Gaurasundara

 

I do not quibble in calling george GURU, however, because he did what Sri Chaitanya insists is the only thing that can be done in this age for religious purpose, George probably caused more folks to chant than any other person. George was the siksa guru who delivered many a sleeper to the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

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.

 

Yogananda was an impersonalist. I personally would never give money to a person or an organization which dedicated itself to leading people away from Krishna.

 

 

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.

 

You have been attacking Srila Bhaktisiddhanta from the very beginning. Its good there are a few here who have been defending him. Good job to Muralidhar, Ghari, and JNDas. Thanks for speaking up for those of us who tire of this Gaurasundara and his spewing of attacks against the devotees.

 

 

Have you read the very first post in this thread?

 

The only controversy seems to be over the nature of membership in a sampradaya by some less formal means and whether it may be possible to trace a diksa line as well as a "siksa" line (a line of prominent influences). Whether the second can be called a guru-parampara, and whether chronological contiguity is necessary to parampara is certainly something to discuss.

 

 

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.

 

 

One problem with this thread is that Gaurasundara has, much in the fashion of the day, made this song largely about him. That's when the thread becomes boring. I find the discussion between Muralidhara and Madhavananda to be much more productive of understanding than Gaursundara's self-righteous blathering and Jndas' indignant put-downs.

 

 

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.

 

 

Gaurasundara has made much of his desire for discussion rather than polemic, but whenever anyone who actually has faith in the line of Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta offers the explanations given by our superiors, he tends to dismiss it as fiction.

 

 

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.

 

 

Ultimately, he must act on the basis of his own faith, the flickering nature of which seems to have been a problem over a long time.

 

 

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.

 

I suppose you've never heard of Baba Premananda Bharati? I suppose you've never heard of Yashoda Ma and his student Richard Nixon (Krishna Prema Das)?

 

 

Did Harinamabrata Brahmachari also go to Western countries to preach?

 

 

I suppose I'll "call your bluff" now, as JNdas is fond of doing with Gaurasundara whenever he claims something he can't back up and hasn't studied.

 

 

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.

 

I'm just asking you if any other Gaudiya branch outside Gaudiya Math have chosen to follow a siksa-parampara, whether unbroken or zig-zag.

 

 

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:

 

 

Point #1: Kavi Karnapura expressly states that Madhva received krsna-diksa from Vyasa. The reasoning that "just because it says diksa dos not mean anything" is useless. I personally think that it is worth noting. Kavi Karnapura did not specifically mention the diksa (or siksa) connections of the next gurus, but seems to make a specific case of Madhvacharya. The word here is 'diksa.' Is anyone suggesting that there is a different definition to this 'diksa' that we don't yet know about? It is also irrelevant what the Madhvas think, as their parampara is different to ours and we are discussing a strictly in-house issue here.

 

Point #2: JNDas suggests that diksa-paramparas are not important because Mahaprabhu never gave diksa. How does JNDas know this? He was told that followers in the line of Lokanatha and Gopala Bhatta Goswamis claim that Mahaprabhu gave diksa to those two personalities and thus the diksa carries on. Plus there is a reference to 'prema-diksa' in CC Antya 16.1. Plus it was also suggested by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura himself that Mahaprabhu may have given diksa:

 

"Those who have recorded the transcendental activities of Sri Gaurasundara have specifically refrained describing His pastimes of giving formal initiation to anyone so that no one would glorify Him only as a 'guru' who gave initiation into the maha-mantra. The devotees of Sri Caitanya are initiated into the chanting of this maha-mantra and always chant loudly as well as softly in a secluded place." - Sri Caitanya-bhagavata Adi 1.2.27

 

Why does JNDas avoid this point? I'll tell you later.

 

Point #3: JNDas suggests that bhakti may be achieved by following an unauthorised path on acount of it's "powerful" nature. By that logic, let me go and jump in with the ahajiyas and I will have nothing to fear, since it is an unauthorised process and I will get suddha-bhakti anyway. Although let's be fair, we were talking about Bhaktivinoda Thakura's diksa, which brings us to the next point.

 

Point #4: JNDas agrees with the idea that Vipin Vihari Gosvami was somehow an "underqualified" guru for Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji ws the fully-qualified one on account of the fantastic siksa that he must have received. Really? Then why did Bhaktivinoda not get diksa by the two siksa-gurus he associated with before he received diksa? Why not take diksa from either of those two siksa-gurus? What about the fact that Mahaprabhu Himself appeared in the Thakura's dream and told him that He will be sending a guru soon? Seems to me like Vipin Vihari Gosvami was really the chosen one!

