Why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Never Received Initiation from Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji

[raga]

Where is the evidence that Krishna and Vivasvaan sat down, lit the sacrifical fire, and performed the diiksha ceremony? Not here. But even assuming there was such an event, the same could not have been the case between Vivasvaan and Manu, and Manu and Ikshwaaku. These were the ancestors of the Solar dynasty into which Lord Raamachandra appeared. They were rulers, not brahmins. There is no way they were performing diiksha initiations.

 

This is an example of a shiksha paramparaa. Krishna refers to it as such. Why is not a guru paramparaa, when Krishna says otherwise?

In brief: There may be various traditions with various practices. Gaudiya Vaishnavas follow the example and precepts of the six Gosvamis.

 

Did you read the "Diksa..." - thread? Please browse through what I wrote there about the conception of "diksa" in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

There may be various traditions with various practices. Gaudiya Vaishnavas follow the example and precepts of the six Gosvamis.

Unfortunately this answer is all too common from modern Gaudiya followers. Anytime they cannot reconcile their views with Vedic traditions they just try to avoid the subject by saying we follow the Goswami's.

 

Krishna? Nope, we follow the Goswami's. No need to follow the Gita's precedent.

 

Upanishads? What are they? We don't need to support our views from shruti, we just quote the Goswami's.

 

Sampradayas? Oh, those are old traditions. They don't apply to us anyway, we follow Chaitanya.

 

Chaitanya? Well He is God, so we don't need to actually follow His example.

 

Etc., etc., etc.

 

 

Such modern schools of thought certainly are not Vedantic traditions, which the Gaudiya line definitely is.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-31-2002).]

[raga]

Originally posted by jndas:

Unfortunately this answer is all too common from modern Gaudiya followers. Anytime they cannot reconcile their views with Vedic traditions they just try to avoid the subject by saying we follow the Goswami's.

 

Krishna? Nope, we follow the Goswami's. No need to follow the Gita's precedent.

 

Upanishads? What are they? We don't need to support our views from shruti, we just quote the Goswami's.

 

Sampradayas? Oh, those are old traditions. They don't apply to us anyway, we follow Chaitanya.

 

Chaitanya? Well He is God, so we don't need to actually follow His example.

 

Etc., etc., etc.

 

 

Such modern schools of thought certainly are not Vedantic traditions, which the Gaudiya line definitely is.

tarko ’pratiSThaH zrutayo vibhinnA

nAsAv RSir yasya mataM na bhinnam

dharmasya tattvaM nihitaM guhAyAM

mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH

 

"Arguments are inconclusive, and the shrutis differ. He is not a sage who does not have a different insight. The truth of religion is hidden in the path which the mahajanas wander."

 

"zrutayo vibhinnA". It is fashionable for a sage to establish his novel view and to draw authority to it by referring to some statements in shruti.

 

Rather than go for an individual pursuit of Upanishadic and Shrutic truths, we prefer to take the version extracted and proven right by the Gosvamis (nAnA-zAstra-vicAraNaika-nipuNau sad-dharma-saMsthApakau). We are not great independent scholars. We are bound to allegiance for our preceptors, should we desire to follow their path. Of course, if we desire to take a novel path, then anything goes. We can justify just about any path based on the vast body of Vedic literature.

 

Would you contest the fact that the Gosvamis laid down the precepts for the Gaudiya tradition on the order of Sri Caitanya?

 

[vishal krishna das]

*Unfortunately this answer is all too common from modern Gaudiya followers. Anytime they cannot reconcile their views with Vedic traditions they just try to avoid the subject by saying we follow the Goswamis.*

 

JN Das, with all respect to you and those who believe as you do, I only want to follow the Goswamis and as much of the Vedic tradition as They deemed necessary. And I have noted over the decades how many people felt the need to go outside Gaudiya Vaishnavism to other traditions. But I think the onus is on them to demonstrate why they need to do this and not vice-versa. What's more I personally do not think you have done so, at least not to my humble satisfaction.

 

So I must say that Gaudiya Vaishnavism (as propounded by the Goswamis and their followers) will do me fine!

[raga]

Here we are discussing something *inside* the Gaudiya tradition, is it not?

 

I have no objection if people wish to dwelve to the farther shore of shruti shastra. It is certainly wonderful. Only I wish they would not establish something different from the path of the Gaudiya mahajanas as the outcome of their studies.

 

Perhaps as a learned student of scripture, you can explain the Gosvamis' conception of diksha based on shruti shastra to make us all happy.

 

[krishnas]

In other words, to them scriptural authority refers to texts from Bengal that are at most a few hundred years old.

 

 

unfortunate that many Gaudiyas are only familiar with Bengal, and not with the greater Vaishnava tradition. This is certainly why other schools do not recognize modern Gaudiya followers as a Vedantic school.

