Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

raga · October 5, 2003

Muralidhar writes:

Reject this if you like. I don't care what you think.

Thank you, this is very generous of you. Sums it up quite well.

October 5, 2003

I suppose you've never heard of Baba Premananda Bharati?

I suppose you've never heard of Yashoda Ma and his student Richard Nixon (Krishna Prema Das)?

Their examples are besides the point, because revolutionaries such as these, including BhaktisiddhAnta and BhaktivedAnta, are being disputed here.

Besides, I bet you haven't studied the history of the Gaudiya sampradaya much beyond some elementary ideas available in ISKCON.

Well, which "Gaudiya sampradaya" would you direct me to for that purpose? The sentimentalists who wallow in obscurity in Bengal, having neither a clue about VedAnta nor the motivation towards sankIrtana, or the "elementary" people in ISKCON and other similar societies who at least have made good on the Caitanya example of public propagation of their religion?

So far as I can tell, the so-called "GaudIya sampradAya" seems to be a hodge podge of mutually contradictory ideas about basic concepts of succession and epistemology.

I suppose I'll "call your bluff" now, as JNdas is fond of doing with Gaurasundara whenever he claims something he can't back up and hasn't studied.

Please don't forget to sign your posts if you become more involved.

It really is quite easy to ruffle your feathers, is it not?

Perhaps for my education, you could explain to me what you consider to be the "traditional" gaudIya vaiSNava school and what their practices are supposed to be. As I understand it, you come from such a gaudIya tradition - am I correct? May I know who your guru is? Also, what are your guru's qualifications (that is, what shAstras is he learned in), and how long did you spend with him before taking initiation?

Also, what scriptures or writings would you say form the basis of understanding the "traditional" gaudIya school?

I eagerly await your response.

October 5, 2003

"So far as I can tell, the so-called "GaudIya sampradAya" seems to be a hodge podge of mutually contradictory ideas about basic concepts of succession and epistemology. "

answering to a vaishnava aparadha, with another aparadha is not a very good idea

gHari · October 6, 2003

<center>Live by the mind,

Die by the mind.</center>

Not since the lion pits of Rome has such a spectacle been witnessed. Desperate humans crazed by crocodile infested minds, savagely tear each other apart in a fight to the death. The combatants are now selecting their weapons; the event is about to begin.

This frenzied event only available here on the Fellowship, your blood and gaur channel.

<center>Don't miss watching Gajendra Elephant King being thrown to the crocs

Thursday 9 PM: the final episode with a surprising twist you won't want to miss!

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

Seems like this is rather like that fantasy film: The Never-ending Story...

So I suppose you will do the honest thing and admit you were wrong when you stated Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment was against the whole Gaudiya tradition and Vedic tradition as well

Sure. I was wrong in stating that there were no examples of siksa-paramparas anywhere. I should have clarified my statement to mean that initiation in sampradayas today as well as in the age of the respective Acharyas was through diksa. However, I still maintain that initiation in the Gaudiya sampradaya since the time of Mahaprabhu has been through diksa until the time of Bhaktisiddhanta. Apart from GM/ISKCON, is there an example of a siksa-parampara anywhere? I don't think so. If there is, I'll be happy to be proved wrong about that too.

An honest person would retract this charge against Bhaktisiddhanta and admit they were ignorant of the facts involved.

Maybe, but in case you forgot, we are trying to have a discussion here, not a full-fledged debate. Read again my very first post; the intention was perhaps to discuss my evolution of beliefs in the parampara. It was never intended to become a 12-pager, unless the honest dicussion lasted 12 pages of course. You and several others have tried to turn this into a debate. That is unfortunate.

Actually, your claim was that paramparas everywhere are traced ONLY by diksha connections. Do you see how the slight change in wording above completely changes your position? This shows a lack of honesty in debate, to switch one's position halfway through discussion.

I suppose only you are capable of perceiving dishonesty when you could have simply asked for a clarification of the matter. As I have been maintaining, my sole idea is to question the introduction of a siksa-parampara in a tradition where connections have only been traced through diksa. Yes, in the Gaudiya sampradaya since Mahaprabhu, parampara connections have been traced only through diksa.

Had I known that we had a bunch of inspectors here, I might have taken more care with my words. Excuse me for thinking we were having a discussion and not a war.

My argument has remained unchanged, yet your position keeps changing as you begin to learn about the traditions of other paramparas. Why did you pretend to know these subjects and post emphatically that everyone was wrong and they could go look it up if they liked to?

Who said I was pretending anything? I don't think my position has changed a great deal. So I was wrong in stating that there are no siksa-paramparas anywhere; this still doesn't invalidate the fact that initiation into sampradayas at times later than the Vedic age were through diksa. You assume that I am pretending to know about something when the simple fact is that my information has been wrong. So what? If my information was wrong, that means the source is wrong. That does not make me dishonest and I extremely resent the way you have tried to depict me as such.

If one has doubts, he should research and inquire in a manner relevant to his knowledge, not boldly declare that everything is how I think it is and no one can prove me wrong.

I never said that no one could prove me wrong, neither do I recall giving that impression. However, can I repeat something again that I have been repeating endlessly?

We are talking about the system of initiations in Gaudiya lineages here. I started this thread for that purpose alone.You copied your reply from another thread and expected answers and you are still continuing to deviate the topic away from its purpose.

The parampara extending from Vyasa to Shuka, to Parikshit and onwards (bhagavata parampara) is only a Siksha parampara. It has nothing to do with the founder, and yet this is considered a branch of the Brahma sampradaya.

OK, now this is a good point. No I would like to ask:

Who considers this parampara a branch of the Brahma-sampradaya?

I hate to have to call you bluff on this again, but what research did you do to verify the mantra-diksha ceremonies of each acharya in the line of Shankara, Madhva and Ramanuja? The fact is you do not know whether or not each acharya has received mantra-diksha from the parampara-acharya or not.

So when you have already decided that "I do not know" and that this is a "fact," why bother even asking? This just goes to show that you have no authority to speak on what people know. Either you ask a question and expect an answer or you just make a statement. Four your info, what research did I do? I spoke with learned Sri Vaishnava friends of mine for Ramanuja, Tattvavadis for Madhva and Advaitins for Sankara. Now either you are right or they are all idiots. Either way, I really couldn't care less.

I observed right in the beginning of this thread how boring this whole issue has been, and I have been proved right once again. This whole issue has bored me to tears; especially when the central issue of my discussion is initiation in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

The fact that today (the last 100 years) the parampara is carried on through diksha is meaningless when these lines are traced back millions of years.

However, Gaudiya Vaishnavas trace their paramparas either to Mahaprabhu or His associates. These paramparas are traced only according to diksa connections. This is what we are trying to discuss. Do you know why they trace via diksa?

I asked you that question several times in my previous post and I have not observed your presentation of an answer.

You post absurd statements like you have researched the lines form Shankara onwards and they are all diksha lines. Stop pretending again.

Strawman. I never said I have researched Sankara's line. Read my original statement again: "By the way, are you aware that no Vaishnava school anywhere has a siksa-parampara? No Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, no nothing. Not even the 'mayavadi' Sankara. All their paramparas are based on diksa." Did I mention doing any research anywhere? Certainly not. And I have already admitted being wrong about it, several times too. What is your purpose in dragging along this tedious line of argument?

Can you even name the acharyas coming from shankara down to today?

You think I am stupid? Who is Jayendra Sarasvati?

You are not someone with sincere doubts. You are someone who wants to pretend he knows something he does not know.

You are not in a position of authority to know the inner motivations of other people unless you are omniscient. Thus I will tell you to stop pretending to know anything on this line when you clearly don't.

No thanks. My study of Madhva's line is deeper than going to a website to find out answers. I have lived in Udupi for several years and learned from Acharya's of the Ashta Mathas and other respectable scholars. Believe what you like about the Madhva line, I have no interest to convince you. But for other innocent readers I will point out your bluffs.

Congratulations for living in Udupi, many of us do not have that luxury. Most of us have to make do with either having virtual or personal association with Tattvavadis who may or may not be learned. Pot luck, really. However, do you really think that Tattvavadis are silly enough to "make a mistake" about their guru? Not only do they make a "mistake" but they broadcast this "mistake" on their websites to be seen by the whole world? Madhva was initiated by Acyutapreksa and the Madhvas trace their line through him. That's a fact. As far as I can see it is only your perspective that they consider Vyasa's relationship to be 'more important.' Sure, Madhva devotees also consider Vyasa's connection to be more important, but we are talking about the tracing of paramparas here, not which guru is more 'important.' Thus, Madhvas trace their parampara via Acyutapreksa.

I'm glad to see that you enough about the Madhva philosophy enough to point out "mistakes" to "innocent people." Obviously I notice that you will not retract your erroneous accusation against me for "misrepresenting the Dvaita tradition" on the point of the prameya-sloka. If you have indeed associated with Madhva scholars, then I trust you will be able to get Bannanjee Govindacharya to confirm what he thinks about the sloka. Oh yes, and I suppose we have no choice but to agree with Srisha Rao when he acknowledges the earliest form of it in the Prameya Ratnavali. Since I notice you have not retracted your erroneous accusation on this point, I won't be taking it further. I have no interest in casting aspersions on your character or debate skills vis-a-vis "honesty" either, because unlike some people I am trying to have a genuine discussion and I don't approve of martial tactics just to gain some cheap "point-scoring."

In reply to:

--

Oh, and I am criticising Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? Excuse me, where did that idea come from? I have never worded a single criticism of anybody despite being accused of doing so. It would be helpful if someone could provide evidence of my "criticism" especially since I have numerous times explicitly stated that I am not criticizing anyone.

