Sampradaya Acarya

[cbrahma]

In my association with Rocana dasa prabhu, who is a very dedicated compassionate Vaisnava, I learned the profound respect one ought to have for Srila Prabhupada. I can understand why he now finds the proliferation of diksa gurus to be disturbing. In fact he understands that succession properly speaking is primarily a siksa rather than diksa succession and that it depends on the appearance of very elavated Vaisnavas called maha-bhagavats at critical periods. We should seek a pure devotee uttama-adhikari for our spiritual master. These are not always manifest nor need to be to preserve the succession.

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the relevance, significance and importance of the siksa guru as a bonafide initiator into our Sampradaya. His own brother, Lalita prasad, sided with the representatives of traditional diksa lines that traced their linage clear back to the Caitanya Lila. These "Goswami lineage" successions claimed that initiation through them was the only possible way to link to Lord Caitanya’s Sampradaya. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dismissed this self-serving concept, stating that regardless of one's spiritual genealogy, the prerequisite qualifications for successfully linking up to the Sampradaya are achieved wholly and solely upon the genuine advancement in Krsna consciousness by contacting a genuine Sampradaya Acarya. As such, he included Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Gaura Kisora das Babaji as qualified members of the Sampradaya, and he excluded all the established diksa lines who traced themselves back to the Caitanya Mahaprabhu lila period.

Creating a worldwide network of siksa gurus helps to prevent the transgression away from the Sampradaya Acarya’s transcendental spiritual movement into another world religion. This doesn’t just apply to western style over-institutionalization, but also to reverting back to the traditional diksa linage. In Kali Yuga, diksa guru ashrams are essentially an Indian cultural format for decentralized religiosity.

Rocana Dasa

 

This 'dissent from religiosity' which sums up my approach to Vaisnavism and always has throughout the years, is , I believe, critical for the promotion and preservation of the Gaudiya Vaisnava mission. It deemphasizes the diksa/religious aspect and brings to prominence the siksa/spiritual/universal aspect. - that is diksa subordinate to the siksa of a Sampradaya Acarya.

 

 

The Siksa Conclusion

 

 

The abbreviated definition of "initiation" is the admission of a neophyte disciple into the unadulterated philosophical and transcendental mysteries handed down by a succession of past Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya Acaryas. As Srila Prabhupada stated:

 

 

"Well initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing."

 

Srila Prabhupada Press Interview, 10-16-76, Chandigarh

 

 

 

 

 

The past Acaryas have established the principle that a sincere candidate can be connected to the Sampradaya via the advanced siksa guru. In fact, one of the distinguishing common features of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada is that both emphasized and reinforced the concept and principle of siksa guru being as important as diksa.

 

 

"Thakura Bhaktivinoda was not official Spiritual Master of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja. Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja was already renounced order, Paramahamsa, but Thakura Bhaktivinoda, while He was even playing the part of a householder, was treated by Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja as Preceptor, on account of His highly elevated spiritual understanding, and thus He was always treating Him as His Spiritual Master. The Spiritual Master is divided into two parts; namely, siksa guru and diksa guru. So officially Bhaktivinoda Thakura was like siksa guru of Gaura Kisora das Babaji Maharaja."

 

Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dayananda, 05-01-69:

 

 

Over 100 years ago, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura challenged the religionists of his day, which he identified as Caste Goswamis, Smarta Brahmins, mundane intellectuals, western scholars, and even those purporting to be in direct disciplic succession to associates of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Rocana dasa

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/vada/writings/sampradaya_acarya.htm

 

 

Prabhupada: "Then so siksa and diksa-guru... A siksa-guru who instructs against the instruction of spiritual, he is not a siksa guru. He is a demon. Siksa-guru, diksa-guru means... Sometimes a diksa-guru is not present always. Therefore one can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the siksa-guru. Siksa-guru does not mean he is speaking something against the teachings of the diksa-guru/Acarya. He is not a siksa-guru. He is a rascal."

Srila Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 17:1-3, 07-04-74, Honolulu

 

[♣♣♣]

All glories to Rocana Prabhu

 

 

[cbrahma]

 

Definition of a Sampradaya Acarya

 

The Sampradaya Acaryas who form the foundation of our parampara teach that the process of becoming Krsna conscious is not sentimental, but is instead an exact science for achieving the perfection of self-realization. As such, all aspects of this divine process are meticulously explained, clearly defined, and systematically presented. Adjustments needed to comply with time, place and circumstance can only be implemented by a maha-bhagavata Acarya ambassador of the past parampara Acaryas.

