cbrahma

LP never turned people against Bhaktivinoda but he opposed Bhaktisiddhanta on many issues, part of which might have been siblings rivalry... Bhaktivinoda even gave siddha pranali to LP, something for one reason or another he did not give to BST. That clearly means LP carries Bhaktivinoda's mood of devotion.

 

Most of what Rocana writes about sampradaya acharya is pure hype and wishful thinking on his behalf.

Wishful thinking? Why would he need to fantasize on this subject? Apparently LP had some major influence on the ISKCON members because they blasphemed Bhaktivinoda. Logically Bhaktisiddhanta would be in the same mood as his spritual master, so it still makes no sense.

Little did we know at that time that Lalita Prasada had convinced two of the most prominent, scholarly members in ISKCON at that time, Nitai and Hiranyagarbha, to renounce Srila Prabhupada, and of course BSST, and come over to his way of thinking. They took the fall and did so, and they're still preaching Lalita Prasada's position to this day. Although they both went onto become Sanskrit scholars, they are preaching against both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada. In fact, Hiranyagarbha (Jagadananda dasa) has gone so far as to call Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur a fraud.

Not sure what the diksa statement is in response to. It makes no sense that Bhaktivinoda was 'traditional' or in line with Lalita Prasada, considering both Bhaktivinoda's clearly stated view on the 'traditional' and how Lalita Prasada turned people against him.

Rocana dasa prabhu is a brahminical initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada since 1970. He was temple president in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada, where I met him. He has always been a compassionate honest and very knowledgeable (brahminical) dedicated disciple .

He set up the Sampradaya Sun on line publication, of which he is Editor-in-chief to encourage free uncensored forum for discussion on Vaisnava topics and accepts articles from a wide range of people (unlike Dandavats).

What he has NOT done is try to set himself up as a diksa guru.

In short he is a very senior Vaisnava whose opinion ought to be given very serious consideration.

Sucandra's responses are always so inoffensive, meek and humble even in the face of scurrilous attacks. I wish I could attain this wisdom of serpents and gentleness of doves.

<embed src="

He says he is avatar. His wife goes around giving darsana and 'hugging' people.

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GIQTuUJwwA&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GIQTuUJwwA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><EMBED src="" width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash 5GIQTuUJwwA&hl="en" v www.youtube.com http:>

George Harrison's bhajan

</EMBED></OBJECT>

Shrila Prabhupada inCc Adi 7.31-32 purport:<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

"Here is an important point. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to invent a way to capture the Mayavadis and others who did not take interest in the Krishna consciousness movement. This is the symptom of an acarya. An acarya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and means by which Krishna consciousness may be spread."

Yes that is important. An acarya is a uniquely empowered individual.

 

The following literary piece is good thoughtful writing by our friend Jagat...is that enough???:

 

Jagat

 

This is a blog dedicated to the concept of prema-prayojana. I want to explore the meaning of this simple motto, which states that Divine Love is the goal of life.

 

 

 

 

 

<DL class=profile-datablock><DT class=profile-img> <DD class=profile-data>Name: Jagadananda Das <DD class=profile-data>Location: Rishikesh, Uttaranchal, India </DD></DL>

Since Bhaktivinoda Thakur initiated Lalita Prasad and gave him the same pranali that he received from Bipin Bihari. We may well ask what kind of test he was giving Lalita Prasad in telling him these things about his guru

Be careful with whom you ally yourself.

I've unblocked you, just to see if you were going to say something relevant on this important subject, other than posting generic statements.

This is what Rocana dasa has to say on the subject of Jagadananda Das

Srila Prabhupada stated that the whole purpose of education and advancement in civilization is to cure yourself from the 'dirty mind'. 'Dirty mind' means that you have lusty and greedy desires in the mind, and it requires a great deal of dedication to Krsna consciousness, as Srila Prabhupada himself is presenting it, in order to get free from this. Of course, ISKCON history is replete with all sorts of examples of how true this is. In fact, during these last few days of March 1976, Srila Prabhupada was inquiring into a meeting with Lalita Prasada, who is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's brother. Lalita Prasasda had a strong disagreement with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and instead of preaching Krsna consciousness in the same mood as Srila Prabhupada's Spiritual Master, he took to babaji life. By staying around the Mayapur area, he got possession of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's house, which is situated just across the river from the Mayapur land. Srila Prabhupada was interested in making an arrangement with him to take care of Srila Bhaktivinoda's house, because obviously Lalita Prasada didn't have the men or money to do so. Little did we know at that time that Lalita Prasada had convinced two of the most prominent, scholarly members in ISKCON at that time, Nitai and Hiranyagarbha, to renounce Srila Prabhupada, and of course BSST, and come over to his way of thinking. They took the fall and did so, and they're still preaching Lalita Prasada's position to this day. Although they both went onto become Sanskrit scholars, they are preaching against both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada. In fact, Hiranyagarbha (Jagadananda dasa) has gone so far as to call Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur a fraud.

