Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition

[Guest guest]

Jai Gour! Greetings to everyone.

 

I have not participated in the discussions of this list in the past although I

have been d since a while, simply on account of a sheer lack of time.

However, having seen my name mentioned, let me drop a note and let you know

that I am around and available.

 

My name is Madhavananda Das, Madhava in short. "Raga" is a username I once

registeded at IndiaDivine and used at Raganuga Discussions at its early days as

well. Nowadays you will see me as Madhava at Raganuga Discussions. I am a

follower of Pandit Ananta Das Babaji, as has been observed by our audience.

Ananta Dasji belongs to a guru-pranali descending in the line of Jahnava

Thakurani (wife of Nityananda Prabhu), followed by Dhananjaya Pandit, and is

initiated by Kunja Bihari Das Babaji Maharaja, who in turn is a disciple of

Gopalacandra Gosvami. In other words, he belongs to Nityananda Parivara, one of

the orthodox multi-branched unbroken diksa-lineages initiated by the associates

of Sri Gauracandra.

 

In regards to Ananta Dasji's connection with Raghunatha Das Gosvami, it is known

that Das Gosvami did not initiate any disciples himself. However, Ananta Dasji

is the 34th representative of the "gaddi" (seat) of Das Gosvami. Since the

departure of Das Gosvami, there has always been a Mahanta who has overseen Sri

Radha Kund and been responsible for the estate of Raghunatha Das Gosvami. After

the departure Das Gosvami, Jiva was the next Mahanta. Ananta Dasji is the 34th

in this succession. This, however, is not a guru-pranali.

 

As a general note for those desiring to evaluate the rest of the Gaudiya

Vaishnava tradition outside the Gaudiya Matha and its branches including

ISKCON, kindly pay attention to the fact that you are faced with a very

colourful and varying scene with various branches of the Caitanya tree

presenting the theology and philosophy of Sri Caitanya and the Gosvamis in

accordance with the heritage of their respective guru-pranali -- which may not

be something everyone else will agree on.

 

I am also requesting you to not make a specific case on Pandit Ananta Dasji in

regards to the parampara-issue, since practically all of the Gaudiya tradition

outside the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati are at odds with them in

this regard, not accepting their conception of parampara. This is an age-old

issue, on which there will likely never be agreement. If you wish, you may

review an old topic at Raganuga Discussions examining the subject matter in

depth.

 

http://www.raganuga.com/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=4;t=277

 

Let me remind you that while we certainly honor the contributions of

Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers, we do not take their precepts as

authoritative when they are in contrast with the scripture (including the

writings of the Gosvamis) and the stand of the larger Gaudiya Vaishnava samaja

(of which Gaudiya Math and its branches I'd estimate are roughly around 5%

altogether).

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

 

 

 

 

-

<achintya>

<achintya>

Monday, December 02, 2002 11:12 AM

Digest Number 651

 

 

 

= = = = = = = = = = = =

 

I had a look at the introduction of that site, and I have also been informed by

a "casual observer" that the site is the work of a certain 'raga' who is a

follower of Pandit Ananta das Babaji, who is supposedly coming in the line of

Srila Raghunatha das Goswami. The description of the exact line seems to be

rather complicated with mentions of Srimati Jahnava Thakurani (am I right in

thinking this was the wife of Nityananda Prabhu?).I have also read hints on

discussion boards that this Ananta das Babaji somehow confirmed to a

prospective disciple that the Gaudiya Math lineage was not bona fide. By using

the words 'Gaudiya Math' I assume he means ISKCON also, since these people seem

to unnecessarily contest the authority of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Thakura too.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

> In other words, he belongs to Nityananda Parivara, one of the orthodox

multi-branched unbroken diksa-lineages initiated by the associates of Sri

Gauracandra.>>>

 

This is the Nityananda-vamsa, one of the caste gosvami families

whose dubious ideas are criticized in the books and instructions of Srila

Prabhupada.

 

 

 

 

> . . . it is known that Das Gosvami did not initiate any disciples

himself>>>

 

In fact, none of the caste gosvami factions that later claimed

Gaudiya affiliation actually have any intact seminal succession, either

from the Lord, or needless to say from the six gosvamis. The Advaita and

Nityananda lines are the two chief caste gosvami lines. They originated in

Bengal; in fact, the latter consists of the descendants of Advaitacarya's

sons who gave up Krsna consciousness. In India it is quite common for

families to make a living off of their alleged religious affiliations, and

to seek prestige similarly, regardless of their sincerity. One has to be

wary of such duplicity, which the Bhagavatam calls "kaitava-dharma."

 

 

 

 

>. . . peractically all of the Gaudiya tradition outside the followers of

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati are at odds with them in this regard, not

accepting their conception of parampara. This is an age-old issue, on

which there will likely never be agreement.>>>

 

Good point. Actually, all over India, the caste gosvami position

is just as resilient as is casteism itself. Nothing new. It represents a

fairly universal human urge much more than it represents Lord Caitanya.

 

Suffice it say here that theologically, the caste/babaji alliance

and the Gaudiya Sarasvata paramparas are roughly comparable to the Catholic

and Protestant traditions of Christianity.

 

 

 

 

> Let me remind you that while we certainly honor the contributions of

Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers, we do not take their precepts as

authoritative when they are in contrast with the scripture (including the

writings of the Gosvamis) and the stand of the larger Gaudiya Vaishnava

samaja (of which Gaudiya Math and its branches I'd estimate are roughly

around 5% altogether).>>>

 

However, it is a false substantiation to cite percentages here, as

if vox populi had any relevence.

 

If it is a numbers game, though, I would agree with Bhaktivinoda

Thakura himself, who said that Vaisnavas could be assessed by how many

other Vaisnavas they create. This is especially noteworthy if such

Vaisnavas were previously mlecchas. Not all of those claiming to be

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's followers can really afford to recognize this,

for reasons that are pretty obvious.

 

Moreover, whether something is "in contrast with scripture" rests

mostly on the interpretations postulated by those who won't likely admit

that these are very easily overturned. By nature, scriptural debate is

practically endless in this way ("tarko 'pratistha . . .," etc.), so the

real truth is that which the mahajanas advocate.

 

Such mahajanas are most easily identified by the criterion given

by Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself, as mentioned above. Thus, like his guru

maharaja, Srila Prabhupada practically applied this policy, and humbly

taught his own followers to do likewise. Since no one can spread Krsna

consciousness without being specifically empowered by the Lord's own sakti

(cf. Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 13.1 and Antya-lila, 7.11, etc.), I

think their tremendous accomplishments speak for their preeminent authority.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Madhava" <harekrishna@s...> wrote:

> I am also requesting you to not make a specific case on Pandit

Ananta Dasji in regards to the parampara-issue, since practically all

of the Gaudiya tradition outside the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati are at odds with them in this regard, not accepting their

conception of parampara.

>

 

In all fairness, however, this is like saying that we shouldn't make

a specific case in criticizing the Advaitist tradition of

Shankaraachaarya, since the vast majority of Hindus agree more with

it than with the personalist, monotheistic doctrines of the Vaishnava

Vedaanta schools.

 

Shaastras (Vedas, Puraanas, Itihaasas) are the only objective source

of evidence we have to validate anything. That a large number of

people choose to believe something is besides the point if it is not

supported by shaastra. Perhaps in addition to this, we can also add

the examples/teachings of aachaaryas who are predecessors for both

paramparaas and who are presumably acceptable as authorities by both.

But even still, shaastras remain the topmost standard.

 

yours,

 

- K