Bhaktisiddhanta's theology of parampara

[Guest guest]

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

here. <<<

 

All right. I will follow the discussion with keen interest and comment when I

feel there is anything noteworthy. The parampara-issue is my main concern, and

it is also the unified concern I have heard from people who otherwise may have

varying disagreements with the Sarasvata tradition.

 

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

 

No, you will not find this in his Govinda Bhasya. If it is there, where is it

presented? However, the abovementioned list appears in the seventh verse of the

first prameya of his Prameya Ratnavali.

 

I believe you missed out a couple of names from the list above, though, as the

original text of Baladeva reads as follows:

 

sri-madhva-sri-padmanabha-sriman-narahari-madhavan akshobhya-jayatirtha-jnanasindhu-dayanidhin

 

Madhva-Padmanabha-Narahari-Madhava-Aksobhya-Jayatirtha...

 

 

>>> 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?" <<<

 

It is significant that he mentions Isvara Puri, Nityananda Prabhu and Advaita

Acarya there, as these three were the foundational initiators in the Gaudiya

sampradaya, Isvara giving mantra-diksa to Sri Caitanya, Nityananda and Advaita

initiating a huge following, being the founders of two of the largest

traditional Gaudiya-parivaras in the present day. Indeed, most other Gaudiya

parivaras are connected with them. In writing his Prameya Ratnavali, the main

concern of Baladeva was to establish the legitimacy of the Gaudiya sampradaya

at large. Therefore he presented the guru-parampara which is at the base of all

branches of the Gaudiya tradition.

 

Had he presented his own guru-pranali, it would have read as follows: Nityananda

Prabhu - Gauridasa Pandita - Hridaya Caitanya - Syamananda Pandit - Rasika

Murari - Nayanananda Gosvami - Radha Damodara Gosvami. Throughout his writings,

Baladeva recognized his allegiance to the pranali descending from Rasika Murari

(also known as Rasikananda) and Syamananda, also writing a tika on Rasika's

"Syamananda-satakam".

 

 

>>> 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? <<<

 

The darsana of Sri Vyasa can still be had ad Badarikashram where he resides

along with Nara and Narayana Rishis and other perfected beings. We do accept

that Vishnu and his recognized avataras are not bound by time.

 

 

>>> 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? <<<

 

Certainly the version of Baladeva is not abbreviated. Rather, one might object

it is too packed, as Padmanabha, Nrihari, Madhava and Akshobhya are all direct

disciples of Madhva. Baladeva has listed several prominent diksita-disciples of

Madhva at the root of the sampradaya, just as he does when he gets to the root

of the Gaudiya tradition, listing Isvara Puri, Nityananda and Advaita. His

account is certainly not abbreviated, quite to the contrary.

 

 

>>> 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? <<<

 

As always, dates of the lives of earlier acaryas are not very well documented.

However, we can put together a rather undisputed case if we are to establish

that Narottama never met Visvanatha in person.

 

Narottama appeared around the year of Mahaprabhu's disappearance. That would be

around 1534. A more precise date would be the afternoon of Purnima in the month

of Magha, year 1531/1532 in the village of Kheturi. Ganga Narayana was a close

associate of Narottama's who stayed with him until the end. Narottama

disappeared in the the pancami of the dark fortnight of the month of Karttika,

but no year is known to me. Narottama Vilasa and other such works do not

describe Ganga Narayana's initiating in the presence of Narottama.

 

Ganga Narayana Cakravarti had a disciple called Krishna Carana Cakravarti, who

was the son of Rama-Krishna Acarya. Rama-Krishna Acarya, a disciple of

Narottama's, was the younger brother of Hari-Rama Acarya, a disciple of

Ramacandra Kaviraja. Radha Ramana Cakravarti, the diksa-guru of Visvanatha, was

the son and disciple of Krishna Carana Cakravarti.

 

Various dates are proposed for Visvanatha's appearance. The latest dated writing

of his is the Sarartha-darsini tika on Srimad Bhagavatam, completed in 1704. In

"The Gaudiya" (18th vol. issue 18, 1922), Bhaktisiddhanta estimates his year of

birth to be around 1638 AD. The years 1643-1730 are inscripted on a memorial

plate at his guru's house. Overall, the dates given vary from 1626 to 1646. At

any rate, it is clear that Narottama took birth approximately a century prior to

Visvanatha.

 

In his youth, Visvanatha studied the Bhagavata with the guidance of his brother,

but then proceeded to the town of Saiyabad to study with Krishna Carana

Cakravarti. Upon completing his studies, Visvanatha desired to receive

initiation. However, Krishna Carana, being in his ripe old age, directed

Visvanatha to his son, Radha Ramana Cakravarti.

 

>From the accounts above we can understand the following: (1) Visvanatha took

birth a century after Narottama, (2) When Visvanatha was young, his

parama-guru, son of the younger brother of Narottama's disciple, was already in

his old age.

 

Thus we can rather confidently conclude that Narottama and Visvanatha never met

each other in person.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

However, all the acaryas prior to Bhaktisiddhanta have presented themselves as

belonging to a succession of diksa-gurus and considered that succession the

line of their worshipable predecessors.

 

 

>>> 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

 

....

 

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

there is none.<<<

 

According to Kavi Karnapura in his Gaura Ganoddesa Dipika: "vyasal

labdha-krishna-diksho madhvacaryo mahayasaH" -- from Vyasa, the glorious Madhva

Acarya received diksa.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

 

It is known (from Brahma Samhita for example) that Brahma received mantra from

Sri Krishna. Brahma created via the medium of his contemplation on the mantra,

and Narada was manifest from his contemplation. Sage Narada was manifest in an

eternally blissful spiritual body imbued with the mantra. Thus he received the

mantra.

 

As for Vyasa, that would be an interesting study. I recall hearing on one

discourse during my days in the Gaudiya Matha that Vyasa received a mantra from

Narada prior to undertaking the task of compiling the Vedas, and that the mantra

bore fruit after Narada instructed the deep, elaborate meaning of the mantra in

the form of Srimad Bhagavata to him. However, I have no reference for this, I

never researched it further.

 

 

More in the next.

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava