krishnas

I am still here. Do you know me? How do you know this is an insider discussion? I might be an outsider who just happens to be sympathetic to the cause of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. What if, hypothetically speaking, I were actually initiated in the Shrii Vaishnava line? As an outsider looking in (hypothetically speaking), I would take great interest in your attempts to separate your gurus' conclusions from those of the shruti. I could then explain to wandering spiritual seekers why Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is nice and good, but actually they should move on to "real" Vaishnava Vedaanta which is actually faithful to the shaastras. Hypothetically speaking, of course. yours, - K

Dear Raga, I believe I have given very reasonable counter-arguments to the points raised in the Nitai dasa article. While my response may as yet be incomplete, I do not think it is lacking so far in evidence. On the other hand, the response from the LP party is so far lacking in addressing many key points, such as the fact that (1) shiksha paramparaas do exist and are acceptable as per Vedic evidence, (2) birth is neither a prerequisite nor a limiting factor to brahminical status, (3) there is a lack of objective, historical data regarding Gaura kishora's and Bhaktisiddhaanta's initiations, without which the LP's accusations are lacking in basis, and (4) varnaasharma dharma is sanctioned by shaastra and practiced even by devotees in our own line, including Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu (wearing of saffron, taking of sannyaasa, wearing of sacred thread, etc). Please kindly note that it is the Nitai das article which initiated this thread, and furthermore it is the Nitai das article which claims with very strong language that Bhaktisiddhaanta line is guilty of defying shaastra, practicing sentimental behavior, offending Vaishnavas, encouraging Vaishnava aparaadha, allowing adharmic behavior, etc etc. While accusing me of "Lump them all in one and give them a bad name," and similarly objecting to other members' blanket condemnation of Vrindaavan baabaajiis, you seem unbothered by the same kinds of blanket criticisms when offered by Nitai das. But lest I seem uncharitable, perhaps this is not due to a bias on your part, that you really are a man of principle, and that your not responding to this article was due to some other reason like time constraint. Realize that several of us here *must* respond to this article, because behind its hostile tone and accusations, there are some philosophical points raised which must be addressed. Actually, it is this author's *misunderstanding* of some key philosophical points that gives him the false confidence to speak so disrespecfully of Sriila Bhaktisiddhaanta's line. So far, the pattern in this thread has been that, if I refute 10 points of the Nitai das article, you offer rebuttals on three of them, to which I offer responses for all three, and then you again respond on just one point the next time. What am I to think of this? I must make a decision as to what to believe based on the outcome of this discussion. Is it wrong of me to express the fact that my conviction is stronger for lack of a serious objection on your part? As far as rejecting the LP party as representatives of Gaudiiya Vaishnava Vedaanta, I again do not see what you are so upset about. If members of the LP party eschew the significance of shruti in establishing truth, then they cannot be called Vedaantists in any reasonable sense of the word. All Vedaantists accept the apaurusheya nature of the Vedas as an axiom. It is never acceptable to quote one's gurus' words as stand-alone evidence. Such a tradition as yours may be very interesting in and of itself, possibly even representing the formation of a new sampradaaya that deviates from the Gosvaamiis' line. But it is not the Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya in fact. If Jagat can make such a claim about the Bhaktisiddhaanta line, I fail to see why it is so wrong to regard yours (and his?) line in the same light. Perhaps, you are upset because I use the term "Laliita Prasaada party" to describe the views given by you, Nitai das, and Jagat. While sometimes dissimilar, there are definitely a number of underlying, common themes among them. As I assume that all of you are coming in various lines descended from Laliita Prasaada (correct me if I am wrong), I inaugurated the term for ease of reference. It was not intended to be pejorative. If you feel that a better phrase can be used to describe your (plural) views, please let us know and we can use that. Let me point out that I have little familiarity with your sampradaaya, beyond what you, Nitai das, Jagat, et. al. have stated. I have not tried to make up anything that I say about you. I have only restated what I have understood from your representation of your tradition. I am open to correction, as I do not believe in criticizing strawmen as Nitai das has. However, I will not back down on the point of scrutinizing everything according to the evidence of shaastra. This will eventually result in my rejecting either your conclusions or those of the Gaudiiya/Bhaktisiddhaanta line. So far the Bhaktisiddhaanta line's conclusions are in the early lead, based on what has already transpired. Resorting to sarcasm will not help you. regards, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org [Note from JNDAS: edited to remove the small html text setting.] [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-01-2002).]

Jahnava-Nitai, It is amazing how much we think alike. Thanks for writing what you did; I was just about to mention those points too, but I was required to work this morning. I'll probably contribute a few pieces of supportive evidence later, although as you mentioned, I am beginning to wonder what the point of it would be. For Vedaantic schools, the highest authority is Vedas, period. I used to think this was a big problem getting devotees to understand this in ISKCON circles. But I am really disappointed to see that the critics of the Bhaktisiddhaanta line (can I call them the Laliita Prasaada party, for reference?) are equally uninterested in shaastric evidence, even going so far as to endorse the "pick-and-choose" mentality I had previously associated with neo-Advaitin, new-age Hindu groups. Still, I think this discussion was fruitful, as we now know what the LP party believes, and what they are actually prepared to prove. I think we have reason enough to reject the LP party as representatives of Gaudiiya Vaishnava Vedaanta, as we have now seen at least three different authors mention in some way, shape, or form their casual dismissal of shaastric evidence. Obviously, if "we follow the Gosvamis, we are uninterested in other evidence" is the whole basis for their line of argument, no one is going to take them seriously. The problem, I think, is that there is a tendency to confuse Bhaktisiddhaanta's line with some of these other, deviant lines of thinking, on account of superficial similarity. If I had any doubt before about the legitimacy of Sriila Bhaktisidhaanta Sarasvatii's line, I am even more convinced now than ever before of its authenticity vis-a-vis other "branches" of our sampradaaya. regards, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Bhaktisiddhaanta *did* reveal that paramparaa. He revealed Gaura Kishora's shiksha guru to be Bhaktivinoda. This is the link which is being given emphasis, more so than any alleged diiksha Gaura Kishora had previously. You cannot argue that the Jagannaatha --> Bhaktivinoda --> Gaura Kishora --> Bhaktisiddhaanta line is not a paramparaa because of the shiksha connections. In Bhagavad-Giitaa we find: ima.m vivasvate yoga.m proktavaanahamavyayam | vivasvaanmanave praahe manurikShvaakave'braviit || giitaa 4.1 || eva.m paramparaapraaptamima.m raajarShayo viduH | sa kaaleneha mahataa yogo naShTaH parantapa || giitaa 4.2 || Krishna instructed this science to Vivasvaan, who instructed Manu, who in turn instructed Ikshvaaku. And in BG 4.2 Krishna refers to this as a "paramparaa." Where is the evidence that Krishna and Vivasvaan sat down, lit the sacrifical fire, and performed the diiksha ceremony? Not here. But even assuming there was such an event, the same could not have been the case between Vivasvaan and Manu, and Manu and Ikshwaaku. These were the ancestors of the Solar dynasty into which Lord Raamachandra appeared. They were rulers, not brahmins. There is no way they were performing diiksha initiations. This is an example of a shiksha paramparaa. Krishna refers to it as such. Why is not a guru paramparaa, when Krishna says otherwise? Again, I would like to know who this diiksha guru was and what is the evidence. I am not contesting it. I am just curious. Perhaps this diiksha guru was in fact the genuine article, but it is still possible to give emphasis to another shiksha guru. In the Chaandogya Upanishad, there is a conversation between Naarada and the Sanaat-kumaaras in which the former approaches the latter for instruction. But it is no snub on the Kumaaras that our paramparaa does not list them. The connection to Lord Brahmaa is given greater emphasis, since the instruction of Shriimad Bhaagavatam comes in that line. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Dear Raga, Apologies for the tardy reply. I am breaking this one up into several segments. I do not wish to get into a character debate. I am not familiar with the devotee whom you describe. I only wish to point out that one can revere a Vaishnava, only to be disappointed by his behavior later. Similarly, one can revere a Vaishnava but for all the wrong reasons. I don't have the book you cited, so I do not know why OBL Kapoor makes this claim about Ramakrishna, or what the basis is. Raga, please bear in mind that it was *you* who first brought up the idea of "prejudice." You do not appear to accept biographies of the relevant incidents which are authored by Bhaktisiddhaanta followers. Fair enough. That is your right. I have only pointed out that prejudice works both ways. One can always accuse someone of being biased towards the sampradaaya in which he is initiated, but without hard evidence you have no proof. Merely assuming that the accounts are inaccurate because other parties have a different viewpoint is begging the question. There is no reason to assume that the Baabaajiis are neutral simply because they disagree. Most of the internet Gaudiiya Vaishnava community never heard of Lalita Prasad Thaakur until his followers started criticizing Bhaktisiddhaanta. This is really unnatural in Vedic culture. Even Maadhva and Shrii Vaishnava sannyaasis, who have less in common philosophically with Gaudiiyas, will never fail to offer high praise for Srila Prabhupada when in the public light. The party of Laliita Prasaada Thaakura has so far offered little defense for their accusations. Most of the "evidence" they quote seems out of place, given more significance that is due it, or is simply hearsay. If his followers could provide solid evidence for their claims, the issue of character would not even come up. However, they have failed to do so thus far, but nevertheless accuse followers of Bhaktisiddhaanta of prejudice. Hence, you are transforming this into a character debate. Do I believe Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers or Laliita Prasaada's? Without any real evidence to go one way or another, I can only stick to the party who so far seems obedient to shaastra (Bhaktisiddhaanta) and whose founder I believe to be of exemplary character (Bhaktisiddhaanta). I do not like character debates. I also am not one to assume that someone is "inimical" because he disagrees with me. You would do well to remember that. But until you or someone else gives me more to go on, then that is all this is. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

That interpretation is going on constantly is not contested by me. The undisciplined mind has a tendency to speculate, to reinterpret, to pick and choose what suits his fancy, etc. If everyone surrendered to a bona fide guru, this tendency would be curbed to some extent. But because "interpretation is going on constantly," it does not logically follow there is no one, true Vedic siddhaanta. I think it is really sentimental to allude to the plurality of views as evidence that none of them have it 100%. I'm sorry, but again I think your statement just reflects an academic's approach to scripture, in contrast to the Vedaantist's approach, which is to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a correct meaning and try to get at it. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

This is not true according to what I have been told by Dvaita followers. "Madhva claimed no one else but Vyaasa as his guru," they told me, in response to my pointing out that he got diiksha from Achyuta Preksha. Quoting from the Dvaita Home Page (http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html): "Finally, at the age of eleven, upon the birth of a younger brother (who many years later joined his order as Vishnu Tîrtha) he was ordained into sanyâsa, whence he was given the name Ananda Tîrtha by his guru Achyutapreksha Tîrtha, a.k.a. Achyuta-pragnya Tîrtha..." [snip] "Visual evidence, if one may call it that, of Srimad Ananda Tîrtha being Madhva, the avatâra of Vâyu, was obtained by Trivikrama Pandita when the latter had the great fortune to observe the three forms of Vâyu worship simultaneously -- Hanumân worshipping Râma, Bhîmasena worshipping Krishna, and Ananda Tîrtha worshipping Vyâsa..." Quoting from shriimadhva-vijaya 8.1-5: (in the translation, this section is entitiled "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras") ".2. PoornaPrajna had an excellent mind capable of knowing completely all aspects of the extremely secret tenets, which remain to be known (only by specially qualified persons like Brahma and Mukhya Prana). VedaVyasa was an appropriate Guru for him as only He could expound fully such tenets to such a disciple. Therefore, the gods honoured Madhva’s approaching VedaVyasa for knowledge in this manner. .3. God in the form of Vyasa filled up fully the mind of Madhva already having a large capacity for knowledge with knowledge in greater measure. This mind was God’s residence (he lived constantly in the mind of Madhva) and it was already full of auspicious knowledge. This was similar to God in the form of Krishna filling up His large city of Dwaraka which was already full of wealth and people with even greater wealth and numbers of people. Note: The Rjus like Madhva have this extraordinary capacity for knowledge – just like Dwaraka could hold more wealth and people, when it was already full. .4. PoornaPrajna with infinite intelligence listened in a very short time from VedaVyasa, with the name Anantha (signifying infinite knowledge) the most appropriate meanings arising naturally (without any forced interpretation) of the infinite numbers of Vedas, Mahabharatha, Puranas, Brahma Suthras and Pancharathra Agama, which are very dear to the good people. Note: There is no doubt that both the teacher and the student have to have infinite capacities of intellect, memory etc to completely transmit and receive the entire mass of Shastra literature correctly and fully in the short time the two were together. It is this extraordinary storehouse of knowledge that makes Madhva’s compositions matchless for authority, brevity and total consistency. .5. VedaVyasa, who rests on the bed of the serpent Shesha (in his form resident in Vaikunta) had given His great blessings (in the form of auspicious knowledge) to Mukhya Prana (Madhva), who is the greatest of the Rjus, in infinite lives in the past. Thus, though Madhva knows and understands all the Shastras by himself, Vyasa taught all the subjects to him again and thus further sharpened his wisdom by His great blessings." yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Dear Jagat, That is certainly your right. But please understand that I am not going to accept any point of view if it will not stand up to polite scrutiny. So far, I can't help but note that many critical points I raised in regards to the Nitai das article have gone unanswered. While I object to blind following, I should point out that blindly following an opponent's point of view is still