raga

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

In Brhad Bhagavatamrtam we read that Gopakumar received the diksa mantra from his Guru and that the Guru and Gopakumara both fell in to ecstasy, then the Guru wandered away and did not meet Gopakumara again for a long, long time. Gopakumara followed his heart-felt feelings and went here and there, seeking good guidance. Siksa. Nowhere in that book can I remember any world that Gopakumara went to where any Guru or Vaishnava refused to give Gopakumara instruction because he didn't know his Guru pranali.

 

 

Brihat Bhagavatamrita isn't exactly the case example of a sadhaka's life, to begin with. Generally you would get instructions from the guru on the chanting of your mantra. Gopa Kumar got none, and his journey was long. This serves to instruct us to inquire further into the meaning of the mantra in order to clarify the prayojana in the beginning, to not unnecessarily prolong our journey. Of course, the journey of Gopa Kumar was intentionally what it was, to help Sanatana Gosvami explain the foundation tenets of Gaudiya theology to us.

 

Besides, I don't recall GK asking anyone for siksa in raganuga-bhajana. There are basic practices such as yogapitha-smarana (read in GG's & DC's paddhatis) which require knowledge of one's guru-pranali.

 

 

 

How does this stand up to other well known facts, for example the life story of Syamananda Prabhu who attained a connection with Srimate Lalitadevi quite independent of the mood and parivar of his initiating Guru. The Guru of Totaramadas Babaji is unknown, as are the Gurus of Haridas Thakur, Krishnadas Kaviraj and many others. Is there any mention in the books of the Goswamis of an incident where a sincere seeker was turned away because his Guru was unknown? I think not.

 

 

Syamananda is another excellent example of an exception. We cannot take it that histories in which the ista-deva appears directly to the sadhaka to instruct him are the rule.

 

I think it is quite common that a guru can test the disciple's determination, and so forth. You are quite hasty to draw negative conclusions about mahatmas. I wouldn't say I consider it a very wise course of action. Remember, tanra vakya kriya mudra vijne na bujhay.

 

 

 

The original Sampradaya of Mahaprabhu spread through an altogether different process than the "Guru Pranali" method of the 17th century which, it seems, has come from Jayakrsnadas Babaji Maharaj. Jayakrsnadas Babaji may have been a great devotee but his method of bhajan which became the "orthodox tradition" in the 17th century is different from the magnanimous preaching style of Narottama, Srinivasacharya, Nityananda Prabhu etc.

 

 

I wonder if you read what I wrote about Visvanatha. Oh yes, and Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra, too.

Oh yes, for the record, in the future you could do me a favor and somehow mark, perhaps in bold or in red typeface, items which you consider objectionable or crucial to the point you are making. Otherwise, it is hard for me to figure out what exactly it is that you see in a long piece of text that you want me to pay attention to.

 

Muralidhar:

 

In regard to JAYAKRSNADASA BABAJI, some more info from the same source:

 

 

Yes, a well-known episode, again. I do not know if I would take much objection to the statements of people who have had the darshan of Vrindadevi, at least not very lightly.

 

 

Where, in the writings of the sad-Goswamis is the any statement saying that in order to perform Raganuga Bhakti one must follow this sort of practice taught by Jayakrsnadas Babaji?

 

 

Well, there are clear statements to the effect that one must meditate on a siddha-deha suitable for the service of Radha and Krishna during the practice of raganuga-sadhana, and Jiva Gosvami declares that siddha-deha to be an internally envisioned form which one desires to attain. The practice of Jayakrishnadas Babaji is the natural extension of this concept.

 

I trust you are acquainted with the paddhatis of Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra which advise one to meditate on one's guru-pranali in their manjari-forms prior to envisioning onself serving Radha and Krishna. This succession of gurus in siddha-forms is what is meant by the term "siddha-pranali". If you care to browse around the Raganuga forums, you'll find the references. Otherwise I can post them here, too, though preferably into a separate thread.

 

 

PS, this is from Haridas das's Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidana, isn't it??

 

 

Haridas das is a historian, he is not the voice of absolute truth echoing from the heavens. His research is valuable, not infallible. At any rate, I take it that you have copied the content herein from the online files from veda.harekrsna.cz or an equivalent source, a collection of dozens of files drawing mainly from GVA but also from other sources. As far as I can see, they do not always directly correspond to GVA, the editor, whoever that may be, has chosen to add and extract some passages as he has seen fit. I would particularly like to look up the following passage:

 

 

After hearing his story Siddha Baba said, "You know that our method of performing raganuga bhajan must have its hereditary link, that link is established by knowing the lineage of your guru, but you know nothing about your guru's identity or his family. Thus you have no right to do raganuga bhajan. Yet you have been given a mantra, therefore you should not be initiated again. For these reasons I cannot teach you bhajan."

 

 

I suspect there are a number of mistranslations here. I'll look into this sometime tomorrow, provided that the account is indeed in GVA, and not in Gaudiya Vaishnava Jivana, which I do not have at hand.

 

Guru's identity and family is probably a mistranslation of "svarupa o parivar", where parivar would refer to his disciplic lineage. "Family" is also a possible translation, though not compatible with the context.

 

Now, what would be the reason why Siddha Baba says that someone is not qualified for raganuga-bhajana if he does not have a disciplic line? The idea is that you are the servant of the servant of the servant, etc. You cannot jump in straight ahead. If you read Prarthana of Thakur Mahashaya for example, you'll see how he makes the link through Manjulali (Lokanath) to Rupa Manjari. Likewise, you'll see Visvanatha follow the same idea in the end of his Sankalpa-kalpadruma, wherein he reveals the siddha-svarupas of his diksa-guru-pranali, his "siddha-pranali" in short.

