Bhaktisiddhanta's theology of parampara

[Guest guest]

Krishna Susarla wrote:

 

>>> 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.

<<<

 

I noted this myself in the post to which you are responding above, and also

presented the reason as to why such a listing was given. Let me quote myself.

 

"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."

 

 

>>> 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 will repeat myself in noting that Baladeva did not present his own parampara,

rather he presented the parampara to which the Gaudiya tradition in general is

taken to belong. In writing Govinda Bhasya and Prameya Ratnavali, Baladeva was

concerned with establishing the legitimacy of the Gaudiya sampradaya at large

at the Jaipur council. To suggest that Baladeva claims himself as being the

next one from Caitanya in this parampara is absurd.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

 

I respectfully submit that you try to excercise at least a minute degree of

intellectual honesty in your responses. The proposal that although Baladeva

elsewhere in his writings spoke of his guru and unbroken succession of gurus,

this time when he listed the Gaudiya parampara, he proposed that he himself

would be next in this listing from Sri Caitanya, is argumentum ad absurdum.

There is no abbreviation there, and Baladeva does not even propose that it is

his own parampara. His own parampara is presented elsewhere.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

 

Would you be kind and present the entire, unbroken parampara down to

Bhaktisiddhanta from any sources in his writings, please? Did he ever present

anything else as his parampara? Baladeva did.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

You should kindly note that this is not mentioned anywhere in any biography, but

is merely your wishful speculation. Narahari Cakravarti, the author of Bhakti

Ratnakara, Narottama Vilasa and other comprehensive biographical works, who

lived after Visvanatha (his father Jagannatha Vipra was actually a disciple of

Visvanatha's) and also wrote on Visvanatha's life, would have certainly

mentioned such a significant event.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

 

I also cannot prove that Sri Caitanya didn't meet Christoffer Kolumbus. After

all, they were contemporaries. I think the burden of providing evidence rests

on your shoulders. You should prove that they did actually meet, Narottama of

120 years and Visvanatha the toddler, four years of age.

 

 

More in the next.

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava