raga

You are quite right here. There is very little historical evidence to argue in defense of any sort of parampara between Madhva and Madhavendra Puri, either diksa or siksa-wise. If you wish to know my strictly personal opinion as a person who has tried his level best to research the matter, the parampara given by Baladeva was put together for convenience's sake when confronted by others, with little further significance. We know of Baladeva's confrontation in Jaipur, after which he compiled Prameya Ratnavali in which the aforesaid parampara is given. There is debate over why Kavi Karnapura has included the same in his Ganoddesa Dipika. Indeed, many suspect the verses therein to be interpolated. Someone said that Visvanatha has also presented such a parampara. Where would this be? I would like to see the original text posted here, or at least a specific reference. Personally I see no need for any kind of parampara prior to Mahaprabhu, Nitai and Advaita, whom we consider descents of Bhagavan Himself. One jolly fellow can have a party on his own. Gaurasundara appears to be having a good time.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." I believe this applies to both parties in the discussion very vividly. Each thinks the others are swine yet keep casting their pearls around, each thinks the others are dogs yet shove the holy down their throats. Alas, but they turn again and rend you. And alas, both turn each other into dogs and swine.

I inquired from Bhakti Vikash Swami, who is in the process of compiling a biography of Bhaktisiddhanta, about the initiation. His view was that it is unlikely that Bhaktisiddhanta received a regular pancaratrika-diksa from Gaurakisora Das Babaji, but that what he received certainly fulfilled the purpose of all diksa. I have often requested to see Bhaktisiddhanta's own words in this regard. What did he say about the nature of the initiation he received? Did he receive a regular pancaratrika-diksa, did he receive harinama, what did he himself say he received? Can anyone fill me in with first-hand records, his direct words in this regard? I sometimes get the feeling that people fiercely defend something that he never said himself. I think 90% is quite an under-estimate, GM taking a 10% share of the tradition. As far as I am aware of, there is no precise count of Gaudiyas nowadays. Some figures are W.J. Wilkins' estimate from 1897, suggesting that one fifth of the 50 million Hindus of Bengal were Gaudiyas. O?Connell suggests a number of "a few million". Let's say five million; would Gaudiya Math have half a million followers, what do you think?

This passage has a number of excellent lessons for both Gaurasundara and the rest of us. __ 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

He can't, because this is not stated in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa. Narahari Sarakara gives the following advice in his Krishna Bhajanamritam: <font color=darkblue>kintu yadi gurur asamaJjasaM karoti, tarhi ykti-siddhaiH siddhAntais tasya rahasi daNDaH karaNIyaH na tu tyAjyaH | gurur daNDaya tarhi cet, tatrApi - "guror apy avaliptasya kAryAkAryam ajAnataH | utpatta-pratipannasya nyAya-daNDo vidhIyate ||" anen sarvaM suzobhanam iti || "But if the guru does something improper, then by suitable arguments and conclusions he should be punished in a secluded place, but not given up. If someone says that the guru cannot be punished, the answer is no, for it is said: 'A guru who is arrogant, who does not know what should be done and what should not, and who is addicted to evils, should be punished by the club of logic.' By this everything becomes auspicious."</font> Note the "in a secluded place" he mentions. Interestingly, Narahari has an alternate reading of the "guror apy avaliptasya" verse, the last stanza reading "nyAya-daNDo vidhIyate", while Jiva documents it as "kAryaM bhavati zAsanam" in the GGM edition of Bhakti-sandarbha. However, some also offer the reading "parityAgo vidhIyate", which is a significantly more radical step to take. Moreover, "something iffy" is not quite sufficient for rejecting a guru. Narahari continues: <font color=darkblue>tatra gurur yadi visadRzakArI, Izvare bhrAntaH, kRSNa-yazovimukhas tad-vilAsa-vinodaM nAGgIkaroti svayaM vA durabhimAnI, lokas vastavaiH kRSNam anukaroti, tarhi tyAjya eva | katham eva gurus tyAjya iti cen na, kRSNa-bhAva-lobhAt kRSNa-prAptaye guror AzrayaNa-kRtam | tad-anantaraM yadi tasmin gurau Asura-bhAvas tarhi kiM kartavyam? asura-guruM tyaktvA zrIkRSNa-bhaktimantaM gurum anyaM bhajet | asya kRSNa-balAd asurasya guror balaM mardanIyam || "But if the guru now acts improperly, is confused about the Lord, is opposed to the glories of Krishna, does not take part in delighting in His play, is himself intolerably proud, and imitates Krishna, desiring the praise of the world, then he should be rejected. One should not think, 'How can the guru be rejected?' Because of the strong desire for love of Krishna, in order to attain Krishna one takes shelter of a guru. If later a demoniac mentality appears in that guru, what is one to do? Having rejected this demoniac guru, one should worship another guru, who has devotion to Sri Krishna. By his power from Krishna, the power of the demoniac guru is destroyed."</font> Now, of course it is understandable that one may wish to let others know that he has separated himself from the guru because of the guru's having displayed demoniac qualities, for otherwise he would be blamed for the sin of rejecting a legitimate guru. Thus, though nowhere documented, the "rejecting in public" naturally follows, at least as far as one's immediate social surroundings are concerned.