 

 

Let us begin with the list of 32 Sampradaya Acaryas presented by Srila Prabhupada in his Introduction to "Bhagavad-gita As It Is":

 

"Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh (Bhagavad-gita 4.2). This Bhagavad-gita As It Is is received through this disciplic succession:

<CENTER>1. Krsna

2. Brahma

3. Narada

4. Vyasa

5. Madhva

6. Padmanabha

7. Nrhari

8. Madhava

9. Aksobhya

10. Jaya Tirtha

11. Jnanasindhu

12. Dayanidhi

13. Vidyanidhi

14. Rajendra

15. Jayadharma

16. Purusottama

17. Brahmanya Tirtha

18. Vyasa Tirtha

19. Laksmipati

20. Madhavendra Puri

21. Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita)

22. Lord Caitanya

23. Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana)

24. Raghunatha, Jiva

25. Krsnadasa

26. Narottama

27. Visvanatha

28. (Baladeva) Jagannatha

29. Bhaktivinoda

30. Gaurakisora

31. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

32. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada" </CENTER>

 

 

 

 

While debating these issues in the recent past with followers of other ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha gurus, I have been accused of inventing the term, "sampradaya acarya" to bolster my arguments. The following quotations show that I did not simply invent the title “Sampradaya Acarya” from literary license:

 

 

"So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

la Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 11-30-72, Hyderabad

 

 

 

 

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."

 

Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

 

 

 

 

From the above quotations, which I have chosen from many, the reader can see that the term "sampradaya acarya" was introduced by the Sampradaya Acarya himself.

 

Next we must examine the question of just which past, exalted Vaisnavas are to be included as Sampradaya Acaryas. We see the individuals Srila Prabhupada included in the list, and the fact that he listed himself as the most recent.

 

The four Vaisnava Sampradayas, including our Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya, are the main vehicles with which the Supreme Personality of Godhead fulfills his promise to assist the embodied living entities in escaping the bondage of material life and returning to their eternal constitutional position in the Spiritual World. In order to maintain the purity and potency of these linkages, the Lord personally incarnates periodically, or sends his unalloyed representatives. Our Sampradaya has been blessed by the appearance of the Yuga Avatara, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Since his disappearance 500 years ago, there have been extended periods of dormancy in the Sampradaya. The revival began with the descent of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura over 150 years ago. Those empowered associates of the Lord who are sent specifically to surcharge the parampara are classified as Sampradaya Acaryas. There are innumerable pure devotees who are involved in other capacities and pastimes in the overall transcendental scheme to benedict the suffering souls, but all are not included on the list of Sampradaya Acaryas.

The nomenclature “Sampradaya Acaryas” properly describes the three successive Acaryas, beginning with Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Srila Prabhupada is the third appearance in this most recent succession of prominent Sampradaya Acaryas. As a successive team, they made their nitya-siddha appearance to fulfill the precise mission of spreading Krsna Consciousness to every town and village throughout the planet, as predicted by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. They were deputed to perform this preordained pastime.

Rocana dasa

 

ignore ♣♣♣

[Bishadi]

 

 

 

"So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

la Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 11-30-72, Hyderabad

 

 

 

 

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."

 

Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

 

 

 

I disagree.

 

as this concept requires acceptance of another more important than the commitment of the student...(the choice)

 

'it is advised' ..'recommends'.. are the suggestions as mentioned above....

 

which makes sense but not required as many of the greatest contributors accomplished much alone

 

a guru can assist in the aligning of ideas, the words still have to be read of much literature; the commitment to the learning represents the primary requisite of understanding/ For example; anyone can watch a DVD or listen to a recording.

 

read more than the guru and the student begins to assist the teacher

 

each person is equally capable with or without a specific sects required ritual.....

[♣♣♣]

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the relevance, significance and importance of the siksa guru as a bonafide initiator into our Sampradaya. His own brother, Lalita prasad, sided with the representatives of traditional diksa lines that traced their linage clear back to the Caitanya Lila. These "Goswami lineage" successions claimed that initiation through them was the only possible way to link to Lord Caitanya’s Sampradaya. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dismissed this self-serving concept, stating that regardless of one's spiritual genealogy, the prerequisite qualifications for successfully linking up to the Sampradaya are achieved wholly and solely upon the genuine advancement in Krsna consciousness by contacting a genuine Sampradaya Acarya. As such, he included Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Gaura Kisora das Babaji as qualified members of the Sampradaya, and he excluded all the established diksa lines who traced themselves back to the Caitanya Mahaprabhu lila period.

Creating a worldwide network of siksa gurus helps to prevent the transgression away from the Sampradaya Acarya’s transcendental spiritual movement into another world religion. This doesn’t just apply to western style over-institutionalization, but also to reverting back to the traditional diksa linage. In Kali Yuga, diksa guru ashrams are essentially an Indian cultural format for decentralized religiosity.

Rocana Dasa

This is historically inaccurate to a large degree omiting certain facts that only gives the reader part of the picture.

 

The statement here for instance:

 

"His own brother, Lalita prasad, sided with the representatives of traditional diksa lines that traced their linage clear back to the Caitanya Lila"

 

The reality is Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur sided with his father Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur who gave him diksha into the same line he had taken diksha into going back to Ma Jahnava Devi, he gave him mantra diksha and siddha pranali just as he had been given by Bepin Behari Gosvami.

