krishnas

Imagine preaching to a group of Non-Vaishnava Hindus. You explain the importance of following dharmic behavior, discuss basic aspects of Krishna conscious philosophy, etc etc. Then you bring them to a local ISKCON (or other) temple where devotees don't follow most of those principles. I have met (mostly Western) devotees in ISKCON who divorce, go on dates, and do other things which even many Hindus were raised to avoid doing. Nothing is black and white, of course, but it stands to reason that propagation of Sanaatana-dharma can only happen in the association of people who practice what they preach. If the public wrongfully villifies the devotees, then this is one thing, perhaps a burden that is to be surmounted in our quest to better serve Lord Krishna. But when the criticisms are well founded, then it is hard to hold such devotees as an example to be followed. Whether the devotees are in Indian bodies or not is also of no concern to me. I like to think that Vedic culture transcends bodily designations, and since I have met Westerners who practice Vedic culture better than many Indians, I am sure it is quite possible. I find that the best association is with those devotees who faithfully follow their gurus, who don't indulge in politics or sentimentalism, and who follow the regulative principles. I like to be able to speak to a devotee and get something back. I like being able to discuss the meaning of complicated shlokas with like-minded individuals. For example, if I were to discuss the fall vs no-fall theory with someone, I enjoy the company of a devotee who can discuss the evidence without getting upset and quoting GBC regulations.

Dear devotees, I am wondering where one might find good Gaudiya Vaishnava association in the United States. In about a year, I have to decide where I want to settle down. From a career standpoint, I am pretty flexible. The major stumbling block is where I can find good association. This is not something I take lightly. I have visited numerous temples in the United States. I have gotten pretty tired of seeing devotees who try to represent our philosophy, but on the other hand are brazenly defiant of the regulative principles. I can't stand seeing "devotees" who go on dates, marry and divorce, who talk politics/gossip, behave like fanatics, don't dress properly, watch television, act like sentimentalists, or are uncultured in so many other ways. To me, this is really embarassing in our sampradaaya, especially when it is seen by non-Vaishnava Hindus. It is not my intention to find fault with anyone, or to suggest that I am somehow better than so many other aspiring devotees. I have just come to the realization that I need to be somewhere in close proximity to mature devotees who will be a good influence on me and my loved ones. As I come from a conservative Indian family, I can't emphasize "mature" and "cultured" enough. ISKCON Houston is one such temple where I was quite satisfied. For various reasons however, this may not be the ideal place for me to settle down and practice. Hence, I am interested in opinions of other devotee communities (not necessarily restricted to ISKCON). Please let me know your thoughts. If you have addresses, phone numbers, and/or web pages, this would be especially helpful. thanks in advance, - K

Those injunctions that you are referring to are in regards to argument for the sake of purposes other than devotional service. They are not unique to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. ------------------ www.achintya.org

Those injunctions that you are referring to are in regards to argument for the sake of purposes other than devotional service. They are not unique to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. ------------------ www.achintya.org

The sankiirtana movement is founded on the principle of spreading the glories of the Holy Name to every town and village, as Shrii Chaitanya wanted. The adoption of varnaashrama dharma was just a means to an end for propagating it within India. ------------------ www.achintya.org

Nobody should abuse anyone, period. But where do you get this idea that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas are not supposed to argue? How do you define "argue?" There is no reason why Gaudiiya Vaishnavas cannot argue like gentlemen when a question of their philosophy's legitimacy arise. What about Baladeva's defense of the Gaudiiya sampradaaya against the Raamanandi's accusations? Why do you think Govinda bhaashya was written? Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu debated with and defeated several leading scholars of His day, using shaastra and logic, and remaining always a gentlemen throughout. This is the paradigm we should all follow. We should also develop those good qualities that Vaishnavas are supposed to have, and we should avoid arguing for the sake of arguing, or for trying to get mundane admiration, fame, etc. But arguing, like many other things, has its place when used in devotional service. [This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 06-10-2002).]

Nobody should abuse anyone, period. But where do you get this idea that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas are not supposed to argue? How do you define "argue?" There is no reason why Gaudiiya Vaishnavas cannot argue like gentlemen when a question of their philosophy's legitimacy arise. What about Baladeva's defense of the Gaudiiya sampradaaya against the Raamanandi's accusations? Why do you think Govinda bhaashya was written? Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu debated with and defeated several leading scholars of His day, using shaastra and logic, and remaining always a gentlemen throughout. This is the paradigm we should all follow. We should also develop those good qualities that Vaishnavas are supposed to have, and we should avoid arguing for the sake of arguing, or for trying to get mundane admiration, fame, etc. But arguing, like many other things, has its place when used in devotional service. [This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 06-10-2002).]

There are a number of references in Bhaagavatam, other than the crystal-clear 1.3.28. There are also the Gopaala-taapani Upanishad, the Krishna Upanishad, and Bhagavad-giitaa. If you wish, we can perhaps start a separate thread on this. These are the references I can recall from memory; there may be others as well. With all due respect to Maadhvas and Shrii Vaishnavas, I found their explanations for SB 1.3.28 to be roundabout and not convincing (perhaps we can save this for a separate thread too). The Gaudiiyas' interpretation appears to be the most literal one. I have heard that other sampradaayas like those of Vallabha and Nimbaarka also accept a similar meaning as the Gaudiiyas, making the Maadhvas/Shriis the minority here. I have even checked 3rd party translations, such as that of the Gita Press, and they too translate the text more or less in the way the Gaudiiyas do. This is definitely not true. I have discovered years ago that members of the Cyber Maadhva Sangha only say things like this so as to give them reason to argue with ISKCON. A friend of mine showed me a posting from the Dvaita list archives in which Srisha Rao explained the Chatur-Vyuuha. He (Srisha) very explicitly said that each form was a partial manifestation/realization of the next higher one. It blew my mind. It made me wonder why he can say that, and yet object to the principle that some forms of Vishnu are regarded as partial manifestations of Krishna. Maadhvas do have a concept of "muula-ruupa." They just do not accept that the two-handed Krishna is that muula-ruupa. We discussed this issue some time back on the Achintya list, though I rather wished someone could have shown up and better represented the Maadhva side. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

There are a number of references in Bhaagavatam, other than the crystal-clear 1.3.28. There are also the Gopaala-taapani Upanishad, the Krishna Upanishad, and Bhagavad-giitaa. If you wish, we can perhaps start a separate thread on this. These are the references I can recall from memory; there may be others as well. With all due respect to Maadhvas and Shrii Vaishnavas, I found their explanations for SB 1.3.28 to be roundabout and not convincing (perhaps we can save this for a separate thread too). The Gaudiiyas' interpretation appears to be the most literal one. I have heard that other sampradaayas like those of Vallabha and Nimbaarka also accept a similar meaning as the Gaudiiyas, making the Maadhvas/Shriis the minority here. I have even checked 3rd party translations, such as that of the Gita Press, and they too translate the text more or less in the way the Gaudiiyas do. This is definitely not true. I have discovered years ago that members of the Cyber Maadhva Sangha only say things like this so as to give them reason to argue with ISKCON. A friend of mine showed me a posting from the Dvaita list archives in which Srisha Rao explained the Chatur-Vyuuha. He (Srisha) very explicitly said that each form was a partial manifestation/realization of the next higher one. It blew my mind. It made me wonder why he can say that, and yet object to the principle that some forms of Vishnu are regarded as partial manifestations of Krishna. Maadhvas do have a concept of "muula-ruupa." They just do not accept that the two-handed Krishna is that muula-ruupa. We discussed this issue some time back on the Achintya list, though I rather wished someone could have shown up and better represented the Maadhva side. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Are you sure Tattvavaada school does not know Muktika? I know Shrisha Rao claims this, but I would prefer to hear this from more mainstream authorities. Even then, how does this make the Muktika's authenticity doubtful? Keep in mind that Madhva quotes from numerous texts that no one has heard of, like Brahma Tarka, Vishnu Upanishad, etc. He uses this text Vishnu Upanishad to collect evidence for his concept of "vishesha," but not only has no one ever heard of it, but it is also not one of the 108 principle Upanishads. I don't think Tattvavaadiis are in any position to doubt the authenticity of the Muktika, unless they have something more solid to offer. I don't personally consider "we never heard of it" as an argument. yours, K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Are you sure Tattvavaada school does not know Muktika? I know Shrisha Rao claims this, but I would prefer to hear this from more mainstream authorities. Even then, how does this make the Muktika's authenticity doubtful? Keep in mind that Madhva quotes from numerous texts that no one has heard of, like Brahma Tarka, Vishnu Upanishad, etc. He uses this text Vishnu Upanishad to collect evidence for his concept of "vishesha," but not only has no one ever heard of it, but it is also not one of the 108 principle Upanishads. I don't think Tattvavaadiis are in any position to doubt the authenticity of the Muktika, unless they have something more solid to offer. I don't personally consider "we never heard of it" as an argument. yours, K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Questioning is very much a part of the "path of practice." Krishna advises "tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa..." (BG 4.34). A saadhaka is expected to ask questions and address doubts, not follow blindly. It is a little dangerous, I think, to imply that any questioning is unwarranted or somehow represents a character flaw. This is not addressed to you specifically, but reflects a general observation I have noticed among neophyte devotees* who regard any question they cannot answer as insincere, unworthy of a response, etc. Secondly, it is all but impossible to prove anything to satisfy Academic standards. Even if you provide references for Krishna in the Rig Veda Samhitaa, they will just argue that these are later additions to the same. Indologists hold that the Rig Veda was developed over a period of time as an amalgamation of various sages' thoughts. Indologists actually don't mean the same thing as we do when they say "Rig Veda." By "Veda" they are usually referring to the Samhitaas, and they consider Upanishads, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas to be later. But Krishna Upanishad describes Lord Krishna in detail, and if memory serves, it is also part of the Rig Veda, traditionally speaking. The Naaraayana Upanishad is also one of the 108 principle Upanishads, and it mentions that the son of Devakii is the Supreme Brahman. As far as the Gopaala-taapanii is concerned, I am not aware of any specific objection to it. Because of its clearly devotional flavor, the Advaitins are the ones who are most likely to reject it as a "recent addition," but they obviously have not done so. Hence, I see no problem using it as pramaana. It's not like Chaitanya Upanishad or "Allah Upanishad" which no one has heard of. yours, K * (which is not to say that I am not a neophyte devotee) ------------------ www.achintya.org

