Sampradaya Acarya

[cbrahma]

 

BBG rejected Bhaktivinoda Thakura only several years after BVT passing from this world, when the issue of book authenticity came into light. There is no record of such 'distancing' during the lifetime of BVT, even over the issue of giving blessings to Raghunatha dasa Goswami, an incident much overblown by the Saraswatas.

It is obvious that Bhaktivinode Thakur and BBG had a serious difference of opinon in any case. Such was the perception of Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja at least and he should have known, because he defnitely rejected BBG.

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati took to the defense of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and chastised the offending Bipin Bihari Gosvami: "Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has instructed about Hari-Nama as follows. 'O jivas, do nothing but Kirtana, and do it all along. But Kirtana is not done well unless the chanter is humbler than even a blade of grass, is free from the arrogance of the sense of his own respect and is the giver of respect to others. Do not remain maddened with the thoughts that you are a great expert and very intelligent.' I have tried to adopt this instruction from Sri Gaurasundara. If anyone attacks me, then I should put up with it and chant Hari-nama; I should know that God has thus given me a chance to be lower than a blade of grass; knowing this, I should be all the more encouraged to take to Hari-nama more vigorously than ever. But when somebody speaks or acts disrespectfully about a true Vaisnava, my Guru-deva, then my lowliness as that of a blade of grass should consist in at once giving him proper teaching with as much vigour as ever. In the karma-kanda section of the Vedas there is no true lowliness as that of a blade of grass, there is only insincere cringing before others in order to secure their favour." (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Sri Caitanya's Teachings, p.236) Therefore Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati publicly chastised Bipin Gosvami and made it appear that two exalted pure devotees, father and son, had a difference of opinion. In fact each was demonstrating how a devotee acts according to time and circumstances.

[stonehearted]

If you ignore the context for those two quotations, you'll miss the point Srila Prabhupada makes. Here's the first one, with the context that has been conveniently omitted in cbrahma's post: "So a human life should be engaged inquiring about the Absolute Truth, and he should inquire from a person who, who has heard about the Absolute Truth from a realized person. There is a.... Therefore it is called sruti, parampara, disciplic succession. One... Just like Vyasadeva is hearing from Narada. Narada is authorized. He has heard from Brahma. Brahma has heard from Krsna. So this is the parampara system, disciplic succession. So there are four parampara systems. They are known as, at the present moment, Ramanuja-sampradaya, Brahma-sampra..., Brahma-samprada..., yes, Madhva-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, Madhva-sampradaya, the same, and Rudra-sampradaya and Sri-samp..., Sri, Rama, Kumara-sampradaya. These is four sampradayas. So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

This makes it clear just who he means by sampradaya-acharyas: those acharyas accepted as the heads of the four sampradayas. That's even more clearly stated in the second quotation cited, where, in the appositive phrase Srila Prabhupada defines the term: "the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka."

 

These are the only two instances you'll find in the VedaBase where Srila Prabhupada uses that term. He never says, or even implies, or even obliquely hints, that he is a sampradaya acharya. He never says that he's starting a new sampradaya. He would never have said such a thing. The point he makes in these two places is that one must hear from an acharya who comes in one of these four disciplic successions. He said more times than can be easily counted that this is how he's genuine: he is following one of these four acharyas.

 

On the other hand, one could make a case that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started His own sampradaya. But he didn't make that case Himself.

 

I'm afraid that this idea of calling Srila Prabhupada a Sampradaya Acharya has no basis in what we've learned from Srila Prabhupada. It's based, no doubt, on a nice sentiment, but one which, left to get out of hand, leads to something like the kartabhajas' worship of the guru as God.

