Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[Guest guest]

 

 

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

[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.]

 

 

Did you ask yourself why I didn't bother to reply to this post? I'll tell you why:

 

a) because your attitude in writing has been patronizing and condescending, and I don't generally respond to such rudeness

b) it contains arguments that have been addressed before, many times before, therefore there is no point going all over them again

c) I've repeated the above two points enough times.

 

However, since you have correctly stated that this is the third time you are re-posting this, I have come to the conclusion that you are either trying to pick a fight, or you are just seeking attention. In any case I will gladly serve you:

 

Lame argument #1: "The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam."

 

We were talking about the Gaudiya paramparas descending from Mahaprabhu or one of His associates like Nityananda and Advaita, not the "siksa-parampara" from timeless Vedic tradition. This is the excuse given by people who do not understand what was being said. The classical Gaudiyas trace their paramparas from Mahaprabhu, and these connections are based on diksa. Oh, and you just shot yourself in the foot again. The siksa-parampara tradition began like with Krishna and Arjuna (5000 years ago) and not before that? Ooh, thanks for proving my point. Here was me thinking that Krishna-Brahma-Narada was a siksa connection.

 

Lame argument #2: "Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha."

 

Again, you cannot be serious if you are thinking that Krishna and Arjuna should have sat down and performed a fire-ceremony right in the middle of Kurukshetra.

 

Lame argument #3: "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."

 

However, it was not Ramanuja's fault that he arrived at his guru's bedside too late. I think you can blame the ancient modes of transport for that. Aside from that, it is obvious that there was a guru-disciple relationship between Yamunacharya and Ramanuja that would have eventually crystallised into a formal relationship between the two. Who knows the truth behind what happened? In any case, this is not relevant to the Gaudiya sampradaya because the Gaudiya lines consist only of diksa. There's no precedent even for taking diksa from a "dead" guru, so by these standards even the ritviks are wrong.

 

Lame argument #4: "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."

This was more or less answered in a previous post. Kavi Karnapura expressly states that Madhva received Krishna-diksa from Vyasa, so there is no siksa connection. As far as I know, several "traditional" paramparas accept the siksa-parampara provided by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, but it seems to be relatiely unimportant considering that this is the Gaudiya sampradaya. As for Madhva's receipt of diksa-mantras from Acyuta preksa - what is your evidence for this claim?

 

"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."

 

I think you have extensively exposed yourself and a few others as the fanatics here, whereas I have tried my best to have some sort of semblance of a civilised conversation/discussion going on. However because you continue to insult, mock and berate others, I do not think that this is possible. By the way, this is no excuse. If you have evidence to present, then present it. Simply claiming that there "is" evidence but you are not going to present it does not do you any favours.

 

 

Lame argument #5: "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."

 

I'm currently researching as to why it is that Mahaprabhu Himself never gave diksa. However, lineages descending from Gopala Bhatta Goswami and Lokanatha Goswami claim that Mahaprabhu gave diksa to those personalities, but it seems there is no objectively verifiable evidence apart from those claims. If it's true, then your argument is incorrect.

There's an interesting reference in CC Antya 16.1 speaking of 'prema-diksa', however some think that it is a metaphorical reference to something. Do you know of it? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta also presented an explanation to this question in one of his purports to Caitanya-Bhagavata, have you read that explanation?

 

"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

 

If what Srila Sarasvati Thakura says is true, then just because it has not been specifically mentioned in the biographies does not necessarily mean that Mahaprabhu never gave diksa. He could have given, but it is not mentioned. You get the point, I'm sure.

 

Lame argument #6: I said: "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?"

 

And JNDas replies: "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."

 

Right. So now I am going to become a sahajiya. I'm also going to have a lot of fun being a sahajiya. That's OK right? Because even though it is an unauthorised process, I will achieve bhakti.

 

Your argument is absurd. Let's go back to what Jiva Goswami says about diksa:

 

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."

 

Therefore, a genuine diksa destroys sin as well as bestows knowledge. Last time I checked, meat-eating was classed as a sinful activity. The desire to eat meat disappeared from the Thakur's heart the very instant he received diksa. This is because he received a genuine diksa. For you to minimise this incident in the Thakur's life and describe it as "nothing" shows that not only do you maintain an offensive attitude to the Thakura, but that you also seem to hold a queer contempt for the process of diksa.