--

You want to charge Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati with fabricating his guru parampara. You are suggesting he is a cheater and a liar, yet you are the innocent one who has not insulted him?

[And then JNDas proceeds to post some choice "quotes" for the record.]

I have not "charged" Srila Bhaktisiddhanta with anything because I am not an officer of the law. However, if you were truly as honest as you present yourself to be, and if others are also truly as honest as they present themselves to be, then you will all have to collectively admit that the Sarasvata-parampara [from Mahaprabhu onwards, how many times must I repeat this?] is certainly a fabrication of sorts. This is not criticism, this is a fact. If you think it is criticism, then that has already been refuted in the last paragraphs of my first post on this thread. Go back and read it. For a start, some of the Acharyas listed therein never met each other. So if diksa is "not that important" as you would have others believe and that siksa is the real thing that is important, then how could siksa be "passed" to an Acharya who never met his predecessor? I am talking of Narottama and Visvanatha of course. If you have any evidence to suggest that Narottama and Visvanatha ever met each other, are related by either diksa or siksa connections, then please present it.

Perhaps the next step will be to suggest one needs an authorized guru-pranali to attain Krishna, and thus Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta Swami, coming from a fabricated parampara, are unrealized and bogus gurus.

Perhaps the next step may be to suggest that, but I have not suggested it yet. This is a clear example of replying to what you think I am saying rather than listening to what I am saying. And I still strongly resent the way you have obviously geared yourself up to make yet another accusation that has no factual basis.

By the way, who said that Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta were "unrealized and bogus gurus"? I didn't make any statement of the sort. Go back and read my very first post on this thread. Read and re-read and re-read it until you fully understanding what I am trying to communicate.

Of course your opinions change faster than the phases of the moon, so its hard to gauge.

Is this supposed to be another cheap shot? I remember stating that in the interests of civilized discussion I would not be employing the sarcasm that I have often used before and I asked you to do the same. I don't recall you agreeing to do the same, so I guess you reserve the right to expose yourself as a abusive or insulting person? Either way it's fine by me whatever you choose, as I have little concern for your public image.

One minute its Sai Baba, then ISKCON, then Srila Gaurangapada, then Diksha-paramparas. Who can keep track?

Another cheap shot?

You have used, re-used and re-used that stupid tactic of mentioning "Sai Baba" every time you seem to want to rack up a few points. Are you not knowledgeable enough to have realized by now that people come to ISKCON (or Vaishnavism for that matter) from all walsk of life. Are you seriously attempting to propose that by your logic, we should not listen to any of the western disciples of Srila prabhupada simply because they are ex-Christians? Smokers, beef-eaters, drinkers and women-hunters to boot. I know that several of ISKCON's gurus today were involved in some sort of fringey New Age movement before they came into contact with Srila Prabhupada and Krishna Consciousness. Are you seriously saying that I should hold this against them and compare them then to how they are now?

This is an absurd proposal.

People like you who have the luxury of being born into a Vaishnava family will never realise how dangerous the spiritual business is in these days. When Srila Prabhupada mentions the dangers of people falling for "unathorized cults," these are just black-and-white words on paper for people like yourself. People like you do not know anything about how to preach to such people who are under the veil of ignorance about such things. Instead, people like you are like prospective employers. They decide a prospective employee's suitability for the "job" by weighing up his candidcay according to his "criminal record," wondering if it is "safe" to "employ" this person.

I like the fact that Srila Prabhupada was a far smarter being than you and anyone else can possibly ever be. At least he was compassionate enough to recognise if people were truly "qualified" for the "job," such qualifications being sraddha (faith), interest, curiosity, and a desire to learn. In rare cases he even initiated people on the spot, or preached spontaenously. Unfortunately, I have noticed that there is a tendency nowadays to judge people by what is written in books. If you don't agree with it, call them sahajiyas, rascals, cheaters, fools, morons, black snakes, and every other name under the sun. This condition is deplorable.

And it doesn't do you any favours either.

By the way, what about Swami Gaurangapada? Why mention him? I notice this is the second time you have mentioned him; why?

its time to call these people's bluff and expose them for people with little learning beyond copying and pasting things from other sites.

I don't recall copying and pasting anything. Rather, I have reason to believe that you are the one who is doing all the copying and pasting. Where did you get all those Bhaktivinoda quotes from? Memory?

As for claiming about fabricated paramparas, see my point on this above.

Last person to make these claims was Premananda. His raganuga bhakti didn't seem to have helped him much. After offending the line of Bhaktisiddhanta, he later went on to offend the line of his raganuga guru, and then the entire line of Mahaprabhu.

I know of the person but I am not familiar with his entire history. How did he offend the line of his raganuga guru exactly? I hear he is now an initiated Sri Vaishnava.

Display your greater learning and I will shut up.

Sorry, but I am not in the habit of displaying my "greater learning" in the way of earning some cheap points. I learnt from a very early age not to use knowledge as a weapon in order to make them feel inferior. You'll be surprised how much I actually know. Just because my research into raganuga-bhakti and diksa-paramparas is fairly recent, it is understandable that I will make mistakes along the way until I am in a position to be able to speak with some knowledge of the philosophy or concepts involved.

People like you seem to take great pleasure in using knowledge as a weapon in order to make them feel inferior and bad about themselves, destroying their self-esteem. Knowledge is power; that is why it is a great weapon. However, only a good "warrior" knows how to use the weapon best. I suspect you know very well what happens if weapons fall into the hands of a child.

You claimed you have studied the paramparas of all traditions, and that no Vedic tradition had a siksha parampara.

Er, no. I didn't claim that I had studied the paramparas of all traditions. I made a blanket statement about those sampradayas. Could you please check your facts before you speak, since you are doing a very good job of re-posting my own quotes to addres other points?

You claimed the Madhva parampara was based only on diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Sri Vaishnava line was based only on diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Shankara line was based only on Diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Gaudiya line was based only on Diksha. You were proved wrong.

Interesting how you enjoy making a list of where I have been "proved" wrong. How about all of the points that you haven't answered so far, despite repeated re-postings? Not to worry, I will be be re-posting those unanswered points right after I complete this post, just in case you are wondering what points I am referring to.

It would also be a good idea to look in the mirror at this point. No basis to accuse me of being wrong or unable to answer when you have clearly not done the same

You claimed there were various vaishnava dharma shastras that instructed us to "publicly reject" a guru if we see anything "iffy". Your bluff was called and you were proven wrong, you couldn't cite a single reference from the many "vaishnava dharma shastras".

Hardly. I have already explained that I made a mistake in saying that the verses in question come from HBV, but were in fact from Krsna-bhajanamrta. I also told you (after you re-posted three times) that I was unable to provide you with those verses in the original Sanskrit that you originally asked for, and that due to my computer crash I have been left with only unreliable translations. In the end, there was no need for me to post anything because Raga had already posted the quotes in question. But you laughed at that too, let's not forget.

Now you want everyone to respect your vast learning and knowledge?

OK, I hate to "call your bluff" on this as you are so fond of saying, but where exactly did I say something of the like? I think you'll find I have never stated anything like this, because to do so would be incredibly grandiose and I am not in the habit of being grandiose. Grandiosity is the beginning of narcissism.

By the way, do you think you could do us all a favour and stop trying to defeat your own weak strawman?

It was fun for a while but now it is just simply boring.

In reply to:

--

Even so, did you notice that several of the individuals are the same as those contained in the Brahma-sampradaya? Narayana Himself, Brahma, Vyasadeva. Are you saying that these three individuals in particular are Advaitins? Oh yes, Sukadeva Goswami too, he was an Advaitin?

--

Study vedic tradition and you will learn that the majority of Vedic philosophies originate in parampara from the Lord and come down through Vyasa. The founders of the Shad darshanas are all disciples of Vyasa, yet this does not make Vyasa a follower of the Shad darshanas. Vyasa instructs people according to their position, and their understanding of his teachings is according to their position and natures. Thus the countless Vedic paramparas are formed.

Duh, as if I did not already know this. This is not an answer to the question that I asked either. In the interests of clarity, let me repeat my question again:

"Even so, did you notice that several of the individuals are the same as those contained in the Brahma-sampradaya? Narayana Himself, Brahma, Vyasadeva. Are you saying that these three individuals in particular are Advaitins? Oh yes, Sukadeva Goswami too, he was an Advaitin? Well, they say that he was of the impersonalist ilk until he heard of the glory of Bhagavan, but hey, these "mayavadi rascals" are saying that Vyasa and Brahma and even Narayana Himself are Advaitins! What arrant blasphemy! How come you do not object to this?"

I didn't just mention Vyasa. I mentioned Krishna (Narayana) and Brahma as well. JNdas says that "the majority of Vedic philosophies originate in parampara from the Lord." So could JNDas explain why it is that the "Lord" says things that may be construed in an Advaitic way by the Advaitins? By that same logic, the "Lord" says things that are considered dualistic according to the dualists. I think that would be a reasonable understanding.

The fact that Vyasa and Shuka have inaugurated the advaita parampara does not make them advaitis any more than it makes Vyasa a Nyayi, Vaisheshiki or Yogi for being the preceptor of these lines. Vyasa himself has later refuted the teachings of the Shad-darshana in Vedanta Sutra despite the fact that he is the origin of those teachings in parampara.

And despite this, the Advaitins still hold Vyasa and Suka, as well as Krishna and Brahma, as the initial figures of their parampara, which would lead "innocent persons" to believe they are all Advaitins. Are these Advaitins idiots or what?

For this reason I do not take anything they say very seriously. JNDas says that I know nothing about Sankara and his parampara when I was an Advaitin for years. Right.

