Guest guest Posted May 3, 2003 Report Share Posted May 3, 2003 Nityananda-Gauranga bol! Krishna Susarla writes: > Well the only question to ask is, how does this matter > concerning his edition of Tattva-sandarbha? >> It matters because many devotees in the West have a tendency to read books with an uncritical eye, especially after they have heard any sort of glorification of the author's devotional credentials. << No statement was made by myself or others about his devotional credentials. After I stated at the outset that he "was" a pandit, I then replied to Mukunda Datta das's notation of the past tense to which I subsequently replied that he no longer serves in ISKCON but his scholarly credentials remain unbeatable to date and certainly formidable. Only Satyanarayana prabhu's scholarship has been glorified here, nothing else. >> I have refrained from making any specific case on his spiritual "potency" or some other intangible factor, except for pointing out the undisputed fact that he clearly differs from the Saarasvata-Chaitanya line in the very important matter of guru-tattva. << No problem with that, as far as I can see. >> That of course puts him at odds with Lord Chaitanya's own instructions and many shaastric precedents, as quoted in earlier discussions. I am aware that you disagree. Suffice it to say that we can reincarnate the discussion if you wish. << No problem with that either, I am all for it. But at least for this posting I am going to stick to the issue of Satyanarayana das if you don't mind. [i have also changed the subject line to reflect the topic, as it no longer relates to "sarva-samvadhini"] > Does his > rejected diksa have any obtuse effect on his high > level of scholarship? >> To put it simply, yes. I don't need to quote the example of "evam paramparaa praaptam idam raajarshayoH viduH" or other verses like it as an obvious prescription to receive spiritual knowledge in a proper paramparaa. It is indeed a problem to write any treatise on spiritual knowledge without the proper qualification. There are so many warnings against it that it seems more an insult to your intelligence to actually quote them. << I disagree. By rejecting diksa in the Sarasvata line because he thinks it is an inauthentic line is only a matter of his own personal feelings and his own conclusions. He does not remain 'diksa-less' so to speak, but he has aligned himself in the direct diksa line that is descended from Sri Gadadhara Pandita. No problem with that as far as I can see, so the question if his "spiritual potency" does not arise. However, I must say that it is not immediately important to me which parampara he belongs to, as my singular point is that his scholarship skills remain unassailable. As for parampara, that means "unbroken disciplic succession," emphasis on *unbroken.* >> I think where we differ is in what we consider to be a bona fide paramparaa. As I have stated previously, I do not consider someone to be a bona fide Gaudiiya Vaishnava if they differ with Lord Chaitanya and the spirit of His instruction, even if they mechanically follow certain regulations. << With all due respect, what *we* think is really of no consequence because parampara is a matter of succession. The tradition is that acceptance is noted via diksa only, into a recognised parivara (line) that can be directly traced to one of Sri Caitanya's personal associates. No other sort of parampara has arose since then, until of course, the advent of Srila Sarasvati Thakura. Though I do agree that you bring up a good point; what is the use of following mechanically while not following the spirit of Caitanya's instructions. Well, the only thing I can say is, who is following mechanically? My experience of sadhakas in these lines is that they possess a level of commitment to their sadhana and bhajan, and also to the sastras, that I rarely see. From that standpoint I think it should be agreeable that "mechanical" has to be more clearly defined here. As for following the spirit of Sri Caitanya's instructions, it was previously stated in the earlier discussion (by me) that there have arisen two different trypes of Gaudiya devotees; the bhajananandi and the gosthyanandi. The bhajananandi focuses on his own sadhana and process of worship (and praches within his own circle) and the gosthyanandi focuses on widespread preaching of Hari-nama, etc. In fact, these two definitions of devotees were not recognised in the early days of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, as I have heard that these definitions have been quoted (created?) by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and has also been quoted by recent Acharyas. Again, no problem with that as far as I can see, but it should be noted that there are two types of devotees of Sri Caitanya and both are perfectly bona fide in what they do. >> Similarly, one can mechanically follow certain regulations, but reveal his deviation when he criticizes those who follow other regulations. << That is unfortunate. It is in the nature of a Vaishnava not to criticise or find fault. >> Needless to say, I don't fault anyone for joining or leaving any particular society. I judge based what he speaks and whether or not it seems consistent with guru, saadhu, and shaastra. << Wonderful, then perhaps you would like to make a critical analysis of his view about the cit potency being inherent in jivas? > taken initiation from Haridas Sastri, one of the > greatest living pundits in Vrindavan today who is > coming in the Gadadhara-parivara. >> Of course, such praise is based on the implicit assumption that everone accepts Haridas Shastri's spiritual credentials. I doubt if most people ever heard of Haridas Shastri until Satyanarayana dasa published the Tattva-Sandarbha under his tutelage. << Again, let me point out that nobody including myself made any mention of the spiritual credentials of either Haridas Sastri or Satyanarayan