 

Srila Bhaktivinode did not give this same mantra diksha or Siddha Pranali to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, of course there are a multitude of opinions as to why he did not.

 

Also worth mentioning here is the fact that Srila Bhaktivinode wrote his memoirs (Sva-likhita-jivani) which is the primary source of information on BVT's life as we know it to Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur as he had great affection and love towards him.

[krsna]

 

The following literary piece is good thoughtful writing by our friend Jagat...is that enough???:

 

Jagat

 

This is a blog dedicated to the concept of prema-prayojana. I want to explore the meaning of this simple motto, which states that Divine Love is the goal of life.

 

<DL class=profile-datablock><DT class=profile-img> <DD class=profile-data>Name: Jagadananda Das <DD class=profile-data>Location: Rishikesh, Uttaranchal, India </DD></DL>

<!-- Begin .post -->Bhaktivinoda Thakur's meat eating and Lalita Prasad Thakur

 

 

 

When I see a discussion starting that deals with questions I was deeply involved in 10 or 20 years ago, or even more recently, I do not feel tempted to get involved again. One moves on, I guess. Rocana Prabhu has recently published an editorial on the Sampradaya Sun wherein he struggles to make sense of Bhaktivinoda Thakur's avowal that he engaged in meat eating. In the context of this article, he makes a few disparaging comments about my diksha guru, Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur. It is unfortunate that there is no one but me to currently come to the defense of my guru, and for me to do so means exposing myself to involvement in disagreeable disputes, which is certainly not appealing to me. Nevertheless, it seems to me that I am under some obligation to say at least a few words.

 

Poor Rocana seems to have just discovered that Bhaktivinoda Thakur admitted eating meat and fish in his memoirs. He worries about "the potential this has to disturb the minds of many readers," who would consider such practices "abhorrent." This is in fact the realization that this admission plays havoc with his own idea of what it means to be a "nitya-siddha" or a "sampradaya acharya." Although he compliments Bhaktivinoda Thakur for his "extreme honesty," he does not seem to have grasped the real significance of such admissions.

 

Rocana bandies about with comparisons to Ramachandra and Bhima's meat-eating and how "they" are different from "us" and that therefore the same standards cannot apply. And woe be to those who compare their own sinful pasts to the comparatively less objectionable, historically forgivable actions of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. But all this solves nothing and simply muddies the waters and reveals the general confusion about Guru Tattva that is rampant in the Krishna consciousness movement. A million quotes from Srila Prabhupada's books, unfortunately, do little to clarify the issue. Rather, they go on urging us to erase the human aspects of the Guru in order to see him as a God, and to sacrifice all capacity for individual self-realization in submission to the guru's orders and guru-created institutions. I feel deeply that these kinds of exhortations have resulted in a huge imbalance in emphasis in the general understanding of Krishna consciousness. They diminish our humanity instead of lifting it to the heavens. How could this ever have been the intention of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu?

 

The importance of the human aspect of the Guru

 

Though I have, as mentioned above, already written about these issues, it is perhaps time to repeat myself again. Currently the Prema Prayojan site is closed temporarily, so I cannot not refer to the numerous times I have gone over the question. Indeed, the first time I publicly wrote on this subject was in letters to Rocana on his Garuda listserve, at the very beginning of my internet engagement with devotees. In connection with the Bhaktivinoda meat-eating question, I wrote on Audarya forums in 2003:

 

 

 

I think that we should be extremely indebted to Bhaktivinoda for having pierced the hagiographical balloon so that we can surmount the superficial understanding of guru-tattva and nitya-siddha and all the rest of the terms that we bandy about in order to blind ourselves to possible flaws in our guru vargas.

 

 

I have written about this before in relation to the controversy over the

Prabhupada-lilamrita

. How much more inspiring and glorious it is to have a human guru who has shown the way by struggling with the negative aspects of material entanglement and succeeding!

This is, as far as I am concerned, a crucial point of transcending the kanishtha adhikari stage.

 

 

It is really the same question as that of guru omniscience and infallibility. There is much confused thinking on this issue... The arch-conservative and reactionary side tries to discredit the

Sva-likhita-jivani

itself. These people readily accept statements from this book when it suits their purposes, but refuse to accept those that contradict their idealized image of Bhaktivinoda

Thakur

. Even so, the SLJ is still the primary source of information on BVT's life as we know it--including Rupavilasa's book and all other Gaudiya Math publications on his life--with the appropriate expurgations, of course.

 

 

I take a much more liberal and, I believe, enlightened view that attempts to reconcile the humanity of the guru with his divinity rather than obliterate his humanity altogether in a cloud of mystification.