--

Being a neo-advaitin is not the same as being a member of the Shankara sampradaya. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is a neo-advaitin. It means nothing. Simply because you were one as well means nothing of your knowledge pertaining to Shankara bhashya and tradition.

OK, again I hate to "call your bluff," but what makes you so sure that I am a "neo-Advaitin"? If you think being an ex-devotee of Sai Baba made me a neo-Advaitin, then that is hilarious. For your information, I studied the texts of Sariraka-bhasya and other texts such as Sadananda's Vedanta-sara. And let's not forget that I learnt this Advaitic knowledge from my personal associates who are themselves learned Advaitins. It would be fair to say that I was practising pure Advaita for a while, before I moved on.

[Now I suppose that because I mentioned the term "pure Advaita," JNDas will proceed to speculate that I am in fact talking about suddhadvaita. He will then proceed further to claim that I myself am claiming to have been a practitioner of suddhadvaita ("pure Advaita") when I clearly said nothing of the sort. Or I might be speculating about this myself! /images/graemlins/grin.gif What can be done with such people?]

And then when I started studying the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism via ISKCON, I rejected the Advaita philosophy. [Are you going to hold that against me too?] Understandably, I was most attracted to the parts in Srila Prabhupada's books where he forcefully refuted Advaitic precepts. I then proceeded to write several papers on the subject that both mirrored Srila Prabhupada's teachings as well as including my own knowledge of Advaita. These articles were very well received and were published in local community magazines. I hear that a couple of my Advaitic friends who I myself learnt Advaita from read my articles and started attending ISKCON and listening to GV philosophy. I have no idea if they converted to GV as a result because I have since lost touch with them, although it would be nice if they did. And as I have already told you before by now paraphrasing:

You are not in a position of authority to know the level of knowledge and inner motivations of other people unless you are omniscient. Thus I will tell you to stop pretending to know anything on this line when you clearly don't.

In reply to:

--

And just for the sake of clarity, Baladeva was not tracing his parampara in his writings.

--

Yes, he was tracing his parampara from before Nityananda's time, because Nityananda also comes in this parampara.

*sigh*

I have already presented the facts about this matter. People like you are free to have your own ideas on this point. I suppose if Baladeva Vidyabhusana were to appear to you right now and list his parampara to you, you would proceed to argue with him that he is wrong and you are correct. What can be done with such people?

Please show where I refered to Baladeva Vidyabhushana as a fool.

If you cannot read your own words, then what purpose will be served if I proceed to point it out. Read your own words first before you speak. That is a good thing to remember.

Yamunacharya prior to departing gave instructions for Ramanuja to be trained by five acharyas (pancha-purna), and for Ramanuja to be installed as his successor. This is prior to Ramanuja having ever seen Yamunacharya. While the disciples went to bring Ramanuja, Yamunacharya went into Samadhi and never regained consciousness. Please go and read Guru Parampara Prabhavam and this will be clear to you.

This is all fine and dandy, but this still doesn't make a difference in that Ramanuja's parampara is traced via diksa to Mahapurna. You may talk all you like about Yamunacharya, but if I may remind you, we are talkng about the trace of paramparas here. And by the way, making a point by asking someone to seek "evidence" is not a very good tactic in discussion. Rather, you should present the evidence yourself if you are interested in making your point.

You know all about the Sri Vaishnava line,

Strawman. And this is more proof that JNDas is replying to what he thinks I am saying rather than what I am saying.

Hilarious when you think about it, because in all my study, Sri Vaishnavism has always been the philosophy I have known least about. /images/graemlins/wink.gif However, that also will soon change since I have been briefly studying its tenets for the purpose of this discussion. When I was not interested in it anyway, moreover.

Gaudiya's should be familiar with it, as it is mentioned in prameya-ratnavali, along with the reason we do not apply it.

Why not?

You don't even know the meaning of these words, yet you want to argue about them?

What makes you think I don't know the meaning of these words? And who do you think is arguing? As far as I can see, you are the only one here who has a history of argumentation along with your "victorious" defeat of countless strawmen. And may I remind you once again that we are talking about diksa-lineages here. It is becoming extremely tedious having to repeatedly drill this point to you.

Sri Vaishnava's will trace their tapa lineage through the guru who performed the tapa ceremony. When refering to the mantra lineage Sri Vaishnava's will trace their guru through the line of mantra-diksha. Thus Ramanuja's mantra-diksha guru is Goshti Purna, and his tapa guru is Maha Purna. Yet he himself was appointed the successor of Yamunacharya by Yamunacharya himself, this is clearly stated in Guru Parampara Prabhavam.

Again, this is all fine and dandy but it is basically irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to make this point relevant to the discussion, then we are speaking only of his mantra-diksa connection. This is what my Sri Vaishnava friend says:

"It is also important to note that the acharya paramparA of the Sri Vaishnava / Visishtadvaita tradition primarily records the succession of teachers who gave mantra upadeSam and taught the inner meaning of the rahasyas to their disciples. ...For Ramanuja, the primary acharya is Periya Nambi and through him Yamunacharya, even though Ramanuja had five acharyas who taught him various different aspects of the tradition."

This is a point that is relevant to the discussion. By the way, every Sri Vaishnava who I know all agree with the fact that it was Mahapurna who gave diksa-mantra to Ramanuja. Only you seem to be continually asserting that it was Gosthipurna. Why is this? Is that stated in "Guru parampara prabhavam" and all my learned Sri Vaishnava friends are ignorant idiots? Ok..

Again, please read Guru Parampara Prabhavam before commenting. Ramanuja was sent to receive mantra diksha from Gosthi Purna 18 times, and each time he was refused the mantra, until the final visit.

Guess its true. All my learned Sri Vaishnava friends who have been studying their own philosophy for years are all ignorant idiots who haven't even read Guru Parampara Prabhavam. How unfortunate they are.

In Vedic tradition there are different categories of guru. There is the guru who gives mantra, the guru who gives sannyasa, the guru who performs tapa, etc. Lineages can be traced through all of these ceremonies.

Praise the Lord that [as far as I know] there are no sannyasa-paramparas in the Gaudiya lineage.

Now that would be a very tricky parampara to trace. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

You think tapa refers to something a guru teaches, like Vedanta or the Gita; when in reality it refers to branding the disciple with fire.

Whatever, but what is the sense in tracing that sort of parampara?

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

As I stated in my lost post, I'll now list all of the points that JNDas has not answered.

This time I'd appreciate answers, since I need these answers to make further points.

Delaying this does not do the respondent any favours. I have just copy-pasted it from my previous postings without any editing. Here we go:

Point #1: Kavi Karnapura expressly states that Madhva received krsna-diksa from Vyasa. The reasoning that "just because it says diksa dos not mean anything" is useless. I personally think that it is worth noting. Kavi Karnapura did not specifically mention the diksa (or siksa) connections of the next gurus, but seems to make a specific case of Madhvacharya. The word here is 'diksa.' Is anyone suggesting that there is a different definition to this 'diksa' that we don't yet know about? It is also irrelevant what the Madhvas think, as their parampara is different to ours and we are discussing a strictly in-house issue here.

Point #2: JNDas suggests that diksa-paramparas are not important because Mahaprabhu never gave diksa. How does JNDas know this? He was told that followers in the line of Lokanatha and Gopala Bhatta Goswamis claim that Mahaprabhu gave diksa to those two personalities and thus the diksa carries on. Plus there is a reference to 'prema-diksa' in CC Antya 16.1. Plus it was also suggested by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura himself that Mahaprabhu may have given diksa:

"Those who have recorded the transcendental activities of Sri Gaurasundara have specifically refrained describing His pastimes of giving formal initiation to anyone so that no one would glorify Him only as a 'guru' who gave initiation into the maha-mantra. The devotees of Sri Caitanya are initiated into the chanting of this maha-mantra and always chant loudly as well as softly in a secluded place." - Sri Caitanya-bhagavata Adi 1.2.27

Why does JNDas avoid this point? I'll tell you later.

Point #3: JNDas suggests that bhakti may be achieved by following an unauthorised path on acount of it's "powerful" nature. By that logic, let me go and jump in with the ahajiyas and I will have nothing to fear, since it is an unauthorised process and I will get suddha-bhakti anyway. Although let's be fair, we were talking about Bhaktivinoda Thakura's diksa, which brings us to the next point.

Point #4: JNDas agrees with the idea that Vipin Vihari Gosvami was somehow an "underqualified" guru for Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji ws the fully-qualified one on account of the fantastic siksa that he must have received. Really? Then why did Bhaktivinoda not get diksa by the two siksa-gurus he associated with before he received diksa? Why not take diksa from either of those two siksa-gurus? What about the fact that Mahaprabhu Himself appeared in the Thakura's dream and told him that He will be sending a guru soon? Seems to me like Vipin Vihari Gosvami was really the chosen one!

Point #5: JNdas says that if Bhaktivinoda was rejected by his guru (which is highly debatable) then Bhaktivinoda is incapable of giving diksa and siksa. In that case, the Sarasvata-parampara comes to an end with Bhaktivinoda, since he is "incapable" of giving diksa and siksa. Right.

Point #6: JNDas says that Bhaktivinoda wrote that he considered the siksa-guru more important. I explained that this is perfectly understandable considering the Thakur's situation: "Considering that in Srila Bhaktivinoda's day, and certainly in Srila Bhaktivinoda's personal situation, siksa-gurus were more prevalent than diksa-gurus. It seems that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa-guru generally resided in the Vrindavana area or thereabouts, while Srila Bhaktivinoda himself resided in Navadvipa-dhama. Lo and behold, Jagannatha das Babaji also lived in Navadvipa-dhama, so it is perfectly understandable that the Thakura would receive more inspiration/instructions from the revered Babaji. That is not contradictory to sastra, one is allowed to have unlimited siksa-gurus but only one diksa-guru. Srila Bhaktivinoda could have had as many siksa-gurus as he liked."

