Response to VNN Guru-tattva article by Rocana das

[krsna 3]

Response to VNN Guru-tattva article

by Rocana das

 

Posted December 3, 2004

 

Over the course of the last few years, the editors of VNN.org have refused to post six different articles that I have submitted to them for publication. This pattern is a particularly obvious one, given the fact that between 1996 and 2000, VNN published at least 20 of my articles ­ and never declined to print anything I submitted to them. Having asked for an explanation from VNN but never receiving one, I can only speculate on the reasons for their editorial position. It appears to me that their unexplained change of policy regarding my writings is due the fact that I have increasingly focused on the issues surrounding Srila Prabhupada's elevated status, particularly in relationship to his Godbrothers in the Gaudiya Matha.

 

I am most appreciative that Chakra.org has taken an open-minded and non-sectarian stance, and continues to be willing to consider my articles for publication on their site. A number of my papers can be found at www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/writings.htm. Included here are some of the articles VNN published over the years, but has since apparently deleted from their site database. (I count at least eight in this category, many of which speak to the above-mentioned subject.)

 

 

 

--

 

Supporters of BV Narayana Goswami Maharaja recently published an article on the VNN website entitled "Guru Tattva and the Real Disciple". This article, while just published on November 15, 2004, was actually a lecture given by Narayana Maharaja for Srila Prabhupada's Disappearance Day, November 11th, 1996. The complete text of this lecture can be found on the VNN website at www.vnn.org/world/WD0411/WD15-8768.html.

 

Having spent the last few years thinking and writing about the topic of Sampradaya Acarya, I was interested to note that in his lecture, Narayana Maharaja uses the term "bhagavata parampara" synonymously with my use of the term "Sampradaya Acarya". Narayana Maharaja also uses the term "guru parampara" to refer to diksa lineage.

 

Narayana Maharaja acknowledges here that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur followed the bhagavata parampara. He goes on to say that the guru parampara is included in the bhagavata parampara. While Narayana Maharaja unfortunately does not offer any clarification as to what the specific difference between these two lines is, he clearly indicates that there is a difference. The essential question that goes unanswered is what exactly is the difference between the two.

 

Vaisnava history tells us that after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's departure, His senior disciples decided to reinstate the guru parampara. Narayana Maharaja's own Spiritual Master, along with his fellow Gaudiya Matha spiritual masters, re-instituted the concept of guru parampara ­ but they did not do so on the authorization of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. In fact, they reinstated a guru parampara system that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had essentially rejected.

 

Narayana Maharaja states that the guru parampara is part of the bhagavata parampara. At the same time, he gives many examples in the bhagavata parampara where the guru parampara line is not followed. If we look at the continual history going back to Lord Brahma, we see that the bhagavata parampara is transcendentally independent of the guru parampara.

 

What is most questionable in Narayana Maharaja's presentation is his insinuation that everyone who is strictly following the guru parampara from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur is also, by nature, part of the bhagavata parampara.

 

I agree with Narayana Maharaja's description, in paragraphs three and four of his lecture, of all the personalities who are considered part of the bhagavata parampara, but who don't follow the strict rules of the guru parampara.

 

Narayana Maharaja makes the point that anyone who understands and accepts the teachings that are enunciated by the bhagavata parampara is essentially initiated, saying, "Initiation is a matter of heart and mood."

 

Narayana Maharaja also says that a disciple can't fall down. This statement has no real meaning in the absence of an explanation of what "falling down" means. Who is going to determine who is directly in line with the siddhanta, behaviour and moods of the true bhagavata parampara, or the Sampradaya Acaryas? Naturally, all gurus are expected to promote the idea that they are qualified, but how does the neophyte disciple or follower actually know who's in line and who isn't? If one who is in the guru parampara falls down, is he no longer in the guru parampara?

 

Narayana Maharaja writes:

 

"Guru-parampara is included in bhagavata-parampara. Those disciples who are fully following Gurudeva's mood and teachings are in the bhagavata-parampara."