 

Point #5: JNdas says that if Bhaktivinoda was rejected by his guru (which is highly debatable) then Bhaktivinoda is incapable of giving diksa and siksa. In that case, the Sarasvata-parampara comes to an end with Bhaktivinoda, since he is "incapable" of giving diksa and siksa. Right.

 

Point #6: JNDas says that Bhaktivinoda wrote that he considered the siksa-guru more important. I explained that this is perfectly understandable considering the Thakur's situation: "Considering that in Srila Bhaktivinoda's day, and certainly in Srila Bhaktivinoda's personal situation, siksa-gurus were more prevalent than diksa-gurus. It seems that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru generally resided in the Vrindavana area or thereabouts, while Srila Bhaktivinoda himself resided in Navadvipa-dhama. Lo and behold, Jagannatha das Babaji also lived in Navadvipa-dhama, so it is perfectly understandable that the Thakura would receive more inspiration/instructions from the revered Babaji. That is not contradictory to sastra, one is allowed to have unlimited siksa-gurus but only one diksa-guru. Srila Bhaktivinoda could have had as many siksa-gurus as he liked."

Also, another important point to consider here is that whatever Bhaktivinoda wrote, it is to be considered his subjective (emotional?) opinion. According to sastra, one os duty-bound to offer equal respects to the siksa and diksa gurus, not counting one as "greater" than the other.

 

 

Seems like this is rather like that fantasy film: The Never-ending Story...

 

 

So I suppose you will do the honest thing and admit you were wrong when you stated Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment was against the whole Gaudiya tradition and Vedic tradition as well

 

 

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.

 

 

An honest person would retract this charge against Bhaktisiddhanta and admit they were ignorant of the facts involved.

 

 

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.

 

 

Actually, your claim was that paramparas everywhere are traced ONLY by diksha connections. Do you see how the slight change in wording above completely changes your position? This shows a lack of honesty in debate, to switch one's position halfway through discussion.

 

 

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.

 

 

My argument has remained unchanged, yet your position keeps changing as you begin to learn about the traditions of other paramparas. Why did you pretend to know these subjects and post emphatically that everyone was wrong and they could go look it up if they liked to?

 

 

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.

 

 

If one has doubts, he should research and inquire in a manner relevant to his knowledge, not boldly declare that everything is how I think it is and no one can prove me wrong.

 

 

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.

 

 

The parampara extending from Vyasa to Shuka, to Parikshit and onwards (bhagavata parampara) is only a Siksha parampara. It has nothing to do with the founder, and yet this is considered a branch of the Brahma sampradaya.

 

 

OK, now this is a good point. No I would like to ask:

 

Who considers this parampara a branch of the Brahma-sampradaya?

 

 

I hate to have to call you bluff on this again, but what research did you do to verify the mantra-diksha ceremonies of each acharya in the line of Shankara, Madhva and Ramanuja? The fact is you do not know whether or not each acharya has received mantra-diksha from the parampara-acharya or not.

 

 

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.

 

 

The fact that today (the last 100 years) the parampara is carried on through diksha is meaningless when these lines are traced back millions of years.

 

 

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.

 

 

You post absurd statements like you have researched the lines form Shankara onwards and they are all diksha lines. Stop pretending again.

 

 

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?

 

 

Can you even name the acharyas coming from shankara down to today?

 

 

You think I am stupid? Who is Jayendra Sarasvati?

 

 

You are not someone with sincere doubts. You are someone who wants to pretend he knows something he does not know.

 

 

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.

 

 

No thanks. My study of Madhva's line is deeper than going to a website to find out answers. I have lived in Udupi for several years and learned from Acharya's of the Ashta Mathas and other respectable scholars. Believe what you like about the Madhva line, I have no interest to convince you. But for other innocent readers I will point out your bluffs.

 

 

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."

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

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.

 

 

--

 

 

 

You want to charge Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati with fabricating his guru parampara. You are suggesting he is a cheater and a liar, yet you are the innocent one who has not insulted him?

 

 

[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 will be to suggest one needs an authorized guru-pranali to attain Krishna, and thus Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta Swami, coming from a fabricated parampara, are unrealized and bogus gurus.

 

 

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.

 

 

Of course your opinions change faster than the phases of the moon, so its hard to gauge.

 

 

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.

 

 

One minute its Sai Baba, then ISKCON, then Srila Gaurangapada, then Diksha-paramparas. Who can keep track?