 

Jahnava-Nitai,

 

It is amazing how much we think alike. Thanks for writing what you did; I was just about to mention those points too, but I was required to work this morning. I'll probably contribute a few pieces of supportive evidence later, although as you mentioned, I am beginning to wonder what the point of it would be. For Vedaantic schools, the highest authority is Vedas, period. I used to think this was a big problem getting devotees to understand this in ISKCON circles. But I am really disappointed to see that the critics of the Bhaktisiddhaanta line (can I call them the Laliita Prasaada party, for reference?) are equally uninterested in shaastric evidence, even going so far as to endorse the "pick-and-choose" mentality I had previously associated with neo-Advaitin, new-age Hindu groups.

 

Still, I think this discussion was fruitful, as we now know what the LP party believes, and what they are actually prepared to prove. I think we have reason enough to reject the LP party as representatives of Gaudiiya Vaishnava Vedaanta, as we have now seen at least three different authors mention in some way, shape, or form their casual dismissal of shaastric evidence. Obviously, if "we follow the Gosvamis, we are uninterested in other evidence" is the whole basis for their line of argument, no one is going to take them seriously. The problem, I think, is that there is a tendency to confuse Bhaktisiddhaanta's line with some of these other, deviant lines of thinking, on account of superficial similarity. If I had any doubt before about the legitimacy of Sriila Bhaktisidhaanta Sarasvatii's line, I am even more convinced now than ever before of its authenticity vis-a-vis other "branches" of our sampradaaya.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

[Tarun]

What Bs Sarasvati DID receive from GKdB, I want THAT.

Come to Timessquare tonight for its public demonstration.

And I'll accept a side order or what he did NOT receive as well.

And remember: finish the old prasAdam first, then honor the new.

[raga]

Originally posted by krishnas:

Jahnava-Nitai,

 

It is amazing how much we think alike. Thanks for writing what you did; I was just about to mention those points too, but I was required to work this morning. I'll probably contribute a few pieces of supportive evidence later, although as you mentioned, I am beginning to wonder what the point of it would be. For Vedaantic schools, the highest authority is Vedas, period. I used to think this was a big problem getting devotees to understand this in ISKCON circles. But I am really disappointed to see that the critics of the Bhaktisiddhaanta line (can I call them the Laliita Prasaada party, for reference?) are equally uninterested in shaastric evidence, even going so far as to endorse the "pick-and-choose" mentality I had previously associated with neo-Advaitin, new-age Hindu groups.

 

Still, I think this discussion was fruitful, as we now know what the LP party believes, and what they are actually prepared to prove. I think we have reason enough to reject the LP party as representatives of Gaudiiya Vaishnava Vedaanta, as we have now seen at least three different authors mention in some way, shape, or form their casual dismissal of shaastric evidence. Obviously, if "we follow the Gosvamis, we are uninterested in other evidence" is the whole basis for their line of argument, no one is going to take them seriously. The problem, I think, is that there is a tendency to confuse Bhaktisiddhaanta's line with some of these other, deviant lines of thinking, on account of superficial similarity. If I had any doubt before about the legitimacy of Sriila Bhaktisidhaanta Sarasvatii's line, I am even more convinced now than ever before of its authenticity vis-a-vis other "branches" of our sampradaaya.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

 

Lump them all in one and give them a bad name. Particularly lump all the strawmen in their party. Proclaim victory. May success be yours. Blessed be, O friend. The truth is yours, and yours only.<small><font color=#FEFEFE>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-01-2002).]

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

Lump them all in one and give them a bad name. Particularly lump all the strawmen in their party. Proclaim victory. May success be yours. Blessed be, O friend. The truth is yours, and yours only.

Dear Raga,

 

I believe I have given very reasonable counter-arguments to the points raised in the Nitai dasa article. While my response may as yet be incomplete, I do not think it is lacking so far in evidence. On the other hand, the response from the LP party is so far lacking in addressing many key points, such as the fact that (1) shiksha paramparaas do exist and are acceptable as per Vedic evidence, (2) birth is neither a prerequisite nor a limiting factor to brahminical status, (3) there is a lack of objective, historical data regarding Gaura kishora's and Bhaktisiddhaanta's initiations, without which the LP's accusations are lacking in basis, and (4) varnaasharma dharma is sanctioned by shaastra and practiced even by devotees in our own line, including Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu (wearing of saffron, taking of sannyaasa, wearing of sacred thread, etc).

 

Please kindly note that it is the Nitai das article which initiated this thread, and furthermore it is the Nitai das article which claims with very strong language that Bhaktisiddhaanta line is guilty of defying shaastra, practicing sentimental behavior, offending Vaishnavas, encouraging Vaishnava aparaadha, allowing adharmic behavior, etc etc. While accusing me of "Lump them all in one and give them a bad name," and similarly objecting to other members' blanket condemnation of Vrindaavan baabaajiis, you seem unbothered by the same kinds of blanket criticisms when offered by Nitai das. But lest I seem uncharitable, perhaps this is not due to a bias on your part, that you really are a man of principle, and that your not responding to this article was due to some other reason like time constraint. Realize that several of us here *must* respond to this article, because behind its hostile tone and accusations, there are some philosophical points raised which must be addressed. Actually, it is this author's *misunderstanding* of some key philosophical points that gives him the false confidence to speak so disrespecfully of Sriila Bhaktisiddhaanta's line.

