more on Ekadasi Prasadam

[Guest guest]

At 06:01 PM 11/1/01 +0400, Vijaya-venugopala (das) JPS (Persian Gulf) wrote:

>If I wanted to discuss

>with non followers of Srila Prabhupada, I would look for some other Gaudiya

>conference and to it. I wish the PAMHO authorities would look at

>this issue.

 

Who is a non-follower of Srila Prabhupada? Not Rama Kesava. He is a

granddisciple, just like us.

 

And with all due respect, this conference is not "Prabhupada" pastimes

(that does exist too) - but *Krsna* katha. As long as Krsna's pastimes are

not discussed in a way of which Prabhupada would disapprove - what is the

problem? (as we saw recently, that did happen with some of Gauranga's

texts and it was taken care of).

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> Who is a non-follower of Srila Prabhupada? Not Rama Kesava. He is a

> granddisciple, just like us.

 

This must refer to me, then, as I don't have a *diksa* guru who is a *diksa*

disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

And with all due respect, the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is not a

*diksa* line, but a *siksa* line. Have a look at the parampara on the

beginning pages of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. From Caitanya Mahaprabhu down to

Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, there is only one diksa-link, namely that between

Rupa and Jiva Gosvamis.

 

> And with all due respect, this conference is not "Prabhupada" pastimes

> (that does exist too) - but *Krsna* katha. As long as Krsna's pastimes are

> not discussed in a way of which Prabhupada would disapprove - what is the

> problem? (as we saw recently, that did happen with some of Gauranga's

> texts and it was taken care of).

[Guest guest]

> > Who is a non-follower of Srila Prabhupada? Not Rama Kesava. He is a

> > granddisciple, just like us.

>

> This must refer to me, then, as I don't have a *diksa* guru who is a

> *diksa* disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Anyway...it is irrelevant whether you have Srila Prabhupada as param guru or

not. (I'm not saying Srila Prabhupada is irrelevant, just saying that our

family is BIGGER than that.) See, for example, the recent article Gopa

Kumara and I wrote, "Family Quarreling" on Chakra

(http://www.chakra.org/articles/2001/10/23/family.quarreling/index.htm).

 

Plus, this conference is "Krsna Katha". :-)

 

Your servant,

Rama Kesava dasa

[Guest guest]

> And with all due respect, the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is not a

> *diksa* line, but a *siksa* line. Have a look at the parampara on the

> beginning pages of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. From Caitanya Mahaprabhu down to

> Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, there is only one diksa-link, namely that between

> Rupa and Jiva Gosvamis.

 

Ours is a diksa and siksa parampara. Not just siksa parampara. Every one of

them in the parampara listing of Bg As It Is has a diksa guru.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

> And with all due respect, the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is not a

> *diksa* line, but a *siksa* line. Have a look at the parampara on the

> beginning pages of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. From Caitanya Mahaprabhu down

> to Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, there is only one diksa-link, namely that

> between Rupa and Jiva Gosvamis.

So, the siksa knowledge should be keept pure. It is obivious not all take to

Srila Prabhupada's teachings with the same respect. For example it is well

known in the Gaudiya Vaisnava society that Narayana Maharaja associated

intimately with Radha Kunda babajis and this can not be taken as to be in

accordance to the mood of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur. So, what

means siksa follower then?

We see that many devotees do accept Srila Prabhupada's siksa is some degree

but they feel that this vaisnava or that vaisnava is saying "higher topics"

which I need to hear to advance. That's all right. As Atul Krishna Pr. has

quoted. But one should know were his siksa line is. He can not be a marginal

follower of many siksa lines. He should follow a siksa line. Lets say it is

not wrong that someone follows a Gaudiya Math guru or Narayana Maharaja, so

the discussions between Srila Prabhupada's followers who take him as Founder

Acarya of ISKCON and are serving in ISKCON and other Gaudiya Vaisnava's can

be only of ecumenical nature. It is clear that Narayana Maharaja is not a

Srila Prabhupada follower or ISKCON memmber since his ideas differ in many

ways? The devotees are getting confused about this, it is really strange.

Many vaisnava's are using Srila Prabhupada's renome to nourish their

personal way of presenting devotional service but this can not be taken as

representing Srila Prabhupada's siksa.

This is not a fanatic attitude but pure vaisnava ettiquette. If you are a

Candravalli follower you are not Radharani's and vice verse.