 

 

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?

 

 

its time to call these people's bluff and expose them for people with little learning beyond copying and pasting things from other sites.

 

 

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.

 

 

Last person to make these claims was Premananda. His raganuga bhakti didn't seem to have helped him much. After offending the line of Bhaktisiddhanta, he later went on to offend the line of his raganuga guru, and then the entire line of Mahaprabhu.

 

 

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.

 

 

Display your greater learning and I will shut up.

 

 

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.

 

 

You claimed you have studied the paramparas of all traditions, and that no Vedic tradition had a siksha parampara.

 

 

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?

 

 

You claimed the Madhva parampara was based only on diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Sri Vaishnava line was based only on diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Shankara line was based only on Diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Gaudiya line was based only on Diksha. You were proved wrong.

 

 

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

 

 

You claimed there were various vaishnava dharma shastras that instructed us to "publicly reject" a guru if we see anything "iffy". Your bluff was called and you were proven wrong, you couldn't cite a single reference from the many "vaishnava dharma shastras".

 

 

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.

 

 

Now you want everyone to respect your vast learning and knowledge?

 

 

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.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

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?

 

 

--

 

 

 

Study vedic tradition and you will learn that the majority of Vedic philosophies originate in parampara from the Lord and come down through Vyasa. The founders of the Shad darshanas are all disciples of Vyasa, yet this does not make Vyasa a follower of the Shad darshanas. Vyasa instructs people according to their position, and their understanding of his teachings is according to their position and natures. Thus the countless Vedic paramparas are formed.

 

 

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.

 

 

The fact that Vyasa and Shuka have inaugurated the advaita parampara does not make them advaitis any more than it makes Vyasa a Nyayi, Vaisheshiki or Yogi for being the preceptor of these lines. Vyasa himself has later refuted the teachings of the Shad-darshana in Vedanta Sutra despite the fact that he is the origin of those teachings in parampara.

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

--

 

 

 

Being a neo-advaitin is not the same as being a member of the Shankara sampradaya. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is a neo-advaitin. It means nothing. Simply because you were one as well means nothing of your knowledge pertaining to Shankara bhashya and tradition.

 

 

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.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

And just for the sake of clarity, Baladeva was not tracing his parampara in his writings.

 

 

--

 

 

 

Yes, he was tracing his parampara from before Nityananda's time, because Nityananda also comes in this parampara.

 

 

*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?

 

 

Please show where I refered to Baladeva Vidyabhushana as a fool.

 

 

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.

 

 

Yamunacharya prior to departing gave instructions for Ramanuja to be trained by five acharyas (pancha-purna), and for Ramanuja to be installed as his successor. This is prior to Ramanuja having ever seen Yamunacharya. While the disciples went to bring Ramanuja, Yamunacharya went into Samadhi and never regained consciousness. Please go and read Guru Parampara Prabhavam and this will be clear to you.

 

 

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.

 

 

You know all about the Sri Vaishnava line,

 

 

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.

 

 

Gaudiya's should be familiar with it, as it is mentioned in prameya-ratnavali, along with the reason we do not apply it.

 

 

Why not?

 

 

You don't even know the meaning of these words, yet you want to argue about them?

 

 

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.

 

 

Sri Vaishnava's will trace their tapa lineage through the guru who performed the tapa ceremony. When refering to the mantra lineage Sri Vaishnava's will trace their guru through the line of mantra-diksha. Thus Ramanuja's mantra-diksha guru is Goshti Purna, and his tapa guru is Maha Purna. Yet he himself was appointed the successor of Yamunacharya by Yamunacharya himself, this is clearly stated in Guru Parampara Prabhavam.

 

 

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..

 

 

Again, please read Guru Parampara Prabhavam before commenting. Ramanuja was sent to receive mantra diksha from Gosthi Purna 18 times, and each time he was refused the mantra, until the final visit.

 

 

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.

 

 

In Vedic tradition there are different categories of guru. There is the guru who gives mantra, the guru who gives sannyasa, the guru who performs tapa, etc. Lineages can be traced through all of these ceremonies.

 

 

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

 

 

You think tapa refers to something a guru teaches, like Vedanta or the Gita; when in reality it refers to branding the disciple with fire.

 

 

Whatever, but what is the sense in tracing that sort of parampara?

 

Why am I speaking about Delmonico? Actually I hardly ever think of him. But when I read this thread you started and saw that his idiotic ideas are still influencing people's beliefs I came in and spoke about what I know about this topic.