Here is the original message (dated November 10, 2002) I received from Nitai das: "I have the book by KB [Kanan Bihari] Goswami and I have found where it says that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was rejected by Vipin Bihari Goswami (p. 542). I don't see where there is a discussion of that meeting in Medinipur. It does not appear in the index and there is no place in the table of contents that looks like it might describe it. Interestingly, it mentions some period of time during which Bimalprasad and Vipin Bihari's son Bhagavat Kumar Sastri had some connection. That connection was broken off by Bimalprasad and it says that he took diksa from Gaur Kisora. I will keep looking for something about the Medinipur meeting." As you can clearly see, he does not say that he endorses the position of K.B. Goswami. In the course of a historical investigation, one will inevitably be faced with contradicting views. You cannot demand him to agree with the view you personally endorse and demand apologies on that basis. The fact that he has disclosed the discovery speaks for his honesty in research. Not that I endorse all of his views, but you can't pull this up and try to use it against him. I don't think K.B. Goswami is the son of Vipin Bihari Goswami. Where did you get this information from?

Two threads, to be precise. I saw some points of interest and checked out if something worthwhile would be available. Most of the threads do not much appeal to me, though they certainly have content of interest for others. However, I'm afraid my occasional visit is about to wind up right now. Thank you and take care.

I believe Radha Kunda is considered the pinnacle of all pastime-places, viz. Sri Upadesamrita 9-11.

Why would I not want to really know? At any rate, you have made a claim. It is up to you to back it up. I have presented evidence to the contrary. Don't expect me to run around seeking evidence for your claims. I value my time, and I don't have the time to involve myself in clarifying every claim I face, particularly so if the claim comes without evidence to substantiate it. I assume you've asked the question on Dvaita-list since you know the answer I'd get. Please just post in the arguments you've seen there. By the way, who are you?

I'm afraid I have no idea what "injest raggs" means. Whatever it may mean, as far as I've understood, this is not an ISKCON forum, but "General questions and discussions on spiritual teachings, practices, etc" forum. This means that you can't jump up to other people's throats and hammer them down for offence like you perhaps could in an ISKCON-forum. If there is a certain policy on what can be said of someone until it crosses the limit, it ought to be visible and uniformly applied to all spiritual leaders, whether Sankara, Radha Kund Babaji, Prabhupad, or Sai Baba. That is, provided this is a forum for Indian Spirituality. Forum headers like "...regular newsletters related to Hindu philosophy" convey the idea that this is an open forum for all branches of Hindu philosophy. In interreligious (or inter-branch) encounters, tolerance must be shown to a greater extent than among members of one's own sect.

Which Madhvites present the parampara through Vyasa? Any references? http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Madhvacarya-Gaudiya.html Hamsavatara ? Brahma ? Catursana ? Durvasa ? Jnanasindhu Tirtha ? Garudavahana Tirtha ? Kaivalya Tirtha ? Jnanisa Tirtha ? Para Tirtha ? Satya Prajna Tirtha - Prajna Tirtha ? Acyuta Preksa ? Madhva, etc. Apparently this line is presented for instance in Narayan Panditacharya's Manimanjari. N.P. was a contemporary of Madhva, his disciple and biographer.

Yes. How many of us are sadhu? Raise your hands, all sadhus out there. Too often zero tolerance translates to execution first, trial afterwards -- especially when written in ALL CAPS.

As far as I know there has never been a theologically united community of Radha Kund babajis, at least not during the recent one or two centuries. Radha Kund is a place, not an ashram. This is like "Devotees of New York", which ones please? "I went to New York to preach, and these New York devotees came around, but they didn't respect my message! Damn those NY devotees." I think you get the point.

Fascinating. That being said, do you have information on how they draw their disciplic lines? I am under the impression that Madhvites, at least the mutts, trace their lines by diksa, and the Ramanujaites place much importance on panca-samskara. I don't have much information on Vallabhis and Nimbarkis. Would someone care to fill us in? I'd have to do some more research into the different sampradayas. Particularly the Nimbarkis are interesting. Is this not from Canakya? I tried to track it down recently, without success. I have grown wary of "qualified individuals" who cause "sudden convictions" with their charismatic presence. Sadly they tend to lack in substance when you get down to a careful analysis of the message.

There is a lot to assimilate out there, for all of us. Sometimes the abundance of wisdom may be perplexing, seemingly contradictory conclusions, until we learn to put them all in the intended context.

I don't get it, Gaurasundara. I thought you'd read my essays at http://www.raganuga.org/ . In fact, apparently you even cite verses from there. Let me cite from "Qualification":

A fascinating observation. How has he changed his position, and when?