Also, another important point to consider here is that whatever Bhaktivinoda wrote, it is to be considered his subjective (emotional?) opinion. According to sastra, one os duty-bound to offer equal respects to the siksa and diksa gurus, not counting one as "greater" than the other.

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

Is there any danger of keeping this thread on topic?

Namely the fact that we are discussing how the Gaudiya tradition from Mahaprabhu onwards primarly consists of diksa, and that the "siksa-parampara" of the Sarasvata-Gaudiyas is a departure from this tradition.

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

In fact, I find the entire episode of Baladeva's going to Jaipur and so forth very puzzling, in many respects. Many events seem very contradictory. Say, for example, he went there to prove that we belong to a recognized sampradaya, one of the four, such as Madhva's, to which the Gaudiyas supposedly belong. Then the point was brought up that a sampradaya needs a Vedanta-bhasya to be recognized as a sampradaya. Then Baladeva wrote Govinda-bhasya, instead of presenting Madhva's own bhasya. This just isn't coherent at all.

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

I'm just asking you if any other Gaudiya branch outside Gaudiya Math have chosen to follow a siksa-parampara, whether unbroken or zig-zag.

Aside, I wonder what would be the result of following a "zig zag" parampara?

When raga arises and lila-smarana commences, will the siddha-guru-pranali in one's meditation also be zig-zagged?

October 6, 2003

Congratulations for living in Udupi, many of us do not have that luxury. Most of us have to make do with either having virtual or personal association with Tattvavadis who may or may not be learned. Pot luck, really.

Assuming you are an adult (which I have doubted up to this point), you can live wherever you want. These sorts of excuses are not going to generate sympathy from anyone, especially when they are used as a cover for ignorance and historical revisionism.

However, do you really think that Tattvavadis are silly enough to "make a mistake" about their guru? Not only do they make a "mistake" but they broadcast this "mistake" on their websites to be seen by the whole world? Madhva was initiated by Acyutapreksa and the Madhvas trace their line through him. That's a fact. As far as I can see it is only your perspective that they consider Vyasa's relationship to be 'more important.' Sure, Madhva devotees also consider Vyasa's connection to be more important, but we are talking about the tracing of paramparas here, not which guru is more 'important.' Thus, Madhvas trace their parampara via Acyutapreksa.

MAdhvas do not trace their paramparA via Acyuta Preksa. Acyuta Preksa could not instruct Madhva because he always found Madhva's knowledge to be superior. This is recorded in the authentic biography Sri Madhva Vijaya. In fact, it was Acyuta Preksa who later converted and became Madhva's disciple.

Saying that MAdhvas trace their paramparA through a guru of Madhva's who actually in the end became his disciple is an utter absurdity. Kindly leave off of misinterpreting mAdhva history, especially if you are not prepared to apply common sense to the equation.

Also, I should mention here as an aside, that MAdhvas do not have any concept of "dIkSa" guru or "shikshA" guru. I have only used these terms here as gaudIyas have, but factually for MAdhvas, one's guru is one's guru, period. That Madhva did not receive a formal ceremony of initiation by VyAsa is not taken to mean that VyAsa's importance is less than that of Acyuta Preksa. The actual transmission of brahma-jnAna is what actually counts towards authenticating a guru-disciple relationship. Acyuta Preksa was not qualified to instruct Madhva, in spite of having initiated him (in mere childhood, no less).

The following is some evidence I posted previously to address these points.

--

The Madhvas claim a connection with Acyuta Preksa,

--

MAdhvas make no such claim. Only gaudIyas with their inconsistent and strangely contradictory concepts of "guru" and "paramparA" do. In this regard, the SrI madhva vijaya states:

"Achyuthaprajna had planned to specially impart his knowledge regarding the correct observance of the rituals to PoornaPrajna (madhva). But, he observed that the latter followed them to perfection. He himself learnt many special things from the disciple and was amazed in his mind." (4.36)

Factually, SrI Ananda tIrtha had nothing to learn from Acyuta preksa; rather, it was the other way around, culminating in acyuta becoming Madhva's own disciple. The listing of Mani-maJNjari is not meant to be taken as a fact of madhva's guru-paramparA - it is the paramparA of madhva's own sannyAsa guru, which he later turned on its head by his own erudition.

Another instance of madhva superseeding his alleged "dIksha guru" Acyuta preksa is documented in SrI madhva vijaya 4.49-53. Here it is mentioned that acyuta preksa was giving discourse on the bhAgavata and several of his disciples were reading different recensions of the same. Without studying any of them, the young Ananda tIrtha immediately identified one as the original and correct edition written by Sri vedavyAsa Himself. When acyuta preksa disagreed and challenged madhva to prove this by reciting the pancama skandha along with providing meanings, madhva readily did so on the spot and impromptu - which was later confirmed by acyuta's disciples who realized that the very edition identified by madhva without reading it contained the exact same form of the pancama skanda!

Saying that madhva's guru paramparA is that of acyuta preksa is an absurdity of epic proportions. Only ritualistic and unthinking smArthas mistake a mantra initiation and ceremony as "dIksha." For Vaishnavas (or at least, for mAdhvas), the actual passing on of brahma-jnAna is what counts for dIksha, even if this or that ritual does not accompany it in the cases of some exceptional individuals.

Raghu

stonehearted · October 6, 2003

Gaurasundara: So I was wrong in stating that there are no siksa-paramparas anywhere; this still doesn't invalidate the fact that initiation into sampradayas at times later than the Vedic age were through diksa.

I don't think that there's any real controversy here that initiation into sampradayas is through diksa (sounds like a tautology, doesn't it?). The only controversy seems to be over the nature of membership in a sampradaya by some less formal means and whether it may be possible to trace a diksa line as well as a "siksa" line (a line of prominent influences). Whether the second can be called a guru-parampara, and whether chronological contiguity is necessary to parampara is certainly something to discuss. Except for accusations against Bhaktisiddhanta, there's no assertion that any of the acharyas listed in the guru-parampara given by Siddhanta Sarasvati were never properly initiated by a vaishnava. And regarding Bhaktisiddhanta, it will not be possible to establish absolutely what transpired; noth sides have evidence to support their assertions. I think there's enough evidence of a guru-disciple relationship between Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Gaura-Kishora that the possiblity should be admitted by all. But ultimately, each will draw his or her conclusion based on how they read that evidence, which is rightly colored by their faith.

One problem with this thread is that Gaurasundara has, much in the fashion of the day, made this song largely about him. That's when the thread becomes boring. I find the discussion between Muralidhara and Madhavananda to be much more productive of understanding than Gaursundara's self-righteous blathering and Jndas' indignant put-downs.

Gaurasundara has made much of his desire for discussion rather than polemic, but whenever anyone who actually has faith in the line of Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta offers the explanations given by our superiors, he tends to dismiss it as fiction. Ultimately, he must act on the basis of his own faith, the flickering nature of which seems to have been a problem over a long time. This will (one would hope) resolved when he contacts a vaishnava who actually moves him to unreserved surrender to the process of sadhana-bhakti, which will gradually clear all doubts.

The Gaudiya vaishnava community has grown in several ways over the last 450 years. What some refer to as traditional practices were, fairly recently, innovations, as has been pointed out. The Chaitanya tree has grown many branches; all those which bear fruit that ripens to maturity should be respected, regardless of differences in the details of practice. Vigorous discussion is desirable; vaishnava-aparadha is not. I don't say this to silence anyone; as I've said, I think the (yes, rather vigorous) discussion between Muralidhara and Madhava is productive, even though neither has yet invited the other over for dinner.

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

I suppose you've never heard of Baba Premananda Bharati? I suppose you've never heard of Yashoda Ma and his student Richard Nixon (Krishna Prema Das)?

Did Harinamabrata Brahmachari also go to Western countries to preach?

I suppose I'll "call your bluff" now, as JNdas is fond of doing with Gaurasundara whenever he claims something he can't back up and hasn't studied.

I'll state this again for the record. Everything I know is a result of either what I have studied or what I have heard. If there is anything incorrect in my statements, I would presuppose that the source was incorrect. I would have thought that was obvious.

October 6, 2003

sadAgamaikavijJNeyaM samatItakSarAkSaram.h |

nArAyaNaM sadA vande nirdoShAshoShasadguNam.h ||

Dear Audarya-lila,

If I write something and I don't include the fact that I am the author, will it prove that it was 'unauthored'?

Obviously not. One can infer from the flaws in such a composition that it is composed by a being with flaws - and hence it is paurusheya.

Quite to the contrary, the fact that it is written by definition means that it was authored. This is elementary.

This does not prove anything. The basic premise is unauthoredness or lack thereof. All you are saying is that if something is authored, then it has an author. If something is created, then it has a creator. If something is written, then it has a writer. These are hardly deep revelations. The question is whether or not that thing is authored/created/written in the first place.

Please note that "recording something in writing" is not the same as writing/authoring it. One requires fidelity of reproduction, while the other implies creation. Obviously, one could question whether a written source is faithful to the original, but SrImad Ananda tIrtha does not rely on non-shruti sources as independent authorities - only on those passed down in the oral tradition.

Just because a tradition says that something has no origin doesn't mean that the statement itself is 'proof' of such a thing.

The tradition does not say the Vedas have no origin. Clearly the Vedas are manifested from the Supreme Lord as stated in the bR^ihadAranyaka.