das. Any praise that has been given to them is based purely on their scholarly expertise that remains hard to beat. As such, I do regard them as having produced excellent and most authoritative translations of Gaudiya-sastra. Speaking of which, I don't think he wrote Tattva-sandarbha under his tutelage. Rather, he wrote it while he was still in ISKCON. This is probably why he wrote those serialised essays in BTG in the first place, as an introduction/explanation to the Sandarbhas. >> Then again, being popular (or not being popular) has nothing to do with being a bona fide Vaishnava. My point is simply that you probably aren't in a position to judge his spiritual standing accurately, and as such your pronouncement is just unqualified opinion. For example, can you even say that you met him? Or that you have studied his writings? << Well that itself is a subjective judgment. No I have not met either of them, but yes I have read their writings. That is why I can conclusively say that their scholarship credentials are unassailable. >> "Greatness" is such a subjective thing. We can't estimate an aachaarya's authenticity if we don't look at him in the context of those who preceeded him. This is both in terms of how he behaves and what he teaches. Blind acceptance or rejection does not do anyone justice. << Yet again, nobody mentioned any Acharyas. It was simply mentioned that Haridas Sastri is one of the most greatest scholars living in Vrindavan-dhama today. He also happens to be initiated into the Gadadhara-parivara and obviously he is initiating disciples. > Also, I think that certain words could have been > better chosen here. >> I disagree. To deviate means to diverge from an accepted party line (in this case, both the spirit of Mahaaprabhu's movement and the shaastras upon which it is based). << I don't think you understand what I meant here. Let me clarify; the hidden implications of your original words may lead one to think that taking initiation in a parivara such as one headed by Sri Gadadhara Pandita, a personal associate of Sriman Mahaprabhu and an incarnation of Srimati Radharani, is a deviation. Obviously this is probably not what you meant to say, but that was perhaps the implication for unexperienced devotees. As always, it is most essential to be careful about what we say and also how it may sound. By the way, please clarify exactly what you mean by "party line." Earlier you stated that you have no interest in the mechanics of joining or leaving a specific society, so please can you clarify this seeming contradiction in your words? >> Deviation is hardly a bad word when compared to some of the outrageous remarks made by the critics against Srila Prabhupada's paramparaa Feel free to read the original articles to get the full flavor and context. << Oh yes, I have read that thread and that notorious article many times, and frankly I am quite sick of it. It mainly seems that the same objections are raised again and again with no conclusion. It goes without saying that such statements are offensive, but that, however, does not justify any form of retaliatory behaviour. As is well known, a person who flings mud back at the person who first flung mud is no better. [speaking of which, I still have to see a point-by-point *convincing* refutation] Also, I note that you referred to this URL before in a previous discussion and also mentioning that you yourself took part in this thread. I suspect that you would like a response to these efforts and so I will gladly serve you: - Some of the points you made were not based on reliable evidence. As we know, unreliable evidence is no evidence - It seems that there is a problem in accepting the superiority of diksa over siksa. - Sorry to say, but in that discussion you perhaps inadvertently caused offences to disciples of Srila Prabhupada. >> The specific point at issue here is whether diiksha is necessary and sufficient to legitimize a paramparaa. << Yes it is. >> The puurva-pakshins argue that it is both. << Who exactly are the purvapakshins here? As I view it, such diksa lines have been going on uninterrupted since the time of Sriman Mahaprabhu with no change. There is no other definition of parampara in the Gaudiya tradition, except of course until the advent of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. Thus technically, the purvapakshins are the followers of Srila Sarasvati Thakura. >> If this is correct, then it effectively invalidates the Saarasvata line, which as listed by Srila Prabhupada in Bhagavad Gita As It Is, consists of many shiksha connections. There is no middle road here, as I understand their position. Accepting their position requires that you accept that Srila Prabhupada and his line are not bona fide, Gaudiiya Vaishnavas. We should be clear on that. << Not necessarily. My particular faith in Srila Prabhupada's disciplic line has not been moved even one inch. Personally I would be much grateful to see any clear evidence (at least as has been understood in the Gaudiya tradition) that this line is connected to parampara that is satisfactory to all concerned parties. It may be so that Srila Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada was able to justify his position based on tradition and sastra and that is probably why we don't hear of so much criticisms being levelled during his manifest pastimes (funny how this only seemed to arise after his disappearance, isn't it?), but it seems that there is no record of this. His lectures were not taped, and if he wrote it in a book then that book may have been lost over due course of time. Thus unfortunately as it stands, there doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence in this regard. Also I note that nobody has as yet given a convincing clear refutations of noteworthy objection. Your next five points do not immediately concern the issue of Satyanarayana das, so I will refrain from answering them for now