blind following. "Caste by birth" has been the custom in India for the last several hundred years. A person's claim to being a brahmin is considered legitimate if he is born into a "brahmin" family, regardless of his actual qualification or disqualification. There are shaastric pramaanas to contradict this view, but nevertheless it has become almost standard. Now, using your logic, if one objects to this and proposes a shaastrically-based system of initiations (one in which, for example, the guru actually instructs the disciple and trains him prior to initiation), then we must conclude that this system is a "new" tradition that breaks with the old tradition and thus represents a revolution. Deviant traditions are not legitimized by time nor the charisma of the "guru" who introduced them. At the risk of sounding fanatical, a sincere saadhaka should only be concerned with those traditions that are based on shaastra. After all, one who discards those injunctions cannot attain the Supreme Goal, as per Bhagavad-Giitaa 16.3. Unfortunately, I do not believe Vaishnavas have the luxury of NOT considering the correctness of a position, as the correctness or lack thereof is the whole point. That it is, but often falsely. Many young males born into Indian brahmin families get "initiation" by a "priest-for-hire" before they become adults. This is in spite of the fact that they (the initiates) might be drunkards and/or meat-eaters. Would you have me believe that such people are really brahmins just because they took their vows? Would you have me believe that they are actually connected to any sampradaaya? I intend no disrespect towards H.H. Naaraayana Mahaaraaja. But his followers claim that he is a shiksha disciple of Srila Prabhupada because they made chapatis together in their days at Raadha-Daamodara temple in Vrindaavan. When I pointed out that this is not shiksha, and that it renders the whole concept of shiksha meaningless were it to be claimed as such, they could offer no real response. I do not think this is a very good example. ISKCON devotees, and indeed all other Vaishnavas, should judge the legitimacy of a guru on the basis of guru, saadhu, and shaastra, with emphasis on shaastra. I personally cannot accept Naaraayana Mahaaraaja as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada because, other than the lack of evidence of any real instruction, there seems to be some significant differences in their concept of who is eligible to hear what (at least according to how the NM followers have represented that philosophy to me). Others may disagree, of course, but let us save that for a separate discussion. The point is, neither diiksha nor shiksha claims should be accepted *blindly.* I am not arguing that diiksha is unnecessary or superficial, and you would do well to remember that. I have only argued that there are diiksha lines, in which the knowledge and training gained by a shiksha guru is given higher regard, and rightfully so. This may be because the diiksha guru is illegitimate in some way (like the familiar "priest-for-hire" in India, who knows the mantras but cannot practically apply philosophy), or simply less advanced than the shiksha guru. I have only argued this because the Nitai Das article claims that Bhaktisiddhaanta's paramparaa as listed is illegitimate, based on superficial reasoning that ultimately fails to take into account historical precedent. This whole discussion was initiated by the Nitai das school of thought. Then those ISKCON people are wrong, period. Krishna Kanta's lack of authority was not due to his being unitiated, but because his paper contradicted shaastric pramaanas regarding guru-tattva. I don't buy into the argument that an uninitiated person automatically has no authority to speak. There are many initiated devotees whom I have met who have no idea what they are talking about. I have also met uninitiated bhaktas who have a very good grasp of shaastra. If a person speaks correctly on the basis of shaastra, there is no question of denying the authority behind his words. Vedas do not depend on *anything* for their authority. This is accepted by all Vedaanta schools. The weakness of an uninitiated devotee is that there is only so much shaastra he can learn without the aid of a guru. He will also need training from the guru in other areas besides just his knowledge base. There is no logic to the claim that one's lack of initiation means that everything he says is wrong. This is just a ploy used by lazy devotees who do not want to step up to the plate and debate, which of course requires that they read Srila Prabhupada's books. And similarly, if you get a degree from an unaccredited school of medicine, you will probably end up committing malpractice. If the guru is not qualified, or the diiksha is not accompanied by proper instruction, then the diiksha is meaningless. "Where there is smoke, there is probably fire." If the diiksha guru were really in an authoritative position to begin with, there is no reason for a disciple to look elsewhere for instruction. Or else it may simply be that the shishya is converted to another sampradaaya due to association of a superior guru. As is diiksha, for the reasons already mentioned. Let us the take the example of Madhvaachaarya. He was initiated by Achyuta Preksha, but later he got shiksha from Shrii Vedavyaasa and claimed Vyaasa to be his guru. Now, is it not incorrect for Madhva to claim disciplic descent from Vyaasa? After all, where is the diiksha? In Vaishnava Vedaanta schools, rightness or wrongness is determined by scriptural evidence, and not vox populi. Merely quoting the deviant attitudes of religious organizations does not grant your arguments substance. It is of course, the academics' point of view that the prevailing trends must be given due regard since nothing is ultimately objective or supremely authoritative. But that is not a Vedaantists' view, nor should it be. I have no interpretation, since this is the first time I have heard it. All I know is that diiksha is most certainly not a "magic wand," as someone else put it. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Dear Jagat, First of all, my name is Hari Krishna, not Hare Krishna. Secondly, it is not I who am hung up on this issue. My point all along regarding the diiksha question has been, "so what?" Not only is it obvious that shiksha is the important factor in the paramparaa, but also that this has been the case since before Chaitanya. Normally diiksha is the binding factor between guru and disciple, and the diiksha guru is the shiksha guru. But there are exceptions to this case, and in such exceptions, it has often been more appropriate to give the shiksha connection more regard. We have numerous examples since the time of Madhva in which shiksha connections were given more regard than diiksha connections. I notice that while I have brought up such examples several times, nevertheless it is again being asserted that diiksha initiation is the absolute rule. Bhaktisiddhaanta's emphasis on shiksha is nothing new, and one cannot argue that his views on this point represents the creation of a new sampradaaya distinct from that of the Gosvaamiis. There is no evidence that Lakshmiipati Tiirtha took diiksha from Vyaasa Tiirtha. There is no evidence that Maadhavendra Purii took diiksha from Lakshmiipati. One cannot ignore the example of the puurvaachaaryas and reasonably suggest that Bhaktisiddhaanta is somehow "breaking with custom." He has done no such thing, since the custom has been to give shiksha more regard than diiksha. In fact, one can effectively argue the opposite based on historical precedent: the emphasis on diiksha regardless of shiksha represents the actual break with tradition. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org

