Is disciplic succession a scriptural injunction?

[theist 1]

 

But, since the Gaudiya parampara is primarily a "siksha guru" succession according to all the recent acharyas, then maybe a succession can start with a book.

 

But no book exists without an author. This is not Buddhism or a Zen Koan. This is personalism.

 

That the acarya lives in his commenraries is not disbuted, but clearly the book does not creat the acarya.

[Kulapavana 0]

Srila Prabhupada used the words "disciplic succession" and "parampara" thousands of times in his books, lectures, and conversations. Obviously he considered that system absolutely essential in our tradition. Is there a SINGLE reference that he considered such a system as merely optional in Vaishnavism?

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Prabhupada used the words "disciplic succession" and "parampara" thousands of times in his books, lectures, and conversations. Obviously he considered that system absolutely essential in our tradition. Is there a SINGLE reference that he considered such a system as merely optional in Vaishnavism?

 

In other words, you are saying the Gita is useless to people who do not to a tradition. Why bother to print millions of copies and sell them worldwide without making this point clear? The Gita itself does not pose such a condition. Taking it to the next level does the the Gita as it state such a requirement?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

In other words, you are saying the Gita is useless to people who do not to a tradition.

 

and where did I say that?

 

there is a difference between getting some useful information, direction and advice from Gita and joining the tradition to become a part of it, taking a full advantage of what Gita has to offer. the first one is common, the second is rare.

 

there is no strings attached for the first option, but there are quite a few requirements you must meet before you can be considered a part of this tradition. I thought that should be pretty obvious to any bhakta.

[theist 1]

 

Srila Prabhupada used the words "disciplic succession" and "parampara" thousands of times in his books, lectures, and conversations. Obviously he considered that system absolutely essential in our tradition. Is there a SINGLE reference that he considered such a system as merely optional in Vaishnavism?

 

NO IT IS NOT OPTIONAL! It is just not restricted in the many people assume it is. It is not a bodily succession! It is a shiksa succession! It is descending from the transcendental world. It comes in the form of sound, thoughts, concepts, principles. The earthly bodies may seem to line up harmoniously with this and at other times not. If they line up bodily and in a time sequence we can easily understand, like Bhaktisiddhanta to Srila Prabhupada for example. From that certain traditons become solidified and passed on. But those traditions are not the parampara itself. However if someone thinks that a parampara from Lord Brahma based on bodily succession alone he will have a hard time explaining the gaps in that bodily succession.

 

So how can he prove his own linkage to the teachings of Govinda to Brahma? He can't yet he preaches others must submit to this line...which he cannot even cite to justify his own connection.

 

But there are no gaps in transcendental sound vibration. Transcendental sound is free from such from such gaps because it is not subject to the influence of time and space.

 

This is a transcendental sound parampara.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

So how can he prove his own linkage to the teachings of Govinda to Brahma? He can't yet he preaches others must submit to this line...which he cannot even cite to justify his own connection.

 

But there are no gaps in transcendental sound vibration. Transcendental sound is free from such from such gaps because it is not subject to the influence of time and space.

 

This is a transcendental sound parampara.

 

Prabhupada presented the parampara as person to person contact. That is a fact. Anybody can claim receiving instructions directly from Krsna via transcendental sound vibration. I bet you could even find quite a few quotes to back up such a claim. Why then should we bother with parampara? is person to person parampara for neophytes only? is it there only to convince newcomers? who would Prabhupada be without a direct contact with Bhaktisiddhanta? you should ask yourself that question.

 

a great person like Madhvacharya can enter the realm of Badarikashram and talk directly to Vyasadeva. you and me can not. that is why person to person parampara is there - not as an option, but as the main system.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

 

...a great person like Madhvacharya can enter the realm of Badarikashram and talk directly to Vyasadeva. you and me can not. that is why person to person parampara is there - not as an option, but as the main system.

According to the writings of Thakur Bhaktivinode, he received direct darshan and instructions from Sri Swarupa Damodar, and others. Was Sri Swarupa Damodar coming to him as a corporal (physical) person? Of course not, he appeared as concetrated sound vibration, but none the less in a form that could be seen or revealed by divinity. So the connection of Sri Madhvacharya and Srila Vyasadeva was not part of a bodily succesion. I too have had visions but since I spend most of my waking hours hankering and lamenting I cannot allow myself to take them seriously. Acid flashbacks? So we must have faith in the writings of the great souls which are actually sastra and doubt our own minds.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

According to the writings of Thakur Bhaktivinode, he received direct darshan and instructions from Sri Swarupa Damodar, and others. Was Sri Swarupa Damodar coming to him as a corporal (physical) person?