and will keep them on hold to answer at a future date. Excuse me. > As has > been noted elsewhere in this posting, this was > discussed before with no clear result and consensus. >>...which is besides the point. Correctness is not dependent on consensus, any more than siddhaanta is dependent on vox populi. << I am glad to hear you agree that such issues are resolved only on the basis of clear sastric pramana. > and it is > almost impossible to count the number of careless > mistakes in that article. Suffice to say, it is > worthless as a piece of evidence of any sort. >> That is a very bold statement, if not explicitly substantiated. Suffice it to say that the specific URL to it has been provided and every opportunity given for you to back up your claim with a point-by-point analysis, on this very forum if you wish. I am neither standing by it nor attacking it. I am simply pointing out that you must make your case in a less arbitrary fashion. << I do note that my statement may have been bold, but it is probably no more bold than some of B.G.Narasingha's points in that article that is filled with misconceptions. Regarding my refutation of it, it is simply not possible. Many people have fallen into the trap of thinking that such criticisms are levelled at a general group of Vaishnavas. In fact, the sad truth is that siddhanta is *not* one but differs according to parampara. Therefore, a follower of Gadhadhara-parivara will give a specific refutation, a follower of Nityananda-parivara will give another, a follower of Advaita-parivara yet another, and so it goes on. That is why his article has been termed by myself as a worthless piece of evidence precisly because this, the inability to specify objections to a specific parampara. Although I have myself read that article many times, Satyanarayana is mentioned in several places so I am guessing that his objections are towards Satyanarayana and thus the Gadadhara-parivara. However, he has said plenty of things that are a direct objection towards the practices and siddhanta of other parivaras too. That is why it is near-impossible to form a complete refutation to his paper as learned representatives of all parivaras concerned shall have to be consulted for their specific points of refutation. This is also why it is so important to know who you are talking with, and be prepared to hear a different opinion from others. It also goes without saying that if they can back up their claims with sastra or tradition, or even empirical knowledge in some cases, then their point is bona fide. That being said, I must kindly inform you that I did indeed consult on this paper with a follower of Nityananda-parivara. As I was not aware that this paper objected to spurious things irregardles of parampara, he kindly informed me of the many objections that I have outlined above and so I only limited myself to discussing only a couple of points from that article that was immediately on my mind. Besides, I myself am still in the stage of avid research so I don't think it is proper to give a refutation of any point when it is likely that I could either have been misinformed or that I have heard different things from different sources. I can let you know of those points if you wish. Let me know if you would like them in private or public. Kind regards, Jay P.S. Also, I am going to be very busy in the near future, so kindly excuse me if I do not submit a quick reply. I should be more available on and after Wednesday. ===== "One who chants Gauranga's name will get the mercy of Krsna, and he will be able to live in Vrndavana. One who worships Krsna without chanting the name of Gauranga will get Krsna only after a long time. But he who takes Gauranga's name quickly gets Krsna, for offenses do not remain within him." - Sri Narada Muni, Navadvipa Dhama-mahatmya, Chapter 7 The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9> wrote: > I disagree. By rejecting diksa in the Sarasvata line > because he thinks it is an inauthentic line is only a > matter of his own personal feelings and his own > conclusions. Precisely. They are his own personal feelings and conclusions. They are not Lord Chaitanya's conclusions, or the conclusions of shaastra, at least as far as guru tattva is concerned. He does not remain 'diksa-less' so to > speak, but he has aligned himself in the direct diksa > line that is descended from Sri Gadadhara Pandita. No > problem with that as far as I can see, so the question The fact that anyone in India can get diiksha merely by accident of brahmin birth does not make diiksha a legitimizing process of its own accord. This is common sense. The question becomes one of whether or not the diiksha is true to the line of Shrii Chaitanya, and that is where Satyanaraya et. al. must be scrutinized. > if his "spiritual potency" does not arise. However, I > must say that it is not immediately important to me > which parampara he belongs to, It is very important to me what paramparaa one claims to represent, as the institution of paramparaa is a necessary prerequisite to presenting any Vedic literature. If we are reading Satyanarayana as an academic scholar on Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, then that is one thing. If we are reading him as a representative of the same, then that is quite another. Given the number of differences between Satyanarayana's doctrine and Shrii Chaitanya's teachings, I cannot at this time accept the former as a bona fide representative of the latter. as my singular point is > that his scholarship skills remain unassailable. ....which is nothing more than blind glorification, of the type I previously objected to. > As for parampara, that means "unbroken disciplic > succession," emphasis on *unbroken.