Questioning is very much a part of the "path of practice." Krishna advises "tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa..." (BG 4.34). A saadhaka is expected to ask questions and address doubts, not follow blindly. It is a little dangerous, I think, to imply that any questioning is unwarranted or somehow represents a character flaw. This is not addressed to you specifically, but reflects a general observation I have noticed among neophyte devotees* who regard any question they cannot answer as insincere, unworthy of a response, etc. Secondly, it is all but impossible to prove anything to satisfy Academic standards. Even if you provide references for Krishna in the Rig Veda Samhitaa, they will just argue that these are later additions to the same. Indologists hold that the Rig Veda was developed over a period of time as an amalgamation of various sages' thoughts. Indologists actually don't mean the same thing as we do when they say "Rig Veda." By "Veda" they are usually referring to the Samhitaas, and they consider Upanishads, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas to be later. But Krishna Upanishad describes Lord Krishna in detail, and if memory serves, it is also part of the Rig Veda, traditionally speaking. The Naaraayana Upanishad is also one of the 108 principle Upanishads, and it mentions that the son of Devakii is the Supreme Brahman. As far as the Gopaala-taapanii is concerned, I am not aware of any specific objection to it. Because of its clearly devotional flavor, the Advaitins are the ones who are most likely to reject it as a "recent addition," but they obviously have not done so. Hence, I see no problem using it as pramaana. It's not like Chaitanya Upanishad or "Allah Upanishad" which no one has heard of. yours, K * (which is not to say that I am not a neophyte devotee) ------------------ www.achintya.org

Why is Gopaala Taapani a "recent Upanishad?" This is news to me. The GTU, along with the Krishna Upanishad, are in the listing of 108 Upanishads given in the Muktika Upanishad. We had this discussion on the now defunct soc.religion.vaishnava some years back, and at that time I distinctly remember that Vidyasankar Sundaresan (now the maintainer of the Advaita website), stated that Sri Brahmendra Yogin of the Shankara sampradaaya actually commented on this Upanishad, along with many others. In fact, I remember that Vidya also gave a listing of 108 principle Upanishads that was identical to the listing given in Srila Prabhupada's CC purport (which was supposed to have been taken from the Muktika Upanishad). yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Why is Gopaala Taapani a "recent Upanishad?" This is news to me. The GTU, along with the Krishna Upanishad, are in the listing of 108 Upanishads given in the Muktika Upanishad. We had this discussion on the now defunct soc.religion.vaishnava some years back, and at that time I distinctly remember that Vidyasankar Sundaresan (now the maintainer of the Advaita website), stated that Sri Brahmendra Yogin of the Shankara sampradaaya actually commented on this Upanishad, along with many others. In fact, I remember that Vidya also gave a listing of 108 principle Upanishads that was identical to the listing given in Srila Prabhupada's CC purport (which was supposed to have been taken from the Muktika Upanishad). yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