 

That is a difficult one. There are exalted Vaisnavas that have reprimanded some who were not their disciples calling them 'asses'. Prabhupada used the terms 'rascal' and 'mudha' liberally, sometimes naming names. Jesus tore into the Pharisees, calling them hypocrites. It seems to depend on the enormity of the fault. If somebody in a position of authority is molesting children for instance, it can hardly be called fault-finding to blow the whistle. If somebody is promoting lies about somebody else, one has to speak up. Silence is consent. So there are many cases where it is irresponsible not to point out fault. In those cases, however, where the fault is simply common human imperfection, fault finding is just a way of making oneself look better at the expense of another.

The verse - trnad api su-nicena taror iva sahisnuna amanina mana-dena kirtaniyah sada harih

["One who thinks himself lower than the grass, who is more tolerant than a tree, and who does not expect personal honor yet is always prepared to give all respect to others can very easily always chant the holy name of the Lord." (Adi-lila 17.31)]

That is the quality of a Vaisnava. Such an individual is very very rare.

I disagree.

 

as this concept requires acceptance of another more important than the commitment of the student...(the choice)

 

'it is advised' ..'recommends'.. are the suggestions as mentioned above....

 

which makes sense but not required as many of the greatest contributors accomplished much alone

 

a guru can assist in the aligning of ideas, the words still have to be read of much literature; the commitment to the learning represents the primary requisite of understanding/ For example; anyone can watch a DVD or listen to a recording.

 

read more than the guru and the student begins to assist the teacher

 

each person is equally capable with or without a specific sects required ritual.....

I'm not sure I understand the basis of your disagreement.

yes individual sparks

The individual is a tiny particle of spirit. But when he is

imprisoned in the gross and subtle material body, he becomes

bewildered and thinks, "I am this gross and subtle material body."

Thus he misunderstands his true identity. "Misunderstanding" is

the only definition of 'vivarta' given in the Vedas. Someone may

think, "I am Raghunatha Bhattacarya, the son of Sanatana

Bhattacarya", and someone else may think, "I am Sadhu Candala, the

son of Vise Candala". In this way the intelligence becomes

bewildered. Both of those persons are individual souls, tiny

particles of spirit. They are not Raghunatha Bhattacarya and Sadhu

Candala. Still, they are bewildered and they think they are

identical with the material body. To mistake a rope for a snake or

the glistening on a seashell's surface for silver are other

examples of misunderstandings (vivartas). By all these examples

the Vedas teach that one should throw far away the idea that he is

identical with the material body. The mayavadis (impersonalists),

however, reject this proper use of the word 'vivarta' and teach a

funny theory they called 'vivarta-vada'. They say that the idea "I

am the Supreme" is the true idea, and the misconception, or

vivarta, is the idea "I am an individual spirit soul". By

accepting this kind of ''vivarta-vada" one will not understand what

is the actual truth. The true vivarta-vada does not at all

contradict the sakti-parinama-vada. On the other hand, the

mayavadis (impersonalists') vivarta-vada is only an object of

laughter. The mayavadis' vivarta-vada is of three kinds: 1. the

soul is really Brahman but he becomes bewildered into thinking that

he is an individual soul, 2. the idea that the individual souls are

reflections of Brahman, and 3. the idea that Brahman takes a nap

and dreams that He has become the many individual souls. None of

these are the true vivarta-vada. The evidence of the Vedas refutes

them all.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura

 

Sri Jaiva-dharma

 

Volume Four

 

 

 

I second that even though we don't agree 100% on everything (we do on most) and would only add that for our own peace of mind we must control our propensity to get angry.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Not to minimize your kind affirmation, I have had many others agree with me, as well. Anybody who is taken in by three-dot's childish smear tactics is not somebody I care to discuss with anyways. Religionist arrogance dies hard.