 

 

If we ourselves can see or directly experience ghosts, why should we doubt that Bhaktivinoda received direct darshan from Svarupa Damodar, a nitya siddha? yet Bhaktivinoda did not present himself as a disciple of SD in the sense of disciplic succession. actually he mainly saw himself as a disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

...actually he mainly saw himself as a disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami.

According to Srila Saraswati Thakur, Srila Bhaktivinode identified himself more with the line of Srila Jagannatha das Babji in his (Bhaktivinode's) later years.

[theist 1]

 

Prabhupada presented the parampara as person to person contact. That is a fact. Anybody can claim receiving instructions directly from Krsna via transcendental sound vibration. I bet you could even find quite a few quotes to back up such a claim. Why then should we bother with parampara? is person to person parampara for neophytes only? is it there only to convince newcomers? who would Prabhupada be without a direct contact with Bhaktisiddhanta? you should ask yourself that question.

 

a great person like Madhvacharya can enter the realm of Badarikashram and talk directly to Vyasadeva. you and me can not. that is why person to person parampara is there - not as an option, but as the main system.

 

Why bother quoting me and ignoring the questions I posed in post 30?

 

Please prove how you yourself are linked up to Lord Govinda instructions to Brahma is you claim to be in a strict bodily succession. Explain the gaps or quite posing as being someone in line from Brahma.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

According to Srila Saraswati Thakur, Srila Bhaktivinode identified himself more with the line of Srila Jagannatha das Babji in his (Bhaktivinode's) later years.

 

That certainly was his (BST) perspective. Yet BT himself was rather shy expressing it. It is not obvious from BT writings from this period that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji was the main influence at that stage of his life. Bhaktivinoda was always quite independent and unorthodox in his way of thinking.

 

btw. it never fails to amaze me how we went from unorthodox to ultraorthodox in just two or three generations (I am speaking mainly of Iskcon, of course)

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Please prove how you yourself are linked up to Lord Govinda instructions to Brahma is you claim to be in a strict bodily succession. Explain the gaps or quite posing as being someone in line from Brahma.

 

like I said earlier, the line as presented by BST is more conceptual than based on any hard records. still, I certainly believe that Madhva actually met Vyasa twice in person and from him the line as presented by BST has only a couple of gaps, where we simply have no records of all the gurus involved. ultimately Lord Caitanya validates our sampradaya and that is fairly modern times.

 

and if we accept that our line goes through Bipin Bihari Goswami it gets even easier to trace it back to Mahaprabhu, as that line kept fairly good records, at least as far as I know.

[Beggar 0]

 

 

btw. it never fails to amaze me how we went from unorthodox to ultraorthodox in just two or three generations (I am speaking mainly of Iskcon, of course)

Speak more on the paradox of the mutated orthodox.

[Guruvani 0]

The biography of Srila Bhaktivinode clearly shows that it was actually a BOOK that first launched Bhaktivinode into Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Before Bhaktivinode embraced Gaudiya thought he had been interested in the Brahma Samaj and even the Bible.

 

Eventually, when he was living in Dinajpur he came in contact with some Vaishnavas and acquired a copy of Sri Caitanya Caritamrita.

 

It was the reading of that book which actually moved Bhaktivinode into the Gaudiya thought.

He associated with some Vaishnavas there, but his biography says that it was the reading of Sri Caitanya Caritamrita that really brought Bhaktivinode into Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

[gHari 0]

See paramparA in general: http://vedabase.net/sb/4/29/36-37/

 

See param: http://vedabase.net/p/param

 

See parA (parā): http://vedabase.net/p/para

 

parA (parā)

====

 

Lecture BG 18.67 AC Bhaktivedanta Swami

[...]