 

Also, I notice that you and several others are avoiding the most important subject: Vipina Vihari Gosvami was chosen by Mahaprabhu Himself to be the Thakura's guru. Are you saying that Mahaprabhu was "wrong" to do that?

 

You simply cannot assert that Vipin Vihari Goswami was somehow "underqualified" to be the Thakur's "real" guru because:-

 

a) You will be directly offending Mahaprabhu

b) You will be directly offending the Thakura and his judgegment

 

 

Lame argument #7: I said: "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."

 

JNDas replied with: "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."

 

Now this is just a typical extreme ultra-fanatical statement. I emphasize the word 'extreme.' The reason for that is that it was being suggested that Bhaktivinoda "quietly rejected" his diksa-guru and "quietly-accepted" a new one, even though there is no evidence for such an idea. Rather, there is "more evidence" to suggest that the reverse happened. No one knows if any rejection took place, because there is simply not enough evidence to suggest it. The only evidence that is available points to a dispute of some sort. This in itself does not prove that a rejection took place. Srila Prabhupada's disciples sometimes argued with him and certainly disagreements would occur, are you saying that this constitutes a guru/disciple rejection?

By the way, you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. If Bhaktivinoda is incapable of giving diksa and siksa according to your own words, then even the Sarasvata-parampara has no initiation on this point since it relies on a 'siksa' link to Srila Gaurakishor das Babaji.

 

"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."

 

Is there any evidence for that story apart from Gaudiya Matha sources?

 

"This should tell us something about who the real guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur was."

 

This is foolish. Just because Jagannath das Babaji confirmed the site of Mayapur implies that he was Srila Bhaktivinoda's "real" guru? So if some scientist proceeds to scientifically prove that man really did land on the moon, I should reject Srila Prabhupada's views on that topic?

 

Lame argument #8: "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"

 

Where in Kalyana-Kalpataru is that located? For some reason I was unable to find it. And you also previously quoted something from "Vishnu-priya-patrikilla" or something. Where is that located also?

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. In fact, Rupa-vilasa's biography of the Thakura lists at least two siksa-gurus that that the Thakur had before he received diksa from Vipina Vihari Goswami. These two siksa-gurus were Svarupa das Babaji and Raghunatha das Babji. That itself should tell you something about who Bhaktivinoda's "real guru" was. If the association of these two previous siksa-gurus were sufficient, why not take initiation from one of them? Why did he say in his autobiography that he was "searching for a long time for a suitable guru" ? So even though he may have received inspiration from these two siksa-gurus, he was obviously waiting for a "more qualified" guru as he says in his autobiography. See my above point about Mahaprabhu's choice of guru for the Thakura.

 

Lame argument #9: I said "Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived."

 

JNDas replied with: "Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction."

 

Sorry, but I can't. First of all I lost a lot of original texts in the computer crash that I suffered several months ago, so I cannot provide you with the Sanskrit. In fact, I'm not sure it is even stated in the HBV, I might have been thinking of something else, like the qualities one should not be in a guru. I think you may find some evidence in this regard from Krsna-Bhajanamrita.

I notice that Raga has already answered this point and provided the evidence. I only have the English but I noticed he provided the original text. Is that satisfactory?

 

Lame argument #10: "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."

 

Good for you. I have heard that the Bauls were widespread more or less all over Bengal in the generations succeeding Mahaprabhu. Would you have me believe that the Bauls are also the special recipients of Mahaprabhu's mercy?

 

Nobody here is denigrating Srila Prabhupada and his achievements. However, I must express my disappointment at how easily this argument is produced as "evidence". It betrays a cynical and snooty attitude that I have observed in almost every other religious group/cult. Everyone thinks they are the best. However, my particular research involves the study of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

This statement is perhaps one of the most rude, mocking and contemptuous slander I have ever had the misfortune to read. That too, coming from a so-called "Vaishnava." I shan't dignify this insult with a response.

 

Now I have finally answered this thrice-posted "essay" that supposedly purported to defeat all my points, perhaps now I can be left alone on this topic in order to continue my research into other aspects of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta?

[raga 0]

"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."

 

I believe this applies to both parties in the discussion very vividly. Each thinks the others are swine yet keep casting their pearls around, each thinks the others are dogs yet shove the holy down their throats. Alas, but they turn again and rend you. And alas, both turn each other into dogs and swine.

