Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[livingentity 0]

 

I am no longer an active participant in these forums, though I peek in occasionally.

 

 

And why this thread of all threads to become so greatly active again?

[Guest guest]

 

Why would I not want to really know? At any rate, you have made a claim. It is up to you to back it up. I have presented evidence to the contrary. Don't expect me to run around seeking evidence for your claims. I value my time, and I don't have the time to involve myself in clarifying every claim I face, particularly so if the claim comes without evidence to substantiate it. I assume you've asked the question on Dvaita-list since you know the answer I'd get. Please just post in the arguments you've seen there.

 

 

 

It's easy enough to post the question to the list (www.dvaita.org) there if you really have an interest in knowing the answer. My Dvaita books are packed up so I can't access them right now, but I definitely recall this very point coming up in discussion some years ago between some ISKCON followers and some Dvaita netters, and the latter group was most insistent on this point that the guru paramparA is through VyAsa and not Achyuta. I don't archive other people's e-mails to me, so I don't have that particular discussion on my computer. Anyway, I have merely given you a preview of the issue - if you really want to know the answer to your question (which is why I assume you asked it), then you can go there and get it straight from the horse's mouth.

 

I also value my time, and I don't feel inclined to pull out books to substantiate something so simple and obvious as this, especially when it isn't likely to change anything. The MAdhvas, on the other hand, are only too happy to engage you in any kind of argument to defend their tradition, be it significant or minor, and they have more access to texts of their tradition with which to refute your claims about their paramparA. Everyone knows that Madhva disagreed with his dIksha guru; tracing his paramparA from that line would be meaningless.

[gHari 0]

It would appear exact to refer to the mice clones of Dr. Demonico (formerly the fallen Nitai) as venomous snakes. A room conversation from October 26, 1976, VRndAvana:<blockquote>

 

Devotee: He asks how many pages. YogAnanda asks how many... Because they say that you sent a newsletter to all the GBCs. He asks how many pages was the newsletter. And I said just two lines.

 

PrabhupAda: Newspaper?

 

Hari-zauri: Newsletter to the GBC.

 

PrabhupAda: What is that newsletter?

 

Hari-zauri: You said, "Please be informed that NitAi has become a venomous serpent."

 

PrabhupAda: So this has been sent? (laughs)

 

Hari-zauri: Yes, to the GBC.

 

Devotee: YogAnanda asked how many pages, when he heard about the newsletter. He thought that you spoke so long about that. And I just said, "Just two lines." But they never asked me what the letter said.

 

PrabhupAda: Yes, two lines is sufficient.

 

DhanaJjaya: Punar muSaka bhava. Punar muSaka bhava.

 

PrabhupAda: Yes. This is exactly the same case. Punar muSaka bhava, you know the whole story? A muSaka, a mouse, was made a tiger, and the tiger wanted to eat the saintly person who made him. First of all he was mouse. So he came to the saintly person. "Sir, I am troubled. Give me some benediction.What do you want?Now, the cat always chases.All right, you become cat so that you'll not be attacked." Then after some time he came. "I am being chased by the dog.All right, you become a dog." From cat to dog, from mouse to... Then again he came. "Still, they are chasing me. Fox." And then in this way, and ultimately he made a tiger. And after becoming a tiger, he began to look, staring on the... "What do you mean by this?I shall eat you.Oh? You become again a mouse." (laughter) Again he became mouse. That's all.

 

Hari-zauri: The perfect example.

 

Devotee: Now he looks like dirty. You know, like brown. The dhotI's not white. It's like brownish.

 

PrabhupAda: He harassed. "He has not increased my..." Hearing and hearing, he wants to go. So why not, if he found some real disciplic succession, some bAbAjI, why he did not remain there? He is criticizing that our is not in the proper succession. So why he did not remain where he found the proper succession? Why he's sometimes in VRndAvana, sometimes Delhi, sometimes here. Why he is loitering? Crazy. Unfortunate. Unnecessarily picking out some trouble.

 

Hari-zauri: Faultfinding.

 

PrabhupAda: The bAbAjIs, they are against anything preaching. They are very, very much against preaching. So I am preaching. BAbAjIs, the MAyAvAdI sannyAsIs, and all of them, their idea is that I am ruining this bhajana and Hindu dharma. This is the propaganda. What I am writing, they are all wrong. And they are making... And they try to poison my disciples as far as possible so that the whole institution may be poisoned and break. This is their propaganda.

 

Hari-zauri: That was one thing that NitAi put in his letter, that the teachings of ISKCON are completely opposite or contradictory to what is actually in the zAstra.

 

PrabhupAda: Now he has become tiger. He wants to kill that philosophy. When he did not know anything he came to us. Now he has become learned, he wants to criticize. The same philosophy. "You have made me tiger, now I can see you are my eatable." (laughs) He could not find out any other eatable. "I shall eat you." The rascal. What can be done? (end)

</blockquote>

[raga 0]

 

I am no longer an active participant in these forums, though I peek in occasionally.

 

 

______________________________

 

And why this thread of all threads to become so greatly active again?

 

 

Two threads, to be precise. I saw some points of interest and checked out if something worthwhile would be available. Most of the threads do not much appeal to me, though they certainly have content of interest for others.

 

However, I'm afraid my occasional visit is about to wind up right now. Thank you and take care.

[Gaurasundara 0]

I was wondering if I should dignify this inane and nonsensical prattle with a reply, but upon re-reading it I decided it was just too good to miss; if only to provide a perfect example of how clear words are twisted way out of context in order to present a skewed view.

 

 

Otherwise your talk is all sentimental nonsense. "Oh, Gour Govinda Maharaja is a great sadhu, but he is actually a fool for following a bogus sampradaya full of anomalies where no one has actually received proper diksha." Isn't that what you actually mean?

 

 

Er, did I say that anywhere? No I didn't. But I bet you're having bags of fun putting words in my mouth and pretending that I said them, aren't you?

 

 

You think he is a sadhu only because he is no longer present. If he was living you would be criticizing him just like you criticize others in the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON.

 

 

Willing to bet money on it? Sorry, I forgot you don't gamble. Anyway, you're wrong again. If he was still present I would probably be his initiated devotee. Again, having fun responding to things that you think I am saying?

 

 

Why would you criticize him while living? Because while living he would call you a rascal to your face for suggesting that the Sarasvata line was not properly initiated.

 

 

So not only are you coxcombical enough to think you are some sort of intermediary for Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja and purport as if you can speak on his behalf, but you are wrong again. Perhaps he would be merciful enough to give a succint reply to my question. That is the function of a guru, remember? To answer the questions of the disciple.

 

 

What do you know about Gour Govinda Maharaj that makes you think he is a saint? Did you see some glowing jyothi coming out of his aura, or is it that from his teachings and conduct we know he is saintly?

 

 

Duh. I would have thought it was obvious.

 

 

Yet you reject his teachings and laugh at them as childish. Yes, GHari is right when he says such people that do this are poseurs. They pretend to respect a saint in name only, but laugh at their teachings.