[jijaji]

This story is false and was made up by Gaudiya Math. The truth is Bhaktisiddhanta was kicked out of his fathers house after he offended Bepin Behari Gosvami in the same way Bhaktivinode made him leave Puri after he had offended Radharaman Charana dev. Sorry for stating such a harsh truth here, for all you wet behind the ears.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

[cbrahma]

 

If you ignore the context for those two quotations, you'll miss the point Srila Prabhupada makes. Here's the first one, with the context that has been conveniently omitted in cbrahma's post: "So a human life should be engaged inquiring about the Absolute Truth, and he should inquire from a person who, who has heard about the Absolute Truth from a realized person. There is a.... Therefore it is called sruti, parampara, disciplic succession. One... Just like Vyasadeva is hearing from Narada. Narada is authorized. He has heard from Brahma. Brahma has heard from Krsna. So this is the parampara system, disciplic succession. So there are four parampara systems. They are known as, at the present moment, Ramanuja-sampradaya, Brahma-sampra..., Brahma-samprada..., yes, Madhva-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, Madhva-sampradaya, the same, and Rudra-sampradaya and Sri-samp..., Sri, Rama, Kumara-sampradaya. These is four sampradayas. So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

This makes it clear just who he means by sampradaya-acharyas: those acharyas accepted as the heads of the four sampradayas. That's even more clearly stated in the second quotation cited, where, in the appositive phrase Srila Prabhupada defines the term: "the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka."

 

These are the only two instances you'll find in the VedaBase where Srila Prabhupada uses that term. He never says, or even implies, or even obliquely hints, that he is a sampradaya acharya. He never says that he's starting a new sampradaya. He would never have said such a thing. The point he makes in these two places is that one must hear from an acharya who comes in one of these four disciplic successions. He said more times than can be easily counted that this is how he's genuine: he is following one of these four acharyas.

 

On the other hand, one could make a case that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started His own sampradaya. But he didn't make that case Himself.

 

I'm afraid that this idea of calling Srila Prabhupada a Sampradaya Acharya has no basis in what we've learned from Srila Prabhupada. It's based, no doubt, on a nice sentiment, but one which, left to get out of hand, leads to something like the kartabhajas' worship of the guru as God.

 

Pretty filmsly logic.

 

1. Prabhupada names the heads of the paramparas and the names of paramparas and then uses the term sampradya acarya, ergo only they are the sampradaya acaryas .

 

2. Prabhupada didn't call himself a sampradaya acarya, therefore he is not.

[cbrahma]

 

This story is false and was made up by Gaudiya Math. The truth is Bhaktisiddhanta was kicked out of his fathers house after he offended Bepin Behari Gosvami in the same way Bhaktivinode made him leave Puri after he had offended Radharaman Charana dev. Sorry for stating such a harsh truth here, for all you wet behind the ears.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

Which story was false? If you are going to use demonstrative adjectives like 'this' you really ought to quote what you are refering to.

If you are going to claim something is false - you really need to provide some sort of proof. It's the least you can do.

[jijaji]

 

Therefore Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati publicly chastised Bipin Gosvami and made it appear that two exalted pure devotees, father and son, had a difference of opinion.

This story is complete Gaudiya Math fabrication (not the only one either I may add), water under the bridge really, these things have been discussed and rehashed so many times ad nauseum I can't believe I'm even here talking about it.

 

I don't have to give you proof, you will stumble upon it yourself eventually if you keep digging, as many of us did decades ago.

 

(big yawn)

[cbrahma]

 

This story is complete Gaudiya Math fabrication (not the only one either I may add), water under the bridge really, these things have been discussed and rehashed so many times ad nauseum I can't believe I'm even here talking about it.

 

I don't have to give you proof, you will stumble upon it yourself eventually if you keep digging, as many of us did decades ago.

 

(big yawn)

I've been on this forum for years and have never seen this issue discussed.

And it is hardly a settled issue just because you say so. Apparently there are number of people who are not convinced.

No doubt you know all about it, but if you're going to post a refutation you can do the courtesy of pointing to some sort of proof instead of making some dismissive bored comment.

If the truth is that Bhaktisiddhanta was kicked out - then what is the advantage of claiming he criticized BBG when he did not?

[jijaji]

Who said it was discussed on this board? Mainly on Gaudiya Discussions and here long before you came really.

Besides any proof I give you won't accept, we both know that. I been around the block a bit on these issues and don't waste time anymore with people like you.

 

Kula and mr 3 of spades can if they like.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

[cbrahma]

 

Who said it was discussed on this board?

Mainly on Gaudiya Discussions and here long before you came really.

Besides any proof I give you won't accept, we both know that.