Dear Raga, Thank you for your comments. I personally have no problem with you trying to convert me to your point of view, if you were trying to do so. Should your point of view prove to have superior basis in guru, saadhu, and shaastra, then I feel that I am obligated to accept it. Conversely, if I see conflicts with guru, saadhu, and shaastra, then I am obligated to reject it. Hence, like you, I think I can honestly say that I am interested in the facts concerning the matter. As I believe I have already pointed out, what are considered "facts" by the author of the article I responded to are by no means established as such, at least not by any reasonable standard of proof. I want to point out that, even if Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta had said he was initiated "in a dream," this would by no means preclude the possibility that he had or was going to get, formal initiation. The article (by one Nitai das?) gave a similar example in regard to Advaita Prabhu, Maadhavendra Puri, and Siitaa-devi. This is an interesting story. Assuming that some incident actually occurred upon which this story is based, and that the baabaajiis that you mentioned did in fact witness it, it isn't clear to me that we are seeing the *whole* story here. Jagat recently made reference to differences of opinion and practice among Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, by which I believe he is referring to Gaudiiya Math/ISKCON Vaishnavas vs Baabaajiis of Vrindaavana. That being the case, it seems more than likely that we are hearing this story retold through the eyes of the Baabaajii party, whom I'm sure are putting a very different emphasis on it. This is all ASSUMING that something like this ever happened. Now let me ask the obvious question: How do we know that anything like this even happened? What is the evidence? So far, it still seems like hearsay. If you argue that it is the opinion of the Baabaajiis that it happened, then what of the opinion of Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta that he was in fact initiated? It just boils down to one opinion vs. another, so why arbitrarily reject Bhaktisiddhaanta's opinion and accept the account given by the Baabaajiis? Perhaps because it is convenient towards your position, you have given only half of the definition of "objective." Prejudice can and often is negative as well, and those who are inimical towards a great aachaarya are certainly not in any position to give an objective commentary about that aachaarya's biographical details. And this is exactly what I am getting at. Why should we accept Lalita Prasada's opinion, if we should not accept Bhaktisiddhaanta's? The perception of Lalita Prasada among Gaudiiya Vaishnavas is that he is inimical to Bhaktisiddhaanta. In that case, why should I trust him? I have no reason to think that he is objective, and every reason to think otherwise. Gaura Kishora Baabaajii, based on everything I have read about him, lived the life of a recluse. I have to thus question the ability of the sources you mentioned to correctly name and identify all of his disciples. Again, how would they know? This is not true. In "Shrii Guru-paramparaa" Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta sings: vishwanaatha-bhakta-saatha, baladeva jagannaatha, taara priya shrii-bhaktivinoda mahaa-bhaagavata-bara, shrii-garuakishora-bara, hari-bhajanete jaa'ra moda "Vishvanaatha Chakravartii Thaakura was the shikshaa-guru [instructing spiritual master] of Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana, to whom he taught the precepts of Shriimad-Bhaagavatam. Jagannaatha daasa Baabaajii was a very prominent aachaarya after Shrii Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana and was the beloved shikshaa-guru of Shrii Bhaktivinoda Thaakura. Bhaktivnoda Thaakura's intimate friend and associate was the eminent mahaa-bhaagavata Shrii Gaurakishora daasa Baabaajii, whose sole joy was found in hari-bhajana." As far as revealing himself to be Gaurakishora's disciple, it is clearly understood from the fact that Bhaktisiddhaanta gives his own name next in the song. But let's assume that somehow it wasn't obvious, and that, as you have said, Bhaktisiddhaanta never revealed his connection with Gaurakishora to anyone. This would force us to conclude that Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta created 64 Gaudiiya Mathas and initiated all of his disciples, all the while letting them think that he had no guru. This goes against the grain of Mahaaprabhu's teachings. To say that it stretches the limits of believability is an understatement. A reasonable evidence to support your view would be if a majority of Bhaktisiddhaanta's disciples admited in their writings that they had no idea who their guru's guru was. Have you such evidence? Perhaps the issue here is whether or not Bhaktisiddhaanta received diiksha or shiksha initiation. If your complaint seems to be that Bhaktisiddhaanta was a shiksha disciple of Gaurakishora only, and that he never revealed his diiksha guru, than what of it? It is well known that shiksha is more important that diiksha, especially if one's diiksha guru does is found to fall short of the proper standards of devotional service. Shrii Madhvaachaarya's diiksha guru was Achyuta Preksha, an Advaitin. Would you have us believe that Madhva should list his paramparaa through Achyuta Preksha? If you hold that diiksha is always more important than shiksha, then how you do you explain Madhva accepting Vyaasa as his guru? What about Lakshmiipati Tiirtha accepting Vyaasa Tiirtha? That was mostly likely a shiksha connection as well, since the Maadhva Mathas have no record of Lakshmiipati (admitted by BNK Sharma in his _History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_). And of what of Maadhavendra and Iishvara Puri? Both of them were probably Advaitin sannyaasis, for reasons given in O.B.L. Kapoor's _The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya_. Why didn't Maadhavendra Puri reveal his diiksha guru? Certainly in the guru-paramparaa found in Govinda-bhaashya, we find no record of a diiksha guru for Maadhavendra Puri - only his shiksha guru Lakshmiipati Tiirtha. How did you derive "consequently the recognized parivaras.... have their specific tilaka-svarupa" from "at the time of diksa the guru bestows the specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple"? If the disciple must have the same kind of tilaka as the guru, then the logical conclusion of this is that all Gaudiiya Vaishnavas must have the same tilaka. For different sections to have different tilakas implies that somewhere, someone has deviated from his guru in this regard. Why then focus on the alleged difference between Bhaktisiddhaanta's and Gaurakishora's tilaka? What evidence have you to suggest that Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers have adopted a different tilaka than that of Gaurakishora? If there is such evidence, then the question is valid and deserves discussion. If there is no such evidence, then we are better off not wasting time discussing a non-issue. Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii did not practice these institutions of varnaashrama because he was a paramahamsa, not because he his alleged birth in a vaishya family was a disqualification. Both Gaura Kishora and Bhaktisiddhaanta were already on the level of braahmanas. Hence, there was no need of Bhaktisiddhaanta getting a separate guru to give him initiation into sacred thread. This was not even in practice before Bhaktisiddhaanta, so to whom should he have gone to get this? Bhaktisiddhaanta was initiated by Gaura Kishora, who was already better than a braahmana, and then later Bhaktisiddhaanta got from the followers of Raamaanuja the practices of sacred thread, gaayatrii mantra, etc. I see no way that he could have done this differently. Nor do I see why he should have done it any differently. If it is argued that Bhaktisiddhaanta could not be considered a braahmana because his guru Gaura Kishora was not a braahmana (due to birth as a vaishya), then I would refer you to shruti which states: tarhi jaatir braahmaNa iti chet tan na | tatra jaatyantarajantuShvanekajaatisambhavaat | maharShayo bahavaH santi || vajra up 5 || If someone says: "One becomes a braahmana by taking birth in a braahmana family," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. A braahmana may be born in any kind of family. Indeed, many great braahmana sages were not born from braahmanas. (vajrasuuchika upaniShad 5) Then Upanishad then goes on to give several examples of braahmana sages