 

 

 

Moreover, in my post I did not say that Srila Jagannathadas Babaji Maharaj criticized Jayakrsna Babaji. No doubt Jayakrsnadas Babaji was a high type of Vaishnava. But what I am saying is that this method of devotion which was the orthodoxy in 17th century Vraja was in need of reform. It is not the method of devotional practice taught by Rupa, Sanatan or Mahaprabhu.

 

 

How exactly was it in need of reform?

 

Besides, with due respect, the tradition of Bhaktisiddhanta does not exactly reflect the way of life of Rupa-Sanatana either. Peaceful bhajananandi life is what you see the babajis doing. Rupa-Sanatana did not roam around the country founding monasteries, collecting alms and filing court-cases. Now, I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong, just that it is quite different. You may respond, "but it is the exact equivalent in spirit". Well, to that I respond, "the example of Jayakrishna das Baba is the exact equivalent in spirit". Will this make us much wiser?

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Below is the biography of Sri Madhusudana Das Babaji, the vesa (sannyasa) guru of Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj. This biography, I believe, is written by Haridas das. I personally don't believe a lot of things that Haridas Das wrote. But I present this story about Madhusudan Babaji as it shows, quite clearly, that the concocted method of teaching "raganuga bhajan" taught in Vraja in the 17th century by leading authorities such as Siddha Jaykrsnadas Babaji was in need of serious reform.

 

 

I am quite familiar with this biography, and I beg to differ from your far-fetched interpretation.

 

To begin with, Jaykrishna das Babaji was the siksa-guru of Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan, who in turn was a revered siksa-guru of Jagannath Das Babaji. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, Jagannath das Babaji has never objected to the method of bhajan taught by Siddha Jayakrishna Das Baba.

 

I am certain that you know of Bhagavan Das Baba, too. He was very dear to Jayakrishna Das Baba, and vice versa.

 

Practically all of the famous babajis contemporary to Jagannathdas were in some way connected to the heritage of Jayakrishna Das Baba and Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan.

 

Oh yes, and if you go around Vraja, you'll find out that there are a number of guru-pranalis (and corresponding siddha-pranalis) tracing their way back through Jagannath Das Baba. He taught the same method of worship, that method which you call concocted.

 

Next time I go to Vraja, I can do further research on the heritage of Jagannath Das Babaji if you are interested.

 

 

 

A point to notice here is that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji received his instructions in performing bhajan from Madhusudana Das Babaji, and Madhusudana Das Babaji did not know his official "guru-pranali". Indeed, Sri Radha Herself gave him guidance, and his life story shows the beginnings of a departure from the orthodoxy promoted by Siddha Jaykrsnadas Babaji and his associates.

 

 

What you see in the case of Madhusudandas Baba is not a departure from the orthodoxy, but rather an exception. The very fact that Radha requested him to not initiate others in the mantra he received bears testimony to this fact. Nothing in the life of Madhusudandas Baba suggests that he would have preached a path different from that of the other mahants of the time.

 

Muralidhar:

 

I cut and pasted the translation of Gaur-Govinda Dasadhikari's words in his book of 1924. Would you have preferred that I changed the words? Or that the translator (a sannyasi disciple of Sripad Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami) should have sanitised or altered the translation?

 

 

No, of course not. To tell you the truth, I would be curious to read the document in its entirety. It is a historically important publication, since it is the first "official position paper" of the Gaudiya Math in regards to the controversies, if I am not mistaken. Is it available online, or otherwise in an e-format anywhere?

 

 

 

Anyway, what Gaur-Govinda Dasadhikari said makes a mockery of Nitai's fake story that Srila Saraswati Gosai went to Vraja in the 1930's and told Ramakrshna bubba "I was initiated in a dream".

 

 

Let's make a deal. You don't start calling babas "bubba" and I don't start calling your folks "bhukti rakshak", "bhukti vedant" and so on. I think we'll be better off that way.

 

 

 

 

In regard to what Keshava Maharaj said to that Ramakrshna Baba: Keshava Maharaj was a resident of Nabadwip and he had a lifetime of experience about genuine Vaishnavism and the fake Vaishnavism of the imitationists. I offer Keshava Maharaj my eternal respects because Keshava Maharaj risked his life to save Prabhupada when the anti-party in Nabadwip tried to murder Srila Saraswati Thakur by stoning him with bricks.

 

 

With due respect to Keshava Maharaj, Pandit Baba was not a resident of Bengal. He was born in Jaipur and lived in Vraja during his years of bhajan. Have you read his biography? Quite a fascinating individual he was.

 

 

 

Madhava, it doesn't impress me when you play this game that your saintly babas are victims of unjustified abuse and that Saraswati Thakur and his disciples are aggressors. None of these topics would have been dredged up again if Nitai had removed the false lies he posted on his web site. Google links to Nitai, and unknowing people such as Gaurasundara get misled when they read his lies. Lies. Nothing but.

 

 

No, I am not making it black and white. I know there are babas who are way off the track nowadays, and I have no reason to believe there were none during the time of Bhaktisiddhanta. However, I do take objection to the extent to which the critique is generalized.

 

 

 

 

Muralidhar tells:

 

When Prabhupada Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami went to Vraja in the 1930's he did not meet with the so-called "Siddha" Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba. But Srila Sridhar Maharaj and Sripad Keshava Maharaj (the guru of Narayana Maharaj) did meet with Ramakrsna das Baba. When he met this Baba, Keshava Maharaj spoke for a long time, glorifying the Paramahamsa Babajis, and saying that a brahmacari or sannyasi is on a lower level of realization and status. At that time, Keshava Maharaj (Vinode Bihari) was a brahmacari. He glorified and glorified the status of a Paramahamsa Babajis. This Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba was happy to hear that. Then, softly, Keshava told the Ramakrsna babaji something else. Keshava Maharaj said to him that the Paramahamsa Babajis are all very exalted - but you are not one of them.