[Gaurasundara 0]

Dear Theistji, thanks very much for your interesting points.

 

 

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

 

 

I agree. It is a good life view which I have always carried with me. I learn new things every day and I'd like to think I'll continue to learn newer things.

 

 

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?

 

 

The Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary defines 'parampara' as follows:

 

"one following the other , proceeding from one to another (as from father to son) , successive , repeated MBh. Sus3r. ; (%{am}) ind. successively. uninterruptedly VPra1t. ; m. a great great-grandson or great-grandson with his descendants L. ; a species of deer L. ; %{-tas} ind. successively continually."

 

I would think such a definition would apply to a direct guru-disciple line. 'One after the other.'

 

 

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?

 

 

Mantras from books are not authorised and their chanting will not work. The mantra takes effect when received by a guru in disciplic succession. I think that is the import of the 'sampradaya vihina ye' verse from Padma Purana.

 

 

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.

 

 

I suppose that according to the Monier-Williams Sanskrit definition, such a 'gap in bodies' will be looked upon as a break in the succession. Unless of course, there is some other guru who has received those mantras from their gurus. Every guru has a few disciples, and this can ensure that the mantras get passed on regardless if the disciple takes disciples of their own. Unless of course all the disciples fail to pass on the mantras, in which case that particular disciplic succession will come to an end.

 

 

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.

 

 

Sure, I think that is technically referred to as a siksa-guru. In an ideal world, one would expect that siddhanta should be one, but sadly it is not. Different Gaudiya lines are preaching different siddhantas, so technically it is best to be "on guard" so to speak. Of course, one of the easiest ways to determine a bona-fide guru is to see how close his teachings are to what is related in sastra.

In the modern world, such idealistic conceptions do not seem to be practised in the various institutions. What do you think, Theistji?

[Guest guest]

 

But if I'm wrong on this point, I will admit it - just show me first-hand evidence which demonstrates that Madhva had the dIksha ceremony performed by VyAsa and I'll shut up.

 

 

 

While we are on this subject, I would like to know what first-hand evidence exists to suggest that any "dIksha ceremony" (i.e. fire yagna + mantra initiation) took place between the following links in the paramparA listed by Baladeva VidyAbhUShana and Kavi Karnapura. Last time I checked, these two individuals (Baladeva and Kavi) were regarded as orthodox gaudIya vaiShnavas, so perhaps the erudite representatives of their respective dIksha lines can enlighten us:

 

(1) SrI kR^iSNa to brahmA

(2) brahmA to nArada

(3) nArada to vyAsa

(4) vyAsa to madhva (first-hand evidence please)

(5) padmanAbha tIrtha to narahari tIrtha

(6) narahari tIrtha to mAdhava tIrtha

(7) mAdhava tIrtha to akSobya tIrtha

(8) lakshmIpati tIrtha to mAdhavendra purI

(9) SrI kR^iShNa caitanya to rUpa & sanAtana gosvAmIs

Please note the following before responding:

 

(a) we are looking for *concrete* evidence of the dIksha ceremony being performed, not some "sentimentalist" equivalent since such are not accepted in the case of Bhaktivinoda, Gaura-Kishora, etc.

(b) evidence must be provided for each and every one of the links, otherwise one could use the same logic to show that the entire paramparA as listed is a fabrication

© the listing prior to vyAsa (kR^iSNa-brahmA-nArada-vyAsa) is not listed this way by mAdhvas - only gaudIyas list it like this, so the argument that "this paramparA before Caitanya does not matter because they are different" is not acceptable. If the gaudIyas were only copying the listing given by the mAdhvas, then why did they go through the trouble of changing that listing in the first place?

(d) Again in cases 5,6,7 please note also that mAdhvas do not list these co-disciples of madhva in succession - only gaudIyas do. Even suggesting that they are shiksha links is a stretch; mAdhvas do not make such a claim to the best of my knowledge. But it's definitely clear that they are not dIksha disciples of anyone other than madhva. Why did Baladeva & Kavi change this listing if the pre-Caitanya paramparA did not matter? The listing of these "shiksha" gurus in succession is a gaudIya invention - why do that if paramparA is only traced through connections formalized by a dIksha ceremony? The argument that "that is mAdhva paramparA, they listed shiksha links because they were just copying the mAdhva listing" is incorrect - mAdhvas do NOT list it this way.