 

Narayana Maharaja likes to include Srila Prabhupada and his own guru as both being in the bhagavata parampara, and there's much innuendo that all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples who didn't fall down are also members of the bhagavata parampara. Yet our Srila Prabhupada went so far as to call many of his Godbrothers useless, and certainly indicated that he did not accept them as being in the bhagavata-parampara. And this is the real point of contention. If Srila Prabhupada had not made those statements ­ not only in letters and conversations, but right in the purports of his books -- then one may be inclined to just accept assertions like Narayana Maharaj's. But the fact of the matter is Srila Prabhupada clearly chose to make such distinguishing points.

 

This means that Srila Prabhupada did not place these Godbrothers in the same category as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and all the others who Srila Prabhupada listed in the bhagavata parampara. Narayana Maharaja, on the other hand, is not clear about which one of his Spiritual Master's Godbrothers should and should not be included in the bhagavata parampara.

 

The fact that Narayana Maharaja differs from Srila Prabhupada in his categorization of who is a member of the bhagavata parampara distinguishes him and his teachings on guru-tattva from Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada never, ever made the statements that Narayana Maharaja has made in this article, namely that he considered that Narayana Maharaja's Spiritual Master, who was Srila Prabhupada's Godbrother, is a member of the bhagavata parampara.

 

While Srila Prabhupada took sannyasa initiation from Kesava Maharaja, from the time that he started ISKCON onward we find no reference to the fact that Srila Prabhupada considered Kesava Maharaja to be in some exalted position as the other Sampradaya Acaryas and bhagavata parampara members. For that matter, Srila Prabhupada never mentioned the fact that Narayana Maharaja was his siksa disciple, that he accepted him as such, and that such a relationship existed.

 

So much is revealed in this presentation by Narayana Maharaja that distinguishes how different his vision of the bhagavata parampara is from Srila Prabhupada's own vision. Those who choose to follow Narayana Maharaja as either their diksa or siksa guru ­ and especially those who had accepted diksa from Srila Prabhupada and siksa from Narayana Maharaja -- should make careful note of the fact that their diksa guru and their siksa guru differ in this very significant way.

 

Regardless of the sweet words spoken by Narayana Maharaja and his seeming glorifications of Srila Prabhupada, he avoids discussing the differences between them. In fact, he insinuates that there is no difference, that he and Srila Prabhupada were in agreement on these points. Yet Srila Prabhupada publicly admonished his Godbrothers for not following the mood of the bhagavata parampara, or as Narayana Maharaja says, the "siddhanta, behaviour and moods". That was the reason Srila Prabhupada concluded that they were not part of the bhagavata parampara.

 

In the concluding remarks of his lecture, Narayana Maharaja states that if you're not directly initiated by Srila Prabhupada, but are initiated by one of his bonafide disciples, then you're fortunate to be in his line. Again, he's not stating who is a bonafide disciple of Srila Prabhupada. In fact, he says that those who fall down are NOT disciples.

 

We know there are many so-called bonafide gurus in ISKCON, including those who have taken many disciples. The gurus are promoting the idea that they are in disciplic succession, and that consequently their disciples are in disciplic succession. At the same time, these gurus outwardly criticize Narayana Maharaja and don't consider him to be part of the guru parampara. This begs the question: is criticizing Narayana Maharaja a form of falldown? And if so, does Narayana Maharaja therefore conclude that these disciples are actually not initiated by someone who's bonafide, and therefore they are not in the guru parampara?

 

It's obvious that Narayana Maharaja wants his audience and followers to think one thing ­ namely, that Srila Prabhupada is part of the bhagavata parampara, Narayana Maharaja's guru is equally part of the bhagavata parampara, and Narayana Maharaja himself is therefore also part of the bhagavata parampara. But the question remains… who else is in the bhagavata parampara? What of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers? How many of those does Narayana Maharaja consider have fallen down? Does Narayana Maharaja consider that ISKCON gurus are in the bhagavata parampara?

 

These are all legitimate questions that we'd like to have answered by Narayana Maharaja, but I doubt we'll ever get straightforward answers on this subject. And neither will Narayana Maharaja's followers.

 

Rocana dasa

November 21, 2004

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Should chant more rounds instead of wondering what devotees 'really mean'.