 

This story was told to us by Srila Sridhar Maharaj, an eye-witness.

 

 

What a beautiful way to treat a Vaishnava. Thumbs down for Keshava for his impudence. It is this very attitude which makes the relationship with the Gaudiya Maths and the rest of the tradition so tense, this self-righteous attitude, that as long as we are in the line of Prabhupad Saraswati Thakur, we can go out and tell anyone off and behave as we wish.

 

Muralidhar quotes:

 

21. They say that Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswatipad never received any Diksha-mantra by accepting somebody as his Guru. It is neccessary to know his Guru-pranali.

 

Answer: Your griha-bauls and Jati-Goswamis in their majority are far from being supporters of sadachar, confessed by Shuddha-Bhaktas and Vaishnavas. If they spread any insubstantial gossip, we are not responsible for that. Sripad Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhu accepted Diksha in full accordance with Shastra from Sri Sri Vishnupad Gaura Kishor Das Mahodoy in the month of Magh, 1821 Shakabda. For one who doesn't know his Sri Sri Gurudev or his Guru-pranali the very meaning of the term 'Guru-pranali' is not required at all. It is yet unknown persons, novices in Bhajan, who are introduced in society by their previous Guru-parampara; famous Vaishnavas don't have to be introduced by this method. Sripad Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhu has given his Guru-parampara in his 'Brahman Vaishnav taratomya Siddhanta' and in Chaitanya Charitamrita.

 

 

I hate to point this out, but this passage seems to be mainly concerned with dismissing the persons who make the objection. A plain statement of facts would prove much more effective.

 

Gaurasundara:

 

In reply to:

 

One jolly fellow can have a party on his own. Gaurasundara appears to be having a good time.

 

_________________________________

 

I'm only having "fun" in the sense that I am continually amazed at the appalling lack of logic in some arguments that have been displayed for the consideration of the readers.

 

On the other hand I am not having "fun" at all on account of the consistent sarcasm, rudeness, and downright nastiness displayed by certain self-appointed defenders of the Sarasvata parampara. What started as an open-minded quest to discuss various issues that arise in such discussions has degenerated into backbiting, name-calling, and just plain stupidity. Really, if this is the treatment I get when I have decided to be honest with myself and re-evaluate my faith in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I shudder to think how a "new bhakta" will be savaged beyond description if he ever sets foot on this board.

 

After reading this post of yours, I had a spontaneous flow of thoughts that I would love to articulate but I have decided not to. I suppose you get the general vibe. It would be simply a complete waste of time.

 

 

Feel free to articulate it. However, do run a reality check on yourself before you do it. I think it may be a while since your last deep introspection, judging by this discussion, at least.

 

For all I can see, while you have presented noteworthy evidence, you have also presented numerous claims you would never be able to substantiate, and resorted to a number of logical fallacies, very rarely admitting that you were actually wrong. Spare me from collecting them together for you, I have more pressing matters to take care of.

 

"The world is a mirror." Think about that.

 

Gaurasundara:

 

What I find interesting is that Baladeva was actually initiated into the Madhva line. At least that is what I have heard. This is one of the reasons why the Ramanandis were forced to take him seriously. Had he been a fully-fledged "Gaudiya," they would not have given his opinion much weight since they were challenging the very authority of the Gaudiyas. The fact that he was an initiated Madhva gave him some sort of respct and authority inasmuch that the Ramanandis were forced to acknowledge him. Indeed, I beleive that some have commented that the Govinda-bhasya has a certain 'Madhva' style to it.

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

 

 

It is known that Baladeva studied the Madhva-tradition prior to meeting Radha Damorar Goswami. However, I have never seen evidencen that he would actually have been initiated among the Madhvites.

 

GB and PR certainly have a touch of Madhva to them.

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

I cannot find the reference that Somagiri was an Advaitin. But Somagiri he wasn't a Sankarite, then what sampradaya would he have been a member of? The Sankara sampradya was the only sampradaya that existed in that era, as Sri Ramanujacharya was not born in the time of Somagiri and Bilvamangala?

 

 

Well, certainly there was a Vaishnava tradition before Ramanuja, or what are we to think of Yamunacarya, Nathamuni, the alvars and so forth? Oh yes, and generally the period of Vishnusvami's influence is also dated to the pre-Ramanuja era by a couple of centuries. I've seen several numbers, but they tend to revolve around 700 CE. It seems that not much is known of him.

 

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Bhakti and Vedanta are not unconnected. Not in the mind of Sri Rupa and his successors. Sri Jiva Goswami reconciled the writings of Sri Rupa with Vedanta.

 

 

Certainly they are not unconnected. However, if you read the Sandarbhas and so forth, you'll find much more frequent references to various Puranas and Tantras than you do to Vedanta. Most of the references cited while discussing the theory of rasa are related with natya-sastra, which is also not exactly Vedanta.

 

 

JNdas writes:

 

As you are aware, the Gaudiya's consider the Vedanta Sutra to be dealing with the Prayojana spoken of in the Bhagavatam, which is its natural commentary.

 

Simply because Shankara has monopolized the Vedanta Sutra doesn't mean we should also concede that it is a dry, impersonal scripture.

 

 

Yes, I am quite aware of this. However, this is a leap of faith, not something we would consider hard evidence.

 

 

 

The Upanishads are repleat with such references. I am not sure what your getting at.

 

 

I guess what I mean is that the "old" or "classical" Upanishads (Chandogya, Kena, Aitareya, Kausitaki, Isa, Katha, Mundaka, Taittiriya, Brihadaranyaka, Svetasvatara, Prasna) don't seem to be overly concerned with such a theme. It is a while since my last glance at them though, so feel free to prove me wrong. I should skim through them again one of these days.