If we define Gaudiiya Vaishnavism as that which is taught by Shrii Chaitanya and the six Gosvaamiis, then Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do NOT *reject* the Vedas as the highest pramaana. They simply emphasize Shriimad Bhaagavatam as the means by which to understand the Vedas. In Shrii Tattva-sandarbha, Jiiva Gosvaamii starts his whole argument by writing that one has to turn to the Vedas for spiritual understanding, then uses evidence from shruti and smriti to show that the Vedas are best understood from the Puraanas, and that Shriimad Bhaagavatam is best means by which to understand the Vedas, Upanishads, Vedaanta-suutras, etc. Shriimad Bhaagavatam has the advantage of being complete in and of itself for God-realization (SB 1.1.2), being a commentary on the Vedaanta suutra (Garuda Puraana quoted by Shrii Madhva), being the last word on Vedaanta as it was compiled after the Vedaanta-suutra, and being enjoyable even by the aatma-raamas. If someone rejects the Vedas, then this thinking is not in line with the standard of the Gosvaamiis. At the same time, realize that because one emphasizes the Bhaagavatam, it is not tantamount to rejecting the Vedas. The Gaudiiya position is that the Vedas, Upanishads, Puraanas, and Itihaasas represent a contiguous tradition. Nevertheless, even the Gosvaamiis have quoted from shruti wherever necessary for preaching. That's not true, but then again, it also depends on what you actually mean behind the words you write. Any guru's writings will rightfully be given more importance than the Vedas, in the sense that one must approach the Vedas through the medium of a guru, and not directly. On the other hand, it is not tradition to quote the guru's writings as stand-alone evidence in a debate. Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu defeated many maayaavaadii scholars of his day, but never once have I read of Him presenting Iishvara Puri's teachings as evidence. Once a Shrii Vaishnava friend of mine explained to me that the Gaudiiya Vaishnava concept of Krishna as Svayam Bhagavaan was wrong. I quoted all kinds of evidence, including Bhaagavatam 1.3.28, to support the Gaudiiya position. His response? He had no counter for anything I brought up, admitting that he could not explain away my shaastric evidence, and saying that he was simply going to follow his aachaaryas' opinion. What should I have said? This Shrii Vaishnava did not want to substantiate anything he believed based on shaastras. Perhaps Shrii Vaishnavism is a form cheating religion which exploits the saintly nature of Raamaanuja. Or maybe Shrii Vaishnavism, like all other Vaishnava schools, has its share of followers whose understanding of the philosophy they claim to follow is not so well developed. We should remember this, before we presume to criticize any sampradaaya, whether we are actually criticizing the tradition itself, or simply assuming that an immature follower is properly representing that tradition. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

