Satyanarayana das [final, and then] other things

[Guest guest]

Nityananda. Gauranga.

 

Krishna Susarla wrote:

 

Sun, 11 May 2003 01:33:05 -0000

"krishna_susarla" >

Re: Satyanarayana das and other things

 

 

> 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. <<

 

It seems that this is really getting off-track. It has already been

established that in the Gaudiya tradition since the time of

Mahaprabhu, lineage has been traced according to diksa. There is no

precedent from the time of Mahaprabhu onwards where siksa is taken as

a platform to draw parampara. My above comment relates to

Satyanarayana's "personal conclusions" that the

siksa-parampara of

the Sarasvata line is inauthentic as far as the conclusions of sastra

and the conclusions of Mahaprabhu are concerned, and nothing else for

whatever reason. Anybody else can come to the same conclusion if they

do the research. It is simply a matter of history.

 

> 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. <<

 

Sorry, this is a completely inapplicable and totally irrelevant

example. As is understood in the Gaudiya tradition, diksa is an all-

important process. I believe your example (also mentioned in some

previous posts) relates specifically to ceremonial rites such as

upanayana-samskara and other things. Srila Jiva Goswami discusses the

necessity of receiving of diksa in his Bhakti Sandarbha (Anuccheda

283), having first quoted the aforementioned verse of the Bhagavata:

 

yadyapi zrI-bhAgavata-mate paJcarAtrAdivad arcana-mArgasyAvazyakatvaM

nAsti, tad vinApi zaraNApatty-AdInAm ekatareNApi puruSArtha-siddher

abhihitatvAt, tathApi zrI-nAradAdi-vartmAnusaradbhiH zrI-bhagavatA

saha sambandha-vizeSaM dIkSA-vidhAnena zrI-guru-caraNa-sampAditaM

cikIrSadbhiH kRtAyAM dIkSAyAm arcanam avazyaM kriyetaiva |

 

"Although in the opinion of the Bhagavata Purana, the path of arcana,

like the Pancaratra and so forth, is not necessary, since, even

without that, one can achieve the goal of human life by one of the

other methods like surrender (saranapatti) and the rest, still those

who are following the path of Narada and others and who desire the

particular relationship with the Lord that is effected at the feet of

the guru by the rite of diksa necessarily perform arcana when diksa

is completed."

 

Jiva then proceeds to quote a verse from the agamas to illustrate the

substantial import of receiving diksa:

 

divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam |

tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva kovidaiH ||

ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca |

gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH ||

 

"The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives

(da) divine knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa.

Therefore, paying obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all,

one should receive a Vaisnava mantra diksa preceded with proper

procedures."

 

Jiva further illuminates the meaning of "divya-jnana", or the divine

knowledge which is transmitted in diksa:

 

divyaM jJAnaM hy atra zrImati mantre bhagavat-svarUpa-jJAnaM, tena

bhagavatA sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnaM ca |

 

"Divine knowledge means here knowledge of the true nature of the Lord

in the mantra and, by that, knowledge of one's own special

relationship with Him."

 

Carefully considering the above, we may understand that at the time

of diksa, the divine preceptor initiates the disciple into the

methods of worshiping that particular form of the Lord for which the

disciple has attraction, and the diksa-mantra transmitted by the

preceptor contains information which reveals this relationship for

which the initiate aspires.

 

Thus we are bound to note that at the time of diksa, the most

essential elements for the growth of the sadhaka are given -- the

very elements which will outline the path of his inner evolution from

this very moment to the concrete attainment of his cherished specific

relationship with the Lord. I doubt very much that you will find such

important pramanas that relate more or less the same benefits to

siksa. Indeed, what does Mahaprabhu say?

 

"At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the

service of the Lord, Krsna accepts him to be as good as Himself. When

the devotee's body is thus transformed into spiritual existence, the

devotee, in that transcendental body, renders service to the lotus

feet of the Lord." -- CC Antya 4.192-193

 

To devalue the process of diksa by stating that it is not

a "legitimising process of its own accord" is itself probably

an

offense at the feet of all past Acharyas who have duly taken diksa

themselves, specifically following the supreme example of Mahaprabhu.

This type of diksa as is understood and practised in the line of

Mahaprabhu is nothing at all like the ten-a-penny diksas you talk of.

 

>> 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. <<

 

It has been established above that the line of Sri Caitanya is traced

via diksa. As for Satyanarayana, he is presently a disciple in the

diksa-line of Sri Gadadhara Pandita. That is a bona-fide line in

which the transmitted mantras have been passed down directly from Sri

Gadadhara Pandita. All perfectly bona-fide as far as I can see. Who

is qualified to scrutinise this? I don't think it is a very

honest

proposal to tweak what I said into a statement about Mahaprabhu's

conclusions on guru-tattva, and the inordinate inclusive opposite.

 

> 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. <<

 

Thank you for clearly stating that that it is very important to *you*

only.

However, for those who are researching the subject and are interested

in a scholarly presentation of any topic, the question of what

parampara the author belongs to hardly arises. The details of this

only need to be hammered out when an analysis is needed of the

author's own method of translation, but as far as the translation

itself goes and assuming that it is a perfectly justified translation

of the original text, that is fine.

 

Speaking of which, if parampara is so important in presenting Vedic

literature, then why do you often quote shastras published by authors

that you are probably unsure of? Or whose translations are unreliable?

 

>> 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. <<

 

You are of course free to have your own opinions. As far as I am

concerned, and anyone is concerned, Satyanarana is highly capable of

translating sastras adequately due to his expertise in the Sanskrit

language. I do not immediately see any important differences between

Satyanarayana's and Mahaprabhu's teachings. Please clarify

your exact

points here, as I am assuming that you are well acquainted with

Satyanarayan das and his ideas.

 

> 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. <<

 

I don't think that those who praise Satyanarayan's

scholarship skills

as unassailable after having read any comparative works are to be

referred to as "blind."

 

> 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. <<

 

The definition of parampara according to any authoritative Sanskrit

dictionary is: "an uninterrupted row or series, order,

succession,

continuation."

 

If there is anything else meant by parampara, then it is as you said;

implicit. Not explicit. Just for fun, I decided to check out the

definition of parampara by the online Sanskrit lexicon, based on the

Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary. My findings were interesting:

 

Entry: parampara

Meaning: one following the other, proceeding from one to another (as

from father to son), successive, repeated.. successively,

uninterruptedly, successively, continually.

 

On the other hand, paramparA means:

 

"an uninterrupted row or series, order, succession,

continuation."

 

Remaining faithful to the predecessor Acharyas' teachings is a

given

and does not need to be stated. Considering that lineage in

Mahaprabhu's line is traced according to diksa, it is

automatically

understood. The very fact that sadhakas are advised to offer

obeisances and prayers to every member of their respective paramparas

proves this fact.

 

> 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. <<

 

That is a controversial topic in itself, but let me try to put it in

simple words. Diksa is an eternal connection between guru and

disciple. If the disciple enters into bad association and his mind

becomes perverted, he may indeed deviate from the instructions and

example of his guru and previous acharyas, yet his diksa connection

still remains eternal. The fallen disciple can yet again be

reinstated in his proper position as a bona-fide disciple if he

chooses to come back and remain true. There is a purport in Srila

Prabhupada's books to this effect.

 

>> 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. <<

 

Yet He took initiation into a Madhva line. By your logic, Mahaprabhu

has betrayed His own parampara because He did not follow the same

conclusions as is understood and practised by the bulk of Madhva

adherents. He also mentioned "YOUR sampradaya" several times

when

discussing with the Tattvavadi Acharya. You may say this is an

exceptional case, but members of other sampradayas will not accept

this if you presented this argument to them. However since this

discussion is mainly in-house, we can say that just as Mahaprabhu

departed from the teachings of Madhvacharya, the followers of

Mahaprabhu follow His supreme example.

 

In another twist, if according to you Mahaprabhu departed from the

teachings of Madhvacharya, then why is there a certain pride taken in

labelling our parampara as "Brahma-MADHVA-Gaudiya

sampradaya"?

Considering the number of philosophical and traditional differences

in the Madhva and Gaudiya schools, it is impossible for me to see how

the two remain connected.

In fact, Sripada Baladeva Vidyabhusana puts it perfectly when he

specifies these differences:

 

bhaktAnAM viprAnAm eva mokSaH, devAH bhakteSu mukhyAH, viriJcasyaiva

sAyujyaM, lakSmyA jIva-koTitvam ity evaM mata-vizeSaH dakSinAdi-

dezeti tena gauDe 'pi mAdhavendrAdayas tad upaziSyAH katicid

babhUvur

ity arthaH.

 

"Only a brAhmaNa devotee is eligible for liberation, the demigods

are

foremost among devotees, Brahma attains sAyujya-mukti (merging in

Brahman), and LakSmIdevI is included among the jIvas – these are

differences in opinion. Nevertheless Madhavendra Puri and some others

from Bengal became his followers." [from his commentary on Tattva-

sandarbha]

 

Either we are Madhvites or we are not.

 

> 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. <<

 

That all depends on what exactly you mean by "Vedic

traditions."

Please state specifically what "Vedic traditions" you are

referring

to, and how exactly they are relevant to this subject matter. Also,

on what basis do you say that Vedic traditions (whatever you are

referring to) supersedes individual parampara traditions, and do you

have any examples of the same? Otherwise at this point, I don't

see

any justification for this statement that "Vedic traditions

supersede

parampara traditions" and as such it remains only your opinion.

It is

still noted that acceptance into the line of Caitanya is by diksa. I

don't see how any "Vedic traditions" may contradict this

since even

non-Gaudiya sampradayas have their methods of diksa. In all lines

everywhere, the lineage is traced by diksa and not siksa.

 

>> 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. <<

 

Again, you need to specifically state what exact "Vedic

traditions"

you are referring to before this part of the discussion can be taken

further.

 

>> We have already shown abundant examples of shiksha only

connections prior to Lord Chaitanya. <<

 

I doubt that. You provided only two examples; one was incorrect and

the other remains doubtful. Hardly abundant. Besides that, the

parampara after Lord Caitanya is being discussed here, not prior.

 

> 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. <<

 

First of all, consider the original words of Sripada Vidyabhusana:

 

tatra guru-parampara yatha

 

The translation (probably ISKCON-endorsed) is given as, "With

great

devotion we glorify the spiritual masters in the Gaudiya Vaisnava

disciplic successions."

 

There is no mention here of a diksa-parampara, neither is there any

mention of diksa in the entire sloka until the mention of Srila

Madhavendra Puri. The sloka then gives praise to Isvara Puri, then to

Isvara Puripada's disciple Mahaprabhu. Even still here it is only

mentioned "disciple", sisyat. So in any case, the sloka from

Prameya

Ratnavali appears to be speaking of non-diksa connections and that

diksa seems to be mentioned in connection with Madhavendra Puripada

onwards. This still is not incompatible with Gaudiya understanding of

parampara, since the lineage from Mahaprabhu onwards is traced by

diksa.

 

Also, is there any possibility of observing a certain standard of

decorum? I do not feel very satisfied when I see Sri

Vidyabhusana's

name in the same sentence as liar and cheat. The same sentiments have

a possibility of being expressed in a more tasteful way to the

satisfaction of the perennially-joyful devotees.

 

>> You can't have your cake and eat it too. <<

 

Despite being a resident of the UK, I have never appreciated this

statement as it seems completely irrelevant and out of place in

almost all of the situations and contexts in which it is placed. What

else are we supposed to do with a piece of cake, smell it perhaps?

 

;-)

 

 

> 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. <<

 

Then those devotees should not be criticising. Such a narrow-minded

mentality is to be condemned. It goes without saying that the

behavioural traits of a Vaishnava do not include petty criticism.

However, the siddhanta is that the devotees of the Gaudiya lines wear

white.

 

> 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. <<

 

What does that have to do with this discussion about Gaudiya

siddhanta?

 

FYI, I am in personal contact with quite a few members of "those

lines" so, although I am certainly no expert, I do believe that I

am

in a position to know what the mechanics of sadhana and bhajan are

in "those lines." Again, what does this question have to do

with

Gaudiya siddhanta? This is like saying, before I can comment on Srila

Prabhupada's words or ISKCON's terms, I must be personally

acquainted

with a sizeable number of ISKCON's [full-time] members. All

fourteen-

thousand of them? Not including a worldwide congregation in the

millions, who probably have no clue of Gaudiya siddhanta but have

only arrived to partake in the Sunday Feast? This is a bizarre

proposal, I'm sure you agree.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

May I ask, since when did austerity become a pre-requisite to being a

follower of Mahaprabhu? The purpose of Mahaprabhu's descent was

to

flood the world with prema-bhakti. Bhakti is supremely independent

and does not need any corollary devices such as austerity, sacrifice,

charity, and so on.

About doctrinal loyalty, that's another great issue that perhaps

deserves a separate thread to at least first define Mahaprabhu's

doctrine.

 

> 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. <<

 

Actually, that was the exact issue I was discussing. According to my

records, you have previously found fault with an alternative

interpretation of CC without realising perhaps that it is a perfectly

bona-fide interpretation in light of the perspective it came from.

 

>> The issue rather, is why some of those who choose to do bhajan

should criticize those who wish to preach. <<

 

Again, it is not in the nature of devotees to criticise. That is not

correct behaviour.

 

>> The latter is clearly the instruction of Lord Chaitanya. <<

 

Though there are several slokas in CC in favour of preaching, there

are also a sizeable number of slokas favouring the bhajananandi

approach. I'd say that there is ample provision for both types of

devotees as mentioned previously, therefore any disagreement between

the two groups of devotees is childish and petty at best.

 

>> "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." <<

 

Interesting remark.

 

>> 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. <<

 

It is sheer foolishness to suggest that the Goswamis may have

objected to travelling preachers, considering how Srila Jiva Goswami

personally authorised Srinivasa Acharya, Narottama das Thakura and

Syamananda Pandit to take the books of Srila Rupa and Sanatana

Goswamis to Bengal to facilitate the preaching there. Some people

refer to this prominent event as the first travelling-sankirtana-

party.