Definition of a Sampradaya Acarya

 

The Sampradaya Acaryas who form the foundation of our parampara teach that the process of becoming Krsna conscious is not sentimental, but is instead an exact science for achieving the perfection of self-realization. As such, all aspects of this divine process are meticulously explained, clearly defined, and systematically presented. Adjustments needed to comply with time, place and circumstance can only be implemented by a maha-bhagavata Acarya ambassador of the past parampara Acaryas.

 

 

Let us begin with the list of 32 Sampradaya Acaryas presented by Srila Prabhupada in his Introduction to "Bhagavad-gita As It Is":

 

"Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh (Bhagavad-gita 4.2). This Bhagavad-gita As It Is is received through this disciplic succession:

<CENTER>1. Krsna

2. Brahma

3. Narada

4. Vyasa

5. Madhva

6. Padmanabha

7. Nrhari

8. Madhava

9. Aksobhya

10. Jaya Tirtha

11. Jnanasindhu

12. Dayanidhi

13. Vidyanidhi

14. Rajendra

15. Jayadharma

16. Purusottama

17. Brahmanya Tirtha

18. Vyasa Tirtha

19. Laksmipati

20. Madhavendra Puri

21. Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita)

22. Lord Caitanya

23. Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana)

24. Raghunatha, Jiva

25. Krsnadasa

26. Narottama

27. Visvanatha

28. (Baladeva) Jagannatha

29. Bhaktivinoda

30. Gaurakisora

31. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

32. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada" </CENTER>

 

 

 

 

While debating these issues in the recent past with followers of other ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha gurus, I have been accused of inventing the term, "sampradaya acarya" to bolster my arguments. The following quotations show that I did not simply invent the title “Sampradaya Acarya” from literary license:

 

 

"So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

la Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 11-30-72, Hyderabad

 

 

 

 

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."

 

Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

 

 

 

 

From the above quotations, which I have chosen from many, the reader can see that the term "sampradaya acarya" was introduced by the Sampradaya Acarya himself.

 

Next we must examine the question of just which past, exalted Vaisnavas are to be included as Sampradaya Acaryas. We see the individuals Srila Prabhupada included in the list, and the fact that he listed himself as the most recent.

 

The four Vaisnava Sampradayas, including our Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya, are the main vehicles with which the Supreme Personality of Godhead fulfills his promise to assist the embodied living entities in escaping the bondage of material life and returning to their eternal constitutional position in the Spiritual World. In order to maintain the purity and potency of these linkages, the Lord personally incarnates periodically, or sends his unalloyed representatives. Our Sampradaya has been blessed by the appearance of the Yuga Avatara, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Since his disappearance 500 years ago, there have been extended periods of dormancy in the Sampradaya. The revival began with the descent of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura over 150 years ago. Those empowered associates of the Lord who are sent specifically to surcharge the parampara are classified as Sampradaya Acaryas. There are innumerable pure devotees who are involved in other capacities and pastimes in the overall transcendental scheme to benedict the suffering souls, but all are not included on the list of Sampradaya Acaryas.

The nomenclature “Sampradaya Acaryas” properly describes the three successive Acaryas, beginning with Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Srila Prabhupada is the third appearance in this most recent succession of prominent Sampradaya Acaryas. As a successive team, they made their nitya-siddha appearance to fulfill the precise mission of spreading Krsna Consciousness to every town and village throughout the planet, as predicted by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. They were deputed to perform this preordained pastime.

Rocana dasa

 

You see it is inherent in human nature to personally serve, associate and love someone you respect as a fine example of a great devotee. This is what Bhakti is.

 

Don’t get me wrong; it is alright to worship Prabhupada as the only Guru if one wants until such a living Guru reveals himself.

We must also develop the faith that Prabhupada will direct us to the good association of advanced living devotee ‘down the tract’ to 'instruct' us and initiate us into the parampara.

 

 

Prabhupada lives - I don't need a membership card.

I know your popularity level on this forum is probably pretty low but I really enjoy the intelligence of your debates and enjoy reading your posts. I feel like I am even learning a little bit about proper debate from your knowledge so I hope you continue to keep posting even though people do not seem to like you much.

It's only a couple of 'people'. The triple dot, a new member who went ballistic and Vedesu. Everybody else who I don't want to deal with, I've got on ignore. There's still plently left. And one has to realize that Krsna consciousness since Prabhupada's leaving has pretty much descended into traditional Hinduism, with the whole religious protocol of initiation, rites and distinctions.

Thanks.