(e) actual answers to the questions are requested, not more posturing to the effect that "I'm too smart to bother with your questions" or "you are so ignorant of gaudiya siddhanta so I won't answer you," etc, etc.

 

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

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.

 

 

Dear Babhruji, I don't believe that I am missing the point as far as JNDas is concerned. I know that Srimad Gour Govinda Maharaja is a member of the Sarasvata-Gaudiya parampara. Just because I tend to have views that disagree with the conclusions of this parampara, does this mean that I have boiling anger and hatred towards all the Sarasvata-acharyas? Certainly not.

I have deep firm admiration for Srila Prabhupada like I always have had, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja. My appreciation for saintliness is not limited herein. I have respect for gurus outside the Sarasvata-parampara. I have friends and associates who are disciples and grand-disciples of all these gurus. I like to see unity and not division. You may recall my last post to you about the "Hotel Prabhupada" article, and how that statement 'against' ISKCON annoyed me greatly and still does.

 

Where JNDas seems to be missing the point, is that he fails to see this and so does everyone else like gHari. Even though I have stated similar things several times, I think it's absolutely unbelievable that they continue to miss this. I think that they are more interested in 'party spirit' and seem happy enough to lump me in with a category of people who openly blaspheme the Sarasvata parampara. Is this an honest thing to do? I have faith that you will know what I mean.

Another issue I take is the putting of words into my mouth based on what JNDas thinks I am trying to say. I think that is also a dishonest practice. Unless I say it and it comes out of my mouth, I am duty-bound to object to being given a bad name and hung for it.

[Guest guest]

 

© the listing prior to vyAsa (kR^iSNa-brahmA-nArada-vyAsa) is not listed this way by mAdhvas - only gaudIyas list it like this, so the argument that "this paramparA before Caitanya does not matter because they are different" is not acceptable. If the gaudIyas were only copying the listing given by the mAdhvas, then why did they go through the trouble of changing that listing in the first place?

 

 

 

Please also note in reference to points © and (d) in the above posting, that the idea that the pre-Caitanya paramparA is irrelevant to the actual gaudIya paramparA, is incorrect, as far as gaudIya vaiShNavas are concerned. It is the gaudIyas, and NOT the mAdhvas, who espouse such concepts as "there are only four bona fide (sic) sampradayas" and "those who do not receive their mantras in one of these four sampradayas are wasting their time." It is the gaudIyas, and not the mAdhvas, who say that the four sampradAyas so named are those beginning with brahmA, SrI, sanat-kumAras, and rudra. It is the gaudIyas, and NOT the mAdhvas, who say that the "madhva-gaudIya" paramparA goes through brahmA.

 

If the pre-Caitanya paramparA is irrelevant, then by the above premise, to which sampradAya does the gaudIya sampradAya belong?

 

Or perhaps it is only relevant in terms of making a connection with one of the four "bona fide" sampradAyas, but irrelevant in all other cases? Now that would be an interesting conclusion -- can we have some confirmation of this from the "orthodox" gaudIyas so we can happily inform the Astha-matha swAmIs and clarify this matter?

 

[Gaurasundara 0]

Exactly. I think I'll obey my own instincts and not dignify any more insulting rambling with rsponses. I've stated several times that I am simply not interested in discussing an issue which has been raked over several times, but they seem to enjoy drawing me into these sorts of discussions, provoking me by posting the same post three times, and the rest of it.

Anyway, think I'll concentrate on other threads from now. I think I've said all I possibly can say in this regard.

[Guest guest]

Its funny how Gaurasundara tries to have his cake and eat it too. He claims that since he has quoted Gour Govinda Maharaj in the past, that this proves his respect for him. JNDas is certainly correct that Gour Govinda Swami would blast this fool for claiming that Bhaktisiddhanta's line is fabricated, against Vedic tradition, not serious, bogus, and balderdash. Gour Govinda Swami was a ferocious lion against those who would speak in such a manner.

 

What does Gaurasundara know of Gour Govinda? Nothing. He is just trying to use his name as cover to attack the devotees. Perhaps he quoted from him in the past, but then he also quoted Srila Prabhupada in the past, and he quoted some Swami Gaurangapada in the past. Big deal. He also believed in Sai Baba in the past (up till two years ago).

 

Its fake and phony. I say it again - what does he know about Gour Govinda Swami? Nothing.

