Shiksha Parampara

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

There is no real transference of divyam jnanam if the disciple has not received actual initiation, mantra diksha.

I would disagree. Arjuna never received mantra diksha from Sri Krishna, yet he did receive divya-jnanam. As such Arjuna is a disciple of Lord Krishna in "parampara" (Krishna's word for it). The mantra is the deity manifested in sound. It is possible to realize the deity directly without the mantra as well.

 

Again the case of Ramanuja is relevant, where his diksha guru was different from his mantra guru. What diksha did he receive? Only divya-jnanam by the mercy of Yamunacharya. Later he received mantra diksha, and subsequently disobeyed his mantra-guru by openly revealing the mantra to the public. His link to the parampara was through siksha, which itself was non-different from diksha, for realized siksha is divya-jnanam.

 

[shvu 1]

 

In our humble understanding, the preceptor who gives one instruction on spiritual matters is considered as guru. For certain Shvuji is waiting for a smrti text where Sri Narada gives formal diksa to Vedavyasa in a fire sacrifice, with mantras, collecting alms for Sri Guru's asrama, daksina, and so on.

As you yourself have put it, there is no formal acceptance of Narada by Vyasa as his Guru. Who exactly is a Guru? Madhva met Vyasa, so Vyasa becmes his Guru. Narada tells Vyasa to compose a text and he becomes Vyasa's Guru. What about Parasara? Was he replaced by Narada? By such logic, I read the BG as it is and Prabhupada becomes my Guru. Next I read Nikhilananda's translation and now Nikhilananda is my Guru. Then I read Max Muller's translation and now he is my latest Guru!

 

If such logic is ok to you, then your concept of Narada was Vyasa's Guru can be acknowledged. Since I don't, I cannot accept Narada as Vyasa's Guru because he told him to compose a work. Neither did Madhva nor Chaitanya claim such a linkup. With due respect, neither would have Baladeva Vidyabhushana, if it were not for that Padma Purana verse which left him with no choice.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

 

To add,

 

There is no problem with claiming Chaitanya as a start point. More traditional sampradayas such as the Sri-Vaishnavas and the Sad-Vaishnavas do not see a need to go back all the way to Narayana and are content with having their respective founders as the start points. There is nothing wrong with that. Besides the Gaudiyas accept Chaitanya as a divine avatar which itself rules out any need for tracing the line back beyond him.

 

In fact, this is how it was with the Gaudiyas too, until for this Padma Purana verse. To accept this verse as true, opens a lot of ther issues of acknowledging the Ramanuja tradition as a valid one, which Madhva himself would not have agreed to and he did not. I also understand that not all the Gaudiya lines accept the Madhva connection. So in my opinion, this connection is a non-issue and makes little or no difference to a follower of Chaitanya.

 

Cheers

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

this connection is a non-issue and makes little or no difference to a follower of Chaitanya.

 

Cheers

In your opinion dude...sorry but it is a big difference according to the tradition itself. I respect your perspective very much shvu, sorry but you are not an expert on this and are off base a bit

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

[shvu 1]

 

In your opinion dude...sorry but it is a big difference according to the tradition itself. I respect your perspective very much shvu, sorry but you are not an expert on this and are off base a bit.

I wonder how, since it did not make a difference for 200 years. Anyway as you said, I am not an expert on this and this is strictly my opinion here, although there are several others who think so too [who are not on this forum].

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shvuji

 

You insist in the same point: Sri Baladeva went to Jaipur to fulfil the meaning of a single verse from Siva-gita.

 

Many times we told you that this is non-sense. In our apprenticeship with Gurudeva he has never even mentioned this verse. The main point is istadeva, or upasya-tattva. This is the main characteristic to make distinctions among sampradayas.

 

Sri Jiva Goswami has establish the Gudiya's link with Madhvas mainly due this characteristics and the further process on how to realize this istadeva. The link is not by philosophy, or any other material consideration.

 

We don't believe that our acaryas would find any reluctance in place Gaudiya-vaisnava-sampradaya as a 5th sampradaya, or included in any other sampradaya if the criteria was different.

 

Remember that Sri Caitanya was a revolutionary in all aspects, and His followers could follow His precepts, making a revolution in sampradaya's understanding, simply ignoring this verse from smrti and by quoting some other evidence in its place. You known that it is not very difficult to do it. But it was Sri Caitanya Himself who stated that He had accepted Nrtaka Gopala as His istadeva. So, Sri Krsna is the istadeva in our sampradaya, it is not Sri Narayana or any other aspect of Bhagavan. Therefore we are linked with Sri Madhva. We cannot change it.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu 1]

 

Many times we told you that this is non-sense. In our apprenticeship with Gurudeva he has never even mentioned this verse. The main point is istadeva, or upasya-tattva. This is the main characteristic to make distinctions among sampradayas.