 

I been around the block a bit on these issues and don't waste time anymore with people like you. Kula and mr 3 of spades can if they like.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

 

Of course, common knowledge. Not being interested in the GM, I would be going there all the time.

I suggest if you can't make yourself clear and logical you are definitely wasting your time and would advise you to stop responding to 'people like me'.

[stonehearted]

 

Pretty filmsly logic.

 

1. Prabhupada names the heads of the paramparas and the names of paramparas and then uses the term sampradya acarya, ergo only they are the sampradaya acaryas .

 

2. Prabhupada didn't call himself a sampradaya acarya, therefore he is not.

Pretty flimsy spelling. The fact is that if these two quotations--the only record of his using that term--are analyzed critically (that means with discernment), it's clear that he tells us just whom he means by that term (which is what an appositive does). (I used to teach this kind of thing in colleges and universities for a living.) And the fact that he never even hinted that he was starting a new sampradaya, and, more to the point, asserted that his qualification is that he's serving one of the four sampradayas, show that this whole business is simply speculation, and flimsy (or, worse, filmsly) speculation at that. After all, no one can call himself a muni unless he has his own philosophy. You've bought in so solidly that you can't hear another point of view.

[jijaji]

I just want to say that I'm not here to badmouth Bhaktivedanta Svamiji or Bhaktisiddhanta, I went through that phase some years ago and for a while I admit when I first found out about IGM not having a proper Guru-parampara as is recognized in orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavism, i.e. going back in an unbroken diksha line to one of the associates of Sri Chaitanya.

 

I have since gotten over some of my bitterness (I hope) and see things in a different light, meaning I honor all my spiritual teachers that have blessed me in this life even though I may disagree with them on certain points.

 

The stories of Bhaktisiddhanta being kicked out of Bhaktivinodes home and Puri were told to devotees primarily by Lalita Prasad as he was a direct witness and saw 1st hand.

 

Now some accept Lalitas Prasads version others accept Bhaktisiddantas and never shall the twain meet it seems.

 

I for one accept Lallita Prasads version and have for many years, decades in fact. The pieces of the puzzle just fit, Lalita Prasad got diksha from Bhaktivinode, Bhaktisiddhanta did not, so therefore he could not pass that line of diksha down to Gaudiya Math.

 

Also the fact that Sannyas was never before seen in the Gaudiya Sampradaya before Gaudiya Math or 'brahmin initiation', and so many things that Bhaktisiddhanta introduced that were never there before seems was his replacement for not having received diksah from his father and he paved a new road of sorts.

 

However this is not to say that his or GM and Bhaktivedanta Svamijis efforts were not worthwhile and didn't benefit people spiritually and put them on the path of Krishna Bhakti (I believe they did).

 

I recommend cbrahma read from Jagats article that he quoted from earlier the section on "The Gaudiya Math after Bhaktisiddhantas Death' which gives much history in this regard as well as other articles by Jagat who really is one of the foremost scholars of Gaudiya Vaishnavism today in the western world (although he's been in India for some months now).

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

[theist]

 

If you ignore the context for those two quotations, you'll miss the point Srila Prabhupada makes. Here's the first one, with the context that has been conveniently omitted in cbrahma's post: "So a human life should be engaged inquiring about the Absolute Truth, and he should inquire from a person who, who has heard about the Absolute Truth from a realized person. There is a.... Therefore it is called sruti, parampara, disciplic succession. One... Just like Vyasadeva is hearing from Narada. Narada is authorized. He has heard from Brahma. Brahma has heard from Krsna. So this is the parampara system, disciplic succession. So there are four parampara systems. They are known as, at the present moment, Ramanuja-sampradaya, Brahma-sampra..., Brahma-samprada..., yes, Madhva-sampradaya, Brahma-sampradaya, Madhva-sampradaya, the same, and Rudra-sampradaya and Sri-samp..., Sri, Rama, Kumara-sampradaya. These is four sampradayas. So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."

 

This makes it clear just who he means by sampradaya-acharyas: those acharyas accepted as the heads of the four sampradayas. That's even more clearly stated in the second quotation cited, where, in the appositive phrase Srila Prabhupada defines the term: "the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka."