However, there is a clear statement from Sanatana Goswami objecting

to saffron-clad Vaishnavas.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

Perhaps at a later time.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

I do not see how you have any kind of authority to make a statement

about my knowledge base or experience as if you know me very well, so

kindly desist from making these sorts of unsubstantiated judgments.

Regarding Haridas Sastri, you are obviously unaware of his

achievements since you have stated as much in your above comment.

FYI, I have it that Haridas Sastri has performed a great service for

the Gaudiya Vaishnava community by spending virtually his whole

career in translating the rare and classic Gaudiya sastras of the

previous Acharyas (such as Sat-sandarbha, Caitanya-mangala, etc.)

thus enabling a new generation to have access to these works. Now

that he is a nonagenerian, I suspect he spends most of his time doing

his own sadhana. Unfortunately these literaratures have been

translated into Hindi since he apparently knows no English; however

it is only a matter of time before the Hindi-to-English translation

occurs, and we shall have excellent source material.

You are also obviously unaware that a large number of ISKCON

publications draw a lot of information from Haridas Sastri's

translations as source and reference material. I am not sure if

plagiarism is an issue, but suffice to say his works are indeed

authoritative. I am not in knowledge if there is anyone else who has

performed as much seva or even if their translations of spiritual

classics are on the same level, so it is not out of place to say that

he has certainly done a great seva which is appreciable. Enviousness

is out of place here.

 

>> 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). <<

 

Interesting that you admit that you haven't studied many alternative

translations, yet you assume that I am also haven't? Thank you for

confirming this anyway. As well as Satyanarayana's edition, I

have

seen Kusakratha's and Tripurari Swami's version. No prizes

for

guessing which one I like best.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

You may or may not be correct here. However, I was not discussing his

translation of Tattva-sandarbha, but rather his serialised essays

printed in BTG.

 

>> 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. <<

 

Again I still don't see how you are in a position to comment on

what

I have read and what I haven't. Do you have access to the

publications in my personal library, by any chance?

I am also starting to wonder if your taking this discussion into the

realms of personal attacks to the extent of insulting people has any

benefit to drawing conclusions regarding Gaudiya siddhanta. Hence I

am deliberately going to disregard any further statements about

Satyanarayana and/or Haridas Sastri. This discussion is about Gaudiya

siddhanta, and not institutional politics. I am going to change the

subject title in future to reflect this.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

The "diksa-only deviation" is observed by all the paramparas

descending from the personal associates of Sriman Mahaprabhu Himself.

If your comments are to be put into a practical context, this is

clearly saying that those who take initiation in such parivaras are

not bona-fide. Taking the step of repeating this comment a second

time is certainly insulting to such Vaishnavas.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

Thank you for clarifying that. It is indeed wonderful that you

confirmed this, considering the number of times you have split up my

sentences into two or more parts and deriving different meanings

therefrom. Aside from that, it is difficult to differentiate what you

say and what you mean by that since your comments almost always are

in a violation of sorts of specific concepts and practices.

 

> 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. <<

 

OK, you have previously mentioned Caitanya's conclusions and so

on,

but I noticed that you haven't provided any pramanas from

Mahaprabhu

to back up your points in this post.

 

>> 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, <<

 

However, that does not justify retaliatory behaviour. To indulge in

such makes one no better than the first slinger, isn't it so?

 

>> I'm certain that I did stick to the point, which is more than what

I could say for Nitai das and his "arguments." <<

 

Those "arguments" did not belong to Delmonico, neither did he

take

part in that discussion so it is pointless to insinuate any strayness.

 

> [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. <<

 

I think you misunderstood what I said above. I said that I have not

seen a convincing *point-by-point* refutation of the entire paper. It

has certainly generated much argument and discussion in various fora

and certainly it has been the butt of jokes and tawdriness; however

it still stands there that has been no specific and convincing

refutation of all the points in there.

As for your points made therein, I noted that most of them were

largely at odds with the general siddhanta of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Aside from that, it is not very productive to single out the use of

the Hari-bhakti-vilasa to answer a relatively minor point when there

were so many other major points that were not adequately refuted.

Besides, it is well-known that the authority of the HBV is

unquestionable since it was specifically written as a manual for

Vaishnavas to follow to the letter. To be perfectly honest, I have

read in some sources that HBV was intended as a manual for Vaishnavas

in general, even those who belong to other sampradayas such as the

Ramanuja and Madhva ones, to introduce them to the specific tenets

that are required to worship Sri Krishna as ista-deva. However, the

fact that it was written by a Gaudiya Vaishnava for Gaudiya

Vaishnavas as well make it an unavoidable text for the study by the

same.

 

Speaking of which, I didn't notice much quotation of HBV except

in

the case of whether Vaishnavas should wear white. Other than that,

Jiva Goswami's works have been quoted, CC has been quoted,

example of

past Acharyas have been quoted for the ther points; so is it true to

say that *only* evidence from HBV has been quoted? This is obviously

a fib. By the way, how is it out of context? Assuming that you are

referring to the white-cloth issue, how do you argue that it is taken

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),<<

 

By that logic, the Six Goswamis contradicted Mahaprabhu's

example,

since they wore white. Interestingly, they were designated by

Mahaprabhu Himself to be the role-models for future generations of

devotees.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Sources may not be disputed; translations may.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

I don't think you would be innocent enough to believe that I was

objecting to your quoting from sastra. Obviously I was referring to

the unreliable evidence that you employed from the biography of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. It is well-known that the biography in

question ("A Ray of Vishnu") is an unreliable and

highly-biased text,

so to use it to make a forceful point is not a very good proposal.

Firstly, it is not the only English biography; there are at least

three others that I know of, possibly more. The sad truth is that

none of them can be considered to be an authoritative, faithful and

truthful representative of the facts of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's

life.

It is indeed unfortunate that institutional politics degrade even

hagiographies.

 

 

>> 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? <<

 

I do have my own theories about the so-called "dream

initiation,"

which I am carefully researching before I can make a significant

contribution in this regard. Besides that, personally I am not

convinced of the controversy regarding Srila Sarasvati Thakura's

being initiated in a dream. It is a fact that he got an initiation of

sorts from the revered Gaurakisora das Babaji. Although to tell the

truth we can't fully know the truth about that either since that

evidence is taken from a book that has already been mentioned as

highly-unreliable. The issue I am overtly concerned with is rather of

his taking sannyasa-initiation from a picture of his guru.

Truth be told, I am not entirely convinced of all the arguments

presented by the "other side," either. I have my suspicions;

however,

since I am talking with you I am focusing only on your points.

 

>> If you did that, we wouldn't even have to have this discussion,

since you would be arguing solely with the critics. <<

 

Herein is my suspicion of the inherent faults in your presentation.

It seems here that you are only interested in argument and winning

them, rather than a constructive and productive discussion of the

fundamental tenets of Gaudiya siddhanta. Please correct me and

clarify the situation if my suspicions are incorrect in any way. In

relation to the previous point, I did notice that the "other

side"

did present their points with sastric proof and little speculation.

 

>> 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. <<

 

Evidently this seems to be an issue of confusion for you. Diksa and

siksa are two sides of the same coin. guru-pAdAshrayas tasmAt kRSNa-

dIkSAdi-shikSaNam - to take shelter of the feet of Sri Guru, receive

diksa-mantras and the pertinent instructions of the same, this is

ttandard in Gaudiya-sampradayas everywhere. However, it should be

noted that the acceptance of diksa is most important for reasons

given in the earlier part of this post.

 

>> I don't agree a person who undergoes the initiation ceremony

(diiksha) is automatically a brahmin as a result. <<

 

Then your opinion is in direct contradiction to the verdict of the

Goswamis. It is clearly stated in BRS that the effect of diksa is

like transforming bell metal into gold by the treatment of mercury.

 

"Thus a Vaisnava automatically becomes a brahmana. This idea is

also

supported by Sanatana Gosvami in his book Hari-bhakti-vilasa, which

is the Vaisnava guide. Therein he has clearly stated that any person

who is properly initiated into the Vaisnava cult certainly becomes a

brahmana, as much as the metal known as kamsa (bell metal) is turned

into gold by the mixture of mercury. A bona fide spiritual master,

under the guidance of authorities, can turn anyone to the Vaisnava

cult so that naturally he may come to the topmost position of a

brahmana." – NOD, Chapter 5.

 

Of course it is seen that the next paragraph in NOD clearly holds the

conclusion, "In other words, simply becoming initiated does not

elevate one to the position of a high-class brahmana." It is

important to note, however, what Srila Prabhupada says next; "One

also has to discharge the duties and follow the regulative principles

very rigidly." So it is clearly concluded that diksa and siksa

are

two sides of the same coin. No one says any different, at least I am

not aware of anyone specifically stating that *only* diksa is a

legitimising tool. It is superior than siksa, though.

 

> 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. <<

 

I noticed that you took an unnecessarily harsh tone when discussing

with the poster who goes by the name of "Stonehearted."

Funnily

enough, he is rather soft-hearted and his "stony heart"

relates to

his admitted love of Sri Salagrama-sila. I still can't believe

that

you elsewhere suggested questioning the authority of the Six

Goswamis, though!

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Again, that article was not written by Delmonico. I didn't find

Jagat's remarks overtly presumptuous at all. Would you care to

specify exactly *which* remarks you found presumptuous? It is highly

important to me how the speaker conducts himself. If I see that

someone speaks with a harsh or angry tone, and is obviously trying to

seek attention via discord either through words or acts; I ignore

that person. However, because most discussions contain some spiritual

element in them I am bound to listen in the case of when sastric

evidence or other proofs are employed to support that specific point.

In this case, I ignore any hateful rhetoric and only "take the

essence" of what the speaker is saying especially in regards to

proofs. This does not mean that I approve or disapprove of any

hateful behaviour when I praise or criticise a point. I don't

enjoy

reading any spiteful or hateful sarcastic rhetorics and I am unlikely

to tolerate such things.

 

As for a new concept of parampara, I think you'll have to admit

now

that there has been no previous example of a siksa-parampara in

Mahaprabhu's line. As I have stated several times before; in all

the

disciplic successions started by the associates of Mahaprabhu, guru-

parampara descended and descends through diksa down to the present

day, and there is no other kind of example of parampara there, such

as by siksa or instructions alone. Would you therefore propose that

all those associates of Mahaprabhu and their followers fell down or

deviated because of this "diksa-only" system?" You have stated as

much anyway at least twice.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Is this an example of a bitter statement? Whether Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta has been true to the sastras depends on what exact

issue you are referring to and what sastras are involved. Resentfully

accusing the critics of starting a new parampara when their

respective guru-pranalis lead all the way directly to the personal

associates of Sriman Mahaprabhu is a clear indication of envy,

perhaps?

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

I suspect that it all boils down to a question of history. Also, if

such issues were discussed in a mood of civility and open-heartedness

then surely a productive and mutually satisfactory conclusion may be

found. Hurling insults serves no purpose for either side.

 

 

> >> 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. <<

 

I had a hunch that a bizarre proposal such as this may be clearly

born out of a non-contextual understanding of my reply. You forget

that diksa and siksa are both sides of the same coin. If Kirtanananda

and Hansadutta return back to the unadulterated teachings of Srila

Prabhupada then they again become legitimate.

 

 

> >> The puurva-pakshins argue that it is both. <<

>

> Who exactly are the purvapakshins here?

 

The puurva-pakshins = the critics who are being discussed here. <<

 

Interesting how the rest of my sentence got chopped off. Clearly the

purvapakshins are the descendants of the Sarasvata line, technically,

as I originally said.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

That's debatable.

 

>> 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. <<

 

Yet nothing that you so kindly provided so far has been correct.

Aside from that, since the Goswamis are the ones who enunciated

Chaitanyite theology due to their personal appointment by Mahaprabhu

Himself, I suppose they are guilty of "weak arguments"? Even

in the

other descending guru-pranalis, the gurus pass on the message they

have received from their own gurus to their disciples, with no

change. Would you propose that they are wrong or incorrect in doing

so? For some reason, I seriously doubt that you have the courage to

make such a statement.

 

By the way, artificially limiting the scope of "evidence" is

an

interesting view considering that on earlier occasions you have made

a concern with several examples of pre-Mahaprabhu parampara when the

discussion was specifically concerned with the post-Mahaprabhu

parampara.

 

>> And your (the critics') theory cannot explain much of the

paramparaa before Lord Chaitanya according to what you deem to be

Gaudiiya ideals. <<

 

The issue that is being discussed here is the parampara after

Mahaprabhu. To implement examples that are not in the discussed scope

is largely irrelevant.

 

> 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. <<

 

SB and BG are not Gaudiya texts, but we are discussing the Gaudiya

interpretation of them. Earlier you were arguing that "Vedic

tradition" supersedes the traditions of individual paramparas.

Now

you say that a bona-fide sampradaya must follow sastric example. If

the sastric examples that you mention in your next sentences are an

idea of what you are talking of, then by your logic Nityananda

prabhu, Advaita Acharya, Gadadhara Pandita, Narahari Sarakara,

Vakresvara Pandita, any disciple/associate of Mahaprabhu who

initiated their own disciples, are not bona-fide and illogical.

The Six Goswamis never redefined parampara or anything else. Rather,

nana-sastra-vicaranaikau-sad-dharma-nipunau.

 

Sorry, there's no two ways about it. Either they were incorrect

or

they were correct. I take the latter view.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Of what? What was the siksa that was passed, do you know? Let's

analyse your paramparas:

 

Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa – what was taught here?

 

Krishna-Arjuna – how is this a parampara? Did Arjuna initiate any

disciples into the transcendental truths that Sri Krishna taught him?

No, he forgot it soon afterwards in the heat of battle. Speaking of

which, I remember that you yourself brought up this very question on

Achintya a while back. According to my memory, you specifically asked

something to the likes of "how can Krishna-Arjuna be considered a

parampara if Arjuna did not initiate any disciples?" Did you get an

answer to that extremely important question? I don't recall any

authoritative reply.

 

Krishna-Vivasvan-Manu-Iksvaku – again, what was taught here? More

importantly, *why* did that parampara break so that Krishna had to

again teach Arjuna?

 

The only real parampara that applies here is the first one [Krishna-

Brahma-Narada-Vyasa] as it has been described by the previous

Acharyas. Even then, what makes you think this is a siksa-parampara?