I will keep this simple. Why did he bring up this link to Madhva? Why did he name the sampradaya as Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya? Like I said before, I am not interested in knowing how he established this identity, but would like to know why he did it?

 

Sri Jiva Goswami has establish the Gudiya's link with Madhvas mainly due this characteristics and the further process on how to realize this istadeva.

Excuse me, I was under the impression that Jiva Goswami was clear that the sampradaya was based on chaitanya's teachings and owed no alliance to any of the existing sampradayas. This is how it was for 200 years until Baladeva Vidyabhushana came on the scene. If I am wrong here, I would like you to cite a source, where Jiva Goswami claims a link to Madhva Sampradaya and lists his Parampara from Brahma through Narada and Madhva. If there is no such reference, then my points are au fait.

 

We don't believe that our acaryas would find any reluctance in place Gaudiya-vaisnava-sampradaya as a 5th sampradaya, or included in any other sampradaya if the criteria was different.

The prime message was Prema-Bhakti as taught by Chaitanya which was not to be found in any other Sampradaya and was new. Why connect this to Madhva? Chaitanya did not learn this from anyone. Ideally it would be a new Sampradaya and that is how it was for sometime, according to my knowledge.

 

But it was Sri Caitanya Himself who stated that He had accepted Nrtaka Gopala as His istadeva. So, Sri Krsna is the istadeva in our sampradaya, it is not Sri Narayana or any other aspect of Bhagavan. Therefore we are linked with Sri Madhva. We cannot change it.

A link with a Sampradaya means following it's tenets as well, which is absent in this case. No tattva-vadin will accept this logic of connection while having a different philosophy and rightfully so. Earlier once, I had asked you if I could start a new Sampradaya with Chaitanya's name, having a different philosophy and you were silent on that issue. The same applies in this case too.

 

If you argue that Baladeva Vidyabhushana argued thus with the Ramanins, I must point out that the Ramanins were on the same boat by a similar association with the Sri-Sampradaya and had no choice but to agree. Had this argument beeen with a Tattva-vadin, then it could have been taken more seriously. Moreover the Ramanins are practically non-existent today and were never a prominent group at any time. Thus their scholarship and knowledge of Tattva-vada is seriously doubted.

 

Yes, the title cannot be changed and that is not the point here. We are only discussing how it all came to pass.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

 

The main point is istadeva, or upasya-tattva. This is the main characteristic to make distinctions among sampradayas.

May I see a reference to this outside the Gaudiya Literature? Also something to show that having the same upAsana-murti is sufficient to claim that the upAsya-tattvas are the same?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Cheers

 

[amanpeter 0]

Well, here goes nothing. Lord Caitanya is linked to Madhva's lineage to indicate support for his position against mayavadis. Actually He has taken elements from each of the four sampradayas. Although Mahaprabhu is distributing pure Krsna-prema in the mood of Srimati Radharani, who is way beyond religion, as Krsna He must establish the principles of religion somehow or other. Unfortunately most who worship God in awe and reverance were/are unable to accept Sri Caitanya as anything other than a sentimentalist without the `proper` background being established. After His disappearance Sahajiyism ran rampant so there was/is a need to establish legitimacy. Does this make any sense whatsoever to you, Shvu, or anyone else. Personally, credentials no longer concern me, though maybe they should. Trouble with establishing legitimacy is we end up with religious establishments each claiming sole legitimacy. My faith remains in His Divine Grace Herself out of sheer necessity.JAI SRI RADHE!

 

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

 

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna

Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama

Rama Rama Hare Hare

[Guest guest]

Also something to show that having the same upAsana-murti is sufficient to claim that the upAsya-tattvas are the same?

 

We don't believe that sampradaykas who are worshiping a upasana-murti are only idolaters who have no idea of upasya-tattva.

 

Upasya-tattva will be realized by mantra, and in the case of Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya the mantra is the same, gopala-mantra. This is a confidential topic, therefore only those who are aware on the purpose of diksa-mantras and its aims should understand this topic. This is not a general instruction given to ordinary people everywhere.

