, and it is my local temple also. You know, shortly after Sriman George passed on, a lady turned up at the Manor. She was interested in Krishna Consciousness, and she frankly admitted that she was interested in it because she was a fan of George Harrison's music and was curious about this "other side" of George's personality ie:- where he got his inspiration from. Can you imagine? This woman didn't even have a clue about Krishna or Krishna Consciousness, but she got curious about it just by being a fan of George's music! This is why I have always said and will say: George Harrison is vartma-pradarsaka-guru; In life, In death. Perhaps not a lot of people know this, but Sriman George was planning to re-release his "My Sweet Lord" single, all nice and remixed. He unfortunately passed away before the release date, but the record company released it anyway since it was finished. Once again, the mahamantra dominated the airwaves just as it did then. George Harrison is vartma-pradarsaka-guru; In life, In death.

Do you actually know anything about Yogananda and/or his philosophy? How do you know he is an impersonalist?

It was you who started this thread? Lol. Anyway, I think I got what you mean. Referring to ISKCON as the "Hare Krishna" Movement invariably helps us in chanting the name, right? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Haridhamji, no of course you are not lacking in knowledge. What you said is quite correct from our (Gaudiya) point of view. The original Guest obviously believes that Vishnu comes first, and we believe Krsna comes first, but I decided not to get into that. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Haribol Govindaram, you talk a lot with Yugal Kishoreji? Yes, he is a very nice sweet devotee. I like him a lot.

It is common knowledge that Vishnu's (Sathyanarayana's) wife is Srimati Lakshmi-devi. What is interesting, though, is that there seems to be no lila describing Their wedding ceremony!

Theistji ki jai!

An atheist somehow meets God and proudly challenges Him: "So, what is the answer?" God simply replies: "What is the question?"

Seems like the Audarya Forum settings do not like email addresses to be shown. In any case, I hope you choose to enable 'Email Options' so that you received my email address in your private inbox. If not, please let me know.

Dear Babhru, I know this may sound like an extremely silly request, and you may not like it, but I would really appreciate it if I could email you as I need to talk to you about some thing urgently. Maybe you don't want to give your email address out so here is mine: gaurasundara@..com Please email me as soon as possible. My time is nearly up so the soonest I can give a reply is tomorrow.

I'll repost my original posting again so that members can have an idea what I an trying to discuss. Feel free to comment on it or not, but it should clarify a few things. ear 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.

Have you read the very first post in this thread?

That is what we are trying to discuss. But in fact, I believe I have found an old thread that more or less answers the question. Now don't start with me, Babhru. If you are in any doubt as to my intentions, do yourself a favour and go and read my very first post right at the beginning of this thread, before condemning other people's views as "blathering." I am also finding the discussion between Madhava and Muralidhar far more productive than JNDas incessant ravings, and if you looked hard enough, you would have noticed that I have stated several times that I do not want to discuss most of the issues that I have been caught up in discussing. Unfortunately, people like JNDas do not respect other people's wishes but would instead choose to depict me as some sort of "offender" who is only interested in himself, not to mention unnecessarily focusing on some relatively minor statements that I made and make a hue and cry about them which are irrelevant to this thread. You are absolutely correct when you say that the discussion between M & M (sorry jis, I couldn't resist! /images/graemlins/grin.gif) is productive. Not only is it productive but it is also on topic. Instead of leaving me alone to get on with the topic and make further points, people like JNDas and other fanatics would rather focus on other irrelevant subjects and do not mind how off-topic their points are, when I have been continually urging people to stick to the issues here. More fool them, I say. Have you any idea how this discussion has been going along? Very few points have been made to me dealing directly about Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinoda. Rather, people are trying to talk to me about Ramanuja, Madhva and Sankara. How queer. And have you also noticed that I have brought up several points regarding Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta which have gone unanswered? So kindly do me a favour and don't accuse me of going off-topic and dismissing other people's views when the main argumentators here cannot even be bothered to stick to the topic. And may I kindly ask, what authority do you have to authorititatively state that my faith is flickering? How dare you or others question my faith, which has been uninterruptedly engaged at the lotus feet of Sri Sri Radha-Gokulanda for five long years? I do people a favour by honestly admitting my spiritual history, only to have people like JNDas wave it in my face and use it as some sort of tool to make me look inferior and destroy my self-esteem? I consider that bigotry. Am I getting a tad heated up here? I suppose so. Perhaps you will understand why when I have to read such "self-righteous blather" every day. You speak of blather, but you have nothing whatsoever to say about the extremely cheap pot shots, rudeness and plain fanaticism that JNdas and others have been exhibiting and levelling towards me. Besides that, you don't appear to be properly reading the posts or have a clear picture of what exactly is going on here, otherwise I seriously doubt you would have written these comments. Babhru, I don't have a fight with you, but you are unnecessarily stirring something up here.

Did Harinamabrata Brahmachari also go to Western countries to preach? I'll state this again for the record. Everything I know is a result of either what I have studied or what I have heard. If there is anything incorrect in my statements, I would presuppose that the source was incorrect. I would have thought that was obvious.

Aside, I wonder what would be the result of following a "zig zag" parampara? When raga arises and lila-smarana commences, will the siddha-guru-pranali in one's meditation also be zig-zagged?

In fact, I find the entire episode of Baladeva's going to Jaipur and so forth very puzzling, in many respects. Many events seem very contradictory. Say, for example, he went there to prove that we belong to a recognized sampradaya, one of the four, such as Madhva's, to which the Gaudiyas supposedly belong. Then the point was brought up that a sampradaya needs a Vedanta-bhasya to be recognized as a sampradaya. Then Baladeva wrote Govinda-bhasya, instead of presenting Madhva's own bhasya. This just isn't coherent at all.