 

These are the only two instances you'll find in the VedaBase where Srila Prabhupada uses that term. He never says, or even implies, or even obliquely hints, that he is a sampradaya acharya. He never says that he's starting a new sampradaya. He would never have said such a thing. The point he makes in these two places is that one must hear from an acharya who comes in one of these four disciplic successions. He said more times than can be easily counted that this is how he's genuine: he is following one of these four acharyas.

 

On the other hand, one could make a case that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu started His own sampradaya. But he didn't make that case Himself.

 

I'm afraid that this idea of calling Srila Prabhupada a Sampradaya Acharya has no basis in what we've learned from Srila Prabhupada. It's based, no doubt, on a nice sentiment, but one which, left to get out of hand, leads to something like the kartabhajas' worship of the guru as God.

I accept Babhrus observations on this matter. I noticed that in the purport to SB 4.22.4 Srila Prabhupada uses the term sampradaya acarya's ...plural. To assume he was only talking only about the heads of different sampradayas or the most prominent I don't think would be correct. Prithu was consulting acaryas in disciplic succession meaning he was not performing his duties as a ksatriya whimically but under proper guidance.

 

I would think the term could also be used for the originator of a sampradaya but I have never heard it used that way. It does seem clear to me that the sampradaya acarya for the GV's would be Lord Caitanya Himself. Personally it is my feeling that Lord Caitanya did start a fifth Sampradaya but what do I know that is only my own uneducated feeling on the matter.

 

Prabhupada's hope was that his disciples would all surpass him tenfold in preaching accomplishments. That is the nature of the pure envy free soul. Jesus Christ wanted the same thing from His disciples. The devotee wants to see expotential growth in service to Krishna not that they want to be considered number one throught history. To think like that seems to be offensive to the nature of Srila Prabhupada instead of honoring him because it implies he was thinking like a materialist instead of a pure devotee of Krishna.

[cbrahma]

 

I accept Babhrus observations on this matter. I noticed that in the purport to SB 4.22.4 Srila Prabhupada uses the term sampradaya acarya's ...plural. To assume he was only talking only about the heads of different sampradayas or the most prominent I don't think would be correct. Prithu was consulting acaryas in disciplic succession meaning he was not performing his duties as a ksatriya whimically but under proper guidance.

 

I would think the term could also be used for the originator of a sampradaya but I have never heard it used that way. It does seem clear to me that the sampradaya acarya for the GV's would be Lord Caitanya Himself. Personally it is my feeling that Lord Caitanya did start a fifth Sampradaya but what do I know that is only my own uneducated feeling on the matter.

 

Prabhupada's hope was that his disciples would all surpass him tenfold in preaching accomplishments. That is the nature of the pure envy free soul. Jesus Christ wanted the same thing from His disciples. The devotee wants to see expotential growth in service to Krishna not that they want to be considered number one throught history. To think like that seems to be offensive to the nature of Srila Prabhupada instead of honoring him because it implies he was thinking like a materialist instead of a pure devotee of Krishna.

 

The quote "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"

 

You'll notice that acarya has been used in the plural.

[cbrahma]

 

Pretty flimsy spelling. The fact is that if these two quotations--the only record of his using that term--are analyzed critically (that means with discernment), it's clear that he tells us just whom he means by that term (which is what an appositive does). (I used to teach this kind of thing in colleges and universities for a living.) And the fact that he never even hinted that he was starting a new sampradaya, and, more to the point, asserted that his qualification is that he's serving one of the four sampradayas, show that this whole business is simply speculation, and flimsy (or, worse, filmsly) speculation at that. After all, no one can call himself a muni unless he has his own philosophy. You've bought in so solidly that you can't hear another point of view.

Desperately grasping at typos I see. You simply posit that you are analyzing critically. But critical means at least logical and the logic is hardly obvious.

I know what appositive means, but just because a phrase follows another it doesn't automatically have that sense. It could be a list.

It certainly isn't deductively obvious.

[suchandra]

 

I just want to say that I'm not here to badmouth Bhaktivedanta Svamiji or Bhaktisiddhanta, I went through that phase some years ago and for a while I admit when I first found out about IGM not having a proper Guru-parampara as is recognized in orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavism, i.e. going back in an unbroken diksha line to one of the associates of Sri Chaitanya.