 

While I was thinking about whether I would write this article or not, I had the radio on and happened to hear an interview with Thomas Merton scholar Michael Higgins. Higgins spoke of the source of Merton's appeal and inspirational power as being anchored in his insistent search for truth and holiness. This comes out especially in the collection of diaries that he kept diligently and in which he spoke of things like a longstanding affair with a nurse and other "unsaintly" activities. But rather than diminishing his stature, and I hope that this is abundantly clear, people's appreciation for Merton's true worth only grows, to the point that though he spoke emphatically and repeatedly against "the cult of personality", he has ironically become the subject of an entire Merton industry. Mahatma Gandhi, in his "Experiments with Truth," had the same modern approach to saintliness.

 

None of this means that they are any the less saintly, but it is their saintly ambition, it is their honest, self-examined determination to attain the impossible goal of human perfection, that makes them admirable, and indeed worthy of being followed.

 

As an aside, Satsvarupa Maharaj has been, I believe, influenced by Thomas Merton to some extent and so he also approaches spiritual life quite openly. Without entering into a critique of the degree of personal honesty, mystical or theological profundity that goes into his writings, there is a certain modern sensibility that is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary devotees and their obsession with "nitya-siddhas." My reproach of Satsvarupa is rather that he lacks courage and has made something of a career of retreating: He tempts fate by chanting extra rounds ("Japa Notebook") and then retreats; he visits Narayan Maharaj, and then retreats; he has a sexual escapade, and then retreats; he decides to take face questions about sexuality head on, and then retreats--each time caving in to Iskcon criticism. No wonder the man is suffering so terribly from migraines! If he could just once follow his instincts and break away from the terrible subjection to the Institution that holds him in its grip--a grip that is tattooed with the words "Iskcon acharya." With him, the problem is not so much a belief in the value of honest self-reflection as the lack of courage to follow through on his intuitions.

 

Recently I mentioned on these pages an interview with John Kain, who in a new book called A Rare and Precious Thing talks about a number of spiritual teachers in a variety of traditions. His opening statement was that all of these teachers have in "one way or another embraced the new paradigm." By this he meant that these spiritual masters made no attempt to pass themselves off as "nitya siddhas," but nevertheless had a powerful and lasting effect on their followers.

 

It is almost axiomatic to speak of today's spiritual leaders in Krishna consciousness as flawed. We have been so conditioned to accepting that the spiritual master must be a "realized soul", which we associate with some kind of unattainable superhuman status, that we end up absorbed in a kind of faultfinding exercise that makes us incapable of acknowledging even the considerable merits of another devotee except in the most begrudging manner. Demonstrating that another person is imperfect is not a hard job: Ramachandra Puri showed us all that it is possible to find fault even with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So, is there any problem in finding fault with a sadhaka who confesses his imperfections? The question here is: From whom can we, as sadhakas ourselves, learn more? From the person who exhorts us to be impossibly perfect while pretending to conform to this same, entirely corrupting attitude, or from the one who sincerely admits his flaws and reveals his strategies, etc., in dealing with them?

 

Evidently, adopting this kind of strategy will result in a sanguine attitude, even a distrust, of personality cults of all kinds. George Orwell said "saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent" (in Reflections on Gandhi), especially if they set themselves up as such. Of course, I am the first to admit that the currents of hypocrisy run deep, and no public self-reflection is entirely void of manipulative goals. Nevertheless, let it be stated as an axiom, which like all axioms will seem bland and obvious, that all people, including saints, are human beings. As such, they are subject to all the flaws of humanity--weakness and temptation, error and illusion. It is not freedom from humanity that a saint achieves, nor even the perfection of an ideal humanity; I would say rather that the saint is one who has consecrated himself to the pursuit of holiness and has made that ideal real to others. The acharya is someone who in the depths of his realization has found jewels that are of inestimable value to other humans who seek life's meaning in God.

 

Those who are addicted to the idea that "God speaks to the Acharya; his words are therefore the words of God himself," patati patata, are missing several huge points.

 

Lalita Prasada Thakur, my Prabhu

 

Of course, the paragraph in Rocana's article that really inspired me to write anything at all was the following:

 

 

 

We also have to keep in mind that the

Svalikhita-jivani

is actually a long letter written to his son,

Lalita

Prasada. As history tells it, in due course

Lalita

Prasada became a real adversary to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. In fact, he started a separate movement that is considered asiddhantic, and criticized Srila Bhaktisiddhanta extensively. So we should consider how that plays into our understanding this particular circumstance with Srila Bhaktivinoda's meat eating. Who knows whether Srila Bhaktivinoda intended that his letter to his son be published and made into a book? He might also have been trying to send a direct message to

Lalita

Prasada, it's hard to tell.

Svalikhita-jivani

is certainly a very unusual, honest depiction of a great Sampradaya Acarya's early life. How

Lalita

Prasada - or any of us, for that matter - choose to interpret this information is of the utmost importance. After all, love is always tested. This candid written narrative might simply have been designed by the father as a test for the son. And as history shows, the son failed the test. Whether or not his publication of this autobiographical letter was part of the failure, we can't know.