So if you want to understand KRSNa,

then you have to take the life of devotion. And one who does not take to this life of devotion, he cannot understand KRSNa of KRSNa-philosophy, Bhagavad-gItA. It is far, far away. It is... My Guru MahArAja used to say, "It is just like licking the honey bottle." One may come to the bottle filled with honey, but simply by licking the bottle, what taste he will get? The honey must be opened. Then if you taste, you will know what is honey. Similarly, simply by taking Bhagavad-gItA and trying to understand it by so-called scholarship is licking up the honey bottle. That's all. There will be no taste. There will be no taste. You go on for many millions of years, licking up that bottle. You'll never understand. If you want to understand, then KRSNa says here:

 

<center>

tad viddhi praNipAtena

paripraznena sevayA

upadekSyanti te jJAnaM

jJAninas tattva-darzinaH

[

Bg. 4.34

]

</center>

 

The same tattva.

You have to approach a person who has seen tattva, tattva-darzinaH

. So that tattva-darzI already explained. BhaktyA mAm abhijAnAti [bg. 18.55]. One can become tattva-darzI simply by devotional service. So for

coming to the platform of devotional service one has to make some sacrifice. That is called tapasya

. Tapasya means voluntarily accepting some difficult things. That is called tapasya. Therefore those who have not taken to that, those who have taken Bhagavad-gItA as a table talk, they cannot understand. Not Bhagavad-gItA should be preached amongst them. Therefore KRSNa is warning: idaM te na atapaskAya nAbhaktAya. IdaM te nAtapaskAya nAbhaktAya kadAcana: "Never describe, never described this Bhagavad-gItA." KRSNa said in the previous verse... People will not be able to understand. KRSNa says, sarva-dharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja [bg. 18.66]. This simple fact cannot be understood by any man who has not undergone some austerities, penances, and who has not become a devotee. It is not possible. Therefore KRSNa is warning: "Don't speak to these nonsense. They will not understand." But a devotee of KRSNa tries to make them devotee. Because KRSNa, in the next verse, says, ya idaM paramaM guhyaM mad-bhakteSv abhidhAsyati [bg 18.68]. Mad-bhakteSv abhidhAsyati. Here, in this verse, it is said, nAbhaktAya: "Don't speak this truth of Bhagavad-gItA to the abhaktas," but if you can speak to the bhaktas... Ya idaM paramaM guhyam. ParamaM guhyam. It is the most confidential knowledge, most confidential part of Vedic knowledge. It is said in the beginning: sarva-guhyatamam. Sarva-guhyatamam: "most confidential." So paramaM guhyaM mad-bhakteSu. Because from the beginning it is simply said, "Only the bhaktas can understand." Therefore it should be preached amongst the bhaktas. Mad-bhakteSu abhidhAsyati, bhaktiM mayi parAM kRtvA mAm eva eSyasi, eSyati asaMzayaH.

 

 

So this is another opportunity. Just create everyone, everyone, especially... Caitanya MahAprabhu said, bhArata-bhUmite manuSya-janma haila yAra: [Cc. Adi 9.41] "Anyone who has taken birth in this holy land of BhAratavarSa..." Janma sArthaka kari' kara para-upakAra. This is the injunction of Caitanya MahAprabhu, that "First of all, make your life perfect. Just try to understand what is KRSNa and what is Bhagavad-gItA and make your life practical in understanding BhagavAn and the bhakti." Janma sArthaka kari'. "Then go and preach all over the world." ParopakAra. Because the whole world is in darkness. They are too much materially congested. Their brain... Big, big professors, they say, "After death, there is no life." And they are going as teachers and professors. So especially in the western world, they are so much engrossed. So our request is, those who are actually intelligent: "Take to this KRSNa consciousness movement seriously, especially Indians, and try to preach all over the world." They are also hankering after it. And KRSNa says that simply by trying to preach the philosophy of Bhagavad-gItA as it is, then he become a great devotee of KRSNa. BhaktiM mayi parAm. ParA-bhakti. That parA-bhakti, already explained:

 

<center>

brahma-bhUtaH prasannAtmA

na zocati na kAGkSati

samaH sarveSu bhUteSu

mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm

[

Bg. 18.54

]

</center>

 