 

I have since gotten over some of my bitterness (I hope) and see things in a different light, meaning I honor all my spiritual teachers that have blessed me in this life even though I may disagree with them on certain points.

 

The stories of Bhaktisiddhanta being kicked out of Bhaktivinodes home and Puri were told to devotees primarily by Lalita Prasad as he was a direct witness and saw 1st hand.

 

Now some accept Lalitas Prasads version others accept Bhaktisiddantas and never shall the twain meet it seems.

 

I for one accept Lallita Prasads version and have for many years, decades in fact. The pieces of the puzzle just fit, Lalita Prasad got diksha from Bhaktivinode, Bhaktisiddhanta did not, so therefore he could not pass that line of diksha down to Gaudiya Math.

 

Also the fact that Sannyas was never before seen in the Gaudiya Sampradaya before Gaudiya Math or 'brahmin initiation', and so many things that Bhaktisiddhanta introduced that were never there before seems was his replacement for not having received diksah from his father and he paved a new road of sorts.

 

However this is not to say that his or GM and Bhaktivedanta Svamijis efforts were not worthwhile and didn't benefit people spiritually and put them on the path of Krishna Bhakti (I believe they did).

 

I recommend cbrahma read from Jagats article that he quoted from earlier the section on "The Gaudiya Math after Bhaktisiddhantas Death' which gives much history in this regard as well as other articles by Jagat who really is one of the foremost scholars of Gaudiya Vaishnavism today in the western world (although he's been in India for some months now).

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

Thanks Jijaji, yes many devotees surely went through similar research work or even capitulated.

Understanding the parampara system in the higher dimension and not as merely a mundane clockwork what is easily prone to become defective, the disciplic succession is nothing but what Krsna Himself installed to establish the link between Him and us.

 

We shouldn't lose this most important aspect of the parampara system that overall Lord Krsna is the controller of the disciplic succession - He's the electricity of the electric lead so to speak. When we study Prabhupada's devotional service of saving humanity and globally installing harinam sankirtan what more proof do we need to actually see that Krsna empowered him?

 

Now when we examine the whole Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya do our material brains not find thousands and millions of so called irregularities, when we find so much already in the past 300 years? In sum, the mood of bhakti is not to investigate in a mundane sense but to humbly serve one's spiritual master.

 

Krsna in His aspect as the original powerhouse has the power to jump over all these so called inconsistencies and bestow full mercy to his humble faithful servant. Could be that Krsna bestows His mercy especially when He sees that we don't indulge in research but become great fools in front of our guru and actually surrender inspite of so called father vs son conflicts, what could be also a case of different spiritual rasas reflected as mundane disput. Since Krsna is all powerful He surely has unlimited power to bridge a gap.

 

And what more than the mercy of the Lord is there to be gained?

 

Btw, thanks for the great Radhakund videos.

 

namaskar,

suchandra

 

 

We say that we have no intelligence, we cannot make any research. We are... Guru more murkha dekhi koriya vichara. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that, "My Guru Maharaja saw Me a great fool number one." So one who remains a great fool number one before his guru, he is guru. And one who says that "I'm advanced so much that I can speak better than my guru," then he's rascal. This is the process. -- Lecture: What is a Guru? -- London, August 22, 1973 730822LE.LON

[cbrahma]

If by Jagat jijaji means Jagadananda Das, who BTW is aligned with Lalita Prasad, then that Jagat gives no clue in his paper "The Parampara Institution In Gaudiya Vaisnavism" that Bhaktisiddhanta was 'kicked out' by his father. In fact my on line searches don't reveal a single such reference.

[Kulapavana]

 

I have since gotten over some of my bitterness (I hope) and see things in a different light, meaning I honor all my spiritual teachers that have blessed me in this life even though I may disagree with them on certain points.

 

The stories of Bhaktisiddhanta being kicked out of Bhaktivinodes home and Puri were told to devotees primarily by Lalita Prasad as he was a direct witness and saw 1st hand.

 

Now some accept Lalitas Prasads version others accept Bhaktisiddantas and never shall the twain meet it seems.