 

 

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.

 

 

There are discrepencies between the teachings of Mahaprabhu, Rupa and Sanatan and the teachings of these Mahants of the mid-17th century.

 

 

Could you kindly list the discrepancies that you have in mind, so that your point will be made clearer?

 

 

Nowhere in that book can I remember any world that Gopakumara went to where any Guru or Vaishnava refused to give Gopakumara instruction because he didn't know his Guru pranali.

 

 

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.

 

 

Indeed the translation may be faulty. But nevertheless the story seems to suggest that he was told to go away. He could not be instructed Raganuga bhajan because his Guru's identity was not known. How does this stand up to other well known facts,

 

 

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.

 

 

for example the life story of Syamananda Prabhu who attained a connection with Srimate Lalitadevi quite independent of the mood and parivar of his initiating Guru.

 

 

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).

 

 

The Guru of Totaramadas Babaji is unknown, as are the Gurus of Haridas Thakur, Krishnadas Kaviraj and many others.

 

 

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.

 

 

When Mahaprabhu met that brahmana in South India who was reciting the gita every day, the brahmana who was saying the sanskrit words incorrectly because he was uneducated, did Mahaprabhu inquire about the lineage of the man's Guru? Of course not. Mahaprabhu's magnanmimous mood doesn't involve these kinds of considerations.

 

 

I think I could explain this incident further if you kindly give the name of this Brahmana. Vyenkatta Bhatta, I presume?

 

 

The original Sampradaya of Mahaprabhu spread through an altogether different process than the "Guru Pranali" method of the 17th century which, it seems, has come from Jayakrsnadas Babaji Maharaj.

 

 

"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.

 

 

Jayakrsnadas Babaji may have been a great devotee but his method of bhajan which became the "orthodox tradition" in the 17th century is different from the magnanimous preaching style of Narottama, Srinivasacharya, Nityananda Prabhu etc.

 

 

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?

 

This entire thread is simply based on your argument that in the history of Vedic culture there was never a case of a siksha parampara, and that Bhaktisiddhanta was the first person to "fabricate" a siksha parampara. It was based on these two points that most people have objected to your statements.

 

 

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.

 

 

And now when you are shown that you are 100% wrong in your position, suddenly you admit your "semi-wrong" and that the real point of discussion is about the post chaitanya era. What nonsense. When you have been shown to be wrong, try to pretend the discussion is about something else.

 

 

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.

 

 

Of course your bluff was called and it was pointed out that you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. Yes, not only the Vaishnava lines, but even the "Mayavadi" Shankara line is a siksha parampara.

 

 

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.

 

 

And you, with your two years since officially leaving the Sai Baba movement want to criticize Bhaktisiddhanta due to your ignorance

 

 

*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.

 

 

What do you know about the Vedic tradition? Your study consists of doing google searches and reading articles written by Jagat. That's all fine and dandy, but when you want to criticize Acharya's based on your google searches someone will call your bluff and point out that you don't know anything.

 

 

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?

 

 

Undeniable according to what measure? Stop joking around here pretending that you have a clue about the Madhva parampara and which acharyas received mantra-diksha from whom. There is no way you can know about these acharyas and the initiations they received. Even Madhva scholars will not be able to identify this in most cases.

 

 

And yet they have done. Duh.

 

 

The fact that a single link can be shown to be based on Siksha and not Diksha is enough to invalidate your claim that there was never a Siksha Parampara in the Vedic tradition.

 

 

Er, yes, but I have already admitted being semi-wrong on this point so why are you dragging it further?

 

 

Furthermore, 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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Let's get back to my original point, a point that I have been repeating over and over again: Since the time of Mahaprabhu, connection to His parampara has been via diksa and not siksa. Get it?

 

--

 

But this wasn't the topic at all. You have suddenly attempted to change this topic. Your contention had nothing to do with "from the time of Mahaprabhu". You continually stated that there was never a tradition in the history of Vedic culture of a Siksha parampara and that Bhaktisiddhanta had fabricated this concept.

 

 

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?

 

 

You even went as far as saying even the "Mayavadi" Shankara didn't have a Siksha Parampara. Of course you had no clue about the parampara of Shankara and just thought you would throw that in to appear intelligent.

 

 

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.

 

 

Unfortunately it was shown that, yes, even Shankara's Parampara is based on Siksha.

 

 

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.

 

 

Why the sudden change?

 

 

--

 

Yes, that's my exact question. Why the sudden change of this topic from "No Siksha Parampara in Vedic History" to "No Siksha Parampara since Mahaprabhu".

