Bhaktisiddhanta's theology of parampara

[Guest guest]

>>> So far, I don't see much counter-argument from the babaji party, which leads

me to believe that their objections are in fact without substance. But they are

welcome to discuss their views, subject to the Achintya rules which require

everyone to maintain a polite tone and refer to shaastra. <<<

 

 

As I noted in an earlier message, the gist of all objections boils down to the

issue of Bhaktisiddhanta's theology and consequent novel presentation of

parampara. There is little benefit from discussing the nitty-gritty objections

presented here and there if we neglect the mother of all controversy. Please

note that I do not herein question whether Bhaktisiddhanta has received

initiation or not, as that is a claim impossible to prove right or wrong

conclusively, but rather I question the theology he presented in this regard.

 

There are two main points I would like to address.

 

1. There are gaps of generations in the parampara presented by Bhaktisiddhanta.

It lists people who have never met each other. For example, Narottama is the

guru of Visvanatha's guru's (Radha Raman Cakravarti) guru's (Krishna Carana

Cakravarti) guru (Ganga Narayana Cakravarti). Narottama and Visvanatha took

birth a century apart. A parampara translates into "one after the other".

However, the parampara suggested by Bhaktisiddhanta is not an unbroken

succession of teachers, whether diksa-gurus or siksa-gurus.

 

2. The persons listed by Bhaktisiddhanta in his presentation of guru-parampara

have listed themselves as belonging to a different guru-pranali. There is no

recognized guru-disciple link between Narottama and Krishnadas Kaviraja.

Rather, Narottama consistently praises his guru Lokanatha Gosvami. Visvanatha

also traces his guru-lineage back to Lokanatha Gosvami through the pranali

mentioned in the paragraph above. Baladeva belongs to a guru-pranali descending

from Syamananda and Rasikananda, descending through Radha Damodara Gosvami. Even

Bhaktivinoda presented himself as belonging to Nityananda-parivara, offering the

guru-pranali from Jahnava Mata down to Vipin Vihari Gosvami to his initiated

disciples. Nowhere did he present himself belonging to a guru-parampara with

Jagannatha Das Babaji.

 

Any thoughts in this regard from our learned audience?

 

In concluding, I would like to make it clear that no "babaji party" exists as an

unified movement sharing identical views (such as would be the case with ISKCON

or other organized movements), we are a collection of individuals from various

parivars, disciples of various gurus etc. I am here representing my own views,

and I alone am responsible for them. It would be welcome if each individual's

views would be treated as such. Thank you for the consideration.

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[Guest guest]

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

>

> As I noted in an earlier message, the gist of all objections boils

down to the issue of Bhaktisiddhanta's theology and consequent novel

presentation of parampara. There is little benefit from discussing

the nitty-gritty objections presented here and there if we neglect

the mother of all controversy.>

>

 

I disagree whole heartedly with the above - that the above is the

gist of all objections, and that there is no point in discussing the

other objections. For one thing, as you yourself have pointed out,

the babaji critics are many and diverse, as are their objections. It

seems rather ironic to emphasize this on the one hand, while at the

same time trying to unify all of the objections under a single banner

(which itself is pretty unsubstantial as I'll discuss below).

 

No, I'm afraid we are obligated to discuss the various objections.

When purile arguments like "Bhaktisiddhanta reinitiated the

varnaashrama system, and thus he equated it with hari-naama which is

a naamaparaadha" get passed off as "objections" to the Sarasvata

Gaudiiya paramparaa, then it behooves us to respond, if for no other

reason than to cut through the strawman techniques and outright

dishonesty which characterize some of these "objections." We should

dissect these arguments so we can see them for what they represent -

a trend of disregarding shaastric injunctions in the name of

following the Gosvamis, as if the two were different in purpose. You

can defend what you choose to defend, but we will discuss all of it

here.

 

> Please note that I do not herein question whether Bhaktisiddhanta

has received initiation or not, as that is a claim impossible to

prove right or wrong conclusively, but rather I question the theology

he presented in this regard.

>

 

Let's come to an understanding, here. I can't prove that your guru

ever received initiation in the Gaudiiya paramparaa, either. For all

I know he could have been secretly influenced by Puttaparthi Sai Baba

to spread false doctrines in the name of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. I

can't prove that this is not the case, either. The only cultured

thing to do in both cases is just accept the word of a Vaishnava as

to his paramparaa credentials and go from there.

 

> There are two main points I would like to address.

>

> 1. There are gaps of generations in the parampara presented by

Bhaktisiddhanta. It lists people who have never met each other. For

example, Narottama is the guru of Visvanatha's guru's (Radha Raman

Cakravarti) guru's (Krishna Carana Cakravarti) guru (Ganga Narayana

Cakravarti). Narottama and Visvanatha took birth a century apart. A

parampara translates into "one after the other". However, the

parampara suggested by Bhaktisiddhanta is not an unbroken succession

of teachers, whether diksa-gurus or siksa-gurus.