Is there any danger of keeping this thread on topic? <font color="red">Namely the fact that we are discussing how the Gaudiya tradition from Mahaprabhu onwards primarly consists of diksa, and that the "siksa-parampara" of the Sarasvata-Gaudiyas is a departure from this tradition.</font color>

As I stated in my lost post, I'll now list all of the points that JNDas has not answered. This time I'd appreciate answers, since I need these answers to make further points. Delaying this does not do the respondent any favours. I have just copy-pasted it from my previous postings without any editing. Here we go:

Seems like this is rather like that fantasy film: The Never-ending Story... Sure. I was wrong in stating that there were no examples of siksa-paramparas anywhere. I should have clarified my statement to mean that initiation in sampradayas today as well as in the age of the respective Acharyas was through diksa. However, I still maintain that initiation in the Gaudiya sampradaya since the time of Mahaprabhu has been through diksa until the time of Bhaktisiddhanta. Apart from GM/ISKCON, is there an example of a siksa-parampara anywhere? I don't think so. If there is, I'll be happy to be proved wrong about that too. Maybe, but in case you forgot, we are trying to have a discussion here, not a full-fledged debate. Read again my very first post; the intention was perhaps to discuss my evolution of beliefs in the parampara. It was never intended to become a 12-pager, unless the honest dicussion lasted 12 pages of course. You and several others have tried to turn this into a debate. That is unfortunate. I suppose only you are capable of perceiving dishonesty when you could have simply asked for a clarification of the matter. As I have been maintaining, my sole idea is to question the introduction of a siksa-parampara in a tradition where connections have only been traced through diksa. Yes, in the Gaudiya sampradaya since Mahaprabhu, parampara connections have been traced only through diksa. Had I known that we had a bunch of inspectors here, I might have taken more care with my words. Excuse me for thinking we were having a discussion and not a war. Who said I was pretending anything? I don't think my position has changed a great deal. So I was wrong in stating that there are no siksa-paramparas anywhere; this still doesn't invalidate the fact that initiation into sampradayas at times later than the Vedic age were through diksa. You assume that I am pretending to know about something when the simple fact is that my information has been wrong. So what? If my information was wrong, that means the source is wrong. That does not make me dishonest and I extremely resent the way you have tried to depict me as such. I never said that no one could prove me wrong, neither do I recall giving that impression. However, can I repeat something again that I have been repeating endlessly? We are talking about the system of initiations in Gaudiya lineages here. I started this thread for that purpose alone.You copied your reply from another thread and expected answers and you are still continuing to deviate the topic away from its purpose. OK, now this is a good point. No I would like to ask: Who considers this parampara a branch of the Brahma-sampradaya? So when you have already decided that "I do not know" and that this is a "fact," why bother even asking? This just goes to show that you have no authority to speak on what people know. Either you ask a question and expect an answer or you just make a statement. Four your info, what research did I do? I spoke with learned Sri Vaishnava friends of mine for Ramanuja, Tattvavadis for Madhva and Advaitins for Sankara. Now either you are right or they are all idiots. Either way, I really couldn't care less. I observed right in the beginning of this thread how boring this whole issue has been, and I have been proved right once again. This whole issue has bored me to tears; especially when the central issue of my discussion is initiation in the Gaudiya sampradaya. However, Gaudiya Vaishnavas trace their paramparas either to Mahaprabhu or His associates. These paramparas are traced only according to diksa connections. This is what we are trying to discuss. Do you know why they trace via diksa? I asked you that question several times in my previous post and I have not observed your presentation of an answer. Strawman. I never said I have researched Sankara's line. Read my original statement again: "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." Did I mention doing any research anywhere? Certainly not. And I have already admitted being wrong about it, several times too. What is your purpose in dragging along this tedious line of argument? You think I am stupid? Who is Jayendra Sarasvati? You are not in a position of authority to know the inner motivations of other people unless you are omniscient. Thus I will tell you to stop pretending to know anything on this line when you clearly don't. Congratulations for living in Udupi, many of us do not have that luxury. Most of us have to make do with either having virtual or personal association with Tattvavadis who may or may not be learned. Pot luck, really. However, do you really think that Tattvavadis are silly enough to "make a mistake" about their guru? Not only do they make a "mistake" but they broadcast this "mistake" on their websites to be seen by the whole world? Madhva was initiated by Acyutapreksa and the Madhvas trace their line through him. That's a fact. As far as I can see it is only your perspective that they consider Vyasa's relationship to be 'more important.' Sure, Madhva devotees also consider Vyasa's connection to be more important, but we are talking about the tracing of paramparas here, not which guru is more 'important.' Thus, Madhvas trace their parampara via Acyutapreksa. I'm glad to see that you enough about the Madhva philosophy enough to point out "mistakes" to "innocent people." Obviously I notice that you will not retract your erroneous accusation against me for "misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition" on the point of the prameya-sloka. If you have indeed associated with Madhva scholars, then I trust you will be able to get Bannanjee Govindacharya to confirm what he thinks about the sloka. Oh yes, and I suppose we have no choice but to agree with Srisha Rao when he acknowledges the earliest form of it in the Prameya Ratnavali. Since I notice you have not retracted your erroneous accusation on this point, I won't be taking it further. I have no interest in casting aspersions on your character or debate skills vis-a-vis "honesty" either, because unlike some people I am trying to have a genuine discussion and I don't approve of martial tactics just to gain some cheap "point-scoring." [And then JNDas proceeds to post some choice "quotes" for the record.] I have not "charged" Srila Bhaktisiddhanta with anything because I am not an officer of the law. However, if you were truly as honest as you present yourself to be, and if