 

 

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.

 

 

Of course it is a fact that Baladeva Vidyabhushana has given a Siksha parampara in his writings. But according to your view Bhaktisiddhanta must have interpolated that, because you say he is the one who fabricated the concept of Siksha parampara.

 

 

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.

 

 

For you (or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) to introduce the NEW concept of a siksa-parampara in a tradition that has always traced their lines via diksa, is to de facto declare that you are a highly-empowered individual who is sufficiently empowered to do such a thing.

 

 

--

 

Yet prominent Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharyas such as Baladeva have traced their parampara in writing via Siksha, and people such as Bhaktivinoda Thakur have accepted this as truth. Yet you want us to believe Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated this concept of Siksha parampara.

 

 

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.

 

 

Sure, but the fact that they trace their parampara through diksa should tell you something. They do not trace their line via the "siksa" line of Vyasadeva despite the fact that they consider him more important. Are we getting a clue here?

 

 

--

 

No, you haven't gotten a clue on this yet. Madhva's trace their diksha line through diksha, and their parampara through Siksha via Vyasa.

 

 

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?]

 

 

Regarding Baladeva Vidyabhushana listing a Siksha Paramapra:

 

This point has already been addressed. Those three authorities accepted the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara for perhaps the possibility of guarding the sampradaya from alienation.

 

 

--

 

Huh.. Say whut? According to who? Your word makes it a fact? Simply because you cannot explain why these prominent Gaudiya acharyas present a Siksha Parampara, therefore you start speculating as to their intentions.

 

 

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.

 

 

Can you show me in the writings of Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Vishvanatha Chakravarthi or Kavi Karnapura any statement where they say "Baladeva made up this parampara to get the support of the Ramanandis." What nonsensical speculation.

 

 

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.

 

 

And you expect everyone to take your word on it because you researched this topic with a google search.

 

 

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.

 

 

The fact is these prominent Gaudiya Acharya's have stated in their writings that Mahaprabhu's line comes through this parampara, which is a Siksha parampara.

 

 

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.

 

 

This happened when the Ramanandis disputed the authority of the Gaudiyas. Must we go over this again?

 

 

--

 

If Baladeva Vidyabhushana was just copying the Madhva's parampara to get public recognition he could have copied the actual parampara of Madhva's line instead of presenting this novel parampara.

 

 

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?

 

 

Anyone who knows even a little about Madhva knows who his direct diksha disciples were. Thus one would have to assume Baladeva Vidyabhushana was a complete fool with no knowledge of Madhva's line in order to mess up copying the parampara so badly.

 

 

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.]

 

 

And if one could present a completely messed up parampara and still be recognized by the Ramanandis, then it seems the pressure by the Ramanandis wasn't that serious. They just take your word for it, regardless of how messed up your parampara listing may look.

 

 

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.

 

 

Add to this the fact that the Ramanandi's own parampara is extremely questionable and not recognized by traditional Sri Vaishnava lines

 

 

Why not?

 

 

By the way, here's an interesting fact for everyone. Much is made of the "prameya-sloka" that apparently embodies Dvaita's beliefs in a nutshell. However, where is the source for this prameya-sloka in the writings of Madhvacharya or any other Tattvavada acharya? It doesn't exist.

 

 

--

 

Please stop misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition. The prameya-shloka is authored by Vyasa Tirtha who certainly predates Baladeva Vidyabhushana. Even prior to this, these prameyas had already been defined by Jayatirtha in detail, though not in the form of a single shloka.

 

 

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:

 

 

However, to answer your question, there is no work of Madhva that gives the specific list of nine prameya statements. There is no such work of Vyasaraya either. For this reason, Bannanje Govindacharya has suggested that the prameya-verse attributed to Vyasaraya is a fake or a forgery, and that it does not adequately cover all tenets of Madhva's theology (e.g., as given by him in the first chapter of his Mahabharata-Tatparya-Nirnaya).

 

However, this view is not universally accepted, and the late Swamiji of the Palimar MaTha, who accepted the verse as authentic, stated that even those tenets of Madhva that are not obvious from the verse (such as the superiority of Vayu among the souls, or the doctrines of sAkshI and visheshha), are derivable from it. In that sense, one would have to say that there are not necessarily nine core principles in the theology of Madhva, but rather, that there are nine distinct statements of core principle, each of which might yield more than one correct interpretation.

