Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> tatra svaguruparamparaa yathaa |

> shriikR^iShNabrahmadevarShibaadaraayaNasa.mj~nakaan |

> shriimadhvashriipadmanaabhashriiman nR^iharimaadhavaan ||

> akShobhyajayatiirthashriij~naanasindhudayaanidhiin |

> shriiviDhyaanidhi raajendra jayadharmaan kramaadvayam ||

> puruShottama brahmaNya vyaasatiirthashcha sastumaH ||

> tachchhiShyaan shriishvaraadvaita nityaanandaan jagadguruun |

> devamiishvarashiShya.m shriichaitanya~ncha bhajaamahe |

> shriikR^iShNapremadaanena yena nistaarita.m jagat || 7 || iti ||

>

 

I couldn't help but notice the way Srila Baladeva introduced this

guru paramparaa listing - "tatra svaguruparamparaa yathaa" followed

by listing of gurus beginning with Lord Krishna and ending with Lord

Chaitanya.

 

Proponents of the diiksha-only paramparaa theory have tried to

downplay this association with Madhvaachaarya, in which there are

abundant connections in which no formal diiksha took place.

Furthermore, they criticize Srila Prabhupada's paramparaa listing for

being incomplete, and conclude that it therefore is not orthodox.

 

But here, Srila Baladeva stops the paramparaa listing after Lord

Chaitanya. Clearly, there are many gurus between Mahaaprabhu and

Shrii Baladeva. If Srila Prabhupada is to be criticized for not

listing every guru in his paramparaa (giving an abbreviated

paramparaa), then we must similarly criticize Srila Baladeva. But the

critics will not do that, often giving the excuse that Srila

Baladeva's omissions can be excused because he was only trying to

show the connection between his paramparaa and Madhvaachaarya. But

Srila Baladeva clearly says "tatra svaguruparamparaa yathaa" - this

is his own paramparaa. It isn't just a question of describing the

connection to critics; this is clearly his own paramparaa.

 

The point here is that it is very excusable to give abbreviated

listings of a paramparaa. True, Srila Baladeva had written the

Govinda Bhaashya for an audience who wanted to know his paramparaa's

connection to Madhva. And Srila Prabhupada wrote his Bhagavad-Gita

commentary for an audience who simply needed to understand the basic

concept of paramparaa (as opposed to a board of Vaishnava

historians). Thus, we can excuse both without hesitation for giving

abbreviated listings to get across their respective points. The fact

that the critics will excuse only Baladeva and not Srila Prabhupada

shows their double-standard, and hence the untenability of their

arguments.

 

- K