[theist 1]

the link above leads to a page declaring the file is not found. I wonder what happened to it. Surely they are not censoring their own guru. So the text of his lecture must be somewhere.

[sumedh 0]

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

Both the links have an extra . at the end, removing it and then reloading gets the pages.

[shambu 0]

Maybe Rocana das

 

 

Should chant more rounds instead of wondering what devotees 'really mean'.

____

 

I wonder what U mean by saying this. By chanting more he will realize more; or: stop wondering - just chant hare krsna!? Just wondering...

[Guest guest]

I'm surprised that a Prabhupada disciple of perhaps 30 years or so does not know the difference between the Guru Parampara and the Bhagavata Parampara. These issues have been discussed repeatedly. Rocana is known for his scorn against Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers and the Gaudiya Math. This just looks like another tiresome attack. I really believe it does Srila Prabhupada an injustice for (some) of his disciples to continue attacking Gaudiya Math Vaishnavas.

 

Rocana, as do most of the ritviks, (I'm not saying Rocana is presently a ritvik, although he has had those leanings in the past), uses the phrase "Sampradaya Acarya", and claims that it is synonomous with Srila Narayana Maharaja's use of "Bhagavata Parampara". To the best of my knowledge, "Sampradaya Acarya" is a phrase coined by ritviks. You won't find this term in any of Srila Prabhupada's books or writings. If by Sampradaya Acaraya, Rocana actually means "Bhagavata Parampara", then why not use Bhagavata Parampara? This is the correct terminology used by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers.

 

Rocana ends his piece by assuming that his questions will not be answered by Srila Narayana Maharaja. How presumptuous. Srila Narayana Maharaja is known for clarifying and elaborating upon almost every conceivable doubt known (or unknown) which aspiring devotees have had or will have. But, the sensible way to get a response is to either ask Srila Maharaja in person (and he is available every year), ask his senior disciples who travel and preach around the globe (who are available several times a year here in the U.S.), or just write to Srila Narayana Maharaja. Simply posting some doubts on a website without making any effort to contact Srila Maharaja personally makes Rocana prabhu's motives appear to be a bit dubious.

 

Just my humble opinion...

 

 

Major Tom

[shambu 0]

In his discourse Rocana dasa mentions:

 

"Srila Prabhupada never, ever made the statements that Narayana Maharaja has made in this article, namely that he considered that Narayana Maharaja's Spiritual Master, who was Srila Prabhupada's Godbrother, is a member of the bhagavata parampara.

 

While Srila Prabhupada took sannyasa initiation from Kesava Maharaja, from the time that he started ISKCON onward we find no reference to the fact that Srila Prabhupada considered Kesava Maharaja to be in some exalted position as the other Sampradaya Acaryas and bhagavata parampara members."

 

I think this is nonsense. Would Prabhupada ever have accepted any sannyasa-guru who is outside the Bhagavata Parampara and not as exalted as other known members of the same parampara-system? Just read this lecture he gave at the occasion of his beloved sannyasa-guru's disappearance, that is more than just a formal speech.

 

Seattle, October 21, 1968

 

Lectures & Classes 681021DK.SEA

 

Prabhupada: One has to accept the renounced order from another person who is in renounced order. So I never thought that I shall accept this renounced order of life. In my family life, when I was in the midst of my wife and children, sometimes I was dreaming my spiritual master, that he's calling me, and I was following him. When my dream was over, I was thinking. I was little horrified. "Oh, Guru Maharaja wants me to become sannyasi. How can I accept sannyasa?" At that time, I was feeling not very satisfaction that I have to give up my family and have to become a mendicant. At that time, it was a horrible feeling. Sometimes I was thinking, "No, I cannot take sannyasa." But again I saw the same dream. So in this way I was fortunate. My Guru Maharaja (Prabhupada begins to cry, choked voice) pulled me out from this material life. I have not lost anything. He was so kind upon me. I have gained. I left three children, I have got now three hundred children. So I am not loser. This is material conception. We think that we shall be loser by accepting Krsna. Nobody is loser. I say from my practical experience. I was thinking that "How can I accept this renounced order of life? I cannot accept so much trouble."