 

Now, of course it is open to debate whether some of the Upanishads are later or not, and if indeed they are all self-manifest and eternal, then does anything bearing the suffix "Upanishad" fit in? I believe many of the later Upanishads are not all that universally accepted.

 

 

 

Additionally, those texts derived from the prasthana traya are also accepted as authoritative when they conform to the conclusions of the Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahma-sutras. Thus it is not that one only accepts that these three texts are authoritative, but that all other scriptural texts are relevant as long as they do not contradict these three primary evidences. The smriti-prasthana primarily refers to Bhagavad Gita, but secondarily includes all other texts that are based on the conclusions of the Vedas.

 

 

Smriti-prasthana inevitably means something which elaborates on the original concepts. What would you say, how far can a text elaborate on something, and how many novel conceptions (which are nevertheless noncontradictory) can a text include, to still be included in the prasthana-traya?

 

 

 

It is my view that the Goswami's have derived their theology from the bhakti-shastras such as Srimad Bhagavatam. At least that is what seems to be suggested in the Shad-sandarbhas.

 

 

I would be keen of hearing how you derive the precepts of, say, Ujjvala-nilamani, from the Bhagavata or the other Puranas. There is undeniably a seed from them, but just that's about where it ends when it comes to the specifics of our concept of prayojana.

 

 

 

This view that the Gaudiya theology is not based on scripture and doesn't have to be because its founder is God; and the view that the Gaudiya line has no proper parampara, but they don't have to because their founder is God is really quit fascinating and revealing.

 

 

I think you're stretching this a bit beyond what has been said. Wouldn't you agree? I might just quote you, "quit fascinating and revealing"!

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

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

 

 

I didn't comment on whether the mainstream tradition was right or wrong, I merely stated that Bhaktivinoda is a bit controversial among the tradition.

 

I am not in the habit of having visions, I tend to be quite empiric in my research.

 

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

[-1-] The historical and scriptural evidence presented by JNDas and others on these pages is clearly showing that a spiritual line of Parampara can come down through a succession of Spiritual Masters who are connected by siksa, not diksa. Baladeva Vidyabhusan, the authoratative Gaudiya commentator on Vedanta, was seeing the Parampara of Mahaprabhu in such a way that it had links of siksa-gurus and disciples. [-2-]Mahaprabhu Himself told all His devotees in Puri that Srila Raghunath Das Goswami was to be known as the disciple of Swarup Damodar Goswami, not as the disciple of Yadunandana Acharya, his initiating Guru. [-3-]Rupa and Sanatan are known as disciples of Mahaprabhu and they both received siksa from Mahaprabhu, not diksa.

 

 

[-1-] Yes, this is a fact. However, for some reason the tradition nevertheless chose to trace their paramparas from Mahaprabhu's associates down to the present guru through a diksa-parampara until Bhaktisiddhanta chose to make an exception. Now, if someone could show other examples of post-Caitanya siksa-paramparas, I would be very interested to hear.

 

[-2-] No, this is not what Mahaprabhu told. He did not speak a word about guru. He told Svarupa, "putra-bhRtya-rUpe tumi koro aGgikAre", take him as your son and your servant, emphasizing their bond by calling Raghunatha das Svarupa's, "Svarupera Raghu". He also did not say anything of Yadunandana not being Raghunatha dasa's guru. His words in the mangalacaranam of Vilapa Kusumanjali and Mukta Carita bear witness to this. They have been presented earlier, I believe you were present in the discussion where they were posted yourself.

 

[-3-] Quite so, no-one has contested the fact that someone can be a disciple through siksa.

 

 

 

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

 

 

At least not on the basis of the three arguments you have given.

 

Raghu writes:

 

Perhaps you are not understanding the gist of my question. Perhaps I did not word it properly, so let me rephrase it. If it is your contention that the gaudIya connection to madhva is not important, why does bhaktivinod thAkura emphasize it? I would think that someone claiming to represent an orthodox gaudIya tradition would have views that are in line with bhaktivinod's, or is he not considered a part of that tradition's orthodoxy?

 

 

You may not be very familiar with the recent history of our tradition. Bhaktivinoda is a controversial teacher in many respects. He is definitely not in the mainstream tradition.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Can you possibly trouble yourself to to a bit of common sense?

 

...

 

I'm sorry if I confused you (not that it seems difficult).

 

 

I am a regular r to common sense. In fact, I have a good selection of issues accumulated over the years. Right now my common sense suggests that an encounter with a person who is passionately involved in proving his points and who resorts to condescending comments against the other parties of the discussion may not be a productive undertaking at all.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Now, now, let's not change the subject, hmmm? We aren't debating how the line has been traced after Caitanya. What is being debated is the principle of whether or not the line can *only* be traced that way in the pristine Caitanya tradition which you claim to represent.

 

 

Now, at least this is what *you* are debating.

 

I have already stated that the vast majority of the post-Caitanya tradition, with the exception of Gaudiya Math and possibly some other minor groups that I am not aware of, present a diksa-parampara from an associate of Caitanya down to their present guru when inquired about their guru-parampara. I believe this is not in dispute.

 

I have also stated that we consider the pre-Caitanya parampara more or less irrelevant.

 

It seems that you persistently question a certain view. However, I am not quite certain what the view is you think I, or whoever it may be, holds. Could you pin down the exact "opposing view" you argue against prior to presenting further arguments?

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

The greatest contradiction to this principle which you espouse is not so much the fact that baladeva listed a pre-Caitanya paramparA without dIksha links, but that he actually made it up to contain non-dIksha linkages against the tradition of those whom he claimed to represent! That makes absolutely no sense for a guru coming in a tradition which only accepts paramparA which is legitimized by dIksha. Unless, that is, he does accept some links as the equivalent of dIksha.

