Perspectives on the Sarasvata parampara

[theist 1]

Thanks Jndas, I was wondering along those lines.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

One who does not know who God is cannot know for sure that another person is God.

 

 

I think this is an important point. Before accepting anyone as God one must first know what is God, and for that one must turn to the scriptures.

 

Thus the scriptures are the instrument by which we measure the validity of any line, even those purportedly coming from a divine personality.

[Guest guest]

Dear Raghu,

 

Regardless of your statement about the Vedas being accepted as apaurusheya in the past, the very fact that you accept this premise is based on faith. Just because someone believed such a thing in the past doesn't prove that it is so. Ultimately it is an article of faith. I have the same faith as you in the Vedas, but apparently I recognize it as such and you don't. The vedas were written down at some point - correct? I agree with you that they are eternally existing - but I cannot prove such an idea and neither can you. See? The very fact that you accept the rishis as seers (your assumption) while others don't attests to the fact that your acceptance of such is based on your faith - it cannot be proven empirically. This was really my point regarding faith. All religions and any approach toward divinity will necessarily hinge on faith because they speak about that which is beyond the purview of the mind and senses.

 

Faith means - it cannot be shown by empirical evidence to be so. It doesn't mean that one can't show acceptable pramanas from sastra to back up the position one takes. But why should anyone accept those pramanas? In the end it does boil down to faith.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

Here's the verse I was alluding to from the Bhagavad-Gita:

 

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto

mattah smrtirjnanam apohanam ca

vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo

vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

 

WORD FOR WORD

sarvasya -- of all living beings; ca -- and; aham -- I; hrdi -- in the heart; sannivistah -- situated; mattah -- from Me; smrtih -- remembrance; jnanam -- knowledge; apohanam -- forgetfulness; ca -- and; vedaih -- by the Vedas; ca -- also; sarvaih -- all; aham -- I am; eva -- certainly; vedyah -- knowable; vedanta-krt -- the compiler of the Vedanta; veda-vit -- the knower of the Vedas; eva -- certainly; ca -- and; aham -- I.

 

 

TRANSLATION

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

 

Here Krsna is referring to his compilation of Vedanta Sutra in the form of Vyasadeva. Krsna does say in the Srimad Bhagavatam that before the creation only He existed - so it certainly follows that the Vedas come from Him and in fact are a form of His since he can be known by them. You are correct that he doesn't mention that he is the 'author' although I think that's more a point of semantics. If your only contention is with regards to the eternality of the Vedas and therefore the impossibility of assigning authorship to them - I agree - but then again neither you nor I can prove such a contention.

 

Thank you for clarifying your motives.

[Haridham 0]

Wow, for how long will this discussion go on.

 

It has been going on for a while.

 

It seems quite serious.

 

Lets take it easy.

 

hare krsna

[theist 1]

Devotees have different natures. While I myself am unable to follow this due to my lacking knowledge of the personalities involved, I am thankful that there are devotees inclined to a more scholarly approach.

 

These discussions and the conclusions that hopefully will come from them strengthen and protect us all from becoming just a society of sentimentalists.

 

Scholars are needed just as dishwashers and kirtana leaders.

 

People must follow their natures.

[gHari 0]

I do not have the quote now, but in a few places Srila Prabhupada notes that the Vedas Themselves say that They are produced by the breathing of Lord Narayana and therefore They are not authored or manufactured. Narayana lives and breathes forever, therefore the Vedas are eternal. Lord Narayana is unborn; therefore the Vedas are unborn.

 

While conversing on the net with someone in the Tattvavadi school, he noted that they have esoteric logics that prove that the Vedas are the Absolute Truth. It was beyond me. Then so are many things.

 

I do not think that we will be using either our minds or intelligence to verify that Krsna is God when He presents Himself. The Vedas engender the greed, the need, but Sri Krsna is Himself the Absolute proof. Knowing He is God is the ultimate truth, the essential truth in our being. In the idiom, we are pure cit in ultimate nature. Jaya Sac-cid-ananda-vrigahah Sri Krsna!

 

gHari

[Guest guest]

I must say I agree with you Raghu, in regard to the way you have presented Madva's teachings about the manifestation of the Veda. In regard to belief in the scriptures, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur said that need to show some discretion when we read texts, even the texts that are allegedly coming from God, such as the Veda.

 

As I remember it, I think Sri Madvacharya said that if we read things in the Veda that are against what our sense of reason tells us is reasonable and correct, then we need not necessarily just accept the words in the book as FACTS in the way that the christians accept the story about Noah and his boat full of elephants and giraffes and smelly skunks as a FACT.

 

-- Muralidhar

[Guest guest]

GHari,

 

My understanding is that at the beginning of creation the rsis awaken and envision Narayana sleeping within the ocean of eternity. They begin to express their visions of Narayana, who has the entire latent cosmos within Him. This vision was also shown to Arjun at Kurukshetra. Anyway, the rshis vocalize their realizations of how the body of Narayana is Sabda-brahma, transcendental sound. The name of Narayana is non-different from Him. So when saying these chants the rshis invoke all the forces of nature which are potencies lying latent within Narayana. Potencies such as wind, fire, rain, sun and night. At some point, the spiritual being called Brahma begins to engineer the formation of the universe.