 

 

Seems that your supposed psychic abilities to read into people's thoughts (unsuccessfully) is starting to spin out of control. If you were attentive, you'd know that I have posted sayings from Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja's books here and on other forums. Why would I do that if I laughed at his "childish" teachings. Why would I be associating (via email) with some of his senior and respected disciples?

 

 

If you think he is a realized saint then respect his teachings and realize he knows more than you - this is called humility, the first step in advancing in spiritual life.

 

 

I never claimed to know more that Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja. Do us all a favour and quit pretending to be some advanced know-it-all so much that you can authoritatively state what goes on in other people's minds when you don't even have a clue what people think, or what the meaning is behind what they say. You have a strange audacity to talk about humility (I think twice now) when you yourself are perhaps the greatest example of humility on this forum, calling people fools and what have you. Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror?

 

 

What? Your upset that this topic started when you started it? Some people are interested in gossip and rumor rather than hari-katha. For such people these types of discussions are really enjoyable.

 

 

Unbelievable. Do you even know how this issue started? Let me remind you: the appropriately-named Alpa-medhasa decided that Srila Bhaktivinoda's diksa-parampara was not enough "precedent" for a female diksa-guru, because apparently we should count the "superior" siksa-parampara. And then he proceeded to denigrate the diksa-parampara and a certain member of it. What? And you have a problem when people start to protest against Vaishnava-aparadha? I started this particular topic just so people will know of my own feelings about the Sarasvata-parampara. Apparently it hasn't done much good except to convince the already-convinced fanaticos here to lump me in the same category as "Demonico."

Hari-katha? Who are you trying to kid? Almost every thread in this forum has some sort of argument or disagreement going on within it. Perhaps only 'vedic Verses' and 'Krishna Talk' is free from that. And also, the very fact that you worded the above statement proves that you have not been listening to a single word that I have said. Exactly how many times have I stated that I have seen this particular diksa topic come up in various forums at least a million times, and how I do not want to discuss it again, especially with fanatics? If you were attentive, you'd know I've said this several times, and yet you keep trying to keep this issue going even though my successive posts have drifted off into different side-issues. It's obvious who finds this topic seriously enjoyable, and I don't think it's myself.

 

 

In July of 2001 you finally gave up your belief in Sai Baba.

 

 

I may have given up my belief in Sai Baba officially and consciously in 2001, but in truth I had given him up long before that; hence, 5 years since around 1998.

 

 

Anyone who follows the path of Srila Prabhupada knows Sai Baba is a fraud from day one. You want us to believe you were a seriously practicing devotee, studying the teachings of Srila Prabhupada for 27 years, yet you didn't have a clue when it came to following a cheater like Sai Baba.

 

 

Really? More proof that you haven't been listening to a single word that I have said, except perhaps the juicy parts that catch your attention. Didn't I say clearly that my involvement with ISKCON since my birth consisted largely of being a congregational devotee who only visited the temple as a pious duty? Oh sorry, please excuse me, I forgot that everyone who visits an ISKCON temple anywhere is a Gaudiya Vaishnava. "Karmis" and "fallen souls" never turn up. Therefore, it is more a case of coming to Srila Prabhupada after going through the wasteful experience of Sai Baba. Actually it was not a complete waste of time. I learnt several skills during those years, skills that are going to go a long way as I shall need them.

People like you will never know the dynamics of a destructive cult, and how difficult it is to get out of it. You have no clue about 'True Devotee Syndrome,' nor are you even familiar with general cult studies. You obviously do not even care about the emotional pain and torture people in this situation go through. All you can do is mock and ridicule. Seems to me that you are drawing too much from this issue with the purpose of mockery. Excuse me if I attempt to articulate what your thoughts are (I wouldn't want to do that), but I cannot help feeling that you are picking on this subject in order to mock me. "Oh look, you were so stupidly ignorant that you were stupid enough to get cheated by SB. You may be with Srila Prabhupada now but you're still stupid." Is that what you're trying to say? Oh, and by the way, here's a juicy tidbit for you: One of the reasons why I gave up believing in Sai Baba was because I read several statements by Srila Prabhupada about him. Oh yes, another juicy tidbit: there are several ISKCON devotees who are strong devotees of Sai Baba. I've seen them in Sai Baba's ashram, with their kanthi-malas, japamalas and tilaka, discussing the various meanings of the word 'RADHA' according to Sai Baba's teachings and wondering at the "marvel" of the contemporary "avatar." They were members of the Radha-Gopinatha mandir of Radhanatha Swami in Chowpatty, Mumbai. Makes your blood boil, doesn't it?

 

 

And for someone who just came to the actual teachings of Srila Prabhupada two years ago, you want to ridicule saintly people such as Sridhar Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja because they couldn't convince you about their parampara, and their teachings didn't make any sense.

 

 

Oh yes, still haven't been listening to what I have said previously? Where have I ridiculed Sridhar and Narayana Maharajas? What would you do without all those fantastic explanations from Gaudiya Math? You wouldn't have a leg to stand on, I'll bet.

 

 

You need to wake up and stop pretending your something your not.

 

 

Huh? Show me one statement from any of my previous postings on this subject implying that I am trying to be someone who I obviously am not? Or could you be honest enough to address the points instead of defeating strawmen?

 

 

You just don't have a clue about other sampradayas, nor our own - yet you want to pose yourself as someone who has studied these things in depth.

 

 

I certainly know a lot more than what I revealed in my previous posts. If you're seriously making attempts to guage people's knowledge through what they write on this forum, then you might as well pack up and go home for the evening. You obviously are a master of the art of defeating strawmen, so I think we can leave you alone to play with your strawmen. It's quite funny to see how you respond to things I never said or even meant. Perhaps you could do everyone a favour and read what people write before responding. Also, it would also be a good idea to write and re-write several drafts of your reply until you are sure that your reply is free from anger. You are having fun calling other people hotheads when the only hothead around here seems to be yourself.

 

 

As the famous saying goes, "you know a fool when he opens his mouth".

 

 

So before looking at yourself in the mirror, reading and re-reading what people write before you hotly hit the 'reply' button, and learn how not to defeat strawmen, it would first be a good idea to close your mouth. I didn't like your rudeness before and I don't like it now. "Humility."

 

In fact, I'm not interested in anything you have to say until I see evidence that you have carefully read my posts and are responding only to what I write and not what you think I mean. So, don't bother replying to this post until you learn some basic manners. Thank you.

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

I don't actually believe that ISKCON has to worry about the Gaudiya Math. In fact, most branches now accept Srila Prabhupada as an empowered preacher and have praised his work in spreading Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai's church all over the world...

 

 

Thank you for your comments, Babhruji. I was actually thinking of more subtle comments (even inadvertently) made here and there by devotees of other paramparas/sampradays, even those who are coming from Gaudiya Math. One thing I have in mind as an example is the Hotel Prabhupada article on VNN that appeared several months ago. Of course I am not quick to judge and I am open to the possibility of inadvertent remarks, but I couldn't help being annoyed at a statement like this: "As we approach the large building I said to mother that it must be an ISKCON guesthouse or hotel because no follower of Shri Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta would name a hotel after our founder-acharya."