Relevant quotes from ISKCON Laws (1997): __________________________ 12.3 Additional Codes for determining Spiritual Offenses 3. Offense of accepting re-initiation renouncing bona fide guru. A devotee duly initiated by a bona fide ISKCON initiating spiritual master who is in good standing who rejects his guru by accepting any form of re- initiation or subsequent initiation without the permission of the initiating spiritual master incurs automatic excommunication the right to revoke being reserved to the initiating spiritual master or the Governing Body Commission. The so-called "re-initiations" are deemed invalid, null and void. If the initiating spiritual master concerned has no objection, a Governing Body Commissioner may grant reprieve by lessening the penalty to dissociation within his zone--if he feels remedy is possible without endangering the spiritual lives of others in ISKCON. 4. Offense of collaborating in guru-parampara offenses. A person guilty of having recommended or encouraged a member or associate of ISKCON to accept any form of initiation outside of ISKCON or any further initiation or duplicate initiation from someone other than his bona fide ISKCON initiating spiritual master shall be corrected with a censure. If the person guilty is a spiritual authority, he shall incur automatic suspension; and if rectification is not forthcoming, then additional remedial measures may be adopted, including dismissal. If a spiritual authority has failed to discourage a member in his care from accepting re-initiation or renouncing his spiritual master, he shall be corrected with a suitable remedy. __________________________ 12.5.3 Devotees who live and work within ISKCON must be initiated in ISKCON, except one previously initiated by a recognized sampradaya who afterward wants to join and serve in ISKCON under the approval and direction of the local GBC.(82) 12.5.4. Anyone who was previously initiated in ISKCON who has taken further initiation outside of it must renounce their non-ISKCON initiation in order to work again within ISKCON. __________________________ 16.1.3.1. All Devotee's Initiations From ISKCON Gurus No devotee shall be eligible to become a diksa and/or siksa guru in ISKCON unless he has received all of his initiations from ISKCON-approved gurus in good standing. A devotee initiated by a bona fide Gaudiya Vaisnava guru before joining ISKCON may be considered as a special case by the GBC body. __________________________ 16.2.5. Initiation Only from Approved Gurus Devotees who live or serve in ISKCON may take initiation only from ISKCON-approved gurus. [see #1.4 above for approval process] 2.5.1. Violators 2.5.1.1. First initiation outside ISKCON members who, in violation of ISKCON law, take initiation from gurus who have not been approved to initiate in ISKCON shall not be permitted to serve within ISKCON. If the non-approved guru has an institution or asrama outside ISKCON, then according to standard etiquette, his disciples should serve within the institution of their guru and should not serve within ISKCON. (This rule does not apply to persons who were already initiated before they became ISKCON members.) 2.5.1.2. Other initiations outside Anyone initiated in ISKCON who has taken any further initiation, or reinitiation, from a non-approved guru must renounce their initiation from the non-approved guru in order to work within ISKCON. Their ISKCON spiritual master (or if their spiritual master is beyond mortal vision, the local GBC) shall decide the proper procedure for reinstating them in ISKCON, including the need for taking any further initiation. 2.5.2. Prior Initiation by Non-Bona Fide Gurus Persons who have taken initiation from non-bona fide gurus before becoming members of ISKCON should follow the injunction of Srila Jiva Gosvami that such a useless guru, a family priest acting as guru, should be given up, and that the proper, bona fide guru should be accepted. __________________________

Don't tell me you know Tibetan, too.

anAyaka -- having no leader or ruler, disorderly (Monier Williams)

I design html websites. PHP is also an option. Contact me at info-at-ragadesign-dot-com.

It's not exactly a translation utility. It converts text from roman script to devanagari. However, to get all the letters outside the regular roman script (a-z) right, you need to follow the ITRANS convention found in the help-files of the program. For example, A would produce a long a, .n would produce a certain kind of n, N would produce another kind of n, etc. You have two choices for the output, (1) devanagari, which is the traditional Sanskrit script, and (2) roman translitteration with diacritic marks. As long as you don't know a bit of Sanskrit, there's always a chance of getting it a bit wrong.

Think of the brain as an instrument through which buddhi (intelligence) interacts with the world. While the gross body of five elements is left behind at the time of death, the subtle body consisting of manas (mind), buddhi (intelligence) and ahamkara (sense of identity) is carried onwards to the next body. Therefore, although all the gross elements of the body have changed, one may have impressions from past births. Aside this, pure awareness of God is an innate function of the soul. It is not dependent on either the gross or the subtle body. Exactly so. The heart is a machine, much akin to the brain.

On the seniority issue. "It is said, vRddhatvaM vayasA vinA: one may be senior without being advanced in age. Even if one is not old, one gains seniority if he is senior in knowledge." (Prabhupada comments on SB 6.7.33, echoing the import of the verse)

You cannot just present one or two statements and say it is "clear". You have to examine all the different statements, reconcile apparently opposing views, and then present a synthesis.