It has already been established that the entities in question

initiated the next in turn.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Really? Your above para clearly contradicts sastra and

Mahaprabhu's

own words on the matter. There are several pramanas that show that

what was given by Mahaprabhu was never given before:

 

"Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya is Krsna [Vrajendra-kumara], the embodiment

of rasas. He is amorous love personified. He made His appearance to

taste that conjugal mellow and incidentally to broadcast all the

rasas." - CC Adi 4.222-223

 

"Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya is the abode of rasa. He Himself tasted the

sweetness of rasa in endless ways. Thus He initiated the dharma for

the Age of Kali. The devotees of Lord Caitanya know all these

truths." - CC Adi 4.225-226

 

"The most munificent Supreme Personality of Godhead, known as

Gaurakrsna, distributed to everyone - even the lowest of men - His

own confidential treasury in the form of the nectar of love of

Himself and the holy name. This was never given to the people at any

time before. I therefore offer my respectful obeisances unto Him." -

CC Madhya 23.1

 

There are plenty more such slokas to prove the point. Sorry, but if

anyone is unwilling to accept the fact that what Sri Caitanya gave

was new, they are deviating.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Yet again you fail to mention exactly what you mean by "Vedic

tradition," so whether your understanding of Mahaprabhu's

movement is

correct or not remains to be seen pending further clarification.

For now it seems that according to your logic, Mahaprabhu is an ardha-

kukkuti-nyayi. His movement is an extension of the eternal "Vedic

tradition," yet it only extracts certain parts? Either it carries

on

the tradition or it doesn't. Please make up your mind, sir.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

The point here is that those sastric paramparas which you refer to

are not on the basis of diksa. It has already been established that

diksa involves the giving of mantras as well as information

pertaining to eternal relationships. Such paramparas are unbroken.

The very fact that those "paramparas" [with the exception of

Krishna-

Brahma] do not exist today is proof that they are not paramparas. I

am not aware of any sampradaya tracing their lineage through siksa;

no Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Nimbarka, no Vallabha, nor even Advaitins.

Also, your above statement is starting to smack of sectarian bias.

People who accept the parampara of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta are true

followers of Mahaprabhu? Those who are initiated in the lines

descending from Sriman Mahaprabhu's personal associates are not?

Sorry, but your points are starting to approach the status of

borderline folly.

 

Let's mention Srila Jiva Goswami's opinion again:

 

"Although in the opinion of the Bhagavata Purana, the path of arcana,

like the Pancaratra and so forth, is not necessary, since, even

without that, one can achieve the goal of human life by one of the

other methods like surrender (saranapatti) and the rest, still those

who are following the path of Narada and others and who desire the

particular relationship with the Lord that is effected at the feet of

the guru by the rite of diksa necessarily perform arcana when diksa

is completed."

 

Note how "those who are following the path of Narada and

others" are

clearly mentioned. Since the parampara of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati has Devarsi Narada as a member, sorry to say, but diksa is

certainly necessary according to the opinion of Srila Jiva Goswami.

Unless you disagree with Srila Jiva Goswami?

 

You clearly do not understand the importance of a diksa-parampara.

This is not your fault, however, because the final proof about the

importance of a diksa-parampara is inextricably caught up with the

theory and practice of raganuga-bhakti. Since you have already

admitted elsewhere that you know virtually nothing of raganuga-

bhakti, it is obvious that you will not understand the importance of

a diksa-parampara as well.

 

Also, just in case you decide to take up the study of raganuga-

bhakti, I suggest that you don't start with NOD. Although it is a

very great work, there are several typographical errors that have not

been corrected and so this may affect your studies adversely. You

might like to refer to Raga-vartma-candrika or Madhurya-kadambini as

a good starting point. As an alternative you could indeed study a

verse-by-verse translation of BRS.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

Congratulations again for not paying much attention to the later

parts of my original statement, in which I clearly stated that it is

possible that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was fully able to justify his

position in the face of criticism or some other purpose, but sadly

such evidence is not available today. That said, I certainly do not

need you to sit in judgment over my relationship with Srila

Prabhupada. I know full well what my relationship to him is and it

most certainly does not require any external intrusion. Kindly

discuss with siddhanta and not take pot-shots at others, please.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Since you have used Srila Prabhupada's parampara as listed in BG

several times, are you aware that Srila Prabhupada's parampara

differs from the parampara as listed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati?

 

 

>> 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! <<

 

Sorry, Gaudiya Vaishnavism discounts "Vedic traditions" in

many

places. There are several pramanas (quoted above) that state clearly

that Gaudiya Vaishnavism as taught by Mahaprabhu Himself is teaching

a new thing. God help anyone who thinks and accepts differently.

It seems to me that your main problem is that you view Gaudiya

Vaishnavism as a system of Vedanta. You state as much on the Achintya

homepage. This may be all very well and good as far as your own

personal perspectives and study of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are concerned;

however, Vedanta study has not been emphasised by Gaudiya Acharyas

and that is very interesting. It has already been established that

Mahaprabhu appeared to give raganuga-bhakti, though.

 

 

> 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? <<

 

There is certainly no reluctance. I am a busy man, and I do not

always have time to proffer "refutations" on demand,

especially when

the essay in question is so filled with errors that it may take years

to refute it properly enough. Besides, show me where I required a

refutation of whatever, from 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? <<

 

>From where did you get the idea that I was talking about an issue

such as guru-tattva? That is clearly your own idea which you have

inserted in brackets and not at all a correct interpretation of what

I meant. My statement was that siddhanta differs according to

parampara; this relates to specific relationships and rasas with

Krishna. Like for example, there are paramparas that have madhurya-

bhakti as their focus, in which sadhakas are trained in conjugal-

tattva. There are also paramparas with sakhya-bhava as their focus,

in which sadhakas are trained in friendship-tattva. The same probably

goes for the other two rasas. Obviously the method of sadhana and

teachings will differ in such paramparas. It is not likely that a

follower of a sakhyarasa-parampara will pay much attention to the

teachings of madhurya-bhava; they will focus on the incidents of

sakhya-rasa. This is common sense. It will be a mistake to think that

*only* the conjugal-bhava is exemplified in Mahaprabhu's

teachings.

Siddhanta is not one but differs according to parampara, and because

of that, different parivaras will give their own view on the points

delineated in that essay, since BG Narasingha has decided to talk

about general rasika philosophy in his essay as well as politics.

 

 

>> "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. <<

 

That is again your misconception. I have no sympathies with any side;

I am friendly to all. I listen to what each side has to say, double-

check with sastra to see if it is correct, and then form my own

conclusions.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

BG Narasingha certainly mentions Satyanarayana's name several

times,

since it seems that Satyanarayana was responsible for leading

the "opposition," so to speak. However, in his refutation BG

Narasingha has made attacks about points that relate to common

conceptions held by several parivaras and not just that of the

Gadhadhara one. That is why several parivaras may have their own

individual points to make, and this is the correct meaning which I

have given before. It certainly seems that BG Narasingha has made the

same mistake as many other people; thinking that siddhanta is one in

all or most paramparas. As shown already, it is not.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Sorry, but you certainly seem to have many misconceptions. Besides

that, after having only mentioned it in my last posting, there

certainly has not been any time to request a refutation as you have

pointedly said so in *this* posting of yours, which is rather unfair.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

You are under that misconception that the points in that essay are

germane. Just because it *sounds* alright does not necessarily mean

that is *is*. I suspect that if you knew enough about the subject

matter (raganuga-bhakti, etc) then you would also disagree.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Because there is no such thing as a siksa-parampara in Gaudiya

Vaishnavism.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

Well, what do I say here? It is obvious that you have your own ideas

about the motivations behind my words so there doesn't seem to be

any

point in correcting your false impressions. I am frankly amazed that

you are so strongly defending this essay without knowing if the

points made in there are correct or not. Have you done an

investigation into it?

 

For example, on what basis does he criticise watching Krsna-lila

dramas? It is well-known that Mahaprabhu and His associates made

dramas, and these were played out in Srivasa Angan. Most of Srila

Rupa Goswami's literatures are in drama format. There are plenty

of

sastras composed by other Acharyas written in a drama format? What is

wrong with the proposal of watching any Krsna-lila dramas?

Another example, on what basis does he criticise the process of

siddha-pranali as "mental speculation"? Do you know that

these are

grave mistakes against the Acharyas? Can *you* back up these ideas

since you defend them so strongly?

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

I never made any points against it. I simply said it was not worthy

of refutation. If you want a refutation, all you had to do was ask.

 

 

>> From now on, you will give specific point-by-point objections to

BGN's paper or you will refrain from such reckless criticism. <<

 

Certainly, since you have no asked. It may take a few days, though,

as I am far too busy in my personal life with private and public

projects which are likely to become a major commitment in the future.

It would also be a great idea if you had an open-minded view of all

points of view before strongly defending articles of which points you

haven't investigated.

It is remarkable that you take such objection to a perceived

criticism of BG Narasingha and his paper, yet you have no qualms

about twice stating that followers in diksa-paramparas descending

from the personal associates of Mahaprabhu are deviating? I suspect a

double-standard is being employed, please clarify if I am in error.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

I sincerely apologise for correcting yet another of your

misconceptions, but as I mentioned above, BG Narasingha has made

statements about common points of rasika-theology that can easily be

answered by any representative who holds to such a doctrine.

Therefore it is not out-of-place for me to consult with someone who

certainly knows what he is talking about with a view to discuss the

essay.

 

 

>> 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. <<

 

The magnificent difference is that I at least took the onus of

investigating the truth of the statements in that article. Have you

done the same? I suspect you haven't, yet you are taking a

position

of defence on its behalf. I suggest that blind acceptance of a

preconceived view is not a favourable quality for engagement in such

complicated discussions.

 

 

> 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. <<

 

I don't recall a request in your last three messages except

perhaps

for this one, but I certainly appreciate that you are asking for it

now. Since you have asked for a refutation, I shall provide one and

these points shall be included in that post. As I am in the process

of ongoing research for my theological studies, it may not be

entirely appropriate for me to provide an iron-clad rebuttal. However

I shall certainly give it a shot. Don't expect anything dazzling,

though. Who knows, it might even prove to be a worthy exercise to

test the waters and glean more viewpoints before submitting all my

objections directly to BG Narasingha himself, since we are in touch.

I would also appreciate it if you would kindly lower your voice. You

have several times unsuccessfully attempted to view me as one of

the "critics" and the "other side" when the truth is

that I am simply

an interested observer who may like to make a point or several. So

kindly refrain from launching personal crusades and stick to

siddhanta. That way, a productive and constructive discussion can be

ensured. If you need to know anything about me, it would be wise to

ask instead of assume.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jay

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dark_knight_9" <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

 

Sanjay Dadlani wrote:

 

> > I disagree. By rejecting diksa in the Sarasvata line

> > because he [satyanarayana das] thinks it is an inauthentic line

is only a

> > matter of his own personal feelings and his own

> > conclusions.

 

To which I responded:

 

> 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. <<

 

And then Sanjay's response:

 

> It seems that this is really getting off-track.

 

I'm afraid not, Sanjay. What is very much at the heart of this

discussion is the correctness of Satyanarayana's conclusions, since

we are asked to judge him as a representative of Gaudiiya Vaishnava

conclusions. Your original position was that he departed from the

Saarasvati line because of his own conclusions (regarding the

legitimacy of succession), and I responded that they were his own

conclusions and not those of shaastra nor those of Lord Chaitanya.

Leaving aside for the moment the evidence I have already brought to

bear on that (and will bring up again below), the take home point

here is as follows:

 

(1) Satyanarayana's position on any philosphical position vis-a-vis

Lord Chaitanya and the shaastras is not to be swept under the rug;

whether or not he is philosophically loyal to the sampradaaya before

him has every bearing on his legitimacy as an orthodox Gaudiiya

Vaishnava. Whatever your answer to this question may be, if you do

not appreciate the significance of this question, then it is you who

are very much misinformed as to the concept of "sampradaaya"

or "paramparaa."

 

(you either agree with this, or you do not. Mahaaprabhu never claimed

to be a Maadhva, but it is your claim that Satyanarayana is a

Gaudiiya. Therefore he must be judged by Gaudiiya standards, and if

it is found that he is different in any part of his approach, then it

is he and not Bhaktisiddhanta who must be judged as the innovator)

 

Now let us deal with the next point of your argument:

 

It has already been

> established that in the Gaudiya tradition since the time of

> Mahaprabhu, lineage has been traced according to diksa.

 

I can't remember if this is the second or third time I have mentioned

this, but the Gaudiiya sampradaaya is traced to Krishna through

Brahmaa: it does not begin with Lord Chaitanya. This brings us to

point #2:

 

(2) There is no rationale for ignoring the example of aachaaryas

before Lord Chaitanya when it comes to determining the legitimacy of

succession.

 

In other words, repeating the example of aachaaryas after Lord

Chaitanya is not an argument. As mentioned previously, your theory on

succession must explain the entire body of evidence (specifically the

entire Brahmaa-Madhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa) or else it is not

acceptable. No matter how many times you repeat the example of those

after Lord Chaitanya, I will simply bring up again the example of

those before Him who are in the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiiya sampradaaya.

You cannot ignore evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

 

There is no

> precedent from the time of Mahaprabhu onwards where siksa is taken

as

> a platform to draw parampara.

 

Except of course, the precedent of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura whose

paramparaa hails from Srila Gaurakishora dasa Babaji. If you wish to

quote historical precedent, then where do you draw the line as to

what you will accept as a valid basis for comparison? No matter how

far back a shiksha paramparaa extends, you will simply pull your

comparison standard back until you find someone who had a diiksha

initiation, and then claim that those after him are inventing

something new. This brings me to my next point:

 

(3) The questioning of the Saarasvata paramparaa's legitimacy is

being done on purely *arbitrary* grounds. The critics' argument is

that orthodox Gaudiiya Vaishnavas legitimize their succession via the

formal diiksha ceremony; but they then argue that those who have not

had the formal diiksha are not legitimate successors of the Gaudiiya

sampradaaya, and thus ignore their examples to the contrary. A

clearer case of circular logic could not exist:

 

"The legitimate Gaudiiya paramparaa is based on diiksha initiations

only, and we knows this because any contradictory example of Gaudiiya

paramparaas based on shiksha is not a legitimate Gaudiiya

paramparaa."