What exactly is that supposed to mean? "It must be an ISKCON guesthouse because they are not smart like us to know not to disrespect the name of the founder-acharya in that way" ? I did read the rest of the article with interest along with its update, but comments like that tend to stick in my mind as examples of subtle enviousness and snootiness. It upsets me a lot as well.

 

 

I'm convinced that whatever problems ISCKON is having that seem to have drained away much of its vigor (at least in many parts of the world) can be traced to a culture of vaishnava aparadha, the worst of which may have been their public campaigns against Srila Sridhar Maharaj, and more recently against Srila Narayana Maharaj.

 

 

I fully agree with you here. I think that is perhaps more lamentable. When will all these wars stop? Doesn't seem like any time soon? Any ideas? /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

As far as Madhva is concerned, there is a listing of his guru parampara through his dIksha guru Achyuta. But MAdhvas don't use this listing conventionally; they preferentially list his paramparA through VyAsa, although this link is a shiksha link. Madhva's biographies do not describe that he had dIksha performed by VyAsa, but later Vaishnavas appear to accept his instruction by VyAsa as an equivalent.

 

Gaurasundara's claim is that other Vaishnavas do not have a shiksha paramparA. At least in Madhva's case this is clearly incorrect.

 

 

How many times have I seen this erroneous argument? This line of thought has no place in the discussion because:-

 

a) It's correctly stated that the Madhva line is different, at least from that of the Gaudiyas. The simple fact that it is different escorts them out of the issue altogether. What use is it to discuss two different paramparas? The whole issue is strictly an in-house Gaudiya affair.

 

b) It's a popular myth that Madhva's connection to Vyasa is that of 'siksa.' I've noticed it come up here and there in various ritvik papers and an article by Brahma das. However, because of point 'a', evidence of Madhva's "authorised biographies" is more or less inadmissible since this is an in-house Gaudiya issue. And the Gaudiya viewpoint is different:

 

"vyasal labdha-krishna-diksho madhvacaryo mahayasaH" -- from Vyasa, the glorious Madhva Acarya received diksa. - Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika by Kavi Karnapura.

 

It's a nice myth, but a myth nevertheless.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I said:

 

Otherwise your talk is all sentimental nonsense. "Oh, Gour Govinda Maharaja is a great sadhu, but he is actually a fool for following a bogus sampradaya full of anomalies where no one has actually received proper diksha." Isn't that what you actually mean?

 

 

 

And Gaurasundar replied:

 

Er, did I say that anywhere? No I didn't. But I bet you're having bags of fun putting words in my mouth and pretending that I said them, aren't you?

 

 

 

Let's see what you did say:

 

 

I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION.

 

 

 

 

So Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment is not just against the whole Gaudiya tradition, it is against the whole of the Vedic ones too.

 

 

 

 

Now, I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason, but simply the fact that paramparas are traced by diksa in the Gaudiya tradition is reason enough not to take it seriously at least for the time being.

 

 

 

 

It is only Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that presents a fabricated siksa-parampara.

 

 

 

 

Given my reply to your previous point, how does a fabricated siksa-parampara prove anything, especially of your points?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes. In your two years since officially leaving the Sai Baba movement (i.e. since July 2001) you have acquired the illuminating knowledge that Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated his parampara and violated all Vedic customs of disciplic succession.

 

Of course Bhaktisiddhanta, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja, Srila Sridhar Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja all present their parampara as authentic and not fabricated. So the conclusion is obvious - they are either liers, cheaters or fools. And you acquired this knowledge when? In the two years since you officially left the Sai Baba movement, and by reading some articles authored by Neal Demonico. I admit I was way off on my judgments. You really do know things better than Bhaktisiddhanta and Gour Govinda Maharaja.

 

 

Bear in mind that I have been and still am a firm admirer of Srila Prabhupada and his disciplic succession...

 

 

 

Yeah, just like you say Gour Govinda Maharaja is a great sadhu, but his teachings are bogus and he belongs to a fabricated parampara. Go read Gour Govinda Maharaja's booklet on Guru-tattva and get a clue as to what he taught.

 

Of course you won't care much for it because its the regular "bhagavata balderdash" you so much despise:

 

 

Unless of course, you are going to quote me the usual pancaratra/bhagavata balderdash that has been quoted many times before?

 

 

 

It's your belief that we shouldn't take the teachings of great saints seriously:

 

 

It's as simple as that. Now, I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason, but simply the fact that paramparas are traced by diksa in the Gaudiya tradition is reason enough not to take it seriously at least for the time being.

 

 

 

Yes, Gour Govinda Maharaja presented the parampara as Bhaktisiddhanta presented it, but you don't take him seriously because you know better than him. Yet at the same time you say he is a great saint. I think this is the definition of GHari's "poseur". Externally respect the sadhu by name but laugh at his teachings because we think we know more than him.

 

Of course its not just Gour Govinda Maharaja you are laughing at, but Sridhar Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, and Srila Prabhupada as well, because they all presented this same parampara which you consider to be fabricated. Of course they weren't as smart as you. They didnt have access to Neal Dominico's articles on the net like you do. Yes, sitting in the comfort of your home you can do a google search and figure out that Bhaktisidhanta's parampara is fabricated, congratulations to you! Too bad Prabhupada, Sridhar Maharaja and Gour Govinda Maharaja didnt have access to google search.

 

After all, even they aren't able to give an explanation as to why this parampara has discrepancies:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Of course elsewhere you mention you can't understand what they are talking about:

 

 

First of all, the explanations provided by those respectable acharyas don't make any sense (what bhagavata? what pancaratra?) and do not take into account the simple fact that parivaras from Mahaprabhu's time have been diksa-only.

 

 

 

Wait a sec... maybe they aren't all fabricators. Maybe the two years since you officially left the Sai Baba movement wasn't enough to get a complete understanding of these teachings.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

How many times have I seen this erroneous argument?

 

 

How many times have you seen this erroneous argument in the two years since you officially left the Sai Baba movement? I would guess thousands.

This line of thought has no place in the discussion because:-

 

a) It's correctly stated that the Madhva line is different, at least from that of the Gaudiyas.

 

 

The lines of parampara are not different according to Baladeva Vidyabhushana, so we prefer to defer judgement to him rather than you. The idea that the timeless parampara that has existed for billions of years should be measured and judged by what a few "Parivars" in Navadvipa have done in the last 500 years is foolish.

b) It's a popular myth that Madhva's connection to Vyasa is that of 'siksa.'

 

 

No, actually its a fact as is recorded in his biographies. Vyasa did not initiate Madhva into pancaratrika diksha and there is no evidence anywhere to suggest this. Simply because the word diksha has been used in Gaura-ganodesa-dipika does not mean he has recieved pancaratrika mantra diksha from Vyasa. Diksha means to implant divya-jnanam, and that can be performed through siksha. This is the case as is confirmed in Madhva's biographies. Any other idea is speculative and imaginative. Hey... Maybe Madhva received siddha pranali from Vyasa, why not?