This paragraph is so full of half-truths, misunderstandings and plain nonsense that it is hard to know where to begin. I have indeed already begun to do so above, as the root of the error is in Rocana's magical idea of the "Sampradaya Acharya." It is furthermore an unworthy and cynical attempt to deflect the problem onto a saintly person of whom Rocana knows nothing other than the parampara propaganda he now so condescendingly perpetuates.

 

Rocana's concept arose at least in part from reflection on the now generally well-known fact that Siddhanta Saraswati and Lalita Prasada Thakur were in profound disagreement on the issue of diksha, the position of Bhaktivinoda Thakur's diksha guru Bipin Bihari Goswami, raganuga bhakti practices, the nature of Gaudiya Vaishnava institutions, sannyasa, and many of Saraswati Thakur's innovations. I have written about these things at length and, I believe, with a certain amount of detachment. However, if we can draw one conclusion from the Sva-likhita-jivani, it is that Bipin Bihari Goswami played a significant role in Bhaktivinoda Thakur's life, something that is a bit of an inconvenient truth with most of Bhaktivinoda Thakur's putative followers.

 

And this lesson has a connection with the meat-eating issue. It is this: after taking initiation from his guru, Bhaktivinoda Thakur stopped all flesh consumption. Indeed, he highlights this as a miraculous result of being initiated. This in itself shows the Thakur's appreciation of a significant transformation in his life as a result of coming into connection with his guru. How does this square with those who are on the right side of history and have consigned Bipin Bihari Prabhu to the rubbish heap? This avowal by Bhaktivinoda Thakur on its own seems sufficient truth to me to discard Saraswati Thakur and to follow Lalita Prasad Thakur, everything else be damned!

 

Since Bhaktivinoda Thakur initiated Lalita Prasad and gave him the same pranali that he received from Bipin Bihari. We may well ask what kind of test he was giving Lalita Prasad in telling him these things about his guru and whether Lalita Prasad failed that test or not. Certainly, in my eyes, since he stayed on this earth long enough to pass this same pranali on to me when he was already 99 years old, he did not. Through all that time he did not swerve in his commitment or his determination to preserve Bhaktivinoda Thakur's heritage as he had received it. If Saraswati Thakur did not receive the same gifts from his guru, or received other ones, does this somehow put him on the right side of history? What kind of discourse about history is this anyway?

 

It is easy to buy into the fallacy that so-called success and virtue are the same thing when so clearly they are not. If there is anyone who should know this, it is Rocana himself, since he, as an outsider, is engaged in a discourse of resistance to a particular course of history. I am sure he thinks of himself on the side of truth and history, but one day, if Iskcon does not find itself on that rubbish heap, it will certainly throw him on it.

 

Rather than make rash comments about the fickle judgments of history, let us seek the truth. Orwell summarized the cynical ideological manipulation of history in 1984, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." Fortunately for us, neither Rocana, nor Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math and their followers, yet have complete control over the Gaudiya Vaishnava world's present, whatever illusions they may have. Lalita Prasad Thakur will always be a hero of the resistance against those who have run roughshod over the history of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.

 

Siddhanta and sadhana (Dogma and Ritual)

 

There are, if anything, two major contributions made by Bhaktivinoda Thakur to the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, two contributions that blissfully stand in apparent contradiction to one another.

 

The first of these, which we can place in the early part of his life, is the principal message of Shukavak's milestone marking book. It is his work as a rational analyst of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It was as an inheritor of an aspect of the Enlightenment, someone who had read European philosophers and was able to come up with the concept of the saragrahi.

 

I cannot tell you how significant this concept is. Perhaps Rocana has a little inkling of it, but only to a point, because he cannot exercise his rational function when it comes to his so-called Sampradaya Acharyas. The whole point of being a saragrahi, however, is that it must be applied to one's gurus themselves. The sara element of the Guru is the Truth that he has been able to connect his disciple to. That Truth is not the management directions of Iskcon, or the final order of succession, or instructions about who to associate with and when. The sara is "Love Krishna and do whatever is necessary to attain that goal." He may say, "I have done such and such myself; these are my gurus, my tradition, this is what they have done to get there, but I am only the door. Pass through this door and into Goloka Vrindavan. Illuminated by this guiding light of identity as a servant of Krishna, take the world I give you."

 

The Chaitanya Charitamrita tells us that Krishna is the Guru. He appears in the form of the teacher and initiator, but he is also present in the heart. It is Krishna in the heart who says "yay" or "nay" to his presence externally. When the truth comes as a blinding light accompanied by the imperative to act in the service of Krishna, that is Guru. But this does not mean that your relationship with God in the Heart is finished. It simply means that the relation with the Soul of your soul is mediated through a particular cultural and literary tradition, a symbol system, a religious language, a history of ideas and archetypal models.