 

My above comment relates to

> Satyanarayana's "personal conclusions" that the

> siksa-parampara of

> the Sarasvata line is inauthentic as far as the conclusions of

sastra

> and the conclusions of Mahaprabhu are concerned, and nothing else

for

> whatever reason.

 

And my response was that Satyanarayana's conclusions were his own,

and not Vedic in origin. Now whatever your position, you must either

agree with this or refute it; you cannot sweep it under the rug and

still glorify him as a bona fide Gaudiiya Vaishnava representative.

This is merely a restatement of point #1.

 

Anybody else can come to the same conclusion if they

> do the research. It is simply a matter of history.

 

Which, according to your view, does not extend before Lord Chaitanya.

 

> 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. <<

>

> Sorry, this is a completely inapplicable and totally irrelevant

> example.

 

.... and absolutely no reason is offered as to why.

 

It is a common sense observation that thousands if not tens of

thousands of "caste brahmin" boys in India and even in the US get the

diiksha ceremony performed for them; this is in spite of the fact

that they do not necessarily have any qualification. I have

personally witnessed the performance of very elaborate and

authentic "diiksha" ceremonies on boys who are hamburger eaters and

liquor drinkers. Even more frequently, I have seen diiksha performed

on boys who subsequently have no further contact with their "guru,"

what to speak of even remembering his name!

 

(4) Diiksha is not therefore a magic wand which transforms a person

into a sad-aachaara gentleman what to speak of a pure devotee. It is

the duty of the saadhaka to live up to the standards of that diiksha.

The fact that many Hindus get diiksha and do not live up to that

standard is ample proof that the diiksha ceremony by itself does not

legitimize a disciple's status.

 

This is such a simple, common sense point that I cannot believe for a

moment that you misunderstand what I have said. On the other hand, I

am only left with the rather unsettling conclusion that you argue

because you disagree with the above position, and consequently you

would have me believe that all diikshas must be accepted as bona fide

regardless of the saadhaka's behavior. Please tell me I am wrong.

 

As is understood in the Gaudiya tradition, diksa is an all-

> important process.

 

That it is an important process has never been contested by me.

Before you claim that it was, please find some exact quote on my part

wherein I have said so. Knocking down strawmen won't advance this

argument. I have always felt that diiksha is important, but because

many "saadhakas" have varying levels of commitment to

their "diiksha," it is imperative for us to look beyond

their "diiksha" at the substance.

 

I believe your example (also mentioned in some

> previous posts) relates specifically to ceremonial rites such as

> upanayana-samskara and other things.

 

Yes it does, but that does not change anything. The upanaayana-

samskaara is the same as the diiksha ceremony for most Hindus today

following the Vedic system; the present system of 1st and 2nd

initiations is derived from Pancharaatric system. But in both cases

there is diiksha being performed, and in both cases there is abundant

potential to misuse to the system. This is what I do not think you

are prepared to admit.

 

That one can deviate from the guru in gross ways (by meat-eating

other sinful activity) logically means that one can deviate from the

guru in more subtle ways (for example by preaching different ideas).

This is another restatement of point #1, and is the reason why we are

discussing the legitimacy of Satayaranaya's diiksha. To put it

another way, you would not accept Kirtananda Swami or Hansadutta

Swami as representatives of Srila Prabhupada merely because he gave

them diiksha. I noticed that you never really commented on that

point; am I wrong, and you really would accept someone's diiksha in

spite of what they actually preached?

 

Srila Jiva Goswami discusses the

> necessity of receiving of diksa in his Bhakti Sandarbha (Anuccheda

> 283), having first quoted the aforementioned verse of the Bhagavata:

>

> yadyapi zrI-bhAgavata-mate paJcarAtrAdivad arcana-

mArgasyAvazyakatvaM

> nAsti, tad vinApi zaraNApatty-AdInAm ekatareNApi puruSArtha-siddher

> abhihitatvAt, tathApi zrI-nAradAdi-vartmAnusaradbhiH zrI-bhagavatA

> saha sambandha-vizeSaM dIkSA-vidhAnena zrI-guru-caraNa-sampAditaM

> cikIrSadbhiH kRtAyAM dIkSAyAm arcanam avazyaM kriyetaiva |

>

> "Although in the opinion of the Bhagavata Purana, the path of

arcana,

> like the Pancaratra and so forth, is not necessary, since, even

> without that, one can achieve the goal of human life by one of the

> other methods like surrender (saranapatti) and the rest, still

those

> who are following the path of Narada and others and who desire the

> particular relationship with the Lord that is effected at the feet

of

> the guru by the rite of diksa necessarily perform arcana when diksa

> is completed."

 

Since I don't have a verse number, I can't zero in on this verse and

look at Srila Prabhupada's commentary. However, I note that the verse

is really directing one to perform archana after the diiksha ceremony

is complete; there is nothing here to the effect that one's

paramparaa is illegitimate because of the absence of formal diiksha.

 

Furthermore, as already said by me previously, I have not argued that

the institution of diiksha is discouraged by any Gaudiiya Vaishnavas;

(5) I have only argued that paramparaa acceptance is not contingent

on blind acceptance of every claimed diiksha connection nor rejection

of any claimed shiksha connection.

 

Try to use common sense for a moment. Jiva Gosvami's paramparaa

begins with Lord Krishna through Lord Brahmaa and then Naarada,

Vyaasa, Madhva, etc. Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana also wrote commentaries

on Jiva Gosvami's sandarbhas and yet gave that exact paramparaa

listing which consists of numerous shiksha connections. If the verse

above meant exactly what you think it does, then are you arguing that

Jiva Gosvami has refuted the legitimacy of his own paramparaa? Come

on.

 

> Jiva then proceeds to quote a verse from the agamas to illustrate

the

> substantial import of receiving diksa:

>

> divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam |

> tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva kovidaiH ||

> ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca |

> gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH ||

>

> "The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives

> (da) divine knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa.

> Therefore, paying obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all,

> one should receive a Vaisnava mantra diksa preceded with proper

> procedures."

 

First of all, the diiksha process is being defined here as that which

gives divine knowledge and destroys sin. This is just another way of

saying what I have already been saying to date, that those "diiksa"

ceremonies which do not give the proper knowledge and do not uplift

the disciple are "diiksha" in name only. I have up to this point been

using "diiksha" as referring to the formal ceremony, based on your

own contentions about who has and has not had diiksha. But very well,

we can now proceed to use the above definition of diiksha. Therefore,

the question now is whether or not Satyanarayana's initiation is

replete with the proper knowledge and the destroying of his sinful

activities, and is thus true "diiksha." I'll actually conceed to his

good character for the sake of charity; the argument then becomes

whether or not he has fully got only the divine knowledge or whether

some of his "knowledge" that is advertised as received in paramparaa

is in fact of man-made origin. Based on the above definition, one has

to have the divine knowledge, which means his knowledge must be 100%

the same as those prior to him; he cannot take a contradictory

position to those prior to him. You of course can see where this is

going; the question of Satyanarayana's philosphical loyalty still

remains, if we are going to refer to his initiation as "diiksha"

which gives divine knowledge.

 

Secondly, the above verse defines diiksha according to theoretical

grounds rather than practical, superficial grounds. It is like the

Vajra-suuchika Upanishad defining a brahmin as one who knows Brahman,

as opposed to saying that a brahmin is one who has the sacred thread

and exhibits some concrete, easily observable virtues. Very well, we

can use that definition, and I have no problem with it. But if you

are going to use such a theoretical definition of diiksha, you cannot

reliably say that the connections between Srila Jagannaatha dasa and

Srila Bhaktivinoda and between Srila Bhaktivinod and Srila

Gaurakishora dasa are *not* diiksha, because now you must conceed

that the lack of formal ceremony is not what rules out diiksha, but

rather the lack of transmission of divine knowledge and reform of the

initiated. Let the entire paragraph above be considered point #6.

 

> Jiva further illuminates the meaning of "divya-jnana", or the

divine

> knowledge which is transmitted in diksa:

>

> divyaM jJAnaM hy atra zrImati mantre bhagavat-svarUpa-jJAnaM, tena

> bhagavatA sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnaM ca |

>

> "Divine knowledge means here knowledge of the true nature of the

Lord

> in the mantra and, by that, knowledge of one's own special

> relationship with Him."

 

And let's not forget that such knowledge is not to be had by those

who disagree with more basic knowledge such as regulative principles:

 

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own

whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme

destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)

 

tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau |

j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa

16.24 ||

 

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by

the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations,

one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa

16.24)

 

Based on the above, one cannot accept that one has attained the

highest knowledge if he has misunderstood more basic concepts of how

the paramparaa works.

 

> Carefully considering the above, we may understand that at the time

> of diksa, the divine preceptor initiates the disciple into the

> methods of worshiping that particular form of the Lord for which

the

> disciple has attraction, and the diksa-mantra transmitted by the

> preceptor contains information which reveals this relationship for

> which the initiate aspires.

>

> Thus we are bound to note that at the time of diksa, the most

> essential elements for the growth of the sadhaka are given -- the

> very elements which will outline the path of his inner evolution

from

> this very moment to the concrete attainment of his cherished

specific

> relationship with the Lord. I doubt very much that you will find

such

> important pramanas that relate more or less the same benefits to

> siksa. Indeed, what does Mahaprabhu say?

>

> "At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the

> service of the Lord, Krsna accepts him to be as good as Himself.

When

> the devotee's body is thus transformed into spiritual existence,

the

> devotee, in that transcendental body, renders service to the lotus

> feet of the Lord." -- CC Antya 4.192-193

 

You are in the above verses using a definition of diiksha that is

based on less tangible grounds compared to the view of diiksha based

on the external ceremony and pomp. So on that basis, you are no

longer able to say that some guru-disciple connections have had no

diiksha, because the signs of diiksha will not be as apparent to you.

You can only argue that diiksha has not occurred if (a) the correct

knowledge has not been passed on or (b) the diiksha disciple's

behavior is unbecoming that of a bona fide saadhaka. As far as I

know, the knowledge and behavior of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has not

been called into question by you.

 

On the other hand, I am very interested in questioning the legitimacy

of Satyanarayan's teachings regarding paramparaa, since his having

diiksha implies understanding the correct definition of paramparaa.

The question is that much more important given the diiksha definition

you quoted. He can't say he had diiksha and then teach something that

is contradicted by shaastra.

 

> To devalue the process of diksa by stating that it is not

> a "legitimising process of its own accord" is itself probably

> an

> offense at the feet of all past Acharyas who have duly taken diksa

> themselves, specifically following the supreme example of

Mahaprabhu.

 

When all else fails, just fall back on the "Oh Prabhu, you are

offensive" strategy. Please. I have not devalued anything other than

the formal process known as "diiksha" that is unaccompanied by divine

knowledge or sad-aachaara. Whatever definition of "diiksha" you use,

I have provided plenty of context clues for you to know what I was

talking about. It is only your refusal to discuss what I have

actually written which perpetuates this discussion.

 

> This type of diksa as is understood and practised in the line of

> Mahaprabhu is nothing at all like the ten-a-penny diksas you talk

of.

 

Very good, now we are making progress. In the above statement, you

conceed that one can have something called "diiksha" that is not in

fact the real thing.

 

Now you can see why merely saying someone has had diiksha does not

guarantee the correctness of what he says.

 

I think the above was abundantly clear. Can you follow this? Please

read carefully before responding.

 

> It has been established above that the line of Sri Caitanya is

traced

> via diksa.

 

It has not been established that Madhva got the formal diiksha

ceremony from Vyaasa. But since you have thrown away the "formal

ceremony" definition and opted for the "theoretical substance"

definition (which is fine by me), you have now painted yourself into

the corner of not being able to show absence of diiksha in the

Saarasvata line. I'm going to repeat what I said earlier to decrease

the chance of misunderstanding. Since you are now using the

definition of diiksha based on faithful transmission of divine

knowledge as opposed to existence of formal ceremony, the question of

who had diiksha is now a function of their spiritual upliftment in

terms of behavior and knowledge preached; it is no longer a question

of ritual. That diiksha rituals can be performed without true diiksha

being received logically shows that rituals do not make the diiksha.

 

As for Satyanarayana, he is presently a disciple in the

> diksa-line of Sri Gadadhara Pandita. That is a bona-fide line in

> which the transmitted mantras have been passed down directly from

Sri

> Gadadhara Pandita. All perfectly bona-fide as far as I can see.

 

But you cannot see - you just believe them because they said so. Of

course, neither can I, but then that is why I prefer to judge based

on what they are actually teaching compared to the shaastras, rather

than accepting him or anyone else as correct merely because of the

claim of coming in a "bona fide" diiksha line.

 

Who

> is qualified to scrutinise this? I don't think it is a very

> honest

> proposal to tweak what I said into a statement about Mahaprabhu's

> conclusions on guru-tattva, and the inordinate inclusive opposite.

 

Your argument (as I have understood it to date): Satyanarayna comes

in a diiksha parampara descended from Gadaadhaara Pandita. We accept

whatever he teaches because of his claim to be in this paramparaa

(which we must also accept because he and his followers say so).

 

My point (all along): No one's diiksha is to be taken at face value.

That someone claims to come in a particular line means only that he

must be faithful to the scholarly position of those in that line

(unless otherwise stated, such as the departure from Madhva), which

ultimately goes back to the Vedas. Thus, if we wish to make any

comment on the correctness of his teachings, then we must scrutinize

his teachings based on the teachings of previous aachaarayas and

shaastras. If we wish to say we are unqualified to scrutinize them,

then we should refrain from saying that someone is or is not bona

fide.

 

I think the above was simple enough.

 

I wrote:

 

> 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. <<

 

to which Sanjay Dadlani responded:

 

> Thank you for clearly stating that that it is very important to

*you*

> only.

 

Apparently, I took too much liberty in making the above remark.

Obviously, I took it for granted that one's fidelity to his

puurvaachaaryas had to be absolute. Apparently, this may be yet

another point of difference between the Saarsvata Gaudiiya line and

one or more of the other lines. But I am shocked to see a SNd fan

admit to it, however implicitly.