 

Sri Gopala-tapani Upanishad (1,27-29):

 

asav anavaratam me dhyatah stutah parardhante so'budhyata

gopa-veso me purastad avirbabhuva

tatah pranato mayanukulena hrda mahyam astadasaranam svarupam srstaye dattvantarhitah

punah sisrksato me pradurabhuttesv aksaresu bhavisyaj-jagad-rupam prakasayan

tad iha kad apo lat prthivi ito'gnir vindor indus tat sapatakad arka iti klim-karad asrjam

krsnayad akasam khad vayur ity uttarat surabhim vidyah pradurakarsam tad uttarat stri-pumadi cedam sakalam iti

sakalam iti

 

 

Brahma said: I continually glorified the Lord and meditated upon Him for millions of years, and at last I was able to understand the transcendental form of the Lord as Sri Krishna, in the dress of a cowherd boy. With devotion in my heart I bowed down before Him. He gave me the eighteen-syllable mantra to be used for the activity of creation (klim krsnaya govindaya gopijanavallabhaya svaha), and then He disappeared. When I desired to create the universe He again appeared before me, showing me in these syllables the universe that was to be. From the letter k, I created water, from the letter l, earth, from the letter i, fire, from the letter m, the moon, and from the entire word klim, the sun. From the word krishnaya, I created ether, from govindaya, air, from gopijanavallabha, knowledge and the surabhi cows, and from svaha, men, women, and everything else. Everything else.

 

-- Muralidhar

 

 

[Guest guest]

Raga wrote:

<hr>

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

<hr>

 

Madhava,

 

Do you have the spiritual vision to know for sure that Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur is outside the mainsteam tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Or then maybe the "mainstream tradition" itself is outside the spiritual sampradaya of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

The historical and scriptural evidence presented by JNDas and others on these pages is clearly showing that a spiritual line of Parampara can come down through a succession of Spiritual Masters who are connected by siksa, not diksa. Baladeva Vidyabhusan, the authoratative Gaudiya commentator on Vedanta, was seeing the Parampara of Mahaprabhu in such a way that it had links of siksa-gurus and disciples. Mahaprabhu Himself told all His devotees in Puri that Srila Raghunath Das Goswami was to be known as the disciple of Swarup Damodar Goswami, not as the disciple of Yadunandana Acharya, his initiating Guru. Rupa and Sanatan are known as disciples of Mahaprabhu and they both received siksa from Mahaprabhu, not diksa.

 

So, if critics are speaking out against this type of spiritual succession then maybe we might say we consider those critics to be opponents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

 

-- Muralidhar

[gHari 0]

Please excuse my laziness in not finding the reference quotes and verses about the unborn nature of the Vedas. The following is Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.40, with commentary by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami:<blockquote><center>yamadUtA UcuH

veda-praNihito dharmo

hy adharmas tad-viparyayaH

vedo nArAyaNaH sAkSAt

svayambhUr iti zuzruma

</center>

yamadUtAH UcuH--the order carriers of YamarAja said; veda--by the four Vedas (SAma, Yajur, Rg and Atharva); praNihitaH--prescribed; dharmaH--religious principles; hi--indeed; adharmaH--irreligious principles; tat-viparyayaH--the opposite of that (that which is not supported by Vedic injunctions); vedaH--the Vedas, books of knowledge; nArAyaNaH sAkSAt--directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead (being the words of NArAyaNa); svayam-bhUH--self-born, self-sufficient (appearing only from the breath of NArAyaNa and not being learned from anyone else); iti--thus; zuzruma--we have heard.

 

The YamadUtas replied: That which is prescribed in the Vedas constitutes dharma, the religious principles, and the opposite of that is irreligion. The Vedas are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, NArAyaNa, and are self-born. This we have heard from YamarAja.

 

PURPORT

The servants of YamarAja replied quite properly. They did not manufacture principles of religion or irreligion. Instead, they explained what they had heard from the authority YamarAja. MahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH: one should follow the mahAjana, the authorized person. YamarAja is one of twelve authorities. Therefore the servants of YamarAja, the YamadUtas, replied with perfect clarity when they said zuzruma ("we have heard"). The members of modern civilization manufacture defective religious principles through speculative concoction. This is not dharma. They do not know what is dharma and what is adharma. Therefore, as stated in the beginning of SrImad-BhAgavatam, dharmaH projjhita-kaitavo 'tra: [sB 1.1.2] dharma not supported by the Vedas is rejected from zrImad-bhAgavata-dharma.

 

BhAgavata-dharma comprises only that which is given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. BhAgavata-dharma is sarva-dharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja: [bg. 18.66] one must accept the authority of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and surrender to Him and whatever He says. That is dharma. Arjuna, for example, thinking that violence was adharma, was declining to fight, but KRSNa urged him to fight. Arjuna abided by the orders of KRSNa, and therefore he is actually a dharmI because the order of KRSNa is dharma. KRSNa says in Bhagavad-gItA (15.15), vedaiz ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH: "The real purpose of veda, knowledge, is to know Me." One who knows KRSNa perfectly is liberated. As KRSNa says in Bhagavad-gItA (4.9):

<center>

janma karma ca me divyam

evaM yo vetti tattvataH

tyaktvA dehaM punar janma

naiti mAm eti so 'rjuna

</center>

"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna." One who understands KRSNa and abides by His order is a candidate for returning home, back to Godhead. It may be concluded that dharma, religion, refers to that which is ordered in the Vedas, and adharma, irreligion, refers to that which is not supported in the Vedas.

 

Dharma is not actually manufactured by NArAyaNa. As stated in the Vedas, asya mahato bhUtasya nizvasitam etad yad Rg-vedaH iti: the injunctions of dharma emanate from the breathing of NArAyaNa, the supreme living entity. NArAyaNa exists eternally and breathes eternally, and therefore dharma, the injunctions of NArAyaNa, also exist eternally. SrIla MadhvAcArya, the original AcArya for those who belong to the MAdhva-GauDIya-sampradAya, says:

<center>

vedAnAM prathamo vaktA

harir eva yato vibhuH

ato viSNv-AtmakA vedA

ity Ahur veda-vAdinaH

</center>

The transcendental words of the Vedas emanated from the mouth of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore the Vedic principles should be understood to be VaiSNava principles because ViSNu is the origin of the Vedas. The Vedas contain nothing besides the instructions of ViSNu, and one who follows the Vedic principles is a VaiSNava. The VaiSNava is not a member of a manufactured community of this material world. A VaiSNava is a real knower of the Vedas, as confirmed in Bhagavad-gItA (vedaiz ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH [bg. 15.15]).