* It is interesting that that you do not include within your definition, the implicit understanding of remaining true to the predecessor aachaaryas' teachings. > >> I think where we differ is in what we consider to > be a bona fide paramparaa. As I have stated > previously, I do not consider someone to be a bona > fide Gaudiiya Vaishnava if they differ with Lord > Chaitanya and the spirit of His instruction, even if > they mechanically follow certain regulations. << > > With all due respect, what *we* think is really of no > consequence because parampara is a matter of > succession. Reading your reply to my remarks above, it seems, then, that you consider diiksha to be a legitimizing tool even if the disciple departs from the previous aachaaryas. At least, that is how I read it. Please correct me if I am wrong. Of course, Lord Chaitanya did depart from the teachings of Madhvaachaarya, but everyone knows this is an exceptional case; Lord Chaitanya never claimed to be a Maadhva. The tradition is that acceptance is noted > via diksa only, into a recognised parivara (line) that > can be directly traced to one of Sri Caitanya's > personal associates. Vedic tradition supersedes the traditions of individual paramparaas. More specifically, that each sampradaaya has its own traditions is acceptable so long as Vedic traditions are not rejected. For an aachaarya to observe a Vedic tradition does not invalidate his claim to being an orthodox representative of a specific sampradaaya, and claiming otherwise is implicitly acknowledging that the sampradaaya is not Vedic. Another way of saying this is, if a sampradaaya is truly bona fide, that it cannot be closed minded and anti-Vedic in its practice. We have already shown abundant examples of shiksha only connections prior to Lord Chaitanya. No other sort of parampara has > arose since then, until of course, the advent of Srila > Sarasvati Thakura. And yet Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana listed a paramparaa from Lord Krishna through Madhva, even though it contains several non-diiksha connections. Either such a paramparaa is compatible with Gaudiiya understanding of paramparaa, or Baladeva was a liar and cheat. You can't have your cake and eat it too. > Though I do agree that you bring up a good point; what > is the use of following mechanically while not > following the spirit of Caitanya's instructions. Well, > the only thing I can say is, who is following > mechanically? For example, devotees who wear white, while simultaneously criticizing devotees for wearing saffron, even though those same devotees are carrying out Lord Chaitanya's order to spread Krishna- consciousness all over the world, is an example of mechanical adherence to regulations without being true to the spirit of them. My experience of sadhakas in these lines > is that they possess a level of commitment to their > sadhana and bhajan, and also to the sastras, that I > rarely see. From that standpoint I think it should be > agreeable that "mechanical" has to be more clearly > defined here. It seems only reasonable to ask what your "experience" actually consists of. Assuming you have met a fraction of the total of number of the sadhakas in "these lines," and your senses and mind have led you to correct conclusions about them, your point is still tangential at best. We are not discussing austerity (although that, too, is certainly a prerequisite to being a bona fide follower of Lord Chaitanya), but rather doctrinal loyalty. I don't care for "Gaudiiya Vaishnavas" who are not committed to Lord Chaitanya's teachings even if they are very austere, any more than I do for "Gaudiiya Vaishnavas" who are not very austere but are loyal to Lord Chaitanya's teachings. As for following the spirit of Sri > Caitanya's instructions, it was previously stated in > the earlier discussion (by me) that there have arisen > two different trypes of Gaudiya devotees; the > bhajananandi and the gosthyanandi. ....which is not the issue. The issue rather, is why some of those who choose to do bhajan should criticize those who wish to preach. The latter is clearly the instruction of Lord Chaitanya. "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." The critics often give the example of Ruupa and Sanaatana Gosvamis to legitimize their gurus' approach, but Ruupa and Sanaatana Gosvamis never objected to travelling preachers or saffron-clad Gaudiiya Vaishnavas in practice. > Wonderful, then perhaps you would like to make a > critical analysis of his view about the cit potency > being inherent in jivas? Perhaps you could fill me in on what the controversy is here. > > taken initiation from Haridas Sastri, one of the > > greatest living pundits in Vrindavan today who is > > coming in the Gadadhara-parivara. > > >> Of course, such praise is based on the implicit > assumption that everone accepts Haridas Shastri's > spiritual credentials. I doubt if most people ever > heard of Haridas Shastri until Satyanarayana dasa > published the Tattva-Sandarbha under his tutelage. << > > Again, let me point out that nobody including myself > made any mention of the spiritual credentials of > either Haridas Sastri or Satyanarayan das. Your statement "one of the greatest living pundits in Vrindavan" is precisely the kind of unrestrained praise I am talking about. You may or may not be correct, but I think you should own up to the fact that you have no first-hand experience with him, or even the knowledge base to evaluate his scholarly credentials. As such, your pronouncements are merely unqualified opinion based on wishful thinking. Any praise > that has been given to them is based purely on their > scholarly expertise that remains hard to beat. As > such, I do regard them as having produced excellent > and most authoritative translations of Gaudiya-sastra. Again, I do not see how you are in any position to offer such unqualified praise. I prefer to say simply that I find SNd's translation of the Tattva-sandarbha to be well researched and logical in its flow of ideas. It is superior in its presentation to any other translation of the Tattva-sandarbha