Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition

[Guest guest]

Allow me to clarify some of the objections you have presented to help you

address the actual concern.

 

Argument 1 is a matter of controversial historical accounts. It is by no means

the gist of the topic, nor is the innovation of tridandi-sannyasa in Gaudiya

tradition. The gist of the controversy is Bhaktisiddhanta's conception of

parampara.

 

 

>>> 2) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta took his sannyaasa initation before a picture of

his guru-mahaaraaja, even though ordinarly one becomes ordained in the physical

presence of his guru. Therefore, Bhaktisiddhaanta's sannyaasa inititation is

also not genuine according to Vedic or Gaudiiya principles. <<<

Here you may also want to address the issue of receiving the sannyasa-mantra (oM

klIM gopI-bhAvAzrayAya svAhA) from a picture.

 

 

>>> 4) Srila Gaurakishora dasa babaji was not the disciple of Bhaktivinod

Thaakura but of someone else. Therefore Srila Bhaktivinod Thaakur could not be

his guru, and for the paramparaa to be listed in this way is wrong. In the same

line of argument, many other paramparaa connections in Bhaktisiddhaanta's

listing are objected to on the same basis, i.e. that this devotee actually had

this Gosvami as his guru, and not anyone else. <<<

 

Certainly the possibility for the presence of multiple siksa-gurus is

recognized, that is not an argument. However, traditionally and currently

everywhere in the sampradaya the guru-pranali (succession of gurus) has been

presented according to diksa.

 

In regards to Gaura Kisora's being a disciple of Bhaktivinoda, it is well

documented even in Bhaktisiddanta's writings in "The Harmonist" that Gaura

Kisora had several siksa-gurus, such as Bhagavat Das Babaji (also his

vesa-guru), Svarupa Das Babaji of Puri, Bhagavan Das Babaji of Kalina and

Caitanya Das Babaji of Kuliya. He was respected as a highly advanced mahatma

even prior to his meeting Bhaktivinoda. Why, therefore, should Bhaktivinoda,

who often praised Gaura Kisora as an exemplary renunciate and who even received

the vesa of a babaji from him, be considered as his prominent guru?

 

In the siksa-parampara presented by Bhaktisiddhanta, there are several

individuals who never met each other (Narottama - Visvanatha and Baladeva -

Jagannatha), and others who didn't have any recognized siksa-relationship

(Krishnadas - Narottama). You should also address the issue of whether a

siksa-parampara needs to be an unbroken succession of individuals who

instructed each other, or at least met each other at some point in time.

 

 

I do not personally agree with the logic in point 9. It is well known (10) that

aside Advaitins, the Madhvites have a form of sannyasa (ekadandi-sannyasa), as

do the Ramanujites (tridandi-sannyasa). The Nimbarki tyagis dress in white as

far as I am aware of. The Visnusvami sampradaya is currently presented by the

followers of Vallabha, who do not adopt sannyasa to the best of my knowledge.

 

 

Please feel free to address any of the points you have outlined. Aside them, the

subject matter of raganuga bhakti sadhana in its entirety is a topic which calls

for examination.

 

Could I request that, to keep the discussions clear, each of the points could be

discussed under separate headings and in separate letters? Otherwise I fear the

whole discussion will be cluttered and everyone will loose interest in

participating in it.

 

I am duplicating the eleven points extracted by Krishna Susarla below.

 

 

 

 

= = = = = = = = = =

 

1) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received a "dream" initation only from his guru Srila

Gaurakishora dasa babaji. He never received a physical initiation. Hence his

initiation was not genuine. 2) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta took his sannyaasa

initation before a picture of his guru-mahaaraaja, even though ordinarly one

becomes ordained in the physical presence of his guru. Therefore,

Bhaktisiddhaanta's sannyaasa inititation is also not genuine according to Vedic

or Gaudiiya principles.3) There are allegedly injunctions in the Gosvamis'

literature to the effect that sannyaasiis should not wear red cloth, and

positive injunctions that one should wear white cloth. Therefore, based on

this, the wearing of saffron cloth is prohibited by Gaudiiya sannyaasis, and

since this practice is relatively new (as it was reintroduced by

Bhaktisiddhaanta), the followers of Bhaktisiddhaanta (who do wear saffron when

they enter the renounced order) have deviated from the Gosvamis' injunctions

and are thus not true followers of their line.4) Srila Gaurakishora dasa babaji

was not the disciple of Bhaktivinod Thaakura but of someone else. Therefore

Srila Bhaktivinod Thaakur could not be his guru, and for the paramparaa to be

listed in this way is wrong. In the same line of argument, many other

paramparaa connections in Bhaktisiddhaanta's listing are objected to on the

same basis, i.e. that this devotee actually had this Gosvami as his guru, and

not anyone else.5) Different Gaudiiya Math chronicles appear to give different

times and dates of Bhaktisiddhaanta's initiation, some even saying that he

received Narasimha mantra, implying that he was a devotee of Lord Narasimha. So

therefore Bhaktisiddhaanta's initation is questionable at best. 6)

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati could not have received his brahmin thread from

Gaurakishora dasa Babaji, because the latter never wore one and furthermore was

born into a Vaishya family. There are several implicit objections here: (a) that

Gaurakishora dasa Babaji never wore a brahmin thread based on the available

pictures of him, (b) that he was a vaishya by birth, and could thus have never

attained the status of a Brahmin, and that © one has to have the sacred

thread in order to confer brahminical status on a disciple.7) The various

parivaras have distinct tilakas, and Gaurakishora dasa babaji was initiated

into Advaita-parivara. Therefore, why did not Bhaktisiddhanta take the tilaka

of the Advaita-parivara? 8) Brahmins can only come in families that have always

been brahmins; i.e. brahminical birth is a necessary prerequisite to becoming a

brahmin. Thus, the practice of initiating devotees outside of brahmin caste

with brahmin thread is also a deviation. 9) The institution of varnaashrama

dharma by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is a form of naamaparaadha, because it

implies that such pious activities are equal to pure devotional service. 10)

Only maayaavaadiis are sannyaasiis; that Vaishnavas in Bhaktisiddhaanta's line

also take sannyaasa is a deviation of sorts.11) There is no prohibition against

getting initiation from one's own parents or a householder guru. This is

allegedly discouraged in the Saarasvata line, and hence is evidence of another

type of deviation.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

 

> In any case, I would like to steer this discussion away from

> questions of character and back into the specific points of

> contention here.

 

If I may be so presumptuous to ask if we could discuss an additional

twelvth point, that seems to be a fundamental concept of Chaitanya's

teachings vis-a-vis raganuga sadhana and/or the babaji tradition.

 

I would like to know about "Siddha-Pranali."

 

I would like to know what it is, how it is acquired, what are the

qualifications for attaining it, who is qualified to give it, and

other questions related to the topic of Siddha pranali.

 

I would especially like to view the quotes of Srila Prabhupada on

this subject. I came across a few a while back, but didn't pay much

attention to them as it seemed a bogus concept. So I would like to

see those quotes again if anyone can be kind enough to post them,

especially if it is possible that we will discuss the issue here from

the other viewpoint.

 

In service of Gaura-Nitai,

 

Sanjay