 

As such, we are not meant to blindly follow anyone or anything, but rather to enter into the discourse that centers around this tradition, a discourse that developed over the centuries and to which Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Bhaktivedanta Swami have all made significant contributions, but which none of them has thankfully terminated in some Fukiyamian "end of history."

 

The second aspect of Bhaktivinoda Thakur's contribution consists in his discovery, approval, acceptance and continuation of the essential element of Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching, namely manjari bhava. I had left this essay untouched for several days until I saw a pretentious little article by Rasarani Devi called Poor Bhagavat Das in which she mocks this practice and goal cherished by Bhaktivinoda Thakur and then passed on to his son, through whom it has come to a few other fortunate individuals.

 

I am afraid that the baby has gone out with the bathwater here--perhaps we should go looking on the rubbish heap of history for manjari bhava as well, for it seems that this is where these self-righteous judges of Gaudiya Vaishnava history, looking through their narrow prism, have placed it.

 

Anyway, this article is getting stale, after sitting here unfinished for several days. I will not let it ripen or grow any further. So here it ends for today (August 6, 2007)

[♣♣♣]

You beat me to it!

 

[♣♣♣]

 

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."

Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

Following this line of logic Sri Chaitanya would be the Sampradaya Acarya in the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

 

[cbrahma]

 

I disagree.

 

as this concept requires acceptance of another more important than the commitment of the student...(the choice)

 

'it is advised' ..'recommends'.. are the suggestions as mentioned above....

 

which makes sense but not required as many of the greatest contributors accomplished much alone

 

a guru can assist in the aligning of ideas, the words still have to be read of much literature; the commitment to the learning represents the primary requisite of understanding/ For example; anyone can watch a DVD or listen to a recording.

 

read more than the guru and the student begins to assist the teacher

 

each person is equally capable with or without a specific sects required ritual.....

I'm not sure I understand the basis of your disagreement.

[bija]

Shrila Prabhupada inCc Adi 7.31-32 purport:

"Here is an important point. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to invent a way to capture the Mayavadis and others who did not take interest in the Krishna consciousness movement. This is the symptom of an acarya. An acarya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and means by which Krishna consciousness may be spread."

[cbrahma]

 

 

The following literary piece is good thoughtful writing by our friend Jagat...is that enough???:

 

Jagat

 

This is a blog dedicated to the concept of prema-prayojana. I want to explore the meaning of this simple motto, which states that Divine Love is the goal of life.

 

 

 

 

 

<DL class=profile-datablock><DT class=profile-img> <DD class=profile-data>Name: Jagadananda Das <DD class=profile-data>Location: Rishikesh, Uttaranchal, India </DD></DL>

Since Bhaktivinoda Thakur initiated Lalita Prasad and gave him the same pranali that he received from Bipin Bihari. We may well ask what kind of test he was giving Lalita Prasad in telling him these things about his guru

Be careful with whom you ally yourself.

I've unblocked you, just to see if you were going to say something relevant on this important subject, other than posting generic statements.

 

This is what Rocana dasa has to say on the subject of Jagadananda Das

 

Srila Prabhupada stated that the whole purpose of education and advancement in civilization is to cure yourself from the 'dirty mind'. 'Dirty mind' means that you have lusty and greedy desires in the mind, and it requires a great deal of dedication to Krsna consciousness, as Srila Prabhupada himself is presenting it, in order to get free from this. Of course, ISKCON history is replete with all sorts of examples of how true this is. In fact, during these last few days of March 1976, Srila Prabhupada was inquiring into a meeting with Lalita Prasada, who is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's brother. Lalita Prasasda had a strong disagreement with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and instead of preaching Krsna consciousness in the same mood as Srila Prabhupada's Spiritual Master, he took to babaji life. By staying around the Mayapur area, he got possession of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's house, which is situated just across the river from the Mayapur land. Srila Prabhupada was interested in making an arrangement with him to take care of Srila Bhaktivinoda's house, because obviously Lalita Prasada didn't have the men or money to do so. Little did we know at that time that Lalita Prasada had convinced two of the most prominent, scholarly members in ISKCON at that time, Nitai and Hiranyagarbha, to renounce Srila Prabhupada, and of course BSST, and come over to his way of thinking. They took the fall and did so, and they're still preaching Lalita Prasada's position to this day. Although they both went onto become Sanskrit scholars, they are preaching against both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada. In fact, Hiranyagarbha (Jagadananda dasa) has gone so far as to call Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur a fraud.

 

[cbrahma]

 

Shrila Prabhupada inCc Adi 7.31-32 purport:<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

"Here is an important point. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to invent a way to capture the Mayavadis and others who did not take interest in the Krishna consciousness movement. This is the symptom of an acarya. An acarya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and means by which Krishna consciousness may be spread."

Yes that is important. An acarya is a uniquely empowered individual.