others are also truly as honest as they present themselves to be, then you will all have to collectively admit that the Sarasvata-parampara [from Mahaprabhu onwards, how many times must I repeat this?] is certainly a fabrication of sorts. This is not criticism, this is a fact. If you think it is criticism, then that has already been refuted in the last paragraphs of my first post on this thread. Go back and read it. For a start, some of the Acharyas listed therein never met each other. So if diksa is "not that important" as you would have others believe and that siksa is the real thing that is important, then how could siksa be "passed" to an Acharya who never met his predecessor? I am talking of Narottama and Visvanatha of course. If you have any evidence to suggest that Narottama and Visvanatha ever met each other, are related by either diksa or siksa connections, then please present it. Perhaps the next step may be to suggest that, but I have not suggested it yet. This is a clear example of replying to what you think I am saying rather than listening to what I am saying. And I still strongly resent the way you have obviously geared yourself up to make yet another accusation that has no factual basis. By the way, who said that Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta were "unrealized and bogus gurus"? I didn't make any statement of the sort. Go back and read my very first post on this thread. Read and re-read and re-read it until you fully understanding what I am trying to communicate. Is this supposed to be another cheap shot? I remember stating that in the interests of civilized discussion I would not be employing the sarcasm that I have often used before and I asked you to do the same. I don't recall you agreeing to do the same, so I guess you reserve the right to expose yourself as a abusive or insulting person? Either way it's fine by me whatever you choose, as I have little concern for your public image. Another cheap shot? You have used, re-used and re-used that stupid tactic of mentioning "Sai Baba" every time you seem to want to rack up a few points. Are you not knowledgeable enough to have realized by now that people come to ISKCON (or Vaishnavism for that matter) from all walsk of life. Are you seriously attempting to propose that by your logic, we should not listen to any of the western disciples of Srila prabhupada simply because they are ex-Christians? Smokers, beef-eaters, drinkers and women-hunters to boot. I know that several of ISKCON's gurus today were involved in some sort of fringey New Age movement before they came into contact with Srila Prabhupada and Krishna Consciousness. Are you seriously saying that I should hold this against them and compare them then to how they are now? This is an absurd proposal. People like you who have the luxury of being born into a Vaishnava family will never realise how dangerous the spiritual business is in these days. When Srila Prabhupada mentions the dangers of people falling for "unathorized cults," these are just black-and-white words on paper for people like yourself. People like you do not know anything about how to preach to such people who are under the veil of ignorance about such things. Instead, people like you are like prospective employers. They decide a prospective employee's suitability for the "job" by weighing up his candidcay according to his "criminal record," wondering if it is "safe" to "employ" this person. I like the fact that Srila Prabhupada was a far smarter being than you and anyone else can possibly ever be. At least he was compassionate enough to recognise if people were truly "qualified" for the "job," such qualifications being sraddha (faith), interest, curiosity, and a desire to learn. In rare cases he even initiated people on the spot, or preached spontaenously. Unfortunately, I have noticed that there is a tendency nowadays to judge people by what is written in books. If you don't agree with it, call them sahajiyas, rascals, cheaters, fools, morons, black snakes, and every other name under the sun. This condition is deplorable. And it doesn't do you any favours either. By the way, what about Swami Gaurangapada? Why mention him? I notice this is the second time you have mentioned him; why? I don't recall copying and pasting anything. Rather, I have reason to believe that you are the one who is doing all the copying and pasting. Where did you get all those Bhaktivinoda quotes from? Memory? As for claiming about fabricated paramparas, see my point on this above. I know of the person but I am not familiar with his entire history. How did he offend the line of his raganuga guru exactly? I hear he is now an initiated Sri Vaishnava. Sorry, but I am not in the habit of displaying my "greater learning" in the way of earning some cheap points. I learnt from a very early age not to use knowledge as a weapon in order to make them feel inferior. You'll be surprised how much I actually know. Just because my research into raganuga-bhakti and diksa-paramparas is fairly recent, it is understandable that I will make mistakes along the way until I am in a position to be able to speak with some knowledge of the philosophy or concepts involved.People like you seem to take great pleasure in using knowledge as a weapon in order to make them feel inferior and bad about themselves, destroying their self-esteem. Knowledge is power; that is why it is a great weapon. However, only a good "warrior" knows how to use the weapon best. I suspect you know very well what happens if weapons fall into the hands of a child. Er, no. I didn't claim that I had studied the paramparas of all traditions. I made a blanket statement about those sampradayas. Could you please check your facts before you speak, since you are doing a very good job of re-posting my own quotes to addres other points? Interesting how you enjoy making a list of where I have been "proved" wrong. How about all of the points that you haven't answered so far, despite repeated re-postings? Not to worry, I will be be re-posting those unanswered points right after I complete this post, just in case you are wondering what points I am referring to. It would also be a good idea to look in the mirror at this point. No basis to accuse me of being wrong or unable to answer when you have clearly not done the same Hardly. I have already explained that I made a mistake in saying that the verses in question come from HBV, but were in fact from Krsna-bhajanamrta. I also told you (after you re-posted three times) that I was unable to provide you with those verses in the original Sanskrit that you originally asked for, and that due to my computer crash I have been left with only unreliable translations. In the end, there was no need for me to post anything because Raga had already posted the quotes in question. But you laughed at that too, let's not forget. OK, I hate to "call your bluff" on this as you are so fond of saying, but where exactly did I say something of the like? I think you'll find I have never stated anything