that I have read to date, but I have not read many in all honesty. The fact remains that other TS translations are not accompanied by commentary or research (at least not the ones I have seen). > Speaking of which, I don't think he wrote > Tattva-sandarbha under his tutelage. Rather, he wrote > it while he was still in ISKCON. This is probably why > he wrote those serialised essays in BTG in the first > place, as an introduction/explanation to the > Sandarbhas. He did the translations while he was still in ISKCON, but he was taking instruction from Haridaasa Shaastri at the same time. In the introduction of the book he gives credit to both Haridaasa Shaastri and Srila Prabhupada. Later he went on to reject Srila Prabhupada. > >> My > point is simply that you probably aren't in a position > to judge his spiritual standing accurately, and as > such your pronouncement is just unqualified opinion. > For example, can you even say that you met him? Or > that you have studied his writings? << > > Well that itself is a subjective judgment. No I have > not met either of them, but yes I have read their > writings. That is why I can conclusively say that > their scholarship credentials are unassailable. That of course, is a pronouncement based on your perception of his scholarship only; it says nothing of the qualification of the men in question. Hence, my reservation to offer the kind of praise which you give freely. Since we are supposed to follow the devotional ideal, we must be concerned both with proper saadhana and proper scholarship. You are in no position to evaluate the former, and far as the latter is concerned, you are also not in a very objective position (since all you know about the Sandarbhas is what you read from Satyanarayana's translation). Of course, you can glorify him even still. Just realize that it is all subjective on your part. > > Also, I think that certain words could have been > > better chosen here. > > >> I disagree. To deviate means to diverge from an > accepted party line (in this case, both the spirit of > Mahaaprabhu's movement and the shaastras upon which it > is based). << > > I don't think you understand what I meant here. Let me > clarify; the hidden implications of your original > words may lead one to think that taking initiation in > a parivara such as one headed by Sri Gadadhara > Pandita, a personal associate of Sriman Mahaprabhu and > an incarnation of Srimati Radharani, is a deviation. No, I didn't say that at all, and there is no way one can read that into what I say unless they are trying to change the subject. What I have said, time and time again, is the idea that only diiksha legitimizes a paramparaa connection is the deviation from Mahaaprabhu's stand, and those paramparaas who hold to this view are deviating from Mahaaprabhu. My exact quote: "However, if memory serves, he has also fallen for the "diiksha only" deviation that other critics of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta have embraced. He does not accept Srila Prabhupada's disciplic descent from Lord Chaitanya as genuine." I have said nothing about the entire paramparaa which SNd represents, since to do so would be generalization. > Obviously this is probably not what you meant to say, > but that was perhaps the implication for unexperienced > devotees. As always, it is most essential to be > careful about what we say and also how it may sound. As one who is in the habit of choosing his words carefully, I always appreciate when others read *what* I say instead of reading *into* what I say. > By the way, please clarify exactly what you mean by > "party line." Earlier you stated that you have no > interest in the mechanics of joining or leaving a > specific society, so please can you clarify this > seeming contradiction in your words? I am referring to Lord Chaitanya's conclusions by this, not necessarily to the conclusions of any specific society. > Oh yes, I have read that thread and that notorious > article many times, and frankly I am quite sick of it. > It mainly seems that the same objections are raised > again and again with no conclusion. It goes without > saying that such statements are offensive, but that, > however, does not justify any form of retaliatory > behaviour. As is well known, a person who flings mud > back at the person who first flung mud is no better. Obviously, those who are sympathetic to the critics will view any sort of rebuttal against them as mud-slinging, no matter how much it adheres to the points of contention and the evidence. While I saw much that was clearly mud-slinging, I'm certain that I did stick to the point, which is more than what I could say for Nitai das and his "arguments." > [speaking of which, I still have to see a > point-by-point *convincing* refutation] Well, I do not know what to say here. I have quoted Lord Chaitanya Himself, the example of aachaaryas within our paramparaa, and various shaastras. Against this is laid by the critics the sole evidence of Hari-bhakti Vilaasa, which I still argue is being quoted out of context. Obviously, if you believe it is okay for an aachaarya to contradict his guru's example (such as Lord Chaitanya's wearing of saffron), and reject the paramparaa concept as described in shaastras and even by Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana, and in short, contradict multiple authorities within and outside the so-called orthodox Gaudiiya paramparaa, then nothing I quote will convince you. > - Some of the points you made were not based on > reliable evidence. As we know, unreliable evidence is > no evidence First of all, I cannot respond to this obviously broad generalization since I do not know what points you are referring to. Among other things, I have quoted from Shriimad Bhagavad Giitaa, Shriimad Bhaagavatam, Shrii Chaitanya Charitamrita, and Shrii Govinda Bhaashya/Prameya Ratnaavalii. None of these sources are in dispute. I have also