who were of nonbrahminical birth, like Vyaasa, Vaalmiiki, Gautama, etc. Hence, Gaura Kishora daasa baabaajii's qualification as a braahmana (for purposes of initiation) cannot be dispute because of his birth. Nor can one dispute whether one is a braahmin on the basis of prescribed duties (like wearing of sacred thread, chanting of gaayatrii mantra), for the same Upanishad states: tarhi karma braahmaNa iti chet tan na | sarveShaa.m praaNinaa.m praarabdhasa~nchitaagamikarmasaadharmyadarshanaat karmabhir preritaaH santo janaaH kriyaaH kurvantiiti | tasmaan na karma braahmaNa iti || vajra up 7 || If someone says: "A particular person is a braahmana because he performs his prescribed duties," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. Many pious living entities alike perform the prescribe duties resulting from their previous karma, but that does not make them all braahmanas. Therefore it is not performance of prescribed duties that makes one a braahmana." (varja suuchika upaniShad 7) In fact, after stating several times what cannot be used to determine who is a braahmina, the Upanishad goes on to give only two criteria to determine who is a braahmana: tarhi ko vaa braahmaNo naama | yaH kashchid aatmaanam advitiiya.m... | etc Then someone may ask: "Who is a braahmana, then? The scriptures answer: "A braahmana directly sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead..." (vajra suuchika upanishad 9) kaamaraagaadidoSharahitaH shamadaamaadisampanno bhaavamaatsaryatR^iShNaashaamohaadirahito dambhaaha.nkaaraadibhir asa.mspR^iShTachetaa vartata evam uktalakShaNo yaH sa eva braahmaNa iti shrutismR^itipuraaNetihaasaanaam abhipraayaH | anyathaa hi braahmaNatvasiddhir naastyeva | sachchidaanandam aatmaanam advitiiya.m brahma bhaavayed aatmaana.m sachchidaananda.m brahma bhaavayed ity upaniShat || varja up 9 || Also, a braahmana is free of lust, attachment, and other vices, is endowed with peacefulness, self-control and other virtues, is free of envy, hankering, illusion, and other defects, and has a heart untouched by pride and false ego. The Shruti, Smriti, Puraanas, and Ithaasas declare that such a person is a braahmana. A person who does not have these qualities cannot be a braahmana. A braahmana always meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is eternal and full of knowledge and bliss. Thus the Upanishad is spoken. (vajra suuchika upanishad 9) Please note that this is directly from shruti, whose authority is not disputed by anyone. If wearing of brahminical thread and chanting of gaayatrii mantra were necessary prerequisites to becoming a braahmana, then this Upanishad would have said so. Therefore, one cannot dispute the brahminical qualification of Gaura Kishora and Bhaktisiddhaanta on the basis of lack of mantra initiation or birth. As per my understanding, Shrii Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii got the rituals from the Shrii Vaishnavas. He probably got the mantras from them as well, assuming what you say here is true. Again, I don't see how this is a disqualification. Much of this criticism seems to be based on alleged differences over external matters, i.e. how one wears urdhva-pundra, what gaayatrii mantra he chants, what color is his dhoti, etc. I will be very frank in saying that, I am more interested in whether or not one is faithful to the philosophy as taught by Mahaaprabhu and shaastra. No sensible person should follow a "Gaudiiya Vaishnava" who faithfully follows Hari-bhakti-vilaasa rituals, but yet disagrees with the Gosvaamiis on such essential topics as varnaashrama, the qualification of a saadhaka to practice raagaanuga bhakti, or the authority of shaastra. I don't believe there is any question that Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii's shiksha guru was Bhaktivinoda Thaakura. He was known to also be a disciple of Bhaagavata daasa Baabaajii, who was a disciple of Jagannatha daasa Baabaajii. Who is the Advaita-parivara guru of Gaura Kishora? If it was Bhaagavata daasa, then why do you say that Bhaktisiddhanta did not recognize this connection as bona fide? If it is indeed the fact that Bhaktisiddhaanta did not recognize it as bona fide, then what was the reasoning? Let's hear the other side of the story, if applicable. And I think we have abundant reasons to reject such reasoning as superficial, for the reasons already given by me. The Baabaajiis claim that Gaura Kishora never gave diiksha to Bhaktisiddhaanta. Again, what of it? Can the baabaajiis show that Vyaasa gave diiksha to Madhva? By the Baabaajii's own logic, the whole sampradaaya is not bona fide because Madhva is not bona fide. So who has any business coming in a paramparaa beginning with Madhva, and then arguing that someone else's paramparaa is not bona fide? Because his own father urged him to take initiation from Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii, as recorded in _Ray of Vishnu_, pg 17. Quibble with the source if you like (I think the book was written by an ISKCON devotee), but you still have not provided any objective source for your statements. Which mantra are you referring to? Everyone knows the shaastric basis for the hare kR^iShNa mahaa-mantra. I am not aware of Bhaktisiddhaanta distributing any other mantra, except perhaps those which he gave during braahmana initiation. On the basis of the fact that sannyaasa means renunciation. Merely dressing the part and/or receiving an initiation does not make one a sannyaasi: kaamyaanaa.m karmaNaa.m nyaasa.m sannyaasa.m kavayo viduH || giitaa 17.2 || The giving up of activites that are based on material desire is what great learned men call the renounced order of life [sannyaasa]. (bhagavad-giitaa 17.2) And I agree 100% with this. Frankly, I don't see why orthodox Vaishnavas from any sampradaaya would have a problem with this. And that, I think speaks for itself. Sometimes the aachaarya must make compromises with certain shaastric regulations in order that the shaastric message be propagated. There is shaastric precedent for this also: o.m namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya | mantreNaanena devasya kuryaad dravyamayii.m budhaH | saparyaa.m vividhair dravyair deshakaalavibhaagavait || bhaa 4.8.54 || Om namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya. This is the twelve-syllable mantra for worshiping Lord Krishna. One should install the physical forms of the Lord, and with the chanting of the mantra one should offer flowers and fruits and other varieties of foodstuffs exactly according to the rules and regulations prescribed by authorities. But this should be done in consideration of place, time, and attendant conveniences and inconveniences. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.8.54) Here it is clearly stated that devotional service must be executed with consideration for desha and kaala. It is not that the same stereotyped approach must be given to everyone, with the result being that if it cannot be done exactly the same in every time and place, that therefore the saadhakas cannot become Vaishnavas. The example is there in the Bhaagavatam itself. Naarada initiated Dhruva Mahaaraaja in the dvaadashaakshara mantra, which begins with pranava omkaara, even though Dhruva Mahaaraaja was not a brahmin but a kshatriya. Naarada was not at fault for making such a compromise. Aside from being a devotee of immaculate qualification, the result of his compromise was that Dhruva became a pure devotee. Hence, just as in Bhaktisiddhaanta's case, the effect of the preaching speaks for itself. Note that I do not condone just anyone making such compromises. Obviously, the aachaarya who does this must be on the level of a Naarada. And the result must be that pure devotional service is being propagated. Again, I see no reason to criticize Bhaktisiddhaanta, as his preaching has given A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii, for whose preaching work even erudite Maadhvas and Shrii Vaishanavas have great regard. I don't see the big deal. There is abundant historical precedent to the effect that shiksha is ultimately what matters. Ideally the diiksha and shiksha guru are one, but practically this is not always the case. This has never been