 

> However, for those who are researching the subject and are

interested

> in a scholarly presentation of any topic, the question of what

> parampara the author belongs to hardly arises.

 

If one's scholarly presentation causes one to differ from shaastra or

aachaarya, then the question certainly arises. Though that might not

prevent me from appreciating the presentation on other grounds...

Again, I thought it was universally agreed that a Vaishnava scholar

had to be faithful to his sampradaaya, but perhaps here again I am

assuming too much. As mentioned before, the question of paramparaa

affiliation arises because a Vaishnava scholar is expected (based on

what Srila Prabhupada taught) to teach what was taught to him without

altering it (special cases aside, which we have already discussed).

 

Of course, if one is not claiming to be a representative of any

paramparaa, then I agree the question of his paramparaa does not

arise, except in as much as one can only have the divine knowledge if

he has gotten diiksha (proven by the very verses which you quoted).

So obviously it has to be a concern even then. But since

Satyanarayana claims to come in the Gaudiiya sampradaaya, it is of

concern that he be faithful to his predecessors. Again, perhaps it is

naive of me to expect that. I guess my position was that it was naive

to assume his fidelity as a given.

 

The details of this

> only need to be hammered out when an analysis is needed of the

> author's own method of translation, but as far as the translation

> itself goes and assuming that it is a perfectly justified

translation

> of the original text, that is fine.

 

I am no longer certain what you consider "perfectly justified

translation" if coming in paramparaa does not factor into it.

 

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that we should not judge a

presentation on the basis of what we know of the paramparaa details,

but rather on the basis of whether or not it is faithful to the

original. I think I have consistently stated this many times also in

other postings. But it was never my intention to say that paramparaa

was unimportant; only that one's perception of paramparaa should not

prevent one from scrutinizing the text itself. Just as I despise

blind rejection of a thing, so also do I despise blind acceptance of

it. In this case what I was trying to get across to devotees is that

they should not accept SNd's writings (or anyone else's for that

matter) merely because of their perceptions that he is a bona fide

scholar; rather they should read carefully what he writes and judge

according to guru, saadhu, and shaastra.

 

> Speaking of which, if parampara is so important in presenting Vedic

> literature, then why do you often quote shastras published by

authors

> that you are probably unsure of? Or whose translations are

unreliable?

>

 

On one hand you ask me the above question, but on the other hand you

quote a proselytizing Christian scholar's Sanskrit dictionary over

that of a practicing Vaishnava like Srila Prabhupada to help us

understand what the concept of paramparaa is.

 

Whatever I have quoted in the past, I have done so with the

understanding that anyone is invited to question the translation

(which is why I quote the Sanskrit when I have it) and correct me in

my understanding of it.

 

Your approach on the other hand seems to be that something or

someone's authenticity should be taken as a given based on his claim

to paramparaa descent.

 

> You are of course free to have your own opinions.

 

Here we go again...

 

As far as I am

> concerned, and anyone is concerned, Satyanarana is highly capable

of

> translating sastras adequately due to his expertise in the Sanskrit

> language. I do not immediately see any important differences

between

> Satyanarayana's and Mahaprabhu's teachings. Please clarify

> your exact

> points here, as I am assuming that you are well acquainted with

> Satyanarayan das and his ideas.

 

We've already discussed ad nauseum his concept of paramparaa. I wish

to again point out the confused thinking on your part -

Satyanarayana's difference vis-a-vis the Saarasvata line's legitimacy

is well known, yet you cannot reject Srila Prabhupada's line even

though Satyanarayana says his succession is not legitimate per

orthodox Gaudiiya convention. Either Srila Prabhupada is the real

thing (and SNd is incorrect) or he is not (and SNd was correct). If

you are going to root for Satyanarayana's view, then at least have

the stomach to accept the inevitable conclusion that results from his

point of view. Or at least have the stomach to say that Srila

Prabhupada was wrong in his paramparaa presentation.

 

As far as other points of contention are concerned, there are

numerous other examples of confusion as illustrated in Nitai dasa's

paper. These include such examples as:

 

(a) Birth in a brahmin family is a prerequisite to being a brahmin.

One has to at least have brahmin birth before he can call himself a

brahmin.

 

(b) The practice of varnaashrama dharma is incompatible with Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism, and those who follow Lord Chaitanya are automatically

above varnaashrama dharma

 

© The following of Vedic institutions of sannyaasa (like wearing of

saffron) makes one unfaithful to the Gosvamis and hence to orthodox

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism.

 

(d) The position of the Vedas is paramount, but the position of the

Gosvami Granthas is higher still. We need not care for any perceived

conflicts between the two if we follow the Gosvamis.

 

...and so on and so forth, just from my very brief recollection.

 

Actually there are numerous examples of very creative arguments on

the part of Nitai dasa, but for the sake of keeping this focused, I

have only distilled those points which from discussions with Madhava

Ananda et. al. I have understood to be also shared by Satyanarayana.

And lest you think I am uncharitable, I invite you to email SNd and

clarify that these are his views, so we can proceed from there

instead of knocking down strawmen.

 

> > 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. <<

>

> I don't think that those who praise Satyanarayan's

> scholarship skills

> as unassailable after having read any comparative works are to be

> referred to as "blind."

 

Forgive me for being more explicit, but you are obviously just not

getting the point.

 

(1) You have not been taught the Sandarbhas in the traditional manner

(2) Consequently you are not a scholar of the Sandarbhas

(3) You don't even know Sanskrit

(4) It therefore follows that you are not even a Sanskrit scholar

(5) A Sanskrit translation's correctness can best be judged by one

who knows Sanskrit

(6) The fidelity of a commentary is best judged by one who knows the

original

(7) Hence you are in no position to objectively evaluate

Satyanarayana's Sanskrit translation of the Sandarbhas

 

Was that abundantly clear?

 

I have throughout cautioned against blind acceptance/praise or blind

rejection of Satyanarayana's work. In fact, I have the same attitude

about any Sanskrit translation, even Srila Prabhupada's. This does

not preclude quoting a translation to make a point, since our

standard is to be evidence-based in our positions. But here we have a

group dedicated to Srila Prabhupada's understanding of Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism and Satyanarayana was being praised as an unassailable

scholar of the same by someone who was in no position to make that

determination. It therefore prompted a comment from me about his

difference vis-a-vis the Gaudiiya line as propagated by Srila

Prabhupada, so that devotees know that there is a difference, which I

fully recommend that they investigate.

 

As far as the rest of your argument, if I ever get around to

responding to it, it will have to be later.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dark_knight_9" <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

 

> That is a controversial topic in itself, but let me try to put it

in

> simple words. Diksa is an eternal connection between guru and

> disciple. If the disciple enters into bad association and his mind

> becomes perverted, he may indeed deviate from the instructions and

> example of his guru and previous acharyas, yet his diksa connection

> still remains eternal. The fallen disciple can yet again be

> reinstated in his proper position as a bona-fide disciple if he

> chooses to come back and remain true. There is a purport in Srila

> Prabhupada's books to this effect.

 

The above presupposes that:

 

1) The guru is bona fide (from the standpoint of both doctrinal

loyalty and personal behavior)

 

2) The disciple was at least sincere initially (as opposed to being a

dushkriti who gets initiation due to high birth only)

 

What you don't seem to acknowledge is the fact that many diiksha

ceremonies in India take place in the absence of the above.

 

In any case, the point here is that one has no authority if he

deviates from the shaastras or from the aachaarya whose philosophy he

claims to represent. Hence, sentiments (even implicitly mentioned)

like "So-and-so comes in an orthodox and authentic diiksha line

traced all the way back to such-and-such guru and therefore

everything he says is automatically true and correct and need not be

scrutinized for scriptural correctness" is wrong.

 

> Yet He took initiation into a Madhva line. By your logic,

Mahaprabhu

> has betrayed His own parampara because He did not follow the same

> conclusions as is understood and practised by the bulk of Madhva

> adherents. He also mentioned "YOUR sampradaya" several times

> when

> discussing with the Tattvavadi Acharya. You may say this is an

> exceptional case, but members of other sampradayas will not accept

> this if you presented this argument to them. However since this

> discussion is mainly in-house, we can say that just as Mahaprabhu

> departed from the teachings of Madhvacharya, the followers of

> Mahaprabhu follow His supreme example.

 

You aren't getting the point. The point is that Mahaaprabhu never

claimed to represent Madhva's philosophy or promulgate Tattvavaada.

This is obvious. So we don't fault Him or His followers for claiming

disciplic descent from Madhva, since the tradition is that one gives

credit to one's predecessors.

 

On the other hand, Satyanarayana does claim to be an orthodox

Gaudiiya Vaishnava, or at least his criticisms of the Gaudiiya-

Saarasvata paramparaa rest on this implicit assumption. So we have

not only the right, but the duty, to scrutinize his teachings in the

light of Lord Chaitanya's.

 

If Satyanarayana, Nitai das, et. al. wish to acknowledge that their

views represent a new and distinct sampradaaya that only has

historical connection to Chaitanya (the way Chaitanya's philosophy is

distinct from Madhva's even though they share a common paramparaa)

then we would have no issue with his claim to coming in an offshot of

the Gaudiiya paramparaa. The only duty remaining then would be to

scrutinize his views in light of shaastric teachings.

 

> In another twist, if according to you Mahaprabhu departed from the

> teachings of Madhvacharya, then why is there a certain pride taken

in

> labelling our parampara as "Brahma-MADHVA-Gaudiya

> sampradaya"?

 

It is not a question of pride, but a question of fact. Vedic

tradition requires that one gives credit to one's predecessor gurus,

even in the exceptional situation where one departs from their

teachings. It would be a gross violation of etiquette to ignore that

paramparaa affiliation, the claims of some hot-headed Dvaita list

members notwithsthanding.

 

> Considering the number of philosophical and traditional differences

> in the Madhva and Gaudiya schools, it is impossible for me to see

how

> the two remain connected.

 

That Mahaaprabhu comes in Madhva's paramparaa is an indisputable fact

as far as we are concerned. Both Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana and Kavi

Karnapura gave this paramparaa listing. This is not an issue here.

 

That Mahaaprabhu also taught a distinct philosophy that is NOT

Tattvavaada is also an indisputable fact.

 

Nevertheless, the historical connection remains. Do not obfuscate the

issue. One can have an historical connection in the absence of

doctrinal agreement. But in such a situation, one must clarify what

one's sampradaaya is. Chaitanaya's followers have made it abundantly

clear that they are not Tattvavaadiis. Satyanarayana on the other

hand claims to be orthodox Gaudiiya.

 

> Either we are Madhvites or we are not.

 

Trite pseudo-rebuttals (peppered with Sanskrit quotations that do not

establish anything new but only serve to give the appearance of

authority) do not strengthen your argument. They only reflect the

weaknesses in your position when you continuously divert this

discussion away from the main point, which is Satyanarayana's

authenticity as a Gaudiiya Vaishnava. As already mentioned above, and

is abundantly clear, Gaudiiyas have historical connection to Madhva

but are not Maadhvas in their philosophical outlook. This has not

been an issue here.

 

On the other hand, Satyanarayana et. al. teach doctrines regarding

varnaashrama, diiksha, and other issues which are philosophically at

odds with Lord Chaitanya. Therefore they should either admit to

starting a new sampradaaya with only historical connection to

Chaitanya or change their position.

 

> 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. <<

>

> That all depends on what exactly you mean by "Vedic

> traditions."

> Please state specifically what "Vedic traditions" you are

> referring

> to, and how exactly they are relevant to this subject matter.

 

In this case, Vedic tradition upholds that paramparaa can exist

without the formal diiksha ceremony. This is because, as you have

quoted, diiksha is not just a matter of a formal ceremony but rather

the transmission of divine knowledge. We have seen examples from the

Giitaa and the Bhaagavatam of paramparaas that are not connected by

formal diiksha, though nevertheless there is an understanding that

the substance of diiksha is there.

 

As far as how it is relevant to this subject matter, that is

painfully obvious. We are supposed to be Vaishnava Vedaantins, rather

than cheap, watered-down, neo-Advaitic "Hindus." This means that we

are loyal to shaastra, we base our philosophy on shaastra, and we

take seriously any contention that something we have said appears to

contradict shaastra. Contemporary Hindus don't care if they make some

proposition that contradicts shaastra. But Vaishnava Vedaantins must

be attentive, lest the charge be made that they are not completely

bona fide.

 

The concept of paramparaa is legitimized by actual transmission of

divine knowledge, even if a formal ceremony is not performed. This is

obvious from shaastric examples already provided several times. Those

who say otherwise are contradicting shaastra, and are thus wrong.

 

Nothing you have quoted from the Gosvamis is in contradiction to the

above.

 

Also,

> on what basis do you say that Vedic traditions (whatever you are

> referring to) supersedes individual parampara traditions, and do

you

> have any examples of the same?

 

When the answer is obvious, the question is merely a useless

distraction. See the above. If Satyanarayana and his followers have

no interest in at least pretending to be consistent with shaastra,

then there is no point in debating their views here.

 

Otherwise at this point, I don't

> see

> any justification for this statement that "Vedic traditions

> supersede

> parampara traditions" and as such it remains only your opinion.

 

This is just plain absurd. Vedas are the topmost authority on all

matters. This isn't an opinion. And it will not be debated here. You

will either accept this, or you will take your arguments elsewhere. I

don't have the time or the energy to debate the ABCs of Vedaanta so

that you can avoid defending Satyanarayana precarious position.

 

> It is

> still noted that acceptance into the line of Caitanya is by diksa.

 

By actual diiksha, i.e. transmission of divine knowledge, not merely

by formal ceremony.

 

Just of curiousity, you still have answered the question as to why it

is acceptable for Satyanarayana, Nitai das, et. al. to reject their

diiksha by Srila Prabhupada when you claim that diiksha is eternal.

Were you planning on doing so? Or are you going to continue to

promote principles which your own friends do not follow?

 

I

> don't see how any "Vedic traditions" may contradict this

> since even

> non-Gaudiya sampradayas have their methods of diksa. In all lines

> everywhere, the lineage is traced by diksa and not siksa.