 

So... But I retired from my family life. I was sitting alone in Vrndavana, writing books. So this, my Godbrother, he insisted me, "Bhaktivedanta prabhu..." This title was given in my family life. It was offered to me by the Vaisnava society. So he insisted me. Not he insisted me. Practically my spiritual master insisted me through him, that "You accept." Because without accepting the renounced order of life, nobody can become a preacher. So he wanted me to become a preacher. So he forced me through this Godbrother, "You accept." So unwillingly I accepted. And then I remembered that he wanted me to go to the Western country. So I am feeling now very much obliged to my, this Godbrother, that he carried out the wish of my spiritual master and enforced me to accept this sannyasa order.

 

So this Godbrother, His Holiness Kesava Maharaja, is no more. He has entered Krsna's abode. So I wish to pass a resolution of bereavement and send them. So... And I have composed one verse also in this connection in Sanskrit. So you all present, you sign this. I shall send it tomorrow. The verse I have composed, it is in Sanskrit. Vairagya-vidya-nija-bhakti-yogam. This Krsna consciousness is vairagya-vidya. Vairagya-vidya means to become detestful to this material world. That is called vairagya-vidya. And that is possible simply by this bhakti-yoga. Vairagya-vidya-nija-bhakti-yogam apayayan mam. So this... Just like medicine. The child is afraid of taking medicine. That also I have experienced. In my childhood, when I became ill, I was very stubborn. I won't accept any medicine. So my mother used to force medicine within my mouth with a spoon. I was so obstinate. So anyway, similarly, I did not want to accept this sannyasa order, but this Godbrother forced me. "You must." Apayayan mam, he forcefully made me to drink this medicine. Anabhipsu andham. Why I was unwilling? Anabhipsu means unwilling. Andham, andham means one who is blind, who cannot see his future. The spiritual life is the brightest future, but the materialists cannot see to it. You see? But the Vaisnavas, the spiritual master, they forcefully, "You drink this medicine." You see. Apayayan mam anabhipsu andham sri-kesava-bhakti-prajnana-nama.

 

So this my Godbrother, his name is Kesava, Bhaktiprajnana Kesava. Krpambudhi. So he did this favor upon me because he was ocean of mercy. So we offer our obeisances to Vaisnava, krpambudhi. Vancha-kalpa-tarubhyas ca krpa-sindhubhya eva ca. The Vaisnavas, the representatives of the Lord, they are so kind. They bring the ocean of mercy for distributing to the suffering humanity. Krpambudhir yas tam aham prapadye. So I am offering my respectful obeisances unto this His Holiness, because he forcefully made me adopt this sannyasa order. So he is no more in this world. He has entered Krsna's abode. So I am offering my respectful obeisances along with my disciples. On the first day of my sannyasa, I never thought, but I remembered that I'll have to speak in English. So I remember on that sannyasa day, when there was a reception, so I, first of all, I spoke in English. So it is all arrangement of Krsna, higher authority. We are writing like this,

 

"Resolved that we the undersigned members and devotees of International Society for Krishna Consciousness Incorporated, in a condolence meeting under the presidency of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, today the 21st of October, 1968, at our Seattle branch, express our profound bereavement on hearing the passing of His Divine Grace Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, the sannyasa guru, preceptor of our spiritual master, and on October 6th, 1968, at his headquarter residence in Nabadwip, West Bengal. We offer our respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of Sri Srimad B. P. Kesava Gosvami Maharaja with the following verse composed on this occasion by our spiritual master." This verse I have already explained to you. So I wish that you all sign this and I'll send it tomorrow by air mail. Have you got pencil?

 

HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

[theist 1]

I'll give it a try.

 

This difference between guru parampara and bhagavata parampara is something I never even considered before. Learn something new everyday.

[Guest guest]

Pankaja dasa, "Should chant more rounds instead of wondering what devotees 'really mean'. "

 

Whether you agree with Rocana dasa or not you should know he is a senior devotee from the sixties who spent much time very closely to Srila Prabhupada. There is a very famous picture of Rocana dasa sitting next to Srila Prabhupada giving class. Prabhupada is smiling at Rocana dasa.

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Did I say something offensive if so point it out?