 

So, we are following the precept; 'sri bhagavata-samamatma-sambandha-visesa-pratipadakash ca'; i.e., the mantra will reveal upasya-tattva (istadeva). Mere murti arcana won't do it.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

 

[Guest guest]

>> If I am wrong here, I would like you to cite a source, where Jiva Goswami claims a link to Madhva Sampradaya and lists his Parampara from Brahma through Narada and Madhva. If there is no such reference, then my points are au fait.

 

One should consider that Madhvacarya is the guru of tattva-vada, and Sri Jiva Goswami took support from this doctrine when he compiled his Tattva-sambarbha, Bhagavat-samdarbha and others.

 

Not only this, but he also cited in his books the fundamental pranamas that substantiate tattva-vada, such as 'vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam' (S.B. 1.2.11).

 

Sri Jiva has also glorified his gurus Sri Rupa and Sananata Goswamis as 'tattvajñapakau', the acaryas who proclaim tattva, clearly calling them tattvadis.

 

In many places in Tattva-sandarbha, Sri Jiva Goswami mentions his being in the line of Madhva, and also he accepted the guidance of acaryas in the Madhva-sampradaya such as Vijayadhvaja, Brahmanyatitha and Vyasatirtha, and collected many sastrict proofs from their literatures.

 

So, Sri Jiva clearly had collected opinions of the acarya, of the acarya's disciples and grand-disciples, following the parampara system. He clearly had accepted Madhvacarya as a predecessor acarya of the Sri Gaudiya-sampradaya. One may consult these points clearly explained by Sri Jiva Goswami in his Tattva-sandarbha 97-98, 2.1.8), where he quotes Sri Madhva and many of his disciples and grand-disciples as his instructors in tattva-vada, by stating:

 

"I (jiva Goswami) am composing Tattva-sandarbha following the above statements of Sriman Madhva Acarya. I am accepting the statements quotes by him and those in his line, including tantra such as samhita and mahasamhita, tnatra-bhagavata and brahmatarka."

 

Sri Jiva Goswami did not write any list of parampara, but Sri Kavi Karnapura who was his contemporary has done. The list mentioned by Sri Kavi Karnapura, Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada, Narahari Cakravarti, Devaki Nandana and other Gaudiya-vaisnava-acaryas is the same as mentioned by Srila Baladeva in his Prameya Ratnavali (v.7):

 

sri krsna brahma devarsi, badarayana samjnakan / sri madhva sri padmanabha, sriman nrhari madhavan

aksobhya jaya-tirtha sri, jnanasindhu dayanidhi / sri vidyanidhi rajendra, jayadharma kramadvayam

 

purusottama brahmanya, vyasa-tirthams ca samstumah / tato laksmipatim sriman, madhavendran ca bhaktitah

tac-chisyan srisvaradvaita, nityanandan-jagat-gurun / devam-isvara-sisyam-sri, caitanyan ca bhajamahe

 

"Sri Krsna's disciple was Brahma, whose disciple was the sage of the demigods, Narada. His disciple was Badarayana (Vyasa) whose disciple was Madhva. His disciple was Padmanabha, whose disciple was Nrhari. His disciple was Madhva whose disciple was Aksobhya, whose disciple was Jaya Tirtha. His disciple was Jnanasindhu, whose disciple was Dayanidhi. His disciple was Vidyanidhi whose disciple was Jayadharma. His disciple was Purusottama and his disciple was Brahmanya whose disciple was Vyasa Tirtha. His disciple was Laksmipati and his disciple was Madhavendra whose disciples were Isvara, Advaita and Nityananda the guru of the whole world. Another of his disciples was Sri Caitanya who we offer our respects to."

 

Therefore, Sri Baladeva had not invented a list of guru-parampara only to dispute on a sloka from Siva-gita with Ramanins, as some are arguing.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

 

[shvu 1]

One should consider that Madhvacarya is the guru of tattva-vada, and Sri Jiva Goswami took support from this doctrine when he compiled his Tattva-sambarbha, Bhagavat-samdarbha and others.

There is a history book titled "Early history of the Vaishnava faith and movement in Bengal" by one Prof Sushil Kumar. According to this book,

 

***

 

Jiva gosvami in his Sarvasamvadini directly disclaims connection of Gaudiya Vaishnavas with the views of all other sampradayas.

 

Anandin in his commentary on Prabhodananda's Chaithanya Candamrta claims that Chaithanya and his followers were the founders of Gaudiya sampradaya and owed nothing to Gurus of any other sampradaya.