[bija]

Shrila Prabhupada in SB 1.5.16 purport:

"The expert devotees also can discover novel ways and means to convert the nondevotees in terms of particular time and circumstance. Devotional service is dynamic activity, and the expert devotees can find out competent means to inject it into the dull brains of the materialistic population. Such transcendental activities of the devotees for the service of the Lord can bring a new order of life to the foolish society of materialistic men."

[Bishadi]

 

I'm not sure I understand the basis of your disagreement.

 

Did Srila Prabhupada develop and convey beyond his teacher?

 

Did the teacher have the greater impact on the student than the knowledge and literature learned?

 

After the choice to interpret Chaintanya's works into english; did he continue beyond the acarya (teacher)?

 

 

What was the most important 'choice' of Srila Prabhupada?

 

The intent?

The acarya/teacher?

 

Point was the choice and intent of the person enabled the teacher to see the incarnation; not the other way around.

[suchandra]

 

Did Srila Prabhupada develop and convey beyond his teacher?

 

Did the teacher have the greater impact on the student than the knowledge and literature learned?

 

After the choice to interpret Chaintanya's works into english; did he continue beyond the acarya (teacher)?

 

 

What was the most important 'choice' of Srila Prabhupada?

 

The intent?

The acarya/teacher?

 

Point was the choice and intent of the person enabled the teacher to see the incarnation; not the other way around.

We must think for ourselves

 

"The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth as He gave it to Vyasa: when we earnestly seek for it. Truth is eternal and unexhausted. The soul receives a revelation when anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the bygone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma.

Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father.

 

God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be.

Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from within, "No, Vyasa! You cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days. You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountainhead of truth, where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind." Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.

Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love."

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur

[Bishadi]

 

"The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth as He gave it to Vyasa: when we earnestly seek for it.

So in all form, the intent to seek further is the purport of good. Especially as

Truth is eternal and unexhausted. The soul receives a revelation when anxious for it.

So are you hungry or content?

 

God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity.

Hence the parables and trouble in defining into the words of each period.

 

We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be.

So advice is given, and to know both that the words of the elders, in writing, can be misinterpreted. Such that an acarya (teacher) can assist in maintaining pure comprehension? Makes sense but then often the students can define the parables with the additional knowledge summarized over the generations; for example; the Upanishads and original vedas as they evolved into the Chaitanya’s and then Srila Prabhupada’s works (interpretations). This is a natural progression within Brahman (the evolution of knowledge), in time. Still not isolated from the total, nor without the interrelation (compassion) to existence.

 

Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from within, "No, Vyasa! You cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days. You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountainhead of truth, where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind." Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place>Liberty</st1:place></st1:City> then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love."

And since we know Brahman/Vishnu is timeless and without limit in the compassion of life; then all faces of man are of the truth within. Each have written truths and conveyed knowledge.

To ‘go out’ into the world of Brahman and seek the truth’s unanswered in the knowledge of the fathers, is the duty and in doing so; absolute Love!

[♣♣♣]

This is what Rocana dasa has to say on the subject of Jagadananda Das

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Srila Prabhupada stated that the whole purpose of education and advancement in civilization is to cure yourself from the 'dirty mind'. 'Dirty mind' means that you have lusty and greedy desires in the mind, and it requires a great deal of dedication to Krsna consciousness, as Srila Prabhupada himself is presenting it, in order to get free from this. Of course, ISKCON history is replete with all sorts of examples of how true this is. In fact, during these last few days of March 1976, Srila Prabhupada was inquiring into a meeting with Lalita Prasada, who is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's brother. Lalita Prasasda had a strong disagreement with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and instead of preaching Krsna consciousness in the same mood as Srila Prabhupada's Spiritual Master, he took to babaji life. By staying around the Mayapur area, he got possession of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's house, which is situated just across the river from the Mayapur land. Srila Prabhupada was interested in making an arrangement with him to take care of Srila Bhaktivinoda's house, because obviously Lalita Prasada didn't have the men or money to do so. Little did we know at that time that Lalita Prasada had convinced two of the most prominent, scholarly members in ISKCON at that time, Nitai and Hiranyagarbha, to renounce Srila Prabhupada, and of course BSST, and come over to his way of thinking. They took the fall and did so, and they're still preaching Lalita Prasada's position to this day. Although they both went onto become Sanskrit scholars, they are preaching against both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada. In fact, Hiranyagarbha (Jagadananda dasa) has gone so far as to call Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur a fraud.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Here's another piece of half truths from rocana, really cbrahma you are quoting someone who is completely uninformed about certain facts,

 

For one at the 1st Mayapur festival Srila Prabupada HIMSELF sent ME along with several other Iskcon devotees to have lunch at Lalita Prasads ashram after he had kindly extended an invitation for some of us to come and take prasad. Srila Prabupada and Lalilata Prasad didn't want the old family fued to continue that was there between GM and Lalita Pradsads ashram was the feeling I got when this was arranged and we went there.

 

 

Lalita Prasasda had a strong disagreement with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and instead of preaching Krsna consciousness in the same mood as Srila Prabhupada's Spiritual Master, he took to babaji life.