 

 

As I probably have mentioned earlier on, though Baladeva and Karnapura do present an anomalous pre-Caitanya parampara, they have not presented any such succession down to themselves, only down to Caitanya; to the contrary, in his writings, Baladeva acknowledges belonging to the disciplic line descending from Syamananda and Rasikananda down to his diksa-guru, Radha Damodara Goswami. His siksa-guru, Visvanatha Cakravartin, does likewise in his Sankalpa-kalpadruma and Sarartha-darsini-tika, as does Narahari Cakravartin two generations later. All of the aforementioned acaryas present a diksa-line as their *own* parampara. Accordingly, in the present day, the countless representatives of the various branches of the Gaudiya tradition continue to present a diksa-parampara as their guru-parampara. I hope this is clear.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

If gaudIyas are not required to trace their line through dIksha, then the fact that they have done so for the past 200 years does not preclude the possibility of not doing it again in some cases. Either "paramparA by dIksha only" is a general gaudIya principle or it is not.

 

 

No no, not 200 years; since the days of Caitanya. The earliest specific example in writing I can think of is Visvanatha's (born ca. 1620), who was among the first generations who actually had more than one or two links in the parampara to track down.

 

I'll address the last point in your post in a separate message. This is lengthy enough for one post.

 

JNdas writes:

 

It seems more common for traditional Gaudiyas, on the other hand, to resort to "Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself and therefore requires no parampara nor shastra to base his teachings against, etc." Perhaps there are other traditional Gaudiya's who feel otherwise, for example Bhaktivinoda Thakur was quite adamant that Mahaprabhu's line must be accepted as coming from the Brahma sampradaya.

 

Perhaps traditional Gaudiya schools don't see themselves as Vedantic traditions and aren't interested in being identified as such? That is the impression that I get.

 

 

Strictly speaking, I would not consider the Gaudiya sampradaya as a Vedantic tradition. It is beyond doubt that many of its philosophical premises in the realm of what we consider sambandha can be traced back to Brahma-sutra and the Upanishads, and the basic elements of its abhidheya are there, too.

 

However, as we enter the realm of prayojana, I am yet to find a Vedantic basis for it. The divinity of Radha-Krishna, the position of Vraja-dhama as the pinnacle of Vaikuntha, the method of worship followed by the maidens of Vraja as the topmost among all, I am all ears if you can demonstrate the presence of the aforesaid tenets in the Vedanta. Oh yes, and Rupa's theology of bhakti-rasa; he derived most of the framework for his analysis of devotion from Bharata Muni's natya-shastra and the subsequent works of Abhinavagupta and others. I would not call this a strictly Vedantic approach.

 

I would call it a mixed tradition.

 

Speaking of Prasthana-traya, I would be keen of hearing a Sri Vaishnava demonstrate the supremacy of Lakshmi-Narayana based on the aforesaid pramana.

 

 

 

JNdas writes:

 

I think it is obvious why other schools would look down on a philosophy that depends on the divinity of the founder. One can just as well use the same arguments to establish Sai Baba's teachings as correct. Vedantic traditions on the other hand measure their teachings against the prasthana-traya, not the divinity of their founder, and are thus able to be scrutinized independent of the particular tradition.

 

 

Now, the core beliefs of the Caitanya tradition on the ultimate goal of life are not derived from prasthana-traya as far as I am acquainted with them; his unique, unforeseen contributions are acknowledged for instance by Krishnadas in the Caitanya Caritamritam (1.1.4). The revelational link from Caitanya to Rupa is made by several authors who make the point that by the grace of Caitanya, Rupa wrote of topics lost to the mankind (CC 2.19.10, C. Cand. N. 9.38).

 

Aside this, the theology of Caitanya's identity is a very central aspect of the Gaudiya sampradaya, wouldn't you agree? While the other traditions are concerned in explaining the revelation of the past, the tradition of Caitanya was conceived in the immediate presence of Bhagavan Himself who descended to this world once again. Consequently, the foundational scenario is radically different from the rest of the mainstream Vaishnava traditions.

 

Now, I don't expect others to agree with the theology of our tradition, nor do I see a need to amend our theology to transform it into a hybrid creation invoking acceptance from various other traditions. We are quite satisfied with the tradition as it is, and do not depend on the opinion of others. Consquently, as Raghu suggested, he may accept or reject our sampradaya as he desires; it has little significance for us. May each find his happiness wherever he may.

 

JNdas writes:

 

The key point here is that the teachings of the Madhva line and other lines mentioned above do not depend on the divinity of the founder. Whereas it seems the traditional Gaudiya lines base their root arguments on the fact that Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself so they don't need to conform to any other principle.

 

 

Is it so? Do the teachings of Vallabha-sampradaya not profoundly depend on Vallabha's mystic encounter with Bilvamangala, and the charismatic position he is awarded, in other words, "his divinity"? Do the Ramanujaites not rely to quite an extent on the vision of Nathamuni, where he is said to have received the writings of the Alvars from Nammalvar?

 

As far as I can see, each "founder" has practically established a new tradition, while drawing some support to it from both the scriptures and the past teachers. The Gaudiyas are nondifferent in this regard.

 

 

 

I agree that diksha paramparas exist, siksha paramparas exist, and even mixed diksha-siksha paramparas also exist. It is only some others here who claim there was never a siksha parampara in the history of Vedic culture, and that the concept of Siksha parampara was fabricated by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

 

 

Well, if we agree that siksa-gurus exist, then a succession of siksa-gurus can naturally be coined a siksa-parampara, particularly in non-pancharatrik traditions where mantra-diksa does not play a significant role; though I am not familiar with any prior use of this term until Bhaktisiddhanta's time.