So, if a diksa follower of Narayana Maharaja is writing something it is

nothing wrong. But it should be clear that he is following the siksa line of

Narayana Maharaja and is getting mercy through that line. Those who are

serving in ISKCON are in an another line and are getting mercy through this

line.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur wanted a pure philospy and was known

by the name Simha Guru. We can not take something here something there.

That's why there are so many groups of Caitanya Mahaprabhus followers, but

we should follow the line of Rupa Goswami thats all.

YHS

DKD

[Guest guest]

> He should follow a siksa line. Lets say it is

> not wrong that someone follows a Gaudiya Math guru or Narayana Maharaja,

> so the discussions between Srila Prabhupada's followers who take him as

> Founder Acarya of ISKCON and are serving in ISKCON and other Gaudiya

> Vaisnava's can be only of ecumenical nature.

> etc etc etc.

 

One thing I'd like to ask from the assembly of devotees: Am I discussing

some kind of Narayana Maharaja philosophy here? Please be aware that I am

not here to canvass for Narayana Maharaja, I am here to discuss Krishna

Katha with the learned assembly of devotees.

 

And I feel very hurt if people start getting on my case because of Narayan

Maharaja this or that. I have not joined this conference to discuss Narayan

Maharaja, please. You may have your opinion of him and I may have my opinion

of him, but this forum is not meant for discussing the details of the

sociopolitical state of the current Vaishnava world as far as I understand.

Thank you for understanding this and please excuse me if I have ever written

anything which might have provoked any such discussions.

 

Your servant,

Atul Krishna das

[Guest guest]

> Ours is a diksa and siksa parampara. Not just siksa parampara. Every one

> of them in the parampara listing of Bg As It Is has a diksa guru.

 

Of course they all have diksa-gurus. This does not mean that the line you

find in Bhagavad-gita As It Is is a diksa-parampara. The word "parampara",

according to Monier Williams, is defined as follows:

 

• an uninterrupted row or series , order , succession , continuation ,

mediation , tradition

 

Basically a succession of gurus one after the other, that is a parampara.

Thus diksa-parampara means an uninterrupted succession of diksa-gurus. To

illustrate it, my diksa-guru, the diksa-guru of my diksa-guru, his

diksa-guru, his diksa-guru, his diksa-guru, his diksa-guru, this is a

diksa-parampara. And that is not what you find in the front pages of

Bhagavad Gita As It Is. It is a siksa-parampara, this means my siksa-guru,

the siksa-guru of my siksa-guru, his siksa-guru, his siksa-guru, his

siksa-guru, his siksa-guru, like that.

[Guest guest]

On 4 Nov 2001, Atul Krishna wrote:

 

>This does not mean that the line you

> find in Bhagavad-gita As It Is is a diksa-parampara.

 

I did not say it is a diksa parampara. I said it is a siksa-diksa parampara.

As every one of them have a diksa guru. None of them in the list is just

there simply only by siksa.

 

Generally the most prominent are mentioned in the parampara list.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

> I did not say it is a diksa parampara. I said it is a siksa-diksa

> parampara. As every one of them have a diksa guru. None of them in the

> list is just there simply only by siksa.

 

Yes, of course they all have diksa-gurus. All Gaudiya Vaishnavas are

expected to have a diksa-guru, guru padasrayas tasmat krishna-diksadi

siksanam. Yes, you said siksa-diksa parampara, I noticed. This means both

siksa-parampara and diksa-parampara. However, the line given to us can't be

called a diksa-parampara, as there is no *succession*, *parampara* of diksa.

Siksa-diksa-parampara would look like this:

 

My diksa- and siksa-guru, the diksa- and siksa-guru of my diksa- and

siksa-guru, his diksa- and siksa-guru, his diksa- and siksa-guru, his diksa-

and siksa-guru.

 

This would be a siksa-diksa-succession by definition. To repeat the point:

there is no succession of diksa listed, therefore it is not a

diksa-parampara nor a siksa-diksa-parampara. A plain siksa-parampara, and

the fact that they all do have a diksa-guru does not change the fact.

 

If we were to trace the diksa-paramparas of the acaryas listed in the

siksa-parampara, we would have to draw a separate chart for it. The multiple

diksa-paramparas would look as follows:

 

Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji's diksa-parampara goes up through the Advaita-vamsa,

and we are never told about the identity of his diksa-guru or his

diksa-parampara.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's diksa-parampara goes through Vipina Vihari Gosvami in

the Nityananda-parivara up to Jahnava Thakurani. As follows: Vipina Vihari

Gosvami, Yajnesvara Gosvami, Ramamani Gosvami, Gunamanjari Gosvamini,

Mahesvari Gosvamini, Dayarama Gosvami, Rudresvara Gosvami, Kesavacandra

Gosvami, Rajavallabha Gosvami, Ramacandra Gosvami, then Jahnava Thakurani

and Nityananda Prabhu.