 

The earliest record of which I am aware, of the prameya-shloka of Vyasaraya being found in a text, is in the prameya-ratnAvaLI of the 18th-cent. Gaudiya Vaishnava scholar Baladeva. He however clearly quotes the verse as extant and well-known (and offers a similar one of his own creation), so we may infer that there was an earlier text, or at least an earlier oral tradition.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

 

Get it? And JNDas says to me to "Please stop misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition."

 

 

In summary, dear "everyone", please don't take this "interesting fact" as fact.

 

 

Refuted above.

 

 

It has been shown beyond doubt that the pre-mahaprabhu parampara is a Siksha parampara, to which you replied that this parampara is simply made up by Baladeva to counter the Ramanandi's accusations. Thus, yes, you are denying the pre-mahaprabhu parampara.

 

 

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.

 

 

So there you go. Even though Ramanuja was influenced by five teachers including Yamunacharya, his parampara is nevertheless traced via diksa.

 

 

--

 

Yamunacharya appointed five of his disciples (pancha-purna) to train Ramanujacharya.

 

 

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?

 

 

Among these Gosthi Purna performed mantra-diksha to Ramanuja and Maha-purna performed tapa. The other three acharya's taught him Vedanta, Gita, etc.

 

 

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.

 

 

Those who want to trace the mantra-diksha line will refer to Gosthi-purna, those who want to trace the line through tapa will refer to Maha-purna,

 

 

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.

 

 

yet Ramanuja was a disciple of Yamunacharya and was appointed by Yamunacharya as his successor.

 

 

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.

 

 

In addition to the case of Ramanuja we can refer to the Alvars who also received no diksha yet are the root of their parampara.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As had been pointed out, Nathamuni also reestablished the parampara through a "vision". We find similar initiations in the case of saints such as Tukarama, where the simple vision of a divine personality was enough to initiate them.

 

 

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.

 

 

Your claim was that the Hari Bhakti Vilasa "and other Vaishnava Dharma Shastras" (which ones?) require one to publicly reject a guru if you see anything "iffy". There is no such scriptural injunction.

 

 

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.

 

 

In fact, I specifically stated that this issue is strictly an in-house doctrinal/technical affair for Gaudiyas since the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara is largely different from the Madhva listing.

 

 

--

 

Oh, poor boy. Now everyone is bothering you with these Madhva examples, how unfare.

 

 

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...

 

 

But when your bluff is called, then suddenly, "Oh its an in-house Gaudiya affair."

 

 

*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.

 

 

Regarding Baladeva Vidyabhushana:

In reply to: What I want to know, however, is how does this Madhva initiation correlate with his Gaudiya initiation by Radha-damodara das? Does it count as a re-initiation or what? Did he reject his Madhva guru?

 

 

--

 

You are basing everything on speculative premises. And now you want to even suggest he got reinitiated... interesting logic.

 

 

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.

 

 

Such individuals are obviously unaware that Mahaprabhu came with a great unique gift that was never given before at any time. Time spent in trying to attain this great gift is time well spent, I say.

 

 

--

 

Yes, fascinating logic. And you used to also believe that Sai Baba came with a great unique gift that was never given before at any time. Yet, now you feel the 10 years you spent trying to attain that great gift wasn't that well spent.

 

 

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.

 

 

This type of logic is really destructive and blind.

 

 

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. It was you who was talking about other traditions, and the "fact" that no Vedic tradition has a Siksha parampara. Your bluff was called and now suddenly "No, no... now we are only talking about Gaudiya traditions, not other traditions."

 

 

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.

 

 

Why he did that, I do not know and it is the subject of my current research.

 

 

--

 

Break out the google searches, research is coming!

 

 

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.

 

 

See what I mean? This is why I say that you are nothing but a simple scoundrel. In any case, I do not care for the opinions of a liar.

 

 

--

 

That's me alright. Wandering Miscreant, Scoundrel, and Liar.

 

 

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.

 

Do you have the spiritual vision to know for sure that Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur is outside the mainsteam tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Or then maybe the "mainstream tradition" itself is outside the spiritual sampradaya of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

 

Interesting view. Apparently you are using the standard of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura to define an entire tradition. Is that bona-fide, I ask you?

 

 

The historical and scriptural evidence presented by JNDas and others on these pages is clearly showing that a spiritual line of Parampara can come down through a succession of Spiritual Masters who are connected by siksa, not diksa.

 

 

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.

 

 

So, if critics are speaking out against this type of spiritual succession then maybe we might say we consider those critics to be opponents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

 

 

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.