raga

 

Anon writes:

 

Anyway, given the gaudIya belief that one has to come in one of the four "bona fide" sampradAyas or else he is useless, and that paramparA is legitimized only by the dIksha ceremony, I suppose I must conclude that the entire gaudIya paramparA beginning with mAdhavendra & caitanya is bogus, using Gaurasundara's logic. Where is the evidence that mAdhavendra got dIksha in the paramparA of Ananda tIrtha? Nowhere. Indeed, much of the so-called "brahmA-madhva-gaudIya" paramparA falls apart based on similar grounds - no evidence of dIksha in so many cases in the listing given by baladeva.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Anon writes:

Hmmm. Perhaps I misread something, but it appears that Raga was alluding to *both* parties (assuming there are only two, which I could quibble with, but no matter) in this discussion when he quoted that Biblical phrase. And since I do not think he was referring to himself, and no one else appears to be representing your side, who is that other party to whom he refers?

 

...

 

Well, never mind. It's not your fault - you keep trying to get out, but those sinister iskcon people keep pulling you back in. Or maybe when Raga said "both parties," he really only meant the other party, and not you.

 

 

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 think the controversy there really is all about what type of initiation that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received from Srila Gaurakisor. Note here how I use the word "initiation," as it is different from 'diksa' which is 'second initiation.' Some are under the impression that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received harinam and diksa. Some say he received it in a dream. Some say he only received a handful of Navadvipa dust on his head. I don't know, and frankly I don't care.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Then around 90% of Gaudiyas who have been following the unbroken lines that can be traced to Mahaprabhu or His associates are all deluded; is that what you are saying?

 

 

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.

 

 

In reply to:

 

Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived.

_____________________

 

Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction.

 

 

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.

 

Muralidhar wrote:

 

For your interest, in one email I received from Madhavananda (Raga) about a year ago, he mentioned that in a book written by the son of Bipin Bihari Goswami (the initiating guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur) it was said that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was a disciple of Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji. Where had Madhavananda got this news from? It came from Nitai Delmonico. Yep. I told Madhavananda that Nitai should make a public apology. I said Nitai should admit he had been wrong to make the claim that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was not initiated by Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji. But Nitai Delmonico would not make that apology, even though his own "authentic" sources are saying that Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji was indeed the Guru of Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakura.

 

 

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?

 

I am no longer an active participant in these forums, though I peek in occasionally.

 

 

______________________________

 

And why this thread of all threads to become so greatly active again?

 

 

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.

 

(the most sacred place in the world is considered the centre of seva kunja.. where krsna performs rasa dance

 

 

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

 

Submit your question to the Dvaita list and you will get the answer you desire. The connection through Achyuta is a formality, the real one emphasized by them is the connection to VyAsa. They will be happy to explain it to you, assuming you really want to know.

 

 

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?

 

Yes,

what are you proposing that we all quietly injest raggs

denigration of Srila Prabhupada???

 

 

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.

 

As far as Madhva is concerned, there is a listing of his guru parampara through his dIksha guru Achyuta. But MAdhvas don't use this listing conventionally; they preferentially list his paramparA through VyAsa, although this link is a shiksha link. Madhva's biographies do not describe that he had dIksha performed by VyAsa, but later Vaishnavas appear to accept his instruction by VyAsa as an equivalent.

 

 

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,

ZERO TOLERANCE for those kind of venemous snakes and scorpions.

 

A sadhu is happy to kill poisonous snakes and scorpions.

 

 

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.

 

And while I think it's important to guard against deviation, I think it's well to consider whether the babajis who reside at Radha-kunda are the same as those who Srila Sarasvati Thakura and Srila Prabhupada criticized in the 20th century.

 

 

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.

 

What? Your upset that this topic started when you started it?

 

 

Fascinating.

 

 

 

"By the way, are you aware that no Vaishnava school anywhere has a siksa-parampara? No Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, no nothing."

 

You just don't have a clue about other sampradayas, nor our own - yet you want to pose yourself as someone who has studied these things in depth.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

As the famous saying goes, "you know a fool when he opens his mouth".

 

 

Is this not from Canakya? I tried to track it down recently, without success.

 

 

 

You have stated that you think some "highly qualified" individual exists or will exist who can answer your doubts regarding the Bhaktivedanta parampara? What is your basis in such a belief? If you have already refuted all the possible explanations, then what explanation remains which will remove your doubts?

 

Who is this "qualified" individual who will take away your doubts? What evidence have you that he exists or will exist? You have chided others for being blind followers or fanatics of their beliefs - how is it any different, this belief of yours that a "gifted individual" exists who will provide you with the explanations you seek?

 

 

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":

 

 

Though the direct cause for the awakening of greed is the hearing of narrations about the Vraja-pastimes of Sri Krishna, one must also give due consideration to the foundational cause of the phenomena.