ParA-bhakti

. Na aparA. AparA means material, and

parA means transcendental

. ParA-bhakti. Without coming to the stage of parA-bhakti, one cannot understand KRSNa. So that parA-bhakti means one must be freed from all sinful activities. YeSAm anta-gataM pApam. Not ordinary man. YeSAm anta-gataM pApaM janAnAm, janAnAM puNya-karmaNAm. Those who are always engaged in pious activities, they cannot be engaged in sinful activities. By pious activities, constantly being engaged in pious activities... Then what is that pious activities? SRNvatAM sva-kathAH kRSNaH puNya-zravaNa-kIrtanaH [sB 1.2.17]. Simply if you hear and chant Hare KRSNa mahA-mantra, puNya-zravaNa-kIrtanaH, you become pious. Even you, you do not understand, if you simply engage. So the method is very simple. You can become pious and you can become free from all sinful activities. So

 

<center>

yeSAM (tv) anta-gataM pApaM

janAnAM puNya-karmaNAm

te dvandva-moha-nirmuktA

bhajante mAM dRDha-vratAH

[

Bg. 7.28

]

</center>

 

Then he can surrender unto KRSNa: vAsudevaH sarvam iti sa mahAtmA sudurlabhaH [bg. 7.19]. These are the process, simple processes. You, we have to simply take it seriously. So therefore this KRSNa consciousness movement is prohibiting the four pillars of sinful life. What is that? Illicit sex life. Illicit sex life. And meat-eating. Meat-eating. Meats, fish, egg, everything. AmiSa. AmiSa-bhoja. Meat-eating. And intoxication. All kinds of intoxication. Not only liquor or LSD, but also tea, coffee, cigarette, everything. Illicit sex life, meat-eating, and intoxicant and gambling. These are the four pillars of sinful life. So we are advocating: "

Please give up these four principles of sinful life and chant Hare KRSNa mantra, at least sixteen rounds.

" You become situated in the transcendental position, and you can understand what is KRSNa and what is Bhagavad-gItA. Thank you very much. Hare KRSNa. [break]

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It was the reading of that book which actually moved Bhaktivinode into the Gaudiya thought.

He associated with some Vaishnavas there, but his biography says that it was the reading of Sri Caitanya Caritamrita that really brought Bhaktivinode into Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

actually his first direct contact with Vaishnavism was through a karta-bhaja master who introduced him to mantra and made a stunning prediction about impending devastation of his home village by a disease. that clearly impressed Bhaktivinoda.

 

perhaps Bhaktivinoda was born in a lower caste shakta family so that he might grow up without pre-conceived notions of what Vaishnavism should be. it is often hard to be a reformer if you absorb a particular flavor of a tradition in your childhood.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Speak more on the paradox of the mutated orthodox.

 

I dont want to get sidetracked and it is a big topic and somewhat controversial. in many important ways our movement has "fossilized" when it comes to understanding key elements of our doctrine, especially the guru issue. in that sense we have become more orthodox then all traditional orthodox Vaishnava lines. would Bhaktivinoda accept our current doctrinal orthodoxy? somehow I doubt that very much.

[Guruvani 0]

 

actually his first direct contact with Vaishnavism was through a karta-bhaja master who introduced him to mantra and made a stunning prediction about impending devastation of his home village by a disease. that clearly impressed Bhaktivinoda.

 

perhaps Bhaktivinoda was born in a lower caste shakta family so that he might grow up without pre-conceived notions of what Vaishnavism should be. it is often hard to be a reformer if you absorb a particular flavor of a tradition in your childhood.

 

 

Maybe so, but my point was that his internal conversion to the Gaudiya thought came from reading Sri Caitanya Caritamrita, according to Gaudiya Matha biography.

 

Having contact and having conversion are not the same thing.

[Guest guest]

 

According to Srila Saraswati Thakur, Srila Bhaktivinode identified himself more with the line of Srila Jagannatha das Babji in his (Bhaktivinode's) later years.

 

No, this is incorrect.

 

If you speak about him connecting with the line, that implies he accepted the Guru-pranali of Srila Jagannatha das Babji as his own Guru-pranali.

 

(Guru pranali, for those who have not heard it before, is the "diksa-guru-parampara" of Srila Jagannatha das Babji or some other Vaishnava)

 

What we see in Thakur Bhaktivinode is that he accepted the siksa of Srila Jagannatha das Babji, a siddha Vaishnava (a perfected devotee).

 

A siddha Vaishnava can see themself in an eternal relationship with Guru-Gauranga-Radha-Govinda, and they can pass on their vision of that relationship to a qualified siksa disciple, so that the disciple has a substantial connection through them.