So far, the pattern in this thread has been that, if I refute 10 points of the Nitai das article, you offer rebuttals on three of them, to which I offer responses for all three, and then you again respond on just one point the next time. What am I to think of this? I must make a decision as to what to believe based on the outcome of this discussion. Is it wrong of me to express the fact that my conviction is stronger for lack of a serious objection on your part?

 

As far as rejecting the LP party as representatives of Gaudiiya Vaishnava Vedaanta, I again do not see what you are so upset about. If members of the LP party eschew the significance of shruti in establishing truth, then they cannot be called Vedaantists in any reasonable sense of the word. All Vedaantists accept the apaurusheya nature of the Vedas as an axiom. It is never acceptable to quote one's gurus' words as stand-alone evidence. Such a tradition as yours may be very interesting in and of itself, possibly even representing the formation of a new sampradaaya that deviates from the Gosvaamiis' line. But it is not the Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya in fact. If Jagat can make such a claim about the Bhaktisiddhaanta line, I fail to see why it is so wrong to regard yours (and his?) line in the same light.

 

Perhaps, you are upset because I use the term "Laliita Prasaada party" to describe the views given by you, Nitai das, and Jagat. While sometimes dissimilar, there are definitely a number of underlying, common themes among them. As I assume that all of you are coming in various lines descended from Laliita Prasaada (correct me if I am wrong), I inaugurated the term for ease of reference. It was not intended to be pejorative. If you feel that a better phrase can be used to describe your (plural) views, please let us know and we can use that.

 

Let me point out that I have little familiarity with your sampradaaya, beyond what you, Nitai das, Jagat, et. al. have stated. I have not tried to make up anything that I say about you. I have only restated what I have understood from your representation of your tradition. I am open to correction, as I do not believe in criticizing strawmen as Nitai das has.

 

However, I will not back down on the point of scrutinizing everything according to the evidence of shaastra. This will eventually result in my rejecting either your conclusions or those of the Gaudiiya/Bhaktisiddhaanta line. So far the Bhaktisiddhaanta line's conclusions are in the early lead, based on what has already transpired. Resorting to sarcasm will not help you.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

 

[Note from JNDAS: edited to remove the small html text setting.]

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-01-2002).]

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

Here we are discussing something *inside* the Gaudiya tradition, is it not?

 

I am still here. Do you know me? How do you know this is an insider discussion? I might be an outsider who just happens to be sympathetic to the cause of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. What if, hypothetically speaking, I were actually initiated in the Shrii Vaishnava line? As an outsider looking in (hypothetically speaking), I would take great interest in your attempts to separate your gurus' conclusions from those of the shruti. I could then explain to wandering spiritual seekers why Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is nice and good, but actually they should move on to "real" Vaishnava Vedaanta which is actually faithful to the shaastras.

 

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

I have no objection if people wish to dwelve to the farther shore of shruti shastra. It is certainly wonderful. Only I wish they would not establish something different from the path of the Gaudiya mahajanas as the outcome of their studies.

 

I believe our position (again, assuming I am an "insider") is that the Gosvaamiis do not intend to contradict the shrutis in their writings. To admit otherwise is to invalidate the Vedaantic basis of the sampradaaya, reducing us all to the category of sentimentalists.

 

Hence, if someone interprets the Gosvaamiis writings to say something that flies in the face of the shruti, then they are misunderstanding the Gosvaamiis.

 

In this case, we have evidence from mainstream Vedic literature that shiksha paramparaas exist. The sole evidence for your position being Hari-bhakti Vilaasa, I would argue that your extreme emphasis on the diiksha prescriptions, by which you conclude that the Bhaktisiddhaanta line is not bona fide for lack of explicit diiksha, is undue.

 

The Gaudiiya line is a continuation of the Maadhva line, in which there are numerous shiksha connections. It makes absolutely no sense to argue that the shiksha connections after the Gosvaamiis are unacceptable, when that simlarly renders as unacceptable our connection the Maadhva line. I do not think that Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana who verified our Maadhva connection, would approve of such thinking.

 

If it is the conclusion of Hari-bhakti Vilaasa that a sampradaaya can only consist of diiksha lines, then it contradicts Vedic tradition in which there is evidence of other shiksha lines (such as Krishna-Vivasvaan-Vaivasvata Manu-Ikshwaaku). Saying that HbV is only applicable to Gaudiiya Vaishnavas is unacceptable logic. It may very well be the case, but HbV must still conform to Vedic evidence to be considered bona fide. The fact that this is an "insider" discussion does not suddenly invalidate Vedas, Puraanas, Itihaasas, etc. HbV must therefore be seen against this backdrop, and not independently.