Some will and already are loving Prabhupada more than a living instructing Guru will be not only obvious but also natural because he is who told us about Krishna”.

Can’t argue with that logic. Therefore, if we keep worshiping Prabhupada, then because Guru is one in purpose and simultaneously within the heart representing Krishna, then we may down the tract, find some nice devotee association and be attracted to THEIR love also for Prabhupada.

You see it is inherent in human nature to love personally, associate and serve someone you respect as a fine example of a great devotee’. Don’t get me wrong; it is alight to worship Prabhupada as Guru. However, we must also mature and develop the faith that he may direct us to ‘the good association of advanced living devotee ‘down the tract’ to 'instruct' us and intiate us into the parampara.

There it is again - the club mentality - the literal religious membership into the 'parampara' - a formal credential. What does that have to do with the association?

When Bhaktivinoda was saying that Vanaras were actually the dark skinned south Indians, he was changing the meaning of Ramayana. Not the main meaning of this book, but part of the meaning. It was no small thing and it did not go well with the majority of Vaishnavas at the time. The real lesson from this guru and this issue IMO is that one does not have to blindly accept shastra and guru, but should examine them usin our logic, experience, and rationality.

These are not essential to the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaisnavism - it isn't even doctrine, though I disklike that word because it sounds like the product of jnani speculation.

Using logic and reason - I would certainly opt out of a blind religious subjection of my intellect to a diksa guru.

Thats cool man however, a time will come when we will be sent a living Guru who stands for everything Prabhupada is. To love Prabhupada more than your living instructing Guru will be not only obvious but natural because he is who told us about Krishna.

 

That genuin love or bhakti will be recipticated with a living Guru eventually

Here we go again with the living Guru doctrine. Prabhupada lives in his vani. He said so. His spiritual master said so. What's up with this church membership idea? That is religiosity pure and simple.

I quess this is the Answer and those qustions, only we can answer, I'm looking for a Guru but I aso understand its got a lot t do with me of how to find one, or him find me

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>

 

SRILA PRABHUPADA - "God is within your heart. Isvarah sarva-bhutanam. God is not far away. If you are sincere, God sends you a spiritual master. Therefore, God is also called caitya-guru, the spiritual master within the heart. God helps from within and from without.

 

 

 

 

if one is sincere, that sincerity will attract a Spiritual Master to guide one. If we have firm faith that Krsna is in our hearts, then why not believe He will help us climb out of this 'stagnated' mundane material creation by sending us His beloved representative??

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

It's very simple then. The Vaisnava I've learned the most from, the one who got me to practice sadhana would be - Prabhupada.

Problem solved.

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>

if one is sincere, that sincerity will attract a Spiritual Master to guide one. If we have firm faith that Krsna is in our hearts, then why not believe He will help us climb out of this 'stagnated' mundane material creation by sending us His beloved representative??

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Where does this opinion come from? And exactly what does that mean - that those who have found a physically present diksa guru are sincere?

That those who abstain from entering into the institutional concept of religion by diksa are insincere?

There are so many initiates that have wreacked havoc in the community with criminal and debased activities. The same applies to some of the gurus themselves. So where is this rule manifest?

I wonder which side is ultimately gonna win the battle. It seems like Krishna takes sides in these battles at least in the Bhagavad Gita it seems that ways. I have seen this battle going on for many years and honestly I can not tell who is winning. From my viewpoint I tend to think that each side is going to continue to philosophically headbutt each other and ultimately the Kali-yuga is just gonna get worse and worse so I guess ultimately the Kali-yuga is winning but I suppose things could change on a moments notice if Krishna wants it to. They say we are entering the golden age of the Caitanya Mahaprabhu. I hope that is the case but it seems from my perspective that Gaudiya Vaisnavism and Krishna Consciousness is still just an obscure cult with very little influence on our society at least in the West, whether you are a "Gaudiya Vaisnavism living guru advocate" or a "Protestant Christian Gaudiya Vaisnava", . I don't know how Gaudiya Vaisnavism is viewed in India as I have never been there. Spiritual knowledge, Prabhupada's vani, not surprisingly, can be transmitted spiritually.

 

 

I think at the heart of things I am a Protestant Christian in the sense that I do not think you need a middleman to understand the beauty and the wisdom of the life of Jesus so I do not see any shame in being a Protestant Christian so I do not take your characterization of being a Protestant Christian as a bad thing although I can admit that Gaudiya Vaisnavism does appear to be more like Catholicism where you apparently do have to have a middleman to understand Krishna although I view the role of a pure guru like Prabhupada to be much more than just a middleman.