Furthermore, you still misunderstand the basis for arguing for anAditvam, nityatvam, and apaurusheyatva. It is not just that Vedas indicate or do not indicate these things. It is the fact that no evidence exists to suggest creation or authoredness. Hence, there is no creator and no point before which the Vedas did not exist, and thus anAditvam and apaurusheyatva.

Furthermore, in support of the above, there is the fact that at no time in the past did anyone remember Vedas as being authored. This is not the same thing as saying "author unknown." Folk songs for example do not have known authors in many cases. But at some point in their past, they were remembered to be compositions of so-and-so, and so it is inferred that they are authored even when the author is not known. But such is not the case for Vedas, for which there was never a time in the history of the sampradAya-s when they were thought of as authored - by anyone.

In regards to the above, SrI Ananda tIrtha writes in his viSNutattvavinirNaya (7):

apauruSeyatvaM ca svata eva siddhiM vedakartuH aprasiddheH | aprasiddhau ca tatkartuH tatkalpane kalpanAgauravam.h | akalpane ca akartutvaM siddhameva |

na ca laukikavAkyavat.h sakartR^ikatvam.h | tasya akartR^ikatvaprasiddhyabhAvAt.h |

na ca kenachit.h veda ityuktaM vedasamaM paramparAbhAvAt.h |

na ca svayaMpratibhAtavedaiH ISTamavedavaakyaM bhavati paramparAsiddhavedavAkyAnusAritvAt.h vedadraSTR^INAmuktaguNavatvAcaca teSAm.h |

The fact that the Vedas are revealed and not composed by any individual is self-evident since the Vedas are known to be without any author by a long tradition. Inspite of such a long tradition if an author is postulated, then, it would be a superfluous postulation. In view of this, if an author is not postulated, then impersonal (unauthored) nature of the Vedas is a foregone conclusion.

It cannot be contended that Vedic statements also have an author, like any other statement, because there is no tradition of authorlessness in case of other statements.

Similarly, no one can claim a statement to be a Vedic statement in the absence of such a long tradition.

On the other hand the statements that are reveled to those to whom these spontaneously reveal themselves cannot be considered non-Vedic, because, these do have the features of Vedic statements known by the long tradition. These persons do possess the attributes that are stated to be the attributes of Vedic seers.

uktaM ca brahmANDe --

viMshallakSaNato 'nUnaH tapasvI bahuvedavit.h |

veda ityeva yaM pashyet.h vedo jJNAnadarshanAt.h || iti |

BrahmAnDa PurANa states: Those hymns are Vedas that are intuitively seen as Veda by those who possess not less than twenty attributes (out of thirty two) of an ideal person, who are engaged in penance, and who know many hymns of the Vedas.

Now you may disagree with the above. But the point is that this is SrI MadhvAcArya's view.

Every spiritual tradition claims to have recieved divine knowledge and merely recorded that which was 'received'. But where is the proof of such assertions to be had?

As far as shruti paramparA is concerned, the claim is proven by the fact that multiple, independent paramparA-s exist which have received the same pristine Veda through different channels. Did all of them interpolate in exactly the same way? I hardly think so.

Now let's look at some very simple logic. There are millions of books in so many languages throughout the world. In every case there is someone who wrote the words contained in these volumes.

By the same logic, there are millions of people in this world who have limited senses, are fallible, are subject to the laws of birth and death, therefore God being a person must also be similarly limited.

Since the "logic" used to arrive at your conclusion leads to inappropriate conclusions, it is inadmissable as evidence. Proof by similarity is not "proof."

There are oral traditions throughout the globe as well - but again to say that these traditions are without beginning is merely a statement of belief with no possible empirical verification. That is why such statements are not accepted as fact - there is nothing to substantiate such claims. One is left with either 'believing' the claims or rejecting them.

As mentioned previously, it is not the lack of a beginning which must be proven, but a beginning. The absence of a thing does not need to be proven, only its presence (which if proven, refutes its absence).

Unauthoredness is the default position for knowledge which gives no author and was never known to be authored. In such a case authoredness is what must be proven.

If Madhva only accepts as shruti that which has passed down in an oral tradition in an unbroken chain as do all vedantins - that's very good - but again - where is the proof?

See above. Do different sampradAya-s preserve the texts in exactly the same way if their chains of succession are broken? This latter view is what requires assumptions to believe.

Where can one get verifiable empirical evidence that such a oral tradition is indeed unbroken? Where can one verify such a historical basis of the tradition? If there is no empirical evidence and only what is present today in the oral tradition then it will have to be accepted on faith because there is no valid, verifiable evidence. No matter how you slice and dice it, you can't get around the fact that acceptance of the doctrine of apaurusheya - un-authoredness - cannot be proven.

I feel that I am repeating myself. Perhaps it is because I am.

Unauthoredness, like any other fact, does not need proving. It is only the viewpoints contradictory to the facts which require proving. Saying that unauthoredness requires proving implies evidence that the unauthored documents are in fact authored. Have you any? I believe we have already established for example that bhagavad-gItA contains no such evidence, in contrast to your claims.

It must be accepted as an article of faith. And this faith must be there even in the face of the fact that the Vedas, what is there in written form, have been studied by linguists and they give various dates of their writing and origin based on the style and type of sanskrit with which they are written. Empirically, that is, the Vedas do appear to have a date and authorship - yet for the faithful - we accept that they are eternal and without authorship.

No, this is based on inappropriate use of empirical methods. There is no empirical basis for suggesting that different parts of the Vedas have a date of creation or authorship. In fact, the very style of philological analysis is itself predicated on the belief that language has evolved from simpler to more complex forms, and that there was some time before which man was unable to communicate. These theories are in turn based on the belief that humans evolved from simpler beings with no language. All of these are assumptions whose validity are not readily apparent.

You say apaurusheyatva is a fact and doesn't require prooving as such, but unfortunately this is also flawed logic - as nothing can be accepted as fact without some proof.

Statement "sun generates heat" is a fact. Does it require proving? Your "logic" above suggests that it does, even though it is self-evident.

In reality that is why many thinking individuals who are trained in logic and science become athiests - they are unwilling to simply accept statements without empirical evidence that back them up.

I do not think there is any doubt as to the devotional merits and accomplishments of SrI Ananda tIrtha (whose arguments I have been quoting/paraphrasing here), who was also an expert logician. Your indirect implication that he is an atheist is both uncalled for and pompous.

So too is your idea that logic and bhakti are mutually exclusive. The kUrma purANa states:

pUrvAparAvirodhena ko 'nv artho 'bhimato bhavet |

ityAdyam Uhana.m tarkaH shuShkatarkaM tu varjayet ||

This indicates that proper logic is that by which one understands a scriptural passage without contradicting other scriptural statements. This is in contrast to "logic" which runs counter to shAstric conclusions - this is what is to be given up. This is a far cry from the sentiment that logic must be given up in order to become a devotee of ViSNu.

Approaching spirit, or that which is beyond the purview of the mind and senses, however requires a different approach altogether. Now here is another paraphrase of the Gita that you can feel free to call me on if you feel it is inacurate - Krsna told Arjuna that he couldn't be known by austerity, sacrifice, good works, penance or even study of the Vedas. He then told him - I can only be known as I am standing before you by those who eyes are smeared with the salve of love - those who have bhakti. This type of knowing isn't irrational, but it is beyond the realm of the rational mind and the perception of the senses.

I am not clear as to what the above has to do with this discussion. We are arguing about the nature of faith and its relation to apaurusheyatva.

Srila Prabhupada used to use the adage - the proof of the pudding is in the tasting to sum up this idea - the proof of the Vedas is in the experiencing of that which they speak about. But this experience cannot come under the jurisdiction of our mental faculty. Krsna is adhoksaja - supremely independent and he remains hidden to any attempt to understand him unless he grants that seeker his darshana.

In the Gita Krsna tells Arjuna that one who artificially gives up sense pleasure while contemplating his senses and their objects in his mind is a pretender. He then follows this with - but by gaining a higher taste, one naturally gives up that which is lower. This higher taste is experience of Krsna which, again, is beyond the plane of mental or sensual experience. It is that taste which drives all spiritualists in their practices and which seperates them from those who find them to be simpletons or 'believers' in fairy tales - which merely means to them that these people of faith beleive in something which is beyond the purview of empiricism.

I am similarly unclear as to the relevance of the above to this discussion.

Raghu

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

The only controversy seems to be over the nature of membership in a sampradaya by some less formal means and whether it may be possible to trace a diksa line as well as a "siksa" line (a line of prominent influences). Whether the second can be called a guru-parampara, and whether chronological contiguity is necessary to parampara is certainly something to discuss.

That is what we are trying to discuss. But in fact, I believe I have found an old thread that more or less answers the question.

One problem with this thread is that Gaurasundara has, much in the fashion of the day, made this song largely about him. That's when the thread becomes boring. I find the discussion between Muralidhara and Madhavananda to be much more productive of understanding than Gaursundara's self-righteous blathering and Jndas' indignant put-downs.

Now don't start with me, Babhru. If you are in any doubt as to my intentions, do yourself a favour and go and read my very first post right at the beginning of this thread, before condemning other people's views as "blathering."

I am also finding the discussion between Madhava and Muralidhar far more productive than JNDas incessant ravings, and if you looked hard enough, you would have noticed that I have stated several times that I do not want to discuss most of the issues that I have been caught up in discussing. Unfortunately, people like JNDas do not respect other people's wishes but would instead choose to depict me as some sort of "offender" who is only interested in himself, not to mention unnecessarily focusing on some relatively minor statements that I made and make a hue and cry about them which are irrelevant to this thread.

