Diksa Parampara

[Guest guest]

 

Personalities such as Srinivasa Acarya and Syamananda Pandit, who were among the most prominent preachers of the Gosvami granthas, and Jahnava Thakurani, who was the crest-jewel of all Gaudiyas in the post-Gosvami era, have been excluded from this parampara.

 

 

 

The ISKCON party declares that it is one of the branches flowing from caitanya. It does not deny the presence of other branches and sub-branches from caitanya. from caitanya.... Now why does caitanya not appear in the paramparA mentioned by the orthodoxy. Because they cannot find any ritualistic dIkSA ceremony in which caitanya was a guru handing off some mantra etc..... which is one of their cardinal precepts. Thus to save their face, they make a compromise, doesn't matter if caitanya is not in paramparA, perhaps baladeva did not do enough research, but we are the best, by hook or by crook.........

 

 

I think if parampara means a collection of the most prominent individuals who have influenced the Gaudiya tradition

 

 

 

paramparA means flow of brahma gyAna.

[Guest guest]

 

The ISKCON party declares that it is one of the branches flowing from caitanya. It does not deny the presence of other branches and sub-branches from caitanya. from caitanya.... Now why does caitanya not appear in the paramparA mentioned by the orthodoxy. Because they cannot find any ritualistic dIkSA ceremony in which caitanya was a guru handing off some mantra etc..... which is one of their cardinal precepts. Thus to save their face, they make a compromise, doesn't matter if caitanya is not in paramparA, perhaps baladeva did not do enough research, but we are the best, by hook or by crook.........

 

 

 

I'm not the member of camps' consciousness. Also I think that it's proper to name yourself first.

 

Jahnava Thakurani is the first in parampara of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. It said in his writings.

 

Caitanya is the Lord. And He empowered Sri Nityanada Prabhu (who is primeval and original Guru), Sri Jahnavi Mata, Sri Advaita Acarya, Sri Gopal Bhatta Gosvami and some others to start their lines of diksa-parampara.

 

Diksa means not only ritualistic ceremony, but imparting the divya gyan (through Gopal gayatri and Kama Gayatri) and that is according to the teaching af bhagavatas (for example, six goswamis of Vrindavana).

 

 

paramparA means flow of brahma gyAna.

 

 

 

1. How can you check if that is real flow?

2. Why not to include Sri Jahnava Mata (for example)?

 

And so on...

 

[Indradyumna_das 0]

 

The ISKCON party declares that it is one of the branches flowing from caitanya. It does not deny the presence of other branches and sub-branches from caitanya. from caitanya.... Now why does caitanya not appear in the paramparA mentioned by the orthodoxy. Because they cannot find any ritualistic dIkSA ceremony in which caitanya was a guru handing off some mantra etc..... which is one of their cardinal precepts. Thus to save their face, they make a compromise, doesn't matter if caitanya is not in paramparA, perhaps baladeva did not do enough research, but we are the best, by hook or by crook.........

 

 

 

I'm not the member of camps' consciousness. Also I think that it's proper to name yourself first.

 

Jahnava Thakurani is the first in parampara of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. It said in his writings.

 

Caitanya is the Lord. And He empowered Sri Nityanada Prabhu (who is primeval and original Guru), Sri Jahnavi Mata, Sri Advaita Acarya, Sri Gopal Bhatta Gosvami and some others to start their lines of diksa-parampara.

 

Diksa means not only ritualistic ceremony, but imparting the divya gyan (through Gopal gayatri and Kama Gayatri) and that is according to the teaching af bhagavatas (for example, six goswamis of Vrindavana).

 

 

paramparA means flow of brahma gyAna.

 

 

 

1. How can you check if that is real flow?

2. Why not to include Sri Jahnava Mata (for example)?

 

And so on...

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Caitanya is the Lord. And He empowered Sri Nityanada Prabhu (who is primeval and original Guru), Sri Jahnavi Mata, Sri Advaita Acarya, Sri Gopal Bhatta Gosvami and some others to start their lines of diksa-parampara.

 

 

 

This is the gist of the orthodoxy argument. In an all out attempt to deny others any validity they have resorted to euphemisms like "empowered" in case of caitanya because all he gave was SikSA. They are somehow not able to swallow the fact that the divya gyAna is transferred by sikSA too.

[Guest guest]

 

You quote baladeva who in prameya ratnAvali accepts without contest, the nine tenets propounded by madhva "SrI madhva prAha viSNum parataram...." and who categorically delineates the paramparA coming down from madhva to caitanya. Perhaps according to you this is a fabrication that caught baladeva offguard.