like this, because to do so would be incredibly grandiose and I am not in the habit of being grandiose. Grandiosity is the beginning of narcissism.By the way, do you think you could do us all a favour and stop trying to defeat your own weak strawman? It was fun for a while but now it is just simply boring. Duh, as if I did not already know this. This is not an answer to the question that I asked either. In the interests of clarity, let me repeat my question again: "Even so, did you notice that several of the individuals are the same as those contained in the Brahma-sampradaya? Narayana Himself, Brahma, Vyasadeva. Are you saying that these three individuals in particular are Advaitins? Oh yes, Sukadeva Goswami too, he was an Advaitin? Well, they say that he was of the impersonalist ilk until he heard of the glory of Bhagavan, but hey, these "mayavadi rascals" are saying that Vyasa and Brahma and even Narayana Himself are Advaitins! What arrant blasphemy! How come you do not object to this?" I didn't just mention Vyasa. I mentioned Krishna (Narayana) and Brahma as well. JNdas says that "the majority of Vedic philosophies originate in parampara from the Lord." So could JNDas explain why it is that the "Lord" says things that may be construed in an Advaitic way by the Advaitins? By that same logic, the "Lord" says things that are considered dualistic according to the dualists. I think that would be a reasonable understanding. And despite this, the Advaitins still hold Vyasa and Suka, as well as Krishna and Brahma, as the initial figures of their parampara, which would lead "innocent persons" to believe they are all Advaitins. Are these Advaitins idiots or what? OK, again I hate to "call your bluff," but what makes you so sure that I am a "neo-Advaitin"? If you think being an ex-devotee of Sai Baba made me a neo-Advaitin, then that is hilarious. For your information, I studied the texts of Sariraka-bhasya and other texts such as Sadananda's Vedanta-sara. And let's not forget that I learnt this Advaitic knowledge from my personal associates who are themselves learned Advaitins. It would be fair to say that I was practising pure Advaita for a while, before I moved on. [Now I suppose that because I mentioned the term "pure Advaita," JNDas will proceed to speculate that I am in fact talking about suddhadvaita. He will then proceed further to claim that I myself am claiming to have been a practitioner of suddhadvaita ("pure Advaita") when I clearly said nothing of the sort. Or I might be speculating about this myself! /images/graemlins/grin.gif What can be done with such people?] And then when I started studying the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism via ISKCON, I rejected the Advaita philosophy. [Are you going to hold that against me too?] Understandably, I was most attracted to the parts in Srila Prabhupada's books where he forcefully refuted Advaitic precepts. I then proceeded to write several papers on the subject that both mirrored Srila Prabhupada's teachings as well as including my own knowledge of Advaita. These articles were very well received and were published in local community magazines. I hear that a couple of my Advaitic friends who I myself learnt Advaita from read my articles and started attending ISKCON and listening to GV philosophy. I have no idea if they converted to GV as a result because I have since lost touch with them, although it would be nice if they did. And as I have already told you before by now paraphrasing: You are not in a position of authority to know the level of knowledge and inner motivations of other people unless you are omniscient. Thus I will tell you to stop pretending to know anything on this line when you clearly don't. *sigh*I have already presented the facts about this matter. People like you are free to have your own ideas on this point. I suppose if Baladeva Vidyabhusana were to appear to you right now and list his parampara to you, you would proceed to argue with him that he is wrong and you are correct. What can be done with such people? If you cannot read your own words, then what purpose will be served if I proceed to point it out. Read your own words first before you speak. That is a good thing to remember. This is all fine and dandy, but this still doesn't make a difference in that Ramanuja's parampara is traced via diksa to Mahapurna. You may talk all you like about Yamunacharya, but if I may remind you, we are talkng about the trace of paramparas here. And by the way, making a point by asking someone to seek "evidence" is not a very good tactic in discussion. Rather, you should present the evidence yourself if you are interested in making your point. Strawman. And this is more proof that JNDas is replying to what he thinks I am saying rather than what I am saying. Hilarious when you think about it, because in all my study, Sri Vaishnavism has always been the philosophy I have known least about. /images/graemlins/wink.gif However, that also will soon change since I have been briefly studying its tenets for the purpose of this discussion. When I was not interested in it anyway, moreover. Why not? What makes you think I don't know the meaning of these words? And who do you think is arguing? As far as I can see, you are the only one here who has a history of argumentation along with your "victorious" defeat of countless strawmen. And may I remind you once again that we are talking about diksa-lineages here. It is becoming extremely tedious having to repeatedly drill this point to you. Again, this is all fine and dandy but it is basically irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to make this point relevant to the discussion, then we are speaking only of his mantra-diksa connection. This is what my Sri Vaishnava friend says: "It is also important to note that the acharya paramparA of the Sri Vaishnava / Visishtadvaita tradition primarily records the succession of teachers who gave mantra upadeSam and taught the inner meaning of the rahasyas to their disciples. ...For Ramanuja, the primary acharya is Periya Nambi and through him Yamunacharya, even though Ramanuja had five acharyas who taught him various different aspects of the tradition." This is a point that is relevant to the discussion. By the way, every Sri Vaishnava who I know all agree with the fact that it was Mahapurna who gave diksa-mantra to Ramanuja. Only you seem to be continually asserting that it was Gosthipurna. Why is this? Is that stated in "Guru parampara prabhavam" and all my learned Sri Vaishnava friends are ignorant idiots? Ok.. Guess its true. All my learned Sri Vaishnava friends who have been studying their own philosophy for years are all ignorant idiots who haven't even read Guru Parampara Prabhavam. How unfortunate they are. Praise the Lord that [as far as I know] there are no sannyasa-paramparas in the Gaudiya lineage. Now that would be a very tricky parampara to trace. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Whatever, but what is the sense in tracing that sort of parampara?