 

Please note that I am not saying that HbV is wrong. I am saying that these particular statements from HbV which you quote are being given more extreme emphasis by your party than the Gosvaamiis intended. Only when misinterpreted by such extreme, word-for-word devotion does the problem of conflict with other shaastras arise.

 

I doubt that the Gosvaamiis would commit such obvious errors in scholarship.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

[raga]

Dear Krishnadas,

 

First of all, please do understand that I am not defending the article which appeared on Nitai Das's site (it says "guest article" by the way). I do not endorse all views presented therein. I am merely expressing some views for your consideration, as I indicated in the very beginning of my comments.

 

 

While sometimes dissimilar, there are definitely a number of underlying, common themes among them. As I assume that all of you are coming in various lines descended from Laliita Prasaada (correct me if I am wrong), I inaugurated the term for ease of reference. It was not intended to be pejorative. If you feel that a better phrase can be used to describe your (plural) views, please let us know and we can use that.

Please do understand that there is no group of me, Jagat, Nitai et al. We are individuals from different sub-traditions of the Gaudiya tradition, unaffiliated with each other. Please do not speak about "LP party", it does not exist. Jagat is initiated by Lalita Prasad Thakura, Nitai Das is initiated by Tinkadi Gosvami of Nityananda Parivar, and I am initiated by Ananta Das Pandit, also of Nityananda Parivar, but a different lineage. The only common factor with us is that we belong to the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages. Besides allegiance to the six Gosvamis et al, we have no particular unity in our views beyond the views of anyone else.

 

 

So far, the pattern in this thread has been that, if I refute 10 points of the Nitai das article, you offer rebuttals on three of them, to which I offer responses for all three, and then you again respond on just one point the next time. What am I to think of this?

As far as addressing your points, could you do me a favour and boil down the essence of your points from your voluminous postings for which you expected a response? I would then gladly comment on them. But please, in a clear, concice form. You may wish to number them (1. Point one; 2. Point two) to help me keep track of your points.

 

 

If members of the LP party eschew the significance of shruti in establishing truth, then they cannot be called Vedaantists in any reasonable sense of the word. All Vedaantists accept the apaurusheya nature of the Vedas as an axiom. It is never acceptable to quote one's gurus' words as stand-alone evidence. Such a tradition as yours may be very interesting in and of itself, possibly even representing the formation of a new sampradaaya that deviates from the Gosvaamiis' line. But it is not the Gaudiiya Vaishnava sampradaaya in fact. If Jagat can make such a claim about the Bhaktisiddhaanta line, I fail to see why it is so wrong to regard yours (and his?) line in the same light.

No-one has suggested the validity of one's guru's words as stand-alone evidence. Guru-sAdhu-zAstra vAkya hRdaye koriya aikya (Narottama).

 

However, Jiva Gosvami has established the pramana-tattva in his Tattva Sandarbha. I have just posted an excerpt in regards to shruti and smriti here. Hence we rely more on the Bhagavata than we do on the shruti. Have you studied the Tattva Sandarbha?

 

 

Let me point out that I have little familiarity with your sampradaaya, beyond what you, Nitai das, Jagat, et. al. have stated. I have not tried to make up anything that I say about you. I have only restated what I have understood from your representation of your tradition.

If you wish to have an overview of what I regard as my tradition, you may pop in for a visit at http://www.raganuga.com .

 

 

Resorting to sarcasm will not help you.

Just please avoid this "Ahha! Just see, this group is defeated!", based on unfounded conjecturing. Please do not draw conclusions on anyone's stand prior to asking whether it is mine or anyone else's stand in reality. I tend to fade out from discussions when I detect a person who illegitimately takes a chance to declare me (or any given "group", "party") as defeated and deviant.

 

Thanks.

[raga]

Originally posted by krishnas:

Hence, if someone interprets the Gosvaamiis writings to say something that flies in the face of the shruti, then they are misunderstanding the Gosvaamiis.

Would you like to offer any definition of "parampara" or "sampradaya" based on shruti?

 

 

In this case, we have evidence from mainstream Vedic literature that shiksha paramparaas exist. The sole evidence for your position being Hari-bhakti Vilaasa, I would argue that your extreme emphasis on the diiksha prescriptions, by which you conclude that the Bhaktisiddhaanta line is not bona fide for lack of explicit diiksha, is undue.

I would like to inquire something from our Pandits here:

 

Everywhere in the Gaudiya tradition besides the Gaudiya Matha, succession is drawn based on diksa-lines for all I have seen. Even in the present-day Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON, succession is presented along the diksa-lines beginning from Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

But what about the four Vaishnava sampradayas of the present day, is the line of succession there drawn based on diksa or siksa? Has anyone studied the matter?