a controversy for other Vaishnavas, as far as I know. The point however, is that it does not mean being initiated in a dream, which I think topples objection #1 from Nitai-dasa's posting. In different Maadhva maths, there are differences in regards to the sequence of gurus listed in the paramparaas (also admitted by BNK Sharma). Compared to that, a difference in two or more accounts regarding the date of an aachaarya's admission is hardly significant, especially when you consider that this statement was probably just a misprint to begin with. I have never met Nitai Das, and I don't mean to be dismissive of him or his research. But all of these statements are just second-hand evidence, probably colored by the attitudes of the persons with whom he spoke. This does not constitute hard evidence. If I want to play devil's advocate, I could question the accuracy of the accounts of these Baabaajii's, just as Nitai Das et. al. question the accuracy of Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers with regards to their paramparaa. Again, it just boils down to who you choose to believe, with no objective evidence why you should believe one over the other, except of course from the standard of "phalena pariciyate," in which case I know who I am going to take seriously. Since I have remarked on this account already, I will not do so again here, except for one small point: The difference between this retelling of this account is that here, some doubt is admitted to the pujari's credibility. If Nitai Das has this doubt, I see no reason why I shouldn't also. And when one considers the source above, I think the reason for doubting it becomes obvious. At the risk of sounding sentimental, I want to tell you a little bit about where I am coming from. I was born in a conservative South Indian family, and traditionally we do not speak badly of our own brothers in front of outsiders, what to speak of Godbrothers in the same spiritual family. This is called culture. Regardless of how erudite one might seem to be, we could never accept as a friend (what to speak of accepting as guru) a "Vaishnava" who was fixated on the real or alleged character flaws of his brothers or peers. It is simply unnatural. Even maayaavaadis will have a problem with this. I had never heard of Lalita Prasad Thakur until his followers popped up on the internet and started quoting his negative remarks towards Bhaktisiddhaanta. That's it - no katha, just politics first and foremost. On the other hand, the first time I heard or read the names "A.C. Bhaktivedaanta" or "Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii," it was in the context of their teaching about devotional service. With regards to the names "Bhaktisiddhaanta" and "Bhaktivedaanta," I had to read so much Krishna-conscious philosophy before I even got a hint of anything that seemed political in their writings, and even in those few cases, there was always a philosophical point to be made. First impressions often are quite revealing. You must understand that, if it comes down to a question of Lalita Prasaada's character versus that of Bhaktisiddhaanta, I am simply not going to be convinced to just accept Lalita Prasaada's version of the events. I require objective evidence, which I have thus far not seen. I still do not consider this a crucial point. If it is so clear that he intended to do so, you could perhaps support your contention by showing where in his writings Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta advised disciples to engage in large-scale photo-sannyaasi initiations. Circular reasoning. Chaitanya Charitamrita was written by Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja, whose authority is based on the fact that he was a disciple of the Gosvaamiis. Hence, the decision to accept the Gosvaamii's authority is just as arbitrary as the decision to accept or reject Bhaktisiddhaanta's. Which is why we have shaastra - to give objective criteria by which to judge the results of one's endeavors. We also have other sampradaayas and their practices by which to compare. What Bhaktisiddhaanta introduced in terms of sacred thread initiations and wearing of saffron was no different than what had been established practice for the last thousand years in other sampradaayas. Can other "great souls" after the Gosvaamiis similarly justify what they "introduced?" With all due respect to them, I doubt it. Thank you for providing the quote. I looked at the URL, but again I did not see where the reference was given. However, I will take your word for it. I will attempt to get my hands on a copy of Hari-bhakti-vilaasa, if for no other reason than to have more source material by which to see what you are talking about. Even still, it so far comes down to time, place and circumstance. Would Sanaatana-Gosvaamii take issue with the results of Bhaktisiddhaanta's preaching because it involved sannyaasis wearing saffron? Doubtful. And if we were living in a world where everyone recognized the "paramahamsa" culture of the Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, then Bhaktisiddhaanta's reforms would have been unnecessary. But India is not that kind of world, and people do recognize the authority of a saffron-clad sannyaasi, whatever else their beliefs might be. Every painting I have ever seen of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu shows Him to be wearing saffron after His sannyaasi initation. That also makes sense, given that he got His sannyaasi initation from the Bhaarati sampradaaya, in which wearing of saffron was standard. So what of that? Was Mahaaprabhu violating the standards set by his disciples? Or could it be that time, place and circumstance should be considered in exactly how one executes devotional service? Wearing of saffron is the standard for sannyaasis in all sampradaayas. For Gaudiiyas it was different because varnaashrama customs were not strictly adhered to until the time of Bhaktisiddhaanta. There is no fault in this for persons like the Gosvaamiis, who were transcendental to varnaashrama. But this is not the case today. I would argue that Bhaktisiddhaanta HAD to make the reforms he did, given that Gaudiiya Vaishnavism had to be propagated to fallen persons. On the contrary, "desha-kaala-vibhaagavit" (SB 4.8.54). My point is that the changes which Bhaktisiddhaanta instituted were based on shaastra and were appropriate for time, place, and circumstance. Just as the decision not to adhere to those practices by the previous Gosvaamiis was also appropriate for their time and circumstance. Noted. Expect it some time in the next two weeks. I am by no means an expert, so feel free to dispute anything I say. If by "this" you mean your posting and my reply to it, then I am happy to. The Achintya rules forbid cross-posting an article without the author's permission. Thanks for your permission. The main difficulty with Nitai dasa's article is that it makes some disparaging remarks about ISKCON/GM devotees. Just as in Brahminical culture, we do not dwell on the character flaws of others, so also on Achintya postings are required to be free of politics and fault-finding. It is okay to have a philosophical disagreement, even one that might have political ramifications. It is also ok to describe specific behaviors and whether or not they are supported by shaastra. It is not okay to make accusations against this or that religious organization, or point out the faults of their followers, etc. Hence, I am trying to figure out how best to edit Nitai dasa's article so that I can post it to Achintya with the philosophical points intact. regards, - K p.s. forgive me this long and verbose writing. I will try to make future postings shorter and to the point. ------------------ www.achintya.org