 

As mentioned before, you are using the actual definition of diiksha

while Satyanarayana and his fellow critics are only using the "formal

ceremony" definition of diiksha. Thus you have not actually defended

Satyanarayana's position.

 

> >> We have already shown abundant examples of shiksha only

> connections prior to Lord Chaitanya. <<

>

> I doubt that. You provided only two examples; one was incorrect and

> the other remains doubtful. Hardly abundant. Besides that, the

> parampara after Lord Caitanya is being discussed here, not prior.

 

We are not going to continue to entertain such evasive arguments

here. This is a warning which you had better heed.

 

The paramparaa before Chaitanya is listed in Gaudiiya texts and is

relevant to this discussion. Continuing to ignore that example is

dishonest.

 

The Krishna-Brahmaa-Naarada-Vyaasa-Madhva paramparaa does not have

formal diiksha in each and every connection. Saying that it is

incorrect or doubtful is wrong. You have to show evidence of the

formal ceremony being performed in each case in order to prove your

point. The Bhaagavatam already shows the nature of Vyaasa's

relationship to Naarada - he was instructed by Naarada to write

Sriimad Bhaagavatam, and on this basis only is Vyaasa listed in the

paramparaa after Naarada. This is inconsistent with your position.

 

The Vivasvaan-Manu-Ikshvaaku line is an obvious example of a

paramparaa not connected by formal diiksha. These were rulers and

kings, not brahmins, and as such there was no way for them to perform

the diiksha ceremony. But a paramparaa it is nevertheless, as Krishna

refers to it as such. Sweeping this under the rug is not acceptable.

 

> First of all, consider the original words of Sripada Vidyabhusana:

>

> tatra guru-parampara yatha

>

> The translation (probably ISKCON-endorsed) is given as, "With

> great

> devotion we glorify the spiritual masters in the Gaudiya Vaisnava

> disciplic successions."

 

The Sanskrit refers to the "guru paramparaa" and not specifically to

the Gaudiiya paramparaa, at least not literally. But in any case,

there is nothing inconsistent about Sri Baladeva offering obeisances

preferentially to the Gaudiiya gurus, since it is they whose

teachings he has taken as his own.

 

Nothing in the above statement changes the fact that Srila Baladeva

listed his guru paramparaa from Lord Krishna via Madhva.

 

> There is no mention here of a diksa-parampara, neither is there any

> mention of diksa in the entire sloka until the mention of Srila

> Madhavendra Puri. The sloka then gives praise to Isvara Puri, then

to

> Isvara Puripada's disciple Mahaprabhu.

 

It's obvious that you are getting desperate in your arguments.

 

That the listing is a paramparaa is beyond dispute. Since you cannot

ignore it, now you require that the term "diiksha paramparaa" be

explicitly mentioned? But your original thesis was that paramparaa

can only be connected via diiksha. If that statement was true, then

the phrase "diiksha paramparaa" would be redundant, since paramparaa

would imply diiksha. Logically, one would therefore not be expected

to say "diiksha paramparaa" for that very reason.

 

Instead of ignoring the evidence or looking for excuses to do the

same, you should just admit that your (Satyanarayana's) theory is not

Vedic in character, and is inconsistent with the paramparaa concept

embraced by Srila Baladeva.

 

Even still here it is only

> mentioned "disciple", sisyat. So in any case, the sloka from

> Prameya

> Ratnavali appears to be speaking of non-diksa connections and that

> diksa seems to be mentioned in connection with Madhavendra Puripada

> onwards. This still is not incompatible with Gaudiya understanding

of

> parampara, since the lineage from Mahaprabhu onwards is traced by

> diksa.

 

This is just another way of saying, "the evidence proves your point,

and therefore it should be ignored."

 

Once again you demonstrate circular thinking in your approach. "All

paramparaa in the Gaudiiya tradition is connected by formal diiksha

only, because any paramparaa that is not so connected is not

legitimate paramparaa and therefore is not evidence to the contrary."

 

> Also, is there any possibility of observing a certain standard of

> decorum? I do not feel very satisfied when I see Sri

> Vidyabhusana's

> name in the same sentence as liar and cheat. The same sentiments

have

> a possibility of being expressed in a more tasteful way to the

> satisfaction of the perennially-joyful devotees.

 

It is difficult, isn't it, when the logical extension of your

arguments leads to unpalatable conclusions?

 

Your approach of ignoring evidence, arguing over tangential issues,

and repeatedly refusing to acknowledge the points being made is why

one must use extreme language to get your attention. Even then, you

still have not answered the question at all. Is the paramparaa

listing by Baladeva correct or not? The lame excuse that it does not

say "diiksha paramparaa" is bunk.

 

I have spent too much time simply restating what was already said to

no effect. We won't continue this discussion if you have nothing new

to say and cannot answer the points already made.

 

> Despite being a resident of the UK, I have never appreciated this

> statement as it seems completely irrelevant and out of place in

> almost all of the situations and contexts in which it is placed.

What

> else are we supposed to do with a piece of cake, smell it perhaps?

 

Would you like to answer the question about the correctness of the

paramparaa listing, or are we to be subjected to more evasive

maneuvers?

 

> Then those devotees should not be criticising. Such a narrow-minded

> mentality is to be condemned. It goes without saying that the

> behavioural traits of a Vaishnava do not include petty criticism.

> However, the siddhanta is that the devotees of the Gaudiya lines

wear

> white.

 

And since Srila Prabhupada did not do so, you must logically conclude

that he is going against the siddhaanta of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. And

yet you will not condemn him as Satyanarayana et. al. have. Pure and

unadulterated sentimentalism.

 

You must have the courage to accept the ramifications of your

conclusions. That you cannot do so illustrates the difficulty you are

having with the conclusions you are trying to state as factual.

 

> > 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

 

> 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. <<

>

> What does that have to do with this discussion about Gaudiya

> siddhanta?

 

How should I know? You were the one who brought it up. I was

interested in talking about Satyanarayana's differences vis-a-vis the

Saarasvata line, but so far you have managed to turn this into a

discussion of almost everything and anything else.

 

> FYI, I am in personal contact with quite a few members of "those

> lines" so, although I am certainly no expert, I do believe that I

> am

> in a position to know what the mechanics of sadhana and bhajan are

> in "those lines."

 

When I respond to irrelevant remarks like these, you question the

relevance of my response.

 

If there are 100,000 Gaudiiya Vaishnavas in those "other" paramparaas

(outside the Sarasvati line), I think we can reasonably assume that

you do not even know 1000 of them. Trying to speak up for the group

as a whole is like saying that you can extrapolate Darwin's theory of

gradual evolution from the less than 1% of the fossil record

available.

 

And since the saadhana of those other devotees was not questioned by

me, it's ultimately not the point. Again, the point is

Satyanarayana's differences vis-a-vis the Saarasvati line.

 

Again, what does this question have to do

> with

> Gaudiya siddhanta? This is like saying, before I can comment on

Srila

> Prabhupada's words or ISKCON's terms, I must be personally

> acquainted

> with a sizeable number of ISKCON's [full-time] members. All

> fourteen-

> thousand of them? Not including a worldwide congregation in the

> millions, who probably have no clue of Gaudiya siddhanta but have

> only arrived to partake in the Sunday Feast? This is a bizarre

> proposal, I'm sure you agree.

 

You aren't making any sense. Why must anyone know a majority of

ISKCON members to comment on Srila Prabhupada's works? When have I

even implied such a thing? Why do you claim that knowing so many

folks in Satyanarayana's paramparaa excuses him from differing with

Lord Chaitanya?

 

When are you going to stay focused on the discussion?

 

> About doctrinal loyalty, that's another great issue that perhaps

> deserves a separate thread to at least first define Mahaprabhu's

> doctrine.

 

Right. And this is the type of evasive response which betrays the

deviant thinking. Why would Satyanarayana's philosophical disposition

vis-a-vis Lord Chaitanya be relevant here? Having an unconnected line

of gurus all the way back to Lord Chaitanya is all that matters.

Never mind what they teach or if it's even the same as what

Mahaaprabhu taught.

 

> Actually, that was the exact issue I was discussing. According to

my

> records, you have previously found fault with an alternative

> interpretation of CC without realising perhaps that it is a

perfectly

> bona-fide interpretation in light of the perspective it came from.

 

I'm sure I have no idea what you are talking about. Were you going to

provide specifics, or just hope that everyone believes you based

solely on your word?

 

> >> The issue rather, is why some of those who choose to do bhajan

> should criticize those who wish to preach. <<

>

> Again, it is not in the nature of devotees to criticise. That is

not

> correct behaviour.

 

Criticism is acceptable when it is based on shaastra. We criticize

those who deviate from shaastra, or in this case from Mahaaprabhu, so

that the innocent can recognize what is true and what is misleading.

 

But when devotees take up the instruction of Mahaaprabhu to preach,

it is inappropriate to criticize them as unorthodox for not wearing

white. That such "devotees" cannot recognize the significance of the

directive to preach shows their deviant thinking. When the color of

one's outward dress becomes more important than spreading bhakti, it

is a deviation. Those devotees are therefore not living up to the

spirit of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. Saying "oh, but there are bhajanandi

and gosthyanandi Vaishnavas" is not an excuse. We don't see any

evidence that such a two-fold classification gives the so-called

bhajanandis the right to reject goshthyanandis who have executed Lord

Chaitanya's commands. Saying "oh, but I know so many of these

bhajananandis, and they have such high level of sadhana" is also not

an excuse. Many brahmins in India have good sadhana, but that does

not necessarily make them loyal followers of the paramparaas which

they claim to represent.

 

> Though there are several slokas in CC in favour of preaching,

 

It's good to know that it is ok to preach. I suppose that

the "orthodox" Gaudiiya Vaishnavas consider it a quaint concept.

 

there

> are also a sizeable number of slokas favouring the bhajananandi

> approach.

 

None of which have been quoted by you here, so we cannot appreciate

the context and the audience to whom they were intended.

 

On the other hand, the CC quotes which I provided made it quite clear

that Mahaaprabhu was referring to the general audience of devotees.

 

ataeva aami aaj~naa dilu.n sabaakaare |

yaahaa.n taahaa.n prema-phala deha'yaare taare || CC, aadi, 9.36 ||

 

Therefore I order every man within this universe to accept this

Krishna consciousness movement and distribute it everywhere. (shrii

chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-liila, 9.36)

 

ataeva saba phala deha'yaare taare |

khaaiyaaha-uk loka ajara amare || CC, aadi, 9.39 ||

 

Distribute this Krishna-consciousness movement all over the world.

Let people eat these fruits and ultimately become free from old age

and death. (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-liila, 9.39)

 

jagat vyaapiyaa mora habe puNya khyaati |

sukhii ha-iyaa loka mora gaahibeka kiirti || CC, aadi, 9.40 ||

 

If the fruits are distributed all over the world, My reputation as a

pious man will be known everywhere, and thus all people will glorify

My name with great pleasure. (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-

liila, 9.40)

 

bhaarata-bhuumite haila manuShya janma yaara |

janma saarthaka kari'kara para-upakaara || CC, Aadi, 9.41 ||

 

One who has taken his birth as a human being in the land of India

[bhaarata-varsha] should make his life successful and work for the

benefit of all other people. (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-

liila, 9.41)

 

Fact: Lord Chaitanya wanted the general body of His followers to

preach (not to be disputed, the evidence is above).

 

Fact: Lord Chaitanya demonstrated by His personal example the

directives He issued to His devotees, namely the widespread preaching

of Krishna-consciousness.

 

Fact: Lord Krishna is worshipped in Kali Yuga by congregational

preaching by intelligent persons:

 

kR^iShNavarNa.m tviShaakR^iShNa.m saan^gopaan^gaastrapaarShadam |

yaj~naiH sa.nkiirtanapraayairyajanti hi sumedhasaH || bhaa 11.5.32 ||

 

In the age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational

chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings

the names of Krishna. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is

Krishna Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants,

weapons and confidential companions (bhaagavata puraaNa 11.5.32).

 

Fact: Lord Krishna states that those who preach are dearest to Him:

 

ya ida.m parama.m guhya.m madbhakteShvabhidhaasyati |

bhakti.m mayi paraa.m kR^itvaa maam evaiShyatyasa.mshayaH || giitaa

18.68 ||

 

For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure

devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to

Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 18.68)

 

na cha tasmaanmanuShyeShu kashchinme priyakR^ittamaH |

bhavitaa na cha me tasmaad anyaH priyataro bhuvi || giitaa 18.69 ||

 

There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will

there ever be one more dear. (bhagavad-giitaa 18.69)

 

Fact: Lord Chaitanya only entered into the bhajanaanandi stage after

He had spent most of His life *preaching.*

 

Fact: Lord Chaitanya observed the varnaashrama institution, including

the wearing of saffron and other such things. This was also true of

many of His associates.

 

Fact: Lord Krishna states that He follows prescribed duties ****so

that others will not discard them****:

 

na me paarthaasti kartavya.m triShu lokeShu ki~nchana |

naanavaaptamavaaptavya.m varta eva cha karmaNi || giitaa 3.22 ||

 

O son of Prithaa, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the

three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a

need to obtain anything - and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties.

(bhagavad-giitaa 3.22)

 

yadi hyaha.m na varteya.m jaatu karmaNyatandritaH |

mama vartamaanuvartante manuShyaaH paartha sarvashaH || giitaa 3.23 ||

 

For if I ever failed to engage in carefully perfroming prescribed

duties, O Paartha, certainly all men would follow My path. (bhagavad-

giitaa 3.23)

 

Fact: Without following the shaastric regulations (including

varnaashrama dharma), one cannot attain the highest perfection of

life:

 

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own

whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme

destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)

 

Fact: Given the above, only the surrendered or self-realized devotee

can discard external, scriptural regulations like varnaashrama dharma:

 

naiva tasya kR^itenaartho naakR^iteneha kashchana |

na chaasya sarvabhuuteShu kashchidarthavyapaashrayaH ||

 

A self-realized man has no purpose to fulfill in the discharge of his

prescribed duties, nor has he any reason not to perform such work.