 

As to whether the siksha parampara of the Gaudiyas is fabricated or not, let us look at the parampara given by Baladeva Vidyabhushana, which is 100% a siksha parampara. In Prameya Ratnavali Baladeva Vidyabhushana states:

sri krsna brahma devarsi, badarayana samjnakan

sri madhva sri padmanabha, sriman nrhari madhavan

aksobhya jaya-tirtha sri, jnanasindhu dayanidhi

sri vidyanidhi rajendra, jayadharma kramadvayam

 

purusottama brahmanya, vyasa-tirthams ca samstumah

tato laksmipatim sriman, madhavendran ca bhaktitah

tac-chisyan srisvaradvaita, nityanandan-jagat-gurun

devam-isvara-sisyam-sri, caitanyan ca bhajamahe

 

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

 

 

The fact is Padmanabha Tirtha, Nrihari Tirtha, Madhava Tirtha and Aksobhya Tirtha were all direct diksha disciples of Madhva. They were not successive links in the diksha chain. Yet Baladeva Vidyabhushana states they were disciples of each other. These are all undisputable siksha links, as are several other links in the parampara he mentions.

 

Thus the following statements you made are incorrect and it shows you don't know this subject enough, certainly not enough to claim Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated his parampara:

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 true at all, you just haven't studied the subject enough to know.

It is only Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that presents a fabricated siksa-parampara.

 

 

Not true. Even Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Vishvanatha Chakravarthi and Kavi Karnapura present a siksha parampara.

As I explained to you at least twice before, the Gaudiya tradition traces its parampara via diksa and not siksa.

 

 

This is just a misconception you have.

It's as simple as that. Now, I don't know why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta presented an invalid parampara although I would be highly interested in the reason, but simply the fact that paramparas are traced by diksa in the Gaudiya tradition is reason enough not to take it seriously at least for the time being.

 

 

Again, a misconception you have.

Given my reply to your previous point, how does a fabricated siksa-parampara prove anything, especially of your points?

 

 

Yet again, a misconception you have.

This is because paramparas are traced through diksa and not siksa.

 

 

One more time.

I find your logic to be extremely appalling. Having several times informed you of the precedence of diksa-paramparas over non-existent 'siksa-paramparas' in this and previous posts..

 

 

The fact that you "informed" everyone about it doesn't make it reality, it only displays your ignorance on the subject. Siksha paramparas are not non-existent. There are countless examples in all sampradayas of siksha paramparas.

So Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment is not just against the whole Gaudiya tradition, it is against the whole of the Vedic ones too.

 

 

Yet again, your misconception shines brightly.

[Guest guest]

Dandabats Prabhus,

 

All glory to Sri Guru and Gauranga!

 

So much disturbance, and where has it arisen from? The internet makes it possible for anyone with a computer and a modem to publish blatant lies to a world-wide audience. Neo-nazis publish their false views of history on the web, and Neil Delmonico has likewise published his fake history of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's life.

 

For your interest, in one email I received from Madhavananda (Raga) about a year ago, he mentioned that in a book written by the son of Bipin Bihari Goswami (the initiating guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur) it was said that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was a disciple of Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji. Where had Madhavananda got this news from? It came from Nitai Delmonico. Yep. I told Madhavananda that Nitai should make a public apology. I said Nitai should admit he had been wrong to make the claim that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was not initiated by Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji. But Nitai Delmonico would not make that apology, even though his own "authentic" sources are saying that Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji was indeed the Guru of Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakura.

 

This opinion that Guru-parampara is a continuous line of diksa-gurus is not substantiated in the core literature of the Gaudiyas. At the end of every chapter of Chaitanya Charitamrta, Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj gave his homage to "Rupa and Raghunatha", but then NOWHERE in any book has Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj given the name of his diksa-guru. But who has he said his Guru is? His Guru is Nityananda Prabhu, Who appeared to him in dream. This is written at the start of Chaitanya Charitamrta. Read it.

 

What is Gaudiya Vaishnavism? It is the philosophy and religion of Sri Chaitanyadeva. And we know that Sri Chaitanyadeva brought back a book called Krishna Karnamrtam from South India which he gave to all the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and which is held in the highest honour by the followers of Sri Chaitanya. And in that book the author, Bilvamangala Thakura, offers his respects to his gurus, Somagiri (a guru in the line of the monist Sankara) and Chintamani (a prostitute). Bilvamangala was a very fallen soul, he engaged in all sorts of sinful acts. And he was never initiated by any Vaishnava Guru. But still he attained to realization of the highest type of Mahabhava, by the mercy of his gurus, among whom is his siksa-guru, Madana-gopala, who wears a peacock feather and plays the most wonderful songs on His flute. In the commentary of Prabhupada Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, he clearly explains that the Lord himself has come as the siksa-guru, and diksa-guru, and that the Lord is arranging for each person to come to him -- some of whom come to Him via a very unusual path, as in the case of Bilvamangala Thakura. And this book is not an obscure book written by some deviant. It is a book that Mahaprabhu Himself gave to us.

 

The crowd who say that the Gaudiya Sampradaya is a physical line are deluded.

 

I think this Gaurasundara das is very offensive and he will not attain shelter at the feet of Guru-Gauranga until he gives up the bad association he is getting on the Web. But for innocent persons, there is this article in regards to the parampara of Sri Madhavendra Puri:

http://www.mandala.com.au/gaura/prema50.html

In regard to the debate about the authenticiy of the Mayapur birthplace:

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0307/ET23-8241.html

And in regard to Guruparampara, there is this article about Syamananda Prabhu and Narottama Thakura:

http://www.mandala.com.au/gaura/prema51.html

 

humbly,

Muralidhar das

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

[since this post has gone unanswered two times, I will repost it again. Not in the hopes of getting a response, but just to remind us that there are plenty of siksha paramparas in the Vedic tradition.]

 

Here is my post from the Urmila thread to Gaurasundar:

 

 

It is only Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara that presents a fabricated siksa-parampara.

 

 

This argument again. You should go educate yourself and come back when your done. The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam. Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha. Sukadeva Goswami also initiated Maharaja Parikshit via siksha, and Parikshit attained the highest abode of Vaikuntha through this initiation into divya-jnanam. In more recent times, Ramanuja was initiated by Yamunacharya despite never having spoken to him or seen him prior to his leaving his body. Diksha mantras were later given to Ramanuja by one of Ramanuja's God brothers, thereby showing that it is not the diksha mantras that make one the disciple, otherwise Ramanuja would not be the disciple of Yamunacharya but of Goshthi Purna.

 

Baladeva Vidyabhushana himself accepts a Sikhsa parampara that includes Madhvacharya in our line, something most of the caste Goswami lines and so-called "traditional paramparas" do not do. Madhva did not receive diksha mantras from Vyasa, he only received Siksha and this is elaborately explained in the authoritative biographies of Madhva. Madhvacharya received diksha mantras from Achyutapreksha, who was actually his own siksha disciple.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur accepted the Siksha parampara listed by Baladeva Vidyabhushana as fact, not fabrication:

 

"The Brahma disciplic line is the path recognized by all the followers of Lord Caitanya. This information has been obtained in accordance with the evidence of the book 'Gaura Ganodesa Dipika' of Srila Kavikarnapura, written in proper sequence and has been verified by Srila Vidyabhusana. One who does not accept this succession is definitely the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites."