 

Tattvavadi literature is seldom quoted in earlier Gaudiya literature and even then not as purva gurus. This connection claim starts distinctively only after Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

***

 

In many places in Tattva-sandarbha, Sri Jiva Goswami mentions his being in the line of Madhva, and also he accepted the guidance of acaryas in the Madhva-sampradaya such as Vijayadhvaja, Brahmanyatitha and Vyasatirtha, and collected many sastric proofs from their literatures.

The History book says otherwise. Of course, his research may be faulty and speculative. I guess, since you are an expert on this, you should judge this book.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The History book says otherwise.

Even though he names his book as a "history" book. In reality it is his personal opinions on the matter (probably based on his research). There will always be unique views on every topic.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

As to whether they belong to the same sampradaya philosophically, fundamentally I would say yes. Just have a look at the nine-prameyas of each school, which are their nine points of philosphical foundation. They are nearly word for word identical. And in the Guadiya version it begins, sri madhva praha...

 

Of course this is organized by Baladeva Vidyabhushana, so it wouldn't be a proof to the exact topic on hand, but as far as the similarities in philosophy, it certainly is an evidence.

 

Actually all four Vaishnava lines are based on the same nine prameys, only the order of thenine points creates variations in the philosophy.

 

For example if you see the order given by Madhva it is different from that given by Chaitanya (as mentioned by Baladeva). The emphasis on the order of importance results in the slight differences in philosophical conclusions.

 

[shvu 1]

 

Did Roopa Goswami and Sanatana Goswami lay down any Prameyas? If not, what defined the Prameyas of the Gaudiya Sampradaya for the first 200 years?

 

Out of curiosity, Isn't Rasa-tattva one of the Prameyas of the Gaudiya Sampradaya?

 

Cheers

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-15-2001).]

[Guest guest]

>> A link with a Sampradaya means following it's tenets as well, which is absent in this case. No tattva-vadin will accept this logic of connection while having a different philosophy and rightfully so. Earlier once, I had asked you if I could start a new Sampradaya with Chaitanya's name, having a different philosophy and you were silent on that issue. The same applies in this case too.

 

In spite of Sri Caitanyadeva's philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva diverged in some aspects from Sri Madhvacarya's sudha-dvaita-vada, the basis of Sri Caitanya's philosophy can be considered linked with sudha-dvaita-vada as follows:

 

Sri Madhva has said;

1.Visnu is Supreme.

2.He is known by the study of the Vedas.

3.The Material world is real.

4.The jivas are different from the Lord.

5.The jivas are by nature subservient to the Lord.

6.In both the conditioned and liberated condition, the jivas are situated in higher and lower statuses.

7.Liberation is the attainment of Lord Visnu's lotus-feet.

8.Pure devotion grants liberation.

9.Direct perception, logic and Vedic authority are the three sources of actual knowledge.

 

These nine points of Madhva that the gaudiya vaisnavas do accept These truths are also taught by the Sri Caitanya Himself as one may find in Sri Caitanya-caritamrta and other texts.

 

However, one important aspect has not been elaborated by Sri Madhva and that is the aspect of rasa, that Sri Caitanya has considered as the ultimate status of the soul.

 

Tattva-vadis are mumuksus, they consider mukti as the final aim, and Gaudiyas are bhavukas and rasikas, their final aim is bhava and rasa, not actually moksa.

 

Gaudiyas do acknowledge that t the doctrine of dvaita-vada is an intrinsic part in the evolution of theism. It was propagated according to kala and patra. Rasa-tattva is a very subtle truth and could not have been taught during that period of India's history. Therefore the intricate concepts of rasa-vicara were later expounded by Sri Caitanyadeva and His followers.

 

We do accept the progressive route of sanatana-dharma in this way.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 05-15-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Did Roopa Goswami and Sanatana Goswami lay down any Prameyas? If not, what defined the Prameyas of the Gaudiya Sampradaya for the first 200 years?

 

No, Rupa and Sanatana Goswami didn't directly. But Sri Jiva Goswami has done under their anugatya. The prameyas are all in Sri Jiva's Sandarbhas. They weren't invented by Sri Baladeva 200 years latter.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

>> There is a history book titled "Early history of the Vaishnava faith and movement in Bengal" by one Prof Sushil Kumar. According to this book, "Jiva gosvami in his Sarvasamvadini directly disclaims connection of Gaudiya Vaishnavas with the views of all other sampradayas."

 

So, maybe this Professor Sushil Kumar didn't study Tattva-sandarbha, where Sri Jiva states as follows:

 

tattva-vada-gurunamadhunikanam-srmac chankaracarya sisyatam labhva'pi sri bhagavatapaksapatena tato vicchidya pracura-pracarita vaisnavatama-visesanam daksinadi-desavikhyata-'sisyopasisya-bhuta'-'vijayadhavaja'-'jayatirtha'-'brahmatirtha'-vyasatirthadi-veda-vedartha vidvadfaranam 'sri-madhvacarya-caranam' bhagavata tatparya-bharata-taptarya brahma-sutra-bhasyadibhyah sangrhitani (2.1.8)

 

And by the way, who is (was) this Professor, was he a sampradayka Gaudiya-vaisnava or only a scholar?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu 1]

 

And by the way, who is (was) this Professor, was he a sampradayka Gaudiya-vaisnava or only a scholar?

I have absolutely no idea. Let me do some more reading on this and see what it is all about. Thanks for all the Info.

 

Cheers

 

 

[kailasa 0]

Acaria is authorized to make modifications. Madhvacaria the weight which new changes was not up to him(it), Sri Caitanya as has made changes. As a rule Acaria reforms and supplements the previous system, that is quite natural, as all develops. Acaria does not depend on external things, but as a rule works under the established order.

Clearly that the doctrine Sri Caitanya differs from a little Madhvacaria, but all is coordinated in maximum instance, Madhvacaria knew about arrival Sri Caitanya in the future. To study

The doctrines from the academic point of view is useless, both in this life, and in following(next).

[Dharma 0]

My perception of diksha is that it is like a seed which is supported and nurtured by sadhana and perhaps realization of sutras.

It is a spiritual initiation that can be passed through intent, the eyes and the touch as well.

 

Masters in ancient times would sometimes give a blow to the head with a sandal or push a disciple from a window yelling "Here is your enlightenment!" And it would happen for the disciple in a moment.

 

My master gave some dikshas during a 48 day mukti yajna in India- www.goldencity.f2s.com and the effects were staggering. I literally staggered around for quite some time until I got used to the altered state and way of seeing and experiencing. Not to go into great detail what I have noticed is that if sadhana and contemplation is not done, or if the energy that the diksha provides is not used for some time the effects or impact of the diksha will begin to be less obvious-in a sense fade. So I think of a diksha as a seed followed by a plant a continuously growing process. I do not know what the experience of others has been or what is in books or what the experience is supposed to be, but that is how it happened for me.

 

i would be very interested in hearing personal experiences with dikshas-how you felt, what happened.

 

Also I have a question. Siddhartha received many dikshas from his teachers in his stuggle for enlightenment. When someone speaks of a specific Buddhist lineage, are they refering to the dikshas passed down?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Dharma (edited 05-19-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

This would be an interesting topic to discuss here - initiation and lineages in Buddhism. I hope some people can contribute some insight.

 

[Dharma 0]

It would seem logical to me that since he did seek mukti so relentlessly-reputedly visting over 60 ashrams, he did receive many dikshas. Logistically to me the diksha would be related to the lineage. This is just a conclusion however, and I was wondering if others might know.

 

Also I have not seen much reguarding diksha at Buddhist practice. It seems to just be practice practice practice. Perhaps dikshas are reserved for more advanced groups or are esoteric in the various traditions. Anyone know?

 

Something else is puzzling to me. A great Buddhist leader who I will not name, when asked how long before a man can become enlightened, replied, "Aeons."

 

It already has been aeons.

 

Is that because dikshas are not generally used and are focused mostly on practicing that he says it will take aeons? Is mukti attainable without diksha? I do not know. Anyone?

 

 

I think however that contemplating the Buddha and his divine lineage can give some insight into the ongoing debate of "what is enlightenment". According to Hindu Pauranic tradition, Buddha was the 9th avatar of Vishnu, a previous incarnation was of course, Krishna. The next or 10th and final incarnation of Vishnu is Kalki whose name literally means the "Annihilator of Ignorance". The mission of this avatar is to close Kalkiyuga, usher in Satya Yuga and liberate all of mankind from suffering or in other words bring enlightenment to all of mankind. In the ancient sense, mukti means liberation from suffering. We tend to generally think of enlightenment as liberation from one ignorance or another. The key is (according to ancient tradition) that all suffering springs from ignorance. The suffering itself can not be tackled directly as it it merely a symptom, however the root of it, ignorance, can be eliminated.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Dharma (edited 05-21-2001).]