OK now I understand. But to be fair, this sort of criticism has been going on ever since the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, I presume. In any case it is not necessarily the issue of "no diksa" that bothers me. I think that I have reached a point in my life where I need to re-evaluate my knowledge and to see if they are grounded in a solid body of evidence. Anyway, nice to meet you! I called you 'Muralidharji' in my next post before reading this one. Thanks for calling me'bhai,' then I'll also regard you as my brother! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I sincerely hope Vaishnavas can all be united one day.

Dear Muralidharji, I would like to question some of your points and request clarification for others. Could you kindly list the discrepancies that you have in mind, so that your point will be made clearer? As far as I am aware, SriBrhad-bhagavatam is a fictional story by Sanatana Gosvami in order to show that the glory of Krishna and Vraja-dhama as being the greatest of all. It is a story of Gopakumar's spiritual quest.I doubt that today's sadhakas have the mental and bodily capacity to travel to various planetary systems in search of the 'highest goal' just like Gopakumara did. Gopakumara was not a sadhaka-disciple in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. However, the important point in that story is how Gopakumara received the special mantra, and how he was able to reach his destinations and go higher and higher by virtue of chanting that mantra. As far as I know, it is essential to be initiated by a guru. What more, for the purposes of practicing raganuga-bhajana it is essential to know not just your guru-parampara, but the guru-parampara in their sidha identities. This is so you can envision yourself as performing service for Sri-Sri Radha-Krishna under the guidance of your entire siddha-guru-parampara. There are references to this in Narottama das Thakura's works as well as in Visvanatha Cakravarti's. Syamananda Pandita was a notable exception. And it is indeed fascinating to note how he later followed the madhurya-rasa that was against the sakhya-rasa practiced in his parampara.On a more esoteric level, madhurya-rasa contains the essence of all rasas. Sri Radhika, for example, is considered to be the topmost pinnacle of madhurya-bhava (madanakhya-mahava, to be precise) yet she exhibits vatsalya-bhava to Her close sakhis and is "highly praised" for doing so. I suppose you can say She is absorbed in sakhya-rasa as well since She is close to Her friends (sakhis). I don't know who Totaramadas Babaji is, perhaps Ragaji can provide explanation. Haridas Thakura received diksa from Advaita Acharya. Krsnadasa Kaviraja's guru is also unknown though some say he received diksa from Raghunatha das Gosvami. I think I could explain this incident further if you kindly give the name of this Brahmana. Vyenkatta Bhatta, I presume? "Guru-pranali" and "Guru-parampara" both mean the same thing; a lineage of gurus. Therefore the "original sampradaya" of Mahaprabhu is certainly connected to a lineage of gurus coming either from Mahaprabhu or one of His associates. Narottama, Srinivasa Acharya and Nityananda Prabhu were all participants of Raganuga-bhajan. Actually this could not be said for Nityananda since He is Bhagavan, not a sadhaka. Narottama and Srinivasa Acharya certainly did a lot of preaching, but they also engaged in raganuga-bhajan, meditating on their service-performing siddha indentites in line with their particular guru-paramparas.

Dear Muralidharji, why are you always talking about Neal Delmonico?