 

Elsewhere he writes:

 

"Very soon, only one authorized disciplic chain will remain by the name 'Sri Brahma-Sampradaya'. All the others will merge under this banner. The 'Sri Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya lineage of pure spiritual masters or guru parampara is defined in this fashion. As before Lord Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa-Madhva down the line to Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu."

 

There are plenty of other examples of Paramparas that were not based on diksha mantras. But judging by your fanatical writing style I see it as a complete waste of time to discuss this matter with you.

 

We should also remember that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never initiated anyone with diksha mantras. Diksha mantras are not important compared to siksha, for it is by divine knowledge that one actually attains diksha.

 

 

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.

 

 

Again, educate yourself and come back when your done. Simply your adding a dozen "no"s and "nothing"s does not make your statement true.

 

 

I just told you that upon receiving diksa, the desire to eat meat was totally dissipated from Bhaktivinoda's heart. This is almost exactly what Bhaktivinoda states in his autobiography. Doesn't that tell you something about the power of the diksha by Vipin Vihari Goswami?

 

 

It tells us nothing other than that the process of bhakti is so powerful that even following an unauthorized process brings one transcendental results and detachement.

 

 

Looks to me that the entire residential area of Mayapur fought with Bhaktivinoda. I am glad that you brought up this topic of Mayapur. It seems that according to facts collected in Jagat's article on the subject, there is more evidence to suggest that it was perhaps Vipin Vihari Goswami who rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, rather than vice-versa.

 

 

And since Vipin Vihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, the diksha connection with Lalit Prasad is bogus as are any initiations Lalit Prasad gave to his disciples. Such people have no link to any parampara, neither diksha nor siksha.

 

Gaudiya saints such as Jagannatha das Babaji have accepted Mayapur as the birth place of Mahaprabhu and Bhaktivinoda Thakur valued their judgement more than his so-called "diksha-guru" and other residents of Navadvipa. This should tell us something about who the real guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur was.

 

In Bhaktivinoda's own words, he accepts the Siksha guru as more important:

 

"The initiating spiritual master (diksha-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksha-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti." - Kalyana-kalpataru

 

 

Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived.

 

 

Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction.

 

 

I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION.

 

 

The fact that the Sarasvata school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism has spread Mahaprabhu's holy name to every corner of the world, including to your house and my house, is enough proof for me that their parampara is certainly blessed and empowered.

 

Go back and do some more Gauranga Nityanada Mantra Rajas and cool your head. Maybe ask Swami Gaurangapada what he thinks of your nonsensical statements.

[raga 0]

 

Muralidhar wrote:

 

For your interest, in one email I received from Madhavananda (Raga) about a year ago, he mentioned that in a book written by the son of Bipin Bihari Goswami (the initiating guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur) it was said that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was a disciple of Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji. Where had Madhavananda got this news from? It came from Nitai Delmonico. Yep. I told Madhavananda that Nitai should make a public apology. I said Nitai should admit he had been wrong to make the claim that Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was not initiated by Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji. But Nitai Delmonico would not make that apology, even though his own "authentic" sources are saying that Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji was indeed the Guru of Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakura.

 

 

Here is the original message (dated November 10, 2002) I received from Nitai das:

 

"I have the book by KB [Kanan Bihari] Goswami and I have found where it says that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was rejected by Vipin Bihari Goswami (p. 542). I don't see where there is a discussion of that meeting in Medinipur. It does not appear in the index and there is no place in the table of contents that looks like it might describe it. Interestingly, it mentions some period of time during which Bimalprasad and Vipin Bihari's son Bhagavat Kumar Sastri had some connection. That connection was broken off by Bimalprasad and it says that he took diksa from Gaur Kisora. I will keep looking for something about the Medinipur meeting."

 

As you can clearly see, he does not say that he endorses the position of K.B. Goswami. In the course of a historical investigation, one will inevitably be faced with contradicting views. You cannot demand him to agree with the view you personally endorse and demand apologies on that basis. The fact that he has disclosed the discovery speaks for his honesty in research. Not that I endorse all of his views, but you can't pull this up and try to use it against him.

 

I don't think K.B. Goswami is the son of Vipin Bihari Goswami. Where did you get this information from?

[raga 0]

 

In reply to:

 

Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived.

_____________________

 

Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction.

 

 

He can't, because this is not stated in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa.

 

Narahari Sarakara gives the following advice in his Krishna Bhajanamritam:

 

<font color=darkblue>kintu yadi gurur asamaJjasaM karoti, tarhi ykti-siddhaiH siddhAntais tasya rahasi daNDaH karaNIyaH na tu tyAjyaH | gurur daNDaya tarhi cet, tatrApi - "guror apy avaliptasya kAryAkAryam ajAnataH | utpatta-pratipannasya nyAya-daNDo vidhIyate ||" anen sarvaM suzobhanam iti ||

 

"But if the guru does something improper, then by suitable arguments and conclusions he should be punished in a secluded place, but not given up. If someone says that the guru cannot be punished, the answer is no, for it is said: 'A guru who is arrogant, who does not know what should be done and what should not, and who is addicted to evils, should be punished by the club of logic.' By this everything becomes auspicious."</font>

 

Note the "in a secluded place" he mentions.

 

Interestingly, Narahari has an alternate reading of the "guror apy avaliptasya" verse, the last stanza reading "nyAya-daNDo vidhIyate", while Jiva documents it as "kAryaM bhavati zAsanam" in the GGM edition of Bhakti-sandarbha. However, some also offer the reading "parityAgo vidhIyate", which is a significantly more radical step to take.

 

Moreover, "something iffy" is not quite sufficient for rejecting a guru. Narahari continues:

 

<font color=darkblue>tatra gurur yadi visadRzakArI, Izvare bhrAntaH, kRSNa-yazovimukhas tad-vilAsa-vinodaM nAGgIkaroti svayaM vA durabhimAnI, lokas vastavaiH kRSNam anukaroti, tarhi tyAjya eva | katham eva gurus tyAjya iti cen na, kRSNa-bhAva-lobhAt kRSNa-prAptaye guror AzrayaNa-kRtam | tad-anantaraM yadi tasmin gurau Asura-bhAvas tarhi kiM kartavyam? asura-guruM tyaktvA zrIkRSNa-bhaktimantaM gurum anyaM bhajet | asya kRSNa-balAd asurasya guror balaM mardanIyam ||

 

"But if the guru now acts improperly, is confused about the Lord, is opposed to the glories of Krishna, does not take part in delighting in His play, is himself intolerably proud, and imitates Krishna, desiring the praise of the world, then he should be rejected. One should not think, 'How can the guru be rejected?' Because of the strong desire for love of Krishna, in order to attain Krishna one takes shelter of a guru. If later a demoniac mentality appears in that guru, what is one to do? Having rejected this demoniac guru, one should worship another guru, who has devotion to Sri Krishna. By his power from Krishna, the power of the demoniac guru is destroyed."</font>

 

Now, of course it is understandable that one may wish to let others know that he has separated himself from the guru because of the guru's having displayed demoniac qualities, for otherwise he would be blamed for the sin of rejecting a legitimate guru. Thus, though nowhere documented, the "rejecting in public" naturally follows, at least as far as one's immediate social surroundings are concerned.