 

 

Of course, he categorically delineates what you said. But is this parampara of diksa or of siksa type? If it is of siksa type, why Baladeva says about differences in teaching? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

BTW, Where is caitanya in your paramparA?

 

 

He is not in parampara. He is in tradition. Parampara is "one after another", as teach even acaryas from Sarasvata line... /images/graemlins/smile.gif If He never gave diksa, how can He be in diksa-parampara?

 

 

This is the gist of the orthodoxy argument. In an all out attempt to deny others any validity they have resorted to euphemisms like "empowered" in case of caitanya because all he gave was SikSA. They are somehow not able to swallow the fact that the divya gyAna is transferred by sikSA too.

 

 

Who said, that siksa don't transfer divya jnana? Diksa includes siksa. Diksa and siksa, and diksa and shiksa gurus appeared as early in tradition, as in Gosvami granthas. But Indradyumnaji asks about principles of parampara, not about validity of siksa in tradition. Why all acharyas except Bhaktisiddhanta tracked back their paramparas according to diksa, not siksa?

 

[Guest guest]

Guys!! Come on. Lighten up. Everyone is making some good points, but a whole bunch of bad ones. What's the point, to prove the other wrong? Sridhar Maharajas article was excellent, and so is the idea of diksha succesion. Truthfully, I wonder what all those tirthas are doing in the siksha line anyways. We want Janhava Ma!!!

[Guest guest]

 

We want Janhava Ma!!!

 

 

 

She has her own branch. What is wrong with rUpa gosvAmi etc.?

 

 

Truthfully, I wonder what all those tirthas are doing in the siksha line anyways.

 

 

 

Read prameya ratnAvali and see why baladeva praises AnandatIrtha as the greatest of the saints while delineating the prameyas of the gaudIya line.

 

This clumsy attitude towards vedAnta lead to the near extinction of govinda bhASya. Couldn't take care of a piece of work that would define a paramparA in the vedAntic framework.

[Guest guest]

 

Of course, he categorically delineates what you said. But is this parampara of diksa or of siksa type? If it is of siksa type, why Baladeva says about differences in teaching?

 

 

 

Your definition of sikSA is suffocatingly narrow. The differences does not mean that their contribution is nullified.

 

 

He is not in parampara. He is in tradition. Parampara is "one after another", as teach even acaryas from Sarasvata line... If He never gave diksa, how can He be in diksa-parampara?

 

 

 

Thank you for confirming that the one who baladeva calls as the saviour of the world because he distributed kRsNa prema is not in paramparA. Some people are not at all amused.

 

 

 

Who said, that siksa don't transfer divya jnana? Diksa includes siksa. Diksa and siksa, and diksa and shiksa gurus appeared as early in tradition, as in Gosvami granthas. But Indradyumnaji asks about principles of parampara, not about validity of siksa in tradition. Why all acharyas except Bhaktisiddhanta tracked back their paramparas according to diksa, not siksa?

 

 

 

He asked:

 

On the other hand, persons such as Aksobhya, Jayatirtha, Jnanasindhu, Dayanidhi, Vidyanidhi, Rajendra, Jayadharma, Purusottama, Brahmanya Tirtha and Vyasa Tirtha have been included in the parampara. Can you explain how they have contributed to the siksa-parampara of Gaudiya Matha?

 

 

 

which is an attitude of vanity combined with lack of knowledge.

[Indradyumna_das 0]

Sri Jahnavi Mata is in Parampara of Srila Bhakivinoda Thakur. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur is in Parampara of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta. Does it mean that one can receive diksa (which is of less importance then siksa according to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta)in the line of Jahnavi Mata and then accept siksa in the line of Srila Bhatisiddhanta?

[gokulkr 1]

i know about ISKCon. i know that Lord Caitanya is incarnation of Lord Krishna.

 

I chant Hare krishna mantra daily.

 

I have seen the guruparampara in "Bhagavath-Gita As it is".

 

Besides i dunno anything about "Gaudarya Vaishnavam".

 

Pls tell me whats diksha prampara ? What the opponents telling ? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

pls tell so that i will be enlightened

 

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

Besides i dunno anything about "Gaudarya Vaishnavam".

 

it is Gaudiya,not Gaudarya,meaning from Gauda.

 

Pls tell me whats diksha prampara ? What the opponents telling ?

 

there seems to be some disagreement on the concept of a

succession of acaryas based on personal meeting and handing

of mantra to others which they are calling as diksa,and the concept of siksa succession which is based on the philosophical succession.

===========================================================

 

at this Tattvavada site they compare "Iskcon" with their

own lineage.