Beggar's battle lines are drawn according to to his own loyalties and biases of course. He clearly is allied with the GM and my experience with those disciples is that they ( as does ISKCON) indulge in a subtle undermining of Prabhupada's credibility as the main representative of the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, the 'Sampradaya Acarya'. Why is this minimizing important? Well that's obvious. If you absolutely must have a physically present diksa guru, then

you look around for a living GV guru and lo and behold there are the GM gurus! Their disciples are the 'real' successors , the 'real' Vaisnavas. ISKCON is not different because their guru system was initially ratified by the same GM gurus - belief in a physically present diksa guru - for exactly the same reasons.

The vying for religious entitlement as the true 'inheritors' of Lord Caitanya is material, political and divisive.

Bhaktivinode Thakur had no patience with that sort of sectarian infighting.

He called such squabblers, asses- as opposed to the transcendental swans.

He did not consider being Christian Protestant or Catholic an automatic disqualification, because Vaisnavism isn't a club, a church or any other kind of organization. It is a completely spiritual transcendental society, which is precisely why physical presence isn't the point.

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="10" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="titlestory" width="329">SRILA BHAKTIVINODA THAKUR ABOUT SECTARIANISM

by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur

 

 

 

 

</td></tr><tr><td class="maintext">Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When acaryas first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. This is prominent amongst neophytes and found to some extent amongst madhyama-adhikaris. Amongst uttama-adhikaris, however, there is no trace of sectarianism. Adherence to a particular standard is the prominent symptom of a society. There are three types of standards—alocakagata, alocanagata and alocyagata. Alocakagata is when sectarianists accept some external signs. Examples of alocakagata are tilaka, neck beads, saffron robes, and the baptism that is practiced abroad. The different activities practiced in the process of worship are called alocanagata. Examples of alocanagata are sacrifices, austerities, fire sacrifices, vows, studying scriptures, deity worship, constructing temples, respecting the purity of various trees and rivers, dressing like sannyasis, acting like acaryas, dressing like brahmacaris or grhasthas, closing one's eyes, respecting particular types of books, rules and regulations in eating, and respecting the purity of particular times and places. The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul. The different forms of these spiritual activities create divisions of sectarianism. Differences that arise from places, times, languages, behaviors, foods, dresses, and natures of various communities are incorporated within people's spiritual practices and gradually make one community so completely different from another community that even the consideration that everyone is a human being may cease to exist. Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting, even up to the point of killing on another. When an ass-like mentality becomes prominent within the kanishta-adhikaris, they certainly indulge in these things. But if they develop a swanlike mentality, then they do not take part in quarrels; rather, they endeavor to attain a higher level. Madhyama-adhikaris do not quarrel so much about external standards, but they are always attacked by philosophical disagreements. Sometimes they condemn the standards as superior. They condemn the neophytes' deity worship in order to establish the worship-able Lord as formless. In such cases, they are also considered ass-like people. Otherwise, if they had a swanlike mentality and a desire to attain a higher level, they would respect others' practices and inquire about higher topics. Contradictions actually arise only due to ass-like mentality. Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices to one's qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels. In this regard, it should be understood that both ass-like and swanlike people are found amongst the kanishta-adhikaris and madhyama-adhikaris. </td></tr></tbody></table>

First of all 'siddhanta' is a big word, often reserved just for the core philosophical issues of our sampradaya. Doctrine is a more general term. The most significant recent differences in doctrine relate to the issue of the fall of jiva, literality of Puranic descriptions, and the understanding of guru tattva. BVT, BST, and SP were all very independent thinkers and unabashed reformers. Yet the changes they implemented in the GV tradition were often controversial, especially in the light of previous tradition. Nobody prior to BVT would ever dare to question shastra and previous acharyas the way he did. Nobody prior to BST would ever construct the line of disciplic succession the way he did. And nobody prior to SP would claim that jivas fall down from Vaikutha or even Krsnaloka, or dared to have a daily guru-puja in front of the Deities in the temple. Yet the disciples of Prabhupada are flat out scared of thinking for themselves and in many ways are philosophically more orthodox than babajis in Vraja. So you see the doctrine IS changing, often in small but relevant steps.

Questioning sastra is quite different from changing its meaning.

One can play off guru, sastra and sadhu, criticizing one in favor of the other. I've seen that game played in Christianity as well.