[gHari 0]

But I fear he will ignore you like he ignored your last post. He seems doomed to destruction. Perhaps it is meant to be.

 

When we are not ready for Krsna, there are so many crocodiles that spring out of the mind, fed by our pride and attachment. I think the boy still wants to be cheated.

 

BTW, the link to the Sri Madhavendra Puri parampara passage seemed to rather describe the atmarama verse pastime of Sri Caitanya, which itself is of course pleasant to hear anytime anyway.

 

gHari

[raga 0]

This passage has a number of excellent lessons for both Gaurasundara and the rest of us.

 

__

 

 

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

 

[gHari 0]

But then how could Dr. D agree with his new evidence that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was indeed properly initiated by Srila Gaura-Kisora das Babaji, when that would prove his own guru wrong?

 

Ooops, he has already tried to do that before. So maybe two wrongs shall indeed make a right; his only chance for salvation from that vicious crocodile.

 

The mouse hasn't moved in almost thirty years! This would be a good first step, and likely the only tiny step possible.

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

I personally feel it is not "evil" for a person to look outside of any tradition (ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, Babaji tradition, etc..) if you feel you are not going forwards in spiritual life.

 

Rejecting your guru is a serious step, but sometimes we need to reject a bad teacher. This being said, I don't feel it is good to Demonize someone who has a different opinion from yourself. Specifically, I don't see that Madhavananda (Raga) should be abused for following his conscience and going to seek instruction from some person who he feels is an inspiring saint. Jagat also has many good qualities - though as a follower of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, I can never accommodate that someone would slander Srila Prabhupada. But I also feel we should not behave like the Christians of the Middle Ages who killed heretics.

 

Let's all show a little respect for people on a different path from ourselves.

 

-- Muralidhar das

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

Yes. In your two years since officially leaving the Sai Baba movement (i.e. since July 2001) you have acquired the illuminating knowledge that Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated his parampara and violated all Vedic customs of disciplic succession.

 

 

You can continue banging your head against the wall as much as you like regarding this "two year" misconception that you have. The fact is that I've been studying GV properly since around 1998. If you work it out on a calculator, you'll find that's around five years. In fact, the very first post in this thread deals with my history in this regard. Try reading and re-reading that again and again until I see some evidence that you understand, instead of repeatedly spouting off about "two years" as if that is some sort of judgement criteria or something.

 

 

Of course Bhaktisiddhanta, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja, Srila Sridhar Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja all present their parampara as authentic and not fabricated.

 

 

On what basis do you judge a parampara as authentic and not fabricated? Parampara means 'one after the other.' Is the Sarasvata-parampara 'one after the other.' No it isn't.

 

 

Yeah, just like you say Gour Govinda Maharaja is a great sadhu, but his teachings are bogus and he belongs to a fabricated parampara.

 

 

Seems to me like JNDas is having fun again, trying to put words in my mouth and defeating his own strawmen. I said that Gour Govinda Swami's teachings are bogus? Right. That's why I post quotes from him to this forum and other forums as well, as well as to my own mailing list of friends. Because his teachings are bogus, yes that sounds about right doesn't it?

 

Also, I've noticed that instead of responding to my previous post (of which I asked not to bother until you learned some basic manners anyway) in a point-by-point form as could be expected, JNDas has inventively tried to splice my previous posts and present yet another highly creative argument, twisting my comments almost completely out of context. Top that off with a couple of cherries, such as the "two-year" fabrication that he is so fixated with and the regular strawmen, we have here a nice cream pie. This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands.

 

 

Of course they weren't as smart as you. They didnt have access to Neal Dominico's articles on the net like you do. Yes, sitting in the comfort of your home you can do a google search and figure out that Bhaktisidhanta's parampara is fabricated, congratulations to you! Too bad Prabhupada, Sridhar Maharaja and Gour Govinda Maharaja didnt have access to google search.

 

 

I must say that I do admire your sarcasm. That's one of the great Vaishnava qualities that I am aspiring to attain. If you think that Delmonico's articles are the only source I have been researching, then perhaps its about time you take a reality check. Read the first post of this thread again. I first learnt about the parampara's inconsistencies came from basic research. I found out about the Madhvite acharyas from the Dvaita website and the later Gaudiya acharyas from ISKCON publications. Anyone can do this, it's not a big effort. I found out about Delmonico's articles much later, and remember how it was originally sent to me by an ISKCON member who himself is now a member of Audarya Fellowship? I didn't see anything worth listening to in that article, because, like you, I thought it was fanatical and offensive to "our parampara." Yes, I see that your blood is starting to boil now. You see, I don't go looking around for this sort of rubbish. It comes to me from various sources, so bang goes your hysterical theories about Google. You meet people, you talk with them, you exchange information, you communicate, this is called living in the real world, not the Lollipop Land you are running around in.

 

 

Of course elsewhere you mention you can't understand what they are talking about [in regards to bhagavata/pancaratrika arguments]... Maybe the two years since you officially left the Sai Baba movement wasn't enough to get a complete understanding of these teachings.

 

 

Er,.. that's the whole point. This is even more proof that you haven't been able to understand a single word that I've said, despite the fact that you've spent an inordinate amount of time cutting and pasting some selected comments in order to present yet another vitriolic post.

 

You see, JNDas, let me tell you something. We're all on a learning curve here. It's always better to be an eternal student; isn't that what Srila Prabhupada once said? Because once you become a "teacher," you've practically cut yourself off from learning anything else in future since you now become a teacher. On the other hand, if you remain an eternal student, you'll keep learning and learning and there is no limit to knowledge.

If you think that everyone else here is like you, or supposed to be like you, then you are seriously kidding yourself. There is always more and more to learn, despite the fact that what you conclude may not always be what you like to hear. Personally, I decided to pen my own history of my thoughts of the parampara in the first post of this thread with a view to engaging in an honest discussion about the topic. What do you and your friend gHari do? You decide to give a dog a bad name and hang him. "Oh look at his dirty face, what a rascal, what an offender, what a demon. He insulted our gurus, he is doomed to hell, there is no hope for him, blah blah blah." I've seen this fanatical rhetoric often worded by boot-camp bhaktas during my years with ISKCON, and I'll tell you, it's not nice. It's not even reasonable. Frankly speaking, it makes you look silly. Because out here in the real world, people are always learning, people are always encouraged to learn, and people are to be supported if they wish to learn. If you choose to shut yourself away in Lollipop Land and live in denial about what goes on in the real word, you're at total freedom to do so. After all, you're old enough to make your own decisions and also have the freedom to change them. What you do not have the right to do, however, is to condemn other people for their views and try to depict them as a devil. That's what people used to do in the Dark Ages, hang people for their "heretical" notions.

 

Thus I started this topic to engage in an honest (and hopefully enlightening) discussion about the Sarasvata parampara. I am not a critic per se, as I take an continue to take my inspiration from Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. I have heard views about this parampara from various sources, and I would like to discuss them. Agree with me or disagree with me, but I think it would be most appreciable if a substantial response was given instead of "You are a rascal demon."

