Bhaktisiddhanta's theology of parampara

[Guest guest]

Krishna Susarla wrote:

 

>>> 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.

<<<

 

Their living disciplic representatives certainly bear testimony to their guru-pranali.

 

One point we are missing here is the eternity of one's diksa-lineage. Everywhere

in the Gaudiya tradition outside the Gaudiya Matha, the initiate is offered a

certain guru-pranali of diksa-gurus, and when time is mature, he is informed of

the siddha-counterpart of this pranali, the siddha-identities of the gurus in

his succession. This is sometimes called siddha-pranali, and it is the

succession of the initiate's eternal allegiance of servitude to Sri Sri Radha

and Krishna. This was vividly presented by Bhaktivinoda in the siddhi-lalasa of

his Gita Mala, wherein he prays in the inner bhava of Kamala Manjari to his

guru-manjari (Vilasa Manjari -- Vipina Vihari Gosvami), the head of their

pranali (Ananga Manjari -- Jahnava Thakurani) and to Sri Rupa Manjari, the

chief among all maidservants.

 

vilAsa maJjarI anaGga maJjarIzrI rUpa maJjarI Ara |AmAke tuliyA loho nija

padedeho more siddhi sAra || 4 ||

"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."

 

For those of you not acquainted with this work, siddhi-lalasa is the final

chapter of Bhaktivinoda's Gita Mala, a series of nine songs in which

Bhaktivinoda reveals his innermost aspirations. This is the famous section in

which he also describes his siddha-svarupa. Is it reasonable to propose that

since then, Bhaktivinoda rejected his own siddha-svarupa and the siddha-pranali

in which he served the Divine Couple? He also initiated all of his diksita

disciples into the same pranali.

 

If you wish to review the entire siddhi-lalasa, I rendered it into English in

memoriam of Bhaktivinoda's appearance day this year. You can read it at

http://www.raganuga.com/d/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=376 . The verse quoted above

is the final prayer of the ninth song, the concluding verse of the book.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

 

Diksa is understood as follows (quoting from Bhakti Sandarbha, Anuccheda 283):

 

divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam |tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA

dezikais tattva kovidaiH ||ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca

|gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH ||

 

"The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives (da) divine

knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa. Therefore, paying

obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all, one should receive a Vaisnava

mantra diksa preceded with proper procedures."

 

divyaM jJAnaM hy atra zrImati mantre bhagavat-svarUpa-jJAnaM, tena bhagavatA

sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnaM ca |

 

"Divine knowledge means here knowledge of the true nature of the Lord in the

mantra and, by that, knowledge of one's own special relationship with Him."

 

The same is reiterated in the Hari Bhakti Vilasa. There is no other definition

known in the Gaudiya tradition.

 

Given the numerous disagreements between the Madhvite tradition and the Gaudiya

tradition surrounding the concept of parampara, many argue that a connection

with the Madhva-parampara was presented merely for decorum's sake, whereas in

truth there was no need to trace the parampara anywhere beyond Caitanya,

Advaita and Nityananda, who were themselves the Lord incarnate in three forms,

who descended to found a new sampradaya.

 

If someone desires to examine the different arguments why the connection with

the Madhvite tradition is sometimes said to be a presentation made for

decorum's sake, you can examine a comprehensive article by Jan Brzezinski at

the following address:

http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=13

 

The fact is that, though the acaryas from Laksmipati upwards are mentioned, most

of the Gaudiyas who are supposed to honor them as their worshipable succession

of predecessors hardly know who the respected acaryas are. While the writings

of the Gosvamis and their followers are given paramount importance in the

Gaudiya tradition, practically no emphasis is laid on studying the writings of

even Sri Madhva Acarya, what to speak of the rest in his line up to Laksmipati.

 

Most Gaudiyas are not concerned over the parampara beyond Nityananda, Advaita

and Caitanya, and the theme hardly merits any discussion among them.

 

Speaking of this, if we wish to argue that the parampara presented by Baladeva

is a siksa-parampara, we should be able to demonstrate the siksa which has

descended through the parampara. The glaring fact is that many of the

conceptions of the Madhvite tradition are radically different from the Gaudiya

theology. This point has merit for a whole other thead of discussion. If

someone wishes to pursue a discussion on the differences between the theology

of the Madhva and the Gaudiya traditions, please start a new thread of

discussion with a different heading.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

 

Kindly explain the siksa-links between the following acaryas in the parampara of

Bhaktisiddhanta: Krishna Das -- Narottama, Baladeva -- Jagannatha.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

I do not have any such references at my disposal. I have never researched on this.