 

All I said instead of wondering what a Vaishnava said we should get on with our own Sadhana. You have problem with this take it up with Krishna. haribol

[Guest guest]

Major Tom, "You won't find this term in any of Srila Prabhupada's books or writings."

 

Never say never!

 

Lecture at World Health Organization

Geneva, June 6, 1974

 

Prabhupada, "Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka."

[Guest guest]

I stand corrected then. Although technically, that was from a lecture at a Health Organization, not from Srila Prabhupada's books or writings, as I had stated. And, the context in which he used the phrase was quite broad, as he mentioned the 4 Sampradayas, and was not solely addressing Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

Regardless, I've heard ritviks use the term "Sampradaya Acarya" many times over the years, and it appears that their meaning is something entirely different from what Srila Prabhupada mentioned in this lecture.

 

But you're right, never say never, I guess there's always an exception.

 

 

Major Tom

[Kulapavana 0]

I have a hard time seeing any substantial differences between Srila Prabhupada's teachings and those of S.Narayana Maharaja... so I'm just going to respect both of them as much as I can.

 

disciples who try to glorify their spiritual master by belittling other Vaishnavas seem immature and offensive. I try to stay away from them.

[Guest guest]

"Never say never!

 

Lecture at World Health Organization

Geneva, June 6, 1974

 

Prabhupada, "Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka."

 

Seems to be used by Srila Prabhupada in a totally different context than the article above...

[Guest guest]

""Never say never!

 

Lecture at World Health Organization

Geneva, June 6, 1974

 

Prabhupada, "Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka."

 

Seems to be used by Srila Prabhupada in a totally different context than the article above... "

 

 

The point of posting that quote was to show Major Tom that the term is not a recently "concocted" term and was one that Srila Prabhupada spoke of and used.

 

Obviously, that simple point was lost on people who only want to discredit sampradaya acarya as just another concoction.

 

signed Not a Mushroom

[Guest guest]

The way Prabhupada used it was that the founders of the sampradayas are called sampradaya acaryas. Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Visnu Swami each started their own sampradaya. We belong to the Madhva Sampradaya. So in this use of the word there is only One sampradaya acarya in each sampradaya. Since we are an offshoot of the Madhva Sampradaya and do not follow the teachings of Madhva, he would not be our Sampradaya Acarya although we do consider him part of the Guru Parampara. Sri Caitanya is our Sampradaya Acarya.

 

Rocana uses the term in a different way. He defines the term to mean the current most empowered Acarya. For today this means A.C Bhaktivedanta and no one else. He believes that every so often the Sampradaya produces a Sampradaya acarya, that is a Guru who is charged with being the standard bearer for relevent preaching style and message giving for the specific day and age.

 

Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta, Bhaktivedanta are all considered by him to be Sampradaya acaryas. No one else in recent times.

 

So he teaches that anyone who wants to be considered a bona fide gaudiya vaisnava needs to be a siksa disciple of the current Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada.

 

In my understanding the Bhagavata Parampara also called the Siksa Parampara is the concept used to teach that the parampara is not based solely on direct Diksa lineage. You can be in the parampara and continue the parampara if you have received siksa without diksa. In this concept diksa means the pancaratrika initiation where the disciple recieves the mantra, beads, etc. So the idea is that the Gaudiya parampara is not purely a diksa lineage and even then we reject some of the diksa lineage as siksa gurus. That would be Madhvacarya and a handful of his followers who are in our Guru Parampara. They teach a different philosophy, so our siksa parampara skips them and takes up with Sri Madhavendra Puri to some degree, and then furthur with his disciple Isvara Puri, who then initiated Sri Caitanya into the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya. Mahaprabhu then fully broke away from the Madhvacarya conceptions and started the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya. And then from there the parampara continued sometimes with direct diksa or not.

 

So what Rocana teaches is that those acaryas that are considered to be in the Guru Siksa parampara are Sampradaya Acaryas. And those gurus who are not mentioned in the guru parampara are not relevant.

 

For instance Bhaktivedanta is considered by Rocana to be a Sampradaya Acarya, but not any of his godbrothers or anyone else recently.

 

I have some problems with this concept because it seems to leave the definition of the Sampradaya Acarya up to the individual. Who is the person who can decide who is and who is not the Sampradaya Acarya ?