 

 

The Gaudiiya line is a continuation of the Maadhva line, in which there are numerous shiksha connections.

May I request you to present examples of these numerous siksa-connections?

 

 

If it is the conclusion of Hari-bhakti Vilaasa that a sampradaaya can only consist of diiksha lines, then it contradicts Vedic tradition in which there is evidence of other shiksha lines (such as Krishna-Vivasvaan-Vaivasvata Manu-Ikshwaaku).

Would you have other examples of siksa-lineages at hand?

 

 

Please note that I am not saying that HbV is wrong. I am saying that these particular statements from HbV which you quote are being given more extreme emphasis by your party than the Gosvaamiis intended. Only when misinterpreted by such extreme, word-for-word devotion does the problem of conflict with other shaastras arise.

I have nothing but demonstrated how diksha is required when quoting the Gosvamis' writings. Would you disagree?

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

So I must say that Gaudiya Vaishnavism (as propounded by the Goswamis and their followers) will do me fine!

You miss the point. It is not a question of whether to follow the Goswamis or not. It is a matter of whether we are blind sentimentalists or whether we have firm understanding of the teachings of the Goswamis, which all happen to be based on shastra.

 

One acharya in the line of Rupa Goswami has stated the following in his paraphrased translation of the bhaktirasamrita-sindhu:

 

"The neophyte or third-class devotee is one whose faith is not strong and who, at the same time, does not recognize the decision of the revealed scripture. The neophyte's faith can be changed by someone else with strong arguments or by an opposite decision. Unlike the second-class devotee, who also cannot put forward arguments and evidences from the scripture, but who still has all faith in the objective, the neophyte has no firm faith in the objective. Thus he is called the neophyte devotee."

 

The neophyte is one who simply says "no need to support our conlusions with scripture".

 

For example, if we are not able to do the simplest thing, such as establish the qualities of soul based on the shruti, then we are nothing but sentimentalists. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with being a sentimentalist, but then we shouldn't claim to follow a Vedantic tradition.

 

The Goswami's on the other hand put much importance on being recognized as a Vedantic tradition, not just a sentimental devotional cult. For this reason they wrote so many books, establishing each of their premises based on authoritative scripture.

 

Why did Baladeva Vidyabhushana write a commentary to Brahma-sutras? To be recognized as a Vedantic tradition and to prove that the Gaudiya line is not a sentimental devotional cult. Why have Gaudiya acharyas written commentaries on the Upanishads? Not for internal use by the devotees, but primarily for external critics. This is one reason many of the Upanishadic commentaries in the Gaudiya line are lost, they were not preserved within the devotional community as much as some other literatures.

 

It is clear the line of the Goswami's is a Vedantic tradition based on the authorized scriptures - not based on the so-called whims of Chaitanya (i.e. "we are followers of Chaitanya, we don't follow the examples of the Gita"). Chaitanya's precepts are the ultimate conclusion of the Gita's message.

 

The Goswami's have proclaimed Sripada Madhvacharya as their foundation. We are primarily followers, not sentimental renegades.

 

tarko ’pratiSThaH zrutayo vibhinnA

nAsAv RSir yasya mataM na bhinnam

dharmasya tattvaM nihitaM guhAyAM

mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH

 

"Arguments are inconclusive, and the shrutis differ. He is not a sage who does not have a different insight. The truth of religion is hidden in the path which the mahajanas wander."

 

"zrutayo vibhinnA". It is fashionable for a sage to establish his novel view and to draw authority to it by referring to some statements in shruti.

 

Yet the shrutis themselves actually speak of only one thing, Sri Krishna. This is the conclusion of Madhva and the Gaudiya sampradaya. It is due to ignorance that various munis misinterpret the vedas to establish their own philosophies. In commenting on this verse Srila Prbahupada says:

 

"Now, one might ask why there are so many philosophers if the ultimate goal of philosophy is one... Because they are ignorant and bewildered concerning the soul and its activities, even though some of them have a vague idea of the soul, many controversies arise, and the philosophical speculators can never reach a conclusion."

 

Vedantic traditions hold the belief that there is an absolute and correct understanding of the scriptures. In the Gaudiya line the conclusion is that Sri Krishna is the object of all the Vedas. Sripada Madhvacharya has stated:

 

vede ramayane caiva purane bharate tatha

adavante ca madhye ca vishnu sarvatra giyate

(originally from Harivamsha)

 

"In the Vedas, Ramayana, Puranas and the Mahabharata, from the beginning till end, and also in the middle, Vishnu is glorified everywhere."

 

Thus it is not the Gaudiya's conclusion (nor any other vedantic school's conclusion) that the shrutis can support anything. On the contrary the Gaudiya vaishnavas state the shrutis solely establish the glories of Sri Krishna.

 

Rather than go for an individual pursuit of Upanishadic and Shrutic truths, we prefer to take the version extracted and proven right by the Gosvamis (nAnA-zAstra-vicAraNaika-nipuNau sad-dharma-saMsthApakau).