If we define Gaudiiya Vaishnavism as that which is taught by Shrii Chaitanya and the six Gosvaamiis, then Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do NOT *reject* the Vedas as the highest pramaana. They simply emphasize Shriimad Bhaagavatam as the means by which to understand the Vedas. In Shrii Tattva-sandarbha, Jiiva Gosvaamii starts his whole argument by writing that one has to turn to the Vedas for spiritual understanding, then uses evidence from shruti and smriti to show that the Vedas are best understood from the Puraanas, and that Shriimad Bhaagavatam is best means by which to understand the Vedas, Upanishads, Vedaanta-suutras, etc. Shriimad Bhaagavatam has the advantage of being complete in and of itself for God-realization (SB 1.1.2), being a commentary on the Vedaanta suutra (Garuda Puraana quoted by Shrii Madhva), being the last word on Vedaanta as it was compiled after the Vedaanta-suutra, and being enjoyable even by the aatma-raamas. If someone rejects the Vedas, then this thinking is not in line with the standard of the Gosvaamiis. At the same time, realize that because one emphasizes the Bhaagavatam, it is not tantamount to rejecting the Vedas. The Gaudiiya position is that the Vedas, Upanishads, Puraanas, and Itihaasas represent a contiguous tradition. Nevertheless, even the Gosvaamiis have quoted from shruti wherever necessary for preaching. That's not true, but then again, it also depends on what you actually mean behind the words you write. Any guru's writings will rightfully be given more importance than the Vedas, in the sense that one must approach the Vedas through the medium of a guru, and not directly. On the other hand, it is not tradition to quote the guru's writings as stand-alone evidence in a debate. Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu defeated many maayaavaadii scholars of his day, but never once have I read of Him presenting Iishvara Puri's teachings as evidence. Once a Shrii Vaishnava friend of mine explained to me that the Gaudiiya Vaishnava concept of Krishna as Svayam Bhagavaan was wrong. I quoted all kinds of evidence, including Bhaagavatam 1.3.28, to support the Gaudiiya position. His response? He had no counter for anything I brought up, admitting that he could not explain away my shaastric evidence, and saying that he was simply going to follow his aachaaryas' opinion. What should I have said? This Shrii Vaishnava did not want to substantiate anything he believed based on shaastras. Perhaps Shrii Vaishnavism is a form cheating religion which exploits the saintly nature of Raamaanuja. Or maybe Shrii Vaishnavism, like all other Vaishnava schools, has its share of followers whose understanding of the philosophy they claim to follow is not so well developed. We should remember this, before we presume to criticize any sampradaaya, whether we are actually criticizing the tradition itself, or simply assuming that an immature follower is properly representing that tradition. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Guilty as charged. Whatever I have not responded to was due to lack of time, not lack of desire or evidence. It was my intention to get to everything eventually - you can either believe that or choose not to. It would help to some extent if certain parties not participating in the discussion refrain from jumping in with "hit and run" character attacks. Perhaps the weakness is also mine for bothering to respond to them. I was putting together my summary of points as per your request, when you jumped the gun and did it first. Now what? Should I again be diverted and respond to these, or do you really want to see what I have to say? If you can wait a little longer, I can try to incorporate your points in mine. I haven't even gotten around to finishing my refutation of the Nitai das article. yours, - K

I just want to clarify something. I am not arguing that diiksha should be abandoned or ignored. I am arguing that there are exceptions to the rule that a connection can only be legitimate if there is diiksha between the two individuals. I will provide more evidence in this regard later. Otherwise, the ideal is clearly that there be diiksha initiation, and this ideal is being followed in the Sarasvatii line to the present day. At least in ISKCON, with which I have some experience, one cannot officially call one's self a disciple unless he has had at least first initiation. However, this a supposition. I would say "speculation," but I don't want to endure yet another round of character attacks due to the negative connotations of that word in ISKCON parlance. There are other methods of worship besides those reserved for braahmanas. I don't doubt that HbV is faithful to Pancharaatra. But even Pancharaatra and HbV must be faithful to the Vedic ideals (again, I'm including Itihaasas and Puraanas when I say Vedic). I think the central problem here is how sampradaaya is to be defined. As I have mentioned previously, inherent in your definition of sampradaaya is that a specific set of rituals or ways of doing things must always be followed, without which one cannot claim to be in the same sampradaaya. At the risk of sounding sentimental, I still think this approach is missing the point. - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