[Gaurasundara 0]

*sigh*

 

Some people never listen, nor do they bother to.

 

"Give a dog a bad name and hang him."

[Guest guest]

I say it again - what does he know about Gour Govinda Swami? Nothing.

[Guest guest]

Nitai's site has stories about how Srila Saraswati Thakura never was initiated by Srila Gaurkishore Babaji, and that he met some "babajis" in Vraja in the early 1930's and told them that he was initiated in a dream. These sorts of lies are the things I was referring to when I spoke of Nitai's fake histories.

 

The lies that Srila Saraswati Thakur was not initiated were countered in a book published in 1924. I will look for it and find it, later, and give the quotes.

 

When Srila Saraswati Thakur went to Vraja in the early 1930's he was accompanied by many, many disciples including one gentleman called Charan De, as well as Srila Sridhar Maharaj (my Guru) and other sannyasis. The events at that time are well known and well recorded. Srila Saraswati Thakur certainly didn't go to any babaji's and say he was not initiated during that visit to Vraja. Indeed, he came into direct conflict with some persons at Radhakunda and if they had any evidence that they could have used to humiliate him then they certainly would have presented it at the time. But they never did. The stories of Nitai Delmonico and his mentors about Srila Saraswati Thakur are all lies.

 

=-= Muralidhar

[Guest guest]

Thanks for presenting that correspondence from Nitai. Yes I was wrong when i said that the author of that book was the son of Vipin Vihari Goswami.

 

But still, as I said a year ago, there is substantial evidence even from "traditionalists" such as "K.B. Goswami" that Srila Saraswati Thakur was in fact an initiated disciple of Srila Gaurkishore Babaji. In this regard, there is no denying of the evidence of Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj, who was sent by Gaurkishore to take initiation from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. He was present in Mayapura in the crucial years of 1910 - 1915 when Srila Gaurkishore Babaji passed away.

 

Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj also happens to be the elder brother of AnantaVasudev

 

-- Muralidhar

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Exactly. I think I'll obey my own instincts and not dignify any more insulting rambling with rsponses.

[Guest guest]

Gaurasundara wrote:

 

However, it was not Ramanuja's fault that he arrived at his guru's bedside too late. I think you can blame the ancient modes of transport for that

 

 

Hilarious. Ramanuja becomes Yamunacharya's disciple even though Yamunacharya had passed away, and we are to blame that fact on Ramanuja not having an automobile? HA HA HA.

[gHari 0]

Gaurasundara, we all have doubts. Otherwise we would surrender to Vasudeva immediately.

 

While you state that these anti-Bhagavata parampara ideas are nagging doubts that haunt you, it does at times definitely seem that you are championing these ideas. Does it not seem this way to you?

 

Will you feel defeated if someone finds some argument, some piece of parchment, some syllogism that you can accept as irrefutable proof of the legitimacy of defining the Bhagavata-parampara as the masters do? What hope is there if the reason for things is beyond logic?

 

Understand that to have these doubts is an offense to all these masters. That is why the rage has descended from the heavens. It is as if I had my doubts about whether you murdered Mr. Black. I think you're a good guy, but somehow fear you may have murdered him; you have no alibi, no one saw you not murder him. Of course you didn't murder him. How rude of me to even think of it. Sorry for mentioning it; sorry for even thinking it. You are certainly beyond something as sinister as murder. A thousand apologies.

 

gHari

[Guest guest]

 

Aside from that, it is obvious that there was a guru-disciple relationship between Yamunacharya and Ramanuja that would have eventually crystallised into a formal relationship between the two. Who knows the truth behind what happened?

 

 

Hilarious part II. First he claims that NO Vaishnava school has a Siksha parampara. Then a well known example is given, and we are told that it would have “eventually crystallized into a formal relationship”. Huh? Says who? And the fact is they didn't. It is my understanding that Yamunacharya and Ramanuja never even met one another prior to this incident. Gaurasundara clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. There was no diksha ceremony between Yamunacharya and Ramanuja. Thus his assertion that NO Vaishnava school accepts Siksha as part of the parampara is clearly wrong.

[Guest guest]

He was wrong about Ananda tIrtha. I figured he was wrong about rAmAnuja also but did not want to say anything until you brought it up. I wonder about the other examples he mentioned - nimbArka swAmI, vallabhAcArya, and so on?