In other words, we can't support anything we have read with the shruti texts. This is the typical modern Gaudiya reply, and it is for this reason many other Vedantic traditions do not recognize the Gaudiya school as a Vedantic tradition. It is not that the Goswami's were not Vedantic, but their modern followers are unable to establish the Goswami's statements from scripture. Among internal followers it may be fine to just accept a statement based on the fact that Swami XYZ said it, but outside of one's own tradition it will not be recognized as valid. And even within one's own tradition it may be doubted based on interpretation (if there is no supporting evidence from the scriptures).

 

We are bound to allegiance for our preceptors, should we desire to follow their path.

Part of that allegiance is to support our preceptors words with scriptural evidences.

 

mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH

It is easy to say "we follow the mahajanas", but what does it mean?

 

svayambhur naradah sambhuh

kumarah kapilo manuh

prahlado janako bhismo

balir vaiyasakir vayam

 

The twelve mahajanas whom we are following are the great devotional authorities, whom we hear about only through the scriptures. Thus to follow the mahajanas requires one follow the injunctions presented by the mahajanas in the scriptures - not to just sentimentally call upon their names as vague authorities.

 

We can justify just about any path based on the vast body of Vedic literature.

If that is the case it should be very simple for you to establish your views based on the shruti, but till now you have never done it.

 

 

Here is one example of modern Gaudiya replies to various evidences from another thread:

 

1) Precedent set by Arjuna receiving initiation from Krishna

 

Answer: That doesn't count because he does not have a sampradaya.

 

2) Precedent of Ramanuja receiving initiation from Yamunacharya

 

Answer: That doesn't count because he has his own sampradaya.

 

3) Precedent of Chaitanya

 

Answer: Caitanya doesn't count because we should do what he does when he takes formal initiation but we shouldn't do what he does when he doesn't give formal initiation.

 

In otherwords, the typical answer is "That doesn't count". Why? Because they don't have a response to it.

 

HKS,

Unfortunately the same thing will occur with any of your posts. When there isn't a sufficient answer, the reply will be "That doesn't count. You can prove anything by quoting Krsna himself..." In other words, to them scriptural authority refers to texts from Bengal that are at most a few hundred years old.

 

Chaitanya, in creating His philosophy, borrowed two concepts from each of the four sampradayas. The vaishnava sampradayas are the foundation for Gaudiya siddhanta. It is unfortunate that many Gaudiyas are only familiar with Bengal, and not with the greater Vaishnava tradition. This is certainly why other schools do not recognize modern Gaudiya followers as a Vedantic school.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-01-2002).]

[Jagat]

I find it rather unusual that people place the Veda and Sruti above the Goswamis.

 

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came with a dispensation that "had never been given before."

 

You will find nothing about Radha and Krishna lila in the Veda. Nothing about sambandha, abhidheya and prayojan as we know it. There is no chanting of Hare Krishna, there is no deity worship.

 

So I am somewhat mystified that someone professing to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava would say this. Any reference to the Vedanta is to establish legitimacy, not to find any new siddanta. Why did Baladeva write? Good question. Better question yet, why did Rupa or Chaitanya not write?

 

As far as disproportionate emphasis is concerned. This kind of thing sometimes happens when a matter is generally accepted in a certain time and place. It is mentioned in passing or not much time is spent explaining because everybody already knows that. Then later when it ceases to be obvious the little trace proofs take on a greater importance.

 

I am sorry that I haven't been able to keep up with this discussion, but I am certainly not convinced by either JN or HK's "scriptural evidence."

 

Arjuna "initiated" by Krishna? Come on!

 

 

[raga]

Originally posted by Jagat:

You will find nothing about Radha and Krishna lila in the Veda. Nothing about sambandha, abhidheya and prayojan as we know it. There is no chanting of Hare Krishna, there is no deity worship.

 

Kali-santarana-upanishad of Krishna Yajur Veda? (5-6)

 

hare kRSNa hare kRSNa kRSNa kRSNa hare hare

hare rAma hare rAma rAma rAma hare hare

 

iti SoDazakaM nAmnAM kali-kalmaSa-nAzanaM

nAtaH parataropAyaH sarva-vedeSu dRzyate

 

Not? Well, I guess congregational chanting of the same is a different issue. When was this quoted for the first time, though, anyone knows?

 

[Rati]

Just one brief comment:

You are not really being honest, krishnas (whoever you really are), if you maintain that the 'Sarasvata' line is not something new and different. Just because it borrowed from traditions outside the one started by Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanya, in order to incorporate those vestiges of varnashrama that the six Goswamis discarded long ago, does not mean that it should not be considered a reformist sub-movement of the main movement. Of course YOU are going to be the reactionary when it comes to that point (and NOT Raga), and cry 'foul', even though pointing that out is hardly an indictment, just a statement of fact. I am also not in the line of Lalita Prasad, so cannot claim any membership in the LP club (unless of course they are handing out free CDs ).