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

 

the first mistake they make is

In fact, the concept of Bhedâbheda in one context is also accepted by Tattvavâda -- in the apparent difference in appearance of the various and infinite forms of the Supreme Being, which are all identical in essence, and each of which, though appearing to be different, is the complete Supreme Being with all His attributes and aspects. On this issue, ISKCON has a different concept, where some forms of the Lord are considered to be more complete than the others -- which is totally repugnant to Tattvavâda.

 

 

that is an incomplete and therefore erroneous conclusion,

Gaudiya tattva is that all forms of the Lord are full and complete as one candle is the same fire that lights another candle, the difference is that each form of the Lord

displays various quantities and qualities,but they are all

the self same supreme being,In Krsna we find the Lord

displaying more qualities then say Varaha,Krsna sings

and dances and jokes around,Varaha does not,Krsna displays

full Beauty in His form, the acme of beauty,while other

forms of the Lord such as Varaha do not.

 

So Gaudiya tattva is that all forms of the Lord are fully

the same in essence but differ in display ,if that is repugnant it leaves one wondering why ?

 

this seems to be a major sticking point with the tattvavadis,

 

All these concepts are not only totally against Tattvavâda, but are classified as major sins (`nava-vidha dveshha' -- indicating the nine forms of hatred of the Supreme Being, by denying His unique greatness and freedom from all defects and limitations) which lead to eternal hell

 

It seems they find the concept of Male and female repugnant,

clearly the female forms of the Lord are different in display of qualities then the Males,this idea of difference

and sameness in any way shape or form seems to be anathema

to them,leaving only a lack of coherent explanations

as to how all forms of the Lord are identical even though

that is clearly not the case.

 

They seem to have a problem with the ability of the Lord,

they say the Lord is identical in all ways in all forms,

this leaves the Lord in the position of subordinate to their

conception,the lord is independent and can incarnate in

whatever way is desired and can display any amount or hide any amount of qualities as desired,this is the Gaudiya

concept, the Lord as master of reality,not some dogma.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Madhvites also declare their difference from Gaudiyas:

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

 

 

 

To make the long story short, the Cyber Madhva Sangha does not like that the principles which are not strictly in line with tattva-vAda be associated with Madhva. This controversy has been raging for over a decade now.

 

The gaudIya vaiSnavas, it seems, have their own take on the issue as well:

 

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/html/letters.html

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/pejavara.html

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html

 

 

i know about ISKCon. i know that Lord Caitanya is incarnation of Lord Krishna.

 

 

 

Now, caitanya being kRSNa, is not accepted by other sampradAyas unless the gaudIya vaiSNavas come up with some universally acceptable scripture confirming him to be so.

 

 

I have seen the guruparampara in "Bhagavath-Gita As it is".

 

Pls tell me whats diksha prampara ? What the opponents telling ?

 

 

 

dIkSA paramparA is one principle in the traditional school of thought in gaudIya vaiSNavas that only through the dIkSA rite, one gets some "power" transferred from guru to disciple. Some like to call that one's position w.r.t. bhagavAn is given. But then they have another paramparA, which, in some cases, is separate from dIkSA and other SikSA, which they call siddha praNAli where one gets to know ones rUpa (direct revelation of one's spiritual body) in kRSNa lIlA.

 

The segment of gaudIyas flowing from bhaktisiddhAnta saraswati (ISKCON, gaudIya math etc.) do not practice siddha praNAli, but they say that the spiritual body is automatically revealed to the practitioner as one advances. The traditional orthodox gaudIya vaiSNavas also object to the guru paramparA of the bhaktisiddhAnta group, declaring it to be ineffective in transferring spiritual potency, because it is not that every guru mentioned there gave dIkSA to the next one listed. The bhaktisiddhAnta group, however, counters that it is the flow of instruction in the mentioned guru paramparA which is more important than the dIkSA rite.

[Guest guest]

Indradymna want leave GM, then he is search "mistakes". It is work Madhavananda and may be Jagat. They is "preach". Go in street madhava! Big prechers. Sanchya on "madhurya rasa".

 

"If - then".

[gokulkr 1]

I equally respect Lord Ramanuja, Lord Madhvacharya , Lord Chaityana , Lord Vallabha

 

They all showed a path to achieve "Lord Krishna/Lord Narayana".

 

I love all of em. Please dont speak ill of "Lord Madhvacharya". Otherwise i will cry. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

Note : I REgard Lord Ramanuja & Lord Raghavendra & Lord chatiyanya (& Lord Vallabha) as eequally & treat them as my father guiding me to God (Lord Vishnu).

[Indradyumna_das 0]

 

Indradymna want leave GM, then he is search "mistakes". It is work Madhavananda and may be Jagat. They is "preach". Go in street madhava! Big prechers. Sanchya on "madhurya rasa".