 

 

I have a similar approach with regard to honoring all my spiritual teachers while disagreeing with them on some minor points. Without that deep respect and appreciation for a guru such disagreements can easily turn into offensive mentality.

 

The stories of disagreements between Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta are quite well sourced, directly and indirectly. What to make of them is a real question. I think that Vaishnavism needs both currents: the militant proselytizing current of Bhaktisiddhanta, and the reflective, private bhajana current of traditional GV parivars and Lalita Prasad.

 

I hope the war hatchets will be buried and both sides will realize that they really need each other to carry on with Mahaprabhu's legacy.

[cbrahma]

 

I have a similar approach with regard to honoring all my spiritual teachers while disagreeing with them on some minor points. Without that deep respect and appreciation for a guru such disagreements can easily turn into offensive mentality.

 

The stories of disagreements between Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta are quite well sourced, directly and indirectly. What to make of them is a real question. I think that Vaishnavism needs both currents: the militant proselytizing current of Bhaktisiddhanta, and the reflective, private bhajana current of traditional GV parivars and Lalita Prasad.

 

I hope the war hatchets will be buried and both sides will realize that they really need each other to carry on with Mahaprabhu's legacy.

 

Right. So many links about how Bhaktisiddhanta didn't really get diksa initiation.

[jijaji]

 

If by Jagat jijaji means Jagadananda Das, who BTW is aligned with Lalita Prasad, then that Jagat gives no clue in his paper "The Parampara Institution In Gaudiya Vaisnavism" that Bhaktisiddhanta was 'kicked out' by his father. In fact my on line searches don't reveal a single such reference.

Yes Jagananda goes by Jagat and no that story in not in his Parampara article, I was only suggesting you read the entire article you quoted from as it contains a wealth of information on Gaudiya Math history. I'm not sure if it is in any of his works, although I can ask him. These stories came from Lalita Prasad himself who told devotess who came to him and took diksha, several whom I know personally.

 

Just because you can't find a reference on-line does not mean it did not occur, in fact I know it was discussed on Gaudiya Discussions, the old istagosthi and on VNN forums back in the day (all no longer on line) regardless I would not limit your reserach in GV to what you can locate on line.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

[cbrahma]

 

Yes Jagananda goes by Jagat and no that story in not in his Parampara article, I was only suggesting you read the entire article you quoted from as it contains a wealth of information on Gaudiya Math history. I'm not sure if it is any of his works, although I can ask him. These stories came from Lalita Prasad himself who told devotess who came to him and took diksha, several whom I know personally.

 

Just because you can't find a reference on-line does not mean it did not occur, in fact I know it was discussed on Gaudiya Discussions, the old istagosthi and on VNN forums back in the day (all no longer on line) regardless I would not limit your reserach in GV to what you can locate on line.

 

namaskar,

 

jijaji

 

With all the infighting that seems endemic to these maths, especially when something non-traditional is being promoted, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that this is what happened. It puts Prabhhupada's diksa succession in question from the traditional standpoint, and I'm perfectly fine with that, since Prabhupad so obviously broke with tradition.

[suchandra]

 

I have a similar approach with regard to honoring all my spiritual teachers while disagreeing with them on some minor points. Without that deep respect and appreciation for a guru such disagreements can easily turn into offensive mentality.

 

The stories of disagreements between Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta are quite well sourced, directly and indirectly. What to make of them is a real question. I think that Vaishnavism needs both currents: the militant proselytizing current of Bhaktisiddhanta, and the reflective, private bhajana current of traditional GV parivars and Lalita Prasad.

 

I hope the war hatchets will be buried and both sides will realize that they really need each other to carry on with Mahaprabhu's legacy.

The great acarya's of our sampradaya surely don't feel pleased when looked upon with a mundane view of where're disagreements. Same what Lord Krsna doesn't really like when He says something like, puffed up scholars gape at Me and when detecting human features in My behaviour deride Me like stupid fools and rascals. Using their materialistic brains to find out the truth they cannot understand My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

In sum, Krsna Himself rejects anyone of that ilk, what to speak when His pure devotees are analyzed "quite well sourced". Could be that Krsna considers such behaviour even worse than people looking upon Him as a common man, since in the next verse He says,

 

"Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated." BG 9.12