 

kRSNa tad bhakta kAruNya mAtra lobhaika hetukA |

puSTi mArgatayA kaizcid iyaM rAgAnugocyate || (brs 1.2.309)

 

"The only causes of the appearance of sacred greed are the mercy of Sri Krishna or the mercy of His devotee. Therefore some also call the path of raganuga-bhakti with the name pusti-marga (the path of grace)."

 

Commenting on this verse, Sri Jiva Gosvami states:

 

kRSNeti ? mAtra padasya vidhi mArge kutracit karmAdi samarpaNam api dvAraM bhavatIti tad vicchedArthaH prayoga iti bhAva ||

 

"The word matra is used in the above because sometimes the offering of fruitive activities can lead to entry into vaidhi-bhakti, whereas raganuga-bhakti is only (matra) attained through grace."

 

Though the paths of vaidhi and raganuga are two distinct paths, the practice of vaidhi-bhakti can offer indirect support for the awakening of the eligibility for raganuga-bhakti, its various practices being agents which assist in the purification of the heart. In addition to grace, a certain lucidity of awareness is necessary to facilitate the appearance of the aforementioned greed.

 

yasya pUrvoktaM rAga-vizeSe rucir eva jAtAsti na tu rAga-vizeSa eva svayaM, tasya tAdRza-rAga-sudhAkara-karAbhAsa-samullasita-hRdaya-sphaTika-maNeH zAstrAdi-zrutAsu tAdRzyA rAgAtmikAyA bhakteH paripATISv api rucir jAyate | tatas tadIyaM rAgaM rucy-anugacchantI sA rAgAnugA tasyaiva pravartate || (Bhakti-sandarbha 310)

 

"When the splendour of the moonrays of raga shines upon the crystal-like heart of a person in whom a taste for the aforementioned specific raga has awakened, but who himself does not possess distinct raga, his heart rejoices. He then hears from the scriptures about such ragatmika-bhakti and consequently develops a taste for the same. Following his taste for such raga, he engages in raganuga-bhakti."

 

Just as pure crystal reflects the colours of an object placed next to it, so the heart untainted by lust, anger and mundane greed easily develops a taste for the rapturous mellows of ragatmika-bhakti. In the initial stages of the practice of raganuga-sadhana, one's practice must be mixed with vaidhi-bhakti.

 

ajAta-tAdRza-rucinA tu sad-vizeSAdara-mAtrAdRtA rAgAnugApi vaidhI-saMvalitaivAnuSTheyA | tathA loka-saMgrahArthaM pratiSThitena jAta-tAdRza-rucinA ca | atra mizratve ca yathA-yogyaM rAgAnugayaikI kRtyaiva vaidhI kartavyA || (Bhakti-sandarbha 312)

 

"Those in whom such taste (ruci) has not awakened, but who have a special interest for it, should engage in a mixture of raganuga and vaidhi. For the sake of establishing an example for the people of the world, the one in whom such ruci has awakened will do the same. Therefore, as appropriate, raganuga should be performed together with vaidhi."

 

Since at this stage ruci as the driving force behind the practice of devotion has not yet been firmly established in the heart, one must engage in the practice of mixed raganuga-sadhana out of obligation at all times, just as one would do in regular vaidhi-sadhana.</font color>

 

Whereas he rejected the idea of Bhagavat-parampara at one point, he has since changed his position, perhaps a couple of times. (Forgive me, Jagat, if I mischaracterize what you've written on this. I'm getting ready to sign off to go teach a class, and I'm rishing a little. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.)

 

 

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

 

Jagat: I don't know what Iskcon's policy is on the question, but I get the impression that if someone wants to defect from one camp to another, initiation is the political tool used to claim him. Initiation identifies someone as "my" disciple.

 

 

 

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.

 

1st Q: We all know that we as the spirit souls use the brain to think and remember.My question is, is it possible for the soul to think and remember independently without the help of brain?Without brain it will surely forget everything.How can it remember god then?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

2nd Q: It is stated that the soul is located in the heart.But modern medicine proves that one can live with artificial hearts.The artificial heart is operated by electric charges.How is this possible?Is it that the soul enters the artificial heart and sits there?but the heart is a machine operated by electric charges not the soul.Please help me with this....

 

 

Exactly so. The heart is a machine, much akin to the brain.

On the seniority issue.

 

 

Ksamabuddhi:

 

There is an ettiquete that is followed in the sampradaya and generally any devotee that becomes a disciple before us is to be considered as senior to us. Because we have no qualifications to know who is advanced or not, the proper ettiquete is to consider than those who became devotees or disciples before us should be considered senior to us. Otherwise we go to judge devotees based upon our own opinion rather than any genuine standard.

 

 

"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)

 

To enter the parampara is clear from Prabhupada's letters above.

 

 

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.