 

 

 

Actually, I tired to repeat that I'm not the member of camps' consciousness. My reason that if I have any doubts I'm trying to solve them.

 

I had two doubts:

 

1. Should one in the line of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta think that shiksa-guru (and siksa) is more importent that diksa-guru (and diksa).

 

I was asking different questions here to clear my doubts but failured. You all are so busy in camps' consciousness.

 

Then finally I've found the answer from the disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta (read below).

 

About my second doubt (about the principles of making up bhagavata-siksa-parampara of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) I'll write in the next message.

 

*************

 

TRIDANDISWAMI B.K. SANTA MAHARAJ

FOUNDER & PRESIDENT

SRI CHAITANYA ASHRAM

23, BHUPEN ROY ROAD

BEHALA, CALCUTTA-34

 

DATED-7/10/2001

 

Dear (beloved) Bodhayan Maharaj,

Herein I wrote the answers to your questions that you informed dear

Sankara through phone. Acknowledge me of it's receipt.

 

Question No.1 What kind of importance a Siksa Guru and a Diksa Guru can

have?

 

Answer: Though, according to the nature of Guru-tattva (the

Guru-Principle) the Siksa Guru and the Diksa Guru are considered as

non-different from each other, yet, the importance of Diksa Guru is

understood to be more than the other. Because the Diksa Guru is the

combination of both aspects-that of Diksa and Siksa as well. Siksa Guru can

be many, but Diksa Guru is only one.

Please Note that a Siksa Guru is acceptable only if his teachings or

precepts is considered favourable and harmonious to/with the Diksa Guru's

teachings/precepts. In this connection, you carefully read and analyse into

Guru Tattva described in Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta, Adi-Lila, Ch-1, verse

27-29.

 

Question No. 2

While compared between Siksa Guru and Diksa Guru---whose honour is

greater in the eye of a disciple or devotee?

 

Answer: It is Diksa Guru whose honour/respect is superior to all.

 

Question No. 3

Is it that a Diksa Guru is accepted to be served by his disciple?

 

Answer: Serving his Sri Guru-Padapadma is the only duty of a disciple.

But, at first, one has to understand about the definition of service---"What

is service?" The nature of genuine service from (of) a disciple to his Sri

Gurudev is none other than fulfilling his heart's desire and the heart's

desire of Sri Gurudeva can be none other than the pure service-interest of

his worshipable Lord. Therefore remaining under the shelter and guidance of

Sri Gurudeva when an obedient disciple will be engaged in the devotional

service to his (Sri Gurudeva's) worshipable Lord, only then, his

(disciple's) acceptance of a spiritual master will be considered as

fruitful.

 

Question No. 4

Is it that one has to take mantra initiation and go through other official/traditional initiation rituals separately at the time of his acceptance of a Siksa Guru?

 

Answer: No, There is no such scriptural instruction. In this regard,please consult that chapter in Srimad Bhagavatam where in Lord Krishna's last instruction to Sri Uddhava the subject-matter--- ' 24 Siksa Gurus of

Avadhuta' has been discussed.

[Guest guest]

 

yet, the importance of Diksa Guru is

understood to be more than the other

 

Siksa Guru can

be many, but Diksa Guru is only one.

 

Please Note that a Siksa Guru is acceptable only if his teachings or

precepts is considered favourable and harmonious to/with the Diksa Guru's

teachings/precepts.

 

 

 

Ya, those very people who advocate the above are seen to have an average of about 2.5 dIkSA gurus per person.

[Indradyumna_das 0]

Please, read the article by Srila Bhakti Promod Puri Goswami Maharaja:

 

Disciplic Succession (Sampradaya)

 

Some quotes from the article

 

The meaning of 'sampradaya' is defined as knowledge descending in the chain of consecutive spiritual masters. Other than this definition it can be used to denote societies, associations and groups of people.

 

Once, it has been said that some discussions were going on with Madhva and other Sankarite scholars at Markanikaya ghat, all of them who were observing vows of fasting. Suddenly from the sky, like a blue cloud, Sri Vyasadeva appeared in the presence of all as witness and rejected all Sankara's ideology while accepting the philosophy of Sri Madhva. Srimad Baladeva Prabhu has formulated nine proverbial statements, which have been verified by Sriman Mahaprabhu in His instructions to His close followers and which are accepted as the supreme principles of Vedanta philosophy…

 

Pure devotion means to be free from all selfish desires related to fruitive activity, independent search for knowledge, etc.

 

To read, please, follow: http://russianpaintings.net/parapmara_eng.htm

To download in MS Word 2003 format: http://russianpaintings.net/sampradaya_eng.zip

[Guest guest]

how are u