>

 

In the _Govinda Bhaashya, arguably his magnum opus, Baladeva

Vidyaabhuushana lists his paramparaa as follows: Krishna-Brahmaa-

Naarada-Vyaasa-Madhva-Akshobhya-Jayatiirtha-Jnaanasindhu-Dayaanidhi-

Vidyaanidhi-Raajendra-Jayadharma-Purushottama-Brahmanya-Vyaasatiirtha-

Lakshmiipati-Maadhavendra-Iishwara/Advaita/Nityaananda - Chaitanya

Mahaaprabhu.

 

And that's it. No mention of any gurus after Mahaaprabhu. Rather odd,

don't you think? Is Baladeva therefore implying that Chaitanya

Mahaaprabhu is his guru? That would be a gap of, what, 200 years? By

your logic, we would have to call into question Baladeva's

credentials from the very beginning. This isn't an unbroken

succession of teachers at all, certainly not between Chaitanya and

Baladeva. Perhaps we should start a thread entitled "Baladeva's

theology of paramparaa?"

 

Another more obvious example, if you choose to adopt the academic

line of questioning, is Madhva's own guru. By academic standards,

Vyaasa is at best an historic personality several centuries before

Madhva, or at worst a mythological persona. Either way, how could

Madhva have had him as a guru?

 

This is nothing to get hung up over for Vaishnavas. Sometimes

paramparaas are listed in an abbreviated fashion gurus highlighted.

Certainly that seems to be what Baladeva did, and I've seen other

examples in various contexts outside of our paramparaa. If it wasn't

wrong for him to do it, then why is it wrong for Bhaktisiddhanta? Or

are we now calling into question Baladeva's credentials?

 

Another possibility, of course, is that there is a shiksha connection

between Narottama and Vishvanaatha. If Madhva could do it, then why

not Vishvanaatha? Can you really say, on the basis of undisputed

evidence, that Narottama left this world before Vishvanaatha entered

it?

 

> 2. The persons listed by Bhaktisiddhanta in his presentation of

guru-parampara have listed themselves as belonging to a different

guru-pranali. There is no recognized guru-disciple link between

Narottama and Krishnadas Kaviraja. Rather, Narottama consistently

praises his guru Lokanatha Gosvami. Visvanatha also traces his guru-

lineage back to Lokanatha Gosvami through the pranali mentioned in

the paragraph above. Baladeva belongs to a guru-pranali descending

from Syamananda and Rasikananda, descending through Radha Damodara

Gosvami. >

>

 

It is not immediately clear to me why the guru-disciple links can

only be within the guru-pranali mentioned above. Isn't it more

important to consider where the actual transmission of knowledge has

occurred rather than considering where the mechanical rituals of

diiksha were perfomed? That wasn't a rhetorical question, of course.

The answer is a resounding yes. It seems to me that you are getting

hung up on diiksha initiations here - but diiksha initiations in

India can be had by just about anyone who was born in the right

family and has some money to offer the guru. It is just plain *wrong*

to assert that a paramparaa can only consist of diiksha connections.

The evidence is the Gaudiiya paramparaa itself, at least the parts we

both presumably accept. There is no evidence anywhere that Madhva

took diiksha initiation from Vyaasa. Rather, the mainstream

biographies make it clear that this was a shiksha connection only,

and do not even mention anything about the sacred fire being lit,

giving of sacred thread, transmission of mantras, etc:

 

Quoting from shriimadhva-vijaya 8.1-5: (in the translation, this

section is entitiled "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras")

 

".2. PoornaPrajna had an excellent mind capable of knowing completely

all

aspects of the extremely secret tenets, which remain to be known

(only by specially

qualified persons like Brahma and Mukhya Prana). VedaVyasa was an

appropriate Guru

for him as only He could expound fully such tenets to such a

disciple. Therefore, the gods honoured Madhva's approaching VedaVyasa

for knowledge in this manner.

 

..3. God in the form of Vyasa filled up fully the mind of Madhva

already

having a large capacity for knowledge with knowledge in greater

measure. This mind was

God's residence (he lived constantly in the mind of Madhva) and it

was already full of

auspicious knowledge. This was similar to God in the form of Krishna

filling up His large city of Dwaraka which was already full of wealth

and people with even greater wealth and numbers of people.

 

Note: The Rjus like Madhva have this extraordinary capacity for

knowledge – just like Dwaraka could hold

more wealth and people, when it was already full.

 

..4. PoornaPrajna with infinite intelligence listened in a very short

time from VedaVyasa, with the name Anantha (signifying infinite

knowledge) the most appropriate meanings arising naturally (without

any forced interpretation) of the infinite numbers of Vedas,

Mahabharatha, Puranas, Brahma Suthras and Pancharathra Agama, which

are very dear to the good people.