 

Jagannatha Dasa Babaji's diksa-parampara goes through Madhusudana Dasa in

the Syamananda-parivara, through Syamananda Prabhu to Nityananda Prabhu. As

follows: Madhusudana Dasa Babaji, Uddharana Dasa, Baladeva Vidyabhusana,

Radha-Damodara Dasa, Nayanananda Thakura, Rasikananda Thakura, Sri

Syamananda Pandit, Hrdaya Caitanya, Gauridasa Pandit, Nityananda Prabhu.

 

Baladeva's diksa-parampara is given above.

 

Visvanatha Cakravarti's diksa-parampara goes through Radha-ramana Cakravarti

in the Narottama-parivara up to Lokanatha Gosvami and Advaita Acarya. As

follows: Radha-ramana Cakravarti, Krishna-carana Cakravarti, Ganga-narayana

Cakravarti, Narottama Dasa Thakura, Lokanatha Gosvami, Advaita Acarya. Some

do not accept the link between Lokanatha and Advaita, but it would be odd if

Lokanatha would not have had a diksa-guru.

 

Narottama Dasa Thakura's diksa-parampara is given above.

 

Krishnadasa Kaviraja's diksa-parampara is unknown to me, but nevertheless he

offers his obeisances to his mantra-guru in the Caitanya Caritamrta.

 

Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami's diksa-parampara goes through Yadunandana Acarya to

Advaita Acarya.

 

Jiva Gosvami is a diksa-disciple of Rupa Gosvami, who was initiated by

Sanatana Gosvami, who in turn is a disciple of Vidyavacaspati.

 

An example of a siksa-diksa-parampara would be the line of Visvanatha

Cakravarti, in which every later acarya has received diksa and received

extensive instructions (siksa) under the guidance of the former. However,

the line presented by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada is not

a siksa-diksa-parampara, it is a siksa-parampara. As stated earlier, there

is no succession of diksa involved.

[Guest guest]

> Yes, of course they all have diksa-gurus. All Gaudiya Vaishnavas are

> expected to have a diksa-guru, guru padasrayas tasmat krishna-diksadi

> siksanam.

 

guru padasrayas tasmat krishna-*diksadi siksa*nam.

 

To deliver a conditioned soul, the above quote from BRS shows both siksa and

diksa are a must.

 

So it is more apt to call the parampara as diksa siksa parampara and not

just 'diksa' parampara or just 'siksa' parampara. This is what I meant.

 

upa*deksyanti* te jnanam --- Transcendental knowledge is given by diksa.

Divyam jnanam ksapayati iti diksa.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

PLEASE NO MORE!!!!! I think enough is enough.

 

I am not on Ekadasi Prasadam conf. to read about who is who in the vaisnava

world, just to read texts about Ekadasi.

 

Can you not take this discussion elswhere...please? Privately perhaps? I am

sick of the bickering & yes that what it seems to be. I am tired of reading

about who is better/more bonafide than who (incl. their teachings). This is

not the forum for such discussion, at least according to the conf. title.

 

Whoever is the moderator of Ekadasi, can you please cut the discussion?

Apparently you are able to do that.

 

Thank you in advance,

Lalita-Gopinatha dasi

[Guest guest]

> guru padasrayas tasmat krishna-*diksadi siksa*nam.

>

> To deliver a conditioned soul, the above quote from BRS shows both siksa

> and diksa are a must.

>

> So it is more apt to call the parampara as diksa siksa parampara and not

> just 'diksa' parampara or just 'siksa' parampara. This is what I meant.

>

> upa*deksyanti* te jnanam --- Transcendental knowledge is given by diksa.

> Divyam jnanam ksapayati iti diksa.

 

Yes, of course diksa is obligatory, it must be.

 

However, I am repeating again that this does not justify the term

diksa-parampara in our case, as there is no succession of diksa,

pancaratrika-diksa, within this line, for all we know from Bhaktisiddhanta.

Is there? Did Bhaktisiddhanta attribute a high level of importance to the

diksa-gurus of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji or Bhaktivinoda Thakura? The fact is

that we do not know who is the diksa-guru of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji. Or do

we? And the fact is that we are not taught that the relationship between

Thakura Bhaktivinoda and Vipina Vihari Gosvami was of much substance. Or are

we?