You are absolutely correct when you say that the discussion between M & M (sorry jis, I couldn't resist! /images/graemlins/grin.gif) is productive. Not only is it productive but it is also on topic. Instead of leaving me alone to get on with the topic and make further points, people like JNDas and other fanatics would rather focus on other irrelevant subjects and do not mind how off-topic their points are, when I have been continually urging people to stick to the issues here.

More fool them, I say.

Gaurasundara has made much of his desire for discussion rather than polemic, but whenever anyone who actually has faith in the line of Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta offers the explanations given by our superiors, he tends to dismiss it as fiction.

Have you any idea how this discussion has been going along? Very few points have been made to me dealing directly about Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinoda. Rather, people are trying to talk to me about Ramanuja, Madhva and Sankara. How queer.

And have you also noticed that I have brought up several points regarding Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta which have gone unanswered? So kindly do me a favour and don't accuse me of going off-topic and dismissing other people's views when the main argumentators here cannot even be bothered to stick to the topic.

Ultimately, he must act on the basis of his own faith, the flickering nature of which seems to have been a problem over a long time.

And may I kindly ask, what authority do you have to authorititatively state that my faith is flickering?

How dare you or others question my faith, which has been uninterruptedly engaged at the lotus feet of Sri Sri Radha-Gokulanda for five long years?

I do people a favour by honestly admitting my spiritual history, only to have people like JNDas wave it in my face and use it as some sort of tool to make me look inferior and destroy my self-esteem? I consider that bigotry.

Am I getting a tad heated up here? I suppose so. Perhaps you will understand why when I have to read such "self-righteous blather" every day. You speak of blather, but you have nothing whatsoever to say about the extremely cheap pot shots, rudeness and plain fanaticism that JNdas and others have been exhibiting and levelling towards me. Besides that, you don't appear to be properly reading the posts or have a clear picture of what exactly is going on here, otherwise I seriously doubt you would have written these comments. Babhru, I don't have a fight with you, but you are unnecessarily stirring something up here.

October 6, 2003

You have been attacking Srila Bhaktisiddhanta from the very beginning. Its good there are a few here who have been defending him. Good job to Muralidhar, Ghari, and JNDas. Thanks for speaking up for those of us who tire of this Gaurasundara and his spewing of attacks against the devotees.

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

You have been attacking Srila Bhaktisiddhanta from the very beginning. Its good there are a few here who have been defending him. Good job to Muralidhar, Ghari, and JNDas. Thanks for speaking up for those of us who tire of this Gaurasundara and his spewing of attacks against the devotees.

Have you read the very first post in this thread?

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

I'll repost my original posting again so that members can have an idea what I an trying to discuss. Feel free to comment on it or not, but it should clarify a few things.

ear devotees,

in order to save the "Urmila devi" thread from getting disturbed by a relatively "irrelevant" issue such as Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa, I'd like to start off this new topic with explaining my current perspective on the Sarasvata parampara. I might also reply to some of the replies generated by my post, but let us see. Right now I would like to process my own experience with this.

It seems that I might have to give a little bit of my own history first so that people may understand my perspective on this issue. I am somebody who has basically grown up in ISKCON and I have been reading Srila Prabhupada's books, going to to temple, eating prasad, all the usual stuff. My experience of Gaudiya Vaishnavism lies with ISKCON. My primary allegiance is to Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Though being an 'outsider', I was drawn into a "mayavadi" movement for about 10 years, but I saw the light, so to speak, and realised the truth of Gaudiya Vaishnava teachings. ISKCON has been the singular constant in my spiritual life. It is possible that it always will be.

After escaping the mayavadi group in around 1998, I devoted myself wholeheartedly to studying the teachings of Gaudiya Vaishnavism through the books of Srila Prabhupada. My father had purchased a Srimad-Bhagavatam set when I was 3 years old when we became Life Members, and it was these books that I read. In Srila Prabhupada's books, we see that he often emphasizes the importance of coming in a disciplic succession. The reason is because the message was originally received from Krishna by Brahma (or Lakshmi, Kumaras, Shiva depending which sampradaya you are in) and passed down intact via a chain of gurus in disciplic succession. In BG As It Is, I could see the parampara for myself and it instilled in me a sort of sense of pride. I don't know why, perhaps I was proud that I was receiving an undistorted message since the veritable beginning of creation.

In a mixture of sheer curiosity and interest, I wanted to find out as much as I could about all these gurus. Why not? This is a direct disciplic succession coming from Krishna, and while I have received the message from Srila Prabhupada why should I not know about the other Acharyas? My knowledge of the Tattvavadi acharyas came from the infamous Dvaita website. I first saw this site before they started posting inimical articles against ISKCON and so on, and it was quite a good resource to find out about some of the pre-Mahaprabhu acharyas. About the post-Mahaprabhu acharyas, this knowledge came in bits and pieces from Srila Prabhupada's books and various unprofessional hagiographies published by ISKCON authors.

Right away I spotted that there were some anomalies in the disciplic succession. Research the dates for each Acharya and see for yourself. They don't fit. However, since I was relatively a "new bhakta" I thought that I was slipping into a mayavadi and offensive mentality, and that I should just establish myself in faith in what Srila Prabhupada said. The disciplic succession is direct and the message is clear.

Once I went to a public library and I picked up a book "The Hare Krishnas in India". It was apparently a famous book, an academic study of the "Hare Krishnas" in India. In that book there were various things that again caused me to think. Reference was made to a controversy wherein Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was never initiated by Srila Gaura-kishor das Babaji. What was I to do with this? This was not fanatical spouting by someone with an offensive mentality, this was an academic study. The implications were immediately clear: If Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated by GKDB, then how could Srila Prabhupada be in disciplic succession? There would have to be a sort of break in the tradition from Bhaktisiddhanta onwards.

Again, I chose not to believe this and again established myself with faith in Srila Prabhupada. After all, how is it possible for Srila Prabhupada NOT to be in disciplic succession when he has achieved so much "success" in his campaign to preach Krishna Consciousness in the Western World? How is it possible for Srila Prabhupada not to be in diciplic succession when he was so OBVIOUSLY empowered? So yet again I established myself in faith.

Some time later, (I am just giving a description of events, I have not given extreme details as I am trying to keep this as short as possible) I came across another article outlining exactly why Bhaktisiddhanta was removed from disciplic succesion. I now know that this is the 'infamous' article contained in one of Nitai das's e-zines on his . website. I don't know how I came in touch with this article, I think it was posted to our private ISKCON members email by one of our fellow devotees who wanted confirmation if the article was true in what it said? I even know who that person is and he is a member of Audarya Fellowship. Sorry, but I am not going to drop any names. They know who they are.

Anyway, so I considered refuting the points in that article for the benefit of our fellow ISKCON members, some of whom were disturbed by the article. I realised that I could not do so because:

a) My knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavism was not yet developed enough to refute such claims

b) The arguments I proposed were based mainly on sentimentality and were thus weak.

I thought the article was pretty impressive in only the way they had bunched a collection of "facts" to "prove" that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated. Other than that, I was in full disagreement with it because it so OBVIOUSLY contradicted my knowledge of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and parampara that I had learned from the books of Srila Prabhupada.

Throughout my life, Srila Prabhupada has been my very life. I may have offended him in my younger years due to not knowing his sublime position, and I shed hot tears and fall at his holy feet hoping that he may mercifully forgive me for all the offenses I have committed. I still bow down to the arca-murti of Srila Prabhupada whenever I visit the temple. I pray to him for his divine guidance so that I may find a bona-fide guru. I have nothing but total love and adoration for Srila Prabhupada. His books were so sublime and full of light that they destroyed my mayavadi mentality when I was within that group, and he saved me. I literally feel that I was shivering in a deep dark well, cold and hungry, thinking that I was happy when I was not, and Srila Prabhupada threw in a rope to save me. I'll always be supremely grateful for that great act of mercy. One of my favourite times of the year is the couple of months or so before his annual Vyasa-puja. This is because I am asked to write an article to be published in our annual Vyasa-puja book. It forces me to sit and think about all the gifts that I have received from Srila Prabhupada, how to be supremely grateful, how I can pay him back (when I can't!), and what to do next. There's no way I can ever disrespect Srila Prabhupad in any way.

Anyway, getting back to my point, the Nitai das article stirred up some other feeling within me. One thing that was nagging me was about the discrepancies in the parampara. At this time, I knew more information (though not totally) about the previous Acharyas. Some of the Acharyas listed in the Sarasvata parampara never even met each other, what to speak of initiation. Rupa Goswami is at the head of the line after Sriman Mahaprabhu, but he was never initiated by Mahaprabhu. How then, could this parampara be the vehicle to pass on the message of Krishna when there were obvious disconnections? Srila Prabhupad ahimself often used the example of a postman. The postman passes on the message without adulteration, etc. But according to the lineage of the Sarasvata parampara, some "postmen" just didn't get the message from the previous "postman." Excuse me, but the impression that I had always got from Srila Prabhupada's books was that each guru is initiated by the previous guru, that is why they pass on the message having HEARD it from them. This is obviously untrue when you see the dates of the Acharyas according to the list in the Sarasvata parampara.

After I knew that, the next step was to try and research what some of the most recent Acharyas had to say about this. I came into contact with articles by Narayana Maharaja, Sridhara Maharaja, and some other Acharyas, some of whose articles have been posted in the "Urmila" thread. [This whole diksa issue started on page 5 of that thread, and so far has continued upto page 10.] I discovered that the "explanations" there referred to some new (to me) concept of Bhagavata and Pancaratrika paramparas. Now before we go further, I'd like to admit that I don't understand (and probably never will) why the Bhagavat-parampara should be somehow "more important" than the Pancaratrika one. After all, isn't it imporant to pass on the message DIRECTLY? I still do not care for Bhagavata/Pancaratrika theories, as they are far too confusing and cloudy to make any sense for me.