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 06-02-2002).]

[raga]

I am also not in the line of Lalita Prasad, so cannot claim any membership in the LP club (unless of course they are handing out free CDs ).

We offer a free e-mail address for our members (Raganuga.Com Club). Our members can also access our 128kbps/160kbps mp3-archives upon request, whereas our downloads are only 96kbps for the public. Other goodies are to come.

 

Join the ranks -- gain the benefits. Support our cause.

 

[stonehearted]

krishnas writes:

 

"My acceptance or rejection is based on that evidence, and on the assumption that each of you is representing your respective traditions properly. Jagat can choose to be unconvinced, but without addressing the specifics, I have no reason to believe that he has any good reason to disagree. "

 

This attitude demonstrates a problem in argumentation that pervades devotees' interactions as well. We seem to love dichotomies, and we blithely assert that anyone who does not accept our version (of anything) in toto, and who doesn't surrender absolutely to our supererior understanding, is necessarily motivated by ignorance, obsticacy, or worse. We refuse to see beyond the zero-sum model, even in discussion among Gaudiya vaishnavas. This attitude makes it hard for us to really hear from and learn form each other.

 

I have a lot to say on this but little time at the moment. Regarding the specific complaint, that Jagat hasn't explained to K's satisfaction why he's unmoved by his own and jn's points, souuds petty and petulant. In fact, Jagat has explained his perspectives quite clearly; the fact that K can't accept that there may be different perspectives on a points shows the limits of his experience with our line of thought and feeling.

 

I'm not here often, largely because I find the contentious nature of most discussions annoying and distracting from my real business, which is finding company conducive to my attempts to cultivate Krishna consciousness.

 

Please pardon me if I come off like a crabby old scold. I don't mean to be offensive.

[krishnas]

Just please avoid this "Ahha! Just see, this group is defeated!", based on unfounded conjecturing. Please do not draw conclusions on anyone's stand prior to asking whether it is mine or anyone else's stand in reality. I tend to fade out from discussions when I detect a person who illegitimately takes a chance to declare me (or any given "group", "party") as defeated and deviant.

 

With all due respect, you are overreacting. I have written nothing out of line, especially compared to some of the other statements in this thread-- Jagat states that Bhaktisiddhaanta's line is a "new sampradaaya" that "claims" to uphold the traditional Gaudiiya Vaishnava essence, while you write similarly that you three are from "traditional" Gaudiiya Vaishnava lineages, which the Bhaktisiddhaanta line is not, as per the bhajankutir.net article. Against that backdrop, I don't understand why it is wrong to examine the evidence and reassert the correctness of one's own line above others who disagree.

 

Perhaps the mistake is mine in assuming that *you* do not believe the Bhaktisiddhaanta line to be a "new" sampradaaya, but in fact a traditional Gaudiiya Vaishnava lineage. That didn't seem to be the gist of your arguments, but perhaps I misunderstood you. Maybe you could clarify.

 

Nor have I failed to provide evidence for everything I have said. My acceptance or rejection is based on that evidence, and on the assumption that each of you is representing your respective traditions properly. Jagat can choose to be unconvinced, but without addressing the specifics, I have no reason to believe that he has any good reason to disagree.

 

I also want to draw your attention to this statement:

 

"I only want to follow the Goswamis and as much of the Vedic tradition as They deemed necessary. And I have noted over the decades how many people felt the need to go outside Gaudiya Vaishnavism to other traditions. But I think the onus is on them to demonstrate why they need to do this and not vice-versa."

 

This is clearly a deviation, and will be taken as such, unless its author clarifies what he means. Right now it sounds very much like he is saying that the Vedas are only valid to the extent that the Gosvaamiis have accepted them, and that the onus is not on Gaudiiyas to demonstrate the shaastric basis of their philosophy.

 

I also note a similar, if not as obvious approach in your postings. For example, what of the shiksha paramparaa mentioned by Krishna in Bhagavad-giitaa? Hari-bhakti Vilaasa cannot be saying that a genuine paramparaa consists of only diiksha connections. This is clearly wrong. Saying that HbV is for Gaudiiya Vaishnavas only is not an acceptable argument. Even HbV must be faithful to the standards of the mainstream Vedic literature for it to have validity. This cannot be emphasized enough.

 

Again, I am not claiming that HbV contradicts the Itihaasas/Puraanas in regards to its concept of paramparaa. Rather, I am saying that your exclusive emphasis on these statements makes it seem that it does.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

[raga]

Perhaps the mistake is mine in assuming that *you* do not believe the Bhaktisiddhaanta line to be a "new" sampradaaya, but in fact a traditional Gaudiiya Vaishnava lineage. That didn't seem to be the gist of your arguments, but perhaps I misunderstood you. Maybe you could clarify.

