Bhaktisiddhanta's theology of parampara

[Guest guest]

Madhava wrote:

 

>>> "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."

Krishna Susarla answers:

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.

 

Bhaktivinoda praised his diksa-guru consistently throughout his writings. Here are some excerpts.

 

Svalikhita-jivani (Bhaktivinoda's autobiography):

 

"299. While I was living in Narail I took diksha along with my wife. I had been

searching for a suitable guru for a long time but I did not find one. I was

very unhappy [on that account]. I had done much anxious thinking, and in a

dream Prabhu diminished my unhappiness.

 

300. In the dream I got a hint. That day I became happy. One or two days later

Gurudeva wrote to me saying, "I will come quickly and give you diksha."

Gurudeva came and diksha was given. My mind was satisfied. From that very day

the sin of meat-eating went from my heart and mercy arose [in me] towards the

jivas."

 

Bhagavat-arka-marici-mala (written in 1901):

 

vipina-vihari prabhu mama prabhu-varasri-vamsi-vadanananda-vamsa-sasadhara

"My master, Vipina-vihari Prabhu, the greatest of my masters, is the brilliant

moon in the family of Sri Vamsi Vadanananda."

 

Amrta-pravaha Bhasya on Caitanya Caritamrta (written in 1895):

 

vipina-vihari hari, tara sakti avatari

vipina-vihari prabhu-varasri-guru-goswami-rupe, dekhi more bhava-kupeuddharilo apana kinkara

"The eminent Vipina-vihari Prabhu, who is the manifestation of the

transcendental energy of Lord Hari, Who sports in the forests of Vraja, has

descended in the form of the Gosvami spiritual preceptor. Seeing me in the dark

well of worldly existence, he has delivered this humble servant of his."

 

In the last verse of the Siddhi-lalasa of Gita-mala, having described his own

siddha-deha as Kamala Manjari, Bhaktivinoda prays to Vipina Vihari Gosvami in

his siddha-deha as Vilasa Manjari (written in 1893) along with the head of his

pranali, Ananga Manjari (Jahnava Mata):

 

vilasa manjari, ananga manjari,

sri rupa manjari araamake tuliya, loha nija pade,deha more siddhi sara

"Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Sri Rupa Manjari, please uplift me and give

me the shelter of your lotus feet, for by your mercy I shall be awarded the

essence of all spiritual perfection."

 

Of course nobody wishes to minimize the influence of Jagannatha Das Baba on the

life of Bhaktivinoda. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in his

siddha-svarupa, Bhaktivinoda serves Sri Radha Krishna with Vilasa Manjari,

Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari. Bhaktivinoda passed this guru-pranali and

siddha-pranali on to his initiated disciples, who are to in turn serve with

Kamala Manjari, Vilasa Manjari and the others. Himself he received this pranali

from Vipina Vihari Gosvami along with a description of his siddha-deha.

 

 

>>> 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? <<<

Yes, I was in ISKCON once. My back-then guru became degraded in his practice of

bhakti and I left him. I later took shelter of B.V. Narayana Maharaja. However,

in the course of time I noted that he slandered Vaishnavas outside the Gaudiya

Matha to the extent of presenting blatant lies about them. I then took the step

to reject him as well, a rather painful step, but necessary for my spiritual

safety. In the course of time I took shelter of Ananta Das Pandit.

 

No, it would not be proper to list Nitai Dasa's parampara through Prabhupada, as

Nitai Das left him and received a new initiation. Speaking of Bhaktivinoda, he

never received a new initiation.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

Thank you for clearly defining your use of the term. However, you could say "the

rest of the tradition" as well, as there is hardly anyone outside the Sarasvata

tradition who accepts his theology of parampara. I say hardly anyone because

there might be someone who didn't. I am not aware of any such person or group

myself, though I am somewhat acquainted with "the rest of the tradition" out

there. The term "babaji party" is an underdefinition.

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[Guest guest]

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

 

> >>> 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.

>

 

In my edition, it is in the introduction. Possibly the translator may

have extracted it from the Prameya Ratnaavali - my point is simply

that we have a paramparaa listing by Baladeva, and that it contains

numerous listings that you would be forced to reject, for the same

reasons that you reject Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's paramparaa.

 

> 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...