</blockquote>

[Guest guest]

Dear Audarya-lila, namaste

 

 

 

Regardless of your statement about the Vedas being accepted as apaurusheya in the past, the very fact that you accept this premise is based on faith.

 

 

 

"Authorship" is the presence of a thing, while apaurusheya (un-authoredness) is the absence of that thing. If there was evidence suggesting an author, then believing there is no author would indeed be an act of faith. However, as pointed out previously, there is no evidence of any author of the Vedas anywhere. It takes an enormous leap of faith to suggest that while Vedas would record their devatA, rishi, and chandas, that they would completely neglect to mention their "author." Given this, the belief that there is an author of the Vedas is what requires faith - believing there is no author is consistent with the available evidence - namely the Vedas themselves, which name no author in spite of recording so many other details.

 

This is not actually different from the position of your own gosvAmIs, whom I believe also accept the Vedas as being anAdi and thus without a creator (at least from what I read in jIva gosvAmin's tattva-sandarbha). The only difference I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is that gosvAmIs also accepted paurusheya granthas like the bhAgavata as also akin to apaurusheya on the grounds that their author is not an ordinary human being.

 

 

Just because someone believed such a thing in the past doesn't prove that it is so.

 

 

 

I agree. This was merely supportive evidence. The point is that if Vedas had an author, but that author was somehow forgotten in time, one would expect that a tradition of remebering the Vedas as authored would have existed at least in the past. But it is not so. Nor do even critics of Vedas (i.e. nAStikas) take issue with Vedas being apaurusheya.

 

 

 

Ultimately it is an article of faith. I have the same faith as you in the Vedas, but apparently I recognize it as such and you don't.

 

 

 

It is not an article of faith as far as SrImad AcArya is concerned. There is no evidence to suggest an author, period.

 

 

The vedas were written down at some point - correct?

 

 

 

If you mean "recorded in writing," then yes. But SrI Madhva does not accept something as shruti if it is not passed down in oral tradition through an unbroken sequence - even if it is alleged to have been shruti. I think you will find this to be the case with all vedAntins.

 

 

I agree with you that they are eternally existing - but I cannot prove such an idea and neither can you.

 

 

 

Again, it is the beginning, not the lack of one, which needs proving. What does this have to do with recording Vedas in writing? Even today there are oral traditions which pass down the shruti in the traditional way. Apaurusheyatva is a fact, and as such does not require proving, any more than any other facts. Rather, it is hypotheses which counter the facts (i.e. that the Vedas have a beginning, that they have an author) which need only be disproved.

 

 

 

See? The very fact that you accept the rishis as seers (your assumption) while others don't attests to the fact that your acceptance of such is based on your faith - it cannot be proven empirically.

 

 

 

Acceptance of rishis as seers is not an assumption, but is implicit in the definition of "rishi," who are mantra-draSTas. "Rishi" does not mean "author." Your conclusions are based on inadequate knowledge of the shruti tradition.

 

 

This was really my point regarding faith. All religions and any approach toward divinity will necessarily hinge on faith because they speak about that which is beyond the purview of the mind and senses.

 

 

 

Now you are confusing atIndriya and shraddha. It does not follow that because something is atIndriya, that therefore you must have faith to accept it. Because the senses are limited, paurusheya granthas based on sense perception cannot establish the existence of atIndriya concepts. This can only be done by a source of knowledge which is not limited by the senses, or in otherwords an apaurusheya source.

 

 

 

Faith means - it cannot be shown by empirical evidence to be so. It doesn't mean that one can't show acceptable pramanas from sastra to back up the position one takes. But why should anyone accept those pramanas? In the end it does boil down to faith.

 

 

 

 

Vedas do not speak of themselves as being unauthored. They simply do not mention an author. By your definition, above, it requires faith to believe Vedas have an author. Believing that they have no author is what does not require faith.

 

 

 

Here's the verse I was alluding to from the Bhagavad-Gita:

 

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto

mattah smrtirjnanam apohanam ca

vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo

vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

 

WORD FOR WORD

sarvasya -- of all living beings; ca -- and; aham -- I; hrdi -- in the heart; sannivistah -- situated; mattah -- from Me; smrtih -- remembrance; jnanam -- knowledge; apohanam -- forgetfulness; ca -- and; vedaih -- by the Vedas; ca -- also; sarvaih -- all; aham -- I am; eva -- certainly; vedyah -- knowable; vedanta-krt -- the compiler of the Vedanta; veda-vit -- the knower of the Vedas; eva -- certainly; ca -- and; aham -- I.

 

 

TRANSLATION

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

 

Here Krsna is referring to his compilation of Vedanta Sutra in the form of Vyasadeva. Krsna does say in the Srimad Bhagavatam that before the creation only He existed - so it certainly follows that the Vedas come from Him and in fact are a form of His since he can be known by them.

 

 

 

Nothing in the above verse even remotely suggests that Krishna is the author of the Vedas, only that He is the author of the vedAnta-sUtra, which is not being contested.

 

If you say that before the creation, only the Lord existed (and hence the Vedas did not), but then go on to say that the Vedas are a form of His, then you contradict yourself. Do some forms of the Lord cease to exist?

 

If only the Lord, and no other entities existed, then what of the jIvas? Are you saying that Lord created them also? But this would be a violation of His own statement in gItA 2.12 as well as the kaThopaniSad "nityo nityAnAM..."

 

It is understood that before creation, all entities (vedas, jIvas, etc) merge into the body of Lord ViSNu. This is not the same as saying that they cease to exist - only that they are not manifest but they retain their indepedent identity. A parrot that takes shelter in a tree does not lose its existence; it is merely hidden in the tree. When it comes out of the tree later, does this prove that the tree "created" the parrot?

 

 

 

You are correct that he doesn't mention that he is the 'author' although I think that's more a point of semantics.

 

 

 

How is it a point of "semantics" when that is the very point you were trying to prove? Show me a verse which says that Krishna is the author of the Vedas and I will conceed the point, but not otherwise. It does not follow that because Lord is compiler of vedAnta-sUtra, that therefore He created Vedas. Actually, I'm not even sure why you quoted gItA 15.15 at all - it has nothing to do with your thesis.

 

 

If your only contention is with regards to the eternality of the Vedas and therefore the impossibility of assigning authorship to them - I agree - but then again neither you nor I can prove such a contention.

 

 

 

 

Feel free to refer to Madhva's gItA-bhASya or his viSNu-tattva-viNirnaya, and you will get the proof you seek. In any case, it's the alternative viewpoint which requires proving, and hence faith. Thus far I have not seen a satisfactory reason to accept it.

 

Raghu

[Guest guest]

If I write something and I don't include the fact that I am the author, will it prove that it was 'unauthored'? Quite to the contrary, the fact that it is written by definition means that it was authored. This is elementary. Just because a tradition says that something has no origin doesn't mean that the statement itself is 'proof' of such a thing. The fact that the book supports the tradition and is consistent with the thesis also prooves nothing.

 

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

 

Now let's look at some very simple logic. There are millions of books in so many languages throughout the world. In every case there is someone who wrote the words contained in these volumes. There are oral traditions throughout the globe as well - but again to say that these traditions are without beginning is merely a statement of belief with no possible empirical verification. That is why such statements are not accepted as fact - there is nothing to substantiate such claims. One is left with either 'believing' the claims or rejecting them. If Madhva only accepts as shruti that which has passed down in an oral tradition in an unbroken chain as do all vedantins - that's very good - but again - where is the proof? Where can one get verifiable empirical evidence that such a oral tradition is indeed unbroken? Where can one verify such a historical basis of the tradition? If there is no empirical evidence and only what is present today in the oral tradition then it will have to be accepted on faith because there is no valid, verifiable evidence. No matter how you slice and dice it, you can't get around the fact that acceptance of the doctrine of apaurusheya - un-authoredness - cannot be proven. It must be accepted as an article of faith. And this faith must be there even in the face of the fact that the Vedas, what is there in written form, have been studied by linguists and they give various dates of their writing and origin based on the style and type of sanskrit with which they are written. Empirically, that is, the Vedas do appear to have a date and authorship - yet for the faithful - we accept that they are eternal and without authorship.

 

You say apaurusheyatva is a fact and doesn't require prooving as such, but unfortunately this is also flawed logic - as nothing can be accepted as fact without some proof. Simply saying that something has no origin does not establish that statement as fact or truth.

 

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

 

Approaching spirit, or that which is beyond the purview of the mind and senses, however requires a different approach altogether. Now here is another paraphrase of the Gita that you can feel free to call me on if you feel it is inacurate - Krsna told Arjuna that he couldn't be known by austerity, sacrifice, good works, penance or even study of the Vedas. He then told him - I can only be known as I am standing before you by those who eyes are smeared with the salve of love - those who have bhakti. This type of knowing isn't irrational, but it is beyond the realm of the rational mind and the perception of the senses. It is this 'experience' or feeling which brings sadhakas to accept that which is beyond the scope of empiric study to proove as fact. It is this experience, in fact, that the Vedas seek to guide their readers/hearers toward. It is on the plane of advayajnana tattva that the ultimate pramana or proof of the statements in the Veda are realized. Until such time as a sadhaka actually experiences this reality first hand, they remain on the mental plane.

 

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

 

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

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

Raghu said:

A parrot that takes shelter in a tree does not lose its existence; it is merely hidden in the tree. When it comes out of the tree later, does this prove that the tree "created" the parrot?

 

<hr>

Wasn't it Sri Ramanujacharya who first used this metaphor?

 

But anyway, I think this discussion has moved far, far away from the original topic.

 

-- Muralidhar

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

 

 

It is relevant to note that Krishna specifically says He is vedanta-krit (the author of Vedanta-sutras), but in regards to the Vedas He is veda-vit (the knower of the Vedas).

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

However, as we enter the realm of prayojana, I am yet to find a Vedantic basis for it.

 

 

As you are aware, the Gaudiya's consider the Vedanta Sutra to be dealing with the Prayojana spoken of in the Bhagavatam, which is its natural commentary.

 

Simply because Shankara has monopolized the Vedanta Sutra doesn't mean we should also concede that it is a dry, impersonal scripture.

 

 

Speaking of Prasthana-traya, I would be keen of hearing a Sri Vaishnava demonstrate the supremacy of Lakshmi-Narayana based on the aforesaid pramana.

 

 

The Upanishads are repleat with such references. I am not sure what your getting at.

 

Additionally, those texts derived from the prasthana traya are also accepted as authoritative when they conform to the conclusions of the Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahma-sutras. Thus it is not that one only accepts that these three texts are authoritative, but that all other scriptural texts are relevant as long as they do not contradict these three primary evidences. The smriti-prasthana primarily refers to Bhagavad Gita, but secondarily includes all other texts that are based on the conclusions of the Vedas.