 

JNdas wrote:

 

Come on. I think it was obvious the guest's statement was that the Madhvas do not accept a Madhavendra Puri belonging to one of their Mathas or parampara, not that there was never a person in the world with the name Madhavendra Puri. The wording may not have been perfect, but I certainly thought it was understandable.

 

 

Yes, I am also aware of the argument you present, and it is a reasonable one. However, here's what Raghu wrote:

 

 

Raghu wrote:

 

MAdhvas do not list Ananda tIrtha's co-disciples as links in the succession. Nor do they list any guru before SrI veda vyAsa. Nor do they accept the existence of anyone named lakshmIpati tIrtha or mAdhavendra purI.

 

 

The first sentence denies someone's being a link in a succession. The third sentence denies someone's existence altogether.

 

While I certainly know what something Raghu has read was aiming at, I find it questionable whether he understood it properly. I am just pointint out to the fact that people need to research their statements properly. Oh yes, and word them a bit better, too, if indeed Raghu meant what you suggest.

 

In reply to:

 

_____________

 

In that case, it must be acceptable to you if I choose to reject your quaint little sampradAya as bogus, just as Gaurasundara rejects BhaktivedAnta's paramparA on the same grounds.

 

____________

 

 

by this, I meant rejection of the entire gaudIya sampradAya, as opposed to just raga's particular branch of it. just thought I would clarify to be fair.

 

Raghu

 

 

The Madhvites (at least those of Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha) anyway reject all other sampradayas as illegitimate. It should not make much difference for them if the Gaudiyas present some details this way or that way.

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

I was aware of what was written there in regard to the mention of Sri Vishnuswami as the Guru of Bilvamangala. However, in Krishna Karnamrtam we read Bilvamangala offering his respects to Somagiri and Chintamani but not mentioning Vishnuswami so if he really was a disciple of Vishnuswami then he it seems he must have established a connection with Vishnuswami some time after Bilvamangala wrote Krishna Karnamrtam.

 

It is doubtful that he would have mentioned the name of Chintamani, giving his respects to her, a (saintly) prostitute, but then failed to mention someone as important as Vishnuswami if he already had a relationship with Vishnuswami.

 

 

I also find it hard to believe that he would actually have been an associate of Vishnusvami.

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Also, in regard to Jagat's statement "verses from the second or third satakas of SKK cannot be considered Bilvamangala's with any real assurance", let me pose this question: Who is it that might have interpolated the verses? The book was brought to Puri by Sri Chaitanyadeva and distributed amongst the devotees, and in Kaviraj's Charitamrta he quotes the verses about Somagiri and Chintamani. Surely if verses were added then they must have been added by Mahaprabhu, Rupa, Sanatana or Krishnadas Kaviraj or someone else in that inner circle of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Maybe some great scholar will soon write an article exposing Sri Chaitanydev as an "interpolator of texts", as one scholar did recently in regard to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura.

 

 

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Gopal Bhatta, Kavi Karnapura and Caitanya das have only commented on the first satakam. The verse on Somagiri and Cintamani is the first verse of the first satakam.

 

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Anyway, if the commentator (Kavi Karnapura or Gopal Bhatta) has stated in the commentary to Krishna Karnamrtam that Bilvamangala received Krishna-mantra from Somagiri then this raises another issue: Somagiri was a guru in the line of Sankara. The commentator would seem to be allowing that a Sankarite guru was able to give a Vaishnava diksa. How does this notion sit with those persons who believe you need to get siddha-pranali from some direct successor of the associates of Sri Chaitanyadeva? We know that Bilvamangala attained prema in madhura-rasa, but he didn't get there through the association of a sadhu who gave him siddha pranali.

 

 

Can I have a reference for Somagiri belonging to Sankara-sampradaya, please?

 

It is not that one can't attain prema without receiving siddha-pranali, it's just that we find it helpful in acquiring a specific concept of the prayojana we aspire to attain. Think of it as an imprint in the heart into which the nectar of realization is poured into. Certainly the power of Harinama can produce miracles regardless of the specifics of sadhana one is engaged in.

 

It is a sad thing that many people get into this black and white preaching, "you must this and that". We find something helpful, we have faith in it, we see it works, and we embrace it with joy. However, not everyone can be molded into the same shape. Therefore, Apana Apana patha, tAte hobo anurata, as Narottama put it. Tread your own path, and proceed with love.

 

Raghu writes:

 

In that case, it must be acceptable to you if I choose to reject your quaint little sampradAya as bogus, just as Gaurasundara rejects BhaktivedAnta's paramparA on the same grounds.

 

 

Yes, feel free to do so. Accepting a sampradaya is a matter of faith. However, please do apply the standard you choose uniformly to all sampradayas; as you can undoubtedly see, they all have their anomalies which cannot be solidly explained for a critical mind.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

JNdas quoted a statement from ThAkura Bhaktivinoda to the effect that those who did not accept the gaudIya paramparA link to madhva were the enemies of the gaudIya paramparA. Can I take it from the above that you disagree with Bhaktivinod, or simply that you dispute that he ever said/wrote it?

 

 

No, I disagree. There are far greater enemies out there than those who choose to question something which is hard to substantiate.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

No one else other than gaudIyas accept that SrI Caitanya is bhagavAn. What is your evidence to the contrary?

 

Your logic is actually quite circular. You accept that SrI Caitanya is BhagavAn because the gurus in your paramparA teach this. But you only accept this paramparA's authenticity to teach anything because Caitanya is understood by you to be BhagavAn. Pardon me for saying this, but that is pretty silly.