No doctrine AS IT IS??? Everything Prabhupada says decries such changes.

Again you seem engrossed in a thoroughly mundane conception of a religious process.

In my association with Rocana dasa prabhu, who is a very dedicated compassionate Vaisnava, I learned the profound respect one ought to have for Srila Prabhupada. I can understand why he now finds the proliferation of diksa gurus to be disturbing. In fact he understands that succession properly speaking is primarily a siksa rather than diksa succession and that it depends on the appearance of very elavated Vaisnavas called maha-bhagavats at critical periods. We should seek a pure devotee uttama-adhikari for our spiritual master. These are not always manifest nor need to be to preserve the succession.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the relevance, significance and importance of the siksa guru as a bonafide initiator into our Sampradaya. His own brother, Lalita prasad, sided with the representatives of traditional diksa lines that traced their linage clear back to the Caitanya Lila. These "Goswami lineage" successions claimed that initiation through them was the only possible way to link to Lord Caitanya’s Sampradaya. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dismissed this self-serving concept, stating that regardless of one's spiritual genealogy, the prerequisite qualifications for successfully linking up to the Sampradaya are achieved wholly and solely upon the genuine advancement in Krsna consciousness by contacting a genuine Sampradaya Acarya. As such, he included Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Gaura Kisora das Babaji as qualified members of the Sampradaya, and he excluded all the established diksa lines who traced themselves back to the Caitanya Mahaprabhu lila period.

Creating a worldwide network of siksa gurus helps to prevent the transgression away from the Sampradaya Acarya’s transcendental spiritual movement into another world religion. This doesn’t just apply to western style over-institutionalization, but also to reverting back to the traditional diksa linage. In Kali Yuga, diksa guru ashrams are essentially an Indian cultural format for decentralized religiosity.

Rocana Dasa

 

This 'dissent from religiosity' which sums up my approach to Vaisnavism and always has throughout the years, is , I believe, critical for the promotion and preservation of the Gaudiya Vaisnava mission. It deemphasizes the diksa/religious aspect and brings to prominence the siksa/spiritual/universal aspect. - that is diksa subordinate to the siksa of a Sampradaya Acarya.

 

The Siksa Conclusion

 

 

The abbreviated definition of "initiation" is the admission of a neophyte disciple into the unadulterated philosophical and transcendental mysteries handed down by a succession of past Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya Acaryas. As Srila Prabhupada stated:

 

 

"Well initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing."

 

Srila Prabhupada Press Interview, 10-16-76, Chandigarh

 

 

 

 

 

The past Acaryas have established the principle that a sincere candidate can be connected to the Sampradaya via the advanced siksa guru. In fact, one of the distinguishing common features of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada is that both emphasized and reinforced the concept and principle of siksa guru being as important as diksa.

 

 

"Thakura Bhaktivinoda was not official Spiritual Master of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja. Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja was already renounced order, Paramahamsa, but Thakura Bhaktivinoda, while He was even playing the part of a householder, was treated by Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja as Preceptor, on account of His highly elevated spiritual understanding, and thus He was always treating Him as His Spiritual Master. The Spiritual Master is divided into two parts; namely, siksa guru and diksa guru. So officially Bhaktivinoda Thakura was like siksa guru of Gaura Kisora das Babaji Maharaja."

 

Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dayananda, 05-01-69:

 

 

Over 100 years ago, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura challenged the religionists of his day, which he identified as Caste Goswamis, Smarta Brahmins, mundane intellectuals, western scholars, and even those purporting to be in direct disciplic succession to associates of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Rocana dasa

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/sampradaya_acarya.htm

 

Prabhupada: "Then so siksa and diksa-guru... A siksa-guru who instructs against the instruction of spiritual, he is not a siksa guru. He is a demon. Siksa-guru, diksa-guru means... Sometimes a diksa-guru is not present always. Therefore one can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the siksa-guru. Siksa-guru does not mean he is speaking something against the teachings of the diksa-guru/Acarya. He is not a siksa-guru. He is a rascal."

Srila Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 17:1-3, 07-04-74, Honolulu

 

The siddhanta of our sampradaya is based on the writings of Six Goswamis, not the writings of Madhva for example. We do not follow Madhva's 'siddhanta' that Radharani is a jiva for a specific example. Anyway, we are getting sidetracked.

I said I read Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinode Thakur and you said there were differences as recently as they. What are these significant differences?