 

Of course if you do not agree with people's views, that is also your right and you are entitled to it. If you want to express your view of disagreement, it's always best to word it in a polite tone. But what do you do? "Oh look at his dirty face, what a rascal, what an offender, what a demon. He insulted our gurus, he is doomed to hell, there is no hope for him, blah blah blah." You diminish your own credibility in this way. You think you are doing good, but in the eyes of the world you belong in the Dark Ages. Perhaps its about time someone told you that you will have to get used to hearing things you do not wish to hear. Its called LIFE, and you will have to learn to deal with it.

 

Now are you interested in engaging in an honest and genuine discussion, free from vitriol, about the parampara? Or not?

 

If yes, great. If not, then thank you and goodbye. I'll stick to my earlier instincts and choose not to dignify any more drivel with a response.

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

How many times have you seen this erroneous argument since you officially left the Sai Baba movement? I would guess thousands.

 

 

I think it is more like four or five times. What worries is that except for one notable occasion, this misconception was never corrected.

 

Next, I said:

 

 

This line of thought has no place in the discussion because:- a) It's correctly stated that the Madhva line is different, at least from that of the Gaudiyas.

 

 

And JNDas replies:

 

 

The lines of parampara are not different according to Baladeva Vidyabhushana, so we prefer to defer judgement to him rather than you.

 

 

And then he says I haven't studied the subject enough. So the lines of the Madhva and Gaudiya are not different according to Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana? OK, have you checked out Jagatji's article on this point? If you have, well done. What is Baladeva's parampara?

 

"Krishna to Brahma, to Narada, to Vyasa; then to Madhva, Padmanabha, Narahari, and Madhava. Then to Akshobhya, Jayatirtha, Jïana-sindhu, Dayanidhi, Vidyanidhi, Rajendra and Jayadharma. From them, it passes to Purushottama, Brahmanya and Vyasa Tirtha. With devotion, I praise all these spiritual masters, then Lakshmipati and his disciple Madhavendra, whose disciples were the spiritual masters of the universe Advaita and Nityananda. I worship Lord Sri Chaitanya, the disciple of Isvara Puri, who delivered the entire universe with the gift of love for Krishna."

 

This significantly differs with the parampara presented by Dvaitins. Some deny this and explain it away that the same individuals are listed but with slight differences in name, position, etc. I'm not sure Dvaitins would agree with that. JNDas's point is absurd.

 

 

Vyasa did not initiate Madhva into pancaratrika diksha and there is no evidence anywhere to suggest this. Simply because the word diksha has been used in Gaura-ganodesa-dipika does not mean he has recieved pancaratrika mantra diksha from Vyasa.

 

 

Why? Simply because you say so? Or are you fantasizing about fire-ceremonies again? Kavi Karnapura specifically spoke of "Krishna-diksa" in his text. Deal with it. Now onto your next point:

 

 

Diksha means to implant divya-jnanam, and that can be performed through siksha. This is the case as is confirmed in Madhva's biographies. Any other idea is speculative and imaginative.

 

 

Now it seems that JNDas has shot himself in the foot. He admits that divya-jnana is implanted via diksa, so where is the reference that this can be accomplished by siksa?

 

Rather, Jiva Gosvami says:

 

divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam |

tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva kovidaiH ||

ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca |

gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH ||

 

"The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives (da) divine knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa. Therefore, paying obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all, one should receive a Vaisnava mantra diksa preceded with proper procedures."

To explain divya-jnana more clearly, Jiva Gosvami explains:

 

"divyaM jJAnaM hy atra zrImati mantre bhagavat-svarUpa-jJAnaM, tena bhagavatA sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnaM ca | - Divine knowledge means here knowledge of the true nature of the Lord in the mantra and, by that, knowledge of one's own special relationship with Him."

So now where is your reference that divya-jnana can be accomplished via siksa?

 

 

Hey... Maybe Madhva received siddha pranali from Vyasa, why not?

 

 

It's possible, but it's speculative and imaginative idea according to your own words. We know this because siddha-pranali practically didn't exist at the time of Sripada Madhvacharya. It was the gift of Mahaprabhu. I thought this was elementary knowledge.

 

 

As to whether the siksha parampara of the Gaudiyas is fabricated or not, let us look at the parampara given by Baladeva Vidyabhushana, which is 100% a siksha parampara.

 

 

Take a look at your own words: "siksha parampara of the Gaudiyas." What siksa-parampara is followed by any Gaudiya except the Sarasvata line? Most of these Gaudiyas have little or no concern for the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, as Mahaprabhu is considered to be the founding-father (founder-acharya if you like) of the Gaudiya sampradaya.

The reason why authorities like Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyabhusana list the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, is perhaps to counter any possible arguments that will question the authenticity of the sampradaya. We now know that this is what exactly happened at the time of Visvanatha/Baladeva; the Ramanandis questioned the authenticity of the Gaudiya sampradaya. Aside from acknowledging Mahaprabhu's own disciplic line, it is common knowledge that the Gaudiya tradition from Mahaprabhu onwards has always consisted of diksa lines. That is why I have said that there is no instance of a siksa-parampara in Mahaprabhu's line, except of course in the instance of the Sarasvata line from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta onwards. If you had been reading my posts attentively, you would have caught that many times since I repeated it often enough. Obviously you didn't.

Oh, and by the way, how can you conclusively state that the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara is 100% siksa? Have you got any evidence to back that up? I have never seen such evidence presented anywhere. If you can backup this claim, that would be a first and a milestone as well.

 

 

The fact is Padmanabha Tirtha, Nrihari Tirtha, Madhava Tirtha and Aksobhya Tirtha were all direct diksha disciples of Madhva. They were not successive links in the diksha chain. Yet Baladeva Vidyabhushana states they were disciples of each other. These are all undisputable siksha links, as are several other links in the parampara he mentions.

 

 

You've just copied this argument from BG Narasingha's article.

 

The rest of your post is not worth replying to because it seems that you are only interested in displaying your "advanced" knowledge and prancing about like a great acharya or something.

[stonehearted 0]

gHari: But then how could Dr. D agree with his new evidence that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was indeed properly initiated by Srila

Gaura-Kisora das Babaji, when that would prove his own guru wrong?

 

He doesn't say that he agrees with the report, just that it's there in the book.

[theist 1]

"Eternal student" is refering to an attitude. It is more than a usefull quote, it is mood that we should carry into life.

 

Anyway,again one after another has to be defined more specifically it appears to me.

 

Does it refer to one body after another?

Couldn't be, or that would mean everyone with a body is in a disciplic line.

 

Person after person whispering a certain mantra into someone else's ear who does the same for someone else ad infinitum?

 

Could be. But as has been pointed out the mantras are written down so what is to stop someone from reading a mantra and then claiming to be in line and just start whispering that mantra into the ears of others and collected some daksina along the way?

 

Surely that can't be what is meant by disciplic line. What life would be in such a mantra that couldn't be had by someone just reading it themselves?

 

Maybe one after another then shouldn't be taken in terms of strict linear time. A so-called gap may not be a gap afterall, only appearing as such from the view of the external senses. A gap in bodies.