The line of Bhaktisiddhanta is undeniably something which differs from the tradition. We may argue about the rightness or wrongness of his reforms, but it is undeniable that introduced practices which had not been a part of the sampradaya's practice prior to his innovations.

 

1. Giving Brahma-gayatri and upavita to those not born in brahmin families (moreover, joining upavita-samskara with pancaratrika-diksha);

 

2. Introducing tridandi-sannyasa and saffron cloth for the renunciates;

 

3. De-emphasizing the traditional methods of Raganuga sadhana, which had been in practice since the days of Mahaprabhu, while emphasizing kirtana as a replacement of the same.

 

This is certainly indicative of something new and different from the tradition, regardless of its rightness or wrongness.

 

[raga]

If you wish to continue with the discussion, please do me a favor and list all the points for which you expect an answer, points which you have made and to which I have not responded.

 

1. Point one

2. Point two

3. Point three

 

I'll then respond:

 

>> 1. Point one <<

 

1. Point one answer

 

>> 2. Point two <<

 

2. Point two answer

 

Like this, please. Then we can get a clear structure for the conversation, and can better keep track of which point has been answered and which point has not. Then perhaps something fruitful may emerge as its outcome.

 

[raga]

I also note a similar, if not as obvious approach in your postings. For example, what of the shiksha paramparaa mentioned by Krishna in Bhagavad-giitaa? Hari-bhakti Vilaasa cannot be saying that a genuine paramparaa consists of only diiksha connections. This is clearly wrong. Saying that HbV is for Gaudiiya Vaishnavas only is not an acceptable argument. Even HbV must be faithful to the standards of the mainstream Vedic literature for it to have validity. This cannot be emphasized enough.

Hari Bhakti Vilasa draws its content mainly from the Pancaratras. In the Pancaratrika tradition, diksha is a very essential element in worship. In a lineage where the precepts of worship along with mantras with which one is to worship are given, the lineage will naturally be traced according to diksha.

 

The example of siksha-parampara in the Gita is not concerned with passing on methods of worship. Certainly siksha-parampara is a legitimate way of tracing a lineage in non-pancaratrika traditions.

 

If I proceed drawing the evidence from the Pancaratra corpus of literature in arguing the necessity for a diksa-lineage in the Gaudiya tradition, will it be acceptable for you?

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by Rati:

Just one brief comment:

You are not really being honest, krishnas (whoever you really are), if you maintain that the 'Sarasvata' line is not something new and different. Just because it borrowed from traditions outside the one started by Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanya, in order to incorporate those vestiges of varnashrama that the six Goswamis discarded long ago, does not mean that it should not be considered a reformist sub-movement of the main movement. Of course YOU are going to be the reactionary when it comes to that point (and NOT Raga), and cry 'foul', even though pointing that out is hardly an indictment, just a statement of fact.

Dear Rati (whoever you are),

 

The essence of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's sampradaaya goes beyond rituals and external appearances. It is a fact that He wanted Krishna-consciousness spread all over the world, and similar statements predicting this were given by His associaties and disciplic descendents. "Always remember Krishna and never forget Him" is the main regulative principle, all others being subordinate to this one.

 

Now, one of the criticisms of the Saarasvata line is that he introduced practices like wearing saffron, getting yagnopaveeta, and in short, practicing varnaasharma dharma, for the purpose of propagating Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. But Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu wore saffron, sacred thread, etc. for the purpose of propagating Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. What of that? There is something seriously wrong with a line of logic that attempts to define the Gaudiiya Sampradaaya according to practices which Mahaaprabhu did not follow.

 

Then there is the logic that scriptures like Bhagavad-Giitaa, Bhaagavatam, etc are "outside" our tradition, while Hari-bhakti Vilaasa is "inside." I disagree. All of the shaastras are part of our tradition. Otherwise, what is its basis?

 

This is not reactionary, nor is it dishonest. It is *discriminating.*

 

I cannot help but notice that you and others feel it is okay to refer to the Sarasvati line as new or deviant, but when the reverse is stated you claim foul. With all due respect, I consider this a double standard.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

[Rati]

Krishnas tu bhagavan svayam Ji:

 

I apologize if I have somehow offended you or your line. It is my understanding that we are following Rupa Goswami, hence the term Rupanuga. Did not ACBS Srila Prabhupada himself state when he gave the babaji vesh initiation to Oudoulomi Das that the Vaishnava always wears white? I do not think I was hallucinating when I heard the statement first hand.

 

Anyways, yes there were associates of Mahaprabhu as well that were in the sannyasa order that wore saffron, but the precedent was set by the six Goswamis and followed up until Bhaktisiddhanta's time. That is simply an historical fact, nothing more or less.

 

We can go around in circles indefinitely and ad infinitum over this issue, and never reach any agreement. So, perhaps it is just best to agree to disagree, don't you think? For some reason, these things keep getting rehashed on the internet, and it is always the same arguments put forth. Time to move on.