 

It is important to understand that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur did not even tell his disciples the name of the diksa-guru of Srila Gaurakishore das babaji. The fact that he didn't communicate that was certainly intentional. He wanted to put an end to the idea that a parampara passing through various generations of (non-realized) caste Goswamis is not a factual Parampara but only an imitation Parampara.

 

A real Parampara is a when a liberated Vaishnava passes on the knowledge about the nama, rupa, guna, lila etc into the heart of a disciple. If the disciple then fully realizes the nama, rupa, guna, lila etc then of course they can pass on the knowledge to others - there will be a real Parampara, a real preceptorial succession.

 

But when caste Goswamis who have not attained liberation from mundane desires pass on a mantra to other people, they pass on only what they have achieved. They give the Nama Prabhu, and everything is inside the Nama; but if they are themselves chanting nama-abhasa or nama-aparadha then what more can they give, besides nama-abhasa. (similarly, if a sannyasi is enjoying lots of luxuries and he has a big bank account that he keeps hidden, surely that sannyasi-guru is only really communicating nama-abhasa to his initiated disciples, and not suddha-Nama).

 

Devotees such as Bhaktivinode Thakur have high realizations from their previous birth and this "prior knowledge" of the nitya-siddha awakens within them, by the Grace of God. They can communicate that prior knowledge to others.

 

SSM:

The disciplic succession is not a bodily succession. Sometimes it is present, and sometimes it is lost and only appears again after two or three generations, just as with Prahlada Maharaja. He was a great devotee, but his son was a demon; then again his grandson was a devotee. Even in the physical line we see such interruptions. In the spiritual line we also see the channel of truth affected by the influence of maya or misconception. So, the experts will seek out the important personages in the line.

 

A siddha such as Vamsi das babaji will attain perfection even though his Guru was a village Guru in the village of fishermen. He can pass on his pure vision of the Suddha-Nama to others, whether the others happen to be siksa or diksa disciples.

[Guest guest]

 

and if we accept that our line goes through Bipin Bihari Goswami it gets even easier to trace it back to Mahaprabhu, as that line kept fairly good records, at least as far as I know.

 

The line of Bipin Bihari Goswami does not continue to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. He was initiated by Gaura-kishore das babaji - whose diksa Guru is unknown to us.

[Guest guest]

In CC, Raghunath das Goswami is listed as a diksa disciple of Yadunandana Acharya. But in the "chaitanya tree" he is listed as a student of his siksa guru, Swarup Damodara Goswami, and not as a disciple of Yadunandana Acharya.

 

In Goloka, you may find yourself serving Radha-Govinda under the direction of the great soul who was your siksa-guru in this world. You will not necessarily be serving under the person who was your diksa guru.

 

So in a similar way, Bhaktivinode Thakur connected through Jagannatha das babaji, and Saraswati Thakur connected with Bhaktivinode and Gaurakishore.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The line of Bipin Bihari Goswami does not continue to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. He was initiated by Gaura-kishore das babaji - whose diksa Guru is unknown to us.

 

to deny direct disciplic linkage between Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinoda is purely imaginary contortionism.

[Guest guest]

I didn't suggest there is no link from Bhaktivinode to Saraswati Thakura.

 

Rather, that "the Line" of the diksa guru of Saraswati Thakur does not go to Bipin Bihari

 

There is no diksa connection "Line" from Bipin Bihari to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur

[Guruvani 0]

 

to deny direct disciplic linkage between Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinoda is purely imaginary contortionism.

 

don't get your panties all in a bunch.

he is speaking in terms of the diksha guru principle which the vapuvada school that you belong too is ALL ABOUT.

 

Are you now changing sides from the vapuvada diksha guru school to the siksha guru camp?

[theist 1]

 

like I said earlier, the line as presented by BST is more conceptual than based on any hard records. still, I certainly believe that Madhva actually met Vyasa twice in person and from him the line as presented by BST has only a couple of gaps, where we simply have no records of all the gurus involved. ultimately Lord Caitanya validates our sampradaya and that is fairly modern times.

 

and if we accept that our line goes through Bipin Bihari Goswami it gets even easier to trace it back to Mahaprabhu, as that line kept fairly good records, at least as far as I know.

 

Kulavanna the Lord taught Brahma a long long time ago and then after 150 trillions years or so made to to Earth. You seem to be tracing the parampara from Madhvacarya forward.