 

Actually, I guess it makes no difference. Remember, they aren't gaudIya sampradAya so their traditions don't count. Except when Gaurasundara brings them up to try and prove his point. But just not at other times.

 

Oh now, here we go again, "drawing" him back into the discussion. Shame on us.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Gaurasundar says:

We were talking about the Gaudiya paramparas descending from Mahaprabhu or one of His associates like Nityananda and Advaita, not the "siksa-parampara" from timeless Vedic tradition.

 

 

Did you forget that you said this:

 

 

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

 

 

Were'nt you the same Gaurasundar who said there was never a siksha parampara in the history of Vedic culture? That there is no sampradaya anywhere that accepts a siksha parampara? That no Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, and "no nothing" accepts a siksha parampara at all?

 

Aren't you the same Gaurasundar who said that? Sorry if I mistook you for the other Gaurasundar here who said that.

 

You were quite sure of yourself back then. Just like you were sure that Sai Baba was Bhagavan a few years ago. The mind can be very misleading. Despite all your studies and use of logic, you may end up fooled by your clever mind, only later to realize that the 'fro wasn't the real thing.

 

The fact is Siksha paramparas have existed eternally and did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati:

 

1) The Madhva's themselves consider their line to descend through Vyasa to Madhva through siksha despite their diksha line going through achyutapreksha, an advaiti.

 

2) Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Kavi Karnapura, and Vishvanatha Chakravarthi also accept a siksha parampara connecting the Madhva line with the Gaudiya line. As had been pointed out (which has not been answered at all), the successive links in Baladeva's parampara after Madhva (Padmanabha Tirth, Narahari Tirtha, Madhava Tirtha and Akshobya Tirtha) were in fact direct diksha disciples of Madhva. Thus the parampara of Baladeva is not linked based on diksha, but only siksha. Bhaktivinoda Thakur says anyone who does not accept this parampara given by Baladeva is "the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites".

 

3) Sukadeva Gosvami became the guru of Parikshit Maharaja through siksha. There is no record of any diksha ceremonies being performed to Parikshit Maharaja by Sukadeva Goswami.

 

4) Ramanuja is a diksha disciple of Goshthi Purna (his Godbrother), not Yamunacharya, yet his parampara is traced only through Yamunacharya. In fact he had never seen Yamunacarya prior to him leaving his body. Thus his only connection to Yamunacharya is through his teachings, not through mantra diksha.

 

5) Arjuna became a disciple of Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra through gita-upadesha (Siksha), not through mantra diksha. Krishna specifically states he has come to reestablish the "parampara". This was done through siksha.

 

Ludicrous answers like Ramanuja didn't have a motorcycle to get to Yamunacharya in time are quite fascinating and revealing. I can see how such adjustable logic could lead one to think Sai Baba is Bhagavan.

 

The fact is Ramanuja received mantra-diksha from someone else, yet considers Yamunacharya as his guru.

 

The logic that Krishna did not give mantra-diksha to Arjuna because it was a battlefield is another ludicrous statement. The fact is Arjuna became a disciple of Krishna through Siksha, not diksha. Even after the battle there was never a performance of a mantra diksha initiation, and for those who have read the Gita we know there is no suggestion that Krishna will give Arjuna mantra-diksha, or that it is even necessary.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

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

 

JNDas replied with: "Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction."

 

[Gaurasundar replied:]Sorry, but I can't.

 

 

Yes, the reason you can't as Raga has mentioned is because no such injunction exists. So this is the type of irrefutable evidence you quote. You pretend there is a verse that exists, but when your bluff is called you have nothing to back it up with.

 

 

In fact, I'm not sure it is even stated in the HBV, I might have been thinking of something else, like the qualities one should not be in a guru.

 

 

There is a big difference between saying "here is a verse that describes the qualities that shouldn't be there in a guru", and claiming there is an injunction in Hari Bhakti Vilasa "and other Vaishnava dharma shastras" that requires us to "publicly reject a guru" if we "see anything iffy".

 

 

I think you may find some evidence in this regard from Krsna-Bhajanamrita. I notice that Raga has already answered this point and provided the evidence.

 

 

This is a joke right? After Raga posts something suddenly you think there may be some evidence there and, oh coincidentally you happened to notice raga also posted something in that regards. Yeah...

 

 

Is that satisfactory?

