Error in Disciplic Succession?

[Guest guest]

Camp: ISKCON Telok Intan Branch Rathayatra Festival, Perak State, Malaysia

 

> Hare Krishna!

>

> Several Vaishnavas have repeatedly criticized our paramparaa listing (as

> given in BG As It Is). Although I am not normally concerned with answering

> critics who seem to have no other basis for criticizing but the need to

> criticize, nevertheless some of the points that were brought up did seem

> reasonable and should be addressed.

>

> In particular, it has been noted that Padmanaabha Tiirtha, NR^ihari

> Tiirtha (and also I think Maadhava Tiirtha and AkShobhya Tiirtha) are all

> co-disciples of Madhvaachaarya. Yet in Srila Prabhupada's paramparaa

> listing, they are listed as coming one after another. Why is this?

 

Bhanu Swami explained to me that it is true that some of these are

contempories and maybe they should have been listed on the same line rather

then consecutively. Just like the six Goswamis are listed on one line.

 

Originally the paramapara is listed by Kavi Karnapur upto Lord Sri krishna

Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Later it was listed in the same way by Baladeva

Vidyabhusana. Why they listed like that is hard to say or exactly how they

listed them. It would require some further research as it might well have

been that they were all mentioned in a grouping and later it was listed

sequencially although it wasn't meant like that.

 

It seems like a real nit-picking detail and doesn't invalidate the

parampara. If persons who were obviously not in the parampara had been

mentioned it would have been a question. The fact that the Madhva's agree

all to be in the parampara further substantiates the fact that they had the

names correctly of acaryas in the line. For the Gaudiyas in Vrindavan or

Jaganath Puri it might have been difficult to find out the detailed

relationship between each person in the parampara, but the names mentioned

are correct as members of the parampara.

 

> Critics

> see this as evidence that our paramparaa listing is not reliable to begin

> with. But I am tempted to believe that a good reason exists as to why we

> list these disciples one-after-another even though they had the same guru.

 

Must be a good reason, but it seems like something more suited to some

conference for scholars who are into doing critical analysis of all the

scriptures. This conference is more for normal devotees who want to clear up

any questions they have about the process of Krishna consciousness. These

highly technical scholarly questions hardly benefit anyone on the normal

sphere, but are more appreciated in the academic circles. I will try to do

what I can with these, but if there is an academic conference you might find

it more suitable for them. In case you don't find anyone who is willing to

deal with a question then I can always try to do whatever possible.

 

> Maharaj, can you please provide some answer to this question? I would be

> grateful if you could shed some light on this.

>

> thank you in advance.

>

> yours,

>

> -- Krishna Susarla

 

I hope that this finds you in good health.

 

Your well wisher,

 

Jayapataka Swami