Er, no. Kindly return yourself to the beginning of this thread and see my very first post there. The purpose of this 'entire' thread was to initiate a discussion about the Sarasvata-parampara and my evolution of understanding of it. "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." Your idea about my statement about no siksa-paramparas anywhere and Sarasvati Thakura's fabrication belongs within the Urmila thread itself. Since you obviously have a great deal of time on your hands, you can go and verify this and post links if neccessary. I'm not all that bothered, as I know full well what I am trying to discuss while it seems that you have a few misunderstandings on this matter. Huh? 100% wrong? I claimed that there is no instance of a siksa-parampara anywhere in other sampradayas and that their paramparas consist of diksa connections. I will concede that material has been provided that certain relationships in said sampradayas contain siksa-relationships; however, this does not invalidate my claim about there being diksa connections. My claim was two-fold: 1 - There are no siksa-paramparas observe anywhere. 2 - Paramparas everywhere have diksa connections. You have produced enough material to refute Objection 1. However, you cannot and probably never will be able to refute Objection 2 for obvious reasons. And in a previous post, you claimed that you knew that ther are total diksa-paramparas, siksa-paramparas and mixed diksa-siksa paramparas. It's pretty obvious that other Vaishnava lines are either diksa-lines or mixed-diksa lines. This is shown in the tradition of Madhva; from Madhva onwards connection has been through diksa and traced in that way. From Ramanuja onwards connection has been traced through diksa and their paramparas have been traced in this way. From Sankara onwards connection has been traced through diksa and paramparas are traced in that way. You can go and research on this if you wish; I have already done so. Your argument is that "other paramparas contain siksa relationships too", but my argument, JNDas, is that paramparas are traced via diksa, upto at least the founders of the respective traditions. I would have thought this was obvious since I was comparing them to Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that is entirely fabricated with the explanation that all the relationships were siksa. *Sigh*Still bashing your head against the wall on this one, I see. Can every member who is observing this discussion be kind enough to point out the difference between two years and five years? I'd appreciate it, because obviously I am very weak at mathematics. Oh, and I am criticising Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? Excuse me, where did that idea come from? I have never worded a single criticism of anybody despite being accused of doing so. It would be helpful if someone could provide evidence of my "criticism" especially since I have numerous times explicitly stated that I am not criticizing anyone. My first post on this thread should clear this matter up. I cannot do much more if readers still think I am criticizing. Such people prefer to believe in their own ideas rather than listen. Evidently, JNDas thinks he is the hotshot Acharya who is the sole expert on Vedic topics in the entire world. We must all fall at his feet and beg for his mercy. Please do not show your prowess in his presence as you will run the risk of offending him. You are officially categorised as having learnt from Google and articles written by offenders. Evidence of greater learning is denied and has no official existence. Aside the sarcasm, have I mentioned that I have dealt with these points before? JNDas thinks that my Vedic knowledge consists of Google searches. That's all fine and dandy, but JNDas doesn't have a clue what I know and what I don't know because he is not omniscient. That's a fact. He assumes that I do not know anything and, last I heard, assumptions were not admissible as evidence. If JNDas wishes to think in this way so as to congratulate himself for his own learning, I have no objection. in fact, I highly encourage him to do so. Actually, is it possible to enquire what are JNDas's own qualifications in Vedic study? Conceit and arrogance, is that taught these days? And yet they have done. Duh. Er, yes, but I have already admitted being semi-wrong on this point so why are you dragging it further? However, we are really talking about the Gaudiya tradition, you know. The main theme of my posts along this line have been the prominence of diksa in the Gaudiya lines descending from Mahaprabhu or His associates. Diksa in the Gaudiya line is a pivotal experience that 'initiates' the sadhaka into an intensive regimen of sadhana (well, ideally) that is designed to establish an eternal bond between guru and disciple, as well as Bhagavan. Are you seriously suggesting that diksa performed in these lines does not mean the link in the parampara is based on diksha? If not, then what is it based on? Readers here may like to note the discussion topic contained in an earlier thread where this topic was extensively discussed according to the precepts of the Gaudiya tradition. One might also note that JNdas was a participant there too, and the examples/comments he posed there have been repetitively posed here, as is always the case with this fellow. Talk much, learn nothing. Incorrect. When JNDas says that I have "suddenly" attempted to change topic, he is lying through his teeth. JN, can you do us a favour and check your facts before you open your mouth? I have already explained that this thread was about my current perspective on the Sarasvata-parampara. Do yourself another favour and read my third post in this thread on page 1 from my reply to Theist: "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." Get it? This has been the main theme behind almost every post I have made. Diksa lines in Gaudiya Vaishnavism have been traced via diksa either to Mahaprabhu or one of His associates. Until fairly recently, of course. Aside from that, I don't recall continually stating that there have been no examples of a siksa-parampara. I may have said it once or twice, but not certainly not as continually stating that diksa-paramparas in Gaudiya Vaishnavism are supposed to be direct connections leading all the way up to the personal associates of Mahaprabhu. By the way, I'm glad that I re-posted my original quote from my third post to Theist. Read: "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." Do you know the reason why diksa is important in GV, JNDas? I suspect that's what you would like to believe. I have known about the Sankara parampara for years. I even know which website you quoted it from. So it seems that you are being hypocritical when you accuse everyone else of learning only from Google searches when you so obviously rely on them yourself to make your point. Even so, did you notice that several of the individuals are the same as those contained in the Brahma-sampradaya? Narayana Himself, Brahma, Vyasadeva. Are you saying that these three individuals in particular are Advaitins? Oh yes, Sukadeva Goswami too, he was an Advaitin? Well, they say that he was of the impersonalist ilk until he heard of the glory of Bhagavan, but hey, these "mayavadi rascals" are saying that Vyasa and Brahma and even Narayana Himself are Advaitins! What arrant blasphemy! How come you do not object to this? Funnily enough, the Advaitins seem to claim that anyone who teaches even a semblance of their ideas must be an Advaitin, if only that they are still 'in the closet' so to speak. For this reason I do not take anything they say very seriously. JNDas says that I know nothing about Sankara and his parampara when I was an Advaitin for years. Right. Not so fast. Being based is an altogether different thing. It is a fact that connections from Sankara have consisted via diksa even down to the present day. Considering the number of generations that have passed since Sankara as well as the number of disciples that each Sankara guru has initiated, we can well argue that dika holds a greater prominence. As always, critics are free to object against this if they wish. I have spoken with initiated Advaitins about this on several occasions. JNDas, don't be a grinch. Don't quote my comments out of context and reply to them when you know full well that I was talking about something else. It diminishes your credibility and this does not look good when you continually question the credibility of others. My comment was directed to the "sudden change" of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's concept of initiation (and other issues) as compared to the status quo that had been in existence since the time of Mahaprabhu. Answer this point. I never said that anywhere. Having fun with strawmen again? You know, it would be much more productive if people listen and respond to what I am saying, rather than what they think I am saying. I'm afraid that JNDas is missing the point once again. My comment (as is clearly understood in English) is that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta must have been sufficiently authorised to carry out this new tradition of initiation, if inded he was authorised. What is the evidence for this? Instead the