 

 

Oh yes, and Rupa's theology of bhakti-rasa; he derived most of the framework for his analysis of devotion from Bharata Muni's natya-shastra and the subsequent works of Abhinavagupta and others.

 

 

It is my view that the Goswami's have derived their theology from the bhakti-shastras such as Srimad Bhagavatam. At least that is what seems to be suggested in the Shad-sandarbhas.

 

Baladeva Vidyabhushana and Vishvanatha Chakravarthi both seem to present their tradition as a Vedanta tradition that bases its theology on the prasthana-traya, with primary importance given to the Vedanta's natural commentary, Srimad Bhagavatam. This is also Jiva Goswami's argument.

 

This view that the Gaudiya theology is not based on scripture and doesn't have to be because its founder is God; and the view that the Gaudiya line has no proper parampara, but they don't have to because their founder is God is really quit fascinating and revealing.

[Guest guest]

Madhava,

 

I cannot find the reference that Somagiri was an Advaitin. But Somagiri he wasn't a Sankarite, then what sampradaya would he have been a member of? The Sankara sampradya was the only sampradaya that existed in that era, as Sri Ramanujacharya was not born in the time of Somagiri and Bilvamangala?

 

Also, you were right to say:

<hr>

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Gopal Bhatta, Kavi Karnapura and Caitanya das have only commented on the first satakam. The verse on Somagiri and Cintamani is the first verse of the first satakam.

<hr>

 

Again, I think JNDas has made a good point in regard to your statements about Sri Rupa Goswami:

 

<hr>

Oh yes, and Rupa's theology of bhakti-rasa; he derived most of the framework for his analysis of devotion from Bharata Muni's natya-shastra and the subsequent works of Abhinavagupta and others. I would not call this a strictly Vedantic approach.

<hr>

 

Bhakti and Vedanta are not unconnected. Not in the mind of Sri Rupa and his successors. Sri Jiva Goswami reconciled the writings of Sri Rupa with Vedanta.

 

Indeed it is because of Bhaktivedanta that many people in the western world have attained an understanding of Bhakti and Vedanta, and Sri Jiva's teaching.

 

-- Muralidhar

 

[raga 0]

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Do you have the spiritual vision to know for sure that Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur is outside the mainsteam tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Or then maybe the "mainstream tradition" itself is outside the spiritual sampradaya of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

 

I didn't comment on whether the mainstream tradition was right or wrong, I merely stated that Bhaktivinoda is a bit controversial among the tradition.

 

I am not in the habit of having visions, I tend to be quite empiric in my research.

 

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

[-1-] The historical and scriptural evidence presented by JNDas and others on these pages is clearly showing that a spiritual line of Parampara can come down through a succession of Spiritual Masters who are connected by siksa, not diksa. Baladeva Vidyabhusan, the authoratative Gaudiya commentator on Vedanta, was seeing the Parampara of Mahaprabhu in such a way that it had links of siksa-gurus and disciples. [-2-]Mahaprabhu Himself told all His devotees in Puri that Srila Raghunath Das Goswami was to be known as the disciple of Swarup Damodar Goswami, not as the disciple of Yadunandana Acharya, his initiating Guru. [-3-]Rupa and Sanatan are known as disciples of Mahaprabhu and they both received siksa from Mahaprabhu, not diksa.

 

 

[-1-] Yes, this is a fact. However, for some reason the tradition nevertheless chose to trace their paramparas from Mahaprabhu's associates down to the present guru through a diksa-parampara until Bhaktisiddhanta chose to make an exception. Now, if someone could show other examples of post-Caitanya siksa-paramparas, I would be very interested to hear.

 

[-2-] No, this is not what Mahaprabhu told. He did not speak a word about guru. He told Svarupa, "putra-bhRtya-rUpe tumi koro aGgikAre", take him as your son and your servant, emphasizing their bond by calling Raghunatha das Svarupa's, "Svarupera Raghu". He also did not say anything of Yadunandana not being Raghunatha dasa's guru. His words in the mangalacaranam of Vilapa Kusumanjali and Mukta Carita bear witness to this. They have been presented earlier, I believe you were present in the discussion where they were posted yourself.

 

[-3-] Quite so, no-one has contested the fact that someone can be a disciple through siksa.

 

 

 

So, if critics are speaking out against this type of spiritual succession then maybe we might say we consider those critics to be opponents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

 

 

At least not on the basis of the three arguments you have given.

[raga 0]

 

JNdas writes:

 

As you are aware, the Gaudiya's consider the Vedanta Sutra to be dealing with the Prayojana spoken of in the Bhagavatam, which is its natural commentary.

 

Simply because Shankara has monopolized the Vedanta Sutra doesn't mean we should also concede that it is a dry, impersonal scripture.

 

 

Yes, I am quite aware of this. However, this is a leap of faith, not something we would consider hard evidence.

 

 

 

The Upanishads are repleat with such references. I am not sure what your getting at.

 

 

I guess what I mean is that the "old" or "classical" Upanishads (Chandogya, Kena, Aitareya, Kausitaki, Isa, Katha, Mundaka, Taittiriya, Brihadaranyaka, Svetasvatara, Prasna) don't seem to be overly concerned with such a theme. It is a while since my last glance at them though, so feel free to prove me wrong. I should skim through them again one of these days.

 

Now, of course it is open to debate whether some of the Upanishads are later or not, and if indeed they are all self-manifest and eternal, then does anything bearing the suffix "Upanishad" fit in? I believe many of the later Upanishads are not all that universally accepted.

 

 

 

Additionally, those texts derived from the prasthana traya are also accepted as authoritative when they conform to the conclusions of the Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahma-sutras. Thus it is not that one only accepts that these three texts are authoritative, but that all other scriptural texts are relevant as long as they do not contradict these three primary evidences. The smriti-prasthana primarily refers to Bhagavad Gita, but secondarily includes all other texts that are based on the conclusions of the Vedas.

 

 

Smriti-prasthana inevitably means something which elaborates on the original concepts. What would you say, how far can a text elaborate on something, and how many novel conceptions (which are nevertheless noncontradictory) can a text include, to still be included in the prasthana-traya?

 

 

 

It is my view that the Goswami's have derived their theology from the bhakti-shastras such as Srimad Bhagavatam. At least that is what seems to be suggested in the Shad-sandarbhas.

 

 

I would be keen of hearing how you derive the precepts of, say, Ujjvala-nilamani, from the Bhagavata or the other Puranas. There is undeniably a seed from them, but just that's about where it ends when it comes to the specifics of our concept of prayojana.

 

 

 

This view that the Gaudiya theology is not based on scripture and doesn't have to be because its founder is God; and the view that the Gaudiya line has no proper parampara, but they don't have to because their founder is God is really quit fascinating and revealing.

 

 

I think you're stretching this a bit beyond what has been said. Wouldn't you agree? I might just quote you, "quit fascinating and revealing"!

[raga 0]

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

I cannot find the reference that Somagiri was an Advaitin. But Somagiri he wasn't a Sankarite, then what sampradaya would he have been a member of? The Sankara sampradya was the only sampradaya that existed in that era, as Sri Ramanujacharya was not born in the time of Somagiri and Bilvamangala?

 

 

Well, certainly there was a Vaishnava tradition before Ramanuja, or what are we to think of Yamunacarya, Nathamuni, the alvars and so forth? Oh yes, and generally the period of Vishnusvami's influence is also dated to the pre-Ramanuja era by a couple of centuries. I've seen several numbers, but they tend to revolve around 700 CE. It seems that not much is known of him.

 

 

 

Muralidhar writes:

 

Bhakti and Vedanta are not unconnected. Not in the mind of Sri Rupa and his successors. Sri Jiva Goswami reconciled the writings of Sri Rupa with Vedanta.

 

 

Certainly they are not unconnected. However, if you read the Sandarbhas and so forth, you'll find much more frequent references to various Puranas and Tantras than you do to Vedanta. Most of the references cited while discussing the theory of rasa are related with natya-sastra, which is also not exactly Vedanta.

 

[stonehearted 0]

Madhava: I didn't comment on whether the mainstream tradition was right or wrong, I merely stated that Bhaktivinoda is a bit

controversial among the tradition.

 

This shouldn't come as a surprise to any of us who follow Bhaktivinoda. If we read Sri Krishna Samhita, especially Sri Thakura's introduction, or Shukavak's biography, it's clear that he challenged unquestioning adherence to traditional understanding of much that's given in scripture. Rather, he wanted toto help us distinguish between what's essential and what's not. And although he took his initiation in a traditional line, befor initiation he also caused some controversy among Gaudiya vaishnavas. One complaint was his conducting Bhagavat discourses without adhering to some standard vaishnava practices. I think some complained that he didn't wear kanthi-mala, to which he replie that he understood that was for initiated devotees, and he wasn't yet that fortunate. Much of what he did and wrote was a little unorthodox. A couple of other examples may be his concern for reesatblishing daivi-varnashrama, and of course his advocacy of the Mayapura site as the Yoga-pitha.

 

In these ways he may have seemed outside the mainstream back then. I know of some babajis at Govardhan who come in a different line (at the Radha-Syamasundar temple at Chakleshvara) who knew of Bhaktivinoda but weren't familiar with his songs. But when they heard them, they were very impressed by the depth of his realization and the beauty of his expression of that realization.

[Guest guest]

Madhava,

 

As I understand it, Bilvamangala was clothed in the dress of a sannyasi. It is unlikely that he was connected to the Alwar tradition through his initiating guru, Somagiri. The Alwar tradition did not promote such practices as sannyasa. That was introduced by Sri Ramanujacharya.

 

As most devotees on this forum would mostly know already, the Alwars were all regarded as descents of personal associates of Sriman Narayana. Sri Andal, for instance, is a descent of Lakshmi. For the Alwars no initiation was considered necessary since they were coming into this world from Vaikuntha.

 

Given that Adi-Shankara wrote the "bhaja govindam" prayers, and that he accommodated bhakti within his school of thought, it would not be surprising for Krishna bhaktas to arise within that sampradaya. Some people suggest that Sri Madhavendra Puri was a sannyasi of the Sankara school and that he took mantra diksa from a sannyasi of the Madva school, while retaining his old name.

 

While we are on this topic. Who was the diksa-guru of Jayadeva Goswami? What sampradaya was he a member of?

 

-- Muralidhar

 

 

 

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

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...The stories of Nitai Delmonico and his mentors about Srila Saraswati Thakur are all lies.

 

 

Dear Muralidharji, if it is indeed a lie that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not initiated by Srila Gaurakisor, then I think I will be happy beyond measure. That would be one issue out of the way. I think that people who tend to focus on this issue of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's "non-initiation" are relaly missing the point.

 

In my view, the controversy relates to how far the Sarasvata-Gaudiya tradition in terms of theology/philosophy has travelled from the realms of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy as has been practised for centuries since the time of Mahaprabhu Himself. Take, for example, the issue about raganuga-bhakti. What constitutes eligibility? How do we enter into it? What is siddha-pranali? What about Varnasrama? What about so-called "brahmin initiation"? What about, so many other things?

 

It's these issues and more that seem to be the brunt of all these repetitive discussions, the differences between the Sarasvata-Gaudiyas and the Traditional-Gaudiyas. I hope I have been more clearer?

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

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.