 

 

The quote Raga provided says nothing about publicly rejecting the Guru if you see something "iffy". It says you should privately debate with him in a secluded place if he has strayed from the proper path and done something improper, yet you should not give him up. This was the argument Alpa-medhasa had given about culture. Cultured people who follow shastra do not publicly reject a guru in a big show. If the guru has become adversive to devotional service (i.e. a demon) he may be rejected. If he has not become a demon there is no reason to even do that, simply find a siksha guru of higher caliber while offering one's respects to the previous guru for his assitance in one's devotional progress.

 

Yes, if you reread the other thread, that was exactly Alpa-medhasa's position which you disagreed with.

[Guest guest]

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu considered Bilvamangala Thakura's book Sri Krishna Karnamrtam to be something divine. And what is the origin of that book? It was written by someone who never received initiation from any Vaishnava guru.

 

Initiation is a part of sadhana bhakti but for great souls who have surrendered mind, body and everything to Krishna, there is no need to go through the process of formal initiation, and their words are pure inspiration for the neophytes. This is clearly the teaching of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Read about Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's meeting with the Sanodiya brahmana in Mathura. He saw the man was absorbed in divine love, and knew that the man must have had a connection with Sri Madhavendra Puri. He didn't ask about diksa, he could see the man was Sri Madhavendra Puri's disciple.

 

<blockquote>

Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj:

 

When Mahaprabhu met the Sanodiya brahmana, upon seeing his movements, he at once detected that this brahmana must have some connection with Madhavendra Puri. He said, "Without his connection, I could never find such symptoms of transcendental ecstasy. It must come from Madhavendra Puri."

</blockquote>

 

In Srimad Bhagavatam, it actually says that Sukadev ran away to the forest leaving his father Vyasa behind, without getting diksa. Bhagavatam specifically states that Sukadev did not take diksa. What is the purpose in mind of the sage who gave us Srimad Bhagavatam, when he tells us this? It is to tell us that a Paramahamsa is not required to undergo initiation.

 

Now, if Bipin Bihari Goswami, the initiating guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, decided to reject Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, then some people such as Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati will say they have faith that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura was a Paramhamsa and that they don't care about Bipin Bihari Goswami's opinion. Others will say they don't have faith in Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura.

 

We all have the choice to choose our Guide and Guardian. Choose your own path Gaurasundara.

 

-- Muralidhar

 

\

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

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.

 

 

Shankara's parampara is also based on siksha:

 

narayanam padmabhuvam vasishtham saktim ca tatputra parasaram ca

vyasam sukam gaudapadam mahantam govindayogindram athasya sishyam |

sri samkaracaryam athasya padmapadam ca hastamalakam ca sishyam

tam totakam varttikakaramanyan asmad gurun santatamanatosmi ||

sadasiva samarambham sankaracarya madhyamam

asmadacarya paryantam vande guru paramparam

 

As the Bhagavatam informs us, Vyasa never gave mantra diksha to Sukadeva Goswami:

 

yam pravrajantam anupetam apeta-krityam

 

The parampara beginning from Narayana, Brahma, Vasishtha, etc., down to Sukadeva is a siksha parampara.

 

Thus, yes, even the "mayavadi" shankara follows a Siksha parampara.

[raga 0]

 

Anon writes:

 

Anyway, given the gaudIya belief that one has to come in one of the four "bona fide" sampradAyas or else he is useless, and that paramparA is legitimized only by the dIksha ceremony, I suppose I must conclude that the entire gaudIya paramparA beginning with mAdhavendra & caitanya is bogus, using Gaurasundara's logic. Where is the evidence that mAdhavendra got dIksha in the paramparA of Ananda tIrtha? Nowhere. Indeed, much of the so-called "brahmA-madhva-gaudIya" paramparA falls apart based on similar grounds - no evidence of dIksha in so many cases in the listing given by baladeva.

 

 

You are quite right here. There is very little historical evidence to argue in defense of any sort of parampara between Madhva and Madhavendra Puri, either diksa or siksa-wise.

 

If you wish to know my strictly personal opinion as a person who has tried his level best to research the matter, the parampara given by Baladeva was put together for convenience's sake when confronted by others, with little further significance. We know of Baladeva's confrontation in Jaipur, after which he compiled Prameya Ratnavali in which the aforesaid parampara is given. There is debate over why Kavi Karnapura has included the same in his Ganoddesa Dipika. Indeed, many suspect the verses therein to be interpolated.