 

Interesting that you should point this out, since Padmanaabha,

Narahari, Maadhava, and Akshobhya Tiirtha are all _co-disciples_ of

Shrii Madhva, rather than diiksha disciples of each other in a

descending chain. Yes, the paramparaa is certainly listed like that

in Gaudiiya circles, but Akshobhya did not take diiksha from

Maadhava, nor Maadhava from Narahari, etc etc. You get my drift.

 

Here we have another concrete example of a paramparaa listing that is

clearly not diiksha in nature, yet acceptable to all parties

involved. Hence, I see no difficulty with accept the Saarasvata

paramparaa even when shiksha links only are given.

 

> >>> 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?" <<<

>

 

[snip]

 

>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.

>

 

[snip]

 

>

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".

>

 

I will reiterate what I have stated earlier. Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana

has given a paramparaa listing that ends with Lord Chaitanya,

omitting the listing between Mahaaprabhu and himself. Regardless of

his motivations, paramparaa according to you must be listed with all

the links inbetween. So by that standard, he must always give every

link, and never leave an omission. Yet in his Prameya Ratnaavali he

has not done so.

 

I respectfully submit that you are guilty of a double standard. When

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta gives a listing that possibly has an omission

(between Narottam and Vishvanaatha, though we are still debating

that), you will argue that he is guilty of presenting a "novel

concept of paramparaa." But when Baladeva gives an even more glaring

omission of several gurus, you will find ways to excuse it. Yes, you

can argue that Baladeva describes his guru elsewhere, in other

writings, etc. But the point remains that when you call

something "paramparaa," it means "one after another," and so we must

either tolerate abbreviation (in which case we accept both

Bhaktisiddhanta's and Baladeva's listings) or we do not (in which

case we reject both listings).

 

If you are willing to excuse Baladeva's listing in PR on the grounds

that the paramparaa after Chaitanya is known through other sources,

then one could argue the same about Bhaktisiddhanta's listing. Apply

the standards uniformly, please.

 

> >>> 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.

>

 

My point is, that if we can accept this (and I know we do), then it

shouldn't be very hard to accept that a very elderly Narottama daasa

Thaakura could have instructed Shrii Vishvanaatha Chakravarti

Thaakura before leaving this world. Even in America, there are sinful

people who eat meat, drink, liquor, smoke, etc, yet they sometimes

live to be 100 or 110 years. Is it so hard to believe that a very

healthy and very transcendentally situated Vaishnava could have lived

a little longer? I don't think so.

 

> Certainly the version of Baladeva is not abbreviated.

>

 

The paramparaa listing by Baladeva is abbreviated, unless you would

hold that there are no gurus between Lord Chaitanya and himself.

 

> >>> 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.

>

 

[snip]

 

>

> 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.

>

 

We can do no such thing. As you have admitted, "dates of the lives of

earlier acaryas are not very well documented." You admit that you

cannot give a definite disappearance year for Narottama. Your

conclusions are based on inferences from data that is far from

complete. I request that you furnish either hard evidence showing

that Narottama disappeared before Vishvanaatha appeared, or admit

that you cannot prove that they did not meet.

 

You are questioning the paramparaa listing of an aachaarya whose

devotional credentials are unparalleled. The burden of proof is on

you to provide hard evidence, if you want to find fault with that

aachaarya's listing. Otherwise, it just becomes obvious that you do

not have a convincing case, and the only people who will believe you

are those who want to do so, not because the data clearly pointed in

that direction.

 

> 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.

>

 

Hypothetically speaking, if I found a video tape of a young Nitai

dasa circa 1970's, wherein he described having had diiksha from Srila

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, can I use this as evidence for

the assertion that Nitai dasa never had any guru after Srila

Prabhupada? That is essentially the gist of your argument: that at a

given time point, a claim was made by a certain aachaarya to having

had a particular diiksha guru. But you cannot show that, up to the

end, there was no contact with any other shiksha guru.

 

Of course, Nitai dasa is still around to give his side of the story,

that he rejected Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and took

initiation from another babaji guru. By contrast, Srila Bhaktivinod

Thaakura, Srila Vishvanaatha Chakravarti, and others, are not

personally present to tell us of their respective gurus, except of

course, by their living disciplic representatives today. This is why

you can get away with what you are saying. I personally would take

the version of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta - unless, again, you can furnish

hard evidence to the contrary.

 

> 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.

>

 

How do you define diiksha, if what transpired between Vyaasa and

Madhva was diiksha? If, as your colleague Jan says, there must be the

ritual ceremony with the lighting of the sacred fire, etc, then I can

honestly say that it did not happen. There is no mention of such a

thing in Madhva's biography, not even mention of a mantra initiation.

 

Kavi Karnapura may call it diiksha because he thought the shiksha

connection was sacred enough to be the equivalent of a diiksha

initiation. That is fine by me. But then, by the same standard, *any*

of the shiksha links in the Saarasvata paramparaa could be construed

of as diiksha by the same standard. This overturns your whole

argument.

 

> >>> 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.

>

 

However, I am not contesting that.

 

> 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.

>

 

Not sufficient. Show me shaastric evidence that Naarada actually got

mantra initiation from Lord Brahmaa - not your inference that he got

the equivalent of it.

 

Maadhvas don't list their paramparaa before Vyaasa as coming through

Naarada.

 

> 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.

>

 

I have never seen any evidence anywhere that Vyaasa was the diiksha

disciple of anyone. I have been told that he is the diiksha disciple

of Paraashara Muni, which I suppose is logical. But the point remains

that you cannot prove that he is the diiksha disciple of Naarada.

 

Prior to Naarada, the "diiksha" connections were simply in the form

of transmission of a mantra, the very seed of diiksha. But if you

don't require for the ceremony to be performed before calling it

diiksha, then again, any of the disputed links in the Saarasvata

paramparaa could have been diiksha links through the giving of a

mantra.

 

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

 

> 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.

>

> Bhaktivinoda praised his diksa-guru consistently throughout his

writings. Here are some excerpts.

>

 

Thanks for your trouble, and I don't mean to start more of the same,

but I have definitely been told by devotees doing research that "not

all that glitters is gold." Specifically, I have been informed of

many works circulating in Vraj that are attributed by some to a

respectable Gaudiiya aachaarya, but express conclusions that are

clearly unacceptable, such as maayaavaada.

 

I'm still not sure what to think of SLJ - I never saw a copy of this

published by the Gaudiya Math. The other sources your brought up I

have never even heard of. Even still, they could be genuine, and I

will assume that for the moment. But all they prove is that

Bhaktivinod initially received initiation from Bipin Bihari Gosvami,

and praised him in several of his works. They do not show that he

received no other initiation, or that he never received instruction

from another guru.

 

> Yes, I was in ISKCON once. My back-then guru became degraded in his

practice of bhakti and I left him.

>

 

One wonders if Bhaktivinod Thaakura had similar reasons for taking

shelter of Jagannaatha daasa baabaajii. It has been my observation

that disciples of degraded gurus do speak highly of the gurus, until

they finally decide that enough is enough, and move on.

 

> No, it would not be proper to list Nitai Dasa's parampara through

Prabhupada, as Nitai Das left him and received a new initiation.

>

 

If Nitai das could get more than one diiksha initiation, and you

accept that his second initiation is acceptable as diiksha, then you

cannot use the logic that "this aachaarya got diiksha at this time,

therefore, he never received initiation from anyone else at a later

time."

 

>

Speaking of Bhaktivinoda, he never received a new initiation.

>

 

You can't prove that conclusively. All you can show is that he

received an initiation by Bipin Bihari Gosvami.

 

Do you have access to each and everyone of Bhaktivinoda's works?

 

Speaking of that, is there an undisputed list of works authored by

Bhaktivinoda?

 

> Thank you for clearly defining your use of the term. However, you

could say "the rest of the tradition" as well, as there is hardly

anyone outside the Sarasvata tradition who accepts his theology of

parampara.

>

 

I'm not really convincined that the "rest of the tradition" is

strictly speaking, a part of the Gaudiiya tradition, at least not

when I consider Lord Chaitanya's example. It rather seems to me that

they have deviated in a number of ways, such as in regards to their

concept of paramparaa. Anyway, critics like Nitai das et. al. are

hardly that generous to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's line - it's

always "ISKCON paramparaa" but never "Gaudiiya tradition of

Bhaktisiddhanta."

 

yours,

 

- K