 

I think he makes things more complicated then they need to be. The bona fide spiritual master is considered to be the representative of Nityananda, whether he is well known and does a lot of public preaching and makes many disciples, or if he is totally unknown and has only a single siksa disciple, the Guru is one.

 

From Srila Prabhupada speaking to the audience at Bhaktisiddhanta's Vyasa Puja 1936:

 

 

Gentlemen, the offering of such an homage as has been arranged this evening to the acaryadeva is not a sectarian concern, for when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application. There does not arise any question of discrirninating my guru from yours or anyone else's.

 

There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forrns to teach you, me and all others.

 

In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.2.12) it is said:

 

tad-vijnartham sa gurum evabhigacchet samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham

 

"In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Tmth.''

 

Thus it has been enjoined herewith that in order to receive that transcendental knowledge, one must approach the guru. Therefore, if the Absolute Truth is one, about which we think there is no difference of opinion, the guru cannot be two. The acaryadeva to whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the jagad-guru, or the guru of all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly.

 

In the Bhagavatam (11.17.27) it is said:

 

 

acaryam mam vijaniyan

navamanyeta karhicit

na martya-buddhyasuyeta

sarva-deva mayoguruh

 

"One should understand the spiritual master to be as good as I am," said the Blessed Lord. "Nobody should be jealous of the spiritual master or think of him as an ordinary man, because the spiritual master is the sum total of all demigods." That is, the acarya has been identified with God Himself. He has nothing to do with the affairs of this mundane world. He appears before us to reveal the light of the Vedas and to bestow upon us the blessing of full-fledged freedom, after which we should hanker at every step of our life's journey.

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

"...So he teaches that anyone who wants to be considered a bona fide gaudiya vaisnava needs to be a siksa disciple of the current Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada."

 

this is a very, very risky definition of a bona fide gaudiya vaisnava, not supported by our tradition. so... what does it make all the other gaudiya Vaishnavas? Bogus? that is such a nonsense! SP never preached like that. it is almost as bad as when in the 70's some knucklehead "disciples" of Srila Prabhupada declared him to be God. fools rush in where angels dare to thread...

 

[Guest guest]

"The point of posting that quote was to show Major Tom that the term is not a recently "concocted" term and was one that Srila Prabhupada spoke of and used."

 

I assume you are responding to another guest. However, since you have addressed me, at least indirectly, let me clarify. You say Srila Prabhupada "spoke of and used" this term: Sampradaya Acarya. You have given one example only. I was around during the 70's, was initiated twice by Srila Prabhupada, and have read his books, but have never once heard him use the term Sampradaya Acarya. I also never heard any of my Godbrothers use the term, at least not until about 8 or 10 years ago, when the ritvik movement began picking up some momentum. You seem to be trying to insinuate that it was a standard part of Srila Prabhupada's vocabulary. If you can find more instances from the Folio, especially instances where Srila Prabhupad has written this term in his books, or at least in Bhagavatam classes, (and not just to a general audience of mostly non-devotees at a Health Convention), then perhaps you can convince me that Srila Prabhupada did in fact use this term in his preaching, not just in one isolated incident. I've already respectfully conceded that the ritviks did not "invent" the term. But as far as putting the term in common usage, I still give credit to those of the ritvik persuasion. But perhaps you may be able to convince me otherwise. I try to be honest in my dealings with devotees who hold differing views. I expect the same from you, and it might be helpful, in discussing these issues, if you can refrain from calling others "mushrooms", even in an indirect way. This is not conducive for honest debate.

 

Major Tom

[Guest guest]

Since we are talking about aa concept put forth by Rocana, I will post his quotes where Prabhupada used the term "Sampradaya Acarya". There are only 2 that he uses on his website article "Sampradaya Acarya":

 

 

"So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

la Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 11-30-72, Hyderabad

 

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."

Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

 

He posts no other instances. Since I have already explained the second quote as being a list of Vaisnavas who founded Sampradayas in the "modern" age [as opposed to the vedic age], I will comment on the first quote.