 

 

OK, I'll concede that point and accept that I am semi-wrong on that count. It appears that the Madhva and Ramanuja paramparas present various siksa connections. However, it is undeniable that the parampara from those figures onwards consists of diksa. This is the point I was trying to make, the connection with paramparas is of diksa and not siksa. There is no need to drown in an ocean of your own sarcasm.

 

 

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.

 

 

Looks like the Lollipop Land guy is interested in making himself look very "trendy" by using modern words like 'fro without the 'a'. How very cool, not. Seems that your grandiosity has only taught you how to make cheap shots when you can't answer simple points. JNDas, if you want to present yourself as an expert in debate as you are so obviously interested in doing, it would be credible for you to answer all of my points, preferably in a point-by-point formation which will aid clarity and avoid confusion. Instead of answering all the points, you have chosen just to reply to a few selected points that suit you and avoid the others, as well as toss in a few sarcastic comments here and there. This does not do you any favours and diminishes your credibility.

 

By the way, Sai Baba's afro hair is real.

 

 

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

 

 

Let's get back to my original point, a point that I have been repeating over and over again: Since the time of Mahaprabhu, connection to His parampara has been via diksa and not siksa. Get it? Why the sudden change? It is basically irrelevant if siksa-paramparas exist and who originated them. For you (or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) to introduce the NEW concept of a siksa-parampara in a tradition that has always traced their lines via diksa, is to de facto declare that you are a highly-empowered individual who is sufficiently empowered to do such a thing.

 

 

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.

 

 

Sure, but the fact that they trace their parampara through diksa should tell you something. They do not trace their line via the "siksa" line of Vyasadeva despite the fact that they consider him more important. Are we getting a clue here?

 

 

2) Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Kavi Karnapura, and Vishvanatha Chakravarthi also accept a siksha parampara connecting the Madhva line with the Gaudiya line.

 

 

This point has already been addressed. Repeating does no one any favours except to cause a slight amount of irritation. Those three authorities accepted the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara for perhaps the possibility of guarding the sampradaya from alienation. This happened when the Ramanandis disputed the authority of the Gaudiyas. Must we go over this again?

 

By the way, here's an interesting fact for everyone. Much is made of the "prameya-sloka" that apparently embodies Dvaita's beliefs in a nutshell. However, where is the source for this prameya-sloka in the writings of Madhvacharya or any other Tattvavada acharya? It doesn't exist. Modern Dvaita cholars such as Bannanjee Govindacharya have opined that the prameya-sloka is a fraud, most probably. In fact, the Dvaitins admit that the earliest reference to the prameya-sloka is to be found in Baladeva's prameya-ratnavali, where the prameya-sloka is penned in a slightly different way. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

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.

 

 

Incorrect beyond belief. You are forgetting that Baladeva presented this parampara in his writings either before or after his confrontation with the Ramanandis. See my answer to the previous point. Baladeva himself comes in a direct diksa-parampara beginning with Gauridas Pandit, I believe. Contrary to popular belief, he was not initiated by Visvanatha Cakravarti. They had a siksa relationship, sure, but not diksa.

 

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur says anyone who does not accept this parampara given by Baladeva is "the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites".

 

 

I don't see anybody here is denying the pre-Mahaprabhu parampara, do you? The issue relates to parampara since Mahaprabhu and not before, but for some queer reason you overlook this fact.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself is an extremely controversial figure in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

 

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.

 

 

Incorrect. Ramanuja's parampara is indeed traced via diksa and not siksa from Yamunacharya. I've been researching on this point. At least from the Internet, Gosthi Purna and Maha Purna seems to be two different individuals. Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Gosvami thinks that Gosthi Purna is Ramanuja's guru; however, the guru-parampara of Ramanuja is:

 

Yaamunaacaarya (Alavandaar) (c. 900-1000 AD)

 

Periya Nambi (MahaapUrNa)

 

Ramanuja (emberumaanaar, udaiyavar, bhaashyaakaara) (1017 - 1137 A.D.)

 

 

I tried to clarify some of these points with Mani Varadarajan, who everyone should know. Unfortunately he seems to be too busy to reply to my email. Never fear, I found an old post authored by him on his Bhakti-List:

 

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

 

So there you go. Even though Ramanuja was influenced by five teachers including Yamunacharya, his parampara is nevertheless traced via diksa.

 

Interestingly, I found at least one website that describes all of the Madhva paramparas in detail, but I have writen to the webmaster to seek clarification on some important issues.

 

 

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.

 

 

But where is the "siksa-parampara" that supposedly started wth Arjuna? Did Arjuna pass this knowledge on? I've heard that according to the Anu-gita, he forgot it. Anyway, where is the parampara? There is no parampara descending through Arjuna, because Vyasa logged the whole conversation. Thus.

By the way, what an incredibly weak argument. Nobody is disputing that Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna. We are taking of diksa and siksa-paramparas here.

 

 

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.

 

 

Oh, I see that Cheap Shot Das continues to hit below the belt whenever it suits him. This motorcycle, did I ever mention that Ramanuja failed to meet his guru on account of his not having a motorcycle or automobile? Who do you think Ramanuja is, Knight Rider or something? I can understand this idiotic misconception coming from a couple of anonymous Guests who failed to get my point, but I'm surprised to see that Cheap Shot dasa also fell for the externals. Hilarious indeed.

I would have thought that JNDas was aware of the story that Ramanuja was on his way to meet Yamunacharya when the latter unfortunately passed on. Whose fault was this? Was it Ramanuja's fault for being too slow? Was it Yamunacharya's fault for dying too early? Or was it just circumstances? The answer should be obvious. However, it is absolutely foolish that people are suggesting that I said Ramanuja needed modern transport when I didn't, yet it is a fact that bullock carts, horse carts or just plain walking does not increase your speed when your guru is on his deathbed.