quoted from Srila Sarasvati's only known biography in English; it is simply the case that there is no alternative there, but even then I was prepared to conceede bias if a convincing alternative was presented. Secondly, you do not seem entirely bothered by "unreliable evidence" when it is presented by the other side. Such arguments as the "dream initiation" of Srila Sarasvati Thaakura are based on evidence that cannot be deemed reliable by any stretch of the imagination. Why not apply the standard to both sides and see whose argument relies more on unreliable evidence? If you did that, we wouldn't even have to have this discussion, since you would be arguing solely with the critics. > - It seems that there is a problem in accepting the > superiority of diksa over siksa. Knocking down strawmen is the approach of those are standing on uneven footing. What has been said, time and again, is that diiksha does not in and of itself make one legitimate; one must follow the teachings of the guru or else start a new parampraa and admit to it. I don't agree a person who undergoes the initiation ceremony (diiksha) is automatically a brahmin as a result. Similarly, I don't agree that an initiated disciple of a Gaudiiya Vaishnava is automatically a bona fide Gaudiiya Vaishnava as a result. While we are on that subject, very few critics seem bothered by the fact that some of their camp (such as Nitai das) have rejected the diiksha given by Srila Prabhupada. It is only reasonable to wonder why that diiksha is not sacred, but the diiksha of, say, Bhaktivinod Thaakura by Bipin Bihari Gosvami is. Besides this instance, I know that this question was asked at least twice before in this forum, and I don't recall seeing any response to it, convincing or otherwise. > - Sorry to say, but in that discussion you perhaps > inadvertently caused offences to disciples of Srila > Prabhupada. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but once again, without you quoting specifics, I have no way of knowing if what you say is true. And once again, I can't help but note that you seem more concerned with real or imagined offenses on my part, but not of the more obviously hateful rhetoric of Nitai daasa's article, or the less angry but presumptuous remarks of Jagat et. al. who insist that Bhaktisiddhaanta was an innovator who started a new paramparaa. I still hold that Bhaktisiddhaanta has been true to the shaastras and Lord Chaitanya's instructions; it is the critics who are creating a new paramparaa that is not orthodox. I am at a loss as to why they can say this about Srila Prabhupada and be deemed reasonable, but if we say the same about their philosophy, then it is offensive. > >> The specific point at issue here is whether diiksha > is necessary and sufficient to legitimize a > paramparaa. << > > Yes it is. In that case, even the paramparaas of Kiirtananda Swami and Hansadutta dasa are also legitimate, in your eyes. Both of them had diiksha by Srila Prabhupada. > >> The puurva-pakshins argue that it is both. << > > Who exactly are the purvapakshins here? The puurva-pakshins = the critics who are being discussed here. As I view it, > such diksa lines have been going on uninterrupted > since the time of Sriman Mahaprabhu with no change. Unfortunately, the paramparaa is listed from Lord Krishna through Brahmaa and not merely from Lord Chaitanya. Artificially limiting the scope of evidence reveals the weakness in your argument. The simplest theory which explains the greatest body of evidence is more likely to be correct. And your (the critics') theory cannot explain much of the paramparaa before Lord Chaitanya according to what you deem to be Gaudiiya ideals. > There is no other definition of parampara in the > Gaudiya tradition, except of course until the advent > of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. Is Shriimad Bhaagavatam in the Gaudiiya tradition? What about Shriimad Bhagavad-giitaa? In order to be a bona fide sampradaaya, one must logically follow the example of the shaastras; one cannot redefine concepts like "paramparaa" which exclude the examples given in the shaastras. And in the above shaastras we have the examples of paramparaas like Krishna-Brahmaa-Naarada-Vyaasa, Krishna-Arjuna, and Krishna-Vivasvaan-Manu-Ikshvaaku which are shiksha paramparaas. For your position to be correct, you must reasonably show that each connection has been legitimized by diiksha. But you cannot do this. Your concept (and the critics' concept) of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is that it is a new movement created at a certain time and with its own novel institutions created by its aachaaryas. This is why it is a deviant concept, and why those who hold to it are deviating from the spirit of Lord Chaitanya's mission. The correct understanding is that Mahaaprabhu's movement is an extension of the eternal Vedic tradition, even though it extracts only certain elements, it does not contradict the Vedas in anyway. This is why true followers of Lord Chaitanya must accept Srila Sarasvati's paramparaa; because that paramparaa follows an example demonstrated in the shaastras, and no bona fide sampradaaya can reject a shaastric example in favor of its own traditions. > >> If this is correct, then it effectively invalidates > the Saarasvata line, which as listed by Srila > Prabhupada in Bhagavad Gita As It Is, consists of many > shiksha connections. There is no middle road here, as > I understand their position. Accepting their position > requires that you accept that Srila Prabhupada and his > line are not bona fide, Gaudiiya Vaishnavas. We should > be clear on that. << > > Not necessarily. My particular faith in Srila > Prabhupada's disciplic line has not been moved even > one inch. Then you are guilty of sentimentalism. Srila Prabhupada lists his paramparaa with many shiksha connections, such as Jagannaatha daasa - > Bhaktivinoda Thaakura --> Gaurakishora