 

Srila Prabhupada says:

 

"So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession"

 

And then he quotes from the Gita about receiving the knowledge coming down originally from Krishna, and that this process is the guru parampara. Here is the verse:

 

"This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost."

 

So using this verse as the context of what Prabhupada said, he seems to be saying that the discipic succession is relating the teachings of the Sampradaya acarya, the originator of the teachings. Since the only other time Prabhupada used the term "Sampradaya Acarya" was in reference to founders of Sampradayas, then we can conclude that here also he mens that the disciplic succession is a disciplic succession BECAUSE it carries the message of the Sampradaya Acarya i.e the founder of the Sampradaya. Which is our case is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Now here is what Rocana says about what makes a bona fide member of the disciplic succession.

 

"The prerequisite qualification for all those making claim that they are situated in the “line of disciplic succession” is the accuracy of their realized recognition of the prominent Sampradaya Acarya. Due to frequent gaps between visible manifestations, it behooves those within the parampara constituency to demonstrate an appreciative and appropriate glorification, commitment and assistance to the mission of the latest Sampradaya Acarya.

 

 

Being a bonafide member or representative of the Sampradaya is distinctly different than being a Sampradaya Acarya. Sincere members of the Sampradaya make unfettered spiritual advancement when they dedicate their efforts to thoroughly comprehending the prominent Sampradaya Acarya’s teachings, pastimes, mission, and mood. Reinforced with such realized absolute knowledge, the sincere adherent can venture forth in search of the most advantageous transcendental association."

 

Now of course he takes it as a given that his concept of Sampradaya Acarya [i.e an Acarya superior to other Acaryas, but not just a founder of the Sampradaya], is a real and supportable concept, although the only support is a few quotes from Srila Prabhupada, none from Sastra, and those quotes are clearly cognate with his interpretation of them.

 

Then he invents a new siddhanta.

 

This concept he puts forth in the above is news to me. The only quotes he uses to back up this concept are not from sastra, they are mostly from A.C Bhaktivedanta, and even then those quotes do not mention Sampradaya Acarya. Here is the main quote he uses:

 

 

"Srila Prabhupada writes in the Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya lila 25:9 Purport:

 

 

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura then comments: "Without being empowered by the direct potency of Lord Krsna to fulfill His desire and without being specifically favored by the Lord, no human being can become the spiritual master of the whole world. He certainly cannot succeed by mental concoction, which is not meant for devotees or religious people. Only an empowered personality can distribute the holy name of the Lord and enjoin all fallen souls to worship Krsna. By distributing the holy name of the Lord, he cleanses the hearts of the most fallen people; therefore he extinguishes the blazing fire of the material world. Not only that, he broadcasts the shining brightness of Krsna's effulgence throughout the world. Such an Acarya, or spiritual master, should be considered nondifferent from Krsna-that is, he should be considered the incarnation of Lord Krsna's potency. Such a personality is “krsna lingita-vigraha”- that is, he is always embraced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. Such a person is above the considerations of the varnasrama institution. He is the guru or spiritual master for the entire world, a devotee on the topmost platform, the maha-bhagavata stage, and a paramahamsa-thakura, a spiritual form only fit to be addressed as paramahamsa or thakura."

 

 

Now this description of an Acarya is the exact same description given repeatedly throughout Prabhupadas writings and lectures. It is only saying that the bona fide spiritual master is empowered by dint of being on the highest level i.e an Uttama or Paramahamsa. This quote mentions nothing about Rocana's concept of Sampradaya Acarya. All it does is tell us the nature and ability of a Maha Bhagavata.

 

Rocana's views in the above paragraphs are not mentioned in any quote he provides. He extrapolates the concept of "Sampradaya Acarya" from various quotes. But there is no direct source for his concept, which unequivocally puts forth the same concept that he does.

 

[Guest guest]

I made an error above.

 

When I wrote

 

"Now of course he takes it as a given that his concept of Sampradaya Acarya [i.e an Acarya superior to other Acaryas, but not just a founder of the Sampradaya], is a real and supportable concept, although the only support is a few quotes from Srila Prabhupada, none from Sastra, and those quotes are **clearly cognate** with his interpretation of them."

 

It should have read **clearly NOT cognate**