One of the members of a mailing list I moderate tried to cross post this article there recently. Since India Divine is where the discussion originally took place, I just wanted to offer a few comments. I will also post this response on the Achintya list (www.achintya.org) in case members there wish to continue debating it. This is the first I have heard that Bhaktisiddhanta was supposedly initiated in a dream. My understanding of the actual events was that the initiation was real. From _A Ray of Vishnu_, Chapter 3, page 18: "After thus indicating his readiness to take his life, Siddhaanta Sarasvatii began to cry. Shriila Gaura Kishora daasa Babaajii's heart was mealted to see this, so he told him to take bath in the Sarasvatii and then come back to him. At the time of initiation, he gave Siddhaanta Sarasvatii the name: Shrii Vaarshabhaanavi-devii-dayita daasa." This was also my understanding before I read this book. Where is the evidence that Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta received dhiksha in a dream? Before one criticizes, it seems reasonable that one should verify the facts first. I am not one to condone reckless abandonment of Vedic regulations. However, it should be pointed out that actual sannyaasa refers to giving up of material activites, and not merely a formal ritual after which one dresses a particular way. kaamyaanaa.m karmaNaa.m nyaasa.m sannyaasa.m kavayo viduH || giitaa 17.2 || The giving up of activites that are based on material desire is what great learned men call the renounced order of life [sannyaasa]. (bhagavad-giitaa 17.2) Now is there any question of Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta's renunciation in this regard? Note that I am looking for hard evidence, not low-class accusations based on hearsay. I do not think there is any question of Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii's character or renunciation, and hence I see no reason why anyone who knows shaastra would object to the way he took sannyaasa. I would also point out that most of these criticisms, at least in my experience, don't seem to be coming from the shruti paramparaas, who do rigidly follow shaastric regulations. Why is the external dress even significant in this regard? There has to be a logic to one's criticisms. Mere sentiment will never do. By the "logic" above, we must similarly reject the Gaudiiya paramparaa on many other superficial grounds. For example, Maadhva sannyaasis take ekadandi sannyaasa and adopt the Tiirtha title. But Gaudiiya sannyaasis do not do this. Should we not therefore reject the validity of the paramparaa beginning from Madhva? Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta had no guru nor God-brother from whom to take sannyaasa from: "...Siddhaanta Sarasvatii took sannyaasa and took the name Shrii Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Gosvaamii Mahaaraaja at the age of 44, according to the Vedic rites which he had gathered from the Raamaanujas in his travels. Taking sannyaasa from a picture was certainly not a standard practice of Raamaanujas. The situation, however, was unique. Shriila Sarasvatii Thaakura had no spiritual master who was physically present, and he had no God-brothers, being the only disciple of Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii." (pg 51) How then, was Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta supposed to take sannyaasa, without anyone present to conduct the formal ceremony? If it is argued that he should not have taken sannyaasa (even though he was, by his actions, already more than a sannyaasi), then how does one explain Lord Chaitanya’s precedent? Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu took sannyaasa for the purpose of preaching, just as Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta did. Not only this, but Mahaaprabhu accepted sannyaasa from a maayaavaadi sannyaasi. If is wrong for Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta to take sannyaasa before the photo of a bona fide Vaishnava guru, then why is it not wrong for Mahaaprabhu to approach a maayaavaadi sannyaasi to give sannyaasa? The taking of sannyaasa in both cases was a formality. The actual purpose behind it was to attain a position from which one would be able to preach, since it is well known that sannyaasis are regarded as distributors of spiritual knowledge. Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii took sannyaasa and revived the varnaashrama institution for his purpose, and also to encourage others to follow the same example: "Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Gosvaamii Mahaaraaja wanted to show an example to persons of the world from within the parameters of the varnaashrama system. Daivii-varnaashrama, or the practice of executing the principles of varnaashrama-dharma by those who simultaneously practice and preach the practice of saadhana-bhakti, was also much extolled by Shriila Bhaktivinoda Thaakura in his writings and was especially discussed by him in his Chaitanya-shikshaamrita. Therefore, to set a personal example of how the preacher, who comes to the madhyama-adhikaarii platform for his preaching work, also follows the principles of varnaashrama fo the sake of showing an example to his followers, Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Gosvaami Mahaaraaja took sannyaasa." (Ray of Vishnu pp 54-55) Someone may argue that varnaashrama is external, and thus there is no need to reintroduce it for the sake of widespread preaching. But this conclusion is not supported by shaastra. In Vishnu Puraana, it is explained to Maitreya Muni, who asks how Lord Vishnu is to be worshipped by worldy persons, that varnaashrama is the means to satisfy Him: varNaashramaachaaravataa puruSheNa paraH pumaan | viShNuraaraadhyate panthaa naanyat tattoShakaaraNam || viSh P 3.8.9 || yajan yaj~naan yajatyena.m japatyena.m japan nR^ipa | ghna.m stathaanyaa.m hinastyena.m sarvabhuuto yato hariH || viSh P 3.8.10 || tasmaat sadaachaaravataa puruSheNa janaardanaH | aaraadhyate svavarNektdharmaanuShTaanakaariNaa || viSh P 3.8.11 || braahmaNaH kshatriyo vaishyaH shuudrashcha dharaNiipate | svadharmatatparo viShNumaaraadhayati naanyathaa || viSh P 3.8.12 || The Supreme Visnu is propitiated by a man who observes the institutions of caste, order, and purificatory practices: no other path is the way to please him. He who offers sacrifices, sacrifices to Him; he who murmurs prayer, prays to Him; he who injures living creatures, injures Him; for Hari is all beings. Janaardana therefore is propitiated by him who is attentive to established observances, and follows the duites prescribed for his caste. The Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shuudra, who attends to the rules enjoined by his caste, best worships Vishnu. (viShNu puraaNa 3.8.9-12) As these are scriptural injunctions, they are to be followed, or else one will never attain the supreme goal: yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH | na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 || He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23) tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau | j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa 16.24 || One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.24) ONLY when one is on the stage of surrender to the Lord is one advised to give up various dharmas like varnaashrama. This is never stated for anyone on a lesser stage: sarvadharmaan parityajya maameka.m sharaNa.m vraja | aha.m tvaa.m sarvapaapebhyo mokShayiShyaami maa shuchaH || giitaa 18.66 || Hence, Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii was quite correct in trying to reestablish varnaashrama principles. Varnaashrama is meant to gradually elevate one to devotional service. Indeed, it is the method of devotional service for those who are not on the liberated platform, as understood from Vishnu Puraana above. There is no scriptural basis for renouncing varnaashrama unless one has attained sharanaagati. The adoption of white dress and refusal to wear yagnopaveetam (sacred thread) is the hallmark of the paramahamsa. But being initiated does not automatically make one a paramahamsa, and to refuse to adopt the conventions of the varnaashrama institution actually shows contempt for the Vedic regulations. "Traditionally, the followers of Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu, beginning with the Gosvaamiis of Vrindaavana had accepted the baabaajii-vesha (dress). According to the tradition, one does not accept a braahana's thread (or gives it up if he has accepted one) and does not carry a danda. One wears only a short white wrapper and a top piece. The idea is that when one has reached the liberated platform, he rids himself of any item of dress or symbol of varnaashrama-dharma (activities within the modes of nature, of which the sacred thread and sannyaasa aashrama are perceived as part) .... This is considered the final, transcendental stage of a paramahamsa Vaishnava." (Ray of Vishnu, pp52-53) "Some persons also thought that to maintain the sacred thread and to accept tridanda-sannyaasa were practices opposed to Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's teaching on the principle of humility: tR^iNaad api suniichena. However, this is a fallacious view. Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii Thaakura has explained it in the following light: If the sacred thread is not taken at the time of initiation, this constitutes contempt for the process of initiation. The thread is not to signify brahminical pride that 'I am meant to be served by everyone.' But rather is is a sign that one has been purified by the lotus feet of a guru. The thread is meant to indicate eternal service to the Lord, not egoism. And as far as accepting sannyaasa is concerned, that is for increasing one's serving mood - to serve the Lord with one's mind, body and words." (Ray of Vishnu pp53-54) Even the most casual observer can note that NONE of the pramaanas above forbid wearing of saffron cloth, only red. None of them forbid “all colors of garment but white,” what to speak of forbidding saffron. This is simply not true. I know for a fact that the Chinna Jeeyar Swami of the Sri Vaishnava sampradaaya wears only saffron. I have seen pictures of Maadhva sannyaasis who are wearing only saffron – see http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vaisnava_sampradayas_fs.html Are you opining that these are not saffron dhotis they wear (in obvious defiance of your own senses) or that these sannyaasis are maayaavaadis? These are so far unsubstantiated statements. Where is your evidence? You could be right, but so far you have offered no proof. Criticize if you must, but have the evidence to back it up, please. But the bottom line is that saffron and red are different colors. Your evidence is not applicable, and thus you have no case. I also find it interesting that you have not provided the source for your quote “suklavaso bhaven nityah.” Are we supposed to accept it on the basis that it is Sanskrit? Whose injunction is this, and to what audience is it intended? You are generalizing this commandment to all people regardless of station. By your logic even Sri Vaishnava and Maadhva sannyaasis must also be at fault, since they do wear saffron. And what about obedience to shaastra? I have provided adequate pramaanas proving that varnaashrama dharma must be followed, even by the bhaktas. If it is your contention that sannyaasi dharma and wearing of sacred thread is not to be followed (which are unquestionably Vedic practices), then what is your justification for rejecting shaastra? Your arguments are rather inconsistent. If one is not going to accept Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii’s qualification on faith (which is certainly your right), then why not also question the authority of the Gosvaamiis? Again, here is another inconsistency. Most of your basis for criticizing devotees in Bhaktisiddhaanta’s line seems to be based on select quotes (likely taken out of context) from the Gosvaamiis. I believe we have sufficient reason to doubt that you are properly applying the teachings of the Gosvaamiis in this case, for the many reasons already mentioned by me. Given that you are arbitrarily rejecting Bhaktisiddhaanta’s authority, why do you arbitrarily accept that of the Gosvaamiis? If you think it is sentimental to accept Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta’s opinions, it must also be sentimental to just arbitrarily accept those of the Gosvaamiis. Exactly. And one Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaarya might take sannyaasa in front of a picture of his departed guru because of special circumstances. But it does not mean that he intended thousands of his disciples to do so. Obviously, you have no problem understanding the concept of exceptional spiritual leaders making temporary compromises with certain prescriptions. Why is it suddenly a problem now? By this logic, one can also argue that the scriptural prescriptions stating that we must perform bhakti yoga must also not be applicable to Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, since there was no Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya at that time (again, YOUR logic). While we are on the subject, please check your verse numbers. SB 3.5.38 has nothing to do with sannyaasis or their dress. It deals with the subject of controlling demigods within the material universe. “Yati” does not necessarily mean “maayaavaadi.” The Twelve Essential Upanishads published by the Gaudiiya Math is translated by a sannyaasi who has the Yati title. But even assuming it means this based on context here, and assuming also that you are referring to some other Bhaagavata verse besides SB 3.5.38, there is nothing in the above that suggests that a prescription to wear saffron refers only to maayaavaadi sannyaasis. Much of this article seems like that. Evidence is brought up out of context, or else merely alluded to without offering specifics. I am far from convinced of its conclusions, which seem hastily put together. To be continued… H. Krishna Susarla www.achintya.org ------------------ www.achintya.org

www.achintya.org Namaskaaram. Hare Krishna. I would like to inform the devotees and other interested participants of a new discussion forum known as Achintya. The Achintya Bedha Abedha mailing list was founded in 1998 to promote discussions on Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, history, and culture. Since its inception, it has grown to approximately 290 members. The Achintya list is unique in that it is strictly moderated according to brahminical standards of etiquette. This means that while intellectual discussions are encouraged, personal attacks and/or condescending behavior are not allowed. Discussions are therefore settled based on shaastric pramaana as opposed to outright flaming. For those not interested in such high-brow topics, there are other features of the list that make reading it worthwhile. These include daily postings from Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, postings from excerpts of bona fide Vaishnava poetry, and the ability to ask questions pertaining to personal doubts, sadhana, scripture, etc. The web page for the Achintya list allows members to access message archives, file downloads (in which a number of Sanskrit fonts can be found), and a bookmark section which lists websites containing book order forms, online scriptures, and other utilities of interest to the online Vaishnava population. There is also an archive of Vedic books and music, an online chat area, and a Vaishnava calendar with automatic reminders for important festival days and Ekadasis. Another useful feature of the mailing list is that it allows members to read messages without receiving daily mailings. There are options to receive individual messages, daily digests, or no mail at all (web based reading only). This saves people the trouble of having to save messages they may not have yet read. The mailing list home page is located at www.achintya.org. To , send a blank email to achintya-@ It is not necessary to be a Vaishnava or even a Hindu to join, although members are asked to restrict postings to relevant subject matter as per the list charter. Please note that political postings are prohibited. While it is acceptable to discuss controversial philosphical topics with philosophical ramifications, it is not acceptable to discuss the management of specific spiritual institutions or the character of the individuals who manage them. This particular rule is strictly enforced. We hope you will consider joining the Achintya list, whether it be to learn about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, participate in the discussions, or simply enjoy the Krishna-katha. Hare Krishna