However, satisfied that I had found an "explanation" for the apparent discrepancies, I AGAIN established myself in faith that my parampara was sound and that the critics were like "dogs barking at the moon," which itself shows a sample of the mentality against these criticisms.

What now? No matter what glossy explanation is given by "senior" devotees, no one can adequately explain why the Sarasvata Parampara has several discrepancies in it. Instead, I find several speculations and asastric explanations, with a hint of slander thrown into the mix. After all, who else would be audacious enough to state that the so-called "diksa-paramparas" are not the 'real thing' but that the "siksa-parampara" is where it's really at? Sorry, but this does not fit into the siddhanta that wa given by Srila Prabhupada.

Where did these arguments come from? Let us remind ourselves: To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada in his books, lectures, conversations, etc, presented the idea of the "divine message" and "parampara" as a postman who simply "passes on" the message." The message was passed onto him by his own postmaster-guru, and so on all the way upto Krishna. At least, this appears that the Sarasvata parampara is direct and sequential. That would be quite simple to understand and believe.

When it becomes known that there are discrepancies in the parampara, I find that the resorting to Bhagavata/Pancaratrika arguments and similar irrational and illogical arguments invariably have their origins in the Gaudiya Math. Now I am not interested in starting an internet war about ISKCON vs. Gaudiya Math as has been done many times, but it is a simple fact that Srila Prabhupada often advised his diciples not to associate with them, what to speak of using their arguments in debates. It is with the Gaudiya Math that we invariably find the slander that is often levelled at the "caste gurusbabajissahajiyas" and so forth. So Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura rejected Sri Vipin Vihari Goswami as his guru "quietly" because he was "cultured" and took Srila Jagannatha das Babaji as his guru. This was because VVG "perhaps" was a lower-class guru and "maybe" was not that bona fide at all. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura made a "mistake" in choosing such a lower-class guru and then rejected him when he found the "higher" Jagannatha das Babaji, from whom he took his "higher inspiration." Where did I first hear this story? On a Gaudiya Math website!

Please don't ask me which one, as I can no longer remember. I only remember that at the time I was compiling hagiographies of Srila Bhaktisidhanta, Bhaktivinoda, Gaurakisora and Jagannatha das, and I was forced to resort to view GM websites in the hope that they had more information about these Acharyas. I still have those hagios somewhere on floppy disc, but I remember that particular story appearing on a Gaudiya Matha website.

This has been the point of my earlier postings; I have always seen that to explain away the discrepancies in their parampara, modern-day Sarasvatas either resort to unfeasible Bhagavata/Pancaratrika arguments, or they will resort to slandering an acharya of their choice. Such as VVG. Personally I find the latter approach is not at all what I would expect of Vaishnava behaviour and etiquette. It is low-class and simply disgusting. After all, who has the audacity to claim that Vipin Vihari Goswami "may" have been a lower-class guru when the simple fact is that they have no access to original source material about him? Thus the slander perpetrated against him is ignorant Vaishnava aparadha. Bear in mind that I have been and still am a firm admirer of Srila Prabhupada and his disciplic succession, but when I see "fellow members" of this disciplic succession indulge in such gross bad behaviour, I feel extremely ashamed.

Where do I stand now? I now accept that there are discrepancies in the diksa-line Sarasvata parampara. To say anything else would be just plain dishonesty. How do I reconcile this with my faith in Srila Prabhupada?

Quite simple. I'm telling the truth about things.

On one hand, there is no sequentialism. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada was obviously empowered to bring the great gift of Krishna-bhakti to the Western world. And he succeeded! How do we reconcile this? I would like to know. As I stated in one of my earlier posts on this subject, "I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason." I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented a parampara that has no direct diksa lines, and I would relish such an explanation. Of course, it has to be in accordance with Gaudiya siddhanta about pasing on the message. Probably the only person who can adequately explain is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta himself, and sadly he is no longer manifest to our eyes.

The answer is: I DON'T KNOW.

But I see no reason why I should continue to repress my feelings and believe blindly in things that I should be forced to accept. I feel that I have reached a plateau in my spiritual journey. I have experienced such a plateau many times before. In my experience, this means that I need to evaluate what I have learned so far, digest the knowledge, make sure that I understand it, work out my goals, and then proceed to reach that goal. As well as the diksa issue, there are several other issues that I may like to discuss, perhaps in other threads. But in any case, I see no reason why I should blindly believe in things that I should accept. Before I was weak because I didn't have enough knowledge. Now I am equipped with some verifiable facts about the dates of the Acharyas to prove there was no initiation or meeting.

After all, this is something that I worked out for myself right AT THE BEGINNING.

I think I've finished for now. I have not given all the details in my story related above, I might elaborate on some things if they are required. Readers are free to comment or discuss some of the things I have talked about, but I would really appreciate it if I didn't receive any abuse or insults. This entire post has been rather emotional to write and to remember the memories. Perhaps now some individuals can understand what my position is now.

October 6, 2003

You may not be very familiar with the recent history of our tradition. Bhaktivinoda is a controversial teacher in many respects. He is definitely not in the mainstream tradition.

Then why such a fuss among "traditionalists" to claim him as one of their own? Especially when his own dIkSa guru allegedly rejected him (as per Muralidhar's posting).

I am a regular r to common sense. In fact, I have a good selection of issues accumulated over the years. Right now my common sense suggests that an encounter with a person who is passionately involved in proving his points and who resorts to condescending comments against the other parties of the discussion may not be a productive undertaking at all.

A person who wishes us to believe that one's disciple is in fact his guru, and traces his paramparA as such, is not speaking on the basis of common sense.

If respect is what you seek, then give up your feeble attempts at historical revisionism. Acyuta Preksa initiated Madhva and tried to become his guru. He failed. Only VyAsa could instruct Madhva. The account of Mani-MaJNjari not withstanding, this is the traditional MAdhva accounting of it. I have also provided evidence in previous postings.

The word "guru" is meaningless if applied to one whose knowledge of shAstra is inferior to one's own. It is similarly meaningless to claim to come in such a "guru's" paramparA. If you want to interpret/reinterpet your own sampradAya, then feel free. Leave others alone.

Now, at least this is what *you* are debating.

Everyone else is debating it. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that you took this opportunity to point out what goes on in the post-Caitanya tradition. I'm sure in retrospect that you didn't think that had any implications for this discussion.

I have already stated that the vast majority of the post-Caitanya tradition, with the exception of Gaudiya Math and possibly some other minor groups that I am not aware of, present a diksa-parampara from an associate of Caitanya down to their present guru when inquired about their guru-parampara. I believe this is not in dispute.

As mentioned previously, the vast majority also do not leave India or initiate foreigners into their sampradAya. But I digress....

I have also stated that we consider the pre-Caitanya parampara more or less irrelevant.

And yet that "pre-Caitanya parampara" is your only link to one of the four "bona fide" sampradAyas which you gaudIyas claim are the only four authorized to distribute mantras. I am still waiting for an explanation from either you or Gaurasundara as to how you can dismiss this paramparA link and yet claim that you are in the so-called BrahmA sampradAya.

Either you are in the BrahmA sampradAya (and the pre-Caitanya link is significant), or you are not (and it is not). But in the latter case, your mantras are useless, by the very Padma PurANa verse which you quote (which, by the way, I could not find in a critical edition of the same).

It seems that you persistently question a certain view. However, I am not quite certain what the view is you think I, or whoever it may be, holds. Could you pin down the exact "opposing view" you argue against prior to presenting further arguments?

The view that "this guru did not get a ceremonial initiation, therefore he did not get dIkSa and his paramparA is a fabrication" is what I have taken issue with, which I believe I made clear earlier. I object to these sorts of cowardly attacks on anyone's tradition. Similar attacks have been waged against ShankarAcArya on the basis of some "four sampradAyas" verse by iskcon devotees who did not want to do their part and actually research his philosophy and their own scriptures.

VyAsa never gave Madhva a ceremonial initiation, but He did not have to.

What is the meaning of "guru" to you people when you emphasize the necessity of ceremony over the actual passing on of brahma-jnAna? That is exactly what you are doing by stating that Acyuta Preksa is Madhva's guru, through whom he traces his paramparA. Madhva did not get brahma-jnAna from Acyuta. The superiority of the former is many times described in Sri Madhva Vijaya in so many ways.

As I probably have mentioned earlier on, though Baladeva and Karnapura do present an anomalous pre-Caitanya parampara, they have not presented any such succession down to themselves, only down to Caitanya

The point remains that if they really belonged to a tradition which traced paramparA through ceremonial initiation exclusively, they would not be expected to give paramparA listings in which ceremonial initiation was lacking in multiple cases.

If they were simply giving the MAdhva listing, then perhaps it would have been excusable. But instead, they deliberately changed the MAdhva listings to include some links that are not formalized by dIkSa. This is inconsistent with the idea that gaudIyas must only give dIkSa paramparA-s as an absolute principle, even for the future. Unless ofcourse, one can accept some initiations as the equivalent of dIkSa in the absence of ceremony, which I suppose is what they must have done.

Accordingly, in the present day, the countless representatives of the various branches of the Gaudiya tradition continue to present a diksa-parampara as their guru-parampara. I hope this is clear.

Thank you for the examples. But obviously, if someone did not present a dIkSa-paramparA, even if he claimed to be a traditional GaudIya VaiSNava, you would dispute it. The logic is implicitly circular in its presentation: those who present non-dIkSa lines cannot be traditional gaudIya vaiSNavas because traditional gaudIya vaiSNavas only present dIkSa lines.