daasa Baabaajii. If the critics are correct, and Gaudiiya paramparaa is only legitimized by diiksha, then you must have the stomach to reject Srila Prabhupada's claims to representing Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. Or else you must show that the connections in question did have diiksha to legitimize them. Or else you must say that Srila Prabhupada is wrong, and that his real paramparaa is some other diiksha only paramparaa. It is interesting to note that when he lists the paramparaa in BG As It Is, Srila Prabhupada quotes "evam paramparaa praaptam idam raajarshayoH viduH," a statement which occurs in the context of an obviously shiksha paramparaa from millions of years ago. This is the concept of paramparaa he is referring to. Those who wish to follow a contradictory concept of paramparaa are free to do so, but then they should admit they are starting something new. Personally I would be much grateful to see > any clear evidence (at least as has been understood in > the Gaudiya tradition) that this line is connected to > parampara that is satisfactory to all concerned > parties. If you accept that the paramparaa listed by Srila Prabhupada is correct, then you implicitly acknowledge by the above that you have no evidence that is a 100% diiksha only paramparaa. In that case, your faith in Srila Prabhupada is just that - faith. It is not substantiated by evidence in the paramparaa's correctness, which gets back to my earlier point that your faith in Srila Prabhupada's line in spite of your sympathy to the critics is based on sentimentalism only. If you wish to adopt their position *as they have explained it* then you must accept one or the other as a genuine line of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. It may be so that Srila Sarasvati Thakura > Prabhupada was able to justify his position based on > tradition and sastra and that is probably why we don't > hear of so much criticisms being levelled during his > manifest pastimes (funny how this only seemed to arise > after his disappearance, isn't it?), Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that those who cannot challenge a great devotee and scholar face-to-face can thrive on challenge only when that devotee has left the earth. but it seems that > there is no record of this. His lectures were not > taped, and if he wrote it in a book then that book may > have been lost over due course of time. Thus > unfortunately as it stands, there doesn't seem to be > any convincing evidence in this regard. Also I note > that nobody has as yet given a convincing clear > refutations of noteworthy objection. Once again, we have quoted the Bhaagavatam, the Giitaa, the listing of paramparaa as given by Baladeva, the example of Vyaasa and Madhva, the example of Vyaasatiirtha and Lakshmiipati Tiirtha, etc. If you wish to be convinced, you can be. As I have said before, the central problem is in how one regards Gaudiiya Vaishnavism vis-a-vis the broader Vedic tradition of Sanaatana-dharma. If you see them as nondifferent, then there is no independent need to substantiate Srila Sarasvati Thaakura's paramparaa; the shaastras have already done that. If on the other hand, you see Gaudiiya Vaishnavism as an historical construct of 16th century Bengal with its own independent traditions, well, God help you! > I do note that my statement may have been bold, but it > is probably no more bold than some of B.G.Narasingha's > points in that article that is filled with > misconceptions. I still have yet to see a point-by-point refutation. Why the reluctance, when you require it so much of others? Regarding my refutation of it, it is > simply not possible. Many people have fallen into the > trap of thinking that such criticisms are levelled at > a general group of Vaishnavas. In fact, the sad truth > is that siddhanta is *not* one but differs according > to parampara. So on one hand, different paramparaas within the Gaudiiya tradition are allowed to have different understandings of some issues (like guru-tattva), and yet it is still incorrect for any one paramparaa to insist on its legitimacy based on a shiksha line because other paramparaa disagree. You do realize that this is a contradiction, do you not? Therefore, a follower of > Gadhadhara-parivara will give a specific refutation, a > follower of Nityananda-parivara will give another, a > follower of Advaita-parivara yet another, and so it > goes on. That is why his article has been termed by > myself as a worthless piece of evidence precisly > because this, the inability to specify objections to a > specific parampara. "inability to specify objections to a specific parampara..." I'm sorry, but no matter how many times I read this, it honestly seems to me like you are trying too hard to find a reason to object to that article based on your preexisting sympathies with Satyanarayana and other critics. Obviously, that an objection exists is all the reason one needs to refute it. One need not name the objector to make an argument against the objection, especially if one wants one's audience to focus on the issue rather than the personalities involved. But in this case that is hardly an issue, since Satayanarayana's name is mentioned several times, and it is painfully obvious from BG Narasimha's writing that he is addressing Satyanarayana's objections and those who follow him. He explicitly mentions Satyanarayana's name twice in the opening paragraphs. I suspect you do not see this because you are trying to turn this into an issue of the Saarasvati line against the other Parivars. It may indeed be such an issue, but the author of the article addresses only Satyanarayana rather than generalizing. Frankly, I do not think you have a specific case to make against BG Narasimha's rebuttal. If you had one, we would have seen it by now. I personally wish the evidence it quoted could be more explicitly mentioned, and that the wording about