Instead of understanding the simplicity of this point, Cheap Shot Dasa decides to fling yet another of his wunderbars below the belt in regards to my previous affiliation with Sai Baba's movement. As if I am disqualified from discussing theology because I fell into a fake guru's trap. Perhaps Cheap Shot Das would do well to take his absurd proposal to its absurd conclusion, when we should all unite and refuse to listen to ISKCON's gurus on account of their being ex-Christians and/or ex-hippies for the most part. How silly.

 

 

The logic that Krishna did not give mantra-diksha to Arjuna because it was a battlefield is another ludicrous statement.

 

 

Nobody used any logic, my dear Cheap Shot Prabhu. I made a sarcastic statement which you obviously did not get. As usual.

 

Never mind, here is the joke again: The Pandava army and the Kaurava army were just about to go to war. Arjuna asked Krishna to drive him up to the middle of the battlefield so he could see the opposing army. Upon doing this, Arjuna became overcome with emotion at seeing his family and friends and refused to fight. He asked Krishna's advice as to what to do next.

 

Anyone who is seriously proposing that Krishna and Arjuna should have sat down in the middle of a battlefield that was poised on the brink of war, and performed an initiation fire ceremony complete with mantra-diksa, is a fool. In my view, of course.

 

Did you get the joke this time, CSP?

 

Now let's have a look at the points that you failed to answer. I wonder why you failed to answer, is it because you don't have any answers? In any case, let's go through them again:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

There are many other points that JNDas failed to respond to, which is understandable because either he cannot refute simple logic or he just has no answers. Also, I've done a little bit of research; I've stated hundreds of times that this issue has been raked over time and time again. The interesting thing is that JNDas has been repeating the same old tired arguments again and again and again. He has repeated now what he has repeated then in an endless chain, despite the fact that he has received scripturally correct answers. Nice going.

I also noticed that on previous occasions, JNDas seemed to be a much more cheerful person and calmer, though perhaps coming out with the odd sarcastic comment. Compare that with his attitude now, where he is openly flaming me and hurling invectives. I cannot help but wonder if there is some personal issue he needs to resolve.

 

Perhaps JNDas can do us all a favour and submit his answers to the points outline clearly in this post, not just one or two.

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

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.

 

 

Didn't I already explain?

 

"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."

 

Pretty clear. In fact, a few moments after I posted that original post, I realised that I was incorrect as I recalled that the HBV talsk about what qualities one should seek in a guru and what qualities one should not. It was the Krishna Bhajanamritam that discusses what to do about fallen gurus and rejecting them. However, I did not bother to correct my mistake after reading your reply. You wanted the Sanskrit, and because of my computer crash I have to make do with dodgy English translations. Why did I not bother to correct my mistake after reading your reply? Because:

 

"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."

 

Now it seems that by your above comment, you are illegally attempting to paint me as some sort of liar; that I "pretend" that verses exist which I cannot backup. Hello? Can anyone post a verse that doesn't exist? In either case by trying paint me as a liar, you are being extremely dishonest.

 

 

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...

 

 

See what I mean? This is why I say that you are nothing but a simple scoundrel. You of all people are aware that I deliberately did not reply to your rude post on account of your noticeable lack of basic manners. I've only bothered to reply to that lame post three times after it was posted. Yes, it may seem a coincidence that I noticed that Raga posted the quotes before I declared it so, but this does not change the fact that I already knew about the Krishna Bhajanamritam anyway. Believe what you want. In any case, I do not care for the opinions of a liar.

 

 

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.

 

 

Read Raga's comments and stop wasting everybody's time:

 

"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."

 

This point was originally made by me (though not in Raga's words) that a guru-rejection in public is necessary in order to let the public know you have rejected your guru because of such-and-such reason. In any case there is no evidence to suggest that Bhaktivinoda Thakura rejected Vipin Vihari Gosvami at any time. If you have evidence, post it, or else keep quiet.

 

In fact, where is that quote from the Vishnu-priya-patrikilla (or whatever) located? I need that quote asap to make an important point, so can you do a favour and tell me where it is to be located in Bhaktivinoda's works?

 

 

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

 

 

Disagreed with? Alpa-medhasa's "position" was so laughable it had to be read to be believed. Still, evidence? You seem to be pretty high on presenting ragtag "evidence" when it comes to defending an indefensible siksa-parampara, but you seem to be pretty low on evidence on this issue? Is it something to do with the fact that you have no evidence? That would be a more likely explanation.

 

Instead, JNdas talks endlessly about "culture" and his appropriately-named friend Alpa-medhasa says that only "bright" people are capable of understanding who is Bhaktivinoda's "real" guru.

 

The word you are looking for is 'omniscient.' JNDas and Alpa-medhasa are omniscient. They know everything, that is why they see no need to present evidence of their views on this topic. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

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

 

 

I'm only having "fun" in the sense that I am continually amazed at the appalling lack of logic in some arguments that have been displayed for the consideration of the readers.

 

On the other hand I am not having "fun" at all on account of the consistent sarcasm, rudeness, and downright nastiness displayed by certain self-appointed defenders of the Sarasvata parampara. What started as an open-minded quest to discuss various issues that arise in such discussions has degenerated into backbiting, name-calling, and just plain stupidity. Really, if this is the treatment I get when I have decided to be honest with myself and re-evaluate my faith in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I shudder to think how a "new bhakta" will be savaged beyond description if he ever sets foot on this board.

 

After reading this post of yours, I had a spontaneous flow of thoughts that I would love to articulate but I have decided not to. I suppose you get the general vibe. It would be simply a complete waste of time.