You numbskull he took babaji directly from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, people like you who don't know the history, were never around then, spread nothing but false propoganda and do nothing but a disservice to Srila Prabupada. I met Lallita Prasad and he was as kind and loving as any real Vaishnava you can find, unlike so many fakes who make up stories to bring glory to themselves.

 

 

 

By staying around the Mayapur area, he got possession of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's house, which is situated just across the river from the Mayapur land. Srila Prabhupada was interested in making an arrangement with him to take care of Srila Bhaktivinoda's house, because obviously Lalita Prasada didn't have the men or money to do so

It was his fathers house LOL, Srila Bhaktivinode loved Lalita Prasad very much as we can see quite clearly in (Sva-likhita-jivani) fathers leave their children their houses and yes Lalita Prasad was his favorite.

 

 

 

Little did we know at that time that Lalita Prasada had convinced two of the most prominent, scholarly members in ISKCON at that time, Nitai and Hiranyagarbha, to renounce Srila Prabhupada, and of course BSST, and come over to his way of thinking. They took the fall and did so, and they're still preaching Lalita Prasada's position to this day. Although they both went onto become Sanskrit scholars, they are preaching against both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada. In fact, Hiranyagarbha (Jagadananda dasa) has gone so far as to call Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur a fraud.

I cannot believe how rocana just talks any thing off the top of his head, yes Jagat took diksha from Lalita Prasad into the diksha line from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, but Nitai did not LOL, Nitai took diksha from Tin Kori Gosvami in Braja and learned of all this from Doctor Kapoor. It seems after all these years rocana would get the facts straight.

 

Most who left to take diksha in other lines were bitter no doubt and spoke against IGM yes but that is water under the bridge now and much of that has subsided and I know Jagatji has great respsect and affection for Srila Prabupada even though he may disagree on some points. Nitai does not spend time attacking IGM as he once did, he himself has softened up a bit in this regard as well.

 

As far as fraud is concerned, Jagat has questioned the authenticity of the Chaitanya Upanishad that was brought out by the Thakur and it being an ancient work from the Upanishadic period. He certainly does not consider Bhaktivionode to be a fraud but his own Parama Guru.

 

I would be careful using rocana as your source material on so many things, he is just uninformed and exaggerates on so many points and makes claims about things with having only bits and pieces that he has heard second hand.

 

[♣♣♣]

cbrahma, puts everyone who differs from him on ignore, really he is just sticking his head in the sand.

 

[suchandra]

 

T

 

Most who left to take diksha in other lines were bitter no doubt and spoke against IGM yes but that is water under the bridge now and much of that has subsided and I know Jagatji has great respsect and affection for Srila Prabupada even though he may disagree on some points.

 

Great respect and affection but may disagree on some points.

What are these "some points"?

[♣♣♣]

 

Great respect and affection but may disagree on some points.

What are these "some points"?

 

You can go research this yourself and draw your own conclusions

 

[suchandra]

 

You can go research this yourself and draw your own conclusions

 

Well if you say this, my conclusion is that you are speculating.

You're attacking Rocana for not knowing history and when asked to back up your conclusions, sleep, tamas.

[♣♣♣]

 

Well if you say this, my conclusion is that you are speculating.

You're attacking Rocana for not knowing history and when asked to back up your conclusions, sleep, tamas.

speculating?? How silly.

 

LOL, all I said is you can research on what points they disagree on as I am not inclined to get into all that.

 

BTW I am not attacking rocana for not knowing history, I am clearly saying HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT PLAIN AND SIMPLE,

 

you obvioulsly don't either

 

[suchandra]

 

speculating?? How silly.

 

LOL, all I said is you can research on what points they disagree on as I am not inclined to get into all that.

 

BTW I am not attacking rocana for not knowing history, I am clearly saying HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT PLAIN AND SIMPLE,

 

you obvioulsly don't either

 

 

Agreed, therefore we hear from authority: "To reject spiritual master is a great sin. So these are, from social point of view, from religious point of view, these are irreligious, sinful activities, to reject one’s spiritual master."

 

The Nectar of Devotion

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Bombay, December 26, 1972

[cbrahma]

Sucandra's responses are always so inoffensive, meek and humble even in the face of scurrilous attacks. I wish I could attain this wisdom of serpents and gentleness of doves.

[cbrahma]

Rocana dasa prabhu is a brahminical initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada since 1970. He was temple president in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada, where I met him. He has always been a compassionate honest and very knowledgeable (brahminical) dedicated disciple .

He set up the Sampradaya Sun on line publication, of which he is Editor-in-chief to encourage free uncensored forum for discussion on Vaisnava topics and accepts articles from a wide range of people (unlike Dandavats).

What he has NOT done is try to set himself up as a diksa guru.

In short he is a very senior Vaisnava whose opinion ought to be given very serious consideration.