argument of Baladeva has been stupidly presented again, despite having received several replies/refutations. And just for the sake of clarity, Baladeva was not tracing his parampara in his writings. The main concern of Baladeva was to establish the legitimacy of the Gaudiya sampradaya at large. Therefore he presented the guru-parampara which is at the base of all branches of the Gaudiya tradition. Had he presented his own parampara, it would have read as follows: Nityananda Prabhu - Gauridasa Pandita - Hridaya Caitanya - Syamananda Pandit - Rasika Murari - Nayanananda Gosvami - Radha Damodara Gosvami - Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Bhaktivinoda presents his own parampara thus: Jahnava Thakurani (Nityananda Prabhu) - Ramacandra Gosvami - Rajaballabha Gosvami - Kesavacandra Gosvami - Rudresvara Gosvami - Dayarama Gosvami - Mahesvari Gosvamini - Gunamanjari Gosvamini - Ramamani Gosvamini - Jogesvara Gosvami - Vipina Vihari Gosvami - Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Of course, I'll expect you to again stupidly claim that this parampara is not "important" because paramparas can be/are based on siksa too. And you will again stupidly quote the examples of Arjuna, Ramanuja, and so on. Unfortunately for you, these paramparas are very important, do you know why? This is what I asked you earlier: "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." Do you know the reason why paramparas are important in Gaudiya Vaishnavism? If so, please state it and then we can continue from there. If you are still looking for clues, you may realise that the general theme of this thread (or at least my posts) are about the importance of diksa in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Madhvas trace their line through Acyutapreksa, that's all I'm interested in and need to make my point. [by the way, since you're such a big fan of the Internet, check out Madhavacharya's bio on Madhva.net - Who does it list as Madhva's preceptor?] Oh right. I suppose I am speculating that sometime in the 1700s, the Ramanandis posed a serious challenge to the Gaudiyas by attempting to gain royal censure against them. By gaining royal censure from the Maharaja of Jaipur, the Gaudiyas would have been effectively marginalized and ridiculed for the rest of their days. During this time, the Gaudiya sampradaya faced a great danger. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti was regarded as a prominent Acharya in those days, but he was unfortunately too aged to handle this affair, therefore he deputed Baladeva to go to Jaipur and defend the Gaudiya sampradaya. Did all of this actually happen? Maybe it was my speculation and thus I apologise for spreading these unconfirmed rumours. First of all, I am not aware that these venerated Acharyas wasted their time penning texts that described political issues. I would assume that they were too absorbed in their own bhajan to do that, or at least producing written material that dealt with devotional topics. Furthermore, I don't think that Baladeva was even alive at the time of Kavi Karnapura, so how could Kavi Karnapura even write such a thing even if he was interested in political matters?I don't recall making a statement that Baladeva "made up" a parampara to gain the support of the Ramanandis. Seems that our highly-regarded JNDas is fantasizing about Lollipop Land again. The Ramanandi confrontation is a historical fact and a milestone for Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Deal wth it.People are free to believe it as they wish but that doesn't change the fact that it actually happened. And no I did not find it on Google like you do, I read about it in ISKCON publications. Excuse me for not having first-hand experience of this incident as I do not recall being alive at the time. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In any case, the issue here is that Gaudiya Vaishnavas after Mahaprabhu have lined themselves up according to diksa and not siksa. Deal with that too. It's a fact. Now who's speculating? "If he copied it,he could have,instead of." Can you show me in the writings of Baladeva Vidyabhusana or Visvanatha Cakravarti that "Baladeva knew the real Madhva paramparas but made this one up anyway just for fun" ? What nonsensical speculation. Perhaps you could apply your high standards to yourself before applying them to others? It's not my concern. My concern is with how Gaudiyas since Mahaprabhu's time have been tracing themselves via diksa. Including the Gosvamis themselves. Now, I wonder why? Do you know why? [by the way, I really don't mind if people criticise and/or abuse me even though I object to it, but do you think a certain level of decorum can be maintained when referring to respected Acharyas? Referring to Baladeva Vidyabhusana as a "fool" and so on is not my idea of respecting the Acharyas.] According to my knowledge, Baladeva did not present Mahaprabhu's or the Gaudiya parampara to the Ramanandis. As far as I know he dealt with their objections and was demanded to write a commentary on Vedanta-sutra for the Gaudiya sampradaya to be regarded as genuine. When Baladeva listed the basic Gaudiya parampara, he did this in his Prameya-ratnavali which was written/published significantly later after the Ramanandi confrontation. Correct me if I'm wrong. Why not? Read what I wrote again in its entirety before you accuse me of misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition: "However, where is the source for this prameya-sloka in the writings of Madhvacharya or any other Tattvavada acharya? It doesn't exist. Modern Dvaita cholars such as Bannanjee Govindacharya have opined that the prameya-sloka is a fraud, most probably. In fact, the Dvaitins admit that the earliest reference to the prameya-sloka is to be found in Baladeva's prameya-ratnavali, where the prameya-sloka is penned in a slightly different way." Indeed, I heard this from Srisha Rao himself. As if Srisha Rao is not smart enough to know his own tradition, would you suppose that Bannanjee Govindacharya - a world renowned Dvaita scholar - is incorrect when he thinks the prameya-sloka is a fraud? Where in Jayatirtha's works is this commentary" to be found? In fact, this is proof that you do not know very much about Madhva siddhanta either; it was not Jayatirth who wrote anything, rather it was Vyasatirtha. And I just found that old email in my inbox. Have a look and see: Get it? And JNDas says to me to "Please stop misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition." Refuted above. This is yet another stupid strawman, a strawman in a long succession of previous strawmen that I am beginning to get tired of burning to the ground. It really seems that for every strawman I burn, another two springs up in its place!Now where did I declare that Baladeva "made up" the parampara to counter Ramanandi accusations? Seems that JNDas is not being entirely honest when he quotes me. See the original quotation. When JN said this: "Bhaktivinoda Thakur says anyone who does not accept this parampara given by Baladeva is 'the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites'." I said this: "I don't see anybody here is denying the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, do you? The issue relates to parampara since Mahaprabhu and not before, but for some queer reason you overlook this fact." Thus I can say that JNDas is not an honest participant in debate, and chooses to twist people's statements out of context and beyond belief in order to depict them as inferior in any available way. I'll say it again: the pivotal focus of my premises is to discuss how the traditions since Mahaprabhu are only traced via diksa. I have little or no interest in pre-Mahaprabhu parampara as it is more or less irrelevant. Irrelevant for a good reason, yes, which JNDas does not yet know. Oh right, and previously you were giving everybody the impression that Ramanuja was "on his way" to see Yamunacharya, his very very prominent guru, but that the latter unfortunately left this world before Ramanuja arrived. At the risk of speculating, JNDas's major argument is that Ramanuja's siksa relationship with Yamunacharya is considered 'greater' than his diksa relationship with Mahapurna. Or Gosthipurna, as he insists. If Yamunacharya had not died, it is possible that Ramanuja would have been initiated by him? Why not? JNDas said earlier: "simply because diksha may have also been performed in a parampara does not mean the link in the parampara is based on diksha. Diksha is performed for nearly everyone in Vedic tradition, and it is natural that the most qualified individual would perform it, who would usually be the guru." Right, so if Yamunacharya had not died he might have given diksa to Ramanuja, right? Bear in mind that I am speculating here, so don't reply with any silly attacks that I am speculating when I am already admitting it. Now JNdas is saying that Yamunacharya appointed five disciples to train Ramanuja in five disciplines! Why? Why could he have not received training from one person? What is the evidence of Yamunacharya's appointing of five disciples anyway? In any case, I am not interested in this. The particular line of dicussion we are talking about is Ramanuja's initiation, not his tapa learning, Gita