 

 

As I said, it is a matter of faith. It is not silly, it is called faith. Whatever sampradaya you choose to follow, you need to have a certain faith in their precepts. Madhva is nondifferent from Vayu and Hanuman, Ramanuja is Adi-Sesa, half the Vaikuntha descended as Alvars, Sankara is Siva, his guru was Adi-Sesa as well, Vallabha was Krishna's incarnation, his son was Candravali, and so forth. Can you prove any of this without referring to the tradition's own writings? I don't think you can.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

MAdhvas do not list Ananda tIrtha's co-disciples as links in the succession. Nor do they list any guru before SrI veda vyAsa. Nor do they accept the existence of anyone named lakshmIpati tIrtha or mAdhavendra purI.

 

 

Show me any Madhva parampara which is traced back to Vyasa and nowhere beyond, and not through Acyuta Preksa back to Hamsa. Are you the same person who said he'd once read something to that extent at Dvaita-list but didn't have it on record? Well, I have news for you: if you make a claim, prepare to have the evidence on record. I do not intend to consider any arguments for which you cannot show evidence yourself. As I said, I have no time to do extensive research on other people's infinite claims, which are often phony.

 

Phony, such as the claim that Madhvas do not accept the existence of Madhavendra Puri. This is a far-fetched claim. They may not accept his belonging to their tradition, but that is another issue altogether.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

[brahma Samhita] ...whose authority, once again, is only accepted by gaudIya vaiShNavas and no one else.

 

 

To be honest, I am tired of claims you cannot substantiate. I am quite certain that you haven't done your homework in this regard. Can you tell me, for example, the opinion of the Nimbarka-tradition on Brahma-samhita? Whether it's you, Gaurasundara, or anyone else, please don't claim things if you can't prove them.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Isn't it a little hard to believe that gaudIyas trace their lineage through dIksha only, when they list their paramparA in such a way that contradicts this? If baladeva was merely making up some details of the pre-Caitanya paramparA, then why did he invent it in such a way that some cases were clearly linked by at best shiksha and not dIksha? If he was going to make up the paramparA listing heedless of what mAdhvas actually say on this matter, then why did he not list only through known lines of dIksha?

 

 

Go figure. I can't give a conclusive answer on why Baladeva gives such a list.

 

However, the institution of parampara in the post-Caitanya tradition is based on diksa. I am familiar with devotees from the paramparas descending from Advaita, Nityananda / Jahnava, Gadadhara Pandit, Gopal Bhatta Gosvami, Narottama Das Thakur, Srinivasa Acarya, Syamananda Pandit, and a good bunch of others, and they all agree on this. Something Baladeva has written, which cannot be conclusively explained, doesn't change the way the tradition has been for 500 years, and will be in the future, aside some who choose to establish their own way, drawing from the pre-Caitanya tradition and other sampradayas. It is not merely a matter of debating a certain passage in one acarya's text, it is just as much, and more, a matter of how the principle of parampara has been implemented in the Gaudiya tradition over two dozen generations.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

Perhaps this is due to bhaktisiddhAnta's credit. Even in bhagavad-gItA, no dIksha was given by bhagavAn SrI kR^iSNa to Arjuna. By your silly "gaudIya" ideas, does this mean kR^iSNa was not Arjuna's guru? Apparently so, since you consider Achyuta Preksa to be the guru of SrI Madhva, even though the latter converted the former and made him his own disciple. A surer sign of confusion could not possibly be apparent.

 

 

No, of course Arjuna was Krishna's disciple, you can read it right in the Gita, 2.7. It is odd that some (such as JNdas in some of his posts) choose to build a major strawman out of this, claiming that we disagree that someone can be a disciple without receiving diksa. Well, to break the news, we have heard of siksa-gurus.

 

 

 

Raghu writes:

 

So gaudIyas are only supposed to trace their line through dIksha, even though their own founder did not give dIksha? Now that is indeed interesting.

 

 

It's not a question of what they're supposed to do. It's a question of what they've been doing since two dozen generations.

 

Raghu, do you speak for any recognized tradition, have you received diksa in any sampradaya? You speak much of the Madhva tradition. Are you initiated among them? I am asking in order to know whether I can regard your views as solidly representing theirs.

People need to do their homework before they go around challenging others and questioning others' teachings. If one persistently questions others, failing to himself respond when questioned similarly by others, he ought to be doing his homeworh, not confronting others. Otherwise he will merely reap a bad reputation for both himself and the tradition he attempts to represent.

 

Jagat's view from an old post: As far as Somagiri is concerned. It is unlikely that he gave Vaishnava mantras, but at the same time, verses from the second or third satakas of SKK cannot be considered Bilvamangala's with any real assurance.

 

 

Yes, I am familiar with this statement. However, if you take the path of questioning historical statements from the acaryas based on available research, then you can forget about defending the hardliner position on the pre-Caitanya parampara, whether you think of it as siksa, diksa, or whatever. People who defend historical events solely on account of the acaryas' statements must consider the evidence I presented over any contemporary research if they wish to be coherent in their approach. One cannot play "pick whatever suits the moment".

 

chintamanir jayati somagiri gurur me

shiksha-gurush cha bhagavan chhikhi-piccha-maulih

 

"All glories to Chintamani! All glories to my *shiksha-guru* Somagiri! All glories to Lord Krishna, who wears a peacock feather in His crown!" Krishna-karnamrita 1.1, Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi 1.57

 

 

You cite this from CC 1.1.57, yet neglect Bhaktivedanta's own rendering:

 

"All glories to Cintamani and my initiating spiritual master, Somagiri. All glories to my instructing spiritual master, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who wears peacock feathers in His crown."

 

Indeed, the siksa-guru is generally taken as a reference to Bhagavan. Aside that, the tika of Krishndas Kaviraja states that he received diksa in Gopal-mantra from Somagiri, whom he met soon after the encounter with Cintamani.