Nor has he any need to depend on any other living being. (bhagavad-

giitaa 3.18)

 

sarvadharmaan parityajya maameka.m sharaNa.m vrajaa |

aha.m tvaa.m sarvapaapebhyo mokSHayiShyaami maa shuchaH || giitaa

18.66 ||

 

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall

deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

 

Fact: Those so-called Gaudiiyas who criticize the Saarasvata line

as "unorthodox" or "not authentic" have NOT take up the above

instruction.

 

Conclusion: Since Lord Chaitanya ordered the general body of Gaudiiya

devotees to preach, reinforced this by His own personal example, and

stated in Giitaa that those devotees who preach are dearest to Him,

it therefore follows that those who wish to be considered orthodox

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas must follow His instruction and example to

preach.

 

Conclusion: Since Lord Chaitanya observed the varnaashrama

institution, and since varnaashrama is endorsed by the shaastras,

those who wish to attain perfection must follow it. Only those who

are self-realized and surrendered unto Krishna are exempt.

 

Conclusion: It also follows that those who wish to call themselves

Gaudiiyas and yet not go out and preach in sankiirtana style, can

feel free to be isolated. But then they should not claim to be more

orthodox than those Gaudiiyas have have followed Mahaaprabhu's

example.

 

Let me know if any point in the above sequence was difficult to

understand.

 

I'd say that there is ample provision for both types of

> devotees as mentioned previously, therefore any disagreement

between

> the two groups of devotees is childish and petty at best.

 

The only thing that is childish and petty is your refusal to answer

the question and instead knock down strawmen. One cannot help but

note the pattern:

 

The so-called bhajanaanandis criticize the gosthyaanandis as

unorthodox.

 

Then evidence is brought forward to defend the gosthyaanandis and

point out that their approach is the orthodox one as opposed to the

bhajanaanandis.

 

The so-called bhajanaanandis have no response, so they throw their

arms in the air and claim to be the victims of criticism,

discrimination, pettiness, etc.

 

A good rule of thumb is "if you are going to dish it out, you had

better be prepared to take it." An equally good maxim is "those who

live in glass houses should not throw stones." If the so-called

bhajanaanandis had been content to stay in isolation, this discussion

would never have taken place. Perhaps they should retreat from their

criticisms of Srila Sarasvati Thakura rather than risk being

discredited further.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dark_knight_9" <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

 

> However, there is a clear statement from Sanatana Goswami objecting

> to saffron-clad Vaishnavas.

 

Sanatana Gosvami did not "object to saffron-clad Vaishnavas." Please

treat the evidence as it is rather than reading your own theories

into them.

 

If Sanaatana Gosvami had an issue with "objecting to saffron-clad

Vaishnavas" (your words), then it necessarily follows that he must

have objected to Madhva, Raamaanuja, Lord Chaitanya, and many others

who were also saffron-clad Vaishnavas.

 

What was written by Sanaatana Gosvami (as quoted by Nitai dasa's

article) was:

 

rakta-vastra vaisnavera podite na yuyay (Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya

13.61) "A Vaisnava should not wear red cloth."

nagno dviguna-vastrah syan nagno raktapatas tatha: "Wearing red cloth

is like walking naked"

sukla-vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet (both from Hari-

bhakti-vilasa, 4.147,152): "Always wear white and give up red cloth."

raktam nilam adhautam ca parakyam malinam patam paridhaya

(Agamasastra quoted in Durgama-sangamani by Sri Jiva Gosvami on

Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, 1.2.120 ): "Wearing red, blue or unwashed

garments is a sevaparadha."

 

None of these forbid wearing saffron. Only one of them states that

one should wear white. But the context in which that statement is

found is that one should not wear red, blue, or unwashed garments.

I'm not sure about blue, but red is associated with shakta ascetics.

 

This is hardly a condemnation of the existing tradition of sannyaasis

wearing saffron. At most, it is a directive to depart from it. But

since regulative principles are to be followed by all those who are

not yet self-realized, any directive for sannyaasis to abandon

saffron and wear white should be taken up by paramahamsas, not those

who are still on the conditioned platform.

 

Even then, we have the example of Naarada demonstrating that one can

adjust the external regulations for the greater good:

 

saparyaa.m vividhair dravyair deshakaalavibhaagavati || bhaa 4.8.54 ||

 

"One should offer flowers and fruits and other varieties of

foodstuffs exactly according to the rules and regulations prescribed

by authorities. But this should be done in consideration of place,

time, and attendant conveniences and inconveniences." (bhaagavata

puraaNa 4.8.54)

 

The principle illustrated by the above example is that great devotees

can adjust the method of worship to fit the circumstance, so long as

the greater purpose of devotional service is maintained. I previously

quoted Vishnu Puraana which stated that ordinary devotees worship the

Lord through performance of varnaashrama dharma:

 

varNaashramaachaaravataa puruSheNa paraH pumaan |

viShNuraaraadhyate panthaa naanyat tattoShakaaraNam || viSh P 3.8.9

||

 

yajan yaj~naan yajatyena.m japatyena.m japan nR^ipa |

ghna.m stathaanyaa.m hinastyena.m sarvabhuuto yato hariH || viSh P

3.8.10 ||

 

tasmaat sadaachaaravataa puruSheNa janaardanaH |

aaraadhyate svavarNektdharmaanuShTaanakaariNaa || viSh P 3.8.11 ||

 

braahmaNaH kshatriyo vaishyaH shuudrashcha dharaNiipate |

svadharmatatparo viShNumaaraadhayati naanyathaa || viSh P 3.8.12 ||

 

The Supreme Visnu is propitiated by a man who observes the

institutions of caste, order, and purificatory practices: no other

path is the way to please him. He who offers sacrifices, sacrifices

to Him; he who murmurs prayer, prays to Him; he who injures living

creatures, injures Him; for Hari is all beings. Janaardana therefore

is propitiated by him who is attentive to established observances,

and follows the duites prescribed for his caste. The Brahmin, the

Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shuudra, who attends to the rules

enjoined by his caste, best worships Vishnu. (viShNu puraaNa 3.8.9-12)

 

You could argue that Sanaatana Gosvami was adjusting this principle

for what was appropriate in his time (when he recommended that

renounced devotees wear white instead of saffron.) But the same is

true of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta when he reinstituted the varnaashrama

system which involves wearing of saffron. Since Gaudiiyas follow the

Bhaagavatam in which this principle of adjusting external regulations

is to be found, there is nothing unorthodox about utilizing it when

it is necessary.

 

The conclusion is that knowing the essence of the regulations is more

important than blindly following them without considering the

circumstances. The argument that "but the Gosvamis said wear white,

therefore those who do not wear white are not orthodox Gaudiiya

Vaishnavas" is on a level of thinking so mediocre it hardly justifies

even this much response.

 

> 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. <<

>

> I do not see how you have any kind of authority to make a statement

> about my knowledge base or experience as if you know me very well,

so

> kindly desist from making these sorts of unsubstantiated judgments.

 

You do not know Haridas Shastri, are not a traditional scholar of the

Sandarbhas, and are thus in no way, shape, or form, to give any

authoritative opinion about him. Please just admit to this and stop

pretending that your praise of him has any authority. You do not know

what you are talking about, and your praise is based on sentiment.

 

> Regarding Haridas Sastri, you are obviously unaware of his

> achievements since you have stated as much in your above comment.

> FYI, I have it that Haridas Sastri has performed a great service

for

> the Gaudiya Vaishnava community by spending virtually his whole

> career in translating the rare and classic Gaudiya sastras of the

> previous Acharyas (such as Sat-sandarbha, Caitanya-mangala, etc.)

> thus enabling a new generation to have access to these works.

 

Of course, Srila Prabhupada performed an *unparalleled* service for

the Gaudiiya Vaishnava community by introducing it all over the

world. Before his time, Vaishnavism was merely a "Hindu sect," hardly

anyone outside of India had heard of it, and Krishna was considered

by many to be nothing more than a "Hindu god." Now, thanks to Srila

Prabhupada's efforts, there is a palpable academic interest in

Vaishnavism, millions all over the world are hearing the Holy Names

of Krishna, thousands upon thousands are rediscovering their own

Vaishnava heritage, and temples exist all over the world to glorify

Lord Krishna.

 

But none of this matters to the likes of Haridas Sastri,

Satyanarayana das, Nitai das, et. al. since Srila Prabhupada wore

saffron instead of white. Therefore he is not an orthodox Gaudiiya

Vaishnava as far as they are concerned.

 

For the record, I have not criticized Haridas Sastri; I have only

pointed out that your praise of him is blind and unsubstantiated. But

were I to criticize him, you have already provided a defense, by

alluding to his many accomplishments. Yet I do not understand why

your friends the "orthodox" critics do not similarly consider Srila

Prabhupada's accomplishments when judging him. Never mind his

accomplishments, but Srila Prabhupada is not the real thing because

he wears saffron. But Haridas Sastri is the real thing because of all

his accomplishments. I'm sure you will explain how this is not a

double standard.

 

> You are also obviously unaware that a large number of ISKCON

> publications draw a lot of information from Haridas Sastri's

> translations as source and reference material. I am not sure if

> plagiarism is an issue, but suffice to say his works are indeed

> authoritative.

 

Srila Prabhupada drew a lot of material on his early Bhagavad-Gita

lectures from S. Radhakrishnan's Bhagavad-Gita translation, which

just happened to have the original Sanskrit for the benefit of his

disciples. So, by your logic, I must now assume that S.

Radhakrishnan's stand on Bhagavad-Gita is authoritative, and that

Srila Prabhupada has plagiarized from him?

 

At this time, please inform us what *specifically* was drawn from

Haridas Sastri's translations by Srila Prabhupada. This is just so I

know that there is a logical basis for assuming that Haridas Sastri

is authoritative merely because someone supposedly borrowed something

from his translations.

 

I am not in knowledge if there is anyone else who has

> performed as much seva or even if their translations of spiritual

> classics are on the same level, so it is not out of place to say

that

> he has certainly done a great seva which is appreciable.

Enviousness

> is out of place here.

 

So if I object to your praise of Haridas Sastri because it is given

without any personal qualification on your part, then it is envy.

 

But if your friends object to Srila Prabhupada's authenticity as a

Gaudiiya Vaishnava, despite the fact that they only embraced

Vaishnavism due to his efforts and would very possibly be meat-eating

dushkritis had it not been for his vigorous preaching, then this is

not envy?

 

> Interesting that you admit that you haven't studied many

alternative

> translations, yet you assume that I am also haven't?

 

It's hardly an assumption, Sanjay. It's just common sense. The only

people who have translated the Tattva-Sandarbha into English are:

 

Satyanarayana dasa

BV Tripurari Swami

Stuart Elkman

Kushakratha dasa

 

As far as the above are concerned, Tripurari's translation is really

more of a gloss than a strict verse-by-verse translation and

commentary. I don't even know how he published it, as I was made to

understand that he did not even know Sanskrit.

 

Stuart Elkman is a closet Ramakrishna follower who did his

translation as part of his PhD dissertation. He isn't even favorable

to Gaudiiya Vaishnava conclusions.

 

Kushakratha's translation lacks commentary, is more of a literal,

verse-by-verse translation, and was not preceeded by much research or

study of the text.

 

Where am I going with this? The point here is that you can't declare

Satyanarayana's translation to be the authoritative one on the plea

that you have studied many other translations. Because the fact is

that no other translation of the TS is of even better-than-marginal

quality. Satyanarayana's translation can only be judged against a

similar, high-quality presentation. Until such time as one is

available, all one can say is that Satyanarayana has done more

research into his translation and as such is better than the other

three. One cannot declare it to be the authoritative one simply

because he has read the medicore alternatives.

 

> You may or may not be correct here. However, I was not discussing

his

> translation of Tattva-sandarbha, but rather his serialised essays

> printed in BTG.

 

You were earlier discussing his translation of the Tattva-sandarbha.

On Monday, April 28th you responded that SND's deviation from

orthodox Gaudiiya thinking had no bearing on the quality of his

Tattva-sandarbha translation. That's why this discussion is taking

place.

 

> Again I still don't see how you are in a position to comment on

> what

> I have read and what I haven't. Do you have access to the

> publications in my personal library, by any chance?

 

There are no other scholarly English translations of the Tattva-

Sandarbha in existence besides the one by Satyanarayana das. It

therefore follows that everything you know about the Tattva-

Sandarbha, you know only from Satyanarayana's translation of it.

Hence, you are in no position to objectively evaluate Satyanarayana's

presentation since you have never been confronted with a different

presentation of similar caliber. I'm sorry that this statement has

caused so much indignation on your part. But really, your bluff has

been called, so let's table it and get on with this.

 

> I am also starting to wonder if your taking this discussion into

the

> realms of personal attacks to the extent of insulting people has

any

> benefit to drawing conclusions regarding Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

Had I seen this accusation, I would have rejected your posting from

inclusion into the Achintya archives. When confronted with

controversy, the honest approach is to respond on the same level,

rather than accusing your opponent of pettiness, insults, etc simply

because you cannot defeat him. Consider yourself forewarned.

 

Hence I

> am deliberately going to disregard any further statements about

> Satyanarayana and/or Haridas Sastri. This discussion is about

Gaudiya

> siddhanta, and not institutional politics.

 

Well, this is what I have been trying to talk about all along, but it

was you who insisted that Satyanarayana's siddhanta had no bearing on

his presentation of Tattava-Sandarbha, that the good saadhana of his

followers was evidence of their paramparaa's authenticity, that the

shaastric view of paramparaa was not relevant here, etc etc.

 

> The "diksa-only deviation" is observed by all the paramparas

> descending from the personal associates of Sriman Mahaprabhu

Himself.

> If your comments are to be put into a practical context, this is

> clearly saying that those who take initiation in such parivaras are

> not bona-fide. Taking the step of repeating this comment a second

> time is certainly insulting to such Vaishnavas.

 

This kind of politically-correct whitewash is not appropriate for

Achintya.

 

If we are discussing the fact that some ideas are deviant from

shaastra, then the fact that they are observed by "all the

paramparas" as you list them is not our problem, but theirs.

 

It is a fact that select members of these other "paramparas" reject

Srila Prabhupada as a bona fide Gaudiiya Vaishanva based on the color

of his cloth and the listing of his paramparaa without formal,

ceremonial diiksha connections. Ironic that this is not to be taken

as insulting to him or his paramparaa. Why the double standard?