It is mine as well. Where we disagree perhaps, is in what Rupa Gosvaamii represents with respect to the greater Vedic tradition. Good for you. But are we now admitting his statements as evidence in this discussion? I believe he has given adequate arguments substantiating the current Gaudiia Vaishnava practices. Shall I now quote those as well? And what of Mahaaprabhu wearing saffron and taking sannyaasa initiation in the Bhaarati sampradaaya (maayavaadi)? If we are going to refer to historical facts, let us refer to all of them, please. Are you saying that even His example is not to be followed? Not even for the purpose of fulfilling His expectation of propagating Krishna-consciousness? Where we seem to disagree is in what defines the Gaudiiya Sampradaaya. Your postion, and that of Raga, Jagat, et. al (who probably come from different lines but still agree on this), is that the following of the external rituals forms at least part of the definition of sampradaaya, and someone who follows different rituals is by definition from a different sampradaaya. My point all along is that the Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya is defined first and foremost by its system of Vedaanta interpretation and its conclusions. The idea that Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is defined by rituals is an attitude which seems to deviate from the essence of what the Gosvaamiis taught. Note that I am not saying that one can ignore regulative principles and simple be a Gaudiiya by agreeing with that philosophy. What I have said, and supported with evidence, is that there is scriptural and historical precedent for temporarily adjusting external requirements for the greater purpose. I also do not see the Gosvaamiis as representing a tradition that is separate from the Vedic one. Rather, I see them as reinvigorating the already existing Bhaagavata tradition, which is itself based on the Vedas. Inherent in this is the assumption that the Vedas and Bhaagavatam are one in purpose if not in presentation. While emphasizing the Bhaagavatam is clearly a distinction of our line, it is not consistent with that to ignore evidence from other scriptures. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

If you are defending Gaudiiya Vaishnava philosophy from the criticisms of other sampradaayas, what are you going to quote to defend Mahaaprabhu? The writings of the Gosvaamiis or Vedas? When Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana wrote Govinda Bhaashya to authenticate the Gaudiiya sampradaaya, did he quote from the writings of the Gosvaamiis or the Vedas? Just to clarify, I am using "Veda" in a looser sense than most. Generally I also include the Itihaasas and Puraanas, which are considered as the fifth Veda. So I would not say there is no mention of devotional service in the Vedas. I would rather say that the conception of the Vedas as Samhitaa, Braahmana, Aaranyaka, and Upanishad alone, without also including the Itihaasas and Puraanas, is incomplete. - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Unbelievable. Do you have any idea why this thread exists in the first place? Just look at some select excerpts from the article which started this thread: If you really want to address the issues you claim to be interested in, why did you not write in response to that article? Why are you instead attacking me? I have done nothing but refute the underlying misconceptions that are the basis of this author's offensive remarks. You are setting a poor example in this regard. You haven't read or understood anything I have written. Either that, or your own biases are clouding your vision. I have stated from the very beginning that I would accept the point of view of the other party if they could convince me based on evidence. I still stand by that. If you are going to have a discussion, then that is the best attitude to have. On the other hand, what of your attitude? You have jumped in, accused of me fanaticism, ignored the actual guilty party, and proceeded to misrepresent the flow of this discussion. This "hit and fade" style of yours strikes me as rather lacking in honor. You obviously have not read any of this thread. Jagat has not addressed any of the shaastric evidence I brought up. He has even admitted to this, saying that he is at a "low point" in his cycle (whatever that means). Most of what he wrote either tries to address one or two general points, or simply discusses something else. All Jagat said is that he is unconvinced by any of the pramaanas I brought up, with no point-by-point explanation as to why. If your bias is this obvious, then why even participate? Personal sympathies should not color one's loyalty to shaastra. A piece of advice: calling someone "petty" and "petulant" isn't likely to be too favorable to cultivating Krishna consciousness. This also goes for Rati and everyone else who wishes to participate. If you are going to participate, then address the facts and let us discuss them like civilized men and women. Don't sink to hurling character attacks at me. Slandering me gets you nowhere. Better instead that you attack Lord Krishna, for at least that way you might get liberation as Shishupaala did. yours, - K

Dear Rati (whoever you are), The essence of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's sampradaaya goes beyond rituals and external appearances. It is a fact that He wanted Krishna-consciousness spread all over the world, and similar statements predicting this were given by His associaties and disciplic descendents. "Always remember Krishna and never forget Him" is the main regulative principle, all others being subordinate to this one. Now, one of the criticisms of the Saarasvata line is that he introduced practices like wearing saffron, getting yagnopaveeta, and in short, practicing varnaasharma dharma, for the purpose of propagating Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. But Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu wore saffron, sacred thread, etc. for the purpose of propagating Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. What of that? There is something seriously wrong with a line of logic that attempts to define the Gaudiiya Sampradaaya according to practices which Mahaaprabhu did not follow. Then there is the logic that scriptures like Bhagavad-Giitaa, Bhaagavatam, etc are "outside" our tradition, while Hari-bhakti Vilaasa is "inside." I disagree. All of the shaastras are part of our tradition. Otherwise, what is its basis? This is not reactionary, nor is it dishonest. It is *discriminating.* I cannot help but notice that you and others feel it is okay to refer to the Sarasvati line as new or deviant, but when the reverse is stated you claim foul. With all due respect, I consider this a double standard. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