 

JNDas writes:

 

Shankara's parampara is also based on siksha:

 

narayanam padmabhuvam vasishtham saktim ca tatputra parasaram ca

vyasam sukam gaudapadam mahantam govindayogindram athasya sishyam |

sri samkaracaryam athasya padmapadam ca hastamalakam ca sishyam

tam totakam varttikakaramanyan asmad gurun santatamanatosmi ||

sadasiva samarambham sankaracarya madhyamam

asmadacarya paryantam vande guru paramparam

 

 

Fascinating. Talk about gaps! Tradition holds that Govinda Bhagavatpada was Sankara's guru, and Gaudapada his param-guru. This is evidently the same style of listing parampara as Bhaktisiddhanta's, picking prominent personalities from the history, and placing a few recent generations before oneself in the end.

 

If we agree that gaps in the parampara are not an issue at all, do we agree that at anytime in the future, there may be further gaps, perhaps of even several generations?

 

This tradition of hi-jacking a parampara appears to be quite common, in fact.

 

Vallabhis present themselves as belonging to the parampara of Vishnusvami. Bilvamangala, who was mentioned earlier, is presented as a prominent follower of Vishnusvami, who mystically lived for hundreds of years, and in the end appointed Vallabha as his successor.

 

The Gaudiyas did it with people from the Madhva-tradition.

 

The Advaitins went straight to Suka and Vyasa after two generations of teachers.

 

The Madhvas claim a connection with Acyuta Preksa, whose precepts had little in common with Madhva's, and further trace Acyuta Preksa's line seven generations back to Jnanasindhu Tirtha, from whom the leap is made to Durvasa and the four Kumaras. Madhva lived in 1200's, which would place Jnanasindhu's meeting with Durvasa to somewhere in the 800's or 900's.

 

The Ramanujaites trace their parampara as follows (posted in Bhakti-list, 1995): Parabrahman, Sriman Narayana - Lakshmi - Visvaksena - Nammalvar - Naathamuni - UyyakkoNDaar (pundarIkaaksha) - Rama Misra - Yaamunaacaarya (Alavandaar) - Periya Nambi (MahaapUrNa)- Ramanuja. Nammalvar and Naathamuni were not contemporaries; Nammalvar is said to have appeared to Naathamuni in a vision and handed over the works of the Alvars to him.

 

Fascinating how the paramparas evolve!

 

We can thus observe that practically all traditions have some sorts of anomalies in their successions, anomalies followed by a powerful, charismatic leader who gives a revised shape to the tradition. The traditions above have survived the test of time. Bhaktisiddhanta did the good old manoeuvre the others have done in the past. It remains to be seen whether his revision holds the test of time as the others have held.

 

Muralidhar wrote:

 

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu considered Bilvamangala Thakura's book Sri Krishna Karnamrtam to be something divine. And what is the origin of that book? It was written by someone who never received initiation from any Vaishnava guru.

 

 

In the mangalacaranam of the book, Bilvamangala offers homage to his gurus; somagirir gurur me. The tikakaras (either Karnapura or Gopal Bhatta) state that Bilvamangala received Krishna-mantra from his guru. The Vallabha-tradition declares Bilvamangala a leading disciple of Vishnusvami (viz. Vallabha-digvijaya).

 

Anon writes:

 

While we are on this subject, I would like to know what first-hand evidence exists to suggest that any "dIksha ceremony" (i.e. fire yagna + mantra initiation) took place between the following links in the paramparA listed by Baladeva VidyAbhUShana and Kavi Karnapura. Last time I checked, these two individuals (Baladeva and Kavi) were regarded as orthodox gaudIya vaiShnavas, so perhaps the erudite representatives of their respective dIksha lines can enlighten us:

 

(1) SrI kR^iSNa to brahmA

(2) brahmA to nArada

(3) nArada to vyAsa

(4) vyAsa to madhva (first-hand evidence please)

(5) padmanAbha tIrtha to narahari tIrtha

(6) narahari tIrtha to mAdhava tIrtha

(7) mAdhava tIrtha to akSobya tIrtha

(8) lakshmIpati tIrtha to mAdhavendra purI

(9) SrI kR^iShNa caitanya to rUpa & sanAtana gosvAmIs

 

 

1. The giving of Gayatri-mantra to Brahmaji is documented in the Brahma Samhita.

2. - 8. None.

9. This is not proposed in the writings of Baladeva and Karnapura.

 

I would never try to argue that this was a diksa-line.

 

 

 

 

 

Anon writes:

 

© the listing prior to vyAsa (kR^iSNa-brahmA-nArada-vyAsa) is not listed this way by mAdhvas - only gaudIyas list it like this, so the argument that "this paramparA before Caitanya does not matter because they are different" is not acceptable. If the gaudIyas were only copying the listing given by the mAdhvas, then why did they go through the trouble of changing that listing in the first place?

 

 

The entire matter is somewhat of a mystery. Baladeva was well-versed in the Madhva-tradition. I have often wondered why he would present such a parampara.

 

I must say that there is a logical continuity between the style of parampara that is presented for the pre-Caitanya era and the parampara presented by Bhaktisiddhanta. However, as far as most of the Gaudiyas go, they are concerned with following the example of the post-Caitanya tradition. Primarily following the example of the post-Caitanya mahajanas is a well-established part of the Gaudiya doctrine (viz. Prema-bhakti-candrika of Narottama, verse 14, along with Visvanatha's tika). The main schism is in Bhaktisiddhanta's apparent neglect of the practices of the post-Caitanya tradition in his presentation of the parampara.

 

 

 

Anon writes:

 

(e) actual answers to the questions are requested, not more posturing to the effect that "I'm too smart to bother with your questions" or "you are so ignorant of gaudiya siddhanta so I won't answer you," etc, etc.

 

 

Though I have no interest in delving into the realm of ad hominem, I would be keen to know your identity. I am not in the habit of entering into dialogues with anonymous participants.