 

If I hear someone speaking the same truth that Prabhupada taught i will accept him as speaking in succession even if I don't know his bodily history. Even if I am left with Supersoul being the only reasonable possible source for his knowledge. Why? because being in disciplic succession means to accept the same conclusion of that succession.

[stonehearted 0]

Gaurasundara: Seems to me like JNDas is having fun again, trying to put words in my mouth and defeating his own strawmen. I said

that Gour Govinda Swami's teachings are bogus? Right. That's why I post quotes from him to this forum and other

forums as well, as well as to my own mailing list of friends. Because his teachings are bogus, yes that sounds about right

doesn't it?

 

What you either miss or continually dodge is that Sripad Gour-Govinda Maharaja's teachings include (begin with?) acceptance of the Sarasvata-Gaudiya parampara. I believe Jahnava-Nitai even referred to Maharaha's "Guru-tattva" article.

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

So much disturbance, and where has it arisen from? The internet makes it possible for anyone with a computer and a modem to publish blatant lies to a world-wide audience. Neo-nazis publish their false views of history on the web, and Neil Delmonico has likewise published his fake history of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's life.

 

 

I don't recall hearing anywhere that Delmonico has published a "fake life history" of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's life. Rather, he seems adamant that the Sarasvata line is not empowered on account of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's not having received any form of diksa at all. I don't agree with him on this point, and I disagree with several other points that he makes as well. If you and other people are under the impression that he is some sort of hero-figure to me, then I'll be forced to correct that serious misconception.

 

 

But Nitai Delmonico would not make that apology, even though his own "authentic" sources are saying that Srila Gaurkishore das Babaji was indeed the Guru of Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakura.

 

 

I think the controversy there really is all about what type of initiation that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received from Srila Gaurakisor. Note here how I use the word "initiation," as it is different from 'diksa' which is 'second initiation.' Some are under the impression that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received harinam and diksa. Some say he received it in a dream. Some say he only received a handful of Navadvipa dust on his head. I don't know, and frankly I don't care. My research interests lie mainly in siddhanta. What really is interesting, however, is how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta differs in his presentation of Gaudiya siddhanta. That's one of the issues that I am researching right now. See the 'Vaidhi and Raganuga - straight or gradual' topic for more details.

 

 

This opinion that Guru-parampara is a continuous line of diksa-gurus is not substantiated in the core literature of the Gaudiyas. At the end of every chapter of Chaitanya Charitamrta, Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj gave his homage to "Rupa and Raghunatha", but then NOWHERE in any book has Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj given the name of his diksa-guru. But who has he said his Guru is? His Guru is Nityananda Prabhu, Who appeared to him in dream. This is written at the start of Chaitanya Charitamrta. Read it.

 

 

Krsnadasa Kaviraja's diksa-guru is unknown, I think. I have heard that there is no one who claims to be in a parampara descending from him, so perhaps it somehow ended along the way. His diksa-guru is unknown because as you rightly say, he never listed his diksa-guru anywhere, although some evidence suggests that it was Raghunath das Goswami. I could be wrong. However I don't think you can "authoritatively" state that his diksa-guru was Nityananda, because there is no evidence for that. Anyone can be a siksa-guru, that is the whole point. Many siksa-gurus, one diksa-guru; so it is not surprising if Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami praises Rupa-Raghunatha or Nityananda.

 

 

The crowd who say that the Gaudiya Sampradaya is a physical line are deluded.

 

 

Then around 90% of Gaudiyas who have been following the unbroken lines that can be traced to Mahaprabhu or His associates are all deluded; is that what you are saying?

 

 

I think this Gaurasundara das is very offensive and he will not attain shelter at the feet of Guru-Gauranga until he gives up the bad association he is getting on the Web. But for innocent persons,

 

 

You're entitled to your opinion as regards my "offensiveness," but I don't think I've been offensive anywhere. I haven't slandered any guru as some people accused me of doing; all I've done is opened my heart about my doubts about the parampara, and everyone seems to be jumping on me calling me demon including you. This is not what I would expect from representatives of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who was merciful towards all without exception. "Jagai and Madhai is the proof."

 

As for bad association, what makes you think I have been indulging in bad association? I have friends who are disciples of every guru; Tripurari Swami, Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, Gaurangapada, Srila Prabhupada (of course) and I also have several friends in the classical Gaudiya parampara. In fact, they have been extremely nice and caring towards me, as well as patiently answering all of my questions even though some of them might have been offensive in any way. Compare that with the ultra-fanatical insults and bad attitudes I've been receiving here, and ask again who represents bad association for me?

[raga 0]

 

I think the controversy there really is all about what type of initiation that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received from Srila Gaurakisor. Note here how I use the word "initiation," as it is different from 'diksa' which is 'second initiation.' Some are under the impression that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received harinam and diksa. Some say he received it in a dream. Some say he only received a handful of Navadvipa dust on his head. I don't know, and frankly I don't care.

 

 

I inquired from Bhakti Vikash Swami, who is in the process of compiling a biography of Bhaktisiddhanta, about the initiation. His view was that it is unlikely that Bhaktisiddhanta received a regular pancaratrika-diksa from Gaurakisora Das Babaji, but that what he received certainly fulfilled the purpose of all diksa.

 

I have often requested to see Bhaktisiddhanta's own words in this regard. What did he say about the nature of the initiation he received? Did he receive a regular pancaratrika-diksa, did he receive harinama, what did he himself say he received? Can anyone fill me in with first-hand records, his direct words in this regard? I sometimes get the feeling that people fiercely defend something that he never said himself.

 

 

 

Then around 90% of Gaudiyas who have been following the unbroken lines that can be traced to Mahaprabhu or His associates are all deluded; is that what you are saying?

 

 

I think 90% is quite an under-estimate, GM taking a 10% share of the tradition. As far as I am aware of, there is no precise count of Gaudiyas nowadays. Some figures are W.J. Wilkins' estimate from 1897, suggesting that one fifth of the 50 million Hindus of Bengal were Gaudiyas. O?Connell suggests a number of "a few million". Let's say five million; would Gaudiya Math have half a million followers, what do you think?

[gHari 0]

If your mind cannot prove beyond a doubt that Krsna is God or even that God exists, then will you reject Him or postpone your quest? No, you can't assume the Vedas are true. This is the box in which an atheist finds himself, no heart just mind.

 

Your mind can prove or disprove anything you want. If I do not have up-close video coverage of the actual initiation then how can I accept it as valid. All these books could have been doctored, or biased. These town birth records could have been altered. Who knows to what depths this conspiracy goes. Obviously Srila Bhaktivinoda was in on it as well as God knows who else.

 

Don't be so naive as to think that 90% of Gaudiyas care a damn about the structure of GM. It's always just a bunch of 'scholars' stuck in their minds and salesmen looking to boost their quotas; they may have the biggest mouths, but no one listens to them. They are distractions from the goal.

 

I am sorry we could not help; guess you're stuck with the problem. The problem is really about having absolute faith in the guru. If you had that sort of faith there would be no question, no problem. When we place our mind in charge of determining whether guru is a liar or a dupe or a cheat, then it is over; it never started.