With all due respect, you are overreacting. I have written nothing out of line, especially compared to some of the other statements in this thread-- Jagat states that Bhaktisiddhaanta's line is a "new sampradaaya" that "claims" to uphold the traditional Gaudiiya Vaishnava essence, while you write similarly that you three are from "traditional" Gaudiiya Vaishnava lineages, which the Bhaktisiddhaanta line is not, as per the bhajankutir.net article. Against that backdrop, I don't understand why it is wrong to examine the evidence and reassert the correctness of one's own line above others who disagree. Perhaps the mistake is mine in assuming that *you* do not believe the Bhaktisiddhaanta line to be a "new" sampradaaya, but in fact a traditional Gaudiiya Vaishnava lineage. That didn't seem to be the gist of your arguments, but perhaps I misunderstood you. Maybe you could clarify. Nor have I failed to provide evidence for everything I have said. My acceptance or rejection is based on that evidence, and on the assumption that each of you is representing your respective traditions properly. Jagat can choose to be unconvinced, but without addressing the specifics, I have no reason to believe that he has any good reason to disagree. I also want to draw your attention to this statement: This is clearly a deviation, and will be taken as such, unless its author clarifies what he means. Right now it sounds very much like he is saying that the Vedas are only valid to the extent that the Gosvaamiis have accepted them, and that the onus is not on Gaudiiyas to demonstrate the shaastric basis of their philosophy. I also note a similar, if not as obvious approach in your postings. For example, what of the shiksha paramparaa mentioned by Krishna in Bhagavad-giitaa? Hari-bhakti Vilaasa cannot be saying that a genuine paramparaa consists of only diiksha connections. This is clearly wrong. Saying that HbV is for Gaudiiya Vaishnavas only is not an acceptable argument. Even HbV must be faithful to the standards of the mainstream Vedic literature for it to have validity. This cannot be emphasized enough. Again, I am not claiming that HbV contradicts the Itihaasas/Puraanas in regards to its concept of paramparaa. Rather, I am saying that your exclusive emphasis on these statements makes it seem that it does. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

I believe our position (again, assuming I am an "insider") is that the Gosvaamiis do not intend to contradict the shrutis in their writings. To admit otherwise is to invalidate the Vedaantic basis of the sampradaaya, reducing us all to the category of sentimentalists. Hence, if someone interprets the Gosvaamiis writings to say something that flies in the face of the shruti, then they are misunderstanding the Gosvaamiis. In this case, we have evidence from mainstream Vedic literature that shiksha paramparaas exist. The sole evidence for your position being Hari-bhakti Vilaasa, I would argue that your extreme emphasis on the diiksha prescriptions, by which you conclude that the Bhaktisiddhaanta line is not bona fide for lack of explicit diiksha, is undue. The Gaudiiya line is a continuation of the Maadhva line, in which there are numerous shiksha connections. It makes absolutely no sense to argue that the shiksha connections after the Gosvaamiis are unacceptable, when that simlarly renders as unacceptable our connection the Maadhva line. I do not think that Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana who verified our Maadhva connection, would approve of such thinking. If it is the conclusion of Hari-bhakti Vilaasa that a sampradaaya can only consist of diiksha lines, then it contradicts Vedic tradition in which there is evidence of other shiksha lines (such as Krishna-Vivasvaan-Vaivasvata Manu-Ikshwaaku). Saying that HbV is only applicable to Gaudiiya Vaishnavas is unacceptable logic. It may very well be the case, but HbV must still conform to Vedic evidence to be considered bona fide. The fact that this is an "insider" discussion does not suddenly invalidate Vedas, Puraanas, Itihaasas, etc. HbV must therefore be seen against this backdrop, and not independently. Please note that I am not saying that HbV is wrong. I am saying that these particular statements from HbV which you quote are being given more extreme emphasis by your party than the Gosvaamiis intended. Only when misinterpreted by such extreme, word-for-word devotion does the problem of conflict with other shaastras arise. I doubt that the Gosvaamiis would commit such obvious errors in scholarship. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org