Sampradaayas and Apasampradaayas (was Quibbling)

[Guest guest]

achintya, Jan Brzezinski <jankbrz> wrote:

> Of course there will be such "accusations" on the

> Internet and elsewhere. There is a statement of

> historical fact--The Gaudiya Math has not parampara

> connection, at least not in the way it was understood

> by the sampradaya before Siddhanta Saraswati.

 

This is by no means a statement of fact. We have been over this

before many times, and it does not become any more correct the more

it is stated without reference to the actual evidence.

 

You have held that all connections in the sampradaaya must be by

diiksha only, by which you refer to the complete ritual and

transmission of a mantra. But, in the sampradaaya before Siddhanta

Saraswati, there is no evidence that such a thing took place between

Brahma and Naarada, between Naarada and Vyaasa, between Vyaasa and

Madhva, between the co-disciples of Madhva, or between Vyaasa Tiirtha

and Lakshmiipati Tiirtha. Please note that for your view to be

correct, you must prove unequivocally that all the connections in the

paramparaa listed by Baladeva were clearly diiksha connections. If

you cannot do this, then you cannot use "the sampradaya before

Siddhanta Saraswati" as an example to take issue with the listing

given by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

Either paramparaa means that each one is initiated by diiksha by the

former one, or it does not necessarily mean this. You cannot have it

both ways, and then take issue with the Saarasvata Gaudiiya line.

 

You cannot argue that the sampradaaya before Chaitanya does not

matter, because Gaudiiyas have given that paramparaa listing. If your

views on paramparaa were correct, then Gaudiiya aachaaryas would not

give a listing that includes connections where there was clearly no

diiksha, since that would violate the Gaudiiya principle which you

claim to be in effect.

 

You cannot argue that we will accept some connections (like the

diiksha of Madhva by Vyaasa) based on the testimony of an aachaarya,

and similarly ignore an aachaaraya's testimony in other cases. Either

the guru's testimony is valid to substantiate the paramparaa, or it

is not. You must apply the standard uniformly.

 

Nor can you argue for the incorrectness of shiksha lines based on

Vedic evidence. The Brahmaa-Naarada-Vyaasa line is given in Shriimad

Bhaagavatam 2nd Canto (verses already quoted by me), even though

nothing other than the passing down of Shriimad Bhaagavatam is spoken

of. Please note that Maadhvas do not list the paramparaa before

Vyaasa this way; only Gaudiiyas do. Therefore, the Krishna-Brahmaa-

Naarada-Vyaasa listing is very much a distinctive Gaudiiya tradition.

It cannot be ignored.

 

Nor can we ignore the most famous shiksha initiation - Arjuna was

instructed by Lord Krishna in Bhagavad-gita, and everywhere therein

it is clear that Krishna had become Arjuna's guru. That Arjuna did

not instruct anyone else does not disqualify this basic fact. Nor is

it consonant with Gita's teachings to suggest that paramparaa can

only be diiksha in nature, as Krishna uses the term "paramparaa"

explicitly in speaking of the descent of His teachings through

kshatriya kings (BG 4.1-4.2).

 

zrI-bhagavAn uvAca

imaM vivasvate yogaM proktavAn aham avyayam

vivasvAn manave prAha manur ikSvAkave 'bravIt

 

The Personality of Godhead, Lord SrI KRSNa, said: I instructed this

imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, VivasvAn, and VivasvAn

instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn

instructed it to IkSvAku.

 

evaM paramparA-prAptam imaM rAjarSayo viduH

sa kAleneha mahatA yogo naSTaH parantapa

 

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.

 

The crucial point here is the nature of paramparaa. The above is

clearly an example of "paramparaa," in a mainstream source that

anyone claiming to be a Vaishnava is bound to accept. As these are

kings through whom the teachings are being passed on, there is no

diiksha initiation being performed between any of them. We therefore

have a clear example of a paramparaa that is shiksha in nature. You

cannot therefore say that paramparaas must be diiksha only, unless

you want to now claim that Gaudiiyas have redefined the institution

of paramparaa in a way that challenges the Vedic concept of it.

 

> It is the followers of Siddhanta Saraswati who condemn

> all those who went before as "apasampradayas."

 

This is an example of a strawman criticism. Let's think this through

before attributing absurd propositions to any spiritual leader.

 

Why would Srila Bhaktisiddanta condemn his guru's gurus' gurus, as

given in his paramparaa listing, when he himself descended in that

line? Obviously, he did not criticize "all those who went before,"

and to say that is simply dishonest.

 

You have earlier stated that "Of course there will be

such "accusations" on the Internet and elsewhere." From this, I

understand that you are not interested in substantiating the

criticisms or accusations of just any follower of the babaji lines.

Fair enough, but in that case, you should be similarly loathe to

discuss the behavior of just any neophyte in the Saarasvata line.

Therefore, we should limit ourselves to what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

and Srila Bhaktivedanta have actually stated.

 

What Srila Bhaktisiddhanta criticized were clear cut abuses of

Gaudiiya doctrine. These are summarized at

http://www.iskcon.org/main/twohk/philo/roots/apasam.htm

 

Please review these and see if you find any of these criticisms

unreasonable. The criticized parties, as defined by the author of

this document, include: (1) caste gosvamis, who believed that their

gosvami status was inherited, (2) smaarta braahmanas, who emphasize

rules and regulations above remembering Lord Krishna Himself, (3)

prakrita-sahajiyas, who imitate the behavior of advanced devotees

although they forego the reformatory process of rules and

regulations, (4) Gauranga-nagaris, who are not interested in relating

to Lord Chaitanya in His capacity as a devotee, (5) the sakhi-

bekhi/chudadaris, who imitate the raasa-liila, (6) Ativadis, whose

founder was condemned by Lord Chaitanya, who mix their philosophy

with elements of impersonalism, and includes such pseudo-incarnations

as Bisa Kisen, (7) Aulas/Bauls/Sani/Duravesas who mix in elements of

Islam or Tantric teachings with that of Vaishnavism, (8) Kartabhajas -

who consider the guru to be God, and (9) Neda-nedis -

Vaishnava/buddhist syncretists.

 

I see absolutely no reason why anyone who considers himself to be a

Gaudiiya Vaishnava should not be philosophically opposed to these

deviant doctrines *as they are defined in the above document.* Not

only that, but Vaishnavas should be opposed to such deviant ideas

even when they creep into the teachings of seemingly respectable

Vaishnavas.

 

On the other hand, if you wish me to be sympathetic to the groups

above along with their misconceptions, then frankly I don't think you

are in any position to pontificate over what is or is not orthodox

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism.

 

yours,

 

- K