 

 

>>> 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. <<<

Aside the Svalikhita Jivani, the references I presented were

Bhagavat-arka-marici-mala, Amrta-pravaha Bhasya on Caitanya Caritamrta and Gita

Mala. All of these are well known writings of Bhaktivinoda. Amrita Pravaha

Bhasya is frequently quoted in Bhaktivedanta's commentaries on the Caitanya

Caritamrita. Someone asked for a list of Bhaktivinoda's literary works; I am

sending this in separately.

 

No-one denies the fact that Jagannatha Das Baba was Bhaktivinoda's siksa-guru.

As for receiving a new initiation, that would have to be documented somewhere.

We cannot present such proposals without any foundation.

 

 

>>> > 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." <<<

 

Certainly so, on account of legitimate reasons one may take diksa again.

However, such an event will certainly be documented if we are speaking of a

person with any significance in the society of devotees. Nitai Das was

Prabhupada's Sanskrit secretary; behold the uproar which took place as he

received diksa again, and it is documented everywhere. Including his own

writings. Similarly, if we are to assume that someone else would have received

diksa again, there would have to be at least some degree of documentation or

oral tradition bearing witness of the same.

 

 

>>> >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. <<<

 

I also cannot prove that Sri Caitanya did not meet Christoffer Kolumbus. And

also you cannot prove that Bhaktivedanta Swami didn't accept new mantra-diksa

from Siddha Braja Raja Das Babaji two weeks before his death. The burden of

proof is on you: prove that he didn't. Does he say anywhere that he didn't? He

could have well done that. But of course such a line of argumentation is

absurd.

 

 

>>> 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? <<<

 

To quite a few, some 25 titles or so, but not to each and every one. There is a

list collected with Dasaratha Suta which is found in the latest edition (4.11)

of Vedabase (Supplementary Vedabase). I'll send it in.

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

> Everywhere in the Gaudiya tradition outside the Gaudiya Matha,

 

--people accept the ISKCON parampara, except in a few pockets

of Bengal and Vraja.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

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

>

 

I have read the quote, and I know what you said. The point remains

that in a paramparaa, not all connections need be diiksha

connections. Whatever explanation you offer for this, that point

still stands.

 

If you make the rule that "all connections in a paramparaa must be

diiksha connections only," then for the rule to be satisfied, all

listings accepted as paramparaas must have only diiksha connections.

If there is even one case where this is not followed (for whatever

reason), then either the rule does not have absolute validity, or the

listing is not a valid paramparaa in the first place. I don't think

there is any doubt that what Baladeva gave in his writings was a

paramparaa.

 

> "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."

>

 

It may be packed earlier on; it is abbreviated later on, since no one

is listed after Lord Chaitanya. This is what I meant when I said

abbreviation. Obviously, Baladeva is not trying to say that Lord

Chaitanya was his guru. Similarly, it is not obvious to me that Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati is claiming that Narottama dasa Thakura is

the guru of Srila Vishnvanaatha Chakravarti (his paramparaa song only

states that the latter always desired to serve the former - it's

admittedly vague to me).

 

> 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.

>

 

Exactly. For the reasons you mentioned, he did not need to list the

gurus between himself and Lord Chaitanya. But conventionally, one

does this in a paramparaa - a listing is given from the beginning to

the current guru. Is it or is it not a paramparaa listing? Again, my

point is simply that some omissions can be excused in a paramparaa

listing depending on the desire of what needs to be communicated, and

you have just confirmed that beautifully.

 

> >>> 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.

>

 

I don't know how to respond to remarks such as these. I have given a

very clear example of a paramparaa listing that fails your criteria

of direct diiksha connections from several different angles: Naarada

to Vyaasa, Vyaasa to Madhva, Madhva's co-disciples, Chaitanya to

Baladeva, etc. But you only apologize for these, and refuse to extend

the same generosity to Bhaktisiddhanta's paramparaa. Your concept of

intellectual honesty is unclear to me. On one hand, you request that

we prove our paramparaa's validity to you, but you do not have the

same standard of proof for the earlier half of the Gaudiiya

paramparaa, or anyone else for that matter. The testimony of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati (or his followers) regarding his paramparaa

is unacceptable to you, because they are "biased." But we rely on

testimony of the guru to get his paramparaa details. You happily rely

on your own guru's testimony regarding his paramparaa, do you not? Or

do you require that he, too, be able to furnish empiric evidence that

each initiation occured as written, verifiable by objective sources?

I somehow doubt it.

 

Can you provide empiric evidence that Lakshmiipati Tiirtha was even a

real person? Can you prove that he was in fact initiated by Vyaasa

Tiirtha, and that he went on to initiate Maadhavendra Purii? Some

people try to get around this by suggesting that because Lord

Chaitanya is Krishna Himself, the paramparaa before Him, including

the link to Madhva, is not important. However, this is not a very

honest approach. The point is that the listing has been given by

Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana and others. Is it a correct listing, or is

it not? If it is a correct listing, we must decide if we are prepared

to reject it based on the lack of historical evidence, or if we will

be satisifed by the testimony of the aachaaryas. Like it or not, at

least in some cases, you are depending on their testimony, without

requiring the empirical evidence to substantiate it.

 

You have furnished some evidence suggesting that some of the

connections (Narottama to Vishvanaatha, for instance) would be

difficult to imagine how they have occurred. But you have admitted to

lacking hard evidence to refute this completely.

 

The burden of proof is on you, period. This is an intellectually

honest attitude. Challenging a paramparaa to furnish empiric evidence

of its validity, using standards by which any paramparaa would fail,

is not intellectual honesty. In any scholarly exercise, the

challenger is usually tasked with the responsibility to prove that

the established tradition is not in fact so using mutually agreeable

standards.

 

Otherwise, one could simply forego the trouble of dealing with his

tradition from a philosophical standpoint, and just attack the

historical validity of his paramparaa using standards that no one

will be able to satisfy.

 

In this particular case, we have an example of a listing (Narottama

to Vishvanaatha) where it is not clear if there is an omission.

Hence, to suggest that it is not a valid listing, you have to prove

that first (1) they never met (and hence, that it is an omission),

and (2) that no one, nowhere, is entitled to list a paramparaa in an

abbreviated fashion for any reason. The only way to prove point #1 is

to prove that Narottama left this world before Vishvanaatha entered

it. You cannot do this, because you admit the dates are not well

known. You think it is absurd based on your projected ages for each,

but there too, you must admit uncertainty based on the uncertainty of

the dates. Hence, objectively speaking, you cannot refute point #1.

As far as point #2, we have seen one example, and you have tried to

explain the partial listing using the historic context. Of course,

that still departs from the convention. There, too, you will have

difficulty.

 

I must say again, that the burden of proof is on you. I will not back

down from this position; the discussion can't just go on endlessly

when nothing new is left to be added. If you can provide no more

evidence or argument, then acknowledge that this is all you have, and

let readers make up their own minds. To say that you have

conclusively shown that Bhaktisiddhanta has given a "novel paramparaa

theology" is not correct, until you show *conclusively* that it

suffers from the flaws you mentioned.

 

You might argue in response to this, that if someone gives a very

dubious paramparaa listing in the beginning, and allows time to grant

it some degree of veneration, then why must the challenger prove that

it is wrong? Fair enough, I think. But we have here not simply any

paramparaa, but the paramparaa of someone who was able to spread

Krishna-consciousness even into areas where only mlecchas lived. Can

someone do this, who does not have a link to Krishna through

paramparaa? Can someone be empowered by Lord Chaitanya to carry out

His instructions despite not being connected with Him? If you say

yes, then I don't see how this discussion can continue, for it would

indicate that we do have a very different concept of the significance

of paramparaa. I realize this might sound sentimental to a secular

academic, but for Gaudiiya Vaishnavas these arguments should have

special significance. They do at least, for other Vaishnavas.

 

For the sake of brevity, I may not respond to much else that you

wrote, since I already saw most of it, and I think I have condensed

my likely reply into the paragraphs above. I will scan through them

and see if there is anything I must add. Mostly, I think the issues

of "Is there an omission?" and "Must each and every paramparaa be

listed with no omissions?" and "Must we have empiric evidence to

validate every paramparaa?" are the gist of your objections, so I

have dealt with them here.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

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