 

Where is the concept of siksa-diksa-parampara coming from? Is there any

historical reference from any scripture or from the teachings of any

acaryas?

 

If we take the full, esoteric meaning of diksa, divyam jnanam tato dadyat

kuryat papasya sanksayam, as you paraphrased it in your letter, in addition

to the pancaratrika feature of diksa, this removes the necessity to call it

a siksa-diksa-parampara, as it would be needless repetition. Then it would

suffice to call it diksa-parampara, since siksa is included within diksa.

 

It is indeed a fact that traditionally a parampara means a diksa-parampara,

and it is so in the mainstream of the four Vaishnava sampradayas, as well as

in the Gaudiya traditions outside the lineage of Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

However, Bhaktisiddhanta redrew the line of parampara and called it the

"Bhagavata-parampara", and he traced the parampara - the succession of

teachers - back to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, based on the siksa-relations

between the acaryas he listed. This is very clear from the parampara we are

introduced to. Otherwise, why would he not have told his followers the name

of the diksa-guru of his diksa-guru, Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji?

[Guest guest]

> Yes, of course diksa is obligatory, it must be.

>

> However, I am repeating again that this does not justify the term

> diksa-parampara in our case, as there is no succession of diksa,

> pancaratrika-diksa, within this line, for all we know from

Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

Actually no need to add any adjectives. Siksa, Diksa or Diksa-Siksa. All

acaryas simply call it parampara. As some devotees have coined this term

'siksa parampara', I said it would be more apt to call it "diksa-siksa"

parampara.

 

> Is there? Did Bhaktisiddhanta attribute a high level of importance to the

> diksa-gurus of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji or Bhaktivinoda Thakura? The fact

is

> that we do not know who is the diksa-guru of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji. Or

do

> we?

 

Our founder acarya says ---"Our spiritual master, Om Visnupada Srimad

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, accepted initiation in the

Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya." That is sufficient.

 

>And the fact is that we are not taught that the relationship between

> Thakura Bhaktivinoda and Vipina Vihari Gosvami was of much substance. Or

are

> we?

>

> Where is the concept of siksa-diksa-parampara coming from? Is there any

> historical reference from any scripture or from the teachings of any

> acaryas?

 

It is coming from Bhagavadgita from Lord Krishna Himself.

 

Bg 4.2 Krishna says " evam parampara praptam..." and goes on to say Bg 4.34

"upa*deksya*nti te jnanam"

 

And Srila Rupa Goswami in BRS "guru padasrayas tasmat krishna-*diksadi

siksa*nam.

 

The word Parampara here used by Lord Krishna is same for all the 4 bonafide

sampradayas known to us.

 

 

> If we take the full, esoteric meaning of diksa, divyam jnanam tato dadyat

> kuryat papasya sanksayam, as you paraphrased it in your letter, in

addition

> to the pancaratrika feature of diksa, this removes the necessity to call

it

> a siksa-diksa-parampara, as it would be needless repetition. Then it would

> suffice to call it diksa-parampara, since siksa is included within diksa.

 

This is another good reason to coin the term "diksa-siksa" parampara. Any

way I have not paraphrased, it is As It Is by our founder acarya.

 

> It is indeed a fact that traditionally a parampara means a

diksa-parampara,

> and it is so in the mainstream of the four Vaishnava sampradayas, as well

as

> in the Gaudiya traditions outside the lineage of Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

> However, Bhaktisiddhanta redrew the line of parampara and called it the

> "Bhagavata-parampara", and he traced the parampara - the succession of

> teachers - back to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, based on the siksa-relations

> between the acaryas he listed.

 

Parampara = Bhagavata Parampara = Sri Guru Parampara.

 

> This is very clear from the parampara we are

> introduced to. Otherwise, why would he not have told his followers the

name

> of the diksa-guru of his diksa-guru, Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji?

 

It is more apt to call "diksa-siksa" parampara for the above simple reasons,

if at all we have to use any adjective. Actually in the parampara listing

that we are discussing, Srila Bhakti Siddhanta is diksa guru of Srila

Prabhupada, and Srila Gaura Kisora is diksa guru of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta.

That is by similar logic to yours (logic why you call it siksa parampara), I

can call 'diksa-siksa' parampara as some links are diksa links and not siksa

alone.

 

However, beyond logic is the other reason I have given in my previous text.

Every one in the list has a diksa guru, and the parampara does not go purely

by siksa alone. In that case no diksa was required, and just siksa would be

sufficient and no acarya, would aupport such kind of theory.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.