By the above logic I can also arbitrarily define a subset of gaudIya vaiSNavas who do not initiate foreigners from mleccha countries and assert that because they are the majority, therefore those "gaudIya vaiSNavas" who accept Western disciples have deviated from the tradition and are thus not traditional in their scope. Will you accept the validity of such a position?

Raghu

stonehearted · October 6, 2003

Gaurasundara: If you are in any doubt as to my intentions, do yourself a favour and go and read my very first post right at the beginning of this thread, before condemning other people's views as "blathering."

You're right; "blathering" is a poor choice, inaccurate and unnecessarily pejorative. I apologize for that. However, I have often found your tone self-righteous and self-involved. I did go back to read the first post before I wrote the post to which you object now. I forgot to thank you for your candor, and I'm sorry that we tend to use it against you.

G: And may I kindly ask, what authority do you have to authorititatively state that my faith is flickering?

How dare you or others question my faith, which has been uninterruptedly engaged at the lotus feet of Sri Sri Radha-Gokulanda for five long years?

B: On my reading of your first few posts here, as well as what you've written here and on the other forum. Perhaps "tender" or "forming" would be more accurate, since you seem mostly to have recovered from the deviation some of us want to trupmet here. (You gotta admit, though--that's a whopper of a deviation! But look, I also knew a devotee who left first for Kirpal Singh, then later for Guru Maharaji--and who wrote Srila Prabhupada advising him to set a good example by surrendering to the kid! So don't think I think you're some sort of demon for being fooled by this guy.) However, I also want to point out that Krishna Himself told Arjuna that those who declare themselves His devotees are not actually His devotees; rather, only those who see themselves as devotees of His devotees are actually His devotees. My real intent was not to denigrate or belittle your struggle; it's profound and significant. Rather, I meant to point out that you'e eventually have to come to the point of taking shelter of your guru. That must not be done without first clearing some doubts; everyone condemns fanaticism and cheap sentimentality. But it must eventually be done. Since none of us in Bhaktisiddhanta's line seem able to inspire the kind of faith necessary for such surrender, you and I may have to agree that perhaps we're not where you fit into the family.

G: You speak of blather, but you have nothing whatsoever to say about the extremely cheap pot shots, rudeness and plain fanaticism that JNdas and others have been exhibiting and levelling towards me.

B: Nothing whatsoever? In fact, I did lodge at least an oblique objection to Jahnava-Nitai's "indignant put-downs" in my last post. Why don't you go back and read it until you understand it? /images/graemlins/wink.gif And I've made my displeasure with those remarks even plainer in this post. As you may note from my posts, one of my concerns is how we conduct discussions among ourselves. And I'm sure not claiming to be better than anyone else; I've been called on my sins by you, theist, Guess Guest, and others, and always apologize.

And I don't think I've accused you of going off topic. The original topic seems to be your doubts about the legitimacy of the parampara coming through Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta. I'm not sure what it would take to ease those doubts, or if it's possible. Madhava seems to have been more open than you at times.

I don't have a fight with you, either, or with anyone here. The truth is, I'm too darned busy to do much more than check in a couple of times a week to see what's up. Between my teaching responsibilities, my family responsibilities, and my sadhana, I find I have very little time for cruising the 'Net. And the tone of most discussions I find there is somewhat less than attractive.

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

Dear Babhru,

I know this may sound like an extremely silly request, and you may not like it, but I would really appreciate it if I could email you as I need to talk to you about some thing urgently.

Maybe you don't want to give your email address out so here is mine: gaurasundara@..com

Please email me as soon as possible. My time is nearly up so the soonest I can give a reply is tomorrow.

Gaurasundara · October 6, 2003

Seems like the Audarya Forum settings do not like email addresses to be shown. In any case, I hope you choose to enable 'Email Options' so that you received my email address in your private inbox. If not, please let me know.

stonehearted · October 6, 2003

Let me try spelling my address out. Just substitute the @ sign and the . for "at" and "dot."

williamr at hawaii dot edu

Don't forget the "r" or else it will go to a math professor on another campus.

Babhru

October 6, 2003

Why should you be allowed to post what you are just now studying, as tho it is fact. It has just been shown, that much of what you posted, on what you thought you knew, was quite wrong. And had to be corrected by others, mainly jndas. If he cannot get to the internet for months at a time , why should he be expected to provide you with a forum, where your faulty concepts and accusations go unchallenged, and possibly accepted by others, simply because you are starting to look into them, and present your first conclusions as fact. And why would you come to an internet forum, where most follow Bhaktisiddhanta and proclaim (not, that you had heard) but proclaim, that he had fabricated his parampara. You asked about Premananda. Here is what raga replied to him after he became a Sri Vaishnava, and came back to forums explaining how to recognize false sampradayas (not just Bhaktisiddhanta’s, but all gaudiya sampradayas). He did not go off and practice his new found faith, but went back to old forums to show every one they were wrong. At any rate this is what raga told him.

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

“How is it that you cannot get rid of that bad attitude even by changing the sampradaya? I had big hopes that you'd have toned down your unnecessarily confrontative style with which you attempt to attack and undermine that which is sacred for others. I was very disturbed observing the way you addressed Gaudiyas outside your own former lineage. If you keep on such an attitude, you will come to leave one sampradaya after the other, as pride always comes before the fall. Please try to respect the faith of others, whether it be of those in the Gaudiya Math, whether those in the larger Gaudiya sampradaya, or whoever it may be whom you would like to attack next time.

There is no doubt over the fact that the view is unique to the Gaudiya tradition. Nevertheless you need not attack the tradition because of it. Why is it that people always experience a need to attack others when their own faith is weak? You began to attack others when your faith in your back-then guru was weak to cover yourself from the doubt, and you still continue with the same attitude. Just go to wherever you are happy and stay there in contemplation of all that is good and beautiful in that to which you feel attracted. If you are obsessed with pointing out the flaws you observe in others, you will never come to taste the sweetness of Sriman Narayana.

I believe that is also the only true sampradaya, and everyone else is mislead and so? Why such an attitude. The Madhvites also boast that they are the only true sampradaya with the only correct siddhanta. Why don't you go and quarrel with them. We are not interested in narrow-minded quarrels.

Several Mathas of the Madhva-tradition give Gopala Mantra to their initiates. That should be of interest for you. Aside this, we regard Nityananda and Advaita as that very same Vishnu whom you worship and from whom the mantra emanates. That is our faith, and you would do well to respect that. I am certain that any antagonist can launch an insensitive attack upon the theology of others. Have taste for faults and you will find them, without an end. The world is full of them, and an expert will see faults even where they do not factually exist."

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

That would apply to your case here, in that, after an initial study of “raganuga bhakti” you did not go off to practice it, you came to this forum where most people are followers of Bhaktisiddhanta and proclaimed that he fabricated a false parampara.

raga · October 6, 2003

By the above logic I can also arbitrarily define a subset of gaudIya vaiSNavas who do not initiate foreigners from mleccha countries and assert that because they are the majority, therefore those "gaudIya vaiSNavas" who accept Western disciples have deviated from the tradition and are thus not traditional in their scope. Will you accept the validity of such a position?

This is a hilarious argument, the parallel is illogical. You may have noted that opportunities for "going West" have not been widely available until the 1900's. Now that it is easily possible, you find people going to West. Initiating or not-initiating Westerners was not much of an issue because there was not all that much significant interaction between Gaudiya Vaishnavas and Westerners. However, diksa-paramparas have been an established part of the tradition for centuries.

You could extend this logic of yours to any degree of absurdity. Say, the tradition hasn't been using LSD for the last 500 years. Now, if Jayatirtha Swami chooses to introduce LSD into the daily sadhana of devotees, does that make it right or wrong?

October 6, 2003

This is a hilarious argument, the parallel is illogical. You may have noted that opportunities for "going West" have not been widely available until the 1900's. Now that it is easily possible, you find people going to West. Initiating or not-initiating Westerners was not much of an issue because there was not all that much significant interaction between Gaudiya Vaishnavas and Westerners. However, diksa-paramparas have been an established part of the tradition for centuries.

Even in the past 50 years, in which contact with the West has gone up dramatically, the vast majority of traditional gaudIya lines do not accept Western disciples or go to the West to propagate their religion. However, let's ignore the latter fact - these may be babas who don't have any money. So let's look at the former point. There is increased contact with Westerners, and yet very few lines initiate them. So, since majority do not initiate Westerners, can I conclude that the few who do initiate them are therefore not traditional gaudIya vaiSNavas as a result? Apparently I can based on your "logic."

You could extend this logic of yours to any degree of absurdity.

It's your logic, actually. And that is precisely my point.

Say, the tradition hasn't been using LSD for the last 500 years. Now, if Jayatirtha Swami chooses to introduce LSD into the daily sadhana of devotees, does that make it right or wrong?

What does this have to do with anything? The point according to you is that the practices of the majority defines the "traditional" norm. So, majority of gaudIya vaiSNavas in Bengal do not accept Western disciples. But your guru apparently has. Therefore it is to be concluded that he has been innovative in applying traditionally Indian practices to someone born outside the culture, and has thus broken with orthodox tradition in that regard.

There is nothing wrong with that, is there? My saying that your guru is an innovator who differs with tradition? BhaktisiddhAnta also was an innovator apparently, and we aren't trying to villify him by saying it, are we?

Raghu

p.s. I'm still interested to know whether gaudIya vaiSNavas belong to brahmA sampradAya or not. So far, as per Gaurasundara's remarks, it appears that they do not, and hence their mantras must be taken as useless.

Sign In

Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post