 

Someone said that Visvanatha has also presented such a parampara. Where would this be? I would like to see the original text posted here, or at least a specific reference.

 

Personally I see no need for any kind of parampara prior to Mahaprabhu, Nitai and Advaita, whom we consider descents of Bhagavan Himself.

 

 

 

Anon writes:

Hmmm. Perhaps I misread something, but it appears that Raga was alluding to *both* parties (assuming there are only two, which I could quibble with, but no matter) in this discussion when he quoted that Biblical phrase. And since I do not think he was referring to himself, and no one else appears to be representing your side, who is that other party to whom he refers?

 

...

 

Well, never mind. It's not your fault - you keep trying to get out, but those sinister iskcon people keep pulling you back in. Or maybe when Raga said "both parties," he really only meant the other party, and not you.

 

 

One jolly fellow can have a party on his own. Gaurasundara appears to be having a good time.

[raga 0]

 

Anon writes:

 

While we are on this subject, I would like to know what first-hand evidence exists to suggest that any "dIksha ceremony" (i.e. fire yagna + mantra initiation) took place between the following links in the paramparA listed by Baladeva VidyAbhUShana and Kavi Karnapura. Last time I checked, these two individuals (Baladeva and Kavi) were regarded as orthodox gaudIya vaiShnavas, so perhaps the erudite representatives of their respective dIksha lines can enlighten us:

 

(1) SrI kR^iSNa to brahmA

(2) brahmA to nArada

(3) nArada to vyAsa

(4) vyAsa to madhva (first-hand evidence please)

(5) padmanAbha tIrtha to narahari tIrtha

(6) narahari tIrtha to mAdhava tIrtha

(7) mAdhava tIrtha to akSobya tIrtha

(8) lakshmIpati tIrtha to mAdhavendra purI

(9) SrI kR^iShNa caitanya to rUpa & sanAtana gosvAmIs

 

 

1. The giving of Gayatri-mantra to Brahmaji is documented in the Brahma Samhita.

2. - 8. None.

9. This is not proposed in the writings of Baladeva and Karnapura.

 

I would never try to argue that this was a diksa-line.

 

 

 

 

 

Anon writes:

 

© the listing prior to vyAsa (kR^iSNa-brahmA-nArada-vyAsa) is not listed this way by mAdhvas - only gaudIyas list it like this, so the argument that "this paramparA before Caitanya does not matter because they are different" is not acceptable. If the gaudIyas were only copying the listing given by the mAdhvas, then why did they go through the trouble of changing that listing in the first place?

 

 

The entire matter is somewhat of a mystery. Baladeva was well-versed in the Madhva-tradition. I have often wondered why he would present such a parampara.

 

I must say that there is a logical continuity between the style of parampara that is presented for the pre-Caitanya era and the parampara presented by Bhaktisiddhanta. However, as far as most of the Gaudiyas go, they are concerned with following the example of the post-Caitanya tradition. Primarily following the example of the post-Caitanya mahajanas is a well-established part of the Gaudiya doctrine (viz. Prema-bhakti-candrika of Narottama, verse 14, along with Visvanatha's tika). The main schism is in Bhaktisiddhanta's apparent neglect of the practices of the post-Caitanya tradition in his presentation of the parampara.

 

 

 

Anon writes:

 

(e) actual answers to the questions are requested, not more posturing to the effect that "I'm too smart to bother with your questions" or "you are so ignorant of gaudiya siddhanta so I won't answer you," etc, etc.

 

 

Though I have no interest in delving into the realm of ad hominem, I would be keen to know your identity. I am not in the habit of entering into dialogues with anonymous participants.

[raga 0]

 

Muralidhar wrote:

 

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu considered Bilvamangala Thakura's book Sri Krishna Karnamrtam to be something divine. And what is the origin of that book? It was written by someone who never received initiation from any Vaishnava guru.

 

 

In the mangalacaranam of the book, Bilvamangala offers homage to his gurus; somagirir gurur me. The tikakaras (either Karnapura or Gopal Bhatta) state that Bilvamangala received Krishna-mantra from his guru. The Vallabha-tradition declares Bilvamangala a leading disciple of Vishnusvami (viz. Vallabha-digvijaya).