guru and shaastra could be a revised a bit. But the points are otherwise germane. Ignoring them does not do your position any justice. Although I have myself read that > article many times, Satyanarayana is mentioned in > several places so I am guessing that his objections > are towards Satyanarayana and thus the > Gadadhara-parivara. It's hardly a guess. Satyanarayana and his followers are the obvious people in question. As far as the rest of the Gadaadhara-parivara is concerned, well, that depends on whether or not Satayanarayana is a faithful representative of the Gadaadhara-parivara, does it not? By the way, in case you did not answer it before, I am still curious as to why it is acceptable for Satyanarayana and others to reject their diiksha by Srila Prabhupada, when it is incorrect for Srila Sarasvati to list his paramparaa without mentioning some diiksha connections. However, he has said plenty of > things that are a direct objection towards the > practices and siddhanta of other parivaras too. That > is why it is near-impossible to form a complete > refutation to his paper as learned representatives of > all parivaras concerned shall have to be consulted for > their specific points of refutation. In other words, you personally cannot refute what BG Narasimha has written. But you want so much to believe in the authenticity of those other parivaras that you have to believe a refutation exists. I strongly suggest to you, that you *not* make remarks like "it is worthless as a piece of evidence of any sort," and "worthless piece of evidence," etc in regards to another Vaishnava's writings when you are not prepared to bring specific arguments to bear against them. Actually, if you had specific points to make, then there would be no need to make condescending remarks like that. This is also why > it is so important to know who you are talking with, > and be prepared to hear a different opinion from > others. BGN's paper was obviously in regards to Satyanarayana and his followers. Objecting to the paper because it does not adequately take into account the opinions of other members of the Parivaras is just plain silly; obviously this was not within the scope of that paper. It would be like me rejecting a critique of the Vadakalai Shrii Vaishnava point of view because it does not address the Tenkalai Shrii Vaishnava point of view. Such an objection would only have merit if the purpose of the critique was to criticize all of Shrii Vaishnavism, in which case the critique must cover both Vadakali and Thenkalai viewpoints. BGN was obviously concerned with those who were criticizing the paramparaa of ISKCON and the Gaudiiya Math. Your problem is that you obviously sympathize with those critics, yet you have no shaastric support upon which to base that sympathy. It also goes without saying that if they can > back up their claims with sastra or tradition, or even > empirical knowledge in some cases, then their point is > bona fide. It also goes without saying that you have failed to do that, even though you very boldly dismissed BGN's paper. Perhaps it is a character flaw on my part, but I object to big talk on the part of those who have nothing substantial upon which to base it. In fact, in retrospect, I should have sent your original remarks (i.e. "worthless piece of evidence") back to you for resubmission. I do not know if BGN has disciples on this forum, but if he did, they could rightfully object to this sort of reckless criticism of their guru. I apologize for not observing the Achintya rules more strictly in regard to my moderation of this. From now on, you will give specific point-by- point objections to BGN's paper or you will refrain from such reckless criticism. > That being said, I must kindly inform you that I did > indeed consult on this paper with a follower of > Nityananda-parivara. As I was not aware that this > paper objected to spurious things irregardles of > parampara, he kindly informed me of the many > objections that I have outlined above and so I only > limited myself to discussing only a couple of points > from that article that was immediately on my mind. You yourself said that Satyanarayana was a representative of Gadaadhara-parivara. You have also said that different Parivaras will have different viewpoints and different responses to the paper. Why then, are you invoking the Nityananda-parivara? Since the paper was in regards to Satyanarayana dasa, it is arguable whether or not it even involves the Gadaadhara-parivara as a whole. But even if it did, that hardly makes it relevant to the Nityananda-parivara. Thus, consulting the Nityananda-parivara makes your objections doubly irrelevant. You don't have a specific objection of your own to that paper, do you? You are basing your stance on what your consultant from the Nityananda-parivara has told you. Only Satyanarayana can be responsible for what he teaches. BGN's disciples went directly to the source and tape recorded him; he says as much in his paper. If the Nityananda-parivara object to what is said about Satayanarayana, then their objections must be against what Satyanarayana himself has taught. > Besides, I myself am still in the stage of avid > research so I don't think it is proper to give a > refutation of any point when it is likely that I could > either have been misinformed or that I have heard > different things from different sources. And yet it is proper for you to dismiss the paper as a whole as "worthless piece of evidence?" You just called your own bluff. Don't speak like this of anyone's writings unless you have something specific to say. > I can let you know of those points if you wish. Let me > know if you would like them in private or public. As I mentioned in my last three messages, I am awaiting a public discussion of the points in question, assuming you have any to make. That is what Achintya is for. yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.