 

But when we put the facts up for consideration, and come to

conclusions which are unpalatable to these critics, they complain

that it is insulting to them.

 

If the critics are so sensitive, then they should remain silent in

their criticisms.

 

> 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. <<

>

> Thank you for clarifying that. It is indeed wonderful that you

> confirmed this, considering the number of times you have split up

my

> sentences into two or more parts and deriving different meanings

> therefrom. Aside from that, it is difficult to differentiate what

you

> say and what you mean by that since your comments almost always are

> in a violation of sorts of specific concepts and practices.

 

If I could decipher the last sentence, I might have something to say

in response to it. As the facts stand, it is you who have repeatedly

read things into my otherwise straightforward sentences, repeatedly

ignored evidence, refused to answer straightforward questions (such

as why Satyanarayana's diiksha connection with Srila Prabhupada is

not eternal), misquoted Jiva Gosvami to defend Satyanarayana, accused

anyone of disagreeing with you of insulting or offending somebody,

deliberately refused to understand the points being posed to you and

choosing instead to go off on some other tangent, knock down strawmen

arguments, and in short, prolonged this discussion beyond its value

to this list.

 

I won't be spending any more time repeating what has already been

said in my already verbose postings. This means that you will either

understand what is said, or you will not continue arguing. I don't

have time to continuously repeat what was already clear, simply

because you have no response and must therefore obfuscate the issues

so as to conceal your lack of a defense for your position. I

appreciate challenges that force me to rethink my position; I don't

appreciate circular arguments and tangential thinking which

contributes to list volume without adding anything new. Nor do I

appreciate "rebuttals" which focus on one word in a sentence, pour

out volumes against it, and say nothing about the main idea of the

sentence.

 

> OK, you have previously mentioned Caitanya's conclusions and so

> on,

> but I noticed that you haven't provided any pramanas from

> Mahaprabhu

> to back up your points in this post.

 

We have already mentioned the facts that Lord Chaitanya observed

varnaashrama, wore saffron, preached to everyone far and wide, asked

His devotees to do the same, etc. This in contrast to the devotees

who insist that wearing white instead of saffron makes them more

orthodox than those who followed Lord Chaitanya's example.

 

I am not going to quote pramaanas to prove what should be obvious to

you, nor repeat what has already been said just to give you more time

to decide what you can say to defend your opinions.

 

> >> 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, <<

>

> However, that does not justify retaliatory behaviour. To indulge in

> such makes one no better than the first slinger, isn't it so?

 

What I am trying to tell you Sanjay, is that I did not indulge

in "retaliatory behavior." My response was according to the evidence

on a point-by-point basis. It isn't my problem that the critics

cannot deal with an evidence-based presentation and can only respond

by claiming that they have been insulted, had mud thrown at them, etc

when it is they who have published the mud-slinging rhetoric.

 

Truth hurts sometimes. The difference is that I need only state the

facts while they have to rely on angry hyperbole. I refuse to discuss

this point further, since it, too, is tangential. Please confine all

further responses to the issues of Satyanarayana's departure from

Lord Chaitanya on such issues as initiation, varnaashrama,

preaching, and so on.

 

> >> I'm certain that I did stick to the point, which is more than

what

> I could say for Nitai das and his "arguments." <<

>

> Those "arguments" did not belong to Delmonico, neither did he

> take

> part in that discussion so it is pointless to insinuate any

strayness.

 

Right. I'm sure he disagreed with most of the paper. Why else would

he post it on his website? Silly me.

 

> I think you misunderstood what I said above. I said that I have not

> seen a convincing *point-by-point* refutation of the entire paper.

It

> has certainly generated much argument and discussion in various

fora

> and certainly it has been the butt of jokes and tawdriness; however

> it still stands there that has been no specific and convincing

> refutation of all the points in there.

 

The point that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's initiation was based on a

dream, has been refuted by me. Actually, it was not so much refuted

by me as just not proven by them.

 

The point that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's status as a sannyaasii was not

real because he did not have a proper sannyaasii initiation, has been

refuted by me.

 

The point that wearing white makes one an orthodox Gaudiiya

Vaishnava, and that wearing of saffron is opposed to the principles

of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism has been refuted by me.

 

The point that formal, ceremonial diiksha legitimizes a paramparaa,

without which it is not legitimate, has been refuted by me.

 

The point that varnaashrama can be given up by just anyone who

follows Lord Chaitanya's teachings, has been refuted by me.

 

Probably there were other points which I refuted as well, but those

were the ones I recall addressing.

 

Now, since it is a foregone conclusion that you will claim that no

refutation was provided for the points, no evidence was quoted to

refute them, nothing convincing was said, and so on, please refrain

from just saying so here. Rather, go back to the points I have

already made in previous messages, and in the messages of this

thread, in which I again discussed these points. If you have a

response to the specific points of evidence provided, then give it.

Please don't wave your hands and brush aside the specifics.

 

> As for your points made therein, I noted that most of them were

> largely at odds with the general siddhanta of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

Another hand-waving claim that ignores the fact that Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism derives its authenticity from shaastra, and I have

provided abundant shaastric examples to show how Neal Delmonico et.

al have spoken incorrectly.

 

> Aside from that, it is not very productive to single out the use of

> the Hari-bhakti-vilasa to answer a relatively minor point when

there

> were so many other major points that were not adequately refuted.

> Besides, it is well-known that the authority of the HBV is

> unquestionable since it was specifically written as a manual for

> Vaishnavas to follow to the letter.

 

I have already responded to this point as well, about singling out

HBV and ignoring shaastric precedents to the apparent contrary, and

how putting the two at odds with each other betrays ignorance of the

correct understanding of how Vaishnavas relate to shaastra. This

response was posted to the Audarya forum and is still viewable there.

 

To be perfectly honest, I have

> read in some sources that HBV was intended as a manual for

Vaishnavas

> in general, even those who belong to other sampradayas such as the

> Ramanuja and Madhva ones, to introduce them to the specific tenets

> that are required to worship Sri Krishna as ista-deva. However, the

> fact that it was written by a Gaudiya Vaishnava for Gaudiya

> Vaishnavas as well make it an unavoidable text for the study by the

> same.

 

And again, we see the return to the same pattern. Insist on diligent

study of Hari-bhakti Vilaasa, but never mind the Bhaagavata, Bhagavad-

giitaa, and other texts which provide examples which contradict your

*understanding* of HBV. What the Bhaagavatam says about varnaashrama,

paramparaa, etc is not relevant, because that was before and this is

now. It isn't possible that the critics' selective understanding of

HBV is what is at fault.

 

> Speaking of which, I didn't notice much quotation of HBV except

> in

> the case of whether Vaishnavas should wear white. Other than that,

> Jiva Goswami's works have been quoted, CC has been quoted,

> example of

> past Acharyas have been quoted for the ther points; so is it true

to

> say that *only* evidence from HBV has been quoted? This is

obviously

> a fib.

 

Spouting accusations is a pathetic defense.

 

The critics have not quoted any shaastra from the Vedas. They have

only quoted Gosvami granthas, because their theory is that one should

understand the Vedas through the Gosvami granthas. All fine and good,

but when one's understanding of the Gosvami granthas is in question,

the solution is to go further back to the shaastras which everyone

accepts (like the Bhaagvatam) rather than sweeping them under the rug

and insisting that the Gosvami granthas only be considered, and any

apparent contradiction be ignored. The Hari-bhakti Vilaasa should be

understood in the context of the Bhaagavatam rather than in

opposition to it.

 

By the way, how is it out of context? Assuming that you are

> referring to the white-cloth issue, how do you argue that it is

taken

> out of context?

 

I have already addressed this point also, about the necessity of

following regulative principles, about how surrendered devotees only

are exempt from them, and how we have to take Hari-Bhakti Vilaasa in

the context of the greater Vedic corpus lest we inadvertently state

that HBV contradicts Vedic regulations.

 

> >> Obviously, if you believe it is okay for an aachaarya to

> contradict his guru's example (such as Lord Chaitanya's wearing of

> saffron),<<

>

> By that logic, the Six Goswamis contradicted Mahaprabhu's

> example,

> since they wore white.

 

Pardon me for asking, but are you really this obtuse, or do you

deliberately ignore what I write for the sake of being argumentative?

 

My point all along has been that the external regulations of service

can be adjusted by the aachaarya for time, place, and circumstance.

This has been alluded to in shaastra already. I have said it time and

time again even within this very forum with reference to the specific

pramaanas and historical examples. Thus, there is no fault in Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta for reinstituting saffron cloth when the Gosvamis

wore white, just as there is no fault in the Gosvamis adopting the

white cloth when Lord Chaitanya observed the saffron tradition. These

are external regulations.

 

It is the critics who foolishly find fault with Bhaktisiddhanta for

instituting saffron, even though that is what Lord Chaitanya

observed. Thus, if the critics find fault with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

and ignore the Bhaagavatam's allowance to adjust external

regulations, then they must similarly find fault with the Gosvamis

for differing from Lord Chaitanya on the same grounds. Since that is

an unacceptable conclusion to everyone concerned, the premise upon

which it is based (that the color of one's cloth is central to

Gaudiiya Vaishnava siddhaanta) is wrong. Thus there is nothing wrong

with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta reintroducing saffron.

 

Why is it so difficult to get through to you? This is a simple,

logical sequence. If you are going to disagree with it, then do so.

But at least understand what is being said instead of taking one of

my sentences out of context. Your response above is so short-sighted

that you didn't even realize you defeated your own argument.

 

Interestingly, they were designated by

> Mahaprabhu Himself to be the role-models for future generations of

> devotees.

 

No role model would insist on blindly following external regulations

without understanding the substance behind them. Your concept of

a "role model" is analogous to that of a caste brahmin.

 

> >> 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.

<<

>

> Sources may not be disputed; translations may.

 

You have not disputed any of the above sources or provided a

satisfactory alternative translation of any of them. Either provide

an alternate translation that shows they do not mean what I have

quoted them as saying, or admit the errors in your argument. Merely

implying that an alternate translation would be satisfactory is not

the same thing as providing one.

 

Then again, the fact that you do not know Sanskrit and that you base

your knowledge of the above scriptures on what Srila Prabhupada has

translated for you must make it difficult to disagree with him.

 

Saying that an alternate translation exists and leaving it at that is

a typical "Sai Baba/Vivekananda/Chinmayananda" response. It's like

saying, "oh, that is one way of understanding it, but there is

another way. Anyway there are many ways…."

 

Giving the alternate translation and explaining how it is a better

one than the one previously provided is a scholarly response.

 

You should know by now which of the above approaches is acceptable

for this forum.

 

> I don't think you would be innocent enough to believe that I was

> objecting to your quoting from sastra. Obviously I was referring to

> the unreliable evidence that you employed from the biography of

Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. It is well-known that the biography in

> question ("A Ray of Vishnu") is an unreliable and

> highly-biased text,

> so to use it to make a forceful point is not a very good proposal.

 

You have a habit of stating things as if they are obvious facts, and

hoping that the confidence with which you make those statements will

convince others of the correctness of your assesment.

 

But when a request for specific reasoning is made, you waffle and

plea that you need time to do further research. We saw one example of

this already when you eschewed BG Narasimha's paper re: the Anti-

Party, only to admit when pressed on the matter that you were not

familiar with many of the relevant facts.

 

I let this last posting of yours go through without properly

moderating it, because I assumed you had learned your lesson the

first time when I admonished you about regulating your language,

tone, and making unsubstantiated remarks. Do not assume that because

I was remiss in my duty, that I will continue to allow you to making

postings of this nature. For future postings, you will need to (1)

respond to the actual arguments I make rather than knocking down

strawmen, (2) quote evidence to back up all your claims, rather than

making general, opinionated remarks (like the above), and (3) refrain

from accusations and your personal differences with me, but instead

stick to the discussion.

 

> Firstly, it is not the only English biography; there are at least

> three others that I know of, possibly more. The sad truth is that

> none of them can be considered to be an authoritative, faithful and

> truthful representative of the facts of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's

> life.

> It is indeed unfortunate that institutional politics degrade even

> hagiographies.

 

If I request you to provide facts to back up your claims, you will

interpret that as unabashed acceptance of Rupa Vilasa's work and

further divert the discussion away from the main point. In any case,

until you give adequate reason to consider to the contrary, Rupa

Vilasa's work is adequate for describing Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's life

details. I am not familiar with any other biography, and sadly, you

have provided no details about them either, suggesting that you too

lack an objective frame of reference to judge.

 

I suspect that, when pressed on this issue, your sole claim for

doubting the authenticity of Rupa Vilasa's biography will be that it

differs from other accounts which you also consider to be unreliable.

Though I hardly see how that can give you reason to doubt, since

judging a thing to be authentic relies on knowing what the actual

history was, which in turn means having access to an authoritative

biography, which you have all but admitted that you do not have.

 

> >> 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? <<

>

> I do have my own theories about the so-called "dream

> initiation,"

> which I am carefully researching before I can make a significant

> contribution in this regard.

 

And the above just reveals your bias. On one hand, a biography like

_Ray of Vishnu_ which was actually based on research, is rejected as

politically motivated, with no specifics provided by you and no

explanation as to why. But on the other hand, a theory about Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta's alleged "dream initiation," heard third hand from

an acharya who may or may not be true to the spirit of Lord

Chaitanya's movement is given serious consideration by you, merely

because it serves your purposes, and that too in spite of the fact

that you implicitly acknowledge that you don't know the facts of the

matter.

 

Besides that, personally I am not

> convinced of the controversy regarding Srila Sarasvati Thakura's

> being initiated in a dream. It is a fact that he got an initiation

of

> sorts from the revered Gaurakisora das Babaji. Although to tell the

> truth we can't fully know the truth about that either since that

> evidence is taken from a book that has already been mentioned as

> highly-unreliable.

 

It was alleged by you that the book is "highly unreliable." Maybe it

is, or maybe you just like to appear authoritative by blindly

rejecting any writing that does not agree with your theories. The

point is, you have given none of us any reason to believe you know

what you are talking about.

 

yours,

 

- K