 

Note: There is no doubt that both the teacher and the student have to

have infinite capacities of intellect,

memory etc to completely transmit and receive the entire mass of

Shastra literature correctly and fully in

the short time the two were together. It is this extraordinary

storehouse of knowledge that makes Madhva's

compositions matchless for authority, brevity and total consistency.

 

..5. VedaVyasa, who rests on the bed of the serpent Shesha (in his

form resident in Vaikunta) had given His great blessings (in the form

of auspicious knowledge) to Mukhya Prana (Madhva), who is the

greatest of the Rjus, in infinite lives in the past. Thus, though

Madhva knows and understands all the Shastras by himself, Vyasa

taught all the subjects to him again and thus further sharpened his

wisdom by His great

blessings."

 

Where is your evidence that Vyaasa gave diiksha to Madhva? To put it

simply, there is none. And Maadhvas emphasize the connection with

Vyaasa, not with Achyuta Preksha, since this early guru was later

converted by Madhva and became his disciple. Even more importantly,

the listing from Vyaasa to Madhva is the same as that given by

Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana. Are you going to argue that even Baladeva

was mistaken about the paramparaa details, or that his listing also

represents some "novel theology?"

 

Maadhvas don't accept the listing of Krishna-Brahmaa-Naarada. But

this listing is based on several verses from Shriimad Bhaagavatam

describing the descent of the Bhaagavatam:

 

ida.m bhaagavata.m naama yanme bhagavatoditam |

sa.ngraho'ya.m vibhuutiinaa.m tvametad vipuliikuru || bhaa 2.7.51 ||

 

O Naarada, this science of God, Shriimad-Bhaagavatam, was spoken to

me in summary by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it was

spoken as the accumulation of His diverse potencies. Please expand

this science yourself (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.7.51).

 

tasmaa ida.m bhaagavata.m puraaNa.m dashalakShaNam |

prokta.m bhagavataa praaha priitaH putraaya bhuutakR^it || bhaa

2.9.44 ||

 

Thereupon the supplementary Vedic literatures, Shriimad Bhaagavatam,

which was described by the Personality of Godhead and which contains

ten characteristics, was told with satisfaction by the father

[brahmaa] to his son Naarada (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.9.44).

 

naaradaH praaha munayo sarasvatyaastaTe nR^ipa |

dhyaayate brahma parama.m vyaasaayaamitatejase || bhaa 2.9.45 ||

 

In succession, O King, the great sage Naarada instructed Shriimad

Bhaagavatam unto the unlimitedly powerful Vyaasadeva, who meditated

in devotional service upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the

Absolute Truth, on the bank of the River Sarasvatii (bhaagavata

puraaNa 2.9.45).

 

Do you see any evidence here that Naarada gave diiksha to Vyaasa? Do

you see such evidence anywhere? Do you see any evidence anywhere that

Brahmaa gave diiksha to Naarada? The answer in all cases is no. These

are also shikshaa connections, and they are the very root of our

Gaudiiya paramparaa. If it is wrong to list shiksha connections in

the paramparaa proximal to our time, why is it not similarly wrong

for Baladeva, Kavi Karnapura, et. al to list it like that from the

very beginning?

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the standards of

criticism be uniformly applied.

 

>

Even Bhaktivinoda presented himself as belonging to Nityananda-

parivara, offering the guru-pranali from Jahnava Mata down to Vipin

Vihari Gosvami to his initiated disciples. Nowhere did he present

himself belonging to a guru-parampara with Jagannatha Das Babaji.

>

 

I don't contest that Bhaktivinoda had an initiation of sorts from

Bipin Bihari Gosvami, so it makes perfect sense for him to have

revealed this in the name of being truthful. It doesn't mean that he

didn't have a shiksha guru later who turned out to be more

significant to him. Since this is Bhaktisiddhanta's version, the

burden of proof is on you to prove that it is otherwise. While we are

on that subject, you yourself are an example of someone who has more

than one guru, are you not? At least I'm sure that your colleague

Nitai dasa is. Would it be appropriate for me to list Nitai dasa's

pamparaa through Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada?

 

> In concluding, I would like to make it clear that no "babaji party"

exists as an unified movement sharing identical views (such as would

be the case with ISKCON or other organized movements), we are a

collection of individuals from various parivars, disciples of various

gurus etc. I am here representing my own views, and I alone am

responsible for them. It would be welcome if each individual's views

would be treated as such. Thank you for the consideration.

>

 

I have already said this before, that I use the term "babaji party"

to denote those babajis who object to Bhaktisiddhanta's paramparaa,

for whatever reason. This will be my default term unless someone

provides a better one. I won't accept "orthodox Gaudiiya Vaishnavas"

to designate them, since the validity of that characterization is

very much at the heart of this debate.

 

I have also said it very clearly that we are going to discuss and

refute all of the objections, not merely the ones you present.

 

yours,

 

- K