learning or Vedanta learning. Now this is just plain silly. Not only are we supposed to trace diksa paramparas and debatably a siksa-parampara, but JNDas would not have us believe that we should trace tapa, Gita and Vedanta paramparas too! Imagine that, tracing a line of teachers who taught tapa to one another. Vedanta to one another. Gita to one another. And JNDas insists that I don't have a clue as to what I am talking about. By the way, JN is incorrect. It was not Gosthi purna who gave mantra-diksa, it was MahaPurna. Appointed by Yamunacharya, now? I thought Yamunacharya passed away before Ramanuja could reach there? Right. Sorry, but in no way do Sri Vaishnavas accept Ramanuja to be a (direct) disciple of Yamunacharya. I have learnt this from Sri Vaishnava devotees. I am becoming even more convinced that this idea that you are pushing is just your fanciful conception. This is what happens when you live in Lollipop Land for too long. The Sri Vaishnava who I have consulted with draws his parampara through Nammalvar (Nammazhvar). He says that Nammalvar received diksa from Visvaksena. I'll accept his word over yours, thanks all the same. Yes, and we all know what Sri Advaita Acharya advised his wife to do when she was similarly initiated by Srila Madhavendra Puri in a "dream", don't we? This itself shows that the Gaudiya standards appears to be different, for an exceptionally good reason which you don't know. Thanks for proving my point. Fine, so I was wrong about that too. I'll admit that, no problem. Still, I made this point in order to show that some sort of reaction is necessary from the disciple if he observes his guru as being faulty in any way. This was not your (or rather, Alpa-medhasa's) stupid argument that Bhaktivinoda "quietly rejected" his guru and "quietly accepted" a new one because he was "cultured." Of course, Srila Bhaktivinoda was certainly a cultured acharya, but by any shot he was required to make some sort of reaction if he observed his guru as being faulty in some way. There is no evidence to suggest that Vipin Vihari was faulty in any way. In fact, Bhaktivinoda continued praising him in his writings even in his siddha form up until his practical last days. You have no proof to suggest that Vipin Vihari Gosvami was faulty. Oh, except for some unreliable Gaudiya Matha propaganda. Excuse me, who do you think you are talking to? Are you capable of having a discussion without throwing invectives in any way? What are they teaching in ISKCON nowadays, to refer to everyone as "boy" ? Hmmm... *Sigh*How many times have I openly said that I have seen discussions about this topic many times? I have even participated in some of them, therefore I can immediately recognise when someone tries to make a point because someone has already made that point before in a previous discussion. This is the reason why I originally said that these types of discussions are repetitive. And as I have stated before and I firmly state now: There is no use in considering Madhva opinions on this subject because the Madhva parampara is different to the Gaudiyas. Thus this is an in-house Gaudiya affair. Speaking of which, have you ever wondered why the Madhva parampara is different to the Gaudiyas, either via diksa or siksa? This shows that you really don't have a clue, do you? That is why you rely on explanations about "siksa-parampara" to back-up your view. Oh well, life is fun in Lollipop Land I guess. Speculative premises? Excuse me, but I heard from ISKCON sources that Baladeva was initiated by a Madhva before he became a Gaudiya. If he later got initiated by Radha-Damodara das, that would naturally warrant rejection of his Madhva guru and re-initiation into the Gaudiya line.In fact, I have good reason to believe this was published in Back To Godhead Magazine when they ran a serial on Baladeva's life. Therefore, if you think this is a speculative idea, take it up with those ISKCON people or the editorial staff of Back To Godhead, not me. OK? I couldn't particularly care if he was initiated by a Madhva or not, that is why I broached the subject with Raga and asked his opinion. I didn't say it was a fact. Again, read what I say before replying to what you think I am saying. See? Instead of answering my question, you return with another of your infamous Cheap Shots. In case you didn't realise, that entire post was to be considered my personal viewpoint and not a debate. Yet you ignore this and try to include this in a debate and respond in an acrimonious manner. Fine by me.For your information, I never believed that SB himself claimed to have come with a unique gift. Obviously you are not even familiar with SB's philosophy, even though you have no reason to be. For the record, SB claims to have advented for the purpose of restoration of Vedic dharma; in essence, he is repeating the age-old wisdom of the Vedic culture/literature. Whether he is actually doing this may warrant an entire thread dedicated to that subject. Certainly it is. The logic of believing in a siksa-parampara just because "other people do" such as Arjuna and Ramanuja is destructive and blind. Ignoring the examples of all the major acharyas in the Gaudiya tradition, you wish to follow a path which itself is a different path. I wish you well. Reminder, you are busy basing your argument on an isolated satatement, while I myself have continuously stated that my primary focus is on the tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Yes, make fun and keep up with the dry wit. Obviously you have bags of fun when a sincere enquirer decides to do some independent research instead of blindly accepting dogmatic beliefs. Read my first post on this thread; it shows that I am not interested in subscribing to blind beliefs and that I am opening up to what others have to say. This marks a milestone in my spiritual search for God and the best way to attain Him. And all you can do is scream with laughter. Shame on you. Perhaps I was rather harsh when I referred to you as a scoundrel, but really if you are honest with yourself you will have to admit that you have behaved extremely badly in this discussion. You have presented a lot of unnecessary strawmen that could have been avoided if only you had listened to what I said instead of thinking what I as trying to say. You have also lied in places, or at least seriously twisted my statements completely out of their context. You have also 'cast the first stone' by responding extremely rudely and arrogantly to my posts and that of others, and have also resorted to making below-the-belt personal remarks. Surely you must recognise this? There was no cause for that kind of behaviour and you must admit that you have been very badly behaved in this regard.I am familiar with a little of your discussion history and I do know that you are knowledgeable in scriptural study. This entire website is a testimony to that. I regret that our relationship is tense and I would really pefer to interact with you on a more cordial basis. Just see the attitude that is evidence from my very first post. It is a searching, truthful and enquiring attitude. It is unfortunate that this discussion has degenerated to the low-class standards of useless name-calling and abuse from both sides. I will be the first to admit my own faults and apologise for them. I do recall making an apology in a previous post somewhere but it seems you have not seen it; so just for the record, let me take the first step and offer you the hand (namaskar) of decency and friendship and apologise for all of my cutting and rude remarks without exception. I hope you will accept this apology and agree to continue this discussion on the same terms. So, JNDas, are you willing to continue this discussion in a manner free from invective of any kind?

There's actually much more to Sai Baba than wigs and makeup.

Interesting view. Apparently you are using the standard of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura to define an entire tradition. Is that bona-fide, I ask you? As far as I can see, he is seeking evidence of other sampradayas to back up his idea of the Sarasvata-siksa-parampara. We are talking of Gaudiya Vaishnavism here, not other traditions. The examples of Krishna-Arjuna and Ramanuja-Yamunacharya are extremely weak. Plus I have just shown that Ramanuja's parampara is traced by diksa no matter what other may say. And that came from a well-known Sri Vaishnava. Again, interesting view that is seemingly now base don both the spiritual status of Bhaktivinoda Thakura as well as a mish-mash of gurus lumped together in a non-sequential parampara. Well, first, no one is questioning Srila Bhaktivinoda's status. He was a realized acharya. However, as I have been showing on other threads, he is an extremely controversial figure in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. No matter how much one attempts to gloss it over, the fact remains that Bhaktivinoda presented doctrines that are against the teachings of the Gosvamis upon first glace. Why he did that, I do not know and it is the subject of my current research. However, because of